To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
In a perfect, ghastly metaphor for the state of our "democracy," J.D. and Drunken Pete just oversaw an "artillery fiasco" at a Marine Corps celebration where a live shell detonated over a highway and hit their motorcade - Lesson #1: "Morons Are Governing America" - and Trump abruptly began a demolition of the East Wing of The People's House for "his fucking ballroom," though he claimed construction "wouldn't interfere" with it. Lesson #2: They "lie like they breathe," bulldoze history and wreak havoc as they go.
On the same day as No Kings but definitely not to distract anyone even though the actual date they're marking isn't until November 10, repulsive bros J.D. Vance and manly "We Are The War Department" Pete Hegseth went to California for the 250th anniversary of the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton to watch a training exercise that included firing live 155mm M777 shells out of howitzers from the ocean over Interstate I-5, an action Gavin Newsom decried as "an absurd show of force" that threatened public safety. Just in case, being a grown-up, Newsom shut down 17 miles of the highway. Vance, in turn, ridiculed his move as "consistent with a track record of failure," sneering the governor "wants people to think this exercise is dangerous" when of course it's "an established safe practice" and anyway he's a big boy who knows stuff.
So. What happens "when the commander-in-chief is an idiot and the head of the Pentagon is a blackout drunk?" In Chap. 874 of Adventures of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight But Still Hit Enough, after Marines began firing live rounds over the highway, one shell prematurely exploded - some "saw the artillery round fail to clear the highway and explode near the southbound lane" - raining burning shrapnel onto a Highway Patrol car and motorcycle in Vance's security detail in what officials called "an unusual and concerning situation" that surely nobody could have predicted. Except maybe Gavin Newsom, who I-told-you-so raged, "Next time, the Vice President and the White House shouldn’t be so reckless (with) their vanity projects (and) put lives at risk to put on a show. If you want to honor our troops, open the government and pay them."
Vance, who's evidently hated wherever he goes - his family's summer vacation in the English countryside was met by residents holding a "Dance Against Vance Not Welcome" party complete with Go Away banner, insults, memes, and a staff mutiny at a pub where he wanted to eat - told reporters he had "a great visit" with the Marines. His team declined to comment on his "artillery fiasco," but others had thoughts. They suggested he'd probably say "it was just kid pieces of shrapnel doing normal kid pieces of shrapnel stuff," or locker room shrapnel, or antifa, thus representing the most destruction seen on No Kings Day. Also, "Nothing says 'Warrior Ethos' like firing live ammunition across a busy Southern California freeway on a Saturday afternoon," "MAGA stands for Morons Are Governing America," and, "This is a whole new level of dipshitery."
Then, on Monday, came Trump's backhoes and destruction crews suddenly, methodically ripping through the historic, stately, 1902 East Wing of the White House to build a garish $250 million, "beautiful, beautiful ballroom like I have at Mar-a-Lago" - "the remodel no one asked for" - despite his earlier adamant claim the project "wouldn’t interfere” with the former structure: "It’ll be near it but not touching it (and) pay total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of...It’s my favorite place. I love it." Shockingly, he evidently lied. Announcing the boondoggle in July, he also said it would be 90,000 square feet and seat up to 650 people - now grown to 999 people - making it the largest room in the White House. And it will ostensibly be funded by "many generous patriots" who also happen to be billionaires seeking deregulation and access to his gilded power.
Trump claims America's masses have long been yearning for a glitzy ballroom - it took so long because "there’s never been a president that was good at ballrooms" - and he is "honored to finally get this much-needed project underway," especially now during a government shutdown, when wealth and income inequality is at a record highs, SNAP benefits are being slashed, millions of people are struggling to buy groceries, health care and Medicaid are threatened, special ed and veterans' services are in jeopardy, farmers and small businesses are suffering, federal workers are either losing their jobs or not getting paid, he is sending billions to Argentina for no discernible reason and he is giddily spending millions on golf and new jets and fake gold slathered feckin' everywhere while demanding his let-them-eat-cake cult members keep tightening their gullible belts.
Architects have noted the fortuitous timing: The White House is a public property run by the National Park Service, but this carnage is purportedly exempt from review by multiple planning and preservation bodies Trump has dismissed, rendered toothless or effectively disappeared in the shutdown. "This is by design," said one. “The object of power is power." Whose very public abuse, in this instance, prompted cries of WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? Many Americans watched in horror as an iconic White House built by slaves - where Nancy Reagan's new china, Jimmy Carter's solar panels, Obama's dog once quaintly sparked outrage - was blithely razed and pillaged. Joe Walsh called it "an utter desecration of the Peoples’ House," adding he'd gladly invite patriots, some weekend, "to bring their own sledgehammers & crowbars to help tear that abomination down."
The Bulwark's Mona Charen has called Trump "a walking wrecking ball of law, tradition, civility, manners, and morals." His tacky paved Rose Garden, fake-gold-drenched Oval Office, many crimes against good taste and now ballroom reflect "a low and shameful time" of transforming the graceful into the sordid (that) "will be both awful and fitting." Now, the metaphorical has become literal in a defacement one historian calls "like slashing a Rembrandt painting.” "This is Trump's America," said one patriot of the dusty devastation. "And that was our history." Many felt sickened by the grisly manifestation "of the entire Trump administration": "It is not his fucking house," "Holy mother of God, this is horrifying," "Jesus fucking Christ, somebody stop him," "That was our democracy." "Breaking News: Antifa destroys the White House," said one. "Correction: It was Trump."
Update: Aceco, the company doing the demolition, is being savaged on Yelp with a flood of one-star reviews for "taking one of the most sacrilegious dem jobs in American history." "We all make choices in this life," read one, "and this was a bad one." Others: "How dare you destroy part of OUR house for that pedo dictator?", "Oops. Bad move tearing down the People's House. And you probably won't get paid," and, "May karma prevail."
Updated update for a surreal timeline: Wednesday night, the mad king said, Ok, fuck it, we'll just take down the whole thing: "We determined that, after really a tremendous amount of (non-existent) study with some of the best (imaginary) architects in the world, we determined that really knocking it down, trying to use a little section — you know, the East Wing, was not much.”
American children and young adults suing over President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders plan to keep fighting after a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed their case, citing a previous decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held—of the historic Held v. State of Montana case—and 20 other young people filed a federal suit in Montana in May, taking aim at Trump's executive orders (EOs) declaring a "national energy emergency," directing federal agencies to "unleash" American energy by accelerating fossil fuel development, and boosting the coal industry.
"The founders of this country believed our rights to life and liberty were the fundamental tenets of a reasoned and just society, among the most sacred of rights to protect from government intrusion and overreach," said Daniel C. Snyder, director of the Environmental Enforcement Project at Public Justice, one of the groups representing the young plaintiffs.
"Not only should Americans be outraged by unlawful executive actions that trample upon those rights, but also because the harm these executive orders have inflicted was acknowledged by the court—showing the serious nature of plaintiffs' case," Snyder continued. "Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
"Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
US District Judge Dana Christensen "reluctantly" dismissed Lighthiser v. Trump on Wednesday, pointing to the 9th Circuit's 2020 opinion in Juliana v. United States, a constitutional climate case that the US Supreme Court effectively ended in March.
"Plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels," wrote Christensen. "The record further demonstrates that climate change and the exposure from fossil fuels presents a children's health emergency."
The appointee of former President Barack Obama also said that he was "troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged EOs' effect on carbon dioxide emissions." Specifically, he noted, "plaintiffs have shown the challenged EOs will generate an additional 205 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2027, an increase which plaintiffs convincingly allege will expose them to imminent, increased harm from a warming climate."
While Adam Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the US Department of Justice, cheered the dismissal of what he called "a sweeping and baseless attack on President Trump's energy agenda," the judge wrote that "if the 9th Circuit disagrees" with his decision, he "welcomes the return of this case to decide it on the merits."
Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs have already set their sights on the higher court. Lead attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust stressed that "Judge Christensen said he reached his decision reluctantly and invited the 9th Circuit to correct him so these young Americans can have their case heard—and the 9th Circuit should do just that."
"Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future," she noted. "The judge recognized that the government's fossil fuel directives are injuring these youth, but said his hands were tied by precedent."
"We will appeal—because courts cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights," Olson added. "This violates not only the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, but the most basic principles of justice."
A merger between two of America's biggest railroad companies could have "disastrous consequences" for workers and consumers, according to a report out Monday.
In late July, labor unions raised alarm as Union Pacific Railroad announced a $72 billion deal to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway, which, if approved by the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), would make the new entity the largest railroad company in American history, controlling over 50,000 total miles of interstate rail.
The American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), an anti-monopoly think tank, provided more evidence for those concerns with its new analysis.
"A combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern will have disastrous consequences: less safe workers and communities, less competition, higher costs, and service disruptions," said one of the report's authors, AELP senior fellow Erik Peinert. "For good reason, there has never been an attempt at a consolidated transcontinental railroad system until now—a scale of railroad consolidation not even met by the railroad barons of the Gilded Age."
As the report explains, America's interstate rail system is dominated by four companies that operate as a pair of "regional duopolies." Norfolk Southern lines stretch across the Eastern US, along with those owned by CSX, while areas west of the Mississippi River are covered by Union Pacific and BNSF.
This already heavily consolidated system is the product of Congress' deregulation of railroads during the 1980s and 1990s, most notably through the replacement in 1995 of the more powerful Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) with the STB, which has more limited authority to regulate mergers.
"Even by the very lax merger standards of the late 1990s and early 2000s, these combinations were recognized as mistakes with devastating outcomes," the report says. "Shippers reported a deterioration in service, fewer options with higher prices, and the loss of jobs, while workers lost jobs and those who didn't face strenuous working conditions."
Though STB's rules tightened in 2001, requiring mergers to "enhance" competition instead of simply not harming it, the damage was already done. Over the next two decades, the report noted that the top four major railroads came to haul 7% fewer loads while hiking freight rates twice as fast as inflation. This was due in large part to the fact that 50% of customers were now "captive," that is, they had access to only one rail line, compared to just 27% two decades prior.
Another megamerger, the report warns, would cause a "likely permanent loss of competitive rail services for shippers" in large sections of the country, specifically the Midwest, where Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have overlapping lines.
The deal has been opposed by a consortium of shipping associations, including the Freight Rail Customer Alliance, the American Chemistry Council, and the National Industrial Transport League (NITL), which warned that it would slow down service and lead to price hikes.
Labor unions—including the Teamsters, the Transport Workers Union of America, and the Railroad Workers United—have also opposed the merger, citing the companies' histories of cutting costs by laying off employees and flouting safety standards.
"Historically, rail consolidation results in job loss, diminishing labor power in negotiating better working conditions and pay, resulting in staffing shortages that lead to burnout and increased safety risks for workers and the public," the report says. "And in general, consolidation results in stagnant and reduced wages for workers, as there are fewer buyers for labor and greater leverage for the consolidated companies."
There is also a risk that if the STB approves the merger, it could embolden the other half of the duopoly, CSX and BNSF, to merge as well, creating a national duopoly where "choice and competition would be lost."
In part due to the STB's more stringent rules, no interstate railroads have attempted to merge in the 21st century. However, the Trump administration seemed to give Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern a green light when—just as proceedings for the merger were beginning in late August—President Donald Trump fired Robert Primus, a Democratic member of the STB who had been an outspoken critic of railroad consolidation, which broke a 2-2 tie on the board between Democrats and Republicans.
At the beginning of October, Primus sued the Trump administration, which had not explained his firing other than that he "did not align with the president's America First agenda." After meeting with the CEO of Union Pacific in September, Trump said that the merger "sounds good."
"Our country's supply chain demands that the board be independent and transparent. Congress mandated it 138 years ago," Primus said upon filing the lawsuit. "Failure to do so will negatively affect the network: railroads, shippers, and rail labor alike, disrupting the supply chain and ultimately injecting instability into our nation's economy. This is dangerous, and wrong, and cannot be allowed to happen."
Railroad Workers United said that Primus "was removed not for inefficiency or malfeasance, but for daring to stand for fair competition and consumer interests, a principle too radical for the 'America First' cabal."
Ashley Nowicki, the report's other author and a policy analyst at the AELP, said that the firing of Primus, "who questioned rail consolidation and the railroad's substantial lobbying efforts, raises serious concerns about political interference."
"The last 40 years of railroad consolidation clearly demonstrate how this merger could threaten public safety and harm shippers, workers, consumers, and the broader economy," she continued. "The Surface Transportation Board must show it can operate independently and protect the public interest over Wall Street."
Republican US Sen. Josh Hawley is once again posing as the defender of a program he recently voted to cut.
On Wednesday, the Missouri senator introduced legislation that would fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for the duration of the government shutdown as families across the country brace for benefit disruptions and cuts beginning as soon as November 1, potentially impacting more than 40 million people.
"Our kids deserve to eat," Hawley said in a statement, blaming Democrats for the shutdown even as his party refuses to support an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, sending insurance premiums soaring.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told reporters this week that Democrats "want Americans to have healthcare and food."
"The Republicans, evidently, don't care whether they have either," Warren added.
Hawley's statement on the new legislation did not mention his support for President Donald Trump's signature budget package, which included the largest SNAP cuts in US history, affecting millions across the nation—including many children.
The looming SNAP benefit cuts due to the government shutdown are set to compound the impacts of food aid cuts from the Trump-GOP budget law. The Trump administration is currently pressuring states to swiftly implement the law's draconian SNAP changes, including more expansive work requirements.
Hawley's new bill, titled the Keep SNAP Funded Act, marks the second time this year that the Missouri Republican has come to the defense of a program that he has helped attack. Just two weeks after helping pass the Trump-GOP budget package, which contains around $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, Hawley unveiled legislation aimed at repealing some of those cuts.
The bill went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.
It's unclear whether Hawley's SNAP legislation will suffer the same fate. The Republican senator said if GOP leaders don't agree to bring it up for a vote, he intends to try to pass it via unanimous consent.
Dozens of states have said they have begun sending out notices informing SNAP recipients that they won't receive benefits next month if the shutdown continues, and food pantries across the nation are preparing for a surge in demand.
Legislation like Hawley's isn't necessary to ensure that SNAP recipients continue receiving at least partial benefits as the shutdown drags on, experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) stressed earlier this week.
"Nearly two-thirds of the funds needed for a full month of benefits are available in SNAP's contingency fund and must be used when regular funding for SNAP runs short," wrote CBPP's Dottie Rosenbaum and Katie Bergh. "The administration must release those funds immediately as SNAP law requires, to ensure that families can put food on the table next month."
As of this writing, the Trump administration has made no indication it plans to release those funds.
President Donald Trump is facing fresh allegations of attempting to corruptly profit from his office after The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Republican is demanding that the US Department of Justice pay him about $230 million in taxpayer dollars for previous federal investigations into him, and his allies at the DOJ are expected to make the final decision.
Trump filed the administrative claims—which are submitted to the department for potential settlements to prevent lawsuits in federal court—before he returned to the White House earlier this year, people familiar with the matter told the newspaper. However, the president nodded to the legal battle in public comments at the White House last week.
"They raided my house in Florida. It was an illegal raid," the president said beside Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, US Attorney General Pam Bondi, and her deputy, Todd Blanche—Trump's former lead criminal defense lawyer and one of two people who can green-light such settlements.
"I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I'm sort of suing myself. I don't know," Trump continued. "How do you settle the lawsuit? I'll say, Give me X dollars, right? And I don't know what to do with the lawsuit. It's a great lawsuit. And now I won—it sort of looks bad. I'm suing myself, right?"
"Trump is now openly shaking down HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT for hundreds of millions of dollars to line his pockets… while claiming there's not enough money for Americans' healthcare."
As the Times detailed Tuesday:
The first claim, lodged in late 2023, seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the FBI and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the claim has not been made public.
The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024, accuses the FBI of violating Mr. Trump's privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents. It also accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution in charging him with mishandling sensitive records after he left office.
In addition to the deputy attorney general, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division can sign off on such settlements. That post is currently held by Stanley Woodward Jr. As the newspaper noted, Woodward previously represented not only Walt Nauta, the president's co-defendant in the classified documents case, but also "a number of other Trump aides, including Mr. Patel, in investigations related to Mr. Trump or the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021."
A White House representative referred questions to the DOJ, where spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said, "In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials."
Meanwhile, Pace University professor Bennett Gershman told the Times: "What a travesty... The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don’t need a law professor to explain it."
"And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not, and these are the people who serve him deciding whether he wins or loses," he added. "It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."
Congressional Democrats, lawyers, journalists, and other critics also weighed in on Trump's reported conduct on social media, condemning it "corrupt and impeachable," "straight grift," and "straight up extorting the Justice Department and looting taxpayers."
"It's hard to think of an action more purely corrupt than a president ordering the executive branch to pay him hundreds of millions of dollars," said David French, a Times columnist and visiting professor of public policy at Lipscomb University. "I cannot wait to read the MAGA defenses of this (and there will be many). They'll display Soviet levels of sycophancy."
People's Policy Project president Matt Bruenig said that "suing the government in your personal capacity and then having the government, which you run, settle the lawsuit with you for money is the true infinite money trick."
Matthew Miller, the US State Department spokesperson during the Biden administration, suggested that "this would be the most corrupt act in presidential history. No complicated schemes, no outside actors, just a straight-up looting of the taxpayers to put $230 million in Trump's pocket."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement:
It's difficult for a president who spent the past 10 months behaving like a wannabe dictator and demonstrating his contempt for the law to surprise us, but Donald Trump has managed to do it today. Instead of being content with getting away with his lawless behavior, Trump is now brazenly demanding compensation from taxpayers for having the audacity to treat him like a public servant who can be held accountable for wrongdoing.
There is no other way to put it: The authoritarian demagogue we call our president is drunk on power, and there is no amount of money that can satiate this grifter's appetite for hoarding wealth instead of using his presidency to serve the good of the country. This disgusting behavior must be called out and stopped.
The reporting came on day 21 of a federal government shutdown over congressional Republicans' refusal to reverse healthcare cuts expected to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans.
"Trump is now openly shaking down HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT for hundreds of millions of dollars to line his pockets… while claiming there's not enough money for Americans' healthcare," declared US Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). "He has no shame. He is openly and boldly corrupt."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said: "What does Donald Trump need more of OUR money for? I guess it's good to be president when you can bully, intimidate, and shake down every institution in this country, including now the Department of Justice. This is what a mob boss looks like."
Democrats on the US House Judiciary Committee were similarly critical, calling it "the ultimate Shutdown Shakedown."
"Donald Trump, who's put more than $3 billion in his pocket since returning to the White House, now wants to have 'his' lawyers at the DOJ to pay him $230 million in the middle of the GOP government shutdown," the panel members said. "While tens of millions of Americans desperately try to pay for groceries, healthcare, and childcare, Trump is robbing America blind. This is exactly why the Constitution forbids the president from taking any money from the government outside of his official salary. This is Donald Trump First, America Last—the Gangster State at work, billionaires shaking down the people."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the panel's ranking member—and manager of Trump's historic second impeachment—is launching an investigation into the potential settlement, citing the US Constitution's domestic emoluments clause.
Like the committee's Democrats, critics pointed to the various ways Trump and his family have cashed in on the presidency, from his Qatari jet to their cryptocurrency moves.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich concluded Tuesday that "America's Grifter-in-Chief knows no bounds."
With the Palestinian news agency in Gaza reporting that Israel has violated the 12-day-old ceasefire agreement with Hamas at least 80 times and killed at least 80 people in the exclave, more than 460 prominent Jewish artists, writers, rights advocates, and policymakers on Wednesday called on world leaders—including at the United Nations—to intensify the international pressure that helped push Israel to sign the fragile truce deal.
"It was international pressure that helped to secure this ceasefire, and it must be sustained to guarantee that it endures," reads a letter organized by Jews Demand Action. "The ceasefire must be the beginning, not the end. The risk of reverting to a political reality of indifference to occupation and permanent conflict is too great. This same pressure must be continued to deliver a new era of peace and justice for all—Palestinians and Israelis alike."
The letter was initiated by former Israeli Knesset Member Avrum Burg, former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy, Israeli-American activist Libby Lenkinski, Belgian former Member of European Parliament Simone Susskind, US columnist and journalist Peter Beinart, and UK activist Em Hilton.
The signatories said that they "deplore the fact that Israeli leaders have repeatedly taken to the world stage to declare" that their bombardment of Gaza—which has killed more than 68,000 Palestinians and decimated nearly all housing units across the exclave along with hospitals, schools, and other civilian infrastructure—has been "committed in the name of the Jewish people."
"As Jews and as human beings, we declare: Not in our name," reads the letter, which was also signed by actor and writer Wallace Shawn, British filmmaker Jonathan Glazer, Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham, and actor Hannah Einbinder. "Not in the name of our heritage, our faith, or our moral tradition. The monumental scale of the killing and destruction, the forced displacement, the deliberate withholding of life-sustaining necessities, and the ongoing criminal actions in the West Bank must end and never be repeated."
"It is time to do everything possible to definitively end the Israeli government’s collective punishment of the Palestinians and to pursue peace for the sake of both peoples."
Among the letter's demands is one calling on UN Secretary-General António Guterres and other world leaders to "refute false accusations of antisemitism that abusively deploy our collective history to tarnish those with whom we stand together in the pursuit of peace and justice."
Calls to destroy Palestinian life "are not Jewish values nor are they guided by the lessons we draw from our peoples’ history," they wrote. "Instead we see in many of those standing up for Palestinian rights a reflection of the people who stood with Jews in our times of need. Our solidarity with Palestinians is not a betrayal of Judaism, then, but a fulfillment of it. When our sages taught that to destroy one life is to destroy an entire world, they did not carve exceptions for Palestinians."
The group called on other Jewish people to sign the letter.
The letter notes that the ceasefire signed on October 10 "makes no reference to the West Bank," where more than 3,200 Palestinians have been injured in attacks, including by Israeli settlers, this year. Israeli leaders have promoted the creation of the E1 settlement, which would cut off East Jerusalem from the rest of the illegally occupied territory and make it impossible for Palestinians to establish a state with the city as its capital.
Masked settlers in recent days attacked Palestinians civilians who were harvesting olives in the town of Turmus Ayya, with one clubbing a 55-year-old woman named Umm Saleh Abu Alia, who had to be hospitalized.
The letter was addressed to Guterres and other world leaders and representatives of UN member states as the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel must provide for the "basic needs" of Palestinians in Gaza and allow aid into the exclave. In 2024 the ICJ issued a nonbinding opinion saying the occupation was illegal—in keeping with long-established international law—and calling on settlers to leave the West Bank.
The signatories affirmed their "belief in the universality of justice and the fair and equal application of international law," writing: "We have not forgotten that so many of the laws, charters, and conventions established to safeguard and protect all human life were created in response to the Holocaust. Those safeguards have been relentlessly violated by Israel."
"Accountability for the Israeli leadership’s grievous violations of international law is necessary," they wrote. "It is time to do everything possible to definitively end the Israeli government’s collective punishment of the Palestinians and to pursue peace for the sake of both peoples."
The European Union's foreign ministers paused sanctions against Israel in response to the ceasefire agreement, a decision that was criticized by rights advocates this week.
"That is the last thing that we should be doing, because this is exactly the moment when you need to keep the pressure on. Because we all know that it’s certainly not a foregone conclusion that this plan will be implemented," Nathalie Tocci, a former adviser to two EU foreign policy officials, told The Guardian. “I fear that... European governments and institutions will be... reverting back to the sort of old, familiar patterns."
The letter sent on Wednesday called on the UN and member states to:
Al Jazeera reported on Wednesday that Palestinians in Gaza "are still going hungry" despite the ceasefire. In August, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) declared famine in parts of the exclave, and more than 450 people have starved to death as a result of the near-total blockade Israel began imposing in October 2023.
There is now only one entry point open for aid trucks at the Karem Abu Salem crossing, reported Al Jazeera.
"When it comes to the northern part of Gaza, none of the crossings have been opened. For more than 50 days now, the Israeli military has imposed a complete blockade on these crossings, and none of the trucks are coming to this area," wrote Hani Mahmoud, a correspondent in Gaza City. "It continues to be very difficult for people here, particularly those returning to their homes in Gaza City and the northern areas. Apart from the fact that they are lacking access to water, there’s no access to proper food.
"Whatever is available is from business owners, the traders, who have been given permits from the Israeli military to get commercial items into the Gaza Strip," Mahmoud reported. "Despite the illusion that aid is 'pouring' into Gaza, the reality on the ground is different, and people are still going hungry, unable to access food and water."
Levy said that "Israel's actions against Palestinians are antithetical to the Jewish heritage we hold dear."
"We must end this shame and reclaim a better future for Jews and Palestinians alike," he said. "We are calling on world leaders to reject complicity in the status quo of occupation, apartheid, and Israel's genocidal doom-loop towards the Palestinians, and ensure respect for international law and an end to impunity. That is the only path towards hope and sustainable peace.”
The signatories added that despite the ceasefire, they "shall not rest" until the agreement "carries forward into an end of occupation and apartheid."
"We write in the hope that this initiative further emboldens a moment of renewed Jewish commitment to act with conscience and compassion," they wrote. "We vow to work urgently to achieve equality, justice, and freedom for Palestinians and Israelis."
The incoming CEO announced 1,800 job cuts after 11 difficult quarters, a boycott over its DEI policy, and various complaints from consumers enduring broader economic pain.
As Americans are feeling the pain of President Donald Trump's economic policies, including the US leader's global tariff war, Minneapolis-based Target told employees Thursday that the retail giant is pursuing its first major job cuts in a decade.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Fiddelke, Target's incoming CEO, said in a memo to staff that the company will lay off around 1,000 of its approximately 22,000 corporate employees and cut 800 open positions, mainly in the United States.
"The truth is, the complexity we've created over time has been holding us back," wrote Fiddelke, who is set to take over for CEO Brian Cornell in February. "Too many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life."
A Target spokesperson told CNBC that no roles in stores or the company's supply chain will be impacted. The last time the company announced mass cuts was March 2015, when it laid off 1,700 people and declined to fill 1,400 open jobs.
The Journal pointed out that "Target has reported 11 consecutive quarters of falling or weak comparable sales growth," and CNBC highlighted that "its shares have fallen by 65% since their all-time high in late 2021."
As CNBC also detailed:
Compared to retail competitors, Target draws less of its overall sales from groceries and other necessities, which can make its business more vulnerable to the ups and downs of the economy and consumer sentiment. About half of Target's sales come from discretionary items, compared to only 40% at Walmart, according to estimates from GlobalData Retail.
As a result of that and other company-specific challenges, Target's sales trends and stock performance have diverged sharply from competitors. Shares of Walmart are up about 123% in the past five years, compared to Target's decline of 41% during the same time period.
Target is among several that responded to Trump's return to office and executive order on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives by ditching its DEI policies. The decision caused some shoppers to boycott Target. While experts have debated the impact of the protest, it has certainly drawn attention to the company's financial state.
"When Target reported $23.85 billion in first-quarter sales, it missed analyst expectations by nearly $500 million. Foot traffic has declined for 11 straight weeks, with Placer.ai data showing consistent year-over-year drops since the boycott began," Investopedia reported last month. "Comparable sales in the second quarter fell 1.9%, with both transaction frequency and spending per visit declining. Operating income dropped by a fifth (19.4%) to $1.3 billion in the second quarter, while earnings per share fell about 20% to $2.05."
No woke, no growth: "Target cuts 1,800 corporate jobs in its first major layoffs in a decade. Target’s shares have fallen by about 65% since their all-time high in late 2021." www.cnbc.com/2025/10/23/t...
[image or embed]
— Social Media Lab (@socialmedialab.ca) October 23, 2025 at 4:59 PM
While acknowledging the DEI boycott, Bloomberg on Thursday also noted other issues, including that "many customers have pointed to long wait lines, empty shelves, and less distinctive items."
"Getting back on track won't be easy," Bloomberg added. "Shoppers remain selective, with consumer sentiment remaining subdued on concerns around inflation and the job market."
"I'm voting yes to get Volkswagen to come back to the table," said one employee at the plant. "The majority of the people I know don't want VW's 'final offer.'"
Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who unionized with the United Auto Workers last year, announced Thursday that they will vote next week to authorize a strike after over 13 months of fruitless contract negotiations with the auto giant.
The strike authorization vote planned for October 28-29 "comes after months of unfair labor practices committed by the company, including bad faith negotiations, unlawful intimidation, and the unilateral cutting of jobs at Volkswagen’s only US assembly plant," UAW said in a statement. The union also highlighted Volkswagen's $20.6 billion in profits last year.
Company spokesperson Michael Lowder said Monday that "Volkswagen made it clear to the union that our last, best, and final offer is indeed final. We cannot in good faith prolong negotiations by continuing to bargain when we have already put our best offer on the table. It is time for the UAW to give VW employees a voice and let them decide for themselves by voting on our final offer."
However, multiple employees said Thursday that they are not happy with the company's latest offer and plan to vote for a strike.
"I'm voting yes because this is the time to show Volkswagen we are serious about receiving industry-standard treatment. Job security's essential. They could pay us $100 an hour, but it means nothing if they close the plant two weeks into the agreement," said James Robinson. "I'm hoping this process shows the company we are serious about getting a fair contract. We will show them their offer wasn't enough, show them we're willing to stand up to get what we deserve."
"I'm hoping this process shows the company we are serious about getting a fair contract."
Employee Taylor Fugate said that "I'm voting yes to get Volkswagen to come back to the table. The majority of the people I know don't want VW's 'final offer.' They want to keep negotiating, and we are willing to do what it takes to make that happen."
"We need affordable healthcare and a strong job security statement that leaves no gray area," Fugate added. "We also deserve equal standards—Southern autoworkers shouldn't be treated differently!"
One elected Republican held a press conference on Wednesday in a bid to bully the union into holding a vote on the company's latest offer. Local 3 News reported that Hamilton County Commissioner Jeff Eversole said: "Volkswagen put forward a final union contract offer over a month ago that offers significant gains for Chattanooga workers, including a 20% wage increase, a cost-of-living allowance, a $4,000 ratification bonus, lower healthcare costs, and much more. Many employees have been reaching out to the UAW to vote, and the UAW has refused."
Payday Report's Mike Elk pointed out Thursday that "the tactics used by the GOP in Chattanooga are similar to the tactics that they have used for more than a decade to sometimes successfully dissuade union votes by implying that the plant may close if the union gets 'too greedy' (their words, not my mine, as the son of a Volkswagen auto assembly line worker)."
Local 3 News noted that "during the press conference, dozens of members from both the UAW and the Chattanooga Area Central Labor Council, or CLC, began picketing outside of the VW plant."
The outlet also spoke with some employees. One of them, Dakotah Bailey, explained that "originally, it was going to be a 25% increase in wages. They didn't want to take that, and now they dropped it down to 20%. I wanted to try and get my money now. Especially right before the holidays. It would be great to have an extra $5,500 sitting in my bank account."
According to a "Volkswagen Stories" video series published by the UAW on YouTube, wages are a primary concern for workers. Other top priorities include health and safety conditions at the plant, healthcare, paid time off, and retirement benefits.
"I don't want to strike, but if it comes to it, I will," Volkswagen worker Mitchell Harris said Thursday. "Because I feel that all my brothers and sisters of UAW Local 42 deserve respect, to provide a better life for their families, and have job security for us and generations to come."
“This is not crowd control, but a campaign of intimidation,” said a Human Rights Watch official of federal agents' tactics in Illinois.
Residents of Chicago's Little Village are angrily lashing out at federal immigration officials who rolled into their neighborhood and detained residents for a second consecutive day.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that US Border Patrol agents, led by Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino, stormed into Little Village on Thursday morning wearing military-style gear and gas masks. Witnesses tell the Sun-Times that the agents began by trying to enter a discount mall in the neighborhood, only to realize that it had been closed.
The agents' presence drew the attention of local residents who gathered around them and demanded that they leave their neighborhood.
Baltazar Enriquez, president of the Little Village Community Council, said that he arrived on the scene and tried to deescalate tensions between the agents and the community. However, he told the Sun-Times that Bovino appeared to be itching for confrontation and was the first federal official to lob a tear gas canister into the crowd.
"I told him not to throw it because all he was going to do was rile people up, but he just smirked at me and threw it anyway,” said Enriquez, who also accused Bovino of leading an "orchestrated" assault on the neighborhood.
At the end of the operation, Border Patrol agents detained five people, including at least two people whom locals said were US citizens.
Illinois state Rep. Edgar González (D-23), who grew up in Little Village, expressed fury at the agents' tactics.
“It pisses me off to see them coming into our neighborhood and terrorizing our people,” he said, while also cautioning residents against getting into violent confrontations with federal officials.
"It’s a normal reaction to want to resist and to be angry,” González said. “I’m angry, too. But we need to remember not to take the bait."
The raid in Little Village came on the same day that Human Rights Watch released a report documenting the use of excessive force by federal immigration officials on protesters, journalists, and volunteer street medics outside of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview, Illinois.
According to Human Rights Watch—and reporting published since the Trump administration launched Operation Midway Blitz last month—federal agents have repeatedly lobbed tear gas canisters and fired projectiles into crowds of peaceful protesters who are posing no threat to law enforcement officials.
“This is not crowd control, but a campaign of intimidation,” said Belkis Wille, associate crisis and conflict director at Human Rights Watch. “Federal agents are using chemical irritants and firing projectiles at peaceful protesters, volunteer street medics, and journalists in broad daylight. The message is clear that dissent will be punished.”
