

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.
Atop all the others inflicted on us came last week's sickening spectacle of two vengeful, lying, broken old men - one a longtime killer of children, one a petty useful idiot abetting him - alternately celebrating and threatening genocide before "we the peoples of the United Nations." Born of "the defiance of hope" to enable us to "live together in peace," the forum now hosts the perpetrators of unspeakable atrocities. Omar El Akkad: "One day everyone will have always been against this."
Even before war criminals spoke at the U.N., everyone was already against everything Trump's done, from his insane, drone-packed arch to the other $1.8 billion vanity projects to his latest tantrum over the media. Despite multiple court rulings against it, an ensuing press ban is still partly, messily in place, with CNN, MS NOW and Politico facing dubious access, other major media finally finding their spine and solidarity, and the havoc offering us the droll sight of a needy guy who never met a camera he didn’t like in a farcical silent movie, a “shrinking figure gesticulating wildly into the wind.” Ever the attention whore, he tried to compensate with weird, illegal PR stunts: Claiming an entire hemisphere, boasting, "Only Trump" and an ad pleading "Love Me" on the taxpayer dime in "an astonishing misuse of public resources more fitting for North Korea."
The final own goal of his attack on the press, teased by a frantic promo, was the launch of Trump TV: The Essentials Station, the White House YouTube channel recast as a 24/7 livestream of Trump's "greatest hits." Cue a July rant at Mt. Rushmore about "the communist menace," last year's speech at dinner with King Charles, a 2016 whine in Kentucky about the wet stairs he overcame. YouTube's real-time data let the "king of ratings" see it quickly crash and burn, from a paltry 8,000 viewers to half that to 1,000 to 704 (LOL) as J.D. announced stripping health care from 760,000 people - way below the 2,000-plus then watching birds snack on seeds and nuts. Many relished the flop - "Fascism is awesome!" - or suggested new slots: "Wake Up & Rage Tweet, Ketchup-Throwing, They’re Eating our Pets, The Great MAGA Crypto Scam, Wheel of Pardons" and, from 2:01 to 2:02 a.m., “Covfefe.”
Then came a clumsy, swooning welcome - "the deference was deafening" - for his strongman soulmate Chinese President Xi Jinping, the world's biggest jailer of journalists and never mind the "communist menace," with its empty pomp, cartoonish tour of a hole-in-the-ground ballroom and million-year helipad: "He has a great interest in granite." Accomplished: nada. The next day, with his approval rating "somewhere between Ebola and Ed Sheeran," he waddled into the 81st session of the UN General Assembly and threatened one of its130 participants with war crimes, musing, "Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic quickly and drive them into hell?" Iran's delegation swiftly walked out. Mehdi Hasan: "For shame. The president of the United States goes to the United Nations and threatens genocide against a member state in front of the world. This is where we’re at."
Slurring, stumbling, wandering at unhinged, racist length - details here - Trump boasted about murdering over 200 people “at war with civilization” in illegal boat strikes, celebrated (and inflated) the theft of Venezuela’s oil, charged trans people are a national security risk, inanely declaimed “to the (raping and plundering) victor belong the spoils” - the inept, terrifying vision of a "demagogue who hijacked American democracy devolving into a mad king before our eyes." The speech, a "sad and dangerous national embarrassment" with its "ridiculous braggadocio, narcissistic puffery, absurd demonstrable lies, open criminality and deranged, murderous threats" landed "with silence inside the hall and a pile of fact checks outside it, (the) death rattle of a rapist president and what’s left of America’s reputation on the world stage."
Afterwards, normal world leaders "went back to making plans that don't include the United States." Or, in the case of Denmark, trolling. Trump has created a fictional backstory for a "deal" on Greenland "long in the making - you could go back many, many decades, probably centuries" - that just repackages an existing 1951 deal; ahead of a meeting held later at the U.N., officials played the Sondheim song Send In The Clowns, with a long zoom to Rubio. At this point, writes Paul Krugman, it's "Underwear on the Outside” time, a callback to Woody Allen's 1971 film Bananas about a third-world nation's absurd strongman. Coverage of the U.N., he noted, focused on Trump's rabid rejection of global cooperation or the fact almost everything he said was a lie. The bigger story: "The leader of what used to be the world’s most powerful nation, now collapsing before our eyes, has clearly, undeniably lost his mind."
Other speakers tried to steer the conversation back to reality. Secretary-General António Guterres stressed the primacy of international law, especially in Palestine, calling the birth of the U.N. "an act of defiance (by) people who refuse to surrender the future to fear...who know our futures are bound together." But with accountability: The U.N. deems Gaza "a collective crime," a "live-streamed atrocity...sustained by the complicity of influential third states"; their complicity must be confronted for the rule of law to survive. Holding photos of Iranian children killed in U. S. strikes, Iran's president Masoud Pezeshkian argued it is Trump who has defied international law, while Iran has remained committed to negotiations. “We have only defended ourselves. We are not terrorists." He also called for accountability on all sides, asking "why Israel kills, yet Iran is subject to sanction.”
Israel kills. And Benjamin Netanyahu offered a bellicose "potpourri of lies and incitement" to deny it. In his "furious, ugly and disgraceful" diatribe, he called universal charges of genocide "the biggest lie of the century," summoning the chutzpah to call the carnage in Gaza "the opposite of genocide." Anyone who disagreed, he raved, was "a moral coward." They include about half the Assembly, who walked out as Zionist allies chanted “Am Yisrael Chai," "the Nation of Israel lives"; hundreds of protesters outside, with about 100 arrested, among them Brooklyn Council Member Chi Ossé, who later posted a selfie in handcuffs with “Free Palestine. Netanyahu burn in hell"; and world leaders "spreading lies about my country and our brave soldiers." They are all "tyrants (in) a global anti-Jewish conspiracy (to) erase us from the face of the Earth," Bibi brayed. "Instead of collapsing, we delivered devastating blows to all of them with our great American friends."
There was much more. He brandished a pager in tribute to Israel's 2024 operation targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon that killed 12 and wounded over 3,000. He dismissed settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank as the work of "juvenile delinquents." He said bombing Iran was "’one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make." Truly shameless, he claimed Israel still has "the most moral army in the world.” He denied a Haaretz report, confirmed by the New York Times, that Egypt's intel chief warned him in September 2023 that Hamas was planning "a major attack" but he declined to pass the tip on to his intelligence agencies. He assailed as "anti-Semitic" the duly elected mayor of his host city, who deems him a war criminal and wants the ICC's arrest warrant against him enacted. He claimed "many Jews no longer feel safe in New York." He evidently doesn't either; he flew into New Jersey.
He ended his speech with a Bible verse from Samuel that describes the genocide of the Amalek, enemies of Israel, after God orders King Saul, "‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people." Saul mostly does, but spares their king and “the best of the sheep and cattle." Then the prophet Samuel admonishes him: "(God) sent you on a mission, but you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel." Samuel's murderous gist: “Nezah Israel lo yeshaker,” or "the eternity of Israel will not falter.” The lesson Bibi draws: "We have no choice but genocide." And so they undertook it: Over 73,900 direct deaths, about half women and children. Over 175,000 wounded, often gravely. An estimated, obscene 641,000 ultimately dead, from destruction of the healthcare system, malnutrition, disease. The bodies of perhaps 10,000 more still lie under the rubble.
And the devastation goes on. Under Israel's blockade, there is widespread hunger, 90% of Gazans remain homeless, trauma and illness go untreated. More than 900 wheelchairs donated by two Australian non-profits for over 11,000 disabled children - Gaza has the most child amputees per capita in the world - are held hostage in Jordan warehouses by outlandish Israeli restrictions on anything that could "serve a military purpose." Other targets of insane "dual-use" ban: Portable toilets, sleeping bags, tarps. bandages, diapers, shampoo, tent poles. And evidently kites after Bibi declared "targeted strikes”against the launch of any kites, balloons or drones, with the IDF ordered to "act forcefully" against perps in a besieged hellhole where Palestinian children are deemed “explosives of the future." "What a childhood in Gaza teaches: Want less."
The cruelty, madness, loss continue to spark palpable rage. Actor Mandy Patinkin, a Jew aware of history, on the corrosive effect of "the revenge business": "How could it be done to you and your ancestors, and you turn around and do it to someone else?!” Omar El Akkad - born in Egypt, raised in Qatar and Canada, a US citizen - on "what it means to live under an ordering of the world that abides slaughter, and whether any ordering ever stood for anything at all." He wrote the book One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, though its full title is One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will always have been against this,” what one critic calls "a cathartic savaging" of empire, Western hypocrisy on Gaza, selective empathy in "the most privileged sliver of global society."
"When the unspeakable happens, the world should stop but it doesn't," he writes of the comforting bubble of a white nationalist world run by broken men and their accomplices. They blithely "shrug at one kind of slaughter," having developed "a terrible immunity...When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power?” The time to choose is now, he adds, and hindsight will not undo or excuse their crimes: "At the time they say, 'Yes, this is tragic, but necessary'...The alternative to the countless killed and maimed and orphaned...screaming from under the rubble (is) barbarism.” "There is no way to finish the sentence, 'It is unfortunate that tens of thousands of children are dead but...'" he movingly writes. "There is no such thing as someone else’s children."
The evening after Netanyahu attacked Zohran Mamdani as anti-Semitic - Mamdani dismissed the "baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide against Palestinians" - the good mayor was home at Gracie Mansion, busy with one of Carver's "small, good things." The mayor hosted Palestinian families from Gaza who have lost family members or made their way to America as refugees to "honor their contributions (and) acknowledge the losses they have endured." They ate a meal; a smiling Mamdani glided around the table, filling water glasses. They also planted an olive tree - for Palestinians, source of food, wood, fuel and symbol of peace, hope, resilience, a deep connection to their heritage and ancestral land. Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish: ‘"Here we remain, as long as thyme and olives remain." Zohran Mamdani: "May peace be our future."

With United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres set to leave his post at the end of this year, he used his final address to the UN General Assembly on Monday to share a familiar call: "Polluters must pay" for fueling the global climate emergency.
Since the Portuguese politician began his first five-year term leading the world body nearly a decade ago, he has repeatedly called for international action to rapidly phase out the coal, gas, and oil that are heating up the planet. In late 2023, he emphasized that "the science is clear. The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate."
The UN chief announced at the end of 2024 that "the top 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years," and declared: "This is climate breakdown in real time. We must exit this road to ruin." Last year, he argued that fossil fuels represent "the greatest threat to energy security today," and countries clinging to them are "sabotaging" their own economies and futures.
Earlier this month, after a UN report found that at least temporarily surpassing the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels is now inevitable, Guterres stressed that "this summer’s scorching heat, raging wildfires, and deadly floods are a warning of what lies ahead," and called for making the overshoot "as small and short as possible."
Speaking to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he cited that recent finding: "Now we face a near-certain breach of the 1.5-degree limit, with a supersized El Niño speeding straight for humanity. The dangers are real. But so is the hope."
"The sun belongs to no one. The wind cannot be embargoed. Innovation can come from everywhere," he said. "Renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity in most of the world. And the most viable path to energy security, independence, and sustainable growth... A future beyond fossil fuels is in sight. The question is how."
"Will it be a just and orderly transition built on international cooperation—or chaotic and costly, leaving people and countries behind?" he asked, urging every government to adopt a Paris Agreement-aligned national plan to transition away from fossil fuels.
"We know that fossil fuel interests won't step aside on their own. For decades, Big Oil has treated the atmosphere as an open sewer—and cashed in on the consequences," he acknowledged. "We have seen this kind of abuse of power before. When the harms of Big Tobacco became undeniable—governments acted. The climate crisis demands the same determination."
According to the UN chief: "Those who polluted the most—and profited the most—must do far more to repair the damage they caused. Polluters must pay. And to the leaders, cities, civil society and citizens working to hold them accountable: I say, you are on the right side of history. Keep going."
"And governments must keep going on all fronts: To end deforestation. Invest in grids and storage. Cut methane emissions," he continued. "But these actions are not enough: We need climate justice with a focus on adaptation and finance. Developed countries must respect their commitments. They must triple adaptation finance.And make the Loss and Damage Fund work at scale."
"We must also ensure that the mining of critical minerals does not dig deeper into the inequities of the past," he added. "Producing countries and affected communities must retain a far greater share of the value created from their resources. No more plundering. No more exploitation."
While Guterres' speech didn't just focus on "the power fueling climate chaos and the war on nature"—it also addressed peace and security, inequality, and artificial intelligence in detail—climate campaigners welcomed the time he devoted to the crisis.
"When the UN secretary-general calls for fossil fuel companies to pay, you know this demand has become impossible to ignore," said Louise Hutchins, co-convenor of the Make Polluters Pay International Coalition, in a statement. "Millions of people around the world are calling for it, and governments are starting to listen."
His address came just a day after campaigners from groups around the world delivered over 2 million petition signatures calling on governments to make polluters pay to Selwin Hart, the UN's assistant secretary-general for climate action, in New York City.
"For years, campaigners and communities on the frontlines have been saying the same thing: The companies that profited from fossil fuels must pay their fair share of the costs of the crisis they helped create. Today, that demand is moving into the mainstream," 350.org executive director Anne Jellema noted after Guterres' remarks. "The voices of more than 2 million people are now being brought to the UN. Governments have the power to make polluters pay, and they must use it."
Enough is enough: over 2 million petition signatures at UNGA to Make Polluters Pay www.greenpeace.org/internationa...
[image or embed]
— Nick Young (@nickofnz.bsky.social) September 21, 2026 at 5:56 PM
Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International, highlighted that "the people who have contributed least to the climate crisis are paying the highest price. They are losing homes, livelihoods, and access to food and facing an increasingly uncertain future, while fossil fuel corporations and their billionaire backers continue to profit. The call to make rich polluters pay is about justice. It is about ensuring that those who have benefited most from the fossil fuel economy pay for the damage it has caused."
Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen pointed out that "Guterres has spent years warning leaders where fossil fuel dependence leads, and this year proved him right. From deadly heat to devastating fires and floods, the very dependence driving these disasters is shaking entire economies and leaving families exposed to volatile energy and food prices, while the companies behind it keep raking in the profits."
"New rules forcing governments to align their taxes and spending with global climate goals would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to support the countries and communities least responsible, while incentivizing money out of fossil fuels and into secure, renewable energy that actually protects people," he argued. "As long as destruction stays profitable, the transition to a safer, fairer future will keep being held back. Guterres has named the solution, governments must now act on it."
Update (1:40 pm ET):
A coalition of advocacy groups fighting the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger said Thursday that the judge overseeing the case granted their emergency motion to allow opponents of the combination to file briefs against a settlement reached earlier this week by Paramount and a dozen state attorneys general.
“The consent decree the state AGs agreed to in a backroom deal is weak, unenforceable, and leaves workers, journalists, and consumers in the dust," members of the anti-merger coalition said in a statement. "The settlement fails to address the grave dangers this merger poses—and no amount of spin can change that. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín’s ruling will allow the public to weigh in on this important issue and ensure the interests of those who will actually pay the price for the Ellisons’ sweetheart deal that the AGs failed to adequately represent are heard. We look forward to explaining that in further detail in our brief due at midnight tonight."
Earlier:
Opponents of Paramount's proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery filed an emergency motion in federal court on Thursday asking the judge overseeing the merger proceedings to grant them an opportunity to formally oppose a settlement deal that Paramount reached earlier this week with a coalition of state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta.
The merger opponents' filing asks Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the US District Court for the Northern District of California to give them "an opportunity to be heard" before she rules on the proposed consent decree between Paramount and the 12 state attorneys general—a deal that drew widespread outrage. The anti-merger coalition—which includes Free Press, the Committee for the First Amendment, the Future Film Coalition, and other groups—described the tentative deal as "dangerous for democracy."
The coalition's filing was submitted shortly before a court hearing that's scheduled to begin at 2:00 pm ET. Martínez-Olguín set the hearing to "address certain outstanding questions regarding the factual and legal underpinnings of the parties’ proposed consent decree."
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a constitutional rights litigator who serves on the steering panel for the Committee for the First Amendment, said in a statement that "we believe the consent decree fails to meaningfully address or mitigate the harms that will be caused by this monopoly merger to the entertainment industry, diverse storytelling, independent filmmaking, consumer interests, a free press, First Amendment rights, and fundamentally, democracy."
“It does not serve to benefit anyone except the owner family of Paramount and those holding political power, who will use this corporate consolidation as a proxy force for First Amendment suppression of disfavored expression and viewpoints," Verheyden-Hilliard added.
Paramount is headed by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the richest people in the world and a megadonor to President Donald Trump.
If Martínez-Olguín approves the proposed consent decree and the merger is finalized, Paramount would control both CBS and CNN, as well as other major media properties such as HBO.
As part of the consent decree, Paramount committed to "News Editorial Independence Boards" for CBS and CNN comprised of five "established journalists." Critics, including the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), have characterized the proposed editorial independence boards as "worthless" and a potential "First Amendment nightmare."
“The solution for the Ellisons letting Donald Trump and [Federal Communications Commission Chair] Brendan Carr police journalism is not to let attorneys general and judges police journalism too,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at FPF, part of the anti-merger coalition.
“It’s to keep the government out of the newsroom, period," Stern added. "No one seriously believes the Ellisons (or their rumored new investor Elon Musk) will do that, with or without a self-appointed sham editorial board, which is why this merger cannot proceed.”
The League of United Latin American Citizens and a group of religious leaders filed a separate motion on Thursday asking Martínez-Olguín to "defer entry of the decree" to "ensure this court has sufficient opportunity to consider the important issues raised" in the case.
"The proposed consent decree raises grave doubts whether the parties' settlement adequately addresses the harms alleged in the plaintiff states' complaint," the filing reads.
Attorneys representing Sen. Roger Marshall on Monday accused Democratic challenger Adam Hamilton of producing a "defamatory" ad centered on a former patient who was arrested for missing court dates related to unpaid medical debt owed to the Kansas Republican.
In a letter sent to Hamilton, Marshall's attorneys claimed that the ad released last week by the Kansas Democrat's campaign contained "false" information and must be taken down.
"We demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further publication, broadcast, distribution, or promotion of the advertisement," the letter said.
The ad in question features Meischa Zimmerman—a one-time patient of Marshall, a former obstetrician-gynecologist—who was arrested in 2011 after missing a $50 payment.
Meischa was Roger Marshall's patient. This is her story. pic.twitter.com/M6bmqK92gm
— Team Hamilton (@TeamHamiltonHQ) September 25, 2026
As The New York Times reported earlier this month, Zimmerman, who was eight months pregnant at the time of her arrest, owed Marshall nearly $3,600 for a C-section he performed while delivering one of her children. She had previously agreed to a $50 monthly repayment plan for the procedure after being sued by Marshall's office for unpaid medical debts.
Marshall's attorneys objected to the ad's portrayal of events, arguing that Zimmerman's $50 missed payment was only a fraction of the total that she owed to the future senator.
"Falsely accusing a physician of having a pregnant patient arrested over a $50 bill strikes directly at Senator Marshall’s professional integrity as a physician and his fitness for public office," they wrote, "and it has been broadcast to thousands of Kansas voters in the final weeks of an election."
The attorneys' letter does not appear to have deterred Hamilton, who continued to promote the ad featuring Zimmerman in a Monday social media post.
"Roger Marshall REALLY doesn't want you to see this ad," Hamilton wrote. "Meischa's story is true. Roger Marshall and his lawyers can’t hide the truth about his record from Kansas voters."
Tyson Brody, spokesperson for Hamilton's campaign, defended the ad in an interview with the Kansas Reflector.
“The lies in his letter are blatant and reek of desperation,” Brody said. “The truth is what Roger Marshall did is extreme and hurt Kansans. Voters should know the truth about who their senator is and what he’s done."
According to the Times' reporting, at least 81 one-time Marshall patients have been arrested for missing court dates stemming from their unpaid medical bills, with one patient taken into custody owing just $114.
The Times investigation also found that Marshall or his office sued more than 700 patients for unpaid bills throughout his two-decade career.
Kellie Clutts, another former patient of Marshall, told the Times she was sued by the Kansas Republican in 2015 over a $129 bill, which eventually resulted in her bank account being garnished.
"I was recently divorced, trying to do everything on my own," Clutts told the Times. "I told them I could make partial payments, but it seemed like no matter what I said, they wanted the full amount at once."
The Trump administration may have deliberately toned down its highly visible, militarized immigration raids that generated widespread backlash, but US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is arresting more people than ever, an investigation published Monday by The Guardian revealed.
The British newspaper examined what it called the increasingly “invisibilized” immigration dragnet reaching into workplaces, airports, traffic stops, convenience stores, and communities far from the US-Mexico border, declaring "ICE is everywhere."
“Before, [ICE] were storming around, making a lot of noise,” Gracie Willis, a rapid-response attorney with the National Immigration Project, told The Guardian. “Now, they are moving more quietly.”
"More quietly" does not mean fewer arrests. In fact, The Guardian reported that ICE apprehended nearly 50,000 people in July, a record high. The agency has also more than doubled its workforce this year to more than 22,000 officers and staff after Congress provided the Department of Homeland Security with $75 billion in additional funding.
As of September 15, ICE had also signed more than 2,500 agreements allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in federal immigration enforcement.
“The detentions are happening in a flash—we’re talking, like, 90 seconds from the time ICE shows up to that person being driven away,” Willis said. “And often they are moving very quietly, with very soft feet.”
The shift in tactics came after the administration's highly publicized operations provoked intense opposition, especially following a series of fatal shootings, including of American citizens.
President Donald Trump said earlier this year that “maybe we could use a little bit of a softer touch,” while Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told senators that "my goal in six months is that we’re not in the lead story every single day.”
Still, immigration attorney Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch told The Guardian that “we’re seeing a lot of racial profiling" in immigration enforcement, adding that agents “might have their sights set on a big job site... and just slowly patrol that site and just take people in day after day until nobody’s going to work there anymore.”
The Guardian investigation comes amid continued condemnation of ICE's methods.
Amnesty International published a report last week based on interviews with 154 people affected by enforcement operations in Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New Orleans, and Washington, DC, documenting allegations including racial discrimination, arbitrary detention, excessive force, unlawful surveillance, incommunicado detention, and inhumane detention conditions.
“Masked and armed federal agents attacking people in the streets with impunity doesn’t make our communities safer—it puts everyone in danger,” said Amnesty International USA Executive Director Nadia Daar. “ICE is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed.”
An increasing number of Republicans—especially those facing tough reelection battles—are criticizing the administration's heavy-handed immigration enforcement.
A campaign ad for Congresswoman Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) even features a woman whose husband the lawmaker helped free from immigration detention.
“I have been very direct with the White House, with leadership, that enforcement policy should be focused on the criminals and on the cartels that are terrorizing our communities,” De La Cruz said last week during an interview on "The Joe Pags Show."
“They should not be on hardworking immigrants that are navigating the immigration process," she added.
In July, Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security officials noting that agents had shot at least 22 people during Trump's second term, and that in multiple cases, federal authorities had made allegations against shooting victims that were later contradicted by evidence.
More than 50 people have died in ICE custody since Trump returned to the White House last year.
Israel’s US-backed military assault on Gaza has not only caused mass death and destruction; it has also created “the world’s most severe economic crisis on record,” according to Pedro Manuel Moreno, the acting secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Moreno presented a recent report at a press conference on Thursday showing that 92% of economic establishments in Gaza—including shops, factories, restaurants, and farms—have been damaged or destroyed since Israel launched its assault on the territory in October 2023 and reduced most of its infrastructure to rubble.
Less than 1.5% of cropland across the strip remained accessible and undamaged, while more than half of its hospitals and primary health clinics have been rendered nonfunctional.
Compared with 2022, Gaza’s main productive sectors have been almost entirely wiped out: Agricultural and industrial output were each down 94%, while construction was down 99% in 2025. With most of its economic capacity destroyed, unemployment in the exclave skyrocketed to 78% in 2025, while tremendous scarcity led prices to soar to 274% above 2022 levels.
Dropping to just 17% of its 2022 level, Gaza’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita cratered to $212 in 2025, equivalent to about 58 cents per person per day.
"Productive capacity is wiped out while the entire population is displaced and condemned to multidimensional poverty," said UNCTAD's coordinator for assistance to the Palestinians, Mutasim Elagraa, who led work on the report. "By multidimensional poverty I mean not just income poverty; it's also a lack of proper shelter, a lack of access to basic services like health and education and sanitation."
"Before the onset of this crisis in October 2023, two out of three residents were poor," Elagraa continued. "Today, everyone in Gaza is multidimensionally poor."
These conditions have increased the territory's reliance on outside aid, which Israel has often blocked, leading UN experts and human rights organizations to accuse its leaders of using starvation and deprivation as "weapons of war."
The International Criminal Court has found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who gave a defiant speech denying Israel's responsibility for genocide at the UN General Assembly Thursday—bears criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.
The report estimates that $71.5 billion will be needed for recovery and reconstruction, as well as $35.2 billion in physical infrastructure damage and $22.7 billion in economic and social losses.
"Restoring the collapsed health system, rebuilding destroyed education infrastructure and other public infrastructure will need to go together while restoring productive capacity, employment, functioning markets and the ability for businesses to operate," Moreno said. "Peace cannot be built on a collapsed economy."
Though the report emphasizes how Israel's bombardment has brought near-apocalyptic conditions upon the strip, it notes that Gaza's economic deprivation dates back decades before the Hamas-led attack in October 2023, which was the catalyst for the unprecedented assault.
It noted that 59 years of Israeli occupation of Palestine had severely stunted its economic growth, particularly as it tightened its blockade of Gaza in the last two decades.
Previous UNCTAD analyses have shown that between 2006, a year before Israel began its land, air, and sea blockade of Gaza, and 2022, Gaza's real GDP per capita fell by 37% while its productive economy, including agriculture and manufacturing, was hollowed out by Israel's restrictions on movement and imports. Even before 2023, nearly half of Gaza's workforce was unemployed, roughly two-thirds lived in poverty, and 80% depended on international aid.
“The central message of this report we are talking about today is that about six decades of occupation have hollowed out the Palestinian economy and de-developed it,” Elagraa said. “We have moved from development blocked to development reversed, and now decades of human development that has been achieved in Gaza has been wiped out."
"Although the intensity of destruction is far more in Gaza" than in the West Bank, he said, the report showed the "destruction" to be "a dramatic escalation of a pattern that dates back to 1967 with the onset of occupation."
"The report," he said, "maintains that history did not start in October 2023."
"In fact... Husted voted for the war FOURTEEN TIMES," said one critic.
An embattled incumbent Republican senator squirmed on Tuesday when confronted with his multiple votes supporting President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, which has driven up gas prices across the US.
During a Wednesday interview with local news station WKRC, Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) was asked by reporter James Pilcher about his votes in favor of continuing the war, which the journalist noted has become "pretty unpopular."
"First of all, I didn't, that's not what that vote was, it's not what I did," Husted replied. "Here's the bottom line: These are the people that want higher gas prices right now: Iran, Russia, and the, and the Democrats in Congress. They don't want us to be successful there. They are literally... we are the party that has been, as Republicans, we've wanted more drilling. Like, we have, thank goodness, we have a great supply of domestic fuel right now, or prices would be even higher."
Q: You voted in favor of the war in Iran. It's proven to be pretty unpopular. What do you see as the offramp here?
HUSTED: First of all, I didn't- that's not what that vote was. That's not what I did. Here's the bottom line. These are the people that want higher gas prices right… pic.twitter.com/t4ZEmD0q2f
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 30, 2026
Husted—whom polls show is currently trailing his rival, former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)—then baselessly claimed that "Russia, Iran, and Senate Democrats seem to be aligned in seeing prices go up, I'm for prices going down."
The price of energy skyrocketed in the months since Trump attacked Iran without any congressional authorization in February, and the price of diesel fuel last week hit a record high of $6.53 per gallon.
Husted, meanwhile, has voted 14 times against war powers resolutions in the US Senate to compel Trump to end the conflict he started.
Critics of the Ohio Republican were quick to slam him for trying to evade responsibility for the fallout of the Iran War.
In a social media post, author James Surowiecki accused Husted of telling "a blatant lie" when he said he didn't vote to support the war.
"This month, he cast the deciding vote against a war powers resolution in the Senate directing Trump to end the war in Iran," Surowiecki wrote. "So yes, he voted in favor of continuing the war in Iran."
Husted's statement drew a similar rebuke from Kelsie Taggart, vice president of the Democratic advocacy group American Bridge.
"That is, in fact, what that vote was," Taggart wrote, "and Husted voted for the war FOURTEEN TIMES."
Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who now advises the US Program at the International Crisis Group, argued that what Husted did was actually "even worse than voting for the Iran War."
"He voted to abnegate Congress' constitutional authority over the use of military force," Finucane explained, "and to allow Trump to wage war based on his own whims."
"Self-regulation?" said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "That's a recipe for disaster."
As details from US President Donald Trump's White House meeting with Big Tech executives emerged on Tuesday, including a pledge on artificial intelligence safety, campaigners and Democrats in Congress continued calling for stronger AI protections.
After the gathering, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform a "Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities" signed by him, billionaire Elon Musk—a former member of the administration who leads multiple companies—Anthropic's Dario Amodei, Google's Sundar Pichai, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Nvidia's Jensen Huang, and OpenAI's Greg Brockman.
The accord came out of a gathering that included the president and other top officials as well as over a dozen tech leaders, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and representatives from Microsoft and Palantir. It states that "every company is responsible for developing its own technology safely and in a way that builds trust with customers and the public."
The document goes on to detail "four layers of controls and audits" that each company developing AI—or "super intelligence (SI), as Trump directed his administration to call it in a Tuesday executive order—should implement, including robust internal controls to monitor capabilities and alignment, internal teams to ensure safeguards are operating as intended, partnerships with outside auditors, and an independent committee of the board of directors to receive reports on problems and their fixes.
Before Trump released the accord, he addressed the media alongside some officials and executives. Asked if the agreement is binding in any way, the president responded, "I think it's morally binding."
Beside him, Zuckerberg—whose company has faced legal issues over its social media platforms—laid out the broad strokes of the accord, which he framed as "a start," suggesting there is more to come.
Since OpenAI revealed in July that its models autonomously breached the systems of the open-source platform Hugging Face during internal testing, the firm—plus Anthropic, Google, and Meta—has disclosed additional incidents. Axios reported over the weekend that Anthropic and OpenAI alone "are investigating tens of thousands of incidents."
Experts in the industry and beyond have increasingly expressed concerns, with a United Nations panel stressing in a report about the Hugging Face incident that current AI guardrails are "unraveling," and one Anthropic researcher quitting earlier this month and warning that the rapidly advancing technology "could kill us all by the end of the decade."
While some members of Congress have responded by introducing bills aimed at reining in the industry and establishing mandatory safeguards, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—who was part of Tuesday's meeting—has instead called for voluntary commitments. He's also dismissed mounting public concerns about AI data centers raising electricity bills, polluting drinking water, and threatening jobs, even suggesting that the grassroots pushback in various communities is "a Chinese psyop."
The president—whose inauguration was dubbed "a coronation of our country's descent into oligarchy" because of all the ultrarich attendees, including many of the men at the White House on Tuesday—has also made clear that he opposes a legislative route. According to The Associated Press, Trump said Tuesday that "I think I'm seeing tremendous self-policing. And they understand that they have to self-police."
Progressive US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) responded to the event on social media Tuesday, writing: "Self-regulation? That’s a recipe for disaster."
Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY) said that "the American people are deeply concerned on the direction unregulated AI is taking our country, and they deserve transparent answers from the men with their hands on the wheel. Instead, all we get is another closed-door meeting, and more promises made and broken in secret. We cannot say exactly what they schemed, today. But I am certain we'll see the consequences soon enough."
Mitch Jones, deputy director of Food & Water Action, a group that has spearheaded fights against superpolluting AI data centers, said that "the notion that a manically profit-driven AI industry will safely regulate itself is as dangerous as it is absurd—akin to claiming an arsonist would make a good firefighter. Trump's only concern is doing the bidding of his Big Tech billionaire friends."
"Trump's rejection of the overwhelming opposition to AI data center construction throughout the country is political incompetence of the highest order," Jones continued, looking toward the November midterms, which are just five weeks away. "His obstinance will no doubt cost him and his party deeply in the coming elections."
"We can't have politicians giving the tech oligarchs free rein," he argued. "We need political leaders that will decisively rein them in. Our leaders must stand with us and say 'no' to so-called super intelligence, and put a halt to the massive hyperscale data centers powering this runaway industry."
“The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical,” UN experts stressed. “For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume rapidly deporting immigrants to countries other than their own, even as United Nations experts warned that the policy is putting deportees at heightened risk of human rights violations.
In a one-page order, the justices—who did not rule on the legality of the policy—stayed a lower court ruling that required the administration to give people facing a so-called third-country deportation notice wan opportunity to raise concerns that they could face persecution or torture in the destination country. The court agreed to hear the administration's appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for December.
The high court said it will consider whether the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts has jurisdiction over the case, whether it had authority to issue classwide relief, and whether the Trump administration's policy violates federal immigration law, the Constitution's due process clause, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, or the Convention Against Torture.
The court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—said they would have rejected the administration's request to lift the lower-court order.
NEW: The Supreme Court, over the objections of the 3 liberal justices, grants a stay in the D.V.D. litigation, authorizing the Trump admin to resume third country removals without any notice to people being sent to countries they've never been to.The Court also agrees to hear the case in December.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) September 29, 2026 at 12:16 PM
US Attorney General Todd Blanch responded to the order on social media, posting, "Now for the second time, SCOTUS just granted our stay in conducting all third-country removals of illegal aliens."
"Again, this is entirely lawful and a critical tool for immigration enforcement," he added. "Unlike the lower court, SCOTUS waited to hear from both sides before making the decision."
Tuesday's ruling came one day after two dozen United Nations human rights experts urged the United States and 35 countries that have entered deportation agreements with the Trump administration to halt the practice, which is "triggering [a] cascade of human rights violations including torture."
“These migrants are being transferred to countries or territories with which they have no ties, which can be a traumatizing and isolating experience that compounds harms already suffered,” the experts said, warning that they face “further violence or discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or human rights advocacy.”
“The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical,” the experts stressed. “For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
The UN experts' warning followed an urgent appeal issued earlier this month by Amnesty International that two men deported to Equatorial Guinea under a secret deal—one of them Egyptian and the other Eritrean—were at risk of being tortured in detention in the African nation, which has an abysmal human rights record. Amnesty said that the men had already been beaten and violently arrested by police after arriving in the country.
The Trump administration has deported roughly 25,000 people to more than two dozen countries under often secret agreements and at a cost to taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars. Most have been sent to Mexico, while others have been transported to countries including Liberia, Guyana, and Equatorial Guinea.
The Supreme Court has already intervened in a related case involving eight men whom the administration sought to deport to war-torn South Sudan, although only one was originally from that country. In that case, Sotomayor warned that the policy exposed “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”
The justices' latest order will remain in effect until the court issues its judgment in the case. Until then, the administration can resume the expedited removals that the lower court had sought to restrict.
"Cantor, like PhRMA, is an experienced reverse Robin Hood, legislating money away from working families and toward giant corporations."
In what advocates for lower drug prices call "a match made in hell," one of the pharmaceutical industry's most powerful lobbying groups is tapping a former Republican leader in the US House of Representatives to head its political operations.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) named former Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) as its president and CEO on Tuesday amid what is shaping up to be a major fight over the government's ability to regulate prescription drug prices.
Cantor served in Congress from 2001-14 and was named House majority leader in 2011. He resigned in 2014 after losing his Republican primary in a stunning upset to the Tea Party-backed former Rep. Dave Brat.
According to recent polling from KFF, more than half of US adults say they worry about affording prescription drugs and nearly three-quarters say the government should do more to limit prices.
PhRMA emphasized that Cantor's appointment to replace the outgoing CEO Stephen Ubl comes at "a pivotal moment for America’s biopharmaceutical industry."
It is certainly spending like it. As Politico reported on Tuesday, pressure from voters to address the affordability of prescription drugs has been met with an unprecedented lobbying blitz by PhRMA, which poured a record $38 million into efforts to keep Capitol Hill in line.
PhRMA said Cantor’s “global business acumen coupled with policy and political experience at the highest levels of government make him an ideal person to lead PhRMA during this critical next chapter.”
Peter Maybarduk, the access to medicines director for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, agreed that Cantor was a perfect fit for PhRMA, but for very different reasons.
"Cantor, like PhRMA, is an experienced reverse Robin Hood, legislating money away from working families and toward giant corporations," Maybarduk said.
During his tenure in Congress, Cantor received roughly $900,000 from the pharmaceutical and health product industry, putting him 19th among all House candidates between 1999 and 2018, according to a JAMA Internal Medicine study of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
That spending paid dividends, with Cantor voting against legislation aimed at lowering prescription drugs—including one bill in 2003 that would have allowed Americans to import low-cost prescription drugs from abroad and another in 2007 that would have required the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients.
"The tech lords use jargon to confuse. They count on the tech illiteracy of the elected class. They hope we won’t look under the hood," said US Rep. Ro Khanna.
US Rep. Ro Khanna announced plans on Monday to introduce what he described as "the most comprehensive... legislation to date" regulating the artificial intelligence industry.
In an interview with CNBC, Khanna (D-Calif.) said that he wanted to enact at least a temporary ban on recursive AI that is capable of improving itself and modifying its objectives without human input.
Such a ban would be in effect until the federal government had created proper guardrails on the technology, CNBC reported.
“There’s actually a civilizational extinction risk,” Khanna told CNBC, referring to the dangers of recursive AI. "There's a safety risk of loss of control, and then there’s a misuse risk, and we need to take both seriously."
Khanna's bill would also create a new federal agency tasked with crafting and enforcing safety measures on AI models, with independent auditors embedded in every frontier lab that would report directly to the agency.
The legislation wouldn't just create regulations for the AI industry, but also criminal penalties for AI developers who "disable safeguards, kill switches, logging or containment systems, or who knowingly deploy an unauthorized system," CNBC reported.
Promoting the coming bill in a Tuesday social media post, Khanna argued that Big Tech could not be trusted to regulate itself.
"The tech lords use jargon to confuse," Khanna wrote. "They count on the tech illiteracy of the elected class. They hope we won’t look under the hood. They know they can’t gaslight me."
While multiple polls have shown that putting guardrails on the AI industry is politically popular, Republican Party leaders have said that no regulations for the industry are coming so long as they control the White House and the US Congress.
In a Tuesday interview with CNBC, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he hoped that any guardrails put on AI are "voluntary" on the part of Big Tech companies.
Two weeks ago, Johnson said in an interview on CNN that federal regulations of the industry made little sense because "Congress is obviously less qualified than the people who are pushing this frontier to know the ins and outs of it."
President Donald Trump on Tuesday expressed a similar sentiment, telling reporters outside the White House that Big Tech could be trusted to be responsible with the powerful technology it is creating.
"They're outstanding people," Trump said of the tech executives. "They don't want anything to go wrong. I mean, their companies are at stake, if something goes wrong, their companies are at stake. They're not going to let that happen. This is going to be all for the good... they're really going to be policing each other."
Trump on big tech: "They don't want anything to go wrong. Their companies are at stake. They're not gonna let that happen. They're really gonna be policing each other." pic.twitter.com/wP6vfPcavz
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 29, 2026
Earlier this month, Trump suggested in a social media post that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating AI, a technology so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.
"The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote, “and the USA has that, in spades!"
Trump's hands-off approach to regulating AI isn't just being challenged by Democrats such as Khanna.
According to a Monday report from The Associated Press, Pope Leo XIV reiterated his call for placing safeguards on AI to ensure that it benefits humanity.
Specifically, the US-born pope pointed to recent "concerns raised by many of the experts, specialists in AI," which he said "should be taken seriously."
Pope Leo said warnings that AI could threaten humanity should be taken seriously, rejecting the claims that concerns are 'fake news' and urging leaders to work together on safeguards https://t.co/7qVpNAXYKM pic.twitter.com/Cds6gf5vef
— Reuters (@Reuters) September 29, 2026
"I don’t think that that is ‘fake news’ as some have said," the pope added, in a veiled reference to Trump, "to try and cause whether financial or other some other kind of benefit."
"We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars."
As critics condemn President Donald Trump's trio of taxpayer-funded advertisements as illegal propaganda and "an impeachable offense," The Wall Street Journal and leading congressional Democrats revealed Tuesday that the administration appears to have used US Department of Homeland Security funding to pay for the ads.
Citing unnamed sources, the Journal reported that "Trump personally pushed for the ads and has been involved in their creation," and that the money came from US Customs and Border Protection, an agency of DHS. Top Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives said the administration apparently used CBP funding allocated in Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year.
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Homeland Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday sent a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin about the "outrageous scheme" of using "Americans' hard-earned tax dollars to bankroll the obscene political ads celebrating President Trump."
The pair noted that on September 19, the Office of Management and Budget approved a release of money to CBP, including "$20 million in new funding under the line item 'Commemorative Events,' which we suspect may well be the funding tapped to run this government propaganda."
"We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars," they told Mullin, a former senator who voted for the GOP's 2025 budget package.
Specifically, as the watchdog Public Citizen detailed in a Tuesday complaint to the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and broadcasters, the three campaign ads "appear to violate the federal law against using taxpayer funds to finance propaganda (5 USC §3107) and related provisions of the appropriations laws as well as the Hatch Act (5 USC §7324)."
Margaret Dylus-Yukins, senior legal counsel for ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, highlighted on Monday that the unlawful ads come on top of the war chest that Trump has raised—mostly from rich people and corporations—since the last election for the super political action committee (PAC) MAGA Inc.
"At a minimum, this is an appalling abuse of taxpayer dollars, particularly when hundreds of millions of private dollars are already flowing into US elections—and Trump has personally helped raise enormous sums from wealthy special interests for a super PAC devoted to advancing his political agenda," Dylus-Yukins said.
Axios on Tuesday corroborated the Journal's reporting that "Trump is personally selecting which government-funded ads his administration is airing ahead of the midterms," and one unnamed official claimed that "this is just the beginning."
With the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress just five weeks away, the administration has claimed the ads are "public service announcements." Murray and Murphy called that defense "as absurd as it is offensive," and pointed out that "the White House has failed to answer our most basic questions about where these funds coming from and who is responsible."
"The American people deserve answers about how this president is literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself—while doing nothing to help them afford healthcare or housing. These ads need to immediately come off the air, taxpayers need to be paid back for this theft, and everyone responsible needs to be held accountable for this corrupt and illegal propaganda," the senators argued, demanding answers to a list of questions within 48 hours.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) also spoke out Tuesday, saying that "after gutting $1 trillion from Medicaid, stripping healthcare coverage from millions of Americans, giving the very richest Americans and large corporations massive tax breaks, adding more than $4 trillion to the deficit, and more than quadrupling funding for mass deportations, it turns out the Trump administration used Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill to pay for President Trump’s political ads."
"When Democrats reclaim control of Congress next year, the House Appropriations Committee will work to uncover and reverse misuses of taxpayer money like this and hold those who abused their power accountable," that pair pledged.
With Trump's approval rating dropping—largely due to poor economic conditions exacerbated by his illegal Iran War—Republicans are increasingly at risk of losing their current majorities in one or both chambers. In the House, that would likely mean not only DeLauro chairing the Appropriations Committee, but also Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Jim Himes (D-Conn.) Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) respectively leading the Oversight, Intelligence, and Judiciary committees.
"For two years, Trump and his family have run the presidency like a family business, getting richer by the billions while Republicans in Congress held the door open," Congressional Integrity Project senior adviser Jeremy Funk said in a Tuesday statement.
Pointing to "Gulf money" for Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, "Pentagon contracts" for Donald Trump Jr., the first family's lucrative cryptocurrency schemes, and "now taxpayer-funded ads starring Trump himself," Funk charged that "every one of these rackets depended on a Republican Congress that refused to ask a single question."
"That era ends in January," he declared. "Jim Himes, Robert Garcia, and Jamie Raskin, and every other Democratic committee chair, has the receipts, and soon they'll have the gavels and subpoena power. Trump's cronies are already lawyering up. They should be. Accountability is coming for all of them."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who could become speaker if Democrats reclaim the chamber, made clear in an interview with The Associated Press published on Saturday that "we are going to hold the crooks accountable," and "we haven’t ruled anything out," including impeachment.
While some elected Democrats and political commentators have argued that impeaching Trump a historic third time wouldn't be a good use of the party's time—particularly as the Senate acquitted him in both of the previous cases—Jeffries' comments came just days after Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who is retiring after this term, introduced over two dozen more articles of impeachment against the president.
Meanwhile, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who served as the White House ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, told The New York Times on Sunday that the use of federal funds for the ads could be "an impeachable offense."
"This is very dangerous," Painter said. "We do not allow government-sponsored propaganda in the United States."
This article has been updated with reporting from Axios.
"Ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim," wrote a federal judge.
A federal judge has allowed a First Amendment lawsuit to proceed against Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner after he allegedly had police sent to a resident's house to question her over a social media post criticizing his support for Israel.
Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Monday denied defendants' motion to dismiss claims filed on behalf of Miami Beach resident and veteran Raquel Pacheco.
Altonaga said that "ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim."
On January 12, a pair of Miami Beach police officers showed up at Pacheco's door to question her about a post she made on Facebook criticizing Meiner, an outspoken supporter of Israel and its military assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, including over 21,000 children.
Pacheco referred to Meiner as someone who "consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians" and "tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings," referring to his attempt to have an independent theater's lease terminated after it held screenings of No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary made by Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers about the displacement of Palestinians and demolition of homes by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.
Video of the interaction shows police asking Pacheco if the post came from her account and ignoring her as she told them she would not speak to them without a lawyer.
"This is freedom of speech," Pacheco responded. "This is America, right?”
The officers acknowledged that Pacheco was “not going to jail” and did not claim that she had threatened Meiner. One of the officers then explained that "what we’re just trying to prevent is someone else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement."
He added that Pacheco's statements could "probably incite somebody to do something" before telling Pacheco to “refrain from posting things like that." The officers then left and Pacheco was never charged with a crime.
Represented by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Pacheco filed a lawsuit in March alleging that Miami Beach officials had used police power to violate her First Amendment rights and deter her from criticizing the mayor and Israel. The lawsuit described it as part of a broader effort by officials to chill pro-Palestinian speech.
Emails released weeks after the incident revealed that Meiner personally flagged Pacheco's post to police, referring to it as a "dangerous escalation. Speaking to reporters on February 4, he defended his decision to alert the cops, saying that Pacheco's post was "absolutely false" and referring to it as "age-old antisemitism."
But Altonaga said Meiner's statements supported Pacheco's allegation that "her viewpoint motivated Meiner’s decision to send police to her home," allowing her viewpoint discrimination claim against him to proceed.
The court also allowed the ADC to proceed with its claim that the City of Miami Beach itself—including the mayor and police chief—had demonstrated a broader pattern of viewpoint discrimination against pro-Palestinian speech. The lawsuit cites Meiner's attempt to shut down the local theater, as well as its law banning government contractors from boycotting Israeli businesses, including those operating in territories illegally occupied by Israel.
It also cites Meiner and other Miami Beach officials' repeated pattern of arguing with and cutting off Pacheco and other pro-Palestinian speakers during city commission meetings while allowing pro-Israel speakers to talk with little obstruction.
During one meeting, Meiner reduced public comments for pro-Palestinian speakers to 60 seconds when they criticized the police response to Pacheco while allowing speakers who defended the police action or criticized Pacheco's pro-Palestine viewpoint to speak for around two minutes uninterrupted.
Jenin Younes, ADC's president and national legal director, said Monday's ruling was "a significant victory for Raquel Pacheco, for the First Amendment, and for all Americans who care about the right to free speech and dissent."
"The city downplayed what happened to Ms. Pacheco as a routine police visit," Younes said. "The court disagreed, recognizing that sending police to someone’s home to question and intimidate them over their protected political speech can itself violate the First Amendment."
"The government does not have to arrest you, prosecute you, or formally censor you to violate the First Amendment," he added. "The chilling effect of these actions is obvious.”
"No, Mr. Johnson," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "The 75% of Americans who oppose data centers, including a majority of Republicans, have not fallen victim to a 'Chinese psyop.'"
They've been shown to raise electricity bills, pollute drinking water, do little to boost local employment while threatening millions of jobs in a variety of industries, and top executives have warned that the technology they support could wipe out all of humanity by the end of the decade.
But rather than take widespread public opposition to artificial intelligence data centers at face value, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced he had pinpointed what's behind the fact that 75% of Americans oppose the centers being built in their communities: "a Chinese psyop."
Fox News anchor Cheryl Casone asked Johnson on Monday about claims from "several tech executives and lawmakers" who say that the nationwide pushback against data centers—which President Donald Trump and Republicans are pushing to expand—is "coming from China."
The House speaker accused Democrats of fearmongering about AI and claiming that "everyone will die if we don't win"—although the gravest warnings about the technology's capabilities have actually come from the industry itself.
"It is a Chinese psyop, I really believe that. That's not a conspiracy theory," said Johnson.
Mike Johnson says opposition to data centers "is a Chinese psyop. I really believe that. That's not a conspiracy theory." pic.twitter.com/mQahEOX2gx
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 28, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has led efforts to pass bills imposing a nationwide moratorium on new large-scale data centers and a ban on artificial superintelligence, seized on Johnson's comments Tuesday.
"No, Mr. Johnson," said the progressive senator, who's previously been baselessly accused on Fox News of working with China to harm the AI industry. "The 75% of Americans who oppose data centers, including a majority of Republicans, have not fallen victim to a 'Chinese psyop.' They are rightly concerned about AI billionaires raising their electricity bills, destroying the environment, and threatening humanity."
While some influence campaigns from Russia and China have pushed negative messaging about AI data centers, one former official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told The New York Times in July that foreign countries are not "manufacturing" outrage about AI in the US, which has been made clear as communities have rallied to block nearly 120 projects worth $198 billion, according to Data Center Watch.
On Fox News, Johnson repeated a comment he made after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said the development of AI should be "paced" as companies have found that their models are able to hack websites without being directed to and are capable of "recursive self-improvement," or creating the next generation of AI on their own.
At the time, the House speaker said the industry should be able to regulate itself, lest China "overlap us" on AI development.
"We do not need a moratorium. We do not need to jump in and hyper-regulate this because we'll lose the race to China," Johnson said Monday. "The innovation is important to continue."
On the political podcast "Pod Save America," co-host Jon Lovett said that even if China did see a benefit to fanning the flames of widespread disapproval of data centers, "it wouldn't change the fact that these companies have gone about this in the most ham-fisted and kind of arrogant way."
AI companies have "dismissed the concerns of people" and have "tried to buy and sell politicians to try to get around persuading people that they might want these data centers in their communities," he said.
"The objections are very real from people who A) don't want these things in their backyard, and B) have come to expect that the benefits that accrue to the largest and most profitable corporations in the do not redound to the benefit of the broader community," said Lovett. "And that is not something China could convince us of."
The Cabinet of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez approved two decrees aimed at protecting tenants, but Spain's leftist social rights minister called the two-part strategy a "trap."
Spain's Cabinet on Tuesday agreed to take other measures meant to address a growing housing crisis amid nationwide protests triggered by an 87-year-old woman's temporary eviction—but some leftists warned that splitting the proposed reforms into two parts was an intentional ruse designed for one key demand to be rejected by lawmakers.
María del Carmen Abascal Martín's eviction on September 23 sparked demonstrations in Madrid and cities across Spain, including Barcelona, Sevilla, Málaga, Santiago, Murcia, Palma, and Zamora. On Saturday, around 30,000 people marched in Madrid, while hundreds of tents subsequently sprang up in the Puerta del Sol, where protesters have been camping out for days, demanding major reforms to Spain's housing system. On Tuesday, protesters in Madrid also successfully stopped a planned eviction on Calle Navas de Tolosa, with the expulsion postponed until October 14.
Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE)-led Cabinet announced two decrees on Tuesday, which must now be approved by lawmakers if they are to take effect. One of the measures would guarantee protections against evictions of economically or socially vulnerable tenants through 2030, extend certain existing rental contracts until the end of 2028, regulate short-term and room rentals, and bar so-called vulture funds from purchasing homes until 2028.
The second decree seeks automatic renewal of rental contracts—a key demand of tenant organizers—although that measure faces a more uncertain path to parliamentary passage.
Abascal's eviction had quickly become a symbol of a housing crisis driven by rising costs and a supply shortage that has priced many people out of the market in Europe's fourth-largest economy. The 87-year-old, who had lived in her Retiro apartment since 1956, was evicted after the property was acquired by the real estate firm Urbagestión, which reportedly jacked up her monthly rent from roughly €500 to €1,650.
Images of Abascal being removed from her home on a stretcher by police sparked global outrage and demands for Spain's socialist-led government to halt her eviction and protect vulnerable tenants from forced displacement.
Under an agreement reached with Urbagestión, Abascal will return after leaving the hospital under an eight-year lease, paying no more than 30% of her income—approximately €500 a month. The agreement was reached after more than four hours of negotiations involving her family, lawyer, the Madrid municipal housing agency, and the Madrid Tenants Union.
Activists attributed both Abascal's return home and the government's concessions to the power of mass mobilized people.
"Seeing that this has an outcome gives us hope," one protester, Laura, told Spanish public broadcaster RTVE. Another demonstrator, Gracia, declared, "Every night here is a victory."
Simón, a protester who spent the night at the encampment, told EFE: "We’re not camping out just for the sake of camping. We’re making a demand. It’s great that Maricarmen is getting her apartment back, but more measures are needed.”
Fina Parra, a spokesperson for the Madrid Tenants Union, called Abascal's eviction “the straw that broke the camel's back because it touched all of our hearts.”
Parra stressed that the protesters' objective is not “a half-measure law,” but legislation that “actually stops the bleeding of evictions.”
Sara Barros, a protester interviewed by Democracy Now!, said, “What we are demanding is that the rental market be regulated, because rents are unaffordable and people simply cannot afford them.”
Progressive politicians also welcomed the reversal of Abascal's eviction—which Sánchez called a "social tragedy"—and looked forward to implementing reforms.
"The street got Maricarmen to stay," said Gerardo Pisarello, the leftist first secretary of the Congress of Deputies, the lower chamber of Spain's Parliament. "If we have already achieved one victory, we can achieve another."
Some leftists are wary of the Sánchez government's decision to split the housing package in a way that makes the most important tenant protection easier to defeat in Parliament.
Minister of Social Rights Ione Belarra of the Podemos party called the decision "a trap" whose "only objective" is to "whitewash the government and contain social mobilization."
Belarra further contended that Sánchez's strategy is "the opposite of what should be done when you really want to solve the housing problem."
"I think people should have their facts straight before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag," said US Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
Sen. Eric Schmitt faced instant ridicule on Tuesday after his attempt to catch former special counsel Jack Smith in a perjury trap imploded.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Schmitt asked Smith, who in 2023 indicted President Donald Trump in two separate criminal cases, whether he had attended a professional basketball game in Atlanta between the Atlanta Hawks and the Golden State Warriors on February 3, 2024.
Smith replied that he did not attend such a game on that date.
Shortly after, Schmitt asked Smith if he had ever met with Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis—who also indicted Trump and several alleged coconspirators for their attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election—during his tenure as special counsel.
Smith again replied that he had not.
A phenomenal moment in the Senate.
Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., claims he has evidence Jack Smith went to a HAWKS game in Atlanta.
Smith denies it.
Schmitt declares he has busted Jack Smith for perjury.
Smith, vexed, says he went to HAWKEYES game in Maryland.
Watch the whole thing: pic.twitter.com/J07o5Uwfxi
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) September 29, 2026
"What would you say," Schmitt continued, "if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a... game on February 3, 2024?"
Smith was then shown a poster displaying text messages between people on his team making references to Smith attending some kind of basketball game, though there was no mention anywhere in the displayed texts about the game taking place in Atlanta.
"I think you've already perjured yourself," Schmitt told the former special counsel.
After answering additional questions about his investigations into Trump, Smith asked if he could more thoroughly address the claim made by Schmitt that he attended a basketball game in Atlanta, where it was implied that he met up with Willis to share information about their respective cases against Trump.
"I recall going to a University of Maryland basketball game where [former Iowa college basketball star] Caitlin Clark was playing right around that time," he said. "You can check if that was the exact date, it was Maryland playing Iowa, I think, February of 2024."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) helpfully pointed out that the name of the Iowa college basketball team is the Hawkeyes, which is a similar name to the Atlanta Hawks.
Klobuchar then addressed Schmitt and chided him for the personal insults he'd lobbed at Smith during earlier questioning.
"I think people should have their facts straight," she said, "before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag, and not get the teams wrong."
Critics were quick to pile on Schmitt's apparent blunder.
"Schmitt should have to reimburse the public for the cost of printing out these posters," wrote Drop Site reporter Ryan Grim in a social media post. "This is so embarrassing."
ABC News' Jonathan Karl criticized Schmitt for flashing a poster featuring the texts in front of Smith and then quickly removing it from view before he could examine it.
"This was bizarre," wrote Karl. "I have never seen 'evidence' introduced so quickly and then hidden."
Chuck Todd, former host of NBC News' Meet the Press, called Schmitt's line of questioning "a disaster," and said the Missouri Republican suffered from "confirmation bias virus."
Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin predicted big trouble for any Senate staffer who may havd fed Schmitt faulty information about Smith attending an Atlanta Hawks game.
"I would give up a third of my 401K—make that half of it—to watch Senator Schmitt chew out the aide who came up with this scheme to entrap Jack Smith," Grueskin wrote.
Journalist Julian Sanchez reflected on the fact that someone as seemingly bumbling as Schmitt is one of just 100 people in the country who have been elected to serve in the US Senate.
"It’s somehow more depressing," wrote Sanchez, "that our constitutional order is being dismantled by people who demonstrably cannot find their own asses with both hands."