

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.
Brenda Bowser Soder
bowsersoderb@humanrightsfirst.org
202-370-3323 - office
A test case filed yesterday with the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (IACHR) could mark a turning point in efforts to end the
criminalization of Colombian human rights defenders, according to Human
Rights First, an international human rights organization.
Principe Gabriel Gonzalez Arango, a student activist and member of
the Colombian Political Prisoners Solidarity Committee, has formally
lodged a petition with the IACHR, stating that his human rights were
violated given his arbitrary detention and the ongoing malicious
terrorism proceedings against him. Gonzalez also requested urgent
precautionary measures from the IACHR to avoid a return to arbitrary
detention.
"This petition gives the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights a
historic opportunity to overturn years of arbitrary detention and
unjust persecution against Gonzalez," said Human Rights First's Andrew
Hudson. "The Commission should send a strong message that it will not
tolerate abuse of the Colombian judicial system to intimidate and
silence human rights defenders. It should also adopt urgent measures to
ensure that Gonzalez's fundamental rights are not further trampled
while his case is pending"
The petition before the IACHR highlights the need for Colombia's
Supreme Court to admit Gonzalez's appeal and quash the erroneous
terrorism conviction against him. The case was filed on Gonzalez's
behalf by Human Rights First and the International Human Rights Clinic
of the George Washington University Law School.
The groups note that the precedential value of this case is
enormous, and a strong decision by the Commission would help dozens of
other Colombian activists who are victims of baseless criminal
prosecutions. "Gonzalez's case is just the tip of the iceberg.
Throughout Colombia, human rights defenders are subject to trumped-up
charges intended to persecute them" said Hudson.
Gonzalez was detained in Bucaramanga for more than one year starting
in 2006. He remained incarcerated while awaiting trial on charges of
rebellion and of being in charge of an urban militia force linked to
the FARC guerrilla group. At trial, a judge acquitted him of all
charges, finding that they were baseless and should never have been
initiated. Inexplicably, the acquittal was appealed, and in March 2009,
after two years of liberty, the Superior Tribunal of Bucaramanga
overturned the lower court's judgment and sentenced Gonzalez to seven
more years in prison for the same false charges. The prosecution relied
on two witnesses: one who was unable to physically identify or even
name Gonzalez before he was detained, and the other who admitted to
providing statements under duress from prosecutors.
In June 2009, Gonzalez appealed to Colombia's Supreme Court arguing
that his conviction was void for two reasons. First, it violated his
right to defense by failing to inform him that a preliminary
investigation against him was underway. Second, for error of reasoning
by accepting contradictory and incoherent witness evidence from
ex-combatants receiving re-integration benefits from the state. A
decision from the Supreme Court about whether to accept the appeal is
expected any day.
In October 2009, Human Rights First awarded Gonzalez its prestigious annual human rights award in recognition of his outstanding promotion of human rights.
A range of international entities have expressed concern about
Gonzalez's prosecution, including the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the UN Special
Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, and the United States Department
of State.
According to Human Rights First, Gonzalez's case is emblematic of many others. In February 2009, the group released In the Dock and Under the Gun: Baseless Prosecutions of Human Rights Defenders in Colombia,
a comprehensive report that, for the first time, documented the
widespread use of trumped-up charges to silence Colombian human rights
activists.
Further information:
More information on Gonzalez and his case
Gonzalez's testimony before US Congress in October 2009
Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Human Rights First believes that building respect for human rights and the rule of law will help ensure the dignity to which every individual is entitled and will stem tyranny, extremism, intolerance, and violence.
"Donald Trump and Republicans are selling out America's seniors," said one advocate.
A major pharmaceutical industry handout that Republicans—with the support of one Senate Democrat—included in President Donald Trump's signature legislative package is expected to cost US taxpayers nearly twice as much as originally expected, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in an updated analysis released Monday.
The CBO initially projected that the provision, known as the ORPHAN Cures Act, would cost around $5 billion over the next decade. But the office said Monday that its earlier assessment did not take into account several major, high-priced drugs that will be exempted from Medicare price negotiations as a result of the Trump-GOP law.
The budget office said it now expects the provision of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act to cost $8.8 billion over the next 10 years.
Among the drugs included in the new CBO analysis is Keytruda, a cancer medication sold by Merck that carries a list price of $24,062 every six weeks. The Trump GOP-budget law delays Keytruda's eligibility for Medicare price negotiations by at least a year, postponing significant potential savings for taxpayers and patients.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, said in response to the updated CBO analysis that "the ORPHAN Cures Act is a wildly expensive handout to Big Pharma that will harm patients, drain taxpayer dollars, and weaken the government's ability to rein in high drug prices."
Basey noted that the "insatiable" pharmaceutical industry is not satisfied with the enactment of the ORPHAN Cures Act, which restricts Medicare price negotiations for drugs that treat more than one rare disease. Big Pharma, Basey said, is "spending record sums this year to advance additional carveouts like the EPIC Act, which would exempt even more blockbuster drugs from negotiation."
"Any support for these bills goes against the will of the 90% of Americans who want Congress to go further to lower drug prices—not facilitate another handout to Big Pharma," said Basey.
"This isn't about helping lower costs—it's about doing the bidding of big drug companies, and Trump and the GOP are all too happy to oblige."
The deep-pocketed pharmaceutical industry has waged war on the popular Medicare price negotiation program since its inception during the Biden administration.
While pharmaceutical giants' efforts to gut the program have been stymied in court, the industry-friendly Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have done pharma's bidding through legislation and executive action. Earlier this year, as Common Dreams reported, Trump signed an executive order aimed at delaying price negotiations for a broad category of medications despite the president's repeated promises to bring down costs.
"Trump and Republicans are selling out America's seniors," said Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care. "Instead of letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for more drugs, they carved out a loophole to protect the industry's most profitable drugs."
"Not only does the GOP tax bill throw over 15 million Americans off their healthcare and hike costs for millions more, but it also forces older Americans to pay more for life-saving medicines while CEOs and billionaires line their pockets with more money than they know what to do with," Woodhouse continued. "This isn't about helping lower costs—it's about doing the bidding of big drug companies, and Trump and the GOP are all too happy to oblige."
Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said Monday that "instead of transferring $10 billion from taxpayers and cancer patients to drug corporations that are already extremely profitable, President Trump and members of Congress must work to strengthen and expand Medicare drug price negotiations."
"Instead of gutting the law through bills like the ORPHAN Cures Act, EPIC Act, and MINI Act so Big Pharma can block negotiations on blockbuster treatments," Knievel added, "Congress should pass legislation to empower Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices on all costly medicines and allow all patients to access lower, negotiated prices, even if they don't have Medicare."
"Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and federal workers aren’t getting paid. What is Trump doing? Building his gold plated ballroom."
A demolition crew on Monday began tearing down the East Wing facade of the White House in order to make way for President Donald Trump's luxury ballroom, in a project that one journalist said "captures" the president's approach to leading the country.
As reported by The Washington Post, workers used a backhoe to rip down the facade, and Trump later described the destruction as the start of a "much-needed project" at the White House.
“For more than 150 years, every president has dreamt about having a ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, state visits, etc.,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, without citing any evidence that "every president" has wanted such a ballroom.
The cost of the ballroom is estimated at $250 million, and Trump is financing it by soliciting donations from some of America's wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir. The president held an exclusive White House dinner for some of the largest donors to the ballroom last week, in a move that many critics decried as a "cash-for-access" event.
The destruction of the East Wing facade comes as the federal government is three weeks into a shutdown that began when Democrats refused to join Republicans in voting for a continuing resolution that would allow crucial healthcare subsidies expire for millions of people, and Trump has shown little urgency in working to end the standoff—during which he's worked to purge the federal workforce.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) shredded Trump for working on a vanity project while government workers have been missing paychecks.
"We are 20 days into the Republican shutdown—healthcare costs are skyrocketing and federal workers aren’t getting paid," she wrote in a social media post. "What is Trump doing? Building his gold plated ballroom."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also blasted Trump for focusing on his ballroom instead of on the needs of the American people.
"Oh, you're trying to say the cost of living is skyrocketing?" she asked rhetorically. "Donald Trump can't hear you over the sound of bulldozers demolishing a wing of the White House to build a new grand ballroom."
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich also linked Trump's focus on the ballroom to his lack of urgency in reopening the government.
"Trump hosted a dinner last week for donors helping fund his ballroom project," he wrote Monday. "Today, crews are starting construction and literally tearing down parts of the White House. It's day 20 of the government shutdown and this is what he's prioritizing?"
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) shared an old photo of his family at the White House East Wing before it was torn down and expressed sadness about the president's destruction of the historic building.
"We didn’t need a billionaire-funded ballroom to celebrate America," he said. "Disgusting what Trump is doing."
Prem Thakker, a reporter for Zeteo, added that the destruction of the East Wing was highly symbolic of what the president is doing to the country.
"Trump demolishing the White House to build a $250 million ballroom funded by Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir," he wrote. "All during a government shutdown, and as he covers up the Epstein files—captures it all pretty well doesn't it."
"These investments are complicit in genocide: They are killing our culture, our history, and destroying the biodiversity of the Amazon.”
A day after the Brazilian state-run oil firm Petrobras announced it would begin drilling for oil near the mouth of the Amazon River "immediately" after obtaining a license despite concerns over the impact on wildlife, an analysis on Tuesday revealed that banks have added $2 billion in direct financing for oil and gas in the biodiverse Amazon Rainforest since 2024.
The report from Stand.earth—and Petrobras' license—come weeks before officials in Belém, Brazil prepare to host the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), where advocates are calling for an investment of $1.3 trillion per year for developing countries to mitigate and adapt to the climate emergency.
Examining 843 deals involving 330 banks, Stand.earth found that US banks JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citi are among the worst-performing institutions, pouring between $283 million and $326 million into oil and gas in the Amazon.
The biggest spender on oil and gas in the past year has been Itaú Unibanco, the Brazilian bank, which has sent $378 million in financing to oil and gas firms for extractive activities in the Amazon.
"Oil and gas expansion in the Amazon endangers one of the world’s most vital ecosystems and Indigenous peoples who have protected it for millennia," said Stand.earth. "In addition to fossil fuels leading global greenhouse gas emissions, in the Amazon their extraction also accelerates deforestation, and pollutes rivers and communities."
The group's research found that banks have directly financed more than $15 billion to oil and gas companies in the Amazon region since the Paris Agreement, the legally binding climate accord, was adopted in 2016. Nearly 75% of the investment has come from just 10 firms, including Itaú, JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America.
The analysis comes weeks after the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance said it was suspending its operations, following decisions by several large banks to leave the alliance that was established in 2021 to limit banks' environmental footprint, achieve net-zero emissions in the sector by 2050, and set five-year goals for reducing the institutions' financing of emissions.
"Around 1,700 Indigenous people live here, and our survival depends on the forest. We ask that banks such as Itaú, Santander, and Banco do Nordeste stop financing companies that exploit fossil fuels in Indigenous territories."
Devyani Singh, lead researcher for Stand.earth's new bank scorecard on fossil fuel financing, noted that European banks like BNP Paribas and HSBC have "applied more robust policies to protect the sensitive Amazon rainforest than their peers" and have "significantly dropped in financing ranks."
But, said Singh, "no bank has yet brought its financing to zero. Every one of these banks must close the existing loopholes and fully exit Amazon oil and gas without delay.”
More than 80% of the banks' Amazon fossil fuel financing since 2024 has gone to just six oil and gas companies: Petrobras, Canada's Gran Tierra, Brazil's Eneva, oil trader Gunvor, and two Peruvian companies: Hunt Oil Peru and Pluspetrol Camisea.
The companies have been associated with human rights violations and have long been resisted by Indigenous people in the Amazon region, who have suffered from health impacts of projects like the Camisea gas project, a decline in fish and game stocks, and a lack of clean water.
“It’s outrageous that Bank of America, Scotiabank, Credicorp, and Itaú are increasing their financing of oil and gas in the Amazon at a time when the forest itself is under grave threat," said Olivia Bisa, president of the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Chapra Nation in Peru. "For decades, Indigenous Peoples have suffered the heaviest impacts of this destruction. We are calling on banks to change course now: by ending support for extractive industries in the Amazon, they can help protect the forest that sustains our lives and the future of the planet.”
Stand.earth's report warned that both the Amazon Rainforest—which provides a habitat for 10% of Earth's biodiversity, including many endangered species—and the people who live there are facing "escalating threats" from oil and gas companies and the firms that finance them, with centuries of exploitation driving the forest "toward an ecological tipping point with irreversible impacts that have global consequences."
Oil and gas exploration is opening roads into intact parts of the Amazon and other forests, while perpetuating the new fossil fuel emissions that scientists and energy experts have warned have no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating.
"With warming temperatures, the delicate ecological balance of the Amazon could be upset, flipping it from being a carbon-absorbing rainforest into a carbon-emitting savannah," reads the group's report.
Jonas Mura, chief of the Gavião Real Indigenous Territory in Brazil, said "the noise, the constant truck traffic, and the explosions" from Eneva's projects "have driven away the animals and affected our hunting."
"Even worse: they are entering without our consent," said Mura. "Our territory feels threatened, and our families are being directly harmed. Around 1,700 Indigenous people live here, and our survival depends on the forest. We ask that banks such as Itaú, Santander, and Banco do Nordeste stop financing companies that exploit fossil fuels in Indigenous territories."
"These companies have no commitment to the environment, to Indigenous and traditional peoples, or to the future of the planet," he added. "These investments are complicit in genocide: They are killing our culture, our history, and destroying the biodiversity of the Amazon.”