

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.

James Freedland, ACLU national, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Christopher Ott, ACLU of Massachusetts, (617) 482-3170 x322; cott@aclum.org
A
federal court today ruled that it has the power to review whether the
Bush administration has a valid reason for denying a visa to respected
South African scholar Adam Habib. The decision comes in a lawsuit
brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Massachusetts
challenging the State Department's refusal to grant Professor Habib a
visa based on unsubstantiated national security claims. Habib remains
banned from the country and unable to attend speaking engagements in
the United States.
"Today's ruling reaffirms that the Bush administration cannot
manipulate immigration laws to silence critics of U.S. government
policy and then shield their actions from scrutiny by the courts. The
government cannot cherry pick whose voices we are allowed to hear,"
said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security
Project who argued the case in court. "As the court recognized, the
government cannot bar Professor Habib from speaking in the U.S. without
any explanation or substantiation whatsoever. Today's decision is a
major victory for judicial review and a significant blow to the
administration's failed attempt at stifling debate by banning a
prominent critic of U.S. policy."
Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts ruled that the First Amendment requires the
government to provide a valid, substantiated reason for excluding a
scholar invited to speak to U.S. audiences. Writing that "the
government has not given a reason for the denial," Judge O'Toole
allowed the ACLU's challenge to move forward. In late 2007, the State
Department refused Habib a visa after months of inaction, claiming that
he is barred because he has "engaged in terrorist activities," but the
government failed to explain the basis for its accusation, let alone
provide any evidence to prove it.
Habib is a renowned scholar, sought-after political analyst, and Deputy
Vice-Chancellor of Research, Innovation and Advancement at the
University of Johannesburg. He is also a Muslim who has been a vocal
critic of the war in Iraq and some U.S. terrorism-related policies.
Habib has repeatedly condemned terrorism but urged governments to
respond to the terror threat with policies that are consistent with
human rights norms and the rule of law. Until the government suddenly
revoked his visa without explanation in October 2006, he never
experienced any trouble entering the U.S.; in fact, Habib lived in New
York with his family for years while earning a Ph.D. in political
science from the City University of New York.
The October 2006 revocation of Professor Habib's visa prevented him
from attending a series of meetings with representatives from the
National Institutes for Health, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the World Bank, Columbia University and the Gates
Foundation. When he landed in New York, Habib was detained for seven
hours and interrogated about his associations and political views.
Armed guards eventually escorted him to a plane and deported him back
to South Africa. The State Department later revoked the visas of
Professor Habib's wife and two small children, again without
explanation. In May 2007, Habib applied for a new visa that would allow
him to travel to the U.S. to attend speaking engagements.
The ACLU filed this lawsuit in September 2007, charging that the
government's exclusion of Professor Habib amounts to censorship at the
border because it prevents U.S. citizens and residents from hearing
speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU brought this
case on behalf of organizations that have invited Professor Habib to
speak in the U.S., including the American Sociological Association, the
American Association of University Professors, the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Boston Coalition for Palestinian
Rights. Habib has missed several of these events as a result of his
visa denial.
"We are gratified that the court ruled that this case can go forward,"
said Sally T. Hillsman, Executive Officer of the American Sociological
Association. "The government's actions have already prevented Professor
Habib from attending two American Sociological Association conferences.
We believe that the global exchange of knowledge is vital to the
advancement of science and we are hopeful that the today's ruling will
facilitate the free exchange of ideas."
Professor Habib's exclusion is part of a larger pattern. Over the past
few years, numerous foreign scholars, human rights activists and
writers - all vocal critics of U.S. policy - have been barred from the
U.S. without explanation or on vague national security grounds. In
2006, the ACLU filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of U.S. academic
groups and Professor Tariq Ramadan, a widely respected Swiss scholar of
the Muslim world. When the government revoked his visa in 2004,
Professor Ramadan was prevented from assuming a tenured teaching
position at the University of Notre Dame. The ACLU's case is currently
pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit;
Ramadan remains excluded from the U.S. to this day.
Attorneys in the case are Goodman, Jameel Jaffer and Judy Rabinovitz of
the ACLU, and Sarah Wunsch and John Reinstein of the ACLU of
Massachusetts.
More information about ideological exclusion - including a podcast with
Adam Habib, plaintiff statements in support of Habib, and today's
decision - is available at: www.aclu.org/exclusion
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666“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," said Mexico's president.
Amid months of threats by US leaders to attack drug gangs in Mexico, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum slapped back Monday against President Donald Trump's assertion that her country is the "epicenter" of cartel violence by urging him to stem the flow of illegal arms across the border—and domestic demand for illicit narcotics.
“If the flow of illegal weapons from the United States into Mexico were stopped, these groups wouldn’t have access to this type of high-powered weaponry to carry out their criminal activities,” Sheinabum said during her daily press briefing, citing a 2025 US Department of Justice report showing that approximately 3 in 4 guns used by Mexican criminal organizations were illicitly trafficked across the international border.
“There’s a very important aspect that needs to be addressed, which is reducing drug use in the United States,” she added.
In a separate interview with W Radio, Sheinbaum took aim at Trump's Saturday speech at his so-called "Shield of the Americas" summit with mostly right-wing Latin American leaders, during which he called Mexico the "epicenter of cartel violence" and announced a "brand-new military coalition" to tackle drug gangs.
“The epicenter of cartel violence is not Mexico, it’s the United States,” she said. “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 the latest in a series of threats to attack criminal organizations in Mexico—a scenario vehemently opposed by the Mexican government and most Mexicans—Trump said Saturday that allied right-wing Latin American governments have made “a commitment to using lethal military force to destroy the sinister cartels and terrorist networks.”
Mexicans are wary of US interventions, having lost half their national territory to the United States in an 1846-48 war that two US presidents—Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant—said was waged under false pretext to conquer territory and expand slavery. The US also invaded and briefly occupied the port city of Veracruz in 1914 and launched a punitive invasion targeting the revolutionary Pancho Villa's forces in 1916-17.
Sheinbaum's remarks came after Mexican troops, supported by US intelligence, killed Jalisco New Generation Cartel chief Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes—known as “El Mencho”—during a raid last month. The operation sparked a wave of retaliatory cartel violence in some Mexican states.
Mexico has also arrested hundreds of suspected drug traffickers, destroyed numerous secret narcotics labs, and handed over dozens of alleged cartel criminals to US authorities in recent months.
Last year, the US Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against US gun manufacturers, unanimously ruling that Mexico did not plausibly show the companies aided and abetted illegal arms sales.
"Trump's reckless, aimless, and illegal war with Iran is driving our nation into yet another self-inflicted energy and inflation crisis."
While President Donald Trump on Monday made conflicting comments about ending the US-Israeli war on Iran, Sen. Ed Markey expressed "deep concerns about ongoing political interference in what should be nonpartisan offices, including the federal statistical system," and demanded urgent analyses of the bloody assault's economic consequences.
"History is repeating itself," the Massachusetts Democrat, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, began his Monday letter to acting Commissioner of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) William Wiatrowski.
"Crises spurred by American intervention in the Middle East in 1974, 1980, 1990, and 2003 led to price gouging at the gas pump and drains on American wallets, followed by broader economic effects as the price of energy skyrocketed," Markey noted. "President Trump's reckless, aimless, and illegal war with Iran is driving our nation into yet another self-inflicted energy and inflation crisis. American consumers should not be subjected to shakedowns every time they fill up their cars, just to pay for Donald Trump's Middle Eastern crusade."
"Unfortunately, at this moment we are flying blind," he wrote. "The president has neglected to provide coherent or consistent explanations for the scope and goals of his war, either to the Congress or the American people, and we have similarly received no information from the administration on the conflict’s expected duration or anticipated costs."
The senator asked the BLS to "immediately undertake and publish a comprehensive analysis of the likely consumer price impacts" over the next 6-12 months stemming from Trump's war on Iran.
Specifically, by March 24, he requested projections for:
Markey also requested answers about the agency's methodology, stressing that "the integrity and timeliness of BLS's work have never mattered more. American families making decisions about their budgets, their energy use, and their economic future deserve the best available government data and analysis."
The senator recalled Trump's August ouster of then-Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, which "appears to solely have been the result of BLS releasing factual jobs data that was viewed as unflattering to the administration."
"Baseless firings of ethical civil servants and manipulation of data reduce trust in what should be objective economic research grounded in data and evidence, rather than overt partisanship and blind allegiance," he wrote to the agency's new leader.
"In the face of this intimidation," the senator added, "I appreciate Dr. McEntarfer's assertions regarding the quality of your leadership and personal character, and I hope you will continue to ground economic analyses in objectivity and fact—no matter how many times the president inaccurately claims that BLS's statistics are 'rigged' and pressures officials to hide, alter, or otherwise change data to suit his political purposes."
Donald Trump is throwing gasoline on the flames of war in Iran, while at home, Americans are paying higher prices for gasoline at the pump. Take a walk with me to see how prices are skyrocketing as a result of this illegal war.
[image or embed]
— Senator Ed Markey (@markey.senate.gov) March 9, 2026 at 3:27 PM
As Common Dreams reported earlier Monday, Trump's war on Iran is having an obvious economic impact: The prices of both Brent crude oil and WTI crude oil futures soared past $100 per barrel, the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened trading down by more than 600 points, and the Nasdaq dropped by 300 points.
Then, Trump suggested in an interview with CBS News’ Weijia Jiang that the Iran war—which has already killed more than 1,300 Iranians, including hundreds of women and children—is "very complete, pretty much." After his remarks, Reuters reported, "Wall Street stocks clawed their way back from a steep selloff to close higher on Monday, notching a final-hour rebound."
However, Trump then seemed to walk back his comments about the war ending soon. According to the New York Times, during a speech to Republican lawmakers in Florida, he said that "we have won in many ways, but not enough. We go forward more determined than ever to achieve ultimate victory that will end this long-running danger once and for all."
"For a representative democracy like ours to work, citizens must have some confidence that, through... political engagement, they have a fighting chance to turn their priorities into government policy," said an elections expert.
Billionaires exerted an unprecedented amount of influence over the 2024 US federal elections, accounting for almost one-fifth of the nearly $16 billion spent to elect candidates during that cycle, according to a New York Times analysis published Monday.
Just 300 billionaires and their immediate families poured an unprecedented $3 billion into the election, either giving directly to candidates or through political action committees.
These individuals represent just about 0.0087% of the 3.46 million people who donated more than $200 to one or multiple candidates during the election cycle.
And yet, with an average donation of $10 million apiece—equivalent to what 100,000 typical donors would give—they amounted to about 19% of all spending, allowing their interests to be pushed to the center of major races.
The Times highlighted the extraordinary role that billionaire fundraisers played in pushing Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) over the finish line in his bid to unseat the three-term incumbent Democrat, then-Sen. Jon Tester.
Sheehy's long shot campaign was given a boost by Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, who donated $8 million to his super PAC after previously investing $150 million in the candidate's struggling firefighting business, which helped seed his campaign.
As the report explains, Schwarzman "was not the only financial heavyweight in Mr. Sheehy’s corner":
At least 64 billionaires and 37 of their immediate family members donated directly to his campaign, a New York Times analysis found. When also accounting for money that flowed through political committees that support Mr. Sheehy, an analysis shows that billionaires contributed about $47 million in the race that Mr. Sheehy went on to win.
Sheehy's campaign drew support from a who's who of GOP power brokers: Jeff Yass, the founder of the Pennsylvania-based trading firm Susquehanna International Group and a major funder of Trump's massive White House ballroom project; the Uihlein family, which owns Uline shipping and has been central to backing anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, and election-denialist causes; and Florida hedge fund founder Ken Griffin, who spent $12 million to stop an initiative in the state to legalize marijuana.
In installing Sheehy, the ultrawealthy bought themselves "a key ally on tax policies that benefit the wealthy" who "cosponsored a proposal to eliminate the estate tax," the Times reported.
While billionaires still have their talons in both political parties, the Times noted a distinct shift toward Republicans in 2024—for every one dollar given to Democrats, five went to the GOP in the election.
Trump, who openly begged for donations from oil tycoons on the campaign trail, was the single largest beneficiary of this avalanche of spending.
According to a study by Americans for Tax Fairness in October 2024, less than a month before election day, Trump had already received $450 million from 150 billionaire families, 75% of their $600 million total to major candidates, and three times Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris's $143 million.
By the end of the campaign, Trump and his affiliated PACs would amass more than $250 million from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and more than $100 million from both the pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson and the banking heir Timothy Mellon, according to OpenSecrets.
Trump has since appointed more than a dozen billionaires to administration positions, including Musk, who was tasked with eviscerating public spending as the de facto head of the so-called "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE).
But as the Times reported, "Many of those billionaires are not only hoping to reshape the federal government... but to win influence in state legislatures, city councils, school boards, and courthouses."
"Ultrawealthy donors... have helped overhaul political leadership and policy in states across the country, expanding private charter schools, restricting abortion rights, advancing artificial intelligence in government, and blocking laws that would make it harder to evict tenants," the report explained.
As the 2026 midterm cycle begins, another spending blitz is coming. As the Times reported last month, the artificial intelligence industry, crypto industry, the pro-Israel lobby, and Trump's super PAC have each amassed war chests of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to help elect their allies to Congress.
Silicon Valley billionaires, including PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, meanwhile,have collectively dumped tens of millions into stopping a proposal in California for a one-time 5% tax on billionaires in the state, which would replace Medicaid funding slashed by Republicans' massive budget law last year.
The explosion in spending by the ultrarich has come quickly. Where billionaires spent just $16.6 million to influence the 2008 election cycle, that number has steadily ballooned up to $3 billion in 2024, a more than 12,000% increase when adjusted for inflation.
Daniel Weiner, the director of the Brennan Center for Justice's elections and government program, said that the "astonishing stat" was a "legacy of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision" in 2010, which allowed billionaire-funded dark money groups to spend unlimited amounts of cash on political communication advocating for candidates.
"The resulting collapse of campaign finance rules has combined with a resurgence in the sort of high-level self-dealing that was pervasive during the Gilded Age, when bribery and graft were common, and corporations used their wealth to secure monopolies, government subsidies, and other benefits," Weiner wrote for TIME on Monday.
"As in the past, the question now is who will offer Americans a real alternative, including a commitment to stamp out self-dealing in all three branches of the government," he said, recommending a constitutional amendment to restore campaign finance limits tossed aside by the Supreme Court, a ban on spending by government contractors seeking contracts, and bans on congressional stock trading.
"For a representative democracy like ours to work, citizens must have some confidence that, through voting and other forms of political engagement, they have a fighting chance to turn their priorities into government policy," he concluded. "Far too many Americans have lost that faith, and they identify pervasive corruption at the top of our government as a big part of the reason. But cycles of corruption followed by reform are an enduring feature of American history. A new round of ambitious reform is overdue."