April, 27 2009, 09:00am EDT

Guinea: Rein in Soldiers
Armed Robbery, Extortion, and Intimidation Under New Government
DAKAR
Guinean soldiers have been implicated in regular acts of theft and violence against businesspeople and ordinary citizens since a new government took power in a military coup in December 2008, Human Rights Watch said today. The new government should put a stop to these attacks and make certain that the police, gendarmerie, and judiciary carry out independent investigations and prosecute implicated soldiers.
Human Rights Watch collected accounts from victims and witnesses to 19 such incidents, nearly all committed by heavily armed soldiers wearing red berets and traveling in both civilian and official military vehicles without license plates. Soldiers in groups numbering up to 20 have raided offices, shops, warehouses, medical clinics, and homes in broad daylight as well as at night. Soldiers have stolen cars, computers, generators, medicines, jewelry, cash, mobile phones, and large quantities of wholesale and retail merchandise, among other items. Victims include Guineans and foreigners. Many witnesses to these incidents reported that the soldiers appeared to be intoxicated. Many of the victims were also threatened or physically assaulted.
"The coup seems to have opened up a rash of abuses by the military; the impunity enjoyed by these soldiers must come to an end," said Corinne Dufka, senior West Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The coup leaders need to bring the rank and file under control, and ensure those responsible for these abuses are promptly investigated and prosecuted."
Human Rights Watch also documented numerous cases of extortion by soldiers during routine identification checks; the March 31 rape by a soldier of a 15-year-old girl; and several incidents of intimidation of the judiciary, during which small groups of soldiers interrupted judicial proceedings or threatened lawyers in an apparent attempt to influence the outcome of the proceedings.
A group of Guinean military officers calling themselves the National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD) seized power hours after the death on December 22, 2008, of Lansana Conte, Guinea's president for 24 years. The coup leaders, led by a self-proclaimed president, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, quickly suspended the country's constitution, and pledged to hold elections in 2009 and relinquish control to a civilian-led government.
It is unclear at what level the acts documented by Human Rights Watch were either ordered or sanctioned by senior members of the military. In some cases of theft, the attackers announced that they were on an official mission for the CNDD. However, none of the victims was shown any official documentation justifying the actions, such as a search or arrest warrant.
Most of the criminal acts and intimidation of the judiciary documented by Human Rights Watch involved soldiers wearing red berets. Prior to the coup, two divisions within the Guinean security services were routinely issued with red berets: the Autonomous Presidential Security Battalion, or presidential guard (BASP); and the Autonomous Battalion of Airborne Troops (BATA), an elite group of commandos. Since the coup, however, both units and a few other elite battalions have been folded into one unit based in the CNDD's headquarters at the Alpha Yaya Diallo military camp. Human Rights Watch was also told that soldiers of other divisions have been seen wearing red berets.
Since coming to power, the CNDD has led an official crackdown against drug traffickers, criminals involved in the production and sale of counterfeit medicines, and former government officials accused of corrupt practices. Ironically, many of the human rights abuses documented by Human Rights Watch appeared to have been committed within the context of this crackdown.
For example, following the January 2009 detention of several Chinese citizens suspected of making and selling fake antibiotics, several Chinese-owned businesses, including medical clinics and restaurants, and at least one Guinean-run pharmacy were robbed by soldiers who claimed they were looking for counterfeit medicines. None of the military involved in these operations produced a search warrant, nor officially seized suspected counterfeit medicines. In three cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the business owners were arbitrarily detained and whisked away in a military vehicle. They were robbed of their money, mobile phones, and other valuables by the soldiers and then ordered out of the vehicles some kilometers away.
Human Rights Watch documented numerous cases in which soldiers had robbed Guinean citizens living near the homes or businesses of individuals suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. Victims described how they were robbed by soldiers searching their homes or businesses for contraband the military alleged was there. A Guinean lawyer representing six clients seeking damages for forced entry and armed robbery said the soldiers had broken down doors, destroyed furniture, and stolen a generator, seven cars, computers, clothing, and money. The lawyer told Human Rights Watch:
"The fight against drug trafficking is noble, but they're using it as an excuse to act as common criminals - taking vehicles, money, jewelry - what does all this have to do with drugs? They didn't find any of my clients with drugs. In none of these cases is there a legitimate complaint, or at least not one that has been substantiated."
Numerous other cases of breaking and entering were seemingly unrelated to the crackdown. These included attacks against small family-run kiosks during which the contents were emptied into vehicles driven by the military, roadside stores selling construction materials, private homes, primarily of wealthy Guineans, and warehouses holding imported items.
Military personnel interviewed by Human Rights Watch suggested that individuals posing as soldiers were responsible for the criminal acts. However, several factors cast doubt on this claim. First, many witnesses told Human Rights Watch of soldiers committing abuses in broad daylight in public places and dressed in full military uniform, some with bars indicating rank up to the level of sergeant. Second, in two cases, businessmen whose cars were stolen at gunpoint by soldiers later saw their cars being driven by men in military uniform; in one case, the car was seen driven in and out of a military camp in Conakry. Third, several victims told Human Rights Watch that they recognized individual soldiers whom they knew to be members of the military. Fourth, the soldiers committing many crimes operated in groups of 10 or more, and circulated in small convoys of two or more vehicles.
Under Guinean law, it is the gendarmerie and police who are mandated to investigate crimes, whether the alleged perpetrators are civilians or members of the military. However, victims consistently told Human Rights Watch that since the coup, the military has increasingly taken over some police tasks, including criminal investigation. The owners of five businesses robbed at around the same time on February 16 filed a police report, but were told by the police that since the coup, they were no longer "authorized by the military to conduct investigations." The business owners were told to file a complaint directly with the military.
When Human Rights Watch asked police officers how they were responding to a wave of crimes apparently perpetrated by soldiers in one Conakry suburb, the officers said that the military had "forbidden" them to conduct patrols and investigations; one police officer described how a civilian suspect he had detained for questioning in connection with a burglary at the station was removed from police custody and put into a military vehicle for questioning at a military camp. Another victim told Human Rights Watch that after he complained to the police, they told him that if he wanted action he would need to either file a complaint with the military or denounce it on the radio. Yet another victim filed a complaint at the local police station and later at the head office of the judicial police in charge of investigating crimes, which is under the authority of the prosecutor. Both referred her to the military.
Five victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch had lodged complaints with military authorities in which they had asked for an official investigation into what they claimed were criminal acts by soldiers. No follow-up investigation has been conducted in any of these cases. One victim visited the military camp five times asking for an investigation, and lamented, "I've been to the [military] camp and made many follow-up calls, but not once heard back. The case is going nowhere."
The only case documented by Human Rights Watch where there had been a response by the military involved the rape of the 15-year-old girl. According to family members and community leaders, the accused soldier's superior visited the family and arranged to settle the case outside of court. The soldier was detained for several days in the military camp. The family decided not to file a police report after the military agreed to pay the girl's medical costs.
Under article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the government of Guinea is under the obligation to protect the right to property, which includes ensuring that state officials (including the military) do not seize property arbitrarily and without compensation.
"The military's duty is to protect and safeguard the Guinean people, not take advantage of them. The lawlessness seen in these abuses is without excuse," said Dufka. "The military should end the abuses and allow the police, gendarmerie, and judiciary to uphold the rule of law."
Accounts from victims and witnesses of abuses by the Guinean military in Conakry
Abuses committed under the pretext of the crackdown on drug trafficking, counterfeit medicines, and corruption:
The Guinean owner and manager of a transport company described the theft of his car and other items on February 15 by a dozen uniformed soldiers ostensibly searching for drugs. He said the soldiers, who smelled of alcohol, were heavily armed, and several were draped with bandoliers:
"They arrived in a Nissan pickup truck without license plates. They told me they were there on a mission ordered by the CNDD to recover 4x4 trucks that I was hiding for the leader of a Guinean opposition party. Some of the Red Berets accused me of hiding drugs and weapons. I told them I am not a military, so I don't have weapons, but they searched the warehouse and ransacked my secretary's office and mine. I am not hiding anything. They did not tell me their names, but I noticed that they all addressed one of them with 'Excellence.' I asked for a mission order, but they said that they didn't have one, that mission orders are nonsense. They said, 'Did you not see what kind of vehicle we came in?' The military threatened my employees and told them to lie down on the floor, face down. They were told, 'You will not get out of here alive' and 'Nothing will leave this place.' They did not find any drugs or weapons, but they took two computers, my own car, and a large amount of cash. Several people have told me they've seen my car being driven around town by an army man."
A Guinean woman who resides next door to a group of Nigerians allegedly suspected of involvement in drug trafficking was robbed twice by soldiers. The first time they came, they claimed to be looking for Nigerians. She described the incidents that took place on February 25 and March 13:
"The first night, they woke me up when they climbed the walls of my compound. They asked me if there were any Nigerians hidden and searched my house. They did not have a search warrant. They apologized and left. I later noticed my mobile phone was missing. Then on March 13, eight heavily armed Red Berets returned to the residence at 10 p.m. I wasn't there, but my aunt told me what happened. The military threatened to shoot if my aunt did not open the door, so she let them in. When my aunt asked why they were there after not finding anything the first time, they yelled at her to shut up. They took a black backpack with a laptop, 3 million Guinean francs [about US$600], and jewelry. This time, it was clearly not a mistake like the first time they came. Because of these visits, I decided to move out of my house."
The owner of a medical clinic raided by soldiers at 1 p.m. on January 26 described what happened during an attack on his clinic:
"My brother and I are Chinese medical doctors and run a clinic in Conakry. The military came in a gray truck and three motorcycles. There were eight of them and they all wore red berets. Three had rifles and all were in camouflage uniform. They came in saying they were looking for fake medicine, but they went through the house and stole many things, including two diagnostic machines, two mobile phones, 3 million FG [Guinean francs, about US$600], US$3,000, a TV and DVD [player], and bags full of all our clothing. They even went into the freezer and stole the meat we had there! They also stole [my brother's] car - we have yet to see it. They didn't take any medicines; they came to steal. [My brother] was taken in the car by the military, like they were going to arrest him, but they then let him go - stopped the car and told him to get out. Many people from the neighborhood used to come into the clinic, but for the moment we've closed."
A restaurant owner who was robbed in the middle of the day in late January described what happened:
"At about 3 p.m., 10 soldiers came to the restaurant; they were dressed in soldier uniforms and several had guns. As they entered, they kicked at our door, pointed their guns at me and hit me in the stomach. They said they were looking for fake medicines - that it was us the Chinese selling them. I told them this was a Chinese restaurant! What do we have to do with medicines? I even told them it's OK to check, knowing they wouldn't find any of it here. They stole several phones, took two cartons of beer and our personal things, including our clothes. They were very aggressive."
A Guinean businessman whose pharmacy was robbed by 10 soldiers on January 28 described the events to Human Rights Watch:
"At 2 p.m., I was in my pharmacy when 10 Red Berets burst into the place saying they wanted to check if the medicines in my pharmacy were fake. They pretended to look at the medicines, but then went straight for the small safe I have in the corner. They broke it open and stole the 50 million FG [about US$10,000] we had there. They came in a green military pickup without license plates. After stealing the money, they took me along with them, as if to make it look like it was me who'd done something wrong. They stuffed me in the car, but let me go a few kilometers down the road. They wanted to make it look like a proper operation but they just wanted to steal the money - they didn't even take any medicine with them!"
Abuses against judges and lawyers
Human Rights Watch spoke with a judge in Conakry who described an attempt by six soldiers to intimidate him into changing a judicial decision he had made in a civil dispute involving two businesswomen, one of whom had a family member in the military. The incident took place on February 17:
"On the day in question, I was to hand over the official decision in a civil case involving two businesswomen. Suddenly, six soldiers entered my courtroom. To me, it seemed like the woman whose relative was a soldier had organized the red berets to intervene on her behalf. They were armed, uniformed, and wore red berets. I said, 'You have nothing to do with this process - I have rendered a judicial decision which is entirely independent of the military!' They got very angry and one of them responded, 'Things have changed; you must change this decision.' They threatened to see that I was removed from power - they said they are the ones in power now. I stood my ground and they eventually left."
A lawyer described how on February 23, two armed soldiers apparently acting on behalf of a plaintiff - a retired general - attempted to intimidate the judge presiding over the case:
"That day I was in court on behalf of an indigent client. Being heard at the same time was a civil case - a dispute over money - between a retired general and another man. The general's lawyer was pushing for the case to be decided that day, but the other man's lawyer was pushing for a postponement on account of a technicality - that the second man had not been formally summoned to appear. Shortly thereafter, two armed soldiers came into the courtroom. They paraded with their long guns up and down the courtroom for 10-15 minutes. When the man's lawyer saw this, he abandoned the courtroom and I took over. The soldiers didn't point their gun directly at the judge, but their presence was really frightening for everyone. It was obvious the judge was afraid, but in the end, the judge held his ground and postponed the case. When the general heard this, he started insulting and yelling at the judge and me! He said, 'If you do this, you will see what we'll do.' I was extremely frightened. When we went outside the court, I saw about five to seven soldiers, all with red berets, inside a vehicle without license plates."
General criminal acts by members of the military
The unarmed security guard for the residence of a wealthy Guinean businessman described a robbery by about 10 soldiers on March 13:
"I was sitting outside with a few friends. It was around 9 p.m. We heard a car pull up, then around 10 of them - all wearing camouflage, red berets, and with long guns - burst through the compound door. They came in a white truck that they parked outside our gate - it did not have number plates. One of them had one bar on his uniform - I believe he is a sergeant; and I recognized another one - I'd seen him around Conakry in uniform. They entered pointing their guns at us; one of them yelled at the owner's wife to give him the keys to their car. She told them her husband wasn't there and that he had the keys to the car. They got angry and went into the house to look for the key. They found her purse, searched through it and eventually found the key. As one of them was getting in the car, the others were looking for things to steal. They stole two computers, three telephones, a 2 KVA generator, jewelry, and money - around 500,000 CFA [US$1000]. They were drinking - I could smell alcohol on their breath."
A Guinean businessman described the theft by a group of soldiers of 50 cartons of red wine he had recently imported from Europe. He explained how a few days after the theft, he saw and photographed the stolen goods being sold in a shop just outside the Alpha Yaya Diallo military camp:
"On January 8 at around 6 p.m., 10 Red Berets - all uniformed and with arms - arrived at my house in a pickup truck. They entered my house and asked my brother for the key to the container. He didn't want to give it to them, but they beat him up and eventually he gave them the key. They then stole all 50 cartons of the wine. Earlier, I'd approached a store just outside Alpha Yaya camp and asked them if they'd like to sell my wine; it [the store] is owned by a gendarme. I left a sample bottle for them to try. I had a feeling the stolen wine was there and after the robbery, I went there and yes, the wine was in that shop! I took pictures of my wine, which I thought could be used as evidence. I asked the people where they'd gotten the wine and they said the military had come a few days before asking if we wanted to buy the wine. I took the pictures to the police and to a gendarme, who gave me a paper that authorized me to retake possession of the wine, but the second time I went to the shop, the wine was all gone. I've gone to the military several times to sort out this problem, but as of yet have had no luck."
Recommendations
Human Rights Watch urged the government of Guinea to take the following actions:
- Publicly acknowledge and condemn the human rights abuses - including armed robbery, extortion, rape, and other violence - committed since the December 2008 coup by members of the military.
- Issue clear public instructions to all military personnel to desist from committing abuses and to ensure that their actions do not exceed their mandate.
- Call for the investigation by legally relevant authorities of all soldiers alleged to have perpetrated human rights abuses. Call for prosecution of those against whom there is sufficient evidence in accordance with international fair trial standards.
- Encourage the work of institutions legally mandated to conduct criminal investigations and prosecutions - the police, gendarmerie, and judiciary.
- Ensure that victims of armed robbery, extortion, rape, and other abuses by members of the military are adequately and speedily compensated.
To the International Contact Group on Guinea:
- Express its concern about ongoing human rights abuses and the lack of accountability by members of the Guinean security services.
- Urge government leaders to take concrete action to bring to an end abuses by the Guinean military.
- Urge government leaders to hold accountable in accordance with international standards of fair trial soldiers against whom there is sufficient evidence of abuse.
- Encourage the work of rule-of-law institutions - including the police, gendarmerie, and judiciary - and their functioning in accordance with international fair trial standards.
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.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Pharma Deals Called Distraction From 'Failed Plan to Lower US Drug Prices'
"Lasting relief requires transparent, enforceable measures that lower drug prices and hold big drug companies accountable," said one critic.
Aug 31, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Monday announced nine more agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers intended to lower prescription drug prices nationwide, bringing the total to 26, but patient advocates responded skeptically.
The administration previously struck "most favored nation" (MFN) deals with 17 large drug manufacturers. The new ones with midsized companies—Alcon, Astellas Pharma, BeOne Medicines, BridgeBio, CSL, Kyowa Kirin, Sun Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and UCB—mean that 89% of the branded drug market is subject to an agreement, according to a White House fact sheet.
"It has been nearly a year since Trump announced his first secret MFN deal with Pfizer, and he has almost nothing to show for it," Peter Maybarduk, Access to Medicines director at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a Monday statement. "The new deals are a distraction from the administration's failed plan to lower US drug prices to the levels paid in other wealthy countries."
Earlier this month, Public Citizen released an analysis of Trump's policies to cut drug costs, including MFN deals. Maybarduk said at the time that "Trump has three kinds of drug pricing policy: fake, exaggerated, and not-real-yet, probably-won't-happen."
Following Monday's agreements, the campaigner argued that "a more serious approach would build international reference pricing into Medicare drug price negotiation. Instead, Trump is cozying up to Big Pharma and keeping American drug prices high."
"There still is no evidence that any pharma company has followed through on prior commitments to the Trump administration to launch new drugs at MFN price points," he explained. "Uptake of TrumpRx, which may cause consumers to overpay on medicines, has been lackluster."
TrumpRx is a government-operated website that helps patients find discounted prices and coupons for certain medications—and, as the Public Citizen analysis highlighted, the only part of the president's MFN program that is fully underway.
"The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not announced any state participants in a pilot to test MFN-based prices in Medicaid," Maybarduk noted. "And CMS has failed to issue final rules to test MFN-pricing in Medicare, while simultaneously excluding almost all drug companies from these programs."
Public Citizen said it plans to immediately file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the texts of these "farce" deals—a pledge that came just days after US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) highlighted that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has failed to publicize initial 17 agreements, despite agreeing to do so during an April hearing.
Like Public Citizen, the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs was critical of the new deals, with CEO Merith Basey pointing out that "for decades, drug companies have been charging Americans at least four times more for brand-name medicines than people in other high-income nations."
"Patients need systemic reforms that will lower drug prices, rather than short-term, voluntary agreements whose terms remain secret," she asserted. "The deals announced today focus on Medicaid, where steep discounts already exist, and even then, states can choose whether to participate. Lasting relief requires transparent, enforceable measures that lower drug prices and hold big drug companies accountable."
As the industry trade publication Fierce Pharma reported, the large companies behind the initial deals "made a combination of drug pricing commitments and domestic investment pledges to win temporary immunity from the Trump administration's drug import tariffs," and "individual company press releases Monday, like UCB's, suggest that tariff immunity is still very much part of the MFN equation."
Although Trump's tried taking credit for a recent drop in medication costs, with the White House X account claiming Monday that he's "leveled the playing field, and made prescription drugs more affordable than ever for the American people," as Common Dreams reported earlier this month, experts have cited the Biden administration's policy allowing Medicare to directly negotiate some prices.
As Trump has touted his MFN deals, critics of the United States' for-profit healthcare system have in recent months renewed calls for shifting to Medicare for All—which new research shows would save over 114,000 lives and $1 trillion each year—and other healthcare reforms, including breaking up industry giants, capping drug prices, strengthening antitrust enforcement, and expanding the sector's workforce.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Split Supreme Court Allows Trump Ballroom Construction That Chief Justice Calls 'Likely Unlawful'
"The White House belongs to the people, but Trump consistently acts like it belongs to him alone," said one watchdog, calling out the court's majority for allowing construction on "this illegal project."
Aug 31, 2026
US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently let construction on President Donald Trump's White House ballroom continue in a temporary solo decision, but on Monday he sided with the three liberals against the five right-wingers who allowed the project to proceed during a legal battle.
The Trump administration sought intervention from the nation's top court after the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a district judge's ruling that halted above-ground construction but permitted work on an underground bunker and other "national security facilities." Roberts then paused the appellate decision but also sought a review from all justices.
The five justices behind the majority's Monday decision, including Trump's three appointees, concluded the administration "is likely to prevail" in showing that the National Trust for Historic Preservation—which is challenging parts of the widely contested project that's already destroyed the East Wing of the White House—lacks standing.
"This court has not found standing in circumstances like these before. To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury under Article III," the majority wrote, referring to the portion of the US Constitution that addresses the judicial system.
"The government has also established that it will likely suffer irreparable harm from the district court's injunction and that the balance of the equities tips in its favor," the majority added in its unsigned order, which signaled that the merits of the case should continue to be examined by lower courts.
Meanwhile, writing for himself and the liberal justices, Roberts said that the construction "is likely unlawful," given that Congress has not passed legislation authorizing the project, and pointed to the trust's executive committee member Alison K. Hoagland.
"As a Capitol Hill resident, Hoagland regularly visits the White House to take in the historic building's beauty and to appreciate its symbolism. By overshadowing the traditional White House, Hoagland explains, the new ballroom will detract from the building's
message of republican simplicity and thereby worsen her viewing experience," he wrote. "Hoagland's injury suffices for standing."
The high court's majority "misconceives the plaintiff's injury, allowing the executive's likely infringement of the legislature's power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue," Roberts added. "Today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers."
The president cheered the majority's decision, writing on his Truth Social platform:
I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat. We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C. When completed in the Summer of 2028, the magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex will be something that the entire Country is very proud of. The Project, despite the baseless lawsuit brought by the so-called National Trust for Historic Preservation of the United States, which is not in any way affiliated with the United States Government, is under budget and ahead of schedule. The Ballroom is totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift — At no cost to the American Taxpayer.
Critics continued to condemn the project after the decision, with US Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) stressing on Bluesky that "the president's vanity project does nothing to benefit anyone but Donald J. Trump himself."
"Not a penny to lower your costs," the senator reminded Americans. "This has been a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars from the start."
Jon Golinger, democracy advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "in light of this disappointing decision by the court, the next Congress must make investigating Trump's illegal ballroom project and everyone involved with funding and facilitating it a top priority."
Both chambers of Congress are narrowly controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and some GOP lawmakers even tried to boost the project. However, Democrats are aiming to reclaim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives in the November midterm elections—and if they succeed, they could probe the ballroom and various other concerns from his second presidency.
"Trump suffers from a crippling case of 'palace-envy' and who knows what national treasure he'll demolish next to try to build himself another gold-plated monument," warned Golinger. "For now, we will keep digging into and exposing Trump's ballroom funding schemes, through which he raked in millions from corporations with billions in government contracts and anonymous donors with unknown agendas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'There Is Absolutely No Justification': Bessent, Rubio Urged to End Sanctions Impacting Iranian Students
"There is no world in which the US preventing young Iranians from taking English proficiency tests leads to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and yet that appears to be the rationale for this cruel new policy.”
Aug 31, 2026
A leading grassroots advocacy group for the rights of Iranian Americans called on the Trump administration Monday to rescind the recent message it sent when it announced new sanctions against ordinary Iranians—"that the US is at war with the Iranian people"—and to ensure that "humanitarian, educational, and cultural" entities are exempt from the sanctions.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) wrote to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, warning of the "escalating harm caused by the imminent suspension of long-standing general licenses that had enabled American universities, educational testing and assessment organizations, and other entities to provide educational opportunities to Iranian nationals."
The group appealed to Bessent and Rubio following reports that the Education Testing Service, which administers the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), has suspended testing in Iran following the sanctions. The Duolingo English Test, developed by the language course platform Duolingo, has also been made unavailable in Iran and for students with Iranian IDs.
Despite the fact that President Donald Trump's new sanctions, called "Operation Economic Outcast," are purported to target the Iranian government as it restricts access to the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the US-Israeli war against Iran, the policy changes have "no conceivable impact on the Iranian government," wrote NIAC president Jamal Abdi.
"Instead, it is already being felt by American entities and Iranian students," Abdi wrote. "Iranian students have been barred from taking key exams required for academic studies by US organizations."
Abdi called on the administration to immediately reinstate 31 CFR § 560.544, which authorizes "certain educational activities by US persons in third countries," and Iran General License G, which authorizes educational exchanges.
“The Trump administration would be wise to bolster the limited educational, humanitarian, and cultural channels that exist between ordinary Iranians and the United States, rather than send a message that the US is at war with the Iranian people.”
"For years, Iran was among the nations with the highest demand for TOEFL examinations," he wrote. "Regrettably, the severing of these key global educational testing platforms will create major hurdles for Iranian nationals pursuing international education."
The administration's policy changes leave Iranian students facing "overlapping barriers to studying in the United States: a travel ban preventing Iranians from securing US visas, alongside sanctions restricting access to English proficiency exams, educational services, and enrollment in US universities," said NIAC.
“There is no world in which the US preventing young Iranians from taking English proficiency tests leads to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and yet that appears to be the rationale for this cruel new policy,” said Abdi in a statement. “The Trump administration would be wise to bolster the limited educational, humanitarian, and cultural channels that exist between ordinary Iranians and the United States, rather than send a message that the US is at war with the Iranian people.”
Abdi also urged Bessent and Rubio to reverse the suspension of licenses for Iranian Americans to send remittances to family members in Iran and those that allow sports matches between Iran and the US. The latter suspension, he wrote, "carries significant risk of complicating the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles and reflects poorly on the US as a host nation while yielding no discernible benefit."
The exemptions that have been suspended by the White House, said Abdi, "were first established over a decade ago to resolve harmful unintended consequences of US sanctions, such as cutting ordinary Iranians off from academic opportunities."
"Now, it appears that these have become very much intended consequences aimed at the Iranian people, which is a self-defeating message for the US to send to Iranians and the world,” Abdi continued. “There is absolutely no justification for this."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawmakers, Journalists Rip CBS News Over 'Insane, Blatantly Racist Headline' on Abdul El-Sayed
"The Bari Weiss project... is to revive post-9/11 Islamophobia in mainstream politics," said one critic.
Aug 31, 2026
Several Democratic lawmakers on Monday slammed CBS News for publishing a news analysis linking Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The CBS story claimed that El-Sayed "may be facing the risk of renewed scrutiny and fresh political attack" ahead of the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which killed over 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
The piece cited two deleted El-Sayed social media posts to make its case: One in which he called on Americans to unite in a common purpose to combat the Covid-19 pandemic just as they came together after the 2001 attacks, and another where he drew attention not just to the victims who died on 9/11, but to all the people who died afterward as a result of the US War on Terror.
El-Sayed defended the latter post in an interview with CBS News.
"My point is just to say that what happened on 9/11 is a disaster," El-Sayed said. "It was a terrible attack on our country and our responsibility is also to think about how do we build an America where we are protecting our servicemen and women from being asked to fight wars we have no business fighting that ultimately end up doing harm to people. And we're seeing that right now."
Critics slammed the CBS analysis, which they said unfairly tarred El-Sayed—a Muslim and son of Egyptian immigrants who has repeatedly faced Islamophobic and racist attacks—as a terrorist sympathizer even as he has consistently denounced the 9/11 attacks.
"What an insane, blatantly racist headline," wrote Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) in a social media post. "Unreal."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) also slammed the CBS story as "racist," adding that "targeting Abdul like this is intentional and coordinated."
The Nation's Jeet Heer argued that the CBS News piece reflected the change in management the network has undergone ever since owner David Ellison put Bari Weiss in charge of it.
"To be clear the Bari Weiss project... is to revive post-9/11 Islamophobia in mainstream politics," wrote Heer. "These are profoundly illiberal people, who should be combated not just by the left and progressives but anyone committed to civil equality."
Responding to the network's post promoting the article on the platform X, Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan asked CBS News if it ever considered that "it's super offensive and disgusting and Islamophobic to do a tweet about the potential first-ever Muslim Democratic senator which begins by referencing 9/11?"
Adam Johnson, host of the Citations Needed podcast, highlighted the El-Sayed social media posts flagged by CBS and argued that the network is trying "to scandalize perfectly sensible and humane comments."
Progressive commentator Wajahat Ali said that he's seen a lot of mainstream media articles attacking El-Sayed, but concluded that "this one takes the cake for being so exquisitely racist."
According to Zeteo media columnist Justin Baragona, one anonymous CBS News staffer is also raising concerns about the El-Sayed story, which they called "trash" and "horribly Islamophobic."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Court Lets US Abortion Pill Access Continue—Until Trump FDA Finishes Review Condemned as 'Sham'
A federal judge opted not to rule on a lawsuit seeking to overturn FDA approval of mifepristone until the FDA completes a review that has been described as a political pretext to restrict abortion.
Aug 31, 2026
Access to the abortion drug mifepristone will remain unchanged in the US for now after a federal district judge on Sunday paused a lawsuit aimed at overturning the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the medication. But he left the door open for the Trump administration to restrict access to the drug.
US District Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas refused the manufacturer's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Texas and Florida seeking to overturn FDA approval of mifepristone altogether. But the judge accepted the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) motion to stay the case until December 1, or until the FDA completes a "review" of the drug that it will use to determine whether access to it should be tightened.
That FDA review, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been criticized as a politicized effort to create a pretext for the anti-abortion Trump administration to restrict abortion pill access, including in states where the procedure is legal.
Nearly 700,000 people use mifepristone per year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which has found it to be the method for the majority of US abortions in recent years.
Receiving it through the mail via out-of-state telehealth providers has become a go-to method for those in states with bans on terminating a pregnancy. The drug has been used by around 7.5 million people since it was first approved in 2000.
The FDA's own current webpage states that its periodic reviews of mifepristone have “not identified any new safety concerns” and that the drug is safe when used as directed. Prior FDA reviews have found that hospitalization occurs in only 0.04-0.6% of all medication abortions.
Despite the lack of any clearly identified risk, the Trump FDA has said that the ongoing review could lead to “substantive changes" to the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for the drug, leading some to argue that it is a "sham" meant to create a scientific justification for the administration's goal of restricting abortion.
"Ensuring legal access to mifepristone in the long term is vital to women’s healthcare and reproductive freedom," said Evan Masingill, the CEO of GenBioPro, which manufactures generic mifepristone and sued to defend the FDA's approval of its product.
"We expect the FDA’s review of mifepristone to not contradict the decision they made in 2023 that reaffirmed our product is safe and effective," Masingill said.
The US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that lower courts could not block the FDA's 2023 decision, under the Biden administration, to lift in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone following the overturning of Roe v. Wade the previous year. The in-person requirement was lifted following a 2021 FDA review that deemed the rules unnecessary.
The Supreme Court has previously blocked individual anti-abortion doctors from bringing lawsuits against the FDA, ruling that they did not have standing to claim personal injury.
But Texas and Florida have sought to get around this by suing as states, and so far, courts have allowed them to do so. The conservative 5th Circuit accepted a similar argument from Louisiana earlier this year.
However, O'Connor—an appointee of former President George W. Bush—did not rule on the merits of whether the states' claims against the FDA were correct.
But even if that lawsuit fails, the Trump administration could dramatically curtail access to mifepristone by reinstating in-person dispensing requirements, placing new limits on which pharmacies can dispense the drug, and adding new requirements for prescribers and patients.
“The FDA has affirmed time and again that mifepristone is safe and effective,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the drugmaker. “Far-right, anti-science extremists may be pressuring the Trump-Vance administration to reach a different, ideologically-driven outcome, but we will continue to represent our clients to hold the FDA to the same science-based standards it has long applied to protect people’s ability to access effective, evidence-based healthcare, including protecting access to medication abortion.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Ocean Temperatures Rise, Coral Reefs Face Closing Window for Recovery From Climate Damage
Persistent marine heatwaves are causing a "staircase of decline that becomes harder to reverse with every bleaching event," said one scientist.
Aug 31, 2026
The destruction of coral reef cover, cataloged in the largest global assessment of the reefs ever completed, was distressing to scientists, with the world's reefs declining by nearly 10% between 2020-24, compared with 1980-2009.
The authors of the report released Monday by Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), however, emphasized that coral bleaching events driven by ocean heating was not the most worrisome finding of the analysis—but rather, the fact oceans have become so warm that stressed reefs have less and less time to recover.
Historically, coral bleaching events—in which changes in conditions such as ocean temperatures and pollution cause coral to expel its symbiotic algae and become completely white and more vulnerable to mortality—have taken place about once in a decade, giving the reefs years to recover.
Now, the reefs are “lucky to get five or six years,” as water temperatures are remaining high and making it more difficult to regain hard coral cover, explained Manuel González Rivero of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the lead author of the report, titled “Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2025.”
“After decades of studying coral reefs, what concerns me most isn’t the current loss of hard coral cover; it’s that we’re steadily eroding the conditions they need to recover,” said González Rivero. “Climate change is driving more frequent and severe marine heatwaves, but local pressures such as poor water quality, overfishing, and coastal development are making reefs even less able to withstand them."
The study compiled 21.1 million observations from 36,886 reef sites across 124 countries and territories, drawing on more than 40 years of data from across the globe.
But scientists cautioned that because the research did not include the most recent and intense global bleaching event, which lasted from 2023-25, it may not provide a full picture of the danger coral reefs are in—as well as the coastal communities they help protect and the thousands of marine species they serve as a habitat for.
Carlos Duarte, a marine scientist at the Coral Research and Development Accelerator Platform, told The New York Times that this year's El Niño warming trend is likely to cause another global bleaching event next year, which reefs will likely struggle to recover from as ocean temperatures have been recorded as getting hotter and hotter in recent years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected that the Earth will lose 70-90% of its coral reef cover if the planet gets 1.5°C hotter than its preindustrial level.
"For many reefs affected by the unprecedented marine heatwaves in 2024, this year’s El Niño likely means they’ll have had little more than a year to begin recovering before being hit again," said González Rivero. "This is creating a staircase of decline that becomes harder to reverse with every bleaching event.“
The report emphasizes that reefs have maintained their ability to regain hard coral cover "when disturbances are reduced and sufficient recovery time is available," such as after the third major global coral bleaching event since 1998, which took place from 2016-17 and saw a 6.6% decline in coral.
After the event, scientists observed a "relative increase of approximately 6% between 2017 and 2019," said the GCRMN.
"That recovery matters because the benefits coral reefs provide extend far beyond the reef itself. Coral reefs cover less than 0.2% of the ocean floor," said the organization. "Yet, they support at least 25% of all marine species and underpin food security, livelihoods, coastal protection, tourism, and cultural heritage of close to one billion people worldwide."
Scientists including Terry Hughes, a former director of coral reef studies at James Cook University in Australia, who was not involved in the analysis, emphasized that reducing planet-heating emissions is the top solution to the crisis of coral reef recovery, as the pollution from fossil fuel extraction is linked to increasingly hot oceans.
Allowing coral reefs to recover from bleaching events "really depends on how much more greenhouse gases go into the atmosphere and the amount of warming that causes," Hughes told the Times, while local solutions including reducing water pollution are also crucial for maintaining reef health.
David Obura, chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, expressed hope that the report will "shake us out of our persistent inertia."
The long-term monitoring by GCRMN, said Obura, "tracks not just the pulse of coral reefs, but of our planet too. It shows which regions are under the greatest pressure, that actions to date have not been sufficient, and warns where reefs will be under increasing threat in years to come."
"We must act now to halt this decline and invest in solutions that reduce pressures and build resilience, while sustaining the monitoring that turns good intentions into effective policy," he said. "The 40 years of data in this report provide a strident warning that delayed action risks locking in irreversible losses—not just to reefs, but also to the economies and people that depend on them.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Hammered Over Iran War That Drove Gas Prices Above $4 Per Gallon Every Day in August for First Time Ever
"Donald Trump started a deadly and costly war with Iran that has driven gas prices through the roof, and Americans are breaking the bank to fill up at the pump."
Aug 31, 2026
President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran has achieved a significant milestone, but it's not one that many US voters will likely appreciate.
Data published by the American Automobile Association (AAA) on Monday show that the average price for gas in the US now stands at $4.08 per gallon, or $0.90 per gallon more than the average price one year ago.
Gas prices typically decline throughout summer months, but the spike in oil prices caused by the Iran War has kept prices elevated in August beyond anything seen in prior years.
"For the first time ever, the national average in August has been above $4 per gallon every day," explained AAA. "This month is poised to set a new record as the most expensive August at the pump, surpassing the previous August record set in 2022."
Kendall Witmer, rapid response director for the Democratic National Committee, slammed Trump in a Monday statement where she accused the president of making policy to benefit his fossil fuel industry donors while leaving working-class Americans holding the bag.
"Donald Trump started a deadly and costly war with Iran that has driven gas prices through the roof, and Americans are breaking the bank to fill up at the pump," said Witmer. "Meanwhile, Trump and Big Oil executives who donated to his campaign are profiting off his war, cashing in at the expense of hardworking Americans. In Trump’s world, the rich and powerful come first, while everyday Americans get left in the dust."
High gas prices have become a major political headache for Trump, as a recent analysis estimated that Americans have paid $71.5 billion more to fill up their cars thanks to the president's war.
Meanwhile, a mandated ethics filing released last week shows Trump made more than 1,000 stock transactions in June, including thousands of dollars invested in energy companies profiting off of his war.
CNBC reported on Monday that the president is scheduled to meet with US refiners and fuel distributors as part of an effort to lower gas prices ahead of the midterm elections in November.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Call for Cancellation of $17 Million Contract to Equip ICE Agents With Electric Shock Gloves
"Introducing low-visibility electric shock weapons into our immigration enforcement system is an unacceptable escalation."
Aug 31, 2026
A group of House Democrats on Monday demanded the immediate cancellation of a nearly $17 million federal contract to provide electric shock gloves to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, who have been unleashed on American cities under the second Trump administration and enabled to commit horrific—and, in some cases, deadly—abuses against undocumented immigrants and American citizens.
The Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois, expressed "profound alarm" over the contract in a new letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin, whose agency oversees ICE. The letter's 50 signatories wrote that the devices, known as Generated Low Output Voltage Emitters (GLOVE), are "designed to inflict severe pain without leaving physical evidence or visible optics," making them "a uniquely dangerous tool for unaccountable abuse."
"We demand the immediate cancellation of this contract and a total ban on the deployment of these abusive devices across all immigration enforcement and detention operations," the lawmakers continued. "The rollout of these weapons to thousands of field agents across ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations contributes to a DHS environment already under widespread scrutiny for state-sanctioned abuse, torture, and arbitrary cruelty."
The Democrats sent their letter days after ICE granted a $16.7 million no-bid contract to the Kentucky-based firm Compliant Technologies for 6,000 pairs of electric shock gloves, ignoring the protests of lawmakers and human rights groups.
The ACLU, Physicians for Human Rights, and the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) are among the advocacy organizations that have decried ICE plans to equip its agents with the gloves. CVT has described the devices as "inherently abusive equipment that facilitates torture."
In their Monday letter, the group of House Democrats warned that the "dangers of these 'less-lethal' weapons are not theoretical," pointing to the case of a 43-year-old man in Kentucky who died after corrections officers shocked him dozens of times with electric gloves.
More than 50 people have died in ICE custody during President Donald Trump's second term.
"This administration continues to outfit ICE and [Customs and Border Protection] with the tools of an occupying paramilitary force—despite widespread human rights violations carried out by its agents during immigration enforcement actions," the lawmakers wrote. "Introducing low-visibility electric shock weapons into our immigration enforcement system is an unacceptable escalation that prioritizes physical intimidation and unaccountable force over human safety and administrative accountability.
On top of calling for cancellation of the contract, the House Democrats demanded information on any threat assessments ICE conducted before awarding the contract, whether the agency has trained its officers with electric shock gloves, and whether DHS intends to implement any productions to "prevent officers from using them for punitive measures, retaliation, or against non-threatening individuals."
"We reiterate our demand that you immediately halt the acquisition and deployment of electric shock gloves, cancel the contract, and refocus the Department’s resources on accountability and humanitarian standards rather than expanding a paramilitary apparatus," the lawmakers wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Unconscionable, Immoral, and Illegal’: Lawsuit Targets Trump Approval of Cancer-Causing Forever Chemical
“While everyone’s distracted by the Trump administration’s erratic actions on the world stage, it keeps approving dangerous forever pesticides right here on our own soil."
Aug 31, 2026
Environmental groups have sued the Trump administration, alleging the Environmental Protection Agency approved a potentially cancer-causing "forever chemical" for use as an herbicide without fully assessing the risk.
The petition was filed Friday in the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit by the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network North America, who asked the court to throw out the EPA's June 30 approval of trifludimoxazin and six products containing it for use on a wide range of crops including corn, wheat, soybeans, and apples.
Trifludimoxazin is part of the family of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, synthetic chemicals with strong carbon-fluorine bonds that can take years to fully break down, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals."
The trifludimoxazin was initially approved in 2021 during the Biden administration. But the company agreed to stop selling the product the following year after environmental groups sued, citing its potential to cause cancer and harm to threatened and endangered fish. But the Trump EPA last year proposed registering it again for widespread use and issued a final approval in June.
The groups argue that the EPA approved the use of trifludimoxazin without accounting for evidence that the pesticide could cause cancer and harm wildlife and ecosystems.
The EPA itself has acknowledged that the chemical could harm many endangered and threatened species, including posing chronic risks to bees and other invertebrates. Meanwhile, rodent studies have found that at high doses, the chemical can cause thyroid tumors and adverse effects on the liver and reproductive systems.
The chemical, which blocks an enzyme in plants needed for growth, has been described as 10 times as potent as dicamba, another weedkiller used on soybeans and cotton, whose products have caused millions of acres of unintended crop damage since its approval in 2017.
But though the EPA's own guidance states that carcinogenic effects in animals could point to human risk, the agency stated that its final risk assessment found “no human health risks of concern."
The plaintiffs argue that the EPA did not take all the proper steps to reach this conclusion, having failed to quantify the chemical's danger, especially when combined with exposure to other approved chemicals.
“Trifludimoxazin is a likely human carcinogen that belongs to a family of weedkillers that also causes reproductive harm, birth defects, and neurological deficits in animal studies,” said Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety. “As if the health threats weren’t enough, this incredibly potent herbicide can drift to stunt crops and wild plants hundreds of yards from a sprayed field, while runoff threatens wetland plants. Potent biocides like this have no business on the American landscape.”
The lawsuit also notes that two of the approved trifludimoxazin products combine it with another toxic herbicide called saflufenacil, meaning that farmworkers who apply the chemicals could be exposed to the effects of both at once. The plaintiffs said the EPA did not evaluate the risk that would be posed to farmworkers who are exposed to these chemicals.
“While everyone’s distracted by the Trump administration’s erratic actions on the world stage, it keeps approving dangerous forever pesticides right here on our own soil,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s unconscionable, immoral, and illegal. Our kids and grandkids deserve better than to be saddled with pollution that never goes away.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Out-of-Touch Trump Says Communities That Reject AI Data Centers Will Be 'Backwards and Poor'
"Donald Trump is actively trying to help as many Democratic senators as possible get elected," said one polling expert.
Aug 31, 2026
President Donald Trump on Monday warned Americans that they risk becoming "backwards and poor" unless they allow Big Tech companies to build artificial intelligence data centers in their communities.
In a social media post, the president expressed indignation that any town or city wouldn't welcome data centers, which have drawn nationwide opposition for generating pollution and jacking up utility bills.
"The only reason that communities throughout the USA should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor," Trump wrote. "If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign."
In reality, AI data centers create very few jobs once they are completed, as most of their functions are fully automated.
Trump then said that Americans "will only have yourselves to blame" if they "kill the Golden Goose" that is AI data centers.
"China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement," Trump wrote. "Actually, they can't believe it is happening!"
Building AI data centers has become massively unpopular throughout the US.
A poll conducted by Embold Research and published by Heatmap Pro earlier this month shows that 75% of Americans now oppose building AI data centers in their area, including 61% registering strong opposition.
While Republicans polled in the survey were more supportive of data centers than Democrats and independent voters, it nonetheless found that opposition among Republicans outweighed support by 43 points.
Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris marveled at how politically tone deaf the president sounds when it comes to data centers, commenting that "Donald Trump is actively trying to help as many Democratic senators as possible get elected."
Longtime GOP operative Frank Luntz similarly noted data centers' unpopularity, citing a recent Gallup poll showing 63% of Republican voters oppose having one of the facilities built in their communities.
"We’re about to see whether President Trump can sway those voters to support them, as he’s done on many issues before," Luntz remarked.
Democratic US Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed wasted no time tying the president's position on data centers to his opponent, Republican Mike Rogers.
"Make no mistake—this is Mike Rogers' position on data centers," wrote El-Sayed. "He's got up to $2.6 million invested in companies cashing in on the data center boom, all while Michiganders watch their utility bills soar. You can't trust a word out of Mike's mouth because he's only out for himself, for Donald Trump, and for Big Tech—not Michigan."
Faiz Shakir, a longtime adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), observed that Trump is merely "sharing the perspective of Wall Street and Big Tech" and is showing "no interest... in grappling with the mass revolt across American communities, or to learn anything from them."
Screenwriter David Simon, creator of the acclaimed television series The Wire, accused Trump of brazenly lying about data centers' economic benefits.
"If data centers are a geographic benefit to communities, you can be sure they'd be siting and building them in affluent and politically connected environs," wrote Simon. "Curiously, they're dumped in poorer, less influential places. Go fucking figure."
Republican Kentucky state Rep. Savannah Maddox took issue with the president disparaging communities opposed to data centers, which include many of the rural communities that voted for him in three presidential elections.
"Rural doesn’t mean 'backwards and poor' and development doesn’t always equate to being 'successful and rich,'" wrote Maddox. "President Trump wouldn't be president without the rural voters who inhabit America’s heartland. It is not wrong of us to question the sudden and wide-scale effort to convert arable land into data centers. We are not stupid for wanting to protect our rural way of life."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular









