

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.
More than 50 years after the murder of iconic Chilean folk singer Victor Jara, the last man convicted of killing him has been tracked down and brought to justice. In 1973, a day after Pinochet's coup, Jara was seized, tortured, his hands broken to silence what was deemed music "more powerful than a thousand machine guns." Today, in a world tilting right, he remains an enduring symbol of resistance. Manifiesto: “A song has meaning/ When it beats in the veins/ Of a man who will die singing.”
On Sept. 11, 1973, troops under brutal, U.S.- backed General Augusto Pinochet bombed and stormed the presidential palace in Santiago to depose Salvador Allende, a Chilean physician who'd become the first democratically elected Marxist head of state in Latin America. Barricaded inside the palace, Allende gave a final speech defending Chilean democracy. "My words do not have bitterness but disappointment.," he said. "May they be a moral punishment for those who have betrayed their oath." He thanked the country's workers, farmers, miners, women, intellectuals, students for their heartfelt loyalty to "a man who was only an interpreter of great yearnings for justice." "I will always be next to you," he said. "My sacrifice will not be in vain. History is ours." Then he shot himself under the chin with an assault rifle.
A Marxist activist and singer hugely popular with Allende supporters, Jara had re-written the 1969 song Venceremos - composed by Sergio Ortega with original text by Claudio Iturra - as an anthem for Allende’s 1970 Popular Unity election campaign. Born to a poor farm family, Jara was mestizo, a mix of Indigenous Mapuche and Spanish heritage. He once said his first memory was hearing his mother sing folk songs as she worked in their garden or kitchen; after she died when he was 15, Jara went to seminary school but eventually decided against the priesthood. After military service, he studied theater and music at university, then turned to writing songs that merged tender folk music with political themes - rural working-class stories, brutal evictions of squatters: "We began to create a new kind of song. It was music that was born out of necessity."
In September 1973, widely recognizable, he was seized by soldiers the day after the coup and taken to Estadio Chile, a Santiago stadium now named for him, where about 5,000 people were being held. For four days, he was beaten, tortured, humiliated. An officer threw a cigarette on the ground and made him crawl for it; others played Russian Roulette with him; eventually, they broke both his hands before parading him through the stadium; later, through split lips, he sang a final Venceremos - "We Will Prevail." On his last day, said a fellow detainee, he found a pen and notebook and scribbled one more song, or harsh poem, Estadio Chile, later smuggled out. Two hours later, he was killed, his body dumped near a cemetery. His body had 44 bullet wounds 56 broken bones, including a shattered skull. He was 40 years old.
The Pinochet dictatorship went on to kill or disappear over 3,000 people, and detain and torture up to 40,000 during its brutal 17-year reign. It ended in 1990 through a constitutional process wherein voters rejected extending its rule and elected a civilian president. After years of legal efforts to hold Pinochet accountable, in 1998 a Spanish judge issued an international arrest warrant for his human rights abuses; he was detained in the U.K during a medical visit after the House of Lords ruled he did not have immunity, but Britain ultimately released him back to Chile in 2000 for health reasons. There, Chilean judges pushed their Supreme Court to strip him of immunity to face trial for murders and kidnappings tied to military death squads, but he died under house arrest of a heart attack in 2006, age 91, having never been formally tried or convicted for his crimes.
Victor Jara, one of the regime's most beloved and recognizable victims, swiftly became an enduring international symbol of resistance after the deadly, public silencing of his music. In 2003, Estadio Chile was renamed Estadio Víctor Jara; in 2009, Victor’s body was reburied in a public funeral attended by thousands of mourners; today, an annual 1,000 Guitars event held in his honor at that stadium also draws thousands. Still, the moral arc of the universe moved slowly. Over time, Chilean courts convicted hundreds of military officers and secret police for human rights abuses, but it was not until 2018 that eight retired officers were charged with Jara's murder, and that of Allende's director of prisons Littré Quiroga Carvajal. In August 2023, after five years of appeals and 50 years of evading justice, Chile's Supreme Court convicted them all in a unanimous decision.
The Court sentenced the eight, several in absentia, to 15 years and a day for the murders of both men, and 10 years and a day for their kidnappings, for a total of 25 years. A ninth was given eight years for concealing the crimes. The Court also dismissed all their appeals for annulment, and ordered the state to pay large reparations to the families of both men. Of those sentenced, 86-year-old Gen. Hernán Chacón killed himself moments after police arrived to arrest him at his home in a wealthy district of Santiago. Another, Pedro Barrientos, had fled Chile for the US in 1989; he was extradited back in 2023 after he was arrested in the US during a traffic stop. During his trial, one former soldier testified Barrientos liked to brandish his pistol in a crowd and declare, “I killed Víctor Jara with this!"
Five others have been in jail since then. Only one, Nelson Haase Mazzei, had remained missing since he failed to appear in court in 2018. A retired colonel, Haase Mazzei joined the Chilean army’s notorious Tejas Verde brigade in 1972 and was part of Pinochet’s brutal secret police; he worked closely with its head, Manuel Contreras, sentenced to over 500 years in jail for crimes against humanity before his 2015 death. Last weekend, in likely the final act of a too-long quest for justice, Chilean police announced they'd arrested Haase Mazzei, now 80, in rural Puyehue, south of Santiago. A judge ordered his immediate imprisonment to start his 25 year sentence; one article noted, "Impunity Takes Another Hit." Another said his defense lawyer has requested his transfer to Punta Peuco, a ritzy jail already housing many of the Pinochet era's murderers.
Through the Víctor Jara Foundation, started by Victor's widow Joan, a British dancer and activist who died in 2023 at 96, their daughter Amanda said she welcomes the news of Haase's arrest but, "Half a century after the murders, it is difficult to see this as justice." Still, Jara's songs live on from when Allende, after he won the presidency, spoke before a banner reading, "You can’t have a revolution without songs." "They were on the radio and television," said Joan in 1975. “The song movement was a tremendous weapon." Since then, music has continued fighting the fear authoritarianism depends on, transforming "political grievance into a shared language of survival" - Miriam Makeba, Mikis Theodorakis, Pussy Riot, America's Woody Guthrie to Dylan to Bad Bunny, who launched his 2026 tour in Chile with Jara's song, dedicated to Ho Chi Minh, The Right to Live in Peace.
In 2020, James Dean Bradfield, lead vocalist and guitarist for the Welsh alt-rock band Manic Street Preachers, released Even in Exile, a concept album dedicated to Jara's life and work, along with a three-part podcast. Bradfield discovered Jara as a teen, taken aback by a tenderness he didn't associate with "one of the only truly Marxist musicians. The truth...floats to you like a dream.” He learned more about Jara from poet Patrick Jones, whose brother is Bradfield’s bandmate; Jones had found two compilations of Jara songs in a thrift shop, became "obsessed" and wrote dozens of poems about Jara that, shared with Bradfield, became the album's songs. For Jones, the story of Jara's life and death is "a warning from history" that deeply . resonates with today's rise of the right: "Power is always afraid of those who stand up and say, 'There’s another way.'"
For the album, Bradfield wanted songs that span Jara's life, from his rural childhood to his final hours. He was moved by his singing of Venceremos near the end - "He died defiantly, but with grace" - yet felt, "If you just focus on his death, you ignore the journey." Above all, he wanted to highlight Jara's daunting courage and conviction throughout his life, a "naked truth" that rendered him what Phil Ochs called, when he met Jara in 1971, "the real thing." For Bradfield, it reminded him of the Preachers' 1998 song, If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next. He also deliberately chose to include Jara's final Estadio Chile - "How hard it is to sing when I must sing of horror/ Horror which I am living, horror which I am dying” - which he calls "an anthem that became a prophecy." Of Jara's life and work, he hears "the echo time and time again. I wanted to show here’s an echo that doesn’t die."

- YouTube www.youtube.com
- YouTube www.youtube.com
President Donald Trump's administration has admitted in court that it chose to cancel certain grants for clean energy projects because they were set to benefit Democratic-voting states.
The New York Times reported on Friday that attorneys representing the US Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged in court documents filed earlier this month that decisions about canceling grants were based "solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State."
The Times described this as a "stunning admission" that "offered an unvarnished glimpse into the way President Trump has weaponized the provision of federal education, energy, health, housing, and infrastructure aid in his second term."
According to the Times, the DOE last year recommended canceling more than 600 grants awarded for energy projects under former President Joe Biden's administration.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget only made 284 of the recommended cuts while leaving the rest of the grants in place.
After a group of California researchers challenged the terminated grants in a lawsuit, the DOE acknowledged that "with one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators."
The DOE also admitted that there was no "programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor" to justify the cuts.
In a social media post, New York Times reporter Tony Romm noted that the DOE made these admissions "as part of a process meant to avoid discovery" and "perhaps spare it from sharing more damaging records" in its possession.
The Times report drew a sharp reaction from Trump administration critics.
"This is corruption," said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.). "It’s how this administration has acted since day one: punishing states, businesses, and ordinary Americans who push back on Trump. It’s a major betrayal of our nation that will lead to higher energy prices and should be condemned by people of all political parties. It’s un-American and despicable."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) accused the administration of "the weaponization of government" with its selective grant cancellations.
"This administration shows us time and time again they only care about one person," Kim added, "and that person only cares about himself."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) argued that the filings prove "what we have long known, that their grant cancellations were not based on 'waste' or sound policy but vindictiveness."
"It is despicable," Durbin emphasized, "that the administration is taking away funding from states that did not vote for Trump."
Jennifer Victory, political scientist at George Mason University, described the administration's scheme as "violations of the rule of law that would be sufficient for impeachment in any other American presidency but aren't in this one because pathological partisan loyalty has rotted the constitutional order."
Sam Stein, managing editor at The Bulwark, said that the DOE's admission about targeting Democratic states was "something we all knew and saw at the time and yet still breathtaking to read... in print."
A federal judge on Thursday denied a request by more than two dozen Democratic states to halt a Trump administration policy announced last month that would require Medicaid recipients with terminal diseases to prove they are too sick to work in order to be exempt from new work requirements that go into effect this coming January.
While introducing over $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, last year's massive GOP tax and budget bill also imposed new 80-hour-per-month work requirements that states must implement for Medicaid expansion recipients, who receive government-subsidized insurance coverage at or below 138% of the poverty line.
The law specified that those who are “medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs” are excluded from the work requirement, and specifically listed people with a “serious or complex medical condition.” But it remained unclear what exact conditions met these criteria.
Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a new rule stating that even if a person receives a terminal diagnosis for a disease like cancer, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson's, that is still not enough for them to be exempt from the work requirements.
Beginning on January 1, 2028, it says they must also demonstrate to states that their condition “significantly impairs” their ability to meet the work requirement.
Democratic attorneys general in 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a preliminary injunction over the rule late last month, arguing that CMS had rewritten the law to introduce a vague and needlessly restrictive new hurdle that vulnerable people will face in obtaining desperately needed care.
“This is one of those cases where it’s really hard to overstate how dire the consequences could be,” North Carolina’s Democratic attorney general, Jeff Jackson, told Politico. “You’re going to have 50 states doing 50 different things, and we’re all going to have to create a whole new bureaucracy... You are talking about a lot more paperwork, more evaluations, more doctor visits, and a lot more work for doctors themselves.”
The Democratic AGs argued that implementation of the work requirements should be paused because they lacked the staff or capacity to meet the timeline set by CMS, which requires states to communicate to enrollees how they'll be affected by the changes by the end of August.
US District Judge Richard Stearns on Thursday denied their initial request to immediately halt the implementation of the requirements while the lawsuit proceeds, but also did not rule on the lawsuit's merits, which are scheduled to be decided before the requirements go into effect on January 1.
Several medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have come out against the rule, arguing that it would have dire consequences for people who suffer from severe illness.
"One of the most significant factors in whether someone survives a cancer diagnosis is whether they have health insurance coverage," Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, explained in June.
"The new restrictions link the definition of medical frailty to a person’s ability to work," she continued. "This would mean cancer patients and survivors who are suffering from debilitating side effects of the disease or treatment would have to officially prove they can’t work, in a process that is likely to be difficult and take a long time."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that over the coming decade, changes to healthcare policy introduced by Republicans would increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 11.8 million.
Around 5.7 million of them are projected to be Medicaid recipients who either do not meet the 80-hour work requirement or are otherwise eligible but tripped up by one of the newly imposed paperwork hurdles.
Taya Graham and Stephen Janis argued earlier this week in a piece for The Real News Network that eligible people losing coverage is not an unfortunate side effect of the law, but a goal of the Republicans who passed it, who sought a way to thin the ranks of those who qualify for Medicaid without having to take the politically unpopular step of actually clawing back benefits.
They wrote that what has happened to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) illustrates how burdensome these new requirements may become.
As The New York Times reported earlier this month, in Arizona, 440,000 people have already been dropped from SNAP after it enacted a formidable regime of paperwork for low-income recipients to prove eligibility, including requiring some people with panhandling income to obtain documentation from donors who drop them a buck on the street.
"If this is what people receiving SNAP benefits have been subjected to," Graham and Janis wrote, "imagine what’s going to happen to people who will need to navigate the new [Medicaid] requirements while struggling with a debilitating or terminal illness."
Medical issues are a leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. According to one study, over 4 in 10 cancer patients over 50 had depleted all their assets within two years of diagnosis.
Melanie D’Arrigo, a campaigner for single-payer healthcare in New York, said that President Donald Trump "cut cancer research, cut healthcare,” and with new Medicaid restrictions, “wants to make sure Americans continue to work as they go broke battling cancer.”
Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee voted Thursday to block a Democratic amendment that would have prohibited the Internal Revenue Service from giving sweeping tax audit immunity to President Donald Trump, his family, and their businesses.
If passed, the amendment would have nullified a central element of the deal that the US Justice Department cut with the IRS in May to settle Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the tax agency. Experts have argued that such broad audit immunity is unlawful, and Democrats have warned the agreement could leave the IRS with no recourse if Trump decided to dodge taxes on the billions of dollars he has pocketed during his second stint in the White House.
Democrats on the Finance Committee sought to attach their amendment to bipartisan legislation aimed at streamlining tax administration. The amendment failed in a 13-14 vote along party lines, and the bipartisan bill passed out of committee 26-1—with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) the lone opponent. Warren told Politico that she "cannot support a bill that rubber stamps Donald Trump’s corruption."
"Senate Republicans blocked Democrats' proposal to end Donald Trump's IRS sweetheart deal," Warren wrote on social media following Thursday's vote. "This deal gives him FULL IMMUNITY from audits on tax returns he's filed. It's corruption on steroids."
The vote on the Democratic amendment came as Trump's attorney general nominee, Todd Blanche, remained stalled in the Senate, in large part due to the Justice Department's failure to commit to sufficient limitations on the IRS audit immunity deal, which Blanche signed.
Blanche, who is currently the acting attorney general, testified during a Senate confirmation hearing earlier this month that the IRS audit immunity deal is "not forward-looking," but a key Republican said this week that the Justice Department has not yet provided sufficient written commitments to limit the immunity agreement.
Blanche reportedly met with the two Senate GOP holdouts—John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina—on Thursday in an effort to hash out a deal to advance his nomination. Trump, who has aggressively avoided taxes throughout his career and broke with political tradition by refusing to voluntarily release his federal income tax returns, threatened on Thursday to pull Blanche's nomination until Cornyn and Tillis leave the Senate next year, having lost reelection.
The New York Times summarized the IRS immunity deal, should it survive legal and political scrutiny:
First, the IRS has to drop any inquiries, whether civil audits or criminal investigations, it was pursuing into Mr. Trump, his family members, their companies, or 'affiliated individuals.' Second, the IRS can’t start any new investigations into tax returns that this potentially large pool of people and companies has already filed.
That means that any tax maneuver the Trumps have already used, whether the IRS was already auditing it or not, is now off limits. The agency typically has three years after someone files a tax return to assess more in taxes. So there are potential audits of Mr. Trump and his family that the IRS could have initiated—claims that 'could have been asserted,' in the language of Mr. Blanche’s order—that it is now not supposed to. But the next tax return that Mr. Trump files could, theoretically, still be eligible for an audit.
“Trump’s sweetheart audit immunity deal is perhaps the most brazenly corrupt action taken by a president in American history, and Congress must permanently put a stop to the unchecked greed on display,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said earlier this week. “Elected officials cannot look taxpayers in the eye and ask them to play by a set of rules that the president of the United States is exempt from."
Democratic Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro appeared on MS NOW early Wednesday to discuss his recent trip to and persistent efforts to shut down what he called a "trailer prison" where US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is holding families in Dilley.
After leading a letter signed by over 100 other Democrats calling for the closure of the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, Castro on Tuesday conducted a congressional oversight visit of the facility with members of the Democratic Women's Caucus, including Reps. Yassamin Ansari (Ariz.), Lizzie Fletcher (Texas), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Luz Rivas (Calif.).
During the interview on "Morning Joe," Castro said that Americans have watched in horror as ICE has killed and brutalized US citizens and immigrants in the streets, "but there's a brutality behind the prison walls of these detention centers that almost no one gets to see except for members of Congress who have an opportunity to go inspect them."
While touring the Dilley center seven times recently, "I've seen a lot of desperate children. I've seen traumatized children. There is a system there that is abusive of people," Castro said, citing complaints of worms in food, yellow drinking water, and inadequate medical care.
"When I asked, they said the youngest person there is 2 months old—so there's a 2-month-old baby there and four pregnant women there right now. And, you know, I can tell you that it's no place for a 2-month-old baby to be, or even a 1- or 5-year-old kid," he said.
Noting that the Texas facility is run by a private prison company—CoreCivic—and condemning the "commodification of child imprisonment," Castro declared that "we want the Dilley detention center shut down."
His comments on MS NOW mirrored those he and other lawmakers delivered outside the facility, also known as the South Texas Family Residential Center, and during a press conference with the organizations FWD.us and Families Belong Together.
The center is currently detaining 539 individuals, from 84 families, according to Pressley. She said that "these are law-abiding people that are our neighbors—people we love, people we live next to, we work and worship with, who were just going about their lives and met with such an aggressive disruption that they will be recovering from for the rest of their lives."
"Dilley must be shut down. We have to abolish ICE. And then I'm gonna take it one step further and say any of those agents that have contributed to and caused the injury, the harm, and even fatalities, they must also be held accountable, and we should abolish qualified immunity for these federal law enforcement officers," she argued.
FWD.us president Todd Schulte also called for "shutting down Dilley and releasing these children and families immediately."
"Dilley reflects a broader pattern that should not be expanded with additional, unprecedented taxpayer funding," he stressed, denouncing the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Republican-controlled Congress has poured into President Donald Trump's mass detention and deportation campaign, led by ICE and US Customs and Border Protection.
"This will only cause irreparable harm to children and communities," Schulte warned. "Thank you to the members who continue to call for the release of families, and we join them in their calls for Dilley's closure."
Two more Israeli soldiers killed themselves over the past two days, bringing renewed scrutiny to what experts say is a worsening mental health emergency inside the Israel Defense Forces during 33 months of genocidal war on Gaza and enduring stigma around seeking treatment.
According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, two female IDF troops—a combat soldier and an intelligence officer—died by suicide this week. Israeli Military Police said they are investigating both deaths, which bring the number of active duty IDF troops who have killed themselves this year to at least 16. Haaretz said that at least nine former IDF soldiers have also committed suicide after completing their military service in 2026.
The latest deaths underscore what military officials, mental health professionals, and veterans have increasingly described as one of the most severe psychological crises the Israeli military has faced in decades.
Earlier this year, Haaretz reported that Israeli military suicides reached 21 in 2024 and 22 in 2025—the highest annual totals in roughly 15 years. Israel's oldest daily newspaper also found that the military had reduced the number of mental health officers available to soldiers despite unprecedented demand for psychological services.
The crisis has been exacerbated by repeated troop deployments since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack—itself the cause of tremendous trauma and some suicides by survivors—and Israel's subsequent assault on Gaza, which has been characterized by what prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in The Hague say are crimes against humanity and war crimes, and what a United Nations panel of experts said is a genocide.
More than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces in Gaza, some of them reportedly executed at close range.
IDF troops and Israeli and international medical workers have described the deliberate and indiscriminate shooting of Palestinian civilians, including women and children, some of whom were reportedly executed. Former Palestinian prisoners and Israeli troops and doctors have also reported torture and sexual abuse of detainees, and of civilians including children and even a toddler. Such carnage and abuse has taken a toll on the perpetrators as well as their victims.
A persistent stigma surrounding mental health treatment also discourages many soldiers from seeking the care they need. Some fear being viewed as weak or worry that treatment could adversely affect their military service or relationships, despite ongoing efforts to destigmatize the issue.
A senior IDF commander told the Israeli public broadcaster Kan last year that "most of the suicides resulted from the complex reality created by the war," adding, "War has consequences."
Earlier this year, Reuters reported that the IDF had recorded a nearly 40% increase in post-traumatic stress disorder among its troops since September 2023, with 60% of the 22,300 people being treated for war wounds experiencing PTSD. The news agency cited an Israeli parliamentary committee's finding that 279 soldiers had attempted to kill themselves in the period from January 2024 to July 2025, and that IDF combat soldiers comprised 78% of all suicides in Israel in 2024.
Some observers—especially Palestine defenders—have little sympathy for IDF soldiers who kill themselves, pointing to the widespread crimes being committed in Gaza and throughout illegally occupied Palestine, including apartheid, settler colonization, and ethnic cleansing.
Others, recognizing their humanity and the moral injury that experts say afflicts many participants in war, mourn these deaths while maintaining that compassion for soldiers must never eclipse accountability for crimes against Palestinians.
After Eliran Mizrahi, a 40-year-old Israeli father of four, killed himself in 2024, his sister told CNN, “He always said no one will understand what [he] saw."
Mizrahi's mother said that "he saw a lot of people die. Maybe he even killed someone. [But] we don’t teach our children to do things like this… so, when he did this, something like this, maybe it was a shock for him.”
US psychologist Rachel Kabasakalian-McKay coined the term “complex implication” to define how “history often implicates us in networks of harm, even as we carry our own traumas."
"As humans," she explained in a 2025 interview with Psychology Today, "we can be both victims and perpetrators.”
"It's a narrative designed to give the impression that Trump is in the driving seat in this conflict. It's been clear for some time now: He isn't."
Trita Parsi, an expert on US-Iranian relations, cast doubt on President Donald Trump's Saturday claims that he halted planned strikes on Iran due to progress in negotiations to end the illegal conflict, launched by the Republican and Israel in February.
"The U.S.A. is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II. Despite this, we have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack in that the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform at 10:05 pm Eastern time.
"This would include the Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT, and an end to Iran's nuclear threat," Trump declared—despite repeated conclusions from US intelligence agencies that the Iranian government was not aiming to build a nuclear weapon when the United States and Israel began bombing Iran five months ago.
"Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL," Trump added. "The Country of Israel joins me in this commitment. Get to work, everybody, and get it DONE."
Sharing the post on the platform X, Parsi said, "Trump 'cancels' 'planned' 'attack' on Iran..." The expert struck a similarly skeptical tone during a Saturday on-air interview with CNN about the president's announcement.
Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that "I don't believe there was an imminent attack. We've gone through this several times, in which Trump issues these threats, and then he backs off because the other side calls his bluff."
"Trump does not have an escalatory way out of this conflict, but what he is trying to do is to give the impression that he is in control—that he is in the driving seat," Parsi suggested. "And I think it's been quite clear for quite some time now he is not."
During Trump's first term, he tore up the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal, and so far, he has been unable to negotiate a replacement. Since launching this war, without authorization from Congress and in violation of the United Nations Charter, the ceasefire agreement reached in April and a June memorandum of understanding ultimately have not stopped the bloodshed.
Earlier this week, most US Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) blocked yet another war powers resolution intended to prevent the Trump administration from launching further attacks on Iran without congressional approval—a vote that came as polling showed 64% of Americans disapprove of continuing the war, including 37% of Republicans.
The Iran War has killed thousands of Iranians and Lebanese civilians—the latter mostly from Israeli attacks purportedly targeting Hezbollah—as well as hundreds of people in other nations across the Middle East and at least 18 US service members.
In the hours before Trump's Saturday Truth Social post, Axios revealed that "Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Trump spoke on Saturday, with MBS expressing concern over the strike plans," and "other regional powers, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Pakistan, have also pressed the US and Iran to de-escalate.”
CBS chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan reported on social media about Saturday's "flurry of phone calls by Iran's top diplomat Abbas Araghchi to regional leaders, which suggests an effort underway to avoid military strikes."
"Earlier today, the State Department advised Americans throughout the Mideast to leave the region," Brennan noted.
Araghchi said Saturday that "any hostile action by the US or Israel—or participation or cooperation by regional countries in such actions—would be met with a decisive and proportionate response from Iran's powerful armed forces."
The president wants "your tax dollars available to compensate his political allies," a Democratic congressman said. "He's flat out trying to steal your money."
As two Republican senators continue to stand with Democrats against the nomination of Todd Blanche as US attorney general over the so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund," President Donald Trump made clear on Saturday that he's willing to keep his former personal lawyer in the post in an acting capacity while pushing for legislation to allow the widely condemned payout scheme.
Due to the unexpected death of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Republicans need full support on the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance Blanche, but GOP Sens. Thom Tillis (NC) and John Cornyn (Texas) have been blocking him over the $1.776 billion fund—which, in addition to an immunity deal, was part of the settlement for the Trump family's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. A panel vote is rescheduled for Tuesday, but so far there's no deal.
Since US District Judge Kathleen Williams—appointed in the Southern District of Florida by former President Barack Obama—ruled against the fund last month, Blanche has indicated the US Department of Justice (DOJ) will no longer pursue the creation of the slush fund, and Trump even referred to it as "dead" on Friday. However, the Trump family also appealed to the 11th Circuit on Friday.
Responding to the appeal on Friday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that "when I offered my amendment to kill this slush fund, Republicans said we should accept Trump's word that it was dead. We knew they were wrong. This is why. Even in the middle of an illegal war, with prices rising, Trump wants to send your tax dollars to criminals and save his sweetheart tax deal."
The president on Friday also ranted about Cornyn—who lost a May primary to a Trump-backed opponent—on his Truth Social platform, writing that "John Cornyn never had a problem with the so called 'Fund,' which will not benefit me, but rather the great American Patriots who were hunted down like dogs and whose lives were unfairly and illegally destroyed by the Crooked Joe Biden Administration, until after I decided to Endorse and Support his Republican Primary opponent in Texas, who easily won the Nomination for the United States Senate."
Trump did not mention the timeline: The DOJ announced the settlement, including the slush fund, on May 18, and the president endorsed Cornyn's scandal-plagued primary challenger, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, on May 19.
Instead, the president focused on the potential recipients of payouts—including January 6, 2021 insurrectionists previously pardoned by him—claiming that "perhaps there has never been a group of people treated so badly in our Nation’s history. They are suffering still, many ruined, and I felt that they should be given compensation for what has been done to them. I gave up any payments for myself, which would have been substantial, including for the illegal and unprecedented raid on Mar-a-Lago, my home in Florida, even though many legal experts, and others, including John Cornyn, said it was a shocking and disgusting display of 'weaponization' against me."
"Such an event has never happened before, and hopefully will never happen again!" Trump continued. "I will always feel that these victims of government abuse should be paid back for what they were forced to endure, their lives have been ruined! Millions of people agree with me, as was proven in my landslide Presidential win, where this was a major subject of debate, and so did John Cornyn, until he lost his Election to an opponent that I Endorsed. Todd Blanche, a good man, should be immediately approved as US Attorney General."
Tillis responded on the platform X, writing Friday that "the president made it clear today that the so-called Anti Weaponization Fund is still alive, which is exactly why we are attempting to formally end it. While I never disagreed that the Biden administration pursued a number of vindictive prosecutions related to January 6, the criminals who assaulted police officers and defiled our nation's Capitol are not 'great American patriots' who are 'victims of government abuse.' Anyone who attacked law enforcement should still be in prison, not getting a check from the federal government."
"Sen. Cornyn and I have been working with acting AG Todd Blanche to end the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and he has been forthright, thoughtful, and patient," added Tillis, who is retiring after this term. "It's a shame his confirmation has hit a snag only because an incompetent personal adviser to the president refuses to amend the bogus settlement. I will continue working in good faith to put an end [to] this legal and political albatross and prevent any potential misallocation of taxpayer dollars."
Trump then took aim at both of them on Saturday, saying that "if Senators Cornyn and Tillis, both upset because I wouldn’t Endorse them (they lost, and quit, respectively!), aren't going to approve Todd Blanche, one of the most respected professionals, according to everybody, in the Country, to be the United States Attorney General, then I will keep Todd as Acting AG, and push hard to get the Anti-Weaponization Bill, which takes care of those who have been so badly treated by the Crooked Joe Biden (and Obuma!) Administration (I get nothing, although I was treated horribly!), PASSED. Todd Blanche was a voice of reason! It will immediately be back on the table, and I will get it done."
Tillis again replied on X: "Despite comments as late as yesterday that the fund is dead, President Trump clearly intends to resurrect the payout pot for punks either by inappropriately establishing another bogus fund or pushing Congress to vote for a bill that the majority of Republicans in the Senate would be against. It's unfortunate that Todd Blanche, who I consider qualified for the job, will not be confirmed because of this reversal. Hopefully, we can resolve this by Tuesday."
Meanwhile, many elected Democrats and other critics, from advocacy group leaders to survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, don't agree Blanche is qualified, and want his nomination withdrawn. For example, after the committee vote was postponed, MoveOn Political Action chief communications officer Joel Payne said Thursday that "Todd Blanche's nomination is stalled because his record is corrupt and indefensible."
"He has spent his career proving that there is no legal principle he will not bend and no institution he will not compromise in service of Donald Trump," Payne continued. "His blind loyalty, willingness to use the justice system to protect the president, and role in a sweetheart settlement benefiting Trump make him completely unfit to serve as attorney general."
"Senate Republicans may be trying to put some distance between themselves and this toxic nomination, but moving the vote does not change the facts," he added. "Blanche is still Trump's fixer, still disqualified, and still a threat to the rule of law. The Senate should stop dragging this out and kill the nomination."
"The use of false charges and criminal prosecutions to deflect blame away from politically powerful leaders and their allies is an abuse of the justice system that cannot be tolerated," said another critic.
The US Department of Justice on Friday moved to throw out its criminal case against David Hearn, the Olympian it accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC, sparking demands for, at minimum, an apology from the DOJ.
"The Trump administration's case against Davey Hearn should have never been brought," said his attorneys, Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Fund, Mary Dohrmann of Washington Litigation Group, and Steve Levin of Steptoe LLP, in a joint statement.
"Its dismissal today does not erase the abuse of government power in arresting and charging a patriotic American who did nothing wrong," they continued. "The government's approach was ready, fire, aim. The administration owes Mr. Hearn an apology."
President Donald Trump in April announced plans to renovate the Reflecting Pool for the country's 250th anniversary. Two months later, despite the administration spending millions of dollars on resurfacing, the water turned green from algae. That led to a hydrogen peroxide treatment and a $1.7 million no-bid contract for a company whose owner is a Trump donor, after which multiple ducks were found dead.
Hearn, one of several people accused of tampering with the pool, was arrested in June. Early last month, Jeanine Pirro, the Trump-appointed US attorney for the District of Columbia, revealed that her office had secured a felony indictment against him. The 67-year-old, who faced up to a decade in prison, pleaded not guilty and had a trial scheduled for September.
"I didn't vandalize anything," Hearn, an Olympic canoeist, said in an interview with The Washington Post, explaining that he had touched a piece of pool lining that was already peeling off. "I didn't destroy or break or peel anything. By the time I realized what was going on, I was being put in handcuffs."
In its Friday motion to dismiss the case, Pirro's office said that after the return of the indictment, the US Department of the Interior (DOI) provided information indicating that the damage "was the result of flawed installation by the contractor, Atlantic Industrial Coatings (AIC), and the rush to complete the project prior to events associated with the America 250 celebration in the weeks surrounding Independence Day 2026."
"It is difficult to attribute the widespread damage to the Reflecting Pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt," the document also states.
MS NOW legal analyst Lisa Rubin highlighted Pirro's previous promise to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that Hearn caused the damage.
NBC News noted that "a spokesperson for Pirro said the filing spoke for itself. Her office also moved to dismiss at least one of the other three misdemeanor cases that had been brought in connection with the Reflecting Pool."
It's not just Pirro's office and the DOJ under fire for this debacle. While welcoming the motion to dismiss, Tim Whitehouse, executive director of the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), took aim at DOI in a Saturday statement.
"This project has become a poster child for corruption and why competitive bidding and transparency in federal contracting matter," Whitehouse said. "Transparency in contracting prevents waste, self-dealing, and exactly the kind of expensive, embarrassing failure this project has become. Decisions about the best way to repair public infrastructure should rest with engineers and career experts following open, competitive bidding, not with political officials chasing a photo-op deadline ordered by the president while steering money to favored contractors."
"The use of false charges and criminal prosecutions to deflect blame away from politically powerful leaders and their allies is an abuse of the justice system that cannot be tolerated," he added. "The Interior Department officials responsible for this failure—the no-bid contract, the botched renovation, lying to the public and the rush to blame an innocent man—owe the public a full accounting. PEER calls on Congress to investigate and demands that those responsible face real consequences."
Meanwhile, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to make clear that he "100%" disagrees with Pirro, sparking speculation about whether he may fire her.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum then claimed that "the evidence is clear, vandals have repeatedly caused damage to the Reflecting Pool," in a post on the platform X that New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel described as "repeating the boss."
Hearn's attorneys said that "Trump and Burgum are attacking Pirro because she admitted what we established in our legal filings all along: Trump's botched renovation was responsible for the damage—not Davey Hearn. However, Pirro's claim that she and her office were previously duped by Interior is nonsense."
"Starting immediately after arraignment, our motions repeatedly proved that the administration was to blame for the Reflecting Pool failures, not Davey," they added. "This is far from over, as we consider all legal remedies."
This article has been updated with new comments from President Donald Trump, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and Davey Hearn's attorneys.
"This is only going to get worse as the models get smarter," warned one expert.
Days after revelations that an OpenAI artificial intelligence model autonomously broke into two outside companies, rival firm Anthropic on Thursday disclosed that three of its own frontier models gained unauthorized access to unspecified organizations during internal testing, deepening concerns that increasingly capable AI systems are outpacing the safeguards designed to contain them.
San Francisco-based Anthropic said that it is investigating "three real-world incidents" uncovered during a broad review of more than 141,000 cybersecurity evaluations launched after OpenAI publicly disclosed its own containment failures.
According to Anthropic, three models—Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Mythos 5, and an unspecified internal research system—accessed three separate organizations after a testing environment was inadvertently connected to the internet. Anthropic did not identify which organizations were breached.
"In all three incidents, Claude had been tasked with a capture-the-flag challenge, one of the ways we assess a model’s cyber capabilities," Anthropic explained. "The model is given a fictional scenario and told that a piece of secret information (the 'flag') has been hidden on a different machine on the network, and its objective is to break in and retrieve it. The challenge is left open-ended, and no particular method is prescribed."
"In all cases, Anthropic’s evaluation prompt specified to Claude that its environment was a simulation and that it had no internet access," the company continued. "Due to a misunderstanding between us and our evaluation partner, this was not the case, and internet access was available. Because of this, when Claude’s search led it to real systems on the open internet, it treated them as part of the exercise."
"Operating under the false belief that all accessible entities were intended to be in-scope for the exercise, Claude compromised the impacted organizations’ infrastructure using basic techniques, such as exploiting weak passwords and unauthenticated endpoints," Anthropic said.
"In none of these situations did Claude exfiltrate itself or deliberately attempt to escape its test environment," the company stressed.
Unlike the OpenAI incident, which involved an autonomous agent exploiting vulnerabilities, Anthropic characterized its cases as a failure caused by a testing misconfiguration rather than by models independently escaping containment. Still, Anthropic's disclosure underscores the troubling reality that frontier AI models are increasingly capable of carrying out real cyber operations when given the opportunity.
"Safety testing happens before a model is released precisely because we don’t yet know what it is capable of," Anthropic said. "Evaluation environments increasingly need to be held to the same security standard as any other system our models run in."
Last August, Anthropic revealed that Claude had been "weaponized" by human hackers in order to commit ransomware crimes, "including a large-scale extortion operation using Claude Code, a fraudulent employment scheme from North Korea, and the sale of AI-generated ransomware by a cybercriminal with only basic coding skills.”
Less than three months later, Anthropic disclosed that it had thwarted what it described as “the first documented case of a large-scale cyberattack executed without substantial human intervention.” The company said that it believed there was a high likelihood that a Chinese state-sponsored group was behind the incident, which targeted “large tech companies, financial institutions, chemical manufacturing companies, and government agencies.”
Kok Tin Gan, co-founder and CEO of the cybersecurity company NyxLab, told The Associated Press on Thursday that there are likely to be more incidents like the Anthropic and OpenAI hacks as artificial intelligence capabilities advance.
“It is increasingly about governing what agents are available to the AI, what authorities they possess, which actions require approval, and how we ensure they remain within scope,” he said. “If we simply give the AI a goal and allow it to decide how to achieve it, we should not be surprised when it takes actions that technically satisfy the objective, but fall outside our intended scope or expectations."
Jeffrey Ladish, executive director of Palisade Research—which analyzes the autonomous offensive capabilities of AI systems—told Reuters on Thursday that he believes other companies have experienced similar incidents that they have not publicly disclosed.
"This is only going to get worse as the models get smarter," he said. "They're going to be better at cheating. They’re going to be better at lying."
Elon Musk, CEO of the artificial intelligence company xAI, also responded to Anthropic's disclosure by saying that such incidents "will happen frequently as AI becomes smarter and more agentic," a reference to systems' ability to independently act toward accomplishing specific goals without meaningful human control.
Experts say the autonomous hacks underscore the problem of AI alignment. As AI advances to the point where it will likely outsmart humans one day, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous.
In the foreseeable future, a misaligned, superintelligent AI could take uncontrolled autonomous actions at massive scale to achieve its goals, potentially causing an existential catastrophe like the subjugation of humanity or even its extinction—a prospect that has had numerous pioneers in the field sounding the alarm in recent years.
However, the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress have rejected meaningful guardrails on AI development while pushing for self-regulation and voluntary benchmarks and arguing—as the US did during the Cold War nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union—that any slowdown would give adversaries like China an edge.
On Wednesday, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said that “Congress should immediately hold public hearings with the CEOs of big AI companies" in the wake of the OpenAI breaches.
Anthropic is among the more than 1,000 companies and workers at AI firms that have signed a petition calling for the government to find ways to slow the breakneck development of AI technology.
"AI could help create a dramatically better future, but that outcome is not guaranteed," the petition states. "The world's leading AI companies believe they could be close to automating AI research. It is hard to predict exactly how much this will accelerate AI progress, but there is a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems."
"To realize AI's potential, industry, government, and society at large may need the option to buy time to address emerging risks, develop security measures, and strengthen oversight," the document continues. "But each company—and country—is under intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow that acceleration. And today, the world lacks the technical and governance tools to deliberately pace frontier-wide progress."
"We request that the US government support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development," the petition adds.
As The Times of Israel described, "Israel has largely failed to crack down on such attacks, with arrests rare, indictments even rarer, and convictions almost unheard of."
As the Israeli government faces increasing scrutiny for its enabling of settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, the Israel Defense Forces has reportedly closed an investigation into one of the most brutal assaults documented in recent memory. Nobody has been charged.
Haaretz reported on Friday that the Military Advocate General’s Office has closed its investigation into an incident from October 12, 2023, in which about two dozen armed settlers attacked the village of Wadi as-Seeq, about 10 miles east of Ramallah, where most residents had been driven out by violence by a nearby Israeli outpost.
Three Palestinian men who'd remained in the village to help evacuate the local Bedouin community were detained by the gang of Israelis, who they said tortured them for hours, stripping them naked, beating them, urinating on them, burning them with cigarettes, and sexually abusing them.
Several Israeli peace activists also said they were attacked during the incident and corroborated much of the testimony of the Palestinian victims.
A photo of the three men stripped, bound, and blindfolded quickly made international headlines and drew condemnation from human rights organizations and even some pro-Israel groups like the US-based Israel Policy Forum, which called the reports "sickening and inexcusable."
The military prosecutor's office apparently found it very excusable. According to Haaretz:
The Military Advocate General's Office decided that the evidence collected did not establish the involvement of specific soldiers to the standard required for criminal prosecution.
The decision was made even though, following the initial publication, several soldiers who were present at the scene—including the unit's commander—were dismissed.
The soldiers were from the IDF Desert Frontier unit, a unit that recruits "hilltop youth," radical and often violent settler youths from illegal West Bank outposts. Some of the victims said that settlers also took part in the assault alongside the soldiers.
The dismissal of the case comes amid what the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) described as "an unprecedented surge in settler-related violence" this year, particularly this summer. June saw a record 460 settler-related attacks, and the trend has continued into July, with 360 documented incidents between July 1-24.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights warned on Wednesday that settler violence was at an "all-time high," noting that 18 Palestinians have been killed so far this year in incidents linked to settler attacks, more than the 17 who were killed all of last year.
The Israeli government, meanwhile, approved over $430 million to establish 34 new settlements in the West Bank earlier this year.
"The increase is part of a broader upward trend in settler violence that has been developing since 2023 but has accelerated significantly in 2026," said Nasser Khdour, Middle East Assistant Research Manager at ACLED. "Recorded incidents include attacks on Palestinians and their property, land seizures, looting activities, uprooting trees, grazing on Palestinian land, and clashes with Palestinians."
As The Times of Israel noted on Friday: "Israel has largely failed to crack down on such attacks, with arrests rare, indictments even rarer, and convictions almost unheard of. The current government has been accused of turning a blind eye to the phenomenon or even tacitly supporting it."
Members of the IDF have often been documented either directly participating in the violence or providing protection to settlers who are.
Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed during a CNN interview that his government was working hard to bring violent settlers to justice and conducting "real investigations."
But he also minimized the problem of settler violence that has become rampant, boiling it down to about “150 or so juvenile delinquents" causing mayhem while stating that they don't represent the broader settler community.
There have been no reported charges coming from this month's deadly attacks, which have resulted in the deaths of at least eight Palestinians and many more injuries, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
A Guardian analysis on July 21 found that Israel has not once prosecuted any of its citizens for killing a Palestinian in the West Bank at any point this decade.
"Under international law, the principle of non-refoulement is absolute and collective expulsions are prohibited in all cases," said Esteban Beltrán of Amnesty International Spain.
The director of Amnesty International Spain on Friday said both Spanish and Moroccan officials must "put their human rights obligations at the center of their response" to an influx of about 60,000 migrants over 24 hours into the self-governing Spanish city of Ceuta, an exclave in North Africa that borders Morocco.
As the vast majority of people had reportedly returned to Morocco after facing aggression from Spanish police and armed forces who had been deployed to the territory, where a humanitarian crisis quickly unfolded following the migrants' arrival, the director of the group, Esteban Beltrán, issued a reminder of international law pertaining to migration.
"The large number of people arriving in Ceuta and the circumstances of crossings must not distract from the fact that under international law, the principle of non-refoulement is absolute and collective expulsions are prohibited in all cases," said Beltrán.
At least 57 people were killed while trying to cross into Ceuta, The Associated Press reported, with some drowning and others killed in a stampede as many of the migrants tried to cross a barrier near a border checkpoint.
"Spanish authorities must also ensure that adequate healthcare and social care resources are deployed to respond to the needs of the people, including to cater for the needs of children and others at increased risk of human rights violations," Beltrán said.
On Friday, even after about 48,000 people were reported to have crossed back over the border, reports still indicated that thousands of migrants were sleeping on the streets of Ceuta, with many reporting they had crossed into the territory in search of work.
“You ask why everyone came—because there’s no work in Morocco,” Ajoub el-Arrot, a 24-year-old Moroccan migrant, told The New York Times.
Abdulah Buji, 21, told the Times that he would "have to work 12-hour shifts for a meager wage."
“But I haven’t found any opportunities here either, so I have to go back," said Buji.
Italian and French authorities said they would tighten controls at their borders with Spain in light of the surge.
The arrival of the migrants drew the attention of the far right in Europe and the US, where conservatives have been critical of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's migration policy.
Earlier this year, contrasting with President Donald Trump's aggressive and violent crackdown on immigrants and mass deportation campaign in the US, Sánchez moved to grant up to 500,000 undocumented immigrants legal status in the country, with those who had arrived before January 2026 and had authorization to work made eligible.
Conservative Spanish politician Isabel Díaz Ayuso said Sánchez had allowed Spain "to be invaded through Ceuta,” while the US State Department said the sudden influx of migrants was "the direct result of the Spanish government’s deliberate efforts to enable and facilitate mass illegal migration into Europe.”
Sánchez's government countered that the situation in Ceuta had "nothing to do with the regularization of migrants," and the prime minister said human traffickers had misinterpreted a recent Spanish Supreme Court ruling which said that people who arrive in the country by sea could not be summarily deported.
Claims that people could easily cross from Morocco into Ceuta "spread like wildfire over the past few hours through the networks of human trafficking organizations,” Sánchez said.
Another Spanish self-governing city on the North African coast, Melilla, also saw migrants attempting to cross from Morocco on Friday. Many Moroccans consider both Ceuta and Melilla to be occupied Moroccan territory.
While many of the migrants said they had been hoping to find work, they also told reporters that Moroccan authorities had urged the massive group to attempt to cross into Ceuta, according to the Times.
“They just kept saying, ‘Go that way, go that way,’” Youssef Alaoui, 26, said of Moroccan police officers near the border.
Some analysts suggested Morocco could be trying to pressure Spain out of strengthening ties with Algeria, a rival nation. The Spanish foreign minister made a recent trip to Algeria and spoke about importing more gas from the country, and Sánchez also recently visited.
“It is impossible for nearly 50,000 people to cross the border between Morocco and Spain in a single day without Morocco having a hand in it,” Lorenzo Gabrielli, a senior researcher at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, told the Times.
Meanwhile, Portuguese author and former Secretary of State for European Affairs Bruno Maçães pointed to calls made by pro-Israel think tanks in April for Israel to "help Morocco take over Ceuta in order to punish Spain" for its pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli positions.
"Spain's refusal to allow the United States access to its Rota and Morón military bases during the Iran campaign, its consistent failure to meet NATO defense spending targets, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's confrontational posture toward the Trump administration have collectively generated something rare in North African affairs: a genuine crack in Spain's strategic armor over Ceuta and Melilla," wrote Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum in April. "Into that crack, Morocco's most consequential new partner, Israel, is uniquely positioned to press."
Ayoub continued:
Israel can advance Morocco's cause through three distinct channels. First, through direct diplomatic signaling. Israeli acknowledgment that Spain's continued occupation of African territory undermines the post-colonial credibility that normalization frameworks require would reframe Ceuta and Melilla as a regional governance issue, not merely a bilateral spat. Second, through Washington corridors where Israel's influence is considerable, Israeli officials can amplify the case that Morocco's strategic contribution, anchoring the western Mediterranean, controlling the southern approach to the Strait of Gibraltar, and serving as America's longest-standing treaty partner, warrants concrete American support on its most persistent territorial demand. Third, Israel can expose Spain's glaring hypocrisy. Madrid has been among the loudest European voices condemning Israeli territorial policies and settlements. Spain recognized a Palestinian state in 2024 while simultaneously maintaining European enclaves on African soil that predate modern Israel by four centuries.
Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, said Thursday that Spain "never misses an opportunity to lecture Israel."
"Maybe before it continues lecturing us," he said, "it’s time it explained to the world why it still maintains colonial enclaves in Africa."
Maçães said it was unclear whether Israel had pushed to "advance Morocco's cause," as Ayoub wrote, but he added, "whether or not the US and Israel were involved before the fact, they were deeply involved and intensely active after the fact, especially trying to use [the crisis in Ceuta] against the current Spanish government."
"I think all kids and people should have medical care, I don't think anyone needs a billion dollars ever, I think all kids should be safe from violence, I think parents should be able to afford high-quality childcare if they want it."
The online child educator known as Ms. Rachel on Friday used her massive platform on Instagram to promote a dozen progressive Democrats running for seats in the US Senate and House of Representatives.
"These are the folks I believe care about all kids," wrote Rachel Accurso, whose wildly popular videos are designed to encourage language development. She asked her more than 5 million followers to share "which candidates you're voting for and why."
Accurso is supporting:
"I think politicians shouldn't attack each other and I don't think big groups should be able to use millions to attack candidates," Accurso asserted. From her home state of Maine to Michigan, super political action committees (PACs) and billionaires have spent big to boost "moderate" Democrats and Republicans amid a recent series of progressive primary victories.
"I'm for peace and kindness always but that doesn't mean not telling the truth and not standing up against injustice," said the educator, who has outraged right-wingers for speaking out against Israel's assault on Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip.
Accurso wrote that "I'm for the kids, I'm for the people—I think all kids and people should have medical care, I don't think anyone needs a billion dollars ever, I think all kids should be safe from violence, I think parents should be able to afford high-quality childcare if they want it/a parent should be able to stay home if they want to."
"I think everyone should be able to feed their kids and have high-quality schools without stress—I just love literally everyone," she added.
Balint is seeking a third term in the House. As the presumptive Democratic nominee, she is expected to face the Republican who wins the August 11 primary—likely Gerald Malloy, an Army veteran and defense contractor who previously ran for Senate, according to recent polling.
Bush—who was previously part of the progressive "Squad" in Congress—is hoping to reclaim the seat she lost last cycle to Democratic Rep. Wesley Bell, who was financially backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP). Their primary is August 4.
During this cycle, UDP is targeting El-Sayed, who is facing Congresswoman Haley Stevens in Michigan's August 4 Democratic primary. After Accurso contributed $3,000 to El-Sayed, Samantha Cantrell, a spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee told the New York Post last Saturday that "Abdul El-Sayed and Ms. Rachel are one and the same, forcing their socialist, they/them, anti-America agenda on our children, and parents should be worried when they head to the ballot box."
Flanagan, Minnesota's lieutenant governor, is running to replace Democratic Sen. Tina Smith, who decided not to seek reelection and is supporting the progressive. Polling conducted in the lead-up to the August 11 primary for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party shows Flanagan ahead of Congresswoman Angie Craig.
Maine Democrats last weekend nominated Jackson, a former state Senate president and logger, to challenge longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins in November. He replaced Graham Platner, who stepped aside after sexual assault allegations, which he denied. Platner's surge in popularity and series of scandals have drawn national attention to the race.
Keohokalole is running to oust incumbent Democratic Rep. Ed Case, who is currently leading in polls. According to Hawaii Public Radio, the state senator "decided to run for Congress after seeing how Case reacted to immigration agents holding teachers at gunpoint on Maui." Their primary is August 8.
Larkin is challenging another Democratic incumbent: Florida Congressman Jared Moskowitz. As the South Florida Sun Sentinel reported Friday, Larkin is "a democratic socialist inspired to get involved in politics by progressive icon US Sen. Bernie Sanders," a Vermont Independent. Their primary is August 18.
Lawrence, a co-founder of the youth-led climate organization Sunrise Movement, is hoping to beat former Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam and Bridget Brink, who was previously US ambassador to Slovakia and Ukraine, in Michigan's primary on August 4.
Manley aims to represent a Florida district impacted by Republicans' mid-decade map-rigging at the request of President Donald Trump. Longtime Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has faced criticism for opting to run in this primary, scheduled for August 18.
Backed by progressives in Congress including Sanders and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), McKinney is running to unseat Democratic Michigan Congressman Shri Thanedar, who has support from key party leaders in the House. The pair faces off in the August 4 primary.
Nixon "is running an unapologetically progressive campaign" against Alex Vindman, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel who was a key witness in Trump's first impeachment trial. The winner of the August 18 primary will face Republican Sen. Ashley Moody, who was appointed last year and is now seeking a full term.
Pearson, known nationally for being expelled from the Tennessee House of Representatives by Republicans over his protest for stricter gun laws, is running in the Memphis district targeted by GOP gerrymandering efforts. After the redistricting, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen opted to retire. The primary is August 6.
"You're not going to believe this but Gavin Newsom is taking the side of capital over workers," said one critic.
The Wall Street Journal on Friday reported that California Gov. Gavin Newsom has expressed reservations about his state's antitrust lawsuit that aims to block the $110 billion megamerger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros.
According to the Journal's sources, Newsom, who is widely expected to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency in 2028, has expressed concern about the impact that blocking the merger would have on jobs in Hollywood, and his office has reportedly "encouraged" California Attorney General Rob Bonta to reach a settlement with Paramount.
"It is unclear what impact, if any, Newsom’s urging will have on the California attorney general’s suit," the Journal reported. "Newsom doesn’t have a role in the litigation and doesn’t have authority over the state attorney general’s actions."
Bonta, along with several other Democratic state attorneys general who are co-plaintiffs in the antitrust suit, scored a major victory last week when a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order to pause the merger from going forward. In response, the companies have agreed not to close the deal until five days after a trial is held or next June 1, whichever is sooner.
The combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. has long been controversial because it would put control of CBS, CNN, HBO, TikTok, and other major media properties all under the control of David Ellison, the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a major donor to President Donald Trump.
Newsom earlier this year told Semafor media reporter Maxwell Tani that he's known David Ellison for years, while emphasizing that California's probe of the proposed merger "isn't a personal attack" on the Paramount CEO.
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, expressed mock surprise at Newsom reportedly going to bat for the merger.
"You're not going to believe this but Gavin Newsom is taking the side of capital over workers," Dayen wrote. "In this case it's tricky because he's backing the very MAGA allies his cosplaying X account claims he's fighting."
Tech journalist Karl Bode described Newsom's reported efforts to push the merger through as a "nice sneak peak of the sort of media policies you can expect under his presidency."
Elections analyst Nick Field questioned Newsom's reported concern about Hollywood jobs being lost if the merger gets blocked, as corporate consolidation usually coincides with mass layoffs.
"Paramount will undoubtedly cut tons of jobs if they buy Warner Bros., as the Ellisons did when they bought Paramount in the first place," wrote Field. "To say nothing of allowing the Ellisons to own CNN and consolidate more power. Just disgusting supplication from Newsom."
Antitrust advocate Matt Stoller, however, expressed skepticism at the Journal's reporting on Newsom, if for no other reason than the California governor was unlikely to risk hurting his image among Democratic primary voters by pushing through an unpopular corporate merger.
"It would be an odd for Gavin Newsom to encourage the control of Hollywood by close allies of Donald Trump considering his 2028 ambitions," wrote Stoller. "He's not stupid."
"If Trump had simply done nothing... some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year," said Sen. Patty Murray.
In what Democratic Sen. Patty Murray described as a “slap in the face to moms and dads,” Republicans have blocked her proposed resolution to restore a rule that could have saved low-income parents thousands of dollars per year on childcare before the Trump administration axed it.
Under a rule that went into effect earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded a Biden-era rule that capped families’ copayments at 7% of their household income for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which helps about 994,000 low-income families pay for childcare so parents can work, attend school, or participate in job training.
The program is administered at the state level, and under the abandoned rule that was enacted in 2024, all states were required to begin phasing in the 7% cap, which is considered a federal affordability benchmark.
Under the Trump policy change, states will not be required to cap parents' copayments as long as they continue to use a sliding scale based on income level and don't present a "barrier” to receiving assistance, though it's not specified what that means.
As of March 2026, 19 states had not lowered their maximum copayment to 7%.
An April analysis by the Center for American Progress found that, by eliminating the federal cap, families in 10 states that have not enacted it would lose between $450 and more than $15,000 in potential annual savings, depending on how high their state sets the threshold.
In Ohio, which caps copayments at 27% of household income, families could lose up to $15,482 in annual savings under the maximum copayment. In Vermont, which caps copayments at 14.9% of household income, families could lose up to $11,712.

Murray (D-Wash), the former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), introduced a resolution last month under the Congressional Review Act, which would have nullified the administration's elimination of the 7% cap.
It also would have restored other Biden-era requirements that were reversed under the same rule, including requirements that states pay childcare providers based on enrollment rather than attendance, pay them in advance, and use grants and contracts to fund childcare for infants, children with disabilities, and those in underserved communities.
In a speech on the Senate floor before the resolution came to a procedural vote on Thursday, she told her colleagues bluntly, “You are either voting to lower childcare costs or to increase them.”
She challenged the senators who planned to vote against the resolution to “go home and tell the parents in your state you voted to raise their childcare bill,” adding that “you cannot call yourself pro-family while voting to make it more expensive to raise one.”
In a party-line vote on Friday, the bill was blocked from advancing by a margin of 52-47, with every Republican voting against it except for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is absent after being hospitalized in June.
After the vote failed, Murray described it as an example of Republicans taking money away from American families struggling to afford the basics of life while pushing for lavish spending on war and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
“How about instead of a $1.5 trillion war budget, we make sure every working family in America can afford childcare?” Murray said. “If Trump had simply done nothing, and left the 7% cap in place, some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year for their family.”
According to a Century Foundation analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, childcare costs increased by 5% from August 2024 to August 2025 and now average more than $13,000 per child per year across age groups.
Trump has been surprisingly open about the fact that, under his control, and in direct contrast with his campaign promises, the federal government is prioritizing spending on his war in Iran instead of providing government subsidies for Americans’ basic needs, including daycare.
"We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare," he said during a speech in April. "You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”
“Trump says we can’t afford childcare. But he is wrong,” said Murray, who has co-introduced legislation to expand federal childcare subsidies and cover nearly all costs for low-income families. “The truth is we can’t afford to ignore childcare.”
"I am trying to see how this operation differs from a classic organized crime protection racket. I see little distinction."
A Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal revealed new details on President Donald Trump's attempts to shake down major corporate donors to fund his assorted vanity projects, including the construction of his luxury White House ballroom and his presidential library.
According to the Journal, Trump employs a fundraiser named Meredith O’Rourke whose job is to hound corporations into sending money to the president's projects.
O'Rourke's work is so important to the president, the Journal added, that he asks her for updates on her progress in raking in corporate cash almost nightly.
"Trump asks O’Rourke which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much," the Journal reported. "He often asks her to make much larger financial requests than she was planning—for some donors the ask is $5 million, for others it is $50 million. And the president gives her names to call, often including people who have recently met with him, according to people with knowledge of the calls."
The Journal estimated that Trump has raised more than $800 million from corporate donors throughout his second term, and the newspaper found that it appeared to be entirely legal.
"No laws prohibit presidents from raising unlimited sums of money for nonprofits, like the ones used for the ballroom and his presidential library, his super PAC, or political issue committees," the Journal explained. "For most of these types of transactions, public disclosure of donors isn’t required and reporting on spending is infrequent."
Regardless of technical legality, many critics called the president's actions deeply corrupt, especially since many of the companies being shaken down for cash have business before the federal government.
" Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in our nation’s history," wrote Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in reaction to the Journal's report.
Adam Serwer, staff writer at The Atlantic, joked that Trump technically "can’t be bought" because "he is subscription based."
"You have to keep bribing him forever," Serwer quipped.
Eric Rauchway, historian at the University of California, Davis, noted the Journal's reporting that O'Rourke will sometimes try to persuade corporate donors by telling them that "the boss wants this money," which he likened to a mafia extortion scheme.
"Guys, 'the boss wants this money' is not 'fundraising,'" wrote Rauchway, "it's a Piranha Brothers operation."
Scott Horton, contributing editor at Harper's, made a similar analogy.
"I am trying to see how this operation differs from a classic organized crime protection racket," Horton wrote. "I see little distinction."
Amanda Carpenter, writer and editor at Protect Democracy, argued that Trump wasn't the only party meriting criticism here, as the corporations who give in to his demands deserve blame as well.
"If a politician is selling access and favors, CEOs aren’t off the hook," she observed. "They don’t get to just pay to play. It’s not a free pass to bribe and extort and corrupt our economy. There are many legal tools to track that on the private side and hold them account for their end of these dirty deals."