
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 anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and the three-year, U.S-funded Gazan genocide it ignited marks the birth of a dark new world where "the unthinkable has become banal," where many thousands of damaged Palestinian children - homeless, toy-less, traumatized, unschooled, with mournful questions about a lost world - have been given only "tents, hunger, and rubble as answers." Zohran Mamdani on the arduous, unfulfilled task before us: "There must be room to mourn every single life."
Precisely one year into what over 100 human rights organizations around the world call "a ceasefire in name only," Gaza remains "Ground Zero" in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. In the last three years, Israeli strikes have killed at least 74,254 people, including over 21,500 children, and wounded 175,000 more, killing or wounding more than 1 in 10 of Gaza's pre-war population; health officials estimate tens of thousands more dead remain buried beneath Gaza's 61 million tons of rubble. Since the start of the so-called ceasefire on Oct.10 of last year, at least 1,470 more Palestinians have been killed, including nearly one child a day. No hospital is fully functional, over 1.4 million Palestinians face crisis-level hunger and most Gazan families remain trapped in a devastating cycle of loss, grief, deprivation and uncertainty.
Reports seeping out from a still-mostly-blockaded Gaza describe "entire worlds wiped out" - extended families, neighborhoods, over 80% of all buildings, resulting in nearly 1.9 million Palestinians displaced. Gaza's missing, or last seen detained, handcuffed, tortured, naked, haunt those who survive: "We don't know whether to mourn them or wait for them." During occasional prisoner swaps, Israel hands over images or remains of decomposing bodies of detainees, many handcuffed, blindfolded, missing limbs, clearly tortured. Parents scroll or search through them, all that's left of a long-missing son: "How did I become a mother who hopes to find her child among mutilated corpses? My dream was to hug him. Now I pray simply to bury him."
Others relive brutality they withstood: fires, bombings, multiple evacuations, sights, smells, sounds of phosphorous bombs, drones, tanks; the terror of running to an outhouse fast enough not to "be sniped," as bombs fall the uneasy sleep close enough to outside walls that, if buildings fall, neighbors can dig them out or at least bury them, the first up-close sight of Israeli soldiers swathed in armor, looking "invincible." The orders to strip to underwear, blindfolded, tightly handcuffed behind backs; kneeling on ground of broken glass and rubble; insults, beatings, cold relieved only when their own warm welcome blood from punches runs over them. Trying to pray or sleep, hallucinating "between life and death," when blankets, speaking, changing position is forbidden: "Everything was forbidden except breathing and swift death."

And always there are the children, Gaza's "lost generation," roughly 700,000 students left behind by three years of war and deliberate “scholasticide" that have destroyed 95% of their schools, turned the rest into shelters for the displaced, killed over 20,000 students and 1,000 teachers, seen books burned for fuel for warmth or cooking. At the start of a new school year, the UN and its partners have set up over 500 tent sites - no desks, chairs, books, water, ovens in summer, freezing in winter - to serve up to 100,000 hungry, shell-shocked students struggling to focus in an attempted return to a "normal life" they can't imagine, who've grown up falling asleep to the sound of bombs, "their entire existence one of life amid rubble, tents, stones and sand," writes Tareq Hajjaj of kids often too young to remember what a home or school was.
Hajjaj fled for Cairo in 2024 so his only child wouldn't "grow up believing the whole world looked like Gaza." He left behind 15 nieces and nephews whose "expectations for ordinary life" he's seen shrink; on one video call, a six-year-old nephew saw him sitting on a sofa and asked how he fit it in his tent, and they dream only of a bigger, dryer tent. In the occupied West Bank, residents likewise endure new Israeli gates that turn villages into "an effective cage," Bedouin families are expelled, settlers steal land, livestock, homes, olive groves harvested by Palestinian generations past. This is not a Palestinian "superhuman capacity" for resilience, Hajjaj argues, but "the ordinary human behavior of people who have no other choice, who are left alone to their fate." To cope, they dismiss the hardship with “aadi,” Arabic for normal -"it is what it is" - but "there is nothing normal about it."

In a deeply complicit America that contributed over $30 billion to the enduring carnage, the truth of what our blood money has wrought slowly seeps out. Last month, the New York Film Festival premiered NAZA, the Guardian-produced documentary by two Israeli filmmakers that offers a grim "Window Into Systems of Mass Killings" in a Gaza where rabid Zionists argued there are "no innocent people." NAZA, the Hebrew acronym for civilian deaths as high as 500 for one legit target, presents damning testimony from 24 Israeli soldiers, faces obscured from Israeli retribution, who veer from naming their genocidal acts to rationalizing them through performative nods toward their guilt - a longtime form of Israeli sort-of-moral-reckoning with state violence known as "shooting and crying" that critics dub "addiction to the mediated obscene." The film will stream for free in November on The Guardian website.
This week, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani proffered a more heartfelt, equitable reckoning with what remains "a moral tear in the universe" by attending a peace vigil and press conference to commemorate the grim anniversary. As expected, he caught flak from both sides when he called out both Hamas' “horrific war crimes” - he's a Muslim "traitor" - and Israel's “devastating, ongoing genocide” - he's an "anti-Semite." Calmly, he noted, he "signed up for this," and will continue to insist on it, citing the need to equally mourn and extend human rights to the over 1,100 Israelis killed and 74,000 Palestinians subsequently killed. "This is part of what it means to believe in a sense of humanity, " he said. "We need not choose between which death we will mourn and which we will ignore, and we must reckon with the fact that all of it is to be opposed.”

Further glad proof of that reckoning was the awarding of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to “Navi” Pillay, 85, South African jurist, former U.N. human rights chief and member of the ICC who has led decades-long fights seeking accountability for apartheid, wartime rape and most recently the Gaza genocide. The Nobel committee cited Pillay's “exceptional courage”; noting her last report naming Gaza a genocide, she responded, "Why would you need courage to speak the truth?" Fittingly, Pillay learned of the award while at Germany's Nuremberg Forum, where Nazis went on trial in 1945: "I was sitting here minding my own business, listening to the panel present their research, because you’re always learning.” When colleagues applauded her, Pillay won the Internet by slyly adding, "Thank you so much. If you clap a little more, I may share this prize with President Trump."
Last year, Pillay was also awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. She dedicated it to “all the survivors of international crimes” and to “defenders of international justice (who) ensure that impunity will not be allowed to reign.” Joining her righteous fight is Mosab Abu Toha, a Palestinian writer and poet from Gaza and winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. Recently, per Zeteo, Toha wrote A Letter of Sympathy to the President of the United States after he saw posts online mocking Trump when he was seen wincing at the “deafening sound" of a military flyover for his autocrat bestie Chinese President Xi. "I didn’t like the tone of many of those posts,” Toha wrote. "I don't blame you for such a reaction/ I have reacted like this, and worse, hundred of times..."
To wit:
"My parents, wife, kids, and siblings have too.
So all of us now
know how
that sound feels.
In 2008, I was 16
on the roof of our house in Beit Lahia,
standing with my father, watching his pigeons in their coop,
when an Israeli, U.S.-made F-16
flew low, like a shaving machine,
before razing a neighborhood.
I panicked at its piercing shriek,
but also at the sight of the missiles
mounted beneath its wings.
But Mr. President, all of us, except you, know
the screech of a missile
or the blast of an explosion.
Do you know what’s louder than the screech and the blast?
The voice of a mother in Jabalia Camp,
begging me on October 31, 2023,
to search for the bodies of her husband and children
under the rubble
not just of her house,
but of the entire neighborhood.
The desperate pleas of 5-year-old Hind Rajab
from her uncle’s car in January 2024,
and the 335 bullets fired at her
before, during, and after the call.
The trickle of tears on the cheek of a father
who returned with no bread for his kids in a tent
in Khan Younis, and the screams of an infant
whose mother’s breast had dried up.
The heartbeat of 18-year-old Ahed
as her uncle, Dr. Hani Bseiso,
amputated her leg on a kitchen table,
without anesthesia.
It was dark!
The grinding footsteps of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiyya
as he walked toward the tank in his white coat.
I can hear the sound of his disappearance.
And I can still hear and hear more!
But do you know what will be much louder than all?
The sound of the gavel
in the court of justice."
A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to block the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards, which they called a "giveaway" to the oil and auto industries.
Earlier this week, the US Department of Transportation finalized a rule weakening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
The Biden administration required annual fuel-efficiency improvements aimed at bringing the average for new vehicles to 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under the Trump administration’s new rule, the 2031 requirement would fall below the 35.4 mpg already achieved by the 2024 fleet, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) own analysis.
NHTSA estimated that as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas by 2050 than they would have under the old standards, increasing average lifetime fuel costs by more than $1,600 per vehicle—more than the roughly $1,300 the administration has claimed they'll save on average in upfront vehicle costs.
It is also projected to add about 1 billion additional metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared with retaining the previous standards—equivalent to more than six months' worth of emissions from the entire US transportation sector.
“Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Climate Law Institute. "We’ll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We’re asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto.”
CBD was joined by the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, which filed a petition on Friday to ask an appeals court to review the rule change. They argue that the rollback is illegal because federal law requires NHTSA to set fuel-economy standards at the “maximum feasible” level manufacturers can achieve.
“The Trump administration’s rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices,” said Andy Su, senior transportation attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “We’re going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive.”
As some of California's richest residents pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating a proposed billionaire tax, one former venture capitalist is making a remarkably different argument: He is perfectly happy to pay it—and he's not alone.
John O'Farrell, a former partner at Andreessen Horowitz, explained Wednesday in a 12-post thread on the social media platform X why he supports the California Billionaire Tax Act, commonly known as Proposition 40, which is on the state's November midterm ballot.
O'Farrell's argument contradicts the chorus of Silicon Valley billionaires and their allies who warn that taxing billionaire wealth would drive the ultra-rich out of California.
"I know where I want to live," he wrote.
"I've been fortunate to benefit from tech wealth. I'm not even close to being a billionaire, but I could easily afford to pay the wealth tax—and any billionaire certainly can—without the slightest effect on my lifestyle," O'Farrell said. "I support a wealth tax at my wealth level also."
Introduced by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, with an option to pay the tax in annual installments of 1% over five years.
The proposal would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
"I find the knee-jerk opposition of some ultra-wealthy people to the idea of paying any new tax deeply disappointing," O'Farrell said in his thread. "To be honest, I can't understand it. They have so much money they couldn't spend it in multiple lifetimes."
Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies—a Washington, DC-based progressive think tank—exposed 22 California billionaires who have poured more than $150 million into defeating Prop 40, "with more rolling in every day," as Chuck Collins wrote for the group.
"These 22 include a prince, several private jet-flying chums of Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of crypto and tech bros designing the [artificial intelligence] future for the rest of us," Collins noted. "On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion. In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64%."
O'Farrell's social media thread pointed out how "our tax system favors wealthy people."
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride," he wrote, adding, "the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
"Paying taxes is ultimately a matter of self-interest," he contended. "What kind of society do we want to live in? One that rewards achievement but also emphasizes fairness and opportunity for all—or one in which you have to cower in a bunker and live in fear of the pitchforks?"
"One enables the pursuit of happiness for all," he concluded. "The other, just the pursuit of endless wealth."
Prop 40 is backed by numerous progressive groups including the Teamsters union, California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
Sanders, Khanna, and others—including Congresswoman Aisha Wahab (D-Calif.), Democratic congressional candidate Randy Villegas, and California insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim—are set to speak at a series of rallies for Prop 40 starting Saturday in San Francisco.
O'Farrell isn't the only wealthy Californian who supports Prop 40. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose fortune has soared into the hundreds of billions of dollars, has said he is “perfectly fine” with the proposed tax, telling Bloomberg that he and his family “chose to live in Silicon Valley” and that whatever taxes California applies, “so be it.”
Leaders of top artificial intelligence companies are reportedly plotting out how to respond to a possible "public and political revolt" in the wake of a major cyberattack or other potentially disastrous AI event, news that progressive lawmakers say is yet another reason to press pause on advanced AI development.
"Big Tech oligarchs are secretly preparing for a 'catastrophic AI event' that could threaten our banking, healthcare, internet, electricity, and water systems," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a Friday social media post, citing reporting from Axios. "They’re racing to build a technology they can’t control and that threatens humanity. CONGRESS MUST PAUSE ADVANCED AI DEVELOPMENT NOW."
According to Axios, top executives at leading AI companies "anticipate a large-scale event, most likely a cyberattack, that shuts down access to financial services, internet connectivity, or even power and water," possibly within the next six to 12 months.
"While scenario planning is common within many companies and national security settings—the Pentagon has been running war games for decades—the difference is that many top AI researchers and executives believe a major incident is inevitable," the outlet noted, pointing to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's recent warning that a swarm of AI agents could soon seize control of "the entire internet with a persistent botnet (potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage)."
In response to the new reporting, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) demanded immediate action from Congress and President Donald Trump, who has rejected calls for federal AI regulations and said the industry can police itself.
"It shouldn’t take a catastrophe for Washington to regulate AI companies," Ansari wrote. "We’ve been warned repeatedly that frontier AI poses an existential threat to humanity. The companies themselves are preparing for it. Congress and the president need to act now."
Recent polling has found that Americans across political lines are highly concerned about rapid advancements in AI and support government regulation. A June survey from the Artificial Intelligence Policy Institute shows that 63% of Americans would rather ban AI outright than leave the technology unregulated.
Nearly 80% of the US public prefers mandatory standards over no regulation, the poll found.
"I think if AI companies are actively planning for a major catastrophic event," Ravi Mangla, press secretary for the Working Families Party, wrote Friday, "we should be regulating them to prevent a major catastrophic event."
Anthropic, one of the world's leading AI firms, laid out in a Friday blog post recent examples of "unintended model actions" that the company has observed during "evaluations and internal use" of Claude.
"Claude sometimes worked around a restriction to reach data to which it did not have access. Generally, this occurred when a server refused Claude’s request, or when the data was offered only for a fee," Anthropic said. "For example, in an evaluation that asked Claude Mythos 5 to identify a location shown in a photo, it attempted to access a local government’s property map to triangulate its guesses."
As rights advocates across the US expressed horror at the Trump administration's confirmed plans to publicly broadcast the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former military psychiatrist who was convicted of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood in 2009, the top United Nations human rights expert warned that the public state killing would violate international laws prohibiting torture.
“The livestreaming of an execution is tantamount to a public execution and would breach the absolute prohibition of torture,” the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) told Agence France-Presse Friday.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday, the US Army announced that Hasan would be executed by firing squad at Fort Hood on December 3, with the Trump administration inviting the public to watch the shooting via livestream.
The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions said in a report to the UN Human Rights Council in June that all capital punishment must be abolished worldwide, as "severe physical pain and psychological distress are an inherent part of the design and implementation" of the practice.
The OHCHR has particularly spoken out against public executions, such as those that have been carried out in Afghanistan and Iran.
Public killings by the state "constitute a form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," the office has said.
"This planned livestreamed execution says it all about what is happening in America today, opening the window ever wider on the Trump administration’s moral vacuity and its paucity of human decency."
Should the livestream go forward, Hasan's execution will be the first public state-sanctioned killing in the US in 90 years, according to Michael L. Radelet, professor emeritus at the University of Colorado Boulder, an expert on capital punishment.
Rainey Bethea, a Black man, was hanged in Kentucky in 1936 after reportedly confessing to the killing of a white woman. He was never charged with murder. Thousands of people attended his execution outside a courthouse.
As Edmarverson A. Santos wrote at the independent research platform Diplomacy & Law, the Trump administration's proposed execution livestream "raises substantial concerns under international human rights law."
"The UN Human Rights Committee expressly interprets Article 7 of the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] as prohibiting public executions and considers executions conducted in violation of that provision to constitute arbitrary deprivations of life under Article 6," wrote Santos. "A government-sponsored livestream accessible to the general public could fall within that interpretation, particularly where the condemned person's death is deliberately displayed as part of the state's punitive message."
"Hasan's conviction for intentional murder and the presidential approval of his death sentence do not independently establish the legality of publicly broadcasting his execution," Santos added.
Paul Daley, a columnist for The Guardian Australia, wrote Thursday that the planned livestream—and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's statement that the execution will be made viewable to all to show that "there’s serious consequences for these types of things"—amounted to "state-sanctioned killing as entertainment."
"The world’s supposedly greatest (or formerly greatest) democracy has arrived at a horrific new moral nadir," wrote Daley. "This represents a significant lurch in the US from civilization towards savagery... And this planned livestreamed execution says it all about what is happening in America today, opening the window ever wider on the Trump administration’s moral vacuity and its paucity of human decency."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said during a press conference on Thursday that "there must be room to mourn" both the Israelis killed during the Hamas-led October 7 attack three years ago and the Palestinians killed in the Israeli government's subsequent genocidal assault on Gaza.
“I believe that there must be room to mourn every single life," said Mamdani, echoing the sentiment he expressed in a statement 24 hours earlier marking the three-year anniversary of the October 7 attack—and the start of Israel's military response.
At Thursday's press conference, a reporter noted that Mamdani "got it from both sides yesterday," referring to criticism the New York City mayor received from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian voices in response to his statement. Mamdani's statement described the Hamas-led attacks as "horrific war crimes" and the Israeli government's response as a "devastating, ongoing genocide."
Asked if he "made any missteps that inflamed tensions" and whether he would, in hindsight, alter the language of his statement or decide against attending a vigil hosted by the anti-occupation group Israelis for Peace—where the mayor faced jeers from protesters accusing him of complicity in genocide—Mamdani responded: "There must be room to mourn the lives of the more than 1,100 Israelis that Hamas killed there years ago. There must be room to mourn the 74,000 Palestinians that the Israeli government has killed since."
"There must be room to reckon with the ways in which so many New Yorkers' lives have been shattered," he continued. "And that to me is a part of what it means to believe in a sense of humanity, that we need not choose between which death we will mourn and which we will ignore. That we can reckon with the fact that all of it is to be opposed."
Video footage from the Wednesday night vigil shows Mamdani standing expressionless alongside Brad Lander, a Democratic congressional candidate who is Jewish, as protesters shout at the mayor, calling him a "traitor."
Lander, the former New York City comptroller, told reporters that protesters at the vigil sometimes drowned out the reading of testimony from loved ones of people killed in the October 7, 2023 attack and in the Israeli government's assault on Gaza.
“From where I sit, Mamdani is a very strong supporter of Palestinian freedom and human rights,” said Lander. “I don’t know what world leaders have done more.”
During his press conference on Thursday, Mamdani said of those protesting him, "This is what I signed up for."
Mamdani is stone-faced as the protesters call him a traitor and sellout. https://t.co/oXducpYsMR
— Peter Sterne (@petersterne) October 8, 2026
Mamdani also faced hysterical backlash from pro-Israel members of his party. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who lost to Lander in the Democratic primary for New York's 10th congressional district, denounced Mamdani's statement as "reprehensible" and declared that it would "offend and further upset those same people he pretends to grieve with."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) falsely accused Mamdani of "desecrating the memory of murdered, innocent Jews" and "refusing to even condemn Hamas."
Mamdani didn't back away from his criticism of the Israeli government in response to such attacks.
"The Israeli government used and continues to use that day, those war crimes, as a justification for an ongoing genocide against Palestinians," Mamdani told reporters on Thursday. The mayor also stressed "our federal government's complicity in funding so much of the weaponry" that has been used by the Israeli military in Gaza.
"We have to extend human rights to all people," said Mamdani, "and that has to include Palestinians."
"Everyone saw these pro-democracy protests," said a critic of Pakistan's US-backed military government. "This is a very transparent attempt to crush them by a military regime that is terrified of its own people."
As US President Donald Trump deepens his ties with Pakistan's powerful military chief, the nation's government has detained the elected leadership of the last province controlled by jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan's opposition party—a move critics have condemned as a coup.
Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari, declared a state of emergency on Sunday in the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, suspending its elected government and transferring authority to a federally appointed governor. Hundreds of members of Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, including its provincial chief minister, Sohail Afridi, have been arrested, as have Khan's three sisters, according to The Guardian.
The emergency measures come after days of protests calling for the release of Khan—who was forced to step down from power in 2022 by a parliamentary vote of no confidence under heavy pressure from the US government, then led by President Joe Biden. Khan was subsequently imprisoned by Pakistani authorities and accused the military of orchestrating his ouster.
Pakistan's government said it declared the state of emergency after local leadership failed to stop escalating attacks from Islamist terrorist groups. But PTI leaders described it as a thinly veiled pretext to squash protests, including a planned march on Islamabad to demand Khan's release.
Mehlaqa Samdani, the director of the Community Alliance for Peace and Justice—a group advocating against US support for political repression in Pakistan—described Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as "the last remaining province where the military regime had been unable to take control."
"The government has now declared a state of emergency and imposed governor's rule in the province, effectively removing its elected government from power," Samdani said in a video. "Just think about what that means: Millions of people voted for their representatives, only to see their elected government stripped of its authority."
"Everyone saw these pro-democracy protests," she added. "This is a very transparent attempt to crush them by a military regime that is terrified of its own people."
Amid mass protests calling for his release, Amnesty International has argued that Pakistani authorities have weaponized criminal proceedings to keep Khan out of power and crack down on dissent.
After the emergency measures went into effect this weekend, the internet monitoring organization NetBlocks reported major disruptions to internet service in parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Mobile phone networks have reportedly been disrupted, public transit closed, and several roads across the province shut down.
"Reports of arbitrary detentions of key leaders—including the provincial chief minister—and internet disruptions across the province raise concerns about the proportionality of these emergency measures," Babu Ram Pant, Amnesty International’s deputy director for South Asia, said on Sunday following news of the emergency declaration.
"While states may, in strictly limited circumstances, derogate from their human rights obligations to respond to a public emergency that threatens the existence of the nation, emergency measures are not a blank cheque to crack down on human rights, silence dissent, or concentrate power," he said.
Trump has warmly embraced Asim Munir, the military chief who has overseen the crackdown on Khan and his opposition party, spent recent years consolidating control over Pakistan's armed forces, and secured immunity from criminal prosecution.
Munir has regularly been heaped with praise by Trump, who hosted him for an unprecedented two-hour Oval Office meeting last year without any other Pakistani officials. Trump has referred to Munir as "my favorite field marshal," "a very important guy," and an "exceptional human being."
In December, the Trump administration approved a $686 million sale to upgrade Pakistan's F-16 fighter jets. Trump has also tapped Munir as a key intermediary between Washington and Tehran amid the US war with Iran.
Hussain Nadim, a Pakistani political analyst and lecturer at George Washington University, has argued that Munir has made himself useful to Trump because it "confers international legitimacy as his military rule faces deep questions at home."
"Pakistani generals have long understood how to capitalize on American fears, anxieties, and domestic political needs of a wide range of American presidents," Nadim wrote in August. "Military rulers position themselves around political changes in Washington, knowing urgent American political and security needs can override concerns about democracy and governance in countries like Pakistan."
Opponents of US intervention, including Samdani, have renewed calls for the US to cut off support for Pakistan's government.
"The US continues to train and work closely with the very military regime that is now attacking its own people," she said. "Members of Congress should speak out immediately. They should tell Pakistan's peaceful pro-democracy protesters that the world stands with them and tell the military dictatorship that we are watching and will not allow this repression to go unanswered."
"American taxpayers do not want to be involved in training a corrupt military regime that's oppressing its own people, including relatives of around one million Americans of Pakistani descent," said Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy—a member of the Coalition to Change US Policy Towards Pakistan.
"If the Pakistani regime cannot allow its own people to protest and vote in free elections, they should not be receiving any training or support from the United States military or intelligence services," he told Common Dreams.
"The US is harming its relationship with the Pakistani people by continuing to side with the military regime that fraudulently stole elections and is now attacking its own people," he said. "There's a chance for the United States to stand up for freedom and democracy and build a genuine partnership with the people of Pakistan by siding with them as they fight for their freedom from military rule."
"He’d rather millions of children and families lose their healthcare than ask a couple hundred billionaires to finally pay their fair share."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom ramped up his opposition to a proposed tax on the state's billionaire residents on Friday by endorsing a competing ballot measure that would both cancel out the billionaire wealth tax initiative and prohibit any new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.
"He’s showing California his true colors," Debru Carthan, vice president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW)—which is leading the campaign for the California billionaire tax—said in response to Newsom's endorsement of Proposition 42. "He’d rather millions of children and families lose their healthcare than ask a couple hundred billionaires to finally pay their fair share."
The push for Proposition 42 is funded by Building a Better California, a group bankrolled by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other billionaires.
If passed, Prop 42 would ban "any new state tax... imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate)." It would also prohibit any tax that "applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities." (The proposed 5% billionaire tax, which will appear on California's November ballot as Proposition 40, would apply retroactively to billionaires living in California on or after January 1, 2026.)
In a statement, Newsom framed his support for Prop 42 as an effort to protect Californians' retirement savings.
"We all agree that Californians deserve to have their retirement and life savings protected from new state taxes so those savings are there when they need them," the governor said.
But critics have described Prop 42 as a "poison-pill measure" whose supporters are fearmongering about a nonexistent threat to retirement savings in an effort to defeat the proposed billionaire tax, revenue from which would be used to fund healthcare, food aid, and education in the state.
"Its true target is Prop 40," the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote of the Newsom-backed measure. "Prop 42 papers over its real purpose by cynically appealing to middle-class worries about retirement security. Reject this appalling tactic and disincentivize its further use by voting no."
Newsom has opposed the idea of a wealth tax on California's billionaires from the proposal's inception, pitting him against major unions, the California Democratic Party, and prominent national progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
"Some of the SEIU-UHW members I’ve talked to are tired of Democratic politicians like Gavin Newsom taking their marching orders from the donors who would fund a future presidential campaign," Khanna, who is considering a presidential run, said during a rally in support of Prop 40 last weekend. "We are tired of a governor defying grassroots delegates in the California Democratic Party, defying California labor... all because he’s on the side of Trump allies like Peter Thiel and Sergey Brin."
"You can’t pretend to be anti-Trump if you’re doing the bidding of Trump donors," Khanna added.
"Congress never authorized Trump to wage war to defend the Saudi regime," said Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna.
President Donald Trump said Saturday that his administration could soon join Saudi Arabia's military assault on Yemen following a deadly Houthi attack on Riyadh's international airport, the latest salvo in a long-running conflict that has intensified since the US launched an illegal war on Iran earlier this year.
Trump told reporters that "we may" join US ally Saudi Arabia in directly attacking Yemen's Houthis. The president said that "we're going to look at it," adding, "We move very quickly."
The president's remarks prompted swift pushback from progressives in the US. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is considering a presidential run in 2028, wrote on social media that "Congress never authorized Trump to wage war to defend the Saudi regime."
"I introduced a Yemen War Powers Resolution (H.Con.Res.124) with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to mandate that the US stay out of war in Yemen," added Khanna, who has been working for years to stop unauthorized US involvement in Saudi-led attacks on Yemen.
"Trump must honor the US-Yemen ceasefire and use diplomacy, not war," wrote the California Democrat, referring to a 2025 agreement that the president reached with the Houthis following a weeks-long US bombing campaign. The US attacks came as the Houthis targeted shipping in the Red Sea in response to Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
The Costs of War project at Brown University estimates that in the two years after October 7, 2023, the US spent between $2.76 billion and $4.95 billion attacking the Houthis. American forces have been bombing Yemen since 2002 and have for years supported devastating Saudi-led coalition attacks on one of the world's poorest countries.
Trump said Saturday that members of his administration "have communication with the Houthis," a political and military organization that claimed responsibility for Saturday's attack on the Saudi airport. The attack, which drew international condemnation, killed at least a dozen people—including one US citizen—and injured over 300 more.
The New York Times observed Sunday that "repeated, deadly Houthi attacks on the airport this week have struck at the heart of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s ambitions to turn the city into a global travel and business hub, threatening to disrupt major international events planned for the coming weeks."
"Across the border in Yemen, Saudi warplanes have been waging a deadly bombing campaign against the Houthis, who say that the country has been subjected to hundreds of airstrikes in recent weeks," the Times added. "Since September 3, airstrikes have killed 91 people in Yemen, mostly women and children, according to Anees al-Asbahi, a spokesman for the Houthi government-affiliated health ministry."
The Houthis are also facing an all-out assault from Yemen's Saudi-backed government, which is aiming to recapture Houthi-controlled areas. Trump administration officials told Axios earlier this month that the US military is providing Saudi Arabia with "everything short of direct combat, mainly intelligence and targeting data."
The Saudi crown prince has reportedly pressured Trump to intervene directly in the Saudi-led assault on the Houthis.
The US-based advocacy group Just Foreign Policy said Sunday that "there is nothing less America First than waging an unconstitutional war to defend the corrupt Saudi regime."
"The Saudis should use diplomacy to resolve their dispute," the group added.
"The investigation is nonsense," said one press freedom advocate. "Trump may view the presidency as a business venture, but news outlets’ standing up for their constitutional rights has nothing to do with antitrust law."
The US Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether the five major television networks violated federal antitrust law when they briefly halted pool coverage of President Donald Trump amid his administration's attempt to bar certain journalists from the White House.
The New York Times reported late Saturday that DOJ officials "contacted networks on Friday and demanded communications and materials related to the White House TV pool." ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Fox News rotate the responsibility of capturing and distributing footage of the president. The networks paused pool coverage last month after the Trump administration dropped CNN from its scheduled pool assignment.
Emily Covington, a spokesperson for the Justice Department, confirmed the existence of the investigation in a statement on Saturday, saying that "group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act."
Press freedom organizations and other critics condemned the probe as a politically motivated attack on journalism and questioned the administration's expressed concern about antitrust violations—particularly given that the DOJ has effectively abandoned antitrust enforcement during Trump's second term.
Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the investigation "appears to be a pretext for seeking records from the networks about how they are covering daily White House events during a media ban the president himself put in place."
"The decisions news organizations make about coverage are protected by the First Amendment, and summoning antitrust authority, on top of the retaliatory actions the White House has already taken to bar certain outlets, is another and even more brazen attempt to try to intimidate journalists," said Brown.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, called the investigation "nonsense."
“The investigation is nonsense. Trump may view the presidency as a business venture, but news outlets’ standing up for their constitutional rights has nothing to do with antitrust law, no matter what Laura Loomer says," Stern added, pointing to the far-right activist's public call for an antitrust lawsuit against the major TV news networks. "Depriving Trump of the attention he craves is not a competitive harm, and in any case, antitrust law has long recognized First Amendment exceptions even when there is anticompetitive impact."
News of the DOJ investigation came after CNN, MS NOW, and Politico sued the president over his attempt to bar the outlets from the White House. Late last month, a Trump-appointed judge ordered the administration to restore White House access to the outlets as the lawsuit proceeds.
Jonathan Kanter, who headed the Justice Department's Antitrust Division under the Biden administration, told CNN on Saturday that the media networks' actions in the wake of the attempted White House ban are "not even in the same zip code of an antitrust violation."
"It’s literally freedom of speech," said Kanter. "It’s no more an antitrust violation than the reporters coming together to form the pool in the first place."
"These results are about taking on corporate America and reversing the worst out-of-control wealth inequality in America’s history."
Shawn Fain, who has emerged as one of the most prominent labor leaders in the United States, handily won reelection as president of the United Auto Workers, according to an unofficial tally released Friday.
“The membership has spoken,” Fain, who led the UAW through historic strikes against the Big Three Detroit automakers in 2023, said in a statement. "These results are about taking on corporate America and reversing the worst out-of-control wealth inequality in America’s history. We are fighting for the entire working class, whether that’s at the bargaining table, organizing new members, or in the political arena.”
Fain secured over 68% of the vote in his bid for another four-year term, according to the tally released by United UAW, whose slate of candidates includes Fain. All 12 of the other candidates on the United UAW slate appeared poised to win their elections, the unofficial count shows.
"Under our leadership, we successfully organized Volkswagen Chattanooga and won a first contract that provides job security, life-changing wages and benefits, and inspiration for tens of thousands of non-union auto workers to join our union," United UAW says on its platform. "Let’s keep it going. Our strike fund is strong, our army is growing bigger, wages are up, and we are ready to keep taking on corporate America."
The union election results came months after US President Donald Trump's Justice Department launched an investigation into Fain over claims that the UAW leader abused his authority to seek benefits for his fiancée and her sister. Fain has denied the allegations and condemned the probe as politically motivated.
Fain has also accused the UAW's court-appointed federal monitor, Neil Barofsky, of pursuing "trumped-up claims" against him due to a "political grudge" over the union president's outspoken support for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza.
Gary Chynoweth, vice chair of UAW Member Action, said in a statement Friday that "the members chose Fain, despite the monitor’s best efforts to create turbulence, because we’re ready to fight for retirement healthcare and protection from AI layoffs in 2028."
"Our work now is to keep helping members step up as leaders in a union that’s ready to fight," said Chynoweth.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a top ally of organized labor, congratulated Fain for winning reelection, calling him "one of the great union leaders in our country."
"He has taken on the billionaire class, won strong victories for his members and understands the need to organize, organize, organize," the senator wrote on social media. "Solidarity forever!"
"They’re racing to build a technology they can’t control and that threatens humanity," wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders. "CONGRESS MUST PAUSE ADVANCED AI DEVELOPMENT NOW."
Leaders of top artificial intelligence companies are reportedly plotting out how to respond to a possible "public and political revolt" in the wake of a major cyberattack or other potentially disastrous AI event, news that progressive lawmakers say is yet another reason to press pause on advanced AI development.
"Big Tech oligarchs are secretly preparing for a 'catastrophic AI event' that could threaten our banking, healthcare, internet, electricity, and water systems," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a Friday social media post, citing reporting from Axios. "They’re racing to build a technology they can’t control and that threatens humanity. CONGRESS MUST PAUSE ADVANCED AI DEVELOPMENT NOW."
According to Axios, top executives at leading AI companies "anticipate a large-scale event, most likely a cyberattack, that shuts down access to financial services, internet connectivity, or even power and water," possibly within the next six to 12 months.
"While scenario planning is common within many companies and national security settings—the Pentagon has been running war games for decades—the difference is that many top AI researchers and executives believe a major incident is inevitable," the outlet noted, pointing to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's recent warning that a swarm of AI agents could soon seize control of "the entire internet with a persistent botnet (potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage)."
In response to the new reporting, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) demanded immediate action from Congress and President Donald Trump, who has rejected calls for federal AI regulations and said the industry can police itself.
"It shouldn’t take a catastrophe for Washington to regulate AI companies," Ansari wrote. "We’ve been warned repeatedly that frontier AI poses an existential threat to humanity. The companies themselves are preparing for it. Congress and the president need to act now."
Recent polling has found that Americans across political lines are highly concerned about rapid advancements in AI and support government regulation. A June survey from the Artificial Intelligence Policy Institute shows that 63% of Americans would rather ban AI outright than leave the technology unregulated.
Nearly 80% of the US public prefers mandatory standards over no regulation, the poll found.
"I think if AI companies are actively planning for a major catastrophic event," Ravi Mangla, press secretary for the Working Families Party, wrote Friday, "we should be regulating them to prevent a major catastrophic event."
Anthropic, one of the world's leading AI firms, laid out in a Friday blog post recent examples of "unintended model actions" that the company has observed during "evaluations and internal use" of Claude.
"Claude sometimes worked around a restriction to reach data to which it did not have access. Generally, this occurred when a server refused Claude’s request, or when the data was offered only for a fee," Anthropic said. "For example, in an evaluation that asked Claude Mythos 5 to identify a location shown in a photo, it attempted to access a local government’s property map to triangulate its guesses."
"The FCC simply cannot ignore the laws Congress makes just because the current agency head wants to."
A coalition of nonprofit groups and labor unions filed an emergency petition on Friday aimed at blocking the Federal Communications Commission's recent repeal of a decades-old rule that limited consolidation among television broadcasters, a move that would allow media conglomerates to seize even more control over local news stations.
The petition states that the Republican-controlled FCC's decision—pushed by Chair Brendan Carr and approved in August in a 2-1 vote along party lines—was "plainly contrary to law and violates core administrative law principles." The filing notes that Congress enacted the rule barring any single TV broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of US households—and only Congress can roll it back.
"The FCC simply cannot ignore the laws Congress makes just because the current agency head wants to," said Matt Wood, vice president of policy at Free Press, one of the groups that joined the new motion. "Chairman Carr serves only [President] Donald Trump, not the people of this country. Carr threatens broadcasters when their coverage angers the administration, but tosses them bones like this repeal when the biggest broadcast conglomerates toe the line."
The petition was submitted days after the FCC published the final text of its order repealing the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, which Carr's FCC effectively ignored earlier this year when it approved Nexstar’s $6.2 billion acquisition of rival TV company Tegna—a deal that Trump vocally supported. Free Press noted that the merger would "give Nexstar access to 80% of US households over the nation’s broadcast airwaves."
Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders North America, said Friday that repealing the 39% cap "eliminates the only meaningful limit on TV ownership consolidation in the US, reducing media pluralism, eliminating choices for news consumers, and threatening jobs in an industry already reeling from widespread layoffs and closures."
"If allowed to move forward, this policy will benefit a small handful of powerful owners of media conglomerates, while harming journalists, local and independent TV stations, and, not least of all, the American people," said Weimers.
Cable industry groups are also taking action against the FCC over its move to repeal TV ownership constraints. Ars Technica reported earlier this month that "cable lobby groups notified the Federal Communications Commission that they will sue the agency to block its controversial repeal of the National Television Ownership Rule."
The industry's filing states that the FCC's repeal "arbitrarily and capriciously ignores the harms that will surely follow from allowing broadcast station groups to exceed the National Cap, in the form of increased retransmission consent fees for multichannel video programming distributors... and higher monthly TV bills for consumers."
"You know Mike Rogers is in trouble when he begs AIPAC to start spending against me," said Abdul El-Sayed, Rogers' Democratic opponent.
A campaign finance report filed on Friday revealed that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's super PAC, the United Democracy Project, has resumed spending on Michigan's US Senate race, dropping $95,000 on mailers opposing Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed in a bid to help Republican Mike Rogers weeks ahead of the key midterm contest.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) report came a day after Rogers and El-Sayed clashed on the debate stage over healthcare, drug prices, military assistance to Israel, and other issues. Asked during the debate whether he would accept AIPAC's support in the race, Rogers said, "Anybody that wants to help my campaign stop [El-Sayed]... I’ll take all of that help."
In August, Axios reported that Rogers' allies asked AIPAC not to advertise on behalf of the Republican candidate, an apparent acknowledgment of the group's political toxicity amid Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. Rogers himself spoke with AIPAC's chair in August, according to Axios, and the group subsequently "shelved an already-cut video ad targeting" El-Sayed.
In response to the FEC report, El-Sayed wrote on social media that "you know Mike Rogers is in trouble when he begs AIPAC to start spending against me."
"Why do they hate me?" he added. "Because I want to keep your tax money here to spend on your kids rather than spend it to kill kids somewhere else."
FEC: AIPAC’s super PAC begins to spend against Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan Senate race https://t.co/JrS7pZnkxN
— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) October 9, 2026
AIPAC's United Democracy Project (UDP), which has spent aggressively against progressive Democrats across the country in recent elections, poured tens of millions of dollars into El-Sayed's Democratic primary contest against Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.). The group signaled after El-Sayed's victory that it was prepared to spend heavily on Rogers' behalf.
While the new spending on mailers marks UDP's first financial intervention in the Senate race's general election, Rogers has attended several fundraising events hosted by AIPAC.
Speaking to reporters at a campaign stop on Friday, Rogers downplayed UDP's mailer spending and falsely attacked El-Sayed as antisemitic.
"He is so anti-Jewish that one mail piece sends him into orbit," said Rogers.
The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote Friday that Rogers "was right when he dissuaded this the first time," referring to AIPAC campaign spending.
"But he's desperate now," Dayen added.
"He's helping fund Russia's war machine, while our allies pay the price," said one congressional Democrat.
Democrats in Congress and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday swiftly condemned US President Donald Trump's plan to secure diesel from Russia in hopes of combating fuel prices that have skyrocketed due to his illegal war on Iran.
"I have just concluded a highly successful discussion with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, wherein it was agreed that Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 Tons of Diesel Fuel to the American and Global Marketplace, another 500,000 Tons during the month of November, and 1,000,000 Tons immediately thereafter," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, with the US midterm elections just weeks away, and voters frustrated by the country's affordability crisis.
"Additionally, based on the condition of their Diesel Refineries, Russia will then deliver, within a short period of time, 3,000,000 Tons of Diesel Fuel," Trump said. "Between our TOTAL CONTROL of the Strait of Hormuz, and this great announcement on Russian Energy, Diesel Prices for Americans and, indeed, the World, will be COMING DOWN, IN RECORD NUMBERS, AND FAST! Lower prices for Americans, especially our Great Farmers, Ranchers, and Truckers, is my Greatest Priority. This is a very big and important announcement. Additionally, it must be understood, that Iran will not have a Nuclear Weapon!"
After Trump's post, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a general license "authorizing transactions related to the sale, delivery, offloading, and importation of diesel" from Russia—which launched a full-scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine in 2022. In response, Congress has appropriated over $170 billion to help Ukraine.
The Associated Press pointed out that Trump announced the deal with Putin after "he signed a sweeping Russia sanctions law last month that aimed at clamping down on Russia's energy revenues," and as "his envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner were meeting with Ukrainian officials in Miami to discuss a proposal to try to end the Russia-Ukraine war."
In a lengthy statement, the Ukrainian president warned Friday that "any easing of sanctions against Russia without a clear and lasting de-escalation agreement with Russia is an obvious weakness. It plays into Russia's hands—allowing it to kill more, wage war for longer, have even less respect for America, and inflict even greater losses and damage on the world."
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared that "Trump is doing a deal with the devil to try to help his flailing political fortunes from the shockingly high diesel prices caused by his own reckless, illegal war in the Middle East. This filthy deal will only aid and abet the same Putin who is helping the Iranians to target and try to kill American troops in the Middle East and who illegally and viciously invaded our ally Ukraine."
According to an online tracker launched by Brown University's Costs of War Project, since Trump started bombing Iran without congressional authorization in February, Americans have paid over $130 billion more for fuel—$71.74 billion for gasoline and $58.56 billion for diesel—or nearly $1,000 per household.
Several other Democratic lawmakers from both chambers of Congress—which Democrats hope to reclaim from Trump's Republican Party in November—were also critical, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who said that striking a deal "with a murdering dictator" to lift sanctions "is an embarrassment and makes us complicit in Putin's war against Ukraine."
"This poorly concealed attempt to mitigate the havoc caused by Trump's illegal war in Iran will only benefit the Chinese and Russian economies, and lead to the slaughter of more innocents in Ukraine," he argued. "The president should rescind this agreement immediately. To the American companies considering taking Putin's blood money: Congress is watching."
Denouncing Trump's announcement as "a disgrace," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said: "You know how Trump could bring down gas and diesel prices? By ending his illegal war with Iran. Instead, he's going to help fund Putin's war machine."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) described Trump's approach as "desperate and shortsighted," adding: "Trump ran on America First but has no idea how to actually deliver for the American people. We wouldn't be in this mess without his wasteful war with Iran. We need to build opportunity for Americans with our foreign policy, not Putin. End this war and not a single dime to Russia."
House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (D-NY) also slammed the president's reversal on sanctions against Russia, stressing that "instead of putting economic pressure on Putin for his invasion of Ukraine, Trump continues to appease him. His disastrous Iran War has sent gas and diesel costs soaring, and Americans are paying the price."
Congresswoman Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) similarly said: "Desperate to escape the consequences of his failed Iran war, Trump is preparing to stab Ukraine in the back and buy diesel from Putin. He's helping fund Russia's war machine, while our allies pay the price."
"California will not be intimidated by Trump's fear campaign. He's afraid because he knows he's losing," said Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
Politicians and activists are denouncing the Trump administration for initiating a surge in federal immigration enforcement operations less than a month before the 2026 midterm elections.
According to a Wednesday report in the Washington Examiner, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has launched an operation expected to last for six weeks that is targeting undocumented immigrants regardless of whether they have a past criminal record.
The Examiner's sources said that ICE officers have been "told to go after anybody," with one source saying that the agency's management wants "numbers."
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, on Thursday condemned the ICE surge in a social media post, accusing President Donald Trump of "using fear and panic as a weapon."
"No president is above the Constitution," Newsom wrote. "No one in this country is without rights. California will stand up for our communities and hold federal agents accountable. Know your rights and exercise them safely."
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, called for ICE to be abolished because of the agency's continued "assault on immigrants and US citizens with no criminal history."
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) called the current ICE surge "alarming," but warned the agency that its days of consequence-free lawlessness are coming to an end.
"House Democrats will continue to demand oversight over this out of control agency," Aguilar wrote, with the November midterm elections just weeks away. "Accountability is coming."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) released a statement accusing the Trump administration of conducting an "arrest first, questions later" policy that is sweeping up documented immigrants and even US citizens.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass drew a straight line between the California ICE operation and Trump's declining political standing, as polling averages show his approval numbers hitting record lows.
"California will not be intimidated by Trump's fear campaign," Bass wrote. "He's afraid because he knows he's losing. My office has your back. Stay safe, know your rights, protect your neighbors, and vote if you're eligible."
Joel Payne, chief communications officer for MoveOn, similarly linked the ICE campaign with midterm elections.
"No one is safer because ICE is terrorizing and violently hunting down our neighbors," said Payne. "The surge of ICE activity in California is a clear attempt to intimidate Latino communities and force them to stay home in the midterm elections. It won’t work."