
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.
Atop all the others inflicted on us came last week's sickening spectacle of two vengeful, lying, broken old men - one a longtime killer of children, one a petty useful idiot abetting him - alternately celebrating and threatening genocide before "we the peoples of the United Nations." Born of "the defiance of hope" to enable us to "live together in peace," the forum now hosts the perpetrators of unspeakable atrocities. Omar El Akkad: "One day everyone will have always been against this."
Even before war criminals spoke at the U.N., everyone was already against everything Trump's done, from his insane, drone-packed arch to the other $1.8 billion vanity projects to his latest tantrum over the media. Despite multiple court rulings against it, an ensuing press ban is still partly, messily in place, with CNN, MS NOW and Politico facing dubious access, other major media finally finding their spine and solidarity, and the havoc offering us the droll sight of a needy guy who never met a camera he didn’t like in a farcical silent movie, a “shrinking figure gesticulating wildly into the wind.” Ever the attention whore, he tried to compensate with weird, illegal PR stunts: Claiming an entire hemisphere, boasting, "Only Trump" and an ad pleading "Love Me" on the taxpayer dime in "an astonishing misuse of public resources more fitting for North Korea."
The final own goal of his attack on the press, teased by a frantic promo, was the launch of Trump TV: The Essentials Station, the White House YouTube channel recast as a 24/7 livestream of Trump's "greatest hits." Cue a July rant at Mt. Rushmore about "the communist menace," last year's speech at dinner with King Charles, a 2016 whine in Kentucky about the wet stairs he overcame. YouTube's real-time data let the "king of ratings" see it quickly crash and burn, from a paltry 8,000 viewers to half that to 1,000 to 704 (LOL) as J.D. announced stripping health care from 760,000 people - way below the 2,000-plus then watching birds snack on seeds and nuts. Many relished the flop - "Fascism is awesome!" - or suggested new slots: "Wake Up & Rage Tweet, Ketchup-Throwing, They’re Eating our Pets, The Great MAGA Crypto Scam, Wheel of Pardons" and, from 2:01 to 2:02 a.m., “Covfefe.”
Then came a clumsy, swooning welcome - "the deference was deafening" - for his strongman soulmate Chinese President Xi Jinping, the world's biggest jailer of journalists and never mind the "communist menace," with its empty pomp, cartoonish tour of a hole-in-the-ground ballroom and million-year helipad: "He has a great interest in granite." Accomplished: nada. The next day, with his approval rating "somewhere between Ebola and Ed Sheeran," he waddled into the 81st session of the UN General Assembly and threatened one of its130 participants with war crimes, musing, "Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic quickly and drive them into hell?" Iran's delegation swiftly walked out. Mehdi Hasan: "For shame. The president of the United States goes to the United Nations and threatens genocide against a member state in front of the world. This is where we’re at."
Slurring, stumbling, wandering at unhinged, racist length - details here - Trump boasted about murdering over 200 people “at war with civilization” in illegal boat strikes, celebrated (and inflated) the theft of Venezuela’s oil, charged trans people are a national security risk, inanely declaimed “to the (raping and plundering) victor belong the spoils” - the inept, terrifying vision of a "demagogue who hijacked American democracy devolving into a mad king before our eyes." The speech, a "sad and dangerous national embarrassment" with its "ridiculous braggadocio, narcissistic puffery, absurd demonstrable lies, open criminality and deranged, murderous threats" landed "with silence inside the hall and a pile of fact checks outside it, (the) death rattle of a rapist president and what’s left of America’s reputation on the world stage."
Afterwards, normal world leaders "went back to making plans that don't include the United States." Or, in the case of Denmark, trolling. Trump has created a fictional backstory for a "deal" on Greenland "long in the making - you could go back many, many decades, probably centuries" - that just repackages an existing 1951 deal; ahead of a meeting held later at the U.N., officials played the Sondheim song Send In The Clowns, with a long zoom to Rubio. At this point, writes Paul Krugman, it's "Underwear on the Outside” time, a callback to Woody Allen's 1971 film Bananas about a third-world nation's absurd strongman. Coverage of the U.N., he noted, focused on Trump's rabid rejection of global cooperation or the fact almost everything he said was a lie. The bigger story: "The leader of what used to be the world’s most powerful nation, now collapsing before our eyes, has clearly, undeniably lost his mind."
Other speakers tried to steer the conversation back to reality. Secretary-General António Guterres stressed the primacy of international law, especially in Palestine, calling the birth of the U.N. "an act of defiance (by) people who refuse to surrender the future to fear...who know our futures are bound together." But with accountability: The U.N. deems Gaza "a collective crime," a "live-streamed atrocity...sustained by the complicity of influential third states"; their complicity must be confronted for the rule of law to survive. Holding photos of Iranian children killed in U. S. strikes, Iran's president Masoud Pezeshkian argued it is Trump who has defied international law, while Iran has remained committed to negotiations. “We have only defended ourselves. We are not terrorists." He also called for accountability on all sides, asking "why Israel kills, yet Iran is subject to sanction.”
Israel kills. And Benjamin Netanyahu offered a bellicose "potpourri of lies and incitement" to deny it. In his "furious, ugly and disgraceful" diatribe, he called universal charges of genocide "the biggest lie of the century," summoning the chutzpah to call the carnage in Gaza "the opposite of genocide." Anyone who disagreed, he raved, was "a moral coward." They include about half the Assembly, who walked out as Zionist allies chanted “Am Yisrael Chai," "the Nation of Israel lives"; hundreds of protesters outside, with about 100 arrested, among them Brooklyn Council Member Chi Ossé, who later posted a selfie in handcuffs with “Free Palestine. Netanyahu burn in hell"; and world leaders "spreading lies about my country and our brave soldiers." They are all "tyrants (in) a global anti-Jewish conspiracy (to) erase us from the face of the Earth," Bibi brayed. "Instead of collapsing, we delivered devastating blows to all of them with our great American friends."
There was much more. He brandished a pager in tribute to Israel's 2024 operation targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon that killed 12 and wounded over 3,000. He dismissed settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank as the work of "juvenile delinquents." He said bombing Iran was "’one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make." Truly shameless, he claimed Israel still has "the most moral army in the world.” He denied a Haaretz report, confirmed by the New York Times, that Egypt's intel chief warned him in September 2023 that Hamas was planning "a major attack" but he declined to pass the tip on to his intelligence agencies. He assailed as "anti-Semitic" the duly elected mayor of his host city, who deems him a war criminal and wants the ICC's arrest warrant against him enacted. He claimed "many Jews no longer feel safe in New York." He evidently doesn't either; he flew into New Jersey.
He ended his speech with a Bible verse from Samuel that describes the genocide of the Amalek, enemies of Israel, after God orders King Saul, "‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people." Saul mostly does, but spares their king and “the best of the sheep and cattle." Then the prophet Samuel admonishes him: "(God) sent you on a mission, but you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel." Samuel's murderous gist: “Nezah Israel lo yeshaker,” or "the eternity of Israel will not falter.” The lesson Bibi draws: "We have no choice but genocide." And so they undertook it: Over 73,900 direct deaths, about half women and children. Over 175,000 wounded, often gravely. An estimated, obscene 641,000 ultimately dead, from destruction of the healthcare system, malnutrition, disease. The bodies of perhaps 10,000 more still lie under the rubble.
And the devastation goes on. Under Israel's blockade, there is widespread hunger, 90% of Gazans remain homeless, trauma and illness go untreated. More than 900 wheelchairs donated by two Australian non-profits for over 11,000 disabled children - Gaza has the most child amputees per capita in the world - are held hostage in Jordan warehouses by outlandish Israeli restrictions on anything that could "serve a military purpose." Other targets of insane "dual-use" ban: Portable toilets, sleeping bags, tarps. bandages, diapers, shampoo, tent poles. And evidently kites after Bibi declared "targeted strikes”against the launch of any kites, balloons or drones, with the IDF ordered to "act forcefully" against perps in a besieged hellhole where Palestinian children are deemed “explosives of the future." "What a childhood in Gaza teaches: Want less."
The cruelty, madness, loss continue to spark palpable rage. Actor Mandy Patinkin, a Jew aware of history, on the corrosive effect of "the revenge business": "How could it be done to you and your ancestors, and you turn around and do it to someone else?!” Omar El Akkad - born in Egypt, raised in Qatar and Canada, a US citizen - on "what it means to live under an ordering of the world that abides slaughter, and whether any ordering ever stood for anything at all." He wrote the book One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, though its full title is One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will always have been against this,” what one critic calls "a cathartic savaging" of empire, Western hypocrisy on Gaza, selective empathy in "the most privileged sliver of global society."
"When the unspeakable happens, the world should stop but it doesn't," he writes of the comforting bubble of a white nationalist world run by broken men and their accomplices. They blithely "shrug at one kind of slaughter," having developed "a terrible immunity...When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power?” The time to choose is now, he adds, and hindsight will not undo or excuse their crimes: "At the time they say, 'Yes, this is tragic, but necessary'...The alternative to the countless killed and maimed and orphaned...screaming from under the rubble (is) barbarism.” "There is no way to finish the sentence, 'It is unfortunate that tens of thousands of children are dead but...'" he movingly writes. "There is no such thing as someone else’s children."
The evening after Netanyahu attacked Zohran Mamdani as anti-Semitic - Mamdani dismissed the "baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide against Palestinians" - the good mayor was home at Gracie Mansion, busy with one of Carver's "small, good things." The mayor hosted Palestinian families from Gaza who have lost family members or made their way to America as refugees to "honor their contributions (and) acknowledge the losses they have endured." They ate a meal; a smiling Mamdani glided around the table, filling water glasses. They also planted an olive tree - for Palestinians, source of food, wood, fuel and symbol of peace, hope, resilience, a deep connection to their heritage and ancestral land. Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish: ‘"Here we remain, as long as thyme and olives remain." Zohran Mamdani: "May peace be our future."

With United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres set to leave his post at the end of this year, he used his final address to the UN General Assembly on Monday to share a familiar call: "Polluters must pay" for fueling the global climate emergency.
Since the Portuguese politician began his first five-year term leading the world body nearly a decade ago, he has repeatedly called for international action to rapidly phase out the coal, gas, and oil that are heating up the planet. In late 2023, he emphasized that "the science is clear. The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate."
The UN chief announced at the end of 2024 that "the top 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years," and declared: "This is climate breakdown in real time. We must exit this road to ruin." Last year, he argued that fossil fuels represent "the greatest threat to energy security today," and countries clinging to them are "sabotaging" their own economies and futures.
Earlier this month, after a UN report found that at least temporarily surpassing the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels is now inevitable, Guterres stressed that "this summer’s scorching heat, raging wildfires, and deadly floods are a warning of what lies ahead," and called for making the overshoot "as small and short as possible."
Speaking to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he cited that recent finding: "Now we face a near-certain breach of the 1.5-degree limit, with a supersized El Niño speeding straight for humanity. The dangers are real. But so is the hope."
"The sun belongs to no one. The wind cannot be embargoed. Innovation can come from everywhere," he said. "Renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity in most of the world. And the most viable path to energy security, independence, and sustainable growth... A future beyond fossil fuels is in sight. The question is how."
"Will it be a just and orderly transition built on international cooperation—or chaotic and costly, leaving people and countries behind?" he asked, urging every government to adopt a Paris Agreement-aligned national plan to transition away from fossil fuels.
"We know that fossil fuel interests won't step aside on their own. For decades, Big Oil has treated the atmosphere as an open sewer—and cashed in on the consequences," he acknowledged. "We have seen this kind of abuse of power before. When the harms of Big Tobacco became undeniable—governments acted. The climate crisis demands the same determination."
According to the UN chief: "Those who polluted the most—and profited the most—must do far more to repair the damage they caused. Polluters must pay. And to the leaders, cities, civil society and citizens working to hold them accountable: I say, you are on the right side of history. Keep going."
"And governments must keep going on all fronts: To end deforestation. Invest in grids and storage. Cut methane emissions," he continued. "But these actions are not enough: We need climate justice with a focus on adaptation and finance. Developed countries must respect their commitments. They must triple adaptation finance.And make the Loss and Damage Fund work at scale."
"We must also ensure that the mining of critical minerals does not dig deeper into the inequities of the past," he added. "Producing countries and affected communities must retain a far greater share of the value created from their resources. No more plundering. No more exploitation."
While Guterres' speech didn't just focus on "the power fueling climate chaos and the war on nature"—it also addressed peace and security, inequality, and artificial intelligence in detail—climate campaigners welcomed the time he devoted to the crisis.
"When the UN secretary-general calls for fossil fuel companies to pay, you know this demand has become impossible to ignore," said Louise Hutchins, co-convenor of the Make Polluters Pay International Coalition, in a statement. "Millions of people around the world are calling for it, and governments are starting to listen."
His address came just a day after campaigners from groups around the world delivered over 2 million petition signatures calling on governments to make polluters pay to Selwin Hart, the UN's assistant secretary-general for climate action, in New York City.
"For years, campaigners and communities on the frontlines have been saying the same thing: The companies that profited from fossil fuels must pay their fair share of the costs of the crisis they helped create. Today, that demand is moving into the mainstream," 350.org executive director Anne Jellema noted after Guterres' remarks. "The voices of more than 2 million people are now being brought to the UN. Governments have the power to make polluters pay, and they must use it."
Enough is enough: over 2 million petition signatures at UNGA to Make Polluters Pay www.greenpeace.org/internationa...
[image or embed]
— Nick Young (@nickofnz.bsky.social) September 21, 2026 at 5:56 PM
Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International, highlighted that "the people who have contributed least to the climate crisis are paying the highest price. They are losing homes, livelihoods, and access to food and facing an increasingly uncertain future, while fossil fuel corporations and their billionaire backers continue to profit. The call to make rich polluters pay is about justice. It is about ensuring that those who have benefited most from the fossil fuel economy pay for the damage it has caused."
Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen pointed out that "Guterres has spent years warning leaders where fossil fuel dependence leads, and this year proved him right. From deadly heat to devastating fires and floods, the very dependence driving these disasters is shaking entire economies and leaving families exposed to volatile energy and food prices, while the companies behind it keep raking in the profits."
"New rules forcing governments to align their taxes and spending with global climate goals would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to support the countries and communities least responsible, while incentivizing money out of fossil fuels and into secure, renewable energy that actually protects people," he argued. "As long as destruction stays profitable, the transition to a safer, fairer future will keep being held back. Guterres has named the solution, governments must now act on it."
Update (1:40 pm ET):
A coalition of advocacy groups fighting the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger said Thursday that the judge overseeing the case granted their emergency motion to allow opponents of the combination to file briefs against a settlement reached earlier this week by Paramount and a dozen state attorneys general.
“The consent decree the state AGs agreed to in a backroom deal is weak, unenforceable, and leaves workers, journalists, and consumers in the dust," members of the anti-merger coalition said in a statement. "The settlement fails to address the grave dangers this merger poses—and no amount of spin can change that. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín’s ruling will allow the public to weigh in on this important issue and ensure the interests of those who will actually pay the price for the Ellisons’ sweetheart deal that the AGs failed to adequately represent are heard. We look forward to explaining that in further detail in our brief due at midnight tonight."
Earlier:
Opponents of Paramount's proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery filed an emergency motion in federal court on Thursday asking the judge overseeing the merger proceedings to grant them an opportunity to formally oppose a settlement deal that Paramount reached earlier this week with a coalition of state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta.
The merger opponents' filing asks Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the US District Court for the Northern District of California to give them "an opportunity to be heard" before she rules on the proposed consent decree between Paramount and the 12 state attorneys general—a deal that drew widespread outrage. The anti-merger coalition—which includes Free Press, the Committee for the First Amendment, the Future Film Coalition, and other groups—described the tentative deal as "dangerous for democracy."
The coalition's filing was submitted shortly before a court hearing that's scheduled to begin at 2:00 pm ET. Martínez-Olguín set the hearing to "address certain outstanding questions regarding the factual and legal underpinnings of the parties’ proposed consent decree."
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a constitutional rights litigator who serves on the steering panel for the Committee for the First Amendment, said in a statement that "we believe the consent decree fails to meaningfully address or mitigate the harms that will be caused by this monopoly merger to the entertainment industry, diverse storytelling, independent filmmaking, consumer interests, a free press, First Amendment rights, and fundamentally, democracy."
“It does not serve to benefit anyone except the owner family of Paramount and those holding political power, who will use this corporate consolidation as a proxy force for First Amendment suppression of disfavored expression and viewpoints," Verheyden-Hilliard added.
Paramount is headed by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the richest people in the world and a megadonor to President Donald Trump.
If Martínez-Olguín approves the proposed consent decree and the merger is finalized, Paramount would control both CBS and CNN, as well as other major media properties such as HBO.
As part of the consent decree, Paramount committed to "News Editorial Independence Boards" for CBS and CNN comprised of five "established journalists." Critics, including the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), have characterized the proposed editorial independence boards as "worthless" and a potential "First Amendment nightmare."
“The solution for the Ellisons letting Donald Trump and [Federal Communications Commission Chair] Brendan Carr police journalism is not to let attorneys general and judges police journalism too,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at FPF, part of the anti-merger coalition.
“It’s to keep the government out of the newsroom, period," Stern added. "No one seriously believes the Ellisons (or their rumored new investor Elon Musk) will do that, with or without a self-appointed sham editorial board, which is why this merger cannot proceed.”
The League of United Latin American Citizens and a group of religious leaders filed a separate motion on Thursday asking Martínez-Olguín to "defer entry of the decree" to "ensure this court has sufficient opportunity to consider the important issues raised" in the case.
"The proposed consent decree raises grave doubts whether the parties' settlement adequately addresses the harms alleged in the plaintiff states' complaint," the filing reads.
Attorneys representing Sen. Roger Marshall on Monday accused Democratic challenger Adam Hamilton of producing a "defamatory" ad centered on a former patient who was arrested for missing court dates related to unpaid medical debt owed to the Kansas Republican.
In a letter sent to Hamilton, Marshall's attorneys claimed that the ad released last week by the Kansas Democrat's campaign contained "false" information and must be taken down.
"We demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further publication, broadcast, distribution, or promotion of the advertisement," the letter said.
The ad in question features Meischa Zimmerman—a one-time patient of Marshall, a former obstetrician-gynecologist—who was arrested in 2011 after missing a $50 payment.
Meischa was Roger Marshall's patient. This is her story. pic.twitter.com/M6bmqK92gm
— Team Hamilton (@TeamHamiltonHQ) September 25, 2026
As The New York Times reported earlier this month, Zimmerman, who was eight months pregnant at the time of her arrest, owed Marshall nearly $3,600 for a C-section he performed while delivering one of her children. She had previously agreed to a $50 monthly repayment plan for the procedure after being sued by Marshall's office for unpaid medical debts.
Marshall's attorneys objected to the ad's portrayal of events, arguing that Zimmerman's $50 missed payment was only a fraction of the total that she owed to the future senator.
"Falsely accusing a physician of having a pregnant patient arrested over a $50 bill strikes directly at Senator Marshall’s professional integrity as a physician and his fitness for public office," they wrote, "and it has been broadcast to thousands of Kansas voters in the final weeks of an election."
The attorneys' letter does not appear to have deterred Hamilton, who continued to promote the ad featuring Zimmerman in a Monday social media post.
"Roger Marshall REALLY doesn't want you to see this ad," Hamilton wrote. "Meischa's story is true. Roger Marshall and his lawyers can’t hide the truth about his record from Kansas voters."
Tyson Brody, spokesperson for Hamilton's campaign, defended the ad in an interview with the Kansas Reflector.
“The lies in his letter are blatant and reek of desperation,” Brody said. “The truth is what Roger Marshall did is extreme and hurt Kansans. Voters should know the truth about who their senator is and what he’s done."
According to the Times' reporting, at least 81 one-time Marshall patients have been arrested for missing court dates stemming from their unpaid medical bills, with one patient taken into custody owing just $114.
The Times investigation also found that Marshall or his office sued more than 700 patients for unpaid bills throughout his two-decade career.
Kellie Clutts, another former patient of Marshall, told the Times she was sued by the Kansas Republican in 2015 over a $129 bill, which eventually resulted in her bank account being garnished.
"I was recently divorced, trying to do everything on my own," Clutts told the Times. "I told them I could make partial payments, but it seemed like no matter what I said, they wanted the full amount at once."
Two dozen United Nations human rights experts on Monday demanded that the Trump administration end its deportation of immigrants, including refugees and asylum-seekers, to countries to which they have no connection—a practice that has set off "a cascade of human rights violations," according to the experts.
Advisers to the UN Human Rights Council sent a communication to the US and the 35 countries President Donald Trump has struck deportation deals with—agreements that the White House has spent at least $40 million on, according to a congressional report released earlier this year.
“These migrants are being transferred to countries or territories with which they have no ties, which can be a traumatizing and isolating experience that compounds harms already suffered, which triggered their fleeing to the US in the first place," said the experts. "Others are sent to places where they risk further violence or discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or human rights advocacy.”
Critics have warned that the arrangements appear to be aimed at circumventing US laws that prohibit Trump from refoulement—sending people back to the countries they fled when they sought asylum in the US. Some of the countries Trump has struck deals with have ultimately sent asylum-seekers back to their home countries, according to The Guardian.
Deported people have also faced violence and the threat of torture in the third countries they've been sent to. As Common Dreams reported last week, Ahmed Soliman, an Egyptian national, and Samson Birhane, who is from Eritrea, were being detained in "an overcrowded police cell, in inhumane conditions" in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea—one of several countries Trump has struck deals with despite its record of human rights abuses.
Amnesty International warned the two men are at risk of being tortured.
The countries Trump is sending people to, said the 24 experts on Monday, "lack the capacity to protect the rights of migrants sent there by wealthy nations seeking to shirk their international obligations."
"The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical," they said. "For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
About 20,000 people have been taken by bus to Mexico, while more than 5,000 have been flown to countries across Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia. About a third of the deals have been struck with African nations.
"The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical. For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
The UN experts released their statement days after the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the administration must give migrants “a meaningful opportunity” to appeal the government's plan to send them to a country they have never lived in.
Last Thursday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency application with the US Supreme Court, seeking authorization to continue the third-country deportations as they have been carried out, with "assurances" from governments that people sent by the US will not face persecution or torture. Sauer claimed the removals are “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens," but numerous people sent to third countries have had no criminal records.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine filed several privileged resolutions to compel the Trump administration to release assessments of countries with which it has made deportation deals.
"Through third-country deportations, the Trump administration is stripping people of due process, disappearing them, and sending them to countries all over the world where they risk further harm," said Amnesty International USA on Monday. "The US government must end this cruel practice."
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to Israel after using his United Nations speech "to repeat baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide of Palestinians" in the Gaza Strip, The New York Times on Friday corroborated Haaretz's recent reporting that the Israeli leader was warned about the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack that resulted in the war.
Haaretz reported earlier this month that during a September 2023 phone call, United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan told Netanyahu about now-deceased Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar's plans "for a major event" targeting Israel.
Netanyahu not only denied receiving that notice but also sent a "warning letter," threatening to file a libel lawsuit against the Israeli newspaper and journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval. In response, Haaretz said that it stood by their work.
A trio of Times journalists backed up that exposé on Friday, reporting that "a person who said they had spoken with Sheikh Mohammed and another person who said they had been briefed by someone on the call between the two leaders told The New York Times that the Emirati leader had secretly reported to Mr. Netanyahu that Hamas was considering a major attack."
"The warning from the Emirati leader, however, never reached the leaders of Israel's security establishment, according to five former senior Israeli officials. Mr. Netanyahu gathered his security chiefs days later, on October 1, 2023, for a meeting about the situation in the Gaza Strip, and never mentioned the warning," reported the US-based paper, which reviewed meeting minutes.
The minutes show that Netanyahu "pushed back when some security officials said that Israel should consider military strikes against senior Hamas leaders in Gaza who were overseeing attacks against Israelis in the West Bank," and suggested such action "might sabotage the prospect of Saudi Arabia establishing diplomatic relations with Israel," according to the Times.
While the Emirati foreign ministry and Netanyahu's office did not respond to the Times' requests for comment, the paper also revealed that months after the reported September 2023 phone call, the UAE's president told then-Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns that "he had spoken to Mr. Netanyahu about a looming threat of violence in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip carried out by Hamas," according to someone familiar with that discussion. The paper's sources were granted anonymity.
The Times' reporting came just days after an Emirati source commented on the Haaretz article. As the Israeli paper detailed:
"UAE discusses security matters with other countries through the relevant entities, and does not discuss such details at the level of national leaders," the source told UAE state-owned newspaper The National. He did not deny that the two leaders spoke, nor did he refute Haaretz's report.
In 2024, the Financial Times reported that The National is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE's vice president and the president's brother. It also reported that the site aligns with the government's position and practices self-censorship on issues deemed sensitive or problematic by the authorities.
Noting that Netanyahu reportedly declined to pass the warning along to his intelligence agencies, investigative journalist Eli Clifton, a co-founder and senior adviser at the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, asked: "Why? Did he welcome the attack as an opportunity to wage war?"
Mehdi Hasan, who founded the outlet Zeteo, similarly wrote "wonder why" on social media.
Journalist Zaid Jilani declared that "Netanyahu not only has unleashed vicious crimes onto Palestinians, but he failed his own people."
Israel's next parliamentary elections are scheduled for October 27.
Ryan Bohl, a senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at risk intelligence firm RANE, said that it is "as close to an October surprise as one gets in Israel. If I was a betting man, I'd be betting against Netanyahu being next PM."
Reminder that the Trump administration is trying to destroy the ICC in order to protect this man.www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/w...
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) September 25, 2026 at 1:02 PM
In a series of decisions seen as signs that Netanyahu and his allies are worried about holding on to power, Israel's Central Elections Committee—which is chaired by a Supreme Court justice but dominated by members of the Knesset's governing coalition—just disqualified all Arab-majority political parties and multiple candidates, while rejecting similar petitions for right-wing parties.
Israel's Supreme Court is set to review those decisions next week, and may overturn some or all of them before the elections.
While Netanyahu's allies on the committee tried to bar potential challengers from running, the prime minister briefly traveled to New York City to speak at the UN General Assembly—despite being the subject of a 2024 International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued over Israel's decimation of Gaza, which human rights groups and scholars have denounced as genocide.
As Netanyahu claimed in his speech that "Israel didn't commit genocide," but rather "prevented genocide," at least hundreds of protesters filled New York's streets and argued that the Israeli leader "needs to be tried in The Hague."
After more than six months, 329,000 people in Lebanon remain displaced from their homes by Israel's occupation, one-third of whom are children.
Israel's latest assault on Lebanon is inflicting widespread hunger, death, and injury on children across the country, according to a report out Wednesday from the United Nations Children's Fund.
Children go to bed hungry in at least one in five households, according to a survey conducted by UNICEF in July, while nearly a third are going without needed healthcare because their families are unable to afford it. Four in five households, the report says, have found it harder to afford basic necessities.
Nearly 17,000 people have been killed or injured since March. Among them are 261 children who've been killed and 1,056 who've been injured—and 12% of those injured now live with a disability.
Around 100,000 children are at risk of losing access to education. At least 436 schools have been damaged across the country, including 37 that were completely destroyed.
“Children and young people in Lebanon are being asked to bear a burden no child should have to carry,” said UNICEF Lebanon Representative Marcoluigi Corsi, who noted the report's finding that 770,000 children have suffered psychological distress over the past six months due to repeated exposure to violence, loss, and displacement.
Lebanon was already in the midst of an economic crisis that left many families poor. But the situation has grown markedly more severe since March, when Israel launched an ongoing occupation of southern Lebanon that has displaced more than 1.1 million people and unleashed punishing airstrikes across the country, including in densely populated civilian areas.
More than 329,000 of those displaced have yet to go home, and around one-third are children. Despite a ceasefire announced in April, Israeli officials have said that those ordered to leave their homes will not be allowed to return until they deem northern Israel "safe" from attacks by the militant group Hezbollah.
Israeli forces have systematically razed dozens of villages and farms in southern Lebanon, destroying tens of thousands of homes. As Al Jazeera reported earlier this week, Israel has predominantly demolished Shia villages while telling Christian villages they'll be spared so long as they stay neutral.
According to a June report by Amnesty International, about 6% of Lebanese territory is effectively under a "don't come back" order from Israel and barred indefinitely from returning home. Amnesty said the forced displacement and prevention of return in parts of southern Lebanon constitute unlawful transfer, a war crime.
Some Israeli leaders have discussed annexing the occupied portion of Lebanon and moving in Israeli settlers.
Earlier this week, Bezalel Smotrich—the Israeli finance minister who has overseen a historic surge of violent settlement expansion in the West Bank—said that he would "very much like to annex at least… up to the Litani [River] in Lebanon," extending the country's border into southern Lebanon.
"So much of Ms. Pike's experience reflects widespread and systemic failures that surface in death penalty cases," said an Amnesty International USA researcher, urging an end to capital punishment "in Tennessee and beyond."
A federal appellate court on Wednesday morning temporarily blocked Tennessee from executing Christa Pike, as witnesses had already gathered at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville for the state's first execution of a woman in centuries.
A panel from the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled 2-1 to halt the state-sanctioned killing, after Republican Gov. Bill Lee and the US Supreme Court declined to do so. The 50-year-old, found guilty of murdering Colleen Slemmer in 1995, when Pike was 18, could still be executed on Wednesday if the nation's top court allows it.
Republican state Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti's office said: "We will continue to advocate for the lawfully imposed sentence as the courts work through this technical issue. It is common in capital cases for the defense to raise last-minute objections following decades of litigation in numerous courts. We are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to lift the stay."
Judges Jane Stranch and Karen Moore, both appointees of Democratic presidents, concluded early Wednesday that "a short stay of execution" is in order due to arguments related to the sexual abuse Pike suffered as a child—which clinical psychologist Dr. Bethany Brand described as "truly extreme," writing in 2023 that "the level of trauma she was subjected to as a preschooler through her 18th year, when she was arrested, is almost impossible to grasp because it is so severe."
As the 6th Circuit's order details, Pike points out "that the state recently reversed its litigation position that she is a liar who fabricated sexual abuse. Pike contends that the state's concession of her history of child sexual abuse and rape 'erodes the foundation' of her state court proceedings. Pike ties this erosion to defects in the federal court proceedings because... the district court was required to give strong deference to the state court's findings of facts."
"Pike also cites scholarly authority supporting her argument that the state's representations about her history of sexual abuse tainted the state court proceedings and the subsequent federal ones by introducing damaging stereotypes of survivors of sexual assault," the filing says.
Pike was "subjected to drugs and alcohol while she was still in her mother's womb" and "first sexually abused by her grandmother's boyfriend, who would orally rape her before she was in kindergarten," the Nashville Banner's Steven Hale recently reported, citing Brand's findings. "After living through periods of physical and emotional torment by extended family members and one of her mother's husbands, Pike was later raped by a known predatory neighbor."
"She was hospitalized at the age of 12 after overdosing on pills during a suicide attempt," then sexually assaulted by one of her mother's boyfriends, who had "moved into the family's home and brought with him violence and depravity," Hale continued, noting that the perpetrators who abused Pike often faced limited consequences. "When she was 17 in January 1994, Pike was sexually assaulted again, by a man who saw her walking to the store in Carrboro, North Carolina."
Hale was among the journalists at the prison in Nashville on Wednesday morning. He said on social media that "I'm told the state has until midnight to carry out the execution. Still unclear what happens next, but prison officials are bringing those of us witnessing the execution inside now to be ready."
The journalist added just after noon Central Time that "prison officials have brought us back outside now while we continue to wait for news from the Supreme Court."
Following the 6th Circuit's decision, the ACLU—whose Capital Punishment Project works to repeal the death penalty in the United States—took to social media, urging the public to "tell Gov. Lee to respect the court's decision and call off her execution NOW."
"Gov. Lee's 615-741-2001 mailbox is full—contacting him through this form is the quickest way to reach his office," the legal group explained, sharing a link to the relevant page on the state government's website.
Lee had said Monday that "after deliberate consideration of Christa Gail Pike's request for clemency, and after a thorough review of the case, I am upholding the sentence of the state of Tennessee and do not plan to intervene."
Attorneys for Pike—Stephen Ferrell, Kelly Gleason, and Randy Spivey—responded that they were "deeply saddened and heartbroken by Gov. Lee's decision to deny clemency," emphasizing that "throughout her childhood, Christa was failed by people and institutions that should have shown her care and meaningful intervention."
"The 18-year-old girl suffering from severe mental illness and near-debilitating trauma no longer exists," the lawyers said. "Christa is a 50-year-old remorseful woman who understands her actions, receives proper treatment for her mental illness, and provides for and guides fellow incarcerated women."
"With this decision, the state of Tennessee is ignoring what both science and our legal system have decided: An 18-year-old brain is not an adult brain, and 18 is too young to face execution. This decision also leaves unanswered vital questions about Tennessee’s execution protocol," they added. "We will continue to support Christa through every remaining avenue and advocate for a system that is transparent for the people of Tennessee."
Among the organizations that have pressured Lee to block the execution is Amnesty International USA, whose deputy director of research, Justin Mazzola, recently said that "so much of Ms. Pike's experience reflects widespread and systemic failures that surface in death penalty cases."
"She endured profound abuse and trauma as a child and had serious mental disabilities that were never adequately addressed nor treated," he highlighted. "Due to inadequate legal representation, these issues were not fully presented to the jury. Knowing all that, it is unthinkable that Gov. Lee would even consider moving forward with this execution."
Mazzola—whose group opposes capital punishment under all circumstances—also stressed that "this issue is about more than one person. Amnesty International members are speaking out because the use of the death penalty remains a human rights failure. As its use continues to decline globally, the United States remains an outlier. It is well past time to abolish the death penalty once and for all, in Tennessee and beyond."
The US National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. RAINN's National Sexual Assault Hotline can be reached at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) or by texting "HOPE" to 64673. Both offer 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
"In fact... Husted voted for the war FOURTEEN TIMES," said one critic.
An embattled incumbent Republican senator squirmed on Tuesday when confronted with his multiple votes supporting President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, which has driven up gas prices across the US.
During a Wednesday interview with local news station WKRC, Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) was asked by reporter James Pilcher about his votes in favor of continuing the war, which the journalist noted has become "pretty unpopular."
"First of all, I didn't, that's not what that vote was, it's not what I did," Husted replied. "Here's the bottom line: These are the people that want higher gas prices right now: Iran, Russia, and the, and the Democrats in Congress. They don't want us to be successful there. They are literally... we are the party that has been, as Republicans, we've wanted more drilling. Like, we have, thank goodness, we have a great supply of domestic fuel right now, or prices would be even higher."
Q: You voted in favor of the war in Iran. It's proven to be pretty unpopular. What do you see as the offramp here?
HUSTED: First of all, I didn't- that's not what that vote was. That's not what I did. Here's the bottom line. These are the people that want higher gas prices right… pic.twitter.com/t4ZEmD0q2f
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 30, 2026
Husted—whom polls show is currently trailing his rival, former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)—then baselessly claimed that "Russia, Iran, and Senate Democrats seem to be aligned in seeing prices go up, I'm for prices going down."
The price of energy skyrocketed in the months since Trump attacked Iran without any congressional authorization in February, and the price of diesel fuel last week hit a record high of $6.53 per gallon.
Husted, meanwhile, has voted 14 times against war powers resolutions in the US Senate to compel Trump to end the conflict he started.
Critics of the Ohio Republican were quick to slam him for trying to evade responsibility for the fallout of the Iran War.
In a social media post, author James Surowiecki accused Husted of telling "a blatant lie" when he said he didn't vote to support the war.
"This month, he cast the deciding vote against a war powers resolution in the Senate directing Trump to end the war in Iran," Surowiecki wrote. "So yes, he voted in favor of continuing the war in Iran."
Husted's statement drew a similar rebuke from Kelsie Taggart, vice president of the Democratic advocacy group American Bridge.
"That is, in fact, what that vote was," Taggart wrote, "and Husted voted for the war FOURTEEN TIMES."
Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who now advises the US Program at the International Crisis Group, argued that what Husted did was actually "even worse than voting for the Iran War."
"He voted to abnegate Congress' constitutional authority over the use of military force," Finucane explained, "and to allow Trump to wage war based on his own whims."
"Tonight, 47 senators supported my resolution to get accountability for the nine Americans killed on the West Bank and for Palestinians who face injustices daily," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen.
Democratic US Sen. John Fetterman joined nearly every Republican senator on Tuesday in voting against a resolution that would have required the Trump administration to produce an unclassified report on Israeli abuses in the illegally occupied West Bank, including the imprisonment and killing of Palestinian Americans.
The resolution, led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), narrowly failed 47-51, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) joining every Democrat except Fetterman in supporting the measure. Van Hollen and other supporters of the resolution lamented the failed vote but celebrated the historic support it received as public opposition to Israeli atrocities—and US funding of Israel's military—continues to grow.
"Tonight, 47 senators supported my resolution to get accountability for the nine Americans killed on the West Bank and for Palestinians who face injustices daily," Van Hollen wrote in a social media post. "That's more support than we've ever had in this fight. Republicans blocked us, but we won't stop until we get justice."
In 2024, just 11 senators—all members of the Democratic caucus except Paul—backed a similar resolution led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
"Listen to the American people: NO MORE MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL," Sanders wrote in response to Tuesday's vote.
If passed, Van Hollen's resolution would have required the US State Department to issue a report within 30 days on Israeli human rights practices in the West Bank, where Palestinians have faced a historic level of violence by Israeli settlers and soldiers this year.
The resolution, which invoked Section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, specifically called on the Trump administration to provide "all credible information of which the Department of State is aware concerning the alleged killing of United States citizens by the Israel Defense Forces, other Israeli security forces, or Israeli settlers since January 1, 2022," as well as "an assessment on any United States citizens currently held in Israeli prisons."
Under the Foreign Assistance Act, a failure to produce the required report would have resulted in a freeze on some US military assistance to Israel.
Josh Ruebner, policy director at the IMEU Policy Project, said that while the resolution "narrowly failed" due to near-unanimous Republican opposition, "make no mistake: this is historic."
BREAKING: Every Senate Dem, except Fetterman, plus Rand Paul just voted to hold Israel accountable for killing US citizens in the Palestinian West Bank and abusing Palestinian children in military detention. While this resolution narrowly failed make no mistake: this is historic. pic.twitter.com/uH1fsLGnHY
— Josh Ruebner (@joshruebner) September 29, 2026
The resolution's text highlights the case of Sama Safi, a 20-year-old Palestinian American student with a chronic health condition who was abducted by Israeli forces during a West Bank raid in June and has reportedly been detained without charge for months.
On Tuesday morning, Zeteo highlighted the case of Abdalkareem Issa Ahmed Safi, "an American teenager with Texas roots" whom Israeli forces snatched "from his family’s West Bank home in the middle of the night" in late June. Zeteo noted that he is the third young American known to be "languishing in Israeli prison."
"Only one Republican voted to even somewhat hold Israel accountable for acts like this," Zeteo's Prem Thakker wrote late Tuesday.
"Self-regulation?" said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "That's a recipe for disaster."
As details from US President Donald Trump's White House meeting with Big Tech executives emerged on Tuesday, including a pledge on artificial intelligence safety, campaigners and Democrats in Congress continued calling for stronger AI protections.
After the gathering, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform a "Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities" signed by him, billionaire Elon Musk—a former member of the administration who leads multiple companies—Anthropic's Dario Amodei, Google's Sundar Pichai, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Nvidia's Jensen Huang, and OpenAI's Greg Brockman.
The accord came out of a gathering that included the president and other top officials as well as over a dozen tech leaders, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and representatives from Microsoft and Palantir. It states that "every company is responsible for developing its own technology safely and in a way that builds trust with customers and the public."
The document goes on to detail "four layers of controls and audits" that each company developing AI—or "super intelligence (SI), as Trump directed his administration to call it in a Tuesday executive order—should implement, including robust internal controls to monitor capabilities and alignment, internal teams to ensure safeguards are operating as intended, partnerships with outside auditors, and an independent committee of the board of directors to receive reports on problems and their fixes.
Before Trump released the accord, he addressed the media alongside some officials and executives. Asked if the agreement is binding in any way, the president responded, "I think it's morally binding."
Beside him, Zuckerberg—whose company has faced legal issues over its social media platforms—laid out the broad strokes of the accord, which he framed as "a start," suggesting there is more to come.
Since OpenAI revealed in July that its models autonomously breached the systems of the open-source platform Hugging Face during internal testing, the firm—plus Anthropic, Google, and Meta—has disclosed additional incidents. Axios reported over the weekend that Anthropic and OpenAI alone "are investigating tens of thousands of incidents."
Experts in the industry and beyond have increasingly expressed concerns, with a United Nations panel stressing in a report about the Hugging Face incident that current AI guardrails are "unraveling," and one Anthropic researcher quitting earlier this month and warning that the rapidly advancing technology "could kill us all by the end of the decade."
While some members of Congress have responded by introducing bills aimed at reining in the industry and establishing mandatory safeguards, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—who was part of Tuesday's meeting—has instead called for voluntary commitments. He's also dismissed mounting public concerns about AI data centers raising electricity bills, polluting drinking water, and threatening jobs, even suggesting that the grassroots pushback in various communities is "a Chinese psyop."
The president—whose inauguration was dubbed "a coronation of our country's descent into oligarchy" because of all the ultrarich attendees, including many of the men at the White House on Tuesday—has also made clear that he opposes a legislative route. According to The Associated Press, Trump said Tuesday that "I think I'm seeing tremendous self-policing. And they understand that they have to self-police."
Progressive US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) responded to the event on social media Tuesday, writing: "Self-regulation? That’s a recipe for disaster."
Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY) said that "the American people are deeply concerned on the direction unregulated AI is taking our country, and they deserve transparent answers from the men with their hands on the wheel. Instead, all we get is another closed-door meeting, and more promises made and broken in secret. We cannot say exactly what they schemed, today. But I am certain we'll see the consequences soon enough."
Mitch Jones, deputy director of Food & Water Action, a group that has spearheaded fights against superpolluting AI data centers, said that "the notion that a manically profit-driven AI industry will safely regulate itself is as dangerous as it is absurd—akin to claiming an arsonist would make a good firefighter. Trump's only concern is doing the bidding of his Big Tech billionaire friends."
"Trump's rejection of the overwhelming opposition to AI data center construction throughout the country is political incompetence of the highest order," Jones continued, looking toward the November midterms, which are just five weeks away. "His obstinance will no doubt cost him and his party deeply in the coming elections."
"We can't have politicians giving the tech oligarchs free rein," he argued. "We need political leaders that will decisively rein them in. Our leaders must stand with us and say 'no' to so-called super intelligence, and put a halt to the massive hyperscale data centers powering this runaway industry."
“The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical,” UN experts stressed. “For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume rapidly deporting immigrants to countries other than their own, even as United Nations experts warned that the policy is putting deportees at heightened risk of human rights violations.
In a one-page order, the justices—who did not rule on the legality of the policy—stayed a lower court ruling that required the administration to give people facing a so-called third-country deportation notice wan opportunity to raise concerns that they could face persecution or torture in the destination country. The court agreed to hear the administration's appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for December.
The high court said it will consider whether the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts has jurisdiction over the case, whether it had authority to issue classwide relief, and whether the Trump administration's policy violates federal immigration law, the Constitution's due process clause, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, or the Convention Against Torture.
The court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—said they would have rejected the administration's request to lift the lower-court order.
NEW: The Supreme Court, over the objections of the 3 liberal justices, grants a stay in the D.V.D. litigation, authorizing the Trump admin to resume third country removals without any notice to people being sent to countries they've never been to.The Court also agrees to hear the case in December.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) September 29, 2026 at 12:16 PM
US Attorney General Todd Blanch responded to the order on social media, posting, "Now for the second time, SCOTUS just granted our stay in conducting all third-country removals of illegal aliens."
"Again, this is entirely lawful and a critical tool for immigration enforcement," he added. "Unlike the lower court, SCOTUS waited to hear from both sides before making the decision."
Tuesday's ruling came one day after two dozen United Nations human rights experts urged the United States and 35 countries that have entered deportation agreements with the Trump administration to halt the practice, which is "triggering [a] cascade of human rights violations including torture."
“These migrants are being transferred to countries or territories with which they have no ties, which can be a traumatizing and isolating experience that compounds harms already suffered,” the experts said, warning that they face “further violence or discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or human rights advocacy.”
“The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical,” the experts stressed. “For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
The UN experts' warning followed an urgent appeal issued earlier this month by Amnesty International that two men deported to Equatorial Guinea under a secret deal—one of them Egyptian and the other Eritrean—were at risk of being tortured in detention in the African nation, which has an abysmal human rights record. Amnesty said that the men had already been beaten and violently arrested by police after arriving in the country.
The Trump administration has deported roughly 25,000 people to more than two dozen countries under often secret agreements and at a cost to taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars. Most have been sent to Mexico, while others have been transported to countries including Liberia, Guyana, and Equatorial Guinea.
The Supreme Court has already intervened in a related case involving eight men whom the administration sought to deport to war-torn South Sudan, although only one was originally from that country. In that case, Sotomayor warned that the policy exposed “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”
The justices' latest order will remain in effect until the court issues its judgment in the case. Until then, the administration can resume the expedited removals that the lower court had sought to restrict.
"Cantor, like PhRMA, is an experienced reverse Robin Hood, legislating money away from working families and toward giant corporations."
In what advocates for lower drug prices call "a match made in hell," one of the pharmaceutical industry's most powerful lobbying groups is tapping a former Republican leader in the US House of Representatives to head its political operations.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) named former Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) as its president and CEO on Tuesday amid what is shaping up to be a major fight over the government's ability to regulate prescription drug prices.
Cantor served in Congress from 2001-14 and was named House majority leader in 2011. He resigned in 2014 after losing his Republican primary in a stunning upset to the Tea Party-backed former Rep. Dave Brat.
According to recent polling from KFF, more than half of US adults say they worry about affording prescription drugs and nearly three-quarters say the government should do more to limit prices.
PhRMA emphasized that Cantor's appointment to replace the outgoing CEO Stephen Ubl comes at "a pivotal moment for America’s biopharmaceutical industry."
It is certainly spending like it. As Politico reported on Tuesday, pressure from voters to address the affordability of prescription drugs has been met with an unprecedented lobbying blitz by PhRMA, which poured a record $38 million into efforts to keep Capitol Hill in line.
PhRMA said Cantor’s “global business acumen coupled with policy and political experience at the highest levels of government make him an ideal person to lead PhRMA during this critical next chapter.”
Peter Maybarduk, the access to medicines director for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, agreed that Cantor was a perfect fit for PhRMA, but for very different reasons.
"Cantor, like PhRMA, is an experienced reverse Robin Hood, legislating money away from working families and toward giant corporations," Maybarduk said.
During his tenure in Congress, Cantor received roughly $900,000 from the pharmaceutical and health product industry, putting him 19th among all House candidates between 1999 and 2018, according to a JAMA Internal Medicine study of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
That spending paid dividends, with Cantor voting against legislation aimed at lowering prescription drugs—including one bill in 2003 that would have allowed Americans to import low-cost prescription drugs from abroad and another in 2007 that would have required the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients.
"The tech lords use jargon to confuse. They count on the tech illiteracy of the elected class. They hope we won’t look under the hood," said US Rep. Ro Khanna.
US Rep. Ro Khanna announced plans on Monday to introduce what he described as "the most comprehensive... legislation to date" regulating the artificial intelligence industry.
In an interview with CNBC, Khanna (D-Calif.) said that he wanted to enact at least a temporary ban on recursive AI that is capable of improving itself and modifying its objectives without human input.
Such a ban would be in effect until the federal government had created proper guardrails on the technology, CNBC reported.
“There’s actually a civilizational extinction risk,” Khanna told CNBC, referring to the dangers of recursive AI. "There's a safety risk of loss of control, and then there’s a misuse risk, and we need to take both seriously."
Khanna's bill would also create a new federal agency tasked with crafting and enforcing safety measures on AI models, with independent auditors embedded in every frontier lab that would report directly to the agency.
The legislation wouldn't just create regulations for the AI industry, but also criminal penalties for AI developers who "disable safeguards, kill switches, logging or containment systems, or who knowingly deploy an unauthorized system," CNBC reported.
Promoting the coming bill in a Tuesday social media post, Khanna argued that Big Tech could not be trusted to regulate itself.
"The tech lords use jargon to confuse," Khanna wrote. "They count on the tech illiteracy of the elected class. They hope we won’t look under the hood. They know they can’t gaslight me."
While multiple polls have shown that putting guardrails on the AI industry is politically popular, Republican Party leaders have said that no regulations for the industry are coming so long as they control the White House and the US Congress.
In a Tuesday interview with CNBC, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he hoped that any guardrails put on AI are "voluntary" on the part of Big Tech companies.
Two weeks ago, Johnson said in an interview on CNN that federal regulations of the industry made little sense because "Congress is obviously less qualified than the people who are pushing this frontier to know the ins and outs of it."
President Donald Trump on Tuesday expressed a similar sentiment, telling reporters outside the White House that Big Tech could be trusted to be responsible with the powerful technology it is creating.
"They're outstanding people," Trump said of the tech executives. "They don't want anything to go wrong. I mean, their companies are at stake, if something goes wrong, their companies are at stake. They're not going to let that happen. This is going to be all for the good... they're really going to be policing each other."
Trump on big tech: "They don't want anything to go wrong. Their companies are at stake. They're not gonna let that happen. They're really gonna be policing each other." pic.twitter.com/wP6vfPcavz
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 29, 2026
Earlier this month, Trump suggested in a social media post that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating AI, a technology so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.
"The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote, “and the USA has that, in spades!"
Trump's hands-off approach to regulating AI isn't just being challenged by Democrats such as Khanna.
According to a Monday report from The Associated Press, Pope Leo XIV reiterated his call for placing safeguards on AI to ensure that it benefits humanity.
Specifically, the US-born pope pointed to recent "concerns raised by many of the experts, specialists in AI," which he said "should be taken seriously."
Pope Leo said warnings that AI could threaten humanity should be taken seriously, rejecting the claims that concerns are 'fake news' and urging leaders to work together on safeguards https://t.co/7qVpNAXYKM pic.twitter.com/Cds6gf5vef
— Reuters (@Reuters) September 29, 2026
"I don’t think that that is ‘fake news’ as some have said," the pope added, in a veiled reference to Trump, "to try and cause whether financial or other some other kind of benefit."
"We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars."
As critics condemn President Donald Trump's trio of taxpayer-funded advertisements as illegal propaganda and "an impeachable offense," The Wall Street Journal and leading congressional Democrats revealed Tuesday that the administration appears to have used US Department of Homeland Security funding to pay for the ads.
Citing unnamed sources, the Journal reported that "Trump personally pushed for the ads and has been involved in their creation," and that the money came from US Customs and Border Protection, an agency of DHS. Top Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives said the administration apparently used CBP funding allocated in Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year.
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Homeland Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday sent a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin about the "outrageous scheme" of using "Americans' hard-earned tax dollars to bankroll the obscene political ads celebrating President Trump."
The pair noted that on September 19, the Office of Management and Budget approved a release of money to CBP, including "$20 million in new funding under the line item 'Commemorative Events,' which we suspect may well be the funding tapped to run this government propaganda."
"We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars," they told Mullin, a former senator who voted for the GOP's 2025 budget package.
Specifically, as the watchdog Public Citizen detailed in a Tuesday complaint to the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and broadcasters, the three campaign ads "appear to violate the federal law against using taxpayer funds to finance propaganda (5 USC §3107) and related provisions of the appropriations laws as well as the Hatch Act (5 USC §7324)."
Margaret Dylus-Yukins, senior legal counsel for ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, highlighted on Monday that the unlawful ads come on top of the war chest that Trump has raised—mostly from rich people and corporations—since the last election for the super political action committee (PAC) MAGA Inc.
"At a minimum, this is an appalling abuse of taxpayer dollars, particularly when hundreds of millions of private dollars are already flowing into US elections—and Trump has personally helped raise enormous sums from wealthy special interests for a super PAC devoted to advancing his political agenda," Dylus-Yukins said.
Axios on Tuesday corroborated the Journal's reporting that "Trump is personally selecting which government-funded ads his administration is airing ahead of the midterms," and one unnamed official claimed that "this is just the beginning."
With the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress just five weeks away, the administration has claimed the ads are "public service announcements." Murray and Murphy called that defense "as absurd as it is offensive," and pointed out that "the White House has failed to answer our most basic questions about where these funds coming from and who is responsible."
"The American people deserve answers about how this president is literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself—while doing nothing to help them afford healthcare or housing. These ads need to immediately come off the air, taxpayers need to be paid back for this theft, and everyone responsible needs to be held accountable for this corrupt and illegal propaganda," the senators argued, demanding answers to a list of questions within 48 hours.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) also spoke out Tuesday, saying that "after gutting $1 trillion from Medicaid, stripping healthcare coverage from millions of Americans, giving the very richest Americans and large corporations massive tax breaks, adding more than $4 trillion to the deficit, and more than quadrupling funding for mass deportations, it turns out the Trump administration used Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill to pay for President Trump’s political ads."
"When Democrats reclaim control of Congress next year, the House Appropriations Committee will work to uncover and reverse misuses of taxpayer money like this and hold those who abused their power accountable," that pair pledged.
With Trump's approval rating dropping—largely due to poor economic conditions exacerbated by his illegal Iran War—Republicans are increasingly at risk of losing their current majorities in one or both chambers. In the House, that would likely mean not only DeLauro chairing the Appropriations Committee, but also Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Jim Himes (D-Conn.) Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) respectively leading the Oversight, Intelligence, and Judiciary committees.
"For two years, Trump and his family have run the presidency like a family business, getting richer by the billions while Republicans in Congress held the door open," Congressional Integrity Project senior adviser Jeremy Funk said in a Tuesday statement.
Pointing to "Gulf money" for Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, "Pentagon contracts" for Donald Trump Jr., the first family's lucrative cryptocurrency schemes, and "now taxpayer-funded ads starring Trump himself," Funk charged that "every one of these rackets depended on a Republican Congress that refused to ask a single question."
"That era ends in January," he declared. "Jim Himes, Robert Garcia, and Jamie Raskin, and every other Democratic committee chair, has the receipts, and soon they'll have the gavels and subpoena power. Trump's cronies are already lawyering up. They should be. Accountability is coming for all of them."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who could become speaker if Democrats reclaim the chamber, made clear in an interview with The Associated Press published on Saturday that "we are going to hold the crooks accountable," and "we haven’t ruled anything out," including impeachment.
While some elected Democrats and political commentators have argued that impeaching Trump a historic third time wouldn't be a good use of the party's time—particularly as the Senate acquitted him in both of the previous cases—Jeffries' comments came just days after Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who is retiring after this term, introduced over two dozen more articles of impeachment against the president.
Meanwhile, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who served as the White House ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, told The New York Times on Sunday that the use of federal funds for the ads could be "an impeachable offense."
"This is very dangerous," Painter said. "We do not allow government-sponsored propaganda in the United States."
This article has been updated with reporting from Axios.
"Ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim," wrote a federal judge.
A federal judge has allowed a First Amendment lawsuit to proceed against Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner after he allegedly had police sent to a resident's house to question her over a social media post criticizing his support for Israel.
Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Monday denied defendants' motion to dismiss claims filed on behalf of Miami Beach resident and veteran Raquel Pacheco.
Altonaga said that "ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim."
On January 12, a pair of Miami Beach police officers showed up at Pacheco's door to question her about a post she made on Facebook criticizing Meiner, an outspoken supporter of Israel and its military assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, including over 21,000 children.
Pacheco referred to Meiner as someone who "consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians" and "tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings," referring to his attempt to have an independent theater's lease terminated after it held screenings of No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary made by Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers about the displacement of Palestinians and demolition of homes by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.
Video of the interaction shows police asking Pacheco if the post came from her account and ignoring her as she told them she would not speak to them without a lawyer.
"This is freedom of speech," Pacheco responded. "This is America, right?”
The officers acknowledged that Pacheco was “not going to jail” and did not claim that she had threatened Meiner. One of the officers then explained that "what we’re just trying to prevent is someone else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement."
He added that Pacheco's statements could "probably incite somebody to do something" before telling Pacheco to “refrain from posting things like that." The officers then left and Pacheco was never charged with a crime.
Represented by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Pacheco filed a lawsuit in March alleging that Miami Beach officials had used police power to violate her First Amendment rights and deter her from criticizing the mayor and Israel. The lawsuit described it as part of a broader effort by officials to chill pro-Palestinian speech.
Emails released weeks after the incident revealed that Meiner personally flagged Pacheco's post to police, referring to it as a "dangerous escalation. Speaking to reporters on February 4, he defended his decision to alert the cops, saying that Pacheco's post was "absolutely false" and referring to it as "age-old antisemitism."
But Altonaga said Meiner's statements supported Pacheco's allegation that "her viewpoint motivated Meiner’s decision to send police to her home," allowing her viewpoint discrimination claim against him to proceed.
The court also allowed the ADC to proceed with its claim that the City of Miami Beach itself—including the mayor and police chief—had demonstrated a broader pattern of viewpoint discrimination against pro-Palestinian speech. The lawsuit cites Meiner's attempt to shut down the local theater, as well as its law banning government contractors from boycotting Israeli businesses, including those operating in territories illegally occupied by Israel.
It also cites Meiner and other Miami Beach officials' repeated pattern of arguing with and cutting off Pacheco and other pro-Palestinian speakers during city commission meetings while allowing pro-Israel speakers to talk with little obstruction.
During one meeting, Meiner reduced public comments for pro-Palestinian speakers to 60 seconds when they criticized the police response to Pacheco while allowing speakers who defended the police action or criticized Pacheco's pro-Palestine viewpoint to speak for around two minutes uninterrupted.
Jenin Younes, ADC's president and national legal director, said Monday's ruling was "a significant victory for Raquel Pacheco, for the First Amendment, and for all Americans who care about the right to free speech and dissent."
"The city downplayed what happened to Ms. Pacheco as a routine police visit," Younes said. "The court disagreed, recognizing that sending police to someone’s home to question and intimidate them over their protected political speech can itself violate the First Amendment."
"The government does not have to arrest you, prosecute you, or formally censor you to violate the First Amendment," he added. "The chilling effect of these actions is obvious.”