

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.

United Nations-backed Congolese armed forces conducting intensified
military operations in eastern and northern Democratic Republic of
Congo have failed to protect civilians from brutal rebel retaliatory
attacks and instead are themselves attacking and raping Congolese
civilians, Human Rights Watch said today. The attacks on civilians from
all sides have resulted in a significant increase in human rights
violations over the past six months.
"The Congolese government's military operations have been a disaster
for civilians, who are now being attacked from all sides," said Kenneth
Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, on a visit to eastern
Congo. "Congo and the UN need to take urgent measures to protect people
and keep this human rights catastrophe from getting even worse."
Since January 2009, nine Human Rights Watch fact-finding missions to
frontline areas found a dramatic increase in attacks on civilians and
other human rights abuses in Lubero, Rutshuru, Masisi, and Walikale
territories in North Kivu, Kalehe and Shabunda territories in South
Kivu, and Haute Uele district in northern Congo.
The Congolese army initiated military operations against the Ugandan
Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebels in December 2008 in northern Congo,
followed a month later by the launching of operations in eastern Congo
against the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the
Rwandan Hutu militia. Since then, the rebel forces and Congolese army
troops combined have killed more than 1,500 civilians, raped thousands
of women and girls, abducted hundreds of adults and children, and
burned to the ground thousands of homes, sometimes entire villages.
According to the UN, more than a million people have been forced to
flee for their lives from these conflict areas, adding to the tens of
thousands of others displaced from earlier waves of violence. Many of
those newly displaced have limited or no access to humanitarian
assistance.
FDLR and LRA combatants are responsible for the great majority of
killings of civilians documented by Human Rights Watch. Both armed
groups are deliberately terrorizing and punishing civilians and
attacking their property as a military tactic in retaliation for
Congolese government military operations. Those who committed or
ordered such attacks are responsible for war crimes.
On May 10, for example, FDLR combatants brutally massacred at least
86 civilians, including 25 children, 23 women, and seven elderly men at
Busurungi, in the Waloaloanda area of Walikale territory, North Kivu.
Twenty-four others were seriously wounded. Some of the victims were
tied up and executed; others were shot or their throats were slit by
knives or machetes as they tried to flee. A number of people were
burned to death when FDLR combatants deliberately locked them in their
homes and torched the village.
One witness who lived near the village outskirts took four of his
children by the hand and ran, calling on his wife to take the other
children. "I was the first out the door holding the children behind me
and calling on my wife to follow," he told Human Rights Watch. "But she
was too late. The FDLR pushed her back in the house with my daughter
and brother and then set it on fire. We heard their screams as we ran
away."
The FDLR carried out similar attacks in Mianga, Walikale territory,
on April 12, killing 45 civilians including decapitating the local
chief, and in Chiriba, Kalehe territory, around May 25, killing 10
civilians. Human Rights Watch found that in total at least 403
civilians were killed by the FDLR since January 2009.
The LRA, whose leaders are wanted by the International Criminal
Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Uganda,
are currently in northern Congo and continued their brutal attacks
against civilians, bringing the death toll to more than 1,000 civilians
since December. Abductions of children and adults have increased,
indicating that the LRA may be seeking to replenish its ranks. In two
attacks in early June in Dakwa, local sources reported that the LRA
abducted some 135 adults and children.
The Congolese army's operations against these two cross-border
groups were initially supported by Ugandan forces in northern Congo and
Rwandan forces in eastern Congo, and since March by UN peacekeepers in
Congo (MONUC). These forces have provided only limited protection for
civilians from the deliberate and brutal rebel attacks.
"Rebel atrocities against civilians in eastern and northern Congo
seem boundless," said Roth. "The Congolese army should recognize by now
that offensive military operations need to include effective measures
to protect vulnerable civilians from these predictable retaliatory
attacks."
Congolese army soldiers have also committed war crimes against
civilians. Soldiers have deliberately attacked civilians whom they
accused of collaborating with the FDLR, raped women and girls, looted,
unlawfully forced civilians to act as porters, and torched homes in
villages that they claim harbored FDLR supporters.
In an attack on an FDLR position in Shalio, near Busurungi, in late
April, Congolese army soldiers killed an unknown number of FDLR family
members and Rwandan refugees. This possibly led to the brutal May 10
reprisal attack by the FDLR on Busurungi.
Rape cases have also dramatically increased in areas of Congolese
army deployment. In nearly all the health centers, hospitals, and rape
counseling centers visited by Human Rights Watch, rape cases had
doubled or tripled since the start of military operations in the Kivus
in January. While all sides continue to use rape and other sexual
violence as a weapon of war, the majority of the rape cases
investigated by Human Rights Watch were attributed to soldiers from the
Congolese army.
The Congolese army's practice of forcing civilians to provide
dangerous labor has put civilians further at risk. Hundreds of
civilians have been regularly forced at gunpoint to carry heavy
ammunition and other supplies for Congolese forces. On June 21, Human
Rights Watch researchers witnessed dozens of civilians being forced to
carry supplies for the army from Bunyakiri in Kalehe territory while
soldiers deployed to frontline positions in South Kivu.
Salary arrears, limited food rations, and an unclear chain of
command following the integration of more than 12,000 former Congolese
rebel combatants into the army's ranks in early 2009 have contributed
to the rise in abuses against civilians. In Kalehe territory in South
Kivu, soldiers who had not been paid for five months are regularly
pillaging, looting, and extorting the civilian population. On June 15,
government soldiers, angry because they had not been paid, tried to
kill their commander and then attacked a UN base in Pinga, North Kivu.
On June 17, more than 30 armed soldiers who had not been paid deserted
in Ngora, Walikale territory.
Senior army officials conceded the problem of salary arrears and
told Human Rights Watch that soldiers involved in military operations
were now being paid, although Human Rights Watch could not
independently verify the claim.
The integration into the top ranks of the Congolese army of
individuals implicated in serious human rights abuses further
exacerbates an already dangerous human rights environment. The most
glaring example is Bosco Ntaganda, now a general in the Congolese army
involved in military operations in eastern Congo, who is wanted on
war-crimes charges by the International Criminal Court.
"The government's failure to feed and pay its soldiers regularly is
a virtual invitation for them to prey on the civilian population," said
Roth. "Then to allow these troops to be led by commanders like Bosco
Ntaganda with a known track record of horrific abuse creates a climate
in which atrocities flourish."
UN peacekeepers in Congo, MONUC, have provided logistical, planning,
and other support to the Congolese army's operations, known as "Kimia
II." But the peacekeepers have not exerted adequate pressure on the
Congolese army to stop brutal abuses.
The peacekeepers began an initiative in early 2009, known as joint
protection teams, to act as an early-warning system in areas where
civilians might be at risk of attack. While these teams have gathered
important information and sometimes contributed to reducing abuses,
their recommendations to UN peacekeepers and Congolese forces have
rarely been followed.
Following the Busurungi massacre in May, a UN assessment team
visited the area and recommended urgently setting up a base nearby to
protect local people. To date, no base has been established, and there
have been no regular UN patrols from existing bases. UN officials told
Human Rights Watch that a base is due to be established in the coming
days. Congolese soldiers who fled the area following the attack have
also not provided adequate protection for civilians.
"Civilians at risk of rebel attack in the Waloaloanda area have been
left too long without adequate protection even though MONUC has
identified the area as a priority protection zone," said Roth. "The
MONUC command should not delay any further, and should urgently deploy
peacekeepers to the area."
Congolese forces and UN peacekeepers have also yet to establish
promised humanitarian corridors that would allow a safe exit from
conflict zones for thousands of Rwandan refugees and FDLR combatants
who wish to disarm voluntarily. Congolese and UN officials have said
that such individuals will be allowed safe passage.
"UN peacekeepers should not support Congolese armed forces that are
committing war crimes and failing to protect civilians and refugees,"
said Roth. "By continuing to back such military operations, the
peacekeepers risk becoming complicit in abuses."
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.
Kenya's largest medical professionals union, which welcomed the ruling, argued that if setting up an Ebola quarantine facility "is too dangerous for America, it is too dangerous for Kenya."
A day after US officials said Kenya had approved a request to open a quarantine center for Americans exposed to a rare strain of the Ebola virus, a court in the East African nation on Friday temporarily blocked the plan amid a growing outbreak in neighboring Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The High Court prohibited the Kenyan government from establishing or operating any Ebola exposure, quarantine, isolation, or treatment facility in the country under any agreement with the United States or any other foreign government or agency.
The court also blocked Kenya's government from allowing anyone infected with or exposed to Ebola into the country pending the outcome of the case, which was filed by the Katiba Institute, a civil rights group.
“At its core, the case is about preserving constitutional accountability, protecting public health, and ensuring that no government may place expediency above the lives and safety of the people of Kenya,” Katiba Institute executive director Nora Mbagathi said Thursday.
A 50-bed Ebola quarantine center was set to open Friday at Laikipia Air Base in Nanyuki, located approximately 125 miles north of Nairobi. The facility would have been operated by members of the US Public Health Service, a uniformed branch of the Department of Health and Human Services.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday during a Cabinet meeting that “we cannot and will not allow any cases of Ebola to enter the United States."
However, US public health officials strongly criticized the plan to quarantine Americans in Kenya instead of repatriating them, with one emergency physician accusing the Trump administration of “a dramatic abdication of what we owe our own."
Elected leaders in Laikipia County welcomed the High Court's ruling. They had opposed the US quarantine center, and had asked in a joint statement prior to the decision, "Why Laikipia?"
"What does the US government know about this that they are not accepting their own affected citizens into their soil but are ready to have them elsewhere?" the officials added.
The Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists, and Dentists Union (KMPDU), which had strongly opposed the quarantine center and had threatened to strike, also welcomed the High Court ruling.
"We are utterly disgusted by the government’s apparent willingness to trade national biosecurity and the lives of its citizens for foreign aid," KMPDU secretary general Davji Bhimji Attelah said in a statement Thursday, referring to the $13.5 million the Trump administration pledged for Ebola preparedness in Kenya, part of a broader $125 million US commitment toward fighting the disease.
Kenyan healthcare workers are pushing back hard against reported plans for the U.S. to establish Ebola quarantine/treatment facilities in Kenya for exposed American personnel during the ongoing Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak in Central/East Africa.
[image or embed]
— BK. Titanji (@boghuma.bsky.social) May 28, 2026 at 11:31 AM
"We will not sit back and watch Kenya be treated as a containment colony for a lethal pathogen that we did not generate," Attelah added. “We will not tolerate an apartheid healthcare model on Kenyan soil. If it is too dangerous for America, it is too dangerous for Kenya."
Critics say President Donald Trump’s ideologically driven decision to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization (WHO), his administration’s dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, and reduced funding for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s global public health efforts have adversely affected the response to the current Ebola epidemic, compared with 2014 and 2019 outbreaks.
The WHO said Friday that there were a total of 906 suspected Ebola cases and 223 suspected deaths reported in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as of Wednesday, and 125 confirmed cases in the DRC and 9 in Uganda, with 18 deaths among the confirmed cases in both countries.
Ebola—which typically kills between 25% and 90% of infected people, depending upon the strain of the virus and quality of available medical care—causes widespread and often catastrophic damage to the body’s blood vessels, immune system, and organs. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals, including fruit bats, porcupines, and non-human primates, and then spreads between humans through direct contact with the blood or bodily fluids of infected people.
The average US household, according to Moody's, has shouldered nearly $450 in extra fuel costs due to the Republican president's unprovoked Middle East war.
Americans have made clear since President Donald Trump joined Israel in beginning an unprovoked war on Iran that they view the conflict-of-choice as damaging to their financial well-being—and that they blame the president for the higher cost of fuel since the war started in February.
On Friday, Moody's Analytics put an exact number on the heightened financial anxiety families across the country have been feeling over the past three months as Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent fuel prices soaring: $447.19.
That's how much the average US household has had to additionally spend on fuel-related expenses since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyanu launched their attack on February 28, Moody's told CNBC.
Altogether, Americans have spent a total of nearly $60 billion on gas, airline fares, and other related costs as the strait, a key shipping route for oil, has remained effectively closed.
According to AAA, the average price of a gallon of regular gas stands at $4.39—up close to 50% since early March. Diesel now costs $5.52 per gallon, forcing consumers to pay $20 billion more in additional expenses on groceries and other goods.
"The economy isn’t just soft, it’s struggling," Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist, said Thursday. "The Iran war needs to end, and the Strait of Hormuz needs to be reopened soon, or recession will become more likely than not."
"Unless the war ends soon, financially pressed consumers will have no option but to turn more cautious in their spending."
As CNBC reported Friday, "higher energy costs can force consumers to raid their savings and lean more on debt to cover expenses."
Trump flatly said earlier this month that he doesn't consider Americans' financial situation "even a little bit" when it comes to the war on Iran, while National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett posited earlier this week that Americans are "spending more money" not because higher prices are forcing them to but because they're "very, very optimistic about the state of the economy." He also bragged recently that "credit card spending is through the roof"—a sign several observers took not as a positive omen for the economy but as a sign that families are being forced to take on debt to pay for gas and other essentials.
Zandi provided a reality check Friday.
"Unless the war ends soon, financially pressed consumers will have no option but to turn more cautious in their spending, threatening the already soft economy,” he told CNBC, warning that families could end up spending nearly $2,000 extra on fuel-related costs if the war continues reaches the one-year mark.
Republicans emphasized last year that Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would give bigger tax returns to families across the country. Any benefit, said Zandi, has now been canceled out by the president's war.
On Thursday, US Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said the White House is in denial about the fact that Americans are struggling with the impact of Trump's foreign policy decisions as the Pentagon vastly underestimates how much the conflict has cost in public statements.
The acting comptroller of the Pentagon told Congress in April that the war had cost $25 billion, increasing the estimate to $29 billion two weeks later.
The senators told the Congressional Budget Office Friday that independent analyses had put the real cost of the war at $40 billion-$50 billion.
“It is essential," said the lawmakers, "that Congress and the American public receive accurate, comprehensive estimates of the costs of the war in Iran."
"We were guinea pigs," said the father of one of the convicted protesters. "They brought the swamp of Washington, DC, into our area to stop American citizens from exercising our rights that are guaranteed."
With the conviction of three anti-ICE protesters in Spokane, Washington on federal "conspiracy" charges Thursday, civil rights advocates and legal experts fear that the Trump administration may have just been handed a powerful tool to criminalize dissent.
Jac Archer, Justice Forral, and Bajun Mavalwalla II, nicknamed the "Spokane 3," were indicted last year for their actions at a protest in June 2025, where they attempted to physically obstruct ICE agents from transporting two Venezuelan immigrants to an ICE processing facility in Tacoma.
Both of the men reportedly entered the US legally under a humanitarian parole program that had been terminated by the Trump administration, leading advocates to protest their detention.
As Spokesman-Review, a Spokane newspaper, described:
Protesters that day eventually began linking arms around vans and in front of agents’ cars. The event grew chaotic. ICE agents entered a crowd of people standing outside the facility’s parking lot gate and began grabbing people by the necks and arms, pushing them to the ground. Protesters also slashed tires of vans meant to transport the detainees.
But where such activity would usually lead to charges against specific protesters for discrete illegal actions like trespassing, property damage, or other public order offenses, the Department of Justice (DOJ)—as part of a nationwide effort to crack down on protests against ICE—charged nine protesters with "conspiracy to impede or injure officers," even though no officers were actually injured during the protest.
Legal experts described it as a novel approach that wrapped many people involved in the protest into a single "conspiracy" regardless of whether they committed specific criminal acts.
“Usually if a protest gets out of hand and people are hurt or property is hurt, you see charges based on that,” Mary Fan, a former federal prosecutor and a University of Washington law professor, told The New York Times earlier this month. “They’re not going after people based on specific harm done. They’re stretching conspiracy charges to target protesters and people who organize protests.”
Facing pressure from the federal government to bring the case following a national memo sent from the DOJ to prioritize and publicize cases against ICE agents, then-acting US Attorney for Eastern Washington Richard Barker resigned last year rather than bring charges against the protesters.
He said at the time he was grateful he “never had to sign an indictment or file a brief that [he] didn’t believe in." His successor, Stephanie Van Marter, however, did sign the order.
Six of the defendants pleaded guilty to the charges to avoid federal prison time. But Archer, Forral, and Mavalwalla chose to fight them, believing the case was part of an unjust attempt to criminalize their right to protest.
After a trial that lasted seven days, a jury found the three defendants guilty of conspiracy. But the defense has argued that the trial was marred by problems that rendered the verdict faulty.
As the Guardian explained:
In February, a federal judge ordered the release of a Venezuelan migrant whose transportation for deportation the protesters sought to block, ruling his arrest violated the constitution.
But the jury, drawn from conservative eastern Washington state, did not hear those facts at trial, thanks to rulings by Judge [Rebecca] Pennell. Pennell, a former federal public defender and appointee of the Democratic president Joe Biden, also ruled the protesters on trial could not use the First Amendment as a defense, though they were allowed to state their reasons for demonstrating.
Instead, the jury watched hours of law enforcement body camera video and heard from a parade of ICE agents... Jeremy Burlingame, an ICE agent who testified, had authored social media posts that called Black politicians “lying ghetto garbage” and transgender people “mentally ill.” He boosted a post showing ICE arresting a pregnant woman at gunpoint that called her a “pregnant invader.”
Federal prosecutors deemed the posts troubling enough to recall Burlingame to impeach him, despite the fact that he was their witness...
But Burlingame’s online posts, the lack of injury to ICE officers, and the absence of evidence showing communication between the three defendants prior to the protest were not enough to sway the jury.
The defendants now face potential sentences of up to six years in prison and a $250,000 fine. However, they are expected to appeal the verdict and have filed a rarely used motion allowing their attorneys to argue that no rational juror could find their clients guilty.
"I question whether justice truly was served by today’s verdict,” Barker told the Spokesman-Review. "This was the first conspiracy prosecution in Eastern Washington history under... a Civil War-era law dusted off to punish members of the Spokane community who stood up for two young men who were unlawfully detained by ICE."
Video by KREM 2 News/Youtube
Looking beyond the details of the trial itself, many observers questioned the very premise of the DOJ's prosecution.
Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown said from the start of the trial she believed it was "politically motivated."
"It was meant to make an example out of people who disagreed with federal immigration policy," she said.
City council member Sarah Dixit, who said she took part in the protest, said: "Based on the evidence that was shown, I personally didn’t see evidence of what they were accused of. Conspiracy is a charge that feels complicated to prove, and I don’t believe that the government made a strong case for that.”
Others expressed fear for the precedent that had been set. La Rond Baker, the legal director of the Washington ACLU, said the Trump administration "has a demonstrable history of using the Department of Justice to silence and punish its critics."
The administration has pursued similar sweeping conspiracy charges against other groups of anti-ICE protesters around the country—including in Los Angeles, Broadview, Illinois, and North Texas.
“The verdict was painfully disappointing,” said Archer’s attorney, Carl Oreskovich. “I think it was an extraordinarily aggressive approach to prosecution of protests. And it certainly is going to chill people who want to utilize their First Amendment right to dissent against government actions that they don’t agree with."
In a comment to The Guardian, Robert Chang, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and executive director of its Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, said the verdict was "frightening."
“By this logic, any protest could be a conspiracy,” he said. “The goal posts keep moving.”
Bajun Mavalwalla Sr., a retired US Army intelligence officer who served in Afghanistan, said his son—also a veteran of the same war—and the other two defendants were standing for "the freedoms that separate this country from the dictatorships.”
“People in Spokane and people in Eastern Washington need to understand that we were guinea pigs. That they brought the swamp of Washington, DC, into our area to stop American citizens from exercising our rights that are guaranteed,” the elder Mavalwalla said after his son was convicted.
“It was the whole point of the Constitution, the right to protest, the right to dissent, the right to assemble, all of those things are now in question because of this case," he said. "My son has taken the brunt of the entire weight of the United States government onto their shoulders.”