

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.

Congolese state security forces have killed an estimated 500 people
and detained about 1,000 more, many of whom have been tortured, in the
two years since elections that were meant to bring democracy, Human
Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The brutal repression against perceived opponents began during the 2006
elections that carried President Joseph Kabila to power, and has
continued to the present.
The 96-page report, "'We Will Crush You': The Restriction of
Political Space in the Democratic Republic of Congo," documents the
Kabila government's use of violence and intimidation to eliminate
political opponents. Human Rights Watch found that Kabila himself set
the tone and direction by giving orders to "crush" or "neutralize" the
"enemies of democracy," implying it was acceptable to use unlawful
force against them.
"While everyone focuses on the violence in eastern Congo, government
abuses against political opponents attract little attention," said
Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior researcher in the Africa Division of
Human Rights Watch. "Efforts to build a democratic Congo are being
stifled not just by rebellion but also by the Kabila government's
repression."
On the second anniversary of Kabila's November 28, 2006 election
victory, the Congo remains impoverished and in conflict. Those in
western Congo who might challenge government policies face brutal
repression, while in the east the armed conflict with renegade general
Laurent Nkunda's forces has resulted in horrific atrocities by all
sides.
The report is based on months of extensive field research including
interviews with more than 250 victims, witnesses, and officials. Human
Rights Watch documented how Kabila's subordinates worked through
several state security forces - including the paramilitary Republican
Guards, a "secret commission," the special Simba battalion of the
police, and the intelligence services - to crack down on perceived
opponents in the capital Kinshasa and in Bas Congo province.
Following the 2006 elections, which were largely financed by
international donors, foreign governments focused on winning favor with
Kabila's new government and kept silent about human rights abuses and
the government's increasingly repressive rule. United Nations reports
documenting government involvement in politically motivated crimes were
deliberately buried or published too late to have any significant
impact on events, Human Rights Watch found.
The report says that state agents particularly targeted persons from
Equateur province and others thought to support the defeated
presidential candidate, Jean-Pierre Bemba, as well as adherents of
Bundu Dia Kongo (BDK), a political-religious group based in Bas Congo
that promotes greater provincial autonomy and had considerable support
in legislative elections.
At least 500 perceived opponents of the government were deliberately
killed or summarily executed. In some of the most violent episodes,
state agents tried to cover up the crimes by dumping bodies in the
Congo River or by secretly burying them in mass graves. Government
officials blocked efforts to investigate by UN human rights staff,
Congolese and international human rights monitors, and family members
of victims.
The detentions came in waves of arrests during the past two years.
Detainees and former detainees described torture, including beatings,
whippings, mock executions, and the use of electric batons on their
genitals and other parts of their bodies. Some were kept chained for
days or weeks and many were forced to sign confessions saying they had
been involved in coup plots against Kabila.
In mid-October 2008, state agents arbitrarily arrested at least 20
people in Kinshasa, the majority from Equateur province, including a
woman and her 3-month-old baby. Human Rights Watch estimated that at
least 200 people detained in politically related cases continue to be
held without trial in prisons in Bas Congo and Kinshasa.
Armed groups associated with Bemba and BDK adherents also were
responsible for killing state agents and ordinary people, including in
incidents in Bas Congo in February 2007 and in Kinshasa in March 2007.
In these cases, the police and army had a duty to restore order, but
often did so with excessive force.
Congolese officials have refused to acknowledge abuses committed by
state agents despite inquiries by the National Assembly, the media, and
other citizens or groups. The officials claimed that the victims were
plotting coup attempts or otherwise threatening state authority, but
they provided no convincing evidence of such charges and brought only a
handful of cases to court.
Journalists who were linked to the political opposition or who
protested abuses were threatened, arbitrarily arrested, and in some
cases tortured by government agents. The government closed down radio
stations and television networks that were linked to the opposition or
broadcast their views. Several of these stations were later permitted
to operate again.
The National Assembly has tried to scrutinize the conduct of the
government. Opposition members sometimes boycotted sessions in protest
of the abuses, with some limited impact. However, these efforts have
not been enough to stop the killings or the wide-scale arbitrary
arrests.
Human Rights Watch called on the government to establish a
high-level task force under the authority of the Ministry of Justice
with input from human rights experts to document the abuses by state
agents and release those held illegally. It also called on Congo's
National Assembly to conduct a public inquiry into the abuses by state
security agents and to prosecute those responsible.
"The Congolese people deserve a government which will uphold their
democratic rights, not one that represses opponents," said Van
Woudenberg. "An important first step would be to bring to justice those
officials responsible for killings and torture."
Selected accounts from the report:
"As they beat me with sticks and whips, the soldiers repeatedly
shouted, 'We will crush you! We will crush you!' Then they threatened
to kill me and others who opposed Kabila."
- A political party activist detained and tortured in Kinshasa in March 2007 by President Kabila's Republican Guards.
"At 3 in the morning seven Republican Guards came into the prison.
They took 10 of the prisoners, tied their hands, blindfolded them, and
taped pieces of cardboard over their mouths so they couldn't scream.
The captain who did this said he had received orders. He said he would
drink the blood of Equateurians that night. They took them away.... I
knew one of the guards and asked what had happened. He said the others
had been taken to the [Congo] river near Kinsuka and killed."
- A Congolese army officer from the Ngwaka ethnic group, arrested by
the Republican Guard on March 23, 2007 and detained at Camp Tshatshi.
"They started to hit me. They stripped off my clothes. They took
four sets of handcuffs and tied my hands behind me and then to my feet.
I was thrown on the ground in this position... They gave me electric
shocks all over my body. They put the electric baton in my anus and on
my genitals.... I cried so much that I could hardly see any more. I
shouted I would sign whatever they wanted me to."
- A former detainee held at Kin-Maziere prison on the orders of the "secret commission."
"Kabila took a decision to beat-up on Bemba and to teach him a lesson."
- A member of Kabila's inner circle just before violence in Kinshasa
in August 2006 following the inconclusive first election round.
"We all saw this coming, but again we did not do enough to avert the crisis."
- A European military advisor with close links to the Congolese army
about the March 2007 violence in Kinshasa that left hundreds dead.
"You JED who do you think you are? If you don't agree with the
regime, go into exile and wait until your champion takes power. If you
don't leave we'll help to shut you up for good. We won't miss. Too much
is too much. You have been warned."
- A threat received by the local organization Journalists in Danger
(JED) in June 2007 after they raised concerns about repression against
members of the media.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly," said leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus, "it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color."
In what's being called an "exceedingly rare" move, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotion of two Black and two female colonels to one-star generals,
The New York Times reported Friday that some senior US military officials are questioning whether Hegseth acted out of animus toward Black people and women after the defense secretary blocked the promotion of the four officers despite the repeated objections of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who touted what the Times called the colonels' "decadeslong records of exemplary service."
Military officials told the Times that Hegseth's chief of staff, Lt. Col. Ricky Buria, got into a heated exchange with Driscoll last summer over the promotion of another officer, Maj. Gen. Antoinette Gant—a combat veteran of the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—to command the Military District of Washington, DC.
Such a promotion would have placed Gant in charge of numerous events at which she would likely be seen publicly with President Donald Trump. According to multiple military officials, Buria told Driscoll that Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer.
Pete Hegseth looked at a list of qualified officers and decided Black leaders and women had to go.That’s not leadership. It’s discrimination in plain sight.And every Republican who stays silent is complicit.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Norma Torres (@normajtorres.bsky.social) March 27, 2026 at 10:10 AM
A shocked Driscoll reportedly replied that "the president is not racist or sexist," an assessment that flies in the face of countless racist and sexist statements by the president, both before and during both of his White House terms.
Buria called the officials' account of his exchange with Driscoll "completely false."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to discuss the matter beyond saying that Hegseth is “doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do.”
Military officials told the Times that one of the Black colonels whose promotion was blocked by Hegseth wrote a paper nearly 15 years ago historically analyzing differences between Black and white soldiers' roles in the Army. One of the female colonels, a logistics officer, was held back because she was deployed in Afghanistan during the US withdrawal whose foundation was laid by Trump during his first term. It is unclear why the two other colonels were denied promotions.
Although more than 40% of current active duty US troops are people of color, military leadership remains overwhelmingly comprised of white men. Hegseth, who declared a "frontal assault" on the "whores to wokesters" who he said rose up through the ranks during the Biden administration, told an audience during a 250th anniversary ceremony for the US Navy that "your diversity is not your strength."
Hegseth has argued that women should not serve in combat roles, although he later walked back his assertion amid pushback from senators during his confirmation process. Still, since Trump returned to office, every service branch chief and 9 of the military’s 10 combat commanders are white men.
Leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement Friday calling Hegseth's blocking of the four colonels' promotions "outrageous and wrong."
"The claim that Hegseth’s chief of staff told the army secretary Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events is racist, sexist, and extremely concerning," wrote the lawmakers, Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM), Emilia Sykes (Ohio), Hillary Scholten (Mich.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.).
"Time and time again, Trump and his administration have shown us exactly who they are—attacking and undermining Black people and women in the military, public servants, and women in power," the congressional leaders asserted. "It is clear they are trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly, it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color," their statement said.
"We've long known that Pete Hegseth is an unfit and unqualified secretary of defense appointed by Trump," the lawmakers added. "So it is absurd, ironic, and beyond inappropriate that he of all people would deny these promotions to officers with records of exemplary service. America's servicemembers deserve so much better.”
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also issued a statement reading, "If these reports are accurate, Secretary Hegseth's decision to remove four decorated officers from a promotion list after having been selected by their peers for their merit and performance is not only outrageous, it would be illegal."
"Denying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender would betray every principle of merit-based service military officers uphold throughout their careers," Reed added.
Several congressional colleagues weighed in, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran who lost her legs when an Iraqi defending his homeland from US invasion shot down the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth said on Bluesky: "He says he wants to bring meritocracy back to our military. He says he has our warfighters' backs. But here he is, the most unqualified SecDef in history, denying troops a promotion that their fellow warfighters decided they've earned. Hegseth is a disgrace to our heroes."
Other observers also condemned Hegseth's move, with historian Virginia Scharff accusing him of "undermining national security with his racism and misogyny," and City University of New York English Chair Jonathan Gray decrying the "gutter racist" who "should be hounded from public life for the damage he’s caused."
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."