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.
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said the post by President Donald Trump clearly violates Facebook's Community Standards, including an explicit prohibition on incitement of violence. "Despite the incident being immediately reported to the platform," the group said, "Facebook has so-far, failed to take any action." (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Civil rights advocates are condemning Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg over a decision announced late Friday to let stand a post by President Donald Trump that threatened to have the U.S. National Guard open fire on demonstrators in Minneapolis enraged over the police killing of George Floyd.
"In no uncertain terms, we condemn Mark Zuckerberg's decision to continue publishing President Trump's statements inciting and glorifying violence in ways that could prove harmful to African American communities."
--Kristen Clarke, Lawyers' CommitteeWhile the ACLU earlier on Friday condemned the social media post by Trump--a message that was shared on both Twitter and Facebook--as "hypocritical, immoral, and illegal" and nothing less than a call to "literally murder protesters," Zuckerberg in his statement said Facebook "decided to leave it up because the National Guard references meant we read it as a warning about state action, and we think people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force."
Following Trump's post to Twitter, as Common Dreams reported, the company deemed the president's words a violation of the platform's rules against "glorifying violence" and placed it behind a rare public interest notice.
In his explanation, Zuckerberg claimed that while Trump's post "had a troubling historical reference"--an acknowledgement that it understood the "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" line was first used in 1967 by Miami's overtly racist Chief of Police Walter Headley--it was not itself an incitement to violence and therefore not a violation of Facebook policy.
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, rejected Zuckerman's explanation outright.
"In no uncertain terms," said Clarke, "we condemn Mark Zuckerberg's decision to continue publishing President Trump's statements inciting and glorifying violence in ways that could prove harmful to African American communities. Facebook has once again failed to act against an explicit violation of its own rules and has allowed the violent and racist post to remain up."
\u201c\u201cWhen the looting starts, the shooting starts,\u201d is a threat coined by Miami Police Chief Walter Headley, who promised violent reprisals on black protesters in 1967. He also said: \u201cWe don\u2019t mind being accused of police brutality. They haven\u2019t seen anything yet.\u201d\u201d— Todd Zwillich (@Todd Zwillich) 1590729568
While applauding Twitter for the actions it took to rebuke the president and put a warning for its users on the tweet in question, Clarke said Facebook continues to lag behind in its understanding of the serious threat that Trump's rhetoric and online behavior represents.
"Unlike Twitter," said Zuckerberg in his defense of the company's position, "we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician."
But the Lawyers Committee said the post by Trump clearly violates Facebook's Community Standards, including an explicit prohibition on incitement of violence. "Despite the incident being immediately reported to the platform," the group said, "Facebook has so-far, failed to take any action."
In response to Trump's threat contained in the post, Jeffery Robinson, director of the ACLU's Trone Center for Justice and Equality, noted what the civil liberties group termed the "vicious implications" of Trump's remarks.
"Trump's statement that 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts' is hypocritical, immoral, and illegal,' said Robinson. "While President Trump has recently claimed to be concerned about honoring the memory of Mr. Floyd, his actions consistently demonstrate a gross disregard for the racial terror and police violence that communities of color across the country experience on a regular basis. We call on the National Guard and law enforcement in Minneapolis to comply with the law and not President Trump."
On Friday afternoon, as Common Dreams reported, legal experts warned that for soldiers or police officers to actually follow Trump's unlawful order to open fire on people demonstrating or looting amid protests would be an overt violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Meanwhile, the Lawyers' Committee noted that this is not an isolated incident when it comes to how Trump has been allowed to run roughshod over the Facebook's stated community standards. "Recently, Facebook took no action when President Trump spread disinformation about absentee voting and threatened public officials in Michigan and Nevada,' the group pointed out. "In 2018, Facebook took no action when President Trump ran a political ad that used racist imagery and stereotypes about immigrants."
"The use of the phrase 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts' is no accident," the group said.
While Zuckerberg presented the powerful corporation's decision to the public, The Verge reported that internal dissension was materializing within the company as some employees expressed frustration and called on higher-ups to take down Trump's hateful and racist posts.
"Makes me sad and frankly ashamed," one employee reportedly wrote on the company's internal communication system in response to a post from management about their pending decision. "Hopefully this wasn't the final assessment? Hopefully there is still someone somewhere discussing how and why this is clearly advocating for violence?"
"I have to say I am finding the contortions we have to go through incredibly hard to stomach," another employee added. "All this points to a very high risk of a violent escalation and civil unrest in November and if we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly."
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. |
Civil rights advocates are condemning Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg over a decision announced late Friday to let stand a post by President Donald Trump that threatened to have the U.S. National Guard open fire on demonstrators in Minneapolis enraged over the police killing of George Floyd.
"In no uncertain terms, we condemn Mark Zuckerberg's decision to continue publishing President Trump's statements inciting and glorifying violence in ways that could prove harmful to African American communities."
--Kristen Clarke, Lawyers' CommitteeWhile the ACLU earlier on Friday condemned the social media post by Trump--a message that was shared on both Twitter and Facebook--as "hypocritical, immoral, and illegal" and nothing less than a call to "literally murder protesters," Zuckerberg in his statement said Facebook "decided to leave it up because the National Guard references meant we read it as a warning about state action, and we think people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force."
Following Trump's post to Twitter, as Common Dreams reported, the company deemed the president's words a violation of the platform's rules against "glorifying violence" and placed it behind a rare public interest notice.
In his explanation, Zuckerberg claimed that while Trump's post "had a troubling historical reference"--an acknowledgement that it understood the "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" line was first used in 1967 by Miami's overtly racist Chief of Police Walter Headley--it was not itself an incitement to violence and therefore not a violation of Facebook policy.
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, rejected Zuckerman's explanation outright.
"In no uncertain terms," said Clarke, "we condemn Mark Zuckerberg's decision to continue publishing President Trump's statements inciting and glorifying violence in ways that could prove harmful to African American communities. Facebook has once again failed to act against an explicit violation of its own rules and has allowed the violent and racist post to remain up."
\u201c\u201cWhen the looting starts, the shooting starts,\u201d is a threat coined by Miami Police Chief Walter Headley, who promised violent reprisals on black protesters in 1967. He also said: \u201cWe don\u2019t mind being accused of police brutality. They haven\u2019t seen anything yet.\u201d\u201d— Todd Zwillich (@Todd Zwillich) 1590729568
While applauding Twitter for the actions it took to rebuke the president and put a warning for its users on the tweet in question, Clarke said Facebook continues to lag behind in its understanding of the serious threat that Trump's rhetoric and online behavior represents.
"Unlike Twitter," said Zuckerberg in his defense of the company's position, "we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician."
But the Lawyers Committee said the post by Trump clearly violates Facebook's Community Standards, including an explicit prohibition on incitement of violence. "Despite the incident being immediately reported to the platform," the group said, "Facebook has so-far, failed to take any action."
In response to Trump's threat contained in the post, Jeffery Robinson, director of the ACLU's Trone Center for Justice and Equality, noted what the civil liberties group termed the "vicious implications" of Trump's remarks.
"Trump's statement that 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts' is hypocritical, immoral, and illegal,' said Robinson. "While President Trump has recently claimed to be concerned about honoring the memory of Mr. Floyd, his actions consistently demonstrate a gross disregard for the racial terror and police violence that communities of color across the country experience on a regular basis. We call on the National Guard and law enforcement in Minneapolis to comply with the law and not President Trump."
On Friday afternoon, as Common Dreams reported, legal experts warned that for soldiers or police officers to actually follow Trump's unlawful order to open fire on people demonstrating or looting amid protests would be an overt violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Meanwhile, the Lawyers' Committee noted that this is not an isolated incident when it comes to how Trump has been allowed to run roughshod over the Facebook's stated community standards. "Recently, Facebook took no action when President Trump spread disinformation about absentee voting and threatened public officials in Michigan and Nevada,' the group pointed out. "In 2018, Facebook took no action when President Trump ran a political ad that used racist imagery and stereotypes about immigrants."
"The use of the phrase 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts' is no accident," the group said.
While Zuckerberg presented the powerful corporation's decision to the public, The Verge reported that internal dissension was materializing within the company as some employees expressed frustration and called on higher-ups to take down Trump's hateful and racist posts.
"Makes me sad and frankly ashamed," one employee reportedly wrote on the company's internal communication system in response to a post from management about their pending decision. "Hopefully this wasn't the final assessment? Hopefully there is still someone somewhere discussing how and why this is clearly advocating for violence?"
"I have to say I am finding the contortions we have to go through incredibly hard to stomach," another employee added. "All this points to a very high risk of a violent escalation and civil unrest in November and if we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly."
Civil rights advocates are condemning Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg over a decision announced late Friday to let stand a post by President Donald Trump that threatened to have the U.S. National Guard open fire on demonstrators in Minneapolis enraged over the police killing of George Floyd.
"In no uncertain terms, we condemn Mark Zuckerberg's decision to continue publishing President Trump's statements inciting and glorifying violence in ways that could prove harmful to African American communities."
--Kristen Clarke, Lawyers' CommitteeWhile the ACLU earlier on Friday condemned the social media post by Trump--a message that was shared on both Twitter and Facebook--as "hypocritical, immoral, and illegal" and nothing less than a call to "literally murder protesters," Zuckerberg in his statement said Facebook "decided to leave it up because the National Guard references meant we read it as a warning about state action, and we think people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force."
Following Trump's post to Twitter, as Common Dreams reported, the company deemed the president's words a violation of the platform's rules against "glorifying violence" and placed it behind a rare public interest notice.
In his explanation, Zuckerberg claimed that while Trump's post "had a troubling historical reference"--an acknowledgement that it understood the "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" line was first used in 1967 by Miami's overtly racist Chief of Police Walter Headley--it was not itself an incitement to violence and therefore not a violation of Facebook policy.
Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, rejected Zuckerman's explanation outright.
"In no uncertain terms," said Clarke, "we condemn Mark Zuckerberg's decision to continue publishing President Trump's statements inciting and glorifying violence in ways that could prove harmful to African American communities. Facebook has once again failed to act against an explicit violation of its own rules and has allowed the violent and racist post to remain up."
\u201c\u201cWhen the looting starts, the shooting starts,\u201d is a threat coined by Miami Police Chief Walter Headley, who promised violent reprisals on black protesters in 1967. He also said: \u201cWe don\u2019t mind being accused of police brutality. They haven\u2019t seen anything yet.\u201d\u201d— Todd Zwillich (@Todd Zwillich) 1590729568
While applauding Twitter for the actions it took to rebuke the president and put a warning for its users on the tweet in question, Clarke said Facebook continues to lag behind in its understanding of the serious threat that Trump's rhetoric and online behavior represents.
"Unlike Twitter," said Zuckerberg in his defense of the company's position, "we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician."
But the Lawyers Committee said the post by Trump clearly violates Facebook's Community Standards, including an explicit prohibition on incitement of violence. "Despite the incident being immediately reported to the platform," the group said, "Facebook has so-far, failed to take any action."
In response to Trump's threat contained in the post, Jeffery Robinson, director of the ACLU's Trone Center for Justice and Equality, noted what the civil liberties group termed the "vicious implications" of Trump's remarks.
"Trump's statement that 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts' is hypocritical, immoral, and illegal,' said Robinson. "While President Trump has recently claimed to be concerned about honoring the memory of Mr. Floyd, his actions consistently demonstrate a gross disregard for the racial terror and police violence that communities of color across the country experience on a regular basis. We call on the National Guard and law enforcement in Minneapolis to comply with the law and not President Trump."
On Friday afternoon, as Common Dreams reported, legal experts warned that for soldiers or police officers to actually follow Trump's unlawful order to open fire on people demonstrating or looting amid protests would be an overt violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Meanwhile, the Lawyers' Committee noted that this is not an isolated incident when it comes to how Trump has been allowed to run roughshod over the Facebook's stated community standards. "Recently, Facebook took no action when President Trump spread disinformation about absentee voting and threatened public officials in Michigan and Nevada,' the group pointed out. "In 2018, Facebook took no action when President Trump ran a political ad that used racist imagery and stereotypes about immigrants."
"The use of the phrase 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts' is no accident," the group said.
While Zuckerberg presented the powerful corporation's decision to the public, The Verge reported that internal dissension was materializing within the company as some employees expressed frustration and called on higher-ups to take down Trump's hateful and racist posts.
"Makes me sad and frankly ashamed," one employee reportedly wrote on the company's internal communication system in response to a post from management about their pending decision. "Hopefully this wasn't the final assessment? Hopefully there is still someone somewhere discussing how and why this is clearly advocating for violence?"
"I have to say I am finding the contortions we have to go through incredibly hard to stomach," another employee added. "All this points to a very high risk of a violent escalation and civil unrest in November and if we fail the test case here, history will not judge us kindly."
Fire-related deaths were reported in Turkey, Spain, Montenegro, and Albania.
With firefighters in southern Europe battling blazes that have killed people in multiple countries and forced thousands to evacuate, Spain's environment minister on Wednesday called the wildfires a "clear warning" of the climate emergency driven by the fossil fuel industry.
While authorities have cited a variety of causes for current fires across the continent, from arson to "careless farming practices, improperly maintained power cables, and summer lightning storms," scientists have long stressed that wildfires are getting worse as humanity heats the planet with fossil fuels.
The Spanish minister, Sara Aagesen, told the radio network Cadena SER that "the fires are one of the parts of the impact of that climate change, which is why we have to do all we can when it comes to prevention."
"Our country is especially vulnerable to climate change. We have resources now but, given that the scientific evidence and the general expectation point to it having an ever greater impact, we need to work to reinforce and professionalize those resources," Aagesen added in remarks translated by The Guardian.
The Spanish meteorological agency, AEMET, said on social media Wednesday that "the danger of wildfires continues at very high or extreme levels in most of Spain, despite the likelihood of showers in many areas," and urged residents to "take extreme precautions!"
The heatwave impacting Spain "peaked on Tuesday with temperatures as high as 45°C (113°F)," according to Reuters. AEMET warned that "starting Thursday, the heat will intensify again," and is likely to continue through Monday.
The heatwave is also a sign of climate change, Akshay Deoras, a research scientist in the Meteorology Department at the U.K.'s University of Reading, told Agence France-Presse this week.
"Thanks to climate change, we now live in a significantly warmer world," Deoras said, adding that "many still underestimate the danger."
There have been at least two fire-related deaths in Spain this week: a man working at a horse stable on the outskirts of the Spanish capital Madrid, and a 35-year-old volunteer firefighter trying to make firebreaks near the town of Nogarejas, in the Castile and León region.
Acknowledging the firefighter's death on social media Tuesday, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez sent his "deepest condolences to their family, friends, and colleagues," and wished "much strength and a speedy recovery to the people injured in that same fire."
According to The New York Times, deaths tied to the fires were also reported in Turkey, Montenegro, and Albania. Additionally, The Guardian noted, "a 4-year-old boy who was found unconscious in his family's car in Sardinia died in Rome on Monday after suffering irreversible brain damage caused by heatstroke."
There are also fires in Greece, France, and Portugal, where the mayor of Vila Real, Alexandre Favaios, declared that "we are being cooked alive, this cannot continue."
Reuters on Wednesday highlighted Greenpeace estimates that investing €1 billion, or $1.17 billion, annually in forest management could save 9.9 million hectares or 24.5 million acres—an area bigger than Portugal—and tens of billions of euros spent on firefighting and restoration work.
The European fires are raging roughly three months out from the next United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, which is scheduled to begin on November 10 in Belém, Brazil.
"These are not abstract numbers," wrote National Education Association president Becky Pringle. "These are real children who show up to school eager to learn but are instead distracted by hunger."
The leader of the largest teachers union in the United States is sounding the alarm over the impact that President Donald Trump's newly enacted budget law will have on young students, specifically warning that massive cuts to federal nutrition assistance will intensify the nation's child hunger crisis.
Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association (NEA)—which represents millions of educators across the U.S.—wrote for Time magazine earlier this week that "as families across America prepare for the new school year, millions of children face the threat of returning to classrooms without access to school meals" under the budget measure that Trump signed into law last month after it cleared the Republican-controlled Congress.
Estimates indicate that more than 18 million children nationwide could lose access to free school meals due to the law's unprecedented cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid, which are used to determine eligibility for free meals in most U.S. states.
The Trump-GOP budget law imposes more strict work-reporting requirements on SNAP recipients and expands the mandates to adults between the ages of 55 and 64 and parents with children aged 14 and older. The Congressional Budget Office said earlier this week that the more aggressive work requirements would kick millions of adults off SNAP over the next decade—with cascading effects for children and other family members who rely on the program.
"Educators see this pain every day, and that's why they go above and beyond—buying classroom snacks with their own money—to support their students."
Pringle wrote in her Time op-ed that "our children can't learn if they are hungry," adding that as a middle school science teacher she has seen first-hand "the pain that hunger creates."
"Educators see this pain every day, and that's why they go above and beyond—buying classroom snacks with their own money—to support their students," she wrote.
The NEA president warned that cuts from the Trump-GOP law "will hit hardest in places where families are already struggling the most, especially in rural and Southern states where school nutrition programs are a lifeline to many."
"In Texas, 3.4 million kids, nearly two-thirds of students, are eligible for free and reduced lunch," Pringle wrote. "In Mississippi, 439,000 kids, 99.7% of the student population, were eligible for free and reduced-cost lunch during the 2022-23 school year."
"These are not abstract numbers," she added. "These are real children who show up to school eager to learn but are instead distracted by hunger and uncertainty about when they will eat again. America's kids deserve better.
Pringle's op-ed came as school leaders, advocates, and lawmakers across the country braced for the impacts of Trump's budget law.
"We're going to see cuts to programs such as SNAP and Medicaid, resulting in domino effects for the children we serve," Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) said during a recent gathering of lawmakers and experts. "For many of our communities, these policies mean life or death."
In some cases, corporate groups have posed as small business owners besieged by rising crime rates.
U.S. President Donald Trump's military occupation of Washington, D.C. has been egged on for months by corporate lobbyists. In some cases, they have posed as small business owners besieged by rising crime rates.
According to a report Tuesday in The Lever:
Last February, the American Investment Council, private equity's $24 million lobbying shop, penned a letter to D.C. city leaders demanding "immediate action" to address an "alarming increase" in crime.
That letter was published as an exclusive by Axios with the headline: "Downtown D.C. Business Leaders Demand Crime Solutions."
But far from a group of beleaguered mom-and-pops, the letter's signatories "included some of the biggest trade groups on K Street," The Lever observed:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which boasts its status as the largest business organization in the world; the National Retail Federation, a powerful retail alliance representing giants like Walmart and Target; and Airlines for America, which represents the major U.S. airlines, among others. These lobbying juggernauts spend tens of millions of dollars every year lobbying federal lawmakers to get their way in Washington."
It was one of many efforts by right-wing groups to agitate for a more fearsome police crackdown in the city and oppose criminal justice reforms.
On multiple occasions, business groups and police unions have helped to thwart efforts by the D.C. city council to rewrite the city's criminal code, which has not been updated in over a century, to eliminate many mandatory minimum sentences and reduce sentences for some nonviolent offenses.
The reforms were vetoed by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in 2023. After the veto was overridden by the city council, Democrats helped Republicans pass a law squashing the reforms, which was signed by then-President Joe Biden.
In 2024, groups like the Chamber of Commerce pushed the "Secure D.C." bill in the city council, which expanded pre-trial detention, weakened restrictions on chokeholds, and limited public access to police disciplinary records.
At the time, business groups lauded these changes as necessary to fight the post-pandemic crime spike D.C. was experiencing.
But crime rates in D.C. have fallen precipitously, to a 30-year low over the course of 2024. As a press release from the U.S. attorney's office released on January 3, 2025 stated: "homicides are down 32%; robberies are down 39%; armed carjackings are down 53%; assaults with a dangerous weapon are down 27% when compared with 2023 levels."
Nevertheless, as Trump sends federal troops into D.C., many in the corporate world are still cheering.
In a statement Monday, the D.C. Chamber of Commerce described itself as a "strong supporter" of the Home Rule Act, which Trump used to enact his federal crackdown.
The Washington Business Journal quoted multiple consultancy executives—including Yaman Coskum, who exclaimed that "It is about time somebody did something to make D.C. great again," and Kirk McLaren who said, "If local leaders won't protect residents and businesses, let's see if the federal government will step in and do what's necessary to create a safe and prosperous city."
Despite crime also being on the decline in every other city he has singled out—Los Angeles, Baltimore, Oakland, New York, and Chicago—Trump has said his deployment of federal troops "will go further."