

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.
Sidestepping his debacle of a war, "smug pathetic little man," warfighter fetishist and Gen.-Patton-cosplaying clown Pete Hegseth just gave a blustering speech before troops In a "hyper-macho freak show" to announce he's cutting forces, starting several senseless new programs, and proclaiming, "We are no longer the woke (or) weak department...No fatties, trannies, beardos, weirdos, wimps, radicals. Just warriors." Appalled consensus on the yahoo "turning the military into a frat house": "What a dick."
Perhaps due to his low-rent credentials as a weekend TV host at Fox - and a history of drunkenness, adultery, sexual assault and on-the-job incompetence so sordid he needed JD's tie-breaking vote to get his job - Hegseth has built a sloppy, fragile "Department of Defensiveness" focused on shaping a self-serving narrative and persona awash in paranoia, distrust, dysfunction, lies and frequent purges of those deemed disloyal. From his make-up studio to his press strictures to his blunders - Signalgate, the war, its first day's war crimes - Pete's spent an inordinate amount of time covering his ass and overcompensating for his multiple failures. "He's just a true believer in way over his head, the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect,” said one DOD employee. “Generally, we consider him a joke, a deeply unqualified clown.”
Still, with men reportedly fleeing MAGA, their need to "pump up that masculine animus" is well-served by Pete's juvenile, chest-pounding, lethality-obsessed focus on testosterone in the name of a "High-T Department of War" that has "nothing to do with science and everything to do with regressive ideas of what masculinity is." The same idiocy fuels all the culture war malevolence: Banning books, gutting DEI initiatives - "Diversity is not our strength" - blocking promotions for women and Blacks, a "no more dudes and dresses" transphobia, and ending tenure for civilian professors at military academies 'cause who needs to protect independent thinkers, scholars, leaders, experts from "the tyranny of a government that actively hates its critics," the "mindset of someone who has learned nothing (from) American military failures."
And so to another cringey, Strangelovian "State of the Force Address," which was not a thing until a TV bobblehead took over the military and turned it into bumbling amateur-hour theater. Last year, he summoned nearly 800 generals, admirals, advisors from around the world, all smarter and higher-ranking than him, to rant about beards and "fat troops," tell them they "kill people and break things for a living," and prattle about a 10% cut in their numbers by "removing redundant force structure to optimize and streamline leadership." When he paused for applause, there was only deep silence. Maybe because a Joint Chiefs chairman, two service chiefs, two intelligence directors, several generals and the better part of the Army’s senior leadership "were told to run faster by a weekend television host."
On Wednesday, he gathered about 600 officers and enlisted members, again at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia, for another speech. In the weeks leading up to his latest dash of show business, The Wall Street Journal reported, he emailed commanders asking them to nominate troops to attend. They had to "fit certain physical standards," he wrote, to have the proper height/weight ratio, with "impeccable grooming: "I want central casting." If they were hot enough, he added, as a bonus some would have "the opportunity" to join him in a hot and sweaty dawn work-out at the Pentagon. Totally normal! And luckily, a camera crew was there to follow them on a chanting, banner-bearing run through D.C. To make them look even cooler, he gave them all t-shirts that read, "This Is War." Or at least off-off Broadway.
Later, before a giant American flag, he dropped the hammer in a campy speech many compared to SNL's Colin Jost doing Pete Hegseth, or Tom Cruise's braying misogynist in Magnolia, or George C. Scott's Gen. Patton "minus the inspiration." Under his "less generals, more GIs" mandate - though it's "fewer" not less - he said he was doubling the previous cut of 10% of high-ranking personnel to 20% with, wrote Tom Wellborn, "the confidence of a man who has looked at the most powerful armed force in the world and concluded its central weakness was the number of people in it who outrank a major," what he was. Months into a disastrous war, "That is the force Pete Hegseth has built by subtraction. What it has lost is (what) a general is for, which is to be the person in the room who says no, and (he) has made sure, one firing at a time, there is nobody left in the room to say it."
"The media calls that a purge," blustered Hegseth, evidently expecting criticism. "I call it accountability. As usual, what the media levels as an accusation, I wear as an accomplishment.” He haughtily went on to “lay it out simply for the anti-American losers in our media...We are no longer the woke department, or the weak department. Simple translation? No fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals. Just warriors." On coverage of the war and eight attempted suicides on the USS Lincoln, he slammed “disingenuous headlines about deployment lengths, false claims of low troop morale or flat-out propaganda as if it’s written by our adversaries.” "The information space is a battle space," he said. "The ideological clowns are out. The patriotic cowboys are in." Smirking, he added,."With testosterone testing on top." Jesus, dude.
He also announced several new programs with fancy warlike names like Fortress America and Autonomous War Command or AutoWarCom, a "four-star combatant command with service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities," and "The Next Great American Base," the first new military base in 40 years, with all 50 states "invited to bid for it like an Amazon headquarters," and "America's Corps of Cadets, creating new college partnerships with right-wing Liberty University and Hillsdale College, plus Louisiana State, Mississippi, Tuskegee Universities, to increase the number of "patriotic leaders of character" and counter "anti-American, DEI-worshiping woke factories," aka the Ivy League schools Hegseth attended.
There's the bonkers Project Meridian to study "the future of warfare," headed by "three of our nation’s best minds" - two tech fat cats and one 83-year-old MAGA hawk - none of whom have served in the military, two of whom have made fortunes from it. Cue Elon Musk, a gonzo rocket salesman with billions in Pentagon contracts, GOP pol Newt Gingrich, who got almost as many deferments as Trump during the Vietnam War, and Palmer Luckey, MAGA donor, self-proclaimed "radical Zionist" and founder of tech company Anduril - "three great Americans to help plan the next war with three people who have never been in one," what could possibly go wrong?" From a military Reddit: "Is this real?", "Yes master code-monkey, infosec ninja, and tech infrastructure guru Newt Gingrich age 83. Our enemies are so fuct bro!" and "Oh fuck this fucking Nazi-loving fuck outta here."
There's a new Office of Religious Affairs for a DOD "putting on the full armor of God" to "strengthen the moral, ethical and spiritual readiness of our warfighters," aka "do the Lord's work to improve smiting capacity," because, "while we wage physical war, the real battle is spiritual." (Maybe why the Pentagon's covering up not-real casualties?) It's "voluntary," which skeptics say is akin to being “voluntold” to do things. Finally, as a party favor, troops were given a new 144-page "field manual" of transcripts of Hegseth speeches. Its forward is by Trump, in classic Trumpese. "As your Commander-in-Chief, I will not ask you to fight dumb Wars," it reads. "I will unleash you to be violent, lethal and unstoppable - and I will always have your back. Godspeed, Great Warriors. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Along with other regime Nazis, crackpots and fools, theories abound as to what the fuck is wrong with Pete Hegseth. Many argue he's afflicted with the common sickness of countless, soulless, mediocre white men who know, deep inside, they have risen further than they deserve to. Hence, the bottomless need to be subservient to a monster like Trump (who is too mad to know that) to maintain their place and value in a white guy patriarchy, to always understand "who they get to abuse, and who they are supposed to take abuse from," and to remain within that vaunted structure, the only one where they have power and respect, by continuing to rule over those they've been taught are beneath them. It's also why, conversely, they freak out when their vital slot is threatened: See Hegseth's frantic lie detectors at any sign of leaking, mocking, saying no.
Hegseth seems particularly despised by Americans, many of whom eagerly await his war crimes trial, his impeachment,, his rapturing - hopefully first in line, though maybe behind Goebbels/Miller. The concrete damage done by his legacy - the calamitous war, hollowing of the military's promotion chain, lethality-tinged dumbing down of its intellectual infrastructure and exploitation of those serving - will presumably take years to repair. But people hate him just as much for his personal failings: his gross unfitness and incompetence, his swaggering "Jr High Machismo," the Nazi-adjacent arrogance of "this nose-powdering drunk," the lying, preening chutzpah of the military's worst-ever leader consistently "acting like a 19-year-old edgelord loser," like "a dipshit," "an asshole," "an absolute tinydick in every goddamn way."
Several truly obnoxious moments of his state-of-the-empire speech ignited that animus. His attack on media who do their job and tell the truth about him began with a lame nod to the First Amendment - "A free press is of course important" - that veered to a diatribe: "But partisan activism that intentionally smears the troops and the historic mission they are undertaking (is) anti-American. It's sick. It's a national betrayal. It's treason, actually...It has to be said." Umm, not, said America: "Secretary of Dewar’s doesn't get he’s the only one getting smeared, not the troops," "I love the free press until they say words I don't like in which case I call them traitors and want them killed," "Bro, they're not shitting on the troops, just you," "It's called free speech, fucknut. The thing your troops are supposed to defend," "The mission of our military has become historic only in the degree of its absurdity."
Then there was a pitiful, fitness-instructor-like defense of his bullying of troops: "Telling someone to get in shape or shave or fix their uniform or start busting their ass - that's not discrimination. That's leadership." Fact: Actually, it's neither. It's stupid, shallow, beside-the-point bullying. Many argued it's just "being a dick" and "an asshole." That he should "tell his boss to get in shape and start busting his ass." That it's weird how he "doesn't get to the part where he actually discriminates." That leadership is "inspiring, being an example, not getting your nation into an illegal war, losing it in days and committing war crimes." That he's "a drunk, vain, adulterous rapist with ridiculous sideburns." That it's "stunning in an awful way a man his age is so immature." That "this motherfucker is waaay out over his skis." And damn, more fucking patriotic cowboys is the last thing we need thanks.

With United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres set to leave his post at the end of this year, he used his final address to the UN General Assembly on Monday to share a familiar call: "Polluters must pay" for fueling the global climate emergency.
Since the Portuguese politician began his first five-year term leading the world body nearly a decade ago, he has repeatedly called for international action to rapidly phase out the coal, gas, and oil that are heating up the planet. In late 2023, he emphasized that "the science is clear. The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate."
The UN chief announced at the end of 2024 that "the top 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years," and declared: "This is climate breakdown in real time. We must exit this road to ruin." Last year, he argued that fossil fuels represent "the greatest threat to energy security today," and countries clinging to them are "sabotaging" their own economies and futures.
Earlier this month, after a UN report found that at least temporarily surpassing the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels is now inevitable, Guterres stressed that "this summer’s scorching heat, raging wildfires, and deadly floods are a warning of what lies ahead," and called for making the overshoot "as small and short as possible."
Speaking to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he cited that recent finding: "Now we face a near-certain breach of the 1.5-degree limit, with a supersized El Niño speeding straight for humanity. The dangers are real. But so is the hope."
"The sun belongs to no one. The wind cannot be embargoed. Innovation can come from everywhere," he said. "Renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity in most of the world. And the most viable path to energy security, independence, and sustainable growth... A future beyond fossil fuels is in sight. The question is how."
"Will it be a just and orderly transition built on international cooperation—or chaotic and costly, leaving people and countries behind?" he asked, urging every government to adopt a Paris Agreement-aligned national plan to transition away from fossil fuels.
"We know that fossil fuel interests won't step aside on their own. For decades, Big Oil has treated the atmosphere as an open sewer—and cashed in on the consequences," he acknowledged. "We have seen this kind of abuse of power before. When the harms of Big Tobacco became undeniable—governments acted. The climate crisis demands the same determination."
According to the UN chief: "Those who polluted the most—and profited the most—must do far more to repair the damage they caused. Polluters must pay. And to the leaders, cities, civil society and citizens working to hold them accountable: I say, you are on the right side of history. Keep going."
"And governments must keep going on all fronts: To end deforestation. Invest in grids and storage. Cut methane emissions," he continued. "But these actions are not enough: We need climate justice with a focus on adaptation and finance. Developed countries must respect their commitments. They must triple adaptation finance.And make the Loss and Damage Fund work at scale."
"We must also ensure that the mining of critical minerals does not dig deeper into the inequities of the past," he added. "Producing countries and affected communities must retain a far greater share of the value created from their resources. No more plundering. No more exploitation."
While Guterres' speech didn't just focus on "the power fueling climate chaos and the war on nature"—it also addressed peace and security, inequality, and artificial intelligence in detail—climate campaigners welcomed the time he devoted to the crisis.
"When the UN secretary-general calls for fossil fuel companies to pay, you know this demand has become impossible to ignore," said Louise Hutchins, co-convenor of the Make Polluters Pay International Coalition, in a statement. "Millions of people around the world are calling for it, and governments are starting to listen."
His address came just a day after campaigners from groups around the world delivered over 2 million petition signatures calling on governments to make polluters pay to Selwin Hart, the UN's assistant secretary-general for climate action, in New York City.
"For years, campaigners and communities on the frontlines have been saying the same thing: The companies that profited from fossil fuels must pay their fair share of the costs of the crisis they helped create. Today, that demand is moving into the mainstream," 350.org executive director Anne Jellema noted after Guterres' remarks. "The voices of more than 2 million people are now being brought to the UN. Governments have the power to make polluters pay, and they must use it."
Enough is enough: over 2 million petition signatures at UNGA to Make Polluters Pay www.greenpeace.org/internationa...
[image or embed]
— Nick Young (@nickofnz.bsky.social) September 21, 2026 at 5:56 PM
Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International, highlighted that "the people who have contributed least to the climate crisis are paying the highest price. They are losing homes, livelihoods, and access to food and facing an increasingly uncertain future, while fossil fuel corporations and their billionaire backers continue to profit. The call to make rich polluters pay is about justice. It is about ensuring that those who have benefited most from the fossil fuel economy pay for the damage it has caused."
Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen pointed out that "Guterres has spent years warning leaders where fossil fuel dependence leads, and this year proved him right. From deadly heat to devastating fires and floods, the very dependence driving these disasters is shaking entire economies and leaving families exposed to volatile energy and food prices, while the companies behind it keep raking in the profits."
"New rules forcing governments to align their taxes and spending with global climate goals would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to support the countries and communities least responsible, while incentivizing money out of fossil fuels and into secure, renewable energy that actually protects people," he argued. "As long as destruction stays profitable, the transition to a safer, fairer future will keep being held back. Guterres has named the solution, governments must now act on it."
Two of President Donald Trump's signature policies—the illegal war with Iran and cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—are putting pressure on food banks throughout the country in the form of higher demand from clients and increased shipping costs.
In a Sunday report from Meidas News, reporter Scott MacFarlane published interviews with several food bank officials who said the increased cost of energy caused by Trump's Iran War has strained their ability to serve their communities.
From a demand side, more families have been relying on food banks because the increased cost of gasoline has left them with less money to spend at the grocery store.
And from a supply perspective, record-high diesel prices have hurt food banks' budgets by increasing transportation costs for staple items.
Craig Rice, chief executive officer at the Manna Food Center in Maryland, told MacFarlane that his organization is "seeing so many people come to us, who’ve never come to [the food bank] before."
"It used to be people who were working hourly-wage jobs," Rice added. "Now we see people who are salary employees. They may have been stable at one price, but suddenly they’re impacted by gas prices."
Amy Beros, president of the Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina, similarly told MacFarlane that organizations in her region have seen demand for food services increase by between "20% to 60%" over the last year.
"It’s really hard for people in the United States to understand the scale of hunger," Beros said, "because it doesn’t look like it looks on TV."
The strain on food banks isn't just limited to one state or region.
Greta Faworski, associate director of Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes, said in an interview published Monday with Michigan advance that she's seen a 56% increase in people who are reaching out to her organization for help.
Faworski said the recent surge in demand was akin to what she saw last year during a nationwide delay in SNAP benefits in the wake of a federal government shutdown.
"On an average day, we serve about 800 people a day," explained Faworski. "When there was notification because of the government shutdown that November SNAP benefits would not be released on time, in one week, we saw an increase to where we were serving 1,200 people a day."
The problem is expected to grow more acute because state governments starting next month will have to pay for a largest share of SNAP administrative costs due to provisions in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
A report published last week by Spectrum News 13 put a spotlight on how surging diesel costs are squeezing food banks in central Florida.
Greg Higgerson, chief development officer for Second Harvest Food Bank, told Spectrum News 13 that his organization's fuel bill is "somwhere around $15,00 per month," which he said was "up significantly from this time last year."
And like food banks elsewhere in the US, Higgerson said, the Second Harvest Food Bank is being forced to pay higher costs as demand for its services is going up.
“It’s going to be harder to make ends meet in the next few months,” Higgerson said. “There’s going to be more people. We know that, we see it already, and it’s going to cost more to help those folks.”
Democrats in the Senate have blocked what they described as a loophole-laden Republican-led bill to ban members of Congress from purchasing stocks.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) blasted his Democratic colleagues on Wednesday after they declined to give the votes necessary to advance the bill—known as the Stop Insider Trading Act—past the Senate filibuster.
"The Democrats who blocked it went back on their word to protect their own wallets—they should be ashamed of themselves," Cotton said.
But Democrats described the bill, which passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in July, as a sham. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the bill "does not adequately ban congressional stock trading," and described it as "meaningless messaging."
While the bill would have prohibited members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from buying stocks, it would not have required them to divest the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock they already own.
It also would have exempted President Donald Trump and other executive branch employees. During his second term in office, Trump has made around 30,000 securities trades since returning to office. Bloomberg estimated, based on public disclosures, that he'd made more than 21,000 trades worth between $600 million and $1.86 billion in 2025 alone.
The bill passed by House Republicans also attached a national photo ID requirement for voting as well as additional identification requirements for vote-by-mail, which voting rights advocates argued could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who do not possess a valid photo ID.
"This measure was a ruse, promoted by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), to make it appear that congressional Republicans were tackling an ethical quagmire when, in fact, it would have accomplished very little," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.
Democrats have argued that the watered-down Republican proposal was meant to sap momentum from stronger bills, amid broad public demand for a stock trading ban.
Holman noted that "there was serious legislation to stop congressional insider trading, but Johnson would not bring up any of the serious proposals for a floor vote."
A bipartisan bill that has stalled in the House would have required members of Congress to divest stock they currently own. Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled House Rules Committee blocked a Democratic proposal that would have made the president and vice president subject to the ban.
"Let’s be clear: I support a total ban on Congress members trading stock," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on Wednesday. "But Republicans are trying to package a fraudulent version of that with a bill to disenfranchise American voters."
"This is politics at its worst," he said. "Put a real ban on the floor if you’re serious."
Conservation groups that sued this summer over President Donald Trump's administration rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act updated their legal challenge on Thursday after yet another attack on the landmark law.
The coalition's supplemental complaint explains to a federal court in Seattle that since the lawsuit was first filed in July, administrative leaders have directed various agencies to interpret the ESA to mean that only intentionally killing or wounding a protected species is illegal—a shift that critics condemned as "an all-out war on America's wildlife."
As the "harm" rescission took effect on September 14, US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik issued a related memorandum with that interpretation—effectively allowing "incidental" killing. John Luce, general counsel at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sent the same directive to eight sections of NOAA.
These memos "violate the plain language and overarching purpose of the ESA; they also lack any reasoned basis, are arbitrary and capricious, and failed to comply with applicable notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements," the new filing argues, citing the Administrative Procedure Act. The coalition is asking the court to vacate the memos and bar the agencies from using their interpretations of the 1973 law.
"This despicable effort to legalize most killings of endangered wildlife would essentially mean open season on species already on the brink of annihilation," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species co-director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a Thursday statement. "It's the most serious attack on imperiled animals since the Endangered Species Act was passed more than 50 years ago."
"Without protection against the daily assaults of our modern world, Florida manatees, spotted owls, snowy plovers, and so many other animals that bring color to our world won't stand a chance," he warned, noting that "habitat destruction is the single biggest cause of species endangerment and extinction" in the United States and beyond.
Greenwald added that "with this destruction, the perils faced by plants and animals have grown exponentially. Such peril doesn't come down the barrel of a gun, but it's still a deadly threat, and the Endangered Species Act can and must protect our imperiled wildlife from this kind of careless killing."
In addition to the center, the coalition behind the case includes Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians, with legal representation by Earthjustice.
After the memos were exposed last month, Earthjustice attorney Ben Levitan declared that "the government's new legal position is a prescription for extinction."
"It says that as long as you claim you didn't mean to kill an endangered species, the law can't and won't stop you," he stressed. "That's ridiculous—and a totally illegal, active misreading of the Endangered Species Act. We'll see the Trump administration in court about this."
Updated Google satellite imagery shared Monday on social media provides a new perspective on the staggering scale of Israel's obliteration of the Gaza Strip, showing entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble and vast stretches of a formerly dense urban landscape transformed into barren wasteland.
The images from Google—which is accused of complicity in the Gaza genocide—can be viewed on both Google Earth and Google Maps and show extensive destruction throughout the Palestinian territory. In some locations, roads and familiar landmarks remain visible amid enormous fields of gray rubble where homes, businesses, schools, and other civilian structures once stood.
"I've walked through much of the destruction in Gaza myself, but I couldn't bear looking at the map," Palestinian journalist Abubaker Abed posted on social media. "It shows you the Israeli barbarism and terrorism that the world lets happen."
"I've been to those places, I have seen the scale of the destruction—it was really heartbreaking," Abed told The New Arab. "But when you see all the destruction in just one active website, it really broke my heart. I couldn't even bear continuing looking at that because seeing the place where I grew up, seeing the place where I was born, [lying] in ruins in that way was absolutely heart-shattering."
US writer Linda Mamoun noted that "Google Maps shows photos and reviews for thousands of places in Gaza that don’t exist anymore. You can scroll through an entire world that Israel destroyed."
The Google images help affirm independent assessments documenting the extraordinary scale of Gaza's destruction. According to the United Nations Satellite Center (UNOSAT), 201,290 structures—or approximately 82% of all structures in Gaza—had sustained damage as of June. More than 134,400 structures were classified as destroyed, while over 13,800 were severely damaged. UNOSAT also estimated that 328,627 housing units had been damaged.
The devastation shown in the new imagery is particularly stark in Rafah in southern Gaza. Israel ignored a May 2024 order from the International Court of Justice to "immediately halt" its assault on the city of approximately 275,000 people, as well as other acts enumerated in Article II of the Genocide Convention. A South Africa-led genocide case against Israel at the ICJ is currently in the written phase, which will continue until at least May 2029.
"You can scroll through an entire world that Israel destroyed."
"Look at these satellite images of Gaza and listen to the inconsistency, the hypocrisy, and the ugliness of the soul of the deniers... who will tell you above all not to use the word genocide," wrote Rima Hassan, a French leftist member of European Parliament.
In a social media post, UK journalist David Yelland said: "I recommend spending a few minutes on Google Earth today looking at Gaza. Keeping the media out has meant we have not seen this before. Make your own mind up."
Another British journalist, Piers Morgan, called the images "horrifying."
"Now we know why [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu continues to ban international media from Gaza," he added.
A UN report published last week estimates that approximately 1.9 million of Gaza's roughly 2.2 million people have been displaced by Israel's assault—many of them more than once—and around 60% of the strip's residents have lost their homes. The publication also said that 92% of economic establishments in Gaza were destroyed or damaged, and that the territory needs about $71.5 billion for reconstruction and recovery.
Since launching the war in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, Israeli forces have killed at least 74,022 Palestinians and wounded upward of 175,980 others, according to Gaza officials. The majority of those killed, they say, were women and children. At least 1,421 Palestinians have been killed and 4,983 wounded since the October 2025 ceasefire took effect.
Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former minister of defense, are wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation.
Some Israelis and their supporters expressed satisfaction and even pride in the satellite images of Gaza's annihilation.
"If updated Google satellite images of Gaza have not troubled you, see a doctor," said Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa. "Supporting mass killing and distribution on this scale is really a pathological issue."
"Instead of strengthening public education," said one union leader, "Trump is diverting $500 billion in taxpayer cash into private hands, with everyone else left fighting for scraps in a real-life Hunger Games."
The US Department of the Treasury this week released proposed regulations for the first federal "school choice" program, as proponents call it, drawing a fresh wave of condemnation from critics who have expressed concerns since President Donald Trump signed last year's Republican budget package.
"The Trump administration's proposed rules confirm what we expected, that their federal private school voucher program is designed to direct public resources to private schools and organizations and will provide little benefit to the 90% of children who attend public schools," said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the Legal Defense Fund, in a Friday statement.
"Instead of using federal resources to serve all children, this administration has dismantled the Department of Education, weakened long-standing civil rights protections, and worked to build a two-tiered system of education that benefits a select few," McCain continued. "Our children deserve better."
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act established the Education Freedom Tax Credit, which is set to begin next year. According to the Treasury Department, under the proposed rules, eligible taxpayers could claim an annual credit of up to $1,700—or $3,400 for married couples filing jointly—for contributions to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs).
The program is widely seen as a scheme to funnel tax dollars toward private school tuition, but the department noted that the rules would also allow scholarships to support "academic tutoring, special needs services, books, supplies, computers and other equipment, and other qualifying expenses connected with a student's enrollment or attendance."
That "aspect of the program has put Democratic governors in a bind," The Washington Post reported Thursday. There is no cost to states that participate, but "governors must approve all SGOs that meet the rules. States that want to opt into the program for the benefit of public school students will have to allow private school vouchers as well, and vice versa."
As the Post detailed:
Governors have until January 1 to opt in. Thirty mostly Republican-led states have already joined. Most of the remaining states that have not rejected the plan are led by Democrats.
The proposed regulations include income limits for eligible families, protections for scholarship funds, and details on how the funds can be used. States cannot restrict the types of schools that benefit, Treasury and Education department officials said, meaning public funds could go toward a religious school that bars LGBTQ students or a private school that doesn't have certified teachers.
Among the Democrats facing some calls to opt out are New York Gov. Kathy Hochul—who, as Chalkbeat pointed out, "has said she plans to participate unless she finds a 'poison pill' in the program," but "declined Thursday to make it official."
New York State United Teachers president Melinda Person declared Thursday that "the regulations are loaded with poison pills. If New York opts in, the state would be prohibited from setting standards for scholarship organizations, deciding which organizations can participate, or limiting the types of schools and expenses that receive these federal tax dollars."
"That means New York could be forced to help funnel taxpayer-subsidized dollars to private schools that have admissions policies and practices that would never be acceptable in our public schools, while being denied the authority to put stronger safeguards around the program," Person warned. "New York puts its name on the program, but Washington writes the rules."
"We take responsibility for participating, but surrender much of our ability to determine where the money goes and what standards recipients must meet," she added. "This isn't local control. It is a one-way door into a federally designed voucher program, one that could use public resources to support schools that discriminate, while stripping New York of the ability to provide the protections New Yorkers expect. Gov. Hochul should make clear now that New York will not walk through that door."
Josh Cowen, a Michigan State University education policy professor who authored the book The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers, laid out the "good" and "bad" of the regulations on social media Thursday.
It’s striking that the FSTC has clear revenue streams for public schools and families, guided by sensible rules to promote service access and quality—such as you might expect from progressive policymakers——jammed Frankenstein-style alongside rules permitting anything-goes on the private side.
[image or embed]
— Josh Cowen (@joshcowenmi.bsky.social) October 1, 2026 at 5:37 PM
So the decision basically comes down to eating a sh-t sandwich with some stuff we really don’t like in the private sector, with some meaningful money that you might expect any number of progressive lawmakers to have crafted.
— Josh Cowen (@joshcowenmi.bsky.social) October 1, 2026 at 5:37 PM
Leaders at the nation's two largest teachers unions also weighed in. National Education Association president Princess Moss said that "with back-to-school in the rearview mirror, more Americans are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of school supplies, packed lunches, and gas continues to outpace salaries and paychecks."
"Instead of helping families make ends meet, the Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale for private school vouchers at the expense of the public schools that serve 90% of America's students," she asserted. "At a time when educators, students, and families are calling for more resources to strengthen neighborhood public schools, this administration is advancing a plan to divert taxpayer dollars to subsidize private education for a select few."
"We will closely review the Treasury Department's new voucher regulations and continue fighting to ensure public funds remain invested in public schools where every student—regardless of their race, ZIP code, disability, family income, or immigration status—can learn, grow, and thrive," Moss pledged. "America's students deserve policies that expand opportunity, not vouchers that leave most children behind."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten similarly charged that "this scheme is a poison pill for the 90% of American children who attend public schools. Instead of strengthening public education, President Trump is diverting $500 billion in taxpayer cash into private hands, with everyone else left fighting for scraps in a real-life Hunger Games."
While the Congressional Budget Office estimated the program would cost the federal government $26 billion in lost revenue over the next decade, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has found it could cost up to $51 billion per year. A January report from US Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted that's more than the combined federal spending on programs to support students with disabilities and those who are from low-income backgrounds.
Weingarten said that "state governors should reject it—not least of all because they will have no say or oversight over how the vouchers operate. The reality is that for every precious public dollar funneled to private schools—money that could be spent on instruction, lowering class sizes, modern buildings, or new books in the library—public school parents will be hunting for pennies on the floor."
"This isn't about 'school choice'; it's the about the school's choice: Private schools can simply refuse to accept poor kids, those with special needs, or those with different religions. And they can refuse to submit to the basic accountability measures their backers hypocritically demand of public schools," she stressed. "If this were really about 'choice' then the administration would be trying to help public schools succeed, rather than eviscerating them."
"This is yet another cruel chapter in the Trump's administration's war on families after the Big, Ugly Bill slashed trillions in support for young people by gutting Medicaid, food assistance, and student loans," she continued. "If we are serious about the promise of education, then we have an obligation to make every public school a place where parents want to send their kids, educators want to work, and kids thrive."
The union leader argued that "instead of this voucher scheme, we should commit to creating safe and welcoming schools with a curriculum that is engaging, relevant, and rigorous. That means multiple pathways to career and college, expanding community schools, focusing on literacy and critical thinking, and protecting children against the perils of artificial intelligence while harnessing its potential. These regulations do the exact opposite."
"Either they'll do something very proper and smart, or they won't be around very long," Trump said of Iran's government.
The Pentagon is preparing to dramatically expand the American military presence in the Middle East as President Donald Trump weighs renewed attacks on Iran, with thousands of additional troops and a third aircraft carrier being readied for deployment, even as the conflict he has repeatedly declared "over" or "won" threatens to erupt into a new and potentially broader phase.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that the Pentagon is preparing options that could put as many as three US aircraft carriers and their accompanying warships in the Middle East.
According to The Associated Press, around 9,000 additional sailors and Marines are being dispatched aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and the USS Makin Island amphibious readiness group. The buildup could push the number of US personnel in the region above 20,000 by late October.
The Roosevelt is being sent to relieve the USS George Washington, while a third carrier, the USS George HW Bush, is also already in the region.
The new deployment plans come as diplomacy between Washington and Tehran remains stalled, and as Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume large-scale military action—including the total annihilation of the nation of over 90 million people—after the November midterm elections.
"Either they'll do something very proper and smart, or they won't be around very long," Trump said of the Iranian government Thursday in Denton, Texas. "Frankly, I hate to see that, but they won't be around very long."
Iran, meanwhile, has reportedly begun preparing for a more expansive retaliation should the United States launch another major attack in the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against the Middle East nation.
Hamidreza Azizi, a senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Reuters Thursday that the Iranian government seems "determined not to respond symbolically to a symbolic move and instead to escalate in the hope of reestablishing deterrence."
Republican National Committee Co-Chair Lara Trump—the president's daughter-in-law—warned during a Wednesday interview with British journalist Harry Cole that the increasingly protracted Iran War could not only tarnish Trump's legacy, but could also cost Republicans next month's midterm elections.
"Well, it's possible," Trump—who campaigned as the "peace president" on a promise of no new wars—said of the midterm risks Thursday on his way to Texas, before adding that “it should help because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon."
The intelligence consensus of every US administration since former President George W. Bush—including during both of Trump's terms—has been that Iran has not been trying to develop nuclear weapons.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also argued that "the death penalty has no place in any society."
United Nations human rights experts on Thursday joined the growing chorus of people around the world outraged by Tennessee's two botched attempts to execute Christa Pike and called on the state to refrain from trying again to kill the 50-year-old woman.
After a last-minute legal battle, the US Supreme Court allowed Tennessee to execute Pike for the 1995 murder of Colleen Slemmer. The state tried to do so at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville on Wednesday night—with two injections of pentobarbital, each of which was supposed to be lethal—but she survived and was transported by ambulance to a hospital.
A doctor interviewed by WSMV 4 Nashville's Steve Mehling suggested that an IV could have been placed incorrectly—and, as the journalist summarized: "Pike may suffer from a flurry of long-term effects. This includes skin necrosis, permanent scarring, functional impairment, compartment syndrome, chronic neuropathic pain, and pigmentation change at the injection site."
As of Thursday afternoon, Pike's attorneys said that she was still alive, but in critical condition, "and receiving lifesaving medical care," according to The Washington Post. Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who had previously declined to grant clemency in this case, has since halted executions in Tennessee and ordered an investigation into the state's second botched killing of an inmate this year.
Several UN special rapporteurs and members of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls had urged US authorities to commute Pike's sentence last month, saying that her "execution would mark the culmination of a trajectory of severe physical and psychological suffering marked by childhood abuse and nearly three decades of solitary confinement on death row."
After Wednesday's botched attempts, some of the same experts weighed in again: "Christa Pike was denied clemency. One hour before her execution, a court halted it. The Supreme Court then lifted the stay. She was injected twice with lethal drugs and survived. Forcing a person to face death, have it suspended, and then face it again within hours amounts to barbaric and torturous punishment, compounded in this case by decades of psychological torture on death row."
"The state of Tennessee must immediately and irrevocably end this cruelty by commuting Christa Pike's death sentence," said Morris Tidball-Binz, special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions; Margaret Satterthwaite, special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Pau Pérez-Sales, special rapporteur on torture; Mariângela Batista Galvão Simão, special rapporteur on the right to health; Reem Alsalem, special rapporteur on violence against women and girls; and working group members Claudia Flores, Ivana Krstić, Dorothy Estrada-Tanck, and Haina Lu.
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk went even further, arguing against capital punishment.
"The case of Christa Pike lays bare multiple reasons why the death penalty should be abolished," said a statement from his office. "The prolonged suffering—physical and mental—arising from multiple failed execution attempts is abhorrent, and cruel. And there are key fair trial questions still unresolved."
Türk is calling on "state authorities not to pursue any further attempt to execute Pike," his office said. "We are also troubled by the increase in the number of executions in the United States. The death penalty has no place in any society."
"Sam Altman says we need to slow down development to ensure the safety of humanity," one campaigner said of OpenAI's CEO. "Yet he is allegedly firing the very people hired to keep us safe."
San Francisco-based artificial intelligence firm OpenAI has "parted ways" with three safety researchers who allegedly shared "confidential company information," The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, prompting fresh alarm among critics who accuse the ChatGPT maker of sidelining internal warnings about the risks posed by its increasingly powerful AI.
People reportedly familiar with the matter told the Journal that OpenAI recently informed employees it had terminated the three researchers, who it accused of sharing the information with "a third-party AI safety organization."
OpenAI did not identify the researchers, the outside organization, or the information allegedly shared. A company spokesperson told the newspaper that "our investigation confirmed that these individuals mishandled sensitive information outside established company procedures, violating our policies and breaking the trust essential to our work.”
The Journal's Maxwell Zeff—who authored the report with Keach Hagey and Berber Jin—subsequently identified the three safety team members as Jasmine Wang, Tomek Korbak, and Mikita Balesni.
"Looks like they're firing whistleblowers," Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said in response to the report. "What are they hiding?"
"I'll be sending OpenAI a demand for transparency," he added.
Shaunna Thomas is the executive director of Guardrails Alliance, a super political action committee made up of "workers, organizers, policy experts, and everyday people who believe the most powerful technology ever built shouldn’t be controlled by a handful of unaccountable billionaires."
Thomas called the Journal report "the latest example of OpenAI advocating for safety measures in the public eye, but actively making decisions and lobbying against those efforts behind closed doors."
"Sam Altman says we need to slow down development to ensure the safety of humanity," Thomas said, referring to OpenAI's CEO. "Yet he is allegedly firing the very people hired to keep us safe. When deep insiders are sounding the alarm, history tells us to listen. OpenAI is not only ignoring their warnings, it’s punishing them."
"In the absence of clear regulations, insiders are a crucial factor in keeping the rest of us safe as these models continue to do unpredictable things," she added. "We must stand with rank-and- file employees and fight for their protection."
The new allegations come amid an intensifying debate over whether OpenAI and other frontier AI companies can adequately police themselves.
As Common Dreams recently reported, OpenAI and other AI firms are investigating tens of thousands of security incidents, including episodes involving attempts to bypass guardrails, escape sandboxes, hijack websites, and even access government systems.
In July, an OpenAI model autonomously breached the systems of the open-source platform Hugging Face during an internal cybersecurity test. Experts warned that the incident demonstrated the dangers of relying on voluntary corporate safeguards.
It's not just OpenAI; in 2026 alone, companies including Google, Meta, and Anthropic have reported incidents of AI autonomously escaping supposedly isolated testing environments and targeting real-world systems.
AI safety campaigners and some Democratic lawmakers this week lambasted President Donald Trump, who, after meeting with Big Tech executives including OpenAI president Greg Brockman, dismissed the lack of legally binding commitments regarding AI regulation by saying he trusted the corporate leaders' "morally binding" self-policing pledge.
Elon Musk, CEO of the artificial intelligence company xAI, has said 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 such autonomous hacks underscore the problem of AI alignment. As AI progresses toward artificial general intelligence—a still-hypothetical point at which it matches or surpasses human cognitive ability at virtually any intellectual, creative, or physical task—the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult and, many insiders believe, dangerous to the point of posing an existential risk to humanity.
Last month, Casar and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unveiled legislation that would pause development of advanced AI.
Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) also said this week that he is seeking to introduce legislation to at least temporarily ban recursive self-improvement, or AI that is capable of improving itself and modifying its objectives without meaningful human input.
And on Thursday, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) put forth a bill that would compel every AI company operating in the US to obtain a public charter.
“This issue is of monumental consequence,” said Sanders. “I’d rather be called an alarmist than a father or grandfather who is asleep at the wheel."
One campaigner warned that the administration's effort "to legalize most killings of endangered wildlife would essentially mean open season on species already on the brink of annihilation."
Conservation groups that sued this summer over President Donald Trump's administration rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act updated their legal challenge on Thursday after yet another attack on the landmark law.
The coalition's supplemental complaint explains to a federal court in Seattle that since the lawsuit was first filed in July, administrative leaders have directed various agencies to interpret the ESA to mean that only intentionally killing or wounding a protected species is illegal—a shift that critics condemned as "an all-out war on America's wildlife."
As the "harm" rescission took effect on September 14, US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik issued a related memorandum with that interpretation—effectively allowing "incidental" killing. John Luce, general counsel at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sent the same directive to eight sections of NOAA.
These memos "violate the plain language and overarching purpose of the ESA; they also lack any reasoned basis, are arbitrary and capricious, and failed to comply with applicable notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements," the new filing argues, citing the Administrative Procedure Act. The coalition is asking the court to vacate the memos and bar the agencies from using their interpretations of the 1973 law.
"This despicable effort to legalize most killings of endangered wildlife would essentially mean open season on species already on the brink of annihilation," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species co-director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a Thursday statement. "It's the most serious attack on imperiled animals since the Endangered Species Act was passed more than 50 years ago."
"Without protection against the daily assaults of our modern world, Florida manatees, spotted owls, snowy plovers, and so many other animals that bring color to our world won't stand a chance," he warned, noting that "habitat destruction is the single biggest cause of species endangerment and extinction" in the United States and beyond.
Greenwald added that "with this destruction, the perils faced by plants and animals have grown exponentially. Such peril doesn't come down the barrel of a gun, but it's still a deadly threat, and the Endangered Species Act can and must protect our imperiled wildlife from this kind of careless killing."
In addition to the center, the coalition behind the case includes Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians, with legal representation by Earthjustice.
After the memos were exposed last month, Earthjustice attorney Ben Levitan declared that "the government's new legal position is a prescription for extinction."
"It says that as long as you claim you didn't mean to kill an endangered species, the law can't and won't stop you," he stressed. "That's ridiculous—and a totally illegal, active misreading of the Endangered Species Act. We'll see the Trump administration in court about this."
"For too long, we’ve allowed a few Big Tech companies to dominate the market."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Thursday unveiled a bill aimed at reining in the artificial intelligence industry that would force every AI company operating in the US to obtain a public charter.
According to Jayapal (D-Wash.), the charter system will be similar to the one long used in the US to regulate banks, which must submit to certain regulatory obligations before being allowed to operate.
"The crux of this bill is simple," said Jayapal. "If you want to be an AI company in this country, you have to obtain a public charter that has a broad set of terms and conditions to operate and ensure public benefit without the harms."
The Washington Democrat said the charter approach was needed given the broad reach large technology companies already have over every aspect of life in the US, and she argued it would be a more proactive alternative to the piecemeal approach US lawmakers have taken to regulating Big Tech.
"For too long, we’ve allowed a few Big Tech companies to dominate the market," she said. "They have used mass surveillance to steal private information, labor, and creative work, building trillion-dollar empires on our tracked personal lives. AI corporations and Big Tech are now following that same playbook."
Under the charter system, tech companies would be banned from practices such as surveillance pricing to charge individual consumers different prices based on their personal data and financial histories.
The system would also establish stronger liabilities for AI companies that commit harmful acts, and particularly egregious actions could be punished by removal of firms' charters, which would essentially be a corporate death penalty.
Jayapal's proposal would also put the government in charge of every step of the AI safety review process and would include "round-the-clock federal oversight, testing in government facilities and approval to release, adversarial stress tests, and a government-controlled kill switch," according to her office.
The proposed framework earned praise from former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, who argued that American voters have already "paid an extraordinary price for Big Tech's self-regulation."
"For generations we have required banks, drug makers, and nuclear operators to meet public terms before they do business," Khan added, "and AI companies should be no different."
Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, also gave the Jayapal plan kudos, saying it would "establish desperately needed rules of the road, punish AI companies that release dangerous products, and create the clear public benefit that the American people are calling for."
"Companies have continually pulled the rug out from under families, workers, and small businesses to build powerful and unaccountable Big Tech monopolies that dictate to us how we should live our own lives," Haworth emphasized. "Enough is enough."
Although President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have publicly opposed legislative restrictions on the AI industry, the bill comes as Democrats are aiming to win congressional majorities in the November midterm elections.
A lawyer for 35-year-old Yehonatan Ovadia said his arrest by ICE demonstrates how "equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism produces absurd results."
The Trump administration has spent months targeting anti-Israel protesters for deportation as part of what it portrays as a fight against "antisemitism." One of its latest targets is a Hasidic Jewish rabbi.
Yehonatan Ovadia, a 35-year-old Israeli citizen, was arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on August 28 after being summoned to immigration court in Manhattan. He now sits in Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center, according to The New York Times, which broke news of his detention on Wednesday.
Ovadia, a father of five children, has lived in New York's Rockland County since coming to the United States on a religious worker visa in 2022. He is a member of the Satmar Hasidic sect, an ultra-Orthodox movement that opposes Zionism on religious grounds, holding that Jews should not establish a sovereign state in the land of Israel before the coming of the Messiah.
Some members of Satmar have vocally protested against US support for Israel's genocidal military assault in Gaza since it began in 2023.
“We demonstrated for Gaza, for the liberation of Gaza, for the rights of the Palestinians and to show to the world that the Jews, real Judaism, want to have peace,” Ovadia told the Times from detention.
As the death toll in Gaza has mounted, Ovadia has continued to attend anti-Israel marches across New York and New Jersey. Earlier this year, the government revoked his legal status after he appeared at one of these protests.
In November 2023, Ovadia joined a group of anti-Zionist Hasidic Jews to protest the display of a large Israeli flag at the Ramapo Town Hall. Some attendees were recorded cutting the flag down with scissors. Ovadia and another man were charged with hate crimes over the incident—charges that were later dropped.
Ovadia later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct, for which he paid a $200 fine plus an additional $125 charge. He says he was not one of the men who took down the flag and that he did not know about the other attendees' plans to do so.
The formal reason for Ovadia's deportation, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was that he “overstayed his welcome and refused to depart” the US after losing his status. But the reason he lost that status is more revealing.
Though it acknowledged that Ovadia was eligible to maintain his religious worker status, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ultimately revoked it “as a matter of discretion." It cited what it said were “adverse factors” stemming from the 2023 Israeli flag protest.
DHS stated even more explicitly that the content of Ovadia's speech was the real issue.
"The Trump administration acted well within its statutory and constitutional authority, as it does with any alien who advocates for violence, glorifies and supports terrorists, harasses Jews, and steals property," DHS said.
At the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing DHS to target noncitizens who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests, which it has deemed antisemitic.
The order has led to nonviolent political organizers, like the Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and many others, having their legal immigration statuses abruptly revoked and being whisked into ICE detention without warning. Federal courts have struck down this policy on First Amendment grounds.
Ovadia's attorneys have filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that DHS had unlawfully retaliated against Ovadia for his protected speech. They argue that by targeting Ovadia over activism that stems from his religious beliefs, the government has taken “an official position” favoring “one religious position within Judaism” while penalizing "an adherent of another.”
Many Jewish protesters have been arrested during demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians, including dozens who were arrested at a Jewish Voice for Peace event last week to protest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations General Assembly. But Ovadia's attorneys believe he may be the first Jewish protester to have his immigration status stripped.

Eric Lee, one of Ovadia's attorneys, has emphasized the case as an example of why "equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism produces absurd results."
"Trump's DHS says ICE detention of Yehonatan Ovadia is justified because he was 'harassing Jews,'" Lee wrote in a post on social media. "A rabbi detained for participating in a Hasidic demonstration against Israel three years ago was harassing... himself? What a joke!"
Ovadia, whom a judge has denied bond, appeared in immigration court on Wednesday, while dozens of supporters, many in traditional Hasidic dress, assembled outside.
And from detention, the man DHS has accused of "harassing Jews" continued to describe his activism not as hostility toward his own people, but as an expression of Jewish solidarity with Palestinians.
"From the Jewish people to our Palestinian brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank and all over occupied Palestine: We didn't forget you!" Ovadia said in a statement shared by Lee. "We are following you, and we know that you are facing genocide! Please be strong and continue to believe! Because your struggle is our struggle and your liberation is our liberation!"
"We will SHOUT and DEMONSTRATE for you," he continued, "from New York, Washington, Canada, London, and from every place that we can in the free world."
"Your liberation is near," Ovadia concluded, "and it will bring peace and liberation to all of us."
The winners are "rewriting the rules that autocrats, patriarchs, and Silicon Valley’s most powerful men assumed were theirs to write alone.”
The winners of the annual Right Livelihood Award, announced on Wednesday, are two women and two women-led groups who "refused to wait for permission," said the executive director of the award committee.
“A system built to serve the few was never going to hold," said Ole von Uexkull, who added that the winners of the 2026 award are "rewriting the rules that autocrats, patriarchs, and Silicon Valley’s most powerful men assumed were theirs to write alone.”
The honorees include Jalila Haider, a Pakistani human rights lawyer who was the first female attorney from her Hazara community; Timnit Gebru, an American artificial intelligence researcher who has challenged the consolidation of power in Big Tech and exposed the potential harms of AI; the Rural Women's Assembly in South Africa, a movement of 78,000 small-scale farmers "united to defend land, seed, and bodily autonomy against corporate agribusiness and patriarchal dispossession"; and the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA), the country's first human rights organization in Georgia, which has played a crucial role in its democratization.
The winners of the award, said Right Livelihood in a video about the 2026 laureates, "are making justice the center of the narrative."
Haider has combined legal work with on-the-ground activism, leading a seven-day hunger strike in 2018 against the targeted killing of Hazaras, a Shia Muslim minority, by the Pakistani army. The strike forced the army chief to negotiate directly with Hazara women, "resulting in a sustained decrease in attacks against the community."
Her law firm has also helped more than 600 political activists regain their freedom.
"Despite detention, cyberharassment, and death threats, she continues working toward a world where, in her words, 'no human being is illegal,'" said Right Livelihood.
Gebru was fired from Google after authoring an academic paper that warned of the risks posed by large language models; she had been co-leading the company's Ethics AI team. Now the founder and executive director of the Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (DAIR), the organization's distributed model "brings together researchers and collaborators across countries and continents, defying the centralized and corporate-driven concepts that mainstream AI entails."
"What keeps me going is belief in human agency," said Gebru in Right Livelihood's video.
The Rural Women's Assembly has "built one of the region’s largest autonomous platforms for rural women" with a volunteer structure, establishing 24 seed multiplication sites and "defending traditional seed systems from commercialization.
Its seed sovereignty efforts have challenged corporate control over South Africa's food systems and strengthened "communities’ resilience to climate shocks," according to Right Livelihood.
"We have the power, and we have the imagination that it will take to construct this new world, because another world is needed, and it's urgent," said the group's regional coordinator, Mercia Andrews.
GYLA is the first Right Livelihood winner from Georgia since the award was established in 1980. The group provides grassroots legal aid and has secured landmark legal victories, including ones that have protected rights for people with disabilities and guaranteed free education for every child in Georgia.
The group has opted to remain in the country with a scaled-down team, despite Georgia's repressive "foreign agents" law.
"With courage and determination, the organization presses on for a better future for all Georgians," said Right Livelihood.
The awards, which include support for the winners' work, are set to be presented on December 1 in Stockholm.
"Being able to heat your home in the freezing cold is not a luxury."
A group of 20 US senators on Thursday demanded that the US Department of Health and Human Services boost winter heating assistance as President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran fuels a surge in energy costs.
In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the senators—19 Democrats along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—urged an emergency appropriation request for "at least $3 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)," which would supplement the $4 billion already allocated to the heating assistance initiative.
"Without immediate action, senior citizens on fixed incomes, working families with kids, and people with disabilities are at serious risk of going cold this winter," the senators wrote. "In the richest country in the history of the world, we cannot let that happen."
The senators then pointed fingers at Trump, arguing that the president's "war in Iran and his opposition to renewable energy is sending home heating costs through the roof."
The price of heating oil, along with the price of gasoline and diesel fuel, has been skyrocketing in the months since Trump attacked Iran without congressional authorization in February.
Barron's reported on Wednesday that heating oil prices have now hit record highs, and an analysis published Monday by the National Energy Assistance Directors Association estimates that houses will pay an extra $900 for heating oil this winter, a 50% increase from the year before.
The senators concluded their letter by reiterating the urgency of passing emergency increases in LIHEAP funding.
"Emergency LIHEAP assistance is needed now more than ever," they wrote. "Without this vital funding, states will be forced to turn away families, reduce benefits, or exhaust heating assistance funds well before winter is over."
"Being able to heat your home in the freezing cold is not a luxury," they emphasized. "It is a matter of life and death."
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride. Our tax system favors wealthy people, and the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
As some of California's richest residents pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating a proposed billionaire tax, one former venture capitalist is making a remarkably different argument: He is perfectly happy to pay it—and he's not alone.
John O'Farrell, a former partner at Andreessen Horowitz, explained Wednesday in a 12-post thread on the social media platform X why he supports the California Billionaire Tax Act, commonly known as Proposition 40, which is on the state's November midterm ballot.
O'Farrell's argument contradicts the chorus of Silicon Valley billionaires and their allies who warn that taxing billionaire wealth would drive the ultra-rich out of California.
"I know where I want to live," he wrote.
"I've been fortunate to benefit from tech wealth. I'm not even close to being a billionaire, but I could easily afford to pay the wealth tax—and any billionaire certainly can—without the slightest effect on my lifestyle," O'Farrell said. "I support a wealth tax at my wealth level also."
Introduced by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, with an option to pay the tax in annual installments of 1% over five years.
The proposal would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
"I find the knee-jerk opposition of some ultra-wealthy people to the idea of paying any new tax deeply disappointing," O'Farrell said in his thread. "To be honest, I can't understand it. They have so much money they couldn't spend it in multiple lifetimes."
Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies—a Washington, DC-based progressive think tank—exposed 22 California billionaires who have poured more than $150 million into defeating Prop 40, "with more rolling in every day," as Chuck Collins wrote for the group.
"These 22 include a prince, several private jet-flying chums of Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of crypto and tech bros designing the [artificial intelligence] future for the rest of us," Collins noted. "On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion. In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64%."
O'Farrell's social media thread pointed out how "our tax system favors wealthy people."
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride," he wrote, adding, "the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
"Paying taxes is ultimately a matter of self-interest," he contended. "What kind of society do we want to live in? One that rewards achievement but also emphasizes fairness and opportunity for all—or one in which you have to cower in a bunker and live in fear of the pitchforks?"
"One enables the pursuit of happiness for all," he concluded. "The other, just the pursuit of endless wealth."
Prop 40 is backed by numerous progressive groups including the Teamsters union, California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
Sanders, Khanna, and others—including Congresswoman Aisha Wahab (D-Calif.), Democratic congressional candidate Randy Villegas, and California insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim—are set to speak at a series of rallies for Prop 40 starting Saturday in San Francisco.
O'Farrell isn't the only wealthy Californian who supports Prop 40. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose fortune has soared into the hundreds of billions of dollars, has said he is “perfectly fine” with the proposed tax, telling Bloomberg that he and his family “chose to live in Silicon Valley” and that whatever taxes California applies, “so be it.”