LIVE COVERAGE
Will you help us close the gap?
We're now less than a week from the end of our Mid-Year Campaign fundraising drive, and we're falling short of our goal.
Show Trial: A Punishment For Solidarity Itself
In an act deemed “going apeshit against enemies of the Reich,” two judges just levied brutal prison sentences of 30 to 100 years, a combined penance of 450 years, on eight anti-ICE members of a scary if imaginary “North Texas Antifa cell” convicted of terrorist-abetting “crimes” like protesting, lighting fireworks and moving a box of zines. The case, widely seen as a test of regime efforts to criminalize dissent or any unwelcome speech, moved one defendant to muse, “What kind of people are not against fascism?”
The grievous injustice against the group, dubbed The Prairieland Defendants for the ICE concentration camp they were protesting, comes amidst almost daily court victories elsewhere against the regime. Last week, three key rulings in federal district courts saw judges strike down administration election meddling, abuses against immigrants and, in a blistering 29-page decision, “blatantly unlawful and unethical use” of a grand-jury subpoena targeting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. To date, there have been at least 272 wins against Trump, several from judges he appointed; after one especially irksome loss, Stephen Goebbels memorably whined, “Judge Sparkle (sic) decrees that America belongs to any random alien on Planet Earth.”
Faced with mounting losses in other endeavors - wars, pools, polls - more regime lackeys are also getting testy. Newly back from having a baby but still hyper-toxic, Press Barbie went on Hannity to shriek about “deranged leftists desecrating our federal monuments” with algae: “Only the Democrats could hate beautifying our Capitol.” Of six people arrested for “vandalism” - more than for raping minors - many are “longtime donors to the Democrat Party,” who “completely destroyed our country,” also to “Barack Hussein Obama” and, gasp, ACTBlue. With fear-mongering truly all they’ve got, Hannity joined in on Dem “radicals...You’ve got Mr. Nazi Tattoo Platner, and six-gender, God-is-non-binary Talarico, and Pocahontas, and Mamdani...”
Amidst a “rolling coup“ in an increasingly fascist America, where threats from the left have always loomed larger than on the right and today’s despots cling frantically to a power they somehow know is illegitimate, it’s little wonder principled citizens protesting vulnerable brown people being locked up in concentration camps have become ”the new Red Scare.“ It’s helpful to remember that everything earlier autocrats did - Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet - was legal; they just changed the rules to do it. ”This is Soviet shit,“ wrote one observer, summoning the terror of Stalin’s staged show trials in the 1930s to eliminate most of Lenin’s staff and other ”saboteurs,“ from Bukharin to, via pickaxe, Trotsky exiled in Mexico; in the end, only ”Stalin the Executioner“ remained.
The “legal,” in Trump’s case, was last year’s menacing national security directive “NSPM-7: Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” which explicitly declared a fictional Antifa - in fact any American who opposes fascism, supports the rule of law and uses their First Amendment rights to defend it - a “MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION” and “SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER,” whether “it exists or not.” Prairieland, the first case successfully brought under NSPM-7, tests the state’s ability to quell dissent by perceived “enemies,” and could shape a future playbook for using the Antifa label - and “creative and highly theoretical claims by the state” - as “a catchall designation to criminalize activists writ large.”
The surreal sentences inflicted this week on eight mostly non-violent Prairieland activists came three months after their convictions on terrorism and other charges stemming from last year's July 4 protest at the for-profit Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. The action began as a noise demonstration, a typically safe, festive event where fireworks are set off "to remind people inside they are not forgotten." That day, it devolved into vandalism - of cars, a guard shack, a security camera - by several protesters. Some brought guns - a red flag to many activists, but common in open-carry Texas where queer or trans people can face armed counter-protesters. When one cop drew his weapon, a protester in the nearby woods shot him in the shoulder.
At trial, eight defendants - Autumn Hill, Zachary Evetts, Benjamin Hanil Song, Savanna Batten, Meagan Morris, Maricela Rueda, Elizabeth Soto, and Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada - were convicted of rioting and explosive charges, and "providing material support to terrorists." They are much like protesters anywhere: teachers, engineers, tattoo artists, animal-lovers, anti-ICE advocates, parents, straight, queer, trans, vegan. Some had organized the action together, some produced anarchist zines and belonged to a book club named for anarchist Emma Goldman, who 99 years ago this month was arrested on conspiracy charges for organizing against the First World War draft; some were members of a Socialist gun club; some weren't even at the protest.
From the outset, the regime played hardball. The DOJ called them “members of a North Texas Antifa cell“; the indictment said Antifa "is a militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribed to a revolutionary anarchist or autonomous Marxist ideology.” They were held on multimillion-dollar bonds in squalid jail cells, denied medical care, frequently strip-searched; two trans women were held - unsafely, illegally - in men's facilities. State agents ransacked homes, detained children, used flash-bang grenades to intimidate, went after anyone in their political orbit, often unearthing new charges. It was, one defendant said, "a nightmare made real...seeing the prosecution jump from lie to lie," abuse to abuse.
The case became a sinister "laboratory" where constitutionally protected free speech and civil disobedience became "rioting" and solidarity became "conspiracy." Fireworks were “explosives," a home where friends gathered a "staging area," black clothing and the use of encrypted Signal a way "to aid and abet those engaged in illegal acts." A home printer became "a printing press" producing "insurrectionary materials" - anti-fascist zines, handouts of "8 Things You Can Do To Stop ICE," packets of vegetable seeds, poems, patches, bumper stickers of swastikas X-ed out and “Zines Are Not A Crime." A teacher had home-made first aid kits he used to bring to school in case of a shooting; feds used their presence as evidence protesters had planned violence.
The shocking sentencing hearings were held by two judges, one each appointed by Bush and Trump, in two Fort Worth courtrooms. They were inexplicably scheduled even before either judge heard long-filed motions to overturn convictions in a trial, lawyers argued, "saturated with evidence designed to evoke fear, political bias, and guilt by association" and widely deemed "untethered from credible evidence or witness testimony." Prosecutors folded into the case people who didn't help plan the protest, weren't there, or left when police asked them to. An attorney for Hill cited no evidence they believed in violence; Hill was so conscientious they stayed after the fireworks went off to pick up trash left behind; she still got a 50-year sentence.
The case ostensibly centered on the alleged attempted murder of the cop shot in the shoulder. Marine Corps reservist Benjamin "Champagne" Song said they were in the woods and fired "a warning shot" to distract the cop when he drew his gun on another protester; citing Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Song said, “I never want to see good people, standing for what they believe in, gunned down." Song charges the state is imposing "collective punishment, guilt by association" on other activists, and the facts of the shooting remain unclear; feds first said there were multiple shooters and rounds fired, then said they have no medical records from the hospital where the cop was reportedly quickly released. Still, Song was given a 100-year sentence.
Batten, Evetts, Hill, Morris, and Soto each got 50 years for rioting, providing support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use an explosive ie: attending a loud protest. Said Soto, trying to laugh, "I guess they didn't like my book club." Rueda was sentenced to 70 years for also conspiring to "conceal documents" by asking her husband Sanchez-Estrada, not at the protest, to remove a box of zines from their house. "Being guilty of possessing literature is a concept fundamentally incompatible with a free society," said one advocate. "We don’t need a constitutional right to possess only what the government likes." Sanchez-Estrada got a 30-year sentence for moving the box. "I am a father, a husband, a teacher, a poet," he told the judge. "I am many things, Your Honor, but I am not a terrorist."
Many observers noted all the sentences were far harsher than those handed down to Jan. 6 rioters - who were then pardoned - or even the longest sentences for murder or rape - this, though prosecutors offered almost no evidence of the alleged crimes. And despite their obsession with the lethal threat posed by imaginary Antifa forces, even the judges questioned the need to mention "antifa" to jurors, who in turn seemed to reject Judge Reed O’Connor's narrative of "an ambush" and "assault on democracy" by acquitting everyone but Song of attempted murder. One legal expert said that fortuitous rejection underscored how easily prosecutors can fashion or twist the law to create a "conspiracy"; said one attorney, “People should be scared."
In total, 22 people have been charged in connection with the Prairieland protest. Five others took plea deals, another five have state charges pending, three more were indicted last month. Regime lackeys have gleefully touted their rare victory, with a hyperbolic DOJ press release blaring, "Leader of Antifa Cell Members Sentenced to 100 Years in Prison for Terrorist Attack on ICE Facility." After the trial, Pam Bondi gloated they'd taken down "Antifa" - repeated 16 times - to "finally halt their violence on America's streets." After sentencing, Todd Blanche celebrated the regime's "swift and uncompromising justice." Of villainous Antifa, he crowed, "Their violent extremism has no place in our country," presumably because only the fascist kind does.
As young activists mull lives stolen - and tenuously bank on appeals or pardons - their family, friends, supporters voice horror at “the absolute travesty” of the lies that led to their convictions and sentences. “We’ve fallen so far so fast it’s nose-bleed inducing,” said one. Another insisted, "The outcome of this trial is not the end. It is the beginning." Autumn Hill’s wife Lydia Koza said she is "livid in the face of this grotesque distortion of anything that could ever have called itself due process...There is no ‘appropriate’ sentence for a wholly fictitious crime." On their loved ones "being thrown away for the rest of their lives," one noted the regime's own actions "have proved the righteousness of their actions...This sentencing is a punishment for solidarity itself."
Finally, from Flying Penguin, a grim reminder the Prairieland fates mirror that of too many in a nation and world whose history is rife with 'other righteous "crimes": BLM protesters, Black Panthers, AIM activists, civil rights marchers, union workers, “your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” To wit: "Today’s news is Andrew Jackson, ordering Congress to criminalize antislavery speech. Today’s news is Stalin’s Article 58, where ‘anti-Soviet agitation’ was a crime that meant whatever it needed to. Today's news is the McCarthy-era ruling that upheld the conviction of Americans for organizing and teaching political theory.Today's news is South Africa’s 1967 Terrorism Act, making terrorism anything that endangers 'law and order.' Today’s news is Trump and a white police state." Warns Sanchez-Estrada, "People need to be aware - it’s not just the defendants on trial.”

Bonn Conference Confirms Climate Action Impossible Unless Corporate Capture of UN Process Ends
As international climate talks backed by the United Nations wrapped up Thursday in Bonn, Germany, campaigners stressed that policymakers must do more to curb the influence of polluting industries if such negotiations are going to have any hope of helping the world bring the fossil fuel era to an end.
The Bonn climate talks—officially the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Mid-Year Subsidiary Bodies meetings, or SB64—serve as a technical and diplomatic staging ground for the next UN Climate Change Conference, or COP31, which is scheduled to take place in Antalya, Türkiye this November.
With current national climate pledges remaining far from what's needed to limit planetary warming to 1.5°C—the increasingly moribund target at the heart of the Paris Climate Agreement—experts and campaigners are taking aim at the UNFCCC’s reliance on consensus-based decision-making, which allows a handful of fossil fuel-producing nations and the oil, gas, and coal industries to block ambitious climate action and weaken international agreements.
“At the climate talks in Bonn, States failed to make meaningful progress and pushed back on already established agreements, exposing a critical truth: Climate justice should not be vetoed, and reform of the UNFCCC is needed to enable climate action at the speed and scale the crisis demands," Lien Vandamme, senior campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said in a statement Thursday.
The #JuneClimateMeetings further exposed the structural barriers slowing climate action: 🤝#ConsensusKillsAmbition, 🕴️Corporate influence,🪑Barriers to participation. It's high time for States to #FixTheUNFCCC.Read more in our statement: www.ciel.org/news/june-cl...
[image or embed]
— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel.org) June 18, 2026 at 6:27 AM
Vandamme added that "effective multilateralism is the only way out of the climate crisis, and this process does not live up to that expectation."
Rallying under a "Friends of Science" banner, dozens of nations are calling out coordinated attacks by fossil fuel producers and the oil, gas, and coal industries on science that threatens their economic prospects.
“We see coordinated efforts to cast doubt on the best available science driven by a narrow set of interests, not by the needs of our people,” lead Panamanian negotiator Ana Aguilar said during a Wednesday press conference.
“We have seen this playbook before," she added. "Manufacture doubt, delay the response, and let the vulnerable people pay this bill.”
Lead Fijian negotiator Sivendra Michael put it more bluntly, telling reporters, "Anyone that is blocking references to science—they are not our friends."
There has been some progress. As CIEL noted:
It is encouraging that, after more than three decades, the UNFCCC has begun to acknowledge concerns around the corporate capture of the process. The open dialogue on transparency and integrity that happened in Bonn represents an important—but long overdue—step towards addressing the influence of polluting industries in the climate negotiations. This dialogue must be the start toward a meaningful, comprehensive policy to address corporate capture of climate negotiations. A climate process that remains vulnerable to obstruction and corporate influence cannot deliver the action this crisis demands.
Erika Lennon, CIEL's senior attorney, pointed to April's First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, as a hopeful sign. The Santa Marta conference, which was free of major polluters like the United States, China, Russia, and India, took aim at what climate defenders called the “shamefully weak” draft text—called the Multirão Decision—produced at last November’s COP30 in Brazil. The final document removed all mentions of fossil fuels amid pressure from oil and gas-producing nations like the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and the presence of a record number of industry lobbyists.
“The Santa Marta Conference demonstrated that a fossil fuel phaseout is not out of reach," Lennon said Thursday. "But Bonn showed that the institutions meant to deliver that accountability remain constrained by outdated rules and undue influence from polluting interests."
"We need effective multilateralism and an effective climate regime, not one that is incapable of delivering accountability or tackling the root cause of the climate crisis, fossil fuels, at the speed and scale the crisis demands," she added. "As attention turns to COP31, governments must confront the structural barriers that continue to delay meaningful action, from consensus rules that allow a small number of states to block progress, to the absence of robust safeguards against conflicts of interest, or violations of the rights of meaningful participation of representatives from climate-vulnerable communities."
Thanks to Trump Economy, ‘Dads Are In for Disappointment This Father’s Day’
A report published Friday reveals how President Donald Trump's policies have jacked up prices for a host of potential Father's Day gifts this year.
Overall, the analysis by Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive economic think tank and advocacy group, finds that prices for popular Father's Day gifts have risen by nearly 19% on average over the last year, highlighted by a 30% increase in the price of Remington electric shavers, a 16% jump for Blackstone electric griddles, and a barbecue tools up by 11%.
The analysis traces price increases of popular personal care products to Trump's global trade war, which he began last year with his "Liberation Day" tariffs levied on practically every nation in the world.
"Many shavers and trimmers are imported from China, which has faced multiple layers of tariffs," notes the report, "in addition to containing steel and aluminum components, which are also subject to additional tariffs."
The report also points out that electric shaver manufacturer Braun "increased the price of its Series 9 All-in-One Beard Trimmer by $50" last year after Trump's big tariff announcement, and that the price has since gone up by another $10.
Examining the increase in grilling product prices, the report pins the blame not only on Trump's tariffs, but also his illegal war of choice with Iran.
"The Middle East is a major producer of the petrochemical used to make plastics and synthetic fibers," the report explains. "Trump’s reckless war on Iran has increased the price of these petroleum-derived products, helping drive up the cost of items like grilling tools, which cost nearly 22% more this year."
Elizabeth Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, summarized the report's findings by warning that "Dads are in for disappointment this Father’s Day" thanks to Trump's economic policies.
"While dads across the country should be able to relax and enjoy the day with loved ones," Pancotti added, "they’re instead forced to worry about how they’ll make ends meet in Trump’s economy."
Trump's tariffs and the Iran war have sent inflation in the US to its highest levels in three years. As data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week showed, overall prices in May posted a yearly increase of 4.2%, highlighted by a 23.5% yearly increase in energy prices.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, said last week that inflation has now grown “so high that it’s erasing all wage gains" being made by American workers.
As Trump Discovers Gas Price Gouging, Democrats Offer a Solution: Tax Big Oil
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he has directed the US Department of Justice to investigate fossil fuel companies for not lowering gasoline prices as the cost of oil declines amid the prospect of an end to the Iran War.
"The big Oil Companies are not dropping their price at the pump commensurate with the sharply lower prices they are paying for Oil. Those prices are dropping like a rock! In other words, customers are being 'gouged,'" Trump said on his Truth Social network.
"I have instructed the DOJ to immediately start looking into this," he added. "Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I’m seeing!"
While benchmark West Texas Intermediate and Brent Crude oil prices have fallen to their lowest levels since Trump launched the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran on February 28, the average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline in the United States was $3.93 per gallon on Wednesday, around one-third higher than it was the day before the war started but down from a high of $4.52 a month ago, according to the American Automobile Association.
"The price of fuel is not only a national security issue, it impacts the wallet of every American," an unnamed Trump administration official told ABC News on Wednesday following the president's post. "We will always commit to ensuring affordability in this nation."
Responding to Trump's post, US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) noted on social media that he has a solution for Big Oil price gouging.
In March, Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act “to curb profiteering by oil companies and provide Americans relief at the gas pump.”
The legislation—which only applies to large oil companies—would impose a per-barrel tax “equal to 50% of the difference between the current price per barrel of oil and the average price per barrel last year, when big oil companies were already earning large profits.”
Democrats in both chambers of Congress have also called for the prosecution of corporations that use the war as a pretext for price gouging.
Polling has shown that Americans largely support a tax on Big Oil windfall profits, which, according to The Guardian, amounted to $23 billion in the first month of the war alone—or $30 million per hour.
NEW: As Americans face rising oil costs, Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner has released an energy plan aiming to “End Big Oil Price Gouging.”We find voters support key elements of the plan, including an oil windfall tax to freeze or lower electricity rates.
[image or embed]
— Data for Progress (@dataforprogress.org) June 18, 2026 at 11:49 AM
Trump has been a staunch supporter of fossil fuel companies. While running for reelection on a "drill, baby, drill" energy platform, he reportedly promised Big Oil executives that he would eviscerate climate regulations enacted by the Biden administration if they gave $1 billion to his campaign.
Fossil fuel interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle on campaign contributions, lobbying, and efforts supporting Republican causes and candidates, including Trump.
As pump prices soared and Americans suffered amid Trump's war, the president—who promised gas under $2 a gallon and no new wars—said that “when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money."
Last week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated that Americans have paid nearly $54 billion extra for gas and fuel—more than $400 per household—than they would have if the war never happened.
‘Yeah, That’s Illegal’: USPS Chief Says States Won't Receive Mail Ballots Unless They Hand Voter Rolls to Trump
Postmaster General David Steiner drew the ire of Democratic senators and voting rights advocates on Wednesday when he said that the US Postal Service would not deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not hand their voter files to the Trump administration.
During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the panels ranking member, asked Steiner if USPS would deliver ballots in a state whose government had refused the Trump administration's request for access to its absentee voter list.
"Under our proposed regulation, no," Steiner replied. "We would tell the state that we need the manifest."
Peters responded by accusing USPS of creating a rule that "coerces" states into handing their voter files to the federal government even though they are under no legal obligation to do so.
"You're making a decision that people cannot vote by mail," Peters said. "That's unacceptable."
PETERS: Yes or no, if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?
POSTMASTER GENERAL STEINER: No.
PETERS: So the proposed rule basically coerces states to hand over their… pic.twitter.com/5bnJb5Atnr
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2026
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also sparred with Steiner during the hearing, informing the postmaster general that USPS had absolutely no role to play in determining how states conduct their elections.
"You run the Postal Service, you deliver the mail," Blumenthal said. "You don't review ballots or registration. Nobody said you should... This proposed rule is bogus."
Blumenthal demanded Steiner commit to deliver all mail-in ballots to voters in his state regardless of whether it complied with the Trump administration's demands, but the postmaster general said he would not make such a commitment.
"Our proposed rule is subject to litigation," Steiner told him. "We'll see how that all turns out."
"Well, I guess we will see," Blumenthal replied, "but it will probably be in court."
The Founding Fathers didn’t envision USPS reviewing voting ballots or registration. Trump’s Postmaster General refuses to commit to deliver mail-in-ballots without fulfilling Trump’s new bogus, sham review. pic.twitter.com/V3jiBMyGOY
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) June 24, 2026
Some observers reacted with shock to Steiner's willingness to go along with Trump's latest election-rigging scheme, which they said was patently unconstitutional.
"Yeah, that's illegal," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The Post Office can’t refuse to deliver mail to try and get policy concessions."
"We have a Postmaster General who should not be in any position of trust or influence," commented political scientist Norman Ornstein, "a disgraceful traitor to American values."
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signaled his state would challenge the proposed USPS rule.
"Illinois expanded vote-by-mail because we believe voting should be easier, not harder," Pritzker wrote. "Now, Trump’s handpicked Postmaster General is threatening to withhold mail ballots unless states turn over voter rolls. That's not election security. It’s voter suppression."
Political scientist Robert E. Kelly argued that Trump's attack on mail-in voting was a "deeply malign gimmick which makes it so hard to accommodate MAGA within the US political order."
"No one thought to use the mail as a partisan weapon," Kelly wrote. "The laws and norms around mail are poorly known, because no one ever thought to try this gambit before. But now, because Trump insists on politicizing the bureaucracy, this whole thing will go to court just months before the election."
30% of Those Killed in Gaza Genocide Were Children, Many From 'Deliberate' Targeting: UN Commission
About 30% of those killed by Israel in Gaza since October 7, 2023, have been children, according to a United Nations inquiry on Tuesday, which found the "deliberate" targeting of kids to have furthered a genocide against Palestinians.
The report, authored by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, follows a previous finding in September that Israel's actions in Gaza constituted genocide.
"The deliberate targeting of children is one of the key elements establishing genocidal intent of the Israeli authorities and security forces to destroy the Palestinian group, in whole or in part, in Gaza," the commission said.
Between the start of Israel's military campaign in October 2023 and the "ceasefire" agreement in October 2025, the report found that more than 20,000 children were killed, while more than 44,000 were injured. Among those killed, more than 5,000 were under the age of five, more than 1,000 were under the age of one, and more than 400 were newborn babies.
The report highlights documented instances in which Israeli forces directly fired upon children, with medical professionals testifying that they treated kids with "direct gunshot and sniper wounds, often to the head and abdomen." One sample of 168 children killed by gunshots found that 73 were shot in the head and 22 were shot in the chest, which the commission argued was evidence of intentionality.
"Based on the clustering of injuries and the targeted body parts, I assess that the Israeli soldiers have been deliberately shooting teenage boys in a game of target practice—a different body part being targeted on different days… There is a very clear pattern that suggests this is a deliberate aiming of different body parts [of children]," one doctor told the commission.
They also cited dozens of cases of children being targeted by snipers and quadcopters. The report quotes one Israeli soldier who appeared anonymously in a documentary about the war and described operating drones like a video game.
"The drones, in my opinion, are what most dehumanize the other side," he said. "You see everything on a screen. You drop the bomb. It feels like a game. You can sit in some basement of a house, safe, with your helmet off, scratching your balls, half-dressed, and kill Palestinians.”
The report also argues that the deaths of children in airstrikes were not mere collateral damage, as Israel often asserts, but the foreseeable result of Israel's use of high payload weapons against densely populated areas, which resulted in massive numbers of civilian casualties.
"These deliberate attacks wiped out entire families across two or three or even four generations, with the Israeli security forces fully aware that children would be present and that children, with their small, fragile bodies, have a higher chance of death and serious injury in such attacks," the report said.
"The Israeli security forces continued and repeated these attacks over a two-year period, without amending targeting criteria or selection of weapons, while child casualties mounted," it continued. "This indicates that such attacks, which killed children in such high numbers, were intentional."
Adding to evidence of intentionality, the report said, was the direct targeting of neonatal and maternity care centers, which it said "directly endangered" the ability of newborn babies to survive and contributed to miscarriages and birth defects. In the first half of 2025, Gaza experienced a 41% decline in live births compared with the same period in 2022, the report found.
The report notes that numerous Israeli politicians have explicitly justified the targeting of children since the early days of the genocidal onslaught.
On October 9, 2023, Nissim Vaturi, the deputy Knesset speaker, called on the army to "Erase Gaza... Do not leave a child there. Expel all the remaining ones at the end." In January 2025, he said, “Gaza is full of terrorists and every child born there is already a terrorist, from the moment of his birth.”
Amid Israel's attack on the Al-Shifa hospital in July 2024, Israeli Knesset Member Amit Halevi stated that the hundreds of babies in its maternity ward were "all born terrorists."
This was part of a “systematic and complete destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza,” the report said, that fell heaviest on children. Attacks on pediatric hospitals forced sick and injured kids into smaller facilities without the necessary supplies or pediatric staff.
Israel's restrictions on humanitarian aid entering Gaza, meanwhile, turned survivable injuries into ones that caused death or permanent disability. Doctors said children were forced to undergo "horrific amputations" without anesthesia, while others who'd suffered burns and other traumatic injuries were left without painkillers.
The destruction of medical infrastructure, the report said, was not incidental. It said Israel had "operational plans and procedures for attacking healthcare facilities.” The result, it said, was preventing Palestinians' “capacity and possibility to heal, recover, and live.”
The report points out that since the ceasefire went into effect, more than 100 children had been killed and hundreds more wounded as of mid-January, with many being shot near the so-called "yellow line" that marks the edge of Israel's occupation area in Gaza, which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has been gradually advancing forward.
Israel dismissed the findings of the commission, rejecting what it called a “second defamatory advocacy report."
“Israel dismisses this libelous sham,” it said in a statement and added that while “every child deserves protection,” the report ignored “the brutal tactics of Hamas.”
Srinivasan Muralidhar, chair of the UN commission, said, "The evidence shows that Palestinian children have been deliberately targeted and killed by the Israeli security forces."
“Even after the October 2025 ceasefire," he said, "children continue to be killed and seriously injured, with continued disregard by Israel for the ceasefire and for the protection owed to Palestinian children under international law.”
Beyond Gaza, the commission reported that Israeli forces have killed more than 200 children in the illegally occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since October 7, 2023. Hundreds more have been detained, often without any charge, and many have been subjected to systemic mistreatment in detention, including the deprivation of food and medical care, torture, and sexual abuse.
“Even if the bombs and guns fall silent in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian children will not simply recover overnight,” said Muralidhar. “The destruction of their health, education, and development is irreversible.”
“The protection, care, and survival of Palestinian children are inseparable from the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination,” he continued. “By targeting children, Israel is attacking the very capacity of the Palestinian people to exist and to determine their future.”
'Heartbreaking, Terrible Decision': Supreme Court Validates Trump Attack on TPS
"Hundreds of thousands of people who hold legal status... now face losing their ability to work and being torn from their families and homes."
The US Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian residents from the US after stripping them of their Temporary Protected Status last year.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court's conservative majority ruled that the Department of Homeland Security was able to strip status from 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians—including many who'd lived in the US for years—after they'd been given protection because DHS deemed their home countries unsafe to return to.
"Hundreds of thousands of people who hold legal status, who registered with the government, passed background checks, and paid fees to do so, now face losing their ability to work and being torn from their families and homes," explained Todd Schulte, the president of the immigration and criminal justice reform advocacy group Fwd.US.
A federal judge temporarily delayed the administration’s TPS terminations in February, blocking what advocates feared would be a flood of immigration agents to areas with many TPS recipients. The judge said DHS had not followed the legally required steps to determine whether Haiti and Syria were safe enough for people with temporary status to return.
The State Department currently advises Americans not to visit either country for any reason, as Haiti is in the midst of a brutal gang war that has displaced more than 1.4 million people, and Syria has been in an ongoing state of unrest since the civil war began in 2011.
Echoing the lower court, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in her dissenting opinion that the only consultation within DHS on the conditions in these countries took place in a brief email exchange between a DHS aide and a State Department official, who said that there were no "foreign policy concerns" with terminating their status, but provided no evidence to declare that the two countries were safe.
The justice likewise noted that the stripping of status for Haitians was likely arbitrary and unconstitutional, based in part on "racial animus." She noted that President Donald Trump has made many statements about Haitians "so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print."
Kagan listed several of them, including Trump's nonsensical rant that Haitians were "eating the pets" of residents in Springfield, Ohio; his claim that Haitians living in the US “probably have AIDS"; and his description of Haiti as a "shithole country." She also noted his comments about immigrants more broadly, including that they are "poisoning the blood" of the nation.
"The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the president’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country," Kagan wrote.
In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito sidestepped the question of whether DHS has properly considered the conditions in Haiti and Syria, stating that the TPS statute allows "no judicial review of any determination... with respect to the... termination” of a designation. He said that meant the court could not review either the final decision to terminate status or any of the individual decisions leading up to it.
He did acknowledge the question of racial animus and admitted that things Trump has said "would have scandalized the public just a short time ago." But, he said that “none of the cited statements" from Trump were "overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.”
The Trump administration has declined to renew TPS for all 13 countries for which it has come up for renewal during his second term. Alito said that since the administration has declined to renew TPS for every country, not just Haiti, the evidence was "insufficient to show that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was based on the race of the Haitian people.”
Thursday's ruling was yet another validation of Trump's efforts to end TPS by the Supreme Court, which last year ruled that he could similarly strip status from around 350,000 Venezuelan nationals.
But advocates have pointed out that the administration's case this time was substantially weaker.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said it was "very important for people to understand that the Trump administration did not win a decision today saying that they had lawfully ended TPS."
"Instead," he said, "what the Supreme Court held was that even if the Trump administration had openly ignored the law in making TPS decisions, courts cannot stop them."
Nicolette Glazer, a California-based immigration attorney, said the court had basically determined that "a DHS secretary can end TPS at whim and neither statutory nor constitutional theory applies to curb administrative xenophobia."
"Make no mistake about what this is," said Amina Barhumi, the executive director of the Muslim Civic Coalition. "Temporary Protected Status exists because it is not safe to send people back to war and disaster. This decision does not change those dangers—it simply turns its back on the people fleeing them."
Schulte said it was a "heartbreaking, terrible decision that defies common sense." He added that "the administration simply broke the law in the way it terminated TPS." Now, he said, the lives of "hundreds of thousands of people who have lived here for decades... are in chaos."
While the Trump administration has often portrayed immigrants and refugees as parasites, Schulte argued that the "economic damage" of the decision would be felt far beyond the families facing deportation.
"Haitian TPS holders contribute nearly $6 billion to the US economy each year, and 200,000 of them work in industries already facing labor shortages, including healthcare, agriculture, and manufacturing," he said. "An estimated 25,000 US citizen children of Haitian TPS holders will be pushed into poverty when their parents lose work authorization. Employers will lose trained, dedicated workers they cannot easily replace. The real-life impact of this ruling is profound, cruel, and heartbreaking."
Some members of Congress pledged to take action to defend TPS recipients in light of the decision.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) called on Congress to pass the American Dream and Promise Act, which would create pathways to permanent legal status for TPS holders, as well as holders of the similar Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), and those who were brought to the US unauthorized as children and received protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
"TPS holders followed the rules. They registered with the government, passed background checks, renewed their status, worked legally, paid taxes, and raised their families here," Garcia said. "Their reward should not be a deportation notice."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who spoke outside the court on Thursday, said the ruling showed that "the far-right MAGA majority on the court cannot stand." He said, "We need to win back the House and the Senate and expand the court."
"This is not over," Markey added. "It is our responsibility to protect TPS holders and provide this vulnerable group with a pathway to permanent citizenship. I will not stop fighting."
Even Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), a strong supporter of Trump, said that while he "never disputed the ability" of Trump to end TPS, he "strongly disagree[d] with ending Haitian TPS at this time," saying that "the situation on the ground in Haiti is a humanitarian and political disaster and continues to warrant an extension."
Lawler noted that "roughly 1/3" of Haitian TPS holders "work in our healthcare system" and said "shutting off TPS will create a crisis" in hospitals, nursing homes, and for people with disabilities.
"I’m asking the administration to allow for an orderly process by which Haitian TPS holders can maintain their work authorization while their immigration cases are adjudicated over the next six months," he said, adding that the Senate should consider his legislation with Rep. Laura Gillen (D-NY) to temporarily extend TPS protections.
He said the administration needed to "allow for a stable government to be established with a free and fair election, creating the conditions for a safe return for Haitians."
Rep. Analilia Mejia (D-NJ), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee and Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee, said the TPS ruling, and another ruling on Thursday allowing the administration to turn back asylum seekers at legal points of entry, "should alarm every American."
"The 14th Amendment promises due process and equal protection under the law. Those rights do not disappear because a president decides an entire community has become politically convenient to target," she said. "When the government can deny one group a hearing or strip away protections they have relied on for years, it is not just immigrants who lose. It sends a dangerous message that constitutional rights can be discarded whenever those in power find it politically useful."
While Kicking Millions Off Healthcare, GOP Holds 'Sham Hearing' on Medicaid Fraud
"If Republicans are really interested in looking into waste, fraud, and abuse, they should look no further than the actions of Trump and his administration."
Congressional Democrats and healthcare justice advocates on Thursday accused Republicans of trying to divert attention away from their destructive cuts to Medicaid—and the resulting large-scale loss of insurance coverage—by convening a hearing on purportedly "rampant" fraud in the program that provides care to tens of millions of low-income Americans.
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted in his scathing opening remarks at the hearing that Republicans have "repeatedly insisted" they are only interested in fighting fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars, even as their unprecedented Medicaid cuts strip healthcare from millions of people across the US, including many children.
"You cannot cut healthcare by $1 trillion and not impact millions of people’s healthcare," said Pallone, pointing to a report published earlier this week estimating that more than 5 million Americans have lost health insurance since President Donald Trump signed the GOP's massive budget package into law last summer.
"If Republicans are really interested in looking into waste, fraud, and abuse, they should look no further than the actions of Trump and his administration," Pallone continued, pointing to the illegal and costly war of choice in Iran as just one example. "Playing politics with Americans’ healthcare is cruel and dangerous. Unfortunately, that is what we are repeatedly seeing from Republicans here in Washington."
The advocacy group Protect Our Care decried the GOP's "sham hearing" and said Republicans are "pointing fingers at everyone but themselves."
“Let’s be clear about who the real fraudsters are: not the senior rationing insulin, not the mom skipping the emergency room, and not the family choosing between groceries and seeing a doctor," said Brad Woodhouse, the group's president. "It’s Republicans ripping away healthcare from millions with one hand and signing tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations with the other.”
"They’ve decided that if they simply say they’re eliminating fraud in Medicaid, then they can get away with eliminating Medicaid. They are wrong."
Thursday's hearing featured testimony from the state Medicaid directors of California, Minnesota, New York, and Ohio, each of whom said they are committed to fighting fraud in their systems. Experts say most Medicaid fraud is committed by providers, not ordinary patients bilking the program.
In recent months, the Trump administration has launched investigations into the Medicaid programs of several states, including California, Minnesota, and New York—probes that officials in those Democratic-controlled states say are politically motivated and based on exaggerated claims of fraud.
In April, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services—led by Mehmet Oz—admitted that it grossly overstated the number of New Yorkers who received personal care services under the state's Medicaid program last year.
"Oz claimed that New York's Medicaid program last year provided some 5 million people with personal care services, which assist people in need with basic activities like bathing, grooming, and meal preparation. That would add up to nearly three-fourths of the state's 6.8 million Medicaid enrollees," The Associated Press reported. "The real number of New Yorkers who used those services last year was about 450,000, or between 6% and 7% of total enrollees, CMS spokesman Chris Krepich told the AP."
Republicans have repeatedly cited "waste, fraud, and abuse" as reasons to target and slash federal Medicaid spending. But according to one analysis, just seven of the 24 Medicaid provisions in the 2025 Republican budget law specifically target waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. Overall, the GOP law will cut federal Medicaid spending by roughly $900 billion over the next decade.
In the coming months, Republicans are expected to pursue another budget reconciliation package that they say would crack down on "fraud" in Medicaid—a seeming admission that the 2025 budget law didn't accomplish the GOP's stated objective.
"As Republicans try to figure out a way to pay for President Trump’s reckless war of choice with Iran through another partisan reconciliation bill, they are reportedly considering even more cuts to Medicaid," Pallone said Thursday. "More than 70 million Americans who are disabled or chronically ill, elderly, or children rely on Medicaid for their healthcare."
"The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress continue to find ways to endanger or take away that care," Pallone added. "They’ve decided that if they simply say they’re eliminating fraud in Medicaid, then they can get away with eliminating Medicaid. They are wrong."
'Antithesis of the Rule of Law': ICC Judges Sue Trump Over Sanctions
"These judges are being punished for discharging their judicial duties independently by rendering decisions with which the Trump administration disagrees."
Three judges at the International Criminal Court on Thursday sued the Trump administration over sanctions placed on them by a 2025 executive order.
The three plaintiffs—Judges Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Bossa of Uganda, and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin—have served on ICC panels related to alleged crimes committed by either the American or Israeli militaries, and are among the eight ICC judges who have so far been hit with sanctions by the US State Department.
The ICC drew ire of US President Donald Trump for issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opening a case into alleged war crimes by US troops in Afghanistan.
The judges' lawsuit contends that Trump's executive order establishing the sanctions was manifestly unlawful and in direct violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits the government from making arbitrary and capricious policy changes.
The suit also claims that the US sanctions, which were invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, are illegal because their work at the ICC does not pose an "emergency" to the country's national security.
Andrew Loewenstein, attorney at Foley Hoag and lead counsel in the lawsuit, said the sanctions were designed to intimidate the ICC into dropping investigations related to the US and Israel.
"This sanctions regime is the antithesis of the rule of law,” Loewenstein said. "By targeting their financial and other personal interests, the sanctions are designed to exert extra-judicial pressure on Judges Prost, Bossa, and Alapini-Gansou and their colleagues on the ICC bench, with the objective of punishing them for past judicial decisions and coercing them into prioritizing their private interests over deciding cases on the basis of the law and facts."
Loewenstein also noted that "the sanctions obstruct the ability of victims and witnesses of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, as well as their lawyers, from being able to present evidence or argument in the judges’ courtrooms or otherwise participate in proceedings before them."
James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative and a co-counsel representing Judge Prost in the complaint, described the Trump administration's sanctions as "an unprecedented attack on judicial independence and the rule of law."
"These judges are being punished for discharging their judicial duties independently by rendering decisions with which the Trump administration disagrees," Goldston added. "This is an effort to pressure them to render future decisions more to the administration's liking."



















