

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.
Ivy O. Suriyopas, AALDEF, 212.966.5932 x235; isuriyopas@aaldef.org
Rachel Myers, ACLU, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Marion Steinfels, SPLC, (334) 956-8417; marion.steinfels@splcenter.org
Angelo Kakolyris, Dewey & LeBoeuf, (212) 259-8187; akakolyris@dl.com
A lawsuit filed today by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Signal International, LLC for abusing hundreds of foreign guestworkers lured to work in the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina reinforces similar claims brought by the guestworkers, their attorneys say. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Louisiana Justice Institute and the law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP have a class action lawsuit pending against the same company on behalf of the same former guestworkers.
The EEOC's lawsuit against Signal charges that the company discriminated against hundreds of Indian guestworkers lured into forced labor in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas. The EEOC case alleges that Signal forced the workers to live in overcrowded, unsanitary and racially segregated labor camps; assigned them the most dangerous and difficult jobs; subjected them to hostile treatment based on their race and national origin; and retaliated against two workers for complaining about the discriminatory treatment. The EEOC alleges that Signal violated the rights of the Indian guestworkers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The former guestworkers continue to litigate a class action lawsuit against Signal and other related defendants alleging, among other things, human trafficking and racketeering. Later this week, the attorneys will seek to join the EEOC's case on behalf of some of the same workers.
Signal, a marine and fabrication company with shipyards in Mississippi, Texas and Alabama, is a subcontractor for several major multi-national companies. After Hurricane Katrina scattered its workforce, Signal used the U.S. government's guestworker program to import employees to work as welders and pipefitters. Between 2004 and 2006, hundreds of Indian men paid Signal's recruiters as much as $20,000 for travel, visa, recruitment and other fees after they were told it would lead to good jobs, green cards and permanent U.S. residency. Many of the workers sold their houses and other valuables and took out high-interest loans to come up with the money.
When the men arrived at Signal in late 2006 and early 2007, they discovered that they wouldn't receive the green cards as promised, but rather 10-month guestworker visas. Signal forced them to pay $1,050 a month to live in crowded company housing in isolated, fenced labor camps where as many as 24 men shared a trailer with only two toilets. When the guestworkers tried to find their own housing, Signal officials told them they would still have the mancamp fees deducted from their paychecks. Visitors were not allowed into the camps. Company employees regularly searched the workers' belongings. Workers who complained about the conditions they faced were threatened with deportation.
Quotes can be attributed as follows:
Sabulal Vijayan, a plaintiff in the human trafficking and racketeering lawsuit and a charging party in the EEOC's case: "All I wanted was a better life for my family. That was why I came to America. Instead, I was subjected to discrimination and abuse I never thought I'd experience in this country."
Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, a plaintiff in the human trafficking and racketeering lawsuit and a charging party in the EEOC's case: "American workers would never be forced to endure what Signal did to us. Signal thought they could get away with the abuses because we're from India."
Daniel Werner, SPLC Deputy Legal Director: "We're pleased the EEOC has taken action in a case that illustrates in shocking detail the abuse occurring within the nation's guestworker program. These workers only wanted the American dream but instead were bound to an abusive employer and forced to endure horrific conditions."
Chandra Bhatnagar, ACLU Human Rights Program staff attorney: "Flaws in the U.S. guestworker program have allowed Signal to hire a captive workforce, under false pretenses, and then subject them to abusive treatment. Today's action by the EEOC sends a strong message to employers that all workers, regardless of their race, national origin or immigration status, are entitled to basic human dignity and human rights."
Alan Howard of Dewey & LeBoeuf, which has been jointly litigating the class action case on a pro bono basis: "We welcome the EEOC lawsuit. There is extensive evidence of these defendants' willingness to exploit the workers in the interest of profits."
The guestworkers' attorneys filed the class action human trafficking and racketeering lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in March 2008. The EEOC's case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
The class action complaint is available online at: https://www.aaldef.org/docs/SignalSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf
"It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized," said the advocacy group VoteVets.
Before the end of the year, the Trump administration is planning to eliminate up to 35,000 healthcare jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, a chronically understaffed agency that has already lost tens of thousands of employees to the White House's sweeping assault on the federal workforce.
The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the targeted positions—many of which are unfilled—include doctors, nurses, and support staff. A spokesperson for the VA, led by former Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), described the jobs as "mostly Covid-era roles that are no longer necessary."
VA workers, veterans advocates, and a union representing hundreds of thousands of department employees disputed that characterization as the agency faces staff shortages across the country.
"We are all doing the work of others to compensate,” one VA employee told the Post. “The idea that relief isn’t coming is really, really disappointing.”
Thomas Dargon Jr., deputy general counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees, said remaining VA employees "are obviously going to be facing the brunt of any further job cuts or reorganization that results in employees having to do more work with less."
The advocacy organization VoteVets cast the job cuts as another step toward the longstanding GOP goal of privatizing the VA.
"This is outrageous," the group wrote on social media. "It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized."
"We must expand the VA, not hollow it out."
News of the impending job cuts came months after the Trump administration moved to gut collective bargaining protections for many VA employees and as recent staffing cuts continued to hamper veterans' services nationwide.
"Wait times for new mental health appointments have increased sharply since January in my home state, Connecticut," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said during a Senate hearing earlier this month. "For example, the most recent data shows the current wait time for a new patient mental health appointment at the Orange VA Clinic in Connecticut—an outpatient facility specializing in mental health—is 208 days."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement Sunday that "it is unacceptable that the US Department of Veterans Affairs plans to eliminate as many as 35,000 healthcare positions this month."
"This is especially outrageous given the reality that VA facilities in Vermont and across the country already face severe staffing challenges," said Sanders. "When someone puts their life on the line to defend this country in uniform, we in turn must provide them with the best quality healthcare available. These layoffs are unacceptable and must be reversed. We must expand the VA, not hollow it out. And I will do everything I can to make that happen."
"The 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country," said one critic.
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, is taking criticism for lending support to US President Donald Trump's campaign of military aggression against her own country.
In an interview that aired on Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation," Machado praised Trump's policies of tightening economic sanctions and seizing oil tankers that had been docked at Venezuelan ports.
“Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere," Machado told CBS News.
Machado elaborated that she supported Trump's actions because the Maduro government was "not a conventional dictatorship," but "a very complex criminal structure that has turned Venezuela into a safe haven of international crime and terrorist activities."
Trump's campaign against Venezuela has not only included sanctions and the seizing of an oil tanker, but a series of bombings of purported drug-trafficking vessels that many legal experts consider to be acts of murder.
Trump has also said that he would soon authorize strikes against purported drug traffickers on Venezuelan soil, even though he has received no congressional authorization to conduct such an operation against a sovereign nation.
Machado's embrace of Trump as he potentially positions the US to launch a regime-change war in Venezuela drew swift criticism from opponents of American imperialism.
SussexBylines columnist Ross McNally questioned whether someone who is going on the record to support military aggression against her own country was really the right choice to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
"The Nobel Committee's decision to give the Peace Prize to Machado is bizarre for several reasons," he explained. "Firstly, its description of Machado’s ‘tireless work promoting democratic rights’ ignores the fact that she supported the attempted coup against democratically elected President Hugo Chávez in 2002... Alongside her encouragement for Trump’s military escalation, this jars somewhat with the Committee’s description."
The Machado interview was also criticized by Venezuelan journalist Madelein Garcia, who argued in a post on X that it was ironic to see that "the 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country."
Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi also excoriated the Nobel Committee for overlooking Machado's support of militarism when it decided to award her a prize intended for peacemakers.
"Nobel Farce Prize Winner Maria Corina Machado is not a freedom fighter, she’s a CIA asset and de facto spokeswoman for US corporations," he wrote. "Here she is smiling gleefully at the prospect of selling $1.7 trillion of infrastructure and resources should the US carry out regime change in Venezuela and install her in Miraflores, promising 'we have a massive privatisation program waiting for you.'"
"Every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?"
With floor votes expected this week, top members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are urging fellow lawmakers in the US House to back a pair of resolutions aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from launching an unauthorized war on Venezuela.
“As Trump once again threatens ‘land strikes on Venezuela,’ every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?" said Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Chuy García (D-Ill.), respectively the deputy chair and the whip for the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). "This is not a partisan issue: Three in four Americans oppose a regime-change war to overthrow the Venezuelan government, including two-thirds of Republicans."
Trump's belligerent rhetoric and recent military action in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—including the illegal bombing of vessels and seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker—are "driving us toward a catastrophic forever war in Venezuela," Omar and García warned, urging lawmakers to pass H.Con.Res. 61 and H.Con.Res. 64.
The first resolution, led by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), would require Trump to "remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere, unless authorized by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorization for use of military force."
The other, introduced earlier this month by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), is explicitly designed to prevent a direct US attack on Venezuela.
"Congress hereby directs the president to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force," reads the measure, which is co-sponsored by two Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.).
In their statement over the weekend, Omar and García said that "both Democrats and Republicans must send a strong message to the Trump administration: Only Congress can authorize offensive military force, not the president."
"Trump is deploying U.S. personnel to seize Venezuelan oil tankers in international waters. He has launched double-tap airstrikes killing capsized and defenseless individuals. Trump declared a no-fly zone on Venezuelan airspace, deployed F-18 fly-overs in the Gulf of Venezuela, and refused to rule out troop deployments, while threatening to overthrow heads of state across the region," the lawmakers said. "These are illegal hostilities that could destabilize the entire region and fuel mass migration. Congress must stop this unconstitutional military campaign by passing these War Powers Resolutions."