

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.

US President Barack Obama's executive order to end the use of torture sets a new course for US counterterrorism policy, Human Rights Watch said today. Obama's decision to issue this order within two days of becoming president signals the high priority the new president places on establishing legal and effective counterterrorism policies.
"For years, the Bush administration claimed, 'We do not torture,' yet approved methods like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and prolonged exposure to cold," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. "President Obama's order rejecting such practices is a major step toward restoring America's moral authority around the world."
The executive order on torture issued today sets a government-wide single standard of humane interrogation, ends the use of secret CIA "black sites" for detention, and mandates that the International Committee of the Red Cross be granted access to all detainees held by the US outside of the ordinary criminal or immigration system.
Under the order, all government agencies are required to apply the Army field manual on interrogation - which has been used by the military since 2006 - without exception. The order also prohibits the reliance on any of the Bush Justice Department's legal opinions on interrogation or detention.
"This executive order makes meaningful the US commitment not to torture detainees," Daskal said. "President Obama has rejected the abusive practices of the last seven-and-a-half years."
The order also creates an interagency task force, led by the attorney general, to evaluate the interrogation practices allowed by the Army field manual, "and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies."
Human Rights Watch said that any new interrogation manual should apply a single standard across all government agencies. The manual should be public and include an exhaustive list of approved techniques that all follow the "Golden Rule" standard.
"Today, Obama made huge strides to put US counterterrorism policies on a legal and effective course," said Daskal. "He should now categorically reject the illogical claim that the standard for humane and effective treatment somehow varies across agency."
The order does not address the legality of what is known as rendition to torture - the practice of illegally transferring a person to a country where he or she faces torture or persecution - and instead leaves review of that practice to the task force as well. The best known case is that of Maher Arar, a dual Canadian-Syrian citizen arrested at New York's John F. Kennedy airport in September 2002, flown to Jordan, and then driven across the border to Syria, where he was detained in a tiny cell for almost a year and tortured repeatedly.
Human Rights Watch said that Obama repeatedly condemned the practice of rendition to torture on the campaign trail, and urged him to put an end to this illegal practice as well.
An executive order on Guantanamo, also issued today, sets January 2010 as a date certain for the prison's final closure, suspends the use of military commissions, and puts in motion a review of the detainees' files.
Another order creates an interagency task force to review detention and interrogation policies going forward. A fourth order mandates a review of the fate of Saleh al-Marri, a Qatari who was on the eve of trial for credit card fraud when he was declared an "enemy combatant" and transferred to a naval brig in South Carolina in 2003. He has been there ever since.
"At the end of the review period, we hope and expect that Obama will either return al-Marri to federal court or order his release," said Daskal.
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.
"I can't recall a government as terrified of peace as the one running Israel," said one analyst.
Trump administration officials reportedly believed that the Israeli government intended to assassinate Iran's top negotiators—including the country's foreign minister—during peace talks with the US in an effort to sabotage diplomatic progress.
The New York Times reported Thursday that "American concerns about the targeting of two particular Iranian officials—Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Parliament—spiked during delicate ceasefire negotiations that began in April." In response, the US "went so far as to ask other countries in the region to warn Iran about the possibility Israel could target the two officials," according to the Times, which cited unnamed current and former American officials.
The US and Israel have killed dozens of top Iranian officials since launching their illegal joint war in late February. But the allied countries reportedly removed Araghchi and Ghalibaf from their target list in late March, opening the possibility of high-level negotiations to end the war.
But Israel remained bent on targeting the negotiators, according to the Times, whose reporting was later corroborated by The Washington Post.
The Times detailed one dramatic incident in April, when Ghalibaf was planning to travel to Pakistan's capital to meet with US Vice President JD Vance:
Pakistani fighter jets escorted the Iranian airplanes carrying a delegation of more than 70 Iranians from the border of Iran to Islamabad and back again when the session was over.
But on the way back to Tehran, an Israeli security threat emerged.
Iran’s security forces notified the plane carrying Mr. Ghalibaf back to Tehran that they had picked up intelligence that Israel planned to attack the plane and that two Israeli fighter jets had entered Iran’s airspace from its western border near Iraq, the two officials said.
Mahdi Mohammadi, a senior adviser for Mr. Ghalibaf, who accompanied him to Islamabad, confirmed this account on his social media page. The plane made an emergency landing in the city of Mashhad, Iran’s closest airport to the Pakistani border, and the Iranian delegation traveled some eight hours by land back to Tehran, Mr. Mohammadi and the two officials said.
The Post reported that "cracks emerged" between the US and Israeli approaches to the war following Israel's assassination of top Iranian national security official Ali Larijani in March.
"They’ve wiped out everybody," Trump told reporters in late March, suggesting Israel's assassination campaign was making it difficult to find potential negotiating partners.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in response to the new reporting that "Israel is a state that, on paper, is a US partner, but in reality is so extreme in its obsession to undermine US diplomacy that it even tries to assassinate those the US engages with in crucial negotiations."
"I can't recall a government as terrified of peace as the one running Israel," Parsi added.
At present, the Israeli government—led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—is endangering tenuous US-Iran peace talks with its continued occupation of and assault on Lebanon, which Iran has highlighted as a key factor in the negotiations.
Visiting occupied southern Lebanon earlier this week, Netanyahu declared to Israeli troops that "our insistence is that we will not leave... until the threat is removed."
Parsi wrote earlier this week that "beyond his long-standing desire to use American force to subjugate Iran to Israeli domination and achieve a regional balance favorable to Israel," Netanyahu "now also has stark political and personal reasons to restart the war" with Iran.
"The [US and Iran's memorandum of understanding] has come at a steep political cost for Netanyahu," wrote Parsi. "His prospects for reelection in October are weaker than they have been in months. Once seen as the Israeli leader uniquely capable of delivering President Trump, he now confronts the prospect that both the war and the ensuing diplomacy will leave Israel in a strategically weaker position—undermining the very case he has made for his leadership."
"And of course," Parsi added, "if he loses the elections, he will likely spend the next few years in jail, as he will lose his immunity as prime minister and face trial over corruption charges."
"Effective populist messaging requires calling out the actors actually making life worse for Americans, and right now, that includes Big Tech and the billionaires behind it," said the head of Data for Progress.
After finding last fall that a majority of voters believe life in the United States is getting worse, and many are "extremely worried" about issues including cost of living, division, authoritarianism, wealth inequality, and the climate crisis, the polling firm Data for Progress decided to have Americans name the "bad actors" most responsible for the country's concerning conditions.
In a pair of surveys conducted last month, Data for Progress asked more than 2,000 Americans to rate the impact of various groups or industries on the US economy—"things like jobs, prices, and economic growth"—as well as American society, or "things like feelings of community, well-being, and social trust."
The top villains, according to respondents, are the nation's nearly 1,000 billionaires, then corporate landlords. Rounding out the top 10 were sports gambling marketplaces, artificial intelligence companies, cryptocurrency firms, payday lenders, the Republican Party, social media giants, the Democratic Party, and for-profit universities.

Respondents were asked to rank each group or industry on a seven-point scale from "extremely negative" to "extremely positive."
Those with the most positive views were small businesses, libraries, regional banks and credit unions, charitable organizations, hospitals, churches, public K-12 schools, online shopping platforms, large grocery companies, big box retailers, and urgent care clinics.
"Within categories, we see some meaningful differences between individual actors—mom-and-pop landlords, small regional banks, public K-12 schools, and renewable energy companies are viewed more positively than their counterparts: corporate landlords, multinational banks, charter K-12 schools, and oil and gas companies," the progressive polling firm noted.
With the November midterm elections just four months away, and Democrats trying to seize control of both chambers of Congress as progressives within the party notch key wins over more moderate candidates, Data for Progress executive director Ryan O'Donnell said that "effective populist messaging requires calling out the actors actually making life worse for Americans, and right now, that includes Big Tech and the billionaires behind it."
"As AI continues to impact people's lives directly—whether it's a data center in their backyard or a job replaced by automation—AI companies and tech billionaires are setting themselves up to be the next big villains in American politics," he added.
Earlier this week, as the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority "gave their blessing for billionaires to buy even more influence over the politicians who represent us," the watchdog Public Citizen released a report about soaring corporate political spending since the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, including $517 million in this cycle so far.
Some of the top villains from Thursday's polling were key contributors to that figure: "Cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting corporations have collectively spent $294 million to influence federal elections in the 2026 midterm cycle."
Blasting the corporate spending as "a disaster for democracy," the report's author, Rick Claypool, said that "if the current, broken campaign finance system remains unchallenged—and corporate spending is allowed to drown out the voices of real voters and real people—these corporate campaigns will keep multiplying, even as voting rights for individual Americans face escalating attacks."
That report and the Data for Progress polling were notably published as more than 250 million people across the United States faced high temperatures tied to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency—and, as Common Dreams reported earlier Thursday, residents of communities with data centers are being asked to make sacrifices due to strained power grids.
Americans are also awaiting the fate of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act—which includes a ban on corporate investors buying single-family homes to rent out—because Republican President Donald Trump has refused to sign it in an effort to bully GOP lawmakers into passing a legislative attack on voting rights.
In a comment that multiple congressional Democrats said shows Trump "does not care" about Americans' cost of living concerns, Trump on Monday called the affordable housing bill a "big yawn" compared with the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America, Act that he wants Congress to send to his desk.
“In November, California voters will at last have a chance to make billionaires pay their fair share," said the coalition behind the proposal.
It's official: The proposed California Billionaire Tax Act, which last week was certified for November's election, has a ballot designation—Proposition 40.
"The people of California now have the opportunity to decide what kind of future they want,” Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) vice president Debru Carthan said on Thursday.
“Proposition 40 asks a simple question: At a time when hospitals are reducing services, working families are being squeezed, and essential services are under attack, should a few hundred billionaires contribute their fair share to protect the state that helped make their extraordinary wealth possible?" Carthan asked. "We believe Californians will answer with a resounding yes."
Drafted by SEIU-UHW, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, to be paid in annual installments of 1% over five years.
It’s official! The billionaire tax will be on the ballot as Prop 40. This November, Vote YES on Prop 40 to ensure billionaires pay their fair share to keep hospitals and ERs open. #BillionaireTaxNow
[image or embed]
— Billionaire Tax Now (@billionairetaxnow.bsky.social) June 30, 2026 at 1:31 PM
The bil would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
Prop 40 supporters include the Teamsters union and progressive groups like the California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
The measure is opposed by Republicans, business groups, the Democratic Party, and even some progressives, including Chan's opponent, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11).
Prop 40's most prominent Democratic opponent is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom critics accuse of trying to bamboozle voters with his recently unveiled plan for a national billionaire income tax. Some observers skeptical of the presumed 2028 presidential hopeful contend that his support for an income tax is rooted in knowledge that very rich people actually have relatively little income when compared with their investments and other assets.
Some progressive groups opposing Prop 40—including the California Teachers Association (CTA) and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California—point out that it is a one-off tax on wealth, not income. CTA is backing a separate ballot measure, the Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act, which would permanently extend Proposition 55, California’s existing high-income-earner tax, which is set to expire in 2030.
In response to Thursday's ballot designation, Billionaire Tax Now said in a statement that "the measure qualified for the ballot after supporters submitted more than 1.6 million signatures from Californians across the state—nearly twice the number required to qualify—making it one of the strongest citizen-led ballot qualification efforts in California history."
"Voters consistently support the billionaire tax by large, double-digit margins," the coalition continued. "For healthcare workers who have dedicated their lives to caring for patients, today’s news isn’t just welcome, it’s critical. With no other viable alternatives proposed by Gov. Newsom, the billionaire tax is the only available option to stop a cascade of hospital and clinic closures spurred by massive federal cuts in HR 1, known as President [Donald] Trump’s so-called 'Big, Beautiful Bill.'"
"In November," Billionaire Tax Now added, "California voters will at last have a chance to make billionaires pay their fair share to help prevent widespread hospital closures, through a commonsense ballot initiative that places a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of approximately 200 billionaires who reside in the Golden State."