

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.

Will Matthews, (212) 549-2582 or 2666; media@aclu.org
The
American Civil Liberties Union today demanded that the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) release all records in its possession related to attempts
by prison officials to purge from federal prison chapel libraries any
religious material arbitrarily deemed to be unacceptable.
The demand, articulated in a letter sent to the
U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy, follows
the failure by BOP officials to adequately respond to a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request filed last spring by a California
graduate student writing a thesis on the censoring of religious
materials in federal prisons.
"The refusal of prison officials to provide a
full accounting of their rationale for banning religious material is
just the latest example of an ongoing effort to secretly and
unconstitutionally censor material they consider to be unacceptable,"
said David Shapiro, staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison
Project. "To deny prisoners their constitutional right to access
religious materials is bad enough. But to attempt to do so in a way
that skirts transparency and prevents the public from knowing what they
are doing is entirely unacceptable."
In order to complete his master's degree in
religion at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, the
student, Joshua C. Harris, is writing a thesis on the 2007
implementation of the Standardized Chapel Library Project (SCLP), which
authorized BOP officials to purge from prison chapel libraries any
material that was not on a list of "acceptable" publications that the
libraries could maintain. Among those titles banned at the time were
Maimonides' "Code of Jewish Law."
In order to obtain information about how it was
decided what materials would be placed on the list of "acceptable"
publications, what materials would be left off and who was charged with
making those determinations, Harris filed a FOIA request in April
asking for "any/all documents that detail the reasoning behind, and
implementation of, the [SCLP]." The SCLP was a major undertaking that
surely generated a substantial amount of records, but the BOP's
September response to Harris' FOIA request included only four documents.
"The lack of information provided to me by BOP
officials has certainly impeded my ability to complete my thesis, but
that is only part of my concern," Harris said. "My research is
motivated by a general concern for the rights of prisoners,
particularly their religious freedoms. Incarcerated populations are
especially vulnerable to abuses of power, in part, because prisoner
issues, such as the censorship of religious materials, are largely
invisible to the public. I'm concerned that policies directly impacting
federal prisoners are being devised and implemented without any public
awareness or debate."
The 2007 implementation of the SCLP sparked
harsh criticism from lawmakers and religious leaders across a broad
ideological spectrum and, in 2008, prompted Congress to pass a
provision of the Second Chance Act that allows BOP officials to
restrict only those materials "that seek to incite, promote or
otherwise suggest the commission of violence or criminal activity" or
"any other materials prohibited by any other law or regulation." The
Act explicitly forbids any further attempt "by whatever designation
that seeks to restrict prisoners' access to reading materials,
audiotapes, videotapes or any other materials made available in a
chapel library."
Despite the existence of the Act, however, BOP
earlier this year proposed a new rule that seeks to restrict prisoners'
access to materials in defiance of the law. The watered-down standard
in the proposed rule would allow any book to be banned if it is
determined that it "could...suggest" violence or criminal activity,
regardless of whether there is any intent to cause violence or even a
reasonable possibility that violence will result. Works such as the
Bible, the Qur'an and Martin Luther King's "Letter From a Birmingham
Jail" could be left vulnerable because, theoretically, they could
suggest violence or criminal activity to a reader.
The proposed rule would also allow BOP to ban
books that are seen as "advocating or fostering violence, vengeance or
hatred toward particular religious, racial or ethnic groups" or books
that are deemed to advocate "for the overthrow or destruction of the
United States."
In March, the ACLU filed formal comments with
BOP's Office of General Counsel opposing the proposed rule. The
comments were signed by a diverse coalition of religious organizations
including the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the
American Jewish Congress and Muslim Advocates. BOP has yet to decide
whether it will implement the rule.
A copy of the ACLU's demand letter sent today to the Department of Justice is available online at: www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/aclu-demand-documents-related-standard-chapel-library-project
A copy of the ACLU's comments on BOP's proposed rule is available online at: www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/39036res20090317.html
Additional information about the ACLU National Prison Project is available online at: www.aclu.org/prison
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666The White House adviser offered "a very good definition of imperialism," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"Belligerent" was how one Democratic lawmaker described a diatribe given by top White House adviser Stephen Miller on CNN Monday evening regarding the Trump administration's right to take over Venezuela—or any other country—if doing so is in the supposed interest of the US.
To Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), however, Miller was simply providing viewers with "a very good definition of imperialism" as he described the worldview the administration is operating under as it takes control of Venezuela and eyes other countries, including Greenland, that it believes it can and should invade.
"This is what imperialism is all about," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper. "And I suspect that people all over the world are saying, ‘Wow, we’re going back to where we were 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, where the big, powerful countries were exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources.'"
The senator spoke to Tapper shortly after Miller's interview, in which the news anchor asked whether President Donald Trump would support holding an election in Venezuela days after the US military bombed the country and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
Miller refused to directly engage with the question, saying only that it would be "absurd and preposterous" for the US to install Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado as the leader of the country, before asking Tapper to "give [him] the floor" and allow him to explain the White House's view on foreign policy.
"The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere," said Miller. "We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries but not to us."
Instead of "demanding that elections be held" in Venezuela, he added, "the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology."
MILLER: The US is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It's absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of… pic.twitter.com/wXK2UxnqUj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 5, 2026
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that Venezuela "stole" oil from the United States. The country is believed to have the largest oil reserves in the world, and the government nationalized its petroleum industry in 1976, including projects that had been run by US-based ExxonMobil. The last privately run oil operations were nationalized in 2007 by then-President Hugo Chavez.
Miller offered one of the most explicit explanations of the White House's view yet: that "sovereign countries don’t get sovereignty if the US wants their resources," as Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) translated in a social media post.
Moulton called Miller's tirade "genuinely unhinged" and "a disturbing window into how this administration thinks about the world."
Miller's remarks followed a similarly blunt statement at a UN Security Council emergency meeting by US Ambassador Michael Waltz.
"You cannot continue to have the largest energy reserves in the world under the control of adversaries of the United States," said Waltz.
Miller's description of the White House's current view on foreign policy followed threats from Trump against countries including Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland, and further comments suggested that the administration could soon move to take control of the latter country—even though it is part of the kingdom of Denmark, which along with the US is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
"Greenland should be part of the United States," said Miller. "The president has been very clear about that, that is the formal position of the US government."
Miller: “Greenland has a population of 30,000 people. By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The United States is the power of NATO. Greenland should be part of the United States.”
“Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland.” pic.twitter.com/d7i2kMXFMD
— Dori Toribio (@DoriToribio) January 5, 2026
He dismissed the idea that the takeover of Greenland, home to about 56,000 people, would involve a military operation—though Trump has said he would not rule out using force—and said that "nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland."
The vast island is strategically located in the Arctic Circle and has largely untapped reserves of rare-earth minerals.
Danish and Greenlandic officials have condemned Trump's latest threats this week, with Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, warning that, in accordance with the NATO treaty, "everything would come to an end" if the US attacks another NATO country.
“The international community as we know it, democratic rules of the game, NATO, the world’s strongest defensive alliance—all of that would collapse if one NATO country chose to attack another," she told Danish news channel Live News on Monday.
The Danish government called an emergency meeting of its Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday to discuss "the kingdom's relationship with the United States."
On CNN, Sanders noted that as Trump sets his sights on controlling oil reserves in Venezuela and resources in Greenland, people across the president's own country are struggling under rising costs and financial insecurity.
"Maybe instead of trying to run Venezuela," said Sanders, "the president might try to do a better job running the United States of America."
"He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump."
Independent British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday accused United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer of "cowardice" for refusing to condemn the US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president, acts that experts agree were flagrant violations of international law.
Hours after the US attack—as leaders in the region and worldwide voiced horror and outrage—Starmer issued a statement welcoming Nicolás Maduro's ouster, declaring that "we regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime."
Starmer later insisted, as the Trump administration laid out plans to control the Venezuelan government indefinitely, that the situation was "complicated," adding that it was "for the U.S. to justify the action that it has taken."
Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party now helmed by Starmer, countered in Tribune magazine that "it’s really not that complicated: Bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal."
"It is absolutely staggering that a prime minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious," Corbyn wrote. "It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high."
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States."
The UK, according to the government's foreign secretary, has been in close contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the role it can play in Venezuela, citing the "work we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities in the regime and of course our relationship with the US."
Corbyn argued that the government's approach is in some ways reminiscent of its conduct in the lead-up to the disastrous and illegal US invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States," Corbyn wrote. "Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law."
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," said Sen. Ed Markey.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting—which helped fund NPR, PBS, and many local public television and radio outlets—announced Monday that its board of directors has voted to dissolve the 58-year-old private nonprofit, a move one Democratic US senator blamed on Republican efforts to destroy the venerable American institution.
CPB said in a statement that Sunday's board of directors vote "follows Congress’ rescission of all of CPB’s federal funding and comes after sustained political attacks that made it impossible for CPB to continue operating as the Public Broadcasting Act intended."
Patricia Harrison, CPB's president and CEO, said Monday that "for more than half a century, CPB existed to ensure that all Americans—regardless of geography, income, or background—had access to trusted news, educational programming, and local storytelling."
"When the [Trump] administration and Congress rescinded federal funding, our board faced a profound responsibility: CPB’s final act would be to protect the integrity of the public media system and the democratic values by dissolving, rather than allowing the organization to remain defunded and vulnerable to additional attacks," Harrison added.
CPB board chair Ruby Calvert said: “What has happened to public media is devastating. After nearly six decades of innovative, educational public television and radio service, Congress eliminated all funding for CPB, leaving the board with no way to continue the organization or support the public media system that depends on it."
"Yet, even in this moment, I am convinced that public media will survive, and that a new Congress will address public media’s role in our country because it is critical to our children's education, our history, culture, and democracy to do so," Calvert added.
The dissolution of CPB won't end NPR, PBS, or other public media outlets—which are overwhelmingly funded via contributions by private donors and by viewers and listeners.
President Donald Trump, congressional Republicans, and conservative advocacy groups—including the Heritage Foundation, which led work on Project 2025, the right-wing roadmap for remaking the federal government whose agenda includes stripping CPB funding—argue that NPR, PBS and other public outlets have become too "woke" and liberally "biased." In May, Trump signed an executive order calling for an end to taxpayer support for CPB-funded media.
Critics counter that Republican attacks on CPB have little to do with ensuring balanced coverage and fiscal responsibility and more to do with punishing media outlets that are critical of Trump and his policies.
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement Monday.
“Today’s decision to dissolve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting marks a grave loss for the American public," Markey continued. "For generations, CPB helped ensure access to trusted news, quality children’s programming, local storytelling, and vital emergency information for millions of people in Massachusetts and across the country."
"CPB nurtured and developed our public broadcasting system, which is truly the crown jewel of America’s media mix," he added. “This fight is not over. I will continue to fight for public media and oppose authoritarian efforts to shut down dissent, threaten journalists, and undermine free speech in the United States of America.”
Free press defenders also lamented CPB's imminent dissolution, as well as consolidation in the corporate mainstream media.
"Meanwhile," said human rights attorney Qasim Rashid on Bluesky, "billionaires continue to buy up major legacy media to prevent criticism of Trump."