LIVE COVERAGE
Whoosh And They're Gone
Well that was fun. In last week's welcome bit of comic relief, we got the vapid rise and rapid fall - despite requisite blonde hair, faux smile and passing resemblance to Ivanka - of "manifestly unqualified" Barbie News Reader and fake Chinese lawyer Katie Zacharia after a brutal debut. So much for MAGA meritocracy. SAD! Zacharia set a new speed record - half a Mooch - in a job akin to Spinal Tap drummer. But the question remains: When will the incompetent male dolts get fired?
While by far not the most substantive Trump blunder, it was one of the most cringeworthy, exposing (again) the profound ineptitude of his shambolic rule just before voters go to the polls to render judgment on it. In less than a week, Zacharia managed to get plucked from right-wing obscurity, be "shoehorned" into a job far beyond her skillset, humiliate herself before millions, go on Fox and stammeringly fail to redeem herself, and get fired by a capricious, perennial loser who got famous fake-firing people on TV and now daily exposes his own clownish unfitness for his job. One astute observer: "I'm starting to think this Donald guy might not have any idea what he's doing."
Born Kate Sharon Black in 1984, Zacharia grew up in California in the "liberal cesspool” of Cambria; she was the conservative “black sheep” of her family "thanks to the great, late Rush Limbaugh, who raised me as a kid on the radio." Describing a clash with woke patrons of her "cardio kickboxing gym," she said the owner once asked her not to wear her "Trump 2024" hat but "I would never take my Trump hat off to appease the left." A Pizzagate, Qanon and Stop the Steal buff, she was a "huge fan of ICE and Border Patrol" who briefly worked for Kristi Noem and a commentator for right-wing TV before being spotted by Trump, maybe because she scheduled her gigs when she thought he'd be watching. Totally normal.
Officials looking to replace Karoline Leavitt had reportedly narrowed down the list of candidates "only to find that (they'd) said something negative about (Trump)," which of course wouldn't do for the fragile toddler. Thus did uber-obsequious, ringlet-bottle-blonde "lizard person" Zacharia take to the podium, blare "Good morning!!" in a sing-songy screech, and stumble through a smiley, halting, inflection-challenged briefing about Trump's "historic one-day war," "attendance at record highs as enthusiastic hardworking Americans are lining up and packing arenas," a "booming economy....and a, um, he, great relationship...with Venezuela...um, and...my president, excuse me, my husband, that's a good one..." Not.
After the one question on Ukraine, and the famous, “I’ll have to get back to you on that,” it was over. 14 minutes, or forever in bimbo time. It got worse. The oft-repeated claims of being a lawyer when she’d failed the bar - weirdly, thanks Hannity - and of working in China on “international transaction law” when she was basically a paid intern. The verdict: "A train wreck," "a joke hire," "talk about a public execution," "between the 3rd-grade level reading and the fake attorney in China thing, brutal." Anti-DEI,.scandal-plagued Rick Santorum's glowing review: She was "not even close to the worst." Trump's lazy excuse: "I told her, 'If I were you, I'd reconsider.'" Fox: She's "transitioning" out of the job she held for 14 minutes.
It was a made-for-the-Internet spectacle. The White House declared, "She’ll be remembered as one of the all-time greats." America proclaimed, "She's gonna be a punchline for a very long time." Democratic strategist Mike Nellis clarified, "She wasn't fired because she lied,” a Trump requisite, but because "she was a bad liar." Another requisite: Michael Steele mused no more "blonde white female pronouncing his noise in a way that makes him feel good.” Some selfishly mourned the loss: "Please let her last long enough to hold a second briefing - I need the joy." Some empathized with SNL writers stuck with Friday night rewrites. Some were shocked: "I can't believe her husband, I mean president, fired her."
Though no press secretary really matters because Trump daily lies, veers, makes things up, some speculated on the next one: Scott Jennings, Katie Miller, Melissa McCarthy doing Sean Spicer. The Borowitz Report announced it's George Santos, who was "thrilled...I will bring to this job my experience not only as a lawyer but as a doctor and astronaut.” Also, he was cutting short his reunion tour "with his fellow Beatles." Some noted Zacharia "was press secretary longer than she was a lawyer." Others asserted they'd had blueberries, bananas, takeout and lettuce in their fridge longer than she had her job. Also that the U.K's Liz Truss lasted longer, as did the head of lettuce that often competed with her.
Some mulled Zacharia's future: "Next: memoir and book tour," "Now she can go back to studying for the bar, or at least its cocktail menu," "She is leaving 'to spend more time with my children, who will teach me how to read.'" A guy met her years ago on a cruise ship: She was telling a friend she'd partied the night before and slept in. They told her she'd missed them crossing the equator that morning. She said, "Oh, what did it look like?" Some waxed lyrical: "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of Our Lives." Some lamented inflation: "I remember when you could get a few months of work out of a press secretary. Now they're like those new batteries - they look like they'll last but whoosh and they're gone."
In honor of her historic reign, Wikipedia’s “List Of Humorous Units Of Measurement” was updated to include the “Zacharia,” a “fractional unit of a Scaramucci,” the previous record for Anthony Scaramucci's 11 days as press secretary in Trump's first term. The change prompted heated debate, pained mathematical equations, admiration: "Nobody thought anything could go faster than the speed of Mooch, but here we are." There were questions - Are Mooches a metric system? Would that be 45 centi-Mooches? - and answers: "They convert at a 5/11 ratio." Talk turned existential: "A Scaramucci was a measure of time. A Zacharia is more ethereal, a measure of being, a disconnect between one’s story and one's purpose...Beautiful really."
And there was anger Zacharia got fired but Trump's still here, that the media and GOP have let him "get away with LYING ABOUT EVERY GODDAMNED THING...from 2015 SPOUTING THAT OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE SHIT AND EVERY OTHER FUCKING LIE HE’S TOLD SINCE." And, in the last few months, that half of eight female officials have resigned or been fired, all replaced by men. That consistently inept, unhinged, corrupt, sick idiots like Hegseth, Patel, Lutnick, Goebbels, Vance etc lie, cheat, rave, royally screw up yet keep their jobs. What the fuck. Meanwhile Zacharia, still sketchy, posts altered photos from the Oval Office and declares the guy who threw her under the bus "kind, wonderful, gracious, thoughtful, enthusiastic and hard-working...No one will ever make America great the way he has and continues to." Damn, we hope not.

‘Deadly Serious’: Half of World’s Reef-Building Coral Face Extinction Threat as Oceans Warm, Study Warns
Nearly half the world's reef-building coral species are at risk of extinction according to a global assessment released Thursday. Researchers warn that the accelerating climate crisis is making the danger even worse than the most recent data shows.
Coral reefs are among the most important ecosystems on Earth, providing food and shelter for around a quarter of all marine species. Their destruction jeopardizes not only entire marine food webs, but also the millions of people who rely on those species for food.
The study, published in the journal Nature, found that as of 2020, about 44% of coral species were threatened, compared with about one-third in 2008.
David Obura, a marine biologist and lead author of the study, said the new assessment "provides the most comprehensive evaluation to date of global extinction risk among reef-building corals, and a stark warning of the accelerating increase in global threats to coral reefs."
But he said it also "highlights the challenges we face in addressing major data and knowledge gaps on the status of species at global scales, at the same time as having to take urgent decisions to reduce the drivers of global declines in critical species and ecosystems.”
The researchers stressed that the data they analyzed understates the danger. The assessment does not take into account the damage from the devastating bleaching event that began in 2023 and lasted until mid-2025. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), it was the largest such event ever recorded, exposing about 84% of the world's coral reef area to bleaching-level heat stress and causing widespread coral deaths.
It also doesn't take into account what meteorologists have projected could be the strongest El Niño ever, which could break ocean temperature records in the coming months, likely leading to another massive die-off of corals.
"It is entirely possible that reassessing the status of corals just after this coming El Niño may show them to have crossed the 50% mark of the proportion of species at elevated risk of extinction," Obura told AFP.
He noted that a previous "super" El Niño, in 1997-98, also caused tremendous damage to reefs.
"That this coming event is worse than that, after three intervening global bleaching events, is a terrifying reality," he said.

In the new assessment, researchers found that human-caused climate change is the primary threat to reef-building coral, determining the fate of about 90% of the species at greatest risk.
They emphasized that coral reef health is more complex than simply "survival" versus "disappearance," and that every reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions matters.
“Coral reefs can feel a world away..." said Françoise Cabada-Blanco, a marine ecologist at the University of Portsmouth and co-author of the study. "But they cover a tiny fraction of the ocean floor, while supporting an enormous share of marine life and the food, coastal protection and livelihoods of millions of people."
"What happens to them affects all of us," she said. "The message from this assessment is that every tenth of a degree of warming we avoid gives corals a better chance—so action now really does count.”
A report published last year concluded that the globe had already passed the 1.2°C warming threshold for widespread coral reef dieback and found that unless global temperatures drop substantially, reefs could largely disappear.
“The crisis facing corals is deadly serious,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “If we don’t take swift action to curb climate pollution, we could lose half of them forever.”
“We’ve already seen a lot of disruptions to sea life from the much warmer waters El Niño has brought this year, and I’m really worried about what that will do to threatened coral species," she added. "Coral reefs are the backbone of the ocean, and we can’t have a healthy marine ecosystem without them.”
COLA Lift for Social Security Not Enough, Say Critics, as Trump Economy Makes Life Harder for Seniors
The rising cost of healthcare and other essentials means that the modest cost-of-living adjustment for about 76 million Social Security beneficiaries, announced Wednesday by Social Security Administrator Frank Bisignano, is likely to make only a small difference for senior citizens struggling to afford gasoline and groceries, said economic justice advocates.
Bisignano said the COLA for 2027, effective in January for most beneficiaries, will be 3.6%, amounting to an average of about $75 more per month.
Along with senior citizens, 40% of whom rely on Social Security for at least half their income, about 7.3 million people with disabilities who receive Supplemental Security Income will also receive the COLA increase starting December 31.
The COLA is higher than last year's, when the SSA adjusted monthly earned benefits by 2.8%.
But Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said the new increase "is just not enough to keep up with the cost of food, gas, utilities, and prescription drugs."
"A good chunk" of increased Social Security payments "will be wiped out" by higher premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers medically necessary and preventive healthcare services, said Fiesta. Those premiums are projected to rise to $209.50 per month in January, up from $202.90 per month this year.
Medicare Part D prescription drug plans are also expected to see increased premiums next year, while Social Security beneficiaries, like other Americans, will likely be impacted by continued inflation driven by President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran and his tariff policy.
Social Security recipients are aware of the limits of the COLA, a poll released Monday by the AARP showed. Seventy-six percent of respondents said a 3.5% COLA would not keep up with rising prices they are facing at the grocery store, gas station, and pharmacy.
Fiesta called on billionaires and the wealthiest 1% of Americans to "pay their fair share" to make it possible to "boost benefits for everyone, implement a COLA that reflects the cost of things older Americans spend money on, and guarantee the program’s solvency for future generations."
While most American workers pay into Social Security year-round, millionaires in the US stop paying into the program just two months into the year because the payroll tax does not apply to income over a certain level. Some of the richest Americans, like Tesla CEO Elon Musk, pay very little into the crucial anti-poverty program by earning most of their money through investments rather than income.
"In just three weeks, older Americans will have an opportunity to elect members of Congress who will make strengthening Social Security a priority. The future of our earned benefits is on the ballot.”
“Strengthening and expanding Social Security must be a national priority," said Fiesta. "It’s time for clear and decisive action. In just three weeks, older Americans will have an opportunity to elect members of Congress who will make strengthening Social Security a priority. The future of our earned benefits is on the ballot.”
At Social Security Works (SSW), which advocates for strengthening the program and regularly debunks myths from the Republican Party claiming that Social Security is unaffordable for the country, Nancy Altman said the COLA increase "will help" some seniors, "but it doesn’t fully account for the costs that Social Security beneficiaries face."
"The Trump administration’s war of choice with Iran and tariff chaos have driven gasoline prices up nearly 40 percent, and caused grocery costs to skyrocket," said Altman, president of SSW.
Part of the problem, said Altman, is the SSA's use of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which measures price changes for goods purchased by working families, to determine the annual COLA.
SSW has called for the use of the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) to better reflect how Social Security recipients spend their money.
Meanwhile, Altman said, Republicans including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have proposed calculating the COLA using the chained Consumer Price Index (CPI), which would “substantially lower benefits over time," according to an AARP analysis.
“That’s a cut to the American people’s hard-earned benefits," said Altman. "Over time, switching to the chained CPI, as the Republicans have proposed, would shrink yearly benefits by hundreds and even thousands of dollars. Switching to the CPI-E, as the Democrats propose, would increase benefits. This would particularly impact women and Hispanics, who have longer average life expectancies."
She noted that US senators elected in November will have a say in whether Social Security remains fully funded through their six-year terms—and urged Americans to vote accordingly.
In 2032, said Altman, "Social Security is projected to face a funding shortfall. The vast majority of Republicans refuse to support a single penny in revenue increases, even from the ultra-wealthy, to address the shortfall. That leaves benefit cuts, including less generous COLAs, as their only option."
"The bottom line: Social Security’s future is on the ballot this November," she said, "and that includes the size of annual COLA adjustments.“
Majority of Swing State Voters Say Stop Sending US Bombs to Israel
Polling published Wednesday revealed that a majority of voters in six key swing states that are expected to decide who controls the Senate after next month's midterm elections want their senators to block the transfer of US bombs to Israel as it wages a genocidal war on Gaza.
YouGov queried more than 3,200 voters in Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas for the Institute of Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project poll. A majority of respondents in all six states said they approve of "Senate measures to block the transfer of bombs to Israel." Approval ranged from 51% in North Carolina to 65% in Maine. In no state did the percentage of people who disagreed with blocking bomb transfers to Israel exceed 31%.
Respondents were also asked if they "approve or disapprove of cutting $3.3 billion in taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel." In all six states, approval of cutting armed aid far exceeded disapproval. Two states—Georgia and Ohio—had a margin of 22%, while the gap between those who support and oppose cutting off weapons transfers to Israel was widest in Maine, at 40 percentage points.
NEW POLLS: A majority of likely voters in six states expected to decide control of the US Senate - Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas - support Senate measures to block the transfer of bombs to Israel.
[image or embed]
— IMEU Policy Project (@imeupolicy.bsky.social) October 21, 2026 at 8:11 AM
Furthermore, survey respondents in all six states said that President Donald Trump's illegal Iran War benefits Israel more than the United States.
Among Democratic respondents, support for blocking bomb transfers to Israel ranged between 75% in North Carolina to 86% in Maine, while independent backing of the policy was lowest in Iowa and Maine (54%) and highest in Ohio (75%). Republican approval of cutting off bomb transfers to Israel ranged from 26% in North Carolina to 45% in Maine.
“Not only has ending weapons to Israel become the near-consensus view of Democratic voters, but we’re now seeing that voters across the spectrum, including most independents and a substantial number of Republicans, are tired of seeing their government use our tax dollars to supply Israel with bombs when millions struggle to afford the basics here at home,” IMEU Policy Project executive director Margaret DeReus said in a statement.
“These results are strong evidence that the endless giveaways to Israel will be a liability this November—and in 2028," she said, looking forward to the next presidential election.
"Politicians who prioritize winning over catering to the fringe demands from AIPAC should take note," DeReus added, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation's largest Israel lobby.
According to the political intelligence platform PoliStack, the Senate candidate in the six surveyed states who has received the most campaign contributions from AIPAC's United Democracy Project (UDP) during the 2026 election cycle is Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who took in over $410,000. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) received more than $130,000.
While AIPAC's largesse has proved decisive in some races, it has also been increasingly ineffective in others. For example, UDP spent roughly $30 million this year in Michigan's US Senate Democratic primary, including about $10.5 million supporting Congresswoman Haley Stevens and more than $20 million opposing Abdul El-Sayed, who won.
The IMEU Policy Project survey adds to the growing body of polling showing a significant shift in US attitudes toward Israel amid the Gaza genocide, which has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead or wounded, as well as increasing violence by Israeli troops and Jewish settler colonists in the West Bank, where Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians in pursuit of what critics—and even some Israeli leaders—say is the annexation of the illegally occupied territory.
‘This Is Dangerous’: Alarm as Trump FCC Chair Threatens Broadcasters Over Poll Coverage
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr on Wednesday threatened broadcasters that cover what he described as "fake polls," which he said hurt "voter turnout and enthusiasm."
In a social media post, Carr attacked news outlets for "amplifying or airing these polls without regard to basic journalistic ethics and without informing the public that those polls lack a scientific, accurate, or even real basis."
Carr did not provide a single specific example of a "fake" opinion poll, nor did he name a broadcaster who has promoted one. President Donald Trump, who nominated Carr to head the FCC, has repeatedly decried polls as "fake" as they've shown his approval ratings at record lows.
Later in the post, Carr hinted that the FCC would take direct action against broadcasters for informing their viewers about opinion polls.
"The FCC takes these issues seriously," said Carr. "Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in news distortion or promoting broadcast hoaxes. It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations."
Carr's post drew a swift rebuke from Democratic FCC commissioner Anna Gomez.
"Pollsters who intentionally mislead the public should answer for it," wrote Gomez, "but broadcasters who report publicly available polling data should never be punished when a poll is wrong. FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith."
Steve Herman, former White House bureau chief at Voice of America, wrote in a social media post that Carr's assertions about "news distortion" are "stretching specific regulations far beyond their legal definitions," as "the FCC can't mandate how a broadcaster contextualizes a poll."
"The FCC threatening broadcasters for airing specific political data is a chilling content-based restriction on speech," Herman added, "which federal courts subject to extreme judicial review and the commission would almost certainly lose such cases, according to First Amendment scholars."
Former TV meteorologist Chris Gloninger predicted that Carr's post would have a chilling effect on local news stations.
"Holy shit, this is dangerous," Gloninger wrote. "Two weeks before an election, the FCC chair is threatening broadcaster licenses over polls he calls 'fake.' No GM will risk that, so polls vanish."
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, called Carr "anti-free-speech" for "threatening to punish news outlets that publish polls showing Trump's deep unpopularity."
"We are sliding into a dictatorship," Jacob said, "and it would be helpful if major media would do their duty and warn the public."
Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief at All Rise News, described Carr as the president's "censorship czar" who is warning news outlets against "the dissemination of data disfavored by the state."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse argued Carr's threats warranted his impeachment and removal from office.
"The president shouting 'fake news' is bad enough," wrote Kruse, "but the FCC commissioner threatening to punish broadcasters for promoting 'fake news' like 'the president is historically unpopular' is so much worse."
Carr's post drew ridicule from Democratic strategist Adam Parkhomenko, who informed the FCC chair that "it’s not illegal to tell the American people that Trump is a failed president."
Max Steele, senior director of communications at gun safety advocacy organization Everytown, similarly ridiculed Carr.
"It is ILLEGAL to say the brave and smart President Trump is at historic polling lows!!!" he wrote sarcastically.
'Monstrous': Netanyahu Casts Doubt on Filmed Israeli Settler Attack of American Journalist
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced blistering criticism Friday after his office published a statement casting doubt on the circumstances surrounding a brutal attack earlier in the day by settlers in the illegally occupied West Bank that left an American journalist hospitalized.
"The facts surrounding the confrontation near Abu Falah, during which Washington Post photojournalist Heidi Levine was allegedly assaulted, remain unclear and are under investigation," Netanyahu's office said on social media.
As Common Dreams reported, Levine—a 63-year-old Jewish American by birth who has reported from war zones including Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria—was covering Palestinian farmers desperately trying to harvest their olives when around 80 masked settler colonists descended upon them.
Armed with rocks, clubs, sticks, assault rifles, and the self-assured belief that their deity figure promised them all the land that was once ruled by Jewish kings millennia ago, the settlers set fire to the olive trees that are the backbone of Palestine's rural economy and a literal symbol of Palestinians' rootedness in their homeland.
The assailants fired guns and threw rocks at the olive harvesters, reportedly wounding at least two Palestinians. While documenting the attack, Levine—who, like other journalists killed or wounded by Israel, was clad in a helmet and a blue vest clearly marked "PRESS"—was set upon by settlers, knocked to the ground, and kicked dozens of times while her equipment was stolen.
"Israel unequivocally condemns violence against anyone—Jews, Arabs, Christians, or journalists," Netanyahu's office claimed. "Those responsible will be held accountable."
"But serious questions remain," the statement continued. "Reports indicate some 200 Arabs and far-left activists confronted approximately 40 Israeli youths. Footage shows masked individuals on both sides hurling objects, amid reports of fireworks fired at Jewish youths. Other footage appears to show Levine knocked down and immediately helped to her feet by the same unidentified individual."
"The investigation must establish the facts, including who initiated the violence," the office added. "We will not allow disputed incidents to be exploited to demonize the hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Jewish residents."
The colonization of the occupied Palestinian territories by Jewish settlers—many of them non-Israelis who are availing themselves of the ethnosupremacist and apartheid policy of allowing any Jew to live in a land whose Palestinian inhabitants have been ethnically cleansed from it for nearly 80 years—is inherently illegal under international law.
Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray pushed back on Netanyahu's statement on social media, saying: "To be clear: Some facts are neither in dispute nor unclear. Our photographer was clearly marked as press. She was clearly beaten. These are not partisan or risible statements, but indisputable. We urge a thorough investigation and accountability."
International observers also criticized Netanyahu's statement.
"They are actually trying to justify an American WaPo journalist being severely beaten by a mob of settler terrorists," US commentator Krystal Ball said on social media, using the syllabic abbreviation for the Post.
Irish journalist Barry Malone responded to Netanyahu's post on X, saying: "Hi. There's video. It's clear."
US physician Amira Dalton said, "Israel lies and then calls you an antisemite for calling out their lies."
The X account Israel Exposed, which has more than 400,000 followers, sardonically asked, "You mean the footage of the Israeli terrorists beating her up isn't clear enough?"
The Israeli veterans' group Breaking the Silence said that "you can see the settlers who attacked Heidi Levine, a journalist for The Washington Post. But what you can’t see is the state behind them: a state that funds them, arms them, and, above all, grants them near-total impunity for their actions. This violence does not happen in a vacuum. Israel enables it."
While Lt. Col. Ariella Mazor, chief international spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, claimed the military had sent battalions to the West Bank to contain the outbreak of violence, eyewitnesses said the IDF was involved in the attack on Abu Falah.
“The army did nothing to stop the settlers," Israeli journalist Oren Ziv, who was present during the attack, told The Washington Post.
That's because Israel's far-right government is unapologetically seeking to "finish the job of 1948," as Netanyahu once put it—a reference to the ethnic cleansing of more than 750,000 Palestinians during the creation of the modern Israeli state—and take all of Palestine.
"The entire land is ours," Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said earlier this month, in the lead-up to Israel's October 27 elections."This is our country."
Last month, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich vowed to do in the West Bank "what we did in Gaza," where three years of genocidal annihilation have left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead or wounded, nearly 2 million people forcibly displaced, and an estimated 70% of the territory under Israeli control.
According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, at least 1,138 Palestinians—at least 250 of them children—have been killed by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank since October 2023.
At least nine Americans have been killed by Israeli settlers and security forces in the West Bank since January 2022, including journalists, human rights activists, and Palestinian Americans visiting relatives.
Despite claims by Israel that perpetrators of such attacks will be held accountable, impunity is the general rule.
“Sadly, none of them will be prosecuted,” Levine said of her attackers. “I am sure of it.”
Multiple US senators demanded that Israel bring Levin's assailants to justice.
"The continued lack of accountability for settler violence in the West Bank has allowed attacks on innocent people, including multiple Americans, to go unanswered, and it is eroding what should be a strong alliance between the US and Israel," Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said on social media. "Prime Minister Netanyahu isn't doing nearly enough to stop the violence."
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) also took to social media after Friday's attack, writing, "Today, another American citizen and journalist was brutalized by Israeli settlers attacking Palestinians in the West Bank."
"This repeated violence and brazen impunity for attacks against Americans and Palestinians alike are unacceptable," he added. "When will [President Donald] Trump and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio DO SOMETHING?"
'Shameful': Trump DOJ Ditches Civil Rights and School Desegregation Cases
Meanwhile, Rep. Jamie Raskin noted, "this administration carries out presidential vendettas, covers up child sex trafficking, promotes corruption, and pardons and coddles violent felons in the president’s private militia."
A pair of papers published Thursday by the legal group Democracy Forward detail how, under President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice has dumped dozens of cases focused on school desegregation and the civil rights of people of color, all while weaponizing the DOJ to serve "the most dangerous criminal in US history" and his allies.
The cases were previously taken up by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, currently led by Harmeet Dhillon, whose confirmation was controversial—like those of Trump's first attorney general for this term, Pam Bondi, whom he fired in April and replaced with his former personal lawyer, Todd Blanche.
The new analyses of the cases—"Walking Away: DOJ's Abandonment of Civil Rights Cases for People of Color" and "Filling in The Gaps: Tracking The 50+ School Desegregation Cases DOJ Says It Is Ending"—were developed by Democracy Forward's oversight and accountability project Red Line for Civil Rights.
"People and communities rely on DOJ to pursue vital cases to address threats to civil rights under our nation's laws. The Red Line for Civil Rights reports don't just highlight the cases that have been abandoned, but also make clear the harm that DOJ's abandonment of its mission retreat has caused," said Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman.
The project found at least 36 abandoned cases and probes addressing discrimination against Black, Latino, and Native American people, from Voting Rights Act lawsuits and redlining settlements with banks to firefighter and police hiring issues.
There was United States v. Cobb County, Georgia, in which the DOJ alleged that credit checks and a written exam illegally screened out Black firefighter applicants, and United States v. Patriot Bank, a 2024 consent order over redlining of Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Memphis, Tennessee.
In United States v. SouthEast Bank, the department argued that a student loan refinancing product discriminated against Alaska Native, American Indian, and Black applicants, and in United States v. City of Minneapolis, the DOJ concluded that police discriminated against Black and Native American in Minnesotans.
"The shameful withdrawal of DOJ resources from these cases and investigations highlights how this administration is abandoning communities across the country," said Megan Marks, a former leader in the department who is now the project's deputy director and managing editor. "Walking away from them doesn't mean the discrimination has been addressed. It just means DOJ is no longer watching."
In its second analysis, the project identified 56 school districts in 12 states where the department has moved to ditch or end a desegregation case, or did not oppose ending one—from Athens City, Alabama and Chesterfield County, South Carolina to South Bend, Indiana and Waterbury, Connecticut.

"The Supreme Court held in its landmark 1954 case, Brown v. Board of Education, that segregating public school students by race violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection," the report notes. "Since Brown, DOJ has monitored and enforced desegregation orders, reviewing evidence and often working collaboratively with school districts and, in some cases, private plaintiffs to support progress."
"This work was central to the Civil Rights Division's history. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorized DOJ to file its own school desegregation lawsuits against public schools or institutions of higher education and to join cases that families had already brought," the paper explains. "These school desegregation cases are how the promise of Brown reaches individual classrooms. Behind each of these cases are children, families, and a community that fought, sometimes at great personal risk, for the right to an equal education."
Shaheena Simons previously oversaw the Justice Department's desegregation docket but is now a senior adviser at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. In response to the report, she said that the "DOJ's haste to end these cases without deliberation or transparency is a betrayal of Black students who continue to face segregation and inequality in our schools."
"This retreat is part of a much bigger picture," Simons emphasized. "Not only has the Civil Rights Division abandoned its work to protect the rights of our most marginalized students, but it is also weaponizing civil rights statutes against them."
Democratic leaders in the US House of Representatives also spoke out about the project's findings. Education and Workforce Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (Va.) accused the "politicized" department of "turning its back on workers and students by abandoning entire categories of discrimination cases and ending the fight against school desegregation altogether."
Democrats on his panel "are committed to the protection of civil rights and to guaranteeing that all Americans are protected from discrimination in accordance with the civil rights laws that so many Americans fought to secure," pledged Scott, as his party prepares for next month's midterm elections, in which Republicans could lose control of one or both chambers of Congress.

Fellow Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin (Md.), a constitutional scholar and ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, said that "Democracy Forward's reports expose the Justice Department's shocking betrayal of its central duty to protect Americans against race discrimination."
"While DOJ devotes its resources to persecuting Trump's political enemies, it has dropped protection of voting rights and is allowing discrimination to proliferate by abandoning school desegregation and job discrimination cases," he said, as the Trump administration pursues everyone from former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey to New York Attorney General Letitia James and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
"We need a Department of Justice that stands by the rule of law and the rights of all Americans," Raskin asserted. "But this administration carries out presidential vendettas, covers up child sex trafficking, promotes corruption, and pardons and coddles violent felons in the president's private militia."
Under Assault From Trump, Embattled ICC Wins Top Human Rights Prize in Europe
Yannis Maniatis, whose bloc nominated the court to receive the award, said it was meant to demonstrate "that no one is above the law."
The European Union on Thursday awarded its most prestigious human rights prize to the International Criminal Court and its officials in a rebuke to President Donald Trump’s efforts to destroy the institution.
The EU’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought—previously awarded to figures such as Nelson Mandela and Malala Yousafzai—follows another international honor this month for a former ICC judge. Earlier in October, Navi Pillay, a former judge for the war crimes court, received the Nobel Peace Prize.
“The European Union is built on respect for multilateralism and international institutions," said European Parliament President Roberta Metsola as she announced the award on Thursday. “With the award of the Sakharov Prize to the International Criminal Court and its officials, the European Parliament recognizes the court’s important work in upholding international law and justice.”
Welcoming the award, which will be presented in December, ICC president Tomoko Akane noted that it “comes at a time when the court and its officials face unprecedented challenges.” She added, “There is no peace without justice and no security without law.”
In retaliation for the ICC’s 2024 arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration has declared war on the court, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying the goal was to “dismantle” it.
The US and Israel have not ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC in 2002, and they claim that the court therefore has no power to hold their citizens accountable for war crimes. Supporters of the body argue that it has jurisdiction over crimes committed by Americans or Israelis in member states, such as Afghanistan and Palestine.
At last month's United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York, Trump raged against the court as an "evil group of people" and declared that he would "never allow US service members or anyone else to be investigated or given show trials by an anti-American tribunal with no jurisdiction over us." During the same speech, he threatened to "annihilate" Iran and bragged about seizing Venezuela's oil as "spoils" of war.
After sanctioning individual judges, UN experts, and human rights organizations that provided evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza, the Trump administration earlier this month sanctioned the court as a whole—threatening to cut it off from financial services and technology it needs to function. Human rights organizations have decried the sanctions as a fundamental assault on international law itself and a declaration of impunity by the United States.
Yannis Maniatis, a Greek lawmaker and vice president for foreign affairs of the European Parliament’s Socialists and Democrats bloc, which nominated the ICC for the prize, said the honor was meant to reinforce the idea “that no one is above the law.”
“We stand by the ICC and its officials, and we are committed to safeguarding its work," he said Monday. "We must guarantee that the ICC is able to operate independently, free from pressure or external interference."
"The court ensures that victims around the world have access to justice," he added. "It is a people-based organization, not a political one. If the aggressors become the victims, and if we stand by helplessly as international justice erodes, we risk allowing those who believe themselves above the law to prevail."
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, likewise welcomed the award.
"For victims of the world's gravest crimes, justice means a voice," she said. “The [ICC] must be free to pursue its mission independently and without pressure or intimidation.”
Some European lawmakers have warned that expressions of solidarity with the ICC will mean little unless the EU takes decisive action to shield the court from US sanctions.
Earlier this month, the chairs of five European Parliament bodies said that "targeting the court as an institution crosses a fundamental red line, one that threatens the independence and integrity of a tribunal established to uphold accountability for the gravest crimes of concern to the international community."
"The European Union must now demonstrate unwavering solidarity with the ICC and its personnel—not only with words but also with concrete acts," they said. "The European Commission must immediately trigger the EU Blocking Statute, shielding the court and European actors from the extraterritorial reach of these sanctions. Europe must stand firm in defense of international law and the rule of law.”
On Monday, European Commission spokesperson Siobhan McGarry confirmed that the measure remained under consideration but announced no decision or timeline for activating it.
The Left, a coalition of socialist and other left-wing parties in the European Parliament, said awarding the Sakharov Prize to the ICC sent a “strong signal to the European Commission to immediately invoke the Blocking Statute and protect international justice from US sanctions and intimidation.”
Judge Blocks Error-Riddled Effort by Trump DHS to Crack Down on Vanishingly Rare Voting by Noncitizens
"It was clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often it was wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people's homes weeks before an election," said one voting rights advocate.
A federal judge in California ruled late Wednesday that the US Department of Homeland Security has violated the Voting Rights Act by sending agents door-to-door and demanding information from people about their immigration status and whether they've voted in recent elections—part of President Donald Trump's perennial effort to prove the baseless claim that noncitizens are committing mass voter fraud to secure Democratic victories.
In the US District Court of the Northern District of California, District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered federal agents to end their "elections-related field operations and field interviews" in nine states, including California, New York, Missouri, Connecticut, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.
DHS can no longer carry out the operations if they are likely to involve interrogations of people whom agency officials "know, suspect, or should reasonably know or suspect are US citizens," said the judge.
Because the Trump administration has been turned away by state and local agencies when officials have demanded access to voter data, DHS has been forced to compile its lists of targets using commercially available information and comparing it with federal records.
That method has resulted in target lists that are "voluminous and unreliable," wrote Martinez-Olguin.
In Nevada last month, for example, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin asserted that his agency had determined there were close to 16,000 noncitizens on the state voter rolls. DHS sent the state a list of 185 people from that list, whom it claimed had been improperly permitted to register to vote.
But a deputy attorney general for the state tersely informed Mullin that records indicated all 185 people DHS was targeting were citizens.
“You have provided nothing of substance to suggest otherwise," he wrote.
Martinez-Olguin suggested she would not tolerate more large-scale errors that threaten the voting rights of thousands of Americans, and said the Trump administration's so-called "Unlawful Voter Initiative" violates a section of the Voting Rights Act that makes it illegal to "intimidate, threaten, or coerce" people and groups that contribute to voter mobilization efforts or assist with voting.
"Plaintiffs do not claim, nor does the court find, that it is unlawful for federal officials to undertake investigations into unlawful voting in federal elections," the judge said in her ruling. "Rather, plaintiffs seek to stop DHS from continuing to investigate US citizens, who have a legal right to vote, in a way that intimidates and threatens the participation" of National Nurses United and California Nurses Association, which have been involved in voter mobilization and sued DHS over its policy.
Martinez-Olguin added that "the public’s interest in safe elections, free from interference or intimidation... far exceed defendants’ purported interest in combating unlawful voting by non-US citizens.”
The Department of Justice has indicated that a tiny fraction of registered voters in the US—156 people—have been charged with offenses related to "voter fraud," despite Trump's claims that voting by noncitizens, which is illegal, is rampant in the US.
In California, federal authorities this week said they had identified 28 immigrants who were suspected of voting before they became naturalized citizens. They all denied knowingly registering to vote or voting, and the group represented about 0.0001% of registered voters in California.
"It was clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often it was wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people's homes weeks before an election," Beau Tremitiere, counsel at Protect Democracy, which also sued over the policy, told CBS News. "Today's ruling should remind us that American citizens hold the ultimate power in our democracy, not the government—no matter what the administration says otherwise."
'Flat-Out Lying,' Israel Claims Palestinian Farmers, Brad Lander Entered Restricted Area Before Detention
Aside from the indignity of Israel forcing Palestinians to get permission to work their own land, the farmers and those with them—including a US congressional candidate—were not even in an area requiring coordination.
An official Israeli military map belies claims made Wednesday by Israel's government that Palestinian olive harvesters accompanied by activists and US congressional candidate Brad Lander had entered a restricted area of the illegally occupied West Bank prior to their detention earlier in the day.
Israeli occupation forces detained Lander and scores of other people—including Israeli leftists, members of Rabbis for Human Rights, and Jewish American activists—near the town of Nahalin as they accompanied Palestinians who sought to harvest the olives that provide economic and cultural sustenance to their families and communities.
Lander, the Democratic nominee for New York's 10th Congressional District, was released after roughly three hours with what he called a "warning." Many of the other detainees remained in custody, according to The Times of Israel.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli Foreign Ministry initially said that harvesting in the area required prior coordination with the authorities. But a map distributed to Palestinian farmers by Israel's Civil Administration, the military's administrative arm in the occupied territory, showed that the location did not require coordination.
The discrepancy prompted questions about why the farmers and their supporters were detained at all—and condemnation of an illegal occupation and apartheid system that forces Palestinians to get permission to work their own land.
"The Israeli Foreign Ministry is lying. No coordination was required, and we were never told that it was," Lander said on X. "We were not in a restricted security area. We did not pass any checkpoints. Palestinian farmers do not—and should not—need permits to harvest their own olive fields. But they fear doing so, because the IDF doesn’t protect them from settler violence."
Responding to an Israeli Foreign Ministry social media post claiming "Brad Lander's latest stunt" was "not about harvesting olives," but rather "harvesting headlines," Palestinian human rights activist Ihab Hassan retorted, "If you stopped Israeli settler terrorists from storming Palestinian villages and communities, murdering civilians, stealing olives, setting homes on fire, and seizing land, there would be no headlines to harvest."
Hassab said in a separate post: "The Israeli Foreign Ministry is flat-out lying about Lander and the other activists entering a restricted area. The IDF’s own map shows they were not in a restricted area."
Some observers responded with mockery, like Jerusalem attorney Daniel Seidemann, who quipped that the apprehended Palestinians were guilty of "aggravated harvesting in the first degree."
New York social worker David Grossman posted a photo of an SUV belonging to World Central Kitchen that was bombed by Israeli forces in Gaza in one of multiple Israeli massacres of workers and volunteers for the food charity during the ongoing genocide.
Israeli journalist Haim Goldich acknowledged on X that "there's a chance there's a big mess here and 80 people were detained for no reason."
Wednesday's events took place against a backdrop of a particularly violent olive harvest season. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said Monday that between September 1 and October 12, Israeli settlers carried out 199 attacks connected to the harvest, killing one Palestinian, injuring 124, and damaging more than 2,500 trees and saplings.
OCHA documented more than 2,060 settler attacks resulting in Palestinian death, injury, or property damage across the occupied West Bank since the beginning of 2026—an average of seven attacks a day.
According to OCHA, at least 1,138 Palestinians—at least 250 of them children—have been killed by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank since October 2023.
While Israeli leaders have sometimes condemned individual attacks—even while casting aspersions on victims like US photojournalist Heidi Levine—critics argue that the state's broader policies enable the violence. Settlements receive state infrastructure and protection, while Palestinians face restrictions on movement, land access, construction, and agricultural activity.
The result is a system in which Palestinians can face military detention for attempting to harvest their own trees, even as settlers attack Palestinian farmers and destroy their livelihood with impunity.
“The harvest orders tell the story of the government’s criminal policy: Settlers are illegally seizing more and more hilltops with government encouragement and support, while the military, for its part, closes off vast areas to Palestinians under the pretext of defending those illegal outposts," the Israeli group Peace Now said last week.
"This is a system of dispossession and plunder," the group continued, "and it is a disgrace to the State of Israel.”
Vance Defends 'Vile' Ramaswamy Ad, Offering Preview of 'Venom' He's Likely to Deploy in 2028 Race
Vivek Ramaswamy's ad exposed him as "digusting, vile, and unfit," said one former Republican lawmaker, but "JD Vance arrives to show there’s someone even worse."
A day after the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Ohio, Vivek Ramaswamy, stunned political observers by releasing an ad that featured the estranged mother of his opponent, Amy Acton, calling Acton "a liar," Vice President JD Vance told reporters during an appearance in the state that he was "disgusted."
But the vice president, widely viewed as the likely heir to President Donald Trump's far-right MAGA movement, wasn't disturbed by the content of the ad, in which Acton's biological mother, Donna Arthur, accused Acton of lying about experiencing homelessness as a child.
He wasn't troubled by the fact that Ramaswamy's campaign had enlisted the help of Arthur even though she lost custody of her children and hadn't seen Acton since 1978, when the Democratic candidate was 12 and testified in court that her stepfather, Arthur's husband, had raped Acton. And he didn't express horror over the fact that Arthur fled the state with her husband to avoid legal liability and stayed married to him until his death in 2004 despite his alleged abuse of her daughter, only to be featured in an ad attacking Acton more than two decades later.
Instead, Vance reserved his "disgust" for Republicans who condemned the ad, which Ramaswamy's campaign is now planning to spend $4 million streaming ahead of Election Day.
While the ad has been called "the most disgusting, pathetic ad ever created in the history of political ads" by one observer and has resulted in calls for an end to Ramaswamy's political career, Vance shrugged off the content of the 60-second video by saying, "Politics is a tough business."
He called on his fellow Republicans, some of whom have denounced the ad, to put aside concerns about attacking Acton, whose allegations are backed up by court records—and to focus instead on the dangers posed by Democratic candidates like Acton who have called to expand healthcare access, lower costs for working Americans, and support workers' rights.
"My message to my fellow elected Republicans is if you actually believe in the things you say you believe in, stop whining about an advertisement and go win the race in 13 days," Vance told reporters in Cincinnati.
WOW -- Vance *defends* Ramaswamy's reprehensible ad 👇Q: Ramaswamy's campaign put out a controversial ad featuring his opponent's mother. Some Republicans are backing away from that. Do you think that ad was appropriate?JD VANCE: Well, I'll be honest with you. Whether the ad was appropriate or not is not really my concern. My concern is who is gonna govern. I have to admit I'm a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans who are whining more about that ad than they are about what the Democrats want to do.
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 21, 2026
The vice president added that "whether the ad was appropriate or not is not really my concern" and said he was "disgusted" to see Republicans "who are whining more about that advertisement than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats want to do to the United States of America."
Vance's position on Ramaswamy's tactics—deployed as Acton was leading him by seven points in one poll by Marist College—brought to mind, for some observers, his comments in 2024 about the Trump campaign's spreading of racist, baseless lies about the Haitian population of Springfield, Ohio eating their neighbors' pets during the presidential race.
Vance told CNN at the time that he was willing “to create stories so that the... media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people."
"Vance's earlier Haitian pet-eating lie and his current embrace of Vivek's weaponization of child abuse are providing a pretty ugly picture of what the Vance 2028 presidential campaign is going to look like," said Jessica Reidl of the Brookings Institution. "Just venom, lies, and smears all the way down."
Republicans who have attempted to distance themselves from Ramaswamy's ad include US Sen. John Husted of Ohio and the state's secretary of state, Frank LaRose, both of whom said they would not have chosen to run such an advertisement. LaRose said his office was reviewing complaints about the video.
An aide for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) deleted a social media post sharing the video and apologized for amplifying it “after researching it, and the disturbing allegations.” Casey Putsch, who ran against Ramaswamy in the GOP primary, said he would cross party lines to "vote for Amy and end Vivek's political future in America" in light of the ad, while former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, who sparred with Ramaswamy during the 2024 race, also denounced the video.
After Vance's press conference, former US Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) said that while the ad had exposed Ramaswamy as "digusting, vile, and unfit, JD Vance arrives to show there’s someone even worse."
In addition to the press conference, Vance spoke about the ad and doubled down on attacking Acton at a rally in his home state on Wednesday.
"Now the media and the Democrats in the state of Ohio are obsessed because guess what, Vivek Ramaswamy had the audacity to run a TV commercial which calls it out like it is and calls Amy Acton a liar," said Vance.
WOW -- Vance *defends* Ramaswamy's reprehensible ad 👇Q: Ramaswamy's campaign put out a controversial ad featuring his opponent's mother. Some Republicans are backing away from that. Do you think that ad was appropriate?
JD Vance: "Now the media and the Democrats in the state of Ohio are obsessed because Vivek Ramaswamy had the audacity to run a TV commercial which calls it out like it is and calls Amy Acton a liar" https://t.co/iWKrOKclmW
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 21, 2026
He then said that Ohio voters "see through" Acton's "fraudulent activity" before egging on an audience member who suggested the Democratic candidate is an alcoholic.
"Somebody said alcohol," the vice president said with a grin. "You can say it sir, I can't."
Gillian Branstetter, a communications strategist with the ACLU, said that with less than two weeks to go until Election Day, Vance's closing midterm argument amounts to "please help us smear a child rape victim to overcome the electoral hurdle of our failing president."
As families across the US struggle with rising prices at the gas pump, grocery store, and doctor's office—linked to Trump's war on Iran, tariff policy, and Republicans' healthcare cuts—the president's approval rating stands at 32%, according to a recent Reuters poll.
Ryan Grim of Drop Site News called Vance's attacks on Acton "truly despicable given JD’s own upbringing" by his mother, who struggled with substance use disorder, which he wrote about in the memoir Hillbilly Elegy.
"JD Vance doubling down on the claim that Amy Acton and her brother are lying about being abused as children. If he is so sure, then why did the state strip custody?" said Grim. "What if his mom was still an addict and did an ad calling JD a liar for his book? Would he be ok with that? Soulless behavior."
The vice president, said journalist Pedro L. Gonzalez, is giving voters a choice "between a party that downplays child sexual abuse and attempts to discredit the victims or the party that doesn’t do that."
"That is his closing pitch," said Gonzalez, "and I hope the only thing people remember him for."
'Nothing and No One Is Off the Table for NSPM-7,' Warns Analysis of Trump Crackdown on Dissent
“The NSPM-7 blueprint enables efficient coordination across federal agencies to disrupt our democracy and go after the greatest number of people through surveillance, investigation, and prosecution."
The Trump administration is using a sweeping "national security" framework to investigate and potentially prosecute political opponents, civil society groups, and people engaged in constitutionally protected activities, according to an analysis published Wednesday warning that the crackdown on dissent could intensify ahead of next month's midterm elections.
The report, “Enemies of the State: NSPM-7 and the Trump Plan to Crush Dissent,” was co-authored by Shilpa Jindia and Nora Benavidez at the advocacy group Free Press. The publication examines the yearlong implementation of President Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which ostensibly targets domestic terrorism and organized political violence.
Over 28 pages, the analysis examines how the administration is coordinating federal agencies to target people whose political beliefs or activism conflict with Trump’s agenda. Activities potentially caught up in the crackdown include protesting immigration enforcement, distributing information about constitutional rights, monitoring immigration officials, and supporting election integrity.
“The NSPM-7 blueprint enables efficient coordination across federal agencies to disrupt our democracy and go after the greatest number of people through surveillance, investigation, and prosecution,” said Jindia, who is Free Press' policy counsel. “The aim is to levy the heaviest penalties across agencies to achieve the harshest sentences."
"While the methods, severity, and application of the blueprint are explicit, the framework sets no standards for application—whether physical, geographic, thematic, or constitutional," she added. "As a result, nothing and no one is off the table for NSPM-7 to sweep up and target.”
Although NSPM-7 by itself does not grant the government new legal powers, the report contends that the framework enables more aggressive coordination among existing agencies, empowering prosecutors and investigators to work together against perceived political adversaries.
Benavidez, Free Press' senior counsel, warned that the approaching midterm elections—whose integrity Trump has baselessly attacked in a similar manner to his "Big Lie" that Democrats "stole" the 2020 presidential contest—offer particularly dangerous opening for the administration to intensify its crackdown on dissent.
“The midterm elections are at our doorstep; the president is eagerly pursuing election-fraud narratives, telling voters he will pay them off if they vote for Republicans—and leveraging his executive power to sway election results if he can,” she said. “Already [Department of] Homeland Security officials have investigated more than 150 nonprofit organizations under the guise of ‘election integrity.’"
"It’s by no means outside the realm of possibility that NSPM-7 becomes the vehicle to shut down civic engagement and political expression in the weeks and months to come," Benavidez added.
The analysis urges Congress and civil society groups to take action to defend constitutional freedoms and prevent further expansion of the crackdown.
Earlier this year, dozens of Democrats in the House of Representatives launched an inquiry into the US State Department's "ideologically driven visa restriction policy" and the Treasury Department's "pledged financial enforcement mechanisms directed against civil society."
"Trump has made clear his intentions to interfere in the November midterm elections," Jindia and Benavidez wrote. "Losing control of Congress could subject the administration to investigations and hearings, including potential impeachment hearings of Trump and his Cabinet officials."
'Historic Day': New Mexico Judge Orders Meta to Pay $25 Billion in Data Privacy Case
"For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law," the attorney general said.
A New Mexico judge on Wednesday ordered Meta to pay $25 billion for misleading users about data privacy—and while state Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office touted it as "one of the largest financial penalties against a corporation in US history," it's also just a fraction of the $219.5 billion warranted under the law.
The case stems from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, over which New Mexico sued in 2021. The New York Times reported that the order from Judge Francis J. Mathew of the State District Court in Santa Fe "is the biggest blow yet to Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, as it has racked up court losses over the harms that its social media platforms have caused users."
Reuters noted that "in 2019, the company was hit with a $5 billion penalty by the US Federal Trade Commission stemming from the same scandal. Six other states settled their lawsuits related to Cambridge Analytica for $459.2 million as part of a $17.1 billion multistate settlement Meta reached in August to resolve states' claims that the company's platforms had harmed teen mental health."
However, Torrez's state wasn't part of that settlement—and last month, a jury found that Meta had committed over 43 million violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.
That led to the order in which Mathew wrote that "the extraordinary number of willful violations found by the jury, the duration and repetition of the conduct, the breadth of subjects on which violations occurred, the involvement of senior Facebook leadership, the size of New Mexico audiences reached, and the clear intentional and systematic nature of Facebook's repeated misstatements established in the trial record support the highest level of penalty allowed by the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act—$5,000 per violation found by the jury."
Although the judge ultimately reduced the penalty to just over 11% of what Meta could have faced, the tech giant is still trying to dodge it. Chief legal officer CJ Mahoney said in a statement that the company is "confident" that it will "prevail on appeal."
"This ruling, and the attorney general’s approach to this enforcement, makes it all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico," Mahoney said. "At its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online."
Meanwhile, Torrez celebrated "a historic day for New Mexico and for consumers across the country."
"For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law," the attorney general said. "A New Mexico jury found nearly 44 million violations of our consumer protection statute, and this penalty order demonstrates that those violations carry real consequences. We took on one of the largest companies in the world because New Mexicans deserve honesty, accountability, and the protection of their personal information. Today’s result makes clear that no corporation is too powerful to be held accountable."
"This case has always been about more than one company or one scandal,” Torrez stressed. "It is about whether corporations can mislead consumers about what happens to their personal information without facing meaningful consequences. New Mexico stood its ground, took this case to trial, and secured a verdict establishing millions of violations of our law. This outcome reinforces a fundamental principle, companies that do business in our state must follow our laws and respect the rights of our people."
It isn't Torrez's first victory against Meta. In August, Judge Bryan Biedscheid of the State District Court in Santa Fe tacked on $567 million in damages for a state case in which the company already faced $375 million in civil penalties for enabling harm to youth.
'Working People Will Pay a High Price': Report Warns AI Bubble Is 'Primed to Pop'
"Policymakers need to act now to shore up the financial system and make clear that taxpayers will not be forced to bail out the companies and financiers responsible."
A report released on Wednesday warns that the investment boom in artificial intelligence is a financial bubble that is "primed to pop" and harm working-class Americans if lawmakers don't take concrete steps to shield them from the damage.
The report, produced by Open Markets Institute and Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, warns that Big Tech companies are using increasingly risky debt-fueled financing methods to keep plowing money into AI infrastructure, which has resulted in global stock markets growing overvalued to "a historic degree."
The report highlights the role played by so-called circular financing agreements, in which one company agrees to fund another company’s AI project in exchange for the firm receiving the money buying the investing firm’s products.
"The AI industry’s extensive ecosystem of circular financing and purchase agreements makes it very hard for outsiders to determine how much bona fide revenue the technology is generating," the report notes, "and very easy for companies to artificially inflate the revenues and deflate the expenses they release to the public."
While such financing deals aren't inherently unlawful, the report continues, they can "be used to create a false impression of strong demand and disguise the true state of the involved companies’ finances, particularly when circular arrangements drive a substantial portion of the companies’ revenues."
The report also urges lawmakers to avoid the same mistakes the federal government made during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, when it bailed out financial institutions in the wake of the 2008 housing crash.
"If they face collapse, neither AI-related firms nor their leadership should be shielded from the financial or legal consequences of their mismanagement," the report states. "Under no circumstances should failing AI-related firms receive government support to remain going concerns. Instead, failed AI firms should be moved through legal proceedings for liquidating and/or dissolving firms in an orderly manner."
Instead of saving the AI firms and their financiers, the report emphasizes lawmakers "must prioritize the recovery and protection of workers and families by directing federal assistance to workers, households, and communities harmed by the crisis."
Maya Jenkins, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund and co-author of the report, accused President Donald Trump and his administration of making the AI bubble more dangerous by "rolling back guardrails that protect investors and financial stability."
"If nothing changes, working people will pay a high price for an AI crash," Jenkins emphasized. "Policymakers should be taking urgent action to reduce the risks. And they should be committing now to not bail out the AI companies or banks and financial firms that caused the problems."
Matthew Scherer, fellow at Open Markets Institute and report co-author, similarly emphasized the AI bubble's potential cost to working-class Americans and urged lawmakers to take a proactive approach to mitigating harms.
"Workers could lose their jobs, families could see their retirement savings evaporate, and communities could face the fallout from another financial crisis. Policymakers need to act now to shore up the financial system and make clear that taxpayers will not be forced to bail out the companies and financiers responsible."
The AI bubble report came one day after Reuters reported that frontier AI lab Anthropic recorded a net loss of $80 billion in the first half of 2026, more than six times the $13 billion loss the company posted a year earlier.
Despite bleeding money, the company is seeking an initial public offering next month worth $1.5 trillion, according to Reuters.
El-Sayed Says Bitcoin Data Center Next to Nature-Based School in Michigan Exemplifies Need for Regulation
Students at Lake Superior Academy are supposed to spend hours outside each day. But the superintendent said constant noise from the nearby Bitcoin mining operation “forced us to stay within our classrooms."
At a Michigan elementary school built around outdoor learning, noise from a Bitcoin mine across the street has forced students’ lessons indoors. Abdul El-Sayed, the state’s Democratic candidate for the US Senate, says it’s a prime example of why data centers proliferating across the nation need regulation.
On Wednesday, El-Sayed—a former Detroit public health official—posted a video of himself at Lake Superior Academy in Dafter Township just south of Sault Ste. Marie in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The tuition-free Montessori school provides around 100 students in kindergarten through fifth grade with multiple hours of outdoor learning each day. At least, it did.
"It was incredible until about two years ago, when that monstrosity behind me moved in," El-Sayed said, pointing to the series of large metal pods just across the street, behind rows of stacked hay bales.
The hay bales were put up last year to block out the noise from the facility's cooling fans, which constantly hovered around 70-75 decibels—approximately as loud as a vacuum cleaner.
“The students often, daily, say, 'When is this going to stop?’” superintendent Susie Schlehuber told Michigan Public Radio. “Our special needs students, some will come out and cover their ears.”
The students attending Lake Superior Academy were supposed to spend their days reading and journaling outdoors, learning to garden, and photographing wildlife. But after the facility began operating in March 2025, Schlehuber said, the noise had “forced us to stay within our classrooms, close our windows, and not enjoy nature."
"Our whole school philosophy, everything we were founded on, has been disrupted because of the noise," she said.
School officials sought answers from the township and the mine’s operators, but struggled to establish who was responsible. Workers at the facility refused to identify its owner. And at a town meeting, where residents had come to voice concerns about noise, pollution, and other nuisances, a representative for the site reportedly refused to name the owner or provide his own last name.
"We left with more questions than what we had when we arrived," Schlehuber said.
This lack of transparency has been a pattern since the facility was first permitted in October 2024. The application described the project as a "storage/warehouse" facility but remained vague about what would happen inside—saying it would merely contain computers managing data. This allowed it to be approved without a review of cryptocurrency mining’s potential effects on nearby properties, including Lake Superior Academy.
Business records revealed that the Florida-based holding company Odessa Partners LLC owned the site and the Florida-based Bitcoin mining operator Alpha Watt owned the computer equipment.
Named in the filings is Michael Carbonara, a Florida businessman running as a Republican to represent Florida's 22nd Congressional District in the US House. Carbonara has opposed an effort to build an artificial intelligence data center in Palm Beach, known as Project Tango, but has insisted that his facility in Michigan is different.
"I have built a data center, but it's not an AI data center. It's actually a Bitcoin mining operation,” he said. “I've been attacked by the George Soros and the No Kings people... so it's been quite a ride because they want to attack innovation."
The school filed a nuisance lawsuit against both companies, resulting in a temporary shutdown in June 2025. The operators then countersued, alleging that the shutdown had resulted in $184,000 in lost revenue. They claimed the hay bales they'd erected reduced the noise. Reporting from October 2025 said the noise level had fallen to about 50 decibels.
The school's lawsuit remained pending in the Chippewa County Circuit Court as of September 2026.
During his visit to the school this month, El-Sayed said he could still hear a constant "high-pitched din."
"This is a place that is supposed to be a healing environment, a nurturing environment for kids that has to contend with this sound of a Bitcoin mining operation," he said. "The fact that we don't have zoning regulations, the fact that we don't have terms of engagement to protect where, and how, and under what circumstances these kinds of operations can be located, is exactly why they can put it right next to a school and then force this school into litigation that lasts for years."
While this facility mines Bitcoin, communities around the country have been increasingly pushing back against the rapid expansion of data centers powering the artificial intelligence boom. Those facilities have prompted similar noise complaints, along with concerns about driving up electric bills, sucking up local water supplies, and causing dangerous pollution. Residents have often found that local governments approve these facilities with little transparency or public input.
As the midterm elections approach, data centers have become politically toxic, with 75% of voters across party lines saying they'd oppose new ones built near their homes, according to an August poll. More than three dozen communities around the country have ballot measures in November that could ban data centers, according to Stateline.
Even El-Sayed’s opponent, Republican former US Rep. Mike Rogers, who months ago endorsed the Trump administration’s plan to accelerate data center construction, has appeared to recognize it as a losing issue, recently calling for a one-year moratorium in Michigan.
El-Sayed has put opposition to unchecked data center expansion at the forefront of his campaign. He has called for local and state pauses on data center development until federal safeguards are established.
His proposed "terms of engagement" seek to give residents a meaningful role in approvals, require enforceable community benefits agreements, protect households from higher energy costs, safeguard water supplies, and hold developers to promises that facilities will create jobs.
He said the Bitcoin mining facility that has disrupted Lake Superior Academy is "what our terms of engagement is intended to protect folks from."
UN Report Shows How Killing Progress on Climate Pollution Is 'Trump's Real Legacy'
One campaigner said the United Nations Environment Program report "shows that America's retreat isn't just a political embarrassment. It has real consequences for the planet and for millions of people around the world."
President Donald Trump's pro-fossil fuel agenda not only is "making everyone's lives more expensive" but also is expected to have deadly and destructive consequences far beyond the borders of the United States, as made clear in a global emissions report released Wednesday.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) put out "The Emissions Gap Report 2026: The Point of Return" in preparation for the next UN Climate Change Conference in Türkiye. It warns that the world's chance to meet the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels "with 'no or limited' overshoot has been lost."
While that is a global failure, a key factor is Trump's return to power in the United States last year. After pledging to roll back his predecessor's meager climate action policies if fossil fuel executives pumped money into his campaign, the Republican president has pursued a range of polluting actions, which include abandoning the Paris Agreement, again.
"Most of the climate-related policies from the Inflation Reduction Act have been repealed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act," the report says, referring to Republicans' 2025 budget package, which Trump signed into law. "Additionally, several long-standing Environmental Protection Agency regulations concerning power plant and vehicle emission standards, electric vehicle support, methane emissions, and renewable energy proliferation have also been rolled back."
It also notes that the Trump administration recently moved to completely repeal limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, which was criticized as "the largest deregulatory action of the USA power sector in history," though "a significant number of these attempts are in a judicial state of uncertainty, as they are being challenged in courts."
Countries that remain parties to the Paris Agreement develop plans to reduce emissions, called nationally determined contributions. The report explains that "if all NDCs are delivered and similar efforts continue, there is a 66% chance that warming will be limited to 2.6°C by 2100. This is a worse outcome than expected last year, as a result of the formal withdrawal of the United States of America from the Paris Agreement and revised estimates of historical emissions."
Historically, the United States is the world's worst climate polluter. The publication points out that "currently, the six largest emitters in terms of total GHG emissions are China, the United States of America, India, the European Union, the Russian Federation, and Indonesia."
While the US, Indonesia, and China all had increases in emissions last year, the document details, "in terms of magnitude, the increase in the United States of America (133 megatons of CO2 equivalent, MtCO2e) far exceeded that of all other countries, and was driven by increased electricity demand and a rebound of coal power generation."
Studies show that recent policy changes under Trump "have significantly altered the projections" for the years ahead, the report says, "with 2030 emissions projections now estimated to be almost 0.9 GtCO2e higher than projections based on policies in place under the previous administration."
As The Associated Press reported:
Report lead author Anne Olhoff, director of UNEP Copenhagen Climate Center, said the US policy change will likely add one-tenth of a degree Celsius (nearly two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit) to global temperatures by the end of the century.
"This report shows that America's retreat isn't just a political embarrassment. It has real consequences for the planet and for millions of people around the world,” said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, a climate organization. "An extra tenth of a degree might sound insignificant, but in climate terms it is enormous. It means more dangerous heatwaves, more destructive floods, more failed harvests, and more lives lost. For vulnerable communities in Africa, already living on the frontlines of the climate crisis, every fraction of a degree matters. These are not abstract numbers. They are human lives."
The Trump administration doubled down on its position, with White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers telling The New York Times that the United Nations was “pushing the woke Green Energy Scam, pressuring countries across the world to jeopardize their economic and national security in order to meet arbitrary climate goals."
Meanwhile, climate advocates and scientists joined Adow in ripping the administration's devastating agenda.
"All governments have a job to do, but in particular it is time for major fossil fuel producers such as the US and Saudi Arabia, which produce 20-25% of fossil fuels globally, to stop playing politics and face the scientific reality," said Bill Hare, CEO of the think tank Climate Analytics. "Right now they are looking at the fire, denying it exists, and pouring more petrol on it, while their own citizens increasingly face searing heat, wildfires, and other impacts."
Scott Forbes, an ecology professor at Canada's University of Winnipeg, said on social media that "America is now the biggest impediment to climate action. Of all the evil that Trump has done, this may top it all."
























