

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.
"We hope that other communities will use the model set by residents here... as inspiration to stop data centers from encroaching in their backyard," said a Monterey Park city councilmember.
Voters in Monterey Park, California on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a permanent ban on data centers within city limits, becoming the first city in the US to prohibit the power-hungry facilities via a ballot initiative.
In total, the anti-data center resolution passed with 86% voter support, with only 14% of voters opposed. The resolution's text said that a ban was necessary to "protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health" and "prevent impacts to electricity and water rates."
Steven Kung, a leader of the local initiative, told ABC 7 Eyewitness News that the result was "a landslide victory."
Kung listed multiple reasons why residents in the city resoundingly rejected building data centers in their community.
"The noise pollution, the air pollution, the rise in the electricity rates," he said, "the deal just didn't make sense and it doesn't make sense for most, if not all, cities data centers go to."
In an interview with Politico, Monterey Park Mayor Elizabeth Yang predicted that her city would be far from the last to pass data center bans, noting data center projects have spurred protests across the country.
"A lot of the other cities that are facing data center proposals are going to follow suit," said Yang. "There's [a] bad reputation across the board, across the country, from other data centers that have been built in neighborhoods."
Monterey Park city councilmember Jose Sanchez expressed a similar sentiment, telling The Guardian that he hoped his city would become a inspiration to others.
"We hope that other communities will use the model set by residents here in Monterey Park," said Sanchez, "as inspiration to stop data centers from encroaching in their backyard."
Data centers have become political lightning rods in recent months, as residents across the country object to their massive resource consumption, which is leading to a major spike in utility bills, as well as the noise pollution they generate.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
A poll released on Wednesday by Public First showed US residents more opposed to data center construction than any nation in the world, with just 26% of Americans registering support for building more data centers.
This opposition isn't merely abstract, as it has caused major headaches for Big Tech firms that have been scrambling to increase their AI models' compute power.
As The Financial Times reported on Thursday, "dozens of projects collectively worth at least $156 billion have been blocked or stalled since 2025" thanks to local opposition to their development.
The latest killing came a day after a Democratic senator revealed that "the presence of narcotics on the boat has never been a targeting criteria" in the boat bombings.
The Trump administration killed two more people in a boat bombing in the eastern Pacific Ocean Wednesday, bringing the total number of people killed in the operation human rights experts have condemned as an "extrajudicial killing" spree to at least 207.
"The Trump administration’s lawless killing spree at sea continues," said Brian Finucane, senior adviser at the US program at the International Crisis Group. "The term for premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder—and there is no armed conflict here."
As with previous announcements of the lethal boat strikes, at least 63 of which have now been carried out by the US military in an operation the Trump administration has insisted is stopping drugs from reaching the US, US Southern Command presented no evidence Wednesday night when it said the victims were "two male narco-terrorists" and that the boat was "engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
Finucane noted that "even if there were an armed conflict, there’s no indication these supposed 'narco-terrorists' are lawful targets."
President Donald Trump has claimed the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels in Latin America, and that the Caribbean and eastern Pacific are a legitimate battleground where the conflict has played out. But a number of victims have been identified as fishermen, and families have filed legal complaints against the US over the killings.
After the bombings began in September, Vice President JD Vance all but publicly admitted that the operation would put innocent people at risk, joking at a rally that he "wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world."
The US in the past has treated drug trafficking as a criminal issue, in accordance with international law. A top military lawyer warned the Pentagon last August, just before the operation began, that carrying out the boat bombings could put top officials as well as rank-and-file service members at risk of being held criminally liable.
"Over 200 people killed so far, some who seem likely to have died agonizing deaths by drowning after clinging to wreckage for hours, with no trials, and without a single piece of evidence released to the public of their guilt or of any intent to smuggle drugs to the United States," said Aaron Rechlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.
The latest boat bombing came a day after US Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) revealed a key detail about the "targeting criteria" the military has been using as it's conducted the bombings since last September.
On Tuesday at a hearing where Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified, Kaine noted that "evidence of narcotics on the boat" has not been a prerequisite for US Southern Command to conduct lethal strikes in Operation Southern Spear, despite the fact that the administration has insisted the operation is aimed at stopping drug trafficking boats from reaching the US.
"I've been briefed on Southern Spear since the first operation on September 2 and most recently within the last couple of weeks, and I've asked again and again, 'Have the targeting criteria changed?' 'No they have not,'" said Kaine. "The presence of narcotics on the boat has never been a targeting criteria."
Despite that, Kaine noted, "The administration has always announced, 'This is against narco-traffickers'" when a new strike has been carried out.
Adam Isacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, pointed out that Operation Southern Spear comes two decades after human rights groups presented evidence to US military leaders that "their Colombian military partners were carrying out extrajudicial executions" in what became known as the "false positive" killings.
As Human Rights Watch has explained:
Between 2002 and 2008, army brigades across Colombia routinely executed civilians. Under pressure from superiors to show “positive” results and boost body counts in their war against guerrillas, soldiers and officers abducted victims or lured them to remote locations under false pretenses—such as with promises of work—killed them, placed weapons on their lifeless bodies, and then reported them as enemy combatants killed in action. Committed on a large scale for more than half a decade, these “false positive” killings constitute one of the worst episodes of mass atrocity in the Western Hemisphere in recent decades.
"Now," said Isacson, US officials are "carrying out their own extrajudicial executions every few days. No middleman."
Journalist Joseph Bouchard said the boat strikes could be called the United States' "own false positives scandal."
"None of these have been military targets," said Bouchard. "And even then, do we just kill drug traffickers now, without trial? Better name might be the classic 'crimes against humanity.'"
"Efforts to undercut or undermine Medicaid for the children who rely on it are a bet against the future of the country," said the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The American Academy of Pediatrics warned Wednesday that the Trump administration's new rule governing Medicaid work requirements will damage the health of children across the US, as additional bureaucratic barriers make it more difficult for families to access and maintain coverage.
AAP, the largest professional association of pediatricians in the country, said it "strongly opposes" the rule unveiled by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) earlier this week, calling it "an intentional policy choice that will harm children’s long-term health and well-being." The group said the rule should be rescinded.
“When parents have healthcare coverage, their children are more likely to be covered and stay covered over time, allowing uninterrupted access to the care they need to grow up healthy," said Andrew Racine, AAP's president. "Work requirements have not been shown to help adults gain employment. Instead, the added red tape makes it more difficult for eligible people to stay enrolled in Medicaid and makes the program less efficient overall. These administrative barriers will disproportionately hurt people with disabilities, and parents of children with special healthcare needs will lose coverage."
"The new burdensome requirements that many parents will face under this rule will ultimately undermine families’ health and financial stability," Racine added. "The policies to narrowly define who qualifies for exemptions will add to the state costs to administer the program, create headaches for families trying to navigate the bureaucracy, and harm the very people that Medicaid is meant to serve. Medicaid is a program designed around the needs of children. Efforts to undercut or undermine Medicaid for the children who rely on it are a bet against the future of the country."
Analysts and advocacy groups have said the Trump administration's rule, which implements work requirements included in a Republican budget law enacted last summer, will likely push millions of people off Medicaid—including many who are eligible but fail to comply with complex new reporting procedures.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) noted in Wednesday analysis that state agencies "will have to significantly re-work policy and systems" in light of the new rule, likely resulting in "errors and delays that could affect health coverage and care for the entire Medicaid population—including groups to whom the work requirement doesn’t apply, such as children, seniors, and people with disabilities."
Nearly half of all children in the US are enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). A recent analysis by the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University found that two million fewer children were enrolled in Medicaid in April compared to the start of President Donald Trump's second White House term—and the number of uninsured kids is expected to grow as the GOP budget law's unprecedented Medicaid cuts take hold.
In addition to its impacts on children, critics say the new CMS rule will harm people with serious illnesses such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. The rule does not necessarily exempt such people from the Medicaid work mandates, which require certain program enrollees to document at least 80 hours per week of employment or related activities. The requirement is set to take effect nationwide in January 2027.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, said in a statement earlier this week that the Trump administration's new rule appears to run afoul of the law.
"People who have special medical needs, including those with a serious or complex medical condition, are statutorily exempt from the community engagement requirement," said Schmid. "People living with HIV have a lifelong serious and complex medical condition and have special medical needs—they cannot stay healthy without continuous access to lifesaving HIV treatment. Any gap will put them at risk of serious health consequences."
"We are disappointed that the Trump administration ignored the law and, while they agree that HIV/AIDS and viral hepatitis are serious or complex medical conditions, they are proposing that states will have to determine for every individual if their health is impaired and that they can’t comply with the work requirement," Schmid continued. "This added requirement was not in the law and puts the health of people living with HIV and viral hepatitis at risk."