November, 22 2008, 08:00am EDT
Open Letter to Obama: Reject John Brennan as Director of the CIA
WASHINGTON
Dear
President-Elect Obama,
We are
writing to urge you not to
select John Brennan as Director of the CIA. We are psychologists and allies who
have long opposed the abuses of detainees under the Bush administration. We are just concluding a successful
several-year struggle to remove psychologists from their roles in aiding or
abetting these abuses. It has been a distressing fact that, while the Bush
administration resorted to abuse and torture of those in our custody, often
psychologists have been put in positions to use their psychological expertise to
guide these unconscionable practices.
We look
forward to your administration as an opportunity for genuine change - in this
case for our country to take a new direction in its treatment of
prisoners. We applaud your commitment to closing Guantanamo and are encouraged by your clear statement from
your 60
Minutes interview last
Sunday, "America doesn't torture, and I'm
gonna make sure that we don't torture." This fuels our hope for a decisive
repudiation of the "dark side" - the willingness to use or abet illegal and
unethical coercive interrogation tactics that sometimes amount to torture and
often constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment.
We are
concerned, however, by reports that you may appoint John Brennan as Director of
the CIA. Mr. Brennan served as a
high official in George Tenet's CIA and supported Tenet's policies, including
"enhanced interrogations" as well as "renditions" to torturing countries.
According to his own statements, Mr. Brennan was a supporter of the "dark side"
policies, wishing only to have some legal justification supplied in order to
protect CIA operatives. In describing Director Tenet's views he stated during a
March 8,
2006 Frontline
interview:
I think
George [Tenet] had two concerns. One is to make sure that there was that legal
justification, as well as protection for CIA officers who are going to be
engaged in some of these things, so that they would not be then prosecuted or
held liable for actions that were being directed by the administration. So we
want to make sure the findings and other things were done probably with the
appropriate Department of Justice review.
We know, of
course, that "the appropriate Department of Justice review" means that torture
was authorized and conducted by our government.
The use of
these tactics goes against the moral fiber of our country and is never
justified. This is true whether these "enhanced interrogation" techniques are
used directly by U.S. forces, as in the CIA's "black sites," or by other
countries acting as our surrogates, as in the "renditions" program where
individuals are taken to countries practicing torture, resulting in suffering
inflicted by that country's forces.
We are well
aware that these techniques are ineffective as well as immoral. There is
extensive evidence that abused detainees are likely to say anything, true or
false, to make the pain stop, leading to faulty intelligence. Furthermore, use
of torture and other coercive techniques alienates our allies, strengthens the
commitment of our enemies, and puts our own captured soldiers at risk.
Earlier
this year Mr. Brennan argued in a National Journal interview that a new
administration will have great continuity with the Bush-Cheney administration in
its intelligence policies:
Even though
people may criticize what has happened during the two Bush administrations,
there has been a fair amount of continuity. A new administration, be it
Republican or Democrat -- you're going to have a fairly significant change of
people involved at the senior-most levels. And I would argue for continuity in
those early stages. You don't want to whipsaw the [intelligence] community. You
don't want to presume knowledge about how things fit together and why things are
being done the way they are being done. And you have to understand the
implication, then, of making any major changes or redirecting things. I'm hoping
there will be a number of professionals coming in who have an understanding of
the evolution of the capabilities in the community over the past six years,
because there is a method to how things have changed and
adapted.
In order to
restore American credibility and the rule of law, our country needs a clear and
decisive repudiation of the "dark side" at this crucial turning point in our
history. We need officials to clearly and without ambivalence assert the rule of
law. Mr. Brennan is not an appropriate choice to lead us in this direction. The
country cannot afford to have him as director of our most important intelligence
agencies.
As
psychologists and other concerned Americans, we ask you to reject Mr. Brennan as
Director of the CIA. His appointment would dishearten and alienate those who
opposed torture under the Bush administration. We ask you to appoint a Director
who will truly represent "the change we need."
We eagerly
await your administration and the new spirit it represents.
Best wishes
for a successful administration,
Sincerely,
* Affiliations for identification purposes
only
*
Stephen
Soldz, Ph.D., Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis & Coalition
for an Ethical Psychology
Lorri
Greene, Ph.D., Psychologist, San
Diego, CA
Frank
Summers, Ph.D., ABPP, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,
Northwestern University Medical School
Ruth
Fallenbaum, Ph.D., Berkeley,
CA
Neil
Altman, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis,
New York
University
Dan Aalbers
Martha
Davis, Ph.D., John
Jay College of Criminal Justice,
NYC
Robert
Parker, Ph.D., Member American Psychological Association since
1985
Member Washington State Psychological Association since
1991
Jancis
Long, Ph.D., President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Member, APA
Division 39 Section 9 Psychoanalysts for Social Responsibility, Berkeley, CA
Jean Maria
Arrigo, Ph.D., Project on Ethics and Art in
Testimony
Steven
Reisner, Ph.D., NYU Medical
School & Coalition for
an Ethical Psychology
Brad Olson,
Ph.D., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Ellen G.
Levine, Ph.D., M.P.H., San Francisco
State University, Hayward, CA
David
Sloan-Rossiter, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Psychoanalysis & Boston
Institute of Psychotherapy
David
Ramirez, Ph.D., Swarthmore College
John M.
Stewart, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Northland College, Washburn, WI
Susan
Herman, Ph.D., ABPP, New
York University Postdoctoral Program, Little
Falls, NJ
Susan
Phipps-Yonas, Ph.D., L.P., Minneapolis, MN
Coalition
for an Ethical Psychology
Muriel Dimen, Ph.D., NYU Postdoctoral Program in
Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis
Joe
Gorin, Ph.D., Washington,
DC
Leigh
Messinides, Ph.D., Long
Beach, CA
Alice
Lowe Shaw, Ph.D., San
Francisco, CA
Laura
L. Doty, Ph.D., Santa Rosa,
CA
Susan
Rosbrow-Reich, Ph.D., Psychoanalyst and Psychologist, Faculty
Psychoanalytic Institute of
New England East, Mass Institute
for Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalytic Couple and Family Institute of New England, and Member, Coalition for an Ethical
Psychology
Judie
Alpert, Ph.D., Faculty and Supervisor, NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy
and Psychoanalysis, and Professor of Applied
Psychology
Department of Applied Psychology, New York University
Donnel B.
Stern, Ph.D., William Alanson White Institute
Johanna
Tiemann, Ph.D., NYU Postdoctoral Program
Julie
Gerhardt, Ph.D., Palo Alto,
CA
Ronna
Friend, M.A., Eugene,
OR
Susan
Reese, Ph.D., Arizona Center for Psychoanalytic Studies, Tucson, AZ
Larry
Welkowitz, Ph.D., Prof. of Psychology, Keene
State College, Keene,
NH
James
Hopper, Ph.D., Arlington,
MA
Philip V. Hull, Ph.D., Psychologist (HI, CA,
New Zealand), Faleola Pacific Island Mental Health Services, Otahuhu, Auckland, Aotearoa/New Zealand
Nancy
Hollander, Ph.D., Psychologist & Professor Emeritus of
Latin
American history at
California
State University
John P.
Neafsey, Psy.D., Chicago,
IL
Ronnie C.
Lesser, Ph.D., Dartmouth Medical
College, Hanover,
NH
Stephen
Sideroff, Ph.D.
Kathleen Malley-Morrison, Ed.D., Boston University, Boston, MA
Irwin Z.
Hoffman, Ph.D., Lecturer in Psychiatry, University of Illinois College of
Medicine, Chicago, IL
David G.
Byrom, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, Co-Director, Family Therapy Institute of
Suffolk, Smithtown, NY
Claudia
Luiz, M.Ed., Cert. Psya.
Milton
Strauss, Research Psychologist, Corrales, NM
David
DeBatto, Author/Speaker, U.S.
Army Counterintelligence Special Agent (ret.), Tampa, FL
Katie
Gentile, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Counseling and Gender Studies, Women's
Center Director, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York,
NY
Laurel Bass Wagner, Ph.D.,
Dallas, TX
Abram
Trosky, B.A., MALA., Ph.D. candidate, Boston University, Presidential Teaching Fellow,
Political Science Department, Boston, MA
Cynthia Colvin, Ph.D., Oakland, CA
Kathy
French, Ed.D., Professor, Behavior Science Department; Coordinator, UVU Martin
Luther King, Jr. Commemoration; Utah Valley
University
Stefan R.
Zicht, Psy.D., Co-Director, Manhattan Institute for Psychoanalysis and
President, NY State Psychological Assn Division of
Psychoanalysis
Thomas Rosbrow, Ph.D., A.B.P.P., San Francisco, CA
Norbert A. Wetzel, Th.D., Licensed Psychologist and
Marriage and Family Therapist, Director, Princeton Family Institute, and
Director of Training, Center for Family, Community, and Social Justice, Inc.,
Princeton, NJ
Rachael Peltz Ph.D., Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern
California, Berkeley, CA
Lawrence O. Brown, Ph.D.,
Fellow, Teaching Faculty and Supervisor of Psychotherapy, William Alanson White
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychology, New York, NY
Drew
Tillotson, Psy.D., Clinical Psychologist, San Francisco, CA
Lynn
Perlman, Ph.D., Newton,
MA
Luisa
M. Saffiotti, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Chevy Chase, MD
Barbara Eisold, Ph.D., New York, NY
Sharon
Gadberry, Ph.D., San
Francisco, CA
Anne
M. Downes, Ph.D., Hampshire
College, Amherst, MA
Arthur J.
Eccleston, Psy.D., Chapel
Hill, NC
Mark S. Kane, Ph.D., Big Rapids,
MI
Cornelia St. John, M.A., MFT, Psychoanalytic
Institute of Northern California, Oakland, CA
Kristi Schermerhorn, Ph.D., Redmond, WA
Amal
Sedky Winter, Ph.D., American
University in Cairo
Sarah R.
Kamens, M.A., European Graduate
School, New York,
NY
Sonia
Orenstein, Ph.D., New York,
NY
Samantha Hoyt, Boston, MA
Melanie
Suchet, Ph.D., Executive Editor, Psychoanalytic
Dialogues
Dr.
Trudy Bond, Private Practice, Toledo, OH
Mary
Pelton-Cooper, Psy.D., Licensed Psychologist, Associate Professor, Northern Michigan
University
Peter Gumpert,
Ph.D., Brookline, MA
Michael O'Loughlin, Ph.D., Adelphi University, NY
Thomas S. Greenspon,
Ph.D., LP, LMFT, Minneapolis, MN
Rivkah
Lapidus, Ph.D., Somerville,
MA
Lynne
Layton, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Brookline, MA
Patricia Sherman, Ph.D., LCSW, Long Valley, NJ
Elizabeth
Hegeman, Ph.D., John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY, and William Alanson
White Institute, New York, NY
Kathleen H.
Dockett, Ed.D., Psychologists for Social
Responsibility
Herb
Gingold, Ph.D., Psychologist, New
York, NY
Wes
Alwan, Somerville,
MA
Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., Past President (2007-2008),
Psychologists for Social Responsibility (Washington, DC),
Alpharetta, GA
Leila F.
Dane, Ph.D., Executive Director, Institute for Victims of Trauma,
McLean, VA
Elaine
Gould, Ph.D., Member, APA
Marc
Pilisuk, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, The University of California and Professor,
Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, Berkeley,
CA
Dori Smith,
Producer, Talk Nation Radio in CT
Ann
D'Ercole, Ph.D., ABPP, NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and
Psychoanalysis
Andrea
Cousins, Ph.D., Psy.D., Pioneer Valley Coalition Against Secrecy & Torture,
Western Massachusetts & Albany Association for Psychoanalytic Psychology
(Local Chapter, Division 39, APA)
Carolyn
Hicks, Ed.D.
Frank
Marotta, Ph.D.
Thomas
Greening, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Saybrook Graduate School and Clinical Professor, UCLA,
Private Practice
Barbara
Pearson, Ph.D., Westchester Center for the Study of Psychoanalysis and
Psychotherapy
Barbara C.
Greenspon, M.A., Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, Minneapolis, MN
Virginia S.
Elliott, Cert. PsyA, Brighton MA
Milton Schwebel, Ph.D., Rutgers University
David
Lotto, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Pittsfield, MA
Colleen
Cordes, Executive Director, Psychologists for Social
Responsibility
Martha A.
Nathan, M.D., Baystate Brightwood Medical Center, Springfield, MA
Nina K.
Thomas, Ph.D., ABPP, NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and
Psychoanalysis
Stuart A. Pizer, Ph.D., ABPP, Cambridge, MA
M.
Brinton Lykes, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Associate Director, Center for
Human Rights & International Justice, Boston College
Gemma
Marangoni Ainslie, Ph.D., ABPP, Austin, TX
Elaine Gifford, LICSW, Sudbury MA
Virginia
Goldner, Ph.D., Adjunct Clinical Professor, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, New York University, New York,
NY
Lisa
Sutton, Ph.D., Director of Clinical Training, Boston Institute for
Psychotherapy, Brookline,
MA
Polly
Scarvalone, Ph.D., New York,
NY
Jay
Frankel, Ph.D., Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, New York University
Sue A Shapiro, Ph.D., NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy & Psychoanalysis,
New York,
NY
Caryn
Gorden, Psy.D., New York, NY
Nancy
Atlas, Ph.D., New York,
NY
Helaine
Gold, Ph.D.
Bruce
Berman, Ph.D., New York,
NY
Andrea
Remez, Ph.D., New York,
NY
Steven Botticelli, Ph.D., New York, NY
Adrienne E Harris, Ph.D., New York, NY
Lisa Lyons,
Ph.D., Teaneck, NJ
Susan
Parlow, Ph.D., New York,
NY
Jill
Salberg, Ph.D., New York University
Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis, New York, NY
Mary
Pike, B.A. Art Institute, ESL Resource Room Supervisor for Highland Park High
School, Highland
Park, IL
Zeese
Papanikolas, M.A., Retired Professor of
Humanities
Stephanie Noland, Ph.D., New York, NY
Helaine Gold, Ph.D., NYU Postdoctoral Program in
Psychotherapy & Psychoanalysis New York, NY
Steven
Cooper, Ph.D., Joint Chief Editor, Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Cambridge, MA
Laurel E.
Phoenix, Ph.D., Public and Environmental Affairs, UWGB, Green Bay, WI
Elizabeth Kandall, Ph.D., New York, NY
Anita
R. Herron, Ph.D., New York University
Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis, New York, NY
Lynne
Kwalwasser, Ph.D., Supervisor, NYU Postdoctoral Program, New York, NY
Lynn
Leibowitz, Ph.D., New York,
NY
Latika Mangrulkar, MSW, ACSW, Steering Committee,
Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Santa Rosa, CA
Mary
Libbey, Ph.D., New York,
NY
Andrew
Tatarsky, Ph.D., Founding Executive board member, Division on Addiction and
Co-directer, Harm Reduction Psychotherapy and Training Associates
Roanne Barnett, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, New York, NY
Margaret
White, Ph.D., Upper
Montclair, NJ
Candy
Siegel, Ph.D., Tucson,
AZ
Zeborah Schachtel, Ph.D., NYU Postdoctoral Program in
Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, New
York, NY
Elizabeth Wolfe, Psy.D., Clinical Psychologist,
Westport, CT
Judith
Merbaum, Ph.D., Great Neck, NY
Amy
Schwartz, Ph.D., NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy,
New York, NY
Cathy
S Nelson, MSW, LISW, Ames,
IA
Martin
Devine, Psy.D., New York
University
Amy Schaffer, Ph.D., New York, NY
Nancy Caro
Hollander, Ph.D., Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic
Studies
Michele
Bartnett
Kate
Dunn, Psy. D., Brooklyn,
NY
Nancy
Freeman-Carroll, Psy.D., Clinical Psychologist-Psychoanalyst, William Alanson
White Institute, NYSPA, APA, New
York, NY
A. Raja
Hornstein, Psy.D., Clinical Psychologist, San Rafael, CA
Catherine M. Rossiter, LMT, Sayre, PA
Meg
Sandow, Psy.D., CA
David
Lichtenstein, Ph.D., New
York, NY
Richard
Reichbart, Ph.D., Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research
(IPTAR)
Ann Marie
Truppi, Ph.D.
Evelyn Pye,
Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis, American Psychological
Association
Carol
Wachs, Psy.D., New York, NY
Katharine
G. Baker, Ph.D., Northampton, MA
Judith G. Pott, Ph.D., New York, NY
Glenys Lobban, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, New York, NY
Lisa
Fliegel, ATR-BC, LMHC, Boston Institute for Psychotherapy School-based
program
Helen
Brackett, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, New York, NY
Dara Lyn
Petersen, Psychology Student, The George Washington University, Washington, DC
Christine Girard, Ph.D., New York, NY
Andrew Phelps, Ph.D. (mathematics), San Jose City College
Jane
Brodwyn, Psy.D., Northampton, MA
Jeanne
Wolff Bernstein, Ph.D., PINC
Stephen Benson, Ph.D., Blue Hill, ME
Kirsten Lentz, Ph.D., Candidate, NYU Postdoctoral Program
in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis, New York, NY
Francia
White, Doctoral Candidate, Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis, and Center for
Modern Psychoanalytic Studies
Neville D. Frankel, Newton, MA
Arthur J. Lebow, Ph.D., St. Paul, MN
Luise
Eichenbaum, LCSW, The Women's Therapy Centre
Institute
William Auerbach, Ph.D.,
Psychologist
Ken
Corbett, Ph.D., Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychology, The New York University Program in Psychotherapy and
Psychoanalysis
Carol
Smaldino, LCSW, Port
Washington, NY
Angelo Smaldino, LCSW, Senior Member of National
Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis, Port Washington, NY
Susan
Gutwill, MS, LCSW
Brigitte
Ladisch, Ph.D.
Connie Evert, Ph.D., Philadelphia, PA
Diane
Perlman, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Psychologists for Social Responsibility Initiative on
Global Violence, Terrorism and Nuclear Disarmament, Transcend and Abolition,
2000
Quotation
Sources:
60 Minutes (November 16, 2003). Obama On Economic Crisis, Transition.
Downloaded November 23, 2008 from https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/60minutes/printable4607893.shtml
Frontline. (March 8, 2006). The Dark Side. Downloaded
November 23, 2008 from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/brennan.html
National Journal (March 7, 2008). Q&A with John
Brennan: The Counterterror Campaign. Downloaded November 23, 2008 from
https://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/080307nj1.htm
LATEST NEWS
'Horrific': Masked Israeli Settlers Attack, Injure Palestinian Woman and NBC Crew
Another journalist called the assault "the latest instance of unacceptable and alarming settler violence toward journalists and Palestinians."
Aug 29, 2026
Israeli settlers attacked and wounded a Palestinian woman and four NBC team members who were interviewing her in the West Bank on Saturday, amid ongoing settler violence in the occupied Palestinian territory.
The settlers, who were wearing masks, drove up as Aida Ahmed Abdullah and her family were telling NBC about how settlers forced them from their home in the town of Jalud.
“They jumped out, beat us, then jumped back in the car,” NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley told the outlet.
Make This Go VIRAL
Masked Israeli Settlers ATTACK Palestinian Woman and NBC News Crew in the West Bank
NBC correspondent Matt Bradley was struck twice pic.twitter.com/EMmWGsNk2X
— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) August 30, 2026
Bradley was hit twice on the arm by the attackers, who carried sticks. They also threw rocks. Abdullah, Bradley, West Bank-based cameraman Khaldoon Eid, producer Producer Lawahez Jabari, and a driver were all injured in the ambush and treated afterword. Abdullah remained in the hospital as of Saturday night.
Both Eid and Jabari also described the assault.
“We didn’t expect that—that they would come to attack,” Eid told NBC. “We were in the middle of a Palestinian area next to Palestinian houses.”
Jabari said, "Suddenly a car came to us,” adding, "the settlers had sticks, I saw a gun, but they didn’t use the gun.”
Jeremy Diamond, a CNN correspondent in Jerusalem, called the incident "horrific" on social media and said it was "the latest instance of unacceptable and alarming settler violence toward journalists and Palestinians."
The NBC crew and their interviewee were not the only targets of such violence on Saturday, as attacks continued in the town of Qusra, where settlers have been conducting a nearly three-week siege of three Palestinian homes. Settlers pepper sprayed Palestinian workers, threw rocks at a building, and besieged a fourth home with at least four Palestinian residents inside, according to Hareetz and Al Jazeera.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned Saturday's attacks, characterizing them as “criminal acts of violence committed in the villages of Qusra and Jalud by a handful of rioters who violate the law, cause enormous injustice to the law-abiding settler public, hinder the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] in fulfilling its missions, and harm Israel’s standing in the world.”
Yet Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued on social media:
1. The settler wouldn't do this to Americans had they not received a green light from the Israeli gov.
2. Israel's gov would not have given such a green light unless it felt confident that the US gov—and Amb. [Mike] Huckabee—wouldn't lift a finger to defend the Americans.
Journalists trying to report in both Gaza and the West Bank have long been targets of both settlers and the Israeli military. The IDF was found to be the leading killer of journalists worldwide for the third year in a row in 2025, and even before the Gaza genocide began in 2023, there were cases like the IDF killing of Palestinian-American reporter Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank in 2022.
The attacks on the NBC team also come amid an uptick in setter violence in the West Bank since 2023, which humans rights observers say is enabled by the Israeli government. Netanyahu's government has expanded settlements in the West Bank despite the fact that they are illegal under international law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Rules the Trump Admin Can't Deport International Students for Free Speech
"A federal judge just ruled that the Trump admin's use of immigration law to deport me and other noncitizen students for pro-Palestinian speech is unconstitutional. No one should fear speaking up for Palestine," Mahmoud Khalil said.
Aug 29, 2026
The Trump administration violated the Constitution when it moved to deport or rescind visas from international students who spoke up for Palestinian rights and criticized Israel's genocide in Gaza, a federal judge ruled on Friday.
Northern District of California Judge Noël Wise, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, said that the administration's actions violated both the First Amendment of the Constitution protecting free speech and the Fifth Amendment ensuring due process.
"Stated plainly, in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government’s to take," Wise wrote.
Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement early in the second Trump administration despite holding a green card, celebrated the ruling on Saturday.
"A federal judge just ruled that the Trump admin's use of immigration law to deport me and other noncitizen students for pro-Palestinian speech is unconstitutional. No one should fear speaking up for Palestine," Khalil wrote on social media.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations also welcomed the decision in a statement on Saturday:
This ruling reaffirms a fundamental American principle that the government cannot deport people simply because it dislikes their political views. Students do not surrender their constitutional rights at the classroom door, and international students do not surrender their freedom of expression when they come to study in the United States. Criticizing the policies of a foreign government, including the genocidal government of Israel, is protected political speech.
The lawsuit was brought by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in August 2025 on behalf of The Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, and an anonymous female plaintiff. The newspaper argued that student reporters on visas refrained from covering pro-Palestinian protests on campus out of fear of being deported, while the Jane Doe was a noncitizen who had spoken out on behalf of Palestine and now was worried about government retaliation.
"The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to," the paper's editor-in-chief George Porteous wrote on social media on Friday.
In particular, the lawsuit challenged two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that Secretary of State Marco Rubio used to justify seeking the deportations of Khalil, Columbia student Moshen Mahdawi, and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk. The first allows the secretary of state to deport a noncitizen for speech if the secretary “personally determines” the speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.” The second allows the secretary to revoke visas entirely at their own discretion.
Wise agreed that the provisions violated the Constitution and offered a rousing defense of free speech.
“In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength," she wrote. "That strength is diminished when members of our society—citizens and noncitizens alike—must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”
FIRE said the decision was the "first in the country to squarely rule on the constitutionality of these statutes" and that it would "reverberate in similar proceedings around the country."
“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement Friday. “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Big Military Theft': Trump Announces Deal for US Control of Venezuelan Oil Fields
"This is proof Trump put our service members at risk to get Venezuelan oil for his billionaire buddies," one Democratic senator said. "Putting our soldiers’ lives on the line for private profit is a gross dereliction of his constitutional duty."
Aug 29, 2026
President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social on Friday that his government had "secured majority US control" of Venezuelan oil reserves containing 65 billion barrels of oil.
The announcement followed on reporting from Axios that a deal was in the works, prompting criticisms that such a move would be "colonial" and calls for Congress to reject any such proposal.
"Let's be clear: This isn't a win," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote on social media in response to the announcement. "This is proof Trump put our service members at risk to get Venezuelan oil for his billionaire buddies. Putting our soldiers’ lives on the line for private profit is a gross dereliction of his constitutional duty."
When US forces invaded Caracas and kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife First Combatant Cilia Fores on January 3, Trump's own words following the invasion confirmed suspicions that he acted largely to gain access to the country's oil.
"These are some of the largest crimes of our lifetimes."
“We’re going to get the oil flowing the way it should be,” he said in a press conference following the attack.
Friday's deal, which seems like an attempt to make good on that promise, was also announced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, who provided more details.
According to Venezuelanalysis:
Rodríguez stated that the deal will involve private corporations developing 17 “strategic fields” with 65 billion barrels of proven reserves. She echoed Rubio’s $100 billion investment claim and pledged that the projects would yield $209 billion in tax revenues. According to the acting president, the announced agreement “ushers in a new era of growth and prosperity.”
However, economist Francisco Rodríguez, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argued that the agreement was actually a bad deal for Venezuelans.
"President: According to your figures, this agreement will generate tax revenues of just $3.22 per barrel of Venezuelan oil. This represents 4.7% of the current price, and less than half of the royalty rate contemplated in concessions granted by Juan Vicente Gómez," he wrote on social media, addressing the current Venezuelan leader and referring to a Venezuelan dictator from the early 20th century.
Joseph Bouchard, a journalist and researcher who focuses on Latin America, agreed with Rodriguez's criticism of the deal, writing on social media that "Trump [was] 'generously' buying billions of barrels of Venezuelan oil at less than 5% its market price. He's stealing their oil for his own family and cronies' profit. Guessing this may be used as a chip to manipulate the midterms. These are some of the largest crimes of our lifetimes."
Francisco Rodriguez had earlier pointed out that the deal violated the Venezuelan Constitution, which holds that all minerals and hydrocarbons are “inalienable public domain," according to Venezuelanalysis. For the deal to go through, therefore, Venezula would have to alter its Constitution.
Former head of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth noted on social media that "senior Venezuelan officials, all fearing arrest, are hardly in a position to negotiate vigorously, making the whole thing seems like one big military theft."
On the plus side, no one has to argue whether the United States is imperialist anymore. https://t.co/nsb87JUARw
— Dean Baker (@DeanBaker13) August 29, 2026
Trump is under pressure to lower gas prices that have spiked due to the fallout of his war on Iran, which entered its sixth month on Friday, and promised in his announcement, "This Historic Transaction MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves, greatly increases our Oil Supply, and will substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans, long into the future."
However, The Associated Press pointed out: "A significant drop in US gas prices tied to the agreement should not be expected immediately. Experts have repeatedly warned that a substantial boost in Venezuelan oil production will not happen quickly as repairing and expanding infrastructure takes years and requires billions of dollars."
Exploiting Venezuela's oil reserves would also exacerbate the climate crisis, which just this summer intensified a deadly heatwave in Europe and is supercharging an El Niño that could contribute to a significant increase in food prices in 2026 and 2027.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Break Up Big Medicine': Taking On Healthcare Industry Greed Could Save US Families $6,000+ a Year
One expert said the options are to "watch the US healthcare system spiral into profit-driven chaos or finally treat the Big Medicine disease to create a healthcare system that puts patients and clinicians in control of care."
Aug 28, 2026
As millions of working-class Americans suffer from President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans' cuts to the already dysfunctional US healthcare system, a leading anti-monopoly group this week released a report with recommendations to restore "affordability and control to patients, clinicians, and communities across the country."
"The healthcare crisis didn’t happen by accident, it is the direct result of decades of neoliberal policy choices that handed more power to corporate healthcare giants while families paid the price," said Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP).
"The choice now is clear: Continue to watch the US healthcare system spiral into profit-driven chaos or finally treat the Big Medicine disease to create a healthcare system that puts patients and clinicians in control of care," she explained. "This agenda presents a roadmap for how to do it."
Harper and Emma Freer, AELP's senior policy analyst for healthcare, co-authored the new report, "Break Up Big Medicine," with contributions from a trio of other experts. One of them is Dr. Will Flanary, an independent ophthalmologist in Portland, Oregon.
"The US healthcare system, once made up of mostly independent practices like mine, is now dominated by Big Medicine behemoths—including private insurance conglomerates, Big Pharma manufacturers, pharmaceutical middlemen, megahospitals, and private equity-backed practices—whose only fiduciary duty is to executives and investors," he wrote in the foreword. "This makes it increasingly difficult to keep my practice afloat and uphold my oath, resulting in moral injury."
"So, I now have a second career as an advocate," who goes by "Dr. Glaucomflecken" on social media. "What my patients need most is bold policy reforms to break up Big Medicine and build a better healthcare system, one where they can access affordable, high-quality care and independent physicians like me can thrive."
The report notes that "between 2005 and 2025, the annual cost of employer-sponsored family coverage nearly tripled, from $12,214 to $35,119," US patients pay nearly three times as much for prescription drug prices as people in other countries, and "the United States spends more than $15,000 per person on healthcare each year—roughly one-fifth of our entire economy, and more than twice what peer nations spend, in return for worse patient outcomes on a variety of metrics."
Costs continue to rise, with The Wall Street Journal reporting last week that, according to benefits consulting giant Aon, US workers with employer-sponsored insurance are expected to spend an average of $5,297 on healthcare this year, or $388 more than last year. Another consultant, WTW, found that US employers expect their healthcare costs will rise 11.1% next year.
Meanwhile, six "corporate behemoths" in the sector—Cardinal Health, Cencora, Cigna, CVS Health, McKesson, and UnitedHealth Group—"now rank among the Fortune 15, making nearly $34 billion in annual profit," collectively, as AELP detailed Thursday. "Big Medicine now employs more than four in five US doctors," and practices must spend time completing, "on average, 40 prior authorizations per physician per week, time that would be better spent on patient care."
"Our current healthcare crisis is the result of several decades of federal policymaking by both political parties based on the flawed premise that empowering private insurers to ration access to healthcare, rather than addressing the underlying root causes of high prices, would effectively contain costs," the AELP report says.
The publication lays out a four-part "treatment plan" to save Americans $795 billion annually, or more than $6,000 per household: break up Big Medicine, bring down healthcare prices, build capacity, and bolster enforcement of existing laws.
The first section highlights how some solutions already exist in Congress, pointing to various bills, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Josh Hawley's (R-Mo.) Break Up Big Medicine Act, their Patients Before Monopolies Act with Reps. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) and Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Val Hoyle's (D-Ore.) Patients Over Profits Act, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon's (D-Pa.) Take Back Our Hospitals Act, and the Corporate Crimes Against Health Care Act, introduced by Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) and Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Merkley, and Warren.
The second section calls for standardizing and capping "healthcare prices across public and private payers using traditional Medicare reimbursement rates for inpatient and outpatient services and negotiated drug prices as benchmarks." It urges a ban on prior authorization, an end to patient cost-sharing obligations, investments "in public options that eliminate Big Medicine administrative waste," and passage of Rep. Rashida Tlaib's (D-Mich.) Medicines for the People Act.
The third section calls for investments in the US prescription drug manufacturing base as well as in providers, "especially safety-net hospitals in rural and low-income metro areas, independent medical and dental practices, community pharmacies, and primary care physicians."
The final section calls on Congress to "close loopholes that allow anti-competitive business practices, which Big Medicine uses to drive up prescription drug costs," specifically promoting the repeal of the 1987 safe harbor for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and other pharmaceutical middlemen, and the prohibition of "price discrimination, spread pricing, self-preferencing, network discrimination, and sole-source or exclusive contracting terms across all payers." It further advocates for an increase in funding for antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice.
"For decades, healthcare reform has focused on expanding private coverage and putting more money into a broken system while allowing corporate giants to consolidate power and drive up costs," said Freer. "Working families have paid more only to receive lower-quality care.
"Americans need a new policy paradigm that actually takes on the root causes of the crisis: consolidation, corporate control, and lack of competition," she argued. "This agenda is about moving beyond the status quo to build a healthcare system where patients come first, clinicians can thrive, and every American can afford the care they need."
The report comes amid renewed scrutiny of the president's "most favored nation" deals with Big Pharma, with Peter Maybarduk, access to medicines director for the watchdog Public Citizen, saying last week that "Trump has three kinds of drug pricing policy: fake, exaggerated, and not-real-yet, probably-won't-happen."
After pointing out on social media Wednesday that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in April agreed to publicize the deals for medicines listed on the direct-to-consumer website TrumpRx, and "months later, still crickets," Warren wondered, "Why should Americans believe this isn't just another Trump handout to fatten Big Pharma's pockets?"
Additionally, as Americans have started contending with the Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Republicans in Congress and signed by Trump last year, as well as the GOP's refusal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies, which has caused premiums to skyrocket, there have also been renewed calls for shifting the United States to a universal healthcare system.
A study published earlier this month by researchers at Yale University suggests the Medicare for All Act that's been repeatedly introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would save more than $1 trillion and over 114,000 lives annually.
"At a time when 15 million Americans are being thrown off the healthcare they have and 20 million Americans have already seen their premiums double, on average, as a result of Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ we need Medicare for All now more than ever," Sanders said in response to the study. "The time is now to end the greed of the big insurance and drug companies and pass Medicare for All."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect and the author of books including Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power, noted in his Thursday coverage of AELP's report that "while it's complementary to a Medicare for All approach, single-payer insurance is not mentioned."
"In tandem with moving toward a Medicare for All system, we have to address consolidation that is the cause of healthcare being so expensive, with degraded quality, and the squeezing of healthcare professionals," Freer told Dayen. "Otherwise we end up with something like Medicare Advantage for All, which would be disastrous."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Diplomat Who Resigned Over Gaza Condemns Biden Officials Who Defended Genocide—And Now Claim to Regret It
"They actually had the power to stop unconditional arms assistance to Israel," said Hala Rharrit. "They enabled it 100%."
Aug 28, 2026
Recent expressions of regret by top Biden administration officials who vehemently defended the United States' billions of dollars in military aid to Israel as it was bombarding Gaza have not gone far with former diplomat Hala Rharrit, who was retaliated against for speaking out about the US policy before she ultimately resigned, and who condemned her former colleagues recent "PR game" this week.
In an interview with Middle East Eye, Rharrit said the former officials who have mused that they would now support withholding weapons from Israel, or that they should have backed such a move while serving under President Joe Biden, are "just so despicable."
"They're so disgusting," Rharrit said. "Those individuals, particularly [National Security Adviser] Jake Sullivan and a handful of others, actually had the power to save human lives. They actually had the power to stop unconditional arms assistance to Israel, right? The Israelis were not killing the Palestinians by themselves. The Israelis were killing the Palestinians with American bombs, with American jets, with American everything. We enabled it 100%. They enabled it 100%."
"They’re so disgusting."
Former US diplomat Hala Rharrit, who resigned in 2024 over Gaza, responds to the Biden officials who’ve recently claimed they should have done more on Gaza.
Watch early by joining MEE's YouTube membership ➡ https://t.co/kSRg1sVXCo pic.twitter.com/szijxYjczk
— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) August 27, 2026
Rharrit, who resigned as the Arabic language spokesperson for the US State Department in April 2024, six months into Israel's US-backed assault—which has been called a genocide by leading human rights organizations and Holocaust experts—spoke to MEE months after former Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US should have called for a ceasefire earlier than it did, "such that the suffering the people endured, the loss of the children, so many others, could have been averted.”
Sullivan last year said—weeks before a ceasefire was finally agreed to—that he'd had a change of heart regarding providing Israel with weapons, and that he would no longer support the policy.
In November, Sullivan added in an interview with The Dartmouth that "it’s fair to say that there were a lot of objections from a lot of parts of the international community about the US continuing to support Israel over the course of last year—2024—and over the course of this year in 2025. I think a lot about what we could have done differently."
Rharrit told MEE that "it's despicable that now they're trying to make themselves look like, 'Oh we should have done better and we're so sorry.'"
The former diplomat emphasized that the apology tour has taken place as it's become increasingly clear that "America has changed" in terms of its views on Israel, Palestine, and the United States' decadeslong, unconditional support for the Israeli military—despite US statutes like the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Leahy Laws, which bar the government from providing military aid to countries that block humanitarian assistance and that are accused of human rights abuses.
A poll released this week showed that large majorities of Democratic voters in the first six states that will vote in the 2028 presidential primaries support cutting off weapons aid to Israel, and another survey by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies in March found that just 32% of Americans viewed Israel positively, compared with 47% in 2023.
"America is forever changed," said Rharrit. "Americans no longer support these forever wars, they no longer support unconditional arms assistance to Israel. They no longer agree with US policy in the Middle East. And so now... they're doing a PR game. This is just pure PR."
Rharrit and other officials who resigned over the US policy on Israel and Gaza "were vindicated," she said. "Of course we were right the whole time, because it's international law. It's US law. I abided by my oath to the Constitution... That is exactly what I did. That is exactly why I resigned."
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, said Rharrit is one of "a rare breed" of diplomats.
"During this genocide I've met courageous diplomats and officials who denounced it at real personal cost," said Albanese, whom the Trump administration targeted with sanctions earlier this year. "Imagine foreign policy built by more of them. Because the problem is never one unfit minister/head of state: It's whole spineless cohorts around them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Supreme Court Ruling, 4th Circuit Tosses Verdict Against US Company for Abu Ghraib Torture
"History will show that it was the Supreme Court that denied us justice," said Salah Al-Ejaili, one of the Iraqi plaintiffs.
Aug 28, 2026
The US Supreme Court recently delivered a "lethal blow" to lawsuits filed under an 18th-century law, including a case brought by Iraqis tortured at Abu Ghraib as part of the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, whose landmark verdict was struck down on Friday by a federal appellate court.
The Iraqis' case against US military contractor CACI Premier Technology was first filed in 2008, and eventually led to a trial and retrial in 2024. That November, a federal jury found the company liable for torture at the notorious prison in Iraq, and ordered it to pay the three prisoners a total of $42 million.
After unsuccessfully seeking another trial at the US District Court for the District of Virginia, CACI turned to the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which this past March upheld the historic verdict in favor of the three tortured men: middle school principal Suhail Al Shimari, fruit vendor Asa'ad Zuba'e, and journalist Salah Al-Ejaili.
Then came the Supreme Court's June decision in Cisco Systems v. Doe, which effectively reversed the high court's 2004 ruling on the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), nullifying "a vital law that could check corporate abuses and provide an essential remedy to those whose rights have been violated," as University of California, Berkeley law professor Erwin Chemerinsky wrote earlier this week.
As legal experts feared, the 4th Circuit reconsidered the CACI verdict in the wake of the June decision, and determined that "just as the court concluded that the Cisco plaintiffs' ATS claims—including aiding and abetting torture—must be dismissed, so too must we dismiss plaintiffs' claims here—conspiracy to commit torture" and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the Iraqis alongside other law firms, responded with a Friday statement calling out both the Supreme Court and CACI.
"As radical and regressive as the Supreme Court's decision in Cisco is," Azmy said, "it will never change this fundamental truth: A jury heard voluminous testimony and unanimously concluded CACI was responsible for the torture and abuse of dozens of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, including these plaintiffs, rendering CACI, in the words of a foundational ATS-human rights case, 'hostis humani generis'—an 'enemy of all mankind.'"
"We remain in awe of the bravery and dedication of our clients, who fought for 18 years for justice for themselves, their families, and other survivors of horrific human rights abuses," Azmy added. "This Supreme Court may continue to do great damage to human rights cases, but it cannot take the courage and dignity away from our clients' historic achievement."
One of the plaintiffs in the case, Al-Ejaili, also took aim at the country's highest court, which is dominated by right-wing justices.
"What we did in pursuing accountability for 18 years for the torture we suffered at Abu Ghraib was a big thing. We trusted a US jury with our stories, and they believed us and sided with us—this is the most important part of the case," he said Friday. "History will show that it was the Supreme Court that denied us justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran War Trump Said Would Be Quick Has Now Lasted 6 Months With 'No End In Sight'
Trump has "lost the Iran War in every way possible in less than six months," said one critic.
Aug 28, 2026
The illegal war with Iran that President Donald Trump said would be over in a matter of weeks entered its sixth month on Friday, and there is little sign of it wrapping up in the near future.
A Friday report in The Washington Post marking the six-month anniversary of the illegal war noted that Trump's ability to decisively win the conflict declined markedly "after Iranian leaders discovered that they could withstand intense bombardment and slowly degrade the world’s most powerful military with a cheap combination of mines and drones."
The biggest weapon in Iran's arsenal has been its ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane for petroleum. Since the strait's closure, oil and gas prices have soared, costing US consumers an estimated $71.5 billion more to fill up their cars than they otherwise would have paid.
Trump this week has tried to claim that the strait has actually been reopened, but the Post found that the president's proclamations do not match reality.
"More than 100 ships traversed the Strait of Hormuz on average every day before the war," the Post wrote. "Just five went through on one day this week, according to Kpler, a commodities and shipping tracker."
A Friday report in The Associated Press focused on the White House's announcements this week of new measures to put economic pressure on Iran, which are a sign that the administration no longer thinks it can use military force to force Tehran's hand.
"The turn to using sanctions as the cudgel of choice," wrote the AP, "comes as the administration weighs diminished munitions stockpiles after months of war, sparking concerns that the prolonged conflict could undermine US military readiness in other parts of the globe."
The AP also flagged a shift in rhetoric from Trump, who once promised the war would end quickly but now says he's "not in a hurry" to end the campaign.
Harrison Mann, a former US Defense Intelligence Agency officer, wrote in an analysis published by Zeteo on Thursday that Trump has "lost the Iran War in every way possible in less than six months," which he said would mark "the arrogant, violent end of American dominance in the Middle East."
In fact, Mann argued that Trump lost the Iran War three different ways: The first in his failed attempt to force regime change in Tehran, the second in an aborted campaign to incite an Iranian Kurdish uprising, and finally in his desperate efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
All of these failures have combined to put Iran in a decisively stronger position than it was in before the war began, Mann wrote.
"After another four months of Trump threats, half-hearted bombing runs, and not one but two US blockades of Iran, Tehran’s military exercises formal authority over at least a third of the ships transiting the strait," he wrote. "Plus, it now regularly shoots at 'unauthorized' ships with impunity."
US Rep. Don Breyer (D-Va.) summed up the failure of Trump's war in a Friday social media post.
"When Trump began his illegal, unpopular war with Iran, he said it would last a week," Breyer wrote. "SIX MONTHS later: The administration has lied about our casualties and the deaths of civilians, the stated objectives haven't been met, Iran has a new economic weapon in the Strait of Hormuz, the region is less stable, our prices are higher, our allies are angry, our adversaries are emboldened, and there's no end in sight."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Yet Another Trump Grift': Congress Called to Stop US Takeover of Venezuelan Oil Fields
"Handing over Venezuela's oil wealth to the US contravenes the Constitution and is not in the interest of the Venezuelan people—much more when it is done at gunpoint," said one analyst.
Aug 28, 2026
Trump administration officials are claiming that talks between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Venezuelan government regarding control of the country's oil fields will ultimately secure "America's energy future for generations to come"—but analysts on Friday called on lawmakers to halt President Donald Trump's "colonial" push to take over the reserves.
As Axios reported, officials including Rubio and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have been involved in talks with Venezuelan acting President Delcy Rodriguez about taking an ownership stake in more than a dozen oil fields in the Orinoco Belt and Lake Maracaibo regions, which have about 90 billion barrels of oil reserves. In all, Venezuela's vast reserves—the world's largest—contain about 300 billion barrels.
The deal would double US oil reserves at a time when Americans have seen gas prices skyrocket and oil firms reap profits as a result of Trump's war on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—events to which countries that have expanded renewable energy sources have proven far more resilient, according to data from JP Morgan Commodities research.
Despite that resilience, the Trump administration has reportedly approached the talks as a way to lock the US into generations of continued reliance on planet-heating oil extraction. According to Bloomberg, one deal under consideration is a 100-year lease on the oil fields.
Axios reported that in return for giving the US an ownership stake—something Trump began privately discussing before US forces invaded Venezuela and abducted President Nicolás Maduro in January—Venezuela "would benefit from private companies, including American firms, developing the fields and returning more oil revenue" to the South American country.
Tyler Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program, said that if the deal is finalized, "Trump will likely transfer operational control to US oil companies," which donated heavily to his campaign.
The proposed deal would open "the door to Trump’s typical bilateral transactional corruption" and bestow "lucrative opportunities for the oil companies he chooses to reward," said Slocum.
“In the nearly eight months since Trump’s illegal January 2026 Venezuelan invasion, the Trump administration has managed a $13 billion slush fund gleaned from its control over Venezuelan oil sales, with zero transparency, and little to no public oversight or accounting," Slocum continued. "The president has no authority to negotiate a deal where the federal government takes control over foreign oil production facilities, and Congress must intervene and put an end to Trump’s oil-fueled imperialism."
One opposition leader in Venezuela, where Energy Secretary Chris Wright is expected to travel next week to discuss increasing oil production by US companies, said the deals currently being discussed amount to "a land grab—a massive land grab."
Francisco Rodríguez, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of The Collapse of Venezuela, said the country's National Assembly "should deny authorization for this predatory deal."
Following Trump's invasion of Venezuela in January, energy historian and Eurasia Group analyst Gregory Brew told The Guardian, "US dominance over Venezuelan oil reserves allows the US to regard Venezuelan reserves as its own reserves: a source of oil from which the United States can draw and that nobody else has access to."
"I think that’s how the administration is conceiving of this—excluding China, excluding Russia, but I think also excluding other potential customers for Venezuelan oil,” Brew said. “It sounds colonial, because it is.”
The president's "effort to establish a South American kleptocracy is an outrage," said Slocum. "There’s been no improvement in human rights in Venezuela, so Trump’s move is further evidence that his illegal actions in Venezuela are all about controlling oil with no public accounting, transparency, or oversight. This is yet another Trump gift for Big Oil.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Destruction of East India Company Gives US Lawmakers a Blueprint for Confronting Big Tech: Historian
The instruments to take apart entrenched corporate power "still exist," but current governments are "lacking... the political nerve to use them," said historian William Dalrymple.
Aug 28, 2026
A historian who has written four books about the British East India Company is warning that big technology companies in the US are amassing similar levels of unchecked power and will need to be reined in.
In a New York Times op-ed published on Friday, William Dalrymple described how the British government eventually realized that it had allowed the East India Company—key to the British Empire's rise in the 18th and 19th centuries—to become too powerful and decided to finally clamp down.
The situation faced by the British Parliament in the 19th Century was strikingly similar to the situation faced by US lawmakers today, Dalrymple explained, as the East India Company had spent decades spending money to capture influence within the government.
"Around one in 20 members of Parliament sat on the East India Company’s board," the historian wrote, "and more than a fifth of the company’s directors sat in Parliament at some point; about 40% of members of Parliament were shareholders."
In the contemporary context, the executives of the nation's largest tech firms are spending lavishly to curry favor with lawmakers and government officials of both major parties
Writing in The Nation last month, investigative journalist David Moore detailed the massive political spending of major tech firms in the 2026 midterms, noting that "Super PACs working on behalf of crypto, AI, and AIPAC donors are the highest-spending groups on independent expenditures to influence voters this cycle—combining to spend more than $180 million so far, according to a review of Federal Election Commission records."
In addition to political clout, the East India Company in its day also had the power to raise its own army, which at its peak topped 200,000 soldiers, twice the size of England's own armed services.
Dalrymple pointed out that this is one power that today's Big Tech firms do not have, although he argued that they have been increasingly integrating themselves into the US military-industrial complex.
"In June 2025 the US Army commissioned the chief technology officers of Palantir and Meta and OpenAI’s chief product officer as lieutenant colonels in a new Reserve unit," he noted. "The new dispensation puts tech executives straight into a position of federal power, which in one way puts them ahead of their 18th-century counterparts."
The government finally dropped the hammer on the East India Company, Dalrymple said, after the bloody Indian Rebellion of 1857, as they feared the firm's "greed and self-interest" would cause the British Empire to lose what it considered its most valuable colony.
"The company’s navy was disbanded and its army passed to the Crown," wrote Dalrymple. "In 1858 the governor general of India announced that the company’s Indian possessions would be nationalized and pass into the control of the British Crown."
Less than two decades later, what was once the most powerful private corporation in world history shut down after the expiration of its charter.
What this shows, concluded Dalrymple, is that "states can master corporations," even if those corporations have their own private armies.
However, he said that while the instruments to take apart entrenched corporate power "still exist," it appears our current governments are "lacking... the political nerve to use them."
Dalrymple's op-ed was echoed thematically by a Friday op-ed written by SFGATE travel editor Silas Valentino, who argued that the city of San Francisco has not gotten any benefit from the current artificial intelligence boom, despite being the home of OpenAI and Anthropic, the world's two biggest AI firms.
In particular, Valentino argued that the AI firms have done nothing to give back to the city and alleviate its affordable housing crisis. In fact, Valentino found that the AI firms' initiatives in the city appear to be mostly self-serving.
"OpenAI says it has invested in our community, but so far, that’s meant less than a million dollars in 'SF civic contributions,'" Valentino wrote. "And worst of all, some of that is for things like AI training programs... That’s not improving the city; it’s OpenAI trying to make more money."
Valentino also noted that Anthropic last year teamed with the Tipping Point Community nonprofit group, which was founded by current San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, to provide free training on the company's Claude chatbot.
"In the years since language models like ChatGPT and Claude proliferated to usher in the AI boom," the travel editor wrote, "I’m only counting negatives for nearly everyone trying to figure out a way to live here."
Valentino concluded by warning that if Lurie and his administration "don’t demand these companies start giving back and enhance our city for the better, they’ll continue ruining our city without pause."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'America Is For Sale': Trump Reportedly Trying to Hand Private Developer Part of Yosemite
"Government of the people, by the people, but for friends and donors of the president above everyone else."
Aug 28, 2026
Even while repeatedly serving the interests of destructive industries, President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have claimed they are committed to protecting US national parks—but the Republican administration is now working to give a private developer a piece of Yosemite, NOTUS reported on Friday.
Specifically, according to unnamed sources and government documents, federal staffers are working on a potential land exchange to give a quarter-mile strip of land in California's Yosemite National Park "to a company that, through a web of limited liability companies, is operated by real-estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital."
The developers own 83 acres west of the park, and Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori—whose company did not respond to a request for comment—aims "to build a short road connecting the property to one of Yosemite's central thoroughfares," providing "the land exceptionally rare private access to a park that is otherwise almost entirely buffered by national forests," NOTUS detailed.
The sources told NOTUS that political leaders at the US Department of the Interior "want us to be responsive to the property owner and their lobbyists or people, and they want us to work with these folks," and that "the political pressure being brought to bear is very unusual."
The National Park Service, which is part of the department, said that "no final decisions have been made," but any proposals "would be subject to all applicable federal laws, regulations, and departmental policies, including required environmental review and public notification processes."
The revelation—which came during National Park Week—was met with outrage.
Ripping the possible "secretive, backroom deal," as "an attack on the American people that own this national park," Mark Rose, the National Parks Conservation Association's Sierra Nevada program manager, told NOTUS that "it would also be unlawful, and a court previously rejected a road development proposal."
We are opposed to private developers building driveways and special access into our parks. The ultra wealthy can wait in line and go through the gate just like everyone else. www.notus.org/agencies/tru...
[image or embed]
— AltYellostoneNatPar (@altyellonatpark.org) August 28, 2026 at 9:00 AM
Sierra Club executive director Loren Blackford said in a statement that "Yosemite is not Donald Trump's to give away. This secretive deal betrays the purpose of our national parks and the promise our government has kept since Abraham Lincoln to protect Yosemite for the public and for generations to come."
"For more than 150 years, each generation has carried forward the responsibility to protect this sacred landscape and pass it on intact," Blackford continued. "The Trump administration is betraying that legacy by trying to hand parts of Yosemite to a private developer. We will use every tool at our disposal to stop this corrupt giveaway."
While the looming land swap could move forward without any sign-off from Congress, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) was among those who spoke out on social media Friday.
"Our parks belong to all of us," the congressman emphasized. "These places should be protected for every generation, not sold off to Trump's ultrawealthy friends to profit off of. I will fight this, both for Yosemite and for every treasured park that would be up for grabs if this domino falls."
Columnist and self-described "recovering attorney" Wajahat Ali declared, "America is for sale," and American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said, "Government of the people, by the people, but for friends and donors of the president above everyone else."
While other critics condemned the reported efforts as "disgusting," "sickening," and "shocking," journalist Chris D'Angelo commented, "I would say this is shocking, but things have been headed in this direction since Trump reentered office."
After Trump won a second term in 2024—having secured campaign funds from Big Oil, and run on a promise to "drill, baby, drill"— one of his early actions post-inauguration was declaring a "national energy emergency" intended to boost the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry.
Since then, while cashing in on his second presidency—including via stock transactions made this year as fuel prices soared due to his illegal war with Iran—Trump has continued to push policies that help polluters and other rich allies. For example, last week the administration delivered a "one-two punch" to national forests, taking aim at a pair of rules intended to protect such lands.
The Center for Biological Diversity warned this week that the Trump administration's proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would "open pristine public lands to road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development," and, according to the group's analysis, put 400 species on an "extinction fast track."
"More roads mean more sediment in streams, more fragmentation of wildlife habitat, more human access to places wildlife depend on for refuge, and more wildfires in forests already facing unprecedented climate change-fueled risk," the center stressed. "The roadless rule has held that line for a generation. Without it the losses to wildlife, water, and the wild places that define the American landscape will be irreversible."
This article has been updated with comment from the Sierra Club.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular









