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.
"Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy," said Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
While Tennessee elected officials sued over Republican Gov. Bill Lee deploying the National Guard in Memphis at the request of President Donald Trump, the White House on Friday escalated a battle about a similar deployment push in Illinois to the US Supreme Court.
Illinois and Chicago's top attorneys are challenging Trump's attempt to federalize and deploy National Guard soldiers from the state and Texas amid the administration's anti-immigrant "Operation Midway Blitz" in and around the nation's third-largest city. US District Judge April Perry, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, last week issued a temporary restraining order.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit—featuring judges appointed by Trump as well as former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama—paused Perry's decision on federalization of Guard troops but unanimously upheld her block on their deployment, declaring that "political opposition is not rebellion."
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul called the 7th Circuit's order "another win for the people of Illinois and the rule of law in our state," and welcomed that "National Guard troops will not be seen patrolling the city of Chicago, Broadview, or other communities throughout Illinois."
"The responsibility of addressing local crime continues to fall to state and local law enforcement officers who are best trained to protect their communities," he added. "There is no need for troops in the state of Illinois, and my office will continue to vigorously oppose the administration's unlawful overreach."
Now, the Trump administration is appealing to the country's top court, which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees. In the application, Solicitor General John Sauer asks the justices to stay Perry's injunction, which was sought by the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, so the president can immediately deploy troops.
According to the Chicago Tribune:
The 43-page petition also asked for an immediate administrative stay "given the pressing risk of violence," but the court had taken no action on that as of 5:00 pm Friday.
The filing said Illinois' resistance to a National Guard deployment mirrors similar actions still unfolding in California and Oregon. It asked that President Donald Trump be allowed to deploy some 700 troops in Illinois—300 from the Illinois National Guard and another 400 federalized out of Texas earlier this month.
The Supreme Court asked lawyers for Illinois to respond by 5:00 pm Eastern time on Monday.
Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a frequent critic of the president, said on social media Friday that "Donald Trump will keep trying to invade Illinois with troops—and we will keep defending the sovereignty of our state. Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy. What will come next?"
Meanwhile, in Tennessee, seven elected Democrats—Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris, Memphis City Councilmember JB Smiley Jr., Shelby County Commissioners Henri Brooks and Erika Sugarmon, state Reps. GA Hardaway (93) and Gabby Salinas (96), and state Sen. Jeff Yarbro (21)—filed a lawsuit and motion for immediate relief over Lee's "patently unlawful" deployment.
The plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, National Immigration Law Center, and Sherrard Roe Voigt & Harbison, which submitted a complaint to the Davidson County Chancery Court arguing that "defendants have trampled on Tennessee law by unilaterally deploying Tennessee National Guard members in Memphis as a domestic police force."
Smiley, who's also an attorney, said in a statement that "Lee's decision to send the National Guard into Memphis at President Trump's request isn't leadership…it's illegal. The governor has disregarded our laws to deploy troops to intimidate our city, and the president's talk of using communities like Memphis as training grounds is dangerous and dehumanizing. Memphis deserves to be respected, not treated like the playground of an out-of-control dictator."
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, tied the current conditions in Memphis to other US communities—more than 2,700 of which are planning "No Kings" protests against Trump's increasing authoritarianism on Saturday.
"Yet, again, the president and his allies are engaged in an unlawful and harmful use of military force in an American city. There has been no invasion or rebellion in Memphis, which is the prerequisite for National Guard deployment," Perryman said. "The people of Tennessee deserve leaders who respect the limits of their office and the rule of law. Using military forces in our cities and communities without legal justification threatens democracy and puts communities at risk."
“With climate warming impacts being felt everywhere on Earth, kicking this decision down the road is simply evading reality," says one campaigner.
Advocates of establishing an international framework for decarbonizing global shipping on Friday decried a postponed vote on proposed rules—a move that came amid pressure from the administration of US President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia.
Members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee gathered in London for a special meeting, MEPC 83, to vote on its Net-Zero Framework (NZF), a new set of global regulations aimed at slashing the shipping industry's greenhouse gas emissions.
A Saudi proposal to adjourn the meeting and delay a final decision on the NZF narrowly passed by a vote of 57-49, with 21 abstentions, Mongabay reported.
The NZF—whose goal is net-zero shipping by 2050—has two main interconnected components, a global fuel standard requiring ships to gradually reduce emissions, and a pricing mechanism meant to encourage the industry to voluntarily slash greenhouse gas output.
"The delay leaves the shipping sector drifting in uncertainty."
The NZF was approved at the last MEPC meeting in April, then shared with member nations for review, with an eye toward final assent during the current special meeting. However, while the European Union and nations including China and Brazil have been pushing for the NZF, the world's two largest oil producers—the United States and Saudi Arabia—are working to scupper the proposal, which Russia also opposes.
Trump took to his Truth Social network Thursday to pressure MEPC members to vote "no" on the NZF:
I am outraged that the International Maritime Organization is voting in London this week to pass a global Carbon Tax. The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping, and will not adhere to it in any way, shape, or form. We will not tolerate increased prices on American Consumers OR, the creation of a Green New Scam Bureaucracy to spend YOUR money on their Green dreams. Stand with the United States, and vote NO in London tomorrow!
The one-year postponement drew sharp rebuke from supporters of the NZF.
“We are disappointed that member states have not been able to agree a way forward at this meeting," International Chamber of Shipping secretary general Thomas Kazakos said following Friday's vote. "Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonize the maritime sector, in line with the goals set out in the IMO [greenhouse gas] strategy."
"As an industry we will continue to work with the IMO, which is the best organization to deliver the global regulations needed for a global industry," Kazakos added.
John Maggs, who represents the Clean Shipping Coalition at the IMO, said in a statement, “By delaying adoption of its Net-Zero Framework, IMO has today squandered an important opportunity to tackle global shipping’s contribution to climate breakdown."
“With climate warming impacts being felt everywhere on Earth, kicking this decision down the road is simply evading reality," he added. "Governments serious about climate action must spend the next 12 months rallying every nation that supports the framework, convincing those who are on the fence, or opposing, that its adoption is the only sane way forward.”
Elissama Menezes, co-founder and director of the advocacy organization Equal Routes, said: "Delay costs the climate—and coastal Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities are already paying the price for inaction. This week’s non-outcome should mean that states and the marine sector should double down on related efforts to reduce the impacts from the triple planetary crisis.”
Faig Abbasov, director of shipping at the green group Transport & Environment, told Reuters that "the delay leaves the shipping sector drifting in uncertainty."
Global shipping accounts for approximately 3% of the world's CO2 emissions. Approximately 90% of all international trade is conducted at sea, and proponents of the NZF warn that emissions will soar without the regulations.
While leading shipping companies including Maersk and CMA CGM have taken steps to transition their fleets to zero emission vessels, they are still falling short of the goals laid out in the landmark Paris climate agreement or even the IMO’s own 2023 emissions reduction strategy.
”However, all is not lost—not by a long shot," said Maggs, "as there is an immediate opportunity to slash [greenhouse gas] emissions from shipping, minimize fuel burn, and the overall cost of the energy transition, and that is to strengthen and make enforceable the carbon intensity indicator (CII), the IMO’s cornerstone energy efficiency measure."
CII is a shipping industry regulatory metric that measures a vessel's annual carbon intensity.
“There’s no time to waste," Maggs added. "At MEPC 84 in April 2026 member states need to focus all their attention on transforming the CII into the energy efficiency powerhouse needed to quickly right this ship and put it back on route to being a climate solution.”
"Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela," said Sen. Adam Schiff. "And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war."
With President Donald Trump floating potential military action within Venezuela and authorizing operations by the Central Intelligence Agency after launching several deadly strikes on boats near the South American country, three lawmakers from both sides of the aisle on Friday said they would force a new vote on blocking the White House from carrying out an attack there.
Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) last week introduced a measure to rein in Trump's bombing of boats in the Caribbean, which the White House has claimed are being used to traffic drugs into the US and present an imminent threat.
The measure failed, with one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) joining most of the GOP in opposing it and two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), supporting it.
Kaine and Schiff on Friday were reportedly hoping that a new bipartisan measure, introduced with Paul, would garner more support from the Republicans.
They said they would force a vote on a war powers resolution to block the use of force by US troops "within or against" Venezuela unless it was "explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force."
The 1973 War Powers Act requires Congress to consider and vote on resolutions regarding a president's power to enter an armed conflict without congressional authorization.
"Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela. And we must assert our authority to stop the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war in South America," said Schiff.
"Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere."
The lawmakers announced the resolution as it was reported that two survivors of the military's most recent drone strike on a boat have been detained by US forces, with legal experts questioning whether they are prisoners or war or criminal suspects.
The White House has insisted it is acting within its rights to defend US security by striking boats it believes are carrying drugs—even as details have emerged calling into doubt the allegations that the vessels pose a threat.
Venezuela is not a significant source of drugs that are trafficked into the US—a fact that Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed when a reporter brought it up soon after the military began bombing boats, at least six of which have been struck so far. At least 27 people have been killed, and the grieving family of one victim spoke out Thursday and said they had not been involved in drug trafficking.
Even if the vessels were carrying illegal substances, legal experts and critics in Congress have stressed in recent weeks that they should be dealt with, as in the past, by federal law enforcement agencies, as Congress has not authorized military action against Venezuela or drug cartels.
“The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote," said Paul. "We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war."
Kaine told reporters on Thursday the Congress' knowledge of legal rationale for the boat strikes amounts to “a complete black hole."
Meanwhile, Trump has suggested this week he could further escalate attacks on Venezuela, saying the Caribbean Sea is "very well under control"—even though Vice President JD Vance has joked that the US could accidentally strike fishing boats in its operations there.
"We are certainly looking at land now," Trump said Wednesday.
Kaine said he was "extremely troubled that the Trump administration is considering launching illegal military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere,” said Kaine. “If my colleagues disagree and think a war with Venezuela is a good idea, they need to meet their constitutional obligations by making their case to the American people and passing an authorization for use of military force."
"I urge every senator to join us in stopping this administration from dragging our country into an unauthorized and escalating military conflict," said the senator.
The New York Times reported that Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) could potentially join the effort to pass the war powers resolution after voting against last week's measure, which he said was too broad.
"I am highly concerned," Young said after the vote last week, "about the legality of recent strikes in the Caribbean and the trajectory of military operations without congressional approval or debate and the support of the American people."