A heat wave is raising temperatures to dangerous levels across much of Europe, just days after a heat wave in North America saw over 3,000 temperature records set. For more, we speak with climate scientist Michael Mann, who warns that heat domes and flooding have nearly tripled since the 1950s. “At some level, this isn’t that complicated. You make the planet hotter, you’re going to have more frequent and intense heat extremes,” says Mann, a professor of environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania. Mann’s upcoming book, co-authored with vaccine expert Dr. Peter Hotez, is Science Under Siege: How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces That Threaten Our World.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

We speak with American neurosurgeon Dr. Abdul Basit Khan in Gaza, where he is volunteering at the Nasser Hospital. He describes treating patients with blast injuries and gunshot wounds from Israeli attacks, all while coping with a lack of basic medical supplies and widespread hunger. “Food insecurity is rampant, from all levels of society. Even the physicians are not eating,” he says. Multiple blasts were heard during the interview, with Dr. Khan describing his patients as people “living in tents being indiscriminately bombed” by Israeli forces. “This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my entire life, by far.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

President Donald Trump has returned to Washington after a NATO summit where leaders agreed to increase their military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, more than doubling the current target of 2%. The increase comes after years of pressure from Trump, who accuses other countries in the military alliance of not spending enough. “What he is interested in is catering to the military-industrial complex of the United States,” says Gilbert Achcar, emeritus professor of development studies and international relations at SOAS, University of London. “When he asks these NATO countries to increase their military expenditure, he means 'buy more U.S. weapons.' That’s what he is doing. He’s a salesperson for the military-industrial complex.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

In Gaza, at least 41 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks since midnight, including more Palestinians targeted by Israeli forces while seeking food and humanitarian aid. This comes as UNICEF is warning Gaza is facing what amounts to a “man-made drought” with children at risk of dying from thirst due to Israel’s blockade. We go to Dr. Mark Brauner, an emergency medicine physician who is currently volunteering at the Nasser Hospital in Gaza. He describes “execution-style” killings of Palestinians at food distribution sites and the desperate lack of baby formula leading to the deaths of children suffering from malnutrition and starvation.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

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

Brian Maloney Jr. was flummoxed when he was served with a lawsuit against his family’s business, Middlesex Truck and Coach, in January. Maloney and his father, also named Brian, run the operation, located in Boston, which boasts that it can repair anything “from two axles to ten.” A burly man in his mid-50s who wears short-sleeved polo shirts emblazoned with the company name, Maloney Jr. has been around his dad’s shop since he was 8. The garage briefly surfaced in the media in 2012 when then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney made a campaign stop there and the Boston Herald featured Maloney Sr. talking about how he had built the business from nothing in a neighborhood he described as having been a “war zone.”

Now Middlesex was being sued by a New Jersey man who claimed he had been defrauded of $133,565 in a cryptocurrency scheme. The suit claimed Middlesex “controlled and maintained” a bank account at Chase that had been used to collect the fraudulent payment. The purported victim wanted his money back.

None of this made any sense to Maloney Jr. His company did not have an account at Chase, and he barely knew what crypto was. “For God’s sake, we fix trucks and still have AOL,” he would later say.

It was only after Maloney went to Chase to investigate that he was able to piece together at least part of the explanation. It turned out that Chase had allowed an unknown individual, who applied online with no identification, to open an account under Middlesex’s name, according to information Chase provided to Maloney. The account was then used to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars from fraud victims, including the $133,565 from the man who was now trying to reclaim his funds.

Middlesex’s experience, as bizarre as it seems, is part of a global problem that plagues the banking industry. The account falsely opened in Middlesex’s name, and many others like it, are way stations in a sophisticated multistep money laundering process that transports cash from U.S. scam victims to crime syndicate bosses in Asia.

There’s been an explosion in international online fraud in recent years. Particularly widespread are “pig-butchering” schemes, as ProPublica reported in 2022. The macabre name derives from the process of methodically “fattening” victims by getting them to contribute more and more money to an investment scheme that seems to be succeeding, before eventually “butchering” them by taking all their deposits. Often operated by Chinese gangs out of prison-like compounds in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, pig-butchering in that region has reached a staggering $44 billion per year, according to a report by the United States Institute of Peace, and it likely involves millions of victims worldwide. The report called the Southeast Asian scam syndicates the “most powerful criminal network of the modern era.”

A huge portion of such fraud is transacted in cryptocurrency. But given that the typical consumer doesn’t own crypto, many scams unfold with a victim tapping a traditional bank account to wire dollars to swindlers, who receive the funds in their own accounts, then convert them into crypto to move across borders. Later in the process, the scammers will typically transfer their crypto back into standard currency.

Bank accounts are so crucial to this process that a thriving international black market has developed to rent accounts for fraud. That, it seems, is how a Chase account in the name of Middlesex ended up as a repository for the proceeds of pig-butchering.

The huge demand for accounts used for misbehavior gives banks a crucial, and not always welcome, role as gatekeepers — a responsibility required by U.S. law — to prevent criminals from opening accounts or engaging in money laundering. Yet from the U.S. to Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong, banks have consistently failed at that responsibility, according to experts who have investigated money laundering, as well as reviews of fraudulent account details shared by victims and court cases reviewed by ProPublica. The list of financial institutions whose accounts pig-butchering scammers have made use of includes global behemoths like Bank of America, Chase, Citibank, HSBC and Wells Fargo and many other U.S. and foreign lenders.

The banks said in statements to ProPublica that they make extensive efforts to fight fraud by investing in systems to detect suspicious activity and to report it to authorities (read the banks’ statements here). The American Bankers Association, which represents the industry, acknowledged that “with more than 140 million bank accounts opened every year bad actors can sometimes get through despite determined and ongoing efforts to stop them.” But the group said other industries like telecommunications providers and social media platforms need to do more to fight fraud because there’s only so much that financial institutions can do.

Pig-butchering scams present some unique challenges for banks. Among other things, a customer in thrall to a fraudster will sometimes foil their own bank’s attempts to prevent them from sending money to a criminal. And foreign-based scammers have become adept at finding middlemen in the U.S. to exploit the banking system. “Cyber-enabled fraud operations in Southeast Asia have taken on industrial proportions,” according to an October report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. John Wojcik, one of the authors of the report, told ProPublica, “Banks have never been targeted at this scale, in these ways.”

It doesn’t help that there are “no real standards as to what a bank has to do for detecting fraud or money laundering,” said Lester Joseph, a financial compliance consultant who used to oversee money laundering cases at the Department of Justice and later worked at Wells Fargo. The main law governing U.S. compliance regimes, the Bank Secrecy Act, requires financial institutions to maintain programs to know their customers and to detect and report suspicious activity to the government. That might mean noticing, say, that a newly opened account is suddenly receiving and sending hundreds of thousands of dollars of wire payments each month.

But it is up to banks to design those programs. The regulations don’t even require that the programs be effective. That gives banks wide flexibility on how much due diligence and monitoring to do — or not do. More scrutiny upfront means slowing down business and adding costs. Many banks don’t ask questions until it’s too late.

If you’re a criminal looking to obtain a bank account with no pesky formalities, it’ll take you only minutes to find one on the messaging app Telegram. Chinese forums there feature ads for “cars” or “fleets” — bank accounts or other online payment platforms that can be used to collect stolen funds. (The vehicle metaphor stems from the fact that in Chinese slang, money laundering operations are known as “motorcades.”) One Telegram ad offered accounts at PNC, Chase, Citi and Bank of America and boasted of “firsthand” control of the accounts: “People can go to the bank to transfer money,” the ad said.

Another Telegram channel listed various flavors of pig-butchering scams for which it provided bank accounts. The group, named KG Pay, boasted of accepting wire transfers, making withdrawals from U.S. banks and converting deposits into crypto to transfer them to scammers. KG offered to handle deposits of up to $1 million in accounts that imitate “normal business transactions.” To avoid suspicion, KG said, it sliced big amounts into smaller batches. If banks grew suspicious and froze one of its accounts, KG said, it had agents ready to call customer service to persuade them to lift the freeze. For smaller transfers, a video tutorial inside the channel showed how easy it was to send cash using the Chase app. (Telegram deleted the KG Pay channel after ProPublica asked about it. In a statement, Telegram said it “expressly forbids money laundering, scams and fraud and such content is immediately removed whenever discovered. Every month, over 10 million accounts, groups and channels are removed for breaching Telegram’s terms of service — including rules that prohibit money laundering and fraud.”)

Demand for money laundering is huge in Sihanoukville, a seedy gambling hub in Cambodia notorious for hosting massive scam operations. In some hotels above casinos there, blocks of guest rooms have been converted into offices where workers help fraudsters find motorcades to move illicit funds, according to a 2024 report by a doctoral anthropology student.

Inside those offices, the tap of keyboards and buzz of Telegram notifications suggested a trading floor at a stock exchange. But the work of the people interviewed by Yanyu Chen, the doctoral student, was very different. The workers, all Chinese and speaking on the condition of anonymity, were candid. They said they were tasked with matching cyberscam gangs with providers who could supply them with bank accounts to collect and move proceeds from fraud victims. In Telegram chat groups, the workers could see bank account suppliers and swindlers in need of accounts and would match the two and keep track of trades and commissions.

The business has become so mainstream that even one of Cambodia’s most prominent financial services firms, Huione Group, runs an online marketplace that allegedly facilitates such transactions. Its Telegram channels, including the one that included the aforementioned ad offering “firsthand” control of U.S. bank accounts, have helped launder funds for pig-butchering scams as well as heists linked to North Korea, according to the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. (Huione said in a statement that it is working to prevent abuse of its services and is “fully committed to collaborating with the U.S. Treasury Department to address expeditiously any and all concerns.”)

The workers interviewed by Chen were unperturbed about enabling fraud. One described the work as boring, little more than copying and pasting bank account info between scammers and motorcades. Another worker told her that he viewed himself as “solving a very old problem of getting into the banking system people who have long been shut out of it.”

The fraud that ensnared Middlesex Truck and Coach as a tangential victim covered thousands of miles via electronic byways. By all appearances, it emanated from Cambodia, then reached New Jersey, where a mark was persuaded to wire a total of $716,000 to accounts tied to purported businesses in Boston, New York, California, Hong Kong and elsewhere. All but a few appeared to have been incorporated by Chinese individuals, sometimes just days before their accounts started accepting large sums.

The fleecing of Kevin, who ProPublica agreed to identify by first name only, was a textbook example of pig butchering. Kevin had reached the stage in life when he wanted to ease his workload after a varied career as a financial planner, small-business owner and fitness instructor. Just before Christmas 2022, someone purporting to be a San Diego woman named Viktoria Zara friended Kevin on Facebook. She soon introduced him to a sleek crypto trading website called 3A on which she claimed to have made $700,000 on bitcoin futures. (Facebook deactivated Zara’s profile after ProPublica inquired about it, and a spokesperson said the social media company has “detected and disrupted over seven million accounts associated with scam centers” in Asia and the Middle East since the start of 2024.)

Kevin acknowledges he was seduced by the thrall of easy money. “Something came over me,” he said. Kevin accepted Zara’s offer to teach him how to trade and, within a few weeks, he was routinely wiring tens of thousands of dollars to various bank accounts to fund his trading.

The accounts were not registered to 3A. They were listed under a variety of companies he’d never heard of, such as Guangda Logistics and Danco Global.

Kevin found this odd. But Zara, his supposed friend, told him that was just how 3A operated, and Kevin felt safe wiring funds to accounts at Chase because of its size and reputation. Every time he did so, the sum showed up in his online 3A portal, making him think the transactions were real. Better yet, his investments had apparently soared; his account balance now read $1.4 million.

Like many a pig-butchering victim, Kevin realized something was off only when he went to withdraw his profits and 3A demanded that he first pay a “tax” of almost $134,000. Kevin knew from his financial planning days that wasn’t how things worked. But he set aside his doubts and went to his bank late one afternoon in April 2023 to wire the tax payment. He’d been given a fresh Chase account to send funds to and pressured to wire money within two hours.

This time, his money was addressed to Middlesex Truck and Coach. Kevin was so under the sway of his scammers at that point that he did not question the money’s destination. Nor did the teller at the TD Bank branch he went to. (TD declined to comment on Kevin’s case but said it trains employees to challenge customers when transactions seem suspicious and to warn them never to wire funds to people they do not know.)

As soon as Kevin got home, panic set in: 3A told him the Chase account to which he’d just wired $134,000 was frozen and that his tax payment would not go through. He would need to send another $134,000 to a different account. Confused, Kevin went back to TD first thing the next day and asked the teller to reverse the wire. Over the next two weeks, Kevin said, his bankers at TD called Chase three times but never got a response. (Chase did not answer ProPublica’s questions about Kevin’s efforts to recall his wire but said the wire recall process is challenging and rarely succeeds.)

It is possible to reverse a wire transfer if customers inform their banks quickly, before the transaction has been completed, according to lawyers and experts. But banks have no obligation to reverse a transfer even when a customer reports potential fraud. “It’s really up to the receiving institution if they release the funds and how they go after the customer on their end,” said Saskia Parnell, a banking industry veteran who now volunteers for an anti-scam group called Operation Shamrock.

As Kevin agonized, the 3A customer service reps dangled a solution: Just wire the funds again and unlock your $1.4 million. He feared TD wouldn’t let him send the wire again, so he switched to PNC Bank and sent a fresh $134,000 wire to another recipient at Cathay Bank in California. That yielded yet another tale about a purported government roadblock and the demand for yet another payment.

Kevin wasn’t thinking clearly. His son, who had struggled with substance abuse, had suddenly died of a fentanyl overdose. Kevin was overwhelmed with grief. He agreed to make another payment.

By June 2023, even a call from PNC’s fraud department declining his outgoing wire could not dissuade him. It was the only instance, out of the 11 times he attempted to wire money to scammers, that a bank stopped the transaction, according to Kevin, who did not have a history of making wire payments before. (PNC said in a statement that “we believe we took appropriate action.”)

It made no difference. Kevin’s mind was so clouded that he instead opened a new account at Wells Fargo. The switch illustrated another challenge: Even if one bank succeeds in preventing fraud, criminals can still win if another bank isn’t as diligent. (Wells Fargo said it invests hundreds of millions of dollars a year to fight scams).

After wiring $150,000 from Wells Fargo to two Chinese entities listed at a Singaporean bank, Kevin waited to receive his trading proceeds. But when all that resulted was another request that he wire money — $40,000 this time — Kevin finally grasped reality. He was now without a son, and his finances lay in ruins. “The whole world was coming to an end,” he recalled.

Kevin had preserved enough savings to hire a private investigator, John Powers of Hudson Intelligence, to follow the financial trail. Powers found a litany of red flags among the entities that had gotten bank accounts and received Kevin’s funds. Some of the businesses gave phony addresses, such as a vacant home. Another was registered to a one-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles that was also listed as the headquarters of a dozen other businesses set up since 2022 by different Chinese individuals. Contact info was scarce; official emails for two companies included the temporary email domain “netsmail.us,” which doesn’t connect to a functioning website. All of these ersatz businesses had accounts at Chase, Cathay or Singapore’s DBS Bank.

Chase said that it has policies to identify and verify the identities of its customers, and that it continually evaluates and enhances them. Cathay said it also reviews its systems and policies to detect and prevent fraudulent activity. DBS did not respond to requests for comment.

Another clue indicated that the banks had been doing business with a larger criminal enterprise. Two of the companies Kevin sent funds to, Guangda Logistics (which lists no contact information) and Danco Global (which did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment), showed up on a list of more than six dozen shell entities that had been used to defraud Americans of nearly $60 million. The information was uncovered in an investigation by the U.S. Secret Service into KG Pay, one of the money laundering groups that was on Telegram.

The case of the man behind KG Pay sheds further light on how motorcades use U.S. banks. Daren Li, a Chinese national in his early 40s, went by the alias KG Perfect. Based in Cambodia, he directed the movement of large sums of pig-butchering proceeds from the U.S. to overseas. Li, who was arrested in April 2024 at the airport in Atlanta, pleaded guilty in November to conspiracy to commit money laundering. He admitted that at least $73.6 million of victim funds were deposited into bank accounts he and his co-conspirators controlled. Li, who is in federal detention awaiting sentencing, could not be reached for comment through his lawyer. Seven other people have pleaded guilty to conspiring with Li.

KG exploited a weakness in the U.S. banking system: Banks are reluctant to share account information, even after they’ve identified suspicious activity. A law enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks gave banks a reprieve from secrecy rules if they alert one another to potential terrorism or money laundering activities. But the information sharing is voluntary and “banks are not communicating with each other,” according to Matt O’Neill, who led many money laundering investigations for the U.S. Secret Service during his 25 years there. “Fraudsters know it and fraudsters are clearly making hundreds of millions or billions of dollars off of this glaring gap in the system,” said O’Neill, who now runs 5OH Consulting.

One of the most prolific cogs in Li’s motorcade, according to civil and criminal cases, was a Chinese national named Hailong Zhu. He entered the U.S. on a tourist visa around 2019 and then stayed, working odd jobs in construction and at a restaurant. In 2022, Zhu was recruited to help Li’s other operatives set up businesses and bank accounts near Los Angeles in exchange for $70,000.

Zhu turned the assignment into a full-time job, eventually juggling seven accounts at Bank of America, Chase, East West Bank and Wells Fargo tied to two entities set up in his name: Sea Dragon Trading and Sea Dragon Remodel. When Bank of America restricted Zhu’s Sea Dragon Trading account due to suspected fraud on Oct. 19, 2022, Zhu got another account at Bank of America the next day using Sea Dragon Remodel. By Nov. 1, 2022, he had secured four more accounts at Chase, Wells Fargo and East West Bank. Except for varying his address and email, investigators found that Zhu provided largely the same info when opening accounts for the two shell entities.

Zhu’s account opening spree happened just a few months after federal prosecutors blamed “the corruption of BofA bankers” for a scheme in which a handful of employees opened 754 accounts at Bank of America registered to 13 false addresses in the Los Angeles suburbs. In that case, shadowy middlemen dispensed bribes of $200 to $250 per account to Bank of America employees who overrode internal compliance systems to open accounts for overseas Chinese citizens who weren’t physically present at the branch to open the accounts, in violation of the bank’s rules. Even when the bankers registered 176 customers to one small home, the accounts were still opened. (Two of the bankers later pleaded guilty to making false entries in bank records; Bank of America said in a statement that it “uncovered illegal activity using its monitoring systems, terminated the employees, and cooperated with law enforcement, who successfully prosecuted those involved. This is how our anti-money laundering program is designed to work.”)

With banks always one step behind, Zhu’s accounts kept receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from victims across the U.S. Zhu would bundle the proceeds and transfer them abroad. During one week in November 2022, for example, he received six wires totaling almost $52,000 into one of his accounts and wired out one lump sum of $53,000. The destination was a bank account in the Bahamas controlled by Li and others, who converted the funds into cryptocurrency for their journey to scam centers located overseas, including in Sihanoukville. Investigators discovered a crypto wallet address they believed Li controlled. Data from cryptocurrency analytics firm Crystal Intelligence shows the wallet address sent and received about $341 million of crypto across 16,800 transactions between April 2021 and April 2024.

Zhu was arrested in March 2023 and charged with bank fraud. His lawyers acknowledged at trial that their client opened bank accounts and moved funds but said that Zhu did not know his bosses were using them for criminal purposes. Zhu was acquitted after the attorneys persuaded the trial judge that using false information to obtain a bank account does not constitute a scheme to defraud a bank. Only months after the acquittal, Zhu was charged again, this time with money laundering offenses, in an indictment filed in December 2023. Zhu, who couldn’t be reached for comment, did not enter a plea and was listed as a fugitive as of March 2025.

In January 2024, Kevin, desperate to get his money back, sued the 10 companies to which he had wired money at the scammers’ behest, including Middlesex Truck and Coach. None replied to his lawsuit — most were shell entities, after all — until January 2025, when Kevin’s lawyer got an email from Brian Maloney Jr.

Maloney confessed that his staff had ignored the lawsuit when it was initially served because it looked like a scam. He said he’d never banked with Chase and had no idea about any account that had been used to defraud Kevin. Maloney agreed to go to the local Chase branch to investigate and try to help Kevin get his money back.

“I went to the bank and said, ‘What the hell is going on?’” Maloney told ProPublica. After spending nearly two hours with the local Chase branch manager, Maloney realized that he, too, was a victim of the bank’s lax procedures: He said the branch manager told him that Chase had allowed someone to obtain an account online in his company’s name in March 2023 with nothing more than a digital signature and an employer identification number, but no personal identification. That account had then accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars of wire transfers. And now Maloney’s family business — not Chase — was the defendant in a lawsuit. “How is this legal?” he wondered. (Colin Schmitt, a retired FBI agent, said Chase could have mitigated the fraud by at least pausing incoming wire transfers to the fake Middlesex account and asking its owner to justify the transactions. “If you’re just using an account just for wires, that’s a big red flag,” Schmitt said.)

Still, there was a silver lining: The funds remained in the account. Not only Kevin’s $134,000, but almost $100,000 more from several other victims sat frozen inside since spring 2023.

Kevin was glad the money was still there, but he wondered why it took a lawsuit to unearth the info. “It does not seem like the system is tailored to give any deference to the victim,” he said. “That’s what frustrates me.” His lawyers advised him to seek an order from a federal judge to get his funds back and filed such a petition in March. After ProPublica asked Chase about Kevin’s funds in April, the bank agreed to return the money to him without a court order.

The $134,000 landed back in Kevin’s bank account in mid-May. Finally, he felt a sense of relief. (He has now dropped the suit against Middlesex.) But Kevin also wondered what would happen to the other people whose money got siphoned up by the fake Middlesex account. Would Chase wait for them to file lawsuits too?

Banks are starting to face lawsuits by pig-butchering victims who allege laxness in opening accounts. In December, a California man who was defrauded of nearly $1 million sued DBS and two other banks for alleged failures to comply with know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering laws. A college professor from Iowa who lost $700,000 filed a lawsuit in January against Hang Seng Bank in Hong Kong for failing to do proper due diligence on the people who opened accounts used to defraud him. Hang Seng reached an agreement with the Iowa professor to dismiss the suit and declined to comment further. DBS did not reply to requests for comment on the California case, but the bank asserted that the lawsuit contains “fatal flaws,” according to a filing in the suit.

Such cases are long shots, according to Carla Sanchez-Adams, senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. The suits typically fail because it’s hard to show that financial institutions knew or should have known about potential fraud.

Still, banks are well aware that fraud is on the rise. Nearly 1 in 3 Americans say they have been the victim of online fraud or cybercrime, according to a 2023 poll commissioned by Wells Fargo. “The scale of fraud taking place every day is a massive burden for our country and for the millions of hard-working women and men whose lives are affected by it,” Rob Nichols, president of the American Bankers Association, said in an October speech.

Nichols contends that “consumers credit the banking industry with doing more than other industries to protect them from fraud and keep their information safe.” He cited an initiative by the ABA to create a database of fraud contacts to help banks figure out who to call when there’s a problem. And he urged the Trump administration to develop a national fraud prevention strategy.

Other countries are taking more aggressive steps. In October, the U.K. began requiring banks to reimburse scam victims up to £85,000, or about $116,000, per claim when they make a fraudulent payment on behalf of their customers, even if the customers authorized the transfer. Australia recently enacted a law that will require banks to share suspect account info with one another. Thailand has gone even further, creating a Central Fraud Register intended to compel banks to identify and close accounts used for money laundering.

The U.S. lacks such rules. O’Neill, the former Secret Service agent, thinks that updating the Patriot Act, the post-9/11 law meant to encourage banks to share intel, would be a good place to start. But Congress has not moved in that direction and the Trump administration has shown no sign that it plans to prioritize this issue. (Asked what steps the administration is taking, a spokesperson told ProPublica to Google the administration’s sanctions related to pig-butchering scams.)

For now, bank accounts remain easy for fraudsters to obtain. A sleek-looking brokerage akin to 3A has been online for months, soliciting deposits for what a researcher at the Global Anti-Scam Organization identified as a pig-butchering scheme. Anyone wishing to “invest,” the brokerage said, can wire money to a shifting array of banks, including Chase.

Doris Burke contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Cezary Podkul.

“You can’t, as the president, engage in strikes on a foreign country when there’s no imminent threat, without coming to Congress for authorization,” says Ro Khanna, Democratic congressmember and member of the House Armed Services Committee, criticizing President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites as “blatantly unconstitutional” and a clear instance of executive overreach. Khanna and Republican congressmember Thomas Massie recently introduced a bipartisan Iran War Powers resolution in a bid to prevent further U.S. involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict. Khanna shares how anti-war voices in U.S. politics are too often silenced by powerful and wealthy interest groups and urges the Democratic Party to harness widespread anti-war sentiment in opposition to Trump’s increasingly authoritarian foreign policy.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

This May marked 22 years since the US Navy was evicted from the island of Vieques. The story of Vieques should be understood by us organizers, just as it was by these campers through their puppet show, as we seek to build an anti-militarist climate movement that breaks down silos between supposedly separate organizing spaces. As we seek to build an anti-militarist climate movement and shape the global narratives in upcoming events, looking at Vieques’ past and present history is crucial.

Vieques is an island off the coast of mainland Puerto Rico, a U.S. colony since 1898, in a state of limbo where Boricuas (Puerto Ricans) have U.S. citizenship but cannot vote, and at the same time, are unable to pursue self-determination through independence. Vieques was long exploited by wealthy landowners and the U.S. mainland’s economy for sugar production. In 1941, the Navy seized Vieques, with the goal of creating a colonial outpost in the Atlantic Ocean to mirror its base occupying Hawai’i, Pearl Harbor, in the Pacific. The island’s population of 10,000 was then forced to relocate to a small area of the island. Some wealthy landowners sold their land, while the U.S. government confiscated other plots of land for “public” use.

For over 60 years, the U.S. Navy used Vieques as a bomb testing site, scorching the crust of the island by dropping around three million pounds of napalm, depleted uranium, and other toxic chemicals onto the land. Many of these bombs would then go on to be used on the people and soil of Palestine, itself a deadly testing ground for the U.S. war machine. Despite the extraordinary levels of chemical pollution, there was no hospital on the island. Additionally, the 1920 Jones Act restricted Puerto Rico to importing only U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, U.S.-operated, and U.S.-crewed cargo. This stranglehold continues to make any resources for the island extremely expensive.

These were clear-cut conditions. The U.S. empire was poisoning the island and cutting it off from necessary goods, demonstrating Puerto Rico’s broader colonial status. In 1999, Daniel Sanes Rodriguez, a civilian employee of the naval base, was killed by an accidental off-target bomb. This was the spark of a protest movement made up of tens of thousands of people demanding the U.S. military leave the island. Protest tactics included encampments in the bomb range, graffiti, destruction of military property, and marches that included every sector of society, including religious leaders, fishers, environmental activists, students, and labor leaders. It also included leaders who were independence activists, statehood advocates, and advocates for commonwealth status.

In 2001, President George Bush announced that the naval base would be closed. In May 2003, the U.S. Navy left the island and, ironically, converted the former base into a nature reserve. While the U.S. government has stalled for two decades in its promises of clean-up, this was a moment of victory. This monumental achievement was brought about by as wide an array of groups as the base impacted. By uniting in a popular struggle against U.S. militarism, the people of Vieques showed the world that the naval base had absolutely no business continuing to occupy their land. This moment was also considered a massive touchstone in the fight for a free and independent Puerto Rico.

This isn’t to say that these tactics, this moment, or this rubric for what constitutes victory can be applied to every situation. But we can learn a lot about movement building and breaking out of what can appear to be separate organizing spaces. This was a win for independence, environmentalists, survival, and sovereignty. It’s pretty simple: wherever the U.S. war machine is active, the fight against it and for sovereignty is the fight for the land.

So why isn’t this mirrored within the belly of the beast? Sometimes it is, in the examples of protests to stop the building of Cop City in Atlanta and in protests against the construction of new prisons. But when we discuss “the climate movement” and “the anti-war movement,” we must address why they’re institutionally separated through organizations, slogans, and targets. It’s no mystery – we can go down the list: funding, “pragmatism,” societal conditioning, greenwashing, internalized racism.

With COP, the U.N. Climate Conference, less than six months away, it’s time to clarify our targets and identify the flashpoints of struggle. However toothless, co-opted, and irredeemable the annual “diplomatic” event is, with countries around the world cyclically refusing to take any meaningful action to address the climate crisis, it is also an event where the world’s climate movement plays a large role in shaping narratives, either in the conference itself or in people’s counter-conferences.

We must call attention to  Puerto Rico – how it has been used for NATO training to continue escalation in the environmentally catastrophic Ukraine war, and how it has served the U.S.’s claim of Latin America and the Caribbean as its so-called backyard through its role in the U.S. Southern Command. Just as U.S. militarism in Hawai’i and the Philippines has been used to claim the Asia-Pacific in its escalation against China. We must trace the deadly supply chain of the bombs tested on Vieques, which have since been used to decimate entire communities in  Palestine, destroying the local and global environment. And we must highlight the poisoning of the soil in Vieques, where residents are 27% more likely to be fighting cancer than the rest of Puerto Rico, and 280% more likely to be fighting lung cancer specifically. The same empire that poisoned Vieques now strangles Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela with sanctions, blocking their ability to address the climate crisis effectively. These sites of struggle for national sovereignty are just as much about our collective survival.

This year, at COP and in every climate space, our only hope is to learn from and center the past and present struggle in Vieques and everywhere else bearing the brunt of U.S. militarism, to clearly understand where our enemies converge, and to act accordingly because one thing that we can learn from Vieques and from the eight to 16-year-old campers telling Vieques’ story is that it’s clear when something is a venomous snake.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Aaron Kirshenbaum.

“Netanyahu’s purpose was to drag Trump in,” Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, says of the U.S. attack on Iran. Over the weekend, the U.S. directly joined the war between Israel and Iran when it bombed three nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, though it’s unclear how far the strikes have set back the Iranian nuclear program. Israel and the United States accuse Iran of developing nuclear weapons, while Iran says its program is for civilian use. United Nations inspectors and U.S. intelligence assessments have said Iran is not building weapons. “The danger now is that, having brought the U.S. into this, Israel will seek to go further up the escalatory ladder,” says Levy. “It wants the chaos.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Israel and Iran continue to exchange fire, just days after the United States entered the war by bombing three key nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday. President Trump ordered the attack on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan facilities without seeking congressional approval, in a move that could spread further violence across the Middle East. We speak with two Iranian scholars who have taken part in the country’s previous nuclear negotiations. “Iranians see the United States as the aggressor, as helping the Israeli regime slaughter Iranians,” says University of Tehran professor Mohammad Marandi. “There’s anger across the board.” The U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran are an “obvious” and “clear violation of international law and regulations,” says Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a visiting researcher at Princeton University who served as spokesperson for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the European Union from 2003 to 2005.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

As Israeli warplanes continue to pummel Tehran and other parts of the country, President Trump has given mixed messages on whether the U.S. will join Israel’s war on Iran. Trump’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered a message on Thursday that Trump will decide on direct U.S. involvement in the next two weeks. Leavitt delivered the message shortly after Trump met with his former advisor Steve Bannon who has publicly warned against war with Iran. The U.S. is reportedly considering dropping “bunker buster” bombs on underground Iranian nuclear facilities. “It’s reminiscent of the beginning of the Iraq War, when they said it’s going to be a cakewalk,” says William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

A U.S.-based Iranian human rights group reports that the Israeli attacks have killed at least 639 people in Iran, while Iran’s retaliatory strikes in Israel have killed an estimated two dozen.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The Court agreed with parts of the Sixth Circuit’s opinion that allowed the law to take effect, holding that Tennessee’s SB1 does not draw a sex-based (or a trans status-based) line and thus only necessitates deferential review by the courts. That means SB1 can remain in effect. Notably, however, the decision is based on the record in and context of the Tennessee case and therefore does not extend to other cases concerning discrimination based on transgender status.

“Today’s ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives. The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.”

“This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive,” said Sasha Buchert, Counsel and Director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal. “But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them. Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often life-saving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting.”

“Today the Supreme Court told Tennessee transgender youth and their families that they cannot access healthcare that is vitally important for a successful life,” said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee. “This ruling creates a class of people who politicians believe deserve healthcare, and a class of people who do not. We will continue to stand with transgender people in Tennessee and are committed to realizing a world where all people belong, are valued, and can access the necessary healthcare they need.”

U.S. v. Skrmetti began when a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on behalf of Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 16-year-old transgender daughter, as well as two other plaintiff families filing anonymously and Memphis-based physician Dr. Susan Lacy. The plaintiff families and Dr. Lacy argued that the law violates the Equal Protection rights of transgender adolescents. Under President Joe Biden, the United States intervened to also argue that the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. After President Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. reversed its position.

Since 2021, 25 states have enacted categorical bans on gender-affirming medical care, such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, for treating gender dysphoria in transgender youth yet readily allow those same medications for other and similar purposes for cisgender youth. Over 100,000 transgender people under 18 now live in a state with a ban on their health care.

In January 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments such as puberty suppressants and hormone therapies to any trans person under 19. That order was soon challenged on behalf of families, medical providers, and advocates by the ACLU and the Lambda Legal and is blocked from enforcement by a preliminary injunction.

This case is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

“We’re at a moment of immense danger,” warns HuffPost correspondent Akbar Shahid Ahmed, as the Trump administration appears increasingly amenable to escalating conflict with Iran. Ahmed shares what we know about the U.S. military buildup and the “magical thinking” of regime change rhetoric among Washington, D.C., policymakers that could turn into a “hugely devastating” war with Iran. Above all, says Ahmed, Trump’s boasts about being an antiwar leader have not come true: “We haven’t seen him solve any of the wars that he said he would address.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The resolution – introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday and in the Senate on Tuesday – reaffirms that only the Dalai Lama himself should determine his successor and that any attempt by Beijing to select or appoint one would be an “invalid interference” and violation of religious freedom rights.

China has sought greater control over Tibetan Buddhism since invading the independent Himalayan country in 1950 and forcing the Dalai Lama into exile in India in 1959. In 2007, Beijing announced it would oversee the recognition of all reincarnate Tibetan lamas, including the next Dalai Lama.

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), who co-introduced the Senate resolution with Todd Young (R-Indiana), emphasized the broader stakes. “As the Chinese government continues to ignore the rights of Tibet under international law, we’re sending the message that we must protect these fundamental freedoms,” Merkley said.

In the House, Representatives Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) introduced a similar resolution recognizing the Dalai Lama’s “outstanding contributions to peace, nonviolence, human rights, and religious understanding.”

“Despite having faced persecution, oppression, and unspeakable violence at the hands of the CCP, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has maintained inner peace and continues to preach compassion – inspiring not only his own people, but the entire world,” said McCaul. CCP refers to the Chinese Communist Party.

McCaul last year led a bipartisan Congressional delegation to Dharamsala, India, where he presented the Dalai Lama with a framed copy of a U.S. bill, that was later signed into law, in support of Tibetan people’s right to self-determination.

“The people of Tibet have an inalienable right to self-determination, and our resolution reaffirms the United States’ commitment to Tibetans by supporting their basic human rights, religious freedom, culture, and language,” said Merkley.

(Tenzin Woser/RFA Tibetan)

In recent years, China has sought to control the reincarnation process of Tibetan religious leaders in an apparent attempt to appoint the Dalai Lama’s successor.

But in his new book titled “Voice for the Voiceless,” the Dalai Lama has said that his successor would be born in the “free world,” which he described as outside China.

“The new Dalai Lama will be born in the free world so that the traditional mission of the Dalai Lama – that is, to be the voice for universal compassion, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, and the symbol of Tibet embodying the aspirations of the Tibetan people – will continue,” the Dalai Lama said in the book.

The latest resolution reiterates that the selection and installation of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders are within the authority of the Tibetan Buddhist community.

“I’m proud to stand with the Dalai Lama and the people of Tibet in their struggle for freedom and peace against the Chinese Communist Party’s continued aggression. The CCP’s status quo – both in Tibet and elsewhere – is not acceptable,” said Young.

The resolution is co-sponsored by a group of bipartisan lawmakers including Reps. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), and Young Kim (R-Calif.), and Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), John Curtis (R-UT), and Dan Sullivan (R-AK).

Both resolutions have be approved by committee and then voted on by each chamber before passage.

Written by Tenzin Pema. Edited by Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Tibetan.

We speak with Carlos Fernández de Cossío, Cuba’s deputy foreign minister, about the Trump administration’s tightening restrictions on the country. Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has reinstated Cuba’s designation as a so-called state sponsor of terrorism, recommitted to upholding the decadeslong economic embargo and targeted Cuban immigrants for deportation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now going after Cuba’s medical program that sends Cuban doctors and healthcare workers to assist other countries. The island nation was also among the countries on Trump’s travel ban that went into effect last week, severely limiting Cuban nationals from entering the U.S. This all comes as the Trump administration is reportedly planning to transfer thousands of immigrants to be detained at Guantánamo Bay. Fernández de Cossío says the influence of anti-Cuban politicians in the U.S. is “greater than any previous moment,” which allows them to push “this narrow approach, which is not relevant to the interests of most Americans.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

We are still reporting. If you are a current or former FDA employee or someone in the industry with information about the agency, the safety of generic drugs, or the manufacturers that make them, our team wants to hear from you. Megan Rose can be reached on Signal or WhatsApp at 202-805-4865. Debbie Cenziper can be reached on Signal or WhatsApp at 301-222-3133. You can also email us at FDA@propublica.org.

It’s been 17 years since tainted blood thinner from China injured or killed hundreds of people in the United States, and since then, contaminants and other defects have appeared in a cross section of America’s generic drugs.

To understand how risky drugs could end up in our medicine cabinets, ProPublica spent more than a year investigating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of foreign factories accused of violating critical quality standards. Reporters focused largely on factories in India, a key supplier of the world’s generic drugs.

The investigation exposed how the FDA, without warning the public, allowed more than 150 drugs or their ingredients into the United States over the past dozen years even though they were made at factories banned from shipping products here. The agency did not routinely test the drugs as they were circulating in the United States or actively track whether consumers had been harmed.

The FDA and several former agency officials told ProPublica they believed the medications that were exempted from import bans were safe. They said the agency required generic drugmakers to conduct additional quality checks before the drugs were sent to the United States, including extra drug-safety testing and bringing on third-party consultants to verify the results.

To conduct its analysis, Propublica used Redica Systems, a quality and regulatory intelligence company with a vast collection of agency documents, as well as the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, to find hundreds of “import alert” lists published by the FDA over more than 15 years. The lists identified factories barred from shipping drugs to the United States because the FDA found manufacturing violations.

In examining those lists, reporters discovered references to drugs or raw ingredients that the FDA had excluded from the bans. The exemptions were mentioned with almost no explanation, scattered throughout the often lengthy alerts.

Because the FDA does not keep a comprehensive list of drugs that have been exempted from bans over the years, ProPublica had to build one. Reporters employed two distinct methods to do this. First, ProPublica wrote code that used keyword search and pattern matching to pull drug names and manufacturing locations from the FDA alerts. Second, ProPublica used artificial intelligence to extract the same information. Results from each analysis were cross-checked, and reporters verified each of the results.

In finalizing its analysis, ProPublica counted all drugs that were exempted from each banned factory. Sometimes, the same drug was exempted from multiple factories and was added to each factory’s total. In a handful of cases, the FDA exempted different formulations of the same drug, such as a tablet, capsule or injectable. ProPublica counted those different forms as distinct drugs.

ProPublica’s list of drugs exempted from import bans could be an undercount; there is no way to know for sure without a full accounting from the FDA.

The reporting team interviewed more than 200 people, including former FDA inspectors who repeatedly reported breakdowns in drugmaking overseas and top administrators directly involved in drug safety. ProPublica also obtained troves of government and corporate documents in the United States and India and filed suit against the FDA in November after the agency said it would take as long as two years to turn over public records related to drug safety. The FDA has since begun to provide some of the requested records; the case is active in federal court in New York.

ProPublica paid Redica for access to FDA inspection records and ultimately reviewed reports spanning more than two decades.

To gauge what the FDA knew about the drugs before and after they were exempted from import bans, ProPublica drew on reports from the agency’s Adverse Event Reporting System. The reports are submitted to the FDA by consumers, health care professionals, drug companies and others and used by the agency to detect safety concerns and potential patterns of harm. Each contains information about conditions or reactions linked to drugs and, in some cases, complaints about product quality.

ProPublica identified more than 8,000 reports about the drugs excused from factorywide import bans both before and after the bans were put in place. ProPublica’s analysis included reports from 2010 to early 2025.

The FDA has cautioned that information in the reports is not verified and there may be no “causal relationship” between the drug and the adverse event. Multiple drugs are sometimes listed in a single adverse event report. ProPublica limited its analysis to cases that listed only one primary suspect drug.

Some reports don’t list specific concerns but instead reference academic studies; ProPublica excluded those reports.

To examine the FDA’s role in the growth of foreign drugmakers, ProPublica used the agency’s Orange Book, a register of drugs considered safe and effective by the FDA. The list includes approvals for both brand name and generic drugs, the dates the drugs were approved and the names of the companies that submitted the applications. ProPublica’s analysis showed that companies with troubled regulatory histories received scores of approvals to introduce generic drugs in the United States — and some went on to receive exemptions from import bans.

Journalists have been uncovering problems with generic drugs for years. Katherine Eban’s bestselling 2019 book, “Bottle of Lies,” exposed how Indian drugmakers failed to follow basic quality and safety standards and often knowingly sent shoddy drugs abroad. In 2023, a Bloomberg investigation revealed, among other things, how poisoned cough syrup made in India spread around the world. And the independent watchdog The People’s Pharmacy has raised repeated concerns about the quality of some generic drugs.

ProPublica collaborated with journalism students from Northwestern University’s Medill Investigative Lab in Washington, D.C. Haajrah Gilani, Emma McNamee, Julian Andreone, Isabela Lisco, Aidan Johnstone, Megija Medne, Yiqing Wang, Phillip Powell, Gideon Pardo, Casey He, Lindsey Byman, Josh Sukoff, Kunjal Bastola, Shae Lake, Alyce Brown, Zhiyu Solstice Luo, Jessie Nguyen, Sinyi Au, Kate McQuarrie and Katherine Dailey contributed to this report.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Brandon Roberts, Debbie Cenziper, Megan Rose and Irena Hwang.

“Alistair Kitchen’s deportation is a clear case of retaliation in connection with his reporting, and such action sends a chilling message to journalists that they must support the administration’s narratives or face forms of retribution,” said CPJ U.S., Canada and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “Foreign media operating on U.S. soil are covered by First Amendment protections, and it is incumbent upon U.S. officials—from Customs and Border Patrol to the White House—to allow journalists to do their jobs and travel freely without fear of reprisal.”

Kitchen said he left Melbourne for New York on June 12 and was detained for 12 hours by US Customs and Border Protection officials during a layover in Los Angeles after being pulled aside for secondary screening. Kitchen told The Guardian that he was questioned in connection with his reporting on the pro-Palestinian Columbia student protests, which he published on his personal blog, Kitchen Counter.

Kitchen, who moved back to Australia from New York in 2024, said that interrogators asked him about his views on a one-state, versus two-state solution in relation to Israel and Palestine.

Earlier this year, CPJ issued its first-ever travel advisory for journalists entering the United States, which includes warnings about searches of electronic devices.

During the first Trump administration, CPJ published a report on the press freedom challenges posed by the U.S. border agency’s stop-and-search powers at the border.  

CPJ emailed the Customs and Border Patrol office in southern California but did not immediately receive a reply. 

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

More than 5 million people joined No Kings Day protests Saturday in the largest day of action against President Trump since his return to office. Protests were held in over 2,100 cities and towns across the country. The protests coincided with a poorly attended, multimillion-dollar military parade on President Trump’s birthday, June 14. Democracy Now! spoke with anti-Trump protesters at the Washington, D.C., military parade and at New York City’s No Kings protest.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

In a country known for snowcapped mountains, dramatic fjords, and the Northern Lights — and often ranked as one of the “happiest countries in the world” — gasoline-powered cars appear to be on their way to extinction.

The transition is already visible in Oslo. The capital city’s dense urban core is filled with Teslas and Volkswagen ID.4s rather than petrol hatchbacks. Charging stations are commonplace and tucked beside apartment blocks and supermarkets. Delivery vans glide past with barely a whisper. On the highways outside the capital, chargers are spaced every 30 miles or so. Even in the country’s northernmost provinces, where winters are long and temperatures fall well below freezing, EVs are becoming the norm.

“Norway is the undisputed king of electric vehicles,” said Benjamin Sovacool, the director of the Institute for Global Sustainability at Boston University. “Their per capita rates are much higher than anyone in the world, something like 20 times higher than China, which are the second-biggest market.”

In comparison, only about 15 percent of the vehicles sold in the rest of Europe are electric. The United States, meanwhile, hasn’t even cleared 10 percent, according to Edmunds, the online automotive research group.

Read Next

Balcony solar took off in Germany. Why not the US?

Akielly Hu

Norway’s achievement is even more striking because the nation has no domestic automobile manufacturing industry — the most popular vehicle is the American-made Tesla — and it is one of the world’s leading exporters of fossil fuels.

Norway’s EV commitment has turned the nation into a kind of global laboratory for electrification — proof, some American EV advocates argue, that a full transition away from gasoline is not only possible but imminent. Indeed, for policymakers in the United States — especially those pursuing similar electric vehicle targets in California and beyond — the Nordic EV revolution raises an urgent question: Can the country’s success be replicated, or is it the product of conditions too unique to scale?

For more than a decade, California has positioned itself as the vanguard of U.S. decarbonization policy. In 2022, after receiving a waiver from efficiency standards set under the Clean Air Act, the state announced a ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 — a move later adopted, in whole or part, by 17 other states and the District of Columbia. As of late 2024, about 25 percent of all new cars registered in California were electric.

At the same time, the rest of the country is not keeping pace, and with the return of a Republican-led administration to the White House, the political terrain has shifted once again. 

Among the first acts of President Donald Trump’s second administration was to suspend funding for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, while rolling back California’s efforts to reduce vehicle emissions. A number of states and nonprofits filed lawsuits over the administration’s freeze on NEVI funds and the Government Accountability Office found that the freeze violated the law. Still, legal and political battles ahead are likely to be protracted. In May, both the House and Senate voted to block California’s planned 2035 phase-out.

The result is a volatile and uncertain policy landscape — one that contrasts sharply with the kind of long-term stability that allowed Norway to engineer its transition. In that sense, the more relevant question, some experts say, may not hinge on what Norway has achieved, but on the idiosyncrasies that made that achievement possible, and whether any of that can be recreated in a country as economically and politically fragmented as the United States.

The keys to success, according to experts like Sovacool and Erlend Hermansen, a senior researcher who specializes in climate science and policy analysis at CICERO Center for International Climate Research at the University of Oslo, are promoting stable, long-term policies that support electric vehicle sales and driving, generous incentives, and developing a robust charging network.

This is “probably one of the most important innovations that Norway has contributed” toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing climate change, said Hermansen. “It is absolutely possible to achieve in other countries.”

As part of the global push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, more than 50 countries have set ambitious targets, announced plans, or signed pledges to ban the sale of new cars with combustion engines, including Canada, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Most of the target dates are between 2030 and 2050.

While China has the largest overall number of electric vehicles, Norway has far higher numbers per capita. In 2020, Norway became the first nation where more than half of new car sales were electric vehicles. One year later, that share reached 75 percent. And last year, 89 percent of all new cars were EVs, according to the Norwegian Road Federation.

Yet Norway is also one of the world’s leading exporters of fossil fuels. It is the seventh-largest exporter of crude oil, the fourth-largest exporter of natural gas, and the largest supplier of natural gas to the European Union. “It is clearly a paradox,” said Bard Lahn, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oslo’s Center for Technology, Innovation, and Culture.

Lahn takes issue with Norwegian politicians who “argue that climate policy should focus on reducing the demand for oil, but that oil production should be allowed to continue as long as there is still demand for oil in the world market.”

“This is clearly a much too simplistic and convenient way of seeing it,” he said.

Sovacool, however, believes this is true for almost every major economy. He pointed to China, for example, as both the top installer and builder of fossil fuel infrastructure and the leading investor in renewable energy and low-carbon technologies. “Both can, and often are, true at the same time,” he said, because the government is seeking “to improve energy security through whatever energy resources they have at their disposal.”

“At least they use fossil fuel endowments to promote low-carbon innovation,” he added, “unlike say a country like Russia, Saudi Arabia, or the United States, which use those endowments to reinvest in fossil fuels.”

In a Zoom call with Undark, Marie Aarestrup Aasness, a transportation economist with Norwegian Public Roads Administration, suggested that the assumption Norwegians are somehow more environmentally conscious was inaccurate. The primary driver behind the country’s EV boom, she said, “is the generous package of incentives and subsidies provided by the Norwegian government.”

Most of those subsidies and incentives have been made possible by the high taxes imposed on offshore fossil fuel production — up to almost 80 percent, according to The Norwegian Offshore Directorate and Ministry of Energy. Revenue accounted for almost $37 billion in 2024.

The Norwegian campaign to adopt electric vehicles began around 1990, a few decades after the discovery of vast offshore oil and gas reserves. The government began offering subsidies and incentives to switch to electric vehicles, including major tax breaks for EV buyers, much higher taxes and costs for conventional vehicles, reduced road taxes, and reduced tolls and ferry fees. Other incentives include free parking and a nationwide EV charging infrastructure that includes free charging in both urban and rural areas.

In addition, electric vehicles have been exempted from Norway’s 25 percent value added tax — the national sales tax — since 2001. This was amended in 2023 to only electric vehicles under $50,000 dollars.

Many of the early policy proposals to encourage EV adoption were drafted with very little data, according to a recent analysis conducted by Erik Figenbaum, the chief research engineer at the Institute of Transport Economics. “Politicians had limited information about the effects of policies they introduced in this ‘learning by doing process,’” he wrote in the paper, published in The World Electric Vehicle Journal, a peer-reviewed publication. “Impact assessments were rarely made. The decision rationale was often not documented.”

But today’s policies are data driven, the paper noted, based on a growing body of evidence about electric vehicle adoption, driving patterns, and the costs and benefits of incentive programs. “One key lesson is that to achieve wide adoption, you need a range of complementary policies to support EVs,” such as tax incentives, preferential parking and access to bus lanes, said Lahn.

At the same time, he added, there is also “an important lesson in not forgetting that EVs actually do not solve all the problems of private car ownership,” such as congestion and limited urban parking spaces. In fact, researchers and policymakers are now considering ways to scale back EV incentives to address lower tax revenues while continuing to promote biking, walking, and public transportation.

Recent research by Aasness, the transportation economist, analyzed longitudinal data collected from drivers in and around Oslo to gauge their attitudes toward electric vehicles, tax subsidies, and incentives. The study focused on about 6,400 people who completed an annual questionnaire between 2014 and 2020 to record their attitudes toward incentives for EVs such as free parking, free tolls, and access to bus lanes. The data showed that those attitudes have changed as EVs become widespread.

Read Next

How the Trump administration is targeting green transportation in blue states

Benton Graham

Almost half of the survey participants disagree that EV drivers should be exempt from paying tolls. And between 60 and 70 percent of drivers do not believe that EVs should have free public parking and access to bus lanes without passengers. Most EV drivers in Norway “understand that as EVs become more mainstream, the financial incentives will be reduced or eliminated,” she said. “They think it’s more reasonable to have reduced charging or access to public bus lanes with passengers.”

In the United States, meanwhile, state-level tax credits that were beginning to have a substantial impact on EV sales and adoption during the 2010s are becoming less popular, according to a recent analysis of nationwide EV tax incentives. And President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which recently passed in the House, proposes to charge EV owners a $250 annual fee.

Many of the distinctions separating Norway’s experience from the United States’ are obvious — including the fact that the former had no legacy gasoline car industry to protect. “There’s no Detroit, no legacy carmakers striving to shape policy,” Christof Engelskirchen, chief economist of Autovista Group, a division of automotive market analysis firm J.D. Power, recently wrote. “That means less resistance to disruptive change and no powerful lobby pushing back when lawmakers tilt the playing field toward electrification.”

Another key distinction between Norway and United States is the ease of access to charging stations. Norway currently has the most chargers per electric vehicle in the world with a network of more than 22,000 public charging stations, according to a 2023 report by McKinsey & Company. This means that despite Norway’s long, cold winters, which reduce charging speed and battery power, electric vehicles can operate as reliably there as in any other country in the Northern Hemisphere, according to research by Felix Schulz and Johannes Rode at the Technical University of Darmstadt. In addition, electric vehicles have reported “no aggravated or excessive number of breakdowns,” Sovacool wrote in an email, “or instances of where people have been stranded because their EV didn’t work.”

Read Next

What Tesla’s massive image problem means for the world’s transition to EVs

Paul Krantz

The EV charging infrastructure in the United States, on the other hand, is not nearly as fully developed. That’s unsurprising, given that Norway is geographically a much smaller country — about the size of Montana with the population of metropolitan Phoenix — and installing a viable charging infrastructure in a condensed landscape is far easier than doing it in the vastness of the U.S. And while the supply of private and public chargers is largely on track to keep pace with the modest projected growth in American EV sales, according to a recent analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation, not everyone can readily access them.

Disparities in income, location, and race continue to create uneven access to electric vehicle charge points, according to another statistical model published in January in the journal Applied Energy.

Whatever progress has been made on promoting EV sales and charging infrastructure in the U.S. is also likely to see continued challenges from the Trump administration, experts say. The White House recently announced the administration will discontinue many of the clean energy policies sponsored by the Biden administration.

There are currently at least 126 public chargers in operation at 31 NEVI stations in nine states, according to the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation. It is unclear if the White House can redirect congressionally mandated funding, said Peter Slowik, an electric vehicle policy analyst at the International Council on Clean Transportation.

All of this would seem to suggest that Norway’s EV revolution is less of a model for the U.S. than advocates suggest. Norway’s adoption curve is the result of several decades of planning by a succession of coalition governments at the national level, along with complementary provincial and local policies. The data-driven mix of financial and driving incentives have been refined over time, and, today, researchers and policymakers are reviewing current mandates in an effort to complete the nation’s EV transition while easing congestion and increasing toll and parking revenues.

“Norway shows that a geographically smaller country with a much smaller population can become a global leader,” Sovacool said.

That leaves the U.S. — a much larger country with more fractured politics and a deeper legacy of gas-powered manufacturing — with lingering questions of conviction, according to Autovista’s Engelskirchen. “The question for the U.S. is not whether the path is possible,” he wrote in a May 5 essay for Automotive News. “It’s whether Americans find that future desirable and are willing to invest the billions it will take to get there. Because, while EV technology keeps advancing, it isn’t technology, but instead policy, infrastructure, and consumer economics that will decide whether the U.S. accelerates toward an EV future. Or stalls.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Norway is all in on electric cars. What can the U.S. learn? on Jun 15, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Rod McCullom, Undark.

The idea of Israel, the Zionist occupation, claiming a moral position is absurd. And the fact that the international community continues to give Israel any credibility is a dereliction of duty and forms a vacuum of morality for all of those who do not stand resolutely against its genocide in Palestine and its attacks on Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran. Israel’s immunity granted by Western colonial nations is a further reflection of the moral gulf between these states and the vast majority of humankind that subscribes  to values that uphold People(s)-Centered Human Rights, self-determination, and dignity.

Israel’s unprovoked attack is another example of the lawlessness that is fully supported by the U.S. The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) rejects the notion that the U.S. was unaware of this attack. The U.S. had the ability to stop this attack if it was serious about containing Israel’s perpetual war crimes and disregard for international law, which is a  major threat to any form of true peace. The combination of Israel’s continued genocidal assaults and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people, and its bombings and occupations of portions of the sovereign nations of Syria and Lebanon prove that Israel and the U.S. are the most dangerous nations in the world. Their power must be dismantled.

To conflate Israel’s actions with Jewish values is the height of antisemitism. Zionism, an ideology of white “supremacy,” must be wholly separated from Judaism’s teachings of justice, human rights, and inclusivity. Israel is no more a “Jewish state” than the U.S. is a “Christian state.” Both are violent constructs of ethnonationalism. BAP firmly rejects the conflation of Judaism with the barbarism of Zionism, just as we denounce the antisemitic trope that equates Zionism with Judaism itself.

Israel’s militarism further threatens global stability by spiking the price of oil by 8 percent in one night. This economic shockwave further demonstrates why we must continue linking the devastation of war with the devastation associated with the climate catastrophe that is fueled by capitalist war profiteering interests of fossil fuel cartels and the military industrial complex who both benefit from the Israeli war machine at the expense of human life and the ecosystems necessary to sustain it. Israel’s aggression is capitalism’s credit card with an unlimited spending limit.

History will remember this moment and Israel’s barbaric acts as an indelible and ignominious stain on international “law” and cooperation, people(s)-centered human rights and the basic tenets of human dignity.

In Response, BAP Demands that : 

• The UN Security Council and European Union impose immediate sanctions and consequences for Israel’s illegal acts, and institute an arms embargo.
• The international community must expel Israel from the United Nations. It has no place among fraternal nations.
• The international community categorically reject Israel’s fraudulent claims to jurisdiction over Iran’s lawful nuclear energy program.
• The IAEA investigate Israel’s unregulated nuclear program with the same rigor applied to others.
• U.S. lawmakers enforce laws prohibiting military aid to human rights violators by cutting off all arms transfers to Israel or face prosecution at the ICC and ICJ for complicity in war crimes.
• The ICC indict and prosecute Israeli and U.S. officials for continued war crimes throughout West Asia and the lawlessness of genocide perpetuated against the Palestinian people.
• All anti-imperialist, anti-war, pro-peace movements and organizations support Iran’s right to sovereignty, self-defense, and self-determination against Israel’s murderous aggression.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Black Alliance for Peace.

Ben Camacho, freelance reporter for LA nonprofit The Southlander

You were injured while covering protests on June 7 at the Paramount Home Depot, the site where one of the initial immigration raids that spurred the protests occurred. What happened in the lead-up to your injury?

Pretty much the whole day, pepper balls were being shot by the sheriffs towards the protesters. I was keeping an eye out for those all day. But they were also throwing stingers, which is like a flashbang. They were definitely being thrown directly at people at some point, which is extremely dangerous. And rubber bullets, of course, were kind of flying as well. Some protesters were throwing their plastic water bottles or maybe fist-sized pieces of concrete. It seemed like most of them just kind of fell short of their target.

I had on a gas mask and half-face, ballistic-rated goggles, and a press pass. Mind you, the National Guard, like the military, had not been deployed yet.

Before I was shot, I was in an area where people were peacefully protesting. I was keeping an eye on my co-reporter, who was getting video. That’s when I saw a projectile go straight into the area where he was, and that’s when I saw Nick Stern [a British photojournalist] get shot.

I ended up going over and helping him get away. As I went back toward the protest area, pain hit me in the kneecap. I started screaming. I had never felt that type of pain before. I started to turn around to try to walk away, and the pain got worse.

Someone came up to me and helped me walk away. Then I was shot again, this time in my right elbow. It was excruciating at this point. I was yelling at the top of my lungs. I was in such a weird, shocked state of mind.

The next day, I went to Urgent Care to get checked out. Thankfully, my injuries are just serious, nasty bruises and a nasty cut. I’ve been home since, making sure these minor injuries don’t become worse.

Could you have imagined this happening in Los Angeles?

The police violence this time around feels much, much higher than any protests in the past few years. I also covered the 2020 uprising [the Black Lives Matter protests] and, yes, there was extreme police violence back then too.

This time, police action feels a lot more indiscriminate and a lot stronger, and that’s just from [what I experienced with] the Los Angeles authorities.

How has being a person of color shaped your reporting experience?

I am from these communities that people are being taken from. My hometown, just outside of LA, is also rising up against this. And I have a significant audience on my reporting platforms. And because I’m not out there, that’s a voice lost. 

Abraham Márquez, investigative journalist for The Southlander

While covering protests, you were hit by less lethal munitions fired by law enforcement on June 6, and then by what seemed to have been the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department on June 7. Could you have expected this in your hometown?

You know, it’s not my first rodeo. I’ve never seen them [law enforcement in Los Angeles] be careful with the press in the years that I’ve been documenting protests here.  I don’t think I’ve ever experienced them telling the press, “Hey, go on this side, you’ll be safe here,” or them holding back from not attacking.

I think at this point, Los Angeles’ law enforcement feels somewhat empowered because their actions will be backed up by the federal government, if they do something wrong.LA is heavily policed right now — we’ve got sheriffs out; we’ve got CHP [California Highway Patrol] out; cops from other cities are here; we’re going to have the Marines and the National Guard. It feels like they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

What’s at stake when journalists are attacked?

Reporters are on the front lines trying to document the reality of what it is to live in this country. We’re trying to document that people are being arrested and deported without due process. Police officers are brutalizing people who are exercising their First Amendment right to protest and to assemble peacefully.

What has it been like emotionally covering this?

I haven’t had a chance to really sit back, zoom out, and really let this process. My phone’s been blowing up this whole week with alerts of potential ICE raids, or information about where people are, where they’re getting arrested. I’m just trying to prepare and get ready, and make sure that I’m ready for the next day.

Mekahlo Medina, anchor and reporter for NBC4 News

What has surprised you most about the nature of the recent protests and the response from law enforcement?  

LA is the epicenter of immigration. We have the most undocumented people in the entire country — I think just under a million in LA County, a population of 10 million. Immigration is a national issue, and I think we fully expected some sort of reaction once it came to our doorstep. We just didn’t know what that was going to be.

What has surprised me the most has been the federal response. I thought, maybe, we would see them as part of ICE operations, but not at the protests in the way that we have.

You and your news crew were fired on with pellet projectiles by federal agents while covering June 7 protests. Did you ever think this would happen in Los Angeles? 

I’ve covered many protests in the 20 years I’ve been here, and we have a very good relationship with LAPD [Los Angeles Police Department] around our coverage of the protests, and what we’re supposed to do and not supposed to do.

I felt going into protest situations last weekend [June 6- 8] that we would be fine. And then when we got shot by federal agents, I think we were all taken aback. I can’t say it was targeted toward me. But what I can say is, most of the protesters had already left. We had large cameras; I had “Press” on my vest. We were all clearly identified.

What worries you about the situation in Los Angeles going forward?

I’m concerned that the non-lethal munitions might actually hurt somebody to a degree where they could lose an eye or something else along those lines. That worries me a lot.

Television crews have had some of our equipment and trucks attacked or destroyed — without anyone in them — by protesters, but I would say most journalists are concerned about all the agents and what they’re firing.

In this country, for the most part, journalism and journalists have been respected. It’s part of our constitution — freedom of press. It’s embedded in who we are every day from day one. The government is trying to keep us [journalists] from doing our job. I think it should be a red flag for a lot of people.

Ryanne Mena, crime and public safety reporter for the Southern California News Group

You were hit twice with less-lethal munitions on June 6 and then again on June 7, resulting in a concussion. Could you have imagined this happening in your home community? 

After Trump was elected, I was really nervous for what would come in Los Angeles, because I know Los Angeles, and people show up for protests. But I didn’t think that I would be doing a job that would involve federal agents shooting at me.

Do you plan to continue covering this story?

Yes. I was born and raised in Los Angeles, and I have a very deep connection to the city and immigrant rights. I think it is so important to document why people are taking to the streets, and also to document the community that has been forming with all this anger.

It is an honor to be one of the reporters out there recording the first draft of history. This is history that we’re living through.

What do you want people outside of Los Angeles to understand about what’s happening now?

Seemingly, journalists are being targeted. There have been many of us who have been injured in the last several days, at least once on live TV with an Australian reporter. There are so many of us who have been injured by federal agents, by local law enforcement, and it’s all unacceptable. Every single agency that has been involved in harming journalists should be condemned and should be investigated, I believe.

Other journalists should get ready to get ready because I feel like Los Angeles is just the first place where this kind of violence against journalists, or similar things, might happen. This is only the beginning.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Katherine Jacobsen.

We go to Los Angeles, where immigrant workers and families are feeling the impact of ICE raids on worksites like Home Depot. While hundreds have been detained, countless others are left to wonder whether they can safely go to work or school, fearing for their families. “The life of an immigrant in Los Angeles and across this country … is full of uncertainties,” says Pablo Alvarado, co-executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. “Families don’t know whether they’re going to see their parents when they leave in the morning to go to work.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Nearly two dozen congressmembers are backing legislation, the Block the Bombs Act, that would withhold offensive weapons from Israel that violate international law and humanitarian norms. “What Bibi Netanyahu wants is to continue to escalate this ground invasion and starvation of Palestinians, to absolutely take over Gaza and destroy Palestinian life,” says Congressmember Delia Ramirez, one of the co-sponsors.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

We’re joined by award-winning investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr, who in 2018 exposed the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal and is now taking on what she terms the “broligarchy,” the billionaire Silicon Valley businessmen who now wield major influence in U.S. government and society. “This is a new type of power, and the world hasn’t seen this before, in which you have state power now with this enormous surveillance engine machine,” says Cadwalladr. She warns that the increasing authoritarianism of the Trump administration is being facilitated by unregulated surveillance technology. “People should be freaked out. … They want as much information about the population as possible, so that they can surveil them, they can control them, they can search out their enemies, they can target them, and they can punish them, and they can silence them.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

A group of veterans and their allies have entered their third week of a “Fast for Gaza” outside the United Nations headquarters in New York City. The group is calling for an end to arms sales to Israel and of Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. We hear from multiple hunger strikers on their decisions to join the planned 40-day action and why they are pressuring the U.N. in particular. “We wake up each morning, and we don’t worry about whether or not our children have been buried under rubble overnight. We’re not drinking poisoned water. We’re not surrounded by rubble. We’re not dealing with the horrible traumas that people in Palestine and Gaza are dealing with,” says peace activist Kathy Kelly, who started her hunger strike two weeks ago. “What would make us stop? Well, certainly, if there were a permanent, unconditional, immediate ceasefire.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Leer en español.

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

This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues. It’s also co-published with Alianza Rebelde Investiga (Rebel Alliance Investigates), a coalition of Venezuelan online media outlets, and Cazadores de Fake News (Fake News Hunters), a Venezuelan investigative online news organization.

The Trump administration knew that the vast majority of the 238 Venezuelan immigrants it sent to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador in mid-March had not been convicted of crimes in the United States before it labeled them as terrorists and deported them, according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security data that has not been previously reported.

President Donald Trump and his aides have branded the Venezuelans as “rapists,” “savages,” “monsters” and “the worst of the worst.” When multiple news organizations disputed those assertions with reporting that showed many of the deportees did not have criminal records, the administration doubled down. It said that its assessment of the deportees was based on a thorough vetting process that included looking at crimes committed both inside and outside the United States. But the government’s own data, which was obtained by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune and a team of journalists from Venezuela, showed that officials knew that only 32 of the deportees had been convicted of U.S. crimes and that most were nonviolent offenses, such as retail theft or traffic violations.

The data indicates that the government knew that only six of the immigrants were convicted of violent crimes: four for assault, one for kidnapping and one for a weapons offense. And it shows that officials were aware that more than half, or 130, of the deportees were not labeled as having any criminal convictions or pending charges; they were labeled as only having violated immigration laws.

As for foreign offenses, our own review of court and police records from around the United States and in Latin American countries where the deportees had lived found evidence of arrests or convictions for 20 of the 238 men. Of those, 11 involved violent crimes such as armed robbery, assault or murder, including one man who the Chilean government had asked the U.S. to extradite to face kidnapping and drug charges there. Another four had been accused of illegal gun possession.

We conducted a case-by-case review of all the Venezuelan deportees. It’s possible there are crimes and other information in the deportees’ backgrounds that did not show up in our reporting or the internal government data, which includes only minimal details for nine of the men. There’s no single publicly available database for all crimes committed in the U.S., much less abroad. But everything we did find in public records contradicted the Trump administration’s assertions as well.

ProPublica and the Tribune, along with Venezuelan media outlets Cazadores de Fake News (Fake News Hunters) and Alianza Rebelde Investiga (Rebel Alliance Investigates), also obtained lists of alleged gang members that are kept by Venezuelan law enforcement officials and the international law enforcement agency Interpol. Those lists include some 1,400 names. None of the names of the 238 Venezuelan deportees matched those on the lists.

The hasty removal of the Venezuelans and their incarceration in a third country has made this one of the most consequential deportations in recent history. The court battles over whether Trump has the authority to expel immigrants without judicial review have the potential to upend how this country handles all immigrants living in the U.S., whether legally or illegally. Officials have suggested publicly that, to achieve the president’s goals of deporting millions of immigrants, the administration was considering suspending habeas corpus, the longstanding constitutional right allowing people to challenge their detention.

Hours before the immigrants were loaded onto airplanes in Texas for deportation, the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, declaring that the Tren de Aragua prison gang had invaded the United States, aided by the Venezuelan government. It branded the gang a foreign terrorist organization and said that declaration gave the president the authority to expel its members and send them indefinitely to a foreign prison, where they have remained for more than two months with no ability to communicate with their families or lawyers.

Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney in the American Civil Liberties Union’s legal fight against the deportations, said the removals amounted to a “blatant violation of the most fundamental due process principles.” He said that under the law, an immigrant who has committed a crime can be prosecuted and removed, but “it does not mean they can be subjected to a potentially lifetime sentence in a foreign gulag.”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in response to our findings that “ProPublica should be embarrassed that they are doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens who are a threat,” adding that “the American people strongly support” the president’s immigration agenda.

When asked about the differences between the administration’s public statements about the deportees and the way they are labeled in government data, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin largely repeated previous public statements. She insisted, without providing evidence, that the deportees were dangerous, saying, “These individuals categorized as ‘non-criminals’ are actually terrorists, human rights abusers, gang members and more — they just don’t have a rap sheet in the U.S.”

As for the administration’s allegations that Tren de Aragua has attempted an invasion, an analysis by U.S. intelligence officials concluded that the gang was not acting at the direction of the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro and that reports suggesting otherwise were “not credible.” Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s director of national intelligence, fired the report’s authors after it became public. Her office, according to news reports, said Gabbard was trying to “end the weaponization and politicization” of the intelligence community.

Our investigation focused on the 238 Venezuelan men who were deported on March 15 to CECOT, the prison in El Salvador, and whose names were on a list first published by CBS News. The government has also sent several dozen other immigrants there, including Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who the government admitted was sent there in error. Courts have ruled that the administration should facilitate his return to the U.S.

We interviewed about 100 of the deportees’ relatives and their attorneys. Many of them had heard from their loved ones on the morning of March 15, when the men believed they were being sent back to Venezuela. They were happy because they would be back home with their families, who were eager to prepare their favorite meals and plan parties. Some of the relatives shared video messages with us and on social media that were recorded inside U.S. detention facilities. In those videos, the detainees said they were afraid that they might be sent to Guantanamo, a U.S. facility on Cuban soil where Washington has held and tortured detainees, including a number that it suspected of plotting the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Trump administration had sent planes carrying Venezuelan immigrants there earlier this year.

They had no idea they were being sent to El Salvador.

Among them was 31-year-old Leonardo José Colmenares Solórzano, who left Venezuela and his job as a youth soccer coach last July. His sister, Leidys Trejo Solórzano, said he had a hard time supporting himself and his mother and that Venezuela’s crumbling economy made it hard for him to find a better paying job. Colmenares was detained at an appointment to approach the U.S.-Mexico border in October because of his many tattoos, his sister said. Those tattoos include the names of relatives, a clock, an owl and a crown she said was inspired by the Real Madrid soccer club’s logo.

Colmenares was not flagged as having a criminal history in the DHS data we obtained. Nor did we find any U.S. or foreign convictions or charges in our review. Trejo said her brother stayed out of trouble and has no criminal record in Venezuela either. She described his expulsion as a U.S.-government-sponsored kidnapping.

“It’s been so difficult. Even talking about what happened is hard for me,” said Trejo, who has scoured the internet for videos and photos of her brother in the Salvadoran prison. “Many nights I can’t sleep because I’m so anxious.”

The internal government data shows that officials had labeled all but a handful of the men as members of Tren de Aragua but offered little information about how they came to that conclusion. Court filings and documents we obtained show the government has relied in part on social media posts, affiliations with known gang members and tattoos, including crowns, clocks, guns, grenades and Michael Jordan’s “Jumpman” logo. We found that at least 158 of the Venezuelans imprisoned in El Salvador have tattoos. But law enforcement sources in the U.S., Colombia, Chile and Venezuela with expertise in the Tren de Aragua told us that tattoos are not an indicator of gang membership.

McLaughlin, the DHS spokesperson, said the agency is confident in its assessments of gang affiliation but would not provide additional information to support them.

John Sandweg, a former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said, “for political reasons, I think the administration wants to characterize this as a grand effort that’s promoting public safety of the United States.” But “even some of the government’s own data demonstrates there is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality,” he said, referring to the internal data we obtained.

The government data shows 67 men who were deported had been flagged as having pending charges, though it provides no details about their alleged crimes. We found police, court and other records for 38 of those deportees. We found several people whose criminal history differed from what was tagged in the government data. In some cases that the government listed as pending criminal charges, the men had been convicted and in one case the charge had been dropped before the man was deported.

Our reporting found that, like the criminal convictions, the majority of the pending charges involved nonviolent crimes, including retail theft, drug possession and traffic offenses.

Six of the men had pending charges for attempted murder, assault, armed robbery, gun possession or domestic battery. Immigrant advocates have said removing people to a prison in El Salvador before the cases against them were resolved means that Trump, asserting his executive authority, short-circuited the criminal justice system.

Take the case of Wilker Miguel Gutiérrez Sierra, 23, who was arrested in February 2024 in Chicago on charges of attempted murder, robbery and aggravated battery after he and three other Venezuelan men allegedly assaulted a stranger on a train and stole his phone and $400. He pleaded not guilty. Gutiérrez was on electronic monitoring as he awaited trial when he was arrested by ICE agents who’d pulled up to him on the street in five black trucks, court records show. Three days later he was shipped to El Salvador.

But the majority of men labeled as having pending cases were facing less serious charges, according to the records we found. Maikol Gabriel López Lizano, 23, was arrested in Chicago in August 2023 on misdemeanor charges for riding his bike on the sidewalk while drinking a can of Budweiser. His partner, Cherry Flores, described his deportation as a gross injustice. “They shouldn’t have sent him there,” she said. “Why did they have to take him over a beer?”

Jeff Ernsthausen of ProPublica contributed data analysis. Adriana Núñez and Carlos Centeno contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by .

The Trump administration is escalating its campaign against international students at U.S. colleges and universities, announcing that it will begin “aggressively” revoking the visas of Chinese students, in addition to freezing visa processing for all foreign-born students as it prepares to require additional social media vetting for every applicant. “It’s really just difficult for me to think of any conceivable theory on which this is going to help the United States,” says Jameel Jaffer, noting that international students pay a disproportionate share of tuition costs on U.S. campuses. Jaffer is the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, which has previously sued the government over its social media vetting policy for visa applications. The policy, which began as a pilot program during the Obama administration, “is ineffective at identifying national security threats, but it is very effective at chilling free speech,” says Jaffer.

Jaffer also comments on the high-profile immigration detention of former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil and Harvard graduate researcher Kseniia Petrova, as well as a case brought by the Knight Institute challenging the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s crackdown on campus pro-Palestine protest.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

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

American diplomats in at least two countries have recently delivered internal reports to Washington that reflect a grim new reality taking hold abroad: The Trump administration’s sudden withdrawal of foreign aid is bringing about the violence and chaos that many had warned would come.

The vacuum left after the U.S. abandoned its humanitarian commitments has destabilized some of the most fragile locations in the world and thrown refugee camps further into unrest, according to State Department correspondence and notes obtained by ProPublica.

The assessments are not just predictions about the future but detailed accounts of what has already occurred, making them among the first such reports from inside the Trump administration to surface publicly — though experts suspect they will not be the last. The diplomats warned in their correspondence that stopping aid may undermine efforts to combat terrorism.

In the southeastern African country of Malawi, U.S. funding cuts to the United Nations’ World Food Programme have “yielded a sharp increase in criminality, sexual violence, and instances of human trafficking” within a large refugee camp, U.S. embassy officials told the State Department in late April. The world’s largest humanitarian food provider, the WFP projects a 40% decrease in funding compared to last year and has been forced to reduce food rations in Malawi’s sprawling Dzaleka refugee camp by a third.

To the north, the U.S. embassy in Kenya reported that news of funding cuts to refugee camps’ food programs led to violent demonstrations, according to a previously unreported cable from early May. During one protest, police responded with gunfire and wounded four people. Refugees have also died at food distribution centers, the officials wrote in the cable, including a pregnant woman who died under a stampede. Aid workers said they expected more people to get hurt “as vulnerable households become increasingly desperate.”

“It is devastating, but it’s not surprising,” Eric Schwartz, a former State Department assistant secretary and member of the National Security Council during Democratic administrations, told ProPublica. “It’s all what people in the national security community have predicted.”

“I struggle for adjectives to adequately describe the horror that this administration has visited on the world,” Schwartz added. “It keeps me up at night.”

In response to a detailed list of questions, a State Department spokesperson said in an email: “It is grossly misleading to blame unrest and violence around the world on America. No one can reasonably expect the United States to be equipped to feed every person on earth or be responsible for providing medication for every living human.”

The spokesperson also said that “an overwhelming majority” of the WFP programs that the Trump administration inherited, including those in Malawi and Kenya, are still active.

But the U.S. funds the WFP on a yearly basis. For 2025, the Trump administration so far hasn’t approved any money in either country, forcing the organization to drastically slash food programs.

In Kenya, for example, the WFP will cut its rations in June down to 28% — or less than 600 calories a day per person — a low never seen before, the WFP’s Kenya country director Lauren Landis told ProPublica. The WFP’s standard minimum for adults is 2,100 calories per day.

“We are living off the fumes of what was delivered in late 2024 or early 2025,” Landis said. On a recent visit to a facility treating malnourished children younger than 5, she said she saw kids who were “walking skeletons like I haven’t seen in a decade.”

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pledged to restore safety and security around the world. At the same time, his administration, working alongside Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, swiftly dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, canceling thousands of government-funded foreign aid programs they considered wasteful. More than 80% of USAID’s operations were terminated, which crippled lifesaving humanitarian efforts around the world.

Musk, who did not respond to a request for comment, has said that DOGE’s cuts to humanitarian aid have targeted fraudulent payments to organizations but are not contributing to widespread deaths. “Show us any evidence whatsoever that that is true,” he said recently. “It’s false.”

For decades, American administrations run by both parties saw humanitarian diplomacy, or “soft power,” as a cost-effective measure to help stabilize volatile but strategically important regions and provide basic needs for people who might otherwise turn to international adversaries. Those investments, experts say, help prevent regional conflict and war that may embroil the U.S. “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition,” Jim Mattis, who was defense secretary during Trump’s first administration, told Congress in 2013 when he led U.S. Central Command.

Food insecurity has long been closely linked with regional turmoil. But despite promises from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that lifesaving operations would continue amid widespread cuts to foreign aid, the Trump administration has terminated funding to WFP for several countries. Nearly 50% of the WFP’s budget came from the U.S. in 2024.

Since February, U.S. officials throughout the developing world have issued urgent warnings forecasting that the Trump administration’s decision to suddenly cut off help to desperate populations could exacerbate humanitarian crises and threaten U.S. national security interests, records show. In one cable, diplomats in the Middle East communicated concerns that stopping aid could empower groups like the Taliban and undermine efforts to address terrorism, the narcotics trade and illegal immigration. The shift may also “significantly de-stabilize the transitioning” region and “only serve to benefit ISIS’ standing,” officials warned in other correspondence. “It could put US troops in the region at risk.”

Embassies in Africa have delivered similar messages. “We are deeply concerned that suddenly discontinuing all USAID counter terrorism-focused stabilization and humanitarian programs in Somalia … will immediately and negatively affect U.S. national security interests,” the U.S. embassy in Mogadishu, Somalia, wrote in February. USAID’s role in helping the military prevent newly liberated territory — “purchased at a high cost of blood and treasure” — from getting back into the hands of terrorists “is indisputable, and irreplaceable,” the officials added.

The embassy in Nigeria described how stop-work orders had caused lapses in oversight that put U.S. resources at risk of being diverted to criminal or terrorist groups. (A February whistleblower complaint alleged USAID-purchased computers were stolen from health centers there.) And U.S. officials said the Kenyan government “faces an impending humanitarian crisis for over 730,000 refugees” without additional resources, as local officials struggle to confront al-Shabaab, a major terrorist threat in the region, while also maintaining security inside the country’s refugee camps.

In early April, Jeremy Lewin — an attorney in his late 20s with no prior government experience who is currently in charge of the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance and running USAID operations — ordered the end of WFP grants altogether in more than a dozen countries. (Amid outcry, he later reinstated a few of them.) The State Department spokesperson said the agency was responding on Lewin’s behalf.

In Kenya, the WFP expects a malnutrition crisis after rations are cut to a fourth of the standard minimum, Landis said. She is also concerned about the security of her staff, who already travel with police escorts, given the likelihood that there will be more protests and that al-Shabaab might make further incursions into the camps.

In order for the U.S. to deliver its usual food aid to Kenya by the end of the year, it needed to be put on a boat already, Landis said. That has not happened.

In recent days, South Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia have begged a visiting government delegation from the U.S. not to cut food rations any further, according to a cable documenting the visit. Aid workers in another group of camps in North Africa reported that they expect to run out of funding by the end of May for a program that fights malnutrition for 8,600 pregnant and nursing mothers.

Despite being one of the poorest countries in the world, Malawi has been a relative beacon of stability in a region that’s seen numerous civil wars and unrest in recent decades. Yet in early March, officials there warned Washington counterparts that cuts to the more than $300 million USAID planned to provide to the country in aid a year would dramatically increase “the effects of the worsening economy already in motion.”

At the time, 10 employees from a USAID-funded nonprofit had recently shown up unannounced at USAID’s offices in the capital Lilongwe asking for their unpaid wages after the U.S. froze funding. The group left without incident, and it’s unclear if they were paid, but officials reported that they expected countries around the world would face similar issues and were closely monitoring for “increased risks to the safety and security of Embassy personnel.” (Former employees at another nonprofit in a nearby country also raided their organization “out of desperation for not being paid,” according to State Department records.)

An hour’s drive from the nation’s capital, Dzaleka is a former prison that was transformed into a refugee camp in the 1990s to house people fleeing war in neighboring Mozambique. In the decades since, it has ballooned, filling with people running from conflicts in Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. The camp, which was built to hold around 10,000, is now home to more than 55,000 people.

Iradukunda Devota, a refugee from Burundi, came to Malawi when she was 3 and has lived at Dzaleka for 23 years. She now works for Inua Advocacy, which provides legal services and advocates on behalf of refugees in the camp. She said tension is high amid rumors that food and other aid will be cut further. Since 2023, the Malawi government has prohibited refugees from living or working outside the camp, and there has already been an increase in crime and substance abuse after food was cut earlier this year. “This is happening because people are hungry,” Devota told ProPublica. “They have nowhere to turn to.”

Now, the Malawi government is likely to close its borders to refugees in response to the funding crisis and congestion in Dzaleka, the WFP’s country representative told the State Department, according to agency records.

Diplomats continue to warn the Trump administration of even worse to come. The WFP expects to suspend food assistance in Dzaleka entirely in July.

“The WFP anticipates violent protests,” the embassy told State Department officials, “which could potentially embroil host communities and refugees, and targeting of UN and WFP offices when the pipeline eventually breaks.”

ProPublica plans to continue covering USAID, the State Department and the consequences of ending U.S. foreign aid. We want to hear from you. Reach out via Signal to reporters Brett Murphy at +1 508-523-5195 and Anna Maria Barry-Jester at +1 408-504-8131.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Brett Murphy and Anna Maria Barry-Jester.

Short of that (i.e., short of a full blockade or even merely the economic sanctions), what is now being put into place is the establishment, by “The West” (the U.S. and its colonies or ‘allies’), of a new “Iron Curtain,” but this time walling-off commerce between The East and The West. This is what the neoconservatives (such as almost all of the U.S. Senate and House) are driving us toward. For example: the proposed legislation would impose a 500 percent tariff on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other products. The goal is to force countries NOT to make those purchases from Russian suppliers, or even from resellers of those Russian products. It’s a 500% tariff upon goods from any country that buys those Russian products; and, so, is extremely hostile toward any country that is NOT hostile to Russia. Similarly, U.S. President George W. Bush said to the world’s nations — and instructed America’s military that their task is to enforce — “You’re either with us or against us.” Every nation is either an ‘ally’, or an enemy. If the future now belongs to The East — basically Asia, which is the largest of all continents and by far the richest both in natural resources and in human resources, and which is led by such nations as China and Russia — then The West’s Iron Curtain will be bringing us to an impoverished West. Since capital is far easier moved (relocated) than people are, our billionaires might lose little or nothing, but everyone else (whose main property is NOT corporate stocks, bonds, etc.) will lose vastly more. Those U.S. Senators represent only their billionaires — not us. The basic myth is that they represent us. Those Senators represent their mega-donors’ corporations, NOT their voters — less still the general public. What we have is NOT democracy; it is instead an aristocracy of pure wealth. It is a system in which a person’s worth is that person’s wealth, or “net worth.” (For example, the poor are merely a burden that needs to be gotten rid of; and, in foreign affairs, the Gazans should be eliminated altogether.)

The basic problem is that elected Governmental officials have actually been s‘elected’ by the billionaires who had funded their political careers by being the mega-donors to, and the controllers of the corporations that advertise in, the ‘news’-media so as to control what the voters will know, and thus how they will vote in those ‘democratic’ ‘elections’ (that are actually billionaires’ s‘elections’). I have further documented this problem here. At the end of that article, its last link is to my proposed solution to the problem.

To merely continue on the path toward which we are heading is unacceptable. Although it is extremely profitable for billionaires, it is heading toward global suicide. The billionaires, left to their own devices, will not change their ways. An off-ramp from the present system must be taken now; and the only real question is: which one, and where to? Those are the two questions addressed in those two articles (each one of which contradicts the virtually universally-believed myths about what the term “democracy” fundamentally MEANS: re-DEFINING that term is crucial in order in order to get out of that rut — the rut that flows toward WW3).

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

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

The week before President Donald Trump unveiled bruising new tariffs that sent the stock market plummeting, a key official in the agency that shapes his administration’s trade policy sold off as much as $30,000 of stock.

Two days before that so-called “Liberation Day” announcement on April 2, a State Department official sold as much as $50,000 in stock, then bought a similar investment as prices fell.

And just before Trump made another significant tariff announcement, a White House lawyer sold shares in nine companies, records show.

More than a dozen high-ranking executive branch officials and congressional aides have made well-timed trades since Trump took office in January, most of them selling stock before the market plunged amid fears that Trump’s tariffs would set off a global trade war, according to a ProPublica review of disclosures across the government.

All of the trades came shortly before a significant government announcement or development that could influence stock prices. Some who sold individual stocks or broader market funds used their earnings to buy investments that are generally less risky, such as bonds or treasuries. Others appear to have kept their money in cash. In one case unrelated to tariffs, records show that a congressional aide bought stock in two mining companies shortly before a key Senate committee approved a bill written by his boss that would help the firms.

Using nonpublic information learned at work to trade securities could violate the law. But even if such actions aren’t influenced by insider knowledge, ethics experts warn that trading stock while the federal government’s actions move markets can create the appearance of impropriety. The recent trades by government officials, they said, underscore that there should be tighter rules on how, or if, federal employees can trade securities.

“The executive branch is routinely engaged in activities that will move the market,” said Tyler Gellasch, who, as a congressional aide, helped write the law on insider trading by government officials and now runs a nonprofit focused on transparency and ethics in capital markets. “I don’t think members of Congress and executive branch officials should be trading securities. To the extent they have investment holdings, it should be managed by someone else outside their purview. The temptation to put their own personal self-interest ahead of their duties to the country is just too high.”

There is no evidence that the trades by government officials identified by ProPublica were informed by nonpublic information. Still, when government officials trade stock at opportune times, Gellasch said, even if it was based on luck and not inside information, it undermines trust in government and the markets

“It then becomes a thing where our markets look rigged,” he said.

In response to questions from ProPublica, the officials who made the trades either said they had no insider information that would help them time their decisions or did not respond to questions about the transactions.

Questions about trades based on nonpublic information have swirled around Congress for years and began anew after Trump’s tariffs announcements led to wild swings in the market. Lawmakers’ trades are automatically posted online and, after multiple congressional stock-trading scandals, are widely scrutinized as soon as they become public.

But less attention is paid to the trades of executive branch employees and congressional aides whose work could give them access to confidential information likely to influence markets once made public.

Last week, ProPublica reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi sold between $1 million and $5 million worth of shares of Trump Media, the president’s social media company, on April 2. After the market closed that day, Trump unveiled his “Liberation Day” tariffs, sending the market reeling. Bondi’s ethics agreement required her to sell by early May, but why she sold on that date is unclear. She has yet to answer questions about the trades, and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.

Earlier this week, ProPublica reported that Sean Duffy, Trump’s transportation secretary, sold shares in almost three dozen companies on Feb. 11, two days before Trump announced plans to institute wide-ranging “reciprocal” tariffs. A Transportation Department spokesperson said Duffy’s account manager made the trades and that Duffy had no input on the timing.

Using insider government information to buy or sell securities could violate the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, or STOCK, Act. But no cases have ever been brought under the law, and some legal experts have doubts it would hold up to scrutiny from the courts, which in recent years have generally narrowed what constitutes illegal insider trading.

Thousands of government employees are required to file disclosure forms if they sell or buy securities worth more than $1,000. In many cases, the records are available only in person in Washington, D.C., or through a records request. The documents do not include exact amounts bought or sold but instead provide a broad range for the totals of each transaction.

ProPublica examined hundreds of records for trades shortly before major tariff announcements or other key government decisions. Trump, of course, repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he intended to institute dramatic tariffs on foreign imports. But during the first weeks of his term, investors were not panic selling, seeming to assume that his campaign promises were bluster. Several tariff announcements by Trump early on shook the markets, but it wasn’t until he detailed his new tariffs on April 2 that stocks dived.

Among those who sold securities before one of Trump’s main tariff announcements was Tobias Dorsey. Dorsey, a lawyer in the executive branch since the Obama administration, was named acting general counsel for the White House’s Office of Administration in January, when Trump was inaugurated. The division provides a range of services, including research and legal counseling across the president’s staff, including the Office of the United States Trade Representative, which helps craft trade policy. In his LinkedIn bio, Dorsey describes his duties since 2022 as giving “expert advice on a wide range of legal and policy matters to help White House officials achieve their policy goals.”

On Feb. 25 and 26, disclosure records show, Dorsey unloaded shares of an index fund and nine companies, including cleaning products manufacturer Clorox and engineering firm Emerson Electric. The total dollar figure for the sales was between $12,000 and $180,000. (He purchased one stock, defense contractor Palantir, which was selling for a bargain after recently plummeting on news of Pentagon budget cuts.)

At the time of Dorsey’s trades, investors were still largely in denial that Trump was going to go through with the massive tariffs he had promised during the campaign. But the next morning, Trump posted on social media that significant tariffs on Mexico and Canada “will, indeed, go into effect, as scheduled” in several days, and that “China will likewise be charged an additional 10% Tariff on that date.”

The S&P 500, a stock index that tracks a wide swath of the market, fell almost 2% that day alone and ultimately dropped nearly 18% in six weeks.

In an interview, Dorsey said the sale was made by his wife from an account belonging to her. He said she decided to sell around $20,000 worth of shares so they could make tuition payments and that he had no nonpublic information on the impending tariff announcements. The kind of work he does as a career employee, he said, focuses not on public policy, but on how the White House operates, including personnel, workplace technology, contracts and records issues.

“I’m not advising Stephen Miller or Peter Navarro,” he said, referring to top policy advisers to the president. “I’m advising the people running the campus. … I don’t have access to any sensitive political information.”

Another well-timed set of transactions was made by Marshall Stallings, the director of intergovernmental affairs and public engagement for Trump’s Trade Representative. The office helps shape the White House’s trade policy and negotiates trade deals with foreign governments.

On March 25 and 27, Stallings sold between $2,000 and $30,000 of stock in retail giant Target and mining company Freeport-McMoRan. The sales appear to have been an abrupt U-turn. He had purchased the shares less than a week earlier. Days after Stallings’ sales, Trump unveiled his most dramatic tariffs. Target stock fell 17%. Freeport-McMoRan fell 25%.

Stallings and the Trade Representative’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

A longtime State Department official, Stephanie Syptak-Ramnath, who until April was ambassador to Peru, also appeared to make a bet against the stock market. On March 24 and 25, she sold between $255,000 and $650,000 in stocks, and bought between $265,000 and $650,000 in bond and treasury funds (along with $50,000 to $100,000 in stocks). Then, on March 31, two days before Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement, she sold between $15,000 and $50,000 of a broad-based stock fund. When the market started to plummet, she bought back the same dollar range in another stock fund. Syptak-Ramnath said she did not have any information about the administration's decisions beyond what was publicly available. The trades, she said, were “undertaken as a result of family obligations” and in “response to a changing economy.”

A second longtime State Department official, Gautam Rana, who is now ambassador to Slovakia, sold between $830,000 and $1.7 million worth of stock on March 19, a week before Trump declared new tariffs on cars and two weeks before his “Liberation Day” announcement. The shares he sold were largely broad-based index funds. Rana declined to comment for this story.

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer, said executive branch employees who don’t have nonpublic information and want to trade stock should consult with ethics officials before doing so, thereby allowing an independent third party to assess their actions.

“If you trade and you don’t seek advice in advance, you kind of do it at your own risk, and if you’re asked about it, you have to hope there aren’t factors that make someone question your motivations,” Canter said. “If you seek ethics official advice, you have some cover.”

Executive branch employees are barred from taking government actions that would narrowly benefit them personally, and some are required to sell stock in companies and industries they have purview over in their jobs. But like members of Congress, they are allowed to trade securities.

Since Trump’s tariff announcements and walkbacks began causing fluctuations in the market, questions have been raised about whether anyone has profited off advance notice of the moves. After Trump unexpectedly rolled back some of his tariffs in early April, causing stocks to surge, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned on social media that “any member of Congress who purchased stocks in the last 48 hours should probably disclose that now.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene bought between $21,000 and $315,000 of stock the day before and the day of the announcement. The Georgia Republican has not said what motivated the trades but in the past said a financial adviser manages her investments without her input.

ProPublica’s review of disclosures also found trades by congressional aides that took place before the market tumbled.

Michael Platt, a veteran Republican staffer who served in the Commerce Department during Trump’s first term and now works for the House committee that handles administrative matters for the chamber, restructured his portfolio in March. An account under his wife’s name sold off between $96,000 and $390,000 in mostly American companies, and purchased at least $45,000 in foreign stocks and at least $15,000 in an American and Canadian energy index fund. Some stock forecasters considered international markets a relatively safe haven if Trump went through with his tariffs. Platt did not respond to requests for comment.

Stephanie Trifone, a Senate Judiciary Committee aide, sold stock in mid-March and bought at least $50,000 in treasuries. A spokesperson for the committee’s Democratic minority said Trifone had no nonpublic information about the tariffs and her trades were conducted by a financial adviser without her input. Kevin Wheeler, a staffer for the Senate Appropriations Committee, made a similar move. In late February, he and his spouse offloaded between $18,000 and $270,000 in funds composed almost entirely of stocks and bought between $50,000 and $225,000 in bonds. A spokesperson for the Appropriation Committee’s Republican majority said Wheeler had no nonpublic information about Trump’s tariff plans and that a financial planner made the trades after advising Wheeler to take a more conservative approach with his portfolio.

Another staffer, Ryan White, chief of staff to Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, bought shares worth between $2,000 and $30,000 in two precious metals mining companies two days before Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement. He continued buying more shares in the companies, Hecla Mining and Coeur Mining, in the following days.

Precious metals can be a safe haven during a bear market turn, but those stocks, like the rest of the market, declined after Trump’s tariff announcements.

Two days after White’s last purchase in April of the mining companies’ shares, however, the firms got some good news. A bill White’s boss introduced to make it easier for mining companies like Hecla and Coeur to operate on public lands was approved by a Senate committee, an important step in passing a bill. (White added to his Hecla shares earlier this month and sold his stake in Coeur.)

White told ProPublica that “all required reporting and ethics rules were followed.” Any suggestion that the committee passing the bill played a role in his stock purchases “is a stretch and patently false,” he said, adding that the legislation “has not become law and even if it does, would take decades to have any appreciable impact.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Robert Faturechi, Pratheek Rebala and Brandon Roberts.

Cuts by the Trump administration are beginning to “chase” U.S.-based scientists at federal agencies and research institutions out of the country. “We’re draining our scientific talent,” says environmental journalist Robert Hunziker, who explains how China and European countries are offering positions for scientists laid off, fired or pushed out by Trump and DOGE’s mass culling of federal workers and funding. The massive U.S. “brain drain” is a “brain gain” for other countries, adds Hunziker, and comes as the Trump administration also cracks down on university curriculums and targets international students for its mass deportation initiative.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

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

In what could be a significant escalation of U.S. pressure on Mexico, the Trump administration has begun to impose travel restrictions and other sanctions on prominent Mexican politicians whom it believes are linked to drug corruption, U.S. officials said.

So far, two Mexican political figures have acknowledged being banned from traveling to the United States. But U.S. officials said they expect more Mexicans to be targeted as the administration works through a list of several dozen political figures who have been identified by law enforcement and intelligence agencies as having ties to the drug trade.

The list includes leaders of President Claudia Sheinbaum’s governing party, several state governors and political figures close to her predecessor, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the U.S. officials said. They insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive policy plans.

The governor of the Mexican state of Baja California, Marina del Pilar Ávila, confirmed that she and her husband, a former congressman, were told their U.S. visas were revoked because of “a situation” involving her husband. “The fact that the State Department has cancelled my visa does not mean that I have committed something bad,” she said at a news conference on Monday.

Sheinbaum said her government had asked U.S. officials to explain why Ávila was stripped of her visa but had been told that such matters are private and no further information was given.

The visa actions represent the latest political challenge for the new Mexican leader and her leftist National Regeneration Movement, known as Morena. Despite the country’s historic sensitivity to any hint of U.S. meddling, Sheinbaum has thus far bolstered her support at home by asserting Mexico’s sovereignty in discussions with President Donald Trump while also moving to meet his demands for action against the biggest traffickers.

Mexican journalists reported that U.S. immigration officials also pulled the visa of another border-state governor, Américo Villarreal of Tamaulipas, an assertion that the governor’s spokesperson dismissed as “unconfirmed.” (Villarreal has been frequently accused of having ties to drug trafficking, which he has denied.) Last month, the mayor of that state’s second-largest city, Matamoros, was stopped from crossing the border into Brownsville, Texas, but he, too, insisted he had not been formally stripped of his visa.

A State Department spokesperson declined to comment, noting that visa records are confidential under U.S. law.

Three U.S. officials said the visa actions will likely in some cases be accompanied by Treasury Department sanctions that block individuals from conducting business with U.S. companies and freeze financial assets they have in the United States. Ávila said that she did not have any U.S. bank accounts and faced no such sanction.

A spokesperson for the Treasury Department declined to comment on the sanctions plan.

When the administration imposed tariffs on Mexico in early March, it asserted that the country’s government had granted “safe havens for the cartels to engage in the manufacturing and transportation of dangerous narcotics, which collectively have led to the overdose deaths of hundreds of thousands of American victims.”

As part of what it has described as an all-out fight against fentanyl and other illegal drugs, the administration has designated some of the biggest Mexican trafficking gangs as terrorist organizations and explored the possibility of unilateral U.S. military actions against them, officials said.

The review of Mexican drug corruption was initiated by a small White House team that requested information from law enforcement agencies and the U.S. intelligence community about Mexican political, government and military figures with criminal ties.

Officials said the group has been shaping the administration’s security policy with Mexico under the leadership of a deputy White House homeland security adviser, Anthony Salisbury. It is overseen by the deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller.

A spokesperson for the White House declined to comment in response to questions about the group’s role in initiating the travel sanctions.

One official familiar with the team’s list said it overlaps with a file of about 35 Mexican officials that was compiled by Drug Enforcement Administration investigators in 2019, after López Obrador began shutting down Mexico’s cooperation with the United States in counterdrug programs.

That earlier effort sought to identify Mexican government figures who could be criminally prosecuted for aiding drug traffickers. It led to the 2019 indictment in the U.S. of the country’s former security chief, Genaro García Luna, and his conviction on drug charges three years later in a New York federal court.

The two former DEA officials in Mexico City who oversaw the compilation of the 2019 list, Terrance Cole and Matthew Donahue, also proposed that the State Department cancel the U.S. visas of some of the Mexican political figures named on it. Senior U.S. diplomats rejected that proposal.

Cole is now awaiting Senate confirmation as the Trump administration’s new DEA administrator.

Some current and former U.S. officials expressed concerns about the latest White House-led plan. They noted that the standard of proof required for both visa cancellations and Treasury sanctions is well below that of a criminal trial, which could encourage proponents of the measures to act on what might be less-than-solid information.

Officials said the visa actions were being taken under Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which stipulates that noncitizens can be found ineligible for entry to the United States if the government “knows or has reason to believe” that the foreigner “is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking” of illegal drugs. The law also allows the State Department to cancel the visas of relatives of a sanctioned official who may have benefited from their illicit gains.

One U.S. official said that while the visa withdrawals might send a powerful signal of the United States’ new willingness to challenge Mexican corruption, they could also stir new conflict between the two governments.

“We should be using all the resources of the government to go after these people,” the official said, referring to corrupt Mexican officials. “But the bigger question is: Does this work with President Sheinbaum? Are you going to lose an opportunity now with a Mexican government that has been very compliant on the drug front?”

A former Mexican ambassador to Washington, Arturo Sarukhaan, said further visa actions against prominent figures in Sheinbaum’s party would make it hard for her to continue claiming a “good” relationship with the United States despite Trump’s often openly confrontational tone.

“But at the same time,” Sarukhaan added, “it gives her — a nationalistic president with a very chauvinistic party behind her — a perfect excuse to say that everything bad that’s happening in Mexico with the economy and everything else is because of U.S. imperialism.”

López Obrador, who came to power in 2018, had promised to fight corruption as never before. Instead, he presided over an administration that denied having any corruption problem in its own ranks even as journalists produced report after report that officials close to the president and even his own sons were engaged in profiteering and graft.

Sheinbaum has struck a different tone. In a message to a Morena party congress on May 4, she warned the faithful about the dangers of cronyism, nepotism and corruption.

“All members of Morena should conduct themselves with honesty, humility and simplicity,” she said. “There cannot be any collusion with crime — whether organized or white collar.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Tim Golden.

A major new report by U.S. academics analyzes Israel’s occupation of Palestine under the legal framework of the crime of apartheid. The report was intentionally released on Nakba Day — the day that marks the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their homes during Israel’s violent founding in 1948. Citing dozens of experts, human rights organizations and judicial decisions, it concludes that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians “meets the legal threshold of apartheid.” Researchers found that Israel imposes “policies that are designed to ensure the perpetual racial subordination of the Palestinian people,” says Sandra Babcock, a clinical professor at Cornell Law School who helped author the report.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The Trump administration has suspended refugee resettlement for most of the world, but welcomed 59 white South African Afrikaners Monday who were granted refugee status. President Trump claims Afrikaners face racial discrimination — even though South Africa’s white minority still own the vast majority of farmland decades after the end of apartheid — and claims they are escaping “genocide.” This accusation “is a conspiracy theory and a myth that has been floating around echo chambers of right-wing populists and white nationalists for many decades now,” says Andile Zulu, political essayist and researcher at the Alternative Information and Development Centre in Cape Town. We also speak with Herman Wasserman, a South African professor of journalism at Stellenbosch University, who says the Trump administration is using Afrikaners as “pawns, as props in a campaign that purports to promote whiteness.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi sold between $1 million and $5 million worth of shares of Trump Media the same day that President Donald Trump unveiled bruising new tariffs that caused the stock market to plummet, according to records obtained Wednesday by ProPublica.

Trump Media, which runs the social media platform Truth Social, fell 13% in the following days, before rebounding.

Trump’s “Liberation Day” press conference from the White House Rose Garden unveiling the tariffs came after the market closed on April 2. Bondi’s disclosure forms showing her Trump Media sales say the transactions were made on April 2 but do not disclose whether they occurred before or after the market closed.

Trades by government officials informed by nonpublic information learned through work could violate the law. But cases against government officials are legally challenging, and in recent years judges have largely narrowed what constitutes illegal insider trading.

It’s unclear from the public record whether Bondi as attorney general would have known in advance any nonpublic details about the tariffs Trump was announcing that day. Trump, of course, publicly announced his plans to institute dramatic tariffs during the election campaign. But during the first weeks of his term, the market seemed to assume his campaign promises were bluster.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to questions about the trades.

The disclosure forms do not include the specific amount of stocks sold or their worth but instead provide a rough range. The documents do not say exactly what time she sold the shares or at what price. The company’s stock price closed on April 2 at $18.76 and opened the next morning, after the press conference, at $17.92 before falling more in the days ahead. In addition to selling between $1 million and $5 million worth of Trump Media shares, Bondi’s disclosure form shows she also sold between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of warrants in Trump Media, which typically give a holder the right to purchase the shares.

Bondi’s ownership of Trump Media shares has previously been disclosed. Before she became attorney general, Bondi was a consultant for Digital World Acquisition Corp., the special purpose acquisition company that merged with Trump Media to take the president’s social media company public.

As part of her ethics agreement, Bondi had pledged to sell her stake of Trump Media within 90 days of her confirmation, a deadline that would have allowed her until early May to sell the shares.

On April 1, Trump Media filed a disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission with details about holdings of various top shareholders, including Trump and Bondi. The purpose of the filing is unclear, as is whether it relates to Bondi’s sales the next day. It appeared to reregister for sale shares held by several of the company’s top shareholders.

Alex Mierjeski contributed research.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Robert Faturechi and Brandon Roberts.

We look at President Donald Trump’s diplomatic visit to the Middle East and discuss his administration’s foreign policy in the region with Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent for HuffPost, and Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of DAWN. As Trump sells U.S. military power in the Gulf in exchange for investments in U.S. businesses, they warn that Trump’s transactional business philosophy is spreading to the administration’s dealings around the world. As Whitson puts it, “if you can pay, then you can play.” This approach extends to the new Syrian government, as Trump pledges to lift sanctions on the country. However, explains Ahmed, while the thawing of relationships between the U.S. and Arab states has the added effect of divergence from tight-knit U.S.-Israel coordination, these changes can be attributed to Trump’s “America First” agenda, rather than any concern for Palestinians, whom Trump is happy to allow Israel to “pummel.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Kristen Welker: Your secretary of state says everyone who’s here, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree, Mr. President?

President Donald Trump: I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.

Kristen Welker: Well, the Fifth Amendment says as much.

President Donald Trump: I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials. We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.

Kristen Welker: But is — 

President Donald Trump: Some of the worst, most dangerous people on Earth. And I was elected to get them the hell out of here and the courts are holding me from doing it.

Kristen Welker: But even given those numbers that you’re talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?

President Donald Trump: I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a different interpretation.

Kristen Welker: Is anyone in your administration right now in contact with El Salvador about returning Abrego Garcia to the United States?

She abandoned the matter, though it is the most important matter that any U.S. citizen ought to consider regarding the President; and, so, continuing any further with her canned list of questions there, was displaying her incompetence. For example, she could have asked him, “What did you twice swear to as you took the Presidential Oath of Office?,” but chose not to. She could have asked him “Why do you need to be told this by your lawyers, though it’s right there in the Oath that you twice swore to?” But she chose not to.

On May 11 (exactly a week later), Politico headlined “Hill leaders question Trump’s attempted Library of Congress takeover.” It IS the library of Congress; it is part of the Legislative Branch, not of the Executive Branch; and, so, it is controlled by the Congress if America still has a Constitutional Government. But, according to Politico’s report, this is merely a political squable between all Democrats, on the one hand, versus almost all Republicans, on the other. “Congressional Democrats have castigated Trump’s moves at the library and have called for Congress to end the president’s power to nominate the top librarian.” However, the real question here is not “the president’s power to nominate the top librarian.” It is instead whether the Congress will uphold the Constitution by slamming down, with at least near unanimity, the President’s ability to hire or fire anyone to act in that capacity WITHOUT A PRIOR congressional vote on any such decision.

Maybe it is not ONLY the President who is spitting upon the U.S. Constitution, but the members of Congress also. The congressional oath of office is:

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, …”

Is “mental reservation or purpose of evasions” what the people who voted for such traitors had voted for? This is why America has been proven, time and again (at least after 1980) to be a dictatorship, ruled by its political megadonors, who always get their ways, while the public do not.

Has the rot in Washington reached so deep that it IS the Government? Apparently so.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

As President Donald Trump meets with leaders in the Middle East this week, we look at how his administration and family have opened wide to foreign powers and wealthy interests willing to spend big to gain influence. Top buyers of Trump’s novelty cryptocurrency have spent millions as part of a contest to have dinner with the president. Trump’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric have also signed a number of deals around the world, trading on the family’s name and influence, and son-in-law Jared Kushner has taken in billions in investment from Gulf states. “There’s very little restraint at the moment,” says New York Times investigative reporter Eric Lipton, who is tracking the deals. “They’re just pursuing as many profitable deals as they can find.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Jewish Voice for Peace held its largest-ever national member meeting in Baltimore from April 31 through May 4, with more than 2,000 attending. We feature the address of Democratic Congressmember Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, who addressed the conference as it began. “Why is it that our government always has enough money for bombs, to bomb people, to kill people, but never seems to have money to provide people with healthcare, with housing, enough food for their families?” Tlaib asked in her address.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Video ads posted on Xiaohongshu, or RedNote, and Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok, show businesses promoting “one-stop re-export and freight forwarding services” via Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and Thailand to circumvent growing restrictions on export re-routing via these markets.

“Chinese manufacturers that have the U.S. as their main market must find a way to survive,” Taiwanese businessman Lee Meng-chu told Radio Free Asia, noting the “huge demand” for transit solutions that enable exporters to sell to the U.S. but evade the 145% U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese imports.

Freight forwarders, or customs brokers, have emerged as key facilitators, managing customs declaration documents, clearance, and certificates of origin, with their service fees set to rise with the spike in demand, said Lee. Some freight forwarders are even helping exporters change or reload containers to disguise origins, he said.

One Douyin user, “Freight Forwarder Lao Wang,” claims to have established a new U.S.-recognized transshipment channel where “80% of products are fully compliant through traceability of origin,” a video posted on the platform showed.

His advertised “one-stop solution” covers the entire supply chain services and includes “domestic customs declaration, ship booking, trans-shipment port operation, second-level ship booking, and U.S. customs clearance and delivery.”

Many users on Douyin warn that re-export trade – the process of exporting previously imported goods without use or modification – has been hardest hit due to increasing scrutiny as countries deploy artificial intelligence technology to monitor global shipping routes in real time and investigate tax evasion through Southeast Asian re-exports.

Vietnam has intensified inspections of raw material origins to prevent fraudulent origin certificates, while Thailand has strengthened product origin verification for U.S.-bound exports to combat tariff evasion.

“The entire supply chain needs to be clearly declared, down to the source of buttons,” warns one Douyin user. “Tariff fraud carries penalties up to 20 years imprisonment, 300% fines on the amount of taxes evaded, and 10-year profit tracing.”

U.S. law requires imported goods to undergo “substantial transformation” before they can legally claim a new origin country.

Many Chinese manufacturers had initially planned to completely move their production bases to Southeast Asia or other low-cost regions, noted Sun Kuo-Hsiang, professor of the Department of International Affairs and Business at the University of South China.

However, they were forced to resort to “origin washing” as either the construction of factories had not been completed or due to lack of production capacity, Sun told RFA.

European and U.S. authorities have also stepped up scrutiny on the certificate of origins, but inspection capabilities cannot keep pace with the number of businesses openly promoting “origin washing” services through ads on social media, said Sun.

Edited by Tenzin Pema and Mat Pennington.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Xia Xiaohua for RFA Mandarin.

The ceasefire established in the U.S.-Israeli genocidal war in Gaza has resulted in more war against Lebanon and U.S .attacks on Yemen with increasing threats of military action against Iran.  The fact that the U.S. Congress in 1987, committed to the Convention on Genocide appears to mean nothing to the war mongering U.S. government.

The U.S. President has threatened war with Greenland, Panama, Iran, and is actively preparing for war against the third largest nuclear power, China. The present policy of Peace through Strength means exactly what it did in the time of the Roman Empire—Peace through War.

WHEN THE LEADERS SPEAK OF PEACE
The common folk know
That war is coming.

When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out.

— Bertolt Brecht, “From a German War Primer,” 1937, p 287

For decades the U.S. government has maintained a policy of world dominance, the sole right to rule the world.

1991—Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz stated, “Our policy… must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor.”

1997—National security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski articulated the U.S. imperial strategy for global dominance, to make the U.S. “the world’s paramount power.”

The U.S. strategy to maintain world dominance involves the use of nuclear weapons. The Pentagon maintains a nuclear first strike policy to destroy other countries in the belief that the U.S. will survive and remain the dominant power. This strategy affirms that nuclear weapons can be used to achieve political and military ends. The U.S. Quest for Nuclear Primacy  Plans are now underway to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran and elsewhere

The war in Ukraine is one aspect of U.S. imperial strategy to maintain world dominance. The New York Times and the RAND Corporation made it clear that the war in Ukraine is a U.S. provoked war designed to destabilize, weaken, and subordinate Russia.

War on the Working Class

To prepare for this war of planetary annihilation, the top 1% has declared class war on those who work for wages, the working class. As in Europe, the working class is being made to pay the cost of a massive military buildup.  In the U.S. mass layoffs, cuts to Healthcare for Veterans, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Public Health, Public Education, Environmental Protection, and more will deprive the working class, the vast majority, of essential services. Funds for the military continue to increase, and the rich  benefit most from tax cuts while tariffs/sales taxes will increase prices for everybody.

The administration is stripping away the right to free speech. Unmarked cars and men in masks, arresting and abducting legal residents for their political views, and without charges taking them out of state or deporting them to unknown prisons and held without any rights.  These are the actions of a police state.

War and Domination or Peace and Social Needs

Workers can take matters into their own hands and organize against the warmongers and police state by building independent working class struggle for the needs and rights of the vast majority. The people have the right and duty to resist.

The Right to Rebellion is the RIGHT AND DUTY of people to alter or abolish a government that acts AGAINST THE COMMON INTERESTS or THREATENS THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE. The belief in this right has justified social uprisings for over one thousand years, including the American, French, and Russian Revolutions.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Nayvin Gordon.

A U.S. military strike on a migrant detention center in the north of Yemen has killed at least 68 people, largely migrants from African nations, bringing the death toll from U.S. attacks on the country to over 250 since mid-March. Middle East researcher Helen Lackner says the number of deaths is likely twice the officially recorded number, as the United States has now conducted more than 1,000 strikes on Yemen “on an absolutely nightly basis.” Lackner says the humanitarian crisis in Yemen has also been exacerbated by the end of U.S. aid and the U.S.'s designation of the country's Houthi movement as a “foreign terrorist organization.” “People who are living in the country are suffering on a daily basis from basically terror and fright or from being attacked and possibly being bombed and killed [at] any time.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Image by Rod Long.

The Trump administration has deported three U.S. citizen children to Honduras: a 4-year-old who was actively receiving treatment for a rare form of stage 4 cancer, his 7-year-old sister, and a 2-year-old girl who was separated from her father and expelled with her undocumented pregnant mother. The mothers were coerced into taking their U.S. citizen children and prohibited from communicating with other family members or their lawyers until they arrived in Honduras. Attorney Gracie Willis, who is representing the 2-year-old girl, says the deportation of a U.S. citizen not given “any way to contest that or express the option to stay in the United States” is unprecedented.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.