

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Good Bunny Bad Trump Dept: Super Bowl LX sucked, but Bad Bunny's exuberant "cultural landmine" of a half-time show was fire, a heartfelt, sanguine, unifying "love letter to the American Dream," or what MAGA called an "affront to the Greatness of America" during which they "couldn't understand a word of it" - Spanish! horrors! - and what's up with that? The final, unforgivable sin, proof their sordid culture war's almost done: The scoreboard proclaiming, "The only thing more powerful than hate is love."
Sunday's Super Bowl, held at the Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, CA, made it into the ranks of "among the six most boring games ever." But the brouhaha over an all-Spanish show at this historic, ICE afflicted moment by a 31-year-old global superstar and fierce advocate of Puerto Rican independence who dedicated his performance to "all Latinos and Latinas," has loudly urged "ICE out," launched a 57-date world tour that skipped the continental US, paused a European tour to join protests in San Juan - and sometimes wears a dress - made up for the game's lack of dazzle. Born Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, he grew up in Puerto Rico's working-class coastal town of Vega Bajal, came of age in a period marked by economic recession and natural disasters - like 2017's Hurricane Maria, when Trump infamously tossed paper towels into a suffering crowd - and just ten years ago was a student working at an Econo supermarket and writing songs in his spare time.
Emerging from a small Caribbean island with a long and painful colonial history, Benito started out "just trying to connect with my roots, connect with my people, connect with myself." Today, as the most-streamed artist on the planet with 90.5 million monthly listeners on Spotify, he's hailed as the King of Latin Trap, a Spanish-language derivative of US rap merged with home-grown reggaeton and salsa, often with dark themes of street life. He's also posited as a stunning success story who defies Trump's (white) America First bigotry, with a "solemn devotion to his land, identity (and) history" while declining to translate his music to English or compromise his politics. In her five-star review of his half-time show, Stefanie Fernández above all lauds his music as "a thrilling ode to Boricua joy" - not just Puerto Rican, but with a deep sense of resistance and celebration of "the love, the community and the absolute joy that we create together every day in spite of everything."
His electrifying arrival on the stage of the Super Bowl, in the belly of the beast of capitalism and nationalism and singing in “non-English,” was widely deemed "a cultural game changer" and "a landmark moment for Latinos," especially now amidst state terror; said an activist: "We need a loud, proud voice, and we need that voice to be in Spanish." Still, in a trailer before the show, Benito kept things chill. "It's gonna be fun and easy," he said. "People don’t even have to learn Spanish. It's better they just learn to dance." In the face of oligarchic ad rates - $10 million for a 30-second spot, including one for Epstein survivors - NFL commissioner Roger Goodell praised Bad Bunny as “one of the greatest artists in the world." Also, even in the face of MAGA outrage, he needs him for the same real-world, changing-demographic reason the NFL now runs 75 Spanish-language broadcasts a season. From one executive: "It's mathematically impossible for the League to grow without Latinos."
Bad Bunny's cinematic, elaborately choreographed, 13-minute homage to his island home, studded with sultry dancers, began in vast colonialist sugarcane and unfolded in "an entire ecosystem of community": workers in straw hats, old guys at dominoes, street vendors selling coco frío, shaved ice, tacos (by LA's Villa’s Tacos), boxers Xander Zayas and Emiliano Vargas, a brass band, an actual wedding, a block party with barbershops and bodegas, a shot from Toñita, owner of one of New York City's last Puerto Rican social clubs. Lady Gaga and Ricky Martin sang; there were cameos by other Latin artists; history and symbolism were everywhere. He carried the flag of Puerto Rican independence; his white jacket bore the number 64 - the deaths from Hurricane Maria Trump cited, though it was in fact over 1,000-- he crashed through a roof, symbolizing the island's shoddy housing; he climbed an electric pole with flickering power lines overhead, a nod to its chronic outages and failing power grid. And he handed his newly won Grammy to a little boy, as young Benito: future meets past.
The buoyant crowds around him were young, old, dark, light, men, women, heavy, slim - redefining, said one fan, "who gets to be American," and how broad that definition can be. Like his "ICE out" declaration just last weekend, when he won three Grammys, including a historic album of the year, for DeBÍ TiRAR MáS FOToS, the first Spanish-language album to win. "We’re not savages, we’re not animals, we’re not aliens," he said in an emotional speech. "We are humans, and we are Americans.” In response, the White House raved he’d attacked “law enforcement.” And so it went. When the NFL announced the show's performers - Bad Bunny and Green Day, who performed American Idiot - Trump blithered, "I’m anti-them. I think it’s a terrible choice. All it does is sow hatred" - sow hatred, like the foul, lifetime racist who last week posted the atrocity of the Obamas as apes. Later, Jon Osoff called him "a Klansman" in a greedy, feckless, unaccountable, 38,000-mention "Epstein class." He was too kind.
Bad Bunny was on at Mar-A-Hell-go, but Trump didn’t go to the game, likely warned he'd be booed like JD at the Olympics. Still, he trashed the show as "terrible, one of the worst ever,” whining, "Nobody understands what this guy is saying" and what about "the Best 401(k)s in History!" Vile MAGA chimed in on "the biggest fuck you to your audience." Evil Megyn Kelly, shrieking: "FOOTBALL IS OURS...:I like my half-time shows in English from people who love America." Laura Loomer: "Illegal aliens and Latin hookers twerking at the Super Bowl... Immigrants have literally ruined everything." Creepy Jesse Watters lost it, raving, "All these foreigners speaking a foreign language...invading our country," like his ancestors. Others: "Someone needs to tell Bad Bunny he’s in America. This is an abomination," "I didn't understand a word of that show," "We should be deporting more people," and, "I hate the illegals even more now." Breaking news: Bad Bunny is an American citizen, born and bred.
For these deplorables, Turning Point USA broadcast a cheesy alternative, "All American Half-Time Show" featuring Formerly A Kid Rock in sloppy shorts and country singers Brantley Gilbert, Lee Brice and Gabby Barrett, who came in third on Season 16 of American Idol. Their playing "great songs for folks who love America" was filmed earlier to a pallid crowd of dozens, including freshly-booed JD; "technical difficulties" due to "licensing restrictions"- they forgot to get permission from X - made the show start late. It was themed "Faith. Family. Freedom," perfect for Kid's song, "Young ladies, young ladies, I like ’em underage/ Some say that’s statutory/ But I say it’s mandatory." Roasted for "the worst lip-syncing of all time" to an old bad song - “Bawitdaba, da-bang, da-bang" - he urged flabby cultists to put small fists up and shout "FIGHT FIGHT," "TRUMP TRUMP," and "Rock for Freedom, Rock for Truth." Also rock for lamely losing the culture war amidst Trump's "collapsing" support from a working-class base.
Still, Inexplicably impressed Tommy Tuberville wrote, "Roger 'Woke' Goodell better be taking notes, because millions of Americans would rather hear good music from these patriots instead of anti-American propaganda from Bad Rabbit or whatever his name is." Many disagreed: "It was literally tens of people," "It was painfully long," "It was everything and nothing all at once," "It was like watching goldfish in a glass fishbowl, just swimming back and forth, in circles, in their own shit," "It was the definition of trying too hard," "Bless their hearts," and, "Holy fuck these people are cringe." One die-hard called it "a massive victory for TPUSA," Megyn Kelly wept from "a stunningly powerful" tribute to Charlie Kirk, and about five million people watched it all. An estimated, record 135 million watched Bad Bunny, and millions more later streamed it, even though he sowed hatred by singing in Spanish, the first language for over 50 million Americans, who also speak about 400 other languages at home.
Bad Bunny, many felt, brought joy, exuberance, a reminder of "what the American dream really looks like," of "who we are, or at least can be," of "what America looks like when we are not afraid of each other." "He simply showed his humanity," said one fan, "and reminded us of our own." There were watch parties, said another, because, "I'll be damned if I let fear take my joy away." And while Latinos have been losing socio-economic wars for years, by defiantly arguing on America's biggest stage there's something better than the right wing's hate, "Culturally, we're winning." Bad Bunny closed by saying, "God bless America." Then, flanked by dancers carrying jubilant flags, they strode forward as he recited all the names, one by one, of the Hemisphere, the hard-fought-after Americas, South, North, Central, ending with the United States, Canada, and "Mi patria, Puerto Rico. Seguimos aquí.” My homeland, Puerto Rico. We are still here." Finally, he spiked a football. It read, “TOGETHER, WE ARE AMERICA.”
Update: Idiot snowflakes, rest assured: In the wake of Bad Bunny's very upsetting performance in Spanish, MAGA, "always on top of it," is "still investigating" the possibly racy lyrics - they only know the Spanish for 'where is the bathroom'- of one of his songs that was already bleeped and cleaned up for the show. Digby: "How dare you sing in Spanish and clean up the lyrics of a song I don’t understand making us look even more ridiculous than we already did?"
In a report published Thursday, UK experts highlighted the "growing gap between real-world climate risk and the economic analysis used to guide policy, supervision, and investment," while also warning that because the "window for preventing catastrophic warming" is narrowing, ambitious action "cannot await perfected models."
Various scientific institutions concur that 2025 was among the hottest years on record—and the ongoing failure of governments across the globe, particularly the Trump administration, to enact policies that would significantly cut planet-heating emissions from fossil fuels is pushing the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C and 2°C goals for this century further out of reach.
The new report from the University of Exeter and the think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative, titled Recalibrating Climate Risk, incorporates the expert opinions of 68 climate scientists from Australia, Austria, Canada, China, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
"Our expert elicitation reveals a fundamental disconnect: Climate scientists understand that beyond 2°C, we're not dealing with manageable economic adjustments," said Jesse Abrams, lead author and senior impact fellow at Exeter's Green Futures Solutions, in a statement.
"The climate scientists we surveyed were unambiguous," he explained. "Current economic models systematically underestimate climate damages because they can't capture what matters most—the cascading failures, threshold effects, and compounding shocks that define climate risk in a warmer world and could undermine the very foundations of economic growth."
Abrams said that "for financial institutions and policymakers relying on these models, this isn't a technical problem—it's a fundamental misreading of the risks we face, which current models miss entirely because they assume the future will behave like the past, even as we push the climate system into uncharted territory."
Current economic models miss the mark on climate risks, warning that catastrophic tipping points and extreme weather could crash the global economy, far worse than 2008.As said many times before delaying action will be far costlier than cutting emissions now.www.theguardian.com/environment/...
[image or embed]
— Ian Hall (@ianhall.bsky.social) February 5, 2026 at 12:46 AM
Communities around the world are already contending with devastating droughts, fires, and storms—and, as another report from researchers at Exeter and the UK's Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFOA) pointed out last month, "above 1.5°C, we enter the danger zone where multiple climate tipping points may be triggered, such as the collapse of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, permafrost melt, Amazon dieback, and changes in ocean circulation."
The IFOA report "warned that when cascading and systemic risks are taken into account, warming of 2°C by 2050 could result in a 25% hit to projected GDP, rising to a halving of projected economic growth between 2070 and 2090," BusinessGreen editor-in-chief James Murray reported Thursday. "Similarly, a report from consultancy Boston Consulting Group calculated a third of the global economic output could be lost under a scenario where temperatures reach 3°C above preindustrial levels by 2100."
"The studies stand in stark contrast to some mainstream economic models that have suggested warming of 2°C or more will only reduce projected economic growth by a few percentage points—analyses that have been seized upon by opponents of climate action to argue that decarbonization policies can be dropped or delayed," Murray noted.
Abrams told the Guardian that some current economic models "are saying we'll have a 10% GDP loss at between 3°C and 4°C, but the physical climate scientists are saying the economy and society will cease to function as we know it. That's a big mismatch."
Your periodic reminder that the economic models that suggest climate change will knock a couple of percent of future GDP - models that are used widely by governments, investors, and businesses - are almost certainly complete garbage. www.businessgreen.com/news/4525211...
[image or embed]
— James Murray (@james-bg.bsky.social) February 5, 2026 at 7:08 AM
Laurie Laybourn, a Carbon Tracker board member and executive director of Strategic Climate Risks Initiative, cited another recent report that provides a bleak picture of the current moment and what lies ahead.
"As the UK government's landmark security assessment of ecosystem collapse showed last week, we are currently living through a paradigm shift in the speed, scale, and severity of risks driven by the climate-nature crisis," he said. "Yet, beyond this report, there has not been a corresponding paradigm shift in how regulators and government as a whole assess these risks."
"Instead, they're routinely underestimated if not missed entirely, meaning many regulations and government action are dangerously out of touch with reality," he continued. "This threatens disaster when that reality catches up with us. So, it's critical that policymakers change course, providing clear signals and guidance to markets that these risks should be priced accordingly, rather than downplayed."
And, as the experts emphasized Thursday, it's not just policymakers—investors are also still relying on "flawed economic advice," said Carbon Tracker founder and CEO Mark Campanale. The result is "widespread complacency... with many investors viewing climate scenario analysis as a tick-box disclosure exercise."
"Until the gap between scientists and economists' expectations of future climate damages is closed and government bodies act to ensure the integrity of advice upon which investment decisions are made," he added, "financial institutions will continue to chronically underprice climate risks—meaning that pension funds and taxpayers will remain dangerously exposed."
Hetal Patel, head of sustainable investment research at Phoenix Group, the UK's largest and retirement and savings business, said that her firm "supports the report's call for a more robust and coordinated approach to climate‑risk modeling. Underestimating physical risk doesn't just distort financial analysis and investment decisions, it underplays the real‑world consequences that will ultimately affect customer outcomes and society as a whole."
The new report stresses that addressing the "fundamental disconnect between what climate scientists understand about climate impacts and how these impacts are represented in economic models" would require "research investments spanning years," but rather than simply waiting for better modeling, decision-makers "must proceed on the basis of precautionary risk management, physical climate science, and observed impacts."
Corporate profits in the US have surged in recent decades, with subscription-based businesses reporting some of the biggest revenue growth as more Americans use streaming services and sign up for "subscribe and save" models in a quest for ease and convenience.
While promising consumers that subscribing to a service will save them money and time, subscription-based businesses have made canceling the services increasingly difficult, contributing to Americans spending 60% longer on the phone with customer service lines than they did two decades ago.
And although corporations hardly need the extra money, making cancellations more arduous for customers can boost their revenue by anywhere from 14% to over 200%, according to the think tank Groundwork Collaborative, which released a report Monday on what it calls "the annoyance economy."
The labyrinthine processes that millions of Americans face each year when they try to cancel subscription services is just one part of the annoyance economy, according to Groundwork, which detailed the seemingly endless time, money, and patience people spend "just trying to get basic things done"—as well as efforts by corporations and the Trump administration to make sure it stays that way.
While millions are struggling with the rising costs of groceries, healthcare, housing, childcare, and just about everything else, the report explains how—thanks to corporate greed and a White House intent on enabling it—Americans are also shelling out at least $165 billion per year in fees as well as lost time.
In addition to cancellation processes, the annoyance economy includes the $90 billion people across the US spend every year on junk fees when they buy concert tickets, make hotel reservations, and order food delivery; rental application fees that keep people from even attempting to move to new housing that could put them closer to work or school; and administrative healthcare tasks like obtaining coverage information and resolving questions about premiums and deductibles.
"While seemingly minor, these little annoyances add up," wrote Groundwork policy fellow Chad Maisel and Stanford University economist Neale Mahoney, the authors of the report, who cited a 2019 survey that found 1 in 4 respondents delayed getting healthcare or avoided it altogether specifically because of the administrative tasks they had to complete in order to get an appointment and make sure it was covered.
"All told, American workers collectively spend about $21.6-billion-worth of time each year dealing with healthcare administration, between calls, claims, explanations, and paperwork, according to a recent analysis."
Another new poll from Data for Progress found that nearly 80% of Americans reported "at least a little frustration" when coordinating their healthcare and filling out health insurance paperwork.
"All told, American workers collectively spend about $21.6-billion-worth of time each year dealing with healthcare administration, between calls, claims, explanations, and paperwork," reads the report, citing another recent analysis. "Polling confirms this: More than 1 in 3 Americans report dealing with health insurance headaches more than 20 times per year."
With frustration over health insurance companies' practices increasingly common, reads the report, "policymakers are missing important opportunities to take on a handful of egregious and particularly annoying practices."
Lawmakers could require insurance companies to make it easy for patients to fill out and submit claims online—instead of downloading, printing, and physically mailing claim forms with itemized receipts as Cigna requires patients to do.
Congress could also create a "healthcare sludge unit" to monitor and root out "needless friction throughout the healthcare experience."
Such a project could leverage tools "like 'blind shopper' experiments, public feedback lines, and direct engagement with industry to surface and fix barriers that waste patients’ time and erode trust."
The report also takes on the spam texts and calls that have become all-to-familiar to anyone with a cellphone.
"Text messaging, once reserved for conversation with friends and family, now resembles our email spam folders, dominated by unsolicited offers from companies, politicians, and fraudsters," wrote Maisel and Mahoney, who shared that on the day they wrote about spam in the report, "one of us received five spam calls, a text from 'Victoria' offering a $500-a-day job, and two breathless fundraising messages from political candidates we’ve never supported—or even heard of."
Those spam communications were some of the more than 130 million scam and illegal marketing calls Americans receive each day and the nearly 20 billion texts that were sent each month over the past year—leading "virtually all respondents" to Data for Progress' poll to report that the calls and texts are at least "a little frustrating" and 68% call them "very frustrating."
State and federal lawmakers could and should take action against spam calls and texts, said Maisel and Mahoney. Congress should modernize the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which was passed in 1991—well before companies began inundating Americans' inboxes with the newest robocalling and texting software.
"If a platform automatically dials from a stored list of numbers, it’s now exempt from the TCPA’s rules," reads the report. "The result: far more robocall and spam text operations can legally target people without their consent. Congress should update the definition of autodialer to include any callers and texters who automatically contact stored numbers, unless there’s real human involvement in sending each message."
Former President Joe Biden's Federal Communications Commission tried to close the "lead generator loophole,” which allows third-party marketers to collect people's contact information and sell it to dozens, sometimes hundreds, of businesses, but companies sued over the FCC's action and won in court.
President Donald Trump could issue an executive order directing federal agencies "to leverage all available resources and authorities to end robocalls and spam texts once and for all," said Maisel and Mahoney.
But the authors noted that the Trump administration's mass layoffs across the government would make enforcement more difficult.
"The Department of Justice also needs to prioritize enforcement against bad actors," they wrote. "While the FCC can levy fines for violations, it cannot pursue their collection without the DOJ. Of the eight robocalling forfeiture orders referred by the FCC, the DOJ has pursued only two for collection."
In the case of the hoops consumers are made to jump through in order to cancel subscriptions and services, the report emphasizes that the federal government has made significant inroads before to help the public.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) intervened in 2023 and stopped Toyota Motor Credit from continuing its practice of routing all consumer calls through a hotline "where representatives were instructed to keep promoting products until a consumer asked to cancel three times, at which point they were told cancellation was only possible by submitting a written request."
Under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was lauded by consumer advocates for its click-to-cancel rule in 2024, requiring sellers to “make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."
But Trump's FTC last year delayed implementation of the rule after industry groups said that "it would take a substantial amount of time to come into compliance.” A federal appeals court then effectively killed the rule altogether.
While the fees that gradually trickle out of Americans' bank accounts into the annoyance economy are often small individually, the report emphasizes that they add up—and the consequences of these business practices and the government's failure to stop them "extend beyond wasted time and money."
"When life is reduced to jumping through an endless series of hoops—just to fix a billing error, secure a refund, or cancel a subscription—it breeds cynicism and disengagement," reads the report. "If the government can remove even a few of those obstacles, we can show the American people that someone is paying attention and begin the long process of rebuilding public trust."
Along with refusing to acknowledge the harm her Department of Justice has done to victims of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and yelling personal insults at Democratic members of Congress, US Attorney General Pam Bondi stonewalled at Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing when Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon asked her direct questions about the Trump administration's attempts to label dissenters "domestic terrorists."
At the hearing focusing on oversight of the DOJ, Scanlon (D-Pa.) asked about National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which President Donald Trump signed in September, weeks after claiming the "radical left" was "directly responsible" for the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
The memo directs federal agencies to develop a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts," with an exclusive focus on anti-fascist or left-wing groups.
It classifies anti-capitalism; "extremism" on migration, race, and gender; and "hostility" toward "traditional American views on family" as some of the viewpoints that are held by groups that the Trump administration aims to disrupt, and the memo was expanded on by another memo in which Bondi directed the DOJ to compile a list of possible "domestic terrorism" groups that hold the views identified in NSPM-7.
The memos were signed months after Bondi said under oath that there would "never be an enemies list" compiled by the DOJ.
Scanlon noted in the hearing Wednesday that "Americans across the political spectrum were immediately alarmed by the memo's blurring of the line between unlawful conduct and constitutionally protected speech and activity, as well as its call to investigate, prosecute, and dismantle groups" with which the administration disagrees.
When the congresswoman asked Bondi to confirm whether the list she called for in her December memo has been compiled, the attorney general said she was "not going to answer yes or no" before saying that "an antifa member" was arrested earlier this month in Minneapolis for "cyberstalking."
🚨 Pam Bondi refuses to say if the list of "domestic terrorist organizations" she ordered the Justice Department to create has been completed.
"I'm not going to answer yes or no" pic.twitter.com/51oPYvaxQg
— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) February 11, 2026
The exchange was typical of the proceedings; members of the committee were continually frustrated during the hearing as Bondi refused to respond to straightforward questions about the Epstein files and other issues. Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) at one point implored the attorney general not to "go off on a wild goose chase, another tangent," when asked a question.
Scanlon later asked Bondi if she would commit to providing the committee with the list of entities that the DOJ believes should be "designated as domestic terrorist organizations."
"I'm not going to commit to anything to you because you won't let me answer questions," the attorney general replied.
CONGRESS: Will you commit to provide this committee with your list of entities that you recommend be designated as domestic terrorist organizations?
PAM BONDI: I'm not going to commit to anything pic.twitter.com/K9HySj72MU
— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) February 11, 2026
Scanlon responded, "We understand your current position is that you have a secret list of people or groups who you are accusing of domestic terrorism, but you won't share it with Congress."
The exchange came two weeks after independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that he had learned from senior administration officials that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have already compiled over a dozen "secret and obscure" watchlists of pro-Palestinian and anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protesters and other people who have been labeled "domestic terrorists."
An ICE agent deployed in Maine also sparked alarm last month when he told a woman who was filming him that doing so would land her in a "nice little database" the department has, where she would be labeled a domestic terrorist. Filming ICE agents is protected under the First Amendment.
And CNN reported that DHS sent a memo to ICE agents deployed in Minneapolis directing them to fill out forms with personal data about protesters and people the department labeled "agitators."
Despite the mounting evidence that the administration is compiling data about dissenters, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said late last month that "there is NO database of ‘domestic terrorists’ run by DHS."
While Bondi similarly refused to confirm that DOJ has compiled a list of what it claims are domestic terrorist groups, Scanlon issued a warning that "Americans have never tolerated political demagogues who use the government to punish people on an enemies list."
Doing so "brought down" former Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the Red Scare, she said, as well as former President Richard Nixon.
"And it will bring down this administration as well," said Scanlon.
A group of Texas legislators have delivered an urgent warning about the treatment of detainees in the country’s largest immigration detention camp, which sits on an Army base in El Paso.
“We have received numerous credible reports of torture, killing, and inhumane treatment of detained individuals at the Camp East Montana migrant detention facility, located within Fort Bliss,” said Rep. Ana-María Rodríguez Ramos (D-102), who joined 35 other Democrats in the Texas state House on Tuesday to demand an investigation into the facility.
Camp East Montana was constructed in August as part of the Trump administration's effort to ramp up Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) "mass deportation" of immigrants. The selection of Fort Bliss has historical precedent, having previously been used as a site for the internment of Japanese people during World War II.
Using a secretive contract undisclosed to the public, the Pentagon awarded roughly $1.2 billion to a private contractor in July to construct a sprawling tent city to hold around 5,000 people rounded up by ICE.
"Almost immediately upon its opening, detainees, their families, and legal watchdog organizations began bringing attention to conditions that were deemed unsuitable for detainees, even by internal standards set by Immigration and Customs Enforcement," the legislators wrote in a letter to state Rep. Cole Hefner (R-5), who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, Public Safety, and Veterans Affairs.
During the camp's first 50 days of operation, ICE inspections revealed that it had violated more than 60 federal detention standards. The report, compiled in September, was not released to the public, but was reported on by the Washington Post, which spoke with dozens of detainees.
"On ICE's webpage titled 'Detention Management,' it states that 'detention is non-punitive,'" the legislators wrote Tuesday. "Yet, according to reporting by the Washington Post based on sworn statements from dozens of detainees, the facility, for months, was being run like a prison in a country without standards for oversight, health, or safety for the inmates."
"There were complaints that the toilets and sinks didn't work for the first few weeks after the facility's opening last August. There were complaints logged that, for the first few weeks, the facility didn't adequately feed detainees. They also complained about another violation of ICE standards: the lack of access to telephones for detainees to communicate with family and legal representation," they continued.
Earlier this week, US Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), who visited the facility unannounced on Friday, disclosed that at least two cases of tuberculosis and 18 cases of Covid-19 had been identified at the facility.
"While the private corporation continues to pocket our tax dollars, it's clear the conditions are only getting worse," she said.
The state lawmakers also cited a letter sent by the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and several other civil rights groups in December addressing "cases of illegal, extrajudicial attempts to deport detainees to Mexico."
One inmate, a Cuban immigrant identified as "Benjamin," said he was threatened by guards who attempted to make him sign a letter agreeing to be deported to Mexico.
“The guards told him that if he did not, they would handcuff him, put a bag over his head, and send him to Mexico. Benjamin refused to sign the document, stating that he was scared to go to Mexico, because he had heard that migrants are often kidnapped, robbed, or killed there,” the ACLU letter said.
The letter also provided several examples of inmates being subject to physical and sexual assault at the hands of officers.
"People detained at Fort Bliss report that officers have crushed detainees’ testicles with their fingers, slammed detained people to the ground, stomped on detained people and punched their faces, and beaten detained people even after they are cuffed and restrained," it said.
The legislators also noted that three detainees have died in the facility in just two months.
On December 3, 48-year-old Guatemalan inmate Francisco Gaspar-Andrés was reported to have died of natural causes, namely liver and kidney failure, according to an ICE press release.
Since then, two other inmates have died. On January 14, 36-year-old Victor Manuel Diaz was found dead of an apparent suicide, though the cause of death remains under investigation.
Prior to that, the Department of Homeland Security reported that the death of another inmate, 55-year-old Geraldo Lunas Campos from Cuba, on January 3, was also a suicide.
However, witnesses have said they saw guards choking Lunas Campos and that he was heard saying, "I can’t breathe." His death has since been ruled a homicide after an autopsy revealed the cause of death to have been “asphyxia due to neck and torso compression.”
The letter notes that while Lunas Campos was "convicted of heinous crimes," including sexual contact with an 11-year-old, "he was not sentenced to death by a judge or jury—he was killed by someone responsible for his care, for unknown reasons or circumstances."
"It is our responsibility as Texas legislators to ensure that we can trust that jails, prisons, and detention facilities in Texas operate to our high standards and expectations," the lawmakers said. "We must learn more, investigate, and provide answers to the millions of Americans demanding the truth. We must also ensure this does not happen again in any federal detention facility."
The call for an investigation comes as DHS plans to rapidly convert at least around two dozen warehouses into massive new detention centers across the country. At least three of these locations are planned for Texas. One of them, planned for the town of Hutchins outside Dallas, is expected to hold around 9,500 inmates.
The legislators said: "Human rights abuses, ignoring due process requirements, repeated violation of federal regulations, clear disrespect for the United States Constitution, and murder are unconscionable on any inch of American soil—but these crimes against real people are happening in Texas, and require proud Texans to stand up in defense of our Constitution and use our power to end this widespread abuse."
Investigative journalist Seth Harp has accused the New York Times of burying his interview with a prominent opinion columnist. He told Common Dreams that the paper is trying to silence his forceful critiques of US foreign policy.
In a post on social media Thursday, Harp blasted Ross Douthat, a conservative opinion columnist for the paper, after learning that a conversation the two had recorded last month had been cut.
“Ross Douthat challenged me to a debate on foreign policy,” Harp wrote. “We recorded a 90-minute segment for his show, Interesting Times, on January 15, 2026. But I defeated him so decisively that he refuses to air the footage. What an absolute coward.”
According to Douthat, the conversation between the two was “pegged to the Delta Force raid in Venezuela,” referring to President Donald Trump’s operation last month, which overthrew the South American nation’s president, Nicolás Maduro.
Though Trump himself has plainly stated that his goal was to forcibly open the nation’s vast oil reserves to be taken over by US corporations, the administration has papered over this nakedly imperialist justification with dubious claims that Maduro was at the helm of a multinational narcotics trafficking ring. Maduro has pleaded not guilty to related charges in US court.
This was where, Douthat said, Harp’s perspective was relevant. His recent Times bestselling book, The Fort Bragg Cartel, examines the long history of the US Army Special Forces’ own history of international drug trafficking, which culminated in a series of unsolved murders at the titular Army installation in North Carolina.
The day after US forces bombed Caracas in the January operation, which is estimated to have killed as many as 83 people—including dozens of civilians—Harp posted a photo of one of the Delta Force commanders who played a key role in the attack. For this, he was subpoenaed by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee, which accused him of “leaking classified intel” and “doxing” the official, even though the information was already publicly available.
According to Harp, the conversation was cordial at first but became prickly when the two began to discuss the recent attack on Venezuela.
"Again and again he tried to box me in with some kind of gotcha," Harp said. "For example, he sprung on me that I'd called Nicolás Maduro the 'rightful' president of Venezuela, and tried to make the discussion about the last election in Venezuela and abuses by the government security forces there."
"I replied that Maduro was the rightful president of Venezuela simply because he became president through Venezuela's own internal political processes, and that the US has no right to dictate to other countries who their leaders should be," he said. "Douthat had no response to that and appeared visibly thrown off balance. It was as if he had never encountered a real anti-imperialist critique of US foreign policy and was only prepared to deal with some weak sauce humanitarian liberal critique, which I'm not about."
Harp said the discussion also encompassed many other foreign policy topics, including “Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, the post-9/11 wars, and American military interventions since 1945 more broadly.”
He added that the pair “also discussed the methods by which these interventions were accomplished, specifically the use of large conventional armies versus special forces and proxies,” and that they “talked a lot about China and Russia, too.”
“I served in the military and have spent my entire adult life thinking and writing about these issues,” said Harp, an Army veteran. “My basic argument was that the United States has been so violent and aggressive since World War II that it has not only destabilized the entire world but also destroyed our own country from the inside, materially and politically.”
“Ross’ basic point of view was that while the US has done terrible things and killed millions of people in recent years, the world is a better place as a result of American hegemony,” Harp continued. “But his grasp on historical facts was so weak that he was unable to make a strong argument.”
“He frequently became confused and contradicted or reversed himself,” Harp explained. “Frustrated at his own befuddlement, he blew up and said: ‘We get it. You think the United States is uniquely evil.’”
Within days of the interview, Harp expressed fears that the Times might decide not to release it. On January 20, five days after his sit-down with Douthat, he wrote to one of his editors.
“I was somewhat surprised that Ross wasn’t better prepared to defend his point of view,” he said, according to a message he made available on social media. “They may decide to spike it; we’ll see.”
About three weeks after the conversation and after weeks of silence from the Times, Harp received a text message from one of the show’s producers, who told him, “We aren’t going to be able to make it work.”
“We were kind of pummeled by the news cycle in the last six weeks and are going to pivot away from this story,” the producer explained in the text message exchange.
“I had canceled a vacation to do the show in studio,” Harp told Common Dreams. “Twice they changed the date on me, so I was kept waiting for two weeks. Then, after they spiked the episode, they didn’t even bother to inform me. I didn’t learn about it until three weeks later, when I reached out to the producer. At that point, I asked for Ross’ email address so that I could speak to him about it directly and in private. The producer refused to put me in touch.”
Harp responded to the message, calling it “unbelievable cowardice on Ross’ part and a giant waste of my time.” He said he was going to “make it known what actually happened: Ross challenged me to a debate on foreign policy, got crushed, and doesn’t have the intellectual or journalistic integrity to air the footage.”
He later posted the text exchange to social media. He told Common Dreams he chose to go public because he “felt deeply offended by [The Times'] complete disrespect for my time and lack of professional courtesy.”
hey @DouthatNYT, release the debate ya coward https://t.co/2eMysOn4nn
— Nathan J Robinson (@NathanJRobinson) February 6, 2026
ross douthat has no time for a foreign policy discussion with seth harp but loads of time for this misogynistic culture war slop… https://t.co/ZIZDqTy8Kc pic.twitter.com/SaCkE3OMkV
— Erin Overbey (@erinoverbey) February 7, 2026
Harp's publication of the messages on social media resulted in a wave of backlash from others in the media, who accused Douthat of cowardice and the Times of burying the interview to protect him from embarrassment.
On Thursday, Douthat issued a response on social media.
Though the debate was recorded less than two weeks after Trump’s raid, he said the interview “had missed the ideal spot in the news cycle” for a conversation about Venezuela. He also said the interview, which he wanted to keep narrowly focused on Harp’s reporting about drug-dealing in the Special Forces, “became unmoored from Mr. Harp’s specific reporting in a way that undermined the first half of our conversation.”
“Interesting Times is a show where I try to give a lot of space to the guest’s perspective while posing challenging questions, creating episodes where the audience gets the best version of an idea or worldview that they might not have understood before,” Douthat continued.
Harp called this justification “hogwash,” pointing out that three of the most recent episodes of his show address such timely issues as the end of Roe v. Wade, questions about public trust after the Covid-19 pandemic, and church attendance statistics among young men.
“Anyone can look at your recent episodes and see that a debate between us on the US military and foreign policy would have been far more timely and relevant to the news cycle than any of them,” Harp wrote.
Douthat, one of the many Times columnists who enthusiastically supported the Bush administration’s War in Iraq more than two decades ago, has often given his platform to unapologetic supporters of US foreign military interventions.
The first interview he published after Trump’s Venezuela operation was a conversation titled “A Defense of US Intervention in Venezuela,” in which he hosted the notorious war hawk Elliott Abrams, who served as special envoy to Venezuela during Trump’s first term.
The neoconservative policy adviser, who’d previously worked for Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. During that time, he championed US support for anti-communist death squads and dictators across Latin America and was later convicted for his participation in the Iran-Contra affair.
Douthat largely agreed with Abrams on the moral justifications for regime change in Venezuela, though he questioned the operation’s effectiveness in bringing about democracy.
Harp said that during their conversation weeks later, he disputed Douthat’s “sarcastic outburst,” accusing him of portraying America as a unique evil.
“I don’t think the US is unique or evil,” he told Common Dreams. “I don’t think in those sorts of religious terms. Rather, I think the US is only the latest in a very long history of military empires, but that its marriage to extractive capitalism makes it exceptionally violent, unstable, and short-lived.”
“This is a perspective to which New York Times readers are rarely exposed,” he went on. “It was an interesting and entertaining discussion all around, and no doubt would have garnered far more views than anything else that Ross has published recently. Sadly, Ross’ ego was a little battered.”
“I had tried to go easy on him as an interlocutor, not pointing out, for example, that I personally fought in the Iraq War while he merely promoted it in the pages of the National Review, even though both of us were of military age in the early 2000s,” he said. “I had kept it all above the belt and never attacked him personally. But I had laid bare the shallowness and inconsistency of his views on foreign policy.”
“Another pundit or host would have had the intellectual and journalistic integrity to publish the interview anyway,” he said. “Not Ross.”
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has said that videotaping officers on the job is a form of "doxing" and "violence."
The US Department of Homeland Security has claimed for months that filming immigration agents on the job constitutes a criminal offense. But under oath during a Senate Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing on Thursday, the leaders of immigration agencies under the department’s umbrella admitted this is not true.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, interrogated Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Rodney Scott, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Joseph Edlow, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) about the recent surge of agents in Minnesota, which has resulted in the killing of two US citizens since January.
He zeroed in on the case of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse who was shot by a pair of immigration agents on January 24, showing footage of the incident leading up to Pretti's killing, which DHS claimed was justified prior to any investigation taking place.
"So what we see is the beginning of the encounter with Alexander Pretti. He's filming in the middle of the street," Paul explained after rolling the tape.
The senator then asked Scott and Lyons, "Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way?"
They both responded flatly, "No."
Courts have generally affirmed that filming law enforcement agents is protected by the First Amendment. But this admission by Lyons and Scott is a major deviation from what their parent agency has claimed.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, stated during a July press briefing that “violence” against DHS agents includes “doxing them” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.”
Even in the wake of last month's shootings, DHS has held to this line, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that “videoing our officers in an effort to dox them and reveal their identities is a federal crime and a felony.”
Agents have been directed to treat those who film ICE as criminals—a DHS bulletin from June described filming at protests as "unlawful civil unrest" tactics and "threats."
Several videos out of Minnesota, Maine, and other places flooded by ICE have documented federal agents telling bystanders to stop recording and issuing threats against them or detaining them.
In one case, a bystander was told that because she was filming, she was going to be put in a "nice little database" and was now "considered a domestic terrorist."
Last month, a federal judge sided with a group of journalists in California who cited the June bulletin to argue that Noem had "established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime," in violation of the First Amendment.
The Texas Democrat accused US billionaires of "stealing from the American people, stealing the wealth that we created."
Texas Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico turned the tables on a town hall questioner who asked him if he was pushing “class warfare” with his populist economic pitch and frequent criticism of billionaires.
Talarico responded that there is already class warfare in the US.
"It's the billionaires waging war against the rest of us, and right now the billionaires are winning," explained the Texas Democrat in a video clip of the town hall posted on social media Wednesday. "They've been winning for 50 years. Trickle-down economics is not a theory, it is theft."
A young man at our town hall asked if I was pushing class warfare.
I told him: “We already have class warfare in this country — billionaires are waging war on the rest of us.” pic.twitter.com/w238OfB8yH
— James Talarico (@jamestalarico) February 12, 2026
Talarico went on to accuse billionaires of "stealing from the American people, stealing the wealth that we created."
"It's why everyone is so angry right now," he continued. "It's why, no matter how hard you work, you can't seem to get ahead. The American people are not asking for a whole lot: A job we don't hate, a house big enough to raise a family in, and a little left over so we can go on vacation every once in a while. That is a lot harder than it should be in America."
Talarico's answer on "class warfare" came two days after a Monday report in the Wall Street Journal revealed that labor compensation in the US has fallen to its lowest percentage of gross domestic income since at least 1980, even as corporate profits have risen to the highest percentage of gross domestic income over that same period.
"The divergence between capital and labor helps explain the disconnect between a buoyant economy and pessimistic households," explained the Journal. "It will also play an outsize role in where the economy goes from here."
An analysis released in January by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) found that the collective wealth of US billionaires surged to $8.1 trillion in 2025, even as many working-class Americans struggled with basic expenses such as groceries, housing and healthcare.