

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.
Deborah Forter, 617-983-0710, press@mfso.org
Nancy
Lessin, 617-320-5301, press@mfso.org
With the war in Iraq entering its 8th year, members
of Military Families Speak Out, the largest organization of military
families to speak out against a war in this country's history, are
calling on Senators and Representatives to take immediate action to cut
off funding for the war and bring our troops home now.
"With great sadness my family and I mark the
seventh anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. It is also now 6 years
since we last saw my son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, a Pennsylvania National
Guard soldier, alive. On April 26, 2004 he died in an explosion while
looking for the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. We are but one
of the over 5,000 American families who mourn the loss of their loved
ones in Iraq and Afghanistan; physical and spiritual casualties affect
thousands more - and yet the wars that kill our young and drain our
treasure do not create peace. It is long past time to bring our troops
home, and find real solutions for Peace." said Celeste Zappala of
Philadelphia, whose son was the first Pennsylvania guardsman lost in the
war in Iraq.
Maggie Pondolfino, a Military Families Speak Out
member from Washington, DC, whose son currently serves in the Army, said
"Two years ago, I welcomed my son home from an extended tour in
Iraq. While I'm profoundly grateful that he survived the surge of 2007,
53 others in his brigade were not so fortunate. Now my son is deployed
again - this time to Afghanistan. As we face the beginning of the 8th
year of war in Iraq and more troops to be sent to Afghanistan, we need
to face our collective duty to demand an end to these wars and to bring
our troops home now. There is no military solution to these conflicts
and no life worth losing to these wars."
"After witnessing and personally experiencing the
loss that war brings and the cost to our nation in terms of the killing
and maiming of our next generation of leaders, I'm always amazed that
Americans allow open warfare to continu.," said Jane Bright, the
mother of Army Sgt. Evan Ashcraft, an infantryman with the 101st
Airborne Division who was killed in Iraq on July 24, 2003. "The U.S.
is currently engaged in 3 wars, yet the American masses go about their
business as if destruction of other countries is part of the American
landscape. My question to the American people: when will America step
up and bring this warfare to an end, and when will you grow tired of
seeing a few grow rich from the suffering of so many?"
Military Families Speak Out members will be participating in events
in Washington, D.C. and around the country to commemorate the 7th
anniversary of the war in Iraq and call for all troops to be brought
home now and given the care they need when they get home.
AVAILABLE FOR INTERVIEW: In Washington, D.C. on March 20 at 11:15
a.m.: There will be a contingent of members of Military Families Speak
Out, Gold Star Families Speak Out (MFSO's national chapter of families
whose loved ones died as a result of the wars), Iraq Veterans Against
the War and Veterans For Peace assembling at the Veterans Administration
Building at 810 Vermont Avenue, NW - they will go on to be the lead
contingent in the march against the wars.
ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY: Members of Military Families Speak Out
will also be participating in events around the country. To arrange for
an interview contact Deborah Forter at press@mfso.org or Military Families Speak Out,
617-983-0710 or Nancy Lessin at 617-320-5301 or press@mfso.org
Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) is an organization of people opposed to the war in Iraq who have relatives or loved ones who are currently in the military or who have served in the military since the buildup to the Iraq war in the fall of 2002. Formed by two families in November of 2002, we have contacts with military families throughout the United States, and in other countries around the world. Our membership currently includes over 3,400 military families, with new families joining daily.
His comments came one day after the largest power grid in the US announced massive rate hikes and said the "primary driver of that growth is data centers."
After New York’s Democratic governor enacted a temporary ban on the construction of large data centers to curb their enormous power consumption, President Donald Trump’s energy secretary, Chris Wright, made the evidence-free claim that the facilities are actually the “greatest tool” for reducing the sharp increases in energy prices.
On Tuesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order barring for one year the construction of "hyperscale" data centers that can consume 50 megawatts of power or more, saying that unchecked expansion "threatens to hike up utility bills, deplete our natural resources, and create uncertainty for New Yorkers."
New York was the first state to place a moratorium on data center development, and more than a dozen other states have considered enacting moratoriums as evidence has mounted that data centers tend to spike power demand and drive up costs.
But as the rapid growth of data centers has sparked furious backlash in communities of all political stripes, the industry has maintained a steadfast ally in the Trump administration, which has continued to champion rapid data center buildout by fast-tracking permits, opening federal land to developers, promoting new energy infrastructure, and offering federal financing and tax incentives to new projects.
On Wednesday morning, Wright took to Fox News to blast Hochul's block on data center development.
"Gov. Hochul has it exactly backward," he said. "Data centers are the greatest tool we have right now to stop the rise of electricity prices and ultimately to bring them back down."
Wright, a former fracking executive, protested that “Democrat green energy policies” were responsible for driving up energy prices in New York, pointing to its ban on fracking, the blocking of a major natural gas pipeline, and an “insane climate law” requiring the state to transition away from fossil fuels by 2040.
"Energy is extremely expensive in New York and now sparse because of bad Democrat policies," he said. "Nothing to do with data centers."
Wright did not elaborate on how exactly data centers could be used as a "tool" to bring down energy prices. But if this is the case, nobody has informed the energy companies themselves.
His comments came just a day after PJM, which serves 67 million customers and is the nation's largest electric grid operator, released the results of an electricity auction that added $6.3 billion in costs to consumers' energy bills in 2028-29 due to growth in energy demand.
"The primary driver of that growth is data centers," the company said in a press release. "New data center facilities and expansions of existing sites can be developed quickly, up to two to three times faster than many of the electricity generation technologies that are necessary to serve them and allow PJM to maintain the reliability customers expect."
That increase is not confined to the future. It has already begun. According to Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, since 2024, the auctions have added $29 billion in costs to the customers across the 13 states plus Washington, DC, where it operates. New York is not one of the states supplied by the PJM grid.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has found that recent PJM auction increases have added as much as $20-30 to monthly bills in some parts of the company's regions, and projects that continued data-center growth could eventually add roughly $70 per month for an average household.
The labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union, which has published many pieces documenting the effects of data centers on American communities, called Wright's claim "one of the most blatant lies we’ve ever heard."
"Data centers are pushing energy prices up," the outlet said. "That is not a matter of debate, it’s a fact."
"These stops are not effective at 'fighting crime.' They’re effective at terrorizing immigrants," said one critic.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday demanded that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement restart its traffic stops just one day after the agency mostly paused them.
In a Truth Social post, Trump argued that the government "CANNOT give up one of ICE's most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!"
"Once we do, we are playing right into the criminal’s (sic) hands," the president added. "The Radical Left Dumocrats would like to see this done, but it won't happen on my watch. ICE, be judicious, fair and smart, and go back and do your very important job."
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday announced it would temporarily halt traffic stops after ICE officers fatally shot two people—52-year-old Mexican national Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and 26-year-old Colombian national Joan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine—in the span of a week.
The shootings sparked outrage and prompted Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the most vulnerable Senate Republican this election cycle, to ask Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to stop ICE traffic stops.
Trump's demand to reinstate the stops drew sharp criticism.
Journalist Radley Balko said that Trump's purported concern for crime was just an excuse for him to carry out a nationwide intimidation campaign.
"These stops are not effective at 'fighting crime,'" Balko wrote. "They’re effective at terrorizing immigrants. That’s what he doesn't want to give up."
Gail Helt, a former CIA analyst, similarly argued that the traffic stop policy "has nothing to do with fighting crime."
"It is effective at terrorizing the American public though," Helt added. "I suspect that’s the point."
Attorney Will Stancil, who monitored ICE actions during its siege of Minnesota earlier this year, said the reversal on traffic stops raises broader questions about Americans' tolerance for a rogue law enforcement agency.
"I’m probably biased but it’s starting to feel like the conflict over ICE is going to be the defining feature of Trump’s second term," Stancil wrote. "Will America have an unaccountable paramilitary terror force serving at the whim of the regime, or will we be a nation of laws?"
Andrew O'Neill, national advocacy director for Indivisible, summed up Trump's policy reversal by remarking that "the state-sanctioned murders will continue until morale improves."
Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief at MeidasTouch, said Trump's announcement will be damaging to Collins as she faces a tough campaign this year. Collins recently voted to approve tens of billions of dollars in additional funding for ICE.
"Susan Collins assured the people of Maine yesterday that she persuaded Markwayne Mullin to stop ICE traffic stops," Filipkowski wrote. "Trump overruled her."
Brian Finucane, senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said that Collins still had options for forcing Trump's hand to end the traffic stops.
"The chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee might be able to do something about this if she wanted to," Finucane wrote.
"The government is violating the constitutional rights of American citizens in order to shield officials of a foreign government who have committed a genocide."
A pair of advocacy organizations on Wednesday sued President Donald Trump and top members of his administration over sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court and its supporters, arguing the punitive measures violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution and illegally "muzzle Palestine advocacy."
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan by Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (TAAG), contends that Trump's Executive Order 14203 unlawfully restricts Americans' ability to seek "justice on Palestine at the ICC" and work with human rights organizations sanctioned "solely for calling on the ICC to investigate Israeli and American nationals."
"The Trump administration is using the blunt instrument of economic sanctions not only to punish human rights defenders but to police the political expression of millions of Americans," said Omar Shakir, executive director of DAWN. "The government is violating the constitutional rights of American citizens in order to shield officials of a foreign government who have committed a genocide."
DAWN notes that, under Trump's February 2025 executive order, the administration has sanctioned ICC officials "as well as leading Palestinian human rights groups al-Haq, al-Mezan, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)," as well as Francesca Albanese, the United Nations' special rapporteur for the human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Trump's order authorizes sanctions against "any foreign person" deemed to have "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of," ICC efforts to "investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute" Americans or officials from allied nations, such as Israel.
The organizations behind the new lawsuit explain that "because the government can interpret the term 'service' to encompass anything that confers a benefit on the recipient, groups like DAWN and TAAG could face civil and criminal charges if they engage in routine advocacy with the sanctioned parties—for example, filing a brief with the ICC encouraging it to investigate possible crimes, sharing evidence or advocacy ideas with Palestinian human rights groups or Ms. Albanese, or working with them on a campaign to lift the sanctions."
“The chilling effect on plaintiffs has been profound,” the lawsuit states. “They now face prison terms and ruinous fines if, in their interactions with the designated parties, they provide or receive anything that defendants could plausibly characterize as a ‘service’—an extraordinarily capacious term that potentially reaches any act that confers a benefit on its recipient. Fearing liability, plaintiffs—and countless others like them—have turned to self-censorship.”
Tarik Kanaana, president of TAAG, said that "with this executive order, Trump has put himself and those in the U.S. government above the law, shielding them from any accountability for their roles in the genocide in Palestine and Lebanon and for war crimes around the globe funded by US taxpayers."
"As US taxpayers, we have the right to hold our government accountable for how it uses this public resource," said Kanaana. "That right cannot be taken away."
The lawsuit comes days after the US State Department launched a sweeping broadside against the ICC, an independent tribunal based in The Hague that investigates and prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other atrocities. In late 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, one of the Trump administration officials named as a plaintiff in the new lawsuit, vowed on Monday to "dismantle" the ICC with increasingly aggressive sanctions against the court and its supporters and international pressure. (Neither the US nor Israel are party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC.)
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International's secretary-general, warned in a statement on Tuesday that if nations fail to fight back against the US assault on the ICC, "they will acquiesce to a new era of lawlessness, impunity, and rampant injustice."
"Now is not the time to appease. Now is the time to resist," said Callamard. "For the good of humanity, victims’ hopes of justice, and the prospect of lasting global security, the international community must come together, stand up to the bullies in the White House and State Department and protect the international rule of law. We must not accept a reality where the most powerful have the least legal responsibility.”