

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.
Over 240
academics and experts on Latin America sent a letter to President Obama
yesterday urging him to denounce the ongoing human rights violations
perpetrated by the coup regime in Honduras ahead of the planned
November 29 elections. They also urged him to demand the immediate
restitution of President Manuel Zelaya and to support a full three
months of electoral campaigning after the coup has been overturned and
"debating, organizing, and all other aspects of election campaigns can
be conducted in an atmosphere that is free from fear; in which all
views and parties are free to make their voices heard - not just those
that are allowed under an illegal military occupation." This would mean
that this month's elections - which Latin America and the European
Union have said they will not recognize - would need to be rescheduled.
"With only days left before the scheduled November 29 elections, the
U.S. government must make a choice," the letter states. "It can either
side with democracy, along with every government in Latin America, or
it can side with the coup regime, and further isolate the United States
in the hemisphere."
Last Thursday, the Rio Group, which includes all of Latin America and
most of the Caribbean, issued a
statement declaring that they would consider the November 29
elections to be illegitimate if Zelaya is not first reinstated.
The current letter continues: "Moreover, the U.S. cannot afford to
maintain its deafening silence regarding the innumerable and grave
human rights abuses committed by the coup government in Honduras - a
silence that has become a conspicuous international embarrassment."
Numerous press reports have described human rights abuses and
violations of civil liberties during the three-month period in which
electoral campaigning is allowed under Honduran law, including illegal
mass arrests, beatings, torture, and shootings by state security
forces, attacks on the freedoms of assembly, speech, and of the press.
This repression has been widely documented and denounced by Honduran
and international human rights organizations, including the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and
Amnesty International.
Despite this, the Obama administration has yet to condemn the human
rights violations, or to threaten sanctions or other strong action to
force the coup regime to stop them.
Last week, Bertha Oliva, the head of Honduras' most well-known and
respected human rights organization, the Committee for Families of the
Disappeared and Detained in Honduras (COFADEH), also
called on the Obama administration to denounce the "grave human
rights violations" in Honduras, and declared that "It's too late to
have elections on November 29."
The full text of the letter follows:
_______________________________________
November 11, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Cc.:
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere
Affairs
Dan Restrepo, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of
Western Hemisphere Affairs, National Security Council
Dear President Barack Obama,
We are writing to urge you to stand with democracy and human rights in
Honduras. With only days left before the scheduled November 29
elections the U.S. government must make a choice: it can either side
with democracy, along with every government in Latin America, or it can
side with the coup regime, and remain isolated. Moreover, the U.S.
cannot afford to maintain its deafening silence regarding the
innumerable and grave human rights abuses committed by the coup
government in Honduras - a silence that has become a conspicuous
international embarrassment. The U.S. must forcefully denounce these
abuses, and match its words with action as well. It must make the coup
regime understand that the United States government will no longer
tolerate the violence and repression that the Micheletti government has
practiced against the Honduran people since seizing power on June 28,
2009.
Honduras now stands at the edge of a dangerous precipice. The coup
regime remains determined - in the absence of significant pressure from
the U.S. government - to move forward with the elections, in the hopes
that the international community will eventually recognize the results.
In so doing, they hope to legitimize their illegal and unconstitutional
government.
Free and fair elections on November 29 are already impossible, as more
than two-thirds of the campaign period allowed under Honduran law has
already passed, under conditions in which freedom of assembly, freedom
of speech, and freedom of the press have all been under attack
throughout the country. This repression has been widely documented and
denounced by Honduran and international human rights organizations,
including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights
Watch, and Amnesty International.
The Rio Group of 23 nations, which includes nearly all of Latin America
and much of the Caribbean, had forcefully declared that it will not
recognize the November 29th elections if President Zelaya is not first
re-instated. Thus the United States is at odds with the rest of the
Hemisphere in its stated willingness to recognize these illegitimate
elections.
Free and fair elections can only be carried out in a climate in which
debating, organizing, and all other aspects of election campaigns can
be conducted in an atmosphere that is free from fear; in which all
views and parties are free to make their voices heard - not just those
that are allowed under an illegal military occupation. We therefore
call on the U.S. government to support an electoral process in Honduras
that allows for a full three months - as mandated under Honduran law -
for electoral campaigning, to take place after the restoration of
President Manuel Zelaya. Only in this way can the electoral process
achieve legitimacy in both the eyes of the Honduran people and the
international community.
In the months that have transpired since the April Summit of the
Americas, we are saddened to see that your promise of treating Latin
American nations as equals is evaporating. You declared at that time,
"I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and
condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected
governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere." In remarks that
were recorded, cited, and broadcast all over the world, you asserted:
"The test for all of us is not simply words, but also deeds." Since
then, your government has failed to match these words with deeds
regarding the coup d'etat in Honduras. As a result, the United States
is once again isolating itself in the Americas.
The U.S. must also match its rhetorical commitment to democracy with
concrete deeds, and support the immediate restoration of Manuel Zelaya
to the presidency of Honduras and full guarantees of a free and fair
election.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Abercrombie New York University
Leisy Abrego, University of California, Irvine
Alexis Aguilar, Salisbury University
Jordi Aladro, University of California, Santa Cruz
Ece Algan, California State University, San Bernardino
Paul Almeida, Texas A&M University
Mark Anderson, University of California, Santa Cruz
Tim Anderson, University of Sydney (Australia)
Tom Angotti, Hunter College/City University of New York
Craig Auchter, Butler University
William Aviles, University of Nebraska at Kearney
Cesar J. Ayala, University of California, Los Angeles
Nikhil Aziz, Executive Director, Grassroots International
Beth Baker-Cristales, California State University, Los Angeles
Teo Ballve, North American Congress on Latin America
Rosemary A. Barbera, Monmouth University
Francisco J. Barbosa, University of Colorado, Boulder
John Beverley, University of Pittsburgh
Michelle Bigenho, Hampshire College
Maylei Blackwell, University of California, Los Angeles
Andy Bliss, University of California, Berkeley
Aaron Bobrow-Strain, Whitman College
Blase Bonpane, Office of the Americas
Jules Boykoff, Pacific University
Rachel Brahinsky, University of California, Berkeley
Rosalind Bresnahan, Latin American Perspectives
Laura Briggs, University of Arizona
Sandy Brown, University of California, Berkeley
Joe Bryan, University of Colorado, Boulder
Alicia del Campo, California State University Long Beach
Frankie Cardamone, Prescott College
Barry Carr, University of California, Berkeley
Jennifer Casolo, University of California, Berkeley
Julie A. Charlip, Whitman College
Ronald Chilcote, University of California, Riverside
Aviva Chomsky, Salem State College
George Ciccariello-Maher, University of California, Berkeley
Christopher Clement, Pomona College
Nathan Clough, The University of Minnesota
Fernando Coronil, City University of New York, Graduate Center
Dominic Corva, Sarah Lawrence College
Raymond B. Craib, Cornell University
Altha Cravey, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Julie Cupples, University of Canterbury
Antonia Darder, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
Juanita Darling, San Francisco State University
Pablo Delano, Trinity College
Guillermo Delgado-P., University of California, Santa Cruz
Jennifer Devine, University of California, Berkeley
Monica Dias Martins, State University of Ceara, Brasil
Paul Dosh, Macalester College
Alex Dupuy, Wesleyan University
Jordana Dym, Skidmore College
Marc Edelman, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University
of New York
Steve Ellner, University of Oriente (Venezuela)
Ben Ehrenreich, Journalist and Author
Laura Enriquez, University of California, Berkeley
Arturo Escobar, University of North Carolina
Alicia Estrada, California State University, Northridge
Nicole Fabricant, University of South Florida
Mario Fenyo, Bowie State University
Sujatha Fernandes, Queens College and the Graduate Center, City
University of New York
Raul Fernandez, University of California, Irvine
Ada Ferrer, New York University
John Finn, Arizona State University
Allan Fisher, City College of San Francisco
Bill Fletcher, Jr., BlackCommentator.com
Cindy Forster, Scripps College
Jonathan Fox, University of California, Santa Cruz
Dana Frank, University of California, Santa Cruz
John D. French, Duke University
Gavin Fridell, Trent University, Ontario, Canada
Victoria Furio, Conference Interpreter & Translator
Alberto J. Garcia, California State University, Northridge California
Kim Geron, California State University East Bay
Asher Ghertner, University of California, Berkeley
Shannon Gleeson, University of California, Santa Cruz
Michel Gobat, University of Iowa
Marcial Godoy-Anativia, New York University
Walter L. Goldfrank, University of California, Santa Cruz
Armando Gonzalez Caban, Latin American Perspectives
Gilbert Gonzalez, University of California, Irvine
Evelyn Gonzalez-Mills, Montgomery College
Jeffrey L. Gould, Indiana University
Daniel Graham, University of California, Berkeley
Laura R. Graham, University of Iowa
Greg Grandin, New York University
Richard Grossman, Northeastern Illinois University
Peter Hallward, Middlesex University (U.K.)
Nora Hamilton, University of Southern California
Zoe Hammer, Prescott College
John L. Hammond, City University of New York
Tom Hayden, Author
Mark Healey, University of California, Berkeley
Daniel Hellinger, Webster University
Adam Henne, University of Wyoming
Luis A. Hernandez, School District of Philadelphia
Eric Hershberg, Simon Fraser University
Doug Hertzler, Eastern Mennonite University, Washington Community
Scholars' Center
Derrick Hindery, University of Oregon
Raul Hinojosa, University of California, Los Angeles
Katherine Hite, Vassar College
Jen Hofer, poet, translator, interpreter
Aaron Hogue, Salisbury University
Katherine Hoyt, Nicaragua Network
Forrest Hylton, Universidad de los Andes (Bogota)
Dale L. Johnson, PhD
David Johnson, Xavier University
Susanne Jonas, University of California, Santa Cruz
James Jordan, Campaign for Labor Rights
Gilbert Joseph, Yale University
Nadine Jubb, York University
Karen Kampwirth, Knox College
David Kane, Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns
Chuck Kaufman, Alliance for Global Justice
Robin D. G. Kelly, University of Southern California
Norma Klahn, University of California, Santa Cruz
Sara Koopman, University of British Columbia
Glen David Kuecker, DePauw University
David Kunzle, University of California, Los Angeles
Victoria Langland, University of California, Davis
John Lear, University of Puget Sound
George Leddy, Los Angeles Valley College
Winnie Lem, Trent University
Sidney Lemelle, Pomona College
Deborah Levenson, Boston College
David Lloyd, University of Southern California
Rick Lopez, Amherst College
Tehama Lopez, Duke University
Agnes Lugo-Ortiz, University of Chicago
Sharon Luk, University of Southern California
Sheryl Lutjens, California State University, San Marcos
Milton Ricardo Machuca, Pitzer College
Kathleen A. Mahoney-Norris, Air Command and Staff College
Maya Manzi, Clark University
Greta Marchesi, University of California, Berkeley
Peter E. Marchetti, Researcher, AVANCSO, Guatemala
Lourdes Martinez-Echazabel, University of California, Santa Cruz
Kathleen McAfee, San Francisco State University
Kendra McSweeney, The Ohio State University
Breny Mendoza, California State University, Northridge
Frederick B. Mills, Bowie State University
Laura-Anne Minkoff-Zern, University of California, Berkeley
Ellen Moodie, University of Illinois
Stephanie Moore, Salisbury University
Dorinda Moreno, Hitec Aztec Communications/FM Global
Lena Mortensen, University of Toronto Scarborough
Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy
Guillermo Narvaez, University of California-Irvine
Joseph Nevins, Vassar College
Enrique Ochoa, California State University, Los Angeles
Gilda L. Ochoa, Pomona College
Elizabeth Oglesby, University of Arizona
Almerindo E. Ojeda, University of California at Davis
Andrew Orta, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Paul Ortiz, University of Florida
Mark Overmyer-Velazquez, University of Connecticut
Tanalis Padilla, Dartmouth College
Yajaira M. Padilla, The University of Kansas
Pramod Parajuli, Prescott College
Sirena Pellarolo, California State University, Northridge
Anthony Pereira, Tulane University
Hector Perla, University of California, Santa Cruz
Brandt Peterson, Michigan State University
Adrienne Pine, American University
Martin Plot, California Institute of the Arts
Aaron Pollack, Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. Jose Maria Luis Mora
Deborah Poole, Johns Hopkins University
Suyapa Portillo, Pomona College
Margaret Power, Illinois Institute of Technology
Vijay Prashad, Trinity College
Mary Louise Pratt, New York University
Marina Prieto-Carrron, University of Portsmouth
Sean Purdy, Universidade de Sao Paulo
Kathryn S. Quick, University of California, Irvine
Marie Phillips Rayanne, Prescott College
Marcus Rediker, University of Pittsburgh
Daniel Reichman, University of Rochester
Gerardo Renique, City College of the City University of New York
Kenneth Roberts, Cornell University
William I. Robinson, University of California, Santa Barbara
Dylan Rodriguez, University of California, Riverside
Victor M. Rodriguez, California State University, Long Beach
Cristina Rojas, Carleton University
Sarah T. Romano, University of California, Santa Cruz
Renato Rosaldo, New York University
Karin Alejandra Rosemblatt, University of Maryland
Jan Rus, Latin American Perspectives
Ricardo Daniel Sanchez Cardenas, Northwestern University
Rosaura Sanchez, University of California, San Diego
Mario Santana, The University of Chicago
Felicity Schaeffer-Grabiel, University of California, Santa Cruz
Ellen Sharp, University of California, Los Angeles
Freya Schiwy, University of California, Riverside
Aaron Schneider, Tulane University
Tammi J. Schneider, Claremont Graduate University
T.M. Scruggs, Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa
Adam Shapiro, Prescott College
Ellen Sharp, University of California, Los Angeles
Kirsten Silva Gruesz, University of California, Santa Cruz
Victor Silverman, Pomona College
Richard Simpson, Stanford University
Julie Skurski, City University of New York, Graduate Center
Darryl A. Smith, Pomona College
John Soluri, Carnegie Mellon University
Dale Sorenson, Director, Interfaith Task Force of the Americas
Rose Spalding, DePaul University
Susan Spronk, University of Ottawa
Richard Stahler-Sholk, Eastern Michigan University
Lynn Stephen, University of Oregon
William S. Stewart, California State University, Chico
Steve Striffler, University of New Orleans
Estelle Tarica, University of California, Berkeley
Diana Taylor, New York University
Miguel Tinker Salas, Pomona College
Sinclair Thomson, New York University
Steven Topik, University of California, Irvine
Mayo C. Toruno, California State University, San Bernardino
David J. Vazquez, University of Oregon
Jocelyn S. Viterna, Harvard University
Steven S. Volk, Oberlin College
Hendrik Voss, School of the Americas Watch
Christine J. Wade, Washington College
Diana B. Waters, Goddard College
Penny Waterstone, University of Arizona
Jamie Way, Venezuela Solidarity Campaign
Jeffery R. Webber, University of Regina, Canada
Barbara Weinstein, New York University
Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Kimberly Welch, University of Redland
Allen Wells, Bowdoin College
Marion Werner, University of Minnesota
Eliza Willis, Grinnell College
Tamar Diana Wilson, Independent Scholar
Sonja Wolf, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
Justin Wolfe, Tulane University
John Womack, Harvard University
Megan Ybarra, University of California, Berkeley
Susy Zepeda, University of California, Santa Cruz
Chris Zepeda-Millan, Cornell University
Marc Zimmerman, University of Houston
* Institutions listed only for identification
The US is providing military advisers and helping the Saudis choose targets in a war that has already displaced nearly 150,000 people and put much of the country on the brink of acute food insecurity.
Yemen is spiraling back toward full-scale war after its Saudi-backed government launched a major offensive on Sunday to retake territory captured by the Iran-backed group Ansar Allah, also known as the Houthis.
President Rashad al-Alimi said the armed forces would seek to retake all Houthi-controlled territory, which is home to about 70% of Yemen's population, including the capital Sanaa. He said the offensive would continue “until the country is liberated from the grip of the terrorist militia."
Houthi officials said Saudi forces have launched 50 air and missile attacks in the last 12 hours. As al-Alimi announced the new offensive, the Houthis responded by launching ballistic missiles and drones at Saudi Aramco oil facilities, including one near Riyadh that was engulfed in flames.
Last month, the Houthis captured major strategic areas along the Red Sea coast, giving them unprecedented leverage over one of the world's busiest shipping routes and adding to the economic stranglehold Iran is asserting by restricting travel through the Strait of Hormuz in response to US-Israeli attacks.
Earlier this month, it was reported that President Donald Trump had rebuffed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's request for the US to launch airstrikes against the Houthis.
However, US officials told Axios on Friday that the military is providing Saudi Arabia with "everything short of direct combat, mainly intelligence and targeting data."
While the Saudis conduct a new campaign of airstrikes, Yemen's government could reportedly mobilize as many as 100,000 troops, one of the largest military buildups since the 2022 truce that halted the nation's brutal eight-year civil war.
That war, in which the US also provided extensive military support to a merciless Saudi air campaign, is estimated by the United Nations Development Program to have caused about 377,000 excess deaths by the end of 2021: 154,000 from the fighting itself and 223,000 from indirect effects such as hunger, disease, and the collapse of healthcare and basic infrastructure. An estimated 259,000 of those deaths were of children under 5.
Even before Sunday's escalation, renewed fighting was already fueling a major displacement and hunger crisis. More than 149,000 people have been driven from their homes, according to the International Organization for Migration. Meanwhile, the World Food Program says fighting has disrupted food delivery routes, placing 18.3 million Yemenis at risk of acute food insecurity.
Researcher Muhammad Shehada reviewed all 170 names on the IDF's list of supposed militants posing as journalists and found it to be "the most sloppy shameless fraud possible."
Seeking to discredit reports of its unprecedented killing of journalists in Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces last week published a list of 170 slain Palestinians it claimed were not legitimate media workers but members of "terrorist groups."
Palestinian political analyst Muhammad Shehada, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, reviewed every single entry on the list. He called it "the most sloppy shameless fraud possible."
Israeli officials and Western supporters have trumpeted the IDF's list as a counter to findings by groups like International Federation of Journalists, which has described Israel's nearly-three-year-old-war in Gaza as “the deadliest period in the history of journalism" and cataloged at least 240 journalists and media workers killed.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has found dozens of cases in which it concluded journalists were targeted deliberately because of their reporting and filed multiple complaints with the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging war crimes against the press.
The database, which the IDF refers to as the "Press Files," says "that claim does not tell the full story" and states that "individuals presented as innocent journalists were, in fact, militants in the military wings of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and other terrorist organizations."
The IDF claims the list was the product of an “in-depth investigation” consisting of open-source information, documents recovered by Israeli forces in Gaza, interrogations of alleged Palestinian militants, and intelligence gathered during military operations.
But as Shehada explained in a thread posted to social media on Sunday, "In the overwhelming majority of those listed, the IDF presents ZERO credible evidence. In most of them, their pages are literally blank."
In 59 cases, Shehada found that the IDF did not provide any evidence for its claim that a journalist was a member of Hamas or PIJ other than that the claim was "based on multiple intelligence sources."
Shehada said this amounted to essentially saying "trust me, bro," which is especially insufficient given the numerous instances in which the IDF has been found to have misled the public about its responsibility for certain attacks, like the killing of 5-year-old Hind Rajab in 2024.
In another 42 cases, Shehada found, the IDF provided only decontextualized "snippets" of files, which were "undated and unspecified." Without more information, Shehada said, this is "not... evidence of anything."
"Those snippets could be taken from random files; they could be outdated or fabricated," Shehada said, pointing to previous cases in which purported Hamas intelligence circulated by Israeli sources was later revealed to be misleadingly presented as fabricated.
Shehada pointed to specific cases in which Israel's allegations against specific journalists have been undermined by the underlying evidence.
Israel claimed that Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al-Ghoul, whom the IDF killed in July 2024, was an operative with Hamas' elite Nukhba wing and released a supposed Hamas personnel document as proof.
But as Reporters Without Borders has previously explained, the document says al-Ghoul, born in 1997, received a military rank in 2007, when he was 10, while elsewhere saying he joined in 2014. It also identifies him as an engineer, contradicting the IDF’s description of him as a Nukhba fighter. Israeli troops also detained al-Ghoul at al-Shifa hospital months before he was killed but released him after 12 hours.
The case of Anas al-Sharif, another Al Jazeera journalist killed in 2025, is similar. As Shehada documented for +972 magazine last year, al-Sharif was seriously injured in 2017, listed in a military context in 2019, but described as “suspended” and “unassigned” by 2023—while another document nevertheless portrays him as an elite Nukhba fighter. He was also reportedly detained and released by Israeli forces during the 2024 al-Shifa raid.
In other cases, the IDF's evidence outright debunks the military's own claims. For instance, Israel labeled photojournalist Hassan Aslih—killed by an airstrike at Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis in May 2025—as a "military operative." But the 2019 Hamas document provided as evidence for this lists him as a "photographer" involved with "media services."
While the document, if authentic, does establish a relationship between Aslih and Hamas' Qassam Brigades at least six years before his death, this does not make him a legitimate target under international humanitarian law, which distinguishes between those who have a “continuous combat function" and those who provide political or other indirect forms of support, like media coverage.
Shehada found at least seven cases in which the only evidence provided by the IDF was photos of slain journalists holding guns. In another 12 cases, the IDF provided undated photos of journalists allegedly taking part in Hamas or PIJ military activities.
Shehada noted that many prominent Israeli journalists also have past military service, such as Axios correspondent Barak Ravid, who was an IDF reservist until 2023. "Does that make him a 'legitimate target'? or a non-civilian forever?" Shehada asked.

The distinction between past military affiliation and active combatant status has been a repeated source of dispute for press freedom groups that have attempted to tally the number of journalists killed.
Last month, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) completed a sweeping review of 229 deaths after Hamas and PIJ published obituaries identifying some people listed as journalists as members of armed groups.
CPJ ultimately removed 22 people from its list, including some it found had participated in combat—but retained others despite militant obituaries, gun photos, or past organizational ties when the evidence did not establish active combatant status.
The "Press Files" database contains 49 cases in which the main piece of evidence is one of these obituaries. Among them are people who CPJ examined and concluded were not active combatants, such as photojournalist Amr Abu Odeh—a 26-year-old freelance photographer for the Anadolu Agency and Reuters—whom the IDF database labels a Hamas "squad commander."
CPJ examined photos of Odeh wearing a military uniform, which came from a 2021 military training course with Gaza's Ministry of the Interior. The group noted that "No armed factions in Gaza have claimed Abu Odeh as being affiliated with them, and the IDF has not alleged he was involved in combat."
"In multiple cases, despite obituaries by Hamas/PIJ, the Committee to Protect Journalists investigated thoroughly and concluded those journalists were NOT engaged in any militant activity during the genocide," Shehada wrote. "They may have in the past. That doesn't make them combatants forever."
He added that the flimsiness of the IDF's evidence was more striking given the sophistication of the intelligence unit it uses to "dig up dirt" on journalists to provide post hoc justification for their killings, which has been referred to internally as the "Legitimization Cell," which was revealed in a +972 investigation.
"If that's all they can provide as "evidence" (e.g. blank pages, random snippets, outdated docs) despite having formidable resources," Shehada wrote, "then it's a vindication of Gaza's journalists!"
"At this point, Trump’s economic policy is starting to look less like governing and more like Publishers Clearing House with a campaign logo."
With the midterm elections just weeks away, President Donald Trump announced on Friday that more than 20 million Medicare Part B beneficiaries will receive a one-time $90 payment this month.
Trump, who declared on Truth Social that his administration would send out "checks," said the money will come from the $2 billion Medicare Improvement Fund and is expected to appear in seniors' bank accounts around October 8.
The $90 payment is not even enough to cover half of the standard monthly Medicare Part B premium payment, which is about $202. But Trump described the comparatively small payment as proof that Americans could trust his promise of a much heftier windfall if Republicans prevail in next month's elections.
"Because I delivered on this very important issue for the American people, they can also rest assured the highly popular $5,000 Trump Dividend will be distributed to every U.S. Citizen if, and when, the Republicans win the Midterm Elections!" Trump said.
Americans have reason to be skeptical that they will ever see such a payout. Although roughly 1 million unsubsidized Affordable Care Act enrollees are currently receiving $500 payments, Trump has on several other occasions floated or promised Americans larger sums of free money that never materialized.
In February 2025, he proposed $5,000 "DOGE dividend" checks for Americans, purportedly funded by savings generated by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, but the payments were never authorized by the GOP-controlled Congress.
That November, he promised that most Americans would receive tariff payments of "at least $2,000 a person," but Congress has still not authorized them nearly a year later.
Sending all 240 million adult citizens a $5,000 check, as Trump has promised to do if the GOP wins the midterms, would cost an estimated $1.2 trillion.
"At this point Trump’s economic policy is starting to look less like governing and more like Publishers Clearing House with a campaign logo," remarked the Indiana-based political commentator Mike Young.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) described the payments as "Trump's latest attempt to bribe the American public," arguing that $90 amounts to a pittance compared with the higher costs seniors are facing under Trump's policies.
"This year, Trump handed seniors a $200 monthly Medicare premium for the first time ever, and he also shoveled $20 billion in extra payments to insurance companies selling private Medicare plans,” Wyden said. “This is another desperate attempt by a failed president to escape Americans’ revulsion with his failed agenda, amounting to one tank of Trump-inflated gas.”
"Often at the request of the Bolsonaro family, the US has engaged in a pressure campaign to weaken the Lula government," explained one analyst.
Just two days before Brazil's closely watched presidential election, the campaign of its left-wing president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has asked the nation's top election court to examine the sudden shutdown of US consular services as part of a broader investigation into alleged election "interference" by the Trump administration.
On Friday night, the US suspended in-person consular services at its embassy and consulates across Brazil on Friday and advised Americans to avoid US diplomatic facilities, citing unspecified "security concerns."
In a petition filed to Brazil's Superior Electoral Court, Lula's campaign said taking such an action just days before Brazilians vote "projects instability over the electoral environment," something it said was part of a larger "infrastructure of external intervention in the Brazilian electoral process.”
In recent days, Brazil's intelligence agency said it confirmed the existence of interference by the US in Brazil's election to support Sen. Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro—who is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence under house arrest for orchestrating a coup attempt in 2022.
"Although Trump has not formally endorsed him, Bolsonaro is undoubtedly Washington’s preferred candidate," explained Nick Cleveland-Stout, a research associate at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, on Friday. "Often at the request of the Bolsonaro family, the US has engaged in a pressure campaign to weaken the Lula government, sparking fears of further interference."
Trump responded with hostility to the prosecution of the disgraced ex-president—imposing tariffs of up to 50% on Brazilian imports in retaliation, sanctioning the Supreme Court justice overseeing the case, and threatening to use American "military might" against Brazil.
He's also designated two Brazilian crime groups as "narcoterrorist" organizations, invoking a similar pretext Trump used to justify his invasion of Venezuela to kidnap its leader Nicolás Maduro in January.
As the election has approached, Trump has appeared to put his thumb on the scale in an effort to stop Lula from achieving what would be an unprecedented fourth term.
In July, the US consulate in São Paulo invited right-wing pro-Bolsonaro social media influencers to a closed-door roundtable meeting to discuss “freedom of expression and the digital environment.”
The Guardian reported on Thursday that the State Department was also diverting $1 million from its human rights fund to oppose "judicial overreach and censorship" by Brazil’s Supreme Court, an apparent reference to the court's actions against Bolsonaro and his allies.
The Brazilian government has denied visas to two State Department officials whom it said were seeking to discuss "election integrity," which it perceived as an effort to “undermine the electoral system.”
Trump and his allies have previously spread baseless conspiracy theories to cast doubt upon Lula's victory in 2022, which helped to fuel the failed coup. They've done the same with the victories of other left-wing candidates in Latin American elections—including Bolivia's Evo Morales in 2019 and Guatemala's Bernardo Arévalo in 2023.
Lula's campaign said the sudden US suspension of consular services was "yet another extremely serious development in the interference in Brazilian elections by the US government," alleging that it was "coordinated, by all indications, directly by the brothers Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro.”
The filing noted that even “the legislative branch of the foreign state itself… recognizes the pattern of external pressure." It pointed to a letter sent earlier this week by Democratic US Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Peter Welch (Vt.), and Tim Kaine (Va.) to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which said that "the administration’s most recent actions point toward an effort to interfere with, and potentially undermine, Brazil’s general election in October."

The first round of Brazil's election will begin on Sunday. Should neither candidate receive 50% of the vote, a runoff between the top two candidates will be held on October 25. Several major polls show Lula with a narrow first-round lead entering Sunday, although others have the race effectively tied or Bolsonaro slightly ahead.
But Lula has also seized upon Trump's meddling to portray Bolsonaro as a tool of foreign powers, drawing on a history of US-backed coups and election interference that have undermined Brazilian democracy.
“Flávio Bolsonaro is Trump’s candidate and what Trump wants is to colonize Brazil, take our riches, steal our future and leave us in the dust," said a campaign ad that began airing last week.
The Trump administration, for its part, has continued to double down on public overtures toward imperialist ambition. On Thursday, an official US State Department social media account reposted a video created in August glorifying the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine and declaring that "American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again."
Dov H. Levin, a political scientist at the University of Hong Kong who recently published research on the effects of foreign election interference, told the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo that, if too overt, Trump's intervention could backfire.
"There are cases of failure," he said, "and cases where the reaction provoked by the intervention harms precisely the side it intended to help."
Weeks earlier, Kraft pushed for NFL stadiums to ban Macklemore over his pro-Palestine comments.
Country music star Zach Bryan wore a "Free Palestine" T-shirt during a performance at Gillette Stadium on Friday night in what was widely interpreted as a gesture of defiance against the venue's pro-Israel owner Robert Kraft.
Weeks earlier, the New England Patriots owner drew international backlash when he banned the rapper Macklemore from his venue over his pro-Palestine comments onstage and rallied other NFL owners to do the same, a campaign that led to Macklemore's ouster from Ed Sheeran's US tour.
Sheeran—one of the world's most recognizable pop stars—was branded a spineless coward by many critics and faced a mutiny from his fellow touring acts after caving to the billionaire Kraft's heavy-handed censorship tactics. Sheeran's vague statement denying that he was "complicit" with Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza—which has killed more than 74,000 people, including over 21,000 children over nearly three years, according to official numbers—did little to quiet them.
In sharp contrast, Bryan and his band made their position clear as they performed before a sold-out crowd in Foxborough, Massachusetts on Friday.
Drummer Nate Head wore a cream-colored "Palestine" baseball jersey bearing the name Hind Rajab and the number 5 on the back—a reference to the 5-year-old Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces in 2024. Macklemore had similarly referenced Rajab in the song that led to his ban.
Guitarist Noah Le Gros wore a green "Palestine" jersey onstage. After the show, he posted a photo of himself wearing the jersey in front of a Kraft Sports & Entertainment sign, making the message unmistakable.
The company behind the jerseys, Wear the Peace—which donates all profits to organizations providing food, water, medical care, and other aid in Gaza—praised Bryan and his band for having "stood for Palestine tonight on a stage that tried to ban the simple mention of it."
Bryan, who served eight years in the US Navy, has a history of taking political stances that run counter to the conservatism long associated with mainstream country music. He has defended transgender people against public attacks and last year wrote lyrics criticizing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's aggressive deportation tactics.
But the “I Remember Everything” singer does not map cleanly onto either side of the political spectrum. In the past, he has described himself as a "total libertarian" and more recently stressed political unity: "Left wing or right wing we’re all one bird and American," he said in an interview last year.
The shirt he wore on Friday night also raised questions: Beneath the phrase "Free Palestine," the shirt featured a pine tree emblem and the phrase "An Appeal to Heaven"—iconography associated with George Washington's army in the Revolutionary War and later adopted by some far-right Christian nationalists.
Bryan has not yet publicly commented on what he intended to convey with his shirt on Friday night. Nor has Kraft—who previously referred to pro-Palestine comments on his stage as "hate speech"—publicly responded to Bryan's display.
The band is scheduled to perform another show at Gillette Stadium on Saturday night, and it remains to be seen whether they will face any pressure to back down.
In the meantime, Bryan has drawn praise from commentators who contrasted his display with Sheeran's response to Kraft.
Idrees Ahmad, the associate editor of New Lines Magazine, called it "a real Spartacus moment in music."
"All true artists resist conformity and control," he said. "Trying to tell the most recalcitrant people what they can or can't say was always going to backfire. This trend will only grow the more there is an attempt to censor."
Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, an Israeli-born foreign policy analyst who has become an outspoken critic of Israel's wars, celebrated it as yet another sign of how dramatically public opinion had shifted against the country over the past few years.
“We got the country singers. We won the culture wars," he said. "Break out the moonshine."
"This fight is far from over," said one campaigner. "We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
A federal judge in El Paso on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from continuing construction of border barriers, roads, and other infrastructure across the Big Bend region, a win for environmentalists, landowners, and other Texans from across the political spectrum who are united in their opposition to the project.
US District Judge Kathleen Cardone—who was appointed by former President George W. Bush—granted a preliminary injunction sought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and other plaintiffs.
"The court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims in [their] suit, that there is a likelihood that they will suffer serious, irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor," Cardone wrote in her two-page decision.
BIG WIN FOR BIG BEND!! A federal judge just issued an emergency injunction to block border barrier and road construction across the #BigBend region. The injunction will remain in place while the court considers a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s waiver to fast-track construction.
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) October 2, 2026 at 2:18 PM
Cardone's order immediately prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies from building “border barrier or related infrastructure” or engaging in “any construction or ground-disturbing activities” in the Big Bend Sector until they comply with applicable laws. It also stays the effect of three Trump administration waivers that had allowed officials to bypass numerous federal protections.
“This is a historic victory for Big Bend and everyone who loves this wild corner of Texas,” said Laiken Jordahl, CBD's national public lands advocate. “No administration has the right to destroy a crown-jewel national park for political theater."
"With a federal court ordering the bulldozers to stop, Big Bend gets to breathe," Jordahl added. "But this fight is far from over. We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
Clara Bensen, director of communications for No Big Bend Wall and a board member of Conserve Big Bend, also welcomed the ruling.
"For months we've watched the federal government send bulldozers into a national park that belongs to all of us. Today a federal judge told them to stop," she said in a statement.
"Since we learned the Trump administration planned to seize public and private land and destroy the Big Bend region as we know it, this community has come together across the political aisle to fight back," Bensen added. "The government tried to ignore the law to build unnecessary border infrastructure, and the court made clear it can't. This is a victory, but we are not letting our guard down."
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: A federal judge just HALTED the destruction of Big Bend.This is a massive victory for the landowners, local communities, and everyday Texans who stood up to protect one of our state's greatest treasures.The fight isn't over, but today, the people won.
[image or embed]
— Clayton Tucker (@claytontuckertx.com) October 2, 2026 at 2:16 PM
The ruling comes after contractors began bulldozing roads and building other infrastructure in and around Big Bend National Park in August, including near Santa Elena Canyon and Mariscal Mountain. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) temporarily halted construction on August 17, but that pause expired earlier this week.
The Trump administration has argued that the project—which initially included plans for a 30-foot-high reinforced steel wall—is necessary to achieve what it calls “operational control” of the border. Plaintiffs in the case challenged the administration's determination under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that the region is an area of “high illegal entry,” noting that the government's claim is contradicted by its own statistics.
The Big Bend Sector is among the least-trafficked portions of the southern border, accounting for roughly a quarter of the international boundary's length, but no more than 3% of annual migrant apprehensions. The sector recorded just 1.3% of total border apprehensions in 2025, according to CBP data.
Plaintiffs in the case argued that the administration unlawfully used extraordinary powers to waive environmental and other laws, including the Endangered Species Act, National Park Service Organic Act, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Indigenous groups alleged violations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act.
At Friday's hearing, Rio Grande river guide and landowner Danny William Miller described the prospect of a barrier cutting across his property and blocking access to the river as “a bullet to the head," according to The Big Bend Sentinel.
Miller testified that once the landscape is altered, it cannot simply be restored. His guide work, he said, would become “a tour of the military-industrial complex, rather than a tour of the wilderness.”
Another local resident, Bill Guerra-Addington, told the court, “They’re taking the river away from us, and it’s devastating.”
Friday's injunction is temporary. The underlying lawsuit will continue, and the broader legal battle over Trump's Big Bend border project—and the administration's legally dubious waivers—remains unresolved. On Wednesday, US District Judge Orlando Garcia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, rejected a request from an Indigenous group and business owners for a temporary restraining order in one of several separate cases seeking to halt work on the project.
Still, National Parks Conservation Association president and CEO Tiernan Sittenfeld called Cardone's order “a victory for Big Bend and for all of America’s national parks.”
"While national park advocates are grateful for this halt to border construction in Big Bend, the devastating toll it has already taken on this national park must be studied and remediated," she said. "The administration must repair the damage it has done to the beautiful, fragile desert ecosystems that make Big Bend National Park one of America’s most iconic places."
“The administration’s border plan at Big Bend has faced strong bipartisan opposition from local landowners, experienced local borderland sheriffs, and conservationists alike," Sittenfeld added. "Big Bend is no place for border barriers. It’s time for the administration to come to the table with the border communities that know Big Bend best, repair the damage from this ill-conceived project, and find new solutions.”
s
"It doesn’t have to be this way. ICE doesn’t have to traumatize children, tear families apart, and treat people like this," said one Austin, Texas official.
Since Republicans in the US Senate this week blocked a bill to make school bus stops off-limits for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, community members in Pennsylvania and Austin, Texas have expressed outrage by arrests made in front of children—in at least one reported case, leaving a child abandoned as officers detained his mother.
"It doesn’t have to be this way. ICE doesn’t have to traumatize children, tear families apart, and treat people like this," said José "Chito" Vela III, the mayor pro tempore of Austin, on social media late Thursday.
Vela made the comments as he posted a video that he said shows the aftermath of an ICE arrest at a school bus stop, with officers driving away with the mother of a 9-year-old boy who was left with other community members.
"They fucking took her," said one woman angrily as the child sat on the ground crying. "What the fuck are they going to do with the child now? ... Y'all have no fucking shame."
ICE arrested the mom of a 9-year-old at a school bus stop in Austin, leaving him alone and crying. The video has profanity and is heartbreaking to watch, but it shows the fear/pain of what happened.
This is evil. This is wrong. And it has to stop.
Video: Leonardo Pelaez on FB pic.twitter.com/F52rCjZwIF
— Mayor Pro Tem Chito Vela, III (@chitoforatx) October 2, 2026
Vela posted the video a day after Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) introduced a bill aimed at stopping ICE and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies from conducting enforcement operations at school bus stops.
In August, Murphy and many of his constituents were outraged when ICE arrested parents at school bus stops in Danbury, Connecticut—detaining them after their children boarded buses, leaving them without anyone to pick them up after school let out and giving the family no time to ensure their children would be cared for.
Murphy said on the Senate floor Wednesday that the bus stop arrests were part of an operation in which 118 people were detained in Connecticut. Federal data has shown that a majority of people being arrested by ICE, which is carrying out President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, have no criminal convictions.
“For parents in this body, you know how anxious that first day of school is, how kids are just brimming with nervous anxiety about that first day, and you know what that feels like to watch your kid walk onto that school bus," said Murphy. "Well, what do you think it does to those kids on that first and second day of school to see ICE officers at the school bus stop? Imagine that 6-year-old who boarded the school bus, and when he got back from school that day and got off, his parent wasn't there. A 6-year-old feeling like he had been abandoned. In this case, he may or may not have seen the arrest because it happened almost immediately after he got on.”
The senator added that ICE has "blatantly lied" about its practice of carrying out arrests at school bus stops.
"When they were presented with these stories from Danbury, DHS doubled down and said any claim that ICE targeted parents at a school bus stop is false," he said. "Then just days afterwards, we had the video evidence. This often happens—ICE says something didn't happen, and then we have the video proving that it did."
Also on Wednesday, about 75 community members gathered at the corner of Tremont Avenue and East Fornance Street in Norristown, Pennsylvania, where ICE reportedly detained three people in front of a group of children who were waiting for the school bus.
They called on Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and local officials to pass legislation to bar law enforcement from cooperating with ICE.
“When enforcement happens in places where families live their everyday lives, at bus stops, on streets, near schools, or in neighborhoods, the effects can reach beyond the person who is detained,” Jorge Liborio, 16, told WHYY. “It can affect children, parents, coworkers, friends, and entire communities.”
Jay Lee, an advocacy and civic engagement manager at the Woori Center, which provides resources for the area's large immigrant population, said that "attendance is falling" in local schools. Immigrants make up about 18% of Norristown's population.
Chalkbeat reported this week that nearly two years after Trump rescinded a policy that barred immigration enforcement in sensitive areas like schools and hospitals, school attendance dropped below 40% at one Indianapolis school when ICE was conducting operations in the city.
Two federal lawsuits challenging Trump's termination of the sensitive locations policy are ongoing.
On Wednesday, Murphy denounced Republicans for blocking his bill, pointing to Sen. Jim Banks' (R-Ind.) claim that it would create "sanctuary bus stops"—safe havens for immigrants who commit crimes.
"If we prohibit ICE from operating at school bus stops, you know what will happen?" said Banks. "All the illegals in the country will just hide out at bus stops, knowing that ICE isn’t allowed to touch them! Bus stops will become the most unsafe places in the country."
Murphy called Banks' objection "bizarre" and "dishonest."
"I did not anticipate that one of the arguments against this bill would be that it would lead to the development of ‘sanctuary bus stops,'" said the senator. "But what do we imagine here? People are going to live at bus stops? We're going to have encampments around bus stops of people who are here without documentation? I just think it's an example of how this whole debate has gone way off the rails. It is just fundamentally detached from the reality.”
In Austin, Vela said that "families pay the price" when ICE "chooses to use these tactics."
"This is evil. This is wrong. And it has to stop," said Vela. "We must demand accountability. We must demand better. Our children deserve better."
"It is no coincidence that this is taking place at exactly the same time that Donald Trump's poll numbers are sagging."
Experts are raising alarms after Georgia's Republican-led State Election Board requested that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice launch an investigation into state voting machines just over a month before the 2026 midterm elections.
As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday, James Mills, executive director of the State Election Board, sent a letter to US Attorney General Todd Blanche asking the DOJ "to put additional security measures in place before the midterm election and give the state a six-month deadline to eliminate the use of QR codes on ballots to tally votes."
The AJC noted that Georgia would need to "revamp its in-person voting process" to comply with this demand since it currently "relies on scanners reading QR codes on ballots to count votes."
In a Thursday analysis of Mills' letter, Democracy Docket reporter Jacob Knutson described it as "an extraordinary assault on Georgia’s voting system by unelected officials appointed to make and enforce the state’s election rules."
Knutson also questioned whether the Trump administration could even legally carry out Mills' request.
"The DOJ lacks the legal authority to declare voting machines unlawful or unilaterally seize voting equipment," Knutson wrote, "as the US Constitution gives state and local officials the power to administer elections."
In a video published Friday, election attorney and Democracy Docket founder Marc Elias said that Mills' request for DOJ interference in his own state's election process boils down to Republicans fearing that they're about to be swept out of power in the coming elections.
"It is no coincidence that this is taking place at exactly the same time that Donald Trump's poll numbers are sagging," Elias said, "at exactly the same time that it appears that his efforts in court are failing, and exactly the same time that [Democratic US Sen.] Jon Ossoff looks clear to win that Senate race in a walk."
Later in the video, Elias explained that Trump and his allies have been telegraphing for months that they will take extraordinary measures to maintain their full grip on all three branches of the federal government.
"This is all happening when you have a White House that is looking for excuses to take over voting," he said. "They are looking for excuses to seize ballots. They are looking for excuses, as Donald Trump said, to take control of the tabulation of votes."
Kristin Nabers, Georgia state director for voter rights advocacy group All Voting is Local, accused the State Election Board of "trying to sow chaos into the midterms before voting takes place."
"Certain members of this board continue to show that they do not serve Georgia voters, they serve the interests of the Trump administration," Nabers said. "The board has already advocated for the administration’s interference in elections many times in Trump’s second term, including when multiple board members served as witnesses in the FBI’s bogus investigation into Fulton County."
After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump infamously waged an unsuccessful campaign to strong-arm Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" the votes necessary to overtake former President Joe Biden's lead in the Peach State.
Led by student groups and opposition parties, the protesters are demanding the resignation of India's elections chief as more than 133 million people have been deleted from voter rolls since last year.
Police in New Delhi detained hundreds of people Friday amid a crackdown on demonstrations challenging India's election authorities and their controversial revision of voter rolls, prompting Amnesty International to accuse the government of trampling fundamental rights in the world's largest democracy.
More than 700 protesters—including former Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena; Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bharadwaj; and Neha Bora, who is president of the leftist All India Students' Association—were reportedly detained in the capital as demonstrators sought to protest outside Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Journalists covering the protests were also reportedly detained and blocked from doing their jobs.
The Cockroach Janta Party—which led last summer's successful youth-led protests to oust embattled Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan after devastating leaks of critical university entrance exams—is again playing a central role in the demonstrations.
Police cited Section 163 of India's criminal code—a provision intended to address immediate public order threats that critics say is misused to broadly restrict peaceful political assembly—to justify the mass detentions.
“The right to protest is not dependent on government approval. It is protected by the Indian Constitution and international human rights law," Amnesty International India board chair Aakar Patel said. “Prohibitory orders like Section 163 of India’s criminal procedure law, which grant temporary emergency powers to restrict gatherings in the name of public order, have become a convenient way for authorities to routinely prevent peaceful protests."
“Detaining people simply because they intend to protest is a blatant attack on the rights to liberty and freedom of peaceful assembly," Patel added. "Detentions must have a lawful basis and cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory. Those arbitrarily detained for solely exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly must be released at once, and authorities must guarantee their right to protest."
The sweeping overhaul of India's electoral rolls has resulted in more than 133 million names being removed from draft voter lists across 30 states and union territories since the process began last year. That's about 14.1% of the pre-SIR rolls. Delhi recorded the largest reduction, with 32.8% of registered electors removed from its draft list.
While the Election Commission says SIR intended to verify voter eligibility and clean up electoral rolls, critics warn that mass deletions could disenfranchise legitimate voters, particularly people who have migrated, lack documentation, or belong to marginalized communities.
The controversy intensified last month after an Indian Express investigation revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions involving voter additions, deletions, and other SIR-related procedures. The two commissioners reportedly raised concerns, including over what they characterized as “unauthorized” or “illegal” actions.
"This is a disenfranchisement of millions of voters.”
Protesters are demanding Kumar's resignation amid doubts about the transparency and impartiality of the SIR and those behind it.
“The protest is against Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission," protester Pawan, a 36-year-old IT professional, told The Indian Express Friday at Jantar Mantar. "But there’s a larger context, I feel. Demanding the resignation of the CEC isn’t the only thing. People are upset with the SIR. This is a disenfranchisement of millions of voters.”
AAP spokesperson Anurag Dhanda, who was among those detained, told Indo-Asian News Service that "we are simply demanding that democracy should not be destroyed. We were saying that people should have the right to vote. Gyanesh Kumar took away the right to vote and committed vote theft, yet the vote thief is not being put in jail. Instead, they brought us here and made us sit at the police station."
"This is a complete dictatorship of the Modi government," he added, referring to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party.
Marlena, better known mononymously as Atishi, said that "when the British ruled India, Gandhiji fought for people's right to vote. Today, when we have that right, Gyanesh Kumar is trying to take it away."
Atishi said that when demonstrators tried to reach Jantar Mantar—an officially designated protest site—police hauled them away in buses and detained them at a local police station.
"We are not afraid of Modiji's police," she said, referring to Modi. "We will continue to fight to protect the right to vote. The fight against vote theft will continue. The EC's system will have to be corrected, and Gyanesh Kumar will have to resign."
At one point, Bora and other detained demonstrators were sprung from a police bus by fellow protesters in the streets.
After escaping detention, Bora defiantly called for a fresh wave of protests for Saturday.
"Get rest after today's detention," she said. "Because if you don't, how will you reach Jantar Mantar at 1 pm tomorrow?"
"Thousands of police officers are working to save one man—Gyanesh Kumar—whom we have to ensure gets removed from office," Bora continued.
"Jantar Mantar 2.0 is not done!" she added, implicitly referring to the earlier Cockroach Janta Party protests. "It has just begun!"
One environmental advocate said the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards "will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices."
A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to block the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards, which they called a "giveaway" to the oil and auto industries.
Earlier this week, the US Department of Transportation finalized a rule weakening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
The Biden administration required annual fuel-efficiency improvements aimed at bringing the average for new vehicles to 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under the Trump administration’s new rule, the 2031 requirement would fall below the 35.4 mpg already achieved by the 2024 fleet, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) own analysis.
NHTSA estimated that as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas by 2050 than they would have under the old standards, increasing average lifetime fuel costs by more than $1,600 per vehicle—more than the roughly $1,300 the administration has claimed they'll save on average in upfront vehicle costs.
It is also projected to add about 1 billion additional metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared with retaining the previous standards—equivalent to more than six months' worth of emissions from the entire US transportation sector.
“Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Climate Law Institute. "We’ll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We’re asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto.”
CBD was joined by the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, which filed a petition on Friday to ask an appeals court to review the rule change. They argue that the rollback is illegal because federal law requires NHTSA to set fuel-economy standards at the “maximum feasible” level manufacturers can achieve.
“The Trump administration’s rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices,” said Andy Su, senior transportation attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “We’re going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive.”