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.
(Photo: AP/Carolyn Tester)
Update: 1:50 PM EST
At a White House ceremony on Monday afternoon, President Obama officially nominated his top counterterrorism advisor John Brennan to be the next director of the CIA.
In his assessment of the decision, the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald argues that it should not be shocking that Brennan--who was withdrawn from consideration for CIA chief in 2008 because of his association with the CIA's torture program under President Bush--has now been brought back by President Obama in 2013.
Greenwald called Obama's nomination of Brennan a "symptom of Obama's own extremism [in the controversial areas of torture, targeted killings, and the US drone policy], not a cause."
Calling it a fitting choice, Greenwald said the decision
is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus.
Earlier:
The Associated Press is reporting Monday morning that Obama's top counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan--who has also been Obama's right hand man when it comes to governing the administration's program of extrajudicial assassinations known as the 'kill list'--will now be nominated to head the CIA.
According to AP, the "president will announce Brennan's nomination during an event Monday afternoon."
Brennan was previously considered for the top CIA position by Obama at the beginning of the his presidency in 2009, but that consideration was withdrawn after voices of opposition raised substantial concern about Brennan's involvement with the CIA's torture program which flourished during the presidency of George W. Bush.
Among those concerned were military psychologists and civilian opponents of the torture program who penned an open letter at the time calling on the newly-elected Obama to reject Brennan from consideration. They wrote:
Mr. Brennan served as a high official in George Tenet's CIA and supported Tenet's policies, including "enhanced interrogations" as well as "renditions" to torturing countries. According to his own statements, Mr. Brennan was a supporter of the "dark side" policies, wishing only to have some legal justification supplied in order to protect CIA operatives. [...]
The use of these tactics goes against the moral fiber of our country and is never justified. This is true whether these "enhanced interrogation" techniques are used directly by U.S. forces, as in the CIA's "black sites," or by other countries acting as our surrogates, as in the "renditions" program where individuals are taken to countries practicing torture, resulting in suffering inflicted by that country's forces. [...]
In order to restore American credibility and the rule of law, our country needs a clear and decisive repudiation of the "dark side" at this crucial turning point in our history. We need officials to clearly and without ambivalence assert the rule of law. Mr. Brennan is not an appropriate choice to lead us in this direction. The country cannot afford to have him as director of our most important intelligence agencies.
Though Brennan was taken out of consideration for the CIA position, months later he was appointed by Obama to be his chief counterterrorism advisor, where he was instrumental in developing what has become known as the 'disposition matrix' or 'kill list' program following reporting that emerged in the Washington Post in 2012.
In a public speech in 2012, Brennan defended the Obama administration's drone program, but was met with protest by CodePink's Medea Benjamin, who challenged the legitimacy and legality of the program that Brennan is largely viewed as running:
As Common Dreams reported in May of last year, Brennan also used his position in the White House to "seize the lead" in secretly determining who would die in the increasingly aggressive US assassination program overseas.
US officials with firsthand knowledge of how the government determines who gets put on the CIA and Pentagon's lists for 'targeted killing' have confessed concern over the implications and nature of the process. In conversations with the Associated Press, one official involved -- who spoke with assurances of anonymity -- said that some of those carrying out the policy have become leery of "how easy it has become to kill someone," under the rules established under the Obama administration and orchestrated by Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan.
Brennan, who last month offered the first public admission by a White House official of the existence of the clandestine drone assassination program in places like Pakistan and Yemen, has amassed unique powers by consolidating the decision-making process to a select and tightly-controlled group of people, according to AP's reporting.
"Under the new plan, Brennan's staff compiles the potential target list and runs the names past agencies such as the State Department at a weekly White House meeting," the report cites officials as describing. "Previously, targets were first discussed in meetings run by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen at the time, with Brennan being just one of the voices in the debate. Brennan ultimately would make the case to the president, but a larger number of officials would end up drawn into the discussion."
Many critics of the secretive program have called for its end, but even attempts for more transparency or simply a legal justification by the White House for the extrajudicial attacks--some of which have seen the assassination of US citizens living abroad--have been rebuffed by officials or scuttled by recent court action.
"Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, following details of the program presented in the Washington Post series. "The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious because without it, we cannot be assured that the people in the government's death database truly present a concrete, imminent threat to the country. What we do know is that tragic mistakes have been made, hundreds of civilian bystanders have died, and our government has even killed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen without acknowledging let alone explaining his death. A bureaucratized paramilitary killing program that targets people far from any battlefield is not just unlawful, it will create more enemies than it kills."
Despite those concerns, John Brennan--the chief architect of the program--if nominated by Obama and approved by the Senate, is about to get a significant promotion.
____________________
John Brennan as Obama's Dick Cheney
For additional perspective on the nomination, Amy Goodman interviewed EmptyWheel's Marcy Wheeler on Democracy Now! Monday.
Wheeler, who has written extensively on Brennan's role in some of the government's most controversial programs in recent years, noted that in addition to his support for torture and the assassination under the last two presidents, Obama's pick should be of heightened concerned due to Brennan's propensity for "lying" to the public and making gross misrepresentations of key issues.
Citing several examples, Wheeler told listeners that "when John Brennan says something, you shouldn't necessarily believe John Brennan."
Watch:
____________________
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Update: 1:50 PM EST
At a White House ceremony on Monday afternoon, President Obama officially nominated his top counterterrorism advisor John Brennan to be the next director of the CIA.
In his assessment of the decision, the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald argues that it should not be shocking that Brennan--who was withdrawn from consideration for CIA chief in 2008 because of his association with the CIA's torture program under President Bush--has now been brought back by President Obama in 2013.
Greenwald called Obama's nomination of Brennan a "symptom of Obama's own extremism [in the controversial areas of torture, targeted killings, and the US drone policy], not a cause."
Calling it a fitting choice, Greenwald said the decision
is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus.
Earlier:
The Associated Press is reporting Monday morning that Obama's top counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan--who has also been Obama's right hand man when it comes to governing the administration's program of extrajudicial assassinations known as the 'kill list'--will now be nominated to head the CIA.
According to AP, the "president will announce Brennan's nomination during an event Monday afternoon."
Brennan was previously considered for the top CIA position by Obama at the beginning of the his presidency in 2009, but that consideration was withdrawn after voices of opposition raised substantial concern about Brennan's involvement with the CIA's torture program which flourished during the presidency of George W. Bush.
Among those concerned were military psychologists and civilian opponents of the torture program who penned an open letter at the time calling on the newly-elected Obama to reject Brennan from consideration. They wrote:
Mr. Brennan served as a high official in George Tenet's CIA and supported Tenet's policies, including "enhanced interrogations" as well as "renditions" to torturing countries. According to his own statements, Mr. Brennan was a supporter of the "dark side" policies, wishing only to have some legal justification supplied in order to protect CIA operatives. [...]
The use of these tactics goes against the moral fiber of our country and is never justified. This is true whether these "enhanced interrogation" techniques are used directly by U.S. forces, as in the CIA's "black sites," or by other countries acting as our surrogates, as in the "renditions" program where individuals are taken to countries practicing torture, resulting in suffering inflicted by that country's forces. [...]
In order to restore American credibility and the rule of law, our country needs a clear and decisive repudiation of the "dark side" at this crucial turning point in our history. We need officials to clearly and without ambivalence assert the rule of law. Mr. Brennan is not an appropriate choice to lead us in this direction. The country cannot afford to have him as director of our most important intelligence agencies.
Though Brennan was taken out of consideration for the CIA position, months later he was appointed by Obama to be his chief counterterrorism advisor, where he was instrumental in developing what has become known as the 'disposition matrix' or 'kill list' program following reporting that emerged in the Washington Post in 2012.
In a public speech in 2012, Brennan defended the Obama administration's drone program, but was met with protest by CodePink's Medea Benjamin, who challenged the legitimacy and legality of the program that Brennan is largely viewed as running:
As Common Dreams reported in May of last year, Brennan also used his position in the White House to "seize the lead" in secretly determining who would die in the increasingly aggressive US assassination program overseas.
US officials with firsthand knowledge of how the government determines who gets put on the CIA and Pentagon's lists for 'targeted killing' have confessed concern over the implications and nature of the process. In conversations with the Associated Press, one official involved -- who spoke with assurances of anonymity -- said that some of those carrying out the policy have become leery of "how easy it has become to kill someone," under the rules established under the Obama administration and orchestrated by Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan.
Brennan, who last month offered the first public admission by a White House official of the existence of the clandestine drone assassination program in places like Pakistan and Yemen, has amassed unique powers by consolidating the decision-making process to a select and tightly-controlled group of people, according to AP's reporting.
"Under the new plan, Brennan's staff compiles the potential target list and runs the names past agencies such as the State Department at a weekly White House meeting," the report cites officials as describing. "Previously, targets were first discussed in meetings run by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen at the time, with Brennan being just one of the voices in the debate. Brennan ultimately would make the case to the president, but a larger number of officials would end up drawn into the discussion."
Many critics of the secretive program have called for its end, but even attempts for more transparency or simply a legal justification by the White House for the extrajudicial attacks--some of which have seen the assassination of US citizens living abroad--have been rebuffed by officials or scuttled by recent court action.
"Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, following details of the program presented in the Washington Post series. "The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious because without it, we cannot be assured that the people in the government's death database truly present a concrete, imminent threat to the country. What we do know is that tragic mistakes have been made, hundreds of civilian bystanders have died, and our government has even killed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen without acknowledging let alone explaining his death. A bureaucratized paramilitary killing program that targets people far from any battlefield is not just unlawful, it will create more enemies than it kills."
Despite those concerns, John Brennan--the chief architect of the program--if nominated by Obama and approved by the Senate, is about to get a significant promotion.
____________________
John Brennan as Obama's Dick Cheney
For additional perspective on the nomination, Amy Goodman interviewed EmptyWheel's Marcy Wheeler on Democracy Now! Monday.
Wheeler, who has written extensively on Brennan's role in some of the government's most controversial programs in recent years, noted that in addition to his support for torture and the assassination under the last two presidents, Obama's pick should be of heightened concerned due to Brennan's propensity for "lying" to the public and making gross misrepresentations of key issues.
Citing several examples, Wheeler told listeners that "when John Brennan says something, you shouldn't necessarily believe John Brennan."
Watch:
____________________
Update: 1:50 PM EST
At a White House ceremony on Monday afternoon, President Obama officially nominated his top counterterrorism advisor John Brennan to be the next director of the CIA.
In his assessment of the decision, the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald argues that it should not be shocking that Brennan--who was withdrawn from consideration for CIA chief in 2008 because of his association with the CIA's torture program under President Bush--has now been brought back by President Obama in 2013.
Greenwald called Obama's nomination of Brennan a "symptom of Obama's own extremism [in the controversial areas of torture, targeted killings, and the US drone policy], not a cause."
Calling it a fitting choice, Greenwald said the decision
is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus.
Earlier:
The Associated Press is reporting Monday morning that Obama's top counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan--who has also been Obama's right hand man when it comes to governing the administration's program of extrajudicial assassinations known as the 'kill list'--will now be nominated to head the CIA.
According to AP, the "president will announce Brennan's nomination during an event Monday afternoon."
Brennan was previously considered for the top CIA position by Obama at the beginning of the his presidency in 2009, but that consideration was withdrawn after voices of opposition raised substantial concern about Brennan's involvement with the CIA's torture program which flourished during the presidency of George W. Bush.
Among those concerned were military psychologists and civilian opponents of the torture program who penned an open letter at the time calling on the newly-elected Obama to reject Brennan from consideration. They wrote:
Mr. Brennan served as a high official in George Tenet's CIA and supported Tenet's policies, including "enhanced interrogations" as well as "renditions" to torturing countries. According to his own statements, Mr. Brennan was a supporter of the "dark side" policies, wishing only to have some legal justification supplied in order to protect CIA operatives. [...]
The use of these tactics goes against the moral fiber of our country and is never justified. This is true whether these "enhanced interrogation" techniques are used directly by U.S. forces, as in the CIA's "black sites," or by other countries acting as our surrogates, as in the "renditions" program where individuals are taken to countries practicing torture, resulting in suffering inflicted by that country's forces. [...]
In order to restore American credibility and the rule of law, our country needs a clear and decisive repudiation of the "dark side" at this crucial turning point in our history. We need officials to clearly and without ambivalence assert the rule of law. Mr. Brennan is not an appropriate choice to lead us in this direction. The country cannot afford to have him as director of our most important intelligence agencies.
Though Brennan was taken out of consideration for the CIA position, months later he was appointed by Obama to be his chief counterterrorism advisor, where he was instrumental in developing what has become known as the 'disposition matrix' or 'kill list' program following reporting that emerged in the Washington Post in 2012.
In a public speech in 2012, Brennan defended the Obama administration's drone program, but was met with protest by CodePink's Medea Benjamin, who challenged the legitimacy and legality of the program that Brennan is largely viewed as running:
As Common Dreams reported in May of last year, Brennan also used his position in the White House to "seize the lead" in secretly determining who would die in the increasingly aggressive US assassination program overseas.
US officials with firsthand knowledge of how the government determines who gets put on the CIA and Pentagon's lists for 'targeted killing' have confessed concern over the implications and nature of the process. In conversations with the Associated Press, one official involved -- who spoke with assurances of anonymity -- said that some of those carrying out the policy have become leery of "how easy it has become to kill someone," under the rules established under the Obama administration and orchestrated by Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan.
Brennan, who last month offered the first public admission by a White House official of the existence of the clandestine drone assassination program in places like Pakistan and Yemen, has amassed unique powers by consolidating the decision-making process to a select and tightly-controlled group of people, according to AP's reporting.
"Under the new plan, Brennan's staff compiles the potential target list and runs the names past agencies such as the State Department at a weekly White House meeting," the report cites officials as describing. "Previously, targets were first discussed in meetings run by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen at the time, with Brennan being just one of the voices in the debate. Brennan ultimately would make the case to the president, but a larger number of officials would end up drawn into the discussion."
Many critics of the secretive program have called for its end, but even attempts for more transparency or simply a legal justification by the White House for the extrajudicial attacks--some of which have seen the assassination of US citizens living abroad--have been rebuffed by officials or scuttled by recent court action.
"Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, following details of the program presented in the Washington Post series. "The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious because without it, we cannot be assured that the people in the government's death database truly present a concrete, imminent threat to the country. What we do know is that tragic mistakes have been made, hundreds of civilian bystanders have died, and our government has even killed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen without acknowledging let alone explaining his death. A bureaucratized paramilitary killing program that targets people far from any battlefield is not just unlawful, it will create more enemies than it kills."
Despite those concerns, John Brennan--the chief architect of the program--if nominated by Obama and approved by the Senate, is about to get a significant promotion.
____________________
John Brennan as Obama's Dick Cheney
For additional perspective on the nomination, Amy Goodman interviewed EmptyWheel's Marcy Wheeler on Democracy Now! Monday.
Wheeler, who has written extensively on Brennan's role in some of the government's most controversial programs in recent years, noted that in addition to his support for torture and the assassination under the last two presidents, Obama's pick should be of heightened concerned due to Brennan's propensity for "lying" to the public and making gross misrepresentations of key issues.
Citing several examples, Wheeler told listeners that "when John Brennan says something, you shouldn't necessarily believe John Brennan."
Watch:
____________________
"This massacre and Israel's media blackout strategy, designed to conceal the crimes committed by its army for more than 21 months in the besieged and starving Palestinian enclave, must be stopped immediately."
The international advocacy group Reporters Without Borders on Monday called on the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting following the massacre of six Palestinian media professionals in an Israeli strike on the Gaza Strip.
Al Jazeera reporters Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqeh, camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, and Moamen Aliwa, and independent journalist Mohammed al-Khaldi were killed Sunday in a targeted Israel Defense Forces (IDF) strike on their tent outside al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.
The IDF claimed that al-Sharif—one of the most prominent Palestinian journalists—"was the head of a Hamas terrorist cell," repeating an allegation first made last year. However, independent assessments by United Nations experts, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) concluded that Israel's allegations were unsubstantiated.
Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill warned last year that the IDF's portrayal of al-Sharif and other Palestinian journalists as Hamas members was "an assassination threat and an attempt to preemptively justify their murder" for showing the world the genocidal realities of Israel's U.S.-backed war.
"Tonight Israel murdered the bravest journalistic hero in Gaza, Anas al-Sharif," Scahill said Sunday on social media. "For nearly two straight years, he documented the genocide of his people with courage and principle. Israel put him on a hit list because of his voice. Shame on this world and all who were silent."
Al Jazeera condemned Sunday's massacre as "a desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza."
RSF issued a statement accusing the IDF of killing the six men "without providing solid evidence" of Hamas affiliation, a "disgraceful tactic" that is "repeatedly used against journalists to cover up war crimes."
The Paris-based nonprofit noted that Israeli forces have "already killed more than 200 media professionals"—including at least 19 Al Jazeera workers and freelancers—since the IDF began its annihilation and siege of Gaza in retaliation for the October 7, 2023 attack led by Hamas.
These include Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al-Ghoul and photographer Rami al-Rifi, who were killed in a targeted strike on the al-Shati refugee camp in July 2024 following an IDF smear campaign alleging without proof that al-Ghoul took part in the October 7 attack. The IDF claimed that al-Ghoul received Hamas military training at a time when he would have been just 10 years old.
"RSF strongly condemns the killing of six media professionals by the Israeli army, once again carried out under the guise of terrorism charges against a journalist," RSF director general Thibaut Bruttin said in a statement. "One of the most famous journalists in the Gaza Strip, Anas al-Sharif, was among those killed."
"This massacre and Israel's media blackout strategy, designed to conceal the crimes committed by its army for more than 21 months in the besieged and starving Palestinian enclave, must be stopped immediately," Bruttin continued. "The international community can no longer turn a blind eye and must react and put an end to this impunity."
"RSF calls on the U.N. Security Council to meet urgently on the basis of Resolution 2222 of 2015 on the protection of journalists in times of armed conflict in order to stop this carnage," he added.
Israel's latest killing of media professionals sparked international condemnation. On Monday, Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, called for an investigation into the massacre, saying that "journalists and media workers must be respected, they must be protected and they must be allowed to carry out their work freely, free from fear and free from harassment."
Recognizing the possibility that he would become one of the more than 61,500 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza since October 2023, al-Sharif, like many Palestinian journalists, prepared a statement to be published in the event of his death.
"This is my will and my final message. If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice," he wrote. "I urge you not to let chains silence you, nor borders restrain you. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland."
"Make my blood a light that illuminates the path of freedom for my people and my family," al-Sharif added.
Since October 2023, RSF has filed four complaints with the International Criminal Court—which last year issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes—requesting investigations into IDF killings of journalists in Gaza and accusing Israel of a deliberate "eradication of the Palestinian media."
The six journalists' killings came as Israeli forces prepared to ramp up the Gaza invasion with the stated goal of occupying the entire coastal enclave and ethnically cleansing much of its Palestinian population.
The Gaza Health Ministry said Monday afternoon that at least 69 Palestinians, including at least 10 children and 29 aid-seekers, were killed in the past 24 hours. An IDF strike on Gaza City reportedly killed nine people, including six children. Five more Palestinians also reportedly died of starvation in a burgeoning famine that officials say has claimed at least 222 lives, including 101 children.
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," says the president of Democracy Forward.
A coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations filed a lawsuit Monday against the U.S. Department of State over its refusal to release congressionally mandated reports on international human rights abuses.
The Council for Global Equality (CGE) has accused the administration of a "cover-up of a cover-up" to keep the reports buried.
Each year, the department is required to report on the practices of other countries concerning individual, civil, political, and worker rights protected under international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Governments and international groups have long cited these surveys as one of the most comprehensive and authoritative sources on the state of human rights, informing policy surrounding foreign aid and asylum.
The Foreign Assistance Act requires that these reports be sent to Congress by February 25 each year, and they are typically released in March or April. But nearly six months later, the Trump administration has sent nothing for the calendar year 2024.
Meanwhile, NPR reported in April on a State Department memo requiring employees to "streamline" the reports by omitting many of the most common human rights violations:
The reports... will no longer call governments out for such things as denying freedom of movement and peaceful assembly. They won't condemn retaining political prisoners without due process or restrictions on "free and fair elections."
Forcibly returning a refugee or asylum-seeker to a home country where they may face torture or persecution will no longer be highlighted, nor will serious harassment of human rights organizations...
...reports of violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people will be removed, along with all references to [diversity, equity, and inclusion] (DEI).
Among other topics ordered to be struck from the reports: involuntary or coercive medical or psychological practices, arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, serious restrictions to internet freedom, extensive gender-based violence, and violence or threats of violence targeting people with disabilities.
Last week, The Washington Post obtained leaked copies of the department's reports on nations favored by the Trump administration—El Salvador, Russia, and Israel. It found that they were "significantly shorter" than the reports released by the Biden administration and that they struck references to widely documented human rights abuses in these countries.
In the case of El Salvador, where the administration earlier this year began shipping immigrants deported from the United States, the department's report stated that were "no credible reports of significant human rights abuses" there, even though such abuses—including torture, physical violence, and deprivation have been widely reported, including by Trump's own deportees.
Human rights violations against LGBTQ+ people were deleted from the State Department's report on Russia, while the report on Israel deleted references to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial and to his government's threats to the country's independent judiciary.
"Secretary Rubio's overtly political rewriting of the human rights reports is a dramatic departure from even his own past commitment to protecting the fundamental human rights of LGBTQI+ people," said Keifer Buckingham, the Council for Global Equality's managing director. "Strategic omission of these abuses is also directly in contravention to Congress's requirement of a 'full and complete report' regarding the status of internationally recognized human rights."
In June, the CGE sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the State Department calling for all communications related to these decisions to be made public. The department acknowledged the request but refused to turn over any documents.
Now CGE has turned to the courts. On Monday, the legal nonprofit Democracy Forward filed a complaint on CGE's behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the department had violated its duties under FOIA to turn over relevant documents in a timely manner.
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," said Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward's president and CEO.
"The world is watching the United States. We cannot risk a cover-up on top of a cover-up," Perryman continued. "If this administration is omitting or delaying the release of information about human rights abuses to gain favor with other countries, it is a shameful statement of the gross immorality of this administration."
"Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own," said the head of the committee behind the measure.
The Associated Press reported Monday that a federal appeals court recently blocked Maine from enforcing a ban on foreign interference in elections that the state's voters passed in 2023.
After Hydro-Quebec spent millions of dollars on a referendum, 86% of Mainers voted for Question 2, which would block foreign governments and companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership from donating to state referendums.
Then, the Maine Association of Broadcasters, Maine Press Association, Central Maine Power, and Versant Power sued to block the ballot initiative. According to the AP, last month, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston affirmed a lower-court ruling that the measure likely violates the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote that "the prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation's political spending."
As the AP detailed:
The matter was sent back to the lower court, where it will proceed, and there has been no substantive movement on it in recent weeks, said Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general's office, on Monday. The law is on the state's books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending, Hayes said.
Just months before voters approved Question 2, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the ban, citing fears that it could silence "legitimate voices, including Maine-based businesses." She previously vetoed a similar measure in 2021.
Still, supporters of the ballot initiative continue to fight for it. Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections, the committee formed to support Question 2, said in a statement that "Mainers spoke with one voice: Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own."
A year after Maine voters approved that foreign election interference law, they also overwhelmingly backed a ballot measure to restrict super political action committees (PACs). U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf blocked that measure, Question 1, last month.
"We think ultimately the court of appeals is going to reverse this decision because it's grounded in a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court has said," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and founder of the nonprofit Equal Citizens that helped put Question 1 on the ballot, told News Center Maine in July. "We are exhausted, all of us, especially people in Maine, with the enormous influence money has in our politics, and we want to do something about it."