LIVE COVERAGE
Oh Canada: We Will Neither Cower Nor Bend
More insane idiocy from the petty huckster clown king whose idea of governance is threatening lawsuits, trade wars, buildings that won't put his name on them; bungling war and peace; flaunting Nazi loyalty queries and sadistic images of black men in chains; and distracting from it all with the dumbass geographic circlejerk of inventing “LAKe AMeRiCA.” The Internet was born for this: Cue Donald Ducks, the Straits of Our Moose, Lake Dead Pedo Bestie, Lake Superior President Obama, and Lake Stupid Fucking Moron.
Last week, after God killed the wrong 80-year-old in the 784th year of a presidency that feels like "being in middle school when there's a substitute teacher and a student has a medical emergency," yet more banal slop issued from a needy racist sociopath so stupid he once seemingly conflated the Very Hard words "transistor" and "transgender" to claim Biden's CHIPS Act offered billions to domestic tech companies but "if you weren't transgender, (you) didn't qualify." Jesus. No wonder, à propos of nothing, the widely deemed "worst president in U.S. history" took time out from his busy mob boss schedule to declare himself the bestest - take that Honest Abe - after his faithful Human Printer dug up a similar 1948 Life Magazine chart, which is "exactly the kind of thing a healthy, high-functioning person shares."
Other things he did, abetted by a confederacy of dunces, stooges, techno-fascists, warmongers, crypto dorks, "unfuckable hate nerds" and "an actual Jewish Nazi": Having hit the six-month mark of his Iran debacle, he giddily proclaimed, "Mission Accomplished!" despite a. the only thing achieved is handing a newly empowered Iran control of the Strait of Hormuz as U.S. gas prices skyrocket and the economy implodes, b. he evidently missed the part where George W's 2003 banner aboard an aircraft carrier became a queasy punchline, c. he did so amidst reports his and Kegsbreath's said debacle has pushed the US military into a "beyond critical" shortage of money and missile interceptors in the case of an enemy attack, forcing them to shift funds around "in imaginative ways" - because everything he touches dies and we probably will too.
A fragile child, he demands fealty to even his ceaseless clusterfucks. Thus the latest inane authoritarian hokum from a Department of Homeland (sic) Security that alas hasn’t lost any of its fascist fervor since the brutal puppy-killing days of ICE Barbie. Its new, dystopian, “genuinely deranged” missive: A glowering image of Dear Dumb Leader with the dark challenge, “Did you remain loyal?”, which chillingly fails to consider just what atrocities they’re demanding allegiance to. The answer came in a post that swiftly followed: Sadistic footage of shackled Haitian immigrants, targeted after losing Temporary Protected Status for no reason but mindless, racist cruelty, being shuffled onto planes in pouring rain to the sneering tune of a Creole song about returning home - complete with fawning close-ups of the chains on their feet. Well done, sick fucks.
Meanwhile, the trail of destruction goes on apace. In D.C., after the East Wing and reflecting pool - we like the meme of him studying it with, "All I see is scum" and a lackey saying, "Well, it is a reflecting pool, sir" - we've reached the mobsters' "offer-they- can't-refuse" phase on the besieged Kennedy Center. Having repeatedly lost in court, the regime now threatens to demolish the not-long-ago-flourishing Center unless a tantrum-throwing 10-year-old gets his name "prominently added" to its exterior with "appropriate respect" of his efforts to "save” it from a fictional "death spiral" that's rendered it "dilapidated, outdated, decrepit and embarrassing to the Nation’s Capital," which is some pot/kettle. If they can't plaster his ghastly name over it - inscription, plaza et al - they'll replace it with "an outdoor amphitheater," aka a lawn.
They're also pushing to sell off part of Yosemite National Park, like everything else, to the highest bidder, though the seller is such an imbecile he still cringingly says "Yo, Semites!" He's such a petty dolt he's also skipping this year's 9/11 remembrance at Ground Zero because he wasn't allowed to give a Nazi speech there, opting to give it at the Pentagon before rushing off to the Irish Open at his crappy golf course, 'cause priorities. Having trashed jobs, health insurance, food aid, the environment and most of our global alliances, he finished the job by blowing up trade talks with Canada, calling its endlessly nice residents "nasty people," and holding a clownish Oval Office event to sign an idiotic executive order renaming Lake Ontario to “LAKe AMeRiCA,” which he's "been thinking about for a long time" with what's left of his tiny brain.
"All it takes is a good pen and some intelligence,” he said, only batting one for two in an event labeled, "Making the Great Lakes Even Greater.” Then - what a feckin’ playacting infant - he drew a line through the doomed lake and intoned, “We have notified various people who needed to be notified...This is official.” He said he’d instructed craven lickspittle and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to "take all appropriate actions." Burgum slavishly wrote, “We’re on it, Mr. President!”, thus becoming the only person on Planet Earth to take this puerile claptrap seriously, evidently unaware an executive order is not a law and every ship entering the Great Lakes has to go through Canada's Welland Canal, including $26 billion in U.S. trade, and it would be a shame if Canada up and supersized their tolls, and thank you for your attention to this matter.
Uncle Bernie and most of America promptly responded they'd rather have affordable health care, thanks, also housing, food, education and cancer research. Nova Scotia's Conservative premier Tim Houston, "not exactly a firebrand," opined, “We’re into some real foolishness now. It’s Lake Ontario, buddy." Canada's newly combative Prime Minister Mark Carney, out of fucks to give, noted that long before Europeans came the lake was named by Native Americans using the Huron word "Ontari’io," for, "The lake is beautiful, the lake is big." "The name is more than 400 years old," he said. "Canadians know that naming reality means calling it Lake Ontario - then, now and always." The Canadian Resistance Army, who earlier defended penguins, also chimed in, declaring, "We're going to trade war/Beavers and moose won't take it any more."
Above all, it was agreed, “LAKe AMeRiCA" is what God invented the Internet for. The names spooled out in a gleeful torrent.
Lake Release the Epstein Files. Lake Gulf of Mexico. Lake Are We Doing This Again. Lake Micropenis. Lake Natalie. Lake Huron Thin Ice with Melania. Lake Universal Healthcare. Lake Eerily Overweight Pres Dick J. McRectum. Lake Felon. Lake Not Eerie. Lake Oh Canada. Lake Small Dick Energy. Many chose Lake Obama. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers created the politically incorrect Lake Retard: "See, I can sign napkins that say things too." One decided to "just keep calling it Lake Epstein, like the Founders wanted." Mapquest, unlike cowering Google, not only declined to change the lake's name but invited viewers to "spread some geographic joy" and "name it whatever you want." One result: Lake Who Uses Mapquest Anymore.
Many noted the traditional Great Lakes litany of "H.O.M.E.S" had entirely logically become "S.H.A.M.E." People renamed their toilet bowl to Lake Trump. The White House to Home of Diaper Butt. Mar-a-Lago to Poopy Pants Palace. The United States of America to the Epstein States of Pedophiles, or just South Canada. President Trump to President Dickhead. California to Amerifornia. Strait of Hormuz to Strait of Our Moose. People mocked his thieving choice of one of the smallest and dirtiest Great Lakes. They noted, "Nobody in Ontario gives a single solitary fuck what Assclown McCrappy-Pants says about anything." They griped the name change "really screws with the lyrics of Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald."
"What are they trying to distract us from this time?" they asked. Response: "The previous distraction." Some coddled the needy child-king: "Good for you, li'l fella." Some railed: "Jesus Christ, can somebody just get him a coloring book already?" Some were still baffled by how low we've gone: "Wait, this is real?" Some refused to go there: "Nope." Some summoned the great Talking Heads: "As things fell apart/Nobody paid much attention." And some fought back against the incessant bullying. After the Center for American Progress released a report finding billions spent on ICE thugs and National Guard swarms had no real effect on reducing violent crime, Trump threatened a $5 billion lawsuit if they didn't retract it. The center stood firm against "a transparent attempt to silence us." "We will neither cower nor bend in the face of it," they said. And, still and all, we will snark away.
Canada vs. the Epstein Statesof AmericaImage from Bluesky
Trump EPA Urged to Withdraw Rule to Let Data Centers Obtain Pollution Permits in Secret
Critics are warning that President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency is pushing through a rule that would let artificial intelligence data center builders off the hook for making public disclosures ahead of construction.
The rule, which first came to light during an EPA meeting last month, would delegate power to states over public participation in the permitting process for specific sources of air pollution, such as diesel generators that are frequently used by data centers.
According to a July report in Mother Jones, the proposed rule "could have major consequences for how ordinary people are given notice about new or expanded polluting facilities coming into their neighborhoods."
Late last week, a coalition of more than 200 environmental groups filed objections to the rule change, which they warned would make public notice for certain polluting projects entirely optional, depending on the whims of state and local governments.
Dori Jaffe, managing attorney at Sierra Club, said on Monday that the rule change would "help data center developers evade more health standards and do so secretly."
"We demand that the EPA rescind this attempt to further cut the public out of decisions made in their own backyards," said Jaffe. "We deserve to have a say about developments in our community that would impact our air quality and the health of our families."
Sheena Patel, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted that the administration was attempting to limit public input into polluting projects at a time when opposition to AI data center construction has hit a record high among US voters.
If the rule change goes through, Patel added, "the result will be some of the dirtiest power sources rushed into neighborhoods without giving communities any opportunity to weigh in."
Brandon Jones-Cobb, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said it was "beyond cruel" that the EPA seems determined to "silence front-line communities who bear the brunt of unhealthy air" generated by polluting industries.
"The agency has already turned its back on science, cut enforcement against industrial polluters and eliminated life-saving air pollution measures," said Jones-Cobb. "Now it wants to shut the public out of decisions to build or expand facilities that expose communities to dangerous air pollution, including data centers. This EPA is so out of touch with Americans and only focuses on making polluters happy."
In an interview with The Guardian published Tuesday, Joe Goffman, former assistant administrator for the EPA’s office of air and radiation, said the rule change would dismantle what he described as an "ironclad promise" made in the 1963 Clean Air Act to give ordinary citizens voices in where, how, and whether potential centers of air pollution are built.
"The administration is basically saying: 'You all may have thought this was an ironclad promise, but it no longer is,'" Goffman emphasized.
Lowest-Paying US Corporations Have Poured Over $700 Billion Into Buybacks Since 2019
A report published Thursday shows that the top 100 lowest-wage corporations in the US pay their CEOs 614 times more than their median workers on average while also pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into stock buybacks, which further boost the wealth of top executives and rich shareholders.
The new report, released by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), examines the 100 corporations in the S&P 500 index that pay their median workers the least—a list that includes Walmart, Amazon, Target, DoorDash, and Home Depot. Between 2019 and 2025, the IPS report shows, the "Low-Wage 100" spent a combined $718 billion on stock buybacks.
IPS characterizes share repurchases as "a financial maneuver that artificially inflates CEOs’ stock-based pay and siphons resources out of worker wages and long-term investments."
"Walmart ranked No. 1 in buyback spending among Low-Wage 100 firms in 2025," the report observes. "The giant retailer spent $8.1 billion on share repurchases—a sum that could have funded a $3,851 bonus for each of the firm’s 2.1 million employees."
The CEOs at the Low-Wage 100 have seen their compensation rise by over 41% on average—without adjusting for inflation—since 2019, more than double the increase that the companies' median workers have seen during the same period, lagging behind rising costs.
"Average CEO compensation within the Low-Wage 100 hit $17.5 million in 2025. The group’s average median worker pay sat at just $36,571 last year," IPS found. "The average CEO-worker pay ratio of Low-Wage 100 firms has widened from 574 to 1 in 2019 to 614 to 1 in 2025. Seventeen of the 100 corporations reported pay ratios of 1,000 to 1 or higher."
The company with the highest CEO-worker pay ratio in 2025 was Lumentum, which paid its top executive 2,884 times as much as its median worker last year.
"Over the past year," the IPS report notes, "the CEOs of the Low-Wage 100 pocketed huge paychecks while looking the other way as their employees grappled with fears of ICE actions, the loss of vital healthcare and food assistance programs, and attempts to roll back key protections against racial and gender discrimination."
Far from wielding their power and influence to advocate on behalf of their own employees, IPS observed, the 100 leading corporations deployed their armies of lobbyists to push "tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, legislation that slashed Medicaid and SNAP programs on which many of these firms’ employees rely."
“The Low-Wage 100 includes many of the world’s most influential CEOs,” said Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project at IPS and lead author of the new report. “They could be using their political and economic clout to defend their workers against multiple threats. Instead, at this precarious moment in our democracy, they’ve chosen to remain silent.”
IPS concludes its report by recommending that lawmakers pursue three policy solutions: Increasing taxes on companies with large CEO-worker pay gaps, expanding the excise tax on stock buybacks, and "leveraging government contracts and subsidies" to force changes at major corporations.
"A bipartisan provision in the pending Senate defense authorization bill would bar military contractors from engaging in stock buybacks," the report notes. "This builds on modest Biden administration progress to use the power of the public purse to rein in CEO pay. But governments at all levels could be doing much more to leverage this power against executive excess."
'Break Up Big Medicine': Taking On Healthcare Industry Greed Could Save US Families $6,000+ a Year
As millions of working-class Americans suffer from President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans' cuts to the already dysfunctional US healthcare system, a leading anti-monopoly group this week released a report with recommendations to restore "affordability and control to patients, clinicians, and communities across the country."
"The healthcare crisis didn’t happen by accident, it is the direct result of decades of neoliberal policy choices that handed more power to corporate healthcare giants while families paid the price," said Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP).
"The choice now is clear: Continue to watch the US healthcare system spiral into profit-driven chaos or finally treat the Big Medicine disease to create a healthcare system that puts patients and clinicians in control of care," she explained. "This agenda presents a roadmap for how to do it."
Harper and Emma Freer, AELP's senior policy analyst for healthcare, co-authored the new report, "Break Up Big Medicine," with contributions from a trio of other experts. One of them is Dr. Will Flanary, an independent ophthalmologist in Portland, Oregon.
"The US healthcare system, once made up of mostly independent practices like mine, is now dominated by Big Medicine behemoths—including private insurance conglomerates, Big Pharma manufacturers, pharmaceutical middlemen, megahospitals, and private equity-backed practices—whose only fiduciary duty is to executives and investors," he wrote in the foreword. "This makes it increasingly difficult to keep my practice afloat and uphold my oath, resulting in moral injury."
"So, I now have a second career as an advocate," who goes by "Dr. Glaucomflecken" on social media. "What my patients need most is bold policy reforms to break up Big Medicine and build a better healthcare system, one where they can access affordable, high-quality care and independent physicians like me can thrive."
The report notes that "between 2005 and 2025, the annual cost of employer-sponsored family coverage nearly tripled, from $12,214 to $35,119," US patients pay nearly three times as much for prescription drug prices as people in other countries, and "the United States spends more than $15,000 per person on healthcare each year—roughly one-fifth of our entire economy, and more than twice what peer nations spend, in return for worse patient outcomes on a variety of metrics."
Costs continue to rise, with The Wall Street Journal reporting last week that, according to benefits consulting giant Aon, US workers with employer-sponsored insurance are expected to spend an average of $5,297 on healthcare this year, or $388 more than last year. Another consultant, WTW, found that US employers expect their healthcare costs will rise 11.1% next year.
Meanwhile, six "corporate behemoths" in the sector—Cardinal Health, Cencora, Cigna, CVS Health, McKesson, and UnitedHealth Group—"now rank among the Fortune 15, making nearly $34 billion in annual profit," collectively, as AELP detailed Thursday. "Big Medicine now employs more than four in five US doctors," and practices must spend time completing, "on average, 40 prior authorizations per physician per week, time that would be better spent on patient care."
"Our current healthcare crisis is the result of several decades of federal policymaking by both political parties based on the flawed premise that empowering private insurers to ration access to healthcare, rather than addressing the underlying root causes of high prices, would effectively contain costs," the AELP report says.
The publication lays out a four-part "treatment plan" to save Americans $795 billion annually, or more than $6,000 per household: break up Big Medicine, bring down healthcare prices, build capacity, and bolster enforcement of existing laws.
The first section highlights how some solutions already exist in Congress, pointing to various bills, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Josh Hawley's (R-Mo.) Break Up Big Medicine Act, their Patients Before Monopolies Act with Reps. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) and Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Val Hoyle's (D-Ore.) Patients Over Profits Act, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon's (D-Pa.) Take Back Our Hospitals Act, and the Corporate Crimes Against Health Care Act, introduced by Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) and Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Merkley, and Warren.
The second section calls for standardizing and capping "healthcare prices across public and private payers using traditional Medicare reimbursement rates for inpatient and outpatient services and negotiated drug prices as benchmarks." It urges a ban on prior authorization, an end to patient cost-sharing obligations, investments "in public options that eliminate Big Medicine administrative waste," and passage of Rep. Rashida Tlaib's (D-Mich.) Medicines for the People Act.
The third section calls for investments in the US prescription drug manufacturing base as well as in providers, "especially safety-net hospitals in rural and low-income metro areas, independent medical and dental practices, community pharmacies, and primary care physicians."
The final section calls on Congress to "close loopholes that allow anti-competitive business practices, which Big Medicine uses to drive up prescription drug costs," specifically promoting the repeal of the 1987 safe harbor for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and other pharmaceutical middlemen, and the prohibition of "price discrimination, spread pricing, self-preferencing, network discrimination, and sole-source or exclusive contracting terms across all payers." It further advocates for an increase in funding for antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice.
"For decades, healthcare reform has focused on expanding private coverage and putting more money into a broken system while allowing corporate giants to consolidate power and drive up costs," said Freer. "Working families have paid more only to receive lower-quality care.
"Americans need a new policy paradigm that actually takes on the root causes of the crisis: consolidation, corporate control, and lack of competition," she argued. "This agenda is about moving beyond the status quo to build a healthcare system where patients come first, clinicians can thrive, and every American can afford the care they need."
The report comes amid renewed scrutiny of the president's "most favored nation" deals with Big Pharma, with Peter Maybarduk, access to medicines director for the watchdog Public Citizen, saying last week that "Trump has three kinds of drug pricing policy: fake, exaggerated, and not-real-yet, probably-won't-happen."
After pointing out on social media Wednesday that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in April agreed to publicize the deals for medicines listed on the direct-to-consumer website TrumpRx, and "months later, still crickets," Warren wondered, "Why should Americans believe this isn't just another Trump handout to fatten Big Pharma's pockets?"
Additionally, as Americans have started contending with the Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Republicans in Congress and signed by Trump last year, as well as the GOP's refusal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies, which has caused premiums to skyrocket, there have also been renewed calls for shifting the United States to a universal healthcare system.
A study published earlier this month by researchers at Yale University suggests the Medicare for All Act that's been repeatedly introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would save more than $1 trillion and over 114,000 lives annually.
"At a time when 15 million Americans are being thrown off the healthcare they have and 20 million Americans have already seen their premiums double, on average, as a result of Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ we need Medicare for All now more than ever," Sanders said in response to the study. "The time is now to end the greed of the big insurance and drug companies and pass Medicare for All."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect and the author of books including Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power, noted in his Thursday coverage of AELP's report that "while it's complementary to a Medicare for All approach, single-payer insurance is not mentioned."
"In tandem with moving toward a Medicare for All system, we have to address consolidation that is the cause of healthcare being so expensive, with degraded quality, and the squeezing of healthcare professionals," Freer told Dayen. "Otherwise we end up with something like Medicare Advantage for All, which would be disastrous."
'Sadism': Trump DHS Boasts of Deportation Flight to Haiti in 'Propaganda' Video
By releasing a video of Black men wearing handcuffs and prison uniforms being hauled onto a deportation flight, the US Department of Homeland Security appeared to be fulfilling a key objective of President Donald Trump's decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haitian migrants, said one immigration policy expert on Thursday.
President Donald Trump "hates Haitians," said American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, "and the White House wanted videos of Black people in chains, so they stripped them all of status."
Reichlin-Melnick said the video, which also features a Haitian song and the text "Temporary Meant Temporary. Leave Now" on screen, was "propaganda for an audience of people that thrills to the sight of Black men being led in chains" and whom Trump's mass deportation agenda and racist attacks on Haitians, Somalis, and other refugee populations are aimed at satisfying.
The video was released a week after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent a charter flight with 161 Haitians on board to Haiti, where gang violence, kidnappings, and humanitarian crises that have continued more than a decade after the 2010 earthquake have pushed the US State Department to maintain its highest "Do Not Travel" warning for Americans.
The administration said that flight would be the first of many, following the US Supreme Court ruling in June that allowed DHS to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.
The National Office of Migration in Haiti said last week that the Haitians aboard the ICE flight had not benefited from TPS, but were people who were facing removal proceedings due to criminal convictions or who had entered the US without authorization.
In the video—as in the Trump administration's persistent rhetoric about its mass deportation operation, which it claims is targeting "the worst of the worst" violent criminals—DHS suggested the Haitians who have been granted TPS for years pose a danger to the US public, despite the fact that criminal convictions make people ineligible for the protected status.
"TPS holders had been living and working legally and paying taxes," said Drop Site News—taxes, Reichlin-Melnick stressed, that do not permit them to benefit from federal assistance programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Medicaid.
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the "sadism" depicted in the DHS video was "unrelenting."
The video was released as Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami called on the Trump administration to "rethink" its decision to end TPS for Haitians following an August 23 gang attack outside the country's capital of Port-au-Prince, in which at least 47 people were killed and at least 50 were kidnapped.
"The country is not safe, that Haiti is still a house on fire," Wenski told OSV News. "This should cause our administration to rethink its decision to send back into Haiti over 300,000 Haitians."
A bill introduced in the Senate by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) would extend TPS for Haitians through early 2029, and "would pass very easily" if Trump "would voice his support," said Wenski.
Cory Archibald of the anti-Zionist group Track AIPAC called for prosecutions of top White House officials including Trump, Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller, and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, "all the way on down to the masked chuds joyriding in this video and loading these men onto planes."
"All of them are guilty," she said, "and all of them should be prosecuted."
US Diplomat Who Resigned Over Gaza Condemns Biden Officials Who Defended Genocide—And Now Claim to Regret It
Recent expressions of regret by top Biden administration officials who vehemently defended the United States' billions of dollars in military aid to Israel as it was bombarding Gaza have not gone far with former diplomat Hala Rharrit, who was retaliated against for speaking out about the US policy before she ultimately resigned, and who condemned her former colleagues recent "PR game" this week.
In an interview with Middle East Eye, Rharrit said the former officials who have mused that they would now support withholding weapons from Israel, or that they should have backed such a move while serving under President Joe Biden, are "just so despicable."
"They're so disgusting," Rharrit said. "Those individuals, particularly [National Security Adviser] Jake Sullivan and a handful of others, actually had the power to save human lives. They actually had the power to stop unconditional arms assistance to Israel, right? The Israelis were not killing the Palestinians by themselves. The Israelis were killing the Palestinians with American bombs, with American jets, with American everything. We enabled it 100%. They enabled it 100%."
"They’re so disgusting."
Former US diplomat Hala Rharrit, who resigned in 2024 over Gaza, responds to the Biden officials who’ve recently claimed they should have done more on Gaza.
Watch early by joining MEE's YouTube membership ➡ https://t.co/kSRg1sVXCo pic.twitter.com/szijxYjczk
— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) August 27, 2026
Rharrit, who resigned as the Arabic language spokesperson for the US State Department in April 2024, six months into Israel's US-backed assault—which has been called a genocide by leading human rights organizations and Holocaust experts—spoke to MEE months after former Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US should have called for a ceasefire earlier than it did, "such that the suffering the people endured, the loss of the children, so many others, could have been averted.”
Sullivan last year said—weeks before a ceasefire was finally agreed to—that he'd had a change of heart regarding providing Israel with weapons, and that he would no longer support the policy.
In November, Sullivan added in an interview with The Dartmouth that "it’s fair to say that there were a lot of objections from a lot of parts of the international community about the US continuing to support Israel over the course of last year—2024—and over the course of this year in 2025. I think a lot about what we could have done differently."
Rharrit told MEE that "it's despicable that now they're trying to make themselves look like, 'Oh we should have done better and we're so sorry.'"
The former diplomat emphasized that the apology tour has taken place as it's become increasingly clear that "America has changed" in terms of its views on Israel, Palestine, and the United States' decadeslong, unconditional support for the Israeli military—despite US statutes like the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Leahy Laws, which bar the government from providing military aid to countries that block humanitarian assistance and that are accused of human rights abuses.
A poll released this week showed that large majorities of Democratic voters in the first six states that will vote in the 2028 presidential primaries support cutting off weapons aid to Israel, and another survey by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies in March found that just 32% of Americans viewed Israel positively, compared with 47% in 2023.
"America is forever changed," said Rharrit. "Americans no longer support these forever wars, they no longer support unconditional arms assistance to Israel. They no longer agree with US policy in the Middle East. And so now... they're doing a PR game. This is just pure PR."
Rharrit and other officials who resigned over the US policy on Israel and Gaza "were vindicated," she said. "Of course we were right the whole time, because it's international law. It's US law. I abided by my oath to the Constitution... That is exactly what I did. That is exactly why I resigned."
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, said Rharrit is one of "a rare breed" of diplomats.
"During this genocide I've met courageous diplomats and officials who denounced it at real personal cost," said Albanese, whom the Trump administration targeted with sanctions earlier this year. "Imagine foreign policy built by more of them. Because the problem is never one unfit minister/head of state: It's whole spineless cohorts around them."
Trump Hammered Over Iran War That Drove Gas Prices Above $4 Per Gallon Every Day in August for First Time Ever
"Donald Trump started a deadly and costly war with Iran that has driven gas prices through the roof, and Americans are breaking the bank to fill up at the pump."
President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran has achieved a significant milestone, but it's not one that many US voters will likely appreciate.
Data published by the American Automobile Association (AAA) on Monday show that the average price for gas in the US now stands at $4.08 per gallon, or $0.90 per gallon more than the average price one year ago.
Gas prices typically decline throughout summer months, but the spike in oil prices caused by the Iran War has kept prices elevated in August beyond anything seen in prior years.
"For the first time ever, the national average in August has been above $4 per gallon every day," explained AAA. "This month is poised to set a new record as the most expensive August at the pump, surpassing the previous August record set in 2022."
Kendall Witmer, rapid response director for the Democratic National Committee, slammed Trump in a Monday statement where she accused the president of making policy to benefit his fossil fuel industry donors while leaving working-class Americans holding the bag.
"Donald Trump started a deadly and costly war with Iran that has driven gas prices through the roof, and Americans are breaking the bank to fill up at the pump," said Witmer. "Meanwhile, Trump and Big Oil executives who donated to his campaign are profiting off his war, cashing in at the expense of hardworking Americans. In Trump’s world, the rich and powerful come first, while everyday Americans get left in the dust."
High gas prices have become a major political headache for Trump, as a recent analysis estimated that Americans have paid $71.5 billion more to fill up their cars thanks to the president's war.
Meanwhile, a mandated ethics filing released last week shows Trump made more than 1,000 stock transactions in June, including thousands of dollars invested in energy companies profiting off of his war.
CNBC reported on Monday that the president is scheduled to meet with US refiners and fuel distributors as part of an effort to lower gas prices ahead of the midterm elections in November.
Dems Call for Cancellation of $17 Million Contract to Equip ICE Agents With Electric Shock Gloves
"Introducing low-visibility electric shock weapons into our immigration enforcement system is an unacceptable escalation."
A group of House Democrats on Monday demanded the immediate cancellation of a nearly $17 million federal contract to provide electric shock gloves to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, who have been unleashed on American cities under the second Trump administration and enabled to commit horrific—and, in some cases, deadly—abuses against undocumented immigrants and American citizens.
The Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois, expressed "profound alarm" over the contract in a new letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin, whose agency oversees ICE. The letter's 50 signatories wrote that the devices, known as Generated Low Output Voltage Emitters (GLOVE), are "designed to inflict severe pain without leaving physical evidence or visible optics," making them "a uniquely dangerous tool for unaccountable abuse."
"We demand the immediate cancellation of this contract and a total ban on the deployment of these abusive devices across all immigration enforcement and detention operations," the lawmakers continued. "The rollout of these weapons to thousands of field agents across ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations contributes to a DHS environment already under widespread scrutiny for state-sanctioned abuse, torture, and arbitrary cruelty."
The Democrats sent their letter days after ICE granted a $16.7 million no-bid contract to the Kentucky-based firm Compliant Technologies for 6,000 pairs of electric shock gloves, ignoring the protests of lawmakers and human rights groups.
The ACLU, Physicians for Human Rights, and the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) are among the advocacy organizations that have decried ICE plans to equip its agents with the gloves. CVT has described the devices as "inherently abusive equipment that facilitates torture."
In their Monday letter, the group of House Democrats warned that the "dangers of these 'less-lethal' weapons are not theoretical," pointing to the case of a 43-year-old man in Kentucky who died after corrections officers shocked him dozens of times with electric gloves.
More than 50 people have died in ICE custody during President Donald Trump's second term.
"This administration continues to outfit ICE and [Customs and Border Protection] with the tools of an occupying paramilitary force—despite widespread human rights violations carried out by its agents during immigration enforcement actions," the lawmakers wrote. "Introducing low-visibility electric shock weapons into our immigration enforcement system is an unacceptable escalation that prioritizes physical intimidation and unaccountable force over human safety and administrative accountability.
On top of calling for cancellation of the contract, the House Democrats demanded information on any threat assessments ICE conducted before awarding the contract, whether the agency has trained its officers with electric shock gloves, and whether DHS intends to implement any productions to "prevent officers from using them for punitive measures, retaliation, or against non-threatening individuals."
"We reiterate our demand that you immediately halt the acquisition and deployment of electric shock gloves, cancel the contract, and refocus the Department’s resources on accountability and humanitarian standards rather than expanding a paramilitary apparatus," the lawmakers wrote.
‘Unconscionable, Immoral, and Illegal’: Lawsuit Targets Trump Approval of Cancer-Causing Forever Chemical
“While everyone’s distracted by the Trump administration’s erratic actions on the world stage, it keeps approving dangerous forever pesticides right here on our own soil."
Environmental groups have sued the Trump administration, alleging the Environmental Protection Agency approved a potentially cancer-causing "forever chemical" for use as an herbicide without fully assessing the risk.
The petition was filed Friday in the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit by the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network North America, who asked the court to throw out the EPA's June 30 approval of trifludimoxazin and six products containing it for use on a wide range of crops including corn, wheat, soybeans, and apples.
Trifludimoxazin is part of the family of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, synthetic chemicals with strong carbon-fluorine bonds that can take years to fully break down, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals."
The trifludimoxazin was initially approved in 2021 during the Biden administration. But the company agreed to stop selling the product the following year after environmental groups sued, citing its potential to cause cancer and harm to threatened and endangered fish. But the Trump EPA last year proposed registering it again for widespread use and issued a final approval in June.
The groups argue that the EPA approved the use of trifludimoxazin without accounting for evidence that the pesticide could cause cancer and harm wildlife and ecosystems.
The EPA itself has acknowledged that the chemical could harm many endangered and threatened species, including posing chronic risks to bees and other invertebrates. Meanwhile, rodent studies have found that at high doses, the chemical can cause thyroid tumors and adverse effects on the liver and reproductive systems.
The chemical, which blocks an enzyme in plants needed for growth, has been described as 10 times as potent as dicamba, another weedkiller used on soybeans and cotton, whose products have caused millions of acres of unintended crop damage since its approval in 2017.
But though the EPA's own guidance states that carcinogenic effects in animals could point to human risk, the agency stated that its final risk assessment found “no human health risks of concern."
The plaintiffs argue that the EPA did not take all the proper steps to reach this conclusion, having failed to quantify the chemical's danger, especially when combined with exposure to other approved chemicals.
“Trifludimoxazin is a likely human carcinogen that belongs to a family of weedkillers that also causes reproductive harm, birth defects, and neurological deficits in animal studies,” said Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety. “As if the health threats weren’t enough, this incredibly potent herbicide can drift to stunt crops and wild plants hundreds of yards from a sprayed field, while runoff threatens wetland plants. Potent biocides like this have no business on the American landscape.”
The lawsuit also notes that two of the approved trifludimoxazin products combine it with another toxic herbicide called saflufenacil, meaning that farmworkers who apply the chemicals could be exposed to the effects of both at once. The plaintiffs said the EPA did not evaluate the risk that would be posed to farmworkers who are exposed to these chemicals.
“While everyone’s distracted by the Trump administration’s erratic actions on the world stage, it keeps approving dangerous forever pesticides right here on our own soil,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s unconscionable, immoral, and illegal. Our kids and grandkids deserve better than to be saddled with pollution that never goes away.”
Out-of-Touch Trump Says Communities That Reject AI Data Centers Will Be 'Backwards and Poor'
"Donald Trump is actively trying to help as many Democratic senators as possible get elected," said one polling expert.
President Donald Trump on Monday warned Americans that they risk becoming "backwards and poor" unless they allow Big Tech companies to build artificial intelligence data centers in their communities.
In a social media post, the president expressed indignation that any town or city wouldn't welcome data centers, which have drawn nationwide opposition for generating pollution and jacking up utility bills.
"The only reason that communities throughout the USA should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor," Trump wrote. "If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign."
In reality, AI data centers create very few jobs once they are completed, as most of their functions are fully automated.
Trump then said that Americans "will only have yourselves to blame" if they "kill the Golden Goose" that is AI data centers.
"China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement," Trump wrote. "Actually, they can't believe it is happening!"
Building AI data centers has become massively unpopular throughout the US.
A poll conducted by Embold Research and published by Heatmap Pro earlier this month shows that 75% of Americans now oppose building AI data centers in their area, including 61% registering strong opposition.
While Republicans polled in the survey were more supportive of data centers than Democrats and independent voters, it nonetheless found that opposition among Republicans outweighed support by 43 points.
Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris marveled at how politically tone deaf the president sounds when it comes to data centers, commenting that "Donald Trump is actively trying to help as many Democratic senators as possible get elected."
Longtime GOP operative Frank Luntz similarly noted data centers' unpopularity, citing a recent Gallup poll showing 63% of Republican voters oppose having one of the facilities built in their communities.
"We’re about to see whether President Trump can sway those voters to support them, as he’s done on many issues before," Luntz remarked.
Democratic US Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed wasted no time tying the president's position on data centers to his opponent, Republican Mike Rogers.
"Make no mistake—this is Mike Rogers' position on data centers," wrote El-Sayed. "He's got up to $2.6 million invested in companies cashing in on the data center boom, all while Michiganders watch their utility bills soar. You can't trust a word out of Mike's mouth because he's only out for himself, for Donald Trump, and for Big Tech—not Michigan."
Faiz Shakir, a longtime adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), observed that Trump is merely "sharing the perspective of Wall Street and Big Tech" and is showing "no interest... in grappling with the mass revolt across American communities, or to learn anything from them."
Screenwriter David Simon, creator of the acclaimed television series The Wire, accused Trump of brazenly lying about data centers' economic benefits.
"If data centers are a geographic benefit to communities, you can be sure they'd be siting and building them in affluent and politically connected environs," wrote Simon. "Curiously, they're dumped in poorer, less influential places. Go fucking figure."
Republican Kentucky state Rep. Savannah Maddox took issue with the president disparaging communities opposed to data centers, which include many of the rural communities that voted for him in three presidential elections.
"Rural doesn’t mean 'backwards and poor' and development doesn’t always equate to being 'successful and rich,'" wrote Maddox. "President Trump wouldn't be president without the rural voters who inhabit America’s heartland. It is not wrong of us to question the sudden and wide-scale effort to convert arable land into data centers. We are not stupid for wanting to protect our rural way of life."
As Trump Resumes Boat Strikes, Amnesty Says 'Congress Must Stop Murderous Yearlong Campaign'
"We look forward to the day when the architects and perpetrators of this campaign of extrajudicial killings are investigated and face justice, including the people who ordered these operations."
In anticipation of Wednesday, which will mark one year since the Trump administration launched its recently revived bombing campaign against boats allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, Amnesty International USA on Monday renewed its call for congressional action.
"For one year, the US military has carried out a campaign of extrajudicial killings at sea that has left more than 225 people dead, with the most recent four deaths just six days ago," said Amanda Klasing, Amnesty International USA's national director for government relations, in a statement. "For just as long, we have called on Congress to take meaningful action to stop these killings, which are illegal under both international and US law."
Both chambers of Congress are narrowly controlled by Republicans, who have refused to advance war powers resolutions intended to stop the strikes. The US military has confirmed 68 bombings, with at least 227 deaths and 3 survivors, including two attacks last week—though there have been at least three other suspicious attacks on Ecuadorian fishing boats.
All of the attacks have been denounced by legal experts worldwide as "war crimes, murder, or both." While the Trump administration has tried to justify the deadly campaign by claiming that the United States is in an armed conflict with drug-smuggling cartels, many experts and members of Congress disagree.
"War crimes are violations of the law of armed conflict that take place in armed conflict," Sarah Elaine Harrison, nonresident fellow in the Stimson Center's Conventional Defense Program, wrote for Lawfare last week. "By contrast, all of these boat strikes conducted by the US military... are extrajudicial killings. That is, they are deliberate killings that are outside the law: That means murder under domestic criminal statutes, and now likely crimes against humanity under international law."
Amnesty's Klasing similarly noted Monday that "US authorities have yet to offer a shred of evidence to support their claims against the people they have killed. They have not even named the dead. But even if the victims were transiting narcotics as the administration alleges, international law absolutely prohibits summary killings of criminal suspects."
"Unfortunately, with a few notable exceptions, lawmakers have done little to try to halt this horrific campaign of murder at sea," she continued. "And let us be clear: Extrajudicial killings are a form of murder. How many more people will die at sea from this administration’s illegal actions before Congress does its job?"
Klasing said that "we look forward to the day when the architects and perpetrators of this campaign of extrajudicial killings are investigated and face justice, including the people who ordered these operations: President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth."
"Until then, we will continue pushing Congress to do its job to stop this ongoing policy of murder, and we urge people to call their representatives and do the same," she stressed. "But the blame does not solely rest on US authorities."
Amid the boat bombings overseen by US Southern Command, Trump in March sent American troops to Ecuador for a joint effort to combat "narco-terrorists" in the South American nation. Earlier this month, SOUTHCOM announced an expanded operation dubbed Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, with an aim to "defeat all threats" across Latin America.
Klasing declared Monday that "any authorities in Latin America who have aided these killings with equipment or intelligence must stop collaborating in this illegal airstrike campaign and likewise face justice."
Health Aid Cuts in Secret Trump Deals Will Inflict 'Preventable' Death, Disease on Global South: Report
"It will be patients who will pay the ultimate price," said one global health advocate.
The US Congress has pushed back against President Donald Trump's efforts to slash foreign aid, which has long been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike—but a new report on more than a dozen Memoranda of Understanding that the White House has reached with countries that have long relied heavily on healthcare assistance shows that the administration is underspending "congressionally appropriated global health funds by potentially billions of dollars," as it pushes its "America First Global Health Strategy."
That's according to Public Citizen, which on Sunday joined Partners In Health in releasing an analysis of documents that the two nonprofits obtained after suing the Trump administration and filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The groups reviewed the MOUs that have been signed for 18 out of 34 countries whose agreements have been negotiated by the US State Department, including Rwanda, Liberia, Burundi, and Madagascar.
Although Congress has voted to keep foreign aid levels relatively constant—rejecting a budget that called to slash global health spending by $6.2 billion before approving one that proposed a $615 million decrease in spending—the report finds that the MOUs cut foreign health aid by about $2 billion by 2030, compared to 2024 levels.
“These documents suggest that the Trump administration is on course to underspend on global health by billions of dollars compared to what Congress has ordered, risking lives and allowing diseases to spread,” said Peter Maybarduk, director of the Access to Medicines program at Public Citizen. “The administration must answer how and when it intends to invest the missing billions for health.”
Overall, funding for programs that aim to prevent the spread of diseases including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and Ebola—which is currently spreading in the Democratic Republic of Congo's fastest-spreading outbreak on record—is set to be reduced by 59% from historical spending, according to the MOUs viewed by Public Citizen and Partners in Health.
Some countries would see their health assistance from the US plummet even more, with Rwanda's MOU stipulating a 97% reduction in US health aid. Liberia is set to receive 84% less funding for health initiatives by 2030, and Burundi is set to lose 78% of its aid.
"Partners In Health provides direct care in Rwanda, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, along with seven other countries, and expects under-spending of these funds to impact patients’ access to care," said Public Citizen.
The MOUs also demand that the countries meet strict co-financing requirements to make up for their lost funding, and governments in poor countries across Africa could face penalties "which could worsen funding cuts" if they miss the co-financing targets.
"The planned decreases in US funding are larger for several countries than the funding increases from partner governments," reads the report. "For more than half of countries (11 out of 18), co-financing commitments fall short of the US government’s cuts over five years compared to baseline US government funding."
Countries are likely to struggle to meet the co-financing requirements in the MOUs, warned Public Citizen and Partners In Health.
Malawi would be required to secure new healthcare funding equal to 56% of the country's total health expenditure, the report found. With Uganda also facing co-financing requirements from international health organizations including the Global Fund and Gavi, the East African country would be required to mobilize funds equal to 44% of its total health budget.
"These funding cuts will cause death and disease that is preventable,” said Vincent Lin, associate director of health policy and advocacy for Partners In Health. “The State Department is setting up other countries for failure with the co-financing requirements outlined in these agreements, but it will be patients who will pay the ultimate price.”
Maybarduk told The Washington Post that Sierra Leone will be required under its MOU to fill a 71% health funding gap by 2030.
“It’s going to be very difficult, and if a country like that falls behind, and then is punished for that, then of course the health problems compound," said Maybarduk.
The State Department denied to the Post that the Trump administration will not spend all the foreign health assistance funds appropriated by Congress; it suggested that more of the money than usual may go to religious organizations as well as an "innovation fund" to support US technology that aims to fight disease.
Last week, Public Citizen sued the Trump administration under FOIA to obtain the rest of the MOUs that remain hidden from the public.
The White House, said the group, "has kept the public in the dark about the full details of its plans for the future of US support for global health."
"The State Department has negotiated these bilateral agreements," the group said, "on rushed timelines with limited participation from civil society and affected communities."
Talarico Protests as Texas Swing County Plans to Close 92 Polling Places
“The most powerful people in this county, the most powerful people in this country, don’t want us to be able to vote easily."
Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico is pushing for one of Texas' most important swing counties to drop plans to close nearly a third of its polling places before November's midterms.
Amid public outcry, the Commissioners Court for Tarrant County—which contains Fort Worth and borders Dallas—plans to hold a vote on Tuesday on whether to shutter 92 of the polling places used in the 2022 election, many of which serve the city's poorer and minority populations.
If Democrats flip the Senate this November, the road to that outcome will almost certainly run through Texas. A Democrat has not won a statewide election there since 1994, but Talarico may be in a position to break the trend—leading Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton in most polls.
Tarrant County narrowly supported then-Rep. Collin Allred, the Democratic challenger to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in 2024. Talarico said the closure of polling places was meant to suppress turnout and help Republicans cling to their advantage in the state.
“The most powerful people in this county, the most powerful people in this country, don’t want us to be able to vote easily,” Talarico said at a press event Sunday, during which he argued that the closures would result in longer travel for voters and lower turnout, especially in heavily Black and Latino communities.
"We're here fighting for the rights of everybody," Talarico added. "The problem is when we let voting rights become a partisan issue. That's when we walk down a very dangerous path in this country."
Proponents of the closures have described them as a way for the county to save money, rather than a political tactic.
“We’re clearly not trying to suppress the vote,” state Rep. Matt Shaheen (R-66), the chairman of the Texas House Elections Committee, told the Associated Press. “That’s a silly accusation.”
But Republican officials in Tarrant County have, in the past, explicitly tied closures of certain voting locations to partisan aims. In 2024, Republican County Judge Tim O'Hare attempted, unsuccessfully, to remove several early voting sites on college campuses, a move that the county's GOP chairman said would have been "a serious win for Republicans in Tarrant County."
In 2025's off-year elections, Republicans voted 3-2 to reduce the number of polling locations by more than a third and cut funding for free bus rides to the polls for low-income residents. The previous year, they introduced new rules blocking what they derided as "left-wing" groups from registering voters inside county buildings.
At the state level, meanwhile, Texas has carried out unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to hand more US House seats to Republicans at the behest of President Donald Trump. And following Trump's false assertions that his loss in the 2020 election was marred by fraud, Texas introduced several new restrictions on mail-in voting that were found to have significantly reduced turnout.
Tuesday's scheduled vote in Tarrant County comes after commissioners opted to table an earlier proposal that would have shuttered nearly half the county's polling places.
An analysis of that plan showed that the lowest-income third of ZIP codes would lose nearly 58% of their Election Day polling sites, while the highest-income third would lose just under 22%. Majority-minority ZIP codes would have lost nearly 52% of their polling places, while majority-white ones would have lost just a third of theirs.
A similar analysis has not yet been conducted for the new proposal. But civil rights groups still argue that the proposal will disenfranchise many voters.
"Cutting the number of poll sites, especially at such a large scale, will harm Tarrant County voters and their right to participate in the democratic process—and cause particular harm to Black, Latino, and [Asian American and Pacific Islander] voters who already face significant barriers to exercising that fundamental right," wrote groups including the ACLU, the Legal Defense Fund, and the Texas Civil Rights Project, in a letter to the Commissioners' Court on Friday.
They emphasized that the polling places slated to close under the new proposal were clustered in areas such as south and southeast Fort Worth and central and eastern Arlington, which have predominantly nonwhite populations.
Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons, a Democrat who is running to unseat O'Hare as county judge and spoke alongside Talarico on Sunday, argued that while it was an improvement on the earlier proposal, "dropping 92 Election Day polling places is crazy."
"We should not compare this proposal to the worst proposal," she said. "We should compare it to the access that Tarrant County voters actually had in 2022."
'This Is Ethnic Cleansing': Retired Israeli Generals Decry Settler Terrorism Against West Bank Palestinians
"Once a society behaves this way, that society is doomed."
Several retired Israel Defense Forces generals are publicly denouncing their own government for permitting settlers living in the illegally occupied West Bank to wage a campaign of violence against the Palestinian population.
As The New York Times reported on Monday, the retired generals have been touring the West Bank in recent days to witness first-hand the damage that has been done to Palestinians' livelihoods by the Israeli settlers, whose violent actions have grown so outrageous that even US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee described them as "terrorists."
Ephraim Sneh, retired brigadier general and former minister of health, did not mince words in describing the settlers' campaign of attacking Palestinian villages.
"This is ethnic cleansing, to put it simply," said Sneh.
Asaf Agmon, a retired Air Force general, likened the attacks on Palestinians to the kinds of pogroms once suffered by Jews living in Europe.
Agmon also said that the Israeli government's tacit support of these attacks bodes ill for the future of Israel.
“Once a society behaves this way,” said Agmon, “that society is doomed.”
The tours of the West Bank are being organized by Yaakov Or, a retired Israeli general who spent much of his career working inside the occupied territory.
According to the Times, Or begins every tour with a speech where he emphasizes the importance of speaking out against what he says are indefensible atrocities.
"When I take you to see what is happening in the West Bank, you will have two choices," Or said during the start of a recent tour. "You can stay silent, and be complicit, or you can speak out, and tell everyone you know about what is happening."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the weekend once again downplayed the significance of settler attacks on Palestinians, describing them as rogue actions taken by troubled individuals.
"We are talking about a very small handful of people," Netanyahu said, "usually young people who come with all kinds of distress and problems, often from home, and I am determined to stop this."
The Israeli prime minister also said that attacking Palestinian villages "harms the settlement movement" and "gives us a bad name around the world."
Netanyahu on "settler" terrorism:
We are talking about a very small handful of people, usually young people who come with all kinds of distress and problems, often from home, and I am determined to stop this.
You want to enter a village? You will not enter. That is not your… pic.twitter.com/MlnKxlaxlB
— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 30, 2026
Palestinian Christian theologian Munther Isaac pointed out that the Israeli government itself has been actively working to push Palestinians out of their homes in the West Bank, pointing to recent Israeli demolitions of homes in the town of Birzeit.
"This is what ethnic cleansing looks like in Palestine," wrote Isaac.
Birzeit: Israeli occupation forces demolished two inhabited residential buildings. Each was four stories high, with every floor covering 250 square meters.
This is what ethnic cleansing looks like in Palestine. pic.twitter.com/XsYu92VUFw
— Munther Isaac منذر اسحق (@MuntherIsaac) August 31, 2026
Human rights organizations for months have been sounding the alarm about the situation in the West Bank, where Israeli settlers have routinely attacked Palestinians at their own homes.
An analysis published by the Carter Center last month found that “settler attacks are now the leading cause of Palestinian injuries in the West Bank,” as “more than 3,200 Palestinians have been displaced by settler attacks and home demolitions this year—double the daily rate of the previous three years.”
'The President of the United States Is Mentally Unwell': Deranged Trump Posts AI Slop of Iran Bombing
The chief executive of Iran's government-run oil company dismissed the US president's social media posts "laughable."
US President Donald Trump published a string of unhinged posts to his social media platform overnight and into Monday morning, including an artificial intelligence-generated video attempting to depict American forces bombing Kharg Island—Iran's primary oil export terminal.
The post, which drew mockery from Iranian officials and alarm from observers concerned about Trump's increasingly erratic behavior, came after US forces attacked Larak Island, which is located hundreds of miles east of Kharg in the Strait of Hormuz.
"Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!" Trump wrote in the caption of his post. It is unclear whether Trump, who frequently shares inane AI-generated videos with his 13 million Truth Social followers, confused Larak Island with Kharg Island, which the president has repeatedly threatened to invade.
An unnamed US official confirmed to Reuters in the wake of Trump's post that American forces did not target Kharg Island during their Sunday attacks.
Trump posts AI slop with the caption, “Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!” pic.twitter.com/HVTF9xFC6B
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 31, 2026
Hamid Bovard, the chief executive of Iran's government-run oil company, called Trump's posts "laughable" and described conditions on Kharg Island as "calm and appropriate."
Iran retaliated for the US strike on Larak with a drone attack on two American military installations in Jordan and condemned the Trump administration's ongoing aggression as an "obvious violation" of the United Nations Charter.
"It is obvious that full responsibility for the consequences of America’s new aggressive actions, as well as the continuation of the maritime blockade and economic war against Iran, rests with the US regime and all parties that in any way cooperate or participate in preparing and implementing the US’ illegal and unlawful actions," the Iranian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
The military exchange between the US and Iran was the first in weeks amid stalled efforts to achieve a lasting solution to the historically unpopular war that Trump and his Israeli counterpart, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, launched in late February, sparking a global energy crisis that has jacked up gas prices in the US and prompted fears of a global food emergency.
In a separate Truth Social post on Monday morning, Trump declared that Iran is "officially a Failed Nation," adding in all-caps, "IT IS DEAD!"
"They have no Navy, they have no Air Force, they have no currency, they are not paying their soldiers or police, Inflation is at 300%, and their leadership is in total disarray and incapable of properly representing the country" Trump wrote.
"They must be tried for war crimes against humanity!" added the US president, who has been credibly accused of committing war crimes in Iran and elsewhere.
Trump's attempt to convey overwhelming and unflagging US military superiority conflicts with internal assessments by top American officials, who reportedly warned Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this month that "prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the US homeland." US intelligence assessments have also found that, despite Trump's claims, Iran's government is still intact after six months of American bombing.
"The president of the United States is mentally unwell and has been for quite some time," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who has supported congressional efforts to end Trump's illegal war, wrote in a social media post on Monday. "He fantasized blowing up Iran’s Kharg Island. Except it didn’t happen."
"And why would Trump need to blow it up if, as Trump claims, the US has total control of the Strait," Lieu asked.
Trump Accused of Using Iran War Energy Crisis as 'Cover for a Resource Grab' in Venezuela
"Oil reserves in Venezuela will do nothing to lower families’ bills today," said one campaigner.
President Donald Trump was accused over the weekend of exploiting an energy crisis of his own creation to make the case for what he dubiously characterized as "the biggest oil deal in world history" with Venezuela, a country that the US illegally attacked earlier this year in an operation to abduct its then-president, Nicolás Maduro.
“Trump drove up gas prices by launching a devastating war with Iran. Now he is using the energy crisis he created as cover for a resource grab of Venezuela’s oil," Allie Rosenbluth, US program manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement on Sunday. "The announcement confirms his aggression against Venezuela was about securing power, profits, and fossil fuels."
The newly announced agreement—which Trump and Venezuela's acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, said involved the development of fields with potentially 65 billion barrels of oil—came as gas prices in the US remained above $4 per gallon. According to AAA, this month is "poised to set a new record as the most expensive August at the pump," as the national average price for a gallon of gas has been above $4 every day of the month for the first time.
Rosenbluth, like other analysts, questioned the impact of Trump's deal with Venezuela on the US energy crisis, which has become a major political problem for the president and his Republican Party heading into the midterms.
Trump, who has significant fossil fuel company holdings, claimed the deal would "substantially lower gas prices" and help replenish the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is at its lowest level in decades after the president ordered the release of 172 million barrels following Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz in response to US aggression.
Trump tries to retroactively justify his war of aggression against Venezuela by saying he will use its oil to replenish America's strategic reserves, which are depleted because of his aggressive war of choice against Iran. What is wrong with this "logic"? https://t.co/Grh3ov8Jhw
— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) August 30, 2026
Trump announced the deal with Venezuela on Friday, which marked six months since the US and Israel started bombing Iran.
"Oil reserves in Venezuela will do nothing to lower families’ bills today," said Rosenbluth. "Increasing production of this extremely heavy and dirty crude would take years and billions of dollars. A bet on new Venezuelan oil production that may take a decade or more to materialize is a bet against solving the climate crisis already destroying lives and livelihoods every day. The immediate winners are the oil companies and private investors given access to Venezuela’s resources, while Venezuelans lose sovereignty, and communities in Venezuela and along the US Gulf Coast face more pollution and harm."
“Trump’s attacks on Iran and Venezuela expose the vicious cycle of fossil fuel dependence: Wars secure access to oil, oil fuels violence and militarization, prices become more volatile, and fossil fuel companies profit while ordinary people pay," Rosenbluth added. "Real energy security comes from phasing out fossil fuels and investing in affordable, renewable energy.”
Gerald Kepes, president of the consultancy firm Competitive Energy Strategies, noted in an interview with NPR that the US has no "government-owned operational capability per se in the oil and gas sector," raising the question of "who's going to operate on the ground?"
Chevron is currently the only US oil company actively producing in Venezuela. NPR reported that "there's a private Venezuelan company involved in the deal," but the details remain murky.