May, 04 2016, 11:15am EDT

Pakistan: Crackdown on Farmers' Protest
Excessive Force, Anti-Terror Law Used Against Peaceful Demonstrators
NEW YORK
In April, Pakistani authorities used draconian laws and excessive force to prevent tenant farmers in Punjab province from protesting for land rights, Human Rights Watch said today. Farmers in Okara district had planned to convene on April 17, 2016, the International Day of Peasants' and Farmers' Struggles.
The authorities should drop all charges brought against those exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and appropriately punish security force members responsible for abuses against protesters.
"Blocking a peaceful meeting, arresting organizers, and then using excessive force against demonstrators shows a complete disregard for basic rights in a democratic society," said Brad Adams, Asia director. "The government's use of vague and overbroad counter-terrorism laws against protesting farmers brings new tensions to this volatile situation."
On the morning of April 16, police arrested Mehr Abdul Sattar at his home. Sattar is the secretary general of Anjuman-i-Mazareen Punjab, the farmers' group which was organizing the meeting the next day. The district administration imposed section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a colonial era law to restrict gatherings.
Hundreds of villagers gathered soon after to protest against the arrest of Sattar and four other tenant farmer leaders. The police and army personnel deployed in armored personnel carriers. After several protesters threw stones, the security forces carried out baton charges and fired tear gas canisters to disperse the protesters. Dozens were arrested under various anti-terrorism and public order provisions and many remain detained at undisclosed locations. Numerous witnesses told Human Rights Watch that security forces beat and arrested protesters, arresting some at their homes in the middle of the night.
The district coordinating officer of Okara told media that the local administration decided to forbid the Peasant's day meet because of security concerns after a recent terrorist attack in Lahore, saying there were "strict directions from the top authorities to keep an eye on the law and order situation and such assemblies that can cause security concern." He said that the farmer organizers refused to comply.
The Okara district police have registered more than 4000 cases under the penal code and the anti-terrorism law, which provides the authorities broad powers to arrest and to prosecute vaguely defined offenses such as section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The government's National Action Plan against terrorism, created in 2015, expands the role of the military in counter-terrorism operations and permits the use of military courts for terrorism-related prosecutions.
In some cases, including that of Mehr Abdul Sattar, the police are refusing to provide information on the whereabouts of those arrested, which amounts to an enforced disappearance in violation of international law. Individuals forcibly disappeared are at a grave risk of being tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
Aisha Bibi, 55, villager, said that her son has disappeared since the crackdown by government forces. "When I asked the police about my son, the officers abused me and said that my son is being taught a lesson for being part of the farmers' struggle."
Since April 16, at least 24 farmers have been brought before the anti-terrorism courts and returned to judicial custody. Excessive use of tear gas might have resulted in the death of a 26-year-old farmer, according to his family members. Villagers told Human Rights Watch that security forces have since cordoned off villages in the area of dispute, preventing people, food and public services from entering or leaving.
Pakistan should ensure that security forces follow the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. They provide that all security forces use nonviolent means as far as possible before resorting to the use of force. Whenever the lawful use of force is unavoidable, officials should use restraint and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offense. Lethal force may only be used when strictly unavoidable to protect life.
"The government should promptly release those wrongfully held, provide information on those 'disappeared,' and hold accountable soldiers and police who use excessive force," Adams said. "Efforts to reach an agreement over the longstanding land dispute in Okara will be improved by showing greater respect for human rights."
Background and eyewitness accounts (names changed):
The dispute between tenant farmers in Okara and the military started 16 years ago. Traditionally, farmers were sharecroppers, handing over part of their produce as rent to the military, which acts as landlord through military-run farms. In 2000, the military unilaterally tried to change the rules, demanding that the farmers sign new rental contracts requiring them to pay rent in cash. The farmers refused, fearing that cash rents would, when times were lean, place them at risk of being evicted from land that their families have lived on for generations.
Human Rights Watch has previously documented a campaign of arbitrary detentions, torture, killings, and summary dismissals from employment by Pakistani security forces against the farmers.
The dispute peaked between May 5, 2003 and June 12, 2003, when the 150,000 people who live in the 18 villages that comprise Okara Military Farms were placed under curfew, with severe restrictions on movement within and into the district. Water, electricity and telephones were disconnected until the farmers agreed to sign the new contracts guaranteeing fixed income to the military owners of agricultural land.
During the election campaign of 2013, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif held a rally in Okara district and promised farmers their right to the lands farmed over generations. However, Sharif's promise remains unfulfilled and local authorities' oppression of the Okara farmers continues unabated, which has led to further protests. In July 2014, security forces killed two tenant farmers during a siege and assault in village 15/4 L.
The following accounts are from Human Rights Watch's visit to Okara district, Punjab from April 21 to 23, 2016.
Arbitrary arrests, detention, enforced disappearances
Human Rights Watch interviewed 14 people who said that their friends or family members were arrested by the authorities on April 16 or on ensuing days. Many remain in custody. Some have not been accounted for and may have been forcibly disappeared. The interviews were conducted in villages 4/4-L and 15/4-L. The local farmers' movement started in village 4/4-L in 2000, and it is considered by both the government and the farmers as the movement's headquarters.
Sakina Bibi, a 70 -year-old farmer from village 15/4L, said that her sons were arrested and detained, and she is concerned for their safety:
At about 2 to 2:30 a.m. on April 18, the police broke down the door of my house. There was a lot of noise. They were shouting. There were many of them. First they dragged my elder son Abbas, who is a school teacher from his bed and started beating him with rifle butts. Abbas suffers from hepatitis. Then they grabbed my younger son Javaid, and started hitting him on the head with batons. When I tried to restrain them, one police officer hit me on the head. They kicked and slapped my two daughters-in-law. They also arrested two village chowkidars [caretakers] and an 80-year-old neighbor who came to our house hearing our screams.
I don't know, where they have taken my sons and why they were arrested. I am more than 70-years-old and cannot pursue the disappearance of my sons. Nobody from the village can go to the police station to check because whoever goes to the police station is arrested.
Why is the National Action Plan being used against farmers? It is clearly because they want to throw us in jails and take our lands.
Muhammad Irfan, a resident of village 15/4L, said that his 60-year-old mother was in custody:
My mother Kaneez Bibi went to get medicine from the city for her diabetes on the morning of April 16. She was in an auto-rickshaw [motorbike taxi] and fell out after she was caught in the firing of teargas shells. She was arrested for attempted murder and under various sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act. We do not know where she is. I can't even go to the police station to check since I fear that I will be arrested as well. My mother can hardly walk. It is absurd to accuse her of attempting to commit murder.
Aisha Bibi, 55, a resident of village 4/4L, said that her son has disappeared since the crackdown by government forces:
My son Nadeem was arrested on April 17 when he was on his way to Okara city. My son is an auto-rickshaw driver and he was not in the protest of April 16. We have no land and are not even farmers. My husband is dead and my son is the only person in the house that earns a living. The police say that they have sent him to the Okara jail. However, the jail people refuse to talk to me and say that they will give out no information. When I asked the police about my son, the officers abused me and said that my son is being taught a lesson for being part of the farmers' struggle.
Mehr Abdul Sattar is the secretary general of Anjuman-i-Mazareen Punjab, the group that had organized the April 17 meeting. His arrest, a day earlier, led to the protests. His brother Mehr Abdul Jabbar told Human Rights Watch:
On April 16, I heard footsteps and loud noises coming from the front gate of our house. I ran towards the gate. Around 40 to 50 police officers had broken into our house. I couldn't recognize any of them, apart from the local Station House Officer. They started dragging and beating my brother. When I tried to restrain them, they started hitting us with rifle butts. They dragged us both out to the front gate. There were at least 12 police vehicles outside in the street. Then they took him away.
The police refused to tell me why Sattar was arrested. The district government officials claim that they have arrested him under the Maintenance of Public Order law. Earlier, on April 13, the district government had asked him to cancel the planned convention celebrating the International Day of Peasants. The district government also imposed section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code to stop the convention. Sattar refused to comply and said it is the constitutional right of the farmers to hold a peaceful, public meeting.
To this day we do not know where the police have taken Sattar. The police and district government refuse to meet us or tell us where he is. I am sure that they are torturing him. I was arrested in 2003 and was kept in "torture cells" for weeks.
Anyone who tries to question the detention of Sattar and the other farmers is implicated in false cases and arrested. Our fault is that we are sons of a poor farmer who have become aware of our rights to our land.
Izhar is a lawyer and a resident of village 4/4L. He said:
They are detaining people without registering arrests. I am a lawyer who has been working for the rights of other villagers. However, now even I can't go out of the village. For the past one year, I have stopped practicing law because I am afraid of being arrested. There are check posts outside the village and they arrest anyone going in and out. Sometimes they ask for National Identification Card and if the address on the N.I.C. is of our village, the police detain the individuals without any legal cause. The government has used the National Action Plan, which is meant to counter terrorists, to use military force on us. Anti-terrorism cases have been registered against women and children.
Excessive use of force
On April 16, army soldiers and the police responded to several protesters hurling stones and carrying wooden sticks by firing teargas canisters, carrying out baton charges and using steel rods, and shooting in the air. According to accounts, several protesters were badly beaten.
A resident of village 4/4L said that her 26-year-old son died during the protest:
In the morning, on April 16, he left the house to go to the protest against cancellation of the Peasants' day event. In the evening, he was brought home by fellow villagers. He was very ill, and told me that the excessive exposure to the teargas shells was suffocating him. We called the emergency ambulance service. However, the ambulance was stopped on the way to the hospital by the police at the checkpoint outside the village. My son died in the ambulance. Had the security forces allowed the ambulance to pass through quickly, my son might have been saved.
Muhammad Aslam, 50, a farmer from the village of 4/4L, described the security forces' use of force at the protest on April 16:
We had gathered that morning to protest the arrest of our leader, Mehr Abdul Sattar. There was a heavy presence of police and army troops. At about 10 a.m., the police attacked to disperse us without any warning. They started beating us, men, women, and children, mercilessly. I have marks on my body, which you can see. They used rods and batons to beat us. I cannot even go for a medical examination since I am afraid that I will be arrested on my way to the hospital. The entire village is hostage now. Nobody goes out.
The police have registered cases against us under the anti-terrorism law. The only terror acts that were committed are by the police and army. We were unarmed and peaceful.
How is it a crime to commemorate the International Day of Peasants? Is it a crime to be a farmer? The government treats us farmers as criminals and traitors. For the past one year, even if four or five farmers are seen together, they are arrested. They detain us for a few days without registering our arrest. They torture us and give us dirty water to drink while in custody. They want to break our resistance.
Rasheedan Bibi, a farmer from the village 4/4L, said:
I am over 50-years-old, a woman suffering from multiple illnesses. On April 16, I went to the protest against the cancellation of the peasant convention and arrest of our leaders. We had not blocked any road. We were unarmed and simply chanting slogans demanding release of our leaders and for granting us rights to our lands. The police and the army troops charged at us without any warning. They beat us with batons, kicked us, and dragged women on the road. My finger was fractured as a result of the beating and my knees are injured. My only crime is that I am a poor, farmer woman.
Muhammad Shabbir said he and his mother were beaten by the army and police officers for being part of the protest:
I work as a laborer in the fruit market in Okara city. I don't own even an inch of land, so I'm not a farmer. However, I went to the protest on April 16 in solidarity with the rest of the villagers. The army and the police attacked for us no reason. We posed no threat to them. When they were beating my mother with batons, I pleaded with them to stop, as she is old. For this, a police constable hit me on the head repeatedly, even as I bled. I needed stitches on my head. My mother has a broken hand and bruises all over her body.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Gives Trump 'King-Like' Power to Purge Independent Agencies
“Today’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter takes a wrecking ball to a 90-year pillar of American law," said House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin.
Jun 29, 2026
The US Supreme Court on Monday upheld President Donald Trump's firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, overturning 90 years of precedent and giving the chief executive what dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor called "a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted."
Last March, Trump fired Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the two Democratic FTC commissioners at the time, without cause in what critics called yet another illegal abuse of power by the twice-impeached convicted felon.
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) of 1914, a president may only fire FTC commissioners "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The Supreme Court's 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States ruling interpreted the FTCA to mean that the president could not remove an FTC commissioner for any other reason, such as a policy disagreement.
The justices shredded that precedent with Monday's 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which found that "the FTC's for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution."
BREAKING: The Supreme Court upholds Trump’s firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause.The decision overturns a 90-year-old precedent that protected the heads or board members of independent agencies from arbitrary presidential dismissals. Full story to come.
[image or embed]
— Democracy Docket (@democracydocket.com) June 29, 2026 at 7:20 AM
Chief Justice John Roberts joined fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—the last three appointed by Trump—in the majority, while liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Delivering the court's opinion, Roberts wrote that the "Humphrey's framework, in short, has not withstood the test of time."
"We long ago abandoned the notion that there are some powers that are only partly executive," the chief justice asserted. "Forty years have now passed, in fact, since we recognized that the FTC exercises executive power—and did so even in 1935, when Humphrey's was decided."
Slaughter and officials at independent executive agencies, Roberts wrote, "exercise the president’s power, not their own, and thus must be responsible to him."
"At this point, all that is left of Humphrey's is its observation that an agency that 'exercises no part of the executive power' need not fall within the rule of presidential removal," he added. "If anything more is left of Humphrey's, we overrule it."
As she did last week with Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, a 6-3 ruling that affirmed Trump's deadly policy of blocking people legally seeking asylum from entering the United States, Sotomayor took the rare step of reading her dissent in Slaughter from the bench.
"Today, this court undoes centuries of political practice and concludes that all three branches of government have been acting in open defiance of the Constitution all this time. Its conclusion is wrong," she asserted. "The text of the Constitution, along with its history, the long-standing practices of the political branches, and the precedents of this court, make clear that Congress may limit the causes for which the heads of commissions like the FTC can be removed by the president."
"In holding otherwise, the court gives the president a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted, elevating him above his once-coequal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws," she continued.
"If nothing else, the doctrine of stare decisis, which today’s decision cursorily dismisses, should have made this a profoundly easy case under Humphrey’s," Sotomayor added, referring to the Latin legal term for "to stand by things decided," or precedent.
Responding to the ruling, Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that “today’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter takes a wrecking ball to a 90-year pillar of American law and to Congress’ power to create independent expert agencies that serve the will of the American people as expressed in federal law rather than the whimsical political agenda of one president."
“In overturning Congress’ authority to prevent the president from removing the leaders of independent agencies at whim, the court’s right-wing majority has given President Trump sweeping new power to purge Senate-confirmed commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies for no reason other than personal loyalty, political obedience, or refusal to bend the law to the personal will of the president," Raskin added. "This decision invites presidential domination of the independent agencies Congress created to protect the people against corporate fraud, financial corruption, attacks on workers’ rights, and other abuses of concentrated economic and political power."
Numerous civil society groups and constitutional experts also expressed alarm over Monday's ruling, which follows the high court's previous affirmations of expanded executive power in cases including Trump v. United States. Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority in that 2024 case that the president enjoys prosecutorial immunity for all "official acts"—which Sotomayor said in her dissent made him "a king above the law."
“Independent agencies are the guardians of American consumers, workers, and investors," Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said of Trump v. Slaughter. "They have held wealthy corporations that rip off hardworking Americans accountable and forced dangerous products from the market. Having stripped most independent agencies of their independence, President Trump is already politicizing and weaponizing them, including agencies such as the FTC and the Federal Communications Commission, to the detriment of everyday Americans.”
At Issue One, a group dedicated to reducing the influence of money in politics, vice president of advocacy Alix Fraser said that “today, the Supreme Court greenlit further abuses of presidential power and stripped independent commissions of their independence."
"The ruling opens the floodgates for more governing decisions based on the president’s whims and self-interest," he added. "This ruling not only subverts the Constitution’s clear guardrails against executive overreach, it also breaks from the court’s historical precedent to uphold the FTC removal provision."
The Slaughter case, overturning precedent, returns us to a spoils system where a president can “clean house” every four years, destroying our professional, independent civil service.
— Barb McQuade (@barbmcquade.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 8:31 AM
Leah Greenberg, co-executive director at the pro-democracy group Indivisible, issued a statement calling the ruling "shocking, but sadly not surprising."
"John Roberts and the MAGA majority are willing to set fire to history, precedent, and any consistent constitutional principle in order to give Trump more power with less oversight," she said. "This brazen, undemocratic partisanship and corruption must be investigated, the justices must be held accountable, and the court must be reformed to disempower the current anti-constitutional majority.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and affairs at the anti-corruption watchdog Stand Up America—which said the ruling "opens the door to king-like powers for Trump to fire independent watchdogs and install loyalists throughout government"—lamented that “the MAGA Supreme Court just overturned a century of law to give more power to Donald Trump."
"Trump couldn’t find a lawful reason to fire a member of an independent agency, so he ignored the law, fired them anyway, and turned to his allies on the Supreme Court to reward his gross abuses of executive power," he continued. "His lackeys on the court obliged."
“Today’s ruling hands Trump sweeping power to purge independent watchdogs and install loyalists throughout the US government who will answer to him alone," Edkins added.
Republicans have long sought a repeal of Humphrey's. Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government—calls for the ruling to be overturned.
Trump welcomed Monday's decision with a post on his Truth Social network claiming that he personally "won" the ruling.
Monday's decision means Trump will now be able to fire at will leaders from agencies including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and US Postal Service.
But not the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. That's because in a separate but related ruling released on Monday, the justices rejected Trump's attempt to oust Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, finding 5-4 in Trump v. Cook that his bid to fire her did not comply with the Federal Reserve Act's for-cause removal protections.
“The court’s decision in Slaughter is all the more peculiar in light of... Trump v. Cook," Raskin said in his statement."There, the court rightly rejected President Trump’s lawless attempt to fire Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook without adequate cause, due process, or judicial review."
While acknowledging that "central bank independence matters immensely to the American economy," Raskin contended that "Congress' constitutional judgments about the necessity of institutional independence should matter just as much at the FTC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Communications Commission, and the many other important independent agencies Congress has created to serve the interests of the American people."
Humphrey's Executor is dead and the president can fire anyone in the executive branch at will but NOT Federal Reserve governors is really a parody of the difference between the money power and everything else in America
— David Dayen (@ddayen.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 7:20 AM
Indivisible's Greenberg said that “the carveout for the Federal Reserve only shows how grossly political" the Slaughter decision is.
"Apparently, independence only matters when financial markets are at stake," she added, "but not when agencies are protecting consumers, workers, or the public from corporate abuse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Victory for Voters,' Supreme Court Rejects Trump-GOP Attack on Mailed Ballots
"At a time when the Roberts Court has too often made it harder for Americans to exercise their rights, today's decision is an important and welcome exception."
Jun 29, 2026
In a surprise blow to President Donald Trump's intensifying assault on democracy in the lead-up to the November midterms, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can decide to count ballots received after Election Day as long as they were postmarked in time.
Although the high court's right-wing supermajority has handed Trump various victories over his two terms, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberals for the 5-4 decision, which was welcomed by advocates for Americans with disabilities, military families, the elderly, and others who choose to vote by mail.
While over half of US states allow at least some ballots received after Election Day to be counted, in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the RNC challenged a Mississippi law that requires ballots to be postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five business days afterward.
Good news that SCOTUS preserved mail ballot grace periods but very disturbing that 4 justices led by Alito amplified Trump's conspiracies about mail voting, including debunked claims of "voter fraud" www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
[image or embed]
— Ari Berman (@ariberman.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 11:00 AM
Following oral arguments in March, the ideologically split majority found that "nothing in the federal election day statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day," with Barrett—one of three justices appointed by Trump—delivering the majority opinion. She stressed that "we cannot add to the words Congress chose."
In a statement cheering the decision, Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in this case with Protect Democracy, said that "all voters, no matter how they cast their ballot, deserve the freedom to make their voices heard. This is a cornerstone of American democracy. And access to vote-by-mail, along with early voting and in-person voting, makes our democracy stronger by expanding access to the ballot for more voters."
Robert Weiner, the Voting Rights Project director at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law—which also submitted an amicus brief in this case and is suing over Trump's executive order on mail-in voting—celebrated that the ruling "rejects yet another attempt to prevent eligible voters from casting their votes and having them counted."
"Our democracy is stronger when more people, not less, can participate," declared Weiner, encouraging all US voters to "check the rules in your state," and anyone voting absentee "to mail their ballots early and confirm they were received."
Retired Amb. Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said that "this ruling respects state authority over election administration and prevents needless confusion for voters and election officials. At a time when the Roberts Court has too often made it harder for Americans to exercise their rights, today's decision is an important and welcome exception."
US Marine Corps veteran and Vet Voice Foundation CEO Janessa Goldbeck called the decision "a victory for every American who follows the rules, mails their ballot on time, and deserves to have their vote counted," while also highlighting that absentee voting is common among troops and their families.
"For service members stationed around the world, military spouses, veterans, and other Americans who rely on voting by mail, this ruling recognizes a simple principle: Voters should not lose their voice because of circumstances beyond their control," Goldbeck said.
As Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, pointed out, older voters also often vote by mail. He said that "for generations, states have adopted practical election rules that reflect the realities of mail delivery, protect the right to vote, and meet the needs of their citizens. The court's decision means that voters in the 14 states that provide a grace period for regular mail ballots, and the 29 states which allow additional time for at least some mail voters, including military and overseas voters, can breathe a little easier."
"Our alliance members in Mississippi proudly joined this case to defend the constitutional right to vote. We have always maintained that no eligible voter who casts a ballot in a timely manner should have that vote tossed out because of circumstances they cannot control," he added. "We will continue fighting to protect every eligible voter's right to have a ballot cast in a timely manner."
Among the older voters who have recently voted by mail is 80-year-old Trump, noted Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón—who applauded the new ruling as "a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves."
"Now, it's on Congress to pass long-overdue nationwide protections for voters," she asserted. "Common Cause will mobilize our one million members to make sure Congress hears voters loud and clear: national voting protections now."
Donald Trump spent years attacking voting by mail—even as he voted by mail himself.Then he asked the Supreme Court to throw out laws protecting your right to vote.The Court said no.
[image or embed]
— JB Pritzker (@jbpritzker.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 11:07 AM
Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, and Trump continues to pressure lawmakers to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act requiring proof of US citizenship to register and vote in federal elections. Given Democratic opposition to the bill and the GOP's slim Senate majority, passage would require working around the filibuster.
Democratic leaders on Monday joined voting rights advocates in celebrating the Supreme Court's new ruling but also emphasized that, in the words of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), "as the midterm elections approach, Trump and his allies are working overtime to silence Americans' votes."
"Senate Democrats will continue to do everything we can to protect free and fair elections, where everyone's voice is heard," he vowed.
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said that "the DNC is proud to have stood with the state of Mississippi to defeat the RNC's latest attack on Americans’ voting rights," and "Trump and Republicans are attacking our elections and trying to rig the system in their favor because they know the American people are ready to reject their chaos and corruption this November."
He, too, pledged that "the DNC will remain vigilant and use every tool at our disposal to protect every eligible voter's access to the ballot box."
Democratic Association of Secretaries of State Chair Cisco Aguilar said that "my attendance at the oral arguments for Watson v. RNC in March was a demonstration of Nevada's commitment to protecting mail voting and ensuring that every eligible voter can cast a ballot in the way that works best for them."
"Democratic secretaries of state have repeatedly said that the Constitution is clear: States decide how their elections are run. Today's ruling shows they were right," Aguilar continued. "This ruling should also be a warning to the president that the letter of the law still holds weight with the Supreme Court."
"Despite this win, the right to vote remains more under threat this year than ever before," he added. "Democratic secretaries of state will continue to be on the frontlines of democracy, fighting to protect the rights of all Americans to legally cast their ballots and have confidence that their votes will be counted."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Journalists Set the Record Straight After Musk Claims ‘Not a Single' Child Died From DOGE’s USAID Cuts
"Come with me on a reporting trip," said New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. "You'll see the dying children themselves."
Jun 29, 2026
As Elon Musk continues to claim that "not a single" child has died as a result of his foreign aid cuts at the beginning of the second Trump administration, journalists—including ones who witnessed the consequences of the policy firsthand—are correcting the record.
Since being called out by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who cited a journal's projection that 4.5 million children under 5 could die by 2030 as a result of the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) sudden termination of most of the United States Agency for International Development's (USAID) programs—including an 88% cut to children's health aid awards—last year, the newly minted trillionaire has repeatedly asserted that the claim that he is responsible for the deaths of kids is "a total lie."
"There is not even a single dead child!" Musk wrote on his social media platform X last Monday. "If there were, it would be worldwide headline news!"
Multiple journalists have been quick to respond that, in fact, the deaths of children and other people directly attributed to the termination of USAID programs by the agency he headed have been widely documented by major news outlets.
"Independent analyses estimate that your actions to dismantle USAID and drastically reduce lifesaving foreign aid have already killed 700,000 people," wrote Atul Gawande, the former USAID global health chief and longtime New Yorker writer, who cited models from Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols.
In a lengthy thread posted on Thursday, Gawande cited nearly two-dozen examples in which news outlets named people who died as a direct result of cuts to health programs they relied upon, including:
- Nyagoa, the 1-year-old daughter of Nyajime Duop, who died of cholera after the International Rescue Committee's mobile health team stopped coming to her village in South Sudan after its grant was terminated, according to a December report from ProPublica. Save the Children said last year that it was forced to either shutter or scale back care at its 27 child clinics in Akobo County, in South Sudan's Jonglei state. In April 2025, amid a cholera outbreak, the group reported that five children died while walking three hours to the nearest clinic after the one near them closed, which was reported by The Associated Press.
- 5-year-old Suza Kenyaba in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who died on February 19 after shipment of an anti-malaria drug that had already been purchased was left stranded in a distribution warehouse after payments to contractors were frozen by the US government, according to The Washington Post. There were more than 600 malaria deaths in the DRC's Haut-Katanga province in the first six months of 2025, more than the total number in 2024. The Post found that 95% of USAID malaria medication shipments in the first six months of 2025 were either delayed or did not arrive at all.
- 11-year-old Paciencia in Mozambique died after the case worker handling her treatment for HIV was abruptly laid off along with most others, hospitals ran out of the US-funded antiretroviral drugs she relied upon, and she was given the wrong medication after the data clerks who managed patient information were laid off, according to the South African publication Spotlight. The National Association for Self-Sustained Development (ANDA), the US-funded group that handled this HIV treatment, found that at least 16 children died between January and June 2025 in the province of Manica, many more than they had seen before the cuts.
These are just a few of the numerous other examples cited by Gawande, who added that part of the reason verifying deaths has been challenging is that DOGE's cuts also "destroyed" USAID's data and auditing systems, which meant that figures and overall mortality effects would take another year to fully tally.
However, he said he and a team of reporters had already compiled individual reports of more than 1,200 people whose deaths can be directly attributed to the cuts.
Even after being presented with direct evidence to the contrary, Musk continued to insist on Sunday that critics of his cuts to USAID "cannot cite a single name of someone who died out of the 'millions' they falsely claim have died. Not a single name!"
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, whose reporting on the impacts of the sudden aid cuts was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize, responded that he could give Musk a list of "many, many names of people who have died because of your aid cuts."
He listed the names of just a few of the people whose cases he had witnessed firsthand, which are recounted in greater depth in his reports. As Kristoff wrote:- Yamah Freeman was a [21-year-old] woman who died in childbirth because you stopped paying for the diesel for ambulances in her part of Liberia. I talked to her parents and sister in their village.
- Gbessey Kiadu, age 1, died of malaria because of your cuts in Liberia. I talked to his mom in her village.
- Ibrahim Koroma, an infant, died of AIDS in Sierra Leone after you interrupted HIV supplies. I talked to health workers who cared for him.
- Achol Deng was an 8-year-old girl with HIV in South Sudan who died when you cut funding for the health care worker who provided her medicines. I talked to him.
"I could go on and on," Kristof continued, "In almost every village you go to in South Sudan, Uganda, Liberia, Sierra Leone or other countries I reported in, you find people dying because of aid cuts."
He issued a "challenge" to Musk: "Come with me on a reporting trip, and we'll talk to these moms and dads, and you'll see the dying children themselves. I think if you see the kids whose lives are at stake, maybe you'll change your mind."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


