

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.

In a teleconference press briefing today, public officials and
civil rights organizations underscored that nearly two years after its
launch, ICE has finally suggested a procedure for local jurisdictions to
request to opt out of the problematic Secure Communities program
(S-Comm). In response to mounting public pressure and the release of
internal ICE documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act
lawsuit filed in April by the Center for Constitutional Rights,
the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Kathryn O. Greenberg
Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,
ICE issued a seven-page document defending the politically sensitive
program. The document described for the first time what appears to be an
opt out process for local jurisdictions.
In today's briefing, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey and Santa Clara Supervisor George Shirakawa joined
the groups to express concerns about the harm to public safety caused
by the program, which enlists locals police into federal immigration
enforcement through checking the fingerprints of all individuals at the
time of booking and to raise questions about ICE's newly released, yet
somewhat vague procedure for opting out of the program. The groups
demand that ICE follow its own policy by allowing local jurisdiction
that have made this request, such as San Francisco, to opt out.
San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey said,
"Despite ICE's contention that a local jurisdiction may opt out of
Secure Communities by submitting a formal request in writing, my
experience has shown this not to be true." The Sheriff re-submitted a
request to opt out this week citing the new ICE procedure in a letter
addressed to the Department of Homeland Security and the California
Attorney General that states "that the information provided...suggests
there is now a procedure in place to address such requests."
Santa Clara County Supervisor George Shirakawa
added, "The County of Santa Clara has been struggling to understand the
so-called 'voluntary' roll-out of Secure Communities in our jails. Santa
Clara County has a long-standing policy of not entangling immigration
enforcement with local policing. We are not in a position to do ICE's
work."
Earlier this month the Office of the County Counsel of Santa Clara
wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking for
clarification about the opt out process and never received a response.
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D), Co-chair of the Immigration
Sub-committee, also wrote a letter requesting clarification, noting that
"there appears to be significant confusion about how local law
enforcement agencies may 'opt out' of Secure Communities." To download a
copy of this letter as well as Sheriff Hennessey's letter, click here.
"We have known all along that S-Comm is a voluntary program because
it is a program, not a federal law, and it interferes with local
interests in protecting public safety by destroying any trust immigrant
residents have in the police," said Angela Chan, Staff Attorney at the Asian Law Caucus,
a nonprofit civil rights organization in San Francisco that serves
low-income Asian American immigrants. "It's a promising development that
ICE has finally come out and acknowledged that the program is voluntary
in a written statement. The next step is for ICE to follow through and
allow San Francisco to opt out since both our Sheriff and our Board of
Supervisors have clearly stated our city's request to opt out."
S-Comm now operates in 574 jurisdictions in 30 states. ICE
Assistant Secretary John Morton has declared his intention to deploy
S-Comm nationwide by 2013, and has vigorously defended the program in
the media as an innocuous information-sharing program that does not
require local police to enforce immigration laws. But according to Sarahi Uribe of NDLON and
lead organizer of the "Uncover The Truth Behind ICE and Police
Collaborations" campaign, "Details have been scarce, and frankly there
has been an Orwellian tone to Assistant Secretary Morton's S-Comm
propaganda campaign. Despite clear warning signs from Arizona about the
dangerous consequences of the ICE-police mergers, the Assistant
Secretary has accelerated its expansion. Local governments, law
enforcement and the public demand that ICE immediately amend the S-Comm
agreements to outline a clear and functional opt out process and respect
the requests of jurisdictions like San Francisco to opt out of the
program's implementation."
Groups say that particularly problematic is S-Comm's mechanism that
automatically runs fingerprints through immigration databases for all
people upon arrest, regardless of whether they are ultimately convicted.
Civil rights organizations raised concerns about the potential for
police to use low-level criminal stops as a pretext to trigger
immigration proceedings. Law enforcement officials have expressed
apprehension about the program's effect on community policing and
interference with local criminal investigations.
According to Jazmin Segura at the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network,
"Secure Communities is a dangerous program that increases the
collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE. This collaboration,
which makes immigrants reluctant to trust local authorities, can
critically undermine the health and well being of all
residents--including U.S. citizens. We are pleased ICE has taken the
first step in ensuring a clear opt-out process so that counties like
Santa Clara can continue to protect and promote the public safety of our
community."
Visit CCR's Secure Communities FOIA case page
for the text of the April 27th FOIA Complaint, all records obtained
through the FOIA litigation and other relevant analysis and documents.
To download the groups' response to the seven-page ICE document, click here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464The group's leader called for rejecting "attempts to curtail funding for renewable energy projects" along with "the bullying efforts by the USA and others to weaken policies and regulations to combat climate change."
Nearly 10 months after President Donald Trump ditched the Paris Agreement for a second time, a leading human rights organization on Wednesday urged the remaining parties to the landmark treaty to defy his dangerous example when they come together next week for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil.
"Amnesty International is urging governments to resist aligning with the Trump administration's denial of the accelerating climate crisis and instead demonstrate true climate leadership," said the group's secretary general, Agnès Callamard, in a statement. "In the face of President Trump's rejection of science coupled with the intensified lobbying for fossil fuels, global leaders must redouble their efforts to take urgent climate action—with or without the US."
Callamard, who plans to attend COP30, stressed that "the global climate crisis is the single biggest threat to our planet and demands a befitting response. The effects of climate change are becoming more pronounced across the whole world. We confront increasingly frequent and severe storms, wildfires, droughts, and flooding, as well as sea-level rise that will destroy some small island states."
"COP30 in Brazil presents an opportunity for collective resistance against those trying to reverse years of commitments and efforts to keep global warming below 1.5°C," she continued, referring to a primary goal of the Paris Agreement. "The fact that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere soared by a record amount last year should ring alarm bells for world leaders at COP30."
Further elevating fears for the future, the UN Environment Programme warned Tuesday that Paris Agreement parties' latest pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions—officially called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—could push global temperatures to 2.3-2.5°C above preindustrial levels, up to a full degree beyond the treaty's key target for this century.
Greenpeace demands world leaders agree on a global response plan at #COP30 as a new major UN report warned the global temperature is projected to rise to 2.3-2.5°C above pre-industrial era global temperatures, putting the Paris Agreement limit of 1.5°C at risk in the short-term.
[image or embed]
— Greenpeace International 🌍 (@greenpeace.org) November 4, 2025 at 11:20 AM
Oil Change International highlighted in a report released last week that the United States—which is responsible for the biggest share of planet-heating pollution since the Industrial Revolution—plus Australia, Canada, and Norway are now "overwhelmingly responsible for blocking global progress on phasing out oil and gas production."
The group's global policy lead, Romain Ioualalen, said that "10 years ago in Paris, countries promised to limit warming to 1.5°C, which is impossible without putting an end to fossil fuel expansion and production. The rich countries most responsible for the climate crisis have not kept that promise. Instead, they've poured more fuel on the fire and withheld the funds needed to put it out."
"The fact that a handful of rich Global North countries, led by the United States, have massively driven up their oil and gas production while people around the world suffer the consequences is a blatant mockery of justice and equity," Ioualalen added. He called on governments attending COP30 "to deliver a collective roadmap for equitable, differentiated fossil fuel phaseout dates, and address the systemic barriers preventing Global South countries from transitioning to renewable energy, including finance."
Some experts are concerned that Trump—who's pursuing a pro-fossil fuel agenda that includes but is far from limited to exiting the Paris Agreement—may interfere with the talks, even though a White House official confirmed to Reuters last week that he doesn't plan to send a delegation to Belém.
The official said that Trump made his administration's views on global climate action clear in his September speech at the UN General Assembly—during which the president said the fossil fuel-driven crisis was "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world," and the scientific community's predictions about the global emergency "were wrong" and "were made by stupid people."
Pointing to Trump's global tariff war that was debated before the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, the official added that "the president is directly engaging with leaders around the world on energy issues, which you can see from the historic trade deals and peace deals that all have a significant focus on energy partnerships."
As CNN reported Tuesday:
This practice of linking trade and climate so closely is an innovation of the Trump administration, said Kelly Sims Gallagher, dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University who worked on US climate negotiations with China for the Obama administration.
In the absence of US leadership, she said that China, which is the world's top emitter, may seek to assume more of a prominent, steering role at the talks. The European Union is also likely to take a strong role, though internal rifts have emerged within the EU regarding how aggressively to cut its own emissions.
While Gallagher and other experts who spoke with CNN don't necessarily expect that COP30 will feature the same kind of disruptive behavior that Trump engaged in during last month's International Maritime Organization meeting to delay a new set of global regulations to slash shipping industry emissions, they acknowledged that it is possible. Already, the Tufts professor suggested, Trump's abandonment of the Paris treaty appears to be having an impact.
"I think there's an undeniable fact, which is that with the US withdrawal for a second time, it's definitely seeming to undermine ambition," Gallagher said. "I think it's just getting harder to make the case that global ambition is going to rise without pretty substantial engagement from the United States."
Despite not sending a high-level delegation to the COP30 Climate Summit in Brazil, the presence of the US will still be felt by negotiators there. The US will be the elephant in the room, and could seek to disrupt the talks from afar, depending on how they're trending... www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/c...
[image or embed]
— Andrew Freedman (@afreedma.bsky.social) November 4, 2025 at 9:42 AM
Callamard argued Wednesday that those attending COP30 "must push back against attempts to curtail funding for renewable energy projects and resist the bullying efforts by the USA and others to weaken policies and regulations to combat climate change."
"Humanity can win if states commit at COP30 to a full, fast, fair, and funded fossil-fuel phase-out and just transition to sustainable energy for all, in all sectors, as recently confirmed by the International Court of Justice's recent advisory opinion," she said. "These commitments must go hand-in-hand with a significant injection of climate finance, in the form of grants, not loans, from states that are the worst culprits for greenhouse gas emissions."
"Crucially, states must take steps to protect climate activists and environmental defenders," the Amnesty leader added. "This is the only way to secure climate justice and protect the human rights of billions of people."
According to an annual Global Witness report published in September, at least 142 people were killed and four were confirmed missing last year for "bravely speaking out or taking action to defend their rights to land and a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment," bringing the total to at least 2,253 land defenders slaughtered or disappeared since the group started tracking such cases in 2012.
“To limit new weapons development in China or Russia, one of the best things the US can do is maintain the taboo on testing and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," said one expert.
More than a dozen US senators on Wednesday urged President Donald Trump to abort plans for a resumption of nuclear weapons testing, a call that came as Russian President Vladimir Putin directed his senior officials to draft proposals for possible new nuke tests in response.
“We write to you today to express grave reservation about any action to resume nuclear weapons testing," 14 Democratic senators led by Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM), ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a letter to Trump.
"We request that you personally provide clarification," the lawmakers added. "The decision to resume nuclear weapons testing would be geopolitically dangerous, fiscally irresponsible, and simply unnecessary to ensure the ability of the United States to defend itself."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)—who signed the letter—also introduced emergency legislation last week aimed at preventing Trump from resuming nuclear weapons tests.
Although no country is known to have tested a nuclear weapon since North Korea last did so in 2017, Trump last month ordered the Pentagon to prepare for a resumption of reciprocal testing.
“The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country,” Trump falsely wrote on social media. “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”
TASS reported Wednesday that Putin instructed the Russian Foreign Ministry, Defense Ministry, intelligence agencies, and civilian bureaus to submit proposals "on the possibility of preparing for nuclear weapons tests" in the event that other countries resume testing.
Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon in its modern history. The former Soviet Union's final nuclear test took place in 1990 and the successor Russian state has adhered to a moratorium ever since.
Last week, Congresswoman Dina Titus (D-Nev.) introduced a bill to prohibit new US nuclear weapons testing. Titus accused Trump of putting "his own ego and authoritarian ambitions above the health and safety of Nevadans."
Supporting Titus' bill, Tara Drozdenko, director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement Wednesday that “there is no good reason for the United States to resume explosive nuclear testing and it would actually make everyone in this country less safe."
"We have so much to lose and so little to gain from resuming testing," she continued. "New explosive testing by the United States would be to make a political statement, with major consequences: It would shatter the global freeze on nuclear testing observed by all but North Korea and give Russia, China, and other nuclear powers the green light to restart their own nuclear testing programs."
“The United States has not conducted a nuclear detonation test since 1992," Drozdenko noted. "Even those advocating for testing acknowledge there is no scientific need to test to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. In fact, Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently said that the updated systems can be tested without conducting full nuclear detonations."
“To limit new weapons development in China or Russia, one of the best things the US can do is maintain the taboo on testing and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," she added. "This treaty with on-site verification measures would be the best way to ensure that countries are not clandestinely testing nuclear weapons.”
The United States and Soviet Union came dangerously close to nuclear war on multiple occasions during the Cold War, most notably amid the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and, later, during then-President Ronald Reagan's first administration in the early 1980s.
Weeks after becoming the first country to develop nuclear weapons in 1945, the United States waged the world's only nuclear war, dropping atomic bombs on the defenseless Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians.
According to the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, Russia leads the world with 5,449 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, followed by the US with 5,277 warheads, China with around 600, France with 290, and the United Kingdom with 225. Four other nations—India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—also have nuclear arsenals of between 50-180 warheads each.
If funding is not restored to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, said one expert, "pipes will freeze, people will die."
As more than 40 million households that rely on federal food aid are forced to stretch their budgets even further than usual due to the Trump administration only partially funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under a court order, many of those families are facing another crisis brought on by the government shutdown: a loss of heating support that serves nearly 6 million people.
President Donald Trump has sought to eliminate the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), proposing zero funding for it in his budget earlier this year and firing the team that administers the aid.
Though Congress was expected to fund the program in the spending bill that was supposed to pass by October 1, Democrats refused to join the Republican Party in approving government funding that would have allowed healthcare subsidies to expire and raised premiums for millions of families, and Trump and congressional Republicans have refused to negotiate to ensure Americans can afford healthcare.
The government shutdown is now the longest in US history due to the standoff, and energy assistance officials have joined Democratic lawmakers in warning that the freezing of LIHEAP funds could have dire consequences for households across the country as temperatures drop.
Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA), told the Washington Post on Wednesday that even if the shutdown ended this week, funding would not reach states until early December—and more families will fall behind on their utility bills if lawmakers don't negotiate a plan to open the government soon.
“You can imagine in a state like Minnesota, it can get awfully cold in December. We’re all just kind of waiting, holding our breath.”
"People will fall through the cracks,” Wolfe told the Post. “Pipes will freeze, people will die.”
With heating costs rising faster than inflation, 1 in 6 households are behind on their energy bills, and 5.9 million rely on assistance through LIHEAP.
The Department of Health and Human Services generally released LIHEAP funds to states in the beginning of November, but energy assistance offices in states where the weather has already gotten colder have had to tell worried residents that there are no heating funds.
Officials in states including Vermont and Maine have said they can cover heating needs for families who rely on LIHEAP for a short period of time, and some nonprofit groups, like Aroostook County Action Program in northern Maine, have raised money to distribute to households.
But states and charities can't fill the need that LIHEAP has in past years. Minnesota's Energy Assistance Program received $125 million from the federal government last year that allowed 120,000 families to heat their homes.
Aroostook County Action Program has provided help to about 200 households in past years, while LIHEAP serves about 7,500 Maine families.
The state has already received 50,000 applications for heating aid and would be preparing to send $30 million in assistance in a normal year.
“You can imagine in a state like Minnesota, it can get awfully cold in December,” Michael Schmitz, director of the program, told the Post. “We’re all just kind of waiting, holding our breath.”
NEADA told state energy assistance officials late last month to plan on suspending service disconnections until federal LIHEAP funds are released, and US Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) led more than four dozen lawmakers in urging utilities to suspend late penalties and shutoffs for federal workers who have been furloughed due to the shutdown.
States reported that they'd begun receiving calls from people who rely on LIHEAP as Americans across the country went to the polls on Tuesday and delivered Democratic victories in numerous state and local races.
The president himself said the shutdown played a "big role" in voters' clear dissatisfaction with the current state of the country.