SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Protesting ICE savagery
Further

Majestic Scorn: A City Aflame Fights Fire and ICE

Despite the specious swapping out of fascist ICE leaders seeking to quell public fury, the gutted, steadfast denizens of Minneapolis continue to show up in frigid weather to demand "ICE Out" and "Stop Killing Us." Honoring their righteous struggle, Friday sees the city nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by The Nation, which cites its "moral leadership" for those fighting fascism on "a troubled planet." Likewise moved, The Boss just wrote them a song. Minnesota, says one patriot, "taught us to be brave."

Writing to "the distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee," the editors of The Nation magazine nominated the city of Minneapolis and its people for the 2026 Nobel Peace "as longtime observers of struggles to establish peace and justice" and as the editors of a magazine that's proudly included "several Nobel laureates on our editorial board and masthead - including the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." With their "resistance to violent authoritarianism," they argue, "the people of Minneapolis have renewed the spirit of Dr. King’s call for the positive affirmation of peace.” No municipality has ever been recognized for the award, they acknowledge, but "in these unprecedented times," they believe Minneapolis "has met and exceeded the committee’s standard of promoting 'democracy and human rights, (and) creating (a) more peaceful world."

To the Committee, they offer a brief, harrowing history: The Trump regime deploying thousands of armed, masked federal goons targeting the city's immigrant communities in a campaign more about terrorizing people of color than safety; the abuses of harassment, detention, deportation, injury, and the murders of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti; the call by elected officials, labor leaders and clergy for nonviolent protest; the people answering that call by the tens of thousands in the streets in sub-zero conditions, with mutual support and care for vulnerable neighbors, "through countless acts of courage and solidarity." Quoting Renee Good’s widow - “They have guns; we have whistles" - they argue the whistles have both alerted residents to the presence ofICE and "awakened Americans to the threat of violence (from) governments (that) target their own people."

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., they note, served as The Nation’s civil rights correspondent from 1961 to 1966. When he received the Peace Prize in 1964, he declared it recognizes those "moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice." King believed it is vital to show nonviolence as "not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation...Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace (and) transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood...The foundation of such a method is love." "We believe that the people of Minneapolis have displayed that love," the editors conclude. "That is why we are proud to nominate them and their city for the Nobel Peace Prize."

They don't mention any possible response by a mad, vengeful, impossibly petty king. But they do reflect the respect and gratitude of countless Americans who have watched the people of Minnesota endure "in the face of immense and continuing tragedy," and maintain their courage, dignity and humanity. One of those Americans was Springsteen, who explains in a brief note that he wrote, recorded and released Streets of Minneapolis within days "in response to the state terror being visited on the city." He dedicates it to "the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good," and signs off, "Stay free, Bruce Springsteen." On Wednesday, in hours, it soared to the top of the iTunes chart ranking bestselling individual tracks in the country.

The song is both classic Springsteen - potent, lyrical, with "a sense of urgency and genuine fury" - but atypically direct. It names names, crimes, this specific moment in history: "A city aflame fought fire and ice/‘Neath an occupier’s boots/King Trump’s private army from the DHS/Guns belted to their coats/Came to Minneapolis to enforce the law/Or so their story goes." There is rage: "It's our blood and bones/And these whistles and phones/Against Miller's and Noem's dirty lies." Resolve: "Our city’s heart and soul persists / Through broken glass and bloody tears." Tragedy: "And there were bloody footprints/Where mercy should have stood/And two dead left to die on snow-filled streets/Alex Pretti and Renee Good." Thank you to The Nation, to The Boss, to all those ordinary, extraordinary Americans standing strong against the monsters among us.


Oh our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Singing through the bloody mist
We’ll take our stand for this land
And the stranger in our midst

Oh our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Crying through the bloody mist
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis

- YouTube www.youtube.com


Makeshift memorial for Alex Pretti, shot dead in the streets of Minneapolis Makeshift memorial for Alex Pretti, shot dead in the streets of Minneapolis (Photo by Roberto Schmidt / AFP via Getty Images)

SEE ALL
Detroit Charity Holds A Free Gas Giveaway
News

'Groundbreaking': Michigan Sues Big Oil 'Cartel' for Conspiracy to Block Renewable Energy

While several US states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies by citing consumer protection and public nuisance laws, Michigan on Friday launched an antitrust lawsuit against four industry giants and their trade association, accusing them of operating as a "cartel" to impede a transition to clean power and transportation.

Twenty months after state Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that she was seeking proposals from lawyers and firms "to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry," the Democrat sued BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

"Michigan is facing an energy affordability crisis as our home energy costs skyrocket, and consumers are left without affordable options for transportation. Whether you own a home, a small business, or run a large corporation, rising energy and transportation costs harm everyone," Nessel said in a statement.

"These out-of-control costs are not the result of natural economic inflation, but due to the greed of these corporations who prioritized their own profit and marketplace dominance over competition and consumer savings," she continued.

As the complaint says: "Defendants are four of the largest energy companies in the world and their industry's largest trade association. The fossil fuel defendants produce fossil fuels and have at times invested in clean energy products and related technologies, such as solar power and batteries, that could provide energy to power buildings, infrastructure, and cars as an alternative to fossil fuels."

"But for decades, defendants have conspired with each other to forestall meaningful competition from renewable energy and maintain their dominance in the energy market," the filing continues. "They have done so as a cartel, agreeing to reduce the production and distribution of electricity from renewable sources and to restrain the emergence of electric vehicles (EV) and renewable primary energy technologies in the United States."

"To achieve this end," the document details, "they have abandoned renewable energy projects, used patent litigation to hinder rivals, suppressed information concerning the hidden costs of fossil fuels and viability of alternatives, infiltrated and knowingly misdirected information-producing institutions, surveilled and intimidated watchdogs and public officials, and used trade associations to coordinate market-wide efforts to divert capital expenditures away from renewable energy—all to further one of the most successful antitrust conspiracies in United States history."

Lumping in this case with others previously filed against fossil fuel companies and API, Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for the trade group, said in a statement to the Detroit News that "these baseless lawsuits are a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America's economy, and is actively reducing emissions."

While Shell declined to comment to Reuters, and BP and Exxon did not respond, a lawyer for Chevron, Theodore Boutrous Jr., similarly called the suit "baseless as demonstrated by multiple related court dismissals," and told the news agency that it "ignores the fact that Michigan is highly dependent on oil and gas to support the state's automakers and workers."

According to Nessel's complaint: "In the world that would have existed but for defendants' conspiracy, EVs would not be a fringe technology or a luxury alternative. They would be a common sight in every neighborhood—rolling off assembly lines in Flint, parked in driveways in Dearborn, charging outside grocery stores in Grand Rapids, and running quietly down Woodward Avenue."

"Reliable and fast chargers would be integrated into new development and ubiquitous at highway rest stops and converted gas stations," it states. "A family needing a car would have dozens of affordable electric options, and the renewable energy needed to power EVs efficiently would be supplied at scale—integrated into the grid or delivered through a dedicated 100% renewable network—spurred by public and private investment responding to competitive market signals."

"Michiganders would also have additional, renewable energy options for providing primary energy to their homes and businesses, such as solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal; these options would improve reliability, reduce costs to Michiganders, and reduce reliance on natural gas, fuel oil, and propane," the document adds.

Tim Minotas, legislative and political director for Sierra Club Michigan, welcomed the filing. He said in a statement that "at a time when the federal government is rolling back critical environmental protections and families are facing an energy affordability crisis, we commend Attorney General Nessel for standing up for Michiganders and holding major fossil fuel companies accountable."

"In Michigan, these companies have used their outsized political influence to preserve the status quo and pave the way for a wave of energy-intensive data center projects across the state, even as renewable energy remains the cheapest source of new power and what Michiganders deserve," he noted. "For far too long, fossil fuel and utility companies have polluted Michigan's air, water, and land while driving up energy costs for families. This action sends a clear message: Michigan families and communities must come before corporate profits."

Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, also celebrated the development: "Michigan's groundbreaking case reveals how the Big Oil cartel conspired to deny Americans cleaner and cheaper energy choices and make life less affordable by keeping consumers hooked on their dirty fossil fuel products. Eleven states and dozens of municipalities are now fighting to put Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies and make them pay for the harm they've caused."

"Big Oil is desperate to keep the evidence of their climate lies from juries in cases like Michigan's, and that's why the fossil fuel industry is now lobbying Congress for a get-out-of-jail-free card," Wiles added, pointing to a push for a so-called liability shield. "Congress must protect the right of the people of Michigan and every state to hold Big Oil accountable for the harm their climate lies have caused."

SEE ALL
Guests including Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, and Elon Musk attend the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump
News

77% of Global Millionaires Agree: Extreme Wealth Allows Uber-Rich to Buy Political Influence

For years, progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have made the case that the world's richest people wield a dangerous level of influence over US politics—and it turns out that many millionaires agree.

New polling conducted on behalf of Patriotic Millionaires surveyed 3,900 millionaires across the world and found that 77% of them believe that extremely wealthy people are able to buy political influence, with 62% believing that extreme wealth is a threat to democracy itself.

Furthermore, 82% of millionaires surveyed endorsed limits from how much politicians and political parties can receive from individual contributors, while 65% supported higher taxes on the highest earners to invest in public services.

President Donald Trump's second term also received low marks from the millionaires surveyed, with 59% saying he has had a negative impact on global economic stability, and 58% saying that he's hurt US consumers' ability to afford basic necessities.

The poll's release coincided with the sending of an open letter signed by hundreds of millionaires across 24 countries asking world leaders gathered in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum to increase taxes on the ultrawealthy in the name of rescuing global democracy. Trump is set to speak at the event on Wednesday.

"A handful of global oligarchs with extreme wealth have bought up our democracies; taken over our governments; gagged the freedom of our media; placed a stranglehold on technology and innovation; deepened poverty and social exclusion; and accelerated the breakdown of our planet," states the letter. "What we treasure, rich and poor alike, is being eaten away by those intent on growing the gulf between their vast power and everyone else."

Actor Mark Ruffalo, a signatory of the letter, argued that the extreme dangers posted by Trump and his political movement were the direct result of global wealth inequality that has gone unaddressed for decades.

"Donald Trump and the unique threat that he poses to American democracy did not come about overnight," Ruffalo explained. "Extreme wealth inequality enabled his every step, and is the root cause of the trend towards authoritarianism we’re witnessing in the US and around the world."

SEE ALL
'Scowling Void of Pure Nothingness': Critics Destroy $75 Million Melania Trump Documentary
News

'Scowling Void of Pure Nothingness': Critics Destroy $75 Million Melania Trump Documentary

Critics have weighed in on Amazon MGM Studios' documentary about first lady Melania Trump, and their verdicts are overwhelmingly negative.

According to review aggregation website Metacritic, Melania—which Amazon paid $40 million to acquire and $35 million to market—so far has received a collective score of just 6 out of 100 from critics, which indicates "overwhelming dislike."

Similarly, Melania scores a mere 6% on Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomameter," indicating that 94% of reviews for the movie so far have been negative.

One particularly brutal review came from Nick Hilton, film critic for the Independent, who said that the first lady came off in the film as "a preening, scowling void of pure nothingness" who leads a "vulgar, gilded lifestyle."

Hilton added that the film is so terrible that it fails even at being effective propaganda and is likely to be remembered as "a striking artifact... of a time when Americans willingly subordinated themselves to a political and economic oligopoly."

The Guardian's Xan Brooks delivered a similarly scathing assessment, declaring the film "dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing."

"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," Brooks elaborated. "I’m not even sure it qualifies as a documentary, exactly, so much as an elaborate piece of designer taxidermy, horribly overpriced and ice-cold to the touch and proffered like a medieval tribute to placate the greedy king on his throne."

Donald Clarke of the Irish Times also discussed the film's failure as a piece of propaganda, and he compared it unfavorably to the work of Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.

"Melania... appears keener on inducing narcolepsy in its viewers than energizing them into massed marching," he wrote. "Triumph of the Dull, perhaps."

Variety's Owen Gleiberman argued that the Melania documentary is utterly devoid of anything approaching dramatic stakes, which results in the film suffering from "staggering inertia."

"Mostly it’s inert," Gleiberman wrote of the film. "It feels like it’s been stitched together out of the most innocuous outtakes from a reality show. There’s no drama to it. It should have been called 'Day of the Living Tradwife.'"

Frank Scheck of the Hollywood Reporter found that the movie mostly exposes Melania Trump is an empty vessel without a single original thought or insight, instead deploying "an endless number of inspirational phrases seemingly cribbed from self-help books."

Kevin Fallon of the Daily Beast described Melania as "an unbelievable abomination of filmmaking" that reaches "a level of insipid propaganda that almost resists review."

"It's so expected," Fallon added, "and utterly pointless."

SEE ALL
Federal Agents Descend On Minneapolis For Immigration Enforcement Operations
News

Leaked DHS Memo Reveals ICE Claiming Expansive New Warrantless Arrest Powers

An internal legal memo obtained by the New York Times reveals that federal immigration enforcement agents are claiming broad new powers to carry out warrantless arrests.

The Times reported on Friday that the memo, which was signed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons, "expands the ability of lower-level ICE agents to carry out sweeps rounding up people they encounter and suspect are undocumented immigrants, rather than targeted enforcement operations in which they set out, warrant in hand, to arrest a specific person."

In the past, agents have been granted the power to carry out warrantless arrests only in situations where they believe a suspected undocumented immigrant is a "flight risk" who is unlikely to comply with obligations such as appearing at court hearings.

However, the memo declares this standard to be “unreasoned” and “incorrect,” saying that agents should feel free to carry out arrests so long as the suspect is "unlikely to be located at the scene of the encounter or another clearly identifiable location once an administrative warrant is obtained."

Scott Shuchart, former head of policy at ICE under President Joe Biden, told the Times that the memo appears to open the door to give the agency incredibly broad arrest powers.

"This memo bends over backwards," Shuchart said, "to say that ICE agents have nothing but green lights to make an arrest without even a supervisor’s approval."

Claire Trickler-McNulty, former senior adviser at ICE during the Biden administration, said the memo's language was so broad that "it would cover essentially anyone they want to arrest without a warrant, making the general premise of ever getting a warrant pointless."

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted in a social media post that the memo appears to be a way for ICE to "get around an increasing number of court orders requiring [US Department of Homeland Security] to follow the plain words of the law which says administrative warrantless arrests are only for people 'likely to escape.'"

The memo broadens the terms, Reichlin-Melnick added, so that "anyone who refuses to wait for a warrant to be issued" is deemed "likely to escape."

Stanford University political scientist Tom Clark questioned the validity of the memo, which appears to directly conflict with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which requires search warrants as a protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

"So, here’s how the law works," he wrote. "People on whom it imposes constraints don’t get to just write themselves a memo saying they don’t have to follow the law. Maybe I’ll write myself a memo saying that I don’t have to pay my taxes this year."

SEE ALL
US-VENEZUELA-CONFLICT-POLITICS-CONGRESS-RUBIO
News

'Thug' Marco Rubio Tells Senate How US Plans to Keep Stealing Venezuelan Oil

In addition to asserting that "there is no war against Venezuela," despite US forces killing scores of people there while abducting its president earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday laid out for a Senate panel how the Trump administration intends to continue controlling the South American nation's oil and related profits.

Legal experts have argued that US President Donald Trump's blockade of Venezuela's oil, abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—who have both pleaded not guilty to federal narco-terrorism charges—and bombings of boats allegedly smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean all violate international law.

"The ongoing military actions in the Caribbean and South America, including the abduction of Venezuela's president, are wrong, illegal under US and international law, and unconstitutional," Robert Weissman, co-president of the group Public Citizen, said before the Senate hearing. "Congressional Republicans have blocked war powers resolutions that would end the US aggression in Venezuela, an extremely dangerous abdication of congressional responsibility to check presidential unlawfulness."

"Marco Rubio's central role in the planning and execution of the scheme to violate the sovereignty of Venezuela and steal the country's oil merits a deep investigation by Congress, and potentially the removal of Rubio as secretary of state," Weissman continued. "Rubio's dangerously expansive vision to transform the United States into a colonizing power in the Americas must be challenged."

Testifying to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—on which he previously served—Rubio said that "Maduro is an indicted drug trafficker, not a legal head of state," described his abduction as "an operation to aid law enforcement," and declared that "the United States is prepared to help oversee Venezuela's transition from a criminal state to a responsible partner."

Rubio, the acting national security adviser, insisted that Trump wasn't planning for any more military action in Venezuela—but also would not rule out such action, potentially without congressional authorization, in "self-defense" against an "imminent" threat.

Trump has repeatedly made clear through public statements that his Venezuela policy is focused on its petroleum reserves, seemingly to enrich the fossil fuel leaders who helped him return to power. American forces have seized several tankers in the Caribbean Sea linked to the country—which critics have condemned as "piracy"—and the first US sale of Venezuelan oil went to the company of a trader who donated millions to the president's 2024 campaign, which Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) last week called "yet another example of his unchecked corruption."

Describing US control of Venezuela's nationalized petroleum industry, Rubio told the committee:

Objective number one was stability... And one of the tools that's available to us is the fact that we have sanctions on oil. There is oil that is sanctioned that cannot move from Venezuela because of our quarantine. And so what we did is we entered into an arrangement with them, and the arrangement is this: On the oil that is sanctioned and quarantined, we will allow you to move it to market. We will allow you to move it to market at market prices—not at the discount China was getting. In return, the funds from that will be deposited into an account that we will have oversight over, and you will spend that money for the benefit of the Venezuelan people...

This is not going to be the permanent mechanism, but this is a short-term mechanism in which the needs of the Venezuelan people can be met through a process that we've created, where they will submit every month a budget of this is what we need funded. We will provide for them at the front end what that money cannot be used for. And they have been very cooperative in this regard. In fact, they have pledged to use a substantial amount of those funds to purchase medicine and equipment directly from the United States.

In an exchange with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Rubio said that an "audit process" has not yet been set up but will be, adding that "we've only made one payment" and it "retrospectively will be audited, but it was important we made that payment because they had to meet payroll. They had to keep sanitation workers, police officers, government workers on staff."

Shaheen noted that the oil reportedly sold for $500 million, but only $300 million went to Venezuela's government, now led by Maduro's former deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, and asked Rubio about the remaining $200 million. The secretary said that the rest of the money was in a temporary account in Qatar that will ultimately become a US Treasury blocked account.

Summarizing the Trump administration's plans, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said: "I think the scope of the project that you are undertaking in Venezuela is without precedent. You are taking their oil at gunpoint; you are holding and selling that oil; putting, for now, the receipts in an offshore Middle Eastern account; you're deciding how and for what purposes that money is gonna be used in a country of 30 million people. I think a lot of us believe that that is destined for failure."

Highlighting that "a month later, we have no information on a timetable for a democratic transition, Maduro's people are still in charge, most of the political prisoners are in jail—and by the way, those that have been let out have a gag order on them from the government—the opposition leader is still in exile," Murphy added, "this looks, already, like it is a failure."

At one point during the nearly three-hour hearing, Leonardo Flores, a Venezuelan-American with the anti-war group CodePink, shouted, "Marco Rubio, you and Trump are thugs!"

US Capitol Police removed Flores from the hearing. As he was being led away, the protester said that "sanctions are a form of collective punishment of Venezuelan citizens. That's a war crime. Hands off Venezuela! Hands off Cuba!"

Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) on Wednesday, "Will you make a public commitment today to rule out US regime change in Cuba," Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants—replied: "Regime change? Oh no, I think we would like to see the regime there change. That doesn't mean that we're gonna to make a change, but we would love to see a change. There's no doubt about the fact that it would be of great benefit to the United States if Cuba was no longer governed by an autocratic regime."

Since the abduction operation, there have been "free Maduro" protests in both Venezuela and Cuba, which lost 32 citizens in the Trump administration's attack on Caracas. Speaking to thousands of people gathered outside the US Embassy in Havana earlier this month, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said that "the current US administration has opened the door to an era of barbarism, plunder, and neo-fascism."

"No one here surrenders," he continued, taking aim at not only Trump but also Rubio. "The current emperor of the White House and his infamous secretary of state haven't stopped threatening me."

SEE ALL