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.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday that he had not seen any specific evidence that four U.S. embassies were under threat from Iran, as President Donald Trump has claimed. (Photo: CBS)
As a televised interview with Defense Secretary Mark Esper raised fresh doubts about President Donald Trump's claim that Iran was planning to attack four U.S. embassies, polling released Sunday showed the majority of American adults don't approve of Trump's handling of the crisis with Iran and feel less safe because of it.
The ABC News/Ipsos poll, conducted on Friday and Saturday, found that 73% of Americans are somewhat or very concerned about the possibility of getting into a full-scale war with Iran. Additionally, "56% of Americans disapprove of how President Trump is handing the situation with Iran and 52% believe the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soliemani made the United States less safe."
\u201cAlthough he dominated news coverage of the Iran crisis, new poll shows an astonishing 56% of Americans DISAPPROVE of Trump\u2019s Iran policy. Fearing war, only 25% say that they feel more safe; 52% feel less safe. Bad numbers going into an impeachment trial. https://t.co/hz5rr6xs0t\u201d— Joe Cirincione (@Joe Cirincione) 1578835913
Those results aligned with a Reuters/Ipsos poll and a USA Today/Ipsos, both which were conducted on Monday and Tuesday. Those surveys respectively found that 53% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handing of Iran and 55% believe that assassinating Soliemani made the United States less safe.
Since taking credit for the airstrike that killed the Iranian commander in Baghdad earlier this month, Trump and members of his administration have stuck to the script that the assassination came in response to an "imminent threat" faced by Americans.
As Common Dreams reported, Trump claimed during a televised press conference on Thursday--without providing any evidence--that he ordered the strike because Soliemani was plotting to "blow up" the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
The president expanded on that claim in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Friday, alleging that Iran was planning multiple attacks. As Trump put it, "I can reveal that I believe it probably would've been four embassies."
However, Esper complicated the Trump administration's narrative Sunday when he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he "didn't see" any specific evidence about four embassies.
\u201c.@EsperDoD says he \u201cdidn't see\u201d specific evidence showing Iran planned to strike 4 embassies as Trump has claimed. https://t.co/q23RZg3jAm\u201d— Face The Nation (@Face The Nation) 1578859223
"The president... didn't cite a specific piece of evidence," Esper said of Trump's Fox appearance. "I didn't see one, with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is that I shared the president's view that probably--my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a Democratic presidential primary candidate, responded to Esper's interview on Twitter. He suggested that Trump is lying the United States into a war with Iran and vowed to do everything he can to prevent that:
\u201cJust as we were led into Vietnam and Iraq by lies, Donald Trump is misleading us on Iran. I will do everything that I can as a United States Senator to prevent such a war.\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1578868555
Referencing previous remarks from Esper and National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien--who both have said the administration had "exquisite intelligence" about the supposedly imminent threat--Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that "there was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies that are being targeted and we have exquisite intelligence that shows these are the specific targets."
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that the Trump administration did not share the president's claim about four embassies being under threat from Soleimani's forces during a classified briefing he attended.
"I didn't hear anything about that and several of my colleagues have said the same," Lee told CNN, "so that was news to me. It certainly wasn't something that I recall being raised in the classified briefing."
\u201cSen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on CNN that the Trump administration did not brief him and other members of Congress that Iran was allegedly plotting attacks on four U.S. embassies, as Trump claimed in an interview with Fox News on Friday. https://t.co/Obffnkw4Q7\u201d— Axios (@Axios) 1578841229
Lee revealed on Saturday that he was signing on as a co-sponsor to Sanders' bill that would freeze funding for any U.S. military action against Iran without the approval of Congress. The announcement came in a joint statement from Lee and Sanders.
"As United States senators, we often disagree on many issues. But standing up for the Constitution is not about partisanship," Lee and Sanders said. "The Founding Fathers were absolutely clear. They wanted to ensure that our country avoided needless conflict and they understood that presidential war-making would be harmful to our democracy."
"Our bill--the No War Against Iran Act--utilizes Congress's power of the purse to block any funds from going to an unauthorized war with Iran," they added. "As our country faces the possibility of another devastating conflict in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions of dollars, the Senate must vote on our legislation without delay."
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. |
As a televised interview with Defense Secretary Mark Esper raised fresh doubts about President Donald Trump's claim that Iran was planning to attack four U.S. embassies, polling released Sunday showed the majority of American adults don't approve of Trump's handling of the crisis with Iran and feel less safe because of it.
The ABC News/Ipsos poll, conducted on Friday and Saturday, found that 73% of Americans are somewhat or very concerned about the possibility of getting into a full-scale war with Iran. Additionally, "56% of Americans disapprove of how President Trump is handing the situation with Iran and 52% believe the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soliemani made the United States less safe."
\u201cAlthough he dominated news coverage of the Iran crisis, new poll shows an astonishing 56% of Americans DISAPPROVE of Trump\u2019s Iran policy. Fearing war, only 25% say that they feel more safe; 52% feel less safe. Bad numbers going into an impeachment trial. https://t.co/hz5rr6xs0t\u201d— Joe Cirincione (@Joe Cirincione) 1578835913
Those results aligned with a Reuters/Ipsos poll and a USA Today/Ipsos, both which were conducted on Monday and Tuesday. Those surveys respectively found that 53% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handing of Iran and 55% believe that assassinating Soliemani made the United States less safe.
Since taking credit for the airstrike that killed the Iranian commander in Baghdad earlier this month, Trump and members of his administration have stuck to the script that the assassination came in response to an "imminent threat" faced by Americans.
As Common Dreams reported, Trump claimed during a televised press conference on Thursday--without providing any evidence--that he ordered the strike because Soliemani was plotting to "blow up" the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
The president expanded on that claim in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Friday, alleging that Iran was planning multiple attacks. As Trump put it, "I can reveal that I believe it probably would've been four embassies."
However, Esper complicated the Trump administration's narrative Sunday when he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he "didn't see" any specific evidence about four embassies.
\u201c.@EsperDoD says he \u201cdidn't see\u201d specific evidence showing Iran planned to strike 4 embassies as Trump has claimed. https://t.co/q23RZg3jAm\u201d— Face The Nation (@Face The Nation) 1578859223
"The president... didn't cite a specific piece of evidence," Esper said of Trump's Fox appearance. "I didn't see one, with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is that I shared the president's view that probably--my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a Democratic presidential primary candidate, responded to Esper's interview on Twitter. He suggested that Trump is lying the United States into a war with Iran and vowed to do everything he can to prevent that:
\u201cJust as we were led into Vietnam and Iraq by lies, Donald Trump is misleading us on Iran. I will do everything that I can as a United States Senator to prevent such a war.\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1578868555
Referencing previous remarks from Esper and National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien--who both have said the administration had "exquisite intelligence" about the supposedly imminent threat--Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that "there was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies that are being targeted and we have exquisite intelligence that shows these are the specific targets."
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that the Trump administration did not share the president's claim about four embassies being under threat from Soleimani's forces during a classified briefing he attended.
"I didn't hear anything about that and several of my colleagues have said the same," Lee told CNN, "so that was news to me. It certainly wasn't something that I recall being raised in the classified briefing."
\u201cSen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on CNN that the Trump administration did not brief him and other members of Congress that Iran was allegedly plotting attacks on four U.S. embassies, as Trump claimed in an interview with Fox News on Friday. https://t.co/Obffnkw4Q7\u201d— Axios (@Axios) 1578841229
Lee revealed on Saturday that he was signing on as a co-sponsor to Sanders' bill that would freeze funding for any U.S. military action against Iran without the approval of Congress. The announcement came in a joint statement from Lee and Sanders.
"As United States senators, we often disagree on many issues. But standing up for the Constitution is not about partisanship," Lee and Sanders said. "The Founding Fathers were absolutely clear. They wanted to ensure that our country avoided needless conflict and they understood that presidential war-making would be harmful to our democracy."
"Our bill--the No War Against Iran Act--utilizes Congress's power of the purse to block any funds from going to an unauthorized war with Iran," they added. "As our country faces the possibility of another devastating conflict in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions of dollars, the Senate must vote on our legislation without delay."
As a televised interview with Defense Secretary Mark Esper raised fresh doubts about President Donald Trump's claim that Iran was planning to attack four U.S. embassies, polling released Sunday showed the majority of American adults don't approve of Trump's handling of the crisis with Iran and feel less safe because of it.
The ABC News/Ipsos poll, conducted on Friday and Saturday, found that 73% of Americans are somewhat or very concerned about the possibility of getting into a full-scale war with Iran. Additionally, "56% of Americans disapprove of how President Trump is handing the situation with Iran and 52% believe the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soliemani made the United States less safe."
\u201cAlthough he dominated news coverage of the Iran crisis, new poll shows an astonishing 56% of Americans DISAPPROVE of Trump\u2019s Iran policy. Fearing war, only 25% say that they feel more safe; 52% feel less safe. Bad numbers going into an impeachment trial. https://t.co/hz5rr6xs0t\u201d— Joe Cirincione (@Joe Cirincione) 1578835913
Those results aligned with a Reuters/Ipsos poll and a USA Today/Ipsos, both which were conducted on Monday and Tuesday. Those surveys respectively found that 53% of Americans disapprove of Trump's handing of Iran and 55% believe that assassinating Soliemani made the United States less safe.
Since taking credit for the airstrike that killed the Iranian commander in Baghdad earlier this month, Trump and members of his administration have stuck to the script that the assassination came in response to an "imminent threat" faced by Americans.
As Common Dreams reported, Trump claimed during a televised press conference on Thursday--without providing any evidence--that he ordered the strike because Soliemani was plotting to "blow up" the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
The president expanded on that claim in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Friday, alleging that Iran was planning multiple attacks. As Trump put it, "I can reveal that I believe it probably would've been four embassies."
However, Esper complicated the Trump administration's narrative Sunday when he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he "didn't see" any specific evidence about four embassies.
\u201c.@EsperDoD says he \u201cdidn't see\u201d specific evidence showing Iran planned to strike 4 embassies as Trump has claimed. https://t.co/q23RZg3jAm\u201d— Face The Nation (@Face The Nation) 1578859223
"The president... didn't cite a specific piece of evidence," Esper said of Trump's Fox appearance. "I didn't see one, with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is that I shared the president's view that probably--my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies. The embassies are the most prominent display of American presence in a country."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a Democratic presidential primary candidate, responded to Esper's interview on Twitter. He suggested that Trump is lying the United States into a war with Iran and vowed to do everything he can to prevent that:
\u201cJust as we were led into Vietnam and Iraq by lies, Donald Trump is misleading us on Iran. I will do everything that I can as a United States Senator to prevent such a war.\u201d— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1578868555
Referencing previous remarks from Esper and National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien--who both have said the administration had "exquisite intelligence" about the supposedly imminent threat--Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that "there was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies that are being targeted and we have exquisite intelligence that shows these are the specific targets."
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that the Trump administration did not share the president's claim about four embassies being under threat from Soleimani's forces during a classified briefing he attended.
"I didn't hear anything about that and several of my colleagues have said the same," Lee told CNN, "so that was news to me. It certainly wasn't something that I recall being raised in the classified briefing."
\u201cSen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said on CNN that the Trump administration did not brief him and other members of Congress that Iran was allegedly plotting attacks on four U.S. embassies, as Trump claimed in an interview with Fox News on Friday. https://t.co/Obffnkw4Q7\u201d— Axios (@Axios) 1578841229
Lee revealed on Saturday that he was signing on as a co-sponsor to Sanders' bill that would freeze funding for any U.S. military action against Iran without the approval of Congress. The announcement came in a joint statement from Lee and Sanders.
"As United States senators, we often disagree on many issues. But standing up for the Constitution is not about partisanship," Lee and Sanders said. "The Founding Fathers were absolutely clear. They wanted to ensure that our country avoided needless conflict and they understood that presidential war-making would be harmful to our democracy."
"Our bill--the No War Against Iran Act--utilizes Congress's power of the purse to block any funds from going to an unauthorized war with Iran," they added. "As our country faces the possibility of another devastating conflict in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions of dollars, the Senate must vote on our legislation without delay."
"Bureau of Labor Statistics data is what determines the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits," said Rep. John Larson. "It should alarm everyone when a yes-man determined to end Social Security is installed in this position."
U.S. President Donald Trump's pick to replace the top labor statistics official he fired earlier this month has called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" that needs to be "sunset," comments that critics said further disqualify the nominee for the key government role.
During a December 2024 radio interview, Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni said it is a "mathematical fiction" that Social Security "can go on forever" and called for "some kind of transition program where unfortunately you'll need a generation of people who pay Social Security taxes, but never actually receive any of those benefits."
"That's the price to pay for unwinding a Ponzi scheme that was foisted on the American people by the Democrats in the 1930s," Antoni continued. "You're not going to be able to sustain a Ponzi scheme like Social Security. Eventually, you need to sunset the program."
Trump's choice for the Commissioner of the Bureau Labor Statistics called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" in an interview:
" What you need to do is have some kind of transition program where unfortunately you'll need a generation of people who pay Social Security taxes, but… pic.twitter.com/MXL7k1C644
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) August 12, 2025
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), one of Social Security's most vocal defenders in Congress, said Antoni's position on the program matters because "Bureau of Labor Statistics data is what determines the annual cost of living adjustment for Social Security benefits."
"It should alarm everyone when a yes-man determined to end Social Security is installed in this position," Larson said in a statement. "I call on every Senate Republican to stand with Democrats and reject this extreme nominee—before our seniors are denied the benefits they earned through a lifetime of hard work."
Trump announced Antoni's nomination to serve as the next commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) less than two weeks after the president fired the agency's former head, Erika McEntarfer, following the release of abysmal jobs figures. The firing sparked concerns that future BLS data will be manipulated to suit Trump's political interests.
Antoni was a contributor to the far-right Project 2025 agenda that the Trump administration appears to have drawn from repeatedly this year, and his position on Social Security echoes that of far-right billionaire Elon Musk, who has also falsely characterized the program as a Ponzi scheme.
During his time in the Trump administration, Musk spearheaded an assault on the Social Security Administration that continues in the present, causing widespread chaos at the agency and increasing wait times for beneficiaries.
"President Trump fired the commissioner of Labor Statistics to cover up a weak jobs report—and now he is replacing her with a Project 2025 lackey who wants to shut down Social Security," said Larson. "E.J. Antoni agrees with Elon Musk that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and said that middle-class seniors would be better off if it was eliminated."
"This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves," said one Amnesty campaigner.
After leaked drafts exposed the Trump administration's plans to downplay human rights abuses in some allied countries, including Israel, the U.S. Department of State released the final edition of an annual report on Tuesday, sparking fresh condemnation.
"Breaking with precedent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not provide a written introduction to the report nor did he make remarks about it," CNN reported. Still, Amanda Klasing, Amnesty International USA's national director of government relations and advocacy, called him out by name in a Tuesday statement.
"With the release of the U.S. State Department's human rights report, it is clear that the Trump administration has engaged in a very selective documentation of human rights abuses in certain countries," Klasing said. "In addition to eliminating entire sections for certain countries—for example discrimination against LGBTQ+ people—there are also arbitrary omissions within existing sections of the report based on the country."
Klasing explained that "we have criticized past reports when warranted, but have never seen reports quite like this. Never before have the reports gone this far in prioritizing an administration's political agenda over a consistent and truthful accounting of human rights violations around the world—softening criticism in some countries while ignoring violations in others. The State Department has said in relation to the reports less is more. However, for the victims and human rights defenders who rely on these reports to shine light on abuses and violations, less is just less."
"Secretary Rubio knows full well from his time in the Senate how vital these reports are in informing policy decisions and shaping diplomatic conversations, yet he has made the dangerous and short-sighted decision to put out a truncated version that doesn't tell the whole story of human rights violations," she continued. "This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves."
"Failing to adequately report on human rights violations further damages the credibility of the U.S. on human rights issues," she added. "It's shameful that the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio are putting politics above human lives."
The overarching report—which includes over 100 individual country reports—covers 2024, the last full calendar year of the Biden administration. The appendix says that in March, the report was "streamlined for better utility and accessibility in the field and by partners, and to be more responsive to the underlying legislative mandate and aligned to the administration's executive orders."
As CNN detailed:
The latest report was stripped of many of the specific sections included in past reports, including reporting on alleged abuses based on sexual orientation, violence toward women, corruption in government, systemic racial or ethnic violence, or denial of a fair public trial. Some country reports, including for Afghanistan, do address human rights abuses against women.
"We were asked to edit down the human rights reports to the bare minimum of what was statutorily required," said Michael Honigstein, the former director of African Affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor. He and his office helped compile the initial reports.
Over the past week, since the draft country reports leaked to the press, the Trump administration has come under fire for its portrayals of El Salvador, Israel, and Russia.
The report on Israel—and the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—is just nine pages. The brevity even drew the attention of Israeli media. The Times of Israel highlighted that it "is much shorter than last year's edition compiled under the Biden administration and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza."
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Israeli forces have slaughtered over 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to local officials—though experts warn the true toll is likely far higher. As Israel has restricted humanitarian aid in recent months, over 200 people have starved to death, including 103 children.
The U.S. report on Israel does not mention the genocide case that Israel faces at the International Court of Justice over the assault on Gaza, or the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The section on war crimes and genocide only says that "terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah continue to engage in the
indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians in violation of the law of armed conflict."
As the world mourns the killing of six more Palestinian media professionals in Gaza this week—which prompted calls for the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting—the report's section on press freedom is also short and makes no mention of the hundreds of journalists killed in Israel's annihilation of the strip:
The law generally provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right for most Israelis. NGOs and journalists reported authorities restricted press coverage and limited certain forms of expression, especially in the context of criticism against the war or sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza.
Noting that "the human rights reports have been among the U.S. government's most-read documents," DAWN senior adviser and 32-year State Department official Charles Blaha said the "significant omissions" in this year's report on Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank render it "functionally useless for Congress and the public as nothing more than a pro-Israel document."
Like Klasing at Amnesty, Sarah Leah Whitson, DAWN's executive director, specifically called out the U.S. secretary of state.
"Secretary Rubio has revamped the State Department reports for one principal purpose: to whitewash Israeli crimes, including its horrific genocide and starvation in Gaza. The report shockingly includes not a word about the overwhelming evidence of genocide, mass starvation, and the deliberate bombardment of civilians in Gaza," she said. "Rubio has defied the letter and intent of U.S. laws requiring the State Department to report truthfully and comprehensively about every country's human rights abuses, instead offering up anodyne cover for his murderous friends in Tel Aviv."
The Tuesday release came after a coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations on Monday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department over its refusal to release the congressionally mandated report.
This article has been updated with comment from DAWN.
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," said the head of Common Cause.
As Republicans try to rig congressional maps in several states and Democrats threaten retaliatory measures, a pro-democracy watchdog on Tuesday unveiled new fairness standards underscoring that "independent redistricting commissions remain the gold standard for ending partisan gerrymandering."
Common Cause will hold an online media briefing Wednesday at noon Eastern time "to walk reporters though the six pieces of criteria the organization will use to evaluate any proposed maps."
The Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group said that "it will closely evaluate, but not automatically condemn, countermeasures" to Republican gerrymandering efforts—especially mid-decade redistricting not based on decennial censuses.
Amid the gerrymandering wars, we just launched 6 fairness criteria to hold all actors to the same principled standard: people first—not parties. Read our criteria here: www.commoncause.org/resources/po...
[image or embed]
— Common Cause (@commoncause.org) August 12, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Common Cause's six fairness criteria for mid-decade redistricting are:
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement. "But neither will we call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian tactics that undermine fair representation."
"We have established a fairness criteria that we will use to evaluate all countermeasures so we can respond to the most urgent threats to fair representation while holding all actors to the same principled standard: people—not parties—first," she added.
Common Cause's fairness criteria come amid the ongoing standoff between Republicans trying to gerrymander Texas' congressional map and Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on the measure. Texas state senators on Tuesday approved the proposed map despite a walkout by most of their Democratic colleagues.
Leaders of several Democrat-controlled states, most notably California, have threatened retaliatory redistricting.
"This moment is about more than responding to a single threat—it's about building the movement for lasting reform," Kase Solomón asserted. "This is not an isolated political tactic; it is part of a broader march toward authoritarianism, dismantling people-powered democracy, and stripping away the people's ability to have a political voice and say in how they are governed."