LIVE COVERAGE
SEND ME (But Then Bring Me Feckin' Home Again)
Stormy times at sea, as U.S. ships endure months-long, record-setting deployments for a war nobody wanted that still has no clear objective, reason for being or end in sight and their thousands of hapless burned-out sailors endure bad food, water, plumbing and morale so low some are leaping overboard, or trying to, to end it all. Blame oblivious messianic Nazi clown Kegseth and fellow zealots who lured the faithful and gullible in and then abandoned them - a sordid regime hallmark.
On land, of course, things aren't much better these days. In short inept order, Trump has trashed the economy, deporting or terrorizing away over a million brown-skinned workers for the latest dismal jobs report; ordered toxic, nonsensical changes to longtime vaccine policies based on debunked theories, what "some people say," and the fever dream of a lethal "vaccination thing" the size of a soda bottle poured into "a little child's body"; spent over $900 million of our money on vanity construction projects in D.C nobody authorized or asked for; and invested $20 million on gloves for already abusive ICE thugs to give painful electric shocks to "non-compliant" victims in "a recipe for harm to the public" and what could possibly go wrong.
Meanwhile, the Iran debacle lurches on. The Pentagon is frantically shifting money from equipment, training and missile defense funds to pay for it, oil reserves and munitions stockpiles have shrunk to record lows, our 122% debt-to-Gross-Domestic-Product ratio means U.S. debt is now greater than the value of everything we produce in a year, "including The Odyssey," and Pete Kegsbreath shrugs it off with an inane, "It takes money to kill bad guys." He's so desperate to get his obscene $1.5 trillion, $3.18 billion a day - the biggest defense budget increase since World War II - he hijacked a ceremony renaming Joint Base Charleston to Joint Base Lindsey Graham by urging Congress give it to him 'cause there'd be "no greater tribute" to the guy who never met a war he didn't like.
A partisan hack, he's failed at...everything. He sabotaged his own agenda by blowing off half the Senate, locking Dems out of classified briefings on defense spending in a move even GOPers decried. He kowtowed to Grifters 'R Us by appointing to a tech advisory body handling billions in defense contracts two bros with ties to Don Jr.'s venture capital gig, various wingnuts and others "here to raid the cupboards." Required to give Congress 2025 (pre-Iran) data on civilian harm after gutting programs to mitigate or even track it, he declared no civilian casualties in boat strikes that killed over 220 "narcoterrorists" and Yemen actions that killed hundreds more, in a report officials called "sickening," "a fucking joke," and "a total whitewash."
Wildly out of his Planet-Fox-depth, he "helped" craft a military, political and moral fiasco in Iran that has left an equally clueless Private Bonespurs reportedly on the brink of "giving up" on a war that's yielded no nuclear deal and left an ever-more powerful Iran in charge of the vital Hormuz Strait, planning to charge tolls, and demanding $300 billion in reconstruction funds. Heckuva job, or what Dan Rather calls "one of the most catastrophic failures by a president in American history." Plus, Iran hardliners are saying they won't negotiate with the U.S. again until the current moron is gone. And he's so scared he just snuck out of Turkey hiding in a catering truck, prompting a barrage of brutal memes and toons. Sure, Donnie, nobody's laughing at America anymore.
Still, because an all-time low number of young Americans are inexplicably showing interest in military service, Christofascist Pete has turned to Jesus for more bodies, arguing the war in Iran is actually "part of God’s divine plan." (Also, so are Coke bottles that read ""Jesus is Lord," or they did until the Muslims took over.) Queasily merging Trump's botched "excursion" with a messianic Christian battle to bring the return of Jesus Christ, Pentagon social media accounts are running multiple, melodramatic ads featuring "warfighters" doing gallant warfighting things alongside the message "SEND ME." Hastily cribbed from Isaiah 6:8, it's when God asks the prophet Isaiah, “Whom shall I send?” and Isaiah replies, “Here am I. Send me.”
In many Christian traditions, the passage means willingly accepting God’s call to serve as one sees fit. In evangelical culture, says one historian, it's often a standalone text" used to render that mission divine. What they skip: the following description of a judgment on cities "without inhabitant" and a land "utterly desolate," the devastation falling on "the nation doing the sending." Asked to clarify the message here, a Pentagon spokesperson demurred: "Nothing to offer you on this." Never mind the inevitable uproar if a Muslim cleric cited the Quran before killing 170 schoolgirls and threatening nuclear annihilation, or the fact "blatant Bible-thumping" implying a religious war confirms longtime Iranian agit-prop the U.S., aka "Great Satan," is waging war on Islam.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation was already “inundated” by calls from soldiers complaining about zealot commanders invoking the rhetoric of Christian Zionist messianism; one declared Trump "anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark His return to Earth." The calls, says MRFF president and veteran Mikey Weinstein, "have one damn thing in freaking common - the unrestricted euphoria of commanders (who see) Biblically-sanctioned war as an undeniable sign (of) Christian End Times." Now it's gotten worse: The messaging is more hysterical, and thousands of sailors, stuck on record-long deployments, are more desperate to escape what have become "their floating nightmares."
This week, reports surfaced of a growing but unknown number of sailors jumping overboard in apparent suicide attempts after months of isolation, rotten food, broken plumbing, no mail, a dubious mission and morale, writes Jonathan Larson, "lower than Trump’s approval ratings" thanks to the longest, most ill-planned deployment in history. "Deployments have been extended repeatedly under the command of Hegseth and Trump," he notes, "who, in their defense, are to running history’s largest military as a water buffalo is to knitting." Since Nov. 21, 2025, he adds, 5,000 sailors have been on the USS Abraham Lincoln ship, "supporting U.S. operations against Iran, whatever those might be at the moment for whatever reason we’re going with today."
He goes on, "Deployment, was supposed to end in May, much like the war was supposed to end in weeks. That can happen when you're fighting a war your commander in chief says isn’t a war, for reasons that shift like the tides, that he already won, and that made pretty much everything worse for the entire world." The USS Lincoln sailors have been at sea for almost nine months, including 250 record-setting days without touching land. There've been two stops: Guam where most had to stay aboard, and Oman where those allowed off had to stay inside a compound. Most deployments run 6 to 7 months, "roughly how long human beings can operate in a floating industrial city working (on) a flight deck actively trying to kill them before they start to come apart."
It's not the first ship stranded by "leaders" endlessly extending a deployment because they didn't bother planning to rotate in a relief ship like a real military. Earlier, the USS Gerald R. Ford spent 326 days at sea, Venezuela to iran, famously suffering plumbing breakdowns - once, 205 over four days - from sewage overwhelming pipes. In April, food complaints also began surfacing, with sailors or their relatives posting images of half-empty meal trays, gross slabs of gray "meat," and "meals" of two tortillas and a half-cup of rice. Hegseth, with time only for lethality, called them fake news. Others called bullshit: "Half a cup of rice and 2 tortillas on a $13 million warship while $600 million in gold trim goes up where the East Wing used to be. Tally the score, America."
On the Lincoln, sailors and families say conditions are akin to ICE detention: Broken toilets, contaminated drinking water, long periods without hot water for (moldy) showers, no fresh produce 'cause it can't survive the trip, no milk in months, some frozen meat that's still often rotten, basic supplies like soap and toothpaste running out, mail so disrupted care packages get lost in transit for months (if relatives can afford gas to go to the post office). Now come reports of at least six sailors, possibly more, going over the rail "just for relief." Parents say they worry their kids will "die on that ship," that they and their shipmates "think constantly about going over the side"; one woman's husband wrote he hopes "he doesn't wake up tomorrow."
Last week, after enough reports of friends pulling friends back from the edge the ship's loudspeaker began asking people to stop trying to jump, about 200 relatives organized two town halls in San Diego to ask Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao and other officials, Are you going to bring our people home before or after somebody dies? The meetings were tense and tearful. The wife of a sailor who jumped, and spent an hour in the water before being put on medical leave, said the Navy didn't tell her for four days: "It was handled very poorly - they’re just trying to cover this up." A woman whose husband, a 13-year veteran who tried to jump, said now he's scared he'll get a dishonorable discharge, ruining his career, from the people who put him there, and, "That is not fair."
A high school senior whose mom is there wondered if she'd be home for the year’s milestones; she said it’s been hard to connect the past few months and when they do, “She’s definitely down. It sucks.” A father whose son is aboard said he always sounds exhausted. “I don’t want to worry this deployment will get the best of my son," he said. “That would be an unbearable burden on my heart.” Many said it's getting harder to feel proud of the service of relatives afraid they're killing innocent civilians; the first person to admit that drew applause from the crowd. Asked about the meetings, Hegseth, who's crowed about "death and destruction from the sky all day long,” dismissed those and other concerns: "We make sure that every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment."
Joining Cao at the town hall was Vice Admiral Joseph Cahill, who reportedly told relatives of the long-suffering sailors, “I cannot even tell you how proud we are of them." He also said counselors and chaplains were available to help meet their loved ones' "spiritual needs," though one observer noted Hegseth has largely replaced them with "Christofascist proselytizers and ravenous, bloodthirsty, unthinking, religious berserkers whose approach appeared to be controversial among people at (the) meeting currently married to some of Hegseth's aspirational berserkers." Families were told USS Theodore Roosevelt would soon relieve the Lincoln; new reports say USS George Washington will, but no of course the Pentagon isn't confused, why do you ask?
Sen. Richard Blumenthal wrote a letter to Hegseth and Cao expressing his "serious concerns" about conditions and demanding "a formal accounting," including answers to multiple questions, by August 27. He reflects a broad consensus the Pentagon is "burning through people like they’re disposable" as morale at sea is "cratering." "This is what the abuse of active-duty personnel looks like when it’s policy instead of scandal," writes Dean Blundell. "Mission planning is supposed to include the humans executing the mission. When your operational tempo requires denying reality in April, ignoring the warnings in July, and managing suicide attempts by loudspeaker in August, you don’t have a strategy. You have a slow-motion command failure."
Still Hegseth, who "treats every question about his conduct as an enemy operation," keeps pushing back on bad food and self-harm reports that have “completely misrepresented” things. His latest retort came during a manic, jittery Panama visit - "The Internet Wants Him to Take a Drug Test" - where he welcomed Colombia’s new right-wing president to a new "Counter-Cartel Coalition" that rebrands the drug economy as a terrorist enterprise. Its very statesman-like motto: "We do bad things to bad people." Now, he brags, he's "putting cartels on notice like ISIS" to "execute ruthlessly" blah blah and if you think boat strikes are war crimes just withdraw from the ICC, "the institutional equivalent of unscrewing the smoke detector because it keeps going off." What an asshole.
In a Friday speech in New York, meanwhile, Private Bonespurs blathered "after we finish defeating Iran, pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States." (Iran disagreed.) He also said it's ok to be paying more for gas because "we're doing a great service to the world." Earlier, he randomly ordered the Navy to replace, for old time's sake, the electromagnetic systems carriers use to launch fighter jets with 50's-era steam-powered catapults he always liked,. Mark Kelly: He "should stick to ballrooms, bankruptcy, and bullshit.” Then he was asked if he agreed the burned-out sailors' deployment on the USS Lincoln was too long. "No, no, no," said Mr. Empathy. "Not nearly long enough." In response, many people reportedly flocked to him, saying 'thank you, sir,' with tears in their eyes. Then he went back to sticking gold gimcracks on "his" house.
Update: It seems sailors' families are some pissed at the "frustrating, false and careless" responses of Trump/Kegsbreath to legit concerns about the well-being of loved ones stuck in never-ending deployments on the Lincoln. No wonder, given each detail that emerges paints a bleaker picture. They describe "emaciated" sailors losing 20-30 pounds - "If they're losing weight, that means you're starving them" - undrinkable water, and such poor mental health support the one "deployment resilience counselor" quit months ago, a visiting Navy official told them "we can simply exercise our brains to make ourselves happy,” and the only psychiatrist has a five-week wait "unless you do like three of our shipmates and jump off the ship or take 27 sleeping pills." One sailor: "Keep praying for us." His mom: "My son signed up to serve his country. But why isn’t his country serving him?"
Peer-Reviewed Study Exposes How Big Tech and Big Oil Work 'Hand-in-Glove' to Profit Off AI
As people across the United States protest against artificial intelligence data centers and their impact on utility bills, the local environment, and the climate, a new study highlights an overlooked way AI is increasing emissions that heat the planet.
Holly Alpine co-founded the nonprofit Enabled Emissions Campaign with her husband, fellow Microsoft alum Will Alpine. For the study, published last week in the journal npj Climate Action, the couple partnered with Purdue University associate professor Maksym Chepeliev and independent researcher Nathan Geldner.
"Most assessments of AI's climate impact are framed as a trade-off between data center energy use and the emissions AI might help avoid," Holly Alpine said in a Tuesday statement. "What's missing entirely is the other side of the ledger for AI's applications: the emissions enabled from the additional fossil fuel production being made commercially viable."
"Our modeling quantifies both, and finds a significant net global emissions increase," she explained. "Until enabled emissions are recognized, measured, and governed, we're only addressing a fraction of AI's climate impact."
In the fossil fuel sector, AI's "applications predominantly expand the pool of economically viable supply by increasing extraction productivity, lowering production costs, and reducing operational risk, thus extending the industry’s economic viability," the study states. It notes that "these applications predominantly" increase emissions, but can also avoid some, such as "through methane leak detection or efficiency gains in power generation."
"Applied to renewables (and other low-carbon generation), AI's applications predominantly avoid emissions," the paper details. "They offer potential to accelerate deployment and optimize generation efficiency, for example, through forecasting, predictive maintenance, and power generation optimization, while also extending the productive life of installed capacity and improving grid integration."
Examining dozens of scenarios, the study's authors found that if AI is used by both the fossil fuel and renewable sectors to boost productivity, global emissions rise by 0.47-1.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide annually. They also found that when fossil fuel productivity gains are considered in isolation, the increase for climate-heating pollution is 3.3-13.3 times larger than current data center emissions, and up to eight times larger than those projected for such facilities by 2035.
New research confirms: AI, on sum, is a loser for global climateShort of significant policy to curb fossil fuel interests (ha!), AI will amplify CO2 emissions, not mitigate them, even when considering the prospects of any renewable gains AI buildout could motivatewww.nature.com/articles/s44...
[image or embed]
— Philip Loring (@philiploring.com) August 11, 2026 at 4:44 PM
Putting the study's figures into context, Wired pointed out that "at the low end, the research finds that the additional yearly emissions could be equal to Mexico's; at the high end, AI boosting the fossil fuel industry could add as much greenhouse gas emissions as Russia, the world’s fourth-largest emitter."
Will Alpine, the lead author, said that "I spent years building AI platform tools and have seen firsthand how they're used."
"Like any tool, AI can accelerate whatever it's applied to," he continued. "Yes, it can advance renewable energy, strengthen the grid, and improve efficiency. But it has also been boosting the productivity of the fossil fuel industry for years, and our research shows that effect is asymmetric: It acts as an economic lever that reinforces the viability and dominance of fossil fuels."
As The Guardian reported Tuesday:
Saudi Aramco said last year that it had embedded AI "in everything," increasing productivity and the number of wells, while earlier this summer Equinor attributed 27 discoveries on the Norwegian continental shelf to new seismic technologies and AI. The findings include the Lofn and Langermann oil wells, which the company said was the largest discovery it operated in 2025. "AI was key, from automated data interpretation to efficient well planning," it said in a video at its capital markets day in June.
Rystad Energy, an independent research and energy intelligence company based in Oslo, estimated in May that digitalization and AI would create close to $500 billion (£370 billion) in cumulative value for fossil fuel exploration and production companies between 2026 and 2030—the result of more efficient operations, increased production, and shorter development timelines. "The returns are already visible in the industry," its analysts wrote, citing hundreds of millions of dollars in reported AI-related savings from Equinor and Abu Dhabi's Adnoc.
Welcoming the study, Clara Vondrich, senior policy counsel for the Climate Program at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said that "this research exposes Big Tech as a lead accomplice to the fossil fuel industry in ways we never imagined. It's bad enough that communities are being hammered by rising energy bills as data centers gobble up insane amounts of fossil fuel power, but now we see that those emissions are just a fraction of the climate harms Big Tech is responsible for."
"To be clear, oil companies are not simply using publicly available AI tools: Big Tech is entering into bilateral contracts with oil companies, and selling them proprietary tools specifically designed for the purpose of accelerating oil production," Vondrich stressed. "You can't make this up: Big Tech companies, self-avowed climate champs for decades, are working hand-in-glove with Big Oil to find, dig, and burn more fossil fuels to make a buck."
"AI’s promise as a tool for advancing solutions to the climate crisis is fading as a cruel reality takes shape: Big tech companies are selling AI to the fossil fuel industry to accelerate our demise so they can turn a profit," she added. "These are the perverse outcomes resulting from our rigged market economy: access to cutting-edge AI goes to the highest bidder and Big Oil has some of the deepest pockets in the world. Meanwhile the externalities—runaway climate change manifesting this summer as historic heat domes and fires—are never counted, except as body counts. Today, Big Tech is Big Oil's number one accomplice."
Opposition to AI Goes Beyond Data Centers, as Poll Shows Massive Distrust of Big Tech CEOs
Opposition to artificial intelligence data centers has exploded across the US in 2026, as a recent Annenberg Public Policy Center poll showed that more than 60% of Americans say they are against building AI facilities in their areas.
However, a new survey highlighted by Futurism on Sunday shows that the AI industry has bigger problems than just the unpopularity of data centers.
As Futurism noted, the poll by CNBC found widespread distrust of artificial intelligence CEOs among Americans between the ages of 18 and 34.
In fact, more than two-thirds of respondents said they did not trust Palantir CEO Alex Karp, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, or SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to responsibly expand the use of AI.
"Those are some appalling approval ratings," commented Futurism, "reflecting the massive swing in popularity the tech industry has experienced over the last decade, driven by concerns around data privacy, the purposeful decay of once-useful platforms, and the erosion of democracy."
The survey comes amid signs that the AI industry knows it faces a significant deficit in public opinion.
Anthropic boss Amodei wrote a social media post on Sunday acknowledging that "the public has a negative view of AI," which he said was "fundamentally a crisis of trust."
"I think that ordinary people don't trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over," wrote Amodei. "The causes of this go back decades and AI is just the latest iteration of it."
The Anthropic CEO added that he didn't think any positive public relations campaign could turn around people's perception of the industry, and he said that one of the few ways it could gain trust was "actually curing cancer."
The rapid expansion of AI data centers, pushed by President Donald Trump, has provoked grassroots campaigns in communities across the country, with people loudly opposing the facilities that have been linked to high household electricity bills, massive water consumption, and few, if any, long-term job opportunities.
Amodei's musings about AI's unpopularity came days after Zuckerberg published a 6,500-word manifesto, in which he pushed back on AI developers who believe the technology will "eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance," while insisting that Meta would develop "personal superintelligence for everyone" that would put "power in people's hands" rather than taking it away.
However, Zuckerberg's promises of a benevolent AI future drew skepticism from TechCrunch AI editor Russell Brandom, who argued in an essay published last week that the Meta chief's manifesto would fall on deaf ears given his own toxic reputation. Meta was recently ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in fines due to its products' harms to children and teens.
"Suffice it to say, Facebook as a product and Zuckerberg as a person are both unpopular with the US public," wrote Brandom. "A recent survey found that 64% of Americans believe social media has been harmful to democracy and a similar percentage believe it should be more heavily regulated, numbers that cut evenly across partisan lines."
People's own past experience with social media, Brandom continued, is a big reason why they are revolting against Big Tech's ambitions to use AI to remake society.
"The public does not trust tech executives to make sure new technologies like this have a positive impact on society," Brandom explained. "Instead of acknowledging that and trying to win back their trust, this essay demonstrates over and over again how the trust was lost in the first place."
Brandom cited Zuckerberg's discussion of human lawyers eventually being replaced by AI as particularly problematic, given that enabling chatbots to engage in litigation could result in a wave of nuisance lawsuits that would clog up the legal system.
"It’s hard to feel calm about any of this stuff," commented Brandom, "and the fact that Zuckerberg isn’t worried makes me more worried."
Leaked GOP Memo Warns Big Tech That AI Data Centers as Popular as 'Nuclear Waste'
A leaked memo written by the National Republican Senatorial Committee is warning Silicon Valley that its artificial intelligence data firms are becoming a massive political liability.
Axios reported on Wednesday that the GOP memo centers on the US Senate race in Ohio, where former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has made opposition to data centers central to his campaign against incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted.
The memo argues that if Brown's campaign is successful in a state that President Donald Trump won by double digits in 2024, it will send a signal that support for data centers is a losing position across the US.
"If he loses and data centers get the blame, politicians across the country will take notice—and they will not go near the next one," the memo says. "This has become a sleeper issue for the entire election cycle."
The memo goes on to argue that the tech industry needs to do more to show Americans the benefits they will get from data centers, which have been criticized for raising people's utility bills and generating large amounts of pollution.
"If voters' perceptions of data centers are not fixed quickly," the memo cautions, "the campaign against them will expand far beyond Ohio."
According to Axios, AI CEOs and GOP insiders have become unnerved by internal polls showing that "data centers are as popular as spent nuclear waste, and more broadly have become a proxy for feelings about AI."
A poll released in June by Echelon Insights found that only 27% of Americans said they would want an AI data center built in their nieghborhood, with 62% opposed. This made data centers even less popular than nuclear power plants, which 34% of Americans said they would welcome in their neighborhoods.
A separate Axios report published Wednesday described AI CEOs being in "full panic mode" over the backlash to data centers. What's more, reported Axios, tech insiders privately acknowledge that "they can't find a compelling message to shift opinion fast enough" ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
In fact, noted Axios, Wisconsin Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany has even come out against AI data center construction in his state, which the report described as "a striking crack" in President Donald Trump's "pro-AI coalition."
In a Wednesday social media post, pollster Adam Carlson predicted that any Big Tech public relations campaign to change Americans' minds about data centers was likely doomed.
"Charm offensives from tech firms... would’ve been more effective if they did them proactively instead of in response to (very predictable) local backlash," Carlson explained. "They got greedy. Now they’re trying to play catch-up and it's probably too late. No one to blame but themselves."
Over a Month After ICE Killing in Biddeford, Grieving Family Waits for Answers
With Republican lawmakers refusing to use their congressional authority to investigate a federal agent's fatal shooting last month of Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, Democratic leaders assembled a "shadow hearing" on Monday at a local high school, where the 25-year-old's grieving father was among those who spoke to a crowd of about 200 people and pleaded for answers about his son's killing.
“The death of Johan Sebastián, under those conditions, at the hands of ICE, filled our community with fear and uncertainty," said Omar Durán, referring to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "That is why I ask only of God and of the justice system that my son’s case be brought to light, along with the cases of the many others who have had to go through something like this.”
Durán Guerrero was at least the 11th person to be fatally shot by federal agents since President Donald Trump began deploying ICE and other agencies under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cities and towns across the US to carry out his mass deportation operation.
Federal agents have shot at more than 20 people on US streets under the Trump administration; Durán Guerrero was among several who have been shot at while driving a vehicle, which is against ICE's own policies.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) reported Monday that the ICE agents who were operating in Durán Guerrero's neighborhood in Biddeford on the morning of July 13 were actually looking for his roommate, who owned the car he was driving.
NEW: Chellie Pingree reveals the intended target of the Biddeford ICE stop last month was Johan Sebastian Guerrero's roommate: pic.twitter.com/AEubBvMAjN
— The Maine Wire (@TheMaineWire) August 17, 2026
Pingree said agents did not have a final removal order for the person who was the target of their operation, contrary to what DHS has said about the case.
“This shocking revelation in clear contradiction to what ICE and DHS have been saying about the operation raises fundamental questions,” Pingree said. “How is ICE deciding who to target and detain in Maine? What information are agents relying on?”
"If ICE cannot accurately determine a person's immigration status or circumstance before taking enforcement action, that is a profound failure of competence and accountability," the congresswoman added.
Even in cases where ICE has a deportation order for a person, agents are prohibited from using deadly force unless they have reason to believe the target of the operation poses an imminent threat to an officer's or someone else's safety.
An agent identified as David Michael Brouillette shot Durán Guerrero, who had a 3-year-old daughter with his partner, and DHS has claimed that the officer fired his weapon because Durán Guerrero was trying to flee and Brouillette feared "for public safety."
The agents involved in the operation were not wearing body cameras that were turned on at the time of the shooting, but an eyewitness reported that Durán Guerrero said, "I tried to stop" when the officers pulled him out of his vehicle, bleeding profusely from his head. Surveillance footage taken from a nearby store showed a white car circling an intersection after the shooting before agents stopped it.
"If there were active body cameras on every law enforcement member who was participating there, we wouldn’t be looking at some scratchy videos from one store that’s over here, or one person that’s standing in their doorway that’s trying to get it,” Pingree said at a news conference after Monday's hearing. “We would actually know every moment that’s happened at the scene.”
Durán Guerrero worked as a delivery driver and a cleaner at a veterinary clinic, and had a valid work permit and a pending asylum case.
A lawyer for Durán Guerrero's family said state investigators have interviewed his partner, Karolina Rojas, but no federal agencies have ever contacted her following the killing.
"Any reasonable investigation would include interviewing the family and eyewitnesses,” the lawyer, Ben Gideon, said Monday.
DHS said after the shooting that its inspector general would investigate, but both the agency and the Justice Department refused to answer questions from The New York Times about whether the probe had begun.
The office of Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey is investigating the shooting, and is expected to present its findings to the Maine Deadly Force Review Panel. The panel can make recommendations to DHS, but it does not have jurisdiction over the federal agency.
Durán Guerrero's parents traveled from his home country of Colombia for the shadow hearing. His mother did not speak publicly, while his father described the "deep pain" of hearing his young granddaughter ask where Durán Guerrero is.
The father of Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero, the man who was shot and killed by an ICE officer in Biddeford last month, delivered an emotional statement during a field hearing about the deadly shooting in Maine. https://t.co/QH8J1JtFVk pic.twitter.com/jYx70sCAUw
— WMTW TV (@WMTWTV) August 17, 2026
"Our dream was always to be reunited and to hold each other again," he said. "Today, that dream can no longer come true."
ICC Denounces US Sanctions as ‘Flagrant Attack’ on International Legal Order
The International Criminal Court on Wednesday hit back at the Trump administration one day after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new sanctions against ICC officials.
The ICC described the new sanctions, which target President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Saye, as "a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution."
"When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk," the ICC said. "Threats and coercive measures also impact the ability of victims to seek justice, as they turn to the court when all other avenues have been exhausted."
However, the court said that it is "undeterred" from pursuing its mission, while pledging to stand "firmly behind its personnel and behind victims of unimaginable atrocities."
In total, the US has now sanctioned half of the ICC's 18 judges, as well as both of the court's deputy prosecutors, a former prosecutor, and a staff member.
The sanctions on the ICC also drew condemnation from the government of the Netherlands, where the court is physically located.
In a social media post, Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen insisted that "international courts and tribunals must be able to freely carry out their mandates," and pledged to "fully support the court and its staff."
Balkees Jarrah, the Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said the sanctions were "just the latest example of the Trump administration’s utter contempt for international law and a naked attempt to shield American and Israeli officials implicated in serious crimes from justice."
Although no American is currently under investigation or being tried by the ICC, the Trump administration has been targeting ICC officials who have been investigating alleged war crimes committed by Israel with the backing of the US government.
Saye, a target of Tuesday's US sanctions, was charged with investigating war crimes allegedly committed by Israel during its yearslong assault on Gaza.
The Trump administration also sanctioned then-ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, who obtained arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, last year.
Trump Using Census Bureau Report Full of 'Junk Data Science' to Sell False Claims of 2020 Voter Fraud
One voting rights advocate said the administration "is abusing the Census Bureau data to generate sensational headlines that Trump wants."
As he gears up to sow doubt about this year's midterms, President Donald Trump is once again attempting to use the government to lend legitimacy to his long-debunked claims that he was cheated out of the 2020 election.
In a Tuesday post to Truth Social, Trump shared a report from the US Census Bureau, which he said "proves that over 24,000 Noncitizens voted illegally" after an analysis of 128 million voter records.
"I WON THE ELECTION," he declared, adding that the bureau would soon analyze the remaining 32 million voting records and that the number of illegitimate votes would "explode."
The report Trump was referring to was real, but highly unusual. The seven-page document posted on the Census Bureau website did not list any authors.
While the use of the "Census Bureau" label implies an air of seriousness and professionalism, Misty Heggeness, a former senior adviser for the Census Bureau, told Democracy Docket that the lack of clear authorship signified that it was "suspect of any integrity or rigor" and said it would be hard to trust unless career bureau staff put their name on it.
Sure enough, NPR reported on Wednesday that "work on the analysis was not conducted by career civil servants at the Census Bureau, and the team behind it included individuals affiliated with the America First Policy Institute," a Trump-aligned think tank that has helped to turn the president's election denial narrative into Republican policy.
The group has helped to push for aggressive voting rights restrictions in states, and its director for "election integrity" policy, Thomas Lane, was involved in the effort to create a slate of fake electors in Arizona, one of several states where Trump claimed to have won in 2020.
Earlier this year, according to CNN, Trump "installed a group of partisan analysts" from AFPI inside the Census Bureau. But their identities have not been publicly disclosed, and other bureau officials who spoke to NPR did not identify which AFPI officials worked on the new report "because they fear retaliation at work."
Bureau officials told CNN that the lack of listed authors suggests that the career employees were "sidelined."
Experts who reviewed the report have identified several "fatal" flaws that make its conclusions difficult to take seriously.
The authors of the report used a commercial voter database and matched its records to those from the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, State Department, and Department of Homeland Security, and matched noncitizen records to those identified as voters in 2020.
As Yunior Rivas and Jim Saksa of Democracy Docket explained, there are numerous problems with this approach:
Record matching... is fallible. The Census Bureau previously published research in 2014 specifically devoted to measuring false matches in the same identification system...
Census researchers have previously warned that the likelihood of successfully linking administrative records can vary across demographic groups, potentially introducing bias when researchers analyze only records they can confidently match.
That limitation is particularly significant when the result in question is relatively small compared with the enormous volume of records being searched: A mistaken link between an eligible citizen’s voter record and another person’s immigration record could produce a false positive.
The report also does not address another obvious danger: mistaking a naturalized citizen for a noncitizen due to an older immigration record... If evidence of a person’s citizenship is missing or fails to link correctly, the methodology can treat the existing noncitizen record as evidence of the person’s status at the time they voted. The report does not estimate how frequently such a misclassification could occur.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a fellow at the American Immigration Council noted that the system used to find noncitizen voters is "riddled with false positives." According to the Texas Tribune, when states like Texas and Missouri used the tool, it resulted in hundreds of voters being flagged incorrectly.
But even if the Census Bureau report were factually bulletproof, it would be far short of what Trump needs to claim that he "won" the election. The number of supposedly illegitimate votes is not anywhere near enough to swing the result in any of the states where Trump lost to former President Joe Biden, who won the national popular vote by more than 7 million.
The report claims to have found 1,100 noncitizen votes in Arizona, which Biden won by 10,457; 400 noncitizen votes in Georgia, which Biden won by 11,779; and 500 noncitizen votes in Wisconsin, which Biden won by 20,682. Since voting is secret, there is also no basis to assume that all of these votes went to Biden.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whose department contains the Census Bureau, has said the report was "just the beginning" and that the next one "will likely show tens of thousands of additional illegal voters.”
But the first report says it analyzed the vast majority of those who voted in 2020. Assuming that the remaining 32 million votes had similar match rates, it would only generate about 6,000 more supposedly illegitimate votes.
Even if every single one of those votes went for Biden, which can't be proved, it would still not be enough to swing a single state to Trump, let alone enough for him to declare victory.
Trump used this report to call for Congress to pass his "SAVE America Act," which would abolish most forms of mail-in voting and introduce new proof of citizenship requirements that voting rights experts have warned would lead millions of eligible voters to be wrongly kicked off the rolls.
He has also signed an executive order directing states to verify their voter lists against a federal citizenship verification system that has been found to erroneously flag many eligible voters.
Amanda Carpenter, an editor at the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, said the Census Bureau report was "nothing but junk data science" and that Lutnick "is abusing the Census Bureau data to generate sensational headlines that Trump wants."
"He has been searching for these massive pots of fraudulent votes for years," Carpenter said. "It is like they are looking for the Loch Ness Monster. It does not exist, but they keep searching, and hoping, and lying and pointing to something shadowy that you kind of have to squint real hard at to pretend is there, but it isn't."
Dutch Pension Fund Pulls Nearly Half a Billion Euros From Climate 'Megapolluter' BlackRock
"This is a massive win for Dutch pensioners—not to mention all living creatures on Earth."
Pensioenfonds Recreatie just became the latest Dutch pension fund to ditch US-based BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager and a leading investor in climate-wrecking fossil fuels.
Recreatie, which is for workers in the Netherlands' recreation sector, last Friday named Cardano as the new manager of its €450 million—or $525 million—equity portfolio.
Xander den Uyl, a board member at the pension fund, told the Dutch publication Pensioen Pro that AF Advisors "assessed a long list of asset managers—including BlackRock—based on a dozen criteria," including cost as well as environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policy, and Cardano was the strongest.
HUGE NEWS: Superpolluting firm BlackRock just lost ANOTHER $525 million in Dutch pension funds due to concerns over its funding of coal, oil, and gas. This is a massive win for Dutch pensioners – not to mention all living creatures on Earth. 🧵
— Stop the Money Pipeline (@stopmoneypipeline.bsky.social) August 19, 2026 at 3:01 PM
BlackRock announced in February 2024 that it was transferring its Climate Action 100+ membership to its international arm and last year, just before anti-ESG President Donald Trump returned to power, it left the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative.
Den Uyl said BlackRock's ESG controversies did not help the asset manager in the review process but "were not decisive," and described the switch to Cardano as "a business decision."
Asked about the development by IPE, a BlackRock spokesperson said: "We respect the fund's decision. We remain proud to manage more than €350 billion on behalf of Dutch clients."
However, as journalists and campaigners have noted this week, Recreatie's decision followed similar moves by other Dutch pension funds. PFZW said last September that it had stopped investing in stock funds managed by BlackRock, and PME in December pulled around €5 billion, or $5.9 billion.
By abandoning "megapolluter" BlackRock, Recreatie "is sending an important message," Fossil Free Netherlands said Tuesday. "Powerful entities that backtrack on climate policy under pressure from Trump will lose European clients. It matters who you partner with as a pension fund—and whose power you strengthen."
"BlackRock is one of the largest investors in fossil fuel companies worldwide and profits from the genocide in Gaza," Fossil Free Netherlands stressed. "BlackRock is one of the largest shareholders in many companies and, as a result, wields enormous influence over both the stock prices of individual companies and the global economy. Moreover, the company consistently prioritizes short-term profits over what matters to us all: a livable climate, fair working conditions, and human rights."
🎉 En wéér breekt een pensioenfonds met mega vervuiler BlackRock.Pensioenfonds Recreatie haalt 450 miljoen euro weg bij de Amerikaanse vermogensreus, onder andere vanwege onvrede met BlackRocks klimaatbeleid.Lees hier meer: fossielvrij.nl/blackrock-vl...
[image or embed]
— Fossielvrij NL (@fossielvrijnl.bsky.social) August 18, 2026 at 8:54 AM
In addition to the decisions by PFZW and PME, Fossil Free Netherlands pointed to European pension funds cutting ties "with the equally unscrupulous and powerful State Street," and an ongoing search for asset managers for New York City's pension funds, the latter of which was also highlighted by US campaigners this week.
New York Communities for Change senior director Jose Gonzalez said in a statement that Recreatie's "exit from BlackRock is the latest in a string of international funds that understand the urgency and long-term fiduciary responsibility resulting from climate change," and comes after NYC Comptroller Mark Levine announced the search, which is considering "ESG factors and limits on carbon."
"In the US context, although heartened by Comptroller Levine's June announcement that the pension systems will bid out contracts for its money managers, it is imperative that the comptroller is serious about meeting its 2040 net zero goals," the campaigner said. "NYC should continue to lead domestically on divestment, and with other pension funds as a universal owner. The proof will be when the comptroller's office moves AUM out of dirty managers like BlackRock and State Street to cleaner ones."
Alec Connon, Stop the Money Pipeline coalition director, also welcomed that "as much of the country swelters under extreme heat and breathes in toxic wildfire smoke, more and more major pension funds are moving money away from the world's dirtiest asset managers."
"As it continues its search for a new asset manager," he added, "New York City and Comptroller Levine have a great chance to continue the funds' climate leadership by divesting from BlackRock and selecting a new asset manager that takes the climate crisis and climate financial risk seriously."
California Voters Prefer 'Progressives' and 'Democratic Socialists' to 'Mainstream Democrats': Poll
As progressives nationwide seek to prove their politics can beat Republicans, California is still a battleground between the left-wing and centrist factions within the Democratic Party.
A new poll in California may offer a window into the national struggle to define the Democratic Party. In a state that’s often thought of as the capital of blue America, voters are now more likely to say they’re turned off by candidates who align themselves with the Democratic Party.
But that’s not because they’re moving right. The survey, published Wednesday by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, found that voters are “more inclined” to vote for a candidate who identifies as a “progressive” or a “democratic socialist,” compared with those who call themselves “mainstream Democrats.”
Identifying as any sort of Republican, "MAGA" or otherwise, made voters say they were overwhelmingly "less inclined" to give their support.

That California voters lean left of the country at large is hardly shocking news, but the poll does provide yet another striking data point in the broader trend of Democratic voters revolting against the establishment of their own party, which has culminated in a surge of left victories nationwide.
Among self-identified Democratic voters in the state, just 48% said they would be "more inclined" to vote for someone who self-identifies with the mainstream of the party, compared with 58% who said they were inclined to vote for a "democratic socialist" and 60% who said they were inclined to vote for a "progressive."
What precisely these terms mean is not defined by the pollster, and in mainstream discourse, "progressives" like Michigan's Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and "democratic socialists" like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are often spoken of in the same breath, largely because their platforms overlap significantly and both defeated better-funded Democratic opponents with greater institutional backing.
Whatever term is used to describe such candidates, pundits in establishment-friendly media have struggled to make sense of their recent wins.
But Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—a long-time critic of corporate influence over the US political system who ran for president in 2016 and 2020 and is arguably more responsible than any other single figure for kicking off this shift in the Democratic electorate—wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian on Wednesday that the reason behind it “is not complicated.”
"We now have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history. The top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 93%, and one man, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of US households," he wrote. "Not surprisingly, working families are tired of status quo politics and the same old, same old establishment policies that have failed them for years. They want change, real change—and are supporting progressive candidates who are fighting for that change."
That is why, he argues, candidates who have run on campaign finance reform, establishing a single-payer healthcare system, stronger union protections, higher taxes on the rich, and an end to aggressive foreign interventions in countries like Iran and military support for Israel are seeing success.
In November, progressives like El-Sayed, as well as Minnesota Senate candidate Peggy Flanagan, Florida Senate candidate Angie Nixon, Michigan House candidate William Lawrence, Pennsylvania House candidate Bob Brooks, and others, will try to prove that their politics can win in competitive races against Republicans. So will Randy Villegas, who is aiming to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao in California's 22nd district.
But California's "jungle primary" system, which lets the top two candidates across all parties face off in the general election, will continue for the next several months to be a front in the Democratic Party's internal war.
One closely watched race is in California’s 14th District, near Oakland, where a special election for the seat vacated by the disgraced former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell has come down to the wire between the progressive state Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-10) and the centrist-leaning transportation official Melissa Hernandez (D).
The two are starkly divided on Israel; while Wahab has called its actions in Gaza" genocide" and called for an end to weapons aid, Hernandez has been noncommittal.
Wahab has also taken stronger stances against corporate abuses and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and called for significant police reforms, while Hernandez has run on public safety and business-friendly policies.
After steamrolling her opponents in the June primary, with a 25-point lead over Hernandez, Wahab was hit with a $6.3 million spending blitz from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the months leading up to this past Tuesday's general election. As of Thursday, the race is too close to call, with Wahab ahead by just over 1,300 votes as 62% of ballots have been counted.
Whoever wins this race will hold the seat for the remainder of Swalwell's term. But the two will face each other again in November with new district lines approved by voters last year as part of a Democratic redistricting effort.
In the 7th district, Sacramento City Council member Mai Vang (D), who was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, unexpectedly finished with more votes in the June primary than 11-term Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui.
The 40-year-old Vang outflanked Matsui, who is more than twice her age, on the left by aggressively championing the abolition of ICE, Medicare for All, and a wealth tax proposal by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The two will face off again one-on-one in November's runoff.
The mayor's race in Los Angeles, between incumbent Karen Bass and democratic socialist City Council member Nithya Raman, will be another test for the left.
Bass, a former member of Congress, has strong institutional support from the Democratic Party, including endorsements from former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Raman is challenging her less on ideological grounds and more on the question of competent governance, seeking to overhaul the city's homelessness bureaucracy and construct more affordable housing. She has also pushed back against Bass' call to hire more police officers and advocated instead for investing in more unarmed civilian first responders.
94% of Palestinians in Gaza Need Shelter, Basic Aid to 'Live Safely and With Dignity'
Gaza is suffering from "a shelter crisis which runs far deeper than just physical damage."
It's been 10 months since a ceasefire agreement was reached between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, but in addition to continued attacks on the exclave—in which more than 1,250 Palestinians have been killed since last October—households across Gaza are being endangered on a constant basis by "a shelter crisis which runs far deeper than just physical damage" to residential buildings, as the Norwegian Refugee Council said Thursday.
Ninety-four percent of the population—about 1.98 million people—are in need of shelter-related aid in order to "live safely and with dignity," said the group, "including fuel, energy, and essential household items."
The NRC and the International Organization for Migration lead the Palestine Shelter Cluster, which coordinates humanitarian aid focused on addressing shelter needs in Gaza and the West Bank. The organization's new report, "Exposed on All Sides," describes how funding shortfalls as well as Israel's continued restrictions on shelter materials have left the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza exposed to "serious health and safety risks."
The Shelter Cluster assessed nearly 2,000 household interviews conducted between June 14-28 in accessible areas in northern Gaza, Gaza City, Deir al-Balah, and Khan Younis.
It categorized the households' severity of needs on a scale of 1-5, with conditions assessed as minimal, stressed, crisis, critical, or catastrophic. More than 4 in 5 households were facing critical or catastrophic conditions, with the families struggling the most described as living in conditions "so poor they were considered a risk to life." Just 12% of households were assessed as being in the least severe categories.
With Israel's bombardment of Gaza damaging or destroying approximately 92% of residential buildings, nearly two-thirds of families interviewed by the Shelter Cluster were living in tents or other makeshift shelters that were meant to be temporary.
"Ten months after the October 2025 ceasefire, most families have lived more than a year in shelters that were never designed for long-term accommodation."
More than half of those households had been living in the same tent for over a year, and more than half of the makeshift housing was in poor or very poor condition. More than 100,000 households are living in shelters with "major deterioration to flooring, walls, and frames," said NRC.
With fuel both unaffordable and difficult to obtain, daily tasks were challenging for the families assessed by the Shelter Cluster. Eighty-four percent of households said their solutions for heating their homes were mostly or entirely ineffective. Nearly 50% of households said they had been burning plastic, tires, garbage, or cardboard in order to prepare food.
"Their use for meal preparation presents serious health risks from toxic smoke and food contamination," reads the report.
Jehan Salim, national coordinator for the Shelter Cluster, emphasized that "a shelter is not adequate simply because it has four walls or a roof."
"Families need to be able to sleep, cook, wash, and keep their children safe inside it," said Salim. "Ten months after the October 2025 ceasefire, most families have lived more than a year in shelters that were never designed for long-term accommodation. The materials needed to repair homes, restore basic services, and provide improved shelters are still not entering Gaza at anything close to the scale required.”
Only 1 in 10 households received shelter materials or basic household assistance in the month prior to the survey, and the Shelter Cluster's partners in Gaza reported "very limited in-country stocks of tents, blankets, or mattresses" in June.
"The entry of shelter materials and equipment also remains constrained by strict and frequently changing entry restrictions. Long advance-notification requirements, repackaging rules, repeated submission processes, and unpredictable approvals can delay or prevent supplies from reaching Gaza, keeping available stocks low and limiting the quality and scale of the response," reads the report.
Israel's "dual-use" restrictions—which claim that everyday items for basic household needs could also be used for violent purposes by Hamas—have contributed to the chronically low supply of "fuel, solar energy equipment, construction and repair materials, heavy machinery, and debris-clearance equipment," said the Shelter Cluster.
"People remain in appalling conditions because Israeli restrictions are preventing even the most basic housing materials from entering Gaza," said Jan Egeland, secretary general of the NRC. "Without a rapid procurement of and access for materials, the coming winter will be catastrophic. Israel must lift its restrictions and allow for predictable entry of shelter materials."
The European Union, United Nations, and World Bank's Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) report earlier this year found that $26.3 billion was required in the first 18 months following the ceasefire deal to restore essential services, rebuild infrastructure, and support Gaza’s economic recovery. An estimated $71 billion will be needed over the next decade.
In May, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that its 2026 flash appeal for $4 billion was only 12% funded.
"Funding levels must be increased," said Egeland, "so that Palestinians families can get out of decaying temporary shelters and into something that provides more protection from the elements."
Continued Fossil Fuel Emissions Could Nearly Triple the Destruction of European Wildfires by 2100
“Fire management," said one researcher, "cannot replace climate mitigation.”
Wildfires raging across Europe this summer have burned through more than 1.4 million acres across France, Spain, Italy, and even countries with typically milder climates, including the United Kingdom and Belgium—and a study published Thursday warned that the continuation of high carbon emissions would nearly triple the amount of burnt land from wildfires by the end of the century.
Climate action that reduces emissions, including a transition away from fossil fuel extraction and toward solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources, would mean about 39% more land would be burned through during fire seasons across the European Union by 2100, according to the research by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
But if policymakers fail to take sufficient action, according to the researchers' models, an estimated 192% more land would be burned each year by the end of the century.
The massive increase in wildfire destruction would likely mean major upheaval across Europe; as wildfires tore through Spain and France last month, nearly 270,000 people were forced to evacuate.
Hundreds of people have been killed in European wildfires over the past decade, including at least 14 people in Spain's recent blazes, which grew rapidly amid soaring temperatures, and three firefighters in Greece.
The researchers at PIK compared the projected annual burnt area for 2070-2100 with a model of results for the period between 2000-2030. An increase in hot, dry weather, which scientists have linked to fossil fuel emissions, was the biggest driver of wildfire destruction in the model.
"If fires become really extreme, our ability to contain them might break down, and we do not know yet where this point is."
“Our results indicate there could be widespread increases in burned area even under comparatively low warming of around 1.8°C. But if we emit more, and global temperatures rise by roughly 3.6°C, we see fires become much more prevalent, especially around the Mediterranean and across much of Western and Central Europe, including areas that to date have not experienced many fires,” said Maik Billing, a researcher at PIK and lead author of the study, which was published Thursday in Global Change Biology.
A global temperature rise of 3.6°C would mean fire weather would intensify “virtually all of Europe” by 2100, the scientists said.
Currently, 2.6°C of global heating is expected by the end of the century under climate policies now in place.
The researchers also examined how human action to improve fire management, including training emergency crews and improving equipment and coordination, could mitigate some damage.
"Continued improvements in fire management have the potential to reduce burned area by 92% in a 1.8°C future and 72% at roughly 3.6°C," said PIK. "However, the authors cautioned that the results could be optimistic when it comes to the efficacy of fire management in a much warmer climate."
Thomas Hickler, a scientist at the Senckenberg Society for Nature Research and a co-author of the study, said: “We see fire conditions are increasing, so we need to invest more... Our projections show that this can make a significant difference."
"But if fires become really extreme, our ability to contain them might break down, and we do not know yet where this point is," said Hickler. "The recent record fires in France clearly show that we cannot simply extrapolate from the experiences of the past."
Billing emphasized that regardless of investments in firefighting, "if we go on a path of high emissions... we still see strong increases in burnt area."
“Fire management," said Billing, "cannot replace climate mitigation.”
Netanyahu Government 'Actively Enabling' Deadly Settler Rampages in West Bank: Report
"Settlers shoot, attack, and expel Palestinians from their land, and the state provides the weapons, the legal cover, and the budget to do it."
Intensifying violence by government-backed Israeli settlers in the illegally occupied West Bank is fueling the mass displacement and erasure of entire Palestinian communities, according to a report published Thursday by Human Rights Watch.
HRW pointed with alarm to United Nations data showing that the average number of settler attacks per day in the West Bank has risen to the highest level on record as the far-right Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, continues to expand settlements in open defiance of international law.
The leading human rights group's new report estimates that Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has "fully or partially displaced 107 communities," comprised of nearly 6,000 Palestinians, since January 2023. The escalating displacement in the West Bank comes amid Israel's ongoing genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
“The Israeli government and the settlers share the same goal of maximum land and minimum Palestinians, with the authorities not only failing to stop settler violence, but actively enabling it,” Sarah Sanbar, acting Israel and Palestine researcher at HRW, said in a statement. “Settlers shoot, attack, and expel Palestinians from their land, and the state provides the weapons, the legal cover, and the budget to do it."
HRW's report was released days after the Israeli government published a new tender for the construction of more than 1,200 housing units in the West Bank. The anti-occupation group Peace Now noted that the bidding period for companies to build the units closes a week before Israel's elections.
"Building in E1 will ruin the possibility of reaching an end to the conflict and a peace arrangement based on two states," said Peace Now. "The government is trying to sign contracts with contractors before the elections so that it will be much harder for the next government to cancel the construction.”
HRW warned that companies seeking a role in constructing the new housing units are "bidding on complicity in a war crime."
"The impunity Israeli authorities accord settlers stems directly from the free pass Israel’s allies and donors have granted it."
For its report on settler violence, HRW interviewed 20 witnesses and reviewed video footage of attacks, which have included physical assaults, sexual violence, property destruction, theft, and killings—often carried out alongside Israeli soldiers. HRW noted that Israel's National Security Ministry has "formed civilian 'rapid response squads' in settlements" and given them "special policing powers, uniforms, and weapons."
“I have known war in this region for all my life, but never like this,” said Um Muhammad Muammar, a 72-year-old resident of Qaryut whose two sons were killed by Israeli settlers. “My sons’ children are now fatherless; their wives are now widows. What more can we say?"
With the support of Israel's government, settlers have established 65 new outposts in the West Bank this year alone. "Israeli organizations Kerem Navot and PeaceNow reported in July that these outposts currently effectively control more than 1 million dunams (100,000 hectares) of land—approximately 18% of the West Bank—four times what they controlled before the current government took office," HRW observed.
"The impunity Israeli authorities accord settlers stems directly from the free pass Israel’s allies and donors have granted it,” said Sanbar. “Accountability starts with the settlers committing crimes but doesn’t end there. Israel and the governments that give it a blank check share responsibility and should be held to account.”
Critics Slam Trump FDA Pick Heidi Overton as 'Anti-Reproductive Rights, Anti-Vax, Anti-Science'
"The American people deserve someone who will put science and facts FIRST, not another Trump sycophant who will make it their mission to attack medication abortion," said one Democratic senator.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday tapped White House health policy adviser Dr. Heidi Overton to lead the Food and Drug Administration, a move that drew fierce opposition from Democratic lawmakers, reproductive rights advocates, and public health experts, who pointed to her opposition to abortion rights and support for controversial changes to federal vaccine policy as cause for alarm.
Trump took to his Truth Social network to announce his pick of Overton, a physician and deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, to replace former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who resigned in May following months of turmoil at the agency. The president described Overton as a "ROCKSTAR" in his administration who will "deliver on the MOST TRANSFORMATIVE Health Agenda in History."
"Heidi is 'ALWAYS RIGHT,' Secretary Kennedy recently said in the Oval Office!" Trump continued, referring to Health and Human Services chief Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "We need her leadership at the FDA now to ensure that the US remains the WORLD LEADER for Scientific Discovery and CURES."
The president also said Overton would work with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz to advance his agenda of faster drug approvals, increased innovation, clinical trial reforms, and lower prescription drug prices.
However, skeptics argue that Overton’s policy record raises serious questions about whether she would maintain the FDA’s scientific and regulatory independence in an administration in which critics say loyalty to Trump is of paramount importance.
Reproductive Freedom for All—formerly the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws and NARAL Pro-Choice America—noted that "Overton has an extensive anti-abortion record."
The group continued:
She celebrated the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a “huge victory,” and has advocated for the politicization of government agencies to help advance a nationwide anti-abortion agenda. She previously worked at America First Policy Institute, an extreme conservative think tank made up of former Trump administration officials, where she authored a brief pushing disinformation about the safety of medication abortion and calling for additional, medically unnecessary restrictions on access to mifepristone.
“Donald Trump is trying to put an anti-abortion extremist in charge of any agency that could seriously undermine reproductive healthcare—including the agency that could roll back access to mifepristone nationwide," Reproductive Freedom for All president and CEO Mini Timmaraju said. "Her nomination is another alarming step in Trump’s plan to weaponize every part of the federal government to restrict abortion nationwide.”
Overton's shifting stance on vaccines also raised eyebrows.
Endpoints News senior senior reporter Max Bayer highlighted how, while working at AFPI, Overton "and others praised Operation Warp Speed, the massive government initiative to expedite development and manufacturing of the Covid-19 vaccines" during Trump's first administration.
But less than a year later, Bayer said, Overton "advocated against Covid-19 school vaccine mandates, writing in an editorial the data supported more parental choice in the decision."
"Overton stood by Trump earlier in August as he announced a sweeping and contentious new executive order amending the childhood vaccine schedule and advising that the [measles, mumps, and rubella] vaccine be broken up into individual components," he added. "Makers of the vaccine pushed back on the directive, but now with Overton in line to lead the FDA, there could be enhanced pressure for drugmakers to follow through on the request."
Democratic US lawmakers also voiced opposition to Overton's nomination.
"Heidi Overton is a far-right, anti-abortion extremist who has no business leading the FDA," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said on social media. "The American people deserve someone who will put science and facts FIRST, not another Trump sycophant who will make it their mission to attack medication abortion. I will vote NO."
At least one Republican lawmaker—who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee—also questioned Trump's pick.
"While I respect Dr. Overton’s experience as a physician, I have strong concerns about her nomination to be FDA commissioner," Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a gastroenterologist, said on X. "Her lack of managerial experience does not prepare her well for leading a large organization that is already dealing with staffing and morale issues."
"Additionally, Dr. Overton’s active role in last week’s nonsensical vaccine executive order calls into question her commitment to standing up for sound science and protecting children’s health. That alone is almost disqualifying," added Casisdy, who earlier this year lost a primary race to a Trump-backed challenger.
Overton's nomination comes amid turmoil at an agency that has seen thousands of employees fired by Kennedy since last year amid Trump administration efforts to shrink the government in line with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led framework for a far-right federal overhaul.
Chris Meekins, a former Trump health official who is now an analyst at the investment bank Raymond James, told clients that Overton would be "like Makary, but probably worse."
“Being seemingly inexperienced and unqualified is fine if you have self-awareness and humility and a strong team around you,” Meekins wrote. “Based off of our DC channel checks, she does not seem to have either."
House Democrats Probe Use of Trump's NSPM-7 to Target 'Left-Leaning Political Groups'
"We are deeply troubled by public commitments to deploy the full force of the State and Treasury departments against loosely defined 'far-left networks' and their alleged 'enablers.'"
Dozens of Democrats in the US House of Representatives this week announced a congressional inquiry into the use of a widely decried memo from President Donald Trump to persecute "political dissent" and target "left-leaning political groups."
Democratic Reps. Jim McGovern (Mass.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Delia Ramirez (Ill.) revealed Tuesday that they, along with over 20 others, wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent earlier this month to demand answers about the recent "Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism" and directives under National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7).
"Specifically, we are alarmed by the Department of State's new ideologically driven visa restriction policy and the Department of Treasury's pledged financial enforcement mechanisms directed against civil society," they wrote. "These policies dramatically escalate the administration's deliberate and targeted attempts to silence any person, organization, or institution critical of its policies and abuses of power on a global scale."
"We are deeply troubled by public commitments to deploy the full force of the State and Treasury departments against loosely defined 'far-left networks' and their alleged 'enablers' and urge you to immediately reverse course," the lawmakers continued. "Rather than relying on law enforcement data—which consistently identifies right-wing violent extremists and white supremacist organizations as the predominant domestic terrorism threat—this administration has instead taken actions that manufacture an ideological enemy."
The visa policy "bars foreign nationals from entry who 'finance, recruit, incite, or otherwise enable terrorist, violent, and criminal far-left terrorist networks' and defines 'far-left terrorist networks' as those with explicit aims to 'undermine the political foundations of free and self-governing societies,'" the letter details. "This rhetoric and policy embody the core characteristics of fascist statecraft—using the security apparatus of the state to repress and criminalize political opponents and dissenters rather than specific violent acts."
The letter notes the impacts of the administration's policies beyond the United States, warning that "seeking to export an ideological mandate to more than 65 countries creates a dangerous precedent that authoritarian governments will eagerly exploit to delegitimize and criminalize political dissent and justify their own crackdowns on peaceful opposition."
"Foreign nationals fleeing political persecution abroad—including persecution by governments that label peaceful dissidents 'leftist terrorists' to discredit them—may find themselves barred from the United States under the very same vague and subjective standard," the lawmakers wrote. "Expanding transnational intelligence-sharing under this ill-defined and hyper-politicized definition of violent extremism opens the door to transnational repression—including cross-border monitoring and harassment—of international activists, researchers, and political dissidents, as well as potentially any individual within their networks."
"We also risk fracturing critical alliances with governments whose own laws strictly protect political speech, civil liberties, and human rights—protections that these very policies are undermining here at home," the Democrats stressed.
The letter also calls out White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller's description of leftists as "the enemies of civilization" and a "cancer" that can "destroy a society," as well as Bessent's comparison of leftists to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda—when he said that "the unified front between international Marxism and the radical Islamic movement need not share the same ultimate vision to share the same immediate enemy of free and self-governing societies."
Rubio has similarly called leftists "the enemies of civilization" and recently faced criticism for a "McCarthyite" State Department report claiming that the Cuban government has, for decades, "infiltrated the highest reaches of the US government, recruited and cultivated generations of American activists, backed an unprecedented wave of left-wing terrorism on American soil, and carried out one of the most durable and damaging foreign intelligence penetrations in American history." The document is seen as a signal that Trump may deliver on his threat to try to take over the island nation by force.
'Bessent Is a Political Actor': Treasury Move on Bond Market Seen as Midterm Damage Control
"Trump is going to pump billions of dollars into the bond market to push down interest rates through the election, then let everything fall apart again," said one critic.
The Trump administration on Wednesday unveiled a plan to ease upward pressure on the cost of US debt by doubling its bond buybacks through November.
In announcing that it will buy back "at least" $4 billion worth of bonds over a two-month period, the US Department of Treasury said it was seeking "to provide greater liquidity support in longer-dated nominal sectors where there is consistent strong sponsorship from market participants."
While the announcement did result in interest rates for US treasuries dropping, economists and other political observers are warning that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's scheme to stop spiking yields will prove ineffective over the long term.
In a Wednesday interview with NOTUS, Joseph Brusuelas, principal and chief economist for RSM US LLP, said that Bessent was making decisions based solely on the political fortunes of the Republican Party.
"Bessent is a political actor," Brusuelas said. "His interest is purely short-term and is organized around the upcoming election and not a return to price stability. This is what fiscal dominance looks like as the fiscal authority leans on the central bank to subordinate its goal of price stability to the government’s borrowing and political needs."
The economist's analysis was echoed by Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim, who argued in a social media post that President Donald Trump's administration was scrambling to save its endangered GOP congressional majority.
"Trump is going to pump billions of dollars into the bond market to push down interest rates through the election, then let everything fall apart again," Grim wrote. "Not sure I’ve seen a more nakedly electoral use of this amount of money before, for such a targeted amount of time."
Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy at Evercore ISI, argued in a Wednesday research note flagged by CNBC that the bond buyback scheme "changes almost nothing in terms of the fundamentals in particular the unchanged need to finance the tidal wave of hyperscaler debt in addition to very large government deficits."
Adam Josephson, founder of Sakonnet Research, also expressed skepticism of the buyback plan's effectiveness in a Wednesday interview with Politico.
“They’re trying everything possible to limit upward pressure on long-term yields,” Josephson said. “Nothing has worked. And why would this work? It’s too small to matter.”
Experts say that bond yields have been spiking to highs not seen since the start of the Great Recession due to investor anxiety over a number of factors, including inflation, the size of the US government's debt, and Trump's illegal war with Iran.
Federal Judge Blocks Trump and RFK Effort to Get More Teens Pregnant
The ruling, said the government watchdog Public Citizen, is "a win for young Americans' well-being."
The Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, first authorized through bipartisan legislation in 2009, has been credited with helping to dramatically reduce the number of American teenagers who have experienced unwanted pregnancies in the past decade and a half, dropping by more than 65% over 16 years, according to one congressional report.
Despite the best efforts of President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a federal judge's ruling on Wednesday sent the message that the push to reduce teen pregnancy in the US will continue, with the administration's limits on the program's federal grants paused.
Judge Christopher Cooper of the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction in the case of Hennepin County, Minnesota v. US Department of Health and Human Services, in which officials joined King County in Washingtin state, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) in challenging HHS's changes to the program's grant policy. The plaintiffs were represented by Public Citizen and Democracy Forward.
The changes, said Cooper, were “likely arbitrary and capricious.”
The new policy, announced in June, canceled 53 of 66 active grants that had gone to public universities, health departments, and nonprofits for programming related to sex education, including information that was given to teens on contraception and communication with sexual partners.
In Trump's 2027 budget, the grants are described as promoting "radical leftist ideology," and officials claim there is no evidence that teen pregnancy prevention programs that go beyond educating young people about abstinence have "contributed to the historic decline in teen pregnancy, which is now at an all-time low."
Under new guidance issued in June, Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program grantees are required to focus lessons on abstinence, deemphasize contraception, and teach teens about fertility and "body literacy."
“HHS is perfectly entitled to formulate its own views about how to stem teen pregnancy—or even whether it is worth preventing at all—and to pursue policy initiatives consistent with its viewpoint. But it is not at liberty, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), to impose conditions on grant recipients that Congress did not intend or that are unreasonable or unexplained. The preliminary record suggests that HHS has done just that,” wrote Cooper in the ruling.
"Through the TPP, Congress sought to fund a range of evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention strategies, not just abstinence. According to unrebutted record evidence, programs that teach abstinence to the exclusion of all other approaches are ineffective in delaying sexual initiation and reducing adolescent pregnancy, at least as a general matter," Cooper continued.
The judge took aim at the administration's promotion of "body literacy," which he called “a nebulous concept that appears to elevate fertility and marital procreation over well-tested forms of contraception and pregnancy prevention.”
Cooper also suggested that HHS had not bothered to find genuine evidence of its claims about "body literacy," instead "remarkably" referencing "public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited—a hallmark of AI-generated citations.”
The judge stopped short of reinstating the dozens of grants, amounting to about $67 million, that have been terminated, saying it was unclear whether he had the authority to do so.
The plaintiffs and other advocates of comprehensive sex education have called for a permanent injunction; Cooper called on both parties in the case to propose a schedule for next steps by September 1.
Callie Simon, executive director of SIECUS, said the group was "encouraged that the court has halted implementation of the new harmful policy" but emphasized that "the impacts of terminating existing grants remain."
“Today’s decision sends a clear message that the Trump-Vance administration cannot replace the proven, bipartisan Teen Pregnancy Prevention program with an ideologically driven alternative that harms young people,” said Simon. "Communities across the country are still without the evidence-based programs they relied on, and we will continue fighting to ensure young people have access to the sex education they deserve.”
Sandra J. Valenciano, director and health officer for public health in Seattle and King counties, said local communities were facing a measurable loss due to HHS' stripping of TPP grants
“This federal action threatened our ability to complete a study on a new science-based, community-informed sex education curriculum specifically for young men and boys,” said Valenciano. “This ruling gives us hope that we may still be able to get to the finish line with this study and ultimately empower more young people to build healthy families if, when, and how they choose.”
Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, said the ruling "reaffirms the value of trusted, evidence-based education programs that help youth make informed choices and plan for their futures."
"Attacks on the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program not only put young people at risk, they also risk increasing costs for taxpayers," said Richardson. "No one benefits from these politically motivated attacks. It’s time for them to end.”
























