

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.

Moira Vahey, Free Press, (202) 265-1490, x 31
On Wednesday, more than 50 civil rights, public interest and
grassroots organizations sent a letter to the Federal Communications
Commission and congressional leaders supporting Mark Lloyd, the
associate general counsel and chief diversity officer of the FCC, and
the agency's longstanding mission to promote localism, diversity and
competition in the media.
In recent weeks, Mr. Lloyd has been unfairly attacked on cable TV
and radio talk shows with false and misleading information about his
role and responsibilities at the FCC. A respected scholar and public
servant, Lloyd was hired by the agency to expand media opportunities
for women, people of color, small businesses, and those living in rural
areas.
The full text of the letter and a list of signatories is below:
September 16, 2009
To: FCC Commissioners and Congressional Leaders
We, the undersigned, ask you to speak out against the falsehoods and
misinformation that are threatening to derail important work by
Congress and the Federal Communications Commission on media and
technology policies that would benefit all Americans.
In recent weeks, Mark Lloyd, the associate general counsel and chief
diversity officer of the FCC, has come under attack by prominent cable
TV and radio hosts, and even by some members of Congress, who have made
false and misleading claims about his work at the agency.
Mr. Lloyd is a respected historian, an experienced civil rights
leader, and a dedicated public servant. He was hired by the FCC to
"collaborate on the policies and legal framework necessary to expand
opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to
participate in the communications marketplace." His important work
should not be hindered by lies and innuendo.
As the leading media policymakers in Washington, we ask you to speak
out against these unfounded attacks, stand publicly behind Mr. Lloyd,
and make clear your commitment to carrying out the core mandate of the
FCC -- as enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934 -- to promote
localism, diversity and competition in the media.
Let us be clear as to what "localism" actually means. Broadcasters
get hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of subsidies in exchange for
a basic commitment to serve the public interest. Broadcasters are
expected to be responsive to their local communities. Localism has been
a cornerstone of broadcast regulation as long as there has been
broadcast regulation. It has nothing to do with censorship or
interference with local programming decisions. Localism is simply about
public service, not about any political viewpoint. Local public service
programming and political talk radio, whether liberal or conservative,
are not mutually exclusive.
Likewise, as the Supreme Court has recognized, "Safeguarding the
public's right to receive a diversity of views and information over the
airwaves is ... an integral component of the FCC's mission." Diversity
of media ownership is a crucial issue, and the agency must address the
fact that women and people of color are vastly underrepresented among
media owners using the public airwaves.
But diversity is also about closing the digital divide: People of
color, the poor, and rural Americans are far less likely to have
high-speed Internet access at home or share in the benefits of
broadband. Diversity is about creating opportunities and broadening
participation; it should go without saying, but it has absolutely
nothing to do with censorship.
The third tenet of the FCC's mission is competition. Those using
their media megaphones to slander and distort the views of Mr. Lloyd
and others may not want competition. But the FCC's job, in its own
words, is "to strengthen the diverse and robust marketplace of ideas
that is essential to our democracy." The overriding goal must be more
speech, not less -- more radio stations, more cable channels and more
Web sites.
At the core of President Obama's media and technology agenda is a
commitment to "diversity in the ownership of broadcast media" and a
pledge to "promote the development of new media outlets for expression
of diverse viewpoints." Now is the time to further that agenda, not to
retreat from it.
We ask you, as leaders on these key media issues, to draw a line in
the sand now, speak out against the unfounded attacks, and redouble
your efforts to enact a policy agenda that will strengthen our economy,
our society and our democracy.
Sincerely,
Josh Silver
Free Press
Wade Henderson
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Winnie Stachelberg
Center for American Progress
James Rucker
ColorOfChange.org
Stephanie Jones
National Urban League Policy Institute
Brent Wilkes
League of United Latin American Citizens
Larry Cohen
Communications Workers of America
Alex Nogales
National Hispanic Media Coalition
Bernie Lunzer
The Newspaper Guild
Communications Workers of America
Kimberly Marcus
Rainbow PUSH Coalition's Public Policy Institute
Malkia Cyril
Center for Media Justice
Andrew Schwartzman
Media Access Project
John Kosinski
Writers Guild of America West
Sandy Close
New America Media
Amalia Deloney
Media Action Grassroots Network
Angelo Falcon
National Institute for Latino Policy
Michael Calabrese
New America Foundation
Gigi Sohn
Public Knowledge
Rinku Sen
Applied Research Center
John Clark
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians
Communications Workers of America
Graciela Sanchez
Esperanza Peace and Justice Center
Mimi Pickering
Appalshop
Steven Renderos
Main Street Project
Hal Ponder
American Federation of Musicians
Tracy Rosenberg
Media Alliance
Terry O'Neill
National Organization for Women
Roger Hickey
Campaign for America's Future
Andrea Quijada
New Mexico Media Literacy Project
Jonathan Lawson
Reclaim the Media
DeAnne Cuellar
Texas Media Empowerment Project
Chris Rabb
Afro-Netizen
Loris Ann Taylor
Lisa Fager
Bediako
Industry Ears
O. Ricardo Pimentel
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
Todd Wolfson
Media Mobilizing Project
Erica Williams
Campus Progress
Gary Flowers
Black Leadership Forum
Eva Paterson
Equal Justice Society
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr
Hip Hop Caucus
Cheryl Contee
Jack and Jill Politics
Dr. E. Faye Williams
National Congress of Black Women
Emily Sheketoff
American Library Association
Ari Rabin-Havt
Media Matters Action Network
Kathryn Galan
National Association of Latino Independent Producers
Roberto Lovato
Presente
Joshua Breitbart
People's Production House
Karen Bond
National Black Coalition for Media Justice
Tracy Van Slyke
Media Consortium
Shireen Mitchell
Digital Sisters, Inc
Media and Technology Task Force
National Council of Women's Organizations
Ariel Dougherty
Media Equity Collaborative
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said "bare due diligence" would have exposed ICE officers' falsehoods.
Video footage obtained by The New York Times has exposed lies told by two federal immigration enforcement agents about the circumstances leading up to a non-fatal shooting in Minneapolis that occurred on January 14.
According to a Monday report from the Times, the video directly contradicts claims made by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials that they were attacked by assailants armed with a shovel and a broom for around three minutes before the agents opened fire and wounded one of the attackers.
"Instead, the confrontation depicted in the video lasts about 12 seconds and shows two men struggling with the agent," reported the Times. "It shows no sustained attack with a shovel."
Federal prosecutors had initially pursued assault charges against Venezuelan national Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was shot in the leg by the ICE officers during the January confrontation, and fellow Venezuelan national Alfredo Aljorna.
However, the government abruptly dropped charges against the two men in February, and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons acknowledged that two federal officers appear “to have made untruthful statements” about the incident.
The Times noted that the government had access to the video of the shooting hours after it took place.
However, one source told the paper that prosecutors didn't watch the video until three weeks after they filed charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna, and instead relied on "the ICE agent’s statement and an FBI agent’s affidavit describing the footage."
This revelation prompted a rebuke from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who told the Times that "bare due diligence would have shown that the agents were lying."
Trump administration officials have come under fire in recent weeks for lying about shootings involving federal immigration officials, such as when former US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem falsely claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was aiming “to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement."
In reality, video footage showed Pretti never drew his handgun during his confrontation with federal immigration officers, while also clearly showing that officers disarmed him before they opened fire.
Noem also falsely claimed that slain ICE observer Renee Good had attempted "an act of domestic terrorism" by trying to run over a federal immigration officer with her car, even though footage clearly showed Good turning her vehicle away from the officer in an attempt to get away from the scene.
"This is an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide," said a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry.
Iranian officials on Monday warned US President Donald Trump that his name will be "etched in history as a supreme war criminal" if he follows through with his threat to wage total war on Iran's civilian infrastructure, including bridges and power plants.
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, wrote on social media following Trump's Easter-morning outburst that "threats to attack power plants and bridges (civilian infrastructure) constitute war crimes under Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 (Article 52)."
"The president of the United States, in his capacity as the highest-ranking official of his country, has openly threatened to commit war crimes—an act that entails his individual criminal responsibility before the International Criminal Court and any competent national court," Gharibabadi added, vowing that Iran "will deliver a decisive, immediate, and regret-inducing response" to any attack.
Esmail Baghaei, a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said Trump's threats are "an indication of a criminal mindset."
"This is an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide," Baghaei said in an interview on Sunday. "Threatening to attack a country's critical infrastructure, energy sector, it would mean that you want to put at risk the whole population."
Absolute bombshell. Iran's Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei accuses the Trump administration of a criminal mindset and public incitement for genocide. Threatening a nation's critical infrastructure puts the entire population at risk. The White House has completely abandoned morality. pic.twitter.com/HcBZGZho5p
— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) April 5, 2026
The US and Israel have already done significant damage to Iran's civilian infrastructure. The country's deputy health minister said Monday that more than 360 healthcare, education, and research centers have been hit by US-Israeli strikes, and dozens of medics have been killed since the bombing began on February 28.
But Trump on Sunday threatened an indiscriminate assault, telling Fox News that if the Iranians "don't make a deal and fast," he is "considering blowing everything up and taking the oil."
"You're going to see bridges and power plants dropping all over their country," the president said, setting a new deadline of 8 pm ET for the complete reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump's remarks came after he published a deranged post on his Truth Social platform demanding that Iran "open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell."
Analysts and lawmakers in the US echoed Iranian officials' warnings that Trump's threatened attacks would constitute war crimes.
"Trump's advisers are telling him to hit civilian sites because it will cause unrest and potentially topple the regime. But just think about the insanity of this plan: kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to cause a national panic," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote. "Bombing to induce political panic IS A WAR CRIME."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said that "any lawmaker who votes for supplemental funding for the war on Iran or against war powers resolutions to end it will be fully complicit in the war crimes threatened here, as well as those already committed by this unhinged and unfit Commander in Chief."
The US president's renewed threats came amid reports of a diplomatic effort, mediated in part by Pakistan, to enact a 45-day ceasefire to provide space for a lasting resolution to the war.
Axios reported that the talks are seen as "the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states."
“She was so long in there," said the child's father. "I just think that if they would have moved faster, nothing like that would have happened.”
President Donald Trump's Department of Health and Human Services and its office in charge of providing care for unaccompanied immigrant children have been named in a civil lawsuit alleging that a three-year-old was sexually abused after immigration officials separated her from her mother at the US border, while her father waited for months to be reunited with the child.
The girl crossed the border with her mother last September but was separated from her mother after the woman was charged with making false statements, according to The Associated Press. She was sent to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which operates under HHS and places children in foster or shelter settings.
When Trump took office for his second term in January 2025, the average time a child was under ORR's care was 37 days, but as of February children were remaining in shelter or foster settings for an average of 200 days.
The process through which ORR releases children to the care of their parents or sponsors has grown more arduous under the Trump administration, and in the case of the three-year-old, she waited for five months in foster care while the government repeatedly told her father it couldn't make an appointment for him to be fingerprinted.
Court documents state that during that time, the girl reported being sexually abused by an older child who was living in the same foster setting in Harlingen, Texas. She told a caregiver that she had been abused multiple times and had suffered bleeding as a result.
ORR only told her father that there had been an "accident" in foster care. Officials did not tell him the result of a forensic exam and interview of his child, but the older child accused of the abuse was removed from the foster setting.
“I asked them, ‘What happened? I want to know. I’m her father. I want to know what’s going on,’ and they just told me that they couldn’t give me more information, that it was under investigation,” said the father, who is a legal permanent US resident and spoke to the AP anonymously to protect his daughter's identity. “She was so long in there... I just think that if they would have moved faster, nothing like that would have happened.”
The Trump administration has claimed its new restrictions for sponsors and family members seeking custody of their children who are in ORR's care have prevented traffickers from illegally bringing children into the US and have kept unaccompanied minors safe.
Family members like the three-year-old's father are required to submit to income verification, home inspections, and DNA testing.
The new procedures were immediately followed by a drastic jump in child detention times, according to the AP.
Legal advocates have filed lawsuits challenging the new restrictions on the grounds that they can cause prolonged detention for children. Lauren Fisher Flores, the legal director of the American Bar Association’s ProBar project and the attorney representing the girl's family, told the AP that the organization has worked on eight habeas corpus petitions on behalf of children who have been detained for an average of 255 days.
In the girl's case, the government finally allowed the father to be fingerprinted after attorneys sent a letter to ORR, but still did not provide a timeline for his daughter's release. His lawyers then filed a habeas petition, prompting the government to release the child to her father.
During the legal challenge, the father learned the details of what ORR had called an "accident" that happened in the foster setting.
“To have your child abused while in the government’s care, to not understand what has happened or how to protect them, to not even be told about the abuse, it is unimaginable,” Fisher Flores told the AP. “Children deserve safety and they belong with their parents.”