

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.

Italy intercepts African boat migrants and asylum seekers, fails to screen them for refugee status or other vulnerabilities, and forcibly returns them to Libya, where many are detained in inhuman and degrading conditions and abused, Human Rights Watch said in a report issued today.
The 92-page report, "Pushed Back, Pushed Around: Italy's Forced Return of Boat Migrants and Asylum Seekers, Libya's Mistreatment of Migrants and Asylum Seekers," examines the treatment of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees in Libya through the eyes of those who have managed to leave and are now in Italy and Malta. It also documents Italy's practice of interdicting boats full of migrants on the high seas and pushing them back to Libya without the required screening.
"The reality is that Italy is sending people back to abuse," said Bill Frelick, refugee policy director at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. "Migrants who had been detained in Libya consistently spoke of brutal treatment and overcrowded and unsanitary conditions."
Italian patrol boats tow migrant boats from international waters without determining whether some might be refugees, sick or injured, pregnant women, unaccompanied children, or victims of trafficking or other forms of violence against women. The Italians force the boat migrants onto Libyan vessels or take the migrants directly back to Libya, where the authorities immediately detain them. Some of the operations are coordinated by Frontex, the European Union's external borders migration-control agency.
The policy is an open violation of Italy's legal obligation not to commit refoulement - the forced return of people to places where their lives or freedom would be threatened or where they would face a risk of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment.
"Pushed Back, Pushed Around" is based on interviews with 91 migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees in Italy and Malta, conducted mostly in May 2009, and one telephone interview with a migrant detainee in Libya. Human Rights Watch visited Libya in April and met with government officials, but the Libyan authorities would not permit the organization to interview migrants privately. The authorities also did not allow Human Rights Watch to visit any of the many migrant detention centers in Libya, despite repeated requests.
"Italy flouts its legal obligations by summarily returning boat migrants to Libya," said Frelick. "The EU should demand that Italy comply with its obligations by halting these returns to Libya. Other EU member states should refuse to participate in Frontex operations that result in the return of migrants to abuse."
"Daniel," a 26-year-old Eritrean interviewed in Sicily, told Human Rights Watch what happened after Maltese authorities interdicted the boat he was on and towed it to a Libyan vessel, which brought his group back to Libya (to read Daniel's complete account, please visit: https://www.hrw.org/en/node/85530 ):
"We were really tired and dehydrated when we arrived in Libya. I thought, 'If they beat me, I won't feel a thing.' When we arrived, there were no doctors, nothing to help, just military police. They started punching us. They said, 'You think you want to go to Italy.' They were mocking us. We were thirsty, and they were hitting us with sticks and kicking us. For about one hour they beat everyone who was on the boat."
They were taken to Misrata prison in a crowded, airless truck and beaten again when they arrived:
"We were treated badly at Misrata. We were Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, and a few Somalis. The rooms were not clean. We were only given a half-hour a day to take air outside, and the only reason they let us out at all was to count us. We sat in the sun. Anyone who spoke would be hit. I was beaten with a black plastic hose."
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees now has access to Misrata, and Libyan organizations provide humanitarian services there. But there is no formal agreement, and thus no guaranteed access. Furthermore, Libya has no asylum law or procedures. The authorities make no distinction among refugees, asylum seekers, and other migrants.
"There are no refugees in Libya," Brigadier General Mohamed Bashir Al Shabbani, director of the Office of Immigration at the General People's Committee for Public Security, told Human Rights Watch. "They are people who sneak into the country illegally and they cannot be described as refugees." He said that anyone who enters the country without formal documents and permission is arrested.
Despite Libya's practices, the EU, like Italy, increasingly sees Libya as a valuable partner in migration control. The European Commission is currently negotiating a readmission agreement with Libya that would create a formal return mechanism, as well as a general Framework Agreement for enhanced ties. The European Commission vice-president, Jacques Barrot, has indicated a desire to visit Tripoli for talks on enhanced cooperation on asylum and migration.
"Pushed Back, Pushed Around" urges the Libyan government to improve the deplorable conditions of detention in Libya and to establish asylum procedures that conform to international refugee standards. It also calls on the Italian government, the European Union, and Frontex to ensure access to asylum, including for those interdicted on the high seas, and to refrain from returning non-Libyans to Libya until its treatment of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees fully meets international standards.
"The human rights clause in the upcoming EU-Libya Framework Agreement and any agreements flowing from it should include explicit reference to the rights of asylum seekers and migrants as a prerequisite for any cooperation on migration-control schemes," Frelick said.
Many of the worst abuses reported to Human Rights Watch occurred after failed attempts to leave Libya. One of the migrants, "Pastor Paul" (all names have been changed), a 32-year-old Nigerian, told Human Rights Watch how Libyan authorities brutally treated him when the Libyans stopped his boat shortly after it left Libya on October 20, 2008:
"We were in a wooden boat, and Libyans in a [motorized inflatable] Zodiac started shooting at us. They told us to return to shore. They kept shooting until they hit our engine. One person was shot and killed. I don't know the men who did the shooting, but they were civilians, not in uniforms. Then a Libyan navy boat came and got us and started beating us. They collected our money and cell phones. I think the Zodiac boat was working with the Libyan navy. The Libyan navy took us back in their big ship and sent us to Bin Gashir deportation camp. When we arrived there, they immediately started beating me and the others. They beat some of the boys until they could not walk."
Human Rights Watch does not have evidence to indicate how many migrants in Libya, or seeking to enter the European Union via Italy or Malta, would qualify as refugees. But Italy and Malta had asylum approval rates of 49 percent and 52.5 percent, respectively, for all nationalities in 2008. The Trapani district of Sicily, which includes Lampedusa, the entry point for most boat arrivals from Libya, had a 78 percent asylum approval rate from January through August 2008. But, by sending back to Libya everyone it intercepts at sea, without even trying to determine whether they are refugees, Italy is returning persons at risk of persecution.
"Many of the boat migrants do, in fact, come from countries with poor human rights records and, in some cases, high levels of generalized violence," said Frelick. "But beyond those who need protection, all migrants have human rights and should be treated with dignity."
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.
"Rather than an isolated decision, this is part of a clear and dangerous pattern" in which the Trump administration has attacked working families, said one advocate.
The Trump administration is portraying its decision to slash $10 billion in funding to five Democrat-led states as a response to a scandal in Minnesota, where dozens of people have been convicted of stealing public money through the state's social services system—but advocates and Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday condemned what they called an act of "political retribution" that will punish working families who have nothing to do with the recent fraud cases.
"Rather than an isolated decision, this is part of a clear and dangerous pattern," said Kristen Crowell, executive director of the advocacy group Fair Share America.
Crowell pointed to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was passed by Republicans last year, and said that along with the cuts announced Monday, "these policies amount to a coordinated attack on working families."
The US Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said the cuts would impact New York, California, Colorado, Minnesota, and Illinois.
About $7 billion in funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program will be impacted, reducing cash assistance that is provided to low-income families with children. The five states will also collectively lose nearly $2.4 billion in assistance for working parents through the Child Care and Development Fund and $870 million for social services grants.
The funding freeze follows the administration's suspension of $185 million in annual aid to childcare centers in Minnesota and a pause it announced on childcare funding for all states until officials could prove verification data about how the money was being spent—a response to what Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O'Neill called "blatant fraud that appears to be rampant in Minnesota and across the country."
A spokesperson for HHS, Andrew Nixon, told CNN Tuesday that the new funding cuts for the five states were moving forward because "for too long, Democrat-led states and governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch. Under the Trump administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”
The administration did not point to any evidence that the five states have used taxpayer money fraudulently in their social services programs.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) accused President Donald Trump of "playing politics with our children's lives," while Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) posited that Colorado was being targeted once again in retaliation for the state's prosecution of a former county clerk over her involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
In addition to responding to Minnesota's fraud scandal by cutting funding for millions of families in four other states, Trump has cited the controversy as a reason to further ramp up immigration enforcement as he's placed blame on Minnesota's entire Somali community of about 80,000 people for the fraud. Members of the Somali diaspora have been charged with defrauding the state government.
Trump said Sunday that "every one of them should be forced to leave this country," referring to all Somalis, and is deploying thousands of federal agents to Minnesota to intensify anti-immigration operations there.
In the case of the childcare funding cuts, the administration's decision will mean "higher costs, fewer slots, and more families forced into impossible choices between caring for their children and keeping a job," said Crowell.
"Beyond the immediate human harm, this agenda undermines foundational elements of our economy: the care infrastructure that makes work possible and the purchasing power of the working class," she added. "When parents can’t afford childcare, when families lose health coverage, when hunger rises, our workforce shrinks, productivity falls, families are forced to go without. This is not fiscal responsibility—it’s economic sabotage, paid for by America’s kids.”
On social media, one commentator pointed to the right-wing policy blueprint Project 2025 as evidence that the administration ultimately aims to gut the childcare industry altogether—ending federal funding for large-scale childcare programs and supporting parents "directly" instead so they can stay home with their children.
"It’s not about fraud. It’s about defunding childcare," they wrote. "While not offering a real financial alternative. While cutting programs like Head Start. While rolling back access to birth control and abortion. That’s not support. That’s coercion."
"Congress must say enough is enough and immediately open an investigation into just how deep the rot at Burgum’s Interior goes," said one critic.
Ethics experts this week raised red flags over a senior US Interior Department official's failure to disclose her family's financial interest in the nation's largest lithium mine, which opponents say was illegally approved by the Trump administration.
In 2018, Frank Falen, husband and former law partner of current Associate Deputy Interior Secretary Karen Budd-Falen—the third-highest ranking Department of Interior (DOI) official—sold the water rights from a family ranch in Humboldt County, Nevada to a subsidiary of Lithium Americas for $3.5 million.
The subsidiary, Lithium Nevada, wanted to build a highly controversial $2.2 billion open-pit lithium mine—Thacker Pass—that required both massive amounts of water and approval from the DOI. Falen's water rights sale also hinged upon DOI approving the mine.
At the time, Budd-Falen worked as the DOI's deputy solicitor for wildlife. In 2019, she sat down for a lunch meeting with Lithium Americas executives in the DOI cafeteria.
“They just happened to mention to me they were going to DC, and I was like, ‘Well, my wife is back there,’” Falen said of the Lithium Americas executives in a New York Times interview. “It was my fault because I just said, ‘Yeah, you should stop by and say hi to my wife.’"
The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), part of DOI, approved the mine during the final days of Trump's first administration via an expedited process to circumvent lengthy environmental review. Indigenous and conservation groups, working together in the Protect Thacker Pass coalition, subsequently sued over what they argued was the mine's illegal approval.
A Lithium Americas spokesperson told the Times: "We haven’t worked directly with Karen Budd-Falen related to Lithium Americas, nor have we ever met with her in a formal capacity regarding our project.”
However, ethics experts question the financial ties between Falen and Thacker Pass and why Budd-Falen did not publicly disclose her husband's $3.5 million water deal.
“Did she have any oversight of the environmental review process regarding Thacker Pass?" Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, a Nevada conservation group, said during an interview last week with High Country News. “If she didn’t recuse herself, it would fly in the face of the impartial decision-making that Americans expect from government officials.”
Doug Burgum’s third-in-command Karen Budd-Falen made millions after the Trump administration fast-tracked what’s now the nation’s biggest lithium mine. Illegal, conflict of interest, corruption, or whatever you want to call it, there’s a rot in our Interior Department. https://nyti.ms/3LfBVWM
[image or embed]
— Save Our Parks (@saveourparks.us) January 5, 2026 at 1:00 PM
Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, told the Times: "It’s not clear that Karen Budd-Falen knew she had a conflict, but it’s clear she should have known, and that the public should have known. It’s also clear that she should not have met with Lithium Nevada."
Green groups and Indigenous peoples—including the the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Burns Paiute Tribe, and Summit Lake Paiute Tribe—fiercely oppose the mine. Opponents argue the project lacks consent, had a rushed environmental review, and that the mine would threaten wildlife and water and desecrate sacred Indigenous sites.
Thacker Pass, whose name means "rotten moon" to all three tribes, is also the site of an 1865 massacre of dozens and perhaps scores of Northern Paiute men, women, and children by US Cavalry troops. The tribes want it listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
In September, the Trump administration and Lithium Americas reached a deal under which the government will take a 5% equity stake in both the company and the Thacker Pass mine in return for Department of Energy loan money as demand for lithium—a key component of electric vehicle batteries, cellphones, and laptops—is surging worldwide.
The apparent conflict of interest involving Budd-Falen continues a history of corruption at Trump's DOI in both the president's first and current terms. First-term Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's tenure was plagued by ethics violations and abuse of office. Federal investigators found that Zinke lied to them about his involvement in private land deals while in office, had improper relationships with developers, and improperly used taxpayer funds to pay for chartered aircraft and helicopter flights.
Zinke resigned in 2019. His eventual successor, David Bernhardt, was called a "walking conflict of interest" and "as corrupt as it gets" due to his prior work as a fossil fuel lobbyist.
Budd-Falen could also benefit from the Trump administration's invasion of Venezuela. According to reporting from Public Domain's Jimmy Tobias and Chris D'Angelo, Budd-Falen or her husband hold tens of thousands of dollars worth of stock in fossil fuel companies including ExxonMobil and pipeline firm Enterprise Products Partners.
Responding to Budd-Falen's failure to disclose her family's interest in the Thacker Pass mine, Save Our Parks spokesperson Jayson O’Neill said Monday:
This raises substantial questions about the lack of transparency, clear conflicts of interest, and potential illegal self-dealing at the Interior Department under [Interior Secretary] Doug Burgum. It wasn’t enough for Burgum’s top lieutenant, Karen Budd-Falen, to hold tens of thousands of dollars in Big Oil stocks while advancing their interests at Interior. Now we find out that she worked behind the scenes with Lithium Americas’ representatives and lobbyists, which received fast-track approval, making her and her husband millions.
"This naked corruption and self-dealing is par for the course at Doug Burgum’s Interior Department, which is more focused on self-serving and special interests than the American people and our outdoor heritage," O'Neill added. "Congress must say enough is enough and immediately open an investigation into just how deep the rot at Burgum’s Interior goes.”
"Today's ruling affirms what we have always known: that abortion is essential healthcare," said one advocate.
The first piece of state legislation in the US explicitly banning the use of abortion pills was struck down on Tuesday as Wyoming's state Supreme Court ruled that it, along with the state's near-total abortion ban, violated the state's constitutional right to bodily autonomy.
Both laws were passed in 2023, following the US Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade. One of them banned abortion in nearly all cases, except when the pregnant patient's life is threatened or in cases of rape or incest—a measure similar to those in several other red states.
But while many states' abortion bans have effectively outlawed the use of abortion drugs like mifepristone and misoprostol, Wyoming's was the first to outlaw the use of these pills in its text.
According to a 2023 study by the Guttmacher Institute, 63% of abortions nationwide are done using medications.
In 2012, Wyoming voters approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing each competent adult the "right to make his or her own healthcare decisions."
Ironically, the amendment was heavily promoted at the time by conservatives who believed it would protect them from what they viewed as "undue governmental infringement" by former President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. But reproductive freedom advocates have since used it as a weapon to protect abortion.
In 2023, Wyoming's only remaining abortion clinic, Wellspring Health Access in Casper; the abortion rights group Chelsea’s Fund; and four women, including two obstetricians, sued the state, arguing that the laws violated this constitutional right.
The state's attorneys attempted to argue that the amendment did not apply to abortion, which they claimed is not "healthcare."
In November 2024, a district judge halted both laws, deeming them unconstitutional. Abortion has since remained legal in the state while the lawsuit went ahead.
In a 4-1 ruling, the Wyoming Supreme Court on Tuesday also sided with abortion rights advocates, ruling that both of these laws conflicted with the state’s constitution.
“A woman has a fundamental right to make her own healthcare decisions, including the decision to have an abortion,” the ruling states.
“The state did not meet its burden of demonstrating the abortion laws further the compelling interest of protecting unborn life without unduly infringing upon the woman’s fundamental right to make her own healthcare decisions,” the court added. “As such, the abortion laws do not constitute reasonable and necessary restrictions on a pregnant woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions.”
Wyoming’s Supreme Court is the state’s highest judicial authority, meaning that the pair of laws is permanently blocked. However, the court said “lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue.”
Janean Forsyth, the executive director of Chelsea's Fund, said the court's decision "is a landmark victory for reproductive freedom in Wyoming, and we are gratified and heartened by the ruling."
"Today's ruling affirms what we have always known: that abortion is essential healthcare, and Wyoming women have the constitutional right and the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions without government interference," she added.
The ruling is a victory for abortion rights at a time when they have come under systemic attack by the Trump administration during his first year back in power, as the Center for Reproductive Rights documented in a report released Monday.
The administration has withdrawn federal guidance that directed emergency rooms to perform abortions in cases where the mother suffers deadly pregnancy complications, which have increased by as much as 50% in states with abortion bans.
A new policy at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), meanwhile, prevented veterans on VA health insurance from receiving abortions, including in cases of rape, incest, or severe risk to personal health.
The massive cuts to Medicaid under last year's Republican budget reconciliation bill have also resulted in the closure of at least 50 Planned Parenthood health centers across the nation, and reduced services at many more.
GOP attempts to restrict mifepristone access are also currently being litigated in Florida, Texas, and Missouri.
Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr said during a Senate hearing in May that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently reviewing its regulations on mifepristone, which was first approved by the FDA 26 years ago. That review has reportedly been delayed until after the 2026 midterm elections in November.
"Too many people wrongly believe that President Trump is done attacking abortion access, and that overturning Roe v. Wade was his endgame,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “But in his first year back in office, the Trump administration is not ‘leaving it to the states’ to decide abortion policy, but wielding federal power to go after abortion access even in states where abortion is legal."
She described "the looming fear that the FDA will soon gut access to abortion pills, which have been a lifeline in post-Roe America," adding that "the threat to further limit access to abortion throughout the nation is real and must be met with vigorous opposition.”