

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.
Despite the specious swapping out of fascist ICE leaders seeking to quell public fury, the gutted, steadfast denizens of Minneapolis continue to show up in frigid weather to demand "ICE Out" and "Stop Killing Us." Honoring their righteous struggle, Friday sees the city nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by The Nation, which cites its "moral leadership" for those fighting fascism on "a troubled planet." Likewise moved, The Boss just wrote them a song. Minnesota, says one patriot, "taught us to be brave."
Writing to "the distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee," the editors of The Nation magazine nominated the city of Minneapolis and its people for the 2026 Nobel Peace "as longtime observers of struggles to establish peace and justice" and as the editors of a magazine that's proudly included "several Nobel laureates on our editorial board and masthead - including the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." With their "resistance to violent authoritarianism," they argue, "the people of Minneapolis have renewed the spirit of Dr. King’s call for the positive affirmation of peace.” No municipality has ever been recognized for the award, they acknowledge, but "in these unprecedented times," they believe Minneapolis "has met and exceeded the committee’s standard of promoting 'democracy and human rights, (and) creating (a) more peaceful world."
To the Committee, they offer a brief, harrowing history: The Trump regime deploying thousands of armed, masked federal goons targeting the city's immigrant communities in a campaign more about terrorizing people of color than safety; the abuses of harassment, detention, deportation, injury, and the murders of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti; the call by elected officials, labor leaders and clergy for nonviolent protest; the people answering that call by the tens of thousands in the streets in sub-zero conditions, with mutual support and care for vulnerable neighbors, "through countless acts of courage and solidarity." Quoting Renee Good’s widow - “They have guns; we have whistles" - they argue the whistles have both alerted residents to the presence ofICE and "awakened Americans to the threat of violence (from) governments (that) target their own people."
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., they note, served as The Nation’s civil rights correspondent from 1961 to 1966. When he received the Peace Prize in 1964, he declared it recognizes those "moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice." King believed it is vital to show nonviolence as "not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation...Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace (and) transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood...The foundation of such a method is love." "We believe that the people of Minneapolis have displayed that love," the editors conclude. "That is why we are proud to nominate them and their city for the Nobel Peace Prize."
They don't mention any possible response by a mad, vengeful, impossibly petty king. But they do reflect the respect and gratitude of countless Americans who have watched the people of Minnesota endure "in the face of immense and continuing tragedy," and maintain their courage, dignity and humanity. One of those Americans was Springsteen, who explains in a brief note that he wrote, recorded and released Streets of Minneapolis within days "in response to the state terror being visited on the city." He dedicates it to "the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good," and signs off, "Stay free, Bruce Springsteen." On Wednesday, in hours, it soared to the top of the iTunes chart ranking bestselling individual tracks in the country.
The song is both classic Springsteen - potent, lyrical, with "a sense of urgency and genuine fury" - but atypically direct. It names names, crimes, this specific moment in history: "A city aflame fought fire and ice/‘Neath an occupier’s boots/King Trump’s private army from the DHS/Guns belted to their coats/Came to Minneapolis to enforce the law/Or so their story goes." There is rage: "It's our blood and bones/And these whistles and phones/Against Miller's and Noem's dirty lies." Resolve: "Our city’s heart and soul persists / Through broken glass and bloody tears." Tragedy: "And there were bloody footprints/Where mercy should have stood/And two dead left to die on snow-filled streets/Alex Pretti and Renee Good." Thank you to The Nation, to The Boss, to all those ordinary, extraordinary Americans standing strong against the monsters among us.
Oh our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Singing through the bloody mist
We’ll take our stand for this land
And the stranger in our midst
Oh our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Crying through the bloody mist
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
- YouTube www.youtube.com

President Donald Trump faced a fresh flood of fury on Tuesday as he formally withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement a second time, part of the broader anti-climate agenda he's pursued since returning to power.
The US initially completed the one-year withdrawal process in November 2020, as ballots from the general election were still being counted. After winning the race, former President Joe Biden swiftly rejoined the climate treaty, but Trump reclaimed the White House four years later—with help from Big Oil—and moved to abandon the pact again on his first day back in the Oval Office.
"Thanks to President Trump, the US has officially escaped from the Paris Climate Agreement, which undermined American values and priorities, wasted hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and stifled economic growth," a White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said in a Tuesday statement celebrating the "America First victory."
Advocates for ambitious action on the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency struck a much different tone about the president exiting the 2015 deal, which aims to limit global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, relative to preindustrial levels. Oil Change International US campaign manager Allie Rosenbluth declared that "Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a betrayal of the communities at risk from climate disaster, especially those on the frontlines of the crisis in the Global South."
"Trump is entrenching petro imperialism and enriching his fossil fuel CEO donors, at the cost of a livable planet," she said. "The US is the largest historic emitter and the current planet-wrecker-in chief, responsible for a greater increase in oil and gas extraction than any other country since the Paris Agreement. Now, Trump is pulling out of the agreement that commits it to help solve a crisis it largely created—deepening global risk of climate-fueled hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and floods."
Rosenbluth argued that "under Trump, the US is becoming a pariah on the world stage and should be treated as such by the countries claiming to defend climate multilateralism and international cooperation. It is clinging to fossil fuel dependency as many other nations embrace the clean, affordable energy sources of the future. Trump is trying to drag the rest of the world backwards by launching conflicts for oil and bullying other countries into deepening their reliance on dirty, dangerous fossil fuels."
"Trump can withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, but can't change that millions of people will fight for climate justice, including leaders from the Global South and US states and localities," she added. "While Trump turns the US into a rogue state, we must redouble global efforts to end the fossil era and fight for safety and dignity for all."
In an interview with the Guardian, Basav Sen, climate justice project director at the Institute for Policy Studies, suggested that US disengagement has already encouraged others to take action.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Brazil last November—which the Trump administration did not attend—Colombia, the Netherlands, and Pacific Island nations announced plans to host historic talks on phasing out fossil fuels. Sen said, "I have to believe that the reactionary position of the US acted as further impetus for those countries to step up."
Still, the Trump administration's position means "it will be that much harder for low-income countries, who are very dependent on fossil fuel production and exports, to be able to make their transitions with the US saying that we won't fund any of it," he said. Sen also stressed that "if the domestic market in the US continues to be dominated by fossil fuels through the fiat of an authoritarian government, that will continue to have an impact on the rest of the world."
In the lead-up to COP30, Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard urged other governments "to resist aligning with the Trump administration's denial of the accelerating climate crisis and instead demonstrate true climate leadership."
On Tuesday, Marta Schaaf, Amnesty's program director for climate, economic and social justice, and corporate accountability, said that "the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement sets a disturbing precedent that seeks to instigate a race to the bottom, and, along with its withdrawal from other major global climate pacts, aims to dismantle the global system of cooperation on climate action."
Despite "increasingly deadly and expensive" weather disasters, Trump has left not only the Paris Agreement but also dozens of other international treaties and organizations intended to coordinate on key issues, including human rights and the climate crisis.
"The US is one of several powerful anti-climate actors," Schaaf acknowledged, "but as an influential superpower, this decision, along with acts of coercion and bullying of other countries and powerful actors to double down on fossil fuels, causes particular harm and threatens to reverse more than a decade of global climate progress under the agreement."
"While the US may no longer be a party to the Paris Agreement, it still has legal obligations to protect humanity from the worsening impacts of climate change as confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its landmark 2025 advisory opinion," she emphasized. "US-based climate advocates and activists now find themselves on the frontlines of a fight with implications for current and future generations everywhere."
"Global solidarity and support to ensure accelerating momentum to address climate change has never been more urgent," Schaaf added. "Those who witness the harms caused by climate change and who can speak safely—must speak up. Other governments too must push back against all coercive efforts by the US. Ceding ground now risks losing it for years. Neither the planet nor the people living on the frontlines of proliferating unnatural disasters have that much time."
President Donald Trump on Wednesday backed off his threat to levy new tariffs on European nations who were opposed to his efforts to seize control of Greenland after progress on a potential deal with NATO.
In a Truth Social post, Trump said that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had worked out a "framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region."
"This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations," Trump continued. "Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1."
Hours earlier, Trump had once again demanded during a speech at the World Economic Forum that Denmark cede control of its self-governing territory to the US.
"We need Greenland for strategic national security and international security,” the president claimed. “This enormous, unsecured island is actually part of North America on the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere. That’s our territory. It is therefore a core national security interest of the United States of America.”
Denmark and other European nations, however, have said that letting the US take over Greenland is nonnegotiable, and there is no indication that they have shown any willingness to give in to Trump's demands.
NATO spokesperson Allison Hart told NBC News that the "framework" referenced by Trump in his post "will focus on ensuring Arctic security through the collective efforts of allies, especially the seven Arctic allies," which is a far cry from letting the US annex the Danish territory.
After Trump's announcement, some Democratic lawmakers blasted him for pointlessly angering and antagonizing US allies.
"We don't yet know what exactly is in this 'framework,' but I am willing to bet that anything that the Danes/Greenlanders would be willing to agree to in this, they would have been willing to agree to before all of these threats," wrote Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.). "This isn't the Art of the Deal. It's the art of pissing off everyone for no purpose."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also declared himself unimpressed with the president's announcement.
"Once again, Trump creates an international crisis and then rides in on his hobbyhorse to 'fix' it," Markey wrote in a social media post. "Americans are tired of Trump’s circus of chaos."
A bombshell Saturday report from the Wall Street Journal revealed that a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family secretly backed a massive $500 million investment into the Trump family's cryptocurrency venture months before the Trump administration gave the United Arab Emirates access to highly sensitive artificial intelligence chip technology.
According to the Journal's sources, lieutenants of Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan signed a deal in early 2025 to buy a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial, the startup founded by members of the Trump family and the family of Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Documents reviewed by the Journal showed that the buyers in the deal agreed to "pay half up front, steering $187 million to Trump family entities," while "at least $31 million was also slated to flow to entities affiliated with" the Witkoff family.
Weeks after green lighting the investment into the Trump crypto venture, Tahnoon met directly with President Donald Trump and Witkoff in the White House, where he reportedly expressed interest in working with the US on AI-related technology.
Two months after this, the Journal noted, "the administration committed to give the tiny Gulf monarchy access to around 500,000 of the most advanced AI chips a year—enough to build one of the world’s biggest AI data center clusters."
Tahnoon in the past had tried to get US officials to give the UAE access to the chips, but was rebuffed on concerns that the cutting-edge technology could be passed along to top US geopolitical rival China, wrote the Journal.
Many observers expressed shock at the Journal's report, with some critics saying that it showed Trump and his associates were engaging in a criminal bribery scheme.
"This was a bribe," wrote Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, in a social media post. "UAE royals gave the Trump family $500 million, and Trump, in his presidential capacity, gave them access to tightly guarded American AI chips. The most powerful person on the planet, also happens to be the most shamelessly corrupt."
Jesse Eisinger, reporter and editor at ProPublica, argued that the Abu Dhabi investment into the Trump cypto firm "should rank among the greatest US scandals ever."
Democratic strategist David Axelrod also said that the scope of the Trump crypto investment scandal was historic in nature.
"In any other time or presidency, this story... would be an earthquake of a scandal," he wrote. "The size, scope and implications of it are unprecedented and mind-boggling."
Tommy Vietor, co-host of "Pod Save America," struggled to wrap his head around the scale of corruption on display.
"How do you add up the cost of corruption this massive?" he wondered. "It's not just that Trump is selling advanced AI tech to the highest bidder, national security be damned. Its that he's tapped that doofus Steve Witkoff as an international emissary so his son Zach Witkoff can mop up bribes."
Former Rep. Tom Malinkowski (D-NJ) warned the Trump and his associates that they could wind up paying a severe price for their deal with the UAE.
"If a future administration finds that such payments to the Trump family were acts of corruption," he wrote, "these people could be sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act, and the assets in the US could potentially be frozen."
Doubling down on a ruling from late last year, a federal judge on Monday once again rejected an effort by the Trump administration to block congressional lawmakers from accessing federal immigration detention facilities.
In the ruling, US District Judge Jia Cobb granted a temporary restraining order sought by Democratic members of the House of Representatives to overturn the US Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy of requiring lawmakers to give a week's notice before being granted access to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities.
Cobb had already overturned this DHS policy in a December ruling, arguing that it "was likely contrary to the terms of a limitations rider attached to" the department's annual appropriated funds.
However, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in January reimplemented the one-week notice policy and argued that it was now being implemented with separate funds provided to DHS through the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which did not contain the language used in the earlier limitations rider.
Cobb rejected this argument and found that "at least some of these resources that either have been or will be used to promulgate and enforce the notice policy have already been funded and paid for with... restricted annual appropriations funds," including "contracts or agreements that predate" the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
According to legal journalist Chris Geidner, the effect of Cobb's ruling will be that congressional oversight visits to ICE facilities will now be "allowed on request."
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), the lead plaintiff in the case, hailed Cobb's ruling and vowed to keep putting pressure on the Trump administration to comply with the law.
"The Court’s decision today to grant a temporary restraining order against ICE’s unlawful effort to obstruct congressional oversight is a victory for the American people," said Neguse. "We will keep fighting to ensure the rule of law prevails."
Venezuelan scholars and a US watchdog group were among those expressing concern on Thursday after Venezuela's government caved to pressure from President Donald Trump and signed a bill opening up the South American country's nationalized oil industry to privatization.
After US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—who have both pleaded not guilty to federal narco-terrorism charges—the Trump administration installed the deposed leader's former deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, as acting president.
On Thursday, Venezuela's National Assembly—which is led by the acting president's brother, Jorge Rodríguez—approved and Delcy Rodríguez signed legislation that "promises to give private companies control over the production and sale of oil and allow for independent arbitration of disputes," according to the Associated Press.
As AP reported:
Rodríguez's government expects the changes to serve as assurances for major US oil companies that have so far hesitated about returning to the volatile country. Some of those companies lost investments when the ruling party enacted the existing law two decades ago to favor Venezuela's state-run oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA.
The revised law would modify extraction taxes, setting a royalty cap rate of 30% and allowing the executive branch to set percentages for every project based on capital investment needs, competitiveness, and other factors.
It also removes the mandate for disputes to be settled only in Venezuelan courts, which are controlled by the ruling party. Foreign investors have long viewed the involvement of independent courts as crucial to guard against future expropriation.
Malfred Gerig, a sociologist from Central University of Venezuela, said on social media that the Rodríguez siblings' United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) "has just approved the most anti-nationalist and damaging oil law since, at least, 1943. The absolute surrender of the state as an oil producer and a sudden conversion of the property rights of the Venezuelan nation into private rights of foreign companies."
Victor Lovera, an economics professor at Andres Bello Catholic University in Caracas, said that "it must be really fucking tough for the Rodríguez siblings to end up as the empire's lapdogs and open up the oil sector, taking us back to the 1970s, before the nationalization of oil. All just to cling to power for a few more months."
Trump—who returned to office a year ago with help from Big Oil's campaign cash—has made clear that his aggressive policy toward Venezuela is focused on the country's petroleum reserves, which critics have blasted as a clear effort to further enrich his donors and himself.
"Trump is deploying drone and gunboat diplomacy to coerce Venezuela into serving up its oil resources to Big Oil," said Robert Weissman, co-president of the US watchdog group Public Citizen, in a Thursday statement.
"Imperfectly, Venezuela has for most of the last century sought to manage its oil and gas reserves to advance its national interest, rather than that of outside investors," he noted. "Brutal sanctions and the threat of still more military action from the Trump regime are now forcing Venezuela to turn from that history and make its oil available to Big Oil at discount rates and to agree that investor disputes should be resolved at corporate-friendly international tribunals."
"This is imperial policy to benefit Big Oil, not Americans—and certainly not Venezuelans," Weissman stressed. "Even still, US oil companies are likely to be reluctant to invest heavily in Venezuela without US government guarantees—a likely next step in Trump’s oil imperialism, unless Congress moves proactively to block it."
Both chambers of the US Congress are narrowly controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and they have so far failed to pass war powers resolutions aimed at stopping more military action in Venezuela and the administration's bombings of boats allegedly smuggling drugs in international waters—all of which some American lawmakers and other experts have argued are illegal.
When Trump's secretary of state and acting national security adviser, Marco Rubio, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—on which he previously served—on Wednesday, he insisted that the president wasn’t planning for any more military action in Venezuela, but would take it, potentially without congressional authorization, in "self-defense."
Rubio also laid out how the United States intends to continue controlling Venezuelan oil and related profits, telling senators that Venezuela's government will submit periodic budgets, and as long as they comply with preset restrictions, the Trump administration will release funds from a US Treasury blocked account.
After the legislation passed Thursday, the Trump administration began easing sanctions on Venezuela's oil industry, with the Treasury issuing a general license authorizing certain activities involving Venezuelan-origin oil.
"Feel like this isn't gonna work out well," one legal expert said in response to the leaked DOJ plan.
The US Department of Justice is reportedly setting up a new program that would create a team of prosecutors who can parachute into different areas throughout the country to bring charges against protesters who have allegedly assaulted or obstructed law enforcement officers.
As reported by Bloomberg on Tuesday, a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo mandates that US attorney's offices designate some of their staff members to serve on "emergency jump teams" that can surge into areas on short notice to prosecute cases.
"A senior official instructed leaders of the nation's 93 US attorney’s offices... that they have until February 6 to designate one or two assistant US attorneys," reported Bloomberg, "who’d be available for short-term surges in unspecified areas needing 'urgent assistance due to emergent or critical situations.'"
The effort to create "jump teams" of lawyers comes as the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota has been hit with a wave of resignations in the wake of the federal government's surge of federal immigration enforcement agents into the state.
According to a Monday report from the Minnesota Star Tribune, 14 lawyers at the Minnesota US Attorney's Office have either already resigned or announced their intention to resign in just the last month, an unprecedented number of departures in such a short period of time.
Bloomberg writes that the "jump team" plan "signals the Trump administration’s attempt to offset career prosecutor attrition... with a nationwide pool of reinforcements on standby."
The plan was potentially telegraphed by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Saturday, when he put out a call on social media for more attorneys to come work for the Trump administration.
"If you want to combat fraud, crime and illegal immigration, reach out," Miller wrote. "Patriots needed."
Attorney Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, speculated on Sunday that Miller's call reflected "real internal problems" at the DOJ, and he predicted that one solution the administration could try would be to create a mobile legal strike force much like the one outlined in the leaked DOJ memo.
However, White argued that this approach would be far from a magic bullet to solve the administration's staffing woes.
"The impediments will be these: They will get dregs who will do a bad job," White wrote. "Federal prosecution is not rocket science but federal judges do have notably higher standards than state judges and if you MAGA your way around federal court you will get your ass handed to you."
Jonathan Booth, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, also predicted that the administration's strike force plan would run into some major speed bumps.
"Imagine, you're a federal prosecutor in San Diego," he wrote in a social media post. "It's sunny, warm, you have a whole set of important cases. Then suddenly 'we need you to go to Buffalo and prosecute extremely weak misdemeanor cases.' Feel like this isn't gonna work out well."
“Religious readings belong in Sunday school, not in public schools," said one parent opposed to the proposal.
Less than six months after a federal judge enjoined a Texas law mandating display of the "allegedly Protestant version of the Ten Commandments" in public schools, Republican lawmakers in the Lone Star State are pushing legislation to force children to read the Bible in classrooms.
Last week, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) voted 13-1 to delay voting on a proposed list of mandatory reading for all K-12 public school students until April in order to provide more time for feedback and thousands of corrections to a Bible-infused elementary school curriculum approved two years ago.
"This would bring the Word of God back into schools in a meaningful way for the first time in decades," SBOE member and Christian pastor Brandon Hall said last week in support of the forced Bible reading proposal.
However, as Texas parent Kevin Jackson—who spoke against the proposed list at a public hearing last week—put it, “Religious readings belong in Sunday school, not in public schools."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a Wisconsin-based advocacy group, said Tuesday on social media that "mandating Bible readings in public schools isn’t 'education,' it’s state-sponsored religious exercise."
"Public schools are for everyone," FFRF added. "Government has no business promoting or imposing religion on students. Church–state separation protects all Texans."
Carisa Lopez, deputy director of the Texas Freedom Network—a civil liberties and religious freedom group—said Friday that the proposal "enforces a one-size-fits-all approach in one of the largest and most diverse states in the nation."
“This kind of state micromanagement tosses aside local control and makes it harder or even impossible for teachers to tailor instruction in ways that are appropriate for their students," Lopez added. "Even worse is that this list represents another step by the state toward turning public schools into Sunday schools that undermine the right of parents to direct the religious education of their own children.”
Rabbi David Segal, policy counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, noted that “the proposed reading list relies heavily on Protestant Christian translations and leaves out other faith traditions."
“Public schools have a duty to prepare students to participate in civic life, not to advance a particular religious viewpoint," Segal stressed. "Teaching about religion has always been appropriate in public education, but what we are seeing here verges on state-sanctioned religious instruction."
The mandatory reading list also contains texts that conservative SBOE members say represent "foundational" literature that all students should know. However, some Democratic board members object to what they say is the list's lack of racial and gender diversity.
“This list does not represent the students of Texas,” Democratic SBOE member Tiffany Clark told Education Week. “For so many years, students of color have had to endure a European-centered philosophy, history, without representation of their own history being recognized. That is exactly what we see continuing to happen with this list.”
The proposed reading list follows the SBOE's 2024 approval of Bluebonnet Learning, a Bible-infused curriculum for elementary public school students that critics say violates the US Constitution's establishment clause.
Last year, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott—a devout Catholic—signed SB 10, which forces display of the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. This, despite an earlier ruling from a federal judge, who found that a similar law in Louisiana was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.
In an extraordinarily pointed ruling last August, US District Judge for the Western District of Texas Fred Biery issued a preliminary injunction blocking parts of SB 10.
"Imagine the consternation and legal firestorm were the following fictional story to become reality," Biery wrote. "Hamtramck, Michigan: Being a majority Muslim community, the Hamtramck City Council and school board have decreed that, beginning September 1, 2025, the following teachings of the Quran, Surah Al-An’am 6:151 and Surah Al-Isra 17:23, shall be posted in all public buildings and public schools."
"While 'We the people' rule by a majority, the Bill of Rights protects the minority Christians in Hamtramck and those 33% of Texans who do not adhere to any of the Christian denominations," he added.
I don’t know who this man is but protect him at all costs!! He finally broke it down. So much she had no come back! See the God yall worshipping is yourself and your opinions!! I love how he use the word, the one she claims to know in his argument! Sadly they still won’t get it.… pic.twitter.com/KHqrVf5SHC
— Leslie Jones 🦋 (@Lesdoggg) January 23, 2024
If the new reading list mandate is approved in April as anticipated, Texas will become the first state in the nation to force every student in the state to read the Bible. Former Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters—a Republican and Christian nationalist—mandated that all public school districts incorporate the Bible—and specifically the Ten Commandments—into their curricula for grades 5-12.
It would start with a mandate to read material including "The Golden Rule” in kindergarten, "The Parable of the Prodigal Son” in first grade, and "The Road to Damascus" in third grade.
As Hemant Mehta wrote for his Friendly Atheist blog :
The readings get more specific as students get older. Seventh graders would have to read "The Shepherd's Psalm (Book of Psalms, Chapter 23)” from the Old Testament along with “The Definition of Love” from 1 Corinthians 13. High schoolers would be reading Genesis 11:1-9 about the Tower of Babel, Lamentations 3, and the story of David and Goliath as told in 1 Samuel 17.
"What makes this proposal so damning is that Christianity is the only religious book included in the required readings, and even the more secular stories are infused with more direct religious messages," Mehta wrote on Saturday. "That’s on top of the state-sanctioned curriculum itself, which is already Bible-heavy."
"The Texas Board of Education is shoving explicitly Christian narratives into a mandatory, state-sanctioned reading list and pretending it’s objective when it comes to religion," Mehta added. "They want to privilege one (and only one) religion at the expense of all others, treating biblical stories as if they’re foundational truths and the default moral framework for everyone, regardless of their families’ beliefs."
There is an alternative proposal by Republican SBOE member Will Hickman that would increase the number of more contemporary works like The Hunger Games and Ender's Game and swap biblical texts with Judeo-Christian mythology such as the story of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark "without any Bible thumping involved," as Mehta put it.
"That might be fine! But that’s clearly not what most Republicans are aiming for," he wrote. "They don’t care if kids are culturally literate regarding the Bible; they just want those kids to accept the Bible as true."
As if on cue, the Wiley Independent School District on Tuesday issued a statement announcing an investigation into what it called the "unauthorized distribution of religious materials" on the campus of Wylie East High School. While the announcement does not specify the religion in question, Marco Hunter-Lopez, who leads the school's Republican student club, said it was Islam.
🚨 Islamic Outreach Booth Sparks Parent Concerns at Wylie East High School 🚨
Wylie, Texas — Parents and community members are raising concerns after an Islamic outreach organization set up an informational booth on the campus of Wylie East High School during the school day this… pic.twitter.com/cNpq1aPfQf
— Texan Report (@TexanReport) February 3, 2026
At the national level, President Donald Trump and his administration have pledged to "protect" prayer in public schools.
“To have a great nation, you have to have religion," the thrice-married adulterer, serial liar, and purveyor of $1,000 branded Bibles said last year. "I will always defend our glorious heritage, and we will protect the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding.”
"These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said a lawyer for the ACLU.
The Department of Homeland Security is using a little-known legal power to surveil and intimidate critics of the Trump administration, according to a harrowing report published Tuesday by the Washington Post.
Experts told the Post that DHS annually issues thousands of "administrative subpoenas," which allow federal agencies to request massive amounts of personal information from third parties—like technology companies and banks—without an order from a judge or a grand jury, and completely unbeknownst to the people whose privacy is being invaded.
As the Post found, even sending a politely critical email to a government official can be enough to have someone's entire life brought under the microscope.
That is what Jon, a 67-year-old retiree living in Philadelphia, who has been a US citizen for nearly three decades, found out after he sent a short email urging a DHS prosecutor, Joseph Dernbach, to reconsider an attempt to deport an Afghan asylum seeker who faced the threat of being killed by the Taliban if he was forced to return to his home country.
In the email, Jon warned Dernbach not to "play Russian roulette" with the man's life and implored him to “apply principles of common sense and decency.”
Just five hours after he sent the email, Jon received a message from Google stating that DHS had used a "subpoena" to request information about his account. Google gave him seven days to respond to the subpoena, but did not provide him with a copy of the document; instead, it told him to request one from DHS.
From there, he was sent on “a maddening, hourslong circuit of answering machines, dead numbers, and uninterested attendants,” which yielded no answers.
Within weeks of sending the email, a pair of DHS agents visited Jon's home and asked him to explain it. They told Jon that his email had not clearly broken any law, but that the DHS prosecutor may have felt threatened by his use of the phrase "Russian Roulette" and his mention of the Taliban.
Days later, after weeks of hitting a wall, Google finally sent Jon a copy of the subpoena only after the company was contacted by a Post reporter. It was then that Jon learned the breadth of what DHS had requested:
Among their demands, which they wanted dating back to Sept. 1: the day, time, and duration of all his online sessions; every associated IP and physical address; a list of each service he used; any alternate usernames and email addresses; the date he opened his account; his credit card, driver’s license, and Social Security numbers.
Google also informed him that it had not yet responded to the subpoena, though the company did not explain why.
But this is unusual. Google and other companies, including Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon, told the Post that they nearly always comply with administrative subpoenas unless they are barred from doing so.
With the ACLU's help, Jon filed a motion in court on Monday to challenge the subpoena issued to Google.
"In a democracy, contacting your government about things you feel strongly about is a fundamental right," Jon said. "I exercised that right to urge my government to take this man's life seriously. For that, I am being investigated, intimidated, and targeted. I hope that by standing up for my rights and sharing my story, others will know what to do when these abusive subpoenas and investigations come knocking on their door."
As the Trump administration uses DHS and other agencies to compile secret watchlists and databases of protesters for surveillance, targets people for deportation based solely on political speech, and asserts its authority to raid residences without a judicial warrant, administrative subpoenas appear to be another weapon in its arsenal against free speech and civil rights.
According to “transparency reports” reviewed by the Post, Google and Meta both received a record number of administrative subpoenas during the first six months of the second Trump administration. In several instances, they have been used to target protesters or other dissidents for First Amendment-protected activity:
In March, Homeland Security issued two administrative subpoenas to Columbia University for information on a student it sought to deport after she took part in pro-Palestinian protests. In July, the agency demanded broad employment records from Harvard University with what the school’s attorneys described as “unprecedented administrative subpoenas.” In September, Homeland Security used one to try to identify Instagram users who posted about [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids in Los Angeles. Last month, the agency used another to demand detailed personal information about some 7,000 workers in a Minnesota health system whose staff had protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s intrusion into one of its hospitals.
“These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said Stephen A. Loney, a senior supervising attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "If you can’t criticize a government official without the worry of having your private records gathered and agents knocking on your door, then your First Amendment rights start to feel less guaranteed. They want to bully companies into handing over our data and to chill users’ speech. This is unacceptable in a democratic society.”