SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The fiery shards from the murder of Charlie Kirk still ricochet in baleful ways, even as his shooter's views and motives remain murky. Despite rabid calls by a regime eager for revenge to extinguish leftist "scum" who rendered their bigot hero "a martyr for truth and freedom," the killer seems to be a muddled mix of gun freak, devout gamer and violent nihilist. In his bloody wake, many now beset by irrational vitriol are left to argue, "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie supported what happened to Charlie."
Political violence is, of course, as old as America: Federalists vs. anti-Federalists, indigenous genocide, slavery, lynching, war, Lincoln, the 1960s' white and black assassinations, civil, women's and gay rights struggles, Jan. 6 riots, police state troops, racist ICE raids and, in a country with perhaps 500 million guns, an estimated 125 Americans killed daily with guns - a rate 26 times higher than any other developed nation - and up to 800 children killed in school shootings impacting over 360,000 students. In 2023, the most recent year with full data, nearly 47,000 people died in gun violence. The first six months of this year saw an almost 40% surge in gun-related acts of terrorism and targeted violence over last year, with over 520 reported plots or acts of violence and, to date, 300 mass shootings, forty-seven at schools. In a nation awash in killing machines, an increasingly right-wing GOP and a mood of rage-fueled paranoia and polarization, each act of political violence makes the next more likely.
Charlie Kirk, 31, was shot and killed by an assassin's bullet in the neck while speaking under a tent that read "Prove Me Wrong" on the campus of Utah Valley University on the first of a 15-stop "America Comeback Tour" by his right-wing Turning Point USA; he was struck just as he responded to a question about mass shootings by blaming gangs. It was the day before a historically freighted Sept. 11 symbolizing myriad acts of or against violence: It was the day when Gandhi launched the first nonviolent resistance in South Africa in 1906 to stunning political effect; when Chile's democratically elected Socialist President Salvador Allende was assassinated; when Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and Americans came together with such inspiring grace and strength the event came to represent "the ultimate failure of terrorism against the United States" - until a pernicious Bush Administration launched two bloody, pointless, illegal wars, which still haunt us, in its name.
Kirk was a vibrant, hateful, genial, incendiary mouthpiece for a MAGA worldview of bigotry and intolerance, a "loathsome human being (who) celebrated violence against people he didn’t like" and used his mocking, performative "debates" with students to effectively spread misinformation, inflame young, impressionable, vaguely discontent people, surreptitiously urge democracy be replaced by an emergent Christian Fascism, and make millions. "The language has been violent. The discord has been great," wrote Rev. Graylan Scott Hagler. "There has been a consistent invitation to dine at the table of heated racist discussion posing as legitimate political speech," in which Kirk "rhetorically violated" the safety of Blacks, Muslims, queers, immigrants and multiple 'others' in the name of a defaming, divisive "free speech." "He (did) not care about the security of others. He did not show empathy," said Hagler. "Charlie Kirk expanded hatred (and) marketed the vile speech of old racisms in new wineskins."
Kirk claimed America was full of "prowling Blacks" who target white people "for fun." He said "God's perfect law" says gay people should be stoned to death, Black people were better off during Jim Crow, Democrats “stand for everything God hates," the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, Islam is "the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America." He put liberal academics on watch lists to be targeted and harassed, called Dems "maggots, vermin and swine," mocked the death of George Floyd, "joked" a "patriot" should bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker, urged "a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming doctor," charged prominent Black women like Michelle Obama "don't have the brain power" to succeed unless they "steal a white person's slot." A fierce critic of gun control, he argued we cannot allow mass shooting victims to "emotionally hijack the narrative," and championed as "prudent" and "rational" the cost of gun deaths in exchange for having "the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
Like much of the right, he practiced "eliminationist rhetoric," wherein political opponents aren’t just wrong but evil, less than human. Still, when the 2nd Amendment came for Charlie Kirk, thoughtful opponents wrestled in a deeply human way with the complexities. "He was a vile human being," said one, "but I do not want to live in a society where vile human beings are assassinated." Again and again, people echoed that pivotal duality: "We can condemn political violence and Kirk’s murder while also condemning Kirk for the hate he fomented," "Murder is bad, and sometimes bad people are murdered," "Kirk said and did many despicable things, but he did not deserve to die," "Kirk should not have been shot and killed for his beliefs, and nobody else" - Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, whose deaths Trump still refuses to acknowledge, no pol, no child - "should be either." This was not vengeance-tinged schadenfreude, he said; it was a moral and political reckoning with America's dissonant reality.
The right, obviously, ignored those subtleties, unable to recognize any space between "endorsing over-the-top grief for white men who espouse violence" and not endorsing that violence. Here, as usual, appeasement is in vain. "They are going to claim we (left/liberals/Democrats/non-white non-supremacists) said whatever is most convenient for them to say we said, no matter what we say," wrote Rebecca Solnit. "They've already decided all of us were the shooter." And they did. Within minutes, with zero information on the killer, Trump, elected on a platform of fomenting online rage against the "other," seized the deadly moment to foment more. He raved against "a radical left group of lunatics" - "we just have to beat the hell out of them" - "the agitator," "the scum," who for years "have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis...This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country." Elizabeth Warren, asked if Dems should "tone down" their rhetoric: "Oh, please."
After he ordered the nation's flags flown at half-mast - never once done for the hundreds of schoolchildren gunned down over the years - fellow brownshirts picked up the vengeful tiki torch and feverishly ran with it. Musk: "The Left is the party of murder...Our choice is to fight or die." Libs of Tik Tok: “THIS IS WAR." Matt Walsh: "We are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell.” Seethed Paulina Luna, "EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU WHO CALLED US FASCISTS DID THIS," charging, "You were busy doping up kids, cutting off their genitals, inciting racial violence...YOU ARE THE HATE you claim to fight." Logically, they also vowed to use the power of the state to exact retribution against Dem pols, "libtard" pundits, anyone who may have viewed Kirk as anything but a flawless hero and martyr. Clay Higgins urged social media posts be banned, business licenses revoked, students or teachers be kicked out, non-citizens be banished: "Cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals."
As usual, a spewing, psychotic Stephen Miller won the talking-evil-bullshit-out-of-your-Nazi-ass award, raving about "a wicked ideology" that "hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved," an ideology that views "the perfect family with bitter rage while embracing the serial criminal with tender warmth" as its adherents "tear down and destroy every mark of grace and beauty while lifting up everything monstrous and foul." Say what the fuck? In a posthumous Kirk podcast in the White House hosted by J.D. Vance - who flew Kirk's body home in Air Force Two and pledged to "go after" fictional leftist NGOs, including The Nation, that "foments violence" - a smitten Miller decried those "cheering the evil assassination that cruelly robbed this nation of one of its greatest men" and vowed to use his "righteous anger," "as God is my witness," to "use every resource" to destroy the left's "vast domestic terror movement...in Charlie's name."
Experts say the first, vital violence the authoritarian right commits is against fact, truth, history, meaning, language - reality itself. And so, again, it comes to pass. There has been no "cheering" of an act everyone knows with "horror" will spiral into chaos and repression. Though Miller said his last message from Kirk "before he joined his creator in heaven" was "we have to dismantle radical left organizations...fomenting violence," there is no such organization; nor is there a leftist "vast domestic terror movement." But there is, well-documented, on the right. See here, here, and here: Far-right plots and attacks have "significantly outpaced terrorism by other types of perpetrators" since 1994, and 2024 was the third year in a row that all extremist-related killings in the U.S. were carried out by right-wingers." A study by the DOJ itself likewise found, "The number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism." It was just scrubbed from its website.
But who needs facts. Not a desperate, unhinged right that increasingly views everyone else as an existential threat to the white, straight, Christian nationalist oligarchy they seek to create. And now, notes Chris Hedges, they have their martyr, "the lifeblood of violent movements"- albeit "a reprehensible human being and Christo-fascist who enacted his agenda by preying on weak minded people" - often critical to "turn the moral order upside down" en route to "full-scale social disintegration." Inevitably, he predicts, the right's new-found, giddy, sanctimonious "intoxication with violence will feed on itself like a firestorm." In less than a week, it already is, with dozens of people across the country facing retribution - hounded, fired, threatened, arrested - in a GOP-sanctified "witch-hunt" against anyone who dares to not mourn Kirk, or accurately, scathingly quote him, or decline "to be sad that a guy willing to sacrifice school children for the Second Amendment wound up getting shot at a school."
MSNBC fired political analyst Matthew Dowd for musing, “Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which lead to hateful actions." The Washington Post fired Karen Attiah, their sole Black columnist, for noting Kirk's racist history, especially toward Black women. Dem Rep. Seth Moulton was flooded with threats - "Cute kids - be a shame if they didn't have a father" - for arguing Trump should make it clear political differences can't and shouldn't be solved by violence. And in what Thaddeus Howze calls "deafening hypocrisy," a populace who long (if selectively) quoted Scripture to make their pious points has abruptly banished their "live by the sword" tenet after "the gun culture (Kirk) championed did not exempt him." "Here was a man who minimized other people’s agony, suddenly forced to taste the violence he once dismissed," he writes. As a result, his "2nd Amendment justice" is neither celebration nor solution; it's simply the fact that, "The logic he defended and normalized folded back on him."
Enter Tyler Robinson, who on Tuesday appeared by video in court to be charged with aggravated murder and six other counts; prosecutors will seek the death penalty. After Kash Patel's error-ridden, "amateur hour" clown show of an FBI search, Robinson was ultimately convinced by his father and a family friend to turn himself in. Described as a quiet, "squeaky clean" kid, he came from a Trump-voting, gun-loving family; his father was a sheriff turned evangelical pastor, online, his mother often posted (now-deleted) photos of Tyler and his brother grinning with guns, and they'd gifted him the rifle he killed Kirk with. Early reports suggested he was part of Nick Fuentes' “Groypers," a white-nationalist group from the "toxic underbelly of the MAGA ecosystem" who use Internet memes, ironic cultural references and racist dog whistles to spread hate, and who'd publicly harassed Kirk as not extremist or "pro-white” enough. Now, it's only clear that Tyler, who friends describe as "terminally online," was "a guy who plainly had Internet brain poisoning."
As "experts" struggled to decipher reported markings on the killer's ammunition - "Hey fascist, catch!" with a sequence of arrows etc - gamers quickly identified them as symbols from Helldivers 2, in which elite forces battle against aliens on behalf of a fascist state. Meanwhile, more facts emerged: Tyler, his politics shifting left, was in a romantic relationship with a roommate transitioning from male to female, and he'd told them and his father he killed Kirk because he "had enough of his hatred." All told, his views were so hazy he could be deemed a "nihilist violent extremist" (NVE), often alienated young men, desensitized to violence by gaming and right-wing subcultures, who lack a coherent political belief system but feel an inchoate rage - a reminder to a partisan world, wrote Ken Klippenstein, "of the actual diversity of the nation, and the cost of polarization that demonizes the other side." The lack of "tidy narrative," said Rep.Sean Casten, suggested this was merely the tale of "a young man who made a bad choice with a gun."
Online, some declared MAGA's civil war had been cancelled "due to shooter being demographically uncooperative." But the regime, fired up, had no interest in leading us out of "this ugly toxic pit." Ignoring facts, law, nuance and their ostensible mission to unite, they've used the shooting to launch "the biggest assault on the First Amendment in our country’s modern history.” Pam Bondi, appearing on Goebbels' wife Katie Miller's malignant podcast, vowed the Justice Department would "go after" those engaging in "hate speech," or "violent rhetoric designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals," aka accurately quoting Charlie Kirk. "There's free speech and there's hate speech," she said. "We will absolutely target you." Heather Lyle on the "staggering irony" of selectively outraged, right-wing grievance politics "collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions...A movement that insists mass death is acceptable collateral in the name of liberty also demands national mourning when its own suffers."
Trump, meanwhile, has helped stifle free speech by threatening an ABC News reporter who asked about it - "We'll probably go after people like you. You treat me unfairly - you have hate in your heart" - an Australian reporter - "You are hurting Australia right now. Your leader is coming to see me soon, I’m going to tell him about you...Quiet" - and "the degenerate" New York Times with a bizarre, "hilarious," $15 billion libel lawsuit packed with lies, boasts and juvenile praise for his "transcendent ability to defy wrongful conventions" and "greatest personal and political achievement in American history" despite a pernicious paper that "has engaged (in) decades-long lying about your Favorite President (ME!).” Like any eight-year-old sociopath, he has a notably short attention span: Asked how he's doing after losing his "friend" Kirk, he said, "Very good. And by the way, right there, you see the trucks just started construction of the new Ballroom...It's going to be a beauty...one of the best in the world, actually. Thank you very much."
Elsewhere, everyone spoke of Kirk and the havoc his death has wrought. "Pay attention," urged Sen. Chris Murphy of moves to crush dissent: "Something dark may be coming." A somber Bernie warned of political violence that "threatens to hollow out our public life"; many followers, citing the "paradox of intolerance," argued tolerance is a social contract the right has already ravaged: "Charlie Kirk is a self-inflicted gunshot statistic. Kirk's widow Erika, 36, a glossy former Miss Arizona with a "Christian clothing company" and "devotional blessings" podcast, gave an "address to the nation" at a lectern reading, "May Charlie be received into the merciful arms of Jesus, our loving savior"; she told "evil-doers" they have "no idea what you have unleashed," and vowed the tour, mission and "wisdom" of Charlie, "wearing the glorious crown of a martyr," "will endure." At a shabby Kennedy Center vigil - bad music, red caps, USA chants, shrieking pastors - regime fans and officials proclaimed, "We are all Charlie Kirk now."
Not quite. "Grief is not a performance," offered a therapist to those struggling to respond. "When a public figure dies, you are not obligated to manufacture sorrow (to) honor a life (that) caused harm." "You are inheriting a country where politics feels like rage," Utah Gov. Spencer Cox told traumatized students. "Words are not violence. Violence is violence." After the arrest, Cox said he'd been praying the shooter "wouldn't be one of us" - a queer immigrant would be better? - "so I could say, 'We don't do that here.'" But of course he was, and we do. "What the actual hell have we become?" asked Catholic writer Emily Zanotti. From another, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." White, male, home-grown, needy, beset by an inchoate animus and fury now wretchedly reflected in a regime whose leaders choose to use power only for hate. Compare and contrast with, say, Stephen Colbert, who this week spoke of love, and loss, and "desperately loving" a country now unrecognizable. Even Tyler Robinson decried hate, and, to his partner, voiced love.
The same day he shot Charlie Kirk, the "uniquely American cycle" was reprised one state over when a male student opened fire at a Colorado high school, wounding two before killing himself; so much blood was already flowing it barely made the news. Two days later, also under-reported, a police SWAT team arrested a 13-year-old boy near Seattle for "unlawful firearms possession." Evidently fixated on school shootings, the boy had amassed an arsenal of 23 guns with accompanying ammunition, including tactical style rifles mounted on the walls of his room, handguns strewn through the house and, in a backpack beneath a turtle habitat, AR assault magazines; police also found drawings of school shooters and social media posts that said, "When I turn 21 I am going to kill people" and, "It's over! My time is almost hear!" (sic). In an interview, his mother, who home-schooled him, said the posts were an attempt by her son to "be cool," and he had no intention of harming anyone.
The attorneys general of Connecticut and Rhode Island on Thursday joined renewable energy companies in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's suspension of an offshore wind farm that, if completed, will power hundreds of thousands of homes in the two New England states.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, both Democrats, announced they are suing "to overturn the baseless stop-work order abruptly issued on August 22, 2025, which halted the construction of Revolution Wind," a project located 15 miles south of the Rhode Island coast.
"Revolution Wind is fully permitted, nearly complete and months from providing enough American-made, clean, affordable energy to power 350,000 homes," Tong said in a statement. "Now, with zero justification, [US President Donald] Trump wants to mothball the project, send workers home, and saddle Connecticut families with millions of dollars in higher energy costs. This kind of erratic and reckless governing is blatantly illegal, and we're suing to stop it."
Acting US Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) Director Matthew Giacona issued the order directing Rob Keiser, head of asset management at the North American branch of the Danish firm Ørsted—the world's largest offshore wind developer—to "halt all ongoing activities related to the Revolution Wind project on the outer continental shelf."
Giacona's order—which cited "concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States"—is to remain in effect pending review by BOEM, which is part of the US Interior Department.
Ratepayers could have saved $400 million last winter if the 3.5 GW of offshore wind in New England was operational.Meanwhile, Trump just halted construction on Rhode Island's Revolution Wind and is trying to ban wind energy entirely. You can thank Trump when your energy bills continue to rise.
[image or embed]
— LCV – League of Conservation Voters 🌎 (@lcv.org) September 4, 2025 at 6:31 AM
At the time of the order, Ørsted said that Revolution Wind was "80% complete, with all offshore foundations installed and 45 out of 65 wind turbines installed."
The lawsuit filed by Revolution Wind—a joint venture between Ørsted and Skyborn Renewables—seeks to lift BOEM's order. An attorney for Ørsted contended Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia that Trump's "apparent hostility toward offshore wind" was behind the stop-work order.
"The project has spent billions of dollars in reliance on these valid approvals," the Revolution Wind filing states. "The stop-work order is invalid and must be set aside because it was issued without statutory authority, in violation of agency regulations and procedures and the 5th Amendment's due process clause, and is arbitrary and capricious."
US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who previously condemned the stop-work order, said Thursday that "if Trump's plan is to raise families' energy prices, cut American jobs, turbocharge climate change, and accelerate the Great Climate Insurance Crisis, he's knocking it out of the park with his all-out attack on American offshore wind."
"Wind power is one of the fastest, safest, cheapest ways to meet rising electricity demand and cut energy prices," the senator continued. "The only winners here are the corrupt fossil fuel donors who bankrolled Trump's campaign."
In a separate social media post on Thursday addressing the new lawsuit, Whitehouse said that "my experience tells me the discovery phase will be fascinating as the lawyers dig into the true motivations and scheming behind this ugly fossil fuel thuggery."
Revolution Wind is at least the second major wind project hit with a BOEM stop-work order during the second administration of Trump, who campaigned on a "drill, baby, drill" pro-fossil fuels platform.
Trump has also antagonized Denmark by threatening to take control of Greenland, a Danish territory. Last month, Denmark's Foreign Ministry summoned Mark Stroh, Trump's charge d'affaires in the Nordic nation, following a report by the main Danish public broadcaster alleging that three Americans with ties to Trump have been attempting to instigate tensions between Denmark and Greenland.
Thursday's lawsuit follows another multistate complaint filed in May by 18 attorneys general seeking to block Trump's effort to pause offshore wind development via an executive order issued on the president's first day in office.
"This arbitrary and unnecessary directive threatens the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in investments, and it is delaying our transition away from the fossil fuels that harm our health and our planet," Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the coalition of states, said at the time.
A federal judge late Tuesday ruled against President Donald Trump's unlawful attempt to fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook last month, determining that the president's "for cause" argument was unconvincing as it was based on unsubstantiated accusations of wrongdoing and represented an executive overreach with worrying implications.
Trump claimed his attempted removal of Cook, whose legal team challenged it as politically motivated and an "unprecedented and illegal" violation of the Fed's statutory independence, was for falsified mortgage applications for homes Cook purchased prior to her appointment to the board, However, Judge Jia M. Cobb of the US District Court for the District of Columbia found that the alleged infractions were neither substantiated and also took place prior to her taking the position.
"According to the government, the determination of cause is committed to the president's discretion by statute, leaving no role for this court. The court disagrees," Cobb said in her decision.
The accusations against Cook center on accusations brought by Bill Pulte, a prominent political supporter of Trump appointed by the president to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which operates the public lending arms of both Fannie and Freddie Mac. Critics of Pulte have accused him of weaponizing his access to private mortgage data by sifting through records of Trump's perceived political enemies.
As economist Dean Baker wrote in a column last week, people would be wise to recognize Pulte's outsized role in the accusations Trump made against Cook.
"While the validity of Pulte's allegations will have to be determined by the courts, the real scandal is Pulte himself," wrote Baker. "He is supposed to be running the agency that oversees the processing of tens of millions of mortgages by two huge quasi-public agencies. We are not supposed to be paying him to rifle through mortgage documents to find and disclose dirt that Trump can use against his political opponents."
By ruling against Trump on Tuesday, Cobb sided with Cook's request for a temporary injunction. This means she will remain in her post, with full voting rights as a governor of the Fed Board, as the case proceeds in the courts.
"Today's ruling recognizes and reaffirms the importance of safeguarding the independence of the Federal Reserve from illegal political interference," said Abbe Lowell, an attorney on Cook's legal team. "Allowing the president to unlawfully remove Governor Cook on unsubstantiated and vague allegations would endanger the stability of our financial system and undermine the rule of law."
For now, Lowell added, Cook will "will continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor."
Congressional Democrats and victim advocates took aim Tuesday at President Donald Trump's gutting of federal programs combatcing human trafficking, belying campaign promises to aggressively target perpetrators of such crimes.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, on Tuesday released an 18-page memo "detailing how the Trump administration has repeatedly sided with sex offenders and human traffickers over their victims—often rewarding sexual predators and elevating them to positions of power within the US government while crippling key offices, programs, and grants that combat sex crimes and support survivors."
This seemingly flies in the face of Trump's "Agenda 47" campaign platform, which vowed to aggressively crack down on human traffickers, and the groundswell of Trump supporters' unheeded calls for action and accountability in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Fighting child sex trafficking—both real and imagined—has long been an issue of passionate importance for the MAGA movement.
"Trump began his second term promising to 'make America safe again.' But safe for whom? Law-abiding citizens or dangerous criminals?"
Noting that "Trump and his supporters have gone from demanding the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files to doing everything in their power to prevent their release, openly tampering with potential witness Ghislaine Maxwell and calling the matter a 'Democrat hoax,'" the memo—titled Epstein Is the Tip of the Iceberg—begins by asking: "Trump began his second term promising to 'make America safe again.' But safe for whom? Law-abiding citizens or dangerous criminals?"
The memo notes that in the past seven months, Trump has:
Trump has also been found civilly liable for sexual abuse and has been accused of rape, sexual assault, or harassment by more than two dozen women.
Following whistleblower claims "that the Trump administration concealed information about the safety of unaccompanied Guatemalan children they tried to deport in the dead of night," Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Tuesday called for an oversight hearing to examine the US Office of Refugee Resettlement's "mass child deportation efforts and apparent lies under oath."
"The urgent call for a hearing comes after the disclosure alleged that at least 30 of 327 unaccompanied Guatemalan children the administration attempted to deport without due process 'have indicators of being a victim of child abuse, including death threats, gang violence, human trafficking, and/or have expressed fear of return to Guatemala,'" Padilla's office said in a statement Wednesday.
An investigation published Wednesday by The Guardian also detailed how the Trump administration "has aggressively rolled back efforts across the federal government to combat human trafficking."
Jean Bruggeman, executive director of the advocacy group Freedom Network USA, told The Guardian that “it’s been a widespread and multipronged attack on survivors that leaves all of us less safe and leaves survivors with few options."
Numerous critics have warned of the dangers of Trump's diversion of federal resources and personnel dedicated to combating human trafficking to enforcing mass deportations.
As Raskin told Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel during a charged Wednesday hearing, "When Trump decided that rounding up immigrants with no criminal records was more important that preventing crimes like human trafficking of women and girls, drug dealing, terrorism, and fraud, you ordered FBI’s 25 largest field offices to divert thousands of agents away from chasing down violent criminals, sex traffickers, fraudsters, and scammers to help carry out Trump’s extreme immigration crackdown."
"You ordered hundreds of FBI agents to pore over all the Epstein files," Raskin said, "but not to look for more clues about the money network or the network of human traffickers, pulled these agents from their regular counterterrorism, counterintelligence, or anti-drug trafficking duties to work around the clock, some of them sleeping on their office desks, to conduct a frantic search to make sure Donald Trump’s name and image were flagged and redacted wherever they appeared."
"Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are," Raskin added.
Jerry Greenfield, the lifelong political activist and co-founder of the ice cream brand Ben & Jerry's, is quitting the company in protest against what he says are efforts by parent company Unilever to "silence" his advocacy for progressive causes, particularly for Palestinians amid Israel's genocidal war in Gaza.
"I can no longer, in good conscience, and after 47 years, remain an employee of Ben & Jerry's," Greenfield said in a statement posted Tuesday by his longtime partner Ben Cohen. "This is one of the hardest and most painful decisions I've ever made."
The Vermont-based ice cream company was acquired by Unilever, a British conglomerate, in 2000, at which time Greenfield says the company "guaranteed" him and his partner the "independence to pursue our values." Though the pair no longer had a financial stake in the company, which they founded in 1978, they remained on as board members and brand ambassadors.
"For more than twenty years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry's stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice, and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world," Greenfield said. "That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever, one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company's governance structure in perpetuity."
The relationship between Ben & Jerry's and its parent company began to fracture as Cohen and Greenfield became increasingly outspoken advocates against Israel's human rights abuses in Palestine.
In 2021, the duo announced that it would stop selling its ice cream in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in protest of Israel's occupation of those territories, which is widely recognized as illegal under international law. Several US states with laws punishing boycotts of Israel began to pull their investments in Unilever, which rushed to reaffirm that it was “firmly committed” to Israel.
In order to bypass the pair's boycott, Unilever sold the Israeli portion of Ben & Jerry's to a distributor in the country, which promptly resumed distribution in the Occupied Territories. The duo launched a lawsuit against their parent company in hopes of stopping the deal.
The rift would intensify further after October 7, 2023, when, following Hamas' attack against Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government responded with a crushing military onslaught against the Gaza Strip that has now resulted in at least 220,000 casualties according to one former Israeli general.
Ben & Jerry's would file another lawsuit in 2024 alleging that Unilever, on several occasions, used threats and intimidation to stop them from speaking out on the conflict, which they referred to as a "genocide."
They said Unilever threatened to dismantle the company's board if it issued statements calling for "peace" and a "ceasefire," imposed restrictions on their statements in support of pro-Palestine student demonstrators, and stopped them from donating company funds to human rights organizations. Ben & Jerry's would later claim that Unilever fired its CEO, David Stever in March 2025 in retaliation for the brand's activism.
This past May, Cohen was arrested, along with six others, for disrupting a US Senate hearing in protest of Washington's continued sale of weapons to Israel, which at that point had begun outlining plans to fully remove Palestinians from Gaza with support from President Donald Trump.
Unilever distanced itself from Cohen's actions, saying they were "on his own as an individual and not on behalf of Ben & Jerry's or Unilever."
Greenfield's departure comes as Unilever plans to fold Ben & Jerry's into a new entity known as the Magnum Ice Cream Company, which is set to be listed on the stock market in November. In response to the merger, Ben & Jerry's called for its brand to be "freed" from the conglomerate.
"They're ripping the heart out of Ben & Jerry's," Cohen said last week while brandishing a picket sign. "All we're asking is for them to sell the company to a group of people who support the values of Ben & Jerry's."
Magnum rejected this request, saying, "Ben & Jerry’s is a proud part of the Magnum Ice Cream Company and is not for sale."
"It's profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence, the very basis of our sale to Unilever, is gone," Greenfield said in his resignation note. "And it's happening at a time when our country's current administration is attacking civil rights, voting rights, the rights of immigrants, women, and the LGBTQ community."
"Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important," he continued, "and yet Ben & Jerry's has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power. It's easy to stand up and speak out when there's nothing at risk."
US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Tuesday condemned the Trump administration's attack the previous day on a second boat allegedly transporting drugs off the coast of Venezuela as blatantly illegal, highlighting her introduction last week of a war powers resolution in a bid to stop the aggression.
President Donald Trump announced Monday that the US destroyed what he said was a boat used by Venezuelan drug gangs, killing three people in what one Amnesty International campaigner called "an extrajudicial execution."
The strike followed a September 2 US attack on another alleged drug-running boat that killed 11 people, which Omar (D-Minn.) called a "lawless and reckless" action.
Responding to Monday's attack, Omar said on the social media site X that the Trump administration "is once again using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law."
"There is NO legal justification," she said of the attack. "It risks spiraling into the exact type of endless, pointless conflict that Trump supposedly opposes. I have a war powers resolution to fight back."
Introduced last Thursday, the measure aims to stop the US attacks, which coincide with Trump's deployment of a small armada of warships off the Caribbean coast of Venezuela, a country that has endured to more than a century of US meddling in its affairs.
"All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war," Omar said at the time.
The War Powers Act of 1973—enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos—empowers Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led a letter signed by two dozen Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserting that the Trump administration offered “no legitimate justification” for the first boat strike.
Omar's condemnation of the US attacks followed Monday's announcement by US Reps. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) of separate resolutions to strip Omar of her committee assignments and, in the case of Mace's measure, censure the congresswoman after she reportedly shared a video highlighting assassinated far-right firebrand Charlie Kirk's prolific bigotry.
Trump also attacked Omar on Monday, calling her a "disgraceful person," a "loser," and "disgusting."
Omar is no stranger to censure efforts, which critics say are largely fueled by Islamophobia—and haven't just come from Republicans. In 2019, she was falsely accused of antisemitism by leaders of her own party and was the subject of an anti-hate speech resolution passed by House lawmakers after she remarked about the indisputable financial ties the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and members of Congress.
In February 2023, Omar was ousted from the House Foreign Affairs Committee for years-old comments that allegedly referenced antisemitic tropes.
Last year, Congressman Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced a censure resolution after Omar said of Jewish students at Columbia University, "We should not have to tolerate antisemitism or bigotry for all Jewish students, whether they're pro-genocide or anti-genocide."
The measure failed to pass, as did another put forth earlier last year by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she mistranslated remarks Omar made in Somali.
"Instead of bending over backwards to appease Trump in an attempt to avoid his tariff bullying, it’s time for Starmer to show real leadership and stand up to him," said one campaigner.
Critics of the artificial intelligence pact signed Thursday by US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned that the deal sacrifices the climate, data privacy, creators' copyrights, and British sovereignty on the altar of Silicon Valley profits.
Speaking at Chequers—the Buckinghamshire country estate of UK prime ministers in Buckinghamshire—Trump said that "we're taking the next logical step with a historic agreement on science and technology partnerships, and this will create new government, academic, and private sector cooperation in areas such as AI, which is taking over the world."
Laughing, Trump turned to tech bosses gathered for the event and—singling out Jensen Huang, CEO of chip-maker Nvidia—said: "And I'm looking at you guys. You're taking over the world, Jensen. I don't know what you're doing here. I hope you're right."
Along with Huang—who heads the world's largest publicly traded company—the CEOs of Apple, and ChatGPT creator OpenAI joined Trump on his UK trip.
Starmer said the deal involves more than $200 billion in total US investments and will create 15,000 jobs over the next decade. The prime minister named US companies including Amazon, Blackstone, Boeing, Citigroup, and Microsoft, and UK firms like AstraZeneca, BP, GSK, and Rolls Royce as being part of the deal.
Other companies involved in the agreement include Google and its AI laboratory DeepMind, OpenAI, Oracle, Salesforce, and ScaleAI in the United States and AI Pathfinder, DataVita, NScale, and Sage in Britain.
DeSmog UK deputy director Sam Bright reported Thursday that the investment bank led by Warren Stephens, Trump's ambassador to London, owns hundreds of millions of dollars in shares of tech companies involved in the AI deal, including Google parent company Alphabet, Microsoft, and Nvidia.
Like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Nvidia, Stephens—who is a billionaire—made a seven-figure donation to Trump's inauguration fund.
Prominent critics of the agreement include former UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who is also Meta's former president of global affairs. Speaking Wednesday at a Royal Television Society conference in Cambridge, Clegg said the deal leaves Britain with "sloppy seconds from Silicon Valley" and "is just another version of the United Kingdom holding on to Uncle Sam’s coattails."
Opposition to the tech deal was also widespread Wednesday at a central London protest against Trump's visit organized by the Stop Trump Coalition.
Nick Dearden, director of the campaign group Global Justice Now and a spokesperson for the Stop Trump Coalition, noted in an interview with Wired senior business editor Natasha Bernal that the details of the pact have not been made public.
"We have not seen the text of the deal. We don’t know what we have given away," Dearden said. "We know that some of the tech barons accompanying Trump want us to drop parts of our regulation, want us to drop the digital services tax, want us to make it easier for them to acquire and merge with each other to become even bigger monopolies, so we are worried about that.”
So Trump swept into the UK to be wined and dined by the King.Big Tech bosses came too, bearing pledges of huge UK investments (mostly for data centres).Our govt, desperate for good economic news, is boosting this as a win for the UK.But the *point* of US Big Tech is to monopolise the data.
[image or embed]
— Critical Takes on Corporate Power (@criticaltakes.bsky.social) September 18, 2025 at 5:14 AM
Gobal Justice Now trade campaigner Seema Syeda said in a statement:
This toxic technology pact that favors the interests of US tech bros and rich corporations over ordinary people must be opposed at all costs. It’s a democratic scandal that the public and Parliament have been left in the dark as to its contents to date, but what we do know should ring alarm bells. Instead of bending over backwards to appease Trump in an attempt to avoid his tariff bullying, it’s time for Starmer to show real leadership and stand up to him. We can’t let an egomaniac like Trump hold our rights and democracy hostage.
Clive Teague—who was at the London rally supporting Extinction Rebellion Waverley and Borders in Surrey—told Bernal that he does not oppose AI if it is powered by renewable energy.
"We can’t keep burning fossil fuels to keep feeding into these data centers, because it’ll swamp the requirements for the rest of the world," Teague said.
Global Justice Now also warned that the tech deal could expose National Health Service (NHS) patient data to exploitation, wweaken digital privacy protections, thwart regulation of AI, and limit the government's taxation options.
Also sounding the alarm on the US-UK AI deal are scores of creators and creative groups including Elton John, Paul McCartney, and the Writers' Guild of Great Britain, who decried what they say is the Starmer government's failure to adequately protect copyrighted works from unauthorized use by AI companies.
As the Prime Minister prepares to meet President Trump during the state visit, WGGB has joined over 70 of the UK’s leading creators + creative orgs in signing an open letter demanding the Government explains its failure to protect the rights of UK copyright holderswritersguild.org.uk/creators-ai/
[image or embed]
— Writers' Guild of Great Britain (@writersguildgb.bsky.social) September 16, 2025 at 2:44 AM
"Artificial intelligence companies have ingested millions of copyright works without permission or payment, in total disregard for the UK’s legal protections," they said in an open letter. "The first duty of any government is to protect its citizens—not to promote corporate interests, particularly where they are primarily based abroad."
“Across the country, insurance companies are buying up doctors’ offices, driving up costs, and putting insurance company profits over patients."
A group of Democratic lawmakers on Thursday unveiled new legislation aimed at cracking down on for-profit insurance companies that are buying up local health clinics across the US.
The Patients Over Profits Act—which is being introduced by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), alongside Reps. Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Pat Ryan (D-NY), and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—seeks to end mass consolidation in the healthcare industry by barring large insurance companies and subsidiaries such as UnitedHealth Group and Optum from purchasing independently run health clinics.
Specifically, the proposed legislation would bar insurance companies and their subsidiaries from owning Medicare Part B or Part C providers; would mandate insurance companies that already own these providers to divest of them under penalty of civil action by the Federal Trade Commission and other law enforcement entities; and would bar the Health and Human Services department from contracting with Medicare Advantage organizations that also own Medicare Part B or Part C providers.
The legislators behind the bill said that it is necessary to stop large conglomerates from further price-gouging patients while limiting their access to healthcare.
“Across the country, insurance companies are buying up doctors’ offices, driving up costs, and putting insurance company profits over patients," said Merkley. "Our bill cracks down on greedy insurance companies’ attempts to control doctors and squeeze patients for every cent."
While it's a nationwide issue, the impacts are felt locally, Merkeley added, citing one Oregon clinic "reportedly losing dozens of physicians and subsequently kicking out thousands of patients after it was purchased by Optum."
The new legislation, he said, "reins in these out-of-control consolidations, which are great for corporate greed and a bad deal for patients.”
Ryan told a similar story about how healthcare industry consolidation had harmed his district in New York.
"UnitedHealth has gobbled up our local healthcare practices, creating a monopoly that directly hurts everyone in our community," he said. "In their greedy pursuit of profits, they now own the insurance company, they own your doctor, they own the pharmacy and they own the software that processes all of your information—and they use it all to keep prices high and drive quality down. Enough—it’s time to break up UnitedHealth and put you back in control of your own healthcare."
The proposed legislation has also won the support of advocacy organizations American Economic Liberties Project, Center for Health and Democracy, Health Care for America Now, Just Care, Labor Campaign for Single Payer, MoveOn, Physicians for a National Health Program, Public Citizen, Social Security Works, and Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action.
Rachel Madley, the director of policy and advocacy at the Center for Health and Democracy, described the bill as "vital legislation that will protect patients" while reining in large insurers.
"Big Insurance is rapidly consolidating and creating monopolistic companies that control virtually every part of our health care system," she added. "It is a system now rigged to ensure their profits, not our care."
"The censoring of artists and cancellation of shows is an act of cowardice," said the Democratic lawmakers.
Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives on Thursday issued a joint statement demanding the resignation of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr over his role in getting ABC to suspend late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.
The statement, which was signed by Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), accused Carr of corruption with his overt threats against ABC unless the network stopped airing Kimmel's show.
"Brendan Carr, the so-called chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has engaged in the corrupt abuse of power," they said. "He has disgraced the office he holds by bullying ABC, the employer of Jimmy Kimmel, and forcing the company to bend the knee to the Trump administration."
The Democrats also took shots at ABC for so quickly caving to pressure from the Trump administration and vowed to investigate the incident.
"Media companies, such as the one that suspended Mr. Kimmel, have a lot to explain," they said. "The censoring of artists and cancellation of shows is an act of cowardice. It may also be part of a corrupt pay-to-play scheme. House Democrats will make sure the American people learn the truth, even if that requires the relentless unleashing of congressional subpoena power. This will not be forgotten."
ABC announced that Kimmel would be suspended indefinitely just hours after car told right-wing influencer Benny Johnson in a podcast episode that the network could have its broadcast license revoked unless Kimmel was taken off the air.
"There’s actions we can take on licensed broadcasters," Carr said. "And frankly, I think that it's sort of really past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney and say... we are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out because we licensed broadcasters are running the possibility of fines or license revocation from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of these distortions."
The Trump administration has shown no intention of backing off its threats to broadcasters that air content it deems objectionable, and on Thursday morning White House Faith Liaison Jenny Korn hailed the suspension of Kimmel during an appearance on Newsmax while suggesting it was proper retaliation for his remarks about the slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"Thank goodness for companies now who are firing nurses and teachers and people like Jimmy Kimmel, because people should not be able to celebrate others' deaths in a very public way and then keep their jobs," she said.
Kimmel never celebrated Kirk’s murder and explicitly condemned it, but drew the ire of conservatives this week when he mentioned how the far-right MAGA movement, including President Donald Trump, tried "to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and accused the right of trying "to score political points" from the killing. Activists claimed the remark suggested that the suspect in the killing, Tyler Robinson, could have been a Republican.
Leaked chats between Robinson and his roommate on Tuesday suggested that the suspect wasn't "firmly aligned with any political movement at all," as one journalist said.