

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.
Dan Beeton (CEPR), 202-239-1460
A group of organizations, scholars, and academics who
specialize in Latin America released the following statement late Friday:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's latest statement, which appears to
hold President Zelaya responsible for any potential further violence by
the Honduran government against civilians, is unacceptable. It is very
disheartening to see the United States government go against the
international consensus that has called for the immediate and
unconditional return of President Zelaya.
Even worse, such statements could be seen as a blank check to the
Honduran military and others to use violence against peaceful
protestors who support their elected president.
Clinton's statement called Zelaya's attempt to return peacefully to his
country "reckless," and said that "We have consistently urged all
parties to avoid any provocative action that could lead to violence,"
implying that Zelaya is responsible for the violence against his
unarmed supporters.
Given that neither Clinton nor President Obama, nor any U.S. official,
has even once criticized the Honduran dictatorship for the violence and
political repression of the last four weeks, Clinton's pointing the
finger at Zelaya is especially threatening to the human rights of
Hondurans.
By contrast, the shootings, beatings, arrests and detentions of
journalists, closing of radio and TV stations, and other repression
have been documented and condemned by the Inter
American Commission for Human Rights, by
human rights organizations such as Human
Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, the Committee
to Protect Journalists, Reporters
Without Borders, and a report from the Honduran
Committee for the Relatives of the Disappeared Detainees.
On July 23rd, an international
commission of human rights organizations - including the
International Federation of Human Rights and the Center for Justice and
International Law - concluded that "grave and systematic violations of
human rights" have taken place in Honduras since the military coup.
Yet the Obama administration has been silent in the face of these
abuses.
By echoing the statements of the coup leaders, Clinton has also put the
United States further outside the international community. By returning
to Honduras, Zelaya is attempting to implement the resolutions of the
United Nations General Assembly and the Organization of American
States, which called for his immediate and unconditional return to the
Presidency. He participated in the mediation process headed by Costa
Rican President Oscar Arias and agreed to the proposal put forth by
Arias, but the de facto government would not budge.
Signed,
ORGANIZATIONS:
Border Agricultural Workers Project
Coalition for Peace and Democracy, Los Angeles, CA
Committee in Solidarity With the People of El Salvador
Just Foreign Policy
Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Los Angeles, CA
National Family Farm Coalition
Portland Central America Solidarity Committee, Oregon
School of the Americas Watch
INDIVIDUALS:
William Aviles, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of
Nebraska at Kearney
Dr. James D. Cockcroft, Ph.D., writer and online professor, SUNY
Jennifer N. Costanza, MA, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Sociology,
Brown University
P. Gabrielle Foreman, Visiting Distinguished Professor of Africana
Studies, Bowdoin College, 2008, Professor of English and Comparative
Literary Studies, Occidental College, Los Angeles
Dana Frank, Professor of History, University of California, Santa Cruz
Jane Franklin, Historian, Author
Armando Gonzalez Caban, Latin American Perspectives, University of CA
Riverside
Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University
John L. Hammond, Hunter College and Graduate Center, City University of
New York
Doug Hertzler, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Eastern Mennonite
University
Derrick Hindery, Assistant Professor of International Studies and
Department of Geography, University of Oregon
Eric Holt-Gimenez, executive director, Food First/Institute for Food
and Development Policy
Florencia E. Mallon, Julieta Kirkwood Professor of Latin American
History, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Peter and Gail Mott, Co-Editors, INTERCONNECT
Jocelyn Olcott, Department of History, Duke University
Adrienne Pine, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, American University
Suyapa G. Portillo Villeda, PhD Candidate, Cornell University/CFD
Fellow, Pomona College
Vijay Prashad, George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History
and Professor of International Studies, Trinity College
Marcus Rediker, Professor and Chair in the Department of History,
University of Pittsburgh
Milla Riggio, James J. Goodwin Professor of English, Trinity College,
Connecticut
Dr. Christine J. Wade, Associate Professor of Political Science and
International Studies, Washington College, Maryland
Jeffery R. Webber, Assistant Professor, Political Science, University
of Regina, Canada
Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
John Womack, Jr., Professor of History, emeritus, Harvard University
Despite the strait's closure, Trump insisted it was "open as far as we're concerned."
US President Donald Trump on Sunday twice told journalists to stop asking him about the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran once again closed after the president declared an end to the ceasefire deal between the two countries.
The first instance came during an interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, who pointed to conflicting statements from the Iranian government and US Central Command about the status of the strait, which is an essential shipping lane for global petroleum supplies.
Trump replied that "it's open, and I don't want to talk about it because I want to honor the life" of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who died on Saturday from what his office described as "a brief and sudden illness."
"So I don't want to talk about it," Trump continued. "I told you that before the call."
WELKER: Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is closed. CENTCOM says it's open. Which is it?
TRUMP: It's open, and I don't want to talk about because I want to honor the life of Lindsey Graham, so I don't want to talk about it. I told you that before the call. pic.twitter.com/3ed7dN1bhK
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Shortly after, during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Trump was again asked whether the strait was still open.
"It's open as far as we're concerned," Trump told Tapper. "Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak."
"Okay," Tapper replied. "We appreciate your time, sir."
TAPPER: Iran has declared the Strait of Hormuz closed. Is that true?
TRUMP: It's open as far as we're concerned. Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak. pic.twitter.com/TwssTycQdF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Iran shut down shipping traffic in the strait after Trump launched an illegal war against the country in late February. The strait's closure resulted in spiking oil and gasoline prices, which coincided with further erosion in Trump's approval ratings.
Although traffic through the strait initially picked up in the wake of a June memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran, it has since slumped as the ceasefire between the two nations has fallen apart.
Ana Marie Cox, contributing editor at The New Republic, bashed both Welker and Tapper for heeding the president's requests and not pushing him to answer questions about the war he unlawfully started.
"Frankly astonished that supposed news sources agreed to terms to interview Trump and appeared to be deferential to them," Cox wrote in a social media post, "enough that they were apologetic in brining up other topics."
Cox's sentiment was echoed by Kai Ryssdal, host of NPR's Marketplace, who remarked that "the guy being interviewed doesn’t get to pick the questions."
Journalist Helen Kennedy challenged Trump's assertion that asking about the status of the Iran war was irrelevant when talking about Lindsey Graham.
"Making war with Iran was Lindsey Graham's favorite thing," Kennedy observed. "It's not like it's unrelated."
"Lindsey Graham will forever be remembered as an enabler of a regime that has murdered people, destroyed democratic norms, and caused irreparable harm to this country. What a horrific legacy," said one critic.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most relentless proponents for using US military force overseas, died on Saturday night at the age of 71.
In a statement posted on Graham's (R-SC) social media account, the senator's office said that he "passed away from a brief and sudden illness."
"Sen. Graham's family appreciates prayers at this time," the office added, "and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period."
During his life, Graham advocated either starting or getting involved in multiple wars across the world, and he was reportedly instrumental in convincing President Donald Trump to launch an illegal attack on Iran without any authorization from the US Congress.
Although Graham was once a Trump critic—he infamously declared in 2016 that the Republican Party would get "destroyed" if it made the former Celebrity Apprentice host its presidential nominee—the South Carolina Republican grew to become one of the president's staunchest allies.
Some critics of Graham reacted to his death by rehashing what they considered to be his least admirable traits.
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, remarked that Graham "never met a war he didn't want to send your kids to."
Alejandra Caraballo, clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, also reflected on Graham's lifetime of war mongering.
"You can say a lot about Lindsey Graham," Caraballo wrote, "but at least he got to see the thing he most wanted before he died, bombing school children in Iran."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse predicted that Graham would leave behind a decidedly poor legacy.
"When Lindsey Graham appears in a history book," wrote Kruse, "it'll be his prediction in 2016 that the Republican Party would be destroyed for supporting Donald Trump and then a few lines about how he proved it by becoming Trump's toady. That's pretty much it. That's his legacy. Pathetic lickspittle."
Steve Schmidt, a former Republican strategist who left the party due to its embrace of Trump, wrote that Graham was "a simple, tragic man" who "lacked a moral core."
"The great empty spaces of his life were filled with an insatiable need for 'relevance,'" Schmidt observed. "He found it as a cast member in the most malignant reality show ever made."
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, had a similar analysis of Graham's character.
"Lindsey Graham supported the International Criminal Court when it charged [Russian President Vladimir] Putin but turned on it when it charged [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu," wrote Roth. "Principled, he wasn't."
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, wrote that Graham "spent the last decade of his life in public service... trying hard to be remembered as an enemy of the Constitution who worked to destroy American democracy."
Grossman added that Graham "exhibited occasional signs that he knew why that was bad but kept doing it anyway."
Ruth Zakarin, CEO of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, offered a grim assessment of the late senator.
"Lindsey Graham will forever be remembered as an enabler of a regime that has murdered people, destroyed democratic norms, and caused irreparable harm to this country," wrote Zakarin. "What a horrific legacy."
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"