

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.
Daniel Schuman
202-580-6922
dschuman@constitutionproject.org
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today to deny Troy Davis' death
penalty appeal will permit Georgia to execute him, as Mr. Davis has
exhausted all other legal avenues. Mr. Davis' execution was only two
hours away when the Court granted a temporary stay on September 23 to
decide whether to hear his case.
Virginia Sloan, President of
the Constitution Project, said: "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to
refuse to hear Troy Davis' appeal constitutes the mere appearance of
justice. Because seven witnesses changed their original testimony and
six implicated another man since the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Davis
deserves to have his claims of innocence fully evaluated. Instead, the
courts have followed their procedures to this ultimate - and untimely -
end. Justice should be more than a formality, and the Supreme Court
should be more than a rubber stamp."
The Constitution Project's Death Penalty Committee, in a recent report,
condemned procedural barriers that prevent courts from addressing the
kinds of claims raised by the Davis case. The bipartisan Death Penalty
Committee includes supporters and opponents of the death penalty.
Committee member and former FBI Director Williams S. Session, in a recent article on the Davis case, called upon the High Court to "grant certiorari to avoid a miscarriage of justice."
The Constitution Project is a politically independent think tank established in 1997 to promote and defend constitutional safeguards. More information about the Constitution Project is available at https://constitutionproject.org/.
While acknowledging a request for US support in fighting drug cartels, Guatemala's president on Thursday refuted reporting by The New York Times claiming his government "has agreed to carry out joint strikes with the United States military inside its territory"—action that would violate the country's Constitution.
Citing "three people familiar with the talks," the Times reported that "President Bernardo Arévalo of Guatemala agreed to both airstrikes and other military action in a call with [US] Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth... with operations to start as early as next month."
However, Arévalo's office pushed back in a statement stressing that “there is no agreement authorizing foreign military operations by any country in national territory."
The presidential statement said that Guatemalan Defense Minister Henry Sáenz wrote to Hegseth "to request US cooperation in operations led by Guatemalan security forces against narco-trafficking organizations as part of a strategy launched in 2024."
"This request falls within the framework of existing bilateral agreements on the matter, and adheres to constitutional provisions and laws regarding cooperation agreements on civil and military security," the office added.
Arévalo's office stressed that Guatemala's Constitution stipulates that foreign military forces can only be deployed in the country if authorized by a two-thirds vote of the national Legislature.
A source from Arévalo's government told El País Thursday on condition of anonymity that the Trump administration has been exerting "great pressure" for two months.
“What they offered us is to select one or two places to bomb and televise everything," the source said. "But we have been clear that this is not going to happen. It cannot operate a US military force in the country, simply because it is unconstitutional."
Arévalo's office said it is seeking US assistance in training, strategic and tactical support, and intelligence sharing, pointing to recent actions against drug trafficking, including the capture of an arsenal in Las Cruces, Petén, the seizure of a narcotics laboratory in Ayutla, San Marcos, and the capture of numerous suspected narco-traffickers.
Asked during a Thursday press conference about the possibility of joint combat operations like those reportedly carried out by US and Ecuadorian forces in the South American nation, Arévalo claimed unfamiliarity with the details of the agreement between those two countries.
Progressive US lawmakers are demanding answers about “reports of serious human rights violations and the bombing of what appear to have been civilian facilities" in Ecuador, including a "dairy and cattle farm with no known links to armed groups or drug trafficking" where unarmed civilians were allegedly tortured.
Arévalo brushed off a suggestion that his request for US cooperation could open the door to human rights violations in Guatemala, telling reporters that "the best defense against any violation of human rights is our respect and commitment to the laws of the republic and to current legislation."
While Guatemala does suffer from serious narco-trafficking issues, many Guatemalans are wary of US intervention, given past meddling including the 1954 CIA-orchestrated overthrow of reformist President Jacobo Árbenz, which was followed by decades of right-wing repression, civil war, and a US-backed genocide against Indigenous Mayan peoples during which around 200,000 people were killed.
In March, the Trump administration lifted longstanding restrictions on arms transfers to Guatemala.
“Now, our soldiers are going to have access to modern technology, radars, night viewfinders," Sáenz told La Hora on Friday.
The defense minister said he discussed closer counter-narcotics cooperation with the United States during the “Shield of the Americas” summit, during which senior officials from over a dozen nations—most of them ruled by right-wing governments—gathered at President Donald Trump's golf resort near Miami.
In addition to Guatemala, the Trump administration has been trying to pressure other Latin American nations into launching joint military operations against narco-traffickers. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico has vehemently rejected US requests, even as President Donald Trump has threatened "to do something" about cartels in her country.
“The epicenter of cartel violence is not Mexico, it’s the United States,” Sheinbaum defiantly declared in March. “The cartels are fueled by the United States’ demand for drugs and armed with US weapons, and thanks to the United States, they are able to orchestrate enormous bloodshed and chaos throughout Latin America.”
In January, Trump ordered the bombing and invasion of Venezuela, whose president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted to the United States on dubious "narco-terrorism" allegations that were then significantly walked back.
Trump has also threatened to attack Colombia, Panama, and Cuba, whose people are bracing for what many observers fear is an impending US war. If Trump does order military action against Cuba, it would be the 12th country he's attacked during the course of his two White House terms. Trump also ordered the ongoing bombing campaign targeting boats his administration claims—without providing evidence—were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Around 200 people have been killed by the US strikes.
As Nick Turse of The Intercept reported Wednesday:
Trump has turned the Western Hemisphere into a war zone as part of what he and others have called the Donroe Doctrine. This bastardization of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine has been used to justify strikes on civilian boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean; an attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its president; CIA operations in Mexico; joint counter-cartel operations in Ecuador dubbed “Operation Total Extermination”; and increased military and intelligence operations elsewhere in Latin America.
Experts contend that, like the boat strikes, any airstrikes carried out against drug cartels would likely constitute illegal acts of murder, even if conducted with the permission of governments in targeted countries.
“As with the boat strikes, depending on the facts, further attacks could amount to premeditated killings outside of armed conflict, which some of us lawyers would refer to as murder,” former US State Department lawyer Brian Finucane told The New York Times on Thursday.
“Congress never authorized any of these strikes," he added. "So US personnel who participate in these actions could face consequences down the road, after the Trump administration.”
"The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event," claimed rapper Young MC.
Artists slated to perform at the government-sponsored 250th-anniversary celebration of the nation next month are recoiling in horror and pulling out left and right upon learning of President Donald Trump's involvement.
The lineup scheduled to perform at the "Great American State Fair"—which included the likes of Milli Vanilli, Vanilla Ice, and Poison vocalist Bret Michaels—was already getting dragged for what the Daily Beast described as a "lack of A-list musical talent" willing to perform for the president.
But some on the setlist apparently only agreed to participate because they were unaware of the president's heavy involvement in planning the festivities, which will include—among other things—a UFC fight on his birthday, a teenage athletic competition that many compare to the Hunger Games, and an American history exhibit created by PragerU hosted by an artificial intelligence-powered George Washington.
After just over a day, three acts—a full third of those announced—have already pulled out of the festival.
“I have informed my agents that I will not be performing at the Freedom 250 event,” said the hip-hop artist Young MC in a social media post on Wednesday, mere hours after the list of performers was published.
The rapper, who is most renowned for the 1989 classic "Bust a Move," said "the artists were never told about any political involvement with the event. And despite the claims by the organizers that the event is non-partisan, Spin magazine describes it as ‘Trump-backed.’ I hope to perform in DC in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged.”
Morris Day and the Time, most known for their work with Prince, denied ever having been part of the festivities.
“Contrary to rumor, Morris Day & the Time will not be performing at the ‘Great American State Fair,’" they said. "It's a no for me."
"Gonna Make You Sweat" singer Freedom Williams of C+C Music Factory said he was surprised to start receiving phone calls asking why he was performing for Trump.
He said his agent "didn't say nothing about Trump" when he booked the performance months before. "So I told my agent, yeah, no, I ain’t good to do that… I don’t fuck with Trump. I don’t give a fuck about Trump. I know the type of fucking anarchy he creates."
As its music festival falls apart, Freedom 250 has emphasized that it is technically an independent 501(c)3 and that the White House itself is not directly putting on the celebration.
However, the festivities are being coordinated by a White House Task Force created by Trump, and it has been relentlessly promoted on official White House social media channels.
Much of Freedom 250's programming is also overtly MAGA-coded, from its wellness-focused "Make America Healthy Again Monday" to its numerous Christian prayer events.
As the Trump-backed oligarch tries to grow even more wealthy and with longstanding rules changed to his benefit ahead of the SpaceX public offering, "retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out."
Billionaire Elon Musk has ambitions to become the world's first trillionaire when his company SpaceX makes what is expected to be the biggest initial public offering in history—and money unwittingly invested by ordinary Americans may help him get there.
Progressive media outlet More Perfect Union on Wednesday published a video detailing how the Nasdaq stock market exchange changed its own rules so that SpaceX can be immediately included in index funds without having to wait through the one-year "seasoning" period that used to be required for newly public companies.
The reason companies in the past had to wait a year to be included in index funds is that such funds contain a large chunk of Americans' retirement savings, and are thus supposed to be more averse to risk.
Watch the 12-minute video:
NEW: Elon Musk wants a SpaceX IPO valuing the company at upwards of $1.75 trillion.
To get there he got the rules changed so that index funds, with millions of Americans' retirement savings, are forced to buy in.
Retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out. pic.twitter.com/DviJEt0XAu
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) May 27, 2026
This means that ordinary investors could see their money plunged into an unproven company while investors who have bankrolled Musk's previous ventures now rolled into SpaceX could cash out at inflated prices.
"Every piece of evidence we have is that the IPO is being engineered to rise very rapidly after it prices, and then fall very dramatically after that," George Pearkes, global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group, told More Perfect Union. "That is a recipe for retail investors, especially, to take large losses."
SpaceX is a particularly risky bet, Preakes added, given that it is seeking a $1.75 trillion valuation with its IPO. For a company that made only $19 billion in profits last fiscal year, critics say a valuation 54 times larger than its projected revenue multiple, a measure of its value based on expected future earnings, is a huge red flag.
"This combination of extreme size and this extreme multiple," Peakes said, "is completely unprecedented."
Pearkes isn't in the only expert concerned about the structure of the SpaceX IPO.
Writing at Seeking Alpha, independent equity researcher Julia Ostian similarly argued that the SpaceX IPO is structured using a "calculated mechanism that will feed the artificial demand generated by the forced index fund buyers," and thus at least initially send share values soaring beyond what the company's fundamentals would suggest, and giving insiders an opportunity to quickly cash out.
Ostian added that "it is clear who is the beneficiary here and who pays the price for this engineered system," and said that "the rich are getting richer openly, without hiding it or even without trying to pretend it’s something else."
As More Perfect Union emphasized, the entire IPO was orchestrated by Musk for maximum advantage to himself and his closest allies, but he needed regular Americans to put up the money for the scheme to work.
"He got the rules changed so that index funds, with millions of Americans' retirement savings, are forced to buy in," the outlet noted. "Retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out."