LIVE COVERAGE
Our Spring Campaign Is Falling Short
Common Dreams exists to challenge oligarchs and authoritarians. We are people-powered journalism—funded by readers, accountable to readers, and committed to reporting the news that corporate media ignores or distorts.
You Got This: Amidst the Carnage, A Beautiful Moment
Needing a break, we honor the rare sweet sliver of comity during Monday's Boston Marathon when two runners, both on course to achieve their personal best, instead stopped to help Ajay Haridasse, collapsed on the ground and unable to stand back up, over the finish line just ahead - because, they explained, "This is what it's all about...Two is better than one." Hallelujah: For now, still human after all these years.
The "beautiful moment" of compassion and sportsmanship came almost at the end of the grueling, 26.2-mile marathon known as "the runner's Holy Grail" for its tough qualifying standards and steep terrain, including Newton's iconic "Heartbreak Hill." The world's oldest marathon was inspired by the inaugural 1896 Olympics and begun the next year; widely considered one of the most difficult races anywhere, it attracts 500,000 spectators and over 20,000 dogged participants from 96 countries. "It’s a slog. It’s a grind. It’s brilliant," said one aspirant. Another: "Nothing is like it. Runners train and train and train for this race."
So did Ajay Haridasse, a 21-year-old senior at Northeastern running his first Boston Marathon having grown up nearby and faithfully watched it for years. Haridasse had passed the 26-mile mark when, he later said, "the wheels kinda fell off." After running almost three hours and struggling against cramps, his legs abruptly gave out 1,000 feet from the finish line, when he wobbled and fell to the ground. As runners streamed by, he painfully tried to stand up again, fell, tried to stand up, fell. "You got this!" a woman yelled from the sidelines, as others joined in. "You were made for this! You can do it! You got it!"
"After falling down the fourth time, I was getting ready to crawl," Haridasse later recalled. That's when Aaron Beggs, a 40-year-old runner from Northern Ireland, suddenly appeared at his left. Beggs stopped, pulled Haridasse to his feet and tried to hold him upright; Haridasse began collapsing again, only to be caught from behind on his right by Robson De Oliveira, a 36-year-old runner from Brazil who swooped in. Beggs and De Oliveira quickly lifted Haridasse’s arms around their shoulders and put their arms around his waist; then the three men jogged and stumbled toward and over the finish line as the crowd roared.
"No marathon is easy - there's no fooling this distance," says one runner of a two, three, four hour challenge run on grit and blisters, and those who embrace it often cite the importance of "athletes taking care of each other." "It's not always about crossing the finish line first, but lifting others when they fall," said one. "We do it together." When Beggs, a member of North Down Athletic Club, paused to help Haridasse, sacrificing his own time and standing, he "embodied everything our club stands for - integrity, compassion and true sportsmanship," said Club chair Jamie Stevenson, who hailed him as "a superstar (who) couldn't pass an athlete in distress. What a gentleman!"
Beggs later said he saw Haridasse fall a couple of times out of the corner of his eye, and "my instinct was just to go over (and) do the right thing." He doesn't blame those who ran past: "It’s a once-in-a-lifetime achievement. You have to put yourself in front of others. This time, I just happened to put somebody else in front of me...It's one of those things in life - you've got an option at any moment in time. It could be me on my next marathon." As they crossed the finish line, a wheelchair "flew past." He thought it was for Haridasse, but it was for De Oliveira, who'd passed out: "He used everything in him to get Ajay across the line."
"It was a split-second decision," De Oliveira later wrote of stopping when he saw Haridasse collapse. “I knew I wouldn’t have the strength to help him on my own. In that moment, I thought, ‘God, if someone stops, I’ll stop too and help him. And God was so generous...because two are stronger than one." In the end, De Oliveira's time was 2hr 44min 26sec, followed by Haridasse at 2:44:32 and Beggs at 2:44:36. All three qualified for next year's race, and all plan to run again - "God willing," said De Oliveira. Haridasse later thanked his two rescuers; despite his own near-obliteration, he called the race "the greatest experience ever."
In a searing piece about the 2013 Boston Marathon terrorist bombing that killed five and wounded almost 300 - "All My Tears, All My Love" - Dave Zirin contrasted that tragedy with the historic joy of the Marathon. In 1967, Kathrine Switzer became the first woman to run it, registering as K.V. Switzer and dressing in loose sweats. Five miles in, when a rabid official noticed her and tried to force her out, male runners fought him off: "For them, Kathrine Switzer had every right to be there." The moment, Zirin wrote, "gave us all a glimpse of the possible...of the world we'd aspire to live in." This week, Beggs and De Oliveira gave us another.
"If you are losing faith in human nature, go out and watch a marathon." - Kathrine Switzer
'This Is a Fight for Humanity': Meet the 2026 Winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize
The Goldman Environmental Foundation announced the six winners of the 2026 Goldman Environmental Prize on Monday, honoring an all-female slate of advocates who protected wildlife, took on extractive industries, and won important legal victories in the movement to halt the climate crisis.
The announcement comes as world leaders have failed to make progress in addressing environmental challenges, and President Donald Trump, leader of the world's largest historical climate polluter, has withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement, rolled back climate and environmental regulations domestically, and made efforts to supercharge the extraction and use of fossil fuels.
“While we continue to fight uphill to protect the environment and implement lifesaving climate policies—in the US and globally—it is clear that true leaders can be found all around us,” John Goldman, vice president of the Goldman Environmental Foundation, said in a statement. “The 2026 prize winners are proof positive that courage, hard work, and hope go a long way toward creating meaningful progress."
The 2026 prize is notable because it marks the first time that all of the winners—Iroro Tanshi of Nigeria, Borim Kim of South Korea, Sarah Finch of the United Kingdom, Theonila Roka Matbob of Papau New Guinea, Alannah Acaq Hurley of the US, and Yuvelis Morales Blanco of Colombia—are women.
'There's lots of people doing really good things and, together, we are going to make the world a better place than it would otherwise have been."
"I am especially thrilled to honor our first-ever cohort of six women, as this is a powerful reflection of the absolutely central role that women play in the environmental community globally,” Goldman said.
The winners also exemplify the prize's 2026 theme "Change Starts Where You Stand," as each of them began with a fight to protect a local community or ecosystem that has global implications for the climate, biodiversity, and environmental justice.
As US-based winner Alannah Acaq Hurley said, "At the end of the day, this is a fight for humanity, and, honestly, our ability to continue as humans on this planet."
Here is how six remarkable women waged this fight and won.
Iroro Tanshi
Iroro Tanshi is a Nigerian conservation ecologist who has worked successfully with local communities to protect endangered bats and their rainforest habitat from wildfires.
Tanshi was elated in 2016 when she discovered the short-tailed roundleaf bat, previously believed to be extinct in the area, living in Nigeria's Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary. However, two weeks later, a devastating wildfire ignited, forcing Tanshi to evacuate and ultimately impacting around half of the park.
Tanshi then turned her attention to preventing wildfires, which are sparked by traditional farming practices rubbing against the climate crisis.
"The way people manage these farms is they use fire to clean the farms every year, but climate change has completely toppled the pattern of rainfall and people can no longer predict when to burn safely," she explained in a video.
Tanshi and her team worked with local communities on a Zero Wildfire Campaign, which includes educating farmers on when it is safe to burn and forming a team of "forest guardians" to patrol and fight fires on high-risk days. Due to her efforts, these guardians put out 74 fires between 2022 and 2025, preventing any of them from becoming major blazes.
"My hope for the future is that people would take these small-scale projects as signals for what the future should look like," she said. "Let's stay nimble. Let's try to work in our small communities and solve those problems there on the ground."
Borim Kim
Borim Kim helped win Asia's first successful youth climate lawsuit, inspiring people across the region to demand government action on climate.
Kim was first motivated to take collective action when a heatwave baked Seoul in 2018, killing 48 people including a woman near her mother's age, who died in her home.
"I realized that even home wasn't safe from the climate crisis," she said in a video. "I started looking for what I could do."
Inspired by the international youth climate movement, she founded Youth 4 Climate Action (Y4CA) and helped organize school strikes and walkouts. After her activism led to meetings with policymakers, she realized that national leaders had no real plans to address the climate crisis. In 2020, she and Y4CA mobilized 19 young people to sue the South Korean government for violating the constitutional rights of future generations. Once the case was launched, she also continued to build a social movement for climate action.
In August 2024, the country's Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the young people, mandating that South Korea reduce its emissions in line with the scientific consensus, a decision the environmental minister accepted. The ruling is projected to prevent between 1.6-2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere.
"Youth may be seen as having a lower position in society, but now this decision has affirmed our right to live safely and the state's duty to protect us," Kim said.
Sara Finch
On the other side of the world, Sarah Finch also secured a precedent-setting legal climate victory.
Finch lives in a part of southeastern England called the Weald. While it is currently a rural area, it hosts oil and gas reserves that were eyed for exploitation during the fracking boom of the 2010s. Finch helped form the Weald Action Group to push back against many potential wells, but they were not able to stop the Surrey County Council from approving the operation and expansion of a drilling site called Horse Hill in 2018.
In gearing up to challenge the decision, Finch discovered that the council's environmental impact statement had only considered emissions from direct drilling at the site, but not the emissions generated from the burning of the fuel once it was extracted, also known as Scope 3 emissions, which make up around 90% of oil and gas' contribution to the climate emergency.
"It became apparent that it was actually the norm that Scope 3 emissions were being emitted from these kinds of decisions, and we realized that actually it was happening everywhere and in much bigger developments than Horse Hill," Finch said in a video.
She and her team challenged the environmental impact statement over its failure to consider Scope 3 emissions, losing multiple times before finally securing a groundbreaking victory from the UK Supreme Court in 2024, which has come to be known as "the Finch ruling."
The UK government cited the "Finch ruling" when it revoked its backing of two North Sea oil developments. Overall, the projects canceled or delayed in 2024 due to the ruling would have generated enough Scope 3 emissions to equal the UK's domestic greenhouse gas emissions that year.
"It wasn't just a win on Horse Hill," Finch said. "It wasn't even just a win on a handful of sites. It was a win on the whole future of the UK oil and gas industry. And I feel like, there's lots of people doing really good things and, together, we are going to make the world a better place than it would otherwise have been."
Theonila Roka Matbob
Theonila Roka Matbob was born into an environmental disaster. Rio Tinto's Panguna Mine had devastated the ecosystem of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) Autonomous Region of Bougainville (ARB), destabilized its society, and led to a civil war that killed 15,000-20,000 Bougainvilleans, including her father.
"Our environment was tortured, and then the land was tortured, and the third party that was tortured were my people," Roka Matbob said in a video.
Rio Tinto closed its copper, silver, and gold mine in 1989 due to the war, but had done nothing to clean up the 150,000 tons of tailings it had dumped into local rivers or take responsibility for the havoc the mine had caused. As an adult, Roka Matbob began to wonder why justice had not been done and to gather testimony from people impacted by the mine.
This led to a successful campaign that persuaded Rio Tinto first to fund an assessment of the mine's impacts and then to sign a memorandum of understanding in 2024 to act on the assessment's findings and develop a plan with local communities to remediate the area.
"It doesn't mean we will restore everything as it was, but at least the story that my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren can remember [is] that our grandparents fought," she said.
Alannah Acaq Hurley
As Theonila Roka Matbob secured justice for the impacts of one major mine, Alannah Acaq Hurley helped prevent another one from being dug in the first place.
Hurley grew up as a member of the Yup’ik Indigenous group in Alaska's Bristol Bay, a haven of biodiversity that also hosts the world's largest wild sockeye salmon run. But in 2001 a new danger emerged: Canadian company Northern Dynasty Minerals announced plans to construct the Pebble Mine, the largest open-pit mine in North America.
"The pit would be so big, you could literally see it from the moon," Hurley said in a video. "It didn't take long for us to understand the level of threat that this mine posed—acid mine drainage, toxic tailings left in perpetuity. It was not a matter of if something goes wrong, it was a matter of when."
Chosen to lead the United Tribes of Bristol Bay in 2013, Hurley built a coalition to oppose the mine, uniting tribes, commercial fishers, and environmentalists to make their cause to the US Environmental Protection Agency and push back against the company's multiple attempts to move forward with the copper-and-gold mining project. Finally, in 2023, the EPA canceled the project via its rarely used veto power.
"It's just really a testament to the power of the people," she said. "We just never stopped until we were heard."
Yuvelis Morales Blanco
Yuvelis Morales Blanco also defended her community from an extractive industry.
Blanco was born to subsistence fishers on Colombia's Magdalena River in the Afro-Colombian community of Puerto Wilches.
“We had nothing but the river—she was like a mother who took care of me," she said in a statement.
However, even as a child she saw the river was threatened by oil spills from Ecopetrol, Colombia's leading oil company headquartered nearby. The potential threat level was raised even further when she learned while attending college in 2019 that Ecopetrol planned to build two pilot fracking projects near Puerto Wilches.
"Man, I'm like, 'They're going to do that in Wilches?' No sir!'" she recalled in a video.
Blanco joined the Colombia Free from Fracking Alliance and began to raise awareness in her community about the plans. As the campaign's momentum grew, so did her reputation as a spokesperson. This ultimately led to threats of violence against her that forced her to seek asylum in France in 2022, yet she continued to mobilize against the fracking plans from abroad.
She and the alliance saw success in 2022, as a local court halted the permitting process, newly elected President Gustavo Petro pledged there would be no fracking during his administration, and Ecopetrol suspended its contracts. In 2024, the Colombian Constitutional Court further ruled that the fracking projects had violated the Afro-Colombian community of Puerto Wilches' right to free, prior, and informed consent.
Blanco continues to fight for a ban on fracking and for legal protections for environmental defenders—over 140 of whom were reported missing or killed in 2024, the most recent year for which Global Witness has a full tally. Colombia was also the most dangerous countries for defenders that year, with 48 deaths.
"I am very hopeful because I have a river that always accompanies me, and I know we're going to win," she said.
The Goldman Environmental Prize was founded in 1989 by Rhoda and Richard Goldman, and has since honored 239 winners in 37 years. The 2026 awards will be presented live in San Francisco on Monday evening at 8:30 pm ET. Watch it on YouTube here.
Relief From Trump Tariff Pain Coming for Corporations—But Not Consumers Harmed by High Prices
The Trump administration on Monday launched a portal designed to facilitate refunds on around $166 billion taken in from tariffs that the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional earlier this year.
But only businesses that directly paid President Donald Trump's sweeping import taxes are eligible for relief—not the millions of Americans who paid higher prices as a result of the illegal tariffs. As The New York Times observed, "The extent to which consumers realize any gain hinges on whether businesses share the proceeds, something that few have publicly committed to do."
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, said in a statement Monday that big corporations that passed tariff costs onto consumers are set to "benefit the most" from the Trump administration's refund system, given that they are better-equipped to deal with the complicated application process and potential issues with the newly created portal.
Markey faulted the administration for its "shortsighted decision to not issue automatic refunds," instead choosing a convoluted application system that's expected to face issues due to massive demand. The Associated Press noted that "companies must submit declarations listing the goods on which they collectively put billions of dollars toward the import taxes the court subsequently struck down."
"If [Customs and Border Protection] approves a claim, it will take 60 to 90 days for a refund to be issued," the outlet observed. "The government expects to process refunds in phases, however, focusing first on more recent tariff payments. Any number of technical factors and procedural issues could delay an importer’s application, so any reimbursements businesses plan to make to customers likely would trickle down slowly."
"Big businesses must help ease the ongoing affordability crisis by passing on any refund savings they receive to customers and small businesses."
Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) estimated that, prior to the US Supreme Court's ruling in February, Trump's tariffs had cost US families over $1,700 each. Overall, American consumers paid more than $231 billion in tariff costs from February 2025 to January 2026, according to the JEC.
Markey said Monday that “American small businesses and families deserve to get their money back with interest."
"Big businesses that get refunds need to get the money back to their customers; ‘everyday low prices’ is not the way to do it," the senator said. "There must be no further delay or complicated hoops to jump through. CBP must ensure quick and easy refunds without further documentation. Big businesses must help ease the ongoing affordability crisis by passing on any refund savings they receive to customers and small businesses who paid them rather than waiting around for a rebate that may never come.”
Unlikely to receive relief from the Trump administration, some consumers harmed by tariffs are taking legal action against corporations that jacked up prices.
The American Prospect reported Monday that "while companies are pursuing tariff refunds and the Trump administration is levying new global tariffs to replace what was struck down, some consumers are filing their own lawsuits seeking relief for higher prices paid because of tariffs."
"Lawsuits have been filed against at least five corporations that plaintiffs say raised prices to pay for tariffs—costs set to be refunded to companies," the Prospect noted. "The proposed class action suits target Costco, EssilorLuxottica (the maker of Ray-Ban sunglasses), activewear company Fabletics, UPS, and FedEx."
'What Are They Hiding?' Trump's Secret Contract for White House Ballroom Revealed
While the financing of President Donald Trump's planned $400 million White House ballroom has been shrouded in mystery for months, government watchdog Public Citizen has obtained important new information about the project's funding.
Public Citizen on Tuesday unveiled a copy of the funding agreement the Trump administration has used for the ballroom project after months of legal wrangling that forced the group to file a lawsuit to compel enforcement of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request it made last year.
As summarized by The Washington Post, the ballroom contract's provisions "allow wealthy donors with business before the federal government to contribute anonymously to a sitting president’s pet project, while exempting the White House from key conflict of interest safeguards and limiting scrutiny by Congress and the public."
While dozens of big-name corporate donors—including Amazon, Apple, Lockheed Martin, Google, Altria, and Union Pacific Railroad—have been public about their donations to the project, the fact that some donors can choose to remain anonymous is raising serious concerns among ethics experts.
Charles Tiefer, a retired law professor at the University of Baltimore with a long history of scrutinizing government contracts, told the Post that the contract's anonymity provisions could give the Trump administration an escape hatch from future congressional scrutiny.
"If Congress knocks on the door," Tiefer said, "the White House is going to slam it shut and say, ‘You’re not allowed to know these donors.'"
This means that there is no way to know whether these donors have business before the government, and no way to know if they expect to get something in return for their donations.
Kathleen Clark, a government ethics lawyer and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told the Post that the contract's very narrow scope of reviewing for conflicts of interest among donors renders it "nothing more than a sham."
Jon Golinger, democracy advocate for Public Citizen, said the key takeaway from the newly unearthed documents is that "anonymous donations are the heart of this agreement."
"The questions this raises are, of the hundreds of millions being funneled in secret, who are these anonymous donors, and what are they hiding?" Golinger added. "The American people deserve answers, and we’ll keep fighting until they get them."
Wendy Liu, Public Citizen attorney and lead counsel on the lawsuit to obtain the contract, said the administration's initial refusal to comply with a FOIA request was "flatly unlawful," and "the American people are entitled to transparency over this multimillion-dollar project, and this win gets us a bit closer to knowing the truth."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) blasted the Trump administration's efforts to hide the contract in a statement given to the Post.
“At every turn, President Trump has sought to conceal the facts about his monstrous multimillion-dollar ballroom,” Blumenthal said. “His administration has kept the contract under wraps, the identities of big dollar donors secret, and the American people in the dark about what big corporations have to gain by funding this boondoggle.”
'Antitrust Disaster' Looms as Warner Bros. Shareholders Approve Paramount Megamerger
Less than a year after the controversial marriage of Paramount and Skydance, the combined media company cleared another hurdle to growing even bigger, with Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders on Thursday "overwhelmingly" backing a proposed merger—which sparked fresh criticism of the $110 billion deal.
"Today, Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders voted for their short-term financial gains, not for the public good," declared Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron. "While shareholders voted against fat pay packages for departing executives—a symbolic rebuke, since the board doesn't have to listen to them—they've opened the door to wholesale layoffs across the news and entertainment industry, more propaganda in news coverage, higher prices for consumers and fewer choices for audiences across the United States and around the world."
"But shareholders don't get the final word," Aaron continued. "That's why we have antitrust enforcers and courts of law."
The Paramount-Warner Bros. deal must be approved by US and international regulators. In an apparent bid to ease that process, Paramount CEO David Ellison—son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison—is holding what opponents have dubbed a "corruption gala" honoring President Donald Trump on Thursday.
"With Trump officials cheering on this deal, state attorneys general must investigate this massive industry consolidation and step in to stop Paramount's takeover," Aaron argued. "This megamerger will diminish creativity and diversity in entertainment, weaken journalists' ability to expose wrongdoing and hold those in power accountable, and further endanger our democracy. It also concentrates far too much media power in the hands of one company and one family, the Ellisons."
"This corrupt merger is far from a done deal," he stressed. "Just because Paramount shareholders won't take a stand against billionaire and White House control of the media, it doesn't mean we can't. While Paramount is flaunting its corruption and fêting Trump officials, we're standing with the workers and artists at the heart of the news and entertainment industries—and with the American public, which deserves more than an ever-shrinking circle of control over what they see, hear and read."
Potentially impacted workers are also speaking out. Last week, a group of Hollywood actors, directors, and producers published an open letter blasting the proposed merger. As the Los Angeles Times reported, during a Wednesday press briefing organized by Free Press and other critical groups, Michele Mulroney, president of the Writers Guild of America West, also sounded the alarm.
"This is already an incredibly consolidated industry where writers have seen merger after merger leave fewer and fewer companies in control of what our members can get paid to write," Mulroney said. "A combined Warner Bros. and Paramount would create a media behemoth with tremendous leverage to reduce content, to raise prices, to increase control of production, to suppress member compensation, worsen working conditions, and silence the voices of our members."
As New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani declared that "this merger should be stopped," Jane Fonda's Committee for the First Amendment led a rally outside Warner Bros.' Manhattan headquarters early Thursday. The group called the shareholder vote "a serious setback—for our industry, for the workers who sustain it, for consumers, and for the fundamental democratic values that depend on a diverse and independent media landscape."
"But this merger is not a done deal—and this fight is far from over," the committee emphasized. "We've seen time and again that sustained pressure works. Efforts to challenge consolidation, from the proposed Tegna-Nexstar Media Group deal to scrutiny of Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster, have demonstrated that coordinated legal, political, and public advocacy can change outcomes, especially when state attorneys general step in to protect the public interest."
"We will continue pressing forward on every front," the group pledged. "A handful of powerful decision-makers should not be allowed to quietly reshape American media, culture, and creative life without accountability. We will keep speaking out for the workers and artists at the heart of this industry, and for the public, which deserves more than an ever-shrinking circle of control over what they see, hear, and read. This fight continues. And we fully intend to win."
Later Thursday, the committee, Free Press, and other organizations—including Common Cause, MoveOn, and Public Citizen—are planning to protest Ellison's dinner for Trump at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC at 5:30 pm ET.
Israeli Defense Minister Says IDF Is 'Awaiting a Green Light' From Trump to 'Push Iran Back Into a Dark Age'
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Thursday said his country was ready to unleash devastating new attacks on Iran should it get approval from US President Donald Trump.
As reported by Amichai Stein, diplomatic correspondent for iNews24, Katz said that Israel is "prepared to resume the war" and is "awaiting a green light from the United States."
Katz also vowed that Israel would hit Iran even harder than in previous strikes, vowing "to complete the elimination of the Khamenei family and to push Iran back into a dark age."
"This time, the strike will be different and far more lethal, delivering devastating blows at the most sensitive points," Katz warned, "ones that will shake and undermine its very foundations."
Targeting civilian infrastructure such as power plants is a war crime under international law. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu already has a warrant out for his arrest issued in 2024 by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, described Katz's remarks as "Israel’s official statement of intent to commit further war crimes in Iran."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim observed that the Israeli defense minister's threats are reminiscent of the strategy that it has employed in Gaza in its effort to dislodge Hamas over the last three years.
"Israel believes it is always a few good assassinations away from total victory," Grim commented. "Now pledging more."
Trump, in partnership with Netanyahu, illegally launched a war with Iran in late February without any congressional authorization. In response to the attack, Iran shut down all shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, choking off roughly 20% of the global oil supply.
In that time, the price of oil has soared, Trump's approval ratings have crashed to record lows, and a UN expert warned on Wednesday about the possibility of a global food crisis if the strait is not soon reopened to fertilizer shipments.
There has been a fragile ceasefire agreement in effect between the US, Israel, and Iran for the last two weeks, which Trump extended indefinitely on Tuesday.
PEN America Sounds Alarm Over Pentagon's Firing of Stars and Stripes Ombudsman
"Even as the nation is at war, Pentagon leadership is silencing independent voices that uphold credible reporting, part of a broader pattern of restricting press access to evade scrutiny."
PEN America, one of the nation's leading free expression groups, voiced alarm Friday at the Pentagon's firing of the ombudsman for the military newspaper Stars and Stripes, warning the move marks yet another blow to US press freedoms amid the Trump administration's war of choice in Iran and other lawless actions across the globe.
"Even as the nation is at war, Pentagon leadership is silencing independent voices that uphold credible reporting, part of a broader pattern of restricting press access to evade scrutiny," Tim Richardson, PEN America's journalism and disinformation program director, said in a statement. "Congress must defend the statutory independence of Stars and Stripes so that service members can continue to rely on it for independent reporting.”
Jacqueline Smith, who was tasked with upholding the Stars and Stripes' editorial independence from the Pentagon—which partially funds the newspaper—publicly announced her firing on Thursday in a defiant editorial, writing: "Apparently the Pentagon... doesn’t want you to hear from me anymore about threats to the editorial independence of Stars and Stripes."
Smith, who has served in the congressionally mandated ombudsman role since December 2023, wrote in Stars and Stripes that while she was not given a reason for her firing, "no one should be surprised" by the decision.
"For nearly a year, Pentagon leadership has placed more and more restrictions on the mainstream media. The New York Times sued and when the Defense/War Department lost in court, instead of following the judge’s ruling Secretary [Pete] Hegseth and company pivoted, finding another way to restrict journalists. The judge rejected that attempt, too," Smith wrote. "The laser beam turned to Stars and Stripes on Jan. 15 when Sean Parnell posted on X four paragraphs announcing a 'refocus' of the newspaper. Parnell is Assistant to the Secretary of Defense/War (Public Affairs); my firing notice came from his office."
"Since his 'refocus' post, I’ve been outspoken in my columns, media interviews, talks with national free press groups and communications with Congress about the Pentagon’s moves to take control of Stripes’ content," Smith added. "This newspaper has a long history of commitment to the military community and to journalistic values. Please don’t let it be controlled by Pentagon brass."
"My responsibility to Stripes and the First Amendment was paramount."
In January, the Pentagon announced plans to overhaul Stars and Stripes with the stated goal of moving its content "away from woke distractions that syphon morale"—without offering any examples of such content.
Weeks later, the Pentagon issued a memo declaring that the newspaper was "prohibited" from using "news stories, features, syndicated columns, comic strips and editorial cartoons from commercial news media." The directive barred the paper from reprinting material from The Associated Press and Reuters.
Smith criticized the Pentagon directive as another blatant and "unacceptable" attempt to infringe on the newspaper's editorial independence.
"What is happening with Stripes is within the broader context of the Pentagon attempting to restrict the mainstream media," she wrote in an April column. "At first it was by closing off areas of the complex where journalists previously had been able to go unescorted, then it followed last fall with the demand for the press to sign an agreement essentially saying it would not use any information not authorized by the department. That’s when more than two dozen journalists from mainstream media turned in their press badges and walked out. They still cover the news."
In a message to Stars and Stripes staff following her firing, Smith said she "knew it was risky to speak out."
"But my responsibility to Stripes and the First Amendment was paramount," she added.
Despite 'Big Tariff' Threat From Trump, UK Urged to 'Raise, Not Abolish' Tax on Tech Giants
"We need to stop kowtowing to him, stop offering him humiliating and unpopular 'state' visits, and start enacting economic policies that put the interest of people here ahead of Donald Trump," said one campaigner.
After President Donald Trump threatened to impose a new tariff on the United Kingdom over its Digital Services Tax, the head of a UK economic justice organization on Friday called for standing up to the US leader and even increasing the levy.
The 2% tax on digital companies such as search engines and social media networks that derive value from UK users—which applies to US tech giants such as Apple, Amazon, and Alphabet's Google—has generated significant revenue annually, including £808 million, or over $1 billion, for the 2024-25 financial year.
"We don't like it when they target American companies... whether we like those companies or don't like 'em," Trump—whose inauguration last year featured several ultrarich tech executives—said Thursday. He accused the UK of trying to "make an easy buck" and warned that "they better be careful."
"If they don't drop the tax, we'll probably put a big tariff on the UK," the president continued, suggesting that the tariff would be "more than what they're getting" from the policy targeting Big Tech.
Responding in a Friday statement, Nick Dearden, director of UK-based advocacy group Global Justice Now, said that "Trump's latest threats prove, yet again, that if you give in to a bully, they'll just come back for more."
Just months after striking a bilateral trade deal that notably did not alter the tax on tech companies, Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed an artificial intelligence pact last September. The latter, said Dearden, "rolled out the red carpet to Trump's Big Tech barons."
"But this wasn't the end of the story. Rather, the pact has given Trump an ongoing vehicle to bully the British government," the campaigner continued. "It's time to admit that Stramer's strategy towards Trump has been an abject failure. We should raise, not abolish the digital services tax, which has already raised billions of pounds for the British economy."
"Trump won't like this but that's just too bad, we need to stop kowtowing to him, stop offering him humiliating and unpopular 'state' visits, and start enacting economic policies that put the interest of people here ahead of Donald Trump," he argued—as the UK's King Charles III and his wife Camilla, the queen consort, prepare to meet with Trump at the White House on Monday.
Asked about Trump's tech tax threats, a spokesperson for Starmer's office told The Guardian that "our position on that is unchanged... It is a hugely important tax to make sure that those businesses continue to pay their share. So it is a fair and proportionate approach to taxing business activities in the UK."
As the newspaper noted:
The digital services tax is only meant to be an interim measure, and the UK government agreed in 2021 to phase it out, averting the threat of retaliatory tariffs on British products from the US.
The tax was meant to be replaced in 2024 with a new global system after the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) brokered a deal between 140 countries, including the UK, that proposed large multinational companies paying tax in the countries where they do business committed themselves to a minimum 15% corporation tax rate. Implementation has been beset with delays as a number of countries have continued to raise objections over the regime.
Trump's tariff threat comes after he has lashed out at Starmer—and other European officials—in recent weeks over their limited support for his illegal war on Iran. The US leader suggested to the BBC this week that he and the UK prime minister could only "recover" if the Labour leader embraced stricter immigration policies and "opened the North Sea" to the fossil fuel industry.
"I'm here to serve the British people always, to have their interests and to make sure that I make the right decisions for them," Starmer told the British broadcaster. "That is why I took the decision that we would not be dragged into the war in Iran."
Rights Groups Warn Countries to End Complicity in Trump’s High Seas Murder Spree
As the death toll rises, governments "cannot plausibly claim ignorance of the risks" of supporting the US military in the Caribbean and Pacific, said a coalition.
With the death toll in the Trump administration's bombings of boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean hitting at least 180, a global coalition of rights and policy organizations is warning governments that they "cannot plausibly claim ignorance of the risks" of continuing to support the United States' deadly policy in the region, and demanding that countries "stop facilitating extrajudicial killings" carried out by the US military.
The Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) spearheaded the statement now co-signed by at least 125 human rights groups, drug policy organizations, and veterans' groups, warning that just as US military officials and personnel have risked potential criminal liability by taking part in at least 52 boat bombings since September, third countries that are aiding the US in the attacks may be taking similar risks.
"Third states can incur legal responsibility for aiding or assisting another state in their commission of internationally wrongful acts, including extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity," reads the statement, whose signatories include Amnesty International, Oxfam America, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation. "Forms of cooperation such as intelligence sharing, access to military bases, and the provision of logistical support may meet the threshold for aiding and assisting where they facilitate the identification, tracking, and targeting of vessels."
As El País reported Thursday, a number of countries have confirmed they are cooperating with President Donald Trump's targeting of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, which the administration has claimed is aimed at stopping drug trafficking in the region.
The US military has not publicly released evidence that the people it's killed were actually "narco-terrorists" as it's repeatedly claimed; the family members of some of the victims have filed legal complaints, saying their loved ones were not involved in the drug trade.
A small number of victims were identified last year by The Associated Press, which found some were struggling fishermen or other workers who took low-level jobs helping drug traffickers to navigate the Caribbean. Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America has compared the killings, if they have targeted the drug trade at all, to "straight-up massacring 16-year-old drug dealers on US street corners.”
Despite the lack of evidence to back up the administration's claims about the operation, the Dominican Republic has allowed the US to refuel military planes and transport equipment at one of its air bases and its Las Américas International Airport, and the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago expressed support for the boat bombings when they began in September. The island nation has reportedly allowed the transit of military aircraft and the installation of a US radar system for surveillance.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro said in November that his government would no longer share intelligence on drug trafficking with the US, but he later walked back the threat, saying intelligence would be shared provided it "will be used for seizures without undermining human rights."
Trump also convened a "Shield of the Americas" summit last month to announce the creation of a coalition of 17 countries in the region, including Argentina, Costa Rica, and Paraguay, which will focus on "bilateral and multilateral operations against cartels and terrorist organizations.”
Legal experts have warned that although Trump informed the US Congress last October that the administration views the US as being in an "armed conflict" with Latin American drug cartels, the military has clearly violated international law by targeting defenseless survivors of its boat bombings.
"The United States is not in an armed conflict with anyone in Latin America. That means the people on these boats are civilians. Civilians, including those suspected of smuggling drugs, are not lawful targets," said the ACLU last month.
Experts have said the bombings meet the definition of extrajudicial killings—or simply murder—and one top US military lawyer warned before the operation began that US service members could face legal repercussions for carrying out the attacks at the direction of Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Despite the alarm raised by legal experts, "we are witnessing a continuation and a truly worrying normalization of these attacks against vessels," Annie Shiel, US director of CIVIC, told El País on Thursday. “The United States is committing extrajudicial killings or murders, plain and simple.”
The group and its fellow signatories warned states like the Dominican Republic and Trinidad and Tobago could also be held legally responsible if they provide aid or assistance to the US when it is committing acts that violate international law.
"All states must immediately cease or refrain from providing any assistance that could contribute to these unlawful killings," reads the statement. "Failure to do so facilitates the continuation of this lawless campaign, undermines the rule of law, and risks incurring legal responsibility under international law."
The groups emphasized that in addition to putting countries at risk for legal liability, governments that facilitate the boat killings are exacerbating harm to their own communities.
"Families awaiting the return of their loved ones may never know what happened to them and have no access to recourse," they said. "Coastal communities have witnessed human remains washing up on shore and fear for their lives when they trade and fish, sowing psychological trauma and undermining livelihoods."


















