

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.

The US Congress should pass a proposed law to end the sentencing of
youth offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole,
Human Rights Watch said today in a letter
to members of the House Judiciary Committee. At least 2,574 individuals
in the United States are serving these sentences for crimes they
committed before they were 18 years old. The United States is the only
country that uses such sentences for crimes committed by juveniles.
On May 6, 2009, Representatives Robert "Bobby" Scott and John
Conyers introduced H.R. 2289, the Juvenile Justice Accountability and
Improvement Act of 2009, in the US House of Representatives. The bill
would require states and the federal government to offer youth
offenders meaningful opportunities for parole after serving 15 years of
a life sentence.
"Sentencing juveniles to die in prison is cruel, costly, and
unnecessary," said David Fathi, US Program director at Human Rights
Watch. "Even youths who commit terrible crimes can grow and be
rehabilitated."
The introduction of the bill coincided with Human Rights Watch's release of new figures
showing that there are currently at least 2,574 persons in US prisons
who were sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before
the age of 18, an increase of 90 from May 2008.
The higher number is due primarily to improvements in data reporting
rather than significant increases in the number of youth sentenced to
life without parole. Increases were most dramatic in California (250
total, an increase of 23), Michigan (346 total, an increase of 30), and
the federal Bureau of Prisons (37 total, an increase of 35). Iowa,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas also saw increases in
juvenile life without parole. The states with the largest numbers of
prisoners serving this sentence are Pennsylvania (444), Michigan (346),
Louisiana (335), Florida (266), and California (250).
Research
by Human Rights Watch found that nationwide, 59 percent of youth
serving life without parole sentences received the sentence for their
first criminal conviction, and 16 percent were 15 or younger at the
time of their offense. An estimated 26 percent were convicted on the
basis of accomplice liability or felony murder. These are crimes in
which a teenager who commits a non-homicide felony such as a robbery is
held responsible for a codefendant's act of murder during the course of
the crime. State laws often do not require the person convicted on this
charge to know that a murder was planned or even that the codefendant
was armed.
"Subjecting juvenile offenders to the harshest sentence possible
fails to recognize that they are simply different from adults," Fathi
said. "The evidence we have is that they are less culpable for their
actions, and more amenable to rehabilitation."
Recent studies of adolescent brain development have found that teens
do not have the abilities of adults to make sound decisions, control
their impulses, resist group pressures, or weigh the long-term
consequences of their actions.
Human Rights Watch has also found substantial racial disparities in
life without parole sentences given to juveniles. On average across the
country, black youth are serving life without parole at a per capita
rate that is 10 times that of white youth. In Pennsylvania, which has
the largest number of juvenile offenders serving life without parole,
black youth are 21 times as likely to be serving the sentence as white
youth.
Last year, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination urged the United States to discontinue the use of the
sentence, finding that the persistent racial disparities in sentencing
were incompatible with US treaty obligations. US sentencing of youth to
life without parole is also a violation of, or raises concerns under,
other international treaties to which the United States is party,
including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
The Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009
would require states to provide juvenile offenders serving life
sentences with meaningful opportunities for parole at least once during
their first 15 years of incarceration, and at least every three years
thereafter. States that do not comply would lose a portion of their
federal funding for law enforcement. The bill would also require parole
hearings for juveniles given life sentences under federal law.
"Giving these juvenile offenders an opportunity for a parole hearing
is not a guarantee of release," said Fathi. "But it offers them
incentives for rehabilitation and brings the United States into line
with internationally recognized standards of justice."
On May 4, the US Supreme Court agreed to decide whether life without
parole for juveniles who have committed only non-homicide crimes
violates the US Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishments. The case will be heard in the court's next term, which
begins in October.
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.
Cecilia Vega, one of several journalists ousted from the show, said many of her colleagues "have had to fight to maintain editorial independence" under CBS News' new Trump-aligned corporate owners.
A group of veteran “60 Minutes” journalists was fired on Thursday as CBS News’ recently installed right-wing editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, moves to reshape the network in her image. Some of the ousted employees are describing their mass firing as a clear act of political “censorship.”
News had already broken earlier this week that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi was on the way out after more than ten years on the flagship news program, after she'd publicly criticized Weiss' decision to delay her story on the Trump administration's deportation of immigrants to a notorious Salvadoran torture prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), late last year.
But Alfonsi's departure was rumored to be part of a larger shakeup by Weiss, who has been accused of molding the network into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration following the government-approved acquisition of CBS's parent company, Paramount, by billionaire David Ellison, owner of Skydance.
On Thursday, the hammer finally fell. In addition to the formal firing of Alfonsi, The Washington Post reported that Weiss had also fired Tanya Simon, who’d worked on the show for a quarter-century and had recently taken on the role of executive producer. Correspondent Cecilia Vega—who had also covered CECOT for the network before Weiss' arrival—was canned as well, even though her contract was not set to expire until March 2027. So was executive editor Draggan Mihailovich.
In a memo to staff on Thursday, Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski said the firings were the result of them “building a show that thrives in the 21st century.”
“That requires a new approach,” they said, outlining their goals of “expanding ‘60 Minutes’ beyond a one-hour television broadcast, deepening its role across CBS News, and holding everything we produce to the ambition, fairness, and fearlessness that have defined ‘60 Minutes’ at its best.”
To fill the role of executive producer, Weiss brought in a network outsider, Nick Bilton, a former technology columnist at The New York Times and producer of documentaries for HBO and Netflix. Weiss called him “one of the most entrepreneurial journalists of our time and the perfect leader for one of the most entrepreneurial news brands of all time.”
Though Weiss reportedly viewed Simon as a “bad leader” who “couldn’t control the staff,” according to one source who spoke anonymously with The New York Post, Simon announced her departure with warm words for those who’d continue working on “60 Minutes.”
“While leadership has decided it is time for a new chapter—I want to be unequivocally clear about one thing: It has been an immense privilege to lead this broadcast, and I could not be prouder of what we have built, fought for, and delivered together over the last year," Simon said in a statement published Thursday. "'60 Minutes' has always been more than just a broadcast: It is an institution built on independence, grit, and rigorous search for the truth.“
But Vega gave a more candid explanation for her and her colleagues' firings.
"In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories," she said in a statement Thursday. "Reporting teams have held back on submitting story pitches about important news topics out of fear of the internal repercussions."
"Let's call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven," she continued. "It is dangerous for the show and dangerous for democracy."
Vega's criticisms mirror those made earlier this week by Alfonsi, who said her firing was "a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting."
In December, Weiss abruptly pulled Alfonsi's story featuring the testimony of some of the men who were tortured in the CECOT prison shortly before it was set to air, citing a lack of commentary in the segment from Trump administration officials, who had repeatedly ignored the journalists’ requests for an interview. At the time, Alfonsi said Weiss had effectively given the government a “kill switch” on critical reporting. The segment eventually went to air the next month with some editing.
Following her ouster on Thursday, Vega described her own efforts to oppose what she viewed as politically-motivated meddling by network higher-ups.
"I held the line and refused to incorporate suggestions that offend the conscience," she said. "I know from many conversations with colleagues that many producing teams and correspondents working on the show today have had to fight to maintain editorial independence with regularity."
“I am far from the only ‘60 Minutes’ correspondent who has asked herself, ‘What is my personal red line? How much can I push back before I pay the price?'" Vega added.
She said she was proud of her work at '60 Minutes' and cited her reporting on CECOT for the program, which won a DuPont Columbia journalism award, as one of her finest achievements.
Weiss' overhaul of '60 Minutes' comes as Ellison eyes the merger of Paramount with another major media conglomerate, Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.
President Donald Trump has said it's “imperative” that any acquisition of Warner Bros. includes CNN and has publicly denounced a rival bid for the company by Netflix.
Earlier this week, Reuters reported that antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice appeared ready to approve a $110 billion takeover by Paramount following meetings with Ellison and other company executives.
A group of journalists—including tech reporter Kara Swisher, former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, and NBC News legal analyst Katie Phang—warned at an event hosted earlier this week by a coalition of press freedom groups that, especially in the wake of Alfonsi's firing, the government-approved consolidation of media posed a dangerous threat to the future of journalistic freedom.
“I think what’s happening right now is pretty dangerous,” Acosta said. “To essentially announce the departure of Sharyn Alfonsi from 60 Minutes is a very in-your-face move by some people who don’t care very much about the First Amendment.”
“Folks need to use a little bit of their imagination here to recognize what may be coming down the pike,” he said, warning that the Trump administration was building a “strange oligarchical empire… attempting to do state media.”
"Unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins," said one expert.
The head of the US Agriculture Department on Thursday celebrated that millions of people have lost federal nutrition assistance under the second Trump administration, declaring that families who have seen their modest aid disappear are closer to realizing "the American dream."
Speaking at an event in Arizona, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins—who has an estimated net worth of around $15 million—said that the Trump administration has "moved about 4 million off of SNAP," referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Rollins suggested, without evidence, that some of those who have lost SNAP benefits were receiving them fraudulently.
But others, claimed Rollins, are "moving into the American dream and off of welfare."
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote in response that "unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins."
Watch Rollins' remarks:
Brooke Rollins: "As we've moved about 4 million off SNAP, we don't have the exact data of how much of that is fraud, how much of that is people moving into the American dream and off of welfare." pic.twitter.com/oSFkCtS79I
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 28, 2026
Trump administration officials, including President Donald Trump himself, have repeatedly used euphemistic language to describe the large-scale loss of food aid following passage of the Republican budget reconciliation package last summer. That measure contains $186 billion in SNAP cuts over the next decade—the largest in the program's history.
During his State of the Union address in February, Trump boasted that his administration has "lifted" millions of Americans off SNAP, falsely suggesting that the mass loss of benefits was attributable to stronger economic conditions rather than deliberate policy changes designed to boot people from the program.
"Economic conditions haven’t been improving as the number of people receiving SNAP has plummeted in recent months, representing the sharpest decline in decades," CBPP noted in a recent analysis. "The last time there was such a steep decrease in participation in such a short period of time (other than temporary spikes following natural disasters) was nearly three decades ago, after Congress enacted very deep cuts to SNAP (then the Food Stamp Program) in 1996."
"SNAP participation has fallen in every state," the think tank added, "and in some, the drop is particularly alarming."
"The government hasn’t 'lifted' Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft."
Arizona, the state Rollins visited on Thursday, saw a roughly 50% decline in the number of people receiving SNAP benefits between January 2025 and February of this year, with hundreds of thousands of people losing benefits.
"We certainly are not seeing a drop in the number of folks that are participating because we’ve solved hunger," Adrienne Udarbe, executive director of the nonprofit group Pinnacle Prevention, told AZFamily earlier this week.
One Tucson, Arizona resident, a single mother of three, told the Unrig Our Economy coalition on Friday that "even working full-time, I’ve been unable to access SNAP benefits since March thanks to Republicans’ cuts."
"Costs are already rising everywhere because of Republicans’ tariffs and their war in Iran, and cutting food assistance is pushing families like mine over the edge," said the mother, identified as Angelica G. "It’s difficult to work so hard to make ends meet just to watch Republicans in Congress give even more tax breaks to billionaires while cutting food services that families like mine rely on.”
In Kansas, more than 21,000 people have lost SNAP benefits since July. Haley Kottler, senior campaign director at the advocacy group Kansas Appleseed, said in a statement Thursday that "these are not just abstract numbers."
"These are Kansas kids losing access to food," said Kottler. "This has real implications for Kansas children to access the nutrition they need to learn, grow, and thrive."
Rollins' comments Thursday came amid a flurry of data showing the weakness of the US economy and the struggles of working-class families under Trump's leadership, from rising inflation to falling personal savings rates.
Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released an analysis showing that the US has seen "a remarkable increase in food insecurity" in recent months, "particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children."
Political analyst Steve Benen wrote in a column for MS NOW on Tuesday that "Republicans seem to think this is worth bragging about."
"Trump’s routine use of the word 'lift' makes it sound as if struggling families were put onto an elevator that carried them to a stronger and more secure position," wrote Benen. "That turns reality on its head: Thanks to the inaptly named One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the government hasn’t 'lifted' Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft, depriving much of the public of food aid."
"More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic. Families are skipping meals, relying on food banks, and turning to SNAP to get by."
An analysis released this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that food insecurity in the US has reached levels not seen since the height of the coronavirus pandemic, underscoring the devastating impact of Republican cuts to federal nutrition assistance and President Donald Trump's inflationary economic and foreign policy decisions.
In a blog post, New York Fed researchers detailed their findings of "a remarkable increase in food insecurity, particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children," as well as "a contemporaneous increase in pessimism among the same groups, along with a sharp decline in job-finding expectations."
The researchers cited new data showing increases in the percentage of Americans who reported receiving food donations and skipping meals in recent months, as prices for basic necessities rose. Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that Trump and congressional Republicans enacted last summer are also having an impact, stripping food aid from hundreds of thousands of low-income children and millions of people overall.
Among those who reported skipping meals and relying on food banks, "there is a lower, and more rapidly declining, net share of respondents expecting to be better versus worse off financially a year from now," despite some topline figures indicating a relatively strong economy (such as a low unemployment rate), the researchers observed.
"This means that an increase in the incidence of food insecurity is associated with a deterioration in consumer sentiment," they added.
More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic. Families are skipping meals, relying on food banks, and turning to SNAP to get by. Hunger is rising and Congress cannot look away. https://t.co/ImAFSuTJSg
— Food Research & Action Center (@fractweets) May 28, 2026
The New York Fed's analysis came amid a flurry of new data showing that rising inflation—now at a three-year high—is eroding Americans' paychecks and causing personal savings rates to plummet as households are forced to spend more on gas, food, and other basics.
Following the release of new federal data on Thursday, the nonprofit research group Equitable Growth pointed to "an important milestone: Household incomes are now down year-over-year. American households had more money to spend in April of 2025."
"Although income is down for all households this month, it is falling faster for the bottom 50% households, who have seen their income fall by 1.6% compared to April of last year," noted Equitable Growth visiting fellow Austin Clemens. "This group’s income has fallen in five of the last six months.”