

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A few seconds ago, Dems held massive protests, swept an election, and claimed the inarguable moral high ground in a cruel shutdown America had pinned on the GOP. Then the "surrender caucus" caved to a demented moron who knows nothing, lies about everything, insults veterans, bans fatsos, pukes fake gold, can't find his office, insists he's not a rapist, argues let them eat nothing while partying (again) with fat cats. And now, Epstein and their statue's back! Good call, Dems.
It was, shall we say, disheartening when Democrats in a devoutly-to-be-wished ascendancy voted against the will of a majority of their own party, "spit in America's face," and again surrendered to a brazenly inept GOP that refused to do their job by taking a "taxpayer-funded, seven-week vacation" and a regime that shamelessly fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to not feed 42 million hungry Americans in a moral and political fiasco dubbed "an intergalactic freak show." When 8 centrist Democrats folded just days after a watershed election that saw every demographic group they need to regain power swing sharply to the left, the response from a dismayed populace was almost universally somewhere between, "Ugh. Just ugh" and "FUCK."
Having backed the already underwater Trump into a corner where he was advocating for starving Americans - Marie Antoinette was often evoked - the move was blasted as a "cataclysmic failure," "horrific mistake," "moral failure," "world-class collapse," "betrayal" and, from Bernie Sanders, "a very bad night." "When they go low, we cave," was one refrain. Also, "How about we shut down the government for this very popular issue that over three-quarters of Americans support, with a very specific goal and then, hear me out, we hold out for like a month and a half and then...ONLY THEN, fold and don't get the one thing we said we wanted?" Calls for the ejection of wussy Chuck Schumer were so prevalent they sprung up among even fed up moderate Dems like Mark Kelly.
What they got in return for their perfidy was...little enough they managed to make the cretinous Trump almost look like a stable genius. The key demand for an extension of Obamacare subsidies was left hanging in a vague deal wherein treacherous House Republicans may or may not bring it up for a vote in December; many cited Unholy Mike likewise last year "promising" to restore $1.1B in funding to DC in exchange for funding the government but then somehow not getting to it. Food stamps will continue to be funded through September, but most government spending will again expire on January 30, when we'll be back where we started. In the interim, House Dems may proffer their own bill to extend ACA subsidies by three years, but a venal GOP will (duh) kill it.
Meanwhile, our Narcissist-in-Chief remains focused on a revenge and redemption tour because governance = boring. As Americans struggled, he bragged about cuts to "Democrat programs," toyed with ballrooms and bathrooms, blamed besieged air-traffic controllers not evil Musk for air travel woes - "I am NOT HAPPY WITH YOU" - issued a symbolic, wildly broad pardon to over 70 criminal accomplices who helped try to overturn an election in case they wanna help him crime again, and got Ghislaine Maxwell a puppy. He also asked SCOTUS to throw out his much adjudicated, E. Jean Carroll rape and defamation verdict, calling it another "hoax (of) implausible, unsubstantiated assertions” - not his type - because "The American People...demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts." Actually, not.
And abroad, in the name of "protecting the (Nazi) homeland," Pete Hegseth has killed 76 people in clearly illegal "kinetic strikes" on Venezuelan "narco-terrorists," likely hapless fishermen, based on zero evidence; to further inflame things, he also brought in the world's largest warship. In response, Maduro called for massive deployment of ground, aerial, naval and missile forces on "full operational readiness" against a greedy dimwit on record for wanting to take "all that oil." Said dimwit has also threatened to "go into Nigeria" with "guns-a-blazing" to protect the fictional "large number of Christians" being killed there. Again, no evidence; again, Nigeria says, not. One possible saving grace: It's improbable Trump could find NIgeria - on a map, in his fever dreams - given he's evidently now struggling just to find his office.

So it was that, last week, White House observers noticed a new sign - actually sheets of computer paper taped to the walls - announcing "The Oval Office." Or, per one report, "The White House Dementia Care Unit helpfully labels the Oval Office with giant, comforting, gold letters" - an act born, many speculated, after "who knows what Trump-kept-trying-to-go-into-the-broom-closet moments." The dumbfounding tackiness of the display, which didn't even manage to center the "the" - never mind what it suggested about the cognitive condition of the supposed most powerful elected official in the world, its presumed target - horrified many. "Please tell me this is not real," pleaded one viewer. Also, "Next, it'll be a picture," "This sign looks like shit," and, in a multi-layered gem, "This is not a good sign."
The fact of the sign was one thing. The slovenly visual - "dementia patient navigation signage disguised as nouveau-riche trash chic" - was another: "The1980s called and want their font back" captured the snark toward a script variously compared to a garage sale, a funeral home, an omelette bar, a whorehouse, an Olive Garden, a La Quinta lobby, the Newlywed Game, Daytona Beach circa 1981, and "invites to a shower for a baby named Lakynn." Some posited Barron designed and printed it because "he's good with computer," and, "It's computer everywhere these days." Gavin Newsom countered, "Live, Laugh, Lose." Or "Live, Laugh, Oval Office. I came up with the name Oval Office. It doesn’t have to be an oval. It can be any shape. Square. Rectangle. Doesn’t even have to be an office. It can be your den."
Alas, the sign is accompanied by the same ghastly, tacky, polyurethane, $58.07 Home Depot gimcracks that defile the Oval Office, along with the sparely elegant walkway now become a glitzy, game-show Presidential Walk of Fame. It seems the awful glare may finally prove too much even for Laura Ingraham, who in a new interview with the king seems a tad skeptical about the flood of bullshit she's long accepted. Peering at the newest gold vomit above a door, she asks, "So, this is not Home Depot? "Naah," he blusters, real gold, blah blah. (This is Home Depot). She seems likewise, oddly unconvinced about other bonkers claims, like HBCUs would "all be out of business" if fewer Chinese students go to American schools, and his 50-year mortgage is great (if you wanna pay double for your home.)
Ingraham grows downright quizzical - wait, has he lost Ingraham? - on the subject of affordability. When Trump brags about "the greatest economy we've ever had," she wonders then why are people saying they're anxious about high prices? Big bluff and bluster. "More than anything else it's a con job by the Democrats," he says. "Are you ready? Costs are way down" - like the newly revealed $700 a month more families spend to survive. Also $2 gas, drill baby drill. She, clearly doubtful: "So you're saying voters are mis-perceiving how they feel?" For all the bombast, the underwater loser sounds like one. Perhaps sensing their slow, pitiable fall, the White House social media team has begun releasing random, hallucinatory montages of some of the "greatest hits" of "one glorious (insane) nation under God." Wowza.
Despite the frantic cheerleading, reality in all its cognitive dissonance keeps intruding. Last week, in one of its most freakish moments, Trump's cluelessness and sick indifference came into ugly, eerie focus when he stood gazing blankly into space, his back to the room, as an Oval Office guest collapsed and a scrum of people rushed to render aid. As Dr. Oz announced a possible deal to lower the price of weight-loss drugs - never mind why are fat drugs the only drug to see price cuts - one man passed out and slowly sank to the floor. As Oz and several others went to help, the People's President turned away - not my narcissistic table - to demonstrate "the unsubtle art of not giving a fuck," also, "how to spot a sociopath," "more mannequin than man," and, "truly, a dick." I really don't care, do you?
The same day, his State Department issued new rules about who can/cannot come to our pristine shores. Officials will be charged with rejecting any applicants with an array of conditions - obesity, depression, cancer, cardiovascular - especially if they lack the resources to pay for their health care, which we sure won't, never mind the $100,000 H-1B visa. So: Only the skinny, healthy, rich and racist - like white Afrikaners - need apply. No huddled masses. Def no dementia-ridden fatsos "crumbling in real time," like, you know. People had questions: Will that be all obese people, or just poor ones? Has he looked in a mirror? Also, their social media must show they support white Christian nationalism, Charlie Kirk, and eugenics. His ignoble work done, Trump then left to party, again.
In his second big Hell-A-Lago extravaganza in a week - during the shutdown, as his USDA returned to court to whine they shouldn't have to feed hungry kids, after his tone-deaf Great Gatsby party whose irony he missed sparked widespread fury - Trump again lifted a fat teeny middle finger to America and welcomed another toxic swarm of rich old white guys and makeup-drenched, pouty-lipped babes, this time to gorge on beef filet even he concedes nobody else can afford, truffle dauphinoise, pan-seared scallops and a trio of desserts including "Trump chocolate cake." In the shape of turds? Also there: A vast seafood spread, a CPAC ice sculpture, an opera performance, and sorta synchronized swimmers performing to a tinny God Bless the USA. Where is David Lynch when we need him?
Amidst the fuck-you opulence, he still babbled, deflected, raved. He spewed out a preposterous scheme for people to buy "THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTH CARE" that mainstream media dutifully reported as something other than ignorant rants - Trump "has floated a proposal" - based, per Klugman, on “whatever the fuck he thinks he knows about healthcare," which is clearly nothing. "Everybody is gonna be happy," he bleated. "They're going to feel like entrepreneurs." He mused, "Nobody knows what magnets are." In one especially deranged stab at distraction, he dug back into birther crap about Obama, who "betrayed a country he wasn't born in." Jittery, hollow, spiteful, he threw spaghetti at the wall, hoping something would stick as his approval plunged to 33%, glossy swimmers or no.
Then he went to an NFL game - Commanders vs. Detroit Lions - where 67,000 D.C.-area denizens twice booed him so bigly, loudly, relentlessly, all in with jeers, thumbs down, middle fingers up, the noise happily drowning him out, that even cocooned high up in his luxury suite with Mike and Pete (also booed) beside him he seemed to notice, and wilt. D.C lost badly, he left early and sulkily, The Borowitz Report said he tried/failed to get ICE to arrest all 67,000 booing fans, who were probs paid by Soros and/or Venezuelan drug dealers. At Arlington Cemetery for Veterans' Day, still unable to sing God Bless America, a furious veteran declared it "an affront to me and every other veteran past, present and future to have this bloated POS (who) doesn't give a flying fuck about the Military at this hallowed ground."
Wednesday, Jeffrey Epstein returned to haunt him, as we knew one day he would, exposing both ties between two pedo besties and a larger "crisis of elite impunity” of the rich and powerful. In Dem-released damning emails. Epstein said "of course (Trump) knew about the girls," and Trump was "the dog that hasn’t barked" though he'd just spent "hours at my house" with a victim, etc etc. And Rep. Adelita Grijalva is finally sworn in to force release of the rest. Swiftly, prayerful, AI Press Barbie leapt to the podium to "defy the laws of moral physics" and declare it all a "hoax, "fake narrative," "bad-faith effort to distract from (Trump's) historic accomplishments," proving "absolutely nothing" as righteous Repubs re-open the government evil Dems shut down. Also, "there are no coincidences (in) DC," and it's all Biden's fault. Cave, idiocy, lunacy, evil: This timeline is killing us.
Update: With Congress scouring the Epstein trove, the sordid hits from the president's pedophile best friend keep coming: Pics of "my 20 year old girlfriend (that, sic) i gave to donald,” “Hawaiian tropic girl Lauren Patrella (would) you like to see photos of donald and girls in bikinis in my kitchen,” "i have met some very bad people, none as bad as trump. not one decent cell in his body," worse than "gross" and "evil beyond belief" - this from the world's most degenerate pedophile running a sex trafficking ring. Devastating polls on Trump/Epstein - minus 39% - show that in America, "Nobody is buying what he's selling." Also, the statue's back!

At the opening of the United Nations summit known as COP30 on Monday, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell warned those gathered in Brazil of the "indisputable" dangers of inaction.
"Ten years ago in Paris, we were designing the future—a future that would clearly see the curve of emissions bend downwards," he said, referring to the interntaionl agreement to reduce planet-heating pollution in hopes of keeping temperature rise this century at 1.5°C, relative to preindustrial levels. The global average temperature last year was above that limit.
"The emissions curve has been bent downwards. Because of what was agreed in halls like this, with governments legislating, and markets responding. But I am not sugar-coating it. We have so much more work to do," Stiell stressed. "We must move much, much, faster on both reductions of emissions and strengthening resilience."
"The science is clear: We can and must bring temperatures back down to 1.5°C after any temporary overshoot," he continued. A UN assessment from last week found that under Paris Agreement countries' recently submitted plans, or Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the global temperature could soar to 2.3-2.5°C.
Stiell said: "We find ourselves here in Belém, at the mouth of the Amazon. And we can learn a lot from this mighty river. The Amazon isn't a single entity, rather a vast river system supported and powered by over a thousand tributaries. To accelerate implementation, the COP process must be supported in the same way—powered by the many streams of international cooperation."
"We don't need to wait for late NDCs to slowly trickle in, to spot the gap and design the innovations necessary to tackle it," he noted. "To falter whilst megadroughts wreck national harvests, sending food prices soaring, makes zero sense, economically or politically. To squabble while famines take hold, forcing millions to flee their homelands, this will never be forgotten, as conflicts spread."
"While climate disasters decimate the lives of millions, when we already have the solutions, this will never, ever be forgiven," he argued. "The economics of this transition are as indisputable as the costs of inaction. Solar and wind are now the lowest-cost power in 90% of the world. Renewables overtook coal this year as the world's top energy source. Investment in clean energy and infrastructure will hit another record high this year."
Highlighting a previous agreement to deliver at least $300 billion in climate finance, with developed countries taking the lead, Stiell called for moving toward $1.3 trillion, along with progress on adaptation and inclusive and just transitions. He declared, "In this arena of COP30, your job here is not to fight one another—your job here is to fight this climate crisis, together."
UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Brazilian leaders, including President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, also emphasized the importance of collaboration at the summit to take on the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.
According to the Associated Press:
André Corrêa do Lago, president of this year's conference, emphasized that negotiators must engage in "mutirão," derived from a local Indigenous word that refers to a group uniting for a task.
Complicating those calls is the United States, where President Donald Trump has long denied the existence of climate change. His administration did not send high-level negotiators and is withdrawing for the second time from the 10-year-old Paris Agreement, the first global pact to fight climate change.
As Common Dreams reported last week, Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard urged all governments attending COP30 "to resist aligning with the Trump administration's denial of the accelerating climate crisis and instead demonstrate true climate leadership."
"In the face of President Trump's rejection of science coupled with the intensified lobbying for fossil fuels, global leaders must redouble their efforts to take urgent climate action—with or without the US," Callamard asserted.
An analysis of COP26-COP29 published Friday by Kick Big Polluters Out coalition found that "over 5,350 fossil fuel lobbyists have attended UN climate negotiations in just four years, with 90 of the corporations they represent responsible for nearly 60% of all global oil and gas production."
"Three decades of climate negotiations have failed to justly end fossil fuels, scale up real solutions, and deliver climate action that centers people and the planet, not Big Polluters' profits," the coalition said. "Until the well-evidenced obstruction of the fossil fuel industry is addressed and strong, lasting protections are in place, COP30 and all future COPs are pre-destined to fail."
The "Republican bid to starve people to avoid lowering healthcare costs goes up in flames," one progressive podcaster said Friday after the Trump administration told states that it would fully fund this month's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for 42 million low-income Americans to comply with a court order that it is challenging.
As the longest government shutdown in US history—a result of congressional Republicans' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies and reverse Medicaid cuts—dragged on Friday, the administration asked the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit Court to block District Judge John McConnell's ruling that it must release $8 billion for SNAP payments.
McConnell, appointed to the District of Rhode Island by former President Barack Obama, had concluded Thursday that the US Department of Agriculture's plan to partially fund SNAP this month did not comply with his previous order, issued a week ago in a case brought by municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups.
Despite the appeal, Patrick Penn, deputy under secretary of food, nutrition, and consumer services at the USDA, said in Friday guidance to state agencies that the department "is working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances" in compliance with McConnell's order and "will complete the processes necessary to make funds available" later in the day.
Before the guidance was published on the USDA website, it was obtained by journalists, including Jacob Fischler of States Newsroom. As he reported Friday, a US Department of Justice spokesperson said in an email that the Trump administration must comply with the judge's order until and unless it is granted relief by a higher court, which the 1st Circuit hadn't offered.
On Friday evening, the appellate court officially denied the Justice Department's request to block McConnell's order. US Attorney General Pam Bondi swiftly announced that "we have filed an emergency stay application in the Supreme Court requesting immediate relief."
Responding to the 1st Circuit rejection in a statement, Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman, whose group represents the plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case, said that "the Trump-Vance administration continues to attempt—over and over—to take food out of the hands of families, seniors, workers, and children. And every time they tried, the courts told them what the law already makes clear: They cannot."
"American families should not be used as political props in a shutdown that this White House manufactured," Perryman added. "Even as the administration attempts—again—through an appeal to the Supreme Court to deprive people of nutrition, we will continue to meet them with effective legal action and secure benefits for the American people."
Critics of the administration's refusal to willingly use a contingency fund created by Congress and move around other money to fully fund SNAP during the shutdown welcomed the USDA's Friday guidance while also calling out President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers.
"This is the right decision morally and legally, but it's absurd it was even a fight to begin with," said Georgia state Rep. Ruwa Romman (D-97), a gubernatorial candidate, in response to Fischler's social media post featuring the guidance.
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes—who joined other AGs in filing another SNAP suit in Massachusetts—stressed Friday that "all of this could have been avoided if Trump had followed the law and funded SNAP benefits from the start."
"I'm proud to have sued to ensure Arizonans have access to food," she added. "And I'll keep suing the Trump administration whenever they try to hurt our state and its residents."
Meanwhile, in Congress, lawmakers showed no sign of reaching an agreement to reopen the government on Friday. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) swiftly rejected Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) offer to vote on ending the shutdown in exchange for a one-year extension of expiring health insurance subsidies, calling it a "nonstarter."
This article has been updated with comment from Democracy Forward.
With the help of an "army of grassroots volunteers" and the support of Seattle's working-class neighborhoods, progressive candidate Katie Wilson was named the winner of the city's mayoral election on Wednesday night, beating corporate-backed Democratic Mayor Bruce Harrell after a campaign that focused heavily on how unaffordable Seattle is for many families—including Wilson's.
Wilson, who rents a one-bedroom apartment with her husband and young child and spoke on the campaign trail about how her parents have helped her pay for childcare, was elected after taking a 1,976-vote lead over Harrell, with just 1,320 ballots remaining.
The Seattle Times called the race for Wilson and reported that it was unclear whether the close race would go to a recount, and Harrell said he would address voters on Thursday.
"Ahead by almost 2,000 votes, we now believe that we're in an insurmountable position," said Wilson in a social media post on Wednesday night. "We're so grateful to all the volunteers who have powered this grassroots campaign to victory. We look forward to hearing the mayor's address to the city tomorrow."
The mayoral election results were mirrored by other municipal elections in Seattle, with the Times reporting a "progressive sweep" of City Hall as voters elected left-leaning nonprofit leader Dionne Foster as City Council president and progressive challenger Erika Evans as city attorney.
Wilson's victory also proved wrong the commentators who had dismissed New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's victory over corporate-backed former Gov. Andrew Cuomo as an aberration that would not be replicated outside of the solidly Democratic city.
Wilson has never held public office and is the co-founder of the Transit Riders Union, where she has directed "successful campaigns for better transit, higher wages, stronger renter protections, and more affordable housing."
The New York Times reported that she was driven to run for mayor earlier this year, after voters overwhelmingly backed a ballot measure to fund a new public housing agency with an “excess compensation” tax, targeting employers that pay more than $1 million to any employee. Harrell had opposed the measure, urging the City Council to use existing budgets to pay for the agency.
Like democratic socialist Mamdani, Wilson focused her mayoral campaign heavily on the need to make Seattle more affordable for working families. She easily beat Harrell in the Democratic primary after winning the support of working-class neighborhoods across the city, while Harrell won votes in "expensive waterfront neighborhoods," as labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union said in a video about the race.
BREKAING: Katie Wilson has been elected Seattle’s next mayor. The progressive challenger has taken an insurmountable lead in the vote count, and defeated the establishment candidate. pic.twitter.com/15Qypd6Oyz
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) November 13, 2025
The race was "a referendum on inequality and affordability in Seattle, where the richest 5th rake in $345,000 per household and the poorest 5th bring in just under $19,000," said More Perfect Union. "Ordinary working people in Seattle are struggling to keep up with consumer prices, which are 13% higher than the national average, and housing prices, which are 50% higher than the national average."
Wilson has called to expand the city's social housing program by using union labor to build thousands more mixed-income units that would serve as a public option for housing. She has also pledged to strengthen renter protections and end algorithmic price-fixing by corporate landlords.
Like Mamdani, she has called for the establishment of city-owned grocery stores that would help keep costs down.
As the votes continued to be counted earlier this week, housing justice organizer Daniel Denvir said a victory for Wilson would show "the Zohran moment extends beyond NYC."
Daniel Nichanian of Bolts added that Wilson's victory "is a West Coast companion to Mamdani’s as a statement municipal victory for the left."
Late at night on September 30, over 300 federal agents stormed an apartment building in one of Chicago's lowest-income neighborhoods. After descending from Black Hawk helicopters, they broke down residents' doors, destroyed furniture and belongings, deployed flash-bang grenades, and dragged sleeping people—some naked—out into the cold evening. Dozens of people, including children and American citizens, were held in zip ties and detained for hours.
As part of the highly publicized raid at the South Shore complex, which was filmed and edited into a miniature action film by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), at least 37 Venezuelan residents of the apartment complex were taken into custody.
On Thursday, an investigation by ProPublica revealed that the raid, heralded by the Trump administration as a counterterrorism victory, has resulted in zero charges against the people who were detained.
In the wake of public backlash to the militarized raid’s extraordinary, indiscriminate brutality, the assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS, Tricia McLaughlin, claimed that the operation "successfully resulted in the arrest of two confirmed Tren de Aragua members,“ describing the cartel as ”a terrorist organization.“ She added that ”One of these members was a positive match on the terror screening watchlist.“
She added that others who were detained had their own rap sheets, including "domestic battery, family violence, battery against a public safety official, aggravated unlawful use of a firearm, retail theft, soliciting prostitution, possession of a controlled substance," while another "had an active warrant and was listed as armed and dangerous [with] weapons offenses."
Stephen Miller, a senior advisor to President Donald Trump and an architect of his "mass deportation" policy, said that the building was "filled with TdA terrorists" and that the raid had “saved God knows how many lives."
But ProPublica's report called many of the government’s claims into question. The government has not released the names of the 37 Venezuelans detained in the raid, but reporters identified the names of 21 of them and interviewed 12.
The report found that contrary to the government's claims of their rampant criminality, federal prosecutors have not filed criminal charges against a single person who was arrested. They have also not provided any evidence that two of the men arrested were part of the Tren de Aragua gang.
The names of the two supposed gang members have not been made public, but ProPublica managed to track down one of them—24-year-old Ludwing Jeanpier Parra Pérez—using another government press release that described him as a “confirmed member” of the terrorist cartel.
While the release also described him as a “criminal illegal alien,” the only criminal charges ever filed against him—for drug possession and driving without a license after a traffic stop last year—were dropped. No other charges against him, related to gang activity or anything else, have been filed.
"I don’t have anything to do with that,” Parra told ProPublica from the Indiana jail where he's detained along with 17 others nabbed in the raid. “I’m very worried. I don’t know why they are saying that. I came here to find a better future for me and my family.”
ProPublica said its reporters have also observed eight immigration court hearings for the detained individuals, many of whom have asked to be deported back to Venezuela. In not a single one of the hearings has a government attorney mentioned any pending criminal charges against them while arguing for their deportation, nor have they alleged that any of them have affiliations with Tren de Aragua.
Judges have instead ordered them deported or granted voluntary departure, which the outlet noted is "a sign that they are not seen as a serious threat and can apply for return to the United States."
Mark Rotert, a former federal prosecutor and defense attorney in Chicago, told ProPublica that if these detainees actually had the long criminal histories the government claimed they do, they would likely pursue charges.
“Do they really believe they have people who are members of a violent organized crime gang?" he said. "If they believe they have people who fit that criteria, I would be very surprised if they were satisfied with only deporting them.”
As far as other crimes, ProPublica found that 18 of the 21 detainees they identified had no criminal charges against them. Meanwhile, the other three, who were charged with offenses “ranging from drug possession to battery,” have all had their charges dropped.
Among those rounded up at the South Shore apartment who spoke to ProPublica were a man with a steady job at a taco restaurant who has a daughter in elementary school, and a construction worker and former Venezuelan army paratrooper who is raising four children.
The investigation's findings are in line with how the Trump administration has attempted to sell its militaristic Operation Midway Blitz and other prongs of its mass deportation crusade to the public.
While the White House has persistently claimed to be targeting “the worst of the worst” criminals, the latest immigration data shows that around 72% of current detainees have no criminal convictions. Previous data from the libertarian Cato Institute has shown that 93% of ICE book-ins were for non-criminals and nonviolent offenders.
Michael D. Baker, an immigration and criminal defense lawyer based in Chicago, described it as laughable that a "300-agent raid" was being "called a terrorist victory" even while it had "zero criminal charges."
"The Trump administration’s showcase anti-gang operation was built on spectacle, not evidence," he said.
In response to the story, Miles Taylor, who served in the DHS from 2017-19, including as its chief of staff, during the first Trump administration, lamented on social media that the department "is no longer recognizable."
"The department I once served is engaging in fascist shows of force," he said, "violating the rights of Americans—only to satiate the creepy desires of an old man who wants to seem macho."
White House officials have sought to walk back President Donald Trump's repeated threats against Venezuela in recent days—even as the Department of Defense has continue to strike boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—but officials in the South American country on Tuesday took the arrival of a US aircraft carrier in the region seriously despite the administration's claims that it won't target Venezuela directly.
As the USS Gerald R. Ford entered waters near Latin America, accompanied by three warships, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López said Venezuela's entire military arsenal had been placed on "full operational readiness," with President Nicolás Maduro ordering the deployment of nearly 200,000 soldiers.
The government also approved the “massive deployment of ground, aerial, naval, riverine, and missile forces," López announced.
Venezuela's military deployment comes weeks after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Ford to relocate from Europe to Latin America following several military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the Trump administration has claimed are meant to stop drug trafficking out of Venezuela—despite the fact that US intelligence agencies and United Nations experts agree that the country plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the top cause of drug overdoses in the US.
At least 76 people have been killed in the strikes so far, and the Associated Press reported last week that the victims have included an out-of-work bus driver and and a struggling fisherman—people who in some cases had turned to helping drug traffickers transport cocaine across the Caribbean, but were hardly the high-level "narco-terrorists" that Hegseth and Trump have insisted they've killed in the region.
With the carrier strike group entering the Caribbean region, the US now has about 15,000 troops in the area where tensions have escalated since the boat strikes began in September.
Mark Cancian, a senior defense adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Washington Post that Venezuelan officials had good reason to mobilize forces.
“The only reason to move it there is to use it against Venezuela,” Cancian said of the Ford deployment. "The shot clock has started because this is not an asset they can just keep there indefinitely. They have to use it or move it."
Since beginning the boat bombings, Trump has signaled the US attacks could move to Venezuela directly, with the Wall Street Journal reporting late last month that the administration was preparing to target "ports and airports controlled by the military that are allegedly used to traffic drugs, including naval facilities and airstrips."
Trump also authorized Central Intelligence Agency operations last month, falsely claiming the country has "emptied" its prisons into the US and again asserting that "we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela."
Democratic senators have introduced two war powers resolutions aimed at stopping the US from striking inside Venezuela and at halting the boat-bombing campaign—but Republicans have voted them down after administration officials assured the caucus that the White House was not currently planning to attack Venezuela.
Maduro said last month that Trump's actions in the region in recent months amount to attempts at "regime change," adding that "if Venezuela did not possess oil, gas, gold, fertile land, and water, the imperialists wouldn’t even look at our country."
Trump himself said publicly in 2023 that if he had won the 2020 presidential election, "we would have taken [Venezuela] over, we would have gotten all that oil."
Trump: When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over, we would have gotten all that oil. pic.twitter.com/5q3Jr1j1Ho
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2023
On Tuesday, both the United Kingdom and Colombia announced that they were halting intelligence sharing with the US in the region, saying that working with the US as it attacks small vessels in the Caribbean could make the countries complicit in violations of international law.
“All levels of law enforcement intelligence are ordered to suspend communications and other agreements with US security agencies,” Colombian President Gustavo Petro said. “This measure will remain in place as long as missile attacks on boats in the Caribbean continue. The fight against drugs must be subordinate to the human rights of the Caribbean people.”
A letter implored the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to "stand up to the executive order’s marching orders to 'promote' nuclear power."
A series of nuclear power-related executive orders issued by President Donald Trump seek to legitimize people's "suffering as the price of nuclear expansion," said one expert at Beyond Nuclear on Friday, as the nongovernmental organization spearheaded a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and top Trump administration officials warning of the public health risks of the orders.
More than 40 civil society groups—including Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Sierra Club, Nuclear Watch South, and the Appalachian Peace Education Center—signed the letter to the commission, calling on officials not to revise the NRC's Standards for Protection Against Radiation, as they were directed to earlier this year by Trump.
"NRC has not made a revision yet, and has been hearing that the Part 20 exposure (external only) should be taken from the existing 100 mr [milliroentgen] a year, per license, to 500 mr a year, and in view of some, even to 10 Rems [Roentgen Equivalent Man], which would be 100 times the current level," reads the letter.
In 2021, noted PSR, the NRC "roundly rejected" a petition "to raise allowable radiation exposures for all Americans, including children and pregnant women, to 10 Rems a year."
The revision to radiation limit standards would result in anywhere from 5-100 times less protection for Americans, said the groups, with 4 out of 5 adult males exposed over a 70-year lifetime developing cancer that they otherwise would not have.
"Radiation is dangerous for everyone,” said Amanda M. Nichols, lead author of the 2024 study Gender and Ionizing Radiation. “[Trump’s] executive order will allow the industry to relax the current standards for radiological protection, which are already far from adequate. This will have detrimental health consequences for humans and for our shared environments and puts us all at higher risk for negative health consequences. ”
The change in standards would be even more consequential for women, including pregnant women, and children—all of whom are disproportionately susceptible to health impacts of ionizing radiation, compared to adult males.
"Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
In Gender and Ionizing Radiation, Nichols and biologist Mary Olson examined atomic bomb survivor data and found that young girls "face twice the risk as boys of the same age, and have four to five times the risk of developing cancer later in life than a woman exposed in adulthood."
Despite the risks to some of the country's most vulnerable people, Trump has also called for a revision of "the basis of the NRC regulation," reads Friday's letter: the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model, the principle that there is no safe level of radiation and that cancer risk to proportional to dose.
The LNT model is supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, the letter states, but one of Trump's executive orders calls for "an additional weakening of protection by setting a threshold, or level, below which radiation exposure would not 'count' or be considered as to have not occurred."
The Standards for Protection Against Radiation are "based on the well-documented findings that even exposures so small that they cannot be measured may, sometimes, result in fatal cancer," reads the letter. "The only way to reduce risk to zero requires zero radiation exposure."
Trump's orders "would undermine public trust by falsely claiming that the NRC’s radiation risk models lack scientific basis, despite decades of peer-reviewed evidence and international consensus supporting the LNT model," it adds.
The signatories noted that the US government could and should strengthen radiation regulations by ending its reliance on "Reference Man"—a model that the NRC uses to create its risk assessments, which is based on a young adult male and fails to reflect the greater impact on infants, young children, and women.
“Newer research has shown that external radiation harms children more than adults and female bodies more than male bodies," reads the letter. "Existing standards should therefore be strengthened to account for these life-stage and gender disparities… not weakened. Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
Olson, who is the CEO of the Generational Radiation Impact Project, which also helped organize the letter, warned that "radiation causes cancer in women at twice the rate of adult men, while the same exposure in early childhood, will, across their lifetimes, produce seven times more cancer in young females, and four times more in young males.”
The groups emphasized that "executive orders do not have the power to require federal agencies to take actions that violate their governing statutes, nor to grant them powers and authorities that contradict those governing statutes. The NRC needs to stand up to the executive order’s marching orders to 'promote' nuclear power—a mission outside its legal regulatory mandate under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the concurrent amendments to the Atomic Energy Act."
Federal agencies including the NRC, they added, "should not favor industry propaganda asserting that some radiation is safe over science-based protection of the public. This is a deliberate subversion of science and public health in favor of corporate interests."
"The climate crisis is a health crisis—not in the distant future, but here and now."
The World Health Organization on Friday issued a report documenting what it described as a "global health emergency" being caused by the climate crisis.
The report, which was released jointly by the WHO, the government of Brazil, and the Brazilian Ministry of Health at the start of the United Nations climate summit (COP30) being held in Belém, Brazil, warns that global healthcare infrastructure is not currently sufficient to deal with the climate emergency, and that "1 in 12 hospitals could face climate-related shutdowns" worldwide.
Overall, the report finds that hospitals are experiencing "41% higher risk of damage from extreme weather-related impact compared to 1990," and that the number of at-risk health facilities could double if the global temperature continues rising at its current pace.
Ethel Maciel, COP30’s special envoy for health, said that flooding that decimated the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul last year showed the importance taking the climate crisis seriously, especially since the floods also led to "the largest dengue epidemic in history, driven by these climate changes."
"So, it is not something for us to think about in the future; it’s happening now," Maciel added. "So, thinking about how to adapt our system is urgent.”
Professor Nick Watts, director of the NUS Centre for Sustainable Medicine, recommended dedicating 7% of current climate adaptation finance toward making healthcare infrastructure more resilient to climate change, which he said would "safeguard billions of people and keep essential services operating during climate shocks—when our patients most need them."
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the report should give nations urgency to decarbonize as quickly as possible.
"The climate crisis is a health crisis—not in the distant future, but here and now," he said. "This special report provides evidence on the impact of climate change on individuals and health systems, and real-world examples of what countries can do—and are doing—to protect health and strengthen health systems."
"Today’s strike isn’t just about Starbucks. It's about a broken system where billionaires and CEOs keep getting richer while the politicians they bankroll gut our wages, healthcare, and rights."
The No Kings Alliance on Friday announced that it was mobilizing in support of Starbucks workers who went on strike this week to demand a fair contract.
The alliance, which organized one of the largest demonstrations in US history last month with nationwide "No Kings" protests against the President Donald Trump's administration, pledged solidarity with the striking workers, while highlighting the massive disparity in pay for Starbucks baristas and the company's CEO.
"Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol was paid $96 million for just 120 days of work in 2024, paying himself 6,666 times what the average barista made—the worst CEO-to-worker pay inequity in the country," said the alliance. "At the same time, Trump and his billionaire backers are doing their best to scare people out of speaking up for their rights on the job and in their communities."
"Don't cross the picket line," the alliance urged its supporters, while also encouraging them to sign the "No Contract, No Coffee" pledge, an online petition demanding that the company negotiate with Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) on a just contract.
"I call on you to bargain a fair contract with Starbucks Workers United baristas!" the pledge reads. "I support Starbucks baristas in their fight for a union and a fair contract, and pledge not to cross the picket line. That means I will not patronize any Starbucks store when baristas are on [unfair labor practices] strike."
The striking Starbucks workers also got a pledge of solidarity from the AFL-CIO, which on Thursday urged the company to hammer out a deal with its workers to ensure fair pay and schedules.
"For four long years, SBWU members have fought tirelessly for better pay, fair hours, and adequate staffing for more than 12,000 workers and counting," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Yet Starbucks has dug its heels in, engaging in shameless and persistent union busting... We urge Niccol and Starbucks corporate executives to finally do right by the workers who drive the company’s profit and negotiate a long-overdue fair contract."
SEIU pledged support for the Starbucks workers, while also placing the strike in the context of the broader fight between labor and capital.
"Today’s strike isn’t just about Starbucks," the union wrote in a social media post. "It’s about a broken system where billionaires and CEOs keep getting richer while the politicians they bankroll gut our wages, healthcare, and rights. Baristas are fighting for a fair contract and for a more just society."
Some progressive politicians also gave the striking workers a shoutout.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) vowed to keep out of Starbucks franchises until the workers' demands are met.
"When we strike, we win!" Tlaib exclaimed.
New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani joined the Starbucks boycott and encouraged all of his supporters to follow suit.
"Together, we can send a powerful message: No contract, no coffee," the democratic socialist wrote.
Democratic socialist Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson—whose city is home to the coffee giant's headquarters—attended an SBWU rally where she joined them on the picket line and said, "I am not buying Starbucks, and you should not either."
Socialist Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson's first move after winning the election was to boycott Starbucks, a hometown company. pic.twitter.com/zPoNULxfuk
— Ari Hoffman 🎗 (@thehoffather) November 14, 2025
Starbucks workers began their strike on Thursday, and SBWU has warned the company that it is prepared to dig in for a long fight unless it returns to the negotiating table.
Negotiations between the union and Starbucks stalled out last spring, and more than 90% of unionized baristas last week voted to authorize a strike intended to hit the company during the busy holiday season.