LIVE COVERAGE
For Now A Prince. How Long Till A (Fake) King?
The arrest of the U.K. rapist formerly known as Prince, and the echoing, trans-Atlantic edict that no one is above the law, lay ever-barer America's "true exceptionalism": A culture of immunity so corrosive our own heinous, in-his-fever-dreams "exonerated" Predator-In-Chief has enragingly yet to face any consequences for his manifold sins, crimes, cruelties and depravities, petty and profound. Finally, says Epstein survivor Maria Farmer, "(Let) all the dominoes of power and corruption begin to fall."
The stunning arrest by Thames Valley Police of "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor" - notably, not "His Royal Highness," ”the Duke of York" or other niceties - on his 66th birthday was widely seen as not just an arrest but "a transfer of power," a possible, long- awaited shift in the tides for once-untouchable elites of the Epstein class that announces power and status may no longer keep them safe, at least outside the crooked U.S. Shortly after 8 a.m., police arrived in six unmarked vehicles at Wood Farm on King Charles’ Sandringham Estate to haul Andrew off; they also reportedly searched his former residence near Windsor Castle. The charge, "suspicion of misconduct in public office" - talk about your euphemisms - stems from Andrew's term as UK trade envoy from 2001 to 2011, when he allegedly shared with Jeffrey Epstein confidential government reports on potential investment opportunities from Vietnam, Singapore, China and Afghanistan.
The envoy gig mandates a "duty of confidentiality"; any "abuse of public trust" that uses public power as "private currency for self-serving or nefarious reasons" carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. (Just imagine what they'd make of the Trump cartel's brazen, perennial grifting.) Andrew, of course, has also been charged with raping outspoken Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide last year at 41, which led to him being stripped of his royal titles before slinking out of public view. Regrettably, he never faced a rape charge in court due to several factors - a civil settlement with Giuffre, a high bar for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and other legal loopholes. Presumably for some Epstein victims, bringing Andrew to even a modicum of justice on the easier-to-prove misconduct in office charge may feel dispiriting, like nabbing the murderous Al Capone for tax evasion: Better than nothing, but not good enough.
Andrew's was the first arrest of a senior member of the British royal family in modern history. The last one arrested was King Charles I in 1647, following his defeat in the English Civil War by Parliamentarian forces; a believer in the divine right of kings, his tyrannical reign led to his imprisonment, trial for high treason, and beheading in 1649 - the moral arc of the universe moved faster then. After Andrew's arrest, his brother King Charles, who had received no warning beforehand, issued a statement on, not his bro but “Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor”; he expressed “deepest concern" but "whole-hearted support" for the investigation: "Let me state clearly: the law must take its course." Others cited the same probity. Prime Minister Keir Starmer: "No one is above the law.” The family of Virginia Giuffre: "No one is above the law, not even royalty." Heartbreakingly, they added, "For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you."
Waxing cautious about possible shifts in power, The Mirror’s Christopher Bucktin notes, "A birthday arrest should not stand alone as a rare spectacle. It should signal something larger: that no title, no fortune, no political office is sufficient armour against the law...Justice cannot stop at one imprisoned accomplice while others retreat behind legal teams and influence." A new report from the UN's Human Rights Council, which finds Epstein's wrongs "may reasonably meet the legal threshold of crimes against humanity," echoes him. Arguing the files' "credible evidence of systematic and large-scale sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation" - thus contradicting the "little evidence" bullshit of our DOJ and FBI - it dismisses vapid calls to "move on" as "a failure of responsibility towards victims." Resignations alone aren't enough, it adds: "It is imperative that governments act decisively to hold perpetrators (criminally) accountable."
As further evidence "Epstein elites can't hide anymore" - except, yes, infuriatingly, here - active investigations of Epstein-related crimes in 16 countries are now sweeping up officials on both sex-trafficking and corruption charges; Canada will reportedly open the next one. In the UK, former ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson was fired and is under investigation - oops, now arrest - for passing on financial info to Epstein; Starmer’s chief of staff, who appointed Mandelson, also resigned. In Norway, a former prime minister was charged with "gross corruption” for his Epstein ties, and two diplomats are being investigated. In France, so are a former Culture Minister, his daughter and a senior diplomat. Non-Epstein-related justice has also come for South Korea's former President Yoon Suk Yeol - a life sentence with hard labor for an insurrection - and Brazil's Bolsonaro, whose 2023 coup attempt got him 27 years, and no pardons.
"This is what accountability looks like," argues David Kurtz of Andrew's arrest and all the rest, which "sends a signal far beyond London - straight to Washington." What it proclaims: "If the King's own brother is not above the law, neither is the King's dinner guest, nor his Commerce Secretary." Infernally, the lesson has yet to be heeded in an America ruled by a two-bit, 34-count felon and rapist abetted by a cabal of flunkies managing a Mafia-style criminal regime with no bottom and a corrupt SCOTUS whose "out-of-thin-air immunity doctrine" has made him less accountable than actual royalty - spawning a nation "exceptional among developed nations solely in (its) unwillingness to hold the powerful to account, even in the most egregious cases." Confirming that stark reality was last week's unfurling, outside the DOJ, of a huge banner of Dear Leader, "an abomination and an outrage" straight-up declaring our alleged justice system "a pure creature of presidential whim, retribution and cover-up."
Meanwhile, despite Epstein files that "scream 'Guilty" - with his hideous name appearing over 38,000 times in 5,300 released files representing just 2-4% of the grisly whole - Trump had the chutzpah to respond to a question about the possible ripple effect at home of Andrew's arrest by professing, four times in 30 seconds, he's been "totally exonerated." "Well, you know, I'm the expert in a way, because I've been totally exonerated," he blustered, prattling on in toddler-ese. "I did nothin'. It’s very nice. I can actually speak about it very nicely. I think it’s a shame. I think it’s very sad. It’s very, very sad to me. It’s a very sad thing. To see it, and to see what’s going on with his brother. King. So I think it’s a very sad thing." Fucking Christ. Nope, wasn't me, nothing to see here, not a creep, all good, if sad. And not a word on the survivors. Appalled observers: "Guilty as fuck," "The man on my TV screen is batshit crazy," and, "I hope to live long enough to see this POS in a cell with an open toilet." Or maybe none?
Epstein’s carefully curated, now slowly splintering network of elites included billionaires, academics, politicians, scummy MAGA hangers-on like Steve Bannon - “Dude. You up??" - with culpability circling ever closer to Trump. A trove of damning evidence has been unearthed by investigative journalist Roger Sollenberger. In one account, he cites the disappearance of allegations in both a civil complaint and FBI slideshow that the DOJ spoke four times to a Jane Doe who credibly charged she was about 14 when she was forced to perform oral sex on Trump; when she bit down on his penis, she said he punched her in the head, kicked her out, and later raped her vaginally and anally. Experts say such slowly emerging stories of abuse reveal a ghastly, familiar pattern; the latest, in Alaska, is "nothing short of horrifying." Thus does Masha Gessen argue that it's time for us to stop speaking of the Epstein story "as a story about extraordinary lawlessness. It is a story about ordinary lawlessness."
Dating back, in Trump's case, a savage lifetime. By now he's committed most of the crimes Thomas Jefferson charged King George with in the Declaration of Independence - ignored laws "necessary for the public good," sent "swarms of Officers to harass our people," kept "Standing Armies without Consent," altered "fundamentally the Forms of our Government," ravaging due process, free speech, health care, civil rights, history itself. The lies, deaths, grift, cruelty, unceasing assaults on decency. The "monstrous machine" to snatch up and spit out thousands of innocents - "¡Libertad!” - in concentration camps. The children trapped with cancer, measles, trauma: "Please get me out of here." Two-month old Juan Nicolás, unresponsive in Dilley, choking on his vomit, abruptly deported with his family to Mexico, tracked down and cared for thanks to "America's most relentless immigration reporter," because, "The story is rarely the policy - (it's) the person standing in the rubble of the policy."
Today, the two essential pillars of Trump's "fantasy version of nationalist renewal" - ethnic cleansing and tariffs - are both rubble, rejected by the public, the courts and even a corrupt SCOTUS, which enraged him so much he revived a cringe John Barron to rave about the "fools and lap dogs” who rejected his cherished tariffs and the imaginary hundreds of billions they brought in to make us '"the hottest country." The drek kept spewing. He praised lickspittles Thomas, Alito, Beer Keg Brett for "their strength and wisdom," especially Beer Keg, "for his, frankly, his genius." He respects them "because they not only dissented, their dissent is so strong. I'm very good at reading language and it read our way 100%...My thousands of victories...Like the wars I stopped. The Prime Minister of Pakistan said I saved 35 million lives by getting them to stop. That's -- and I did it largely with tariffs." He's vowed new tariffs, "and they can all be used in a much more powerful and obnoxious way." So much winning.
Also somewhere he asked the owner of "they made steel products" how he was, and the man said, "I'd love to kiss you," because "we were down to working one hour a week and then you came in and imposed tariffs (and) now we're going to double shifts seven days a week and maybe to 24 hours almost seven days a week, we're hiring people like we haven't - like I've never..." Trump: "Nobody's standing in (the) position I have as president had the insight, the courage, I don't know what it is. They're all pouring into the United States. But just like that great patriot said, Sir, what you've done, nobody thought was possible." As to "slimeball" Gorsuch and Coney Barret, they're "an embarrassment to their families" and were "swayed by foreign interests." Dems were intrigued: The Judiciary Committee's Jared Moskowitz felt he should find out more about them, and another Dem felt the next president "will have no choice but to replace all 9 members with new justices with no foreign entanglements."
On Saturday, the White House held the annual Governors' Dinner, designed to "build relationships and discuss things in a bipartisan way." Historically, the staid, candle-lit, black-tie affair - Melania wore $2,400 silver foil pants - can serve as a genial distraction from Congressional battles. In this rancorous moment, it was a shitshow - actors on both sides alternately called it "a farce" and "a glowing evening" - because after the Mad Hatter King uninvited two Dems, the only Black and only openly gay governor, Dems all boycotted it what became a MAGA ass-kissing fest. Trump used the moment to blame two Dem governors for a sewage spill in the Potomac River. "We have to clean up some mess Maryland and Virginia have left us," he snarled. "It's unbelievable what they can do with incompetence." The ruptured pipe is part of a D.C.-based, federally regulated utility under the oversight of the U.S. EPA. As to "mess," we hope to see this face replicated soon at home.
"It could go either way. There's no other way. You have other ways you can go. You don't have to go that way. You can go other way." - Donald J. Trump, lifelong sexual and financial predator and deeply, deeply shameful President of the United States of America

Data Center Giant Secures $14 Million Deal to Consume 40% of Pennsylvania Town's Excess Water
An artificial intelligence data center development venture has signed a multimillion-dollar deal that will allow it to consume over 40% of a Pennsylvania town's excess water supply.
PennLive reported on Monday that Carlisle Development Partners, a joint venture created by developers Pennsylvania Data Center Partners and PowerHouse Data Centers, had signed a $14.1 million agreement that will let it tap into the public water and sewer systems of Middlesex Township, Pennsylvania.
According to PennLive, the deal will formalize the 18-building data center's right to access up to 400,000 gallons of water per day, which the publication notes is "equal to the consumption of 2,367 dwelling units."
Middlesex Township Supervisor Phil Neiderer said during a recent planning commission meeting that the big influx of revenue to the local government would more than make up for the massive amounts of water being consumed by the data center.
"What that’s going to do is it’s going to fund a lot of projects that have already been in the books that are completely unrelated to the data center," Neiderer said, according to PennLive.
In recent months, residents of Middlesex Township and Cumberland County have raised concerns about not only water use but also pollution and utility rates tied to the project.
AI data centers have become a major controversy throughout the US in recent months, as their massive energy needs have pushed up utility bills and put a strain on communities' water supplies.
A study published in the journal Nature Sustainability last year found that data centers could soon consume as much water as 10 million Americans and emit as much carbon dioxide as 10 million cars, or roughly the same amount of consumption as the entire state of New York.
CNBC reported last month PJM Interconnection, the largest US grid operator that serves over 65 million people across 13 states, projects that it will be a full six gigawatts short of its reliability requirements in 2027 thanks to the gargantuan power demands of data centers.
Joe Bowring, president of independent market monitor Monitoring Analytics, told CNBC that he’s never seen the grid under such projected strain.
“It’s at a crisis stage right now,” Bowring said. “PJM has never been this short.”
Billionaires Are 'Becoming a Problem for the Economy,' Declares Wall Street Journal Report
A report published Wednesday by the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal outlined how billionaires' tax evasion schemes are causing problems for the US economy.
The report, written by London-based columnist Carol Ryan, began by noting how completely the US economy has come to depend on the spending habits of its richest households, whose wealth is primarily tied to the fortunes of the stock market, which "could mean the entire economy pays a steep price in the next market correction."
Ryan then walked through some of the plusses and minuses of the wealth tax being debated in the state of California, which has more billionaires than any state in the nation.
Even while personally finding flaws with the California proposal, Ryan said that plans to extract wealth from the super-rich aren't going away, even if the California tax plan is ultimately defeated.
"Debate about how much tax billionaires pay is likely to grow as America’s fiscal situation deteriorates and its wealth gap widens," Ryan wrote. "Data from the Federal Reserve shows that only the richest 1% of households have grown their share of overall US wealth since 1990."
Ryan also broke down how the very richest Americans have tax evasion options that mere multimillionaires don't have.
"A common strategy is to avoid salaries, which are heavily taxed," she wrote. "Billionaires prefer to be paid in shares, which are subject to capital-gains taxes when sold. But they don’t need to sell to fund their lifestyles. Billionaires use borrowed money for living expenses, pledging their shares or other assets as collateral."
Ryan added that "the interest on the debt is much lower than a capital-gains tax bill would be," and billionaires compound this wealth by passing it off to their children as part of a “buy borrow die” tax avoidance plan.
Boston College law professor Ray Madoff told Ryan that the wealth at the very top has grown so concentrated that even "very well-off Americans with high incomes" are now aligned "much more with the middle class" than in the past.
Ryan's report isn't the only one published by the Journal in recent weeks to warn of dangerous levels of US wealth inequality.
Chief Wall Street Journal economics commentator Greg Ip last week posted data showing that corporate profits' share of gross domestic income is now the highest it has been in more than 40 years, while the share of income paid out in workers' wages is at the lowest.
"Profits have soared since the pandemic, and the market value attached to those profits even more," wrote Ip. "The result: Capital, which includes businesses, shareholders, and superstar employees, is triumphant, while the average worker ekes out marginal gains."
Ip also said that this problem could grow worse if artificial intelligence lives up to its creators' hype and starts replacing human workers on a mass scale.
In such a scenario, wrote Ip, the "biggest winners" of the economy would be shareholders who, as Ryan explained in her piece, have ample tools to avoid paying taxes.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs, But Damage From 'Unhinged Economic Sabotage' Remains
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked an emergency law to impose sweeping global tariffs, sparking a disastrous trade war and burdening American consumers and businesses with higher costs.
The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that "nothing" in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs."
"And needless to say," Roberts wrote, "without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand." Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented in the case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
The ruling deals a massive blow to Trump's tariff regime, which he placed at the center of his economic policy agenda despite warnings that the sweeping import taxes would drive up costs for US consumers and businesses—which is precisely what happened.
An analysis released by congressional Democrats just after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling estimated that the average US family has paid more than $1,700 in tariff costs since the start of Trump's second White House term. While businesses may be eligible for tariff refunds in the wake of the high court's decision, it's far from clear that consumers who paid higher costs for groceries and other goods affected by the levies will have any such recourse.
The Supreme Court's decision does not directly address the issue of refunds for tariff costs, which tripled for midsize US companies last year.
"Any consumer looking for relief from tariff-driven price hikes did not find it at the Supreme Court today," said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative. "The economic damage Trump has already done to business investment, manufacturing, and working families’ budgets will linger for years to come."
"Refunds for impacted businesses will take months or even years to process, and there is little reason to believe companies will pass those savings on to consumers," Jacquez added. "Trump must set aside his erratic tariff policy and instead pursue a trade agenda that protects workers, supports manufacturers, and doesn’t punish consumers.”
"Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
Most of the tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term will be impacted by the Supreme Court's decision. NBC News noted that the decision "upends his tariffs in two categories. One is country-by-country or 'reciprocal' tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world."
"The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China, and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl," the outlet added.
On top of driving up costs for American consumers and businesses, Trump's tariffs failed to make a dent in the US trade deficit and did not stop the loss of manufacturing jobs, which declined by an estimated 108,000 during the president's first year back in the White House.
Fearing a negative Supreme Court ruling, Trump administration officials have reportedly been exploring alternatives to the IEEPA, prompting concerns that the president could swiftly pursue similar tariffs under a different authority.
"This decision is unlikely to alter US tariff rates or policies much because there are other statutes that could provide broad authority for Trump to impose tariffs," said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project.
"In the immediate term, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly authorizes a president to impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to 'large and serious' balance of payments issues, which relates to the huge chronic US trade deficit," Wallach observed. "Section 122 does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits."
US Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision but warned that "Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
Michiganders Vow to Fight Trump Attacks on LGBTQ+ Youth as DOJ Probes Public Schools
Denouncing the Trump administration's probes to determine whether three public school districts "have included sexual orientation and gender ideology" content in courses as "part of a broader attack on our rights as Michiganders," the head of one progressive group pledged Friday to keep fighting to ensure that "all of our kids can thrive at school free from bullying, harassment, and other unfair treatment."
The US Department of Justice announced Wednesday that its Civil Rights Division is investigating Detroit Public Schools Community District, Godfrey-Lee Public Schools, and the Lansing School District. The DOJ is examining content for pre-K through 12th grade courses, opt-out policies, and whether the districts "limit access to single-sex intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, based on biological sex."
In a Friday statement, Justin Mendoza, executive director of Progress Michigan, emphasized that his state's "civil rights laws explicitly protect LGBTQ+ students, and our state must enforce them to the fullest extent."
Mendoza condemned not only the Trump administration's efforts to harm "the most vulnerable and historically marginalized among us," but also Republicans at the state and federal level who "are trying to limit honest conversations about our nation's history, while fighting each and every attempt to create safe, inclusive schools for our children."
"Attorney General Pam Bondi is setting a terrible example for younger generations—considering the way she behaved at a recent congressional hearing where she name-called members of Congress—and now she's going a step further by throwing nondiscrimination policies into the dumpster," he said. "People of all genders, races, and backgrounds benefit from strong nondiscrimination policies."
"From Marquette to Monroe, teachers, students, and their families are committed to having an educational system that reflects the diversity of the world they live in," Mendoza continued. "Classrooms deserve to have age-appropriate conversations about health, identity, and respect, and if parents choose to opt their children out of participating in these conversations, they are already allowed to by Michigan law."
"The Trump Department of Justice is truly looking to invent problems instead of actually fighting crime and violence towards youth," he concluded, "and Michiganders won't take this intrusion into our education system."
"The Trump Department of Justice is truly looking to invent problems instead of actually fighting crime and violence towards youth, and Michiganders won't take this intrusion into our education system."
Other state and nationwide groups have also spoken out against the administration's probes and targeting of LGBTQ+ youth this week. Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women's Law Center, blasted the investigations as a "blatant attempt to discourage inclusive education."
Jay Kaplan, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, told Chalkbeat that "this is an attempt to harass and bully districts into discriminating against trans kids and into erasing the existence of LGBTQ people."
Equality Michigan executive director Erin Knott said that "LGBTQ+ youth are among the most vulnerable young people in our state. They face higher rates of bullying, harassment, and mental health challenges. Inclusive education policies are not 'ideology,' they are evidence-based efforts to ensure that every student feels safe, respected, and seen in their own school community."
"All kids deserve an education that reflects the diversity of the world they live in," she stressed. "Age-appropriate discussions about health, identity, and respect help create safer classrooms for all students. We urge federal officials to focus on real threats to student well-being like gun violence, funding cuts, and staffing shortages rather than singling out districts that work to support all children."
State Superintendent Glenn Maleyko was similarly critical of the federal administration in his response, saying Thursday that "the Michigan Department of Education strongly supports all students and supports the school districts that have been targeted by the US Department of Justice."
Maleyko continued:
If we want to put Students First and make sure children can learn, we need all students to be healthy and safe and feel included. The much-needed updates to health education guidelines—which the Department of Justice falsely said are state requirements—help local districts make decisions on how they can support student health.
As required by state law, MCL 380.1507, local school boards set health curriculum with input from local sex education advisory boards. Local control remains in place. Parents retain the right to decide whether their children should participate in sex education instruction.
The Michigan Department of Education strongly supports and will work closely with the three districts' efforts to select a curriculum that best supports the needs of their students, consistent with state standards and guidelines. We remain committed to protecting the rights of all students and to upholding Michigan’s constitutional guarantee of access to a free public education for every child.
"The breadth and scope of the federal requests, premised on a mischaracterization of the Michigan Health Education Standards Guidelines adopted by the State Board of Education, place a significant administrative burden on local districts and risk diverting time and resources away from the core mission of educating students," Maleyko added.
As for the targeted districts, a spokesperson for the Detroit schools declined to comment, while Guillermo Lopez, the Lansing school board president, told the Detroit Free Press that parents in his district are informed that "they can opt out of certain classes."
Arnetta Thompson, superintendent of Godfrey-Lee schools, told Chalkbeat that her district will provide information requested by the DOJ and "is not facing any charges or findings of wrongdoing. We remain committed to complying with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and have consistently operated in accordance with those laws."
'I Guess I Can Say I Am': Trump Confirms He's Considering Unprovoked Attack on Iran
US President Donald Trump on Friday confirmed that he's considering launching an unprovoked military strike against Iran.
According to the New York Times, Trump was asked by reporters on Friday if he was considering attacking Iran, and he replied, "I guess I can say I am considering that."
The US has for weeks been sending fleets of warships, including the world's largest aircraft carrier, to the Middle East in apparent preparation for a massive military operation against Iran.
According to a Friday report from Al Jazeera, the buildup is the largest by the US Air Force in the region since the 2003 Iraq War, and it includes deployments of E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, F-35 stealth strike fighters and F-22 air superiority jets, and F-15 and F-16 fighter jets.
Trump has not given any justification for launching such an attack, nor has he asked the US Congress to approve it, even though the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to declare war.
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have been pushing for a vote in the US House of Representatives on a war powers resolution that would require Congress to debate and approve any act of war with Iran.
It is also not clear what goals the president would hope to achieve with the attack. A Thursday CNN report indicated that Trump is now weighing several options ranging from "more targeted strikes to sustained operations that could potentially last for weeks," including "plans to take out Tehran’s leaders."
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in a Friday analysis of Trump's reported attack plans that there is little chance that the president will be able to achieve a quick victory over Iran simply because the offers he has made to its government are nonstarters.
"Since the US strategy... is to escalate until Tehran caves, and since capitulation is a non-option for Iran, the Iranians are incentivized to strike back right away at the US," explained Parsi. "The only exit Tehran sees is to fight back, inflict as much pain as possible on the US, and hope that this causes Trump to back off or accept a more equitable deal."
Parsi acknowledged that there is no way Iran can defeat the US militarily, but could "get close to destroying Trump’s presidency before it loses the war" through a number of maneuvers intended to spike the price of oil, including "closing the Strait of Hormuz" and attacking "oil installations in the region in the hope of driving oil prices to record levels and by that inflation in the US."
"This is an extremely risky option for Iran," Parsi conceded, "but one that Tehran sees as less risky than the capitulation 'deal' Trump is seeking to force on Iran."
Investigation Details IDF's 'Execution-Style' Massacre of Gaza Medics
"What this investigation reveals is that there was a shoot first policy, and that is unlawful under international law," said one legal expert.
An investigation published Monday meticulously dissects last year's killing by Israeli soldiers of 15 Palestinian aid workers in southern Gaza and the Israel Defense Force's subsequent efforts to cover up the massacre, which the Palestine Red Crescent Society called "one of the darkest moments" of the US-backed genocide.
IDF soldiers fired nearly a thousand bullets—at least eight of them at point-blank range—during the March 23, 2025 attack on a convoy of Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) and Palestinian Civil Defense ambulances and a PCD fire truck in Tel al-Sultan north of Rafah, according to the investigation by Forensic Architecture and Earshot.
"Our investigation confirms that Israeli forces attacked the aid workers while they were traveling in clearly marked humanitarian vehicles, in the absence of any threat or exchange of fire," a summary of the report states. "Spatial and audio analysis conducted in partnership with Earshot reveals the positions from which Israeli soldiers fired on the aid workers—in at least once instance within one to four meters of their victim—over a period of more than two hours."
Eyewitness and survivor testimonies and analysis of various recordings showed that some of the aid workers—who included eight PCRS workers, six PCD employees, and one staffer with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. They are among the hundreds of Palestinian humanitarian aid workers killed by Israeli forces since October 2023, including more than 370 members of UNRWA, according to the agency.
The new report shows how IDF troops ambushed and attacked the convoy, firing on its vehicles. IDF spokesperson Col. Nadav Shoshani claimed that unmarked convoy vehicles "were identified advancing suspiciously toward IDF troops without headlights or emergency signals" and that nine of the first responders were “terrorists from Hamas and the Islamic Jihad."
However, as is often the case, IDF officials could not support their claim with evidence, and video recorded by PRCS worker Refaat Radwan before he was killed shows clearly marked ambulances traveling with lights on and sirens wailing.
The IDF's lies poured fuel on the fire of international outrage over the massacre. Trey Yingst, chief international correspondent at staunchly pro-Israel Fox News, said that Israel's version of the massacre story was "clearly not true."
Gaza authorities previously reported that some of the victims had apparently survived the initial attack and were handcuffed and executed before being dumped together into a deep hole and buried along with their destroyed vehicles.
Survivors Munther Abed and Assad al-Nassasra testified "that Israeli soldiers opened fire on the rescue convoy as the aid workers exited their vehicles and approached the ambulance on foot," according to the new investigation.
"Asaad recalled crawling toward an ambulance where two colleagues—Muhammad Bahloul and Saleh Muammar—had taken shelter," the publication continues. "Muhammad had been killed, and Saleh was severely wounded. Muhammad al-Hila crawled up behind Asaad, and as the two men embraced, Muhammad was shot and killed."
Autopsies revealed that some of the slain aid workers were shot in the chest and head, with one doctor who examined the bodies calling the "specific and intentional location of shots at close range" indicative of an "execution-style" killing.
Of the bodies found in the mass grave of victims, “one was beheaded,” according to PRCS spokesperson Mahmoud Basal, who said that “the least harmed among them had at least 20 bullets fired at him."
Jonathan Whittall, who headed the UN humanitarian affairs coordination office in Palestine at the time, told Drop Site Monday that “following our discovery of the mass grave, the narrative from Israeli forces shifted multiple times; we were fed several versions of a blatant lie."
The IDF cover-up attempt was underway. The new investigation says that the IDF "deliberately concealed and disturbed evidence, and in the weeks after repeatedly mischaracterized the incident and denied any wrongdoing."
Meanwhile, survivor al-Nassasra was captured by Israeli troops and taken to the Sde Teiman military prison in Israel's Negev Desert, where he was jailed for 37 days and tortured during interrogations. Sde Teiman gained global infamy following reports of torture, rape, and murder of detainees. The IDF is investigating the deaths of at least 36 Palestinians at the lockup, including one who died after allegedly being sodomized with an electric baton.
Israeli soldiers pulled Abed, the other survivor, from his ambulance, bound his hands, beat him, and detained him on the ground near where the other vehicles had been ambushed. Abed testified that he was stripped, beaten, threatened with death, and interrogated before being released later that same day.
Katherine Gallagher, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, told Drop Site that the new investigation "presents a very compelling case, and honestly, a very devastating one.”
"What this investigation reveals is that there was a shoot first policy, and that is unlawful under international law," she continued.
“When you zoom out and look at this in the context of the way the Israeli assault has been carried out over many months and years in Gaza and we see that there is a pattern and practice of attacks on medical personnel—similar to journalists and other groups that are explicitly and uniquely protected as classes of civilians in international humanitarian law—it raises even more questions and deep concern about the lack of accountability, because what we know is that impunity breeds repetition," Gallagher added.
There has been no accountability for those who ordered, carried out, and tried to cover up the paramedic massacre, for the killers of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza—most of them women and children—or for the countless victims of Israeli arbitrary imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, and other thoroughly documented crimes.
While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, the Biden and Trump administrations have unwaveringly backed Israel's war, providing tens of billions of dollars in armed aid and diplomatic cover including vetoes of numerous UN Security Council cease-fire resolutions.
Adding insult to injury, the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation—whose aid sites have been called "death traps" where more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed—established a distribution center atop the mass grave where the massacred paramedics were buried.
“Now, the US, under the so-called Board of Peace, plans to build a ‘New Rafah’ over this crime scene," Whittall told Drop Site. "Without meaningful accountability, ‘New Rafah’ will be a monument to impunity.”
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Big Oil Effort to Crush Climate Lawsuits
"Big Oil’s climate lies are the most consequential and harmful corporate deception campaign in history."
The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case that could effectively crush efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the climate crisis.
As reported by the New York Times, the court has agreed to hear arguments related to a petition filed by ExxonMobil and Canadian energy firm Suncor related to a 2018 lawsuit by the city of Boulder, Colorado that seeks financial damages from the companies for their role in causing global climate change.
The Times report noted that dozens of similar lawsuits have been filed by states and municipalities over the last decade, and they generally seek money from energy firms to help mitigate or repair damage done by extreme weather exacerbated by the climate crisis.
According to the Associated Press, attorneys for the energy companies are petitioning to have the case moved from state courts to federal courts that have in the past dismissed similar complaints.
“The use of state law to address global climate change represents a serious threat to one of our nation’s most critical sectors,” the attorneys claimed.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case comes months after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder's lawsuit could initiate the discovery process and move toward a trial.
In an interview with the Colorado Sun, Boulder County Commissioner Ashley Stolzmann said that the city wasn't backing down from its efforts make the fossil fuel industry pay for the damage it's done.
"The oil companies have tried every avenue to delay our climate accountability case or move it to an out-of-state court system,” said Stolzmann. “As everyone continues to face rising costs that put budgets under pressure, we must hold oil companies accountable for the significant harm they’ve caused our communities."
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said that the merits of the Boulder lawsuit are clear, regardless of the Supreme Court's intervention.
"Big Oil’s climate lies are the most consequential and harmful corporate deception campaign in history," Wiles said, "and the communities paying the price for that deception deserve to put these companies on trial. Exxon’s desperation to escape accountability does not change the evidence of their wrongdoing or the law that lower courts agree is on Boulder’s side."
Alyssa Johl, vice president of legal and general counsel at the Center for Climate Integrity, said the Supreme Court should simply affirm lower court rulings stating that "communities like Boulder have the right to seek accountability in their state courts when corporations have knowingly caused local harms."
UN Leaders Warn Rule of Law Being Replaced by 'Rule of Force'
"We are living in a world where mass suffering is excused away... where humans are used as bargaining chips... where international law is treated as a mere inconvenience," said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
The secretary-general of the United Nations and the body's top human rights official did not call out world leaders by name as they warned that "impunity has become a contagion" among powerful governments at the opening of the UN Human Rights Council's annual session in Geneva on Monday.
But their comments appeared to allude to numerous recent actions by the Trump administration, whose officials have explicitly dismissed concerns about international law regarding the White House's foreign policy in recent months.
Secretary-General António Guterres warned global officials that "the rule of law is being out-muscled by the rule of force."
"This assault is not coming from the shadows. Or by surprise. It is happening in plain sight—and often led by those who hold the greatest power," said Guterres.
The leader's comments came nearly two months after President Donald Trump ordered an invasion of Venezuela, killing dozens of people, abducting President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and charging them with narcotics trafficking, and pushing to take control of the South American country's oil supply.
That operation as well as the United States' bombings of dozens of boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean in recent months—also ostensibly to fight "narcoterrorism"—have been violations of international law, according to numerous legal experts, with the former violating the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Trump officials, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, however, have claimed the US has the right to use military force against any country if doing so advances US interests.
"We are living in a world where mass suffering is excused away... where humans are used as bargaining chips... where international law is treated as a mere inconvenience," said Guterres on Monday. "Conflicts are multiplying and impunity has become a contagion. That is not due to a lack of knowledge, tools, or institutions. It is the result of political choices."
The UN has directly condemned other policies by the Trump administration in recent weeks, including Trump's executive order threatening tariffs on any country that provides Cuba with oil as it baselessly accused the island nation's communist government of harboring terrorists, and Guterres has suggested Trump's creation of a "Board of Peace" to govern Gaza is akin to "one power calling the shots."
Guterres mentioned just two specific conflicts: Russia's war on Ukraine and the "blatant violations of human rights, human dignity, and international law in the occupied Palestinian territory," where the US-backed Israel Defense Forces have been waging war on Gaza and Israeli settlers have been carrying out increased violent attacks in the West Bank as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government pushes to further illegally annex the territory and make the creation of a Palestinian state impossible.
"The current trajectory is stark, clear, and purposeful: The two-state solution is being stripped away in broad daylight," said Guterres. "The international community cannot allow this to happen."
Regarding Ukraine, which will enter its fifth year of war with Russia on Tuesday and where more than 15,000 civilians have been killed, Guterres said, "It is more than past time to end the bloodshed."
Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, added in his own remarks that "domination and supremacy are making a comeback."
"A fierce competition for power, control, and resources is playing out on the world stage at a rate and intensity unseen for the past 80 years," said Türk. "The use of force to resolve disputes between and within countries is becoming normalized."
Türk highlighted how "the gears of global power are shifting", calling for people to band together to protect rights and create "a strong counterbalance to the top-down, autocratic trends we see today".
Some world leaders, he said, are operating as though "they are above the law, and above the UN Charter."
"They claim exceptional status, exceptional danger, or exceptional moral judgement to pursue their own agenda at any cost," he said. "They spread disinformation to distract, silence, and marginalize."
Türk also warned that some leaders appear to "weaponize their economic leverage"—an apparent reference to Trump's decision to drastically cut foreign aid funding and withdraw from dozens of UN organizations last month, putting the international body at risk of "imminent financial collapse," as Guterres said at the time.
"Humanitarian needs are exploding while funding collapses," said Guterres on Monday. "Inequalities are widening at staggering speed. Countries are drowning in debt and despair. Climate chaos is accelerating... Across every front, those who are already vulnerable are being pushed further to the margins. And human rights defenders are among the first to be silenced when they try to warn us."
"In this coordinated offensive, human rights are the first casualty," he added, urging world leaders to "not let power write a new rulebook in which the vulnerable have no rights and the powerful have no limits."
"Let this be the place that helps end the broad and brutal assault on human rights," said Guterres. "Because a world that protects human rights protects itself."


















