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.
Living in not just the bleakest but dumbest timeline, we must now witness the "off the charts clownfuckery" that is the spectacle of quivering, grown-ass Trump lackeys faithfully, fearfully shuffling around the halls of power in his fave "old-man-from-Queens" shoes - most ill-sized - foisted on them in some weird submission ritual by a sociopath with daddy issues. What he evidently doesn't know: A. They're made in China, B. Their company is suing him for his illegal tariffs. Up next: Kim Jong Un haircuts for all.
The latest manifestation of Trump's petty megalomania came to light when astute observers noticed that first Lil Marco Rubio, then other White House buffoons were sporting the same often-too-large shoes, which all turned out to be the $145, black oxford Florsheims regularly worn and touted by Trump. In a cringe origin story recounted by cringe JD Vance, the Favorite Florsheims Saga began at a December meeting in the Oval Bordello when Trump, always laser-focused, began staring at people’s feet and abruptly declared, "You guys have shitty shoes." He asked their shoe sizes. He (likely) ignored/forgot them. The shoes started arriving. He mercilessly badgered them: "Did you get the shoes?" And the dutiful flunkies, having already "left their manhood pickled in a golden jar on Trump’s desk," took on the latest indignity of clomping around in their sadist dad's shoes.
Rubio, Vance, Hegseth, Duffy, Lutnick, Lindsey Graham, Sean Hannity. "All the boys have them,” said a female White House official. "It's hysterical, because everybody’s afraid not to wear them." Beware Trump bearing gifts: Armchair analysts took the shoe pageantry and ran with it. It's an ugly game of subjugation, an abuser's way of exhibiting dominance over minions like the belligerent handshake, belittling nicknames, savage put-downs if any inferior dares to question or stray. It's a piece of "exquisite and complex satire" about the juvenile male anxiety over penis size. It's a humiliation ritual by a small, hollow, clueless, malignant narcissist with "a black hole of insecurity for a dog shit soul" whose only vestige of sense of self is divulged in a vulgar, outlandish brand - fake hair, fake tan, golf cap, red tie, beloved archaic "mall shoes" - he flaunts before his cowering vassals.
Historically, it's also a classic move by totalitarian leaders intent on establishing political and psychological fealty. See Mao jackets, Heil Hitlers, Stalin humiliating the clumsy Khrushchev by making him dance at his parties, Trump's Cabinet meetings become groveling, ring-and-ass-kissing circle jerks. Shoes can be a potent symbol in a performance: Khrushchev, in power, banging his shoe at the UN to punctuate his threat, "We will bury you"; an Iraqi protester hurling one, then two, in Arab culture "ritually unclean" shoes at Bush - who deftly dodged - at a Baghdad presser to show ultimate contempt; clowns of any variety, circus to MAGA, rendered most foolish in flapping massive flotsam. Imagine preening Pete Hegseth, who just banned un-hot photos of himself, with his tight suits and he-man Nazi tattoos, squeezed into or swimming in sloppy clunkers.
Adding insult to injury for these lame heroes of the manosphere, Florsheims are deeply uncool, "a brand you last saw when you were cleaning out your dead grandpa’s room and they were under his bed." Like most things, they're also the brainchild of immigrants, launched in Chicago in 1892 by German immigrant Sigmund Florsheim and his eldest son Milton. At its peak through two World Wars, a $5 pair of "genuine Florsheims" reportedly sold every 4 seconds; a timely gag in the great Chinatown, set in 1937, has Jack Nicholson's Jake Gittes wading through diverted muddy water and scowling, "Goddamn Florsheims!" Its website boasts of "a reputation for being at the forefront of the newest trends while staying true to a legacy (of) quality craftsmanship"; in truth, they're now mostly found in downscale shopping malls and discount stores, struggling to escape a rep as relics of the past.
Today, Florsheim's belongs to parent company Weyco Group Inc. Unsurprisingly - so much again for the Klan-redolent "America First" mantra - they're made overseas in India, China, Cambodia, Dominican Republic. They seem to have a reasonably modern (sorry, "woke") worldview, with Black models and a Sustainability In Action program. And they're suing Trump - atypically, not just multiple federal agencies, but Trump himself - seeking refunds plus interest for the "unprecedented power grab" of his unlawful, unilaterally levied tariffs "without notice, public comment or Congressional authorization." SCOTUS already struck them down last month, citing the possible "mess" of upcoming "refunds of billions of dollars"; on March 4, a U.S. Trade Court judge basically said have at it when he ordered the regime to start paying those ill-begotten billions.
For now, the case is stayed. But many other companies are demanding their money back, and so is a coalition of two dozen states. As the pitchforks come out, online wags stay busy devising shoe puns: toeing the line, holding your tongue, comments laced with wit, heels with no soles, an ad for Sieg Heels: "Nobody puts the step in goosestep like Sieg Heels!” Meanwhile, our Führer's debased lickspittles stumble across the world stage, tripping on their own moral cowardice en route to the apocalypse. They need to remember Solzhenitsyn’s elemental advice in Gulag Archipelago: “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding." Or, God forbid, flapping their fucking, war-mongering, world-razing clown shoes.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
From declaring an energy emergency and ditching global climate initiatives to abducting the Venezuelan leader to seize control of the country's nationalized oil industry, President Donald Trump has taken various actions to serve his fossil fuel donors since returning to power last year. Now, his and Israel's war on Iran could soon lead to US liquefied natural gas giants pocketing tens of billions in windfall profits.
"The Persian Gulf has some of the world's largest oil and gas producers," Oil Change International research co-director Lorne Stockman explained in a Tuesday blog post, "and a large proportion of that production, around 20% of global petroleum, must pass through a relatively narrow corridor controlled by Iran to reach global markets: the Strait of Hormuz," between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Stockman—whose advocacy group works to expose the costs of fossil fuels and facilitate a just transition to clean energy—noted that "crude oil, refined petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) traverse the strait in vast quantities every day. But not since Saturday. With missiles, fighter jets, and drones circling, shipping has ground to a halt, and Iran reportedly threatened to close the strait by force on Monday."
As the conflict in the Persian Gulf continues, fossil fuel companies are preparing for record-breaking profits while billions of people face soaring energy bills and "energy poverty."We’re tired of a world where our energy system fuels war and destroys our climate. oilchange.org/blogs/trumps...
[image or embed]
— 350.org (@350.org) March 4, 2026 at 4:43 AM
Based on ship-tracking data from MarineTraffic, Reuters estimated Wednesday that "at least 200 ships, including oil and liquefied natural gas tankers as well as cargo ships, remained at anchor in open waters off the coast of major Gulf producers including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar," and "hundreds of other vessels remained outside Hormuz unable to reach ports."
Stockman warned that "depending on how long the violence and its atrocious human toll continues—Trump said it may take weeks until his undefined objectives are achieved—this will have huge implications for energy markets. Oil and gas companies may achieve huge windfall profits in a year that previously looked far less lucrative for them, and billions of people could see their energy bills soar."
Since Trump and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu launched "Operation Epic Fury" on Saturday, over 1,000 people had been killed as of Wednesday, according to the Iranian government, and oil prices have surged—highlighting how, as Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen put it earlier this week, "as long as our world runs on oil and gas, our peace, security and our pockets will always be at the mercy of geopolitics."
Qatar exports about 20% of the global LNG supply, second only to the United States. All of that LNG goes through the Strait of Hormuz. An Iranian drone attack on Monday targeted Qatari LNG facilities, leading state-owned QatarEnergy to declare force majeure on exports. Two unnamed sources told Reuters that QE "will fully shut down gas liquefaction on Wednesday," and "it may take at least a month to return to normal production volumes."
The Qatari shutdown is expected to boost the US LNG industry, which exported about 108 million metric tons last year. Already, shares of the two largest LNG producers in the United States, Cheniere and Venture Global, have surged.
"We've got an acute contraction of global LNG supply," Alex Munton, an expert on natural gas markets at consulting firm Rapidan Energy, told CNBC. "The world is now down 20% from where it was, and that leaves the world short."
As CNBC reported Tuesday:
US producers can't ramp LNG production beyond current levels, Munton said. "They're basically running at capacity," he said.
But since their customer contracts don't have fixed destinations, they can reroute LNG to meet demand, he said. The flexible capacity at US LNG producers like Venture and Cheniere plays a crucial role in moments of crisis, the analyst said. It's a unique feature of the US LNG industry, he added.
"The volumes are able to reroute to where the demand is greatest," Munton said. "We saw this in 2022 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, Europe was left short, and it was able to call on US LNG and utilize the inherent flexibility of US LNG.
US LNG cannot replace lost supply from Qatar, but buyers who really need the gas and are willing to pay a high enough price will get it, Munton said.
Seb Kennedy, the energy journalist and market analyst behind the newsletter Energy Flux, estimated Wednesday that "American LNG exports could generate up to $4 billion in windfall profits if the force majeure remains in effect for one month. This figure could rise as high as $20 billion per month if the market is deprived of Qatari supply until the summer."
"Over the first four months, US LNG profits could reach more than $33 billion above the pre-Iran average. Over eight months, that figure rises to $108 billion," he continued. "And if, in an extreme scenario, Qatari LNG is shut-in for a full year, the excess profits raining down on US LNG exports could stack up to almost $170 billion—a figure that would represent one of the most concentrated commodity windfalls of the post-2000 era."
"To put that in context, the 12-month Ukraine war windfall accruing to US LNG exporters, from August 2021 through August 2022, is estimated at $84 billion," Kennedy noted. "Iran could, in certain circumstances, eclipse that total in just over six months."
My latest for Energy Flux:💥 War profits, quantified 💥As Middle East regional war upends global gas markets, US LNG exporters stand to pocket a multi-billion-dollar windfallCheck it out 👉 www.energyflux.news/war-profits...
[image or embed]
— Seb Kennedy (@sebkennedy.bsky.social) March 4, 2026 at 11:58 AM
As the US Senate prepared for a vote on a war powers resolution that is not expected to pass but would swiftly halt Trump's assault on Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war could last at least eight weeks. He also announced that an American submarine fired a torpedo that sank an Iranian naval ship off the coast of Sri Lanka.
On Tuesday, Trump had responded to Iran's attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz with a post on his Truth Social platform: "Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf. This will be available to all Shipping Lines. If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible. No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD. The United States’ ECONOMIC and MILITARY MIGHT is the GREATEST ON EARTH—More actions to come."
However, as the New York Times highlighted Wednesday, "shipping company officials and analysts are skeptical" of Trump's promised fixes, and "some industry executives also worried how quickly these could get up and running."
For example, Helima Croft, the global head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, wrote to clients on Tuesday that "we think the insurance proposal is likely in a concepts-of-a-plan stage," and she questioned whether there are enough US naval assets in the region to actually provide escorts.
It's been two weeks since Big Tech companies gathered at the White House to sign a nonbinding pledge saying they will not pass on higher utility costs to consumers as the rapid build-out of energy-intensive artificial intelligence data centers sends electricity bills skyrocketing—but polling out Wednesday showed a majority of Americans reject President Donald Trump's plan to leave corporations responsible for tackling the affordability crisis.
Those same companies, said most respondents to a survey by Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative, are responsible for higher costs that have hit households across the country, and can't be trusted to ensure life is more affordable for families.
Instead, said 61% of respondents, "cracking down on price gouging" from both utility and energy companies would be the most effective way to lower the cost of electricity. In comparison, just 35% said building more energy infrastructure to meet demands was the answer to high costs.
While Trump has been forced in recent weeks to acknowledge that "energy demands from AI data centers could unfairly drive up" people's energy costs, as he admitted in his State of the Union address while announcing AI companies would sign his "ratepayer protection pledge," the president has largely deflected blame regarding the affordability crisis—or denied its existence altogether.
Trump claimed at a rally in Kentucky last week that "the economy is roaring back," even as his $1 billion-per-day, unprovoked war on Iran inflamed tensions across the Middle East and drove up oil prices.
Groundwork said in its analysis of the poll that following Trump's announcement of the ratepayer protection pledge, "Americans reject this reliance on corporations to do the right thing."
Elizabeth Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy for Groundwork Collaborative, said that "utility prices are up and consumers know the truth: These price increases are being driven by corporate greed and unchecked AI data center growth."
Trump has pushed to accelerate the construction of new data centers by fast-tracking the permitting process.
Two-thirds of those surveyed said their monthly electricity payments have gone up in the past year, with nearly a quarter of respondents saying they had increased by "a lot." More than 40% of people said they are now paying between $101-$200 per month for electricity.
As Common Dreams reported last November, Trump's demand for AI companies to build massive, energy-sucking data centers in communities across the US has been linked to rising costs of consumers, with the average overdue balance on utility bills surging by 32% in the last three years and states with high concentrations of AI data centers seeing electricity prices skyrocket by as much as 16% from 2024-25.
Sixty percent of respondents told Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative that the energy demand of large commercial users like AI data centers is to blame for higher consumer prices, and the same percentage of people also blamed high compensation for utility company executives. Sixty-three percent of those polled said high profits for utility companies and their investors were to blame.
Joint Economic Committee Democrats revealed Tuesday that the average annual US electric bill increased by $110 last year.
A 2022 analysis by Accountable.US found that the nine largest US energy utility companies raked in nearly $14 billion in combined profits in the first three quarters of that year and handed out $11 billion to shareholders while tens of millions of households struggled with rising utility bills.
Nearly 60% of the 1,149 people polled by the two progressive think tanks also said the public sector must take a leadership role on providing energy, "because the public sector doesn't collect profits and can pass on savings to customers," and 60% said the public sector should be responsible for upgrading and modernizing the electric grid because it is a "public resource that should serve all Americans equally, not generate profits for shareholders."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy for Groundwork and a former Biden administration official, said the poll revealed that "the people believe in public power."
The groups also polled respondents on their opinions of "energy superusers," including cryptocurrency companies, AI data centers, and AI firms.
Crypto companies were the least popular, with 54% disapproving compared to 26% who approved. Voters disapproved of AI data centers by a 16-point margin and AI companies in general by an 8-point margin.
Nearly two-thirds said they believe new AI data centers would raise their energy costs, and voters across the political spectrum opposed new data centers in their communities.
Grassroots efforts have taken off in states including Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Jersey as community members have rejected the construction of data centers on the grounds that they would consume massive amounts of water as well as electricity, threaten jobs, and take up space that could otherwise be used for affordable housing and small businesses.
"Voters feel ripped off by the corporations who hold their utilities hostage and are calling on lawmakers to put an end to the profiteering racket," said Pancotti. "It’s time for regulators and policymakers to answer the call to protect working families from predatory utility corporations and Big Tech.”
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee failed on Tuesday to secure wins in the two Illinois US House primaries it invested the most money in, the latest electoral flop for the pro-Israel lobbying organization whose brand has become increasingly noxious to Democratic voters amid Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza.
In Illinois' 7th and 9th Congressional Districts, AIPAC spent millions backing Chicago treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, who finished second, and Democratic State Sen. Laura Fine, who finished third. In the latter race, AIPAC pivoted from initially attacking Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss—who ultimately won—to concentrate on defeating Justice Democrats-backed Kat Abughazaleh.
AIPAC, which faced backlash for trying to conceal its spending in the Illinois contests using shell organizations, tried to spin the 9th Congressional District results as a win, despite spending more against Biss than against Abughazaleh.
"Though Kat narrowly lost this race, we are proud to have backed this campaign that helped ensure the people of IL-09 would not be represented by another AIPAC shill," Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, said in a statement. "This outcome is a massive loss for AIPAC as they lose more and more influence within the Democratic Party. No amount of shell PACs or covert funding can hide their toxicity from Democratic voters, their monopoly over this party’s agenda is coming to an end.”
Two AIPAC-backed candidates did prevail Tuesday: Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller in the 2nd Congressional District and former Rep. Melissa Bean in the 8th Congressional District.
AIPAC's mixed results came amid broad alarm over outside spending that flooded Tuesday's midterm primary elections in Illinois, driven by pro-Israel, crypto, and AI special interest groups. Overall, more than $92 million was spent on campaign ads in Tuesday's contests in Illinois, a state record.
"I think we can safely say that almost $100 million spent in a handful of primaries is a full-spectrum disaster for democracy," wrote David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, which called the torrent of spending "a corruption of democracy that is relatively unprecedented in modern elections."
The National Journal reported Tuesday that when the national midterm cycle is over, "the price tag for the Illinois primary will be an important footnote in what’s projected to be the most expensive midterm election ever."
"The nonpartisan research firm AdImpact estimates that more than $10.8 billion will be spent on ads alone this cycle," the Journal observed. "Even as the competitive map gets smaller, the price tag keeps increasing as more outside deep-pocketed groups invest more in primaries."
Super PACs, entities that can spend unlimited sums boosting their preferred candidates, pumped roughly $31 million into Tuesday's US House primaries in Illinois. AIPAC-linked organizations accounted for around $22 million of the total.
"It’s time to kick AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super PACs out of Democratic primaries," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote ahead of Tuesday's races.
A Wednesday CBS News report claimed that the FBI and Internal Revenue Service are "forming a new initiative to investigate nonprofit organizations over suspected possible links to domestic terrorism."
According to CBS News, the new initiative is the agencies' response to a December memo written by Attorney General Pam Bondi requiring the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
A government official told CBS News that the FBI-IRS initiative would focus on "exploring potential funding streams at nonprofits that support domestic terrorism or political violence."
But Tom Brzozowski, former domestic terrorism counsel at the DOJ's National Security Division, told CBS News he was concerned by the broad scope of investigatory activities outlined in Bondi's memo, and he questioned whether the DOJ had established the proper predication to justify amassing a list of nonprofit groups to be targeted in a criminal probe.
"If you're going to pull down information and retain it in a government data set, you have to have predication to do that," Brzozowski emphasized, "especially if you're looking at it through an investigative lens."
Bondi's December memo was written in response to National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
Rights groups have for months been sounding the alarm about the implications of NSPM-7, which they said could be used to initiative a widespread crackdown against the Trump administration's critics.
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of Campaign for New York Health, wrote that news of the FBI-IRS initiative was a "periodic reminder that Trump’s DOJ changed the indicators of domestic terrorism to include pro-immigrant, pro-LBTQ, anti-Trump, and anti-capitalist speech."
Journalist Marcy Wheeler wrote that the FBI's initiative with the IRS shows it's "trying to criminalize dissent over protecting against Islamic and antisemitic terrorism that Trump has stoked with his illegal war" against Iran.
Journalist Diego Fonseca noted that going after nonprofit groups has long been a hallmark of authoritarian regimes seeking to consolidate power.
"[Salvadoran President Nayib] Bukele has treated nongovernmental organizations as 'foreign agents,'" Fonseca observed, while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor] Orbán "has a 'Transparency Law' targeting civil society orgs. Left or right, it’s the authoritarian playbook: round up and paralyze any possible criticism."
Matt Ortega, a Democrat running to represent California's 14th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives, warned that the FBI-IRS initiative was a sign of a widespread crackdown against political opposition.
"They called Alex Pretti a 'domestic terrorist' and only backtracked because witnesses had NFL-like coverage of the incident," Ortega wrote. "This is repression carried out by the state for electoral purposes. It's about stamping out your objections to their autocratic aims."
As the Trump administration sows chaos with a crushing fuel blockade of Cuba, a general told Congress that the military will "set up a camp" at Guantánamo Bay to detain those who try to flee the humanitarian crisis inflicted by the United States.
The phrase "humanitarian crisis" was used by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to describe the situation in Cuba during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday, as he questioned US Marine Corps Gen. Francis Donovan, the commander of the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).
Donovan, a 37-year Marine veteran, took command of SOUTHCOM in February after being tapped by President Donald Trump. His predecessor, Adm. Alvin Holsey, abruptly resigned in December reportedly after he'd raised concerns about the Trump administration's bombings of alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean, which have been widely described as illegal under international law.
On Thursday, Cotton asked Donovan, "Are we prepared for any kind of humanitarian crisis in Cuba—the possible flow of refugees, other civil disorder that may threaten our interests, especially if the decrepit, corrupt Castro regime finally falls or flees?"
"Senator, yes we are," Donovan responded. "SOUTHCOM... We have an [executive] order to be prepared to support [the Department of Homeland Security] (DHS) in a mass migration event. They would take the lead, we would follow."
Donovan said this would include using the US military base at Guantánamo Bay, "where we would set up a camp to deal with those migrants or any overflow from any situation in Cuba itself."
Trump signed an executive order during his first month in office last year directing DHS and the Pentagon to “expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay to full capacity," which the administration said meant scaling the facility up to more than 30,000 beds.
The base, which houses a prison infamous for the extrajudicial torture of detainees during the global War on Terror, was designated under Trump's order to hold "high‑priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States.”
But Donovan suggested it may now be used to hold Cubans fleeing chaos and deprivation following Trump's own acts of economic warfare.
Cotton's question followed a warning that same day from Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of a "possible mass exodus out of Cuba," which experienced an island-wide electricity blackout earlier this week following the Trump administration's blockade of fuel entering the island, which a group of UN rapporteurs said in January was “a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order.”
DeSantis, whose state is home to about 1.6 million Cuban-Americans, said, "[W]e don’t want to see a massive armada of people showing up on the shores of the Florida Keys."
He said he believed the Trump administration "would rather see people in Florida go help… hopefully get a new government going" in Cuba, possibly referring to the long-held hope of some right-wing Cuban exiles to take over the island.
Following more than 60 years of an embargo that has strangled Cuba's economic development, the Trump administration tightened the noose even more in January, signing an executive order that would slap harsh tariffs on any country that provides oil to Cuba.
As a result of the blockade, explained Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, "people don’t have reliable access to drinking water, hospitals can’t operate safely, basic goods are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and garbage is piling up in the streets.”
Trump first described his blockade as part of an effort to carry out regime change against Cuba's Communist Party leadership, but this week, he made the imperialist declaration that he may seek to outright "take" the island and that he could "do anything I want" with the "weakened nation."
Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, emphasized that the possible "mass migration event" described by Donovan was only coming "as the US starves Cuba of energy and food."
"Trump and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio are to blame for any refugee crisis from Cuba, as the US intentionally harms civilians with an oil blockade," said Just Foreign Policy in a social media post responding to Republican warnings of Cuban mass migration. "US sanctions and meddling in Latin America have always been a leading cause of migrant flows."
Immigration journalist Arturo Dominguez explained that "What [Donovan] essentially said was, 'We're ready to accommodate the flow of refugees by putting them in camps.'" He added that "the way these military goons jump right in to 'accommodate' atrocity is beyond the pale."
Trump's blockade of Cuba is unpopular with the American public, according to a YouGov poll released earlier this week. Just 28% of adult US citizens said they approved of the US blocking oil shipments to the country, while 46% said they opposed it. The same survey found that just 13% want the US to use military force to attack Cuba, while 61% would oppose it.
Just Foreign Policy said, "The American people do not want their government to starve Cubans and cause a 'mass migration event.'"
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.
Estefany Rodríguez's detention "has had a chilling effect, undermining journalists’ ability, especially local reporters, to cover their communities without fear of retaliation," according to one advocate.
Immigrant rights and press freedom groups were celebrating Friday after Nashville journalist Estefany Rodríguez was released from a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Louisiana, two weeks after she was detained—but advocates said they would continue challenging the violation of Rodríguez's rights and demanded the Trump administration end its targeting of journalists amid its anti-immigration crackdown.
Rodríguez was freed on a $10,000 bond, more than two weeks after the Nashville Noticias reporter was detained outside a gym while traveling in her marked press vehicle.
As Common Dreams reported, press freedom advocates expressed concern that Rodríguez was detained in retaliation for her reporting on ICE's mass detention and deportation operation under President Donald Trump.
An ICE officer told her lawyer after her arrest that Rodríguez had been labeled a "flight risk" because she "missed" two meetings at the local ICE office—although the agency had previously informed her lawyer and her husband that she didn't need to go to the meetings.
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel of the media rights group Free Press, said the group welcomed the news of Rodríguez's release but emphasized that "while this is a victory for Rodríguez, her free speech rights, and the communities she reports for, the fight is not over."
"We remain troubled by the federal government’s ongoing campaign to silence and deport reporters who cover the administration’s gross mistreatment of immigrants," said Benavidez. "We will continue to fight for Rodríguez and her right to report free from retaliation while we challenge the federal government’s relentless assaults on the First Amendment across this country.”
"Press freedom is not theoretical—it is tested in moments like this. Safeguarding it means removing unnecessary barriers and ensuring that journalists, especially those serving vulnerable communities, can report freely and without fear."
Rodríguez was arrested weeks after journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were arrested for reporting on an anti-ICE protest at a church in Minneapolis. Emmy-winning journalist Mario Guevara was arrested last June after reporting on a No Kings protest against Trump in Atlanta; he was detained for more than 100 days before being deported to El Salvador.
Rodríguez arrived in the US lawfully in 2021 from her native Colombia, where she faced threats due to her reporting work. She applied for asylum before her visa expired.
Nashville Banner reported that Rodríguez was granted the bond by a judge on Monday, but a mandatory stay allowed ICE attorneys the opportunity to appeal the decision, which they ultimately did not. Then it took a day for Rodríguez's family to post the bond through an electronic system on Wednesday, which required approval since they were first-time users.
The bureaucratic delays added to the ordeal Rodríguez faced during her detention, during which she was not able to contact her attorneys until March 14. She first spent a week in a county jail in Alabama where guards placed her in isolation for five days, claiming she had contracted lice. According to Nashville Banner, before she was transferred to the center in Louisiana, the guards "took her to the shower, made her strip naked, and poured cleaning liquid over her head." The substance made Rodríguez's eyes burn, and the outlet reported that "she believed the liquid was also used to clean floors."
Following her release, Rodríguez's legal case is ongoing. Her lawyers filed an emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Government lawyers are now arguing the case is moot because Rodríguez has been released, but her attorneys are seeking an evidentiary hearing to obtain an injunction against her potential redetenion.
"We plan to proceed with the habeas petition that was filed on March 4, challenging both her warrantless arrest and retaliation for her exercise of First Amendment rights," said Mike Holley, an attorney with the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. "Through that petition, we are seeking not only her complete release, but an order prohibiting ICE from mistreating her in a similar way in the future.”
In the petition, Rodríguez's legal team argued her detention has violated her First, Fourth, and Fifth amendment rights and asserted that she was detained in relation to her coverage of ICE operations.
Jose Zamora, regional director of the Americas for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said Rodríguez's detention "has had a chilling effect, undermining journalists’ ability, especially local reporters, to cover their communities without fear of retaliation."
“The government must uphold press freedom and ensure all journalists can work safely and without reprisal," said Zamora.
Mark Schoeff Jr., president of the National Press Club, said that Rodríguez's case "should never have reached this point."
"We urge authorities to drop any further action against Ms. Rodríguez and allow her to continue her work without interference. She is a community-focused journalist whose reporting serves the public interest, and she must be able to work openly and cooperatively as she seeks to resolve her legal status in the United States," said Schoeff. "A free press depends on the ability of journalists to report without fear of detention or retaliation. Reporters cannot do their jobs if they fear detention for doing their jobs."
"Press freedom is not theoretical—it is tested in moments like this," he added. "Safeguarding it means removing unnecessary barriers and ensuring that journalists, especially those serving vulnerable communities, can report freely and without fear."
“This lawless killing for content cannot become mere background noise," said one critic.
The Trump administration isn't letting its unconstitutional war with Iran stop its illegal boat-bombing campaign in Latin America.
US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) said on Friday that it had conducted yet another lethal boat strike on a suspected drug boat traveling in what it described as "known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific."
While SOUTHCOM initially said that three men survived the Thursday strike, a spokesperson for the US Coast Guard subsequently told CNN reporter Zachary Cohen that two of the men on the boat were killed, while a lone survivor was rescued and taken into custody by authorities in Costa Rica.
According to Cohen, at least 160 people have so far been killed by the Trump administration's boat strikes, which several legal experts have described as illegal acts of murder.
The latest strike on a suspected drug vessel came on the same day Gen. Francis L. Donovan, the commander of SOUTHCOM, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Trump administration's boat-bombing spree is "not the answer" to the drug addiction crisis in the US.
As reported by The New York Times on Thursday, Donovan told lawmakers that the strikes are "probably not the most effective" tool to combat illicit drug trafficking, and said he was developing a more comprehensive plan to stop the flow of drugs into the US.
Human rights group Amnesty International slammed Donovan for carrying out another strike even while acknowledging their negligible impact on the drug trade.
"Congress must take action against these strikes!" the group said in a social media post.
Brian Finucane, senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, expressed concern that the Trump administration's Iran war was distracting from the other illegal killing it is carrying out.
"This lawless killing for content cannot become mere background noise," he wrote.
A coalition of rights organizations led by the ACLU last year sued the Trump administration to demand it release documents that provide legal justification for its boat-bombing campaign.
The groups said that the Trump administration’s rationales for the strikes deserve special scrutiny because their justification hinges on claims that the US is in an “armed conflict” with international drug cartels akin to past conflicts between the US government and terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.
The groups argued there is simply no way that drug cartels can be classified under the same umbrella as terrorist organizations, given that the law regarding war with nonstate actors says that any organizations considered to be in armed conflict with the US must be an “organized armed group” that is structured like a conventional military and engaged in “protracted armed violence” with the US government.