LIVE COVERAGE
Our Mid-Year Campaign is falling short.
Without closing this gap, Common Dreams won’t have the funding needed to keep publishing in the weeks and months ahead. No corporate sponsors. No billionaires. We are funded exclusively by readers tired of news beholden to corporate interests — and right now, we need your help.
Show Trial: A Punishment For Solidarity Itself
In an act deemed “going apeshit against enemies of the Reich,” two judges just levied brutal prison sentences of 30 to 100 years, a combined penance of 450 years, on eight anti-ICE members of a scary if imaginary “North Texas Antifa cell” convicted of terrorist-abetting “crimes” like protesting, lighting fireworks and moving a box of zines. The case, widely seen as a test of regime efforts to criminalize dissent or any unwelcome speech, moved one defendant to muse, “What kind of people are not against fascism?”
The grievous injustice against the group, dubbed The Prairieland Defendants for the ICE concentration camp they were protesting, comes amidst almost daily court victories elsewhere against the regime. Last week, three key rulings in federal district courts saw judges strike down administration election meddling, abuses against immigrants and, in a blistering 29-page decision, “blatantly unlawful and unethical use” of a grand-jury subpoena targeting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. To date, there have been at least 272 wins against Trump, several from judges he appointed; after one especially irksome loss, Stephen Goebbels memorably whined, “Judge Sparkle (sic) decrees that America belongs to any random alien on Planet Earth.”
Faced with mounting losses in other endeavors - wars, pools, polls - more regime lackeys are also getting testy. Newly back from having a baby but still hyper-toxic, Press Barbie went on Hannity to shriek about “deranged leftists desecrating our federal monuments” with algae: “Only the Democrats could hate beautifying our Capitol.” Of six people arrested for “vandalism” - more than for raping minors - many are “longtime donors to the Democrat Party,” who “completely destroyed our country,” also to “Barack Hussein Obama” and, gasp, ACTBlue. With fear-mongering truly all they’ve got, Hannity joined in on Dem “radicals...You’ve got Mr. Nazi Tattoo Platner, and six-gender, God-is-non-binary Talarico, and Pocahontas, and Mamdani...”
Amidst a “rolling coup“ in an increasingly fascist America, where threats from the left have always loomed larger than on the right and today’s despots cling frantically to a power they somehow know is illegitimate, it’s little wonder principled citizens protesting vulnerable brown people being locked up in concentration camps have become ”the new Red Scare.“ It’s helpful to remember that everything earlier autocrats did - Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet - was legal; they just changed the rules to do it. ”This is Soviet shit,“ wrote one observer, summoning the terror of Stalin’s staged show trials in the 1930s to eliminate most of Lenin’s staff and other ”saboteurs,“ from Bukharin to, via pickaxe, Trotsky exiled in Mexico; in the end, only ”Stalin the Executioner“ remained.
The “legal,” in Trump’s case, was last year’s menacing national security directive “NSPM-7: Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” which explicitly declared a fictional Antifa - in fact any American who opposes fascism, supports the rule of law and uses their First Amendment rights to defend it - a “MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION” and “SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER,” whether “it exists or not.” Prairieland, the first case successfully brought under NSPM-7, tests the state’s ability to quell dissent by perceived “enemies,” and could shape a future playbook for using the Antifa label - and “creative and highly theoretical claims by the state” - as “a catchall designation to criminalize activists writ large.”
The surreal sentences inflicted this week on eight mostly non-violent Prairieland activists came three months after their convictions on terrorism and other charges stemming from last year's July 4 protest at the for-profit Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. The action began as a noise demonstration, a typically safe, festive event where fireworks are set off "to remind people inside they are not forgotten." That day, it devolved into vandalism - of cars, a guard shack, a security camera - by several protesters. Some brought guns - a red flag to many activists, but common in open-carry Texas where queer or trans people can face armed counter-protesters. When one cop drew his weapon, a protester in the nearby woods shot him in the shoulder.
At trial, eight defendants - Autumn Hill, Zachary Evetts, Benjamin Hanil Song, Savanna Batten, Meagan Morris, Maricela Rueda, Elizabeth Soto, and Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada - were convicted of rioting and explosive charges, and "providing material support to terrorists." They are much like protesters anywhere: teachers, engineers, tattoo artists, animal-lovers, anti-ICE advocates, parents, straight, queer, trans, vegan. Some had organized the action together, some produced anarchist zines and belonged to a book club named for anarchist Emma Goldman, who 99 years ago this month was arrested on conspiracy charges for organizing against the First World War draft; some were members of a Socialist gun club; some weren't even at the protest.
From the outset, the regime played hardball. The DOJ called them “members of a North Texas Antifa cell“; the indictment said Antifa "is a militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribed to a revolutionary anarchist or autonomous Marxist ideology.” They were held on multimillion-dollar bonds in squalid jail cells, denied medical care, frequently strip-searched; two trans women were held - unsafely, illegally - in men's facilities. State agents ransacked homes, detained children, used flash-bang grenades to intimidate, went after anyone in their political orbit, often unearthing new charges. It was, one defendant said, "a nightmare made real...seeing the prosecution jump from lie to lie," abuse to abuse.
The case became a sinister "laboratory" where constitutionally protected free speech and civil disobedience became "rioting" and solidarity became "conspiracy." Fireworks were “explosives," a home where friends gathered a "staging area," black clothing and the use of encrypted Signal a way "to aid and abet those engaged in illegal acts." A home printer became "a printing press" producing "insurrectionary materials" - anti-fascist zines, handouts of "8 Things You Can Do To Stop ICE," packets of vegetable seeds, poems, patches, bumper stickers of swastikas X-ed out and “Zines Are Not A Crime." A teacher had home-made first aid kits he used to bring to school in case of a shooting; feds used their presence as evidence protesters had planned violence.
The shocking sentencing hearings were held by two judges, one each appointed by Bush and Trump, in two Fort Worth courtrooms. They were inexplicably scheduled even before either judge heard long-filed motions to overturn convictions in a trial, lawyers argued, "saturated with evidence designed to evoke fear, political bias, and guilt by association" and widely deemed "untethered from credible evidence or witness testimony." Prosecutors folded into the case people who didn't help plan the protest, weren't there, or left when police asked them to. An attorney for Hill cited no evidence they believed in violence; Hill was so conscientious they stayed after the fireworks went off to pick up trash left behind; she still got a 50-year sentence.
The case ostensibly centered on the alleged attempted murder of the cop shot in the shoulder. Marine Corps reservist Benjamin "Champagne" Song said they were in the woods and fired "a warning shot" to distract the cop when he drew his gun on another protester; citing Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Song said, “I never want to see good people, standing for what they believe in, gunned down." Song charges the state is imposing "collective punishment, guilt by association" on other activists, and the facts of the shooting remain unclear; feds first said there were multiple shooters and rounds fired, then said they have no medical records from the hospital where the cop was reportedly quickly released. Still, Song was given a 100-year sentence.
Batten, Evetts, Hill, Morris, and Soto each got 50 years for rioting, providing support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use an explosive ie: attending a loud protest. Said Soto, trying to laugh, "I guess they didn't like my book club." Rueda was sentenced to 70 years for also conspiring to "conceal documents" by asking her husband Sanchez-Estrada, not at the protest, to remove a box of zines from their house. "Being guilty of possessing literature is a concept fundamentally incompatible with a free society," said one advocate. "We don’t need a constitutional right to possess only what the government likes." Sanchez-Estrada got a 30-year sentence for moving the box. "I am a father, a husband, a teacher, a poet," he told the judge. "I am many things, Your Honor, but I am not a terrorist."
Many observers noted all the sentences were far harsher than those handed down to Jan. 6 rioters - who were then pardoned - or even the longest sentences for murder or rape - this, though prosecutors offered almost no evidence of the alleged crimes. And despite their obsession with the lethal threat posed by imaginary Antifa forces, even the judges questioned the need to mention "antifa" to jurors, who in turn seemed to reject Judge Reed O’Connor's narrative of "an ambush" and "assault on democracy" by acquitting everyone but Song of attempted murder. One legal expert said that fortuitous rejection underscored how easily prosecutors can fashion or twist the law to create a "conspiracy"; said one attorney, “People should be scared."
In total, 22 people have been charged in connection with the Prairieland protest. Five others took plea deals, another five have state charges pending, three more were indicted last month. Regime lackeys have gleefully touted their rare victory, with a hyperbolic DOJ press release blaring, "Leader of Antifa Cell Members Sentenced to 100 Years in Prison for Terrorist Attack on ICE Facility." After the trial, Pam Bondi gloated they'd taken down "Antifa" - repeated 16 times - to "finally halt their violence on America's streets." After sentencing, Todd Blanche celebrated the regime's "swift and uncompromising justice." Of villainous Antifa, he crowed, "Their violent extremism has no place in our country," presumably because only the fascist kind does.
As young activists mull lives stolen - and tenuously bank on appeals or pardons - their family, friends, supporters voice horror at “the absolute travesty” of the lies that led to their convictions and sentences. “We’ve fallen so far so fast it’s nose-bleed inducing,” said one. Another insisted, "The outcome of this trial is not the end. It is the beginning." Autumn Hill’s wife Lydia Koza said she is "livid in the face of this grotesque distortion of anything that could ever have called itself due process...There is no ‘appropriate’ sentence for a wholly fictitious crime." On their loved ones "being thrown away for the rest of their lives," one noted the regime's own actions "have proved the righteousness of their actions...This sentencing is a punishment for solidarity itself."
Finally, from Flying Penguin, a grim reminder the Prairieland fates mirror that of too many in a nation and world whose history is rife with 'other righteous "crimes": BLM protesters, Black Panthers, AIM activists, civil rights marchers, union workers, “your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” To wit: "Today’s news is Andrew Jackson, ordering Congress to criminalize antislavery speech. Today’s news is Stalin’s Article 58, where ‘anti-Soviet agitation’ was a crime that meant whatever it needed to. Today's news is the McCarthy-era ruling that upheld the conviction of Americans for organizing and teaching political theory.Today's news is South Africa’s 1967 Terrorism Act, making terrorism anything that endangers 'law and order.' Today’s news is Trump and a white police state." Warns Sanchez-Estrada, "People need to be aware - it’s not just the defendants on trial.”

Trump's Reflecting Pool Disaster Exposed as More Details Revealed on Firm That Won No-Bid Contract
New reports have revealed the full scope of President Donald Trump's disastrous renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which the National Park Service this week has been scrambling to clean up.
A Thursday report in The New York Times revealed that the firm tapped to install the pool's water purification system, Greenwater Services, was given a $1.7 million contract that "bypassed the competitive-bidding process that is typically required" for such projects.
Even though Greenwater had only received one other federal contract in the past, NPS said it bypassed the normal bidding process on the grounds that "there was no time to consider other offers because the system had to be installed in time for events celebrating the country’s 250th birthday," reported the Times.
The Times also found that Greenwater is owned by JJ Cafaro Investment Trust, whose owner is a Trump donor and "a neighbor to Mar-a-Lago, the president’s private club in Florida."
The firm's work has come under scrutiny in recent days after a massive algae bloom erupted in the pool, which prompted NPS workers to dump containers of hydrogen peroxide into the water, which had turned a fluorescent green.
As noted by the Times, the NPS refilled the pool before Greenwater had installed a permanent water purification system, which the paper wrote raised "the risk that it would quickly be clouded with algae."
While algae blooms have long been common in the Reflecting Pool, The Washington Post on Thursday commissioned expert analysis of satellite imagery and determined that this year's bloom was the largest to occur in the last five years and that "algae levels spiked days after Trump’s renovation was completed."
Alana Menendez, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Virginia’s Department of Environmental Sciences, told the Post that there was more algae in the Reflecting Pool on the first week after its reopening than in any other June satellite images of the pool going all the way back to 2021.
Algae blooms aren't the only problem facing the pool, as CNN reported on Thursday that some of the blue material that had been installed at the bottom of the pool as part of the renovation has started peeling off.
Specifically, CNN said that its reporters "observed a flap of blue material that was partially attached to the bottom in one area of the pool and floating toward the top," although the network added that "it is unclear if the material is paint or sealant, and it's unclear what caused it to come up."
Watchdog Warns Crypto Bill Could Be Major Tax Giveaway to Ultrarich—Including Trump Family
A government watchdog is warning that new cryptocurrency policies being considered in the House of Representatives would be a major boon to the ultrawealthy, including President Donald Trump's family.
In an analysis published on Monday, the Revolving Door Project (RDP) highlighted new crypto-related tax bills being discussed in the House Ways and Means Committee, including one that "would create a functional subsidy for cryptocurrency firms by allowing them to defer taxes owed on their mined coins indefinitely and without interest, so long as the firms do not sell the coins."
This would allow coin owners to raise money by borrowing against these assets without having paid a cent of taxes on them, the analysis explains, which could be particularly beneficial for Trump's two eldest sons.
"Eric and Donald Trump Jr. reportedly hold a 20% stake in the bitcoin mining firm American Bitcoin, which mined 817 bitcoin in Q1 of 2026 alone," RDP writes. "At current prices, this represents a value of more than $50 million, while the company has stated that it already intends to hold assets it mines. If passed, this loophole could mean millions of dollars in taxes owed by the Trump sons’ firm could be deferred endlessly."
RDP also published a list of crypto donations to lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) has received nearly $2 million in support from the industry since 2023, more than any other committee member.
Other top recipients of crypto cash include Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), and Jason Smith (R-Mo.), chairman of the committee.
Jeff Hauser, executive director of RDP, said that the bills currently under consideration in the House are essentially a return on the crypto industry's investment in political campaigns.
"The cryptocurrency industry believes it is owed massive tax loopholes and functional subsidies," said Hauser, "because it has bought the president, paid for his ballroom project, and has funded dozens of congressional campaigns. The lack of campaign finance reform is the principal reason that the ludicrously corrupt Trump family is set to enjoy yet another tax loophole to exploit."
Timi Iwayemi, assistant director at RDP, said that "the cryptocurrency industry has facilitated the Trump family's corruption at every turn," while warning members of Congress against doing the industry's bidding.
"Lawmakers should be wary of creating new tax loopholes to benefit the Trump family and their donors in the crypto industry," said Iwayemi. "Rewarding this behavior will embolden the crypto industry and other corporate lobbies eager to seize on our elected representatives’ prioritization of donor interests at public expense."
Thousands Feared Dead After Back-to-Back Earthquakes Devastate Venezuela
Emergency workers rushed to search the rubble of collapsed buildings in and near the Venezuelan capital of Caracas on Thursday after back-to-back powerful earthquakes rocked the country, killing at least 164 people—a toll that's expected to reach the thousands as victims' bodies are recovered from the wreckage.
The disaster began on Wednesday afternoon local time as a 7.2-magnitude earthquake hit around 100 miles west of Caracas. Just 39 seconds later, a 7.5-magnitude quake struck, compounding the damage. One Caracas resident told Reuters that the aftermath of the quakes "was like a horror movie."
The Associated Press reported that rescue teams were seen "using power tools to work their way into piles of rubble where buildings once stood."
"Panicked residents of the capital were sent pouring into the streets, and after the quakes many people walked among the debris searching for the missing among collapsed buildings and toppled electric poles," the outlet added. "Footage on state TV showed three children, covered in dust but alive, pulled from the rubble in La Guaira state... one of the areas hardest hit by the quakes because of the large number of collapsed buildings."
Video captured the first moments of two powerful earthquakes striking Venezuela, triggering panic as people fled for safety as buildings collapsed around them. pic.twitter.com/ZadZ6VNrNo
— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) June 25, 2026
Acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez, who took charge following the US abduction of President Nicolás Maduro in January, said that "dozens of buildings have collapsed" in La Guaira.
"We are currently carrying out intensive rescue operations to save lives," Rodríguez added.
Venezuela looks like it was BOMBED after two MASSIVE 7.1 and 7.5 magnitude earthquakes.
Pray for the people, this is really bad pic.twitter.com/pIw8ywXzYe
— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) June 25, 2026
US President Donald Trump, who authorized the illegal assault on Venezuela and kidnapping of Maduro earlier this year, wrote on social media that his administration "stands ready, willing, and able to help."
"I have instructed all agencies of our government to get ready to move quickly," Trump wrote. "We will be there for our new and great friends. Early reports are not good!!!"
Tom Fletcher, the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, said in a statement Thursday that "we are fully mobilized to support the people of Venezuela following the deadly and devastating earthquakes that hit the country."
"The coming days will require a massive collective effort to support the government-led response and help communities," Fletcher added. "Even before these earthquakes, nearly 8 million people in Venezuela were in need of humanitarian support. This disaster risks deepening existing vulnerabilities. Sustained international support for humanitarian organizations responding on the ground is essential and urgent."
'More People Will Die': Sotomayor Reads Searing Dissent as Supreme Court Lets Trump Block Asylum Seekers
The US Supreme Court's right-wing majority on Thursday affirmed the Trump administration's deadly policy of blocking people legally seeking asylum from entering the United States in a ruling that prompted liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor to take the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the justices reversed lower-court rulings, including a 2024 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel decision that people approaching authorized border entries are arriving "in" the United States under federal law.
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to rule on the practice of "metering," by which US authorities limit the number of asylum seekers who can present themselves at a port of entry each day to request protection. The policy was first implemented during the Obama administration and expanded during President Donald Trump's first term, with US Solicitor General D. John Sauer calling it “a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border.”
“In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Sauer argued in court filings. “An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico.”
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote for the majority—Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—agreed.
“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place," Justice Samuel Alito said.
“We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arrive in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country," he added. "An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border."
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined a scathing dissent penned by fellow liberal Sonia Sotomayor. Jackson also dissented separately. In a sign of her vigorous objection to the ruling, Sotomayor took the rare step of reading parts of her 35-page dissent—which is nearly twice as long as the majority opinion—from the bench.
"The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having US immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto US soil," Sotomayor began. "They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country. Even if the port of entry has ample capacity to inspect that person, including an available asylum officer trained to process asylum applications. Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away."
Sotomayor noted that metering "created dire humanitarian conditions at the border."
As US Customs and Border Protection "turned back more and more asylum seekers who had traveled treacherous distances to reach that point, makeshift camps sprung up on the Mexican side of the border, with tens of thousands of those turned away waiting days, then weeks and months, for asylum processing that often never took place," she continued.
Sotomayor noted the dangerous conditions in the border camps, asserting that "those turned away under the metering policy also found themselves subject to the very 'persecution and crime' they were fleeing," and citing cases in which people waiting in Mexico were murdered, raped, kidnapped, and assaulted. She detailed instances in which desperate asylum seekers, including children, drowned while attempting to swim across the Rio Grande into the United States.
"Hundreds of others have met a similar fate, and many more died crossing the desert along the southern border, all making 2020 and 2021 some of the 'deadliest years for migrant crossings' in various regions of the southern border," Sotomayor wrote.
"The words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme."
"The majority’s conclusion focuses almost exclusively on the word 'in' within the phrase 'arrives in the United States,'" Sotomayor stressed. "If that were all this case were about, the majority might have the better of the argument. Statutory interpretation, however, requires much more."
"The words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme," she continued, pointing to one of the most frequently cited principles in modern US jurisprudence.
"The majority’s interpretation of 'arrives in the United States' makes no sense," Sotomayor argued. "To start, the majority ignores that 'arrival' and 'arriving' in the immigration context have never focused on the precise location of a noncitizen’s feet."
She continued:
Imagine a movie theater policy that states, “Anyone who arrives in the theater may buy a ticket and all moviegoers must have their tickets scanned before entering.” If a person walks up to a ticket booth located just outside the theater, it would be unreasonable to think they could not buy a ticket under the policy because they are not “in” the theater yet. Perhaps the policy could have been clearer by using the preposition “at,” but everyone understands, from context, what the policy means.
Context leads to the same conclusion here. Requiring an asylum seeker to plant a foot across the border to become an “applicant for admission"... might be plausible looking at the words “arrives in” in a vacuum, but it makes a hash of the statutory scheme overall. Instead, construing text in context, an asylum seeker can be fairly said to “arrive in the United States” for purposes of being an applicant for admission and seeking asylum when she walks up to a port of entry and physically presents herself to an immigration officer who is standing on US soil.
Sotomayor further noted that the modern asylum system "developed in response to the international moral reckoning that followed the Holocaust and World War II," when the United States and other indifferent nations turned back shiploads of desperate Jewish refugees and denied asylum to Jews fleeing almost certain death in Nazi-occupied Europe, including the family of famous diarist Anne Frank.
The dissenting justice highlighted the ill-fated voyage of the M.S. St. Louis, which carried over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. After being refused docking in Cuba, the United States, and Canada, the ship returned to Europe, where hundreds of its passengers were killed during the Holocaust.
"Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want this country to repeat the mistakes of its past," Sotomayor said. "Yet if the refugees on the M.S. St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto US soil."
"The majority’s interpretation permits the government to do that even if the refugees complied with all applicable laws and regulations, even if the port had ample capacity to inspect them, and even if turning them back would result in the very persecution from which they narrowly escaped," she added. "The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die."
In another extraordinary move, Alito followed Sotomayor's reading by defending the metering policy as necessary for maintaining "orderly and humane" conditions at the border. He then moved on to his next opinion, which upheld the Trump administration's cancellation of temporary deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians.
Responding to the Mullin ruling, Al Otro Lado executive director Erika Pinheiro said, "We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress, which enshrined the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention into US federal law over 40 years ago."
"For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families who are fleeing persecution, torture, and death to ask for protection at US borders and exercise their legal right to seek asylum,” she continued. "This decision has destroyed the United States’ position as a global leader in promoting the rights of refugees and threatens to serve as a dangerous justification for other countries that unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety."
"In a world of increasing conflict and climate disaster, this hardening of borders to keep out the most vulnerable is sure to result in many more lives lost," Pinheiro added.
Today, the Supreme Court delivered a devastating blow to asylum rights in the United States.In a 6-3 decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court ruled that the Trump administration may turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.
[image or embed]
— American Immigration Council (@immcouncil.org) June 25, 2026 at 9:32 AM
Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of America’s Voice, also issued a statement, contending that the two rulings "will devastate women and children who are fleeing unimaginable danger, vetted workers who have been in the US for decades making significant contributions, senior citizens who depend on their healthcare providers for lifesaving care, and business owners who rely on their workers to sustain their businesses, among many others."
Congresswoman Analilia Mejia (D-NJ) said that "whether denying asylum seekers the chance to be heard or ripping Temporary Protected Status away from families who have spent years building their lives in this country, this corrupt court, beholden to an authoritarian-like president, once again chose politics over the Constitution."
"Asylum seekers deserve the opportunity to have their claims heard before the government decides their fate," she continued. "Above all else, this case is simply cruel and denies humanity to our fellow human beings seeking safety."
"These rulings should alarm every American," Mejia added. "When the government can deny one group a hearing or strip away protections they have relied on for years, it is not just immigrants who lose. It sends a dangerous message that constitutional rights can be discarded whenever those in power find it politically useful."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that by targeting asylum, the justices "are preventing the most vulnerable people from even seeking safety on our shores."
On social media, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) said, "This extremist Supreme Court just gave Trump the green light to block asylum seekers at the border and end TPS protections for Haitians and Syrians."
"People fleeing danger deserve compassion, not cruelty," Lee added. "We must reform and expand the court immediately."
'End It Now': Senate Passes War Powers Resolution Rebuking Trump's Iran War
In a "major bipartisan rebuke" of President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran, the US Senate on Tuesday passed a war powers resolution instructing Trump to withdraw US forces from Iran.
The vote was 50 to 48, with four Republicans joining the vast majority of Democrats to approve the resolution that was passed by the US House of Representatives earlier this month.
"The House and the Senate have both stood up," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote in celebration of the vote on social media. "It’s time to stop this deadly and costly conflict."
Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Bill Cassidy (La.) voted in favor of the resolution while Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) voted against it.
"Congress finally passed a war powers resolution to stop Trump's illegal war in Iran. It has been a disaster from the start."
"The vote was 50-48, with four Republicans joining Democrats to say Trump should not be able to keep dragging America deeper into military conflict," attorney Aaron Parnas wrote on social media. "This is a major bipartisan rebuke of Trump’s foreign policy chaos."
Anti-war group CodePink wrote, "The will of the people is undeniable: It's time to permanently end this war of aggression."
BREAKING: US Senate passes Iran War Powers Resolution by a vote of 50-48.
The resolution demands the removal of US forces from all hostilities against Iran. It's already passed the House.
The will of the people is undeniable: it's time to permanently end this war of aggression. pic.twitter.com/27rxceRu81
— CODEPINK (@codepink) June 23, 2026
The vote was a long time coming, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer noted it was Democrats' 10th attempt to limit Trump's ability to wage undeclared war since he unilaterally embroiled the US in a joint attack on Iran with Israel, beginning on February 28.
Schumer criticized the majority of Republicans for repeatedly failing to vote against the war, which he said would "go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made," according to The Associated Press.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote on social media: "Congress finally passed a war powers resolution to stop Trump's illegal war in Iran. It has been a disaster from the start. End it now."
The vote made history by being the first time both the House and Senate have passed a concurrent resolution calling for an end to a conflict since the War Powers Resolution of 1973, as The New York Times reported.
Concurrent resolutions do not require a presidential signature and therefore do not typically have the force of law. However, Democratic lawmakers and foreign policy experts argue that because Congress has the ability to declare war under the Constitution, the resolution should still restrict the president's actions.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), who sponsored the House resolution, wrote: "With the Senate passage of my Iran War Powers Resolution, both chambers have now made clear that the president cannot continue this war of choice and must cease all hostilities against Iran. Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the executive complies with the will of Congress. Congress never authorized this failed war, and the president certainly has no authority to continue it indefinitely without our consent as the Constitution demands."
The vote comes about a week after the US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding to move toward ending the war that has killed at least 3,400 in Iran and thousands more across the region. However, the subsequent ceasefire and negotiations have been rocky and uncertain due to continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon and threats from Trump.
'Good News for Clean Air' as Court Rejects Trump EPA Bid to Ditch Coal Plant Soot Rule
"The court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country," said one advocate.
A federal appeals court on Friday rejected the US Environmental Protection Agency's attempt to scrap a Biden-era rule tightening limits on harmful soot pollution spewed from coal-fired power plants and other sources.
In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealt a blow to President Donald Trump's deregulatory agenda by leaving intact a national soot standard enacted in 2024 that lowers the amount of fine particulate matter from power plants, factories, and vehicles from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter.
"Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, results in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources like vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories," the legal advocacy group Earthjustice explained.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin last year asked the appellate court to invalidate the soot rule, claiming that the Biden administration exceeded its authority and failed to take into account the economic cost of implementing the policy.
“Clean air is not a luxury. We are thrilled these vital air quality standards have been upheld by a federal court,” said Patrice Simms, vice president of Healthy Communities at Earthjustice. “The 2024 soot standard is a critical advancement for public health, projected to save thousands of lives every year. Lee Zeldin’s EPA must stop catering to polluters and must instead fulfill its mission to protect public health. The time for implementing the 2024 soot standard is now.”
Clean Air Task Force senior director of legal advocacy Shaun Goho also welcomed the ruling, saying: "Fine particulate matter standards provide critical public health protections. The court correctly rejected EPA’s about-face on the need for a stronger standard."
Katie Huffing, executive director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, called Friday's decision "a win for public health."
“Every day in practice, nurses witness and treat conditions made worse by soot pollution," she said. "From asthma exacerbations and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to heart disease and preterm birth, nurses see the real-world health implications of toxic air pollution."
"The science shows stronger limits to reduce dangerous soot pollution provide significant health benefits for Americans, especially for those most vulnerable and those exposed to higher levels of particulate matter pollution," Huffing added. "We now urge EPA to fully implement the strengthened standard to ensure those health benefits are realized.”
Noha Haggag, senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, said that “today’s federal court decision is good news for clean air in America and for the millions of people harmed by deadly soot."
“Soot can cause asthma attacks, lung cancer, and premature deaths," Haggag added. "The court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country.”
'Setback for Alaska and Our Oceans': GOP Governor Vetoes Ban on Single-Use Polystyrene Food Packaging in Alaska
"Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years," said one critic.
Critics are slamming Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy for his Thursday veto of a bill that would have banned state agencies and restaurants from using single-use polystyrene foam food containers.
The legislation, which passed last month with bipartisan support and would have taken effect starting in January, was intended to stop the use of non-biodegradable polystyrene containers, whose usage has resulted in microplastics polluting Alaska's waterways.
In justifying the veto, Dunleavy said that the bill would "create a short and unrealistic implementation timeline" and would “be especially difficult for businesses in rural Alaska, where shipping limitations, supply availability, and higher costs already make operations more expensive."
In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska House Speaker Bryce Edgmon (I-37) expressed frustration that Dunleavy has vetoed a number of measures this year that have had broad support, simply because they did not conform with his "far-right beliefs."
"Every bill that he has vetoed thus far, in my view, served in a valid public purpose," Edgmon explained. “It’s difficult to put so much work and so much public process and so much time and energy, and then, because they don’t meet the standards—whatever the standards are—they get canned."
Environmental advocates criticized Dunleavy for the veto, with Christy Leavitt, senior campaign director at Oceana, calling it "a setback for Alaska and our oceans."
"This veto undermines bipartisan action to reduce single-use plastic pollution at the source, and will only put Alaska’s communities, wildlife, and waters in further jeopardy," said Leavitt. "We applaud the efforts of the state legislature and look forward to working with lawmakers to pass this important bill in the future to phase out plastic foam foodware."
Dyani Lezama, state director at Alaska Environment, said she was "incredibly disappointed that the governor vetoed this opportunity to make Alaska’s environment safer and cleaner."
"Polystyrene foam is bad for our health, produces a huge amount of litter, and is incredibly hard to clean up," Lezama emphasized. "Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years."
Had Dunleavy not vetoed the legislation, Alaska would have become the thirteenth state to ban polystyrene foam containers, following Maryland, Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, Delaware, Oregon, Rhode Island, and California.
'Criminalizing Dissent': Alarm Grows Over Extreme Prison Terms for Texas ICE Protesters
“Now anyone engaged in basic protests with the wrong political beliefs can be labeled a domestic terrorist, when they have no intention of violence," said one attorney.
Alarm and outrage mounted this week following a federal judge's lengthy prison sentences for a group of activists falsely accused by the Trump administration of being members of a nonexistent "North Texas Antifa Cell," with some observers calling the extreme punishments—including 30 years for moving a box of constitutionally protected pamphlets—a test case for criminalizing dissent.
Eight members of the "Prairieview Nine"—part of a larger group of activists who staged a July 4, 2025 protest outside a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Alvarado, Texas—were sentenced Tuesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth to between 30-100 years imprisonment.
Benjamin Song, who was convicted of shooting Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, was sentenced to 100 years for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and lesser offenses, including discharging a firearm during a violent crime, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and rioting. Song, a former US Marine, contends that he shot Gross in self-defense after the officer drew his gun first.
The “explosives” in question were fireworks brought to the July 4 protest to show solidarity with people detained by ICE.
Savanna Batten, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Bradford Morris, and Elizabeth Soto got 50 years each for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and using an explosive.
Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and conspiracy to conceal documents. Those documents were leftist pamphlets protected by the First Amendment.
Rueda's husband, Daniel “Des” Rolando Sanchez Estrada, was hit with a 30-year prison sentence for conspiracy to conceal documents for moving a box full of the pamphlets after speaking with his wife. He did not attend the protest.
Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush and a favorite of right-wing judge shoppers, told the court that the lengthy sentences are meant to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology” with the defendants, according to one observer of Tuesday’s proceedings.
The Prairieland sentences were more severe than the longest prison term for the average US murderer or rapist, as well as for the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—all of whom were later pardoned by President Donald Trump—as well as for convicted child sex trafficker and Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.
"What happened on Tuesday, it’s shocking to all of us, devastating to the families, 50- to 100-year sentences," Sufia Khalid, deputy director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America and lawyer to one of the Prairieland defendants, told Democracy Now! on Thursday. "Those are essentially life sentences for all of the young people in this case, largely of whom were engaged in nonviolent protest at an ICE detention facility."
A group of anti-ICE protesters in Texas were sentenced to 30 to 100 years in jail on Tuesday, after federal prosecutors accused them of being an "antifa terror cell."
The activists attended a protest and noise demonstration outside the Prairieland ICE jail in Alvarado, Texas.… pic.twitter.com/QxFMPaGsvj
— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) June 25, 2026
Khalid noted that the Department of Justice (DOJ) invoked a rarely used "material support for terrorism" statute that "does not require any connection to a domestic terrorist organization or any kind."
"Any American can be targeted that way now. It does not require ties to antifa or to any domestic terrorist organization," she said. "That’s a dangerous precedent, and what allowed them to stack these charges so high on Tuesday."
The DOJ hailed “the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with antifa following... Trump’s executive order designating the group as a domestic terrorist organization in September 2025" in the wake of the assassination of white supremacist influencer Charlie Kirk—which had nothing to do with antifa, a decentralized and leaderless international ideology opposing fascism that's more of a mindset than a movement.
Later that month, Trump also signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), a directive titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” that focuses exclusively on left-wing activities and mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
Khalid pointed to the pardoned January 6 insurrectionists, who "were involved in rioting, carrying massive arsenals of weapons, lots of discussions ahead of time—that didn’t exist in this case—about targeting law enforcement, wanting to kill members of Congress, [and] actually storming the Capitol."
"So, we have a massive, unwarranted sentencing disparity here," she said. "What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Mark Osler, a law professor and sentencing expert at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, told The Guardian on Friday that "the 30-year sentence for Estrada is probably the one that for most people will come closest to shocking the conscience, simply because this is an activity that took place after the harm occurred."
"What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, underscored during a Friday interview in an episode of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's Counterspin podcast titled "Criminalizing Dissent" that Estrada "wasn't even at the protest."
"He's somebody who allegedly transported a box of pamphlets because his wife was at the protest," Stern said. "And he believed, according to prosecutors, that the box of pamphlets might implicate his wife... so he was concealing evidence."
"Evidence of what?" he continued. "This wasn't a how-to manual... They were zines. They said nothing about this protest, about the Prairieland detention facility, about shooting this police officer... So when they say that he concealed evidence by moving these zines, evidence of what? It's evidence of an ideology. It's evidence of somebody's reading habits."
"And now they're on the same plane as terrorists, as [Islamic State], according to this administration," Stern added. "It's all pretty absurd. But at the end of the day, we have a Constitution that prohibits people from being locked up for what they think, write, or read, as long as they are not inciting imminent violence. So hopefully the appellate courts will reverse these convictions. But the law is only as good as the people who enforce it."
Jeremy Busby, an incarcerated journalist, wrote on the eve of Estrada's trial that the "homespun zines at issue contain no plans for any shooting, and under normal circumstances, they would clearly be deemed constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment."
"But the government’s concealment theory only makes sense if it views merely having the literature as criminal," he argued. “Criminalizing possession of literature is a miscarriage of justice, whether in prison or at a protester’s husband’s parents’ house. If the Trump administration is allowed to send Estrada to prison for the crime of possessing literature, members of society at large can be subjected to the same pernicious rules as the incarcerated.”
Amber Lowrey, the sister of Prairieland defendant Savanna Batten—who was sentenced to 50 years behind bars for material support for terrorism and conspiracy to use and using "explosives" (fireworks)—told The Guardian before Batten's trial that the Trump administration just wants "to make an example of people and silence anyone who... opposes the government."
"They want to silence dissent, criminalize dissent," she added.
Trump administration prosecutors have also invoked NSPM-7 in the case of 15 organizers with the groups Direct Action Minnesota and Black Cat Workers, who are accused of impeding the Department of Homeland Security’s anti-immigrant crackdown in Minneapolis, where US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti were separately killed earlier this year by ICE and Border Patrol officers.
"We live under a fascist state where ICE agents can murder us with impunity, yet we can go to prison for 50 years for protesting," socialist commentator and journalist Ryan Knight said Thursday on X. "The unjust sentences of the Prairieland protesters violate the First Amendment and infringe on our rights to fight back against a tyrannical government."


















