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.
We staggered through the darkest ever ostensible celebration of American independence mournfully grappling with what Rev. William Barber calls the "all-out attack on who we even claim we are trying to be." A tireless pillar of righteous rage, he takes a long, moral view and a tough, simple stand on fighting for our rights and moving forward from catastrophe: "All of us have to find our way together now." Hopefully, we'd add, with brass bands accompanying us.
The good Rev. Barber, of course, comes to the fight against fascism armed with far more moral clarity and fortitude than most of the rest of us. His battle, both "a moral rebellion against Trump’s America" and against a deeper, longtime "architecture of inequality" since Frederick Douglas asked, "What to the slave is the 4th of July?" confronts a politics wed to nationalism, capitalism, exploitation and, in an especially "unholy relationship," religion, even as masked goons disappear our neighbors.
For the rest of us, Barber's resolve to bear witness, to build "a memory that resists the lie," takes many other, often mundane forms. We blunder forward as best we can. We seek strength and solace in small joys - friends, dogs, gardens, nature and solidarity - increasingly, at protests around the country, with music, often tubas. Kurt Vonnegut, always wise, was on it: "If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: ‘The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music.'"
In St. Louis, the Funky Butt Band sang This Land Is Your Land. In Auburn CA, people sang Les Miserables' soaring Do You Hear the People Sing? In New York, the Street Beat Brass Band play; in Minneapolis, since George Floyd's murder, it's Brass Solidarity with This Little Light of Mine and I Wish I Knew How It Feels To Be Free. In Atlanta on No Kings Day, exuberant tubas drowned out the Proud Boys with Bella Ciao, a 19th-century Italian folk song turned anthem of freedom and resistance.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
In Somerville MA, the Good Trouble Brass Band has joined forces with the Boston Area Brigade of Activist Musicians (BABAM) for parades and protests in "a tradition of resilience and community" to contribute "something that is loud and joyful." And here in Portland ME we boast and love our Ideal Maine Social Aid & Sanctuary Band - "Easy tunes with friendly people" - a community activist, consensus-governed band in the New Orleans street band tradition spreading joy and advocacy since 2017.
They've played and marched at pride, homelessness, voting rights, abortion rights, Veterans for Peace events; at puppet slams, neighborhood gigs like Porchfest; a fabulous, four-tiered May Day gala; food coop, bike coalition, park conservancy parties; at a small, moving, buoyant Kneeling Photo Art Project - "We Kneel For An Equitable Future" - four years ago during a COVID winter, in their masks and down coats and sailor caps. Searing echoes of make love and music, not war and fascism.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Entirely aptly, these messengers of hope, rage joy offer diverse music, from Civil Rights- era anthems to old folk faves to Brass Band classics. Adding some spice is feverish new entrant from left field, Boston's Celtic punk rock band Dropkick Murphys. Longtime, blue-collar supporters of workers' and veterans' rights, they've been bringing their furious energy to protests; says front man Ken Casey “I think everything we’ve been doing for the past 30 years was a kind of warm-up for the moment we’re in.”
The hardscrabble Casey - from a recent show: "This Magger guy in the audience was waving his fucking Trump hat in people’s faces, and I could just tell he wanted to enter into discourse with me...I’m not going to shut up, just out of spite” - was raised by his grandfather. His foundational lesson: "If I ever see you bullying someone, I’ll kick the shit out of you. And if I ever see you back down from a bully, I’ll kick the shit out of you." On July 4th, they released new album For the People. Its fiery first single, Who’ll Stand With Us? and a quick-cut, seething video are a gut-punch call-out against fascist scumbags and oligarchs, with all the fury the moment demands. Just whew. Onward, evidently.
Through crime and crusade
Our labor, it’s been stolen
We’ve been robbed of our freedom
We’ve been held down and beholden
To the bosses and bankers
Who never gave their share
Of any blood
Of any sweat
Of any tears
Who’ll stand with us?
Don’t tell us everything is fine
Who’ll stand with us?
Because this treatment is a crime
The working people fuel the engine
While you yank the chain
We fight the wars and build buildings
For someone else’s gain.
So tell me
Who will stand with us?
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Green groups warned Tuesday that the Trump administration's plan to invoke a bogus "energy emergency" in order to keep old, polluting coal-fired plants running will make electricity generation dirtier and more expensive while failing to produce enough power to keep up with surging demand.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Energy published a resource adequacy analysis that includes plans for boosting fossil-fueled electricity generation, including at coal-fired plants. The report cites President Donald Trump's executive orders declaring a national energy emergency and strengthening the reliability and security of the nation's electric grid, and highlights the DOE's plan to classify aging fossil fuel plants as critical to system reliability. The administration is also likely to continue invoking Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act in order to extend the lifespans of older fossil fuel plants.
Although the analysis acknowledges that "old tools won't solve new problems," its methodology supports keeping expensive and polluting coal plants in operation. Dirty coal plants that continue to operate despite economic inefficiencies are sometimes called "zombie" plants.
"More clean energy will make the U.S. grid stronger, more reliable, and more resilient."
Not only does the report fail to state that the burning of fossil fuels is the leading driver of the climate emergency, it does not even mention the word "climate" once in its 73 pages. This tracks with the Trump administration's long-standing proscription of the term "climate change."
"The methodology released today is another attempt to push the false narrative that our country's energy future depends upon decades-old coal and gas plants, rather than clean renewables," said Sierra Club senior attorney Greg Wannier. "The only energy crisis faced by the American public is the catastrophic increase in costs that the Trump administration is forcing on the country's ratepayers."
Wannier noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and states "are already well equipped to meet any projected resource needs through the existing regulatory process, which ensures that electricity demand is reliably met at the least public cost."
"Any effort by DOE to override this process to forcibly keep coal plants online past their planned retirements would be an extraordinary and unlawful overreach of its regulatory authority," Wannier added. "It would be particularly harmful and costly to the communities living near these power plants who face the possibility of continued exposure to toxic levels of air and water pollution."
Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said Tuesday:
The Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale to help old, dirty power sources at the expense of air quality, public health, and higher energy bills for American families and businesses. This time it has issued a methodology that uses dodgy accounting to ignore all the clean energy we have at our disposal—including solar, wind, and battery technologies that are helping meet our nation's energy needs and support the reliability of our electric grid—in order to make a bogus case that these old, dirty power plants are needed. The administration's deeply flawed approach can't hide the fact that clean energy resources are helping keep lights on and lower electricity bills across the country, while keeping old, dirty power plants on life support will mean higher power bills for families and more toxic, cancer-causing pollution in the air we breathe.
The Trump administration has already used the nonexistent energy emergency in a push to fast-track fossil fuel permitting, keep fossil-fueled plants operating, and to wage lawfare against Democrat-controlled states trying to hold Big Oil financially accountable for its role in causing the climate emergency. In 2017, the first Trump administration also moved to bail out financially floundering coal and nuclear plants.
"No matter how they try to gussy it up, bailing out coal or other fossil fuels when low-cost solar and wind power is growing so quickly makes even less sense today than it did in 2017 when the previous Trump administration tried it before," Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said in response to the DOE plan.
"It's ironic that the Energy Department is warning about reliability just days after Republicans in Congress repealed the clean energy tax credits," Kennedy added, referring to a provision in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump on Friday.
NRDC cites analysts' predictions that the legislation will reduce additions of the electricity needed to meet rapidly growing demand and raise wholesale electricity prices as much as 25% by 2030 and up to 74% by 2035.
"More clean energy will make the U.S. grid stronger, more reliable, and more resilient—all while saving consumers money on their electricity bills," Kennedy said. "Bailing out old, dirty coal, gas, and oil plants would mean higher costs and a less reliable grid."
Philadelphia's largest municipal workers' strike in over 40 years is entering its second week after negotiations with the city broke down this weekend.
Over 9,000 sanitation workers, 911 dispatchers, water services workers, crossing guards, and other city employees walked off the job last week, demanding that the city increase their salary enough to meet the rising cost of living.
But even with trash piling up on the streets and other city services understaffed, Mayor Cherelle Parker (D) would not agree to the demands made by AFSCME District Council 33, Philadelphia's largest blue-collar union.
Parker has offered a pay increase of 8.75% over the next three years, which she described as historic.
But DC 33 president Greg Boulware said that's far too little for municipal workers, many of whom are among the city's "working poor," to survive.
"It's not like as if our members are making $80,000, $90,000 a year," Boulware said. "A 2% increase on those would be significantly higher than it would be on somebody making $40,000-$45,000 a year. So, her math truly is not mathing, and you're clearly not paying attention to the working people that are going on in this city."
The average municipal worker in Philadelphia makes around $46,000, which is $15,000 less than the median income in the city and less than half of what a single adult needs to live comfortably, according to a study by SmartAsset.
"We got people that work and repair the water mains and can't afford their water bill," Boulware said at a rally last week. "We got people that repair the runways at the airport and can't afford a plane ticket. I don't want to be rich. We just want a comfort inside the city that we serve daily."
The union initially asked for an 8% raise for the next four years, which the city dismissed. This weekend, they pared their proposal down to 5%, but the city still did not budge.
Parker has insisted that her smaller proposed increases are merely what is "fiscally responsible," and that the city cannot afford to offer more.
The union has disputed this, pointing out that Parker herself is budgeted to receive a 9% increase to her salary of more than $240,000. That increase alone is nearly half the current salary that the average DC 33 member makes in a year.
As of Monday, negotiations have stalled, with no clear end in sight. With a throng of picketers behind him, Boulware told NBC 10, a local affiliate, that the union was working on a third proposal, and that negotiations may resume Tuesday. But he seemed to expect more obstinacy from the city.
"We've been there to be able to sit and meet and negotiate," he said. "It doesn't seem like the city quite honestly wants to entertain any of the questions that we have about things and actually have a true dialogue... That's how you negotiate and that's not truly what's been going on."
Despite the city's refusal to budge, momentum around the strike has continued to grow. On Friday, rapper LL Cool J dropped out of a 4th of July festival in the city, saying, "There is absolutely no way I can perform across a picket line."
Other AFSCME councils around Pennsylvania have joined pickets in solidarity. This includes Philadelphia's Council 47, which represents thousands of "white collar" city workers.
With mounds of trash accumulating on streets, sometimes becoming as "tall as people," the environmental activists with the Sunrise Movement have also joined in the effort to pressure the city. On Monday, activists hauled bags of trash into the lobby of City Hall, labeled with the words "Meet DC 33 Demands" written in yellow tape.
AFSCME, meanwhile, has stated its resolve to fight on as the strike has gained national attention.
"City workers are holding the line until they get a FAIR contract with the wages and benefits they deserve," the national union's account wrote on X Monday. "One day longer, one day stronger, no matter what it takes."
In an interview with CNN, former Congressman Dean Phillips was asked whether "there is room" for him and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic Party—but progressive Rep. Summer Lee was among those saying on Thursday that Phillips' rejection of Mamdani wwas really about millions of Americans who have voted for candidates like him.
"These guys aren't just rejecting him, but the millions moved to electoral action by candidates like him," said Lee (D-Pa.) in response to Phillips' interview.
CNN's Omar Jimenez asked Phillips about the "big tent" philosophy often promoted by Democratic leaders who believe the party should welcome lawmakers and candidates who don't agree with every aspect of its platform—politicians like anti-choice Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and former Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who made millions of dollars from his coal business.
Jimenez asked whether Mamdani, a democratic socialist who stunned former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the party's leadership in the Democratic mayoral primary last month, should also be welcomed into the party's "big tent."
"The answer ultimately is no," said Phillips, who was one of the wealthiest members of Congress before he left office to run for president in a long-shot bid against former President Joe Biden in the 2024 race—losing his home state of Minnesota and garnering just 1.7% of the vote in South Carolina, falling behind author Marianne Williamson.
Phillips admitted that "most Americans share the same values" as Mamdani, who has advocated for fare-free public transit, universal free childcare, and city-run grocery stores to operate alongside private stores and provide low-cost essentials to working families.
But he claimed that while "differences of opinion, perspective, life story, politics, and experience" are beneficial to the Democratic Party, the presence of so-called "socialists" like Mamdani is not.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans want neither far-left or far-right politics," he said without citing any supporting evidence.
Phillips appeared confident that Democratic voters across the country would recoil from candidates like Mamdani—despite recent rallies in red districts where progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who both endorsed Mamdani, have drawn crowds of thousands of people in recent months during Sanders' Fighting Oligarchy Tour.
In addition to Mamdani's historic success in the Democratic primary—with more New Yorkers voting for him than in any other primary election in the history of the nation's largest city—numerous polls have shown that Americans back policies like those that powered his campaign.
A poll by Child Care for Every Family in 2023 found that 92% of parents with children under age 5 supported guaranteed, government-funded childcare, including 79% of Republican parents and 83% of independent parents.
Raising taxes for corporations and wealthy households is also broadly popular, with about 6 in 10 Americans supporting the proposal in a recent Pew Research poll.
And despite efforts by centrist Democrats and Republicans to portray Mamdani's platform as radical, programs like his fare-free bus proposal have already been implemented in cities like Kansas City, Raleigh, and Boston on three of the city's busiest bus routes.
"Maybe our big tent should have less millionaire nepo heirs and more fighters for the millions of working-class people," suggested Lee on Thursday.
Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project also condemned Phillips for suggesting Mamdani—and ostensibly the 565,639 New Yorkers who voted for him—have no place in the party.
"The stated position here is that socialists cannot be part of the Democratic Party," said Bruenig. "Does this hold for the socialist voters too? Should they also not vote for the party? Phillips is trying to radically shrink the party. Scary stuff."
"Centrists and other moderates are spending a nontrivial amount of national political energy being mad at Zohran," he added, "which could instead be spent on [President Donald] Trump and Republicans."
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution is circulating a petition that's garnered more than 30,000 signatures from people urging Democratic leaders like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand—all New York Democrats who have yet to endorse their own party's mayoral candidate—not to "sabotage" Mamdani.
Despite Phillips' insistence that Mamdani doesn't belong in the party, the resistance in New York appeared to weaken a bit Thursday as Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) endorsed the candidate.
"New Yorkers have spoken loud and clear," said Espaillat, who had previously backed Cuomo. "And as a lifelong Democrat, I'm endorsing the Democratic Party nominee."
White House border czar Tom Homan on Friday stirred up outrage during a Fox News interview in which he declared that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents could detain people without probable cause based on a number of factors including their physical appearance.
After being asked about the possibility of a judge in California limiting the scope of ICE's law-enforcement activities, Homan declared that "people need to understand ICE officers and Border Patrol don't need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them."
He then outlined factors ICE agents could use that would justify detaining someone.
"They just need the totality of the circumstances," he claimed. "They just got through our observation, you know, get articulable facts based on their location, their occupation, their physical appearance, their actions."
Homan: "People need to understand ICE officers and Border Patrol don't need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them ... based on their physical appearance." pic.twitter.com/aQzwepaHpk
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 11, 2025
Homan's statement about not requiring probable cause to detain people contradicts a statement made in court this week by Thomas Giles, the assistant director of ICE who testified that the standard for making arrests "is we need to determine probable cause and determine alienage."
Many elected Democrats rushed to slam Homan for his statement about using "physical appearance" as a factor for determining whether someone warrants being detained.
"This is patently false," wrote Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) on X. "DHS has authority to question and search people coming into the country at points of entry. But ICE may not detain and question anyone without reasonable suspicion—and certainly not based on their physical appearance alone. This lawlessness must stop."
"Trump's thugs will racially profile you, then go on national television to brag about getting away with it," commented Rep. Yvette Clark (D-N.Y.).
"And there you have it," wrote Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who weeks ago was forcibly removed by security forces while trying to ask Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem questions at a press event. "Under the Trump Administration, ICE and Border Patrol are being empowered to stop and question you based solely on how you look. No probable cause. No real reason. Just your 'physical appearance.' That's not justice—it's profiling."
"They're saying the quiet part out loud now," wrote Democratic New York State Sen. Gustavo Rivera. "Don't get it twisted: if we let them keep doing this, they'll find a reason to come for ANY ONE OF US soon enough."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, argued on X that there was some truth to Homan's statement as the Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that racial profiling can be used in immigration stops. He noted, however, "that decision was based on demographics at the time, and in the 50 years since, courts have invalidated it as used in Latino-heavy communities."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, accused Homan and the Trump administration of "admitting to participating in a criminal conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States" with his remarks.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) earlier this month filed a lawsuit in which it alleged that ICE agents in Los Angeles were racially profiling Latinos in the city and flouting federal laws when making arrests.
"Individuals with brown skin are approached or pulled aside by unidentified federal agents, suddenly and with a show of force, and made to answer questions about who they are and where they are from," the ACLU wrote. "If they hesitate, attempt to leave, or do not answer the questions to the satisfaction of the agents, they are detained, sometimes tackled, handcuffed, and/or taken into custody. In these interactions, agents typically have no prior information about the individual and no warrant of any kind. If agents make an arrest, contrary to federal law, they do not make any determination of whether a person poses a risk of flight before a warrant can be obtained. Also contrary to federal law, the agents do not identify themselves or explain why the individual is being arrested."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he'd nominated U.S. President Donald Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize during an Oval Office meeting on Monday. He did so shortly after the two reiterated their goal of forcibly removing Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, a policy that humanitarian groups have described as "ethnic cleansing."
The meeting went on with protesters assembled outside the White House from both Muslim and Jewish groups and other anti-war organizations who called on Trump to end military support for the Israeli government led by Netanyahu, who has been charged, along with his former defense minister, for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.
One demonstrator held a banner that read, "U.S. + Israel Guilty of Genocide."
"This is not a diplomatic visit. This is a disgrace," said Robert McCaw, Director of Government Affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). "Every handshake, every deal, every photo op [of Netanyahu] with American leaders stains the hands of all Americans with the blood of children from Gaza."
According to official estimates, more than 57,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's military campaign in Gaza since 2023, including over 17,000 children. The total casualty number does not include the more than 11,000 estimated to be buried beneath rubble.
Other estimates suggest that the death toll is potentially much higher when factoring in the indirect effects of Israel's blockade of humanitarian aid, which have caused widespread hunger and disease.
"Netanyahu doesn't belong in D.C. He belongs in The Hague," wrote Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war group CodePink on X.
Anti-war Jewish groups and figures were among some of the loudest voices.
Another protester, Yehuda Cohen, the father of an Israeli hostage who has been trapped in Gaza since October 7, 2023, called on Trump to "force Netanyahu to end the war and go for a hostage deal," which would allow his 21-year-old son Nimrod to return home.
He echoed the accusation that the families of many other hostages still in Gaza have leveled at Netanyahu, that he has sabotaged efforts at a cease-fire to maintain his tenuous hold on power.
"He's got right-wing extremists in his coalition who want the total occupation of the Gaza Strip," Cohen said. "They want to rebuild settlements there, and that's why they are threatening that they will withdraw from the coalition if we go for a cease-fire."
Cohen was part of a separate rally organized by the group New Jewish Narrative, which brought dozens of protesters to the White House in anticipation of Netanyahu's visit.
"When Trump sits across from Netanyahu on Monday, I hope he doesn't just nod along," said Hadar Susskind, the group's president. "I hope he demands an end to the war. I hope he uses all of the leverage he has to bring an end to this war, to rush humanitarian aid into Gaza, and to bring all of the hostages home."
Those calls not only fell on deaf ears, they were thoroughly doused once the meeting began. Trump and Netanyahu seemed to be moving in lockstep, with both reiterating their desire to carry out a plan to permanently expel Palestinians from Gaza, which Trump first proposed publicly in February.
Netanyahu told reporters that he and Trump were working on negotiations with other countries that could take in the people of Gaza who'd been relocated.
"We're working with the United States very closely about finding countries that will seek to realize what they always say, that they wanted to give the Palestinians a better future. I think we're getting close to finding several countries."
Netanyahu framed this as a humanitarian effort to allow Palestinians to leave the "prison" in Gaza and suggested that those who want to stay "can stay." However, the prime minister's recent comments to the Israeli Knesset have shown that making Gaza uninhabitable so its residents will be forced to move is his explicit goal.
In leaked comments obtained by the Israeli magazine +972 in June, Netanyahu assured legislators: "We’re destroying more and more homes—they have nowhere to return to. The only natural outcome will be that Gazans will want to emigrate out of the Strip. Our main problem is with receiving countries."
In comments to NBC News Tuesday, Mustafa Barghouti, a politician with the Palestinian National Initiative Party, described Netanyahu's claim that migration from Gaza would be "voluntary" as a farce.
"When they say it would be voluntary, that is so misleading," Barghouti said. "When you bomb people every day, when you starve people for 126 days, who can call that a voluntary decision?"
[Update: This article has been edited to clarify that the rally hosted by New Jewish Narrative, at which Yehuda Cohen spoke, was a separate event from the one organized by the group American Muslims forPalestine.]
"The only reason" to take the rules off the books now, said one critic, "is to score points with broadband monopolies and their lobbyists, who've fought against essential and popular safeguards for the past two decades straight."
The advocacy group Free Press on Friday blasted U.S. President Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission chief for an order that rips net neutrality rules off the books, without any time for public comment, following an unfavorable court ruling.
A panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in January that broadband is an "information service" instead of a "telecommunications service" under federal law, and the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from creating online "fast lanes" and blocking or throttling web content.
Trump-appointed FCC Chair Brendan Carr said in a Friday statement that as part of his "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative, "we're continuing to clean house at the FCC, working to identify and eliminate rules that no longer serve a purpose, have been on our books for decades, and have no place in the current Code of Federal Regulations."
"Today's action is just the latest step the FCC is taking to follow the Trump administration's effort to usher in prosperity through deregulation," he said of the order that scraps the net neutrality rules. "And it's just one of many, with more on the horizon, so stay tuned."
Responding in a lengthy statement, Free Press vice president of policy and general counsel Matt Wood said that "the FCC's so-called deletion today is little more than political grandstanding. It's true that the rules in question were first stayed by the 6th Circuit and then struck down by that appellate court—in a poorly reasoned opinion. So today's bookkeeping maneuver changes very little in reality."
"What's sad about it is Brendan Carr, as usual, prioritizing political theater and ideological obeisance over actual legal reasoning and policy impacts," Wood continued. "There's no need to delete currently inoperative rules, much less to announce it in a summer Friday order. The only reason to do that is to score points with broadband monopolies and their lobbyists, who've fought against essential and popular safeguards for the past two decades straight."
"It also shows subservience to Elon Musk's incredibly destructive government-by-chainsaw attitude—which seems to have outlived Musk himself in some corners of the Trump administration," he argued, referring to the tech billionaire who initially spearheaded the president's Department of Government Efficiency but has since had a public breakup with Trump.
Wood noted that "the appeals process for this case has not even concluded yet, as Free Press and allies sought and got more time to consider our options at the Supreme Court."
"Today's FCC order doesn't impact either our ability to press the case there or our strategic considerations about whether to do so," he added. "It's little more than a premature housekeeping step, with Brendan Carr deciding to get out ahead of the Supreme Court in ways that someone with so-called regulatory humility might typically avoid."
The fight for net neutrality has been strongly influenced by Trump's time in office. During his first term, the FCC—led by the president's first chair, Ajit Pai—repealed the Obama administration's policies. Under former President Joe Biden, the agency voted to restore the rules, sparking a fresh legal battle with ISPs, which led to the appellate court's decision earlier this year.
"This decision will ensure nothing but a continued lack of justice and accountability for everyone involved in the 9/11 military trial at Guantánamo," said one critic.
Human rights defenders on Friday condemned a federal appellate panel's decision upholding former U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's withdrawal of pretrial plea agreements for three men accused of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
Austin, who served under former President Joe Biden, "indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements; the plain and unambiguous text of the pretrial agreements shows that no performance of promises had begun," the D.C. Court of Appeals panel ruled in a 2-1 decision.
Under the proposed deal, accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and alleged co-conspirators Mustafa al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash would have been spared execution in return for pleading guilty. The agreement came amid years of stalled legal proceedings in a case complicated by the U.S. government's torture of the defendants and efforts to cover it up.
Austin withdrew the plea agreements last August, explaining that he "long believed that the families of the victims, our service members, and the American public deserves the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out in this case."
However, attorneys for the defendants called the legally dubious military commission regime established at the Guantánamo Bay prison—notorious for detainee torture and indefinite detention—during the George W. Bush administration "obviously corrupt and rigged." During the 2000s, several military prosecutors resigned from the commissions in protest over what some of them called a rigged system designed to ensure there were no acquittals.
"The 9/11 case will never be resolved through a contested trial because the defendants were tortured by the CIA."
Last November, Air Force Col. Matthew McCall, a military judge, ruled that Lloyd "did not have the authority to do what he did, asserting that the plea deals "remain valid, and are enforceable," prompting the government's appeal. The following month, a military appeals court also ruled against Austin's bid to ditch the plea deals.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)—which has long represented Guantánamo detainees—called Friday's decision "a betrayal of justice."
"This decision will ensure nothing but a continued lack of justice and accountability for everyone involved in the 9/11 military trial at Guantánamo," CCR senior staff attorney Wells Dixon said in a statement. "The Biden administration's invalidation of plea agreements that would have resulted in convictions and life sentences for the 9/11 defendants is a painful betrayal of 9/11 victims' families."
"The 9/11 case will never be resolved through a contested trial because the defendants were tortured by the CIA," Dixon added. "The only way to resolve this case is for the Trump administration to succeed where every prior administration has failed and negotiate new deals with the 9/11 defendants that will finally close the 'War on Terror' prison at Guantánamo."
There are still 15 men currently imprisoned in Guantánamo, which is located on Cuban land leased to the U.S. in perpetuity by a dictatorship overthrown in 1959. Multiple detainees have been cleared for release, one of them for 15 years.
Some legal experts doubted whether the U.S. government would ever be able to try, let alone convict, the 9/11 suspects. Military judges and prosecutors have cited defendants' torture in declining to proceed with cases against them. Many men and boys were tortured at CIA "black sites," Guantánamo, and military prisons including Abu Ghraib. At least dozens of detainees died.
The three co-defendants were all captured in Pakistan during late 2002 and early 2003. After being turned over the United States, they were sent to CIA black sites, including the notorious "Salt Pit" outside Kabul, Afghanistan, where suspected militant Gul Rahman was tortured to death in November 2002. In 2006, the men were transferred to Guantánamo.
Mohammed was subjected to interrupted drowning, commonly called "waterboarding," 183 times, as well as other torture and abuse approved under the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation" program. Hawsawi suffered a shredded rectum resulting from sodomization during so-called "rectal hydration" and has had to manually reinsert parts of his anal cavity to defecate. Bin Attash said he was placed in stress positions for extended periods, beaten, and doused in cold water.
The co-defendants must now decide whether to appeal the ruling to the full D.C. appeals court, the U.S. Supreme Court, or both.
"Putting aside the fantasy that this case is ever going to go to trial—assuming it does go to trial and that there's a conviction—you get to sentencing, and they have a right to put forward evidence... that they were tortured," Dixon told CNN Friday. "That's never going to happen."
"I think everyone did an incredible job under the circumstances," U.S. President Donald Trump insisted.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday lashed out at a reporter who asked a pointed question about the government's response to the devastating floods in Texas that claimed the lives of more than 120 people, with over 170 still missing.
During a press event that also included Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a local reporter grilled the president about the timeliness of the emergency alerts sent out to people in the flooded region.
"Several families we've heard from are obviously upset because they say that those warnings, those alerts... didn't go out in time, and they also say that people could have been saved," the reporter said. "What do you say to those families?"
"I think everyone did an incredible job under the circumstances," Trump replied. "This was, I guess [Secretary of Homeland Security] Kristi [Noem] said, a 1 in 500, 1 in 1,000 years [event], and I just have admiration for the job that everybody did."
The president then proceeded to insult the reporter personally.
"Only a bad person would ask a question like that, to be honest with you," he said. "I don't know who you are but only a very evil person would ask a question like that."
REPORTER: Families are upset because warnings didn't go out in time. What do you say to those families?
TRUMP: Well I think everyone did an incredible job under the circumstances. This was a one in 1,000 years. Only a bad person would ask a question like that. Only an evil… pic.twitter.com/IwYS6JJOCF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 11, 2025
ABC News reported earlier this week that flood alerts last weekend were not sent out to people in the affected area until 90 minutes after a local fireman first requested one. Additionally, reported ABC some residents didn't receive the flood alerts until six hours after the initial request was made.
Democrats in Congress this week also called for an investigation into whether Trump administration cuts to federal weather monitoring and emergency management agencies may have hindered the response to the Texas floods.