SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
After decades of silence born of fear, shame, trauma, over 20 Epstein survivors came together in D.C. for the first time to publicly tell their grievous stories of rape and abuse - what did it cost them? - when they were 14, 15, 16 years old. Facing not just their own dark pasts but dogged denial, stonewalling, and a literal silencing by a senseless military flyover, they still wielded "the fire and the power of our voices" to insist, "We are the proof that fear did not break us."
It was months after Trump vowed to release the Epstein files "on Day One" and Pam Bondi said an upright DOJ was "lifting the veil" on Epstein's crimes - and decades after they were committed - when the resolute victims came to stand together, speak of "the weight we live with daily," and demand to be heard. Their signs said "He Is On the List," "S-H-A-M-E," "Trust the Victims, Not the Felon." Many had never met each other, and thought they were the only ones bruised and haunted by long-ago rape, abuse, enduring trauma. "Our government could have saved so many women. Those women didn’t matter,” said Marina Lacerda, who was 14 when she was raped by Epstein. "Well, we matter now. We are here today, and we are speaking, and we are not going to stop speaking."
Last week's historic press conference was facilitated by Dem Rep. Ro Khanna and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie - yes, of the AK-47-packing family Christmas cards, go figure - who've come forward to support a full release of the DOJ's Epstein files. The event, headlined by nine Epstein victims - some of whom had never spoken out before about their assaults - drew up to 100 other survivors in solidarity. "Courage is contagious," said one organizer, who was approached by several women they didn't know who said they "needed to be here...This gave me strength." Most had also "been let down by system after system," and far from the games of political chicken playing out elsewhere, felt they had to speak. "The abuse was real," one said. We know the truth."
The truth, in story after story, is harrowing. Lacerda, 37, was "minor victim 1" in Epstein's 2019 federal indictment. She was a 14-year-old migrant from Brazil working three jobs to help her family get by when she heard about "a dream job" giving "an older guy a massage" for $300. It quickly became "my worst nightmare" as one of a dozen girls she knew - "We were just kids" - lured into Epstein's mansion on East 71st Street. She went so often she dropped out of high school: "Every day, I hoped he would offer me a real job, like the American dream, but that day never came. I had no way out." At 17, he told her she was too old. Today, she finally feels she "has a voice." Airing the truth, she says, would "help me heal... help me put the pieces of my own life back together."
Haley Robson was a 16-year-old "high-school athlete with good grades and aspirations for college" when a friend recruited her "to give an old rich guy a massage." Her emotional testimony: "When I got into (the) room, Jeffrey undressed" - draws big breath - "and asked me to do things to him. My eyes welled up. I have never been more scared in my life." After, he paid her $200 and told her to bring a friend next time; when she refused, he "gave me an ultimatum...You come massage me when I call you, or you bring me friends to massage me, and I'll pay you $200 per girl. I hoped never to hear from him again, but he called every day." He was so rich and powerful, "I felt I had no choice - if I disobeyed him, I knew something bad would happen." After two years, an adult intervened; police "treated me like a criminal" and wild press accounts "hurt real people who have already been hurt."
"The truth is, Epstein had a free pass," said Chauntae Davies. From lack of critical victim outreach to victim-blaming, "Everyone seemed to look away" - especially when it came to our Predator-In-Chief. "Jeffrey bragged about his powerful friends, and (Trump) was his biggest brag," she said. "He had an 8x10 framed picture of him on his desk, with the two of them." Meanwhile, "What I endured will haunt me forever. I live as a mother trying to raise my child while distrusting a world that has betrayed me. Trauma never leave you. It breaks families apart. It shapes the way we see everyone around us...Unless we learn from this history, monsters like Jeffrey Epstein will rise again. It is not just my story. It is a story about every survivor who carries invisible scars."
Again and again, survivors spoke of raw, hard years of feeling alone and powerless at the hands of "an evil man" safeguarded by his money, power and connections. "You have a choice," Anouska de Georgiou told complicit Republicans. "Stand with the truth, or with the lies that have protected predators for decades." Lisa Philips stressed that Epstein's abuses reached far beyond "just underage girls in Florida" to "the top of the art, fashion and entertainment world. Many around him knew. Many participated, and many profited." "Hundreds of women have lived in the shadow of this man’s crimes," says Stacey Williams, who briefly dated Epstein until he famously, smilingly acquiesced to Trump groping her in front of him. "They deserve truth, not secrecy."
Towards that truth, the women grimly, defiantly announced that if the House fails to compel release of all the Epstein files, they will "confidentially compile" their own list of regular clients in the Epstein world in the name of "every woman who has been silenced, exploited and dismissed...together as survivors." "We know the names," one said. "Many of us were abused by them." They were cogent, steadfast: "We are not asking for pity. Justice and accountability are not favors from the powerful - they are obligations, decades overdue." "We have lives to live." "We are not the footnotes in some infamous predator's tabloid article. We are the experts, and the subject of this story." "The question: Will you protect predators, or will you finally protect survivors?"
To date, 134 lawmakers - all 212 Democrats, 12 Repubs - have signed onto a Massie-Khanna discharge petition to force a vote to compel the DOJ to release all files; they need two more to pass. Massie has faced "immense" pushback from a White House that calls the petition an "attention-seeking...hostile act"; rich MAGA donors have run $2.5 million in ads against him for opposing child rape, and GOPers who've signed on have been blasted. Among them - go figure redux - is MTG, who's vowed to reveal "every damn name” on the House floor if survivors ask her to. In response, former MAGA besties have called her a "FRAUD," "traitor," "phony two-faced bitch" and "backstabbing loser" who's "teamed up" with the enemy - again, lest we forget, for denouncing child rape.
Bootlicking Mike Johnson, who sent the House home early to avoid the issue, is right there with them. After claiming 20 women chronicling their rape as teenagers are "a hoax Democrats are using to attack him, like the Russian dossier," he feverishly insisted Dear Predator is "horrified" by the "unspeakable evil" that is "detestable to him" and "has no culpability" and actually, "He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down." Wait. What happened to the hoax? Caught in a clusterfuck, Mike later said he possibly "misspoke" or "didn't use the right terminology" - "The word is lied, Mike. You fucking lied" - but "everyone knows" Trump "assisted with the investigation." And of course he'll meet with the victims: "He has great compassion for them. The president has a very compassionate heart."
The guy with the very compassionate heart still calls the case of a demon who for years raped 14-year-olds "a Democrat hoax" by "the worst scum on earth" and "all the people that actually ran the government, including the autopen." It's also "something that’s totally irrelevant. We should talk about the greatness we’re having." As proof of the greatness, during a visit by the Polish president, to honor a Polish pilot who died in a training crash - having ignored the training deaths of four U.S. soldiers in Lithuania - he ordered a rare, loud flyover completely coincidentally just as Epstein's victims were telling their stories. The women paused, looked at the sky, and kept talking. Responses: "Classless move by a classless man," "He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing."
Flyovers aside, facts owe. Says Brad Edwards, an attorney for several survivors, "You're either on the side of the victims or you're on the side of evil." In an extended interview, multiple survivors agreed, "The government has failed us." The seven women were joined by two brothers of Virginia Giuffre, who killed herself in April after a lifelong struggle with the trauma of her abuse. "We've come together, beautifully and tragically," said one. "We don't just speak for ourselves but for every survivor whose story is still unspoken, for Virginia, whose courage lit the path and opened the door for us to walk through." Asked near the end of the interview how many had been contacted by the DOJ, felt treated with dignity, been heard, none of the nine raised their hands.
More damning scraps keep surfacing. Massie dropped one bombshell name in Epstein's "black book": John Paulson, a hedge fund billionaire and huge donor to Trump and MAGA Mike. In a stealth video by shady right-wing James O'Keefe, a DOJ deputy chief of staff brags to a date "they'll redact every Republican" in the files and leave Dems in; the DOJ said the comments "have absolutely zero bearing with (sic) reality." The Wall Street Journal published, and House Dems released, the creepy birthday card to Epstein Trump denied he sent: "We got (the) note Trump says doesn't exist. Time to end this White House cover-up." Press Barbie called it "FAKE NEWS to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax" and - up is down - argued "it's very clear" Trump didn't draw or sign it.
Despite Dear Leader's "great compassion," days after the survivors met, nine attorneys for about 50 of them hadn't "heard anything" in response. Monday, survivor and Trump voter Haley Robson told CNN she'd invited White House officials to meet with her and other survivors: "I've heard crickets." Still, said Jess Michaels, a self-described "1991 Jeffrey Epstein survivor," their stories matter. "For 27 years, I thought I was the only one (Epstein) raped," she told the D.C gathering. "I thought I was alone. But I wasn't. None of us were. And what once kept us silent now fuels the fire and the power of our voices...This is what power looks like. Survivors united, voices joined, refusing to be dismissed. We are no longer victims. We are one powerful voice too loud to ignore. And we will never be silenced again." Women hold up half the sky. The heavier half.
As the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress push to eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for water infrastructure, they are increasing the flood risk community waters system face across the United States—making it more likely that close to 60 million people could lose access to safe water during or after such emergencies.
The environmental justice group Food and Water Watch (FWW) on Tuesday released a report on a sometimes overlooked impact of flooding: In addition to the devastating damage that floods can do to homes, roads, and community buildings, flooding can contaminate water supplies while overwhelming water utility systems and putting treatment plants out of commission even after the water has receded.
In Washed Out, FWW warns that the flood risk to the 448 largest community water systems in the country is growing as extreme weather events become increasingly common and more severe, with more than one-third of those systems facing "significant" flood risks.
At least 10% of the land served by the systems with the highest risks lie in areas prone to flooding, according to FWW, and 59.4 million people rely on those systems for safe drinking water.
About 15% of water systems evaluated by FWW have "elevated" flood risks, with at least 20% of land in high flood risk areas, where nearly 22 million people live.
Florida, which had at least four billion-dollar flood disasters between 1980-2024 and experienced several "100-year" rainstorms last year, was identified as having the highest flooding risk for large community water systems. The state is home to 10 of the country's 15 large systems that serve areas where at least half the land is in high flood risk zones.
New Jersey and Louisiana each have two large systems at high risk, while at least half the the area served by Boston's water system is also in a flood zone, putting more than 2.5 million people at serious risk of losing water access in the event of a flood.
Other high risk areas identified by FWW include New York City, where the municipal water system serves 8.2 million people and which has more than 12% of its land in high risk flood zones; Corpus Christi, Texas, where 23% of land is at high risk of flooding; and Alameda County, California, where 42% of land is in a flood zone.
"Now more than ever, it is imperative that all members of Congress stand firmly united against any shortsighted attempt to strip support for our critical water and sewer infrastructure."
"As our analysis illuminates, scores of water systems serving highly-populated communities are at significant threat of flooding that could suddenly break safe water delivery and sanitary sewer operation—for days, weeks or even months. Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans in Congress are seeking to decimate the key federal funding that keeps these systems operating safely," said Mary Grant, water program director at FWW.
Republicans in the US House are currently seeking a 25% cut to the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRF)—the primary source of federal funding for the nation's water and wastewater systems.
An appropriations bill released last month by the House Interior Subcommittee would slash the funds from $2.8 billion to $2.1 billion, bringing them to their lowest level since 2008.
The proposal does not go as far as President Donald Trump's push to cut the programs by nearly 90% with a plan to eventually zero them out, but FWW noted last month that the proposed cuts "come at a time when the needs of our nation's water and wastewater systems are substantial and growing."
"According to the latest needs survey of the US EPA, upgrading our water and wastewater infrastructure will cost $1.3 trillion over the next two decades just to comply with existing federal law," said the group.
Slashing funds for water infrastructure, including building more climate-resilient systems, would also put the drinking water of millions of people at risk at a time when flooding and other extreme weather disasters is becoming more common due to the continued extraction of planet-heating fossil fuels.
Scientists last year said Hurricane Helene—which along with smaller storms that happened around the same time dumped 40 trillion gallons of rain on the Southeast—was made about 10% more intense and dangerous by the human-caused climate crisis. The flooding left Asheville, North Carolina without safe drinking water for more than seven weeks.
FWW on Tuesday renewed its call for the US to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources—instead of slashing regulations for oil and gas industries as Trump has—and warned that "local water providers must also improve their systems to withstand today's climate reality."
"This level of investment will require a strong federal commitment," said the group.
FWW called on Congress to pass legislation like the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (WATER) Act "to guarantee federal support for safe and clean water in every community" and reject efforts to strip crucial funding from the SRF.
"Now more than ever," said Grant, "it is imperative that all members of Congress stand firmly united against any shortsighted attempt to strip support for our critical water and sewer infrastructure."
US President Donald Trump's tariff policies, imposing levies as high as 50% on the United States' trading partners, have not proven compatible with his campaign promise to turn the US back into a "manufacturing powerhouse," as Friday's jobs report showed.
The overall analysis was grim, with the economy adding just 22,000 jobs last month, but manufacturing employment in particular has declined since Trump made his April 2 "Liberation Day" announcement of tariffs on countries including Canada and Mexico.
Since then, the president has introduced new rounds of tariffs on imports from countries he claims have treated the US unfairly, and all the while manufacturers have tightened their belts to cope with the higher cost of supplies and materials.
Overall manufacturing employment has plummeted by 42,000 jobs, while job openings and new hires have declined by 76,000 and 18,000, respectively, according to the Center for American Progress (CAP), which released a jobs report analysis titled Trump's Trade War Squeezes Middle-Class Manufacturing Employment on Friday.
"The manufacturing sector is struggling more than the rest of the labor market under Trump's tariffs, and manufacturing workers' wage growth is stagnating," said CAP.
Last month, the sector lost 12,000 jobs, while wages for manufacturing workers stagnated.
In line with other private employees, workers in the sector saw their wages go up just 10 cents from July, earning an average of $35.50 per hour.
"Despite Trump's claims that his policies will reignite the manufacturing industry in the United States, his policies have achieved the opposite," wrote policy analyst Kennedy Andara and economist Sara Estep at CAP.
The findings are in line with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Texas Manufacturing Survey, which was taken from August 12-20 and found that 72% of manufacturing firms say the tariffs have had a negative impact on their business.
"The argument is: We're all meant to sacrifice a bit, so that tariffs can help rebuild American manufacturing. Let's ask American manufacturers whether they're helping," said University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers on social media, sharing a graph that showed the survey's findings.
As Philip Luck, a former deputy chief economist with the US State Department, told the CBC last month, Trump has been promising "millions and millions of jobs" will result from his tariff regime, but those promises are out of step with the reality of manufacturing in 2025.
"We do [manufacturing] now with very few workers, we do it in a very automated way," Luck told the CBC. "Even if we do increase manufacturing I don't know that we're going to increase jobs along with it."
The outlet noted that while the number of Americans employed in manufacturing peaked in 1979, the value of manufacturing production has continuously trended up since then.
Michael Hicks, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, told the CBC that "no treasure trove of jobs" is likely to come out of Trump's tariffs.
The president "walked into an economy that was seeing the largest manufacturing production in American history," Hicks said. "That is really a testament to how productive American workers are, the quality of the technology, and capital investment in manufacturing."
But the rate of hiring at manufacturing firms is far below its 2024 level, said CAP, revealing the negative impact of Trump's tariff regime.
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) pointed to nearly 800 workers who lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector this week, including 120 whose company's sawmill closed in Darlington, South Carolina; 101 who worked at an electronics assembly plant for Intervala in Manchester, New Hampshire; and 170 whose sawmill positions were eliminated in Estill, South Carolina.
The US Supreme Court is expected to soon review Trump's tariffs after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last week that many of them are illegal.
Democrat Graham Platner, an oyster farmer running to unseat Republican US Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, isn't pulling any punches when it comes to the incumbent's record—unlike the state's governor, Janet Mills, who may also enter the 2026 race.
Mills on Monday confirmed that she is still "seriously considering a run" for Senate, according to News Center Maine. She said, "Every day I pick up the newspaper and I read the headlines and I watch the news, and there are a lot of very disturbing things going on in Washington."
Asked whether Collins—who sometimes votes against her party, but falls in line when her vote actually matters—has done enough to push back against things like US President Donald Trump's tariffs, Mills said: "She's in a tough position. I appreciate everything she is doing."
Platner struck a much different tone. Responding to the reporting on social media Monday night, he said, "I do not appreciate everything Susan Collins has been doing."
Welcoming Platner's retort, Jonathan Dean, a lawyer and solar energy entrepreneur running in Illinois' crowded Democratic primary race for US Senate, said, "This is more like it."
On Tuesday, Semafor congressional bureau chief Burgess Everett asked Collins about Mills' comments. The Republican senator said she was "delighted" to hear Mills' remarks and that "the governor and I have always had a good relationship."
Platner weighed in again, saying, "Susan Collins and I have never had a good relationship."
His responses align with what the US military veteran said in the video launching his campaign last month: "I did four infantry tours in the Marine Corps and the Army. I'm not afraid to name an enemy, and the enemy is the oligarchy."
"It's the billionaires who pay for it, and the politicians who sell us out. And yeah, that means politicians like Susan Collins," he continued. "I'm not fooled by this fake charade of Collins' deliberations and moderation."
"The difference between Susan Collins and Ted Cruz," he added, referring to a Republican US senator from Texas, "is at least Ted Cruz is honest about selling us out and not giving a damn."
Platner has already secured support from a key progressive in the chamber: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The pair joined Troy Jackson, who is running to replace term-limited Mills as governor, for a rally in Portland, Maine on Labor Day as part of Sanders' Fighting Oligarchy Tour.
"We need senators in Washington who are prepared to take on the billionaire class and fight for working people," Sanders said in his endorsement of Platner. "He's a Mainer through and through, and he is building a movement strong enough to take on the oligarchy that is making Maine unaffordable for all except a privileged few. I look forward to Graham joining me in Washington."
Advocates for homeless people are urging Congress to stop a bill that will allow people in Washington, DC to be fined or jailed for sleeping on the streets.
The bill, known as HR 5163, was introduced in the US House of Representatives last week by Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.), as President Donald Trump's militarized takeover of the nation's capital moves into its second month.
Federal law enforcement has already forcibly cleared dozens of homeless encampments in DC under Trump's July executive order, which directed local and federal authorities to fight what it called "endemic vagrancy" in US cities.
Though the Trump administration claims that it has helped to find shelter for those living in the homeless encampments demolished by federal agents, homeless people and advocates in the city told CNN in a report published Monday that federal law enforcement "just told homeless people to move from encampments when they were cleared" and have often taken their possessions, while providing them little assistance and foisting that responsibility onto the city.
Timmons' bill, which is scheduled to be marked up by the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, would further the criminalization of homelessness by codifying it into federal law.
It would ban people in the District of Columbia from setting up or "making preparations" to set up temporary structures to sleep outside. It would also make it illegal to sleep inside a car. Those found in violation will be subject to fines up to $500 or up to 30 days in prison.
It is one of several bills Congress will consider that could tighten federal control over Washington, DC. Brianne Nadeau, a member of DC's city council, said it and other bills "will do direct and serious harm to the district" and represent "an unprecedented attack on home rule and on the 700,000-plus residents that call DC home."
According to the most recent data from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are about 5,600 people in Washington, DC experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness on a given night.
One recent investigation found that Trump's deployment of the National Guard to DC costs roughly four times as much as it would cost to provide housing to every homeless person in the city.
"Instead of making rent cheaper and helping people make ends meet, Congress is considering a bill that would jail or fine people who have no choice but to sleep outside," said the DC-based National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC). "That's shameful."
The group and others urged voters around the country to contact their representatives and pressure them to oppose the bill.
"Friends outside of DC, we need your help. We have no vote in Congress, yet some people in Congress want to write our laws, and they want DC to lock people up for being homeless," the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless posted on X. "Tell Congress NO."
The NHLC said voters should instead urge Congress to back the Housing Not Handcuffs Act introduced by Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) in June, following the Supreme Court's decision the year before to allow cities to ban homeless people from public spaces.
The Democratic bill would stop law enforcement from arresting and ticketing homeless people for camping on federal lands or asking for donations in public places, which advocates say would force Congress to look to long-term housing investment as a solution to homelessness rather than punitive measures to force people off the streets.
According to a May study published in the Policy Studies Journal, the first to ever look at the effects of homelessness criminalization on a national scale, cities that passed ordinances banning outdoor camping have not only failed to reduce homelessness, but actually saw slight increases in their unhoused populations.
Trump's punitive approach to homelessness is broadly unpopular. In a February YouGov survey conducted with the ACLU, 75% said that homelessness is primarily caused by the lack of affordable housing rather than an issue of crime, while 77% said they believed it would be better solved by housing and expanding social services rather than arrests.
"Imposing a $500 fine or sending an unhoused person to jail for 30 days is cruel and shameful," Nadeau said. "Being unhoused is not a crime."
A White House spokesperson suggested Tuesday that US President Donald Trump could use military force against Brazil as two of the country's Supreme Court justices said they would vote to convict former far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro of a coup plot involving the assassination of current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and other officials, including a leading member of the high court.
Speaking during a daily press briefing, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said that Trump—a staunch Bolsonaro ally who has called the effort to bring him to justice a "witch hunt"—has "taken significant action with regards to Brazil in the form of both sanctions and also leveraging the use of tariffs."
In addition to imposing 50% tariffs on Brazilian imports, Trump has sanctioned Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes—who has led efforts to hold Bolsonaro accountable and who placed the former president under house arrest during his trial—while threatening further punitive action.
.@PressSec: "Freedom of speech is arguably the most important issue of our time. It is enshrined in our Constitution and @POTUS believes in it strongly... we have take significant action with regards to Brazil in the form of both sanctions, and also leveraging the use of tariffs… pic.twitter.com/mkWz3eA7tR
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 9, 2025
The alleged coup plot for which Bolsonaro and seven other defendants are being tried allegedly involved assassinating Moraes, Lula, and Vice President Geraldo Alckmin.
Leavitt dubiously couched her threat as defense of "free speech," saying that "this is a priority for the administration, and the president is unafraid to use the economic might, the military might of the United States of America, to protect free speech around the world."
In 1964, the US assisted a coup against the mildly reformist democratically elected government of Brazilian President João Goulart, ushering in two decades of military dictatorship that crushed dissent and free speech under the pretext of fighting communism. In a move similar to Trump's deployment of US warships to the coast of Venezuela, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson secretly deployed a naval task force to Brazil for possible invasion.
While there was no invasion, the US subsequently supported the 21-year dictatorship, including by sending specialists who taught Brazilian security forces more efficient torture techniques.
Bolsonaro, who was a young army paratrooper during the dictatorship, has infamously praised the brutal regime and pined for its return.
Tuesday's threat came as Moraes and fellow Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino voted to find Bolsonaro and the seven other defendants—who include senior military and intelligence officers—guilty of plotting a coup.
"The defendant, Jair Bolsonaro, was leader of this criminal structure," Moraes told the court in the capital city of Brasília.
"Brazil nearly went back to being a dictatorship... because a criminal organization made up of a political group doesn't know how to lose elections," the justice added. "Because a criminal organization made up of a political group led by Jair Bolsonaro doesn't understand that the alternation of power is a principle of republican democracy." s
In addition to attempting a coup, Bolsonaro is charged with involvement in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, violent damage of state property, and other charges. A coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years' imprisonment under Brazilian law. However, if convicted on all counts, Bolsonaro and his co-defendants could face decades behind bars.
The former president and seven other defendants are accused of being the "crucial core" of a plan to overturn the results of the 2022 election, which Lula narrowly won in a runoff. Like Trump in 2020, Bolsonaro and many of his supporters falsely claimed the contest was "stolen" by the opposition. And like in the US, those claims fueled mob attacks on government buildings. Around 1,500 Bolsonaro supporters were arrested in the days following the storming of Congress and the presidential offices.
Bolsonaro is already banned from running for any office until 2030 due to his abuse of power related to baseless claims of electoral fraud.
Members of Lula's Workers' Party (PT) and other leftist lawmakers applauded Tuesday's conviction votes.
"Our expectation is that justice will be done," Federal Deputy Nilto Tatto (PT-São Paulo) said outside the court. "It was, clearly, an attempted coup. They tried to discredit the electoral system and even set up a scheme to assassinate President Lula."
Leftist lawmakers also condemned the White House's threat, with Federal Deputy Lindbergh Farias (PT-Rio de Janeiro) calling it "a blatant attempt to interfere with our sovereignty and judicial independence."
"This has nothing to do with 'freedom of expression': It is external pressure, blackmail, and intimidation to sabotage Brazilian justice," Farias asserted. "Brazil is neither a backyard nor a colony of anyone. And the trial of the coup plot, which already has two votes in favor... will continue to the end, because here the Constitution decides, not Donald Trump."
Federal Deputy Erika Hilton (Socialism and Liberty-São Paulo) called Leavitt's "free speech" justification "ridiculous."
"First of all, no one is restricting Bolsonaro's freedom of speech," she said. "He can say whatever he wants, from inside his house, where the ineligible individual is serving house arrest due to the risk of flight."
"It's also important to remember that US legislation does not apply to Brazil," Hilton continued. "Instead of protecting absolute freedom of speech to shield groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the right of murderers to enter schools with rifles, our Constitution addresses issues relevant to our country, our democracy, and our people. And in this Constitution, made after the end of a military dictatorship, there is provision for... punishment against those who attempt a coup d'état."
"Of course, besides not caring, Trump isn't even capable of understanding all this," she added. "He's too busy planning his defense for the next public accusation of child sexual exploitation, his next round of golf, or his next dip in a pool of Doritos-flavored sauce. And with his brain in an advanced state of degeneration, Trump was only capable of an empty threat."
One foreign policy expert said these congressional authorizations "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
Almost exactly 24 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to finally repeal a pair of more than two-decade-old congressional authorizations that have allowed presidents to carry out military attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In a 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans joining all Democrats, the House passed an amendment to the next military spending bill to rescind the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the leadup to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 2003 War in Iraq.
The decision is a small act of resistance in Congress after what the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein described in Foreign Policy magazine as "years of neglected oversight" by Congress over the "steady expansion of presidential war-making authority."
As Weinstein explains, these AUMFs, originally meant to give presidents narrow authority to target terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and use military force against Saddam Hussein, "have been stretched far beyond their original purposes" by presidents to justify the use of unilateral military force across the Middle East.
President George W. Bush used the 2002 authorization, which empowered him to use military force against Iraq, to launch a full invasion and military occupation of the country. Bush would stretch its purview throughout the remainder of his term to apply the AUMF to any threat that could be seen as stemming from Iraq.
After Congress refused to pass a new authorization for the fight against ISIS—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—President Barack Obama used the ones passed during the War on Terror to expand US military operations in Syria. They also served as the basis of his use of drone assassinations in the Middle East and North Africa throughout his term.
During his first term, President Donald Trump used those authorizations as the legal justification to intensify the drone war and to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. He then used it to carry out the reckless assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
And even while calling for the repeal of the initial 2001 and 2002 authorizations, former President Joe Biden used them to continue many of the operations started by Trump.
"These AUMFs," Weinstein said, "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
The amendment to repeal the authorizations was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).
Meeks described the authorizations as "long obsolete," saying they "risk abuse by administrations of either party."
Roy described the repeal of the amendment as something "strongly opposed by the, I'll call it, defense hawk community." But, he said, "the AUMF was passed in '02 to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that guy's been dead... and we're now still running under an '02 AUMF. That's insane. We should repeal that."
"For decades, presidents abused these AUMFs to send Americans to fight in forever wars in the Middle East," said Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) shortly before voting for the amendment. "Congress must take back its war powers authority and vote to repeal these AUMFs."
Although this House vote theoretically curbs Trump's war-making authority, it comes attached to a bill that authorizes $893 billion worth of new war spending, which 17 Democrats joined all but four Republicans Republicans in supporting Wednesday.
The vote will also have no bearing on the question of President Donald Trump's increasing use of military force without Congressional approval to launch unilateral strikes—including last week's bombing of a vessel that the administration has claimed, without clear evidence, was trafficking drugs from Venezuela and strikes conducted in June against Iran, without citing any congressional authorization.
Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran and public policy advocate at Public Citizen, said, "the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs" are "good to remove," but pointed out that it's "mostly the 2001 AUMF that is exploited for forever wars."
"Not to mention, McCoy added, "we have reached a point where AUMFs almost seem irrelevant, because Congress has shown no willingness whatsoever to punish the president for just launching military actions without one, against Iran, and now apparently against Venezuela."
In the wake of Trump's strikes against Iran, Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and Senate aimed at requiring him to obtain Congressional approval, though Republicans and some Democratic war hawks ultimately stymied them.
However, Dylan Williams, the vice president of the Center for International Policy, argued that the repeal of the AUMF was nevertheless "a major development in the effort to finally rein in decades of unchecked use of military force by presidents of both parties."
The vote, Williams said, required lawmakers "to show where they stand on restraining US military adventurism."
Highlighting how the Pentagon is "replete with waste and fraud," one critic called it "a disgraceful and unconscionable misuse of taxpayer money."
Nearly all Republicans and 17 Democrats in the US House of Representatives voted Wednesday evening for a military bill that would push the figure for defense spending approved this year beyond $1 trillion.
The final vote for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2026 was 231-196, with just four Republicans opposing the bill, which will still need to be reconciled with the Senate's version.
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, highlighted after the vote that the House's NDAA authorizes about $883 billion for defense spending—including over $848 billion for the Pentagon, which has never passed an audit—on top of the $150 billion in the GOP budget reconciliation package that President Donald Trump signed in July.
"Throwing a trillion dollars at the Pentagon—an agency replete with waste and fraud—at the same time the Republican Congress and the Trump regime are slashing spending on healthcare, education, housing, food assistance, and foreign aid is a disgraceful and unconscionable misuse of taxpayer money," Weissman said, referring to other provisions in the earlier package.
"On top of the age-old dangerous and wasteful spending, the bill pours billions into new boondoggles like Trump's 'Golden Dome' space interceptor vanity project and supercharges the dangerous development of killer robots for the battlefield," he noted. "Making it still worse is the administration's in-your-face, authoritarian misuse of Pentagon dollars—from the deployment of the National Guard on the streets of Washington, DC, to the illegal and murderous attack on a Venezuelan boat."
Weissman added that "the bill includes some modest, positive requirements to report waste, fraud, and price gouging to Congress and establishes financial penalties if the Pentagon fails its audit. But these small measures do not begin to offset the damage done by the dangerous and wasteful overall package."
House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who voted against the NDAA's final passage, told Politico that "we didn't get any of the amendments and the debates that we wanted; not a single solitary one."
"Meanwhile, all manner of different issues that are pure culture war partisan issues were allowed in," he continued. "I fear that many of those are going to pass."
In a statement after the vote, the Congressional Equality Caucus condemned "six Republican-sponsored anti-LGBTQI+ amendments," including bans on medically necessary healthcare for transgender service members and dependents.
"The National Defense Authorization Act has traditionally received strong bipartisan support, yet for the second Congress in a row House Republicans have tainted a bill aimed at improving the lives of servicemembers with poison-pill riders that threaten our troops' rights, their families' stability, and our efforts to retain top talent," said the caucus chair, Rep. Mark Takano (D-Cailf.).
"Republicans' sacrifice of a strong bipartisan vote for a politicized NDAA to appease the Trump administration and a small slice of their base cannot undo the sacrifice of the transgender service members, cadets, or military dependents that will be hurt by this bill," he added. "Congress should be fighting for those who fight for us—but it's clear the GOP has other priorities. I will keep fighting to prevent the harmful provisions in this bill from becoming law."
"Unconscionable acts of violence should have no place in our country," said Congresswoman Ilhan Omar—whom Kirk wanted to denaturalize and deport. "Let's pray for no more lives being lost to gun violence."
Tuesday's assassination of far-right firebrand Charlie Kirk in Utah drew widespread condemnation from many of the same progressive figures who have previously decried his rampant bigotry, dismissal of gun deaths, and promotion of conspiracy theories including the "stolen" 2020 election.
"Political violence has no place in this country. We must condemn this horrifying attack," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on the social media site X. "My thoughts are with Charlie Kirk and his family."
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said on X that she was sending "sincere condolences to Charlie Kirk's family."
"Violence is unacceptable, always," she added. "Though I disagree with nearly everything he said publicly, I never lose sight of others' humanity. He was someone's son. He was someone's husband. He was a father to two young children. Praying for the [Utah Valley University] community impacted by this horrific act of gun violence."
Today’s act of political violence in Utah against Charlie Kirk is absolutely disgusting and unacceptable. We don’t have to agree on everything, but we should all agree on this: political violence is wrong, and has no place in our democracy
— Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (@crockett.house.gov) September 10, 2025 at 12:47 PM
Another "Squad" member, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)—whom Kirk wanted to strip of her US citizenship and deport to Somalia—posted that "political violence is absolutely unacceptable and indefensible."
"Unconscionable acts of violence should have no place in our country," she added. "Let's pray for no more lives being lost to gun violence."
Kirk, the 31-year-old CEO and co-founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, was fatally shot during an event at Utah Valley University. The assassin's identity is still not known; The Washington Post reported that "a person of interest is in custody and being interviewed by officials."
Kirk's last words were a characteristically racist attempt to deflect an audience member's question about US mass shootings—one of which occurred at a Colorado high school on the same day as his assassination.
The irony of Kirk's murder was not lost on numerous observers, some of whom posted video of him saying in 2023 that "I think it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment."
Still, even staunch critics of Kirk and his politics in the United States and abroad condemned his murder.
"There is never any place for violence in our politics," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in a statement. "The only way to work out differences in a democracy is to work them out together—peacefully through our political system."
"The ACLU condemns this horrific act and extends its sympathies to the family of Charlie Kirk," Romero added.
Scottish lawmaker and former First Minister of Scotland Humza Yousaf said on social media that "I couldn't have disagreed more with Charlie Kirk on virtually every political issue he debated."
"But that is the point, he debated," Yousaf added. "In any society, let alone a democracy, violence can never be justified. I hope God eases the suffering of his wife, children, family, and friends."
I'm horrified by the shooting of Charlie Kirk at a college event in Utah.Political violence has no place in our country.
— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@zohrankmamdani.bsky.social) September 10, 2025 at 12:34 PM
Political violence must be condemned. Always.I’m praying for Charlie Kirk and his family.
— Nina Turner (@ninaturner.bsky.social) September 10, 2025 at 12:24 PM
Civil rights attorney and transgender rights activist Alejandra Caraballo was among those who expressed deep concern over the direction in which the nation is heading.
"We are in a 'years of lead' scenario where political violence has become normalized," she wrote on the social media site Bluesky. "This is not good for anyone and is deeply dangerous. This level of political violence is not compatible with a functioning society."
"I'm honestly terrified of what the right will use this as justification for," she said of Kirk's assassination. "They're itching to engage in violence against their enemies and this will give them the excuse to do so. This is why political violence is never acceptable. It just descends into uncontrollable chaos and more violence."