Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Lawrence Ferlinghetti protesting ICE fascism at City Lights
Further

Pity the Nation/ Whose Shepherds Mislead Them

Amidst plunging polls and righteous rage at his Epstein Memorial Ballroom, the inept manchild faces growing resistance, sublime to ridiculous, to his nascent kingship. Cue anti-ICE whistle kits - “Form a crowd, stay loud" - rainbow church steps, Newsom hawking knee pads, D.C. Jedi suing individual goons, and a successfully mobilized Bay Area, including his iconic bookstore's revival of Lawrence Ferlinghetti's howling edict that his people not "allow their rights to erode/and their freedoms to be washed away."

Trump was already underwater with the lowest approval rating for any president, even him, at this point in his reign - see no jobs, high prices, cancelled SNAP benefits, murdered innocents, rounded-up brown neighbors - before his abrupt, illegal obliteration of the East Wing for a gilded obscenity to host his billionaire suck-ups. For many, the travesty is a bitter echo of what in part got us here: Obama's mocking, gaudy, then-hilarious 2011 vision of a lurid purple "Trump White House, Hotel, Casino, Golf Course" with glitzy tyrant chandeliers and half-naked women welcoming you. Now, of course, we are about to have the execrable real thing, a tacky "abomination," born of his "poisonous bravado," bearing the "bombast (of) a dictator-for-life megalomania vibe."

Despite widespread horror at a now-$300-million, White-House-dwarfing atrocity for fat cats, smirking, clueless Press Barbie touted the ballroom as "of course the main priority" of the "builder-in chief" with a lifetime of bankruptcies to his tawdry name. Still, the outcry was loud enough for some flunkies to attempt an unhinged distraction: a new, racist, trolling Major Events Timeline on the ballroom that lurches from fake history - for 150 years, everyone has "longed for" it - to George Washington, the Oval Office, the Rose Garden to Clinton/Monica, Obama in a turban hosting Muslim Brotherhood extremists, debauched Hunter in a bath tub with cocaine, Biden with topless transsexuals to, straightfaced, Trump's hellacious, gold-blinged redecorating.

Reflecting the same crude regime run by a petty, vengeful bully - who hung along his new "Presidential Walk of Fame" not a portrait of the man he can't admit defeated him but the image of an autopen and just snarled, "You know nothing about nothing" at a reporter questioning him - comes the story from D.C. of Jedi knight Sam O’Hara, 35, who sometimes mocks the masked, armed, camoed thugs parading around his town by walking behind them, playing Star Wars' "The Imperial March" that marks the arrival of Darth Vader, and posts his videos online. Bemused millions have watched his personal protest, audible but not loud, against "a dystopian occupation," but last month he was accosted by one thin-skinned stormtrooper who was not amused.

Going home after work, O’Hara was following four Ohio National Guardsmen when Sergeant Devon Beck turned back to threaten him with calling D.C. cops to "handle" him. The Empire quickly struck back: Police arrived, tightly handcuffed him, argued "this isn't a protest" when he explained himself, and held him for a while before letting him go without charges. Now O'Hara and the ACLU are suing four police and Guardsmen under a law that renders individuals liable for punitive damages for infringing on a plaintiff's Constitutional rights. "The law might have tolerated government conduct of this sort a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away," argued O'Hara, citing the First and Fourth Amendment and a D.C. prohibition on false arrest, but not "in the here and now."

In his complaint, in which he demands a jury trial, O'Hara calls the deployment of military police "a waste of tax dollars, a needless display of force, and a surreal danger" that shouldn't be normalized. Likewise citing a 200-year-old tradition of civilian law enforcement, ACLU senior attorney Michael Perloff defended O'Hara's right to play "The Imperial March" as a "quintessential exercise of free speech." "The government doesn't get to decide if your protest is funny, and can’t punish you for making them the punchline," he said. "That’s really the whole point of the First Amendment." Or, paraphrasing Justice William Brennan on a free nation vs. police state, If you act like an autocrat when you're called an autocrat, you probably are one.

Many others are rising up and acting out in the belief that, argues Rev. Rachel Griffin-Allison, "Silence is not neutral. Silence in the face of harm always sides with the oppressor." The senior pastor of Oak Lawn United Methodist Church in Dallas, she and her congregation took to painting their church steps in rainbow colors after an inane order from Gov. Greg Abbott banning "all political ideologies from our streets," including existing rainbow crosswalks or other "political" pavement designs; he said he wanted to "keep roads safe and free from distraction" - a claim, under threat of cut funding, many called "highly questionable" and, given his law requiring the Ten Commandments in schools, deeply hypocritical. The reverend called it "political bullying."

"A rainbow is not a political statement," she said. "It’s a universal symbol of inclusion, hope, and pride in diversity (representing) a safe space for a community that’s been marginalized. The rainbow is for everyone." Undercutting Abbott's brazen fear-mongering, she noted the multi-hued crosswalks were funded by private donations and approved by the city, and their re-painting action was "not one of defiance, but of faith, a visible witness to the gospel we preach...When the forces of power try to erase symbols of inclusion, the Church has a choice - to retreat into comfort or to step forward in courage. We choose courage. This is not a political act; it’s a pastoral one. It says, 'The love of God meets you exactly as you are.'"

Many elsewhere are also fighting back with courage. In and around besieged Chicago, organizers have rallied groups of hundreds of volunteers to create 30,000 anti-ICE kits packed with warning whistles for ICE sightings, handouts about how and when to use them, and bilingual flyers detailing migrants' rights: "Immigrants keep us moving forward." Last week, when masked agents descended on a Chicago suburb - variously claiming they were looking for an escaped dog, gang member, sex offender - residents texted one another - “ICE IS HERE," "Fucking helicopters," "On our way" - before emerging to scream, film, tail and honk at them. "You don’t belong here,” one yelled. "Our neighbors, our community members, they do belong here.”

In California's diverse, liberal Bay Area, which just won a billionaire-bought reprieve from ICE invasion, officials and residents were organized and mobilized after months of Trump threats and his announcement troops were finally going there to bring down its record-low crime rate and "make it great." Good luck on that With Marvin Gaye blaring, pre-dawn protesters at Alameda's Coast Guard base blocked the entrance, bore signs urging "Protect Our Neighbors/ Protegemos Nuestros Vecinos," and faced off against about 100 agents already there who quickly fired flash-bang grenades, injuring several. Are we great yet? "In the Bay we're involved, and our kids know what's happening," said one father. "They’re going to see they’re not wanted here."

Officials were just as adamant. If ICE was loosed on them, state and city attorneys would be "in court within hours, if not minutes." Newsom, slamming voter suppression and "a direct assault on the rule of law,” vowed to sue "within nanoseconds"; he also added to his satirical, union-supplied Patriot Shop "KNEE PADS FOR ALL CEO’s, UNIVERSITIES, AND GOP BENDING THE KNEE TO DONALD TRUMP." Meanwhile, Steve Bannon's witless, flip-flopping "vehicle of divine providence" called off his "surge" after some tech oligarchs told him to - what, no Fox or Loomer or Goebbels? - and San Francisco's mayor "very nicely" asked him to. At immigration court the next day, Aztec dancers led a cleansing ritual and defiant protesters called for a general strike.

The crisis also sparked the return of a seminal voice as City Lights Books unfurled banners quoting co-founder, poet, veteran, pacifist and "philosophical anarchist" Lawrence Ferlinghetti's “Pity the Nation,” a 2007, George W-era lament against tyranny. Beginning in 1953 and over seven decades - he died age 101 in 2021 - Ferlinghetti nursed the hub of free speech and Beat poets, thinkers and dissenters that was City Lights; he also fiercely defended Allen Ginsberg's 1955 Howl - "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving, hysterical, naked" - in an obscenity trial that ended in a landmark victory for the First Amendment. Despite "the iron circumstances of the world," Ferlinghetti was always seeking "a renaissance of wonder," and he was not afraid. Be like him, and California, Chicago, D.C., all the rest.

Update: A federal judge in Portland, Oregon rejected Trump's request to lift her order blocking the deployment of goons there, at least for now. And a judge in D.C is still hearing arguments to remove over 2,000 troops from there.

From comedian  Bill Jubran: "Fox News wants you to be afraid." 185K views · 5.8K reactions | This is how Fox News indoctrinated a whole generation. | Bill Jubran www.facebook.com

PITY THE NATION

Pity the nation whose people are sheep
And whose shepherds mislead them

Pity the nation whose leaders are liars
Whose sages are silenced
And whose bigots haunt the airwaves

Pity the nation that raises not its voice
Except to praise conquerors
And acclaim the bully as hero
And aims to rule the world
By force and by torture

Pity the nation that knows
No other language but its own
And no other culture but its own

Pity the nation whose breath is money
And sleeps the sleep of the too well fed

Pity the nation oh pity the people
who allow their rights to erode
and their freedoms to be washed away

My country, tears of thee
Sweet land of liberty!

– Lawrence Ferlinghetti (after Lebanese American poet Kahlil Gibran)

SEE ALL
US-WEATHER-FIRE
News

As Planet Burns, US Banking Agencies Ditch Climate Risk Rules

Federal regulators have rescinded a set of guidelines for large banking institutions to consider the financial dangers of the climate crisis when making decisions about business strategy, risk management, and strategic planning.

On Thursday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Reserve Board announced that they would immediately withdraw their interagency Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions, a framework that required financial institutions with $100 billion or more in assets to consider climate risks.

The guidelines were first issued in 2023, which was, at the time, the hottest year on record. That year, the US experienced a record number of weather and climate-related disasters—including a massive drought across the south and Midwest, historic wildfires in Hawaii, and major flooding events across the country—that caused at least $92 billion worth of damage.

In October of that year, Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell said: "Banks need to understand, and appropriately manage, their material risks, including the financial risks of climate change."

The OCC, meanwhile, explained that "financial institutions are likely to be affected by both the physical risks and transition risks associated with climate change." This included both the risks to the safety of people and property "from acute, climate-related events, such as hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and heatwaves, and chronic shifts in climate," as well as changes due to "shifts in policy... that would be part of a transition to a lower carbon economy."

But these concerns have not carried over to the administration of President Donald Trump, who recently referred to climate change as a "con" and has sought to purge the federal government of any acknowledgement of the scientific consensus that it is being caused by human fossil fuel usage, which he has moved to aggressively expand.

In a joint release Thursday, the agencies said they "do not believe principles for managing climate-related financial risk are necessary because the agencies' existing safety and soundness standards require all supervised institutions to have effective risk management commensurate with their size, complexity, and activities," adding that "all supervised institutions are expected to consider and appropriately address all material financial risks and should be resilient to a range of risks, including emerging risks."

Elyse Schupak, policy advocate with Public Citizen's climate program, criticized the withdrawal of the guidelines, calling it "an irresponsible and politically motivated move in the wrong direction."

"The increase in the frequency and severity of climate disasters and the rapidly escalating property insurance crisis mean the agencies should be working harder to understand and mitigate climate-related financial risks faced by banks and the financial system—not backtracking," she said. "Effective bank regulation requires looking squarely at all risks to supervised institutions, including climate risks, and addressing them before they have destabilizing effects. This approach, rather than politics, should guide regulator action."

The move comes as the globe is reaching the point of no return for the climate crisis. Global temperatures have already soared to between 1.3°C and 1.4°C above preindustrial levels and are expected to pass the 1.5°C threshold within the next five years, at which point many of the worst effects will become unavoidable. These effects include more frequent heatwaves, sea level increases, more frequent severe storms, and aggressive droughts.

In addition to the human toll, these entail considerable financial damage. In December 2024, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that if the Earth continues to warm at current rates, the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) will be 4% lower than if temperatures had remained stable.

It predicted that sea level rise—projected 1 to 4 feet by the turn of the century—would cause anywhere from $250 billion to $930 billion worth of losses to property owners, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, and the federal government. Other untold costs, it said, would be borne as a result of heightened mortality from heat, declines in available food and water, increased rates of illness, and forced migration due to unlivable conditions.

Testifying before Congress earlier this year, Powell noted that banks and insurance companies have been pulling out of coastal areas at risk of flooding and places prone to wildfires due to the financial risk.

State Farm had recently canceled thousands of policies in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles shortly before it was hit with massive wildfires in January. He warned that as climate change worsens, financial institutions will deem it too risky to serve large portions of the country.

"If you fast forward 10 or 15 years," Powell said, "there will be regions of the country where you can't get a mortgage, there won't be ATMs, banks won't have branches, and things like that."

Schupak said: "For the Federal Reserve, capitulation to the politics of climate denial championed by the Trump administration is a threat to both its legitimacy and efficacy, which will be hard to repair."

"Powell has admitted that the Federal Reserve has done the 'bare minimum' on climate," she continued. "Now it will do even less, putting the banks it supervises and the broader financial system at risk."

SEE ALL
Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga
News

'Willing to Do What It Takes': UAW Volkswagen Workers in Chattanooga Call Strike Vote

Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who unionized with the United Auto Workers last year, announced Thursday that they will vote next week to authorize a strike after over 13 months of fruitless contract negotiations with the auto giant.

The strike authorization vote planned for October 28-29 "comes after months of unfair labor practices committed by the company, including bad faith negotiations, unlawful intimidation, and the unilateral cutting of jobs at Volkswagen’s only US assembly plant," UAW said in a statement. The union also highlighted Volkswagen's $20.6 billion in profits last year.

Company spokesperson Michael Lowder said Monday that "Volkswagen made it clear to the union that our last, best, and final offer is indeed final. We cannot in good faith prolong negotiations by continuing to bargain when we have already put our best offer on the table. It is time for the UAW to give VW employees a voice and let them decide for themselves by voting on our final offer."

However, multiple employees said Thursday that they are not happy with the company's latest offer and plan to vote for a strike.

"I'm voting yes because this is the time to show Volkswagen we are serious about receiving industry-standard treatment. Job security's essential. They could pay us $100 an hour, but it means nothing if they close the plant two weeks into the agreement," said James Robinson. "I'm hoping this process shows the company we are serious about getting a fair contract. We will show them their offer wasn't enough, show them we're willing to stand up to get what we deserve."

"I'm hoping this process shows the company we are serious about getting a fair contract."

Employee Taylor Fugate said that "I'm voting yes to get Volkswagen to come back to the table. The majority of the people I know don't want VW's 'final offer.' They want to keep negotiating, and we are willing to do what it takes to make that happen."

"We need affordable healthcare and a strong job security statement that leaves no gray area," Fugate added. "We also deserve equal standards—Southern autoworkers shouldn't be treated differently!"

One elected Republican held a press conference on Wednesday in a bid to bully the union into holding a vote on the company's latest offer. Local 3 News reported that Hamilton County Commissioner Jeff Eversole said: "Volkswagen put forward a final union contract offer over a month ago that offers significant gains for Chattanooga workers, including a 20% wage increase, a cost-of-living allowance, a $4,000 ratification bonus, lower healthcare costs, and much more. Many employees have been reaching out to the UAW to vote, and the UAW has refused."

Payday Report's Mike Elk pointed out Thursday that "the tactics used by the GOP in Chattanooga are similar to the tactics that they have used for more than a decade to sometimes successfully dissuade union votes by implying that the plant may close if the union gets 'too greedy' (their words, not my mine, as the son of a Volkswagen auto assembly line worker)."

Local 3 News noted that "during the press conference, dozens of members from both the UAW and the Chattanooga Area Central Labor Council, or CLC, began picketing outside of the VW plant."

The outlet also spoke with some employees. One of them, Dakotah Bailey, explained that "originally, it was going to be a 25% increase in wages. They didn't want to take that, and now they dropped it down to 20%. I wanted to try and get my money now. Especially right before the holidays. It would be great to have an extra $5,500 sitting in my bank account."

According to a "Volkswagen Stories" video series published by the UAW on YouTube, wages are a primary concern for workers. Other top priorities include health and safety conditions at the plant, healthcare, paid time off, and retirement benefits.

"I don't want to strike, but if it comes to it, I will," Volkswagen worker Mitchell Harris said Thursday. "Because I feel that all my brothers and sisters of UAW Local 42 deserve respect, to provide a better life for their families, and have job security for us and generations to come."

SEE ALL
Congressional Lawmakers Continue Work On Funding Bill After Government Shuts Down
News

Jeffries Gives Last-Minute ‘Passive-Aggressive’ Endorsement of Mamdani

After waiting exactly four months, the top US House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, finally endorsed his party's nominee, Zohran Mamdani, for mayor of his home city of New York on Friday.

The long-awaited endorsement from Jeffries (D-NY), the House minority leader whose district Mamdani carried by double digits during June's Democratic primary, came just a day before early voting was set to begin.

It follows months of criticism from progressives, who questioned why the Democratic leader was so hesitant to throw his weight behind one of the party's rising stars, who is predicted to romp his opponents, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (I) and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa (R), in next month's general election.

When the endorsement finally appeared in the New York Times on Friday, many noticed it was hardly ringing, instead seeming to talk around a direct statement of support for Mamdani.

"I deeply respect the will of the primary voters and the young people who have been inspired to participate in the electoral process," Jeffries' statement began. He then acknowledged that Mamdani, as well as the Democratic nominees for comptroller, Mark Levine, and public advocate, Jumanee Williams, "won their nominations... in a free and fair election."

"In that spirit," Jeffries said, "I support him and the entire citywide Democratic ticket in the general election."

Jeffries did credit Mamdani for his promises to focus on New York's "affordability crisis" and on "keeping every New Yorker safe." He also mentioned that this included "the Jewish community that has confronted a startling rise in antisemitic incidents.

This is a notable point to make about Mamdani who—despite his strong base of support among Jewish voters and leaders like Comptroller Brad Lander—has been smeared as an antisemite relentlessly by his opponents, and some other Democrats, over his criticisms of Israel.

However, Jeffries later emphasized that he and Mamdani had "areas of principled disagreement." Though he did not specify what they were in his endorsement, he said earlier this week that he had "privately communicated some of my concerns with respect to some of the views that he's expressed in terms of foreign policy."

Nevertheless, he said in his endorsement that "the stakes are existential" because of the abuses by President Donald Trump.

"In this environment, we have a clear obligation to push back against the national nightmare being visited on the American people by Republican extremism," Jeffries said. "Donald Trump must be given no space to haunt the people of New York City. I endorse the Democratic ticket."

The endorsement was not well-received by progressive commentators, who saw it as a cynical last-second triangulation.

"The backing of the national Democratic leader is valuable—but may have come too late to make any real difference," said New Republic writer Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling. "Jeffries... made the decision only after months of mounting pressure. And even in the hours preceding the announcement of his public support, Jeffries appeared uncertain as to whether he would ultimately back the Democratic socialist, a party he has spent years criticizing."

She noted that in a CNBC interview earlier on Friday, Jeffries endorsed Mamdani's affordability agenda but sidestepped supporting him, leading to a befuddling exchange with anchor Joe Kernen.

"You're easing in? A = B = C. That's what he stands for, therefore, you're endorsing Mamdani?" Kernen asked.

Jeffries said: "No, that's not what, that's not what I'm saying, that's not what I'm saying."

Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein wrote on X that the endorsement Jeffries eventually gave Mamdani "is the most passive-aggressive one I've ever seen."

Prem Thakker of Zeteo said it had "the enthusiasm of a pout and crossed arms" and "sounds more like a concession speech."

SEE ALL
US President Donald Trump speaks with Attorney General Pam Bondi
News

Majority of Americans Agree Trump Is Weaponizing DOJ to Target Political Enemies

As President Donald Trump's ex-adviser John Bolton, former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, and Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James fight the various charges against them, polling published Thursday shows a majority of American adults think the Republican leader is using US law enforcement "to go after his enemies."

Reuters/Ipsos asked 4,385 adults on October 15-20 whether Trump was abusing federal law enforcement in this way. Fifty-five percent of all respondents said yes, including 85% of Democrats, 29% of Republicans, and 55% of adults who identified as "other." Just 26% of all respondents said no. The other 19% said they didn't know or skipped the question.

The Not Above the Law coalition's co-chairs—Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Kelsey Herbert of MoveOn, Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, and Brett Edkins of Stand Up America—have forcefully spoken out against Trump's abuse of the US Department of Justice (DOJ). They responded to the survey results in a statement.

"The American people see exactly what's happening: Trump has corrupted the Department of Justice, turning it into his personal revenge machine," they said. "When 55% of Americans—including 3 in 10 Republicans—recognize that the president is abusing law enforcement to prosecute his enemies, it's clear this isn't a partisan issue anymore. It's a threat to the rule of law that transcends party lines."

"The pattern is undeniable: James Comey, Letitia James, John Bolton—all Trump critics charged after he publicly demanded their prosecution. DOJ has been co-opted to serve the president, not the public," the co-chairs continued.

Trump-appointed US Attorney General Pam Bondi, who leads the DOJ, and FBI Director Kash Patel, whose bureau is in the department, have both been accused of abusing their positions and politicizing their agencies for the president.

More than half of Americans, including about three in 10 Republicans, believe President Donald Trump is using federal law enforcement to go after his enemies, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.www.reuters.com/world/us/maj...

[image or embed]
— Brad Heath (@bradheath.bsky.social) October 23, 2025 at 10:17 AM

Comey pleaded not guilty earlier this month. His legal team is seeking the dismissal of charges stemming from his congressional testimony, arguing that the case is politically motivated and that Trump "defectively appointed" Lindsey Halligan, a former insurance lawyer, as interim US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

James—who successfully prosecuted Trump for financial crimes—pleaded not guilty to mortgage fraud charges Friday morning, a day after her attorneys told the same court that she is also seeking to have her case dismissed and challenging "the unlawful appointment" of Halligan.

After James' Friday arraignment, Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said: "Let's be clear: The Department of Justice is targeting Attorney General James because she dared to hold Trump accountable and won. Meanwhile, the Department turns a blind eye as Trump and his cronies cash in on the presidency, even when they're caught red-handed taking $50,000 in exchange for promised government contracts."

"Trump is acting like a wannabe dictator—trying to jail his political enemies, defying the courts, and deploying the military against his own people. That’s not leadership, it's tyranny," Harvey stressed. "This isn't just about one case or one prosecutor. The weaponization of the justice system is a threat to every American. If Trump is allowed to abuse the DOJ to punish his critics, then no one is safe."

Halligan is not handling Bolton's Espionage Act case in Maryland, which began under the Biden administration. While he has also pleaded not guilty, experts have pointed out that, as University of Alabama law professor and former US attorney Joyce Vance put it, "instead of the factually deficient indictments we're seen in the other cases, this is the sort of detailed indictment we are used to seeing in a serious matter."

Regardless of how those cases play out, the coalition co-chairs said that "this poll confirms what we've been warning about: Trump's abuse of power is eroding faith in federal institutions as neutral enforcers of the law and deepening the divisions tearing our country apart. Trump's actions threaten the freedom and safety of all Americans."

The poll also found that Americans are increasingly concerned about "US political division and conflict"—43%, up from 39% two years ago. Additionally, 61% of respondents believe ongoing redistricting efforts aimed at next year's midterm elections are bad for democracy, and the same percentage said it is no longer possible to draw political maps fairly.

In addition to the DOJ prosecuting Trump's political enemies and Republican state lawmakers gerrymandering in the middle of the decade to appease him, the president has designated antifa—an anti-fascist movement with no central organizational structure or leaders—as a domestic terrorist group and, relatedly, issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 7.

While dozens of congressional Democrats warned last week that "the sweeping language and broad authority in these directives pose serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech," Congressman Lance Gooden (R-Texas) urged the DOJ to investigate the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) for "close ties with left-wing extremists and domestic terrorist organizations like antifa."

Responding on Thursday, the group said that "we all know that this is not the first time the NLG has faced political attacks from the US government. Since our founding in 1937, NLG members have been at the frontlines of defending those who challenge fascism and have been the target of state repression. This is a history we are proud of... The NLG will continue to speak out in support of activists and movements most targeted by state repression."

SEE ALL
‘They’re Going to Be, Like, Dead’: Trump Says Land Strikes on Venezuela Are Next
News

‘They’re Going to Be, Like, Dead’: Trump Says Land Strikes on Venezuela Are Next

President Donald Trump set off alarms Thursday when he signaled his administration would soon escalate its military campaign in Latin America.

For the last seven weeks, the Trump administration has conducted military strikes against purported drug boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean that have killed at least 37 people so far.

Even though many legal experts and human rights advocates consider the attacks to be illegal acts of extrajudicial murder, Trump said during a law enforcement roundtable at the White House that he is going to soon expand the campaign to attack purported drug traffickers who are traveling by land as well.

As The New York Times noted, Trump said he's going to launch these strikes without seeking any authorization from the US Congress.

“I don’t think we’re going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war,” said Trump. “I think we are going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We are going to kill them, you know? They are going to be, like, dead.”

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, called Trump's comments a "blaring red warning signal for the rule of law."

The administration has claimed it is targeting boats to stop drug trafficking from Venezuela, despite the fact that the country is not a prominent source of either fentanyl or cocaine.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated on Wednesday that the US is going to approach its new War on Drugs in the same way it approached the War on Terror, the result of which was two failed military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

"Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores, will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere," Hegseth wrote in a Wednesday post on X. "Just as al-Qaeda waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people. There will be no refuge or forgiveness—only justice."

Dozens of elected officials throughout Latin America on Thursday released a letter denouncing the Trump administration's military aggression in their regions, and France 24 reported on the same day that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro warned Trump against launching a "crazy war" against his nation.

"Yes peace, yes peace forever, peace forever. No crazy war, please!" said Maduro in a meeting with unions. The president has accused the Trump administration of seeking regime change.

Some US politicians have also denounced Trump's military aggression in Latin America.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) described Trump's boat attacks as a "stain on our moral conscience" and urged other lawmakers to speak up.

"This is not a time for the opposition party to be silent," he said. "We must speak out for our moral values and to stand against a new regime change war."

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that Trump must seek permission from Congress before launching any military strikes in Latin America.

"Legally, he is required to come to Congress," Schiff wrote on X. "Though he may not get the answer he expects. Americans don't want another war."

Former Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), a longtime critic of US foreign interventionism, also said the president is required to go through Congress before taking any military action.

"The Constitution doesn’t permit a president to act as the legislature and judiciary on top of being the chief executive," he wrote. "If it’s war, he must go to Congress. If it’s crime, he must go to court. When there’s no imminent danger, there’s no justification for unilateral strikes."

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) slammed the administration for trying to employ tactics that failed in the War on Terror to a fight that it claims is targeting narcotics trafficking.

"Now the Trump administration is talking about 'regime change' in Venezuela," he wrote. "When has that ever worked for us—in Cuba, Afghanistan, or anywhere else? This isn’t making us safer. It's having the opposite effect."

SEE ALL