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.
The fiery shards from the murder of Charlie Kirk still ricochet in baleful ways, even as his shooter's views and motives remain murky. Despite rabid calls by a regime eager for revenge to extinguish leftist "scum" who rendered their bigot hero "a martyr for truth and freedom," the killer seems to be a muddled mix of gun freak, devout gamer and violent nihilist. In his bloody wake, many now beset by irrational vitriol are left to argue, "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie supported what happened to Charlie."
Political violence is, of course, as old as America: Federalists vs. anti-Federalists, indigenous genocide, slavery, lynching, war, Lincoln, the 1960s' white and black assassinations, civil, women's and gay rights struggles, Jan. 6 riots, police state troops, racist ICE raids and, in a country with perhaps 500 million guns, an estimated 125 Americans killed daily with guns - a rate 26 times higher than any other developed nation - and up to 800 children killed in school shootings impacting over 360,000 students. In 2023, the most recent year with full data, nearly 47,000 people died in gun violence. The first six months of this year saw an almost 40% surge in gun-related acts of terrorism and targeted violence over last year, with over 520 reported plots or acts of violence and, to date, 300 mass shootings, forty-seven at schools. In a nation awash in killing machines, an increasingly right-wing GOP and a mood of rage-fueled paranoia and polarization, each act of political violence makes the next more likely.
Charlie Kirk, 31, was shot and killed by an assassin's bullet in the neck while speaking under a tent that read "Prove Me Wrong" on the campus of Utah Valley University on the first of a 15-stop "America Comeback Tour" by his right-wing Turning Point USA; he was struck just as he responded to a question about mass shootings by blaming gangs. It was the day before a historically freighted Sept. 11 symbolizing myriad acts of or against violence: It was the day when Gandhi launched the first nonviolent resistance in South Africa in 1906 to stunning political effect; when Chile's democratically elected Socialist President Salvador Allende was assassinated; when Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and Americans came together with such inspiring grace and strength the event came to represent "the ultimate failure of terrorism against the United States" - until a pernicious Bush Administration launched two bloody, pointless, illegal wars, which still haunt us, in its name.
Kirk was a vibrant, hateful, genial, incendiary mouthpiece for a MAGA worldview of bigotry and intolerance, a "loathsome human being (who) celebrated violence against people he didn’t like" and used his mocking, performative "debates" with students to effectively spread misinformation, inflame young, impressionable, vaguely discontent people, surreptitiously urge democracy be replaced by an emergent Christian Fascism, and make millions. "The language has been violent. The discord has been great," wrote Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler. "There has been a consistent invitation to dine at the table of heated racist discussion posing as legitimate political speech," in which Kirk "rhetorically violated" the safety of Blacks, Muslims, queers, immigrants and multiple 'others' in the name of a defaming, divisive "free speech." "He (did) not care about the security of others. He did not show empathy," said Hagler. "Charlie Kirk expanded hatred (and) marketed the vile speech of old racisms in new wineskins."
Kirk claimed America was full of "prowling Blacks" who target white people "for fun." He said "God's perfect law" says gay people should be stoned to death, Black people were better off during Jim Crow, Democrats “stand for everything God hates," the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, Islam is "the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America." He put liberal academics on watch lists to be targeted and harassed, called Dems "maggots, vermin and swine," mocked the death of George Floyd, "joked" a "patriot" should bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker, urged "a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming doctor," charged prominent Black women like Michelle Obama "don't have the brain power" to succeed unless they "steal a white person's slot." A fierce critic of gun control, he argued we cannot allow mass shooting victims to "emotionally hijack the narrative," and championed as "prudent" and "rational" the cost of gun deaths in exchange for having "the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
Like much of the right, he practiced "eliminationist rhetoric," wherein political opponents aren’t just wrong but evil, less than human. Still, when the 2nd Amendment came for Charlie Kirk, thoughtful opponents wrestled in a deeply human way with the complexities. "He was a vile human being," said one, "but I do not want to live in a society where vile human beings are assassinated." Again and again, people echoed that pivotal duality: "We can condemn political violence and Kirk’s murder while also condemning Kirk for the hate he fomented," "Murder is bad, and sometimes bad people are murdered," "Kirk said and did many despicable things, but he did not deserve to die," "Kirk should not have been shot and killed for his beliefs, and nobody else" - Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, whose deaths Trump still refuses to acknowledge, no pol, no child - "should be either." This was not vengeance-tinged schadenfreude, he said; it was a moral and political reckoning with America's dissonant reality.
The right, obviously, ignored those subtleties, unable to recognize any space between "endorsing over-the-top grief for white men who espouse violence" and not endorsing that violence. Here, as usual, appeasement is in vain. "They are going to claim we (left/liberals/Democrats/non-white non-supremacists) said whatever is most convenient for them to say we said, no matter what we say," wrote Rebecca Solnit. "They've already decided all of us were the shooter." And they did. Within minutes, with zero information on the killer, Trump, elected on a platform of fomenting online rage against the "other," seized the deadly moment to foment more. He raved against "a radical left group of lunatics" - "we just have to beat the hell out of them" - "the agitator," "the scum," who for years "have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis...This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country." Elizabeth Warren, asked if Dems should "tone down" their rhetoric: "Oh, please."
After he ordered the nation's flags flown at half-mast - never once done for the hundreds of schoolchildren gunned down over the years - fellow brownshirts picked up the vengeful tiki torch and feverishly ran with it. Musk: "The Left is the party of murder...Our choice is to fight or die." Libs of Tik Tok: “THIS IS WAR." Matt Walsh: "We are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell.” Seethed Paulina Luna, "EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU WHO CALLED US FASCISTS DID THIS," charging, "You were busy doping up kids, cutting off their genitals, inciting racial violence...YOU ARE THE HATE you claim to fight." Logically, they also vowed to use the power of the state to exact retribution against Dem pols, "libtard" pundits, anyone who may have viewed Kirk as anything but a flawless hero and martyr. Clay Higgins urged social media posts be banned, business licenses revoked, students or teachers be kicked out, non-citizens be banished: "Cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals."
As usual, a spewing, psychotic Stephen Miller won the talking-evil-bullshit-out-of-your-Nazi-ass award, raving about "a wicked ideology" that "hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved," an ideology that views "the perfect family with bitter rage while embracing the serial criminal with tender warmth" as its adherents "tear down and destroy every mark of grace and beauty while lifting up everything monstrous and foul." Say what the fuck? In a posthumous Kirk podcast in the White House hosted by J.D. Vance - who flew Kirk's body home in Air Force Two and pledged to "go after" fictional leftist NGOs, including The Nation, that "foments violence" - a smitten Miller decried those "cheering the evil assassination that cruelly robbed this nation of one of its greatest men" and vowed to use his "righteous anger," "as God is my witness," to "use every resource" to destroy the left's "vast domestic terror movement...in Charlie's name."
Experts say the first, vital violence the authoritarian right commits is against fact, truth, history, meaning, language - reality itself. And so, again, it comes to pass. There has been no "cheering" of an act everyone knows with "horror" will spiral into chaos and repression. Though Miller said his last message from Kirk "before he joined his creator in heaven" was "we have to dismantle radical left organizations...fomenting violence," there is no such organization; nor is there a leftist "vast domestic terror movement." But there is, well-documented, on the right. See here, here, and here: Far-right plots and attacks have "significantly outpaced terrorism by other types of perpetrators" since 1994, and 2024 was the third year in a row that all extremist-related killings in the U.S. were carried out by right-wingers." A study by the DOJ itself likewise found, "The number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism." It was just scrubbed from its website.
But who needs facts. Not a desperate, unhinged right that increasingly views everyone else as an existential threat to the white, straight, Christian nationalist oligarchy they seek to create. And now, notes Chris Hedges, they have their martyr, "the lifeblood of violent movements"- albeit "a reprehensible human being and Christo-fascist who enacted his agenda by preying on weak minded people" - often critical to "turn the moral order upside down" en route to "full-scale social disintegration." Inevitably, he predicts, the right's new-found, giddy, sanctimonious "intoxication with violence will feed on itself like a firestorm." In less than a week, it already is, with dozens of people across the country facing retribution - hounded, fired, threatened, arrested - in a GOP-sanctified "witch-hunt" against anyone who dares to not mourn Kirk, or accurately, scathingly quote him, or decline "to be sad that a guy willing to sacrifice school children for the Second Amendment wound up getting shot at a school."
MSNBC fired political analyst Matthew Dowd for musing, “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which lead to hateful actions." The Washington Post fired Karen Attiah, their sole Black columnist, for noting Kirk's racist history, especially toward Black women. Dem Rep. Seth Moulton was flooded with threats - "Cute kids - be a shame if they didn't have a father" - for arguing Trump should make it clear political differences can't and shouldn't be solved by violence. And in what Thaddeus Howze calls "deafening hypocrisy," a populace who long (if selectively) quoted Scripture to make their pious points has abruptly banished their "live by the sword" tenet after "the gun culture (Kirk) championed did not exempt him." "Here was a man who minimized other people’s agony, suddenly forced to taste the violence he once dismissed," he writes. As a result, his "2nd Amendment justice" is neither celebration nor solution; it's simply the fact that, "The logic he defended and normalized folded back on him."
Enter Tyler Robinson, who on Tuesday appeared by video in court to be charged with aggravated murder and six other counts; prosecutors will seek the death penalty. After Kash Patel's error-ridden, "amateur hour" clown show of an FBI search, Robinson was ultimately convinced by his father and a family friend to turn himself in. Described as a quiet, "squeaky clean" kid, he came from a Trump-voting, gun-loving family; his father was a sheriff turned evangelical pastor, online, his mother often posted (now-deleted) photos of Tyler and his brother grinning with guns, and they'd gifted him the rifle he killed Kirk with. Early reports suggested he was part of Nick Fuentes' “Groypers," a white-nationalist group from the "toxic underbelly of the MAGA ecosystem" who use Internet memes, underground cultural references and racist dog whistles to covertly spread hate, and who'd publicly harassed Kirk as not extremist or "pro-white” enough. Now, it's only clear that Tyler was "a guy who plainly had Internet brain poisoning."
As "experts" struggled to decipher reported markings on the killer's ammunition - "Hey fascist, catch!" with a sequence of arrows etc - gamers quickly identified them as symbols from Helldivers 2, in which elite forces battle against aliens on behalf of a fascist state. Meanwhile, more facts emerged: Tyler, his politics shifting left, was in a romantic relationship with a roommate transitioning from male to female, and he'd told them and his father he killed Kirk because he "had enough of his hatred." All told, his views were so hazy he could be deemed a "nihilist violent extremist" (NVE), often alienated young men, desensitized to violence by gaming and right-wing subcultures, who lack a coherent political belief system but feel an inchoate rage - a reminder to a partisan world, wrote Ken Klippenstein, "of the actual diversity of the nation, and the cost of polarization that demonizes the other side." The lack of "tidy narrative," said Rep.Sean Casten, suggested this was merely the tale of "a young man who made a bad choice with a gun."
Online, some declared MAGA's civil war had been cancelled "due to shooter being demographically uncooperative." But the regime, fired up, had no interest in leading us out of "this ugly toxic pit." Ignoring facts, law, nuance and their ostensible mission to unite, they've used the shooting to launch "the biggest assault on the First Amendment in our country’s modern history.” Pam Bondi, appearing on Goebbels' wife Katie Miller's malignant podcast, vowed the Justice Department would "go after" those engaging in "hate speech," or "violent rhetoric designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals," aka accurately quoting Charlie Kirk. "There's free speech and there's hate speech," she said. "We will absolutely target you." Heather Lyle on the "staggering irony" of selectively outraged, right-wing grievance politics "collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions...A movement that insists mass death is acceptable collateral in the name of liberty also demands national mourning when its own suffers."
Trump, meanwhile, has helped stifle free speech by threatening an ABC News reporter who asked about it - "We'll probably go after people like you. You treat me unfairly - you have hate in your heart" - an Australian reporter - "You are hurting Australia right now. Your leader is coming to see me soon, I’m going to tell him about you...Quiet" - and "the degenerate" New York Times with a bizarre, "hilarious," $15 billion libel lawsuit packed with lies, boasts and juvenile praise for his "transcendent ability to defy wrongful conventions" and "greatest personal and political achievement in American history" despite a pernicious paper that "has engaged (in) decades-long lying about your Favorite President (ME!).” Like any eight-year-old sociopath, he has a notably short attention span: Asked how he's doing after losing his "friend" Kirk, he said, "Very good. And by the way, right there, you see the trucks just started construction of the new Ballroom...It's going to be a beauty...one of the best in the world, actually. Thank you very much."
Elsewhere, everyone spoke of Kirk and the havoc his death has wrought. "Pay attention," urged Sen. Chris Murphy of moves to crush dissent: "Something dark may be coming." A somber Bernie warned of political violence that "threatens to hollow out our public life"; many followers, citing the "paradox of intolerance," argued tolerance is a social contract the right has already ravaged: "Charlie Kirk is a self-inflicted gunshot statistic. Kirk's widow Erika, 36, a glossy former Miss Arizona with a "Christian clothing company" and "devotional blessings" podcast, gave an "address to the nation" at a lectern reading, "May Charlie be received into the merciful arms of Jesus, our loving savior"; she told "evil-doers" they have "no idea what you have unleashed," and vowed the tour, mission and "wisdom" of Charlie, "wearing the glorious crown of a martyr," "will endure." At a shabby Kennedy Center vigil - bad music, red caps, USA chants, shrieking pastors - regime fans and officials proclaimed, "We are all Charlie Kirk now."
Not quite. "Grief is not a performance," offered a therapist to those struggling to respond. "When a public figure dies, you are not obligated to manufacture sorrow (to) honor a life (that) caused harm." "You are inheriting a country where politics feels like rage," Utah Gov. Spencer Cox told traumatized students. "Words are not violence. Violence is violence." After the arrest, Cox said he'd been praying the shooter "wouldn't be one of us" - a queer immigrant would be better? - "so I could say, 'We don't do that here.'" But of course he was, and we do. "What the actual hell have we become?" asked Catholic writer Emily Zanotti. From another, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." White, male, home-grown, needy, beset by an inchoate animus and fury now wretchedly reflected in a regime whose leaders choose to use power only for hate. Compare and contrast with, say, Stephen Colbert, who this week spoke of love, and loss, and "desperately loving" a country now unrecognizable. Even Tyler Robinson decried hate, and, to his partner, voiced love.
The same day he shot Charlie Kirk, the "uniquely American cycle" was reprised one state over when a male student opened fire at a Colorado high school, wounding two before killing himself; so much blood was already flowing it barely made the news. Two days later, also under-reported, a police SWAT team arrested a 13-year-old boy near Seattle for "unlawful firearms possession." Evidently fixated on school shootings, the boy had amassed an arsenal of 23 guns with accompanying ammunition, including tactical style rifles mounted on the walls of his room, handguns strewn through the house and, in a backpack beneath a turtle habitat, AR assault magazines; police also found drawings of school shooters and social media posts that said, "When I turn 21 I am going to kill people" and, "It's over! My time is almost hear!" (sic). In an interview, his mother, who home-schooled him, said the posts were an attempt by her son to "be cool," and he had no intention of harming anyone.
The attorneys general of Connecticut and Rhode Island on Thursday joined renewable energy companies in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's suspension of an offshore wind farm that, if completed, will power hundreds of thousands of homes in the two New England states.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, both Democrats, announced they are suing "to overturn the baseless stop-work order abruptly issued on August 22, 2025, which halted the construction of Revolution Wind," a project located 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast.
"Revolution Wind is fully permitted, nearly complete and months from providing enough American-made, clean, affordable energy to power 350,000 homes," Tong said in a statement. "Now, with zero justification, [US President Donald] Trump wants to mothball the project, send workers home, and saddle Connecticut families with millions of dollars in higher energy costs. This kind of erratic and reckless governing is blatantly illegal, and we're suing to stop it."
Acting US Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) Director Matthew Giacona issued the order directing Rob Keiser, head of asset management at the North American branch of the Danish firm Ørsted—the world's largest offshore wind developer—to "halt all ongoing activities related to the Revolution Wind project on the outer continental shelf."
Giacona's order—which cited "concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States"—is to remain in effect pending review by BOEM, which is part of the US Interior Department.
Ratepayers could have saved $400 million last winter if the 3.5 GW of offshore wind in New England was operational.Meanwhile, Trump just halted construction on Rhode Island's Revolution Wind and is trying to ban wind energy entirely. You can thank Trump when your energy bills continue to rise.
[image or embed]
— LCV – League of Conservation Voters 🌎 (@lcv.org) September 4, 2025 at 6:31 AM
At the time of the order, Ørsted said that Revolution Wind was "80% complete, with all offshore foundations installed and 45 out of 65 wind turbines installed."
The lawsuit filed by Revolution Wind—a joint venture between Ørsted and Skyborn Renewables—seeks to lift BOEM's order. An attorney for Ørsted contended Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia that Trump's "apparent hostility toward offshore wind" was behind the stop-work order.
"The project has spent billions of dollars in reliance on these valid approvals," the Revolution Wind filing states. "The stop-work order is invalid and must be set aside because it was issued without statutory authority, in violation of agency regulations and procedures and the 5th Amendment's due process clause, and is arbitrary and capricious."
US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who previously condemned the stop-work order, said Thursday that "if Trump's plan is to raise families' energy prices, cut American jobs, turbocharge climate change, and accelerate the Great Climate Insurance Crisis, he's knocking it out of the park with his all-out attack on American offshore wind."
"Wind power is one of the fastest, safest, cheapest ways to meet rising electricity demand and cut energy prices," the senator continued. "The only winners here are the corrupt fossil fuel donors who bankrolled Trump's campaign."
In a separate social media post on Thursday addressing the new lawsuit, Whitehouse said that "my experience tells me the discovery phase will be fascinating as the lawyers dig into the true motivations and scheming behind this ugly fossil fuel thuggery."
Revolution Wind is at least the second major wind project hit with a BOEM stop-work order during the second administration of Trump, who campaigned on a "drill, baby, drill" pro-fossil fuels platform.
Trump has also antagonized Denmark by threatening to take control of Greenland, a Danish territory. Last month, Denmark's Foreign Ministry summoned Mark Stroh, Trump's charge d'affaires in the Nordic nation, following a report by the main Danish public broadcaster alleging that three Americans with ties to Trump have been attempting to instigate tensions between Denmark and Greenland.
Thursday's lawsuit follows another multistate complaint filed in May by 18 attorneys general seeking to block Trump's effort to pause offshore wind development via an executive order issued on the president's first day in office.
"This arbitrary and unnecessary directive threatens the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in investments, and it is delaying our transition away from the fossil fuels that harm our health and our planet," Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the coalition of states, said at the time.
Teamsters and their supporters rallied outside a New York Amazon facility Monday in protest of what they said was an "illegal" firing of over 150 unionized drivers.
According to the union, the fired workers were employed by the delivery service provider Cornucopia, one of thousands of providers the company contracts with to deliver packages. These workers joined the Teamsters last year as the union went on strike in nine cities across the US.
Amazon claims these workers are not employees, but "contractors," and that firing them does not constitute illegal union busting.
The union, however, described this as "a phony shell game," saying that the contractors "wear Amazon uniforms, follow Amazon rules, and work off Amazon's routing software."
"Amazon calls the shots," read a statement from the union. "They are the employer and everyone knows it."
Last year, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) official in Los Angeles agreed that the company had engaged in unfair labor practices when it fired other unionized contractors in California, and determined that they did, in fact, count as employees of Amazon.
At the time, this ruling seemed to provide some clarity as Amazon workers fought to have their union recognized by the company, which has refused to recognize them for years.
This remained the case even after 2024, when more than 10,000 Amazon workers joined the Teamsters and the union launched the largest strike ever against the company right before the holidays, during which they demanded the company negotiate a fair contract that included wage increases and addressed workplace safety issues and illegal union busting.
Outside Amazon's DBK4 facility, which joined the strike last year, the Teamsters and their allies renewed calls for negotiation Monday.
"Amazon is breaking the law and we let the public know it," said Antonio Rosario, a Local 804 member and Teamster organizer.
Latrice Shadae Johnson, a Teamster who works at DBK4, added that "Amazon would be nothing without its workers."
"We're the ones who power their profits. We're the ones who put our health and safety on the line every single day. We're the ones who made them a $2 trillion corporation," said Johnson. "If Amazon thinks we're going to take this lying down, they have another thing coming. Our solidarity is only growing stronger."
That solidarity has come from many corners across New York City, with members of the City Central Labor Council, part of the AFL-CIO, taking part in the rally.
The Teamsters were also joined by democratic socialist state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez (D-59), who defeated the industry-backed cousin of former Queens US Rep. Joe Crowley in 2022.
"I've been in office three years, and every single year I've been right here in this spot because every single year Amazon has done union-busting," Gonzalez said to cheers from the crowd, "It's because they think they are above the law."
In 2024, Amazon joined a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk's company SpaceX, arguing that the NLRB, which is responsible for adjudicating labor rights violations, is unconstitutional because its members cannot be fired at will by the US President.
Just one week into his term, President Donald Trump fired NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, effectively crippling the board's ability to rule on union-busting cases.
According to LaborLab, which publishes reports on corporate union busting, "Without a functioning board, companies like Amazon and Tesla can engage in union-busting tactics with impunity, facing no legal consequences for violating workers' rights."
The progressive state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, currently the frontrunner to be New York City's next mayor, brought national attention to the Teamsters' plight on Monday.
"One of the most powerful corporations in the history of the world is firing unionized drivers in Queens," Mamdani wrote on X. "Solidarity with the Teamsters who rallied today against these unjust layoffs and to demand good faith negotiations."
Several Democratic members of the House of Representatives from New York, including Jerry Nadler and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, issued their own statements of solidarity, as did Republican Mike Lawler.
"Any company that denies workers the right to choose [collective] bargaining rights, including Amazon, should be confronted," Lawler said. "Unions are the backbone of this country. They helped build this country. And they damn well will ensure we have a strong and secure country moving forward."
Nadler added that he stood "with Amazon Teamsters as they rally in Queens today to hold Amazon accountable for its unlawful anti-union activity."
"Amazon," he said, "stop union busting and start bargaining a fair contract now!"
Missouri voters sued on Friday after GOP state legislators sent a new congressional map, rigged for Republicans at the request of US President Donald Trump, to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk.
Republicans' pending map for the 2026 midterm elections targets the 5th Congressional District, currently represented by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. Voters from the district, including Missouri Workers Center leader Terrence Wise, launched the legal challenge, represented by the Campaign Legal Center along with the state and national ACLU.
"Kansas City has been home for me my entire adult life," said Wise. "Voting is an important tool in our toolbox, so that we have the freedom to make our voices heard through a member of Congress who understands Kansas City's history of racial and economic segregation along the Troost Divide, and represents our needs. If our communities are needlessly split by these new lines, we would no longer see our strong values reflected in the priorities of our congressional representatives."
Marc Elias, the founder of Democracy Docket and an elections attorney for Democrats, also repeatedly vowed this week that "if and when the GOP enacts this map, Missouri will be sued."
"Missouri Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents in order to follow the demands of a power-hungry administration in Washington."
The governor called a special session for the map after Texas Republicans successfully redrew their congressional districts to appease Trump last month. Kehoe said on social media Friday that "the Missouri FIRST Map has officially passed the Missouri Senate and is now headed to my desk, where we will review the legislation and sign it into law soon."
Former US Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., who now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, warned in a statement that "Missouri is now poised to join North Carolina and Texas as among the most egregiously gerrymandered states in the nation. Missouri Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents in order to follow the demands of a power-hungry administration in Washington."
"Missouri Republicans rejected a similar gerrymander just three years ago," Holder pointed out. "But now they have caved to anti-democracy politicians and powerful special interests in Washington who ordered them to rig the map. These same forces ripped away healthcare from millions of Americans and handed out a tax cut to the very wealthy."
"Republicans in Congress and the White House are terrified of a system where both parties can compete for the House majority, and instead seek a system that shields them from accountability at the ballot box," he added. "Missourians will not have fair and effective representation under this new, truly shameful gerrymander. It is not only legally indefensible, it is also morally wrong."
As The Kansas City Star reported, Democrats, who hold just 10 of the Missouri Senate's 34 seats, "attempted to block the legislation from coming to a vote through multiple filibusters," but "Republicans deployed a series of rarely used procedural maneuvers to shut down the filibusters and force a vote," ultimately passing the House-approved bill 21-11 on Friday.
"What we're seeing in Jefferson City isn't just a gerrymander, it's a dangerous precedent," said Missouri state Rep. Ray Reed (D-83), who engaged in a sit-in at the House to protest the bill. "Our institutions only work when we respect the process. Skipping debate, shutting out voices, and following orders from Donald Trump undermines the very foundation of our democracy."
Cleaver said in a Friday statement that he was "deeply disappointed" with the state Legislature, and he knows "the people of Missouri share in that disappointment."
"Despite tens of thousands of Missourians taking the time to call their state lawmakers and travel to Jefferson City to voice their opposition," Cleaver said, "Republicans in the Missouri Legislature followed the marching orders dictated by power brokers in DC and took the unprecedented step of enacting mid-decade redistricting without an updated census."
"I want to be very clear to those who are frustrated by today's outcome: This fight is far from over," he added. "Together, in the courts and in the streets, we will continue pushing to ensure the law is upheld, justice prevails, and this unconstitutional gerrymander is defeated."
In addition to court challenges, the new congressional map is also the target of People NOT Politicians, a group behind a ballot measure that aims to overturn it.
"This is nothing less than an unconstitutional power grab—a blatant attempt to rig the 2026 elections before a single vote is cast," Elsa Rainey, a spokesperson for the group, said after the Senate vote. "It violates Missouri law, slices apart communities, and strikes at the core of our democratic system."
During Kehoe's special session, Missouri Republicans also passed an attack on citizen initiative petitions that, if approved by voters, will make it harder to pass future amendments to the state constitution—an effort inspired by GOP anger over progressive victories at the ballot box on abortion rights, Medicaid, and recreational marijuana.
"By calling this special session and targeting citizens' right to access the ballot measure process, Missouri's governor and his allies in the state Legislature are joining a growing national movement dedicated to silencing citizens and undermining our democracy," said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project.
The Fairness Project, which advocates for passing progressive policy via direct democracy, earlier this week published a report detailing how "extremist" legislators across the United States are ramping up efforts to dismantle the ballot measure process.
"Sadly, what we are seeing in Missouri is nothing new, but we as Americans should all be horrified by what is happening in Jefferson City and condemn the attempts by this governor and his allies in the Legislature to further erode our cherished democracy," Hall said Friday. "With this special session, extremist politicians in Missouri have declared war on direct democracy and vowed to silence the very citizens they have sworn to represent."
US President Donald Trump on Monday evening filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times that was quickly ridiculed by legal experts for entirely lacking merit.
In the lawsuit, Trump accused the Times of conspiring to prevent his victory in the 2024 election through a campaign of "election interference" that included, among other things, its editorial board's decision to endorse former Vice President Kamala Harris.
"It came as no surprise when, shortly before the election, the newspaper published, on the front page, highlighted in a location never seen before, its deranged endorsement of Kamala Harris with the hyperbolic opening line '[i]t is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump,'" the lawsuit states.
Pointing to what it claimed was defamatory material published by the Times, the lawsuit singled out "a malicious, defamatory, and disparaging book written by two of its reporters and three false, malicious, defamatory, and disparaging articles, all carefully crafted by Defendants, with actual malice, calculated to inflict maximum damage upon President Trump."
The book in question is "Lucky Loser," written by Pulitzer Prize-winning Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, which did a deep examination of the president's finances and contrasted it with what it described as his false claims of unprecedented success in business.
The three articles cited by the lawsuit include one that quotes Trump's own former chief of staff, John Kelly, warning that he would rule "like a dictator" in his second term; a news analysis piece that described Trump as facing a well documented "lifetime of scandals"; and an article by Buettner and Craig that is an adapted excerpt from their book.
"The book and articles are part of a decades-long pattern by The New York Times of intentional and malicious defamation against President Trump," the complaint stated. "Defendants maliciously published the book and the articles knowing that these publications were filled with repugnant distortions and fabrications about President Trump."
The lawsuit then demanded the Times pay $15 billion in compensatory damages.
The Times issued a brief response to the lawsuit in which it defended its reporting and labeled Trump's defamation allegations as baseless.
"This lawsuit has no merit," said the paper. "It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists' First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people."
Some experts who examined the lawsuit were quick to side with the Times in this dispute, and many of them flat-out ridiculed Trump for filing the suit in the first place.
Holger Hestermeyer, chair of international and EU law at the Vienna School of International Studies, wrote on Bluesky that the lawsuit was "a full frontal attack on free speech" that also "almost reads like a parody."
In addition to lampooning the suit's specific defamation claims, Hestermeyer also mocked the suit for being loaded with hyperbolic statements, including one that said "The Apprentice" reality TV series "represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump's singular brilliance, which captured the zeitgeist of our time."
Attorney George Conway delivered an even pithier dismissal of the suit.
"Is it possible for a legal pleading to be psychotic?" he asked rhetorically. "I think we have an answer."
Chris Geidner, a journalist who publishes the "Law Dork" newsletter, similarly expressed astonishment at the contents of Trump's lawsuit.
"I honestly thought there was a chance that I'd fallen asleep and was dreaming the most absurd, childlike, ego-maniac lawsuit when I tried to read this Trump defamation complaint against the Times, Penguin Random House, and individual journalists," he wrote. "Like, seriously. What are we even doing here, folks?"
Bloomberg columnist Tim O'Brien, who was unsuccessfully sued by Trump for defamation over his 2005 book "TrumpNation," predicted that Trump's lawsuit against the Times would similarly end poorly for him.
"Trump says he plans to sue the Times for $15 billion," O'Brien wrote on Bluesky. "Been there, done that. He sued me for less—$5 billion. Discovery will be invasive and grueling—and involve Trump’s finances, family history and political machinations. And that’s just for starters."
US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Tuesday condemned the Trump administration's attack the previous day on a second boat allegedly transporting drugs off the coast of Venezuela as blatantly illegal, highlighting her introduction last week of a war powers resolution in a bid to stop the aggression.
President Donald Trump announced Monday that the US destroyed what he said was a boat used by Venezuelan drug gangs, killing three people in what one Amnesty International campaigner called "an extrajudicial execution."
The strike followed a September 2 US attack on another alleged drug-running boat that killed 11 people, which Omar (D-Minn.) called a "lawless and reckless" action.
Responding to Monday's attack, Omar said on the social media site X that the Trump administration "is once again using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law."
"There is NO legal justification," she said of the attack. "It risks spiraling into the exact type of endless, pointless conflict that Trump supposedly opposes. I have a war powers resolution to fight back."
Introduced last Thursday, the measure aims to stop the US attacks, which coincide with Trump's deployment of a small armada of warships off the Caribbean coast of Venezuela, a country that has endured to more than a century of US meddling in its affairs.
"All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war," Omar said at the time.
The War Powers Act of 1973—enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos—empowers Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led a letter signed by two dozen Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserting that the Trump administration offered “no legitimate justification” for the first boat strike.
Omar's condemnation of the US attacks followed Monday's announcement by US Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) of separate resolutions to strip Omar of her committee assignments and, in the case of Mace's measure, censure the congresswoman after she reportedly shared a video highlighting assassinated far-right firebrand Charlie Kirk's prolific bigotry.
Trump also attacked Omar on Monday, calling her a "disgraceful person," a "loser," and "disgusting."
Omar is no stranger to censure efforts, which critics say are largely fueled by Islamophobia—and haven't just come from Republicans. In 2019, she was falsely accused of antisemitism by leaders of her own party and was the subject of an anti-hate speech resolution passed by House lawmakers after she remarked about the indisputable financial ties the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and members of Congress.
In February 2023, Omar was ousted from the House Foreign Affairs Committee for years-old comments that allegedly referenced antisemitic tropes.
Last year, Congressman Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced a censure resolution after Omar said of Jewish students at Columbia University, "We should not have to tolerate antisemitism or bigotry for all Jewish students, whether they're pro-genocide or anti-genocide."
The measure failed to pass, as did another put forth earlier last year by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she mistranslated remarks Omar made in Somali.
“We’re constantly told, you know, we need to see peaceful protests," said one organizer. "Well, here’s a peaceful protest."
The leaders of the UK-based protest group Led By Donkeys said Wednesday that four of its members remained under arrest for displaying images of US President Donald Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on the side of Windsor Castle ahead of Trump's second state visit to the United Kingdom.
The widely available images were accompanied by a narration discussing Trump and Epstein's friendship, as well as pictures of Epstein's victims, police reports, and news reports about the case.
Trump began his visit, on which he'll meet with King Charles and other members of the royal family as well as Prime Minister Keir Starmer, amid growing scrutiny of the US Department of Justice's decision not to release files related to the Epstein case as well as of the release of a letter the president reportedly sent to Epstein containing dialogue between the two men about a "wonderful secret" they shared.
The White House has denied the letter is authentic and Trump has claimed he was unaware of Epstein's criminal activities during his friendship with him.
Police said they arrested the four Led by Donkeys members on suspicion of "malicious communications" after they displayed the "unauthorized projection."
A spokesperson for Led By Donkeys told The Guardian the group has previously displayed "25 or 30 projections" without organizers being arrested.
"Often the police come along and we have a chat to them, and they even have a laugh with us and occasionally tell us to not do it," the spokesperson said. “But no one’s ever been arrested before, so it is ridiculous that four of our guys have been arrested for malicious communications.”
“Forgive the cliche, but it is rather Orwellian for a piece of journalism, which raises questions about our guest’s relationship with America’s most notorious child sex trafficker, to lead to arrests," they added.
King Charles' brother, Prince Andrew, has also been accused of sexually abusing teenage girls during his friendship with Epstein. He settled out of court with Virginia Giuffre, who sued him for allegedly abusing her, in 2022, after being stripped of his royal patronages.
While the projection was taken down and the protesters detained, Trump is unlikely to escape condemnation from members of the British public during his visit.
The group Everyone Hates Elon, which has previously displayed messages denouncing billionaire Trump ally and megadonor Elon Musk at bus stops around London, also unfurled a banner at Windsor Castle showing a picture of Trump and Epstein.
Protesters gathered in London Wednesday for a "Trump Not Welcome" march from Portland Place to Parliament Square, with some displaying the "Trump baby balloon" that became familiar after the president's first official visit to the UK in 2018, as well as balloons showing a caricature of Vice President JD Vance.
Demonstrators carried signs reading, "No to racism" and "Stop arming Israel," among other slogans.
“We do not want our government to trade away our democracy and decency,” Zoe Gardner, a spokesperson for the Stop Trump Coalition, told The Washington Post Wednesday.
A rallygoer named Alena Ivanova told the outlet that "there's a reason" Trump is spending much of his visit outside of the nation's capital, meeting with Starmer at his country estate and staying at Windsor Castle.
"People on the streets will say what our government seems unable to: Donald Trump is not welcome here," said Ivanova.
Observers in the UK view the invitation for a state visit as an attempt to appeal to the president as he threatens the country with tariffs and an end to aid for Ukraine.
"We want our government to show some backbone," Gardner told the BBC, "and have a little bit of pride and represent that huge feeling of disgust at Donald Trump's politics in the UK."
The Led By Donkeys spokesperson told The Guardian that the arrest of the four organizers "says a lot more about the policing of Trump's visit than it does about what we did."
More than 1,600 police officers have been deployed to respond to protests while Trump is in the UK.
“We’re constantly told, you know, we need to see peaceful protests. Well, here’s a peaceful protest," said the spokesperson. "We projected a piece of journalism on to a wall and now people have been arrested for malicious communications."
"Ben & Jerry's has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power," said co-founder Jerry Greenfield.
Jerry Greenfield, the lifelong political activist and co-founder of the ice cream brand Ben & Jerry's, is quitting the company in protest against what he says are efforts by parent company Unilever to "silence" his advocacy for progressive causes, particularly for Palestinians amid Israel's genocidal war in Gaza.
"I can no longer, in good conscience, and after 47 years, remain an employee of Ben & Jerry's," Greenfield said in a statement posted Tuesday by his longtime partner Ben Cohen. "This is one of the hardest and most painful decisions I've ever made."
The Vermont-based ice cream company was acquired by Unilever, a British conglomerate, in 2000, at which time Greenfield says the company "guaranteed" him and his partner the "independence to pursue our values." Though the pair no longer had a financial stake in the company, which they founded in 1978, they remained on as board members and brand ambassadors.
"For more than twenty years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry's stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice, and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world," Greenfield said. "That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever, one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company's governance structure in perpetuity."
The relationship between Ben & Jerry's and its parent company began to fracture as Cohen and Greenfield became increasingly outspoken advocates against Israel's human rights abuses in Palestine.
In 2021, the duo announced that it would stop selling its ice cream in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in protest of Israel's occupation of those territories, which is widely recognized as illegal under international law. Several US states with laws punishing boycotts of Israel began to pull their investments in Unilever, which rushed to reaffirm that it was “firmly committed” to Israel.
In order to bypass the pair's boycott, Unilever sold the Israeli portion of Ben & Jerry's to a distributor in the country, which promptly resumed distribution in the Occupied Territories. The duo launched a lawsuit against their parent company in hopes of stopping the deal.
The rift would intensify further after October 7, 2023, when, following Hamas' attack against Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government responded with a crushing military onslaught against the Gaza Strip that has now resulted in at least 220,000 casualties according to one former Israeli general.
Ben & Jerry's would file another lawsuit in 2024 alleging that Unilever, on several occasions, used threats and intimidation to stop them from speaking out on the conflict, which they referred to as a "genocide."
They said Unilever threatened to dismantle the company's board if it issued statements calling for "peace" and a "ceasefire," imposed restrictions on their statements in support of pro-Palestine student demonstrators, and stopped them from donating company funds to human rights organizations. Ben & Jerry's would later claim that Unilever fired its CEO, David Stever in March 2025 in retaliation for the brand's activism.
This past May, Cohen was arrested, along with six others, for disrupting a US Senate hearing in protest of Washington's continued sale of weapons to Israel, which at that point had begun outlining plans to fully remove Palestinians from Gaza with support from President Donald Trump.
Unilever distanced itself from Cohen's actions, saying they were "on his own as an individual and not on behalf of Ben & Jerry's or Unilever."
Greenfield's departure comes as Unilever plans to fold Ben & Jerry's into a new entity known as the Magnum Ice Cream Company, which is set to be listed on the stock market in November. In response to the merger, Ben & Jerry's called for its brand to be "freed" from the conglomerate.
"They're ripping the heart out of Ben & Jerry's," Cohen said last week while brandishing a picket sign. "All we're asking is for them to sell the company to a group of people who support the values of Ben & Jerry's."
Magnum rejected this request, saying, "Ben & Jerry’s is a proud part of the Magnum Ice Cream Company and is not for sale."
"It's profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence, the very basis of our sale to Unilever, is gone," Greenfield said in his resignation note. "And it's happening at a time when our country's current administration is attacking civil rights, voting rights, the rights of immigrants, women, and the LGBTQ community."
"Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important," he continued, "and yet Ben & Jerry's has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power. It's easy to stand up and speak out when there's nothing at risk."
One rights advocate noted that the creator of the flag the president said he'd consider banning recently left the US due to fears of persecution under the Trump administration.
After false claims spread last week that a transgender person was behind the fatal shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, US President Donald Trump and his allies are continuing to push the erroneous narrative that the transgender community is a danger to the American public.
Trump on Monday said that he'd consider banning LGBTQ pride flags as his political allies ratcheted up dehumanizing rhetoric.
During an exchange in the Oval Office, Real America's Voice correspondent Brian Glenn showed Trump a photo of a trans flag currently on display in Washington, DC, and claimed that "a lot of people are very threatened" by it.
"Would you be opposed to taking this flag down, up and down the streets of DC?" Glenn asked.
"Well, I wouldn't be," Trump replied. "Then they'll sue and they'll get freedom of speech stuff, you know, so that'll happen. But I would have no problem with it."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he wanted anyone who burned an American flag to "go to jail immediately."
The day after the president signaled his support for banning transgender pride flags, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) likened the transgender rights movement to a “cancer” and suggested detaining all transgender people in the United States.
In an interview with Newsmax, Jackson baselessly said that transgender women "have an underlying level of aggressiveness" and suggested they be forcibly committed to mental institutions.
"We have to treat these people," he said. "We have to get them off the streets, and we have to get them off the internet, and we can't let them communicate with each other. I'm all about free speech, but this is a virus, this is a cancer that's spreading across this country."
In response to Trump's attack on the transgender flag, ACLU communications strategist Gillian Branstetter pointed out that the transgender activist who created the symbol, Monica Helms, recently left the US "for fear of her safety as a trans person under Trump."
After the assassination of Kirk—who also falsely connected transgender people to mass shootings with no evidence—right-wing commentators quickly reacted by claiming the attacker was transgender and federal agents reported early on in their investigation that symbols of "transgender ideology" were found at the crime scene—a claim that was amplified by the Wall Street Journal.
In reality, mass shootings carried out by transgender individuals represent a minuscule fraction of the total number of mass shootings carried out in the US, and there is no evidence that transgender people are disproportionately likely to engage in acts of violence.
Laura Loomer, once a fringe far-right internet commentator and conspiracy theorist who is now an influential informal adviser to the president, has also been ramping up attacks against the transgender movement, and she even went so far this week as to demand that gender-affirming care be completely banned by executive order.
"It’s time to designate the transgender movement as a terrorist movement," she wrote in a social media post. "Trans people are a threat to society. We can’t allow them to continue killing people. They need to be socially ostracized and the president should make medical transitioning ILLEGAL in our country."
Conservative attacks on the transgender movement have persisted in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, despite the fact that the alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, was not himself transgender.
Evidence released by prosecutors on Tuesday showed that Robinson's transgender partner refused Robinson's request to delete incriminating text messages the two had exchanged. The partner subsequently shared these messages with law enforcement.