

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.

As UN member states meet in October to
consider moving towards negotiations on an Arms Trade Treaty, a new
detailed report by Amnesty International urges world leaders to adopt a
"Golden Rule" on human rights. This rule states simply that
governments must prevent arms transfers where there is a substantial
risk that they are likely to be used for serious violations of
international human rights and humanitarian law.
As UN member states meet in October to
consider moving towards negotiations on an Arms Trade Treaty, a new
detailed report by Amnesty International urges world leaders to adopt a
"Golden Rule" on human rights. This rule states simply that
governments must prevent arms transfers where there is a substantial
risk that they are likely to be used for serious violations of
international human rights and humanitarian law.
In the run up to October's UN discussions, a few states - -
including China, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Russia and the USA - - are
attempting to block, delay and water down proposals, which could make
the treaty fail in its objectives and allow the continued unchecked
trade in arms.
"Despite the massive green light from most of the world community, a
small minority of sceptics want to keep the status quo shambles so they
can turn a blind eye to blatantly irresponsible arms transfers,
rendering most national arms controls and UN arms embargoes weak and
ineffective," said Brian Wood, Amnesty International's arms control
manager.
The report Blood at the Crossroads: Making the case for a global arms trade treaty is
the first detailed examination of the parameters and scope of such a
treaty using nine detailed case studies of the catastrophic human
rights consequences of unrestrained arms trading. From the ongoing
conflict in Darfur, military crackdowns in Myanmar and Guinea to the
proliferation of sectarian violence in Iraq, the report shows how and
why the current variation and loopholes in national arms legislation
allows massive violations of human rights to occur. The report
demonstrates that without an effective human rights provision, a global
Arms Trade Treaty could fail to protect those most vulnerable.
"Discussions on an Arms Trade Treaty have reached a crossroads.
Governments can either carry on ignoring the horrific consequences of
irresponsible international arms transfers or they can meet their
obligations in an Arms Trade Treaty with a "Golden Rule" on human
rights that will actually help save people's lives and protect their
livelihoods," adds Helen Hughes one of the researcher of the report.
China, Russia and the USA, amongst many other nations, are
highlighted in the report as trading arms to countries with well
documented human rights violations. The report uses the detailed case
studies of Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Guatemala, Guinea, Iraq, Myanmar,
Somalia, Sudan & Chad and Uganda to demonstrate how and why a
"Golden Rule" is essential to making an Arms Trade Treaty work:
The report shows graphically how violations of UN arms embargoes
continue on Cote d'Ivoire, Somalia and Darfur in Sudan because of weak
national laws and lack of commitment and capacity by some governments,
making the case for an effective treaty even stronger. The failure of
over 80 per cent of states to establish laws to control arms brokering
and arms transportation makes this problem worse.
"The time for an Arms Trade Treaty is now. Sixty years after the
signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the same
governments can and should deliver an effective agreement on
international arms transfers with human rights at its heart."
Background
An historic vote at the UN General Assembly in December 2006 saw 153
governments vote for a resolution to start working towards a global
arms trade treaty. There was one vote against (USA), with 24
abstentions (Bahrain, Belarus, China Egypt, India, Iran Iraq, Israel,
Kuwait, Lao, Libya, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe).
Amnesty International has joined with Oxfam and the International
Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) to set up the Control Arms
campaign. The campaign calls for an international Arms Trade Treaty
that could save thousands of lives and hold irresponsible arms dealers
to account. Since it started in October 2003, Control Arms has gathered
the support of more than one million people worldwide.
Saturday 13 to Friday 19 September 2008 is Arms Trade Treaty Week of Action.
More than 50 countries will be hosting events related to this
campaigning Week of Action, with activities to remind governments that
'The World is Watching'. There is also a viral game pressing
governments to support an effective arms trade treaty - https://www.controlarms.org/en/games/catch-bombs
For details of events and materials, see the Control Arms website at www.controlarms.org
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
"Let’s be clear — this proposal isn’t a compromise, it’s a capitulation," said one progressive lawmaker in the US House.
Fury on the progressive left and among lawmakers who opposed such "capitulation" to the Republican Party erupted overnight after a handful of Senate Democrats joined with their GOP counterparts in a procedural vote on Sunday night to end the government shutdown without gaining any meaningful concessions.
With the support of eight members of the Democratic caucus—Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Angus King of Maine, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire—Republicans in the upper chamber secured the necessary 60 votes needed to pass a cloture vote that paves the way for a deal critics warn does nothing to save Americans from soaring healthcare premiums unleashed due to the GOP spending bill passed earlier this year and signed into law by President Donald Trump.
“It is thoroughly disappointing that, while most Americans overwhelmingly oppose Republicans’ horrific budget, support the fight to curtail Trump’s authoritarianism, and want to protect healthcare, some Democrats failed to hold the line, and squandered an opportunity to score a popular and decisive win for the American people," said Lisa Gilbert, co-director of the progressive watchdog group Public Citizen.
The deal will combine three separate funding measures into a single stopgap bill that will reopen the government and keep it funded through the end of January of 2026, but contains no restoration of Medicaid funding, fails to curb Trump rescissions that have devastated government agencies and programs, and does nothing to address Affordable Care Act subsidies other than a "meaningless" promised vote to extend them within 40 days—a vote nearly sure to fail in the Senate and likely not even taken up in the US House, controlled by Republicans.
"What the election showed is that the American people want us to stand up to Trumpism—to his war against working people, to his authoritarianism. That is what people wanted, but tonight that is not what happened." —Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
"How absolutely pathetic," declared the Justice Democrats, an advocacy group that focuses on assisting progressive challengers willing to take on more establishment lawmakers in office. "Your voters expect you to hold the line for their basic healthcare and food benefits. This is just surrender. Every Senate Democrat that joined Republicans to pass this sold the American people out and we should make sure they have no future in public office."
"Let’s be clear — this proposal isn’t a compromise, it’s a capitulation," said Rep. Jonathan L. Jackson (D-Ill.). "Millions would lose their health coverage, and millions more would face skyrocketing premiums. The Senate should reject this misguided plan. In the House, my vote will be HELL NO."
The original Dem demands were:1) Permanent ACA subsidies2) Medicaid funding restored3) No more blank checks for the regime (rescission)They dropped Medicaid immediately. Went silent on rescission. Cut back to 1 year of subsidies on Friday. And surrendered today.The Senate Democrats!
— Ezra Levin ❌👑 (@ezralevin.bsky.social) November 9, 2025 at 9:29 PM
For Gilbert, the shutdown exhibited exactly "how far Republicans will go to demonstrate subservience to their authoritarian leader, even at the expense of the most basic needs of ordinary Americans. Republicans have destroyed affordable healthcare access for millions of Americans, and have allowed the President to weaponize hunger against millions more of our most vulnerable people, all so that they can bully through a budget that’s catapulting us towards a dystopian future of stark inequality."
While the shutdown may come to an end this week, Gilbert said it remains imperative that "everyone who cares about the well-being of Americans to use all the leverage they have to push back on Trump’s authoritarianism and his cannibalizing of the basic needs of Americans for the benefit of his corporate donors and billionaire friends."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who, like Sen. King of Maine, caucuses with the Democrats, called it a "very bad night" as he condemned the eight members of the caucus for making a "very, very bad vote" at a time when the political winds and the moral argument were clearly on the side of holding the line.
"What it does, first of all," said Sanders in a statement following the vote, "is it raises healthcare premiums for over 20 million Americans by doubling, and in some cases tripling or quadrupling. People can't afford that when we are already paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare. Number two, it paves the way for 15 million people to be thrown off of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act," citing a statistic that indicates over 50,000 people "will die unnecessarily each year" due to lack of adequate healthcare coverage.
"All of that was done," continued Sanders, "to give a $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1%." In a political context, Sanders noted that last week's electoral wins in numerous races across the country showed that voters are in the mood to reward lawmakers who stand up to President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress, rather than give in to them.
"What the election showed is that the American people want us to stand up to Trumpism—to his war against working people, to his authoritarianism," he said. "That is what people wanted, but tonight that is not what happened."
Democrats in the House, who had backed their Democratic colleagues for holding the line over 40 days in the Senate, fumed over the failure to keep going.
"Americans have endured the pain of the longest government shutdown in history for a 'deal' that guarantees nothing on healthcare," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). "If Republicans wanted to vote to extend subsidies, they would’ve done it already. Capitulating is unacceptable."
"What Senate Dems who voted for this horseshit deal did was fuck over all the hard work people put in to Tuesday’s elections." —Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)
Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, voted "no" on the deal. Still, it's widely understood he was the driving force behind putting the agreement together and privately supported the eight lawmakers—none of whom are facing reelection in 2026—to cross over.
"Schumer voting 'no' for a shutdown deal he facilitated every step of the way," noted journalist Ken Klippenstein. "Just trying to keep his hands clean. Don't fall for it."
In the wake of the vote, others called for Schumer to resign or be primaried for capitulating to deliver practically nothing.
The surrender by Democrats in the Senate facilitated by Schumer, opined journalist Krystal Ball, "perfectly encapsulates why centrists are the problem for the party both substantively and electorally. After romping nationwide victories, the worst members of the Democratic caucus decided to abandon the healthcare fight, which hurts Americans and demobilizes their own base."
"This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless," said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.
President Donald Trump's Agriculture Department on Saturday threatened to penalize states that don't "immediately undo" steps taken to pay out full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November following a Supreme Court order that temporarily allowed the administration to withhold billions of dollars of aid.
In a memo, the US Department of Agriculture warned that "failure to comply" with the administration's directive "may result in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the federal share of state administrative costs and holding states liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that it appears the Trump administration is "demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it."
"They would rather go door to door, taking away people's food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table," said Craig.
The USDA memo came after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that had required the Trump administration to distribute SNAP funds in full amid the ongoing government shutdown. SNAP is funded by the federal government and administered by states.
The administration took steps to comply with the district court order while also appealing it, sparking widespread confusion. Some states, including Massachusetts and California, moved quickly to distribute full benefits late last week. Some reported waking up Friday with full benefits in their accounts.
"In the dead of night, the Trump administration ordered states to stop issuing SNAP benefits," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in response to the Saturday USDA memo. "This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless."
Under the Trump administration's plan to only partially fund SNAP benefits for November, the average recipient will see a 61% cut to aid and millions will see their benefits reduced to zero, according to one analysis.
Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, stressed in a statement that "the Trump administration all along has had both the power and the authority to ensure that SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted, but chose not to act and to actively fight against providing this essential support."
"Meanwhile, millions of Americans already struggling to make ends meet have been left scrambling to feed their families," said FitzSimons. "Families and states are experiencing undue stress and anxiety with confusing messages coming from the administration. The Trump administration’s decision to continue to fight against providing SNAP benefits furthers the unprecedented humanitarian crisis driven by the loss of the nation’s most important and effective anti-hunger program."
"Trump said he’d leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Congressional Republicans are reportedly trying to insert anti-abortion language into government funding legislation as the shutdown continues, with the GOP and President Donald Trump digging in against a clean extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as insurance premiums surge.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sounded the alarm on Saturday about what he characterized as the latest Republican sneak attack on reproductive rights.
"Republicans said they might vote to lower Americans’ healthcare costs, but only if we agree to include a backdoor national abortion ban," Wyden said in remarks on the Senate floor.
The senator was referring to a reported GOP demand that any extension of ACA subsidies must include language that bars the tax credits from being used to purchase plans that cover abortion care.
But as the health policy organization KFF has noted, the ACA already has "specific language that applies Hyde Amendment restrictions to the use of premium tax credits, limiting them to using federal funds to pay for abortions only in cases that endanger the life of the woman or that are a result of rape or incest."
"The ACA also explicitly allows states to bar all plans participating in the state marketplace from covering abortions, which 25 states have done since the ACA was signed into law in 2010," according to KFF.
Wyden said Saturday—which marked day 39 of the shutdown—that "Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion."
"It's not," Wyden continued. "What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women’s reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the tax code by revoking non-profit status for these organizations."
"The possibilities are endless, but the results are the same: a complete and total restriction on abortion, courtesy of Republicans," the senator added. "Trump said he'd leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along."
The GOP effort to attach anti-abortion provisions to government funding legislation adds yet another hurdle in negotiations to end the shutdown, which the Trump administration has used to throttle federal nutrition assistance and accelerate its purge of the federal workforce.
Trump is also pushing a proposal that would differently distribute federal funds that would have otherwise gone toward the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
"It sounds like it could be a plan for health accounts that could be used for insurance that doesn’t cover preexisting conditions, which could create a death spiral in ACA plans that do," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.