SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Hope glimmers. After an election that saw "democrats in array" rising up to thunderously repudiate anything connected with a doddering tyrant - "Apparently Americans liked the East Wing more than anyone thought" - the final small sweet revenge was a jury acquitting D.C.'s valiant Sandwich Guy for the crime of making it pellucidly clear, with mustard, he doesn't want stormtroopers in his town. One sage: "The only way this week could've been better for America was if Dick Cheney died again."
On Tuesday, voters came out in sometimes record numbers - New York saw its highest turnout in over 50 years - to reject MAGA cruelty, inequity and greed, and win "just everything." New Jersey and Virginia saw double-digit wins for women governors - a veteran and former CIA officer - reflecting a failure of anti-trans bigotry and resurgence of Democrats' big tent. There were comparable wins from Connecticut and Pennsylvania to Mississippi and Georgia. Maine overwhelmingly rejected an effort to restrict mail-in voting, Colorado willingly raised taxes on the rich to fund school lunches, California's re-districting Prop. 50 passed by an almost 2 to 1 margin; Newsom showed how to fight Trump - "After poking the bear, this bear roared” - and urged other states to also "meet this moment head-on."
Most thrillingly, New York's Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani evinced "the way to win is to include everyone. All everyone," and he did in an off-off year yet. One analyst: "Republicans raved every Democrat was Zohran Mamdani, and Americans said, 'Sign me up.'" In Mamdani's electrifying speech - Eugene Debs! - to an exultant crowd, he rebuffed a politics that has "bowed at the altar of caution (and) paid a mighty price...Too many working people cannot recognize themselves in our party." "We chose hope together," he said. "We won because we insisted that no longer would politics be something that is done to us. Now, it is something that we do...New York will (be) a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants and, as of tonight, led by an immigrant." To Trump: "To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us."
He and his vassals will also have to exit the alternative reality bubble - and immense cognitive dissonance - revealed this week in Miami, where Trump spoke at an opulent America Business Forum to billionaires from Saudi Arabia to Silicon Valley. As Republicans lost every election in sight, the government shutdown became the longest in history, and 42 million people, including 3 million in Florida, faced hunger, the assembled tycoons paid $2,000 - but got a $50 gift card for food - to hear a vengeful old man babble, ramble, boast, confuse "Communist" South Africa with South America, and nonetheless gloat about the "economic miracle" he'd delivered to usher in a reeling America's "golden age." Like the tawdry Great Gatsby party he held, "They just can’t seem to stop doing things shockingly out of touch."
Meanwhile, per the advice of his ghoulish mentor Roy Cohn, Trump is using the courts as a "personal cudgel" against his perceived enemies. Along with terrorizing blue cities, prosecutors have gone after over 20 anti-ICE protesters, often with "impeding" charges. In Chicago, prosecutors charged primary candidate Kat Abughazaleh with "conspiracy" after roughing her up at a protest. In L.A., a goon shot Carlos Jimenez, absurdly claiming self-defense, after he tried to warn marauding troops that kids were coming out of a school. In Chicago, head Nazi Greg Bovino, who's told ICE thugs to arrest anyone who makes "hyperbolic" comments, charged a protester with giving him a groin injury purportedly requiring a two-week leave to recover; prosecutors just dropped the case after video, shockingly, showed they lied.
And so it goes. Mostly, the fascists, being inept, lose. (GOP) Judge Karin Immergut just permanently blocked Trump from inflicting "all necessary troops" on "war-ravaged" Portland OR after finding "no credible evidence" there was need for them and insisting "the facts - not the President’s political whims - guide how the law is applied." Ouch. Still, the most failures have been earned by laughably unqualified US Attorney Jeanine “Boxwine” Pirro, who keeps trying and failing to get grand juries - seven at this point - to indict the proverbial ham sandwich. Her latest and most public effort to "turn a gag-gift-worthy moment into a federal criminal offense" was the case of folk hero, Air Force veteran and former DOJ attorney Sean Dunn, 37, who "brought a sandwich to a fascism fight" - specifically, a salami sub - and won.
In the infamous case of "the hoagie heard around the world," Dunn, in a pink shirt and holding a just-bought, now-historic sub, confronted troops skulking on a downtown DC corner, reportedly about to raid a gay club there. He yelled they were fascists who should get out of his town; then he got in the face of 23-year-veteran Border Patrol agent Gregory Lairmore, yelled some more, hurled his sub at Lairmore's bullet-proof-vested chest, and took off running. Thugs gave chase, caught and handcuffed him, and released him without charges. But for the "retaliatory animus" of the thin-skinned toddler in power, it would've ended there. Instead, video of the encounter went viral, the toddler got pissed, and a SWAT team went to Dunn's apartment, complete with pulpy heavy-metal video of the action, to arrest him.
Insisting on the preposterous narrative Dunn was pretty much the Zodiac killer and not a guy who threw some bread, Pirro theatrically announced felony assault charges against him: "This guy thought it was funny. Well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today." An equally off-the-wall Pam Bondi chimed in, raving about "assault on a law enforcement officer" and claiming Dunn was "an example of the Deep State" (who worked at the DOJ). Pirro tried to get a grand jury to indict him; they (hilariously) declined, but she finally got a misdemeanor charge to stick. And so to the federal jury trial starting Tuesday - in rare poetic justice, the day after National Sandwich Day - to protect our brave troops from food fights and send the dubious message to a restive populace: "Mess with this government, and it will mess with you."
Presiding over what he called "the simplest case in the world" was US District Judge Carl Nichols. And it should have been, especially since the perp, at the scene of the crime, had already confessed, boldly proclaiming, "I did it. I threw a sandwich." Still, it took two days and much bickering as the jury of 12 of Sandwich Guy's peers struggled to remain straight-faced during what one observer called "a strange sort of performance art," both amusing and menacing. The opening statements clearly laid out both sides' differences. Defense: "He did it. He threw the sandwich." Also, so what: See First Amendment." The government: "No matter who you are, you can’t just go around throwing stuff at people if you’re mad.” Also poor traumatized Officer Lairmore, who was just protecting the public, from sandwiches.
There was squabbling over words in a charge that cites "forcibly opposing, impeding or interfering" with federal agents on duty. What's "forcibly"? Defense: A sandwich doesn't constitute force any more than "an eight-year-old throwing a stuffed animal in the middle of a temper tantrum." Prosecution, leaning hard into bellicose language: "Here we have the defendant throwing - it’s a sandwich, but throwing it hard...at point-blank range...He takes the sandwich, he cocks it back." There's the "impact" through the vest. Also, it's not just a sandwich; there was "screaming," "cussing," "attempting to instigate." (The judge reminds the jury speech isn't assault). And, like an IED in Fallujah, prosecutors note the victim's harrowing testimony the sandwich "kind of exploded. I could smell the onions and mustard." The horror! The horror!
Meanwhile, Sandwich Guy sits in the cafeteria on lunch break, eating soup. A friend's GoFundMe for him - "Help support the Sandwich Guy" - notes his ten years of service in Afghanistan, the Forest Service, the DOJ: "He is proud of his career serving the people of the United States." Back in the courtroom, defense attorney Sabrina Shroff shreds Lairmore's claim the sandwich "exploded" with video showing said sandwich still wrapped on the sidewalk. "Do you recognize that sandwich?" she asks. Lairmore waffles. Shroff: "You don’t see there’s mustard on it?” Lairmore wilts. No. “You can’t tell there’s ketchup on it?” No. "Mayonnaise? Lettuce? Tomato? No. "In fact, the sandwich hasn’t exploded at all has it?" Lairmore, helpfully, "It looks like a little bit is coming out towards the bottom."
Shroff also cited two "gag gifts" Lairmore said, sheepishly smiling, he got from co-workers: A plush sandwich he put on his shelf at work and a cartoon patch of Dunn throwing the sandwich, with the words “Felony Footlong,” he put on his lunchbox. So much for trauma, she suggested. Her closing argument was fiery. "This case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is about a sandwich," she declared. "A sandwich that, according to agent Lairmore, somehow both exploded on his chest in a spray of onions and mustard, but also landed intact on the ground still in its Subway wrapping." Most vitally, she argued, a sandwich cannot be a weapon worthy of federal charges, especially facing off against a bulletproof vest. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo glumly dissented: "We’re not just talking about a sandwich."
Social media lapped up the coverage. They “relished” the testimony, they argued it “didn’t pass mustard,” they called Lairmore’s claim “baloney.” They summoned “12 Hungry Men.” Asked, “Do you see the sandwich seated in the courtroom today?” Argued, “If the sub doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Snarled, “Say hello to my foot-long friend.” Asked, “Show us on this doll where the sandwich touched you.” Mused, ”Not all gyros wear capes." Insisted, ”I did not have a relationship with that sandwich.“ Proclaimed, "Liberte! Egalite! Panini!" When the verdict came Thursday - with every juror voting for acquittal - they celebrated Sandwich Guy ”beat the wrap,“ "justice, like a good sandwich, was served,“ and, like them, an anti-fascist jury looked at the video, decided what mattered, and essentially said ”what sandwich?“
Outside the courthouse after the verdict, Shroff thanked jurors for their "affirmation" that dissent is "not just tolerated." "It is legal," she declared, "and it is welcome." Sandwich Guy also thanked the jurors, as well as "family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it was emotional or spiritual or artistic or financial." "I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything," he said. "That night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants...Let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says ‘E pluribus unum.’ That means ‘from many, one.’ Every life matters no matter where you came from. No matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free." A nation salutes you. Warren Zevon would have too: "Enjoy every sandwich."In the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil, more than 230 climate and health organizations, activists, policymakers, artists, and experts have signed an open letter urging world leaders to prioritize health as they discuss how to address the climate emergency.
The letter, "Put Health at the Heart of Climate Action," was publicized on Tuesday. It urges leaders not only to center health but to "raise ambition" in crafting policy to respond to the health harms caused by the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent heating of the atmosphere.
"Health is not a secondary benefit of climate policy—it is the foundation of resilience, prosperity, and justice. Yet health remains marginal in most climate negotiations, treated as an outcome rather than a driver," the letter reads. "At COP30, this must change."
The letter—backed by major public health groups like Médecins Sans Frontières and the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments; green organizations like Amazon Watch, Greenpeace UK, and several Fridays for Future branches; prominent climate activists like Vanessa Nakate; and environmentally minded artists like director Adam McKay—urges five central actions for governments attending COP30 to take:
“The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue. It is a health and human rights emergency," said Marta Schaaf, director of the Program on Climate, Economic, and Social Justice, and Corporate Accountability for Amnesty International, which signed the letter. "Governments need to take decisive action to fully phase out fossil fuels, to save lives, build resilient communities, and uphold people's right to a healthy environment.”
In particular, the letter writers emphasized the health importance of rapidly phasing out fossil fuels. In addition to being the root cause of all climate-caused health impacts—from deaths, illness, and injury due to more frequent and severe heatwaves and wildfires to waterborne diseases spread by flooding—the burning of oil, gas, and coal also leads to 8 million early air pollution deaths every year and sickens communities living near wells and mines.
"These are not abstract numbers but real people—families struggling to breathe, children developing lifelong conditions, health workers pushed to [the] breaking point," the letter writers said.
The open letter acknowledges the Belém Health Action Plan, which is designed to help the health sector adapt to the climate emergency. However, it argues that COP30 could go further by recognizing and acting upon "the role of fossil fuels in driving the climate crisis and impacting human health."
“Promoting resilient health systems is a central objective of the COP30 Action Agenda," said COP30 Special Envoy for Health Ethel Maciel. "Efforts like this open letter are helping build a broad coalition to drive implementation of the Belém Health Action Plan and its shared goals. I am pleased to add my name as the COP30 health envoy and to see a wide range of partners doing the same as we move closer to the 30th Conference of the Parties in Belém. This letter sends an unequivocal message that health is an essential component of climate action.”
The letter was instigated by Think-Film Impact Production, which has launched a Healthy Planet Now campaign linked to the upcoming documentary My Planet Now, produced by Sandpaper Films and codirected by Jenny Saunders and Henry Singer.
“Every signature on this letter represents a shared story of human resilience and hope," said Amy Shepherd, the chief operating officer of Think-Film Impact Production. "It is essential that policy leaders champion films like My Planet Now, which translate the urgency of the climate and health crisis into emotion and movement—because only when people feel the story will they fight to change its ending.”
It isn't only Think-Film Impact Production and the letter signers who are raising the alarm about the health dangers of the climate crisis. The letter's announcement comes one week after The Lancet published its annual "Countdown on Health and Climate Change."
The 128-authored paper reached several alarming conclusions, including:
"With the threats to people's lives and health growing, delivering a health-protective, equitable, and just transition requires all hands on deck. There is no time left for further delay," The Lancet authors wrote at the end of their executive summary.
The Healthy Planet Now letter also concludes with a call to action: "At COP30, governments must treat climate change not only as a planetary emergency but as a direct public health crisis and opportunity. By putting health first, leaders can design climate policies that protect lives, reduce inequalities, and rebuild trust in international cooperation."
"The health of billions—and the future of generations to come—depends on it," it says.
The US labor market, which in recent months had ground nearly to a halt, now appears to be entering a downward spiral.
As reported by the Washington Post on Thursday, new data from corporate outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that employers in October announced 153,000 job cuts, which marked the highest number of layoffs in that month since October 2003.
Total announced job cuts in 2025 have now reached 1.1 million, a number that the Post describes as a "recession-like" level comparable to the steep job cuts announced in the wake of the dotcom bust of the early 2000s, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
John Challenger, the CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, told the Post that the huge number of October layoffs showed the economy was entering "new territory."
"We haven’t seen mega-layoffs of the size that are being discussed now—48,000 from UPS, potentially 30,000 from Amazon—since 2020 and before that, since the recession of 2009," he explained. "When you see companies making cuts of this size, it does signal a real shift in direction."
CNBC noted that the Challenger report found that the tech sector is currently being hardest hit by the layoffs, and it said that the adoption of artificial intelligence was a significant driver of job cuts.
"Some industries are correcting after the hiring boom of the pandemic, but this comes as AI adoption, softening consumer and corporate spending, and rising costs drive belt-tightening and hiring freezes," the report said. "Those laid off now are finding it harder to quickly secure new roles, which could further loosen the labor market."
With the backing of Big Tech investors, President Donald Trump has pushed to prevent states from regulating AI, over the objections of labor groups and progressive lawmakers. Last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned that without strong regulation, tech billionaires' investments in AI will likely "increase their wealth and power exponentially" while wiping out "tens of millions" of jobs.
According to Bloomberg, however, AI adoption is just one factor in companies' decision to enact mass layoffs, as some firms have also cited the need to protect their profit margins from the impacts of President Donald Trump's tariffs, which have raised prices for a wide variety of products and materials.
Democratic lawmakers were quick to seize on the news of mass layoffs as evidence that Trump is sending the US economy into a ditch.
"Trump put billionaires in charge of everything," remarked Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) in a social media post. "It’s a disaster."
"Trump inherited the fastest growing economy in the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], fastest reduction in inflation, record job creation," said Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). "Dumb tariffs, racist immigration policies, attacks on the rule of law and termination of congressionally mandated programs did this."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), meanwhile, simply wrote that "Trump’s economy suuuuucks."
Sen. Angus King, one of the senators who broke with the majority of the Democratic caucus to support a deal to end the federal government shutdown, drew swift anger when defending his vote on Monday morning.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," King (I-Maine) tried to make the case that shutting down the government had only given President Donald Trump a free hand to consolidate power in the White House.
"In terms of standing up to Donald Trump, the shutdown actually gave him more power, Exhibit A being what he's done with [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]," he said. "So, standing up to Donald Trump didn't work, it actually gave him more power."
Sen. Angus King: "Standing up to Donald Trump didn't work" pic.twitter.com/Y751B5SajR
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2025
Senate Democrats who supported the deal have been denounced by progressives, and even some moderates, for agreeing to fund the federal government without securing an extension for enhanced tax credits for people who buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges. The tax credits have been at the center of the shutdown—the longest in US history—but the Democrats who voted with the GOP did so after securing only the Republicans' claim that they'll hold a vote on healthcare in the future.
Polls have shown a majority of voters have blamed the Republican Party for the shutdown, and a plurality of respondents to a KFF survey last week said Democrats should hold firm in their demand on healthcare subsidies. Trump said last week that the election results put more pressure on the GOP—not the Democrats—to take action to end the shutdown.
Additionally, the decision to cave on the shutdown came less than a week after Democrats won sweeping victories in key elections where candidates unapologetically stood up to Trump and vowed to fight his administration's unpopular policies.
Given this, King's statement that "standing up to Donald Trump didn't work" was met by swift and immediate blowback.
"Bold choice going with a strategy of 'we are losers,'" wrote Matt Gertz, senior fellow at Media Matters for America, in a post on X.
"Breaking Points" host Krystal Ball reacted with angry profanity to King's statement.
"Jesus fucking Christ," she fumed. "Resign. Genuinely just fucking resign."
Photographer Brett Banditelli accused King and his likeminded Democratic senators who supported the deal of "living in another reality."
"They're just DC brained," he wrote on Bluesky. "They live in a world where Politico and Punchbowl News are the most important publications."
Indivisible cofounder Leah Greenberg sarcastically imagined Democrats incorporating such "inspiring messaging" about failing to stand up to Trump into fundraising appeals.
Fordham University economist Tony Annett marveled at King's belief that it was ineffective to stand up to a president with historically low approval ratings, which stood at just over 41% last month according to one poll.
"No wonder their brand is in the toilet," he said of the Democratic Party.
A Pew Research poll released in late October found that two-thirds of Democratic voters said they were "frustrated" by the party, with the top listed reason being that Democrats have "not pushed back hard enough against the Trump administration."
Sean Dunn, the former US Department of Justice employee who was famously hurled a sandwich at Customs and Border Protection officers this past summer, has been found not guilty on misdemeanor assault charges.
Jurors acquitted Dunn on Thursday after deliberating for several hours after his trial ended on Wednesday afternoon. According to CNN, Dunn told reporters after the verdict that he was "relieved and looking forward to moving on with my life."
US Attorney Jeanine Pirro had originally tried to charge Dunn with felony assault, but lowered the charge to a misdemeanor offense after a grand jury in Washington, DC refused to indict him.
Dunn was caught on camera angrily throwing a sandwich at federal immigration enforcement officers back in August, and he could be heard calling the officers “fascists,” and telling them they were not welcome in his city.
Shortly afterward, Pirro vowed to throw the proverbial book at Dunn for his food-tossing transgression.
“He thought it was funny,” Pirro said in a video she posted on social media. “Well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today because we charged him with a felony. And we’re gonna back the police to the hilt! So, there. Stick your Subway sandwich somewhere else.”
Dunn's case became a cause célèbre for many Washington, DC residents who have opposed President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard and to conduct aggressive immigration raids in their city.
Many journalists reacted to news of Dunn's acquittal by deploying a number of sandwich-related puns.
"Apparently you can indict a ham sandwich but you can’t convict turkey sub," joked tech journalist Kara Swisher in a post on Bluesky.
"You could say he... beat the wrap," wrote Los Angeles-based independent journalist Mel Buer.
"If the hoagie didn't hit, you must acquit!" wrote The Bulwark's Sam Stein on X.
"No assault with a deli weapon after all," remarked Wall Street Journal reporter Josh Dawsey.
"Congratulations, US Attorney Pirro, for making Sean Dunn the hero that DC deserves," wrote journalist Marcy Wheeler.
"Another jury finds another Trump DOJ case sub-par," wrote Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief of All Rise News.
The International Criminal Court said it is collecting and preserving evidence of war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region following a massacre committed by a militia group and amid reports of widespread starvation.
In a statement published Monday, the ICC—the international body charged with prosecuting crimes against humanity—expressed "profound alarm and deepest concern over recent reports emerging from El-Fasher about mass killings, rapes, and other crimes" allegedly committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which breached the city last week.
According to the Sudan Doctors Network (SDN), a medical organization monitoring the country's brutal civil war, the militants slaughtered more than 1,500 people in just three days after capturing El-Fasher, among them more than 460 people who were systematically shot at the city's Saudi Maternity Hospital.
The ICC said that "such acts, if substantiated, may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute," the court's founding treaty, which lays out the definitions for acts including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The court said it was "taking immediate steps regarding the alleged crimes in El-Fasher to preserve and collect relevant evidence for its use in future prosecutions."
The announcement comes shortly following a new report from the UN-affiliated Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the world's leading authority on hunger crises, which found that famine has been detected in El-Fasher and the town of Kadugli in Sudan's South Kordofan province. Twenty other localities in the two provinces—which have seen some of the civil war's worst fighting—are also in danger of famine, according to the report.
The two areas have suffered under siege from the RSF paramilitary, which has cut off access to food, water, and medical care. The IPC says it has led to the "total collapse of livelihoods, starvation, extremely high levels of malnutrition and death."
According to the UN's migration authority, nearly 37,000 people have been forced to flee cities across North Kordofan between October 26 and 31. They joined more than 650,000 displaced people who were already taking refuge in North Darfur's city of Tawila.
Sudan's civil war, which began in 2023, has created the world's largest humanitarian crisis, with potentially as many as 150,000 people killed since it began. Over 12 million people have been displaced, and 30.4 million people, over half of Sudan’s total population, are in need of humanitarian support.
The recent escalation of the crisis has led to heightened global scrutiny of RSF's chief financier, the United Arab Emirates. In recent days, US politicians and activists have called for the Trump administration to halt military assistance to the Gulf state, which it sold $1.4 billion in military aircraft in May.
On Tuesday, Emirati diplomats admitted for the first time that they "made a mistake" supporting the RSF as it attempted to undermine Sudan's transitional democratic government, which took power in 2019 after over three decades of rule by the Islamist-aligned dictator Omar al-Bashir. Those efforts culminated in a military coup in 2021 and an eventual power struggle for control over the country.
However, as Sudanese journalist Nesrine Malik wrote in The Guardian on Monday, the UAE "continues to deny its role, despite overwhelming evidence."
"The UAE secures a foothold in a large, strategic, resource-rich country, and already receives the majority of gold mined in RSF-controlled areas," Malik wrote. "Other actors have been drawn in, overlaying proxy agendas on a domestic conflict. The result is deadlock, quagmire, and blood loss that seems impossible to stem, even as the crisis unravels in full view."
"Sudan’s war is described as forgotten, but in reality it is tolerated and relegated," she continued. "Because to reckon with the horror in Sudan... is to see the growing imperialist role of some Gulf powers in Africa and beyond—and to acknowledge the fact that no meaningful pressure is applied to these powers, including the UAE, to cease and desist from supporting a genocidal militia because the UK, US, and others are close allies with these states."
In a letter to the British public broadcaster, Trump cited a memo from a Conservative Party-linked former BBC adviser who claimed the network displayed an "anti-Israel" bias, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
The BBC in the United Kingdom is the latest target of US President Donald Trump's attempts to root out all unflattering portrayals of him from media coverage, with the president citing a memo penned by a former BBC adviser reported to have ties to the British Conservative Party.
Trump wrote to the BBC Monday, warning that he would file a lawsuit demanding $1 billion in damages unless the publicly funded broadcaster retracts a documentary film about him from last year, issues a formal apology, and pays him an amount that would “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”
The president gave the network until Friday to act in regard to Trump's complaint about a section of the film Trump: A Second Chance? by the long-running current affairs series Panorama.
The film was broadcast days before the 2024 US election, and included excerpts from the speech Trump gave to his supporters on January 6, 2021 just before thousands of them proceeded to the US Capitol to try to stop the election results from being certified.
It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech that were made about 50 minutes apart, making it appear that Trump urged supporters to march with him to the Capitol and called for violence.
"We’re going to walk down to the Capitol... and I’ll be there with you... and we fight. We fight like hell," Trump is shown saying in the edited footage.
In the unedited quote, Trump said, "We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
BBC chairman Samir Shah said the network's standards committee had discussed the editing of the clips earlier this year and had expressed concerns to the Panorama team. The film is no longer available online at the BBC's website.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity. It’s a power play... It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
“We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action," said Shah. "The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment.”
Two top executives, director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, also resigned on Sunday under pressure over the documentary.
The uproar comes days after the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by former BBC standards committee adviser Michael Prescott, "managing director at PR agency Hanover Communications, whose staff have gone on to work for the Conservative Party," according to Novara Media.
Prescott's memo took aim at the documentary as well as what he claimed was a pro-transgender bias in BBC news coverage and an anti-Israel bias in stories by the BBC's Arabic service.
According to the Guardian, Robbie Gibb, a member of the BBC board who previously worked as a communications official for former Tory Prime Minister Theresa May, "amplified" the criticisms in Prescott's memo in key board meetings ahead of Davie's and Turness' resignations.
Deadline reported Monday that "insiders" at the BBC have alleged that Prescott's memo, the resignations, and Trump's threat of legal action all stem from a right-wing "coup" attempt at the broadcaster.
Journalists including Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo News and Mikey Smith of The Mirror noted that while Panorama's editing of Trump's speech could be seen as misleading, the documentary wasn't responsible for accusations that the president incited violence on January 6, which pre-dated the film.
"To understand how insane it is that the BBC is being accused of ‘making it look like’ Trump was inciting violence with their bad edit, as opposed to Trump actually having incited violence, we know even his own kids that day were desperately trying to get him to call off the mob," said Hasan.
Others suggested the memo cited in Trump's letter to the broadcaster should be discredited entirely for its claim that the BBC has exhibited an anti-Israel bias—an allegation, said author and international relations professor Norrie MacQueen, that amounted to "an entirely new level" of George Orwell's "newspeak."
While the BBC "has been shaken by one of the smallest of its sins," wrote media analyst Faisal Hanif at Middle East Eye, "the greater one—its distortion of Palestinian reality—goes unpunished."
Hanif pointed to a report published in June by the Center for Media Monitoring, which showed that despite Gaza suffering 34 times more casualties than Israel since October 2023, the BBC "gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanizing victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs. 201 Israelis)."
The network also used "emotive terms four times more for Israeli victims" and shut down allegations that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, as well as "making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements," even as Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
"The furor over the Trump documentary is not about journalistic integrity," wrote Hanif. "It’s a power play: the disciplining of a public broadcaster that still, nominally, answers to the public rather than the billionaire-owned media. It’s a war over words, where the vocabulary of journalism itself is weaponized."
"The BBC is punished for the wrong things. It loses its leaders over an editing error, while escaping accountability for its editorial failures on Gaza," Hanif continued. "The Trump documentary might have been misedited, but the story of Gaza has been mistold for far longer. If the BBC still believes in its own motto—'Nation shall speak peace unto nation'—then peace must begin with honesty."
At least 76 people have been killed in 19 US attacks on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since early September.
Six people were killed Sunday in US military strikes on what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed were boats smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean, bringing the total death toll from all such reported attacks to at least 76 since early September.
"Yesterday, at the direction of President [Donald] Trump, two lethal kinetic strikes were conducted on two vessels operated by designated terrorist organizations. These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and were transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route in the eastern Pacific," Hegseth said Monday on social media without providing evidence to support his claim.
"Both strikes were conducted in international waters and three male narco-terrorists were aboard each vessel. All six were killed," he added. "No US forces were harmed. Under President Trump, we are protecting the homeland and killing these cartel terrorists who wish to harm our country and its people."
Sunday's attacks raised the death toll in the Trump administration's nine-week campaign to at least 76 people in 19 attacks in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. The US strikes have come amid Trump's deployment of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela and follow the president's approval of covert CIA action and threats to attack inside the oil-rich country.
Last week, Republicans in the US Senate rejected a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at stopping the Trump administration from continuing its bombing of alleged drug boats or attacking Venezuela without lawmakers’ assent, as required by law.
Trump administration officials have admitted that they aren't attempting to identify people aboard boats before or after bombing them. Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) recently told CNN that Pentagon officials briefed her “that they do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes."
Jacobs also said that the administration is not making any effort to imprison survivors of the strikes or prosecute them, “because they could not satisfy the evidentiary burden.”
In the past, drug trafficking in the Caribbean and Pacific has been treated by the US government as a law enforcement issue, with the Coast Guard and other agencies sometimes intercepting boats and arresting those on board if evidence was found, granting them a day in court.
Leaders in Venezuela, Colombia, and other nations; United Nations officials; human rights groups; and Democratic US lawmakers are among those who have condemned the boat bombings as extrajudicial assassination, murder, and war crimes.
While some residents of the Venezuelan villages from which the targeted boats departed have said that many of the men killed in the strikes were running drugs, regional officials and relatives of victims have asserted that numerous men slain in the attacks were not narco-traffickers.
According to an MSNBC investigation published last week, the identities of up to 50 strike victims remain publicly unknown. In a rare display of congressional bipartisanship, Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Mike Turner (R-Ohio), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), and Jason Crow (D-Col.) last week sent a letter to Trump seeking clarification on the administration's legal reasoning for the strikes and asking, "What evidence confirms that those killed were cartel operatives, rather than coerced, deceived, or trafficked civilians?"
"We strongly support the effort to reduce the flow of narcotics into this country," the lawmakers wrote. "This effort, like every action the United States military takes, must be done within the legal, moral, and ethical framework that sets us apart from our adversaries."
"We don’t need more corporate Democrats in the Senate. We need Peggy Flanagan, who’ll fight for working people."
Calling for more Democratic lawmakers who have “the guts to stand up for working people," Sen. Bernie Sanders weighed in on another US Senate primary on Monday, hours after a handful of Democrats agreed to reopen the federal government without Republican concessions on healthcare.
Sanders (I-Vt.), who earlier this year announced his support for Democratic Senate candidates Graham Platner in Maine and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, has now formally endorsed Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan's candidacy for the US Senate.
In his endorsement, Sanders said that the Senate needs lawmakers who will stand up "against the billionaires and the corporate interests," and argued that Flanagan understands the needs of working-class people personally due in part to her own blue-collar background.
"Peggy knows what it is to struggle," he said. "She was raised by a hard-working single mother who needed [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] to help put food on the table and Medicaid for healthcare. And she’s dedicated her career to fighting for working families."
Sanders also hailed Flanagan's accomplishments as both lieutenant governor and Minnesota state legislator, and he said she would work to fight for progressive priorities on a national level.
"Peggy fought to raise the minimum wage and she got it done," he said. "She fought for paid family leave and she got it done. We need fighters who are from the working class and for the working class here in the Senate. Peggy will fight for Medicare for All, to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, and to address the crises we face in childcare, education, and housing."
Sanders concluded his endorsement by arguing that "we don’t need more corporate Democrats in the Senate. We need Peggy Flanagan, who’ll fight for working people."
Progressive political consultant Rebecca Katz hailed Sanders' endorsements of Flanagan, Platner, and El-Sayed, whom she described on X as "three good candidates who understand the stakes and know how to fight back."
Flanagan is running to replace retiring Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who has been serving in the Senate ever since former Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) resigned in 2018. Flanagan will be facing off against Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn), a centrist Democrat who has several endorsements from the Democratic establishment, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
According to Minnesota Reformer, Flanagan has also scored endorsements from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who both stumped for her at the Minnesota State Fair this past summer.