
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.
The anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and the three-year, U.S-funded Gazan genocide it ignited marks the birth of a dark new world where "the unthinkable has become banal," where many thousands of damaged Palestinian children - homeless, toy-less, traumatized, unschooled, with mournful questions about a lost world - have been given only "tents, hunger, and rubble as answers." Zohran Mamdani on the arduous, unfulfilled task before us: "There must be room to mourn every single life."
Precisely one year into what over 100 human rights organizations around the world call "a ceasefire in name only," Gaza remains "Ground Zero" in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. In the last three years, Israeli strikes have killed at least 74,254 people, including over 21,500 children, and wounded 175,000 more, killing or wounding more than 1 in 10 of Gaza's pre-war population; health officials estimate tens of thousands more dead remain buried beneath Gaza's 61 million tons of rubble. Since the start of the so-called ceasefire on Oct.10 of last year, at least 1,470 more Palestinians have been killed, including nearly one child a day. No hospital is fully functional, over 1.4 million Palestinians face crisis-level hunger and most Gazan families remain trapped in a devastating cycle of loss, grief, deprivation and uncertainty.
Reports seeping out from a still-mostly-blockaded Gaza describe "entire worlds wiped out" - extended families, neighborhoods, over 80% of all buildings, resulting in nearly 1.9 million Palestinians displaced. Gaza's missing, or last seen detained, handcuffed, tortured, naked, haunt those who survive: "We don't know whether to mourn them or wait for them." During occasional prisoner swaps, Israel hands over images or remains of decomposing bodies of detainees, many handcuffed, blindfolded, missing limbs, clearly tortured. Parents scroll or search through them, all that's left of a long-missing son: "How did I become a mother who hopes to find her child among mutilated corpses? My dream was to hug him. Now I pray simply to bury him."
Others relive the brutality they survived: fires, bombings, multiple evacuations, sights, smells, sounds of phosphorous bombs, drones, tanks; the terror of running to an outhouse fast enough not to "be sniped," the uneasy sleep under shelling close enough to outside walls that if bombs fall their neighbors can dig them out or at least bury them; the first up-close sight of Israeli soldiers, every inch covered in armor to "look invincible." The orders to strip to underwear, blindfolded, handcuffed behind backs, kneeling on ground strewn with glass and rubble, the insults, beatings, cold relieved only when their own warm blood from beatings runs over them. Trying to pray or sleep, hallucinating "between life and death," when blankets, speaking, changing position was forbidden: "Everything was forbidden except breathing and swift death."

And always there are the children, Gaza's "lost generation," roughly 700,000 students left behind by three years of war and deliberate “scholasticide" that have destroyed 95% of their schools, turned the rest into shelters for the displaced, killed over 20,000 students and 1,000 teachers, seen books burned for fuel for warmth or cooking. At the start of a new school year, the UN and its partners have set up over 500 tent sites - no desks, chairs, books, water, ovens in summer, freezing in winter - to serve up to 100,000 hungry, shell-shocked students struggling to focus in an attempted return to a "normal life" they can't imagine, who've grown up falling asleep to the sound of bombs, "their entire existence one of life amid rubble, tents, stones and sand," writes Tareq Hajjaj of kids often too young to remember what a home or school was.
Hajjaj fled for Cairo in 2024 so his only child wouldn't "grow up believing the whole world looked like Gaza." He left behind 15 nieces and nephews whose "expectations for ordinary life" he's seen shrink; on one video call, a six-year-old nephew saw him sitting on a sofa and asked how he fit it in his tent, and they dream only of a bigger, dryer tent. In the occupied West Bank, residents likewise endure new Israeli gates that turn villages into "an effective cage," Bedouin families expelled, settlers stealing land, livestock, homes, olive groves harvested by Palestinian generations past. This is not a Palestinian "superhuman capacity" for resilience, he argues, but "the ordinary human behavior of people who have no other choice, who are left alone to their fate." To cope, they dismiss the hardship with “aadi,” Arabic for normal, "it is what it is," but "there is nothing normal about it."

In a deeply complicit America that contributed over $30 billion to Gaza's genocide, the truth of what our blood money has wrought slowly seeps out. Last month, the New York Film Festival premiered NAZA, the Guardian-produced documentary by two Israeli filmmakers that offers a grim "Window Into Systems of Mass Killings" in a Gaza where rabid Zionists argued there are "no innocent people." NAZA, the Hebrew acronym for civilian deaths as high as 500 for one legit target, presents damning testimony from 24 Israeli soldiers, faces obscured, who veer from naming their genocidal acts to rationalizing them through performative nods toward their guilt - a longtime form of Israeli sort-of-moral-reckoning with state violence known as "shooting and crying" that critics dub "addiction to the mediated obscene." The film will stream for free in November on The Guardian website.
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani proffered a more heartfelt, equitable reckoning with horror this week by attending a peace vigil and press conference to commemorate the three year anniversary. As expected, he caught flak from both sides when he called out both Hamas' “horrific war crimes” - he's a Muslim "traitor" - and Israel's “devastating, ongoing genocide” - he's an "anti-Semite." Calmly, he noted, he "signed up for this," and will continue to insist on it, citing the need to mourn and extend human rights to the more than 1,100 Israelis killed, and the over 74,000 Palestinians subsequently killed. "This is part of what it means to believe in a sense of humanity, " he said. "We need not choose between which death we will mourn and which we will ignore, and we must reckon with the fact that all of it is to be opposed.”

Further glad proof of that reckoning was the awarding of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to “Navi” Pillay, 85, South African jurist, former U.N. human rights chief and member of the ICC who has led decades-long fights seeking accountability for apartheid, wartime rape and most recently the Gaza genocide. The Nobel committee cited Pillay's “exceptional courage”; noting her last report naming Gaza a genocide, she responded, "Why would you need courage to speak the truth?" Fittingly, Pillay learned of the award while at Germany's Nuremberg Forum, where Nazis went on trial in 1945: "I was sitting here minding my own business, listening to the panel present their research, because you’re always learning.” After colleagues applauded her, Pillay also won the Internet by joking,"Thank you so much. If you clap a little more, I may share this prize with President Trump."
Last year, Pillay was also awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. She dedicated it to “all the survivors of international crimes” and to “defenders of international justice (who) ensure that impunity will not be allowed to reign.” Joining her righteous fight is Mosab Abu Toha, a Palestinian writer and poet from Gaza and winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. Recently, per Zeteo, Toha wrote A Letter of Sympathy to the President of the United States after he saw posts online mocking Trump after he was seen wincing at the “deafening sound" of the military flyover for his autocrat bestie Chinese President Xi. "I didn’t like the tone of many of those posts,” he wrote. "I don't blame you for such a reaction/ I have reacted like this, and worse, hundred of times..."
My parents, wife, kids, and siblings have too.
So all of us now
know how
that sound feels.
In 2008, I was 16
on the roof of our house in Beit Lahia,
standing with my father, watching his pigeons in their coop,
when an Israeli, U.S.-made F-16
flew low, like a shaving machine,
before razing a neighborhood.
I panicked at its piercing shriek,
but also at the sight of the missiles
mounted beneath its wings.
But Mr. President, all of us, except you, know
the screech of a missile
or the blast of an explosion.
Do you know what’s louder than the screech and the blast?
The voice of a mother in Jabalia Camp,
begging me on October 31, 2023,
to search for the bodies of her husband and children
under the rubble
not just of her house,
but of the entire neighborhood.
The desperate pleas of 5-year-old Hind Rajab
from her uncle’s car in January 2024,
and the 335 bullets fired at her
before, during, and after the call.
The trickle of tears on the cheek of a father
who returned with no bread for his kids in a tent
in Khan Younis, and the screams of an infant
whose mother’s breast had dried up.
The heartbeat of 18-year-old Ahed
as her uncle, Dr. Hani Bseiso,
amputated her leg on a kitchen table,
without anesthesia.
It was dark!
The grinding footsteps of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiyya
as he walked toward the tank in his white coat.
I can hear the sound of his disappearance.
And I can still hear and hear more!
But do you know what will be much louder than all?
The sound of the gavel
in the court of justice.
A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to block the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards, which they called a "giveaway" to the oil and auto industries.
Earlier this week, the US Department of Transportation finalized a rule weakening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
The Biden administration required annual fuel-efficiency improvements aimed at bringing the average for new vehicles to 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under the Trump administration’s new rule, the 2031 requirement would fall below the 35.4 mpg already achieved by the 2024 fleet, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) own analysis.
NHTSA estimated that as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas by 2050 than they would have under the old standards, increasing average lifetime fuel costs by more than $1,600 per vehicle—more than the roughly $1,300 the administration has claimed they'll save on average in upfront vehicle costs.
It is also projected to add about 1 billion additional metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared with retaining the previous standards—equivalent to more than six months' worth of emissions from the entire US transportation sector.
“Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Climate Law Institute. "We’ll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We’re asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto.”
CBD was joined by the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, which filed a petition on Friday to ask an appeals court to review the rule change. They argue that the rollback is illegal because federal law requires NHTSA to set fuel-economy standards at the “maximum feasible” level manufacturers can achieve.
“The Trump administration’s rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices,” said Andy Su, senior transportation attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “We’re going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive.”
As some of California's richest residents pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating a proposed billionaire tax, one former venture capitalist is making a remarkably different argument: He is perfectly happy to pay it—and he's not alone.
John O'Farrell, a former partner at Andreessen Horowitz, explained Wednesday in a 12-post thread on the social media platform X why he supports the California Billionaire Tax Act, commonly known as Proposition 40, which is on the state's November midterm ballot.
O'Farrell's argument contradicts the chorus of Silicon Valley billionaires and their allies who warn that taxing billionaire wealth would drive the ultra-rich out of California.
"I know where I want to live," he wrote.
"I've been fortunate to benefit from tech wealth. I'm not even close to being a billionaire, but I could easily afford to pay the wealth tax—and any billionaire certainly can—without the slightest effect on my lifestyle," O'Farrell said. "I support a wealth tax at my wealth level also."
Introduced by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, with an option to pay the tax in annual installments of 1% over five years.
The proposal would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
"I find the knee-jerk opposition of some ultra-wealthy people to the idea of paying any new tax deeply disappointing," O'Farrell said in his thread. "To be honest, I can't understand it. They have so much money they couldn't spend it in multiple lifetimes."
Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies—a Washington, DC-based progressive think tank—exposed 22 California billionaires who have poured more than $150 million into defeating Prop 40, "with more rolling in every day," as Chuck Collins wrote for the group.
"These 22 include a prince, several private jet-flying chums of Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of crypto and tech bros designing the [artificial intelligence] future for the rest of us," Collins noted. "On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion. In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64%."
O'Farrell's social media thread pointed out how "our tax system favors wealthy people."
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride," he wrote, adding, "the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
"Paying taxes is ultimately a matter of self-interest," he contended. "What kind of society do we want to live in? One that rewards achievement but also emphasizes fairness and opportunity for all—or one in which you have to cower in a bunker and live in fear of the pitchforks?"
"One enables the pursuit of happiness for all," he concluded. "The other, just the pursuit of endless wealth."
Prop 40 is backed by numerous progressive groups including the Teamsters union, California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
Sanders, Khanna, and others—including Congresswoman Aisha Wahab (D-Calif.), Democratic congressional candidate Randy Villegas, and California insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim—are set to speak at a series of rallies for Prop 40 starting Saturday in San Francisco.
O'Farrell isn't the only wealthy Californian who supports Prop 40. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose fortune has soared into the hundreds of billions of dollars, has said he is “perfectly fine” with the proposed tax, telling Bloomberg that he and his family “chose to live in Silicon Valley” and that whatever taxes California applies, “so be it.”
President Donald Trump stands apart from his predecessors with his use of government resources to glorify himself. During his second presidency, he has used taxpayer funds to blast the airwaves with ads singing his praises, drape giant banners of his face from agency buildings, and mint coins bearing his image.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said the Smithsonian National Museum of American History—which houses some of the nation's most significant historical collections—should preserve artifacts like these as evidence of what he calls Trump's official "governmental propaganda" for future generations.
On Wednesday, Raskin announced a bill that would compel the Smithsonian to collect and preserve objects "reflecting the rise of governmental propaganda, corruption, and authoritarianism" under Trump's two presidencies.

The legislation comes amid Trump's attempts to warp the Smithsonian's content to reflect his personal view of the nation's history. In July, he signed an executive order directing the Interior Department to erect signs along the walkway warning that it contained exhibits that reflect the “personal, radical ideologies" of the curators.
The language is pulled from a 162-page report released that same month objecting to exhibits that it claims demonstrate "extreme political activism"—including some which highlight the experiences of immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, Native Americans, and other historically marginalized groups. It also claims that the museum does not adequately venerate the nation's founders, while accentuating their faults, including participation in slavery and other historic injustices.
Raskin said that the signs warning passersby of the Smithsonian's dangerous content—which are expected to cost $84,000 to install—are among the artifacts that should be preserved as an example of how authoritarians seek to control media, government, and culture.
He said the signs should be among several other "manifestations of authoritarian narcissism" that the museum should put on display, as well as the "Stalinist" banners of Trump's face that have adorned the departments of Agriculture, Labor, Justice, and Interior.

In addition, Raskin said the exhibition should include other photos and videos captured by journalists and private citizens documenting the Trump era, as well as personal testimonials from Americans who "resisted and opposed the rise in authoritarianism," including those who participated in protest movements.
In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order directing the Smithsonian to purge its halls of what he called "improper ideology" or risk losing funding, which was followed by sweeping content reviews.
Earlier this week, The Atlantic reported that the White House had conditioned nearly $190 million in Smithsonian funding on its adherence to the order's vague ban on "exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.”
The museum has bowed to the pressure sometimes in ways that critics deemed "Orwellian," such as when references to Trump were scrubbed from an exhibit on presidential impeachments before being restored following backlash.
In January, a Smithsonian staff member told The Guardian that administrators had objected to the description of the World War II-era internment of Japanese Americans as "unjust" because the label could appear partisan. Another said they changed "diversity" to "variety" in text discussing astronomical objects, fearing that the administration might flag the word during its content reviews.
Raskin said his legislation is aimed at making sure this sort of heavy-handed censorship is not forgotten.
“To avoid repeating this descent into authoritarianism," he said, "we must study this corrupt president’s actions and allow the public to learn about the numerous tools he deployed while attempting to remake American history in his own image and according to his own autocratic and white nationalist beliefs.”
The international reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize, which has suffered in progressive and human rights circles over recent years, may be on the path to improvement after Friday's announcement that this year's award has been given to Navi Pillay, a person of "exceptional courage" who has been at the forefront of accountability efforts for apartheid, prosecuting war crimes, and upholding international law for decades.
In its statement, The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Pillay—who during her career served as a judge on the High Court in South Africa, her native country, and later the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court (ICC)—"has been instrumental in ensuring that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are prosecuted."
Pillay also served for six years as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, from 2008 to 2014, and more recently chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which generated a 2025 report concluding that the Israeli government had committed genocide in Gaza.
"The last thing I did is the report on Gaza naming what is happening there as genocide. One of the main reactions to that report [was] paying tribute to me for my courage.. why would you need courage to speak the truth?" Navi Pillay upon winning the 2026 Nobel peace prize https://t.co/hYPA94eFLe
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) October 9, 2026
"The last thing I did is the report on Gaza naming what is happening there as genocide," Pillay said Friday. "One of the main reactions to that report is paying tribute to me for my 'courage.' And you can imagine our surprise—why would you need courage to speak the truth?"
"Is it true?" asked Pillay when first notified of the award, fittingly while at the Nuremburg Court where Nazi's were tried for their atrocities of last century.
In a moment of levity, surrounded by colleagues applauding her achievement, Pillay said, "Thank you so much. If you clap a little bit more, I may share this prize with [US President Donald] Trump."
Trump, accused of war crimes himself, has notoriously said he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize despite his record of violating international laws, kidnapping or assassinating foreign heads of state, initiating wars of aggression, and carrying out a lawless campaign of lethal attacks in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean which human rights experts have denounced as "murder spree."
Volker Türk, the current UN high commissioner for human rights, said the award going to Pillay represents "a proud moment for the global human rights movement," and that to call it "well-deserved" would be "a understatement."
"At a time when human rights are under attack on so many fronts, including from those who wield enormous power, this award is particularly poignant," Türk continued. "It is an award to all those who, around the world, dedicate their lives to the defense of human rights—at great risk to their security."
Agnes Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, called Pillay's selection an "amazing moment" for human rights.
"We are at the Nuremberg Court; I cannot think of a stronger symbol for her Nobel prize," said Callamard. "We are all so thrilled!"
Amazing moment. Navi Pillay has received the Nobel Peace Prize ! https://t.co/HL3r1PJzLOWe are at the Nuremberg Court; I cannot think of a stronger symbol for her Nobel prize. We are all so thrilled! This is her first reactions upon hearing the news: https://t.co/Crbj6XdiyQ
— Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) October 9, 2026
"At a time of existential challenges—including more wars and conflicts than the world has seen in a long time—international law is no longer just a supplement to peace and security. It is an absolute necessity," the Nobel Committee said in its announcement.
Warning that "the system of international law is under tremendous pressure, and its institutions are under attack," the committee said "a shift towards power politics at the expense of legal frameworks and global respect for law and justice" threatens peace and stability worldwide, a veiled but clear reference to the antagonism the US government under Trump has shown to the ICC, the United Nations, and other legal institutions and frameworks.
"Whenever might overtakes right, it undermines stability, trust and peaceful co-existence," the statement said. And continued:
History has shown that a world operating without the rule of law is unjust, unwise and inhumane. The judges – those who guard the thin red line between order and chaos—are therefore highly deserving of our praise. But today, as these same judges are sanctioned, and their institutions are attacked, we need people of courage, vision and determination—qualities that Navi Pillay demonstrates in her work on the bench.
Pillay, it concluded, "is one of the great defenders of international legal principles in our time. Her distinguished career reminds us of the need to support, fortify and expand the global rule of law. Navi Pillay’s commitment to justice and human dignity is a source of hope and inspiration to all who seek to bring about a more peaceful world."
As Türk put it in his remarks, recognition of Pillay's work and legacy by the Nobel committee is "a reaffirmation that human rights, the rule of law and justice and accountability are fundamental to everything—to peace, security and prosperity."
"Keep our city out of your reckless war talk," said San Diego's mayor, Todd Gloria, Monday night after President Donald Trump's rambling speech at a rally in Nebraska included a particularly violent mention of the California city.
Gloria was among several Democratic political leaders who were incensed after Trump—moments after predicted the Republican Party would see a "tremendous victory" in the November 3 midterm elections—suggested that he would not object to an Iranian military or nuclear attack on San Diego and Los Angeles.
The president said that soaring prices for gas, groceries, and other essentials are a "small price to pay for keeping the world safe—keeping our country safe."
Trump on Iran: Let 'em take out Los Angeles and San Diego, it's a small price to pay https://t.co/Fc4BcjVDKj
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) October 6, 2026
He warned that Iran could "take out a city," before adding that he would "let them" attack the two deep-blue cities—home to a collective 5.2 million people, with more than 20 million residents in the surrounding areas
“Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego," Trump said at the rally in Grand Island. "This is a very small price to pay... It’s gonna be over very soon."
The crowd responded to Trump's comments with laughter and cheers. The president has frequently made Democratic strongholds like Los Angeles, Chicago, and his own hometown of New York City the targets of rhetorical attacks. He has also targeted those cities with the deployment of armed federal agents as part of his mass deportation agenda.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat whose name has been floated as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, condemned Trump's remarks as "deranged and dangerous."
"After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego," said Newsom, who later criticized Trump's vice president and secretary of state for not speaking out against the comments.
"The SILENCE from JD Vance and Marco Rubio today is deafening," said the governor.
Gloria added that San Diego, which is home to major military installations, "is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a 'small price to pay.'"
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass accused Trump of compromising the safety of the nation's second-largest city.
"The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives," said Bass. "In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city."
Jim Desmond, a Republican running for Congress in California's 48th District, which lies in San Diego, was also quick to distance himself from the president's comments.
Some observers claimed the president had simply been speaking in an "especially confusing style," as journalist Daniel Dale suggested, and did not intend to suggest that the two cities could be acceptable collateral damage.
"Of course you can say it’s inappropriate regardless for the president to casually float the possibility of a city being wiped out," he added.
Trump's comments came days after it was reported that the Pentagon is prepared to send thousands more troops and a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, as talks between the US and Iran remain stalled. Gas prices remain elevated, at $4.36 per gallon on average, and nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Associated Press poll in June said they disapproved of how Trump had handled the war, which he joined Israel in starting in February without congressional approval.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) had a succinct response to Trump's remarks, referring to the constitutional amendment that allows members of a president's Cabinet to remove him from office on the ground that they cannot fulfill the duties of the president.
"Twenty-fifth amendment NOW," said Padilla.
"California will not be intimidated by Trump's fear campaign. He's afraid because he knows he's losing," said Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
Politicians and activists are denouncing the Trump administration for initiating a surge in federal immigration enforcement operations less than a month before the 2026 midterm elections.
According to a Wednesday report in the Washington Examiner, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has launched an operation expected to last for six weeks that is targeting undocumented immigrants regardless of whether they have a past criminal record.
The Examiner's sources said that ICE officers have been "told to go after anybody," with one source saying that the agency's management wants "numbers."
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, on Thursday condemned the ICE surge in a social media post, accusing President Donald Trump of "using fear and panic as a weapon."
"No president is above the Constitution," Newsom wrote. "No one in this country is without rights. California will stand up for our communities and hold federal agents accountable. Know your rights and exercise them safely."
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, called for ICE to be abolished because of the agency's continued "assault on immigrants and US citizens with no criminal history."
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) called the current ICE surge "alarming," but warned the agency that its days of consequence-free lawlessness are coming to an end.
"House Democrats will continue to demand oversight over this out of control agency," Aguilar wrote, with the November midterm elections just weeks away. "Accountability is coming."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) released a statement accusing the Trump administration of conducting an "arrest first, questions later" policy that is sweeping up documented immigrants and even US citizens.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass drew a straight line between the California ICE operation and Trump's declining political standing, as polling averages show his approval numbers hitting record lows.
"California will not be intimidated by Trump's fear campaign," Bass wrote. "He's afraid because he knows he's losing. My office has your back. Stay safe, know your rights, protect your neighbors, and vote if you're eligible."
Joel Payne, chief communications officer for MoveOn, similarly linked the ICE campaign with midterm elections.
"No one is safer because ICE is terrorizing and violently hunting down our neighbors," said Payne. "The surge of ICE activity in California is a clear attempt to intimidate Latino communities and force them to stay home in the midterm elections. It won’t work."
"I think he did great because it's impossible for Republican Mike Rogers to defend the most dangerous, reckless, and extreme president in the history of the United States."
Sen. Bernie Sanders said Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed decisively "won" Thursday night's contentious Senate debate with Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers, whom he leveled with attacks on his support for President Donald Trump's unpopular war with Iran and tariff regime.
Two public polls taken after the debate by the Detroit Free Press and WOOD-TV both show three-quarters of voters agreeing that El-Sayed prevailed.
During an interview with CNN's Kaitlan Collins following the debate, Sanders (I-Vt.), who has enthusiastically backed El-Sayed's bid for the Senate, argued that there was a simple reason why.
"I think Abdul did great," Sanders said. "I think he did great because it's impossible for Republican Mike Rogers to defend the most dangerous, reckless, and extreme president in the history of the United States."
Watch the full clip below:
The Michigan race is among the most closely watched for the November midterm elections, in which Democrats are trying to reclaim majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives.
"Armed troops do not belong near ballot boxes," the head of the District of Columbia ACLU told Common Dreams.
Amid fears that President Donald Trump will send armed agents to intimidate voters during the midterms, the DC Board of Elections told Common Dreams on Friday that it is responding to complaints of National Guard troops stationed outside a ballot drop box near downtown Washington shortly before voting was set to open.
On Thursday, Bryan K. Randolph, a Washington, DC-based political and legal commentator, posted a video to TikTok showing what he said were three members of the National Guard stationed in front of a ballot box outside the Foggy Bottom Metro station, which is located on the campus of George Washington University.
"I stood and watched for a few minutes before I shot this video," Randolph said. "They were there for at least a few minutes. I don't know for how much longer they'd been there before that."
@brynodc 10/8 National Guard at Ballot Box, Washington, DC. Foggy bottom metro.
♬ original sound - BrynoDC
He said that minutes after he began filming, the troops left, possibly because they saw him recording.
Federal law explicitly prohibits the presence of "any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held" unless their presence is necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.
Though the statute does not specifically mention ballot drop boxes, legal experts have argued that the phrase "any place" means it should apply not just to traditional polling places, but also ballot drop boxes, election offices, and ballot counting facilities.
While he said it was unclear why the troops were stationed at the ballot box, Randolph noted that it was "a giant white box with the word 'ballot' pretty hard to miss," adding that "they clearly, at best, have not been told to stay away."
A spokesperson for the DC Board of Elections confirmed to Common Dreams that it "has received complaints regarding National Guard personnel posted near a ballot drop box next to the Foggy Bottom-GWU Metro station."
"We are addressing the concerns with the National Guard directly and have requested that they impose limitations on the placement of National Guard service members near drop boxes and other voting locations in the District," she said.
Joint Task Force-District of Columbia, the military command overseeing National Guard operations in the capital, did not respond to a request for comment.

President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to the streets of the nation's capital last summer. The troops have remained despite widespread public opposition and a federal judge's ruling that the deployment was unlawful, which an appeals court subsequently put on hold.
Asked about the possibility of deploying troops to polling places earlier this year, Trump did not rule it out. He has also lamented that he did not send National Guard troops to seize election materials while he tried to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Voting rights experts have warned about possible plans by Trump to use federal troops or agents—including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the National Guard—to interfere with November's midterm elections. Though elections are administered by states under the Constitution, Trump has said that Republicans should "nationalize" voting.
Dan Herman and Devon Ombres, two national security and legal policy experts at the Center for American Progress, said that "there is little to no safe or democratic way for the military to be involved with the elections process."
"Voters may stay home if they fear military presence. Ballots may no longer be trusted if a machine’s chain of custody is broken. Military deployments elsewhere in a city might prevent voters from reaching their polling site in time," they wrote in a brief published Friday by Just Security.
The recording shared on Thursday is not the first instance of National Guard personnel seen gathered around ballot boxes in DC. In June, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), the nonvoting delegate from DC in the House of Representatives, demanded answers about another video in which a resident confronted several troops who were seen outside a drop box.
Asked whether they'd been told to stay away from the boxes, one of the Guard members responded, "No. Not at all."
"The fact that Guard personnel reportedly had not been instructed to avoid ballot drop boxes suggests a troubling lack of awareness by leadership of the impact these deployments are having on the district and its residents," Norton said.

With Republicans in Congress projected to take heavy losses in the midterms, proponents of his efforts to overturn his last election defeat have reportedly met with Trump in recent days, urging him to declare a "national emergency" that they claim would allow him to assert direct authority over the elections, an idea disputed by legal experts.
One plan that has reportedly circulated among election deniers has involved invoking the Insurrection Act, which they claim would allow Trump to flood polling locations with military and federal law enforcement.
While the Insurrection Act would permit some domestic law enforcement by the military, Herman and Ombres emphasized that it would not override the laws restricting troops from polling locations.
"Armed troops do not belong near ballot boxes," Monica Hopkins, executive director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia, told Common Dreams. "At minimum, troop presence at the ballot box creates the appearance of voter intimidation and risks discouraging DC residents from exercising our fundamental right to vote."
"The deployment of National Guard into the District without the consent of our local government is an affront to democracy here and around the nation," she said. "National Guard troops must go home."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said President Donald Trump's formation of a committee to investigate cook is part of his "dangerous quest to illegally take over our nation’s central bank."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said Friday that President Donald Trump's formation of a new committee to investigate Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook amounts to "an illegitimate show trial in his dangerous quest to illegally take over our nation’s central bank."
"Instead of playing judge in a kangaroo court of his own making, Trump should end the war in Iran and cancel his chaotic tariffs," Warren (D-Mass.) said after the White House announced a "committee of inquiry" to investigate allegations that Cook "made false statements in connection with one or more mortgage instruments." Cook, a frequent target of the president's, has denied the White House's repeated accusations that she committed mortgage fraud.
The White House said that the new committee—which will consist of three officials including Trump economic adviser Kevin Hassett and the Trump-appointed acting director of the Office of Government Ethics—will hold an in-person hearing at the White House on November 5 to "consider the evidence and allegations against Gov. Cook."
In a Friday statement, Cook's lawyers said they "have grave doubts that this 'hearing' is a legitimate one that would conform to the law."
"If it is anything close to objective, the conclusion will be that Gov. Cook did not commit mortgage fraud," said Abbe Lowell and Norm Eisen. "We have engaged with the White House to evaluate whether the process proposed has a possibility of being a genuine one and not simply a box-checking exercise."
Trump attempted to fire Cook last year but was rebuffed by the US Supreme Court after the Fed governor took legal action to prevent her removal. Under federal law, the president can only remove members of the Fed Board of Governors "for cause."
Critics argue that the Trump administration has concocted baseless mortgage fraud allegations against Cook to justify a politically motivated termination.
"Trump is escalating his smear campaign against Lisa Cook while turning the presidency into a personal ATM: crypto schemes, taxpayer-funded propaganda ads, cash for his family—the list could go on forever," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Friday. "This has nothing to do with 'ethical concerns.' It’s about Trump trying to seize control of the Fed, something that would mean even more economic chaos for American families."
One US campaigner declared that "the Trump administration has taken a sledgehammer to the most important development in international justice in half a century."
Not long after a former International Criminal Court judge on Friday won the Nobel Peace Prize for "ensuring that war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are prosecuted," US President Donald Trump—who has long sought the award—continued his administration's "campaign to dismantle" the ICC with new sanctions.
"Globalist experts that are an ocean away... want the International Criminal Court to do more, including the prosecution of American citizens and service members that are defending their country," US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed in a video posted on social media.
"They want to prosecute border patrol agents that are protecting our nation's borders, and they want to prosecute our elected leaders that are ensuring our national security," he continued. "President Donald Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans."
"We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling their ability to operate against us, because our message is clear: The United States and the American people are not subject to the jurisdiction of this fake ICC," Rubio said. "Both parties agree on this, but only President Trump has the resolve to take the action needed to end this threat once and for all."
"Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC—and we expect our allies, many of whom are part of the ICC and that rely on American service members for their defense, to rein in this rogue court," he added. "If they do not, the United States will continue its campaign to dismantle the ICC piece by piece until Americans are threatened no longer."
The United States has never been a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the Hague-based tribunal to investigate genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Since 2002, a federal law known as the Hague Invasion Act has empowered the president to prevent the ICC from detaining US or allied personnel. Although the court has probed alleged crimes by US citizens, it has never prosecuted anyone from the United States.
Trump and Rubio have been particularly hostile toward the ICC and imposed a series of sanctions since the president returned to power last year. They are especially angry about the court's 2024 arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who welcomed Friday's sanctions announcement—and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, over their ongoing US-backed assault on the Gaza Strip.
Israel's war on Gaza has killed over 74,000 Palestinians and has been widely denounced as genocide, including by a United Nations commission that was chaired by South African jurist Navanethem "Navi" Pillay, the recipient of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. In addition to serving on that panel and the ICC, she has been a High Court of South Africa judge, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda president, and UN high commissioner for human rights. She remains an International Court of Justice ad hoc judge.
Trump has publicly demanded the prize for years—while threatening to invade various nations, abducting a foreign leader, killing hundreds of people by blowing up dozens of boats on the high seas, and bombing more countries than any other US commander in chief this century, including Iran, where his and Israel's illegal war is ongoing. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who often ridicules the president, even compiled a supercut of his frequent comments about the award on Thursday, in anticipation of Friday's announcement.
After Pillay was revealed as the winner, Trump predictably attacked her. However, rather than commenting directly, he shared a post on his Truth Social platform in which US lawyer David I. Schoen claimed that the selection committee "shamed itself beyond repair and demeaned the once great Nobel Peace Prize" by giving it to Pillay, calling her "an unabashed hater of America and Israel" who has "celebrated terrorists and rewarded Hamas."
Schoen also suggested that Trump should receive the prize for the Abraham Accords, as well as because "he is making best efforts to end the Russia/Ukraine war, to stop Iran, the number one sponsor of international terrorism, and he is trying to rebuild Gaza despite the terrorists' best efforts to control it."
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Friday that the US leader "played a historic role in advancing peace in South Asia. His timely intervention helped bring Pakistan and India back from the brink and secure a ceasefire, that is holding till today. In recognition of his outstanding contribution, Pakistan had nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize."
Earlier this year, shortly after US troops invaded Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado gifted her 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to Trump. Pillay joked to those applauding her on Friday that "if you clap a little bit more, I may share this prize with Trump."
"Navi Pillay has dedicated her career to defending human rights, fighting impunity and strengthening international justice," Alexis Deswaef, president of the International Federation for Human Rights, said Friday. "At a time when those who uphold international law are increasingly under attack, this award is a powerful reminder that justice is essential to peace, and that those who defend it must be protected."
While also celebrating Pillay's win, Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard ripped the US war against the ICC on social media: "I am writing this from Nuremberg, where 80 years ago, American judges and lawyers played a crucial role in trying the highest Nazi leaders and commanders, and establishing the foundational principles of international criminal law. 80 years later, what a betrayal. The Trump administration's decision is appalling. But ultimately, it is not about them. It is about us."
The United States' "grotesque decision is a test for all European governments which have been tiptoeing, shying away from confronting and responding to the predatory actions from the Trump administration," said the French human rights leader. "They now need to rise to the moment. History demands of Europe that it stands for international justice and its institutions. There is only one possible response: impose immediately blocking orders. The US sanctions cannot and should not be implemented on European territory. This is not a USA moment. This is an 'Us' moment. Let's rise to it. Because humanity must win."
Isabelle Hayslip, advocacy associate at the US-based Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), also highlighted that the European Union "has a tool built exactly for when rogue states use sanctions to further political aims: a blocking statute that can shield the court and Europeans from US sanctions."
"If states won't act now to protect the court as they have repeatedly vowed to do, then when?" Hayslip asked. "Every day they wait, European banks move closer to abandoning the court out of fear of Washington."
The European Commission—the EU's executive arm—said Friday that the bloc "has been a constant supporter" of the court, called the new sanctions "deeply regrettable," and pledged to "work closely with the ICC to ensure it continues to operate effectively."
"And we remain committed to working with all 125 states that are parties to the Rome Statute to preserve and respect its independence so that it can continue its vital mission," the commission continued. "As there is a six-month delay before the measures are applicable, there is room for dialogue. The EU stands ready to take any necessary measures to enable the court to carry out its work both in investigating and prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to protect the interests of EU operators within the single market."
Noting that "ICC prosecutors also have tools when a state intimidates or retaliates to stop court officials from doing their jobs: The Rome Statute makes this a crime," DAWN's Hayslip argued that "they should investigate and prosecute Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and other senior administration officials for obstructing justice."
Her organization and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide previously took legal action in US court, suing over Trump's related Executive Order 14203 in July.
"In applying tools reserved for the most serious criminals to the world's only permanent international court, the US is claiming the power to jail for 20 years Americans who represent a victim, submit evidence, or handle payroll for the court," Raed Jarrar, DAWN's advocacy director, stressed Friday. "We have taken the Trump administration to court, because such brazen declarations trample the fundamental constitutional rights of millions of Americans. No president has that power."
The group's executive director, Omar Shakir, said that "by sanctioning the entire International Criminal Court, the Trump administration has taken a sledgehammer to the most important development in international justice in half a century."
Shakir warned that "US sanctions threaten to shut the last viable road to justice for millions of victims of serious crimes, from Gaza and Sudan to Afghanistan and Ukraine—all to shield Israeli officials who have perpetrated a genocide from justice."
The ICC itself forcefully condemned the Trump administration's latest "unprecedented" sanctions as "an attempt to obstruct the course of justice" as well as "an assault on the rule of law and on the very foundations of the international legal order which strikes at the simple principle that no one stands above the law."
ICC President Tomoko Akane vowed that "the court will continue to fully discharge its mandate, with independence and impartiality, acting only on the basis of the law and the evidence, for the sake of the countless victims of grave crimes."
Republicans' cuts to Medicaid and their refusal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies are key factors in the coverage drop.
Independent healthcare analyst Charles Gaba on Thursday published an updated analysis estimating that up to 12 million Americans have lost their insurance coverage since the start of President Donald Trump's second term.
Gaba based his new estimate on updated data he compiled from recent reports for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as some state enrollment data for Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance exchanges.
In total, Gaba found that enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP has dropped by 6.2 million people since the start of Trump's second term, while enrollment in ACA exchanges is down by anywhere from 4.6 million to 6.1 million people, and enrollment in Basic Health Plans (BHP) is down by nearly 275,000 people over the same period.
While there are around 1.8 million more people enrolled in Medicare now than there were at the start of Trump's term, Gaba noted that this isn't nearly enough to make up for the loss of enrollment in other programs.
Adding everything up, Gaba estimated that "between 10.88 million and 12.40 million fewer Americans enrolled in a public healthcare coverage program as of June 2026 than in were as of January 2025."
As in prior analyses, Gaba examined the possibility that some of the people who lost coverage through these programs transitioned to employer-sponsored insurance, but deemed it "extremely unlikely... since unemployment is higher than it was in January 2025."
Over the last two years, Trump and congressional Republicans have taken a number of actions that have made healthcare less affordable and pushed people off coverage.
First, they cut spending on Medicaid by an estimated $900 billion over a 10-year period when they enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025. The Congressional Budget Office projects these cuts will leave more than 10 million fewer people enrolled in the program by 2034.
GOP lawmakers last year also refused to extend enhanced subsidies for insurance plans purchased through the ACA, even as insurers raised premiums on those plans by an average of 26% this year, according to an analysis published by KFF.
In a Thursday article published by Time, scholars Neale Mahoney and Abigail Sanchez of the Stanford Institute for Economic Research warned that the costs of private health insurance are set to spike even further in 2027.
"Employer health plan costs are projected to rise 8 to 10% next year," Mahoney and Sanchez explained, "the largest increase in more than 20 years and double the average increase of the 2010s."
The two researchers said there are three major reasons for the surge in insurance costs: The expiration of the enhanced ACA subsidies, an increase in premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employer-based insurance plans, and the upcoming Medicaid work requirements projected to push millions of people off the program.
A petition signed by nearly 6,500 healthcare workers demands accountability for the Israeli Medical Association, accusing the organization of complicity in human rights violations.
Thousands of healthcare workers from across the globe are calling on the World Medical Association to suspend Israel’s membership in the organization over the government's mass killing and detention of medical professionals in Gaza, destruction of the Palestinian territory's healthcare system, and ongoing genocide.
The demand came as the WMA's General Assembly gathered in The Netherlands for its annual meeting, which runs through Saturday. A petition addressed to WMA leadership and signed by around 6,500 healthcare workers declares that the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) has "failed to uphold core medical ethical standards" and is "complicit in serious violations of medical neutrality and human rights, committed by the Israeli military and government."
The petition points to Israel's systematic attacks on Palestinian healthcare infrastructure and personnel, detention and torture of medical professionals such as Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, obstruction of medicine and other humanitarian aid in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Supporters of the petition campaign demanded that the WMA suspend the IMA "until it publicly upholds medical ethics and humanitarian law, condemns murder and torture of Palestinian health workers and takes action against violations by its members." They also called on individual national members of the WMA to follow the example of the South African Medical Association, the British Medical Association, and the Turkish Medical Association in cutting institutional ties with the IMA.
"Medical ethics are the foundation of trust in healthcare," the petition states. "The international medical community has acted before, including during apartheid in South Africa. If medical ethics are to mean anything in the future, and we are to have confidence that the WMA can fulfill its role as the international guardian of medical ethics, then it must take concerted action to hold the IMA to account."
The Israeli military has killed around 1,700 healthcare workers and detained hundreds more without charge since it began its massive assault on Gaza in the aftermath of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks.
Last year, the IMA defeated a similar effort to suspend its WMA membership. Instead, the WMA General Assembly adopted a toothless resolution calling on the Israeli government to "instantly halt all forms of attacks on healthcare personnel, patients, healthcare facilities, and food and medical aid logistics."
“Thirty years of WMA dialogue with the IMA has done nothing but give the IMA a sense of impunity. Why should they change?” Jonathan Fluxman, a British Medical Association member and retired doctor, said in a statement on Friday. “It is time for national medical associations and the WMA to speak out and take action. Break your ties with the IMA and suspend the IMA from the WMA now.”
"Either a white coat is worth protecting everywhere, or it is protected nowhere."
Earlier this week, Doctors Without Borders—known internationally as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)—called on the WMA to "join the calls to conduct swift, transparent, and impartial investigations into attacks on healthcare in Gaza and the West Bank, while reiterating its call for the release of all arbitrarily detained healthcare workers."
Dr. Javid Abdelmoneim, MSF's international president, highlighted the case of Abu Safiya, the former head of Gaza's Kamal Adwan hospital who has been detained by Israeli authorities for over 18 months without charge.
"He continues to endure prolonged solitary confinement, severe weight loss, and untreated pre-existing conditions; an international petition for his release has drawn signatories from 41 countries," Abdelmoneim noted. "Alongside him stands Dr Mazen Al-Rantisi, the 71-year-old family physician from Ramallah, known as the ‘doctor of the poor,' arrested in June 2026 in a pre-dawn raid on his home. In addition, our long-time Médecins Sans Frontières colleague, Dr Mohammed Hassan Ali Obeid, a respected 43-year-old Palestinian orthopedic surgeon and father of three children, has been detained under the Unlawful Combatant Law in Israel for more than 600 days without charges."
"Healthcare workers are not targets," wrote Abdelmoneim. "Either a white coat is worth protecting everywhere, or it is protected nowhere. The test is not simply whether we affirm these principles, but whether we uphold them when it matters most."
“I love my Somali friends and neighbors," said one former Democratic official in the state. “If Trump tries to come for them, he needs to come through all of us.”
Fear is running high in Minnesota after President Donald Trump went on yet another racist tirade against the state's Somali community on Thursday—this time verging into what was widely interpreted as a call for vigilante violence.
"The once Great State of Minnesota is being taken over by Somali Immigrants," Trump wrote Thursday afternoon on Truth Social. "There is Violence, Murder, and Mayhem all over the State. The people of Minnesota must fight back."
Trump raged against Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, whom he described as an "incompetent thief who doesn't want to get involved," and seemed to suggest that if ordinary Minnesotans took matters into their own hands, they'd have the blessing of the federal government.
"The Somalians [sic] should not be allowed to get away with what they are doing," Trump said. "They view you as weak and stupid people. Fight back, Minnesota, fight back! If you need, the Federal Government will come to your rescue."
It's hardly the first time Trump has slurred Somali immigrants. He's previously referred to them as "garbage," "very low-IQ people," and "pirates," and said they should all be deported from the country.
But Trump’s comments on Thursday went a step further than that, leaving community members on edge about the possibility that they could instigate violent attacks by his supporters.
“President Trump is placing a target on the backs of Somali Americans," said Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Minnesota, in a statement. "His words are not simply political rhetoric. They are a dangerous invitation to hatred and potentially violence."
"Minnesota has led the nation in attacks on mosques, including fire-bombings," he said. "We know firsthand what happens when hateful rhetoric turns into violence.”

Faisa Ahmed, a Somali American political organizer and senior adviser to the reelection campaign of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, said unease ran deep in her home city of Minneapolis on Thursday night.
"Every Somali I know is walking through our own neighborhoods scared tonight," she said.
"The president just told Minnesotans to 'fight back' against Somalis by name," she added. "This is incitement, and everyone should call it that."
Though most of them are US citizens, Somalis were aggressively targeted when thousands of immigration agents descended on Minnesota during Trump's Operation Metro Surge earlier this year.

In numerous cases, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents were documented engaging in explicit racial profiling directed at Somali citizens—as well as other immigrants—many of whom were detained arbitrarily and attacked with physical violence.
Ellison, who has sued the administration for civil rights violations and pushed for agents to be investigated under state law, said he would not let this happen again.
"We've seen what Trump's government coming to the 'rescue' looks like," he wrote on social media Thursday. "It ended with two Minnesotans shot dead by federal agents, racial profiling, assaults, and the violation of our rights."
"Never again. If Trump tries, I'll drag him back to court," he said. "Somali Minnesotans are our neighbors. They are part of Minnesota. And the Minnesota I know and love is so much better than this bigotry."

With less than a month to go before the midterm elections, Minnesota Republicans have sought to harness bigotry against Somalis to rally support.
Democratic candidate Doug Chapin, who is trying to unseat Republican House Majority Whip Tom Emmer in Minnesota's 6th district, put it plainly during an event on Thursday night.
"I'll call it what it is," Chapin said. "The president is trying to foment a race war here in Minnesota."
But as the violent rhetoric has ramped back up, so have expressions of solidarity from community members who have called it out as a cynical political tactic.
"This is KGB-style fear-mongering before an election. Trump’s terrified he’s going to lose the House and Senate and get impeached," said Mike Norton, the former vice chair of the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party in Minneapolis.
"I love my Somali friends and neighbors. They make Minnesota a better place," Norton said. "If Trump tries to come for them, he needs to come through all of us."
"The world’s supposedly greatest (or formerly greatest) democracy has arrived at a horrific new moral nadir," said one columnist of the plan to livestream the killing by firing squad of Nidal Hasan.
As rights advocates across the US expressed horror at the Trump administration's confirmed plans to publicly broadcast the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former military psychiatrist who was convicted of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood in 2009, the top United Nations human rights expert warned that the public state killing would violate international laws prohibiting torture.
“The livestreaming of an execution is tantamount to a public execution and would breach the absolute prohibition of torture,” the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) told Agence France-Presse Friday.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday, the US Army announced that Hasan would be executed by firing squad at Fort Hood on December 3, with the Trump administration inviting the public to watch the shooting via livestream.
The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions said in a report to the UN Human Rights Council in June that all capital punishment must be abolished worldwide, as "severe physical pain and psychological distress are an inherent part of the design and implementation" of the practice.
The OHCHR has particularly spoken out against public executions, such as those that have been carried out in Afghanistan and Iran.
Public killings by the state "constitute a form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," the office has said.
"This planned livestreamed execution says it all about what is happening in America today, opening the window ever wider on the Trump administration’s moral vacuity and its paucity of human decency."
Should the livestream go forward, Hasan's execution will be the first public state-sanctioned killing in the US in 90 years, according to Michael L. Radelet, professor emeritus at the University of Colorado Boulder, an expert on capital punishment.
Rainey Bethea, a Black man, was hanged in Kentucky in 1936 after reportedly confessing to the killing of a white woman. He was never charged with murder. Thousands of people attended his execution outside a courthouse.
As Edmarverson A. Santos wrote at the independent research platform Diplomacy & Law, the Trump administration's proposed execution livestream "raises substantial concerns under international human rights law."
"The UN Human Rights Committee expressly interprets Article 7 of the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] as prohibiting public executions and considers executions conducted in violation of that provision to constitute arbitrary deprivations of life under Article 6," wrote Santos. "A government-sponsored livestream accessible to the general public could fall within that interpretation, particularly where the condemned person's death is deliberately displayed as part of the state's punitive message."
"Hasan's conviction for intentional murder and the presidential approval of his death sentence do not independently establish the legality of publicly broadcasting his execution," Santos added.
Paul Daley, a columnist for The Guardian Australia, wrote Thursday that the planned livestream—and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's statement that the execution will be made viewable to all to show that "there’s serious consequences for these types of things"—amounted to "state-sanctioned killing as entertainment."
"The world’s supposedly greatest (or formerly greatest) democracy has arrived at a horrific new moral nadir," wrote Daley. "This represents a significant lurch in the US from civilization towards savagery... And this planned livestreamed execution says it all about what is happening in America today, opening the window ever wider on the Trump administration’s moral vacuity and its paucity of human decency."
"We are seeing the limitations of the US military’s training program and ability to maintain discipline, and have to say that it is not functioning as an organization."
The Okinawa Prefectural Assembly on Friday adopted a resolution calling for a formal review of its Status of Forces agreement with the US military amid outrage over the alleged murder of local woman by an American Marine.
As reported by Kyodo News, the assembly passed the resolution by an overwhelming margin, with 45 members in favor and just two opposed.
According to Kyodo News, the two opponents of the resolution said that it didn't go far enough and demanded language calling for the dismissal of the head of the US military in Okinawa.
The Status of Forces agreement, established in 1960, has been criticized for being too preferential to US service members, who are seen as being totally outside the reach of Japan's domestic law enforcement.
Kyodo News noted that the Okinawa assembly "passed a similar protest resolution and opinion statement in 2024 when a series of sexual assaults by US servicemen in Okinawa came to light."
Ryotaro Odo, leader of the assembly's special committee on US military bases, said the resolution was necessary because "we are seeing the limitations of the US military’s training program and ability to maintain discipline, and have to say that it is not functioning as an organization."
The resolution will now be delivered to the US embassy in Japan.
Authorities on Sunday arrested 20-year-old US Lance Cpl. Devin Jacob Ballard on suspicion of murdering 39-year-old Anna Yagi, whom Okinawa police say died from asphyxiation caused by pressure to her neck. In addition to facing murder accusations, Ballard also faces charges that he stole Yagi's wallet and backpack.
The US Marine has denied all allegations.
The alleged murder sparked angry protests and led right-wing Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who supports US military presence in Japan, to condemn what she called a "heinous crime" in a speech delivered in Japan's parliament.
“The Japanese government has lodged a strong protest with the US side," said Takaichi, "and has strongly demanded full cooperation with the investigation, as well as strict disciplinary action against US military personnel and thorough measures to prevent a recurrence of such incidents."