

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.

The new Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government
should re-establish Britain's reputation as a champion of human rights
by opening a judicial inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture
and by affirming support for the Human Rights Act, Human Rights Watch
said today.
"The two parties in government have indicated they are in
substantial agreement on civil liberties," said Tom Porteous, London
director at Human Rights Watch. "They should translate that into
practice by making a clean break with the previous government's abusive
approach to counterterrorism and by strengthening the UK's role in
bringing to justice those responsible for international crimes at home
and abroad."
Allegations of complicity by UK intelligence services in the
kidnapping and torture of terrorism suspects, including UK nationals,
have badly damaged the UK's reputation as a nation that respects human
rights, Human Rights Watch said. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights (JCHR) and the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee
have both issued critical reports about this issue. The JCHR, the All
Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition, the Liberal
Democrat Party and several Conservative Members of Parliament have
called for a judicial inquiry.
"An abusive approach to counterterrorism is also a counterproductive
approach," Porteous said. "There's an urgent need to open a thorough
and rapid judicial inquiry into these allegations of torture. Anyone
found responsible for wrongdoing should be held accountable."
In opposition the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties both
called for a review of counterterrorism legislation. Human Rights Watch
urged the government make good on its promises of reform by allowing
the 28 days pre-charge detention power to lapse when it comes up for
annual renewal in July, and by committing itself in the first Queen's
speech to the repeal of the discredited system of control orders.
A comprehensive and speedy review of counterterrorism laws and
policies should include a reconsideration of the policy under which
terrorism suspects can be deported to countries where they risk being
tortured, Human Rights Watch said. Research by Human Rights Watch has
shown that the policy, known as "deportations with assurances,"
breaches the UK's human rights obligations.
Human Rights Watch also urged the incoming coalition government to
affirm its support for the Human Rights Act. Since it was introduced by
the Labour government in 1998, the Human Rights Act has delivered
practical benefits and protections against excessive state power.
However, it has come under sustained attack both from the media and
from politicians of the right and left since it was introduced in 1998.
The Liberal Democrat Party has supported the Human Rights Act, but the
Conservative Party pledged in its manifesto to replace it with a Bill
of Rights.
"The attacks on the Human Rights Act are mostly based on myths and
misconceptions," said Porteous. "The Act reflects long-standing
traditions on law in the UK, including the presumption of innocence,
the right to liberty, the right to a fair hearing and the prohibition
of torture. The new ministers should pledge to support the Human Rights
Act and govern according to its principles. Scrapping the Act would
signal that the UK was turning its back on human rights."
One achievement of UK policy under Labour was its support for
international criminal justice, including its support for the creation
of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. Human Rights Watch
urged the new government to reaffirm its support for the ICC and for
the broader principles of international justice that underpin it,
namely accountability for grave international crimes such as torture
and war crimes. There has been growing evidence during the past year of
torture, deaths and other serious abuses of detainees by British forces
during the occupation of Iraq.
The new government should ensure that British nationals or anyone in
British territory against whom there is evidence of responsibility for
international crimes are investigated and either prosecuted in British
courts or extradited to countries that will prosecute them. Currently
the Attorney General, a government minister, has the power to veto any
prosecution for international crimes.
"The UK needs to ensure that accountability for war crimes is not
just for a few African warlords and dictators," Porteous said. "The new
government should ensure that British police and prosecutors can and
will independently investigate and prosecute those responsible for
torture and other international crimes without interference from
ministers."
The UK has been considering proposals to curtail the authority of
British courts to issue arrest warrants initiated by private parties
under universal jurisdiction, the legal principle by which certain
crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, can be
prosecuted in any jurisdiction. Human Rights Watch urged the government
to retain the right for private individuals to apply for such warrants,
which are only issued after a senior judge is satisfied that there is
credible evidence of wrongdoing, and which serve as an important
mechanism to allow prompt action when alleged war criminals are present
in the UK.
An important concern of UK voters during the election campaign was
immigration and asylum. But there has been little attention from
politicians or the media to the human rights costs of current UK
immigration and asylum policies. In particular, Human Rights Watch's
research has shown that the "Detained Fast Track" asylum procedure is
dysfunctional and unfit to deal with complex refugee claims that go
through it regularly. Human Rights Watch urged the new government to
reform this part of the asylum system in accordance with the right to a
full and fair examination of asylum claims, and to ensure that any
changes to the asylum system enhance access to protection for those
fleeing persecution overseas.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"The new American oligarchy is here," said the CEO of Oxfam America. "Billionaires and mega-corporations are booming while working families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and groceries."
New research published Monday shows that the 10 richest people in the United States have seen their collective fortune grow by nearly $700 billion since President Donald Trump secured a second term in the White House and rushed to deliver more wealth to the top in the form of tax cuts.
The billionaire wealth surge that has accompanied Trump's return to power is part of a decades-long, policy-driven trend of upward redistribution that has enriched the very few and devastated the working class, Oxfam America details in Unequal: The Rise of a New American Oligarchy and the Agenda We Need.
Between 1989 and 2022, the report shows, the least rich US household in the top 1% gained 987 times more wealth than the richest household in the bottom 20%.
As of last year, more than 40% of the US population was considered poor or low-income, Oxfam observed. In 2025, the share of total US assets owned by the wealthiest 0.1% reached its highest level on record: 12.6%.
The Trump administration—in partnership with Republicans in Congress—has added rocket fuel to the nation's out-of-control inequality, moving "with staggering speed and scale to carry out a relentless attack on working-class families" while using "the power of the office to enrich the wealthy and well-connected," Oxfam's new report states.
"The data confirms what people across our nation already know instinctively: The new American oligarchy is here," said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America. "Billionaires and mega-corporations are booming while working families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and groceries."
"Now, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress risk turbocharging that inequality as they wage a relentless attack on working people and bargain with livelihoods during the government shutdown," Maxman added. "But what they're doing isn't new. It's doubling down on decades of regressive policy choices. What's different is how much undemocratic power they've now amassed."
"Today, we are seeing the dark extremes of choosing inequality for 50 years."
Oxfam released its report as the Trump administration continued to illegally withhold federal nutrition assistance from tens of millions of low-income US households just months after enacting a budget law that's expected to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to ultra-rich Americans and large corporations.
Given the severity of US inequality and ongoing Trump-GOP efforts to make it worse, Oxfam stressed that a bold agenda "that focuses on rebalancing power" will be necessary to reverse course.
Such an agenda would include—but not be limited to—a wealth tax on multimillionaires and billionaires, a higher corporate tax rate, a permanently expanded child tax credit, strong antitrust policy that breaks up corporate monopolies, a federal job guarantee, universal childcare, and a substantially higher minimum wage.
"Today, we are seeing the dark extremes of choosing inequality for 50 years," Elizabeth Wilkins, president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, wrote in her foreword to the report. "The policy priorities in this report—rebalancing power, unrigging the tax code, reimagining the social safety net, and supporting workers' rights—are all essential to creating that more inclusive and cohesive society. Together, they speak to our deepest needs as human beings: to live with security and agency, to live free from exploitation."
"Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday implored his Democratic colleagues in Congress not to cave to President Donald Trump and Republicans in the ongoing government shutdown fight, warning that doing so would hasten the country's descent into authoritarianism.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump a "schoolyard bully" and argued that "anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates."
"This is a man who threatens to arrest and jail his political opponents, deploys the US military into Democratic cities, and allows masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick people up off the streets and throw them into vans without due process," Sanders wrote. "He has sued virtually every major media outlet because he does not tolerate criticism, has extorted funds from law firms and is withholding federal funding from states that voted against him."
If Democrats capitulate, Sanders warned, Trump "will utilize his victory to accelerate his movement toward authoritarianism."
"At a time when he already has no regard for our democratic system of checks and balances," the senator wrote, "he will be emboldened to continue decimating programs that protect elderly people, children, the sick and the poor while giving more tax breaks and other benefits to his fellow oligarchs."
Sanders' op-ed came as the shutdown continued with no end in sight, with Democrats standing by their demand for an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits as a necessary condition for any government funding deal. Republicans have so far refused to negotiate on the ACA subsidies even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is illegally withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding from tens of millions of Americans—including millions of children—despite court rulings ordering him to release the money.
In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday, Trump again urged Republicans to nuke the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate to remove the need for Democratic support to reopen the government and advance other elements of their agenda unilaterally. Under the status quo, Republicans need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to advance a government funding package.
"The Republicans have to get tougher," Trump said. "If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We're not going to lose power."
Congressional Democrats have faced some pressure from allies, most notably the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), to cut a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown and alleviate the suffering it has inflicted on federal workers and many others.
But Democrats appear unmoved by the AFGE president's demand, and other labor leaders have since voiced support for the minority party's effort to secure an extension of ACA subsidies.
"We're urging our Democratic friends to hold the line," said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of the 185,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.
In his op-ed on Sunday, Sanders asked, "Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?"
"If the Democrats cave now, it would be a betrayal of the millions of Americans who have fought and died for democracy and our Constitution," the senator wrote. "It would be a sellout of a working class that is struggling to survive in very difficult economic times. Democrats in Congress are the last remaining opposition to Trump's quest for absolute power. To surrender now would be an historic tragedy for our country, something that history will not look kindly upon."
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, an anchor at MSNBC, published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."