LIVE COVERAGE
Fog Of Bullshit: Racist Clowns, Liars and Psycopaths
The surreal and deadly lurches on. In the last, frantic, script-flipping week, MAGA went from threatening to kill Dems who reminded troops to obey the law to scurrying to parse or ignore the news their macho, bungling Secretary of War Crimes evidently blew apart (at least) two guys in the water for no reason - an action universally deemed either murder or war crime, but def against the law. Now see Kegseth et al thrash, bluster, scapegoat the other guy. Trump doctrine: Deport, raze, blame, kill first; think (sic) later.
Most notably, a flailing presidency of "malevolence tempered by incompetence" - Cue the bonkers holiday greeting, "A very Happy Thanksgiving salutation to all of our Great American Citizens and Patriots who have been so nice in allowing our Country to be divided, disrupted, carved up, murdered, beaten, mugged, and laughed at" - is now embroiled in the detritus of a toxic, slapdash revenge tour targeting perceived, if often outlandish, enemies, both here and abroad. Last week's berserk campaign focused on six, mouthy Democratic lawmakers and veterans who had the chutzpah to post a brief video reminding the military of their oaths to follow the law and if needed disobey orders that don't - a bedrock tenet of the military so vital it's engraved on a plaque at West Point: "Should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers obey the law." Pretty radical.
The measured response from the Mob-Boss-in-Chief: Hysterically charging them with "SEDITION," "TREASON," "MILITARY TRIBUNALS," and calling them "traitorous sons of bitches" who should be "EXECUTED." Even as death threats followed, he was swiftly joined by every MAGA lickspittle, especially the lickspittlest - manly Whiskey Pete, the preening, pig-eyed, fragile creator of the War Department famed for strutting on stage to spout inane bullshit about a "warrior ethos" that demands "more lethality, less (sic) lawyers" 'cause who needs rules and laws? Shrieking the Dems' "screed" was "despicable, reckless, and false," he zeroed in on Sen. Mark Kelly - Macho Twit Goes After Actual Mensch - announcing he'd heard "serious allegations of misconduct” by Kelly, he'd "determine further action," and maybe recall Kelly to active duty so he could court-martial him.
It was a brilliant move by a National Guardsman whose drunken, inept, sexual assaulting career peaked in a Civil Affairs job and a weekend TV host gig until his absurd appointment, savaged as "an affront" to anyone who ever served, especially after he leaked war plans - a move just found to have violated Pentagon policy and put at risk military personnel. Veterans eviscerate him as "an absolute jackass," "an imposter," "a coward," "a blowhard" in makeup, "that officer, a total blue falcon" who screws his comrades. Now pols are too. Sen. and former Marine Ruben Gallego: "This is fucking insane." Kelly, in contrast, is a decades-long, much-decorated Navy pilot who saw 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm, an astronaut who flew four space shuttle missions including the mission to recover the Columbia crash victims, a husband who retired to nurse his wife back to health after she was shot in the head, and a respected Senator.
Kelly, who's seen much worse, fought back: "(Hegseth) runs around on stage talking about lethality and the warrior ethos (like) a 12-year-old playing army, and it is ridiculous, embarrassing. This is not a serious person." He noted the "wild" irony of Hegseth attacking him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is what the six traitors recited: "You can't make this shit up." He also posted an image of his 20-plus medals to illustrate how he'd served and loved this country. In response, Pete sneered to "Captain" Kelly not only did he do "sedition" but his medals "are out of order," and he'd get to that. Alexander Vindman (and half of America): "Ever heard of a picture being mirrored? Good reminder: You’re out of your depth." Shut down, a pouting Pete went after our real enemy, vowing to cut support for a DEI-infected Boy Scouts who've become "genderless" and failed to "cultivate masculine values." Welcome to the Gulf of Fragile Masculinity.
This is what the "Secretary of War" is busy doing. This is who this petty macho arrogant jerk is. This is the guy who, as the Washington Post reported days later, allegedly ordered a SEAL Team on Sept. 2, in the first of nearly two dozen military strikes on fishing boats in the Caribbean that have killed 83 mostly anonymous "narco-terrorists" in extrajudicial assassinations, to "kill everybody" after the smoke from an initial strike cleared and revealed two wounded survivors in the water, clinging to wreckage of the burning boat. "Kill them all," writes JoJoFromJerz. "That was the order, plain, deliberate, and damnable, issued by the booze and bronzer-brined (Hegseth) as if American power were his personal cudgel and human life his disposable currency. The directive slithered down the chain of command like toxic runoff," and in moments the two helpless men were "blown apart in the water."
The murderous "double-tap" strike was needed, the Pentagon argued, to sink the boat and avoid a "navigation hazard” - a claim Rep. and Marine veteran Seth Moulton called "patently absurd," just like Trump's underlying "novel" claim the U.S. is in an "armed conflict" with oil-rich Venezuela' and its drug cartels. Despite American opposition, to date he's threatened ground strikes, hinted at regime change, and unilaterally declared Venezuelan airspace closed along with 83 killings so politically and legally dubious the U.K. has stopped sharing intelligence on traffic in the Caribbean to not be complicit. All this, despite a total lack of evidence the victims are drug traffickers or any accountability for their deaths, and the fact most potentially lethal fentanyl doesn't even come from the Caribbean. One pundit: "So what gave him the idea blowing up small boats in international waters was a thing?" Especially when, per Marcie Wheeler, it took four shots for these killer clowns to do the lawless dirty deed.
Inept Warrior Pete is on it anyway, damn near swooning from blood lust, with his ridiculous renaming stunt - "WAR.GOV/JOINTHEFIGHT - rabid calls for "lethality," firing of military Judge Advocate Generals who act as legal guardrails against possible future illegal commands (hmm), and queasy, chest-thumping zeal for the fight: "Trump ordered action - and the Department of War is delivering! Operation SOUTHERN SPEAR defends our Homeland!" The WaPo story of his verbal command to "kill everybody" shouldn't surprise anyone; it's part of the long, sordid, bellicose narrative arc of a laws-are-bullshit buffoon who only feels big if he makes others small, or per Trump, "like, dead," and can then brag about it. A wildly unqualified, uber-macho cartoon version of a weak man willing to do anything to prove he isn't, he fits right in with all the other flame-throwing hacks and sycophants now inexplicably handed the terrifying reins of power.
Meanwhile, the consensus of virtually every military expert or lawyer asked is that Hegseth is, by his actions, either a war criminal or a murderer. The legal bottom line: "There is no basis in law for the maritime attacks. Period. Full stop." Even if there were, international and US law render the targeting of defenseless persons - showing them "no quarter" - "patently illegal." They add, "Violations of these obligations are war crimes, murder, or both. There are no other options." And anyone who issues or follows those orders should be prosecuted. Many cite for reference a "textbook war crime," as in, "If we were at war, Hegseth committed one. If not, it's outright murder." Laurence Tribe, who taught law at Harvard for 50 years, helpfully adds that the DOD Law of War Manual, Sec. 18.3.2.1 includes the "requirement" to refuse illegal orders. Their example? "Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked."
Also, in case anyone ever believed Trump's "war" was about drugs: Last week he pardoned former Honduran president and cocaine kingpin Juan Orlando Hernández, sentenced last year in a US court to 45 years in prison for conspiring to traffic over 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.; with his brother, he also helped turn Honduras into a major producing hub and transit point for cocaine heading to the US, and once said he wanted to “stuff the drugs right up the noses of the gringos." Trump's brazen flaunting of his "charade" of a drug war may be why even Newsmax (sadly) argues the strikes are war crimes, and Repubs on House and Senate Armed Services Committees say they may even do some oversight of this one crime among so many by their mad king; it remains unclear how many are willing to "fall on their swords" for the grossly incompetent, unsavory Hegseth.
South Park's latest, savage skewering of "fucking douchebag Pete Hegseth" may help them decide, or not. Trump sends him to town to free Peter Thiel; armed with his selfie stick but thrown out by the "woke" police chief, he teargasses the annual, Saudi-sponsored 5K Turkey Trot, mistaking the race for an Antifa mob; then he bickers with ICE Barbie - who shoots another dog livestreaming and yelling, "Like and subscribe, guys! The Department of War will not be intimidated!" Possibly confusing art with life, Hegseth tried Friday to sneeringly meme his way from the outrage by trashing "fake news," doubling down with, "We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists," and posting a grotesque, quickly blasted, parody of kids' icon Franklin the Turtle firing rockets at small boats. Up next: "Franklin Goes to the Hague For War Crimes" and "Franklin On Trial at the ICC."
The White House, meanwhile, feverishly tried to quiet the uproar. Press Barbie babbled the second strike was "in self-defense to protect Americans in vital United States interests" (sic) and insisted "presidentially-designated Narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting." Also, they suddenly found a scapegoat, Admiral Frank Bradley: "Bus, meet Admiral Bradley. Admiral Bradley, meet bus." Hegseth "authorized Adm Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. (He) worked well within his authority and the law to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States was eliminated," said Barbie, a renowned scholar of maritime law. Pete's stupid, rank deceit reportedly set off "furious backlash" at the Pentagon. "He is selling out Bradley and sending chills down the spines of his chain of command," said Sen. Chris Murphy. "A case study in how not to lead."
The morning after the Sept. 3 attack, Hegseth told Fox News he tracked the strike in real time: "I watched it live." At Tuesday's Cabinet circle jerk, Trump dozed from his night's hypomanic episode of rage-posting160 times, and Pete's story slimily shifted. As the big boy leader, he said, of course "you want to own that responsibility." So he saw the first strike, but "at the Dept.of War we got alotta things to do," and he had, umm, a thing, so he didn’t stay for "the hour and two hours or whatever where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs" yada yada. Huh. Hours later, he learned "the commander had made the - which he had the complete authority to do" whoosh under the bus and "we have his back." Asked if he saw survivors, he lost it: "The thing was on fire. This is called the fog of war. This is what you in the press don’t understand. You sit in your air-conditioned offices, plant fake stories, nit pick, kill everybody, not based on anything, American heroes, I wrote a book, yada yada, go war fighters!
Wait. "The fog of war"? You mean the fog of bullshit? You mean the cloud of smoke you see in your own air-conditioned office far away as drones on a screen incinerate small boats and the poor souls in them, also the rare survivor who desperately hangs on in the flames and water until you flick a blithe switch to kill him too? That fog of "war"? Fuck you, you gutless vapid self-serving ghoul, whining and snarling you're all doing "what is necessary, dark and difficult things (on) behalf of the American people." Right. On Tuesday, the Columbian family of one victim filed the first court petition charging their husband and father, Alejandro Carranza Medina, 42, was illegally killed in a 2nd US strike on Sept. 15. They said he was a fisher who often set out for marlin and tuna; they named Trump and Hegseth as his killers. Trump had bragged that day of "a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and terrorists." He said they were "from Venezuela."
Update: Good news from The Borowitz Report for the Manchild King: The Hague has invited him to receive an award. "They said it was in response to things I've done as president," he boasted, before nodding off.
Washington Homeowners Sue Big Oil Over Soaring Insurance Costs
Efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the climate emergency continued in Washington state this week as homeowners sued oil giants and a trade association over their decades of lies and rising insurance premium rates.
"As natural disasters become more costly, homeowners foot the bill," explains the complaint, filed on Tuesday in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington against the American Petroleum Institute, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell and its subsidiary Equilon Enterprises.
"In 2023, a significant number of natural catastrophes... impacted the United States, at an estimated cost of $114 billion, of which approximately $80 billion was insured," the filing notes. "In the state of Washington alone, homeowners' rates have increased by a total of 51% over the past six years. But climate change has driven insurance premium increases throughout the country because insurance generally operates by pooling risks."
There are two named plaintiffs in the proposed class action suit. Margaret Hazard lives in Carson, an "area that is very dry and prone to forest fires." Since she began paying for home insurance in 2017, her premiums have doubled, and she recently had to switch to a policy with less coverage. Richard Kennedy of Normandy Park has also paid for homeowner's insurance since then; his premiums have gone from $1,012.10 to $2,149.18, an increase of nearly 113%.
"This case is about holding the fossil fuel defendants accountable for the increased homeowners' insurance premiums that their coordinated and deliberate scheme to hide the truth about climate change and the effects of burning fossil fuels has brought about and for their conduct contributing to climate change; a cost the highly profitable trillion-dollar industry can easily afford, and one that it should not be permitted to simply pass along to the everyday people who are presently bearing the burden of these increased premiums," the complaint states.
The document highlights that "defendants have known since at least the 1960s, based on their own internal scientific research, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution caused by the unchecked sales of its highly profitable petroleum products would inevitably lead to 'catastrophic' weather-related consequences with 'considerable significance to civilization' and that only a narrow window of time existed in which to act before severe consequences would result."
Big Oil "took this internal calculus seriously," the filing details, but "rather than inform the public, or... undertake meaningful remedial steps, defendants chose instead to protect their profits by engaging in a massive, deliberate, decadeslong misinformation campaign intended to sow doubt in the minds of the media [and] business leaders, and deceive the public and consumers about the conclusions they themselves had reached about the substantial consequences that the sale of their products would have."
As journalists and academic researchers have revealed what fossil fuel companies knew, and when, over the past decade—while extreme weather, from rapidly intensifying hurricanes to historic wildfires, ravaged US communities—various climate liability lawsuits have been filed across the country by states, municipalities, tribes, and individuals.
According to the Center for Climate Integrity's national tracker, in Washington state alone, there are at least three other cases: two brought by tribes in December 2023 and a wrongful death suit filed in May by the daughter of Juliana Leon, who died during the extreme heatwave that plagued the Pacific Northwest in 2021.
The cases have often drawn comparisons to the tobacco industry's deception, and the one filed this week is no exception. In fact, the plaintiffs for the new federal suit in Washington are represented by the law firm Hagens Berman, whose managing partner and cofounder, Steve Berman, served as special assistant attorney general for 13 states against Big Tobacco.
"Big Oil took its playbook directly from the minds of Big Tobacco and think they can get away with the same deliberate disinformation campaign, coercing the public to pay for the very harms they suffer," Berman said in a statement. "We see a direct correlation between Big Oil's lies and the alarming increase of homeowners insurance due to the rising threat of natural disasters."
Farmers Say Trump Tariffs Crushing Operations, Forcing Higher Prices Ahead of Holiday Season
US farmers warned on Tuesday that they are under increasing strain thanks to President Donald Trump's tariffs, and they predicted more price increases were coming for American consumers during the holiday season.
As reported by The Packer, representatives from the Kansas Farmers Union, supermarket chain supplier Royal Food, and North Carolina-based Red Scout Farm detailed during a conference call how Trump's tariffs on nearly all imported goods were raising prices on vegetables, fruits, grains, and meats.
Mary Carol Dodd, owner of Red Scout Farm, said during the call that her farm depends on products imported from other countries, including greenhouse materials, insect netting, and produce bags. With no low-cost domestic substitutes for these products available, said Dodd, she will have no choice but to raise prices.
"When the price of everything it takes to grow vegetables goes up, from soil to tools to fertilizer, packaging, transportation, then the vegetables on the holiday table go up as well,” Dodd explained. “For a small, diversified farm like us, those costs add up quickly. Our profit margins are already very thin, so every increase means tough choices."
For Dodd, those tough choices have taken the form of a 50% price hike on collard greens and kale, and a 50-cent price increase on mixed-lettuce bags.
Nick Levendofsky, executive director of the Kansas Farmers Union, said during the call that price increases were inevitable given that most farms already operate on razor-thin profit margins.
"Every added cost in the supply chain eventually shows up at the checkout line," he said. "Tariffs stack up on top of already high input costs, and families end up paying more for the same ingredients they bought last year."
Colin Tuthill, president of Royal Food, expressed bewilderment that the president would enact policies that raised Americans' food prices, especially after he won an election last year on the promise to reduce grocery prices starting on his first day in office.
"Placing a tariff or a tax on any kind of food item makes absolutely no sense to me," he said. "We're raising the price of food for the most in need."
The American Federation of Teachers, Century Foundation, and Groundwork Collaborative last week issued a report estimating that Thanksgiving costs for US consumers have gone up by roughly 10% over the last year, with staples such as onions, spiral hams, and cranberry sauce all recording increases of 22% or higher.
The groups also found that Trump's policies were squarely to blame for the price increases, and not just the tariffs. Specifically, they pointed to chaos at agencies such as the US Department of Agriculture that have weakened efforts to contain bird flu on US farms, which has in turn hurt the supply of poultry heading into the holiday season.
Although Trump has walked back some of his tariffs on staples such as coffee, bananas, and chocolate, the groups noted that this rollback likely came too late to offer relief to US families this year.
"Trump campaigned on bringing down the price of groceries on day one," they wrote. "Yet in the biggest grocery week of the year, families across the country aren’t seeing any savings. Instead, their budgets are being carved up alongside the Thanksgiving turkey."
'Time Is Ticking': GOP Lawmakers Urged to Back Healthcare Tax Credit Extension
With less than a month remaining before Affordable Care Act healthcare tax credits are set to expire—which would cause monthly premiums to soar for an estimated 20 million Americans and potentially leave millions without coverage—Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocacy groups on Tuesday implored congressional Republicans to back a three-year extension on the vital subsidies.
While President Donald Trump and Republican legislators have promised lower healthcare costs, prices are soaring and millions of families are facing major premium hikes if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies end as scheduled on December 31. That leaves lawmakers with just 12 legislative days to act.
Trump has expressed openness to extending the ACA subsidies, even teasing a policy framework featuring a two-year extension with income caps and minimum premium payments for enrollees in the program also known as Obamacare.
However, the president has put the brakes on his proposal under pressure from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other congressional Republicans, many of whom are seeking a guarantee that the Hyde Amendment—which prohibits federal Medicaid funding for most abortion services—will be expanded to further restrict reproductive healthcare.
Calling Republicans "a total mess" who "don’t know what to do," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Tuesday: "One day, Trump floats a so-called 'healthcare plan.' The next day, Speaker Johnson forces him to shoot it down. Some Republicans say they want to dismantle the ACA, probably a majority of them in the House and a large number in the Senate want to just dismantle it altogether."
"Other Republicans seem to be more focused on eradicating reproductive care in every state than helping people afford healthcare," Schumer continued. "The bottom line is that Republicans are in total disarray on healthcare."
"And while Republicans continue the infighting, who is paying the price? The American people," he added. "The people whose premiums are going up by $500 to $1,000 a month. These people know that Trump and Republicans are to blame."
Democratic lawmakers are pushing more lawmakers to sign a discharge petition, which would require Johnson to hold a vote on legislation to extend the ACA subsidies for three years. Such a bill is backed by numerous healthcare and economic advocacy groups.
"If Republicans in Congress truly cared about lowering costs for their constituents, they would swallow their pride and sign on to the discharge petition to force a vote on extending healthcare tax credits,” Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal said in a statement Tuesday.
“Republicans in Congress have spent months attacking Americans' access to healthcare while giving tax breaks to billionaires," Tal added. "Now, it is time that they finally put their constituents first, sign on to the discharge petition to extend these healthcare tax credits, and stop voting to undermine access to healthcare for millions of Americans.”
Michelle Sternthal, director of government affairs at Community Catalyst, a national health justice organization, said Tuesday that "Congress should pass a clean extension of the tax credits, repeal the dangerous healthcare provisions of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ and protect the communities who rely on them the most."
"Because affordable, accessible care isn’t just good policy—it’s the foundation of a stronger, more resilient nation," she added.
Reproductive rights defenders sounded the alarm over Republican efforts to further restrict abortion care—which has been eviscerated by Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices and GOP-led state legislatures with sometimes deadly results—in any ACA tax credit extension.
Noting previous GOP efforts to strip abortion care from the ACA, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Reproductive Freedom for All said in a joint statement on Monday:
Anti-abortion members of Congress want to create an additional abortion coverage ban on the ACA marketplace by making plans that include abortion coverage prohibitively expensive and unworkable. They want to restrict coverage for more than 20 million enrollees and prohibit people using tax credits from buying plans that cover abortion. This restriction conflicts with decisions some states have made to require coverage of abortion. In states that allow plans to cover abortion, since plans would be significantly more expensive without the availability of tax credits, insurers would likely drop abortion coverage because these plans would be unattractive and onerous to consumers.
The ACA already prohibits federal funding from being used to pay for abortion coverage under marketplace plans except in the very limited circumstances of rape, incest, and life-endangerment. What anti-abortion politicians are calling for would be an expansion of abortion restrictions into the private insurance market. This would only cause more chaos and confusion for those seeking their health insurance through the marketplace. The ACA was passed with the intent of providing affordable coverage, but anti-abortion politicians want to place new and expanded barriers to abortion coverage and push healthcare out of reach for people who rely on the marketplace.
Congressional Democrats echoed the advocacy groups' calls for their Republican colleagues to support the discharge petition.
"Democrats have an active discharge petition, and all we need are a handful of House Republicans to join us and we can trigger an up-or-down vote on a three-year extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits to save the healthcare of the American people in every single state in this country, and protect the healthcare of people who these so-called Republican members allegedly represent, but who have failed to do a single thing to make their life better," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said Monday.
Congresswoman Nikki Budzkinski (D-Ill.) wrote on the social media platform Bluesky, "At the end of this month, the ACA tax credits will expire—plunging millions of Americans even deeper into the affordability crisis as their healthcare costs skyrocket."
"It’s time for President Trump and Republicans in Congress to get serious about saving healthcare," she added.
The healthcare crisis continues to loom and it’s time we extend the healthcare tax credits NOW to ensure folks are able to afford quality healthcare.TIME IS TICKING AND WE CANNOT WAIT ANY LONGER!
— Rep. Frederica Wilson (@repwilson.bsky.social) December 1, 2025 at 7:04 AM
Noting that the GOP spending bill signed by Trump in July "made the biggest Medicaid cuts in history to fund trillions in tax breaks for billionaires," Congresswoman Summer Lee (D-Pa.) warned Tuesday that "when these cuts go into effect, over 17,000 people in my district will lose healthcare."
Other lawmakers argued that Congress should go even further and pass Medicare for All legislation led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
"We must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a cosponsor of the bill, said Monday. "Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions. Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits. We need Medicare for All."
Ahead of Black Friday, Report Reveals Attacks on Garment Workers' Right to Organize
With clothing companies that will be offering discounted Black Friday deals this week relying heavily on the labor of tens of millions underpaid and overworked garment workers across the Global South, two reports by the human rights group Amnesty International make the case that ensuring these employees are afforded the right to organize their workplaces is key to ending worker exploitation across the fashion industry.
The organization interviewed 64 garment workers in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan from 2023-24, including 12 union organizers and labor rights activists, for its report titled Stitched Up, about the denial of freedom of association for workers in the four countries.
Two-thirds of the workers Amnesty interviewed were women, reflecting the fact that the garment workforce is mainly female, and many described the long hours, poverty wages, and abusive working conditions that the industry is known for.
But beyond that, the workers told Amnesty about the "climate of fear" they work in, with all but two of the 13 workers in Bangladesh reporting they had faced threats of retaliation at work if they joined or tried to form a union.
More than two dozen union organizers in the four countries described harassment, dismissal, and threats that they and their colleagues had faced for organizing their workplace.
“When workers raise their voices, they are ignored. When they try to organize, they are threatened and sacked. And finally, when workers protest, they are beaten, shot at, and arrested,” said a labor rights activist identified as Taufiq in Bangladesh.
The report notes that "restrictions on the right of workers to organize into trade unions and collectively speak out against human rights abuses at work are a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of association and collective bargaining," which are affirmed by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, said that "an unholy alliance of fashion brands, factory owners, and the governments of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka is propping up an industry known for its endemic human rights abuses" and allowing mistreatment of workers to continue while barring employees from working together to fight for better conditions and pay.
"By failing to ensure that the right of garment workers to unionize and collectively bargain is respected, the industry has thrived for decades on the exploitation of a grossly underpaid, overworked, and mostly female workforce,” said Callamard.
The governments of the four countries have failed to provide a living wage to garment workers—instead competing to attract the investment of clothing companies by setting the lowest wages possible. Almost all of the workers interviewed by Amnesty said their wages did not cover their families' living costs.
Many of the workers also reported that they were hired with "informal" work contracts, with no formal mechanisms for reporting workplace abuses, including violence and sexual harassment.
“I was touched physically and abused verbally. No one in management would listen to my complaints then I asked other women to organize. I was threatened with dismissal many times,” Sumaayaa, a worker and organizer from Lahore, Pakistan, told Amnesty.
The governments in question have done nothing to counter such precarious working arrangements, with officials establishing "Special Economic Zones" (SEZ) in Bangladesh and "Free Trade Zones" in Sri Lanka—areas where administrative measures place "often insurmountable barriers against union communication and access to workers."
Instead of affording workers the right to freedom of association in SEZ's, officials in Bangladesh encourage workers to form "welfare associations or committees, which have limited ability to collectively organize."
Alongside Stitched Up, Amnesty released the companion report Abandoned by Fashion: The Urgent Need for Fashion Brands to Champion Workers’ Rights, which details top brands' responses to an international survey on the rights of garment workers to organize their workplaces.
All of the fashion brands and retailers surveyed, including Adidas, ASOS, Shein, PVH, and Marks and Spencer, had "codes of conduct for suppliers, human rights policies, or principles, which affirmed the company’s commitment to workers’ right to freedom of association."
But the survey revealed "a limited commitment to implementing these policies at the factory level, especially in proactively promoting union organizing and ensuring human rights commitments and the ability of workers to exercise this right were reflected in their choice of sourcing location."
Amnesty found very few independent trade unions operating within the companies' supply chains in the four countries.
Adidas reported that 9.5% of its suppliers in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan have unions. H&M works with 145 factories in Bangladesh, 29 of which had trade unions. Of 31 factories in Bangladesh, none had unions, and eight out of 93 facilities in India had them.
In the case of the clothing company Next, just 23 of the 167 apparel factories the company works with in Bangladesh had independent unions, while 134 had less empowered "committees."
"These findings provide a very stark indication of the low levels of unionization within the supply chains of major fashion companies in South Asia," reads the report. "They reveal the impact of the failures of the governments of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to protect and promote garment workers’ rights in relation to the right to freedom of association. Our research shows how all four states have effectively denied this right to garment workers, including by creating disproportionate or arbitrary barriers to registration, unionization, and strike action, and by failing in their responsibility to protect workers, union members, and officials from corporate abuse including discrimination, harassment, and dismissal."
Amnesty International made a number of recommendations to fashion companies, including:
- Building an ethical sourcing strategy that rewards genuine freedom of association, penalizes its denial, and prohibits retaliation against unions—at the supplier level but also when taking sourcing decisions across the whole supply chain;
- Working with independent local trade unions to concretely strengthen worker organizing through, for example, making public commitments locally alongside practical support and engagement with suppliers;
- Ensuring that policies, paper commitments, and codes of conduct on freedom of association and collective bargaining are practically implemented, with time-bound progress monitored and made public, providing examples of good practice; and
- Publicly supporting worker movements and trade unions, in the supply chain but also those directly employed, in their struggles around wages, working conditions, and the fight against union busting.
“The need of the hour is to build a human rights-respecting sourcing strategy for the global garment industry," she said. "Freedom of association is key to tackling the abuse of workers’ rights. It must be protected, advanced, and championed.”
Maduro Vows Venezuela Will Be a 'Colony Never Again' as Trump Intensifies Threats
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro remained defiant on Monday as US President Donald Trump plotted "next steps" against the South American nation with top national security brass.
Before thousands of Venezuelans at a rally in Caracas, the nation’s embattled president said he would not accept peace on US terms unless it came “with sovereignty, equality, and freedom.”
“We do not want a slave’s peace, nor the peace of colonies! Colony, never! Slaves, never!” he said.
The speech came days after Trump announced that the US would close Venezuelan airspace, which many interpreted as a final step before a series of strikes on the mainland.
The US has framed its military buildup in the Southern Caribbean as part of a campaign to stop drug smuggling, the same justification it has used to carry out the extrajudicial bombings of more than 20 boats in the region—which have killed at least 83 people—while disclosing zero proof of the victims' involvement with drug trafficking.
Trump has also accused Maduro of being the leader of the so-called "Cartel de los Soles," which he slapped with the label of “Foreign Terrorist Organization” last month, even though it is not an "organization" at all, but a media shorthand to refer to alleged connections between Venezuelan leaders and the drug trade.
Meanwhile, both US and international assessments have found that Venezuela is but a minor player in the global drug trade.
The US has amassed more than 15,000 troops outside Venezuela, the most it's sent to the region since 1989, when the administration of former President George H.W. Bush launched a land invasion of Panama to overthrow its drug-running dictator Manuel Noriega. Documents obtained by The Intercept last week suggested that the US seeks to maintain "a massive military presence in the Caribbean" for years to come.
"By a factor of at least 10, the US presence is too great for even an intensified anti-drug operation," wrote US national editor Edward Luce in the Financial Times on Tuesday.
Trump's motive for stopping drug trafficking was further called into question after he pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, a onetime US ally who was sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for helping to traffic at least 400 tons of cocaine to the US. The pardon was issued as part of Trump's efforts to influence Honduras' upcoming election to secure the victory of right-wing candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura.
The goal of regime change was essentially confirmed on Monday when Reuters reported that Trump had offered Maduro safe passage out of Venezuela if he were willing to abdicate power during a phone call on November 21.
“You can save yourself and those closest to you, but you must leave the country now,” Trump reportedly told Maduro.
Maduro reportedly said he'd be willing to accept the offer if his family members were granted complete amnesty and the US removed sanctions against them, as well as over 100 other Venezuelan officials. He also asked for the case against him before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be dropped.
Trump rejected that deal, and his offer of safe passage expired on Friday, the day before the US announced it had closed Venezuelan airspace. Trump confirmed to the press on Sunday that the talks had happened, but provided few additional details.
Maduro has categorically denied involvement with drug trafficking and has portrayed the White House's sabre-rattling as a "colonial threat." Last week, while brandishing the sword of South American anticolonial hero Simón Bolívar, he pledged that Venezuela would be a "colony never again."
On Sunday, he accused Trump of trying to "seize" the nation's oil reserves. He has called for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to step in to help the country counter what he said were “growing and illegal threats” from Trump.
Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves—about a fifth of the Earth’s total, and more than Iraq had at the time of the George W. Bush administration's 2003 invasion. However, US sanctions against Venezuela largely block American oil companies from accessing the reserves, which are controlled by the nation’s state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela. These sanctions, which have limited Venezuela's ability to export its most valuable natural resource, are considered one of the primary reasons for the nation's economic instability in recent years.
While at a rally in 2023, Trump said he regretted not having "taken [Venezuela] over" during his first term. "We would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door,” he said.
"We’ve seen this tragic play before," wrote Richard Steiner, a former marine professor with the University of Alaska, this weekend in Common Dreams. "The Bush administration justified its disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq with the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which, as it turned out, it didn’t. And as US Central Command commander General John Abizaid admitted about the Iraq war at the time: 'Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that.'"
"A similar pretext—this time 'drug interdiction'—is being used to justify a potential US invasion and regime change in Venezuela," he continued. "But this is not about stopping the flow of dangerous drugs, it is about actually increasing the flow of the dangerous drug some pushers want to keep us all hooked on—oil."
Platner 20 Points Ahead of Mills in Maine Senate Race as Critics Spotlight Her Anti-Worker Veto Record
The new poll, said the progressive candidate, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past."
It's been more than a month since a media firestorm over old Reddit posts and a tattoo thrust US Senate candidate Graham Platner into the national spotlight, just as Maine Gov. Janet Mills was entering the Democratic primary race in hopes of challenging Republican Sen. Susan Collins—a controversy that did not appear at the time to make a dent in political newcomer Platner's chances in the election.
On Wednesday, the latest polling showed that the progressive combat veteran and oyster farmer has maintained the lead that was reported in a number of surveys just after the national media descended on the New England state to report on his past online comments and a tattoo that some said resembled a Nazi symbol, which he subsequently had covered up.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which endorsed Platner on Wednesday, commissioned the new poll, which showed him polling at 58% compared to Mills' 38%.
Nancy Zdunkewicz, a pollster with Z to A Polling, which conducted the survey on behalf of the PCCC, said the poll represented "really impressive early consolidation" for Platner, with the primary election still six months away.
“Platner isn’t just leading in the Democratic primary. He’s leading by a lot, 20 points—58% are supporting him,” Zdunkewicz told Zeteo. “Only 38% are supporting Mills. There are very few undecided voters or weak supporters for Mills to win over at this point in the race."
Platner has consistently spoken to packed rooms across Maine since launching his campaign in August, promoting a platform that is unapologetically focused on delivering affordability and a better quality of life for Mainers.
He supports expanding the popular Medicare program to all Americans; drew raucous applause at an early rally by declaring, “Our taxpayer dollars can build schools and hospitals in America, not bombs to destroy them in Gaza"; and has spoken in support of breaking up tech giants and a federal war crimes investigation into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean.
Mills entered the race after Democratic leaders including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urged her to. She garnered national attention earlier this year for standing up to President Donald Trump when he threatened federal funding for Maine over the state's policy of allowing students to play on school athletic teams that correspond with their gender.
But the PCCC survey found that when respondents learned details about each candidate, negative critiques of Mills were more damaging to her than Platner's old Reddit posts and tattoo.
Zdunkewicz disclosed Platner's recent controversy to the voters she surveyed, as well as his statements about how his views have shifted in recent years, and found that 21% of voters were more likely to back him after learning about his background. Thirty-nine percent said they were less likely to support him.
The pollster also talked to respondents about the fact that establishment Democrats pushed Mills, who is 77, to enter the race, and about a number of bills she has vetoed as governor, including a tax on the wealthy, a bill to set up a tracking system for rape kits, two bills to reduce prescription drug costs, and several bills promoting workers' rights.
Only 14% of Mainers said they were more likely to vote for Mills after learning those details, while 50% said they were less likely to support her.
At The Lever, Luke Goldstein on Wednesday reported that Mills' vetoes have left many with the "perception that she’s mostly concerned with business interests," as former Democratic Maine state lawmaker Andy O'Brien said. Corporate interests gave more than $200,000 to Mills' two gubernatorial campaigns.
Earlier this year, Mills struck down a labor-backed bill to allow farm workers to discuss their pay with one another without fear of retaliation. Last year, she blocked a bill to set a minimum wage for farm laborers, opposing a provision that would have allowed workers to sue their employers.
She also vetoed a bill banning noncompete agreements and one that would have banned anti-union tactics by corporations.
"In previous years," Goldstein reported, "she blocked efforts to stop employers from punishing employees who took state-guaranteed paid time off, killed a permitting reform bill to streamline offshore wind developments because it included a provision mandating union jobs, and vetoed a modest labor bill that would have required the state government to merely study the issue of paper mill workers being forced to work overtime without adequate compensation."
Speaking to PCCC supporters on Wednesday, Platner suggested the new polling shows that many Mainers agree with the central argument of his campaign: "We need to build power again for working people, both in Maine and nationally.”
The survey, he said, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past—which is an establishment politician supported by the power structures, supported by Washington, DC, coming up to Maine and trying to run a kind of standard race... We are really trying to build a grassroots movement up here."
'Truth Is Not a Fireable Offense': Former EPA Staffers File Legal Challenge Over Terminations by Trump
“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” said one of the lawyers representing the fired workers.
Six former employees of the US Environmental Protection Agency filed a First Amendment challenge in court on Wednesday to their firing earlier this year for criticizing the Trump administration's environmental policies.
The employees were among 160 who were fired shortly after signing a "declaration of dissent" in June against EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, whom they said was “recklessly undermining” the agency’s mission and “ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters.”
In their claim before the US Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates appeals from fired federal workers, the six employees argued that they were illegally fired for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and that those firings were carried out in retaliation for their political affiliation.
The fired workers also argued that they arbitrarily received harsher treatment than many other employees who signed the letter, who were suspended without pay for two weeks.
According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), one of the groups defending the employees, many of them had lengthy, distinguished careers of federal service.
One of them, John Darling, was a senior research biologist who spent over two decades helping the EPA curb the damage to endangered aquatic species.
Another, Tom Luben, is an expert in environmental epidemiology who worked at the EPA for over 18 years investigating how air pollution can cause pregnancy complications, and had received 14 National Honor Awards for his contributions over the years.
A third, Missy Haniewicz, served for a decade and was working on hazardous waste cleanup projects at more than 20 sites across Utah at the time she was fired.
PEER provided an example of one of the termination notices the fired employees received. Both the names of the employee and the official who sent the notice were redacted, along with other identifying information.
The termination notice states that the individual was fired for "conduct unbecoming of a federal employee." Although the document notes the employee's "[years] of federal service, most recent distinguished performance rating, awards, and... lack of disciplinary history," it says all of that was outweighed by the “serious nature of your misconduct.”
"The agency is not required to tolerate actions from its employees that undermine the agency’s decisions, interfere with the agency’s operations and mission, and the efficient fulfillment of the agency’s responsibilities to the public," the notice adds. "As an EPA employee, you are required to maintain proper discipline and refrain from conduct that can adversely affect morale in the workplace, foster disharmony, and ultimately impede the efficiency of the agency."
The legal team defending the employee and their colleagues argues that this is untrue. They argue that these employees' terminations violate the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which says employees are "protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes." It also protects whistleblowers who publicize information they reasonably believe to be a violation of law, abuse of authority, or danger to public health and safety.
“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” says Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER. “EPA is not only undermining the First Amendment’s free speech protections by trying to silence its own workforce, it is also placing US citizens in peril by removing experienced employees who are tasked with carrying out EPA’s critical mission.”
The second Trump administration has laid off approximately 300,000 federal civil servants over the past year, with some of them being carried out in apparent retaliation for dissent.
On Tuesday—after being briefly reinstated—14 employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were placed back on administrative leave for signing an open letter of dissent in August, warning that cuts to the agency were putting it at risk of similar failures to those after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
And weeks after over a thousand anonymous Department of Health and Human Services employees called for the resignation of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in September, accusing him of "placing the health of all Americans at risk," more than a thousand employees across the department were culled in what was dubbed a "Friday Night Massacre."
Eden Brown Gaines, whose law firm is also defending the employees, said, “If America is to remain on the course of democracy and honor the principles of its Constitution, we must allow its judicial system to restore employment for those unjustly fired and our collective faith in our country."
"Truth is not a fireable offense," PEER said in a statement.
Trump Ripped for Multilevel Stupidity of Scrapping Automobile Efficiency Standards
"In one stroke, Trump is worsening three of our nation’s most vexing problems," said one critic.
President Donald Trump's administration drew criticism from climate advocates on Wednesday for taking a hatchet to fuel efficiency standards aimed at reducing US gas consumption and mitigating the damage done by human-made climate change.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed slashing former President Joe Biden's fuel economy requirements for new cars down from 50.4 miles per gallon down to just 34.5 miles per gallon on average by 2031.
NHTSA claims that the change in fuel-efficiency standards would slash up-front costs to cars by roughly $900, although it acknowledges that this would also increase US gasoline consumption, which could mean higher prices at the gas pump.
The move has the support of America's major automobile manufacturers, who said the new rules would give them more flexibility. Ford CEO Jim Farley, for instance, told the Washington Post that the rule change means that the auto industry "can make real progress on carbon emissions and energy efficiency while still giving customers choice and affordability."
Many environmental advocates were quick to hammer Trump for making what they described as a shortsighted policy decision that cost Americans more over the long run in terms of both higher gas prices and carbon emissions.
Kathy Harris, director of clean vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that Trump is "sticking drivers with higher costs at the pump, all to benefit the oil industry" and predicted that "drivers will be paying hundreds of dollars more at the pump every year if these rules are put in place."
The rule change also drew a scathing review from Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign, who said that the Trump administration's actions were self-destructive on a number of levels.
"In one stroke, Trump is worsening three of our nation’s most vexing problems: the thirst for oil, high gas pump costs, and global warming," he said. "Trump’s action will feed America’s destructive use of oil, while hamstringing us in the green tech race against Chinese and other foreign carmakers. The auto industry will use this rule to drive itself back into a familiar ditch, failing to compete."
The move on fuel-efficiency standards wasn't the only climate-related policy move the administration made this week, as Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that the US Department of Energy also began unwinding a Biden-era program aimed at decarbonizing the building sector by allowing for the certification of "zero emissions" buildings.
Amneh Minkara, deputy director of Sierra Club's Clean Heat Campaign, said that repealing this program was particularly nonsensical since it was a voluntary standard that "did not place any additional burden on builders or owners," and instead represented "a clear way to meet consumer demand for pollution-free buildings."
"Defining what makes a building ‘zero emissions’ gives consumers certainty that when builders or sellers say a building is clean that it actually meets a specific set of criteria," Minkara emphasized. "It also would reduce energy waste, at a time when energy demand is at an all-time high, and lead to lower utility bills."