

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.

States convening at the United Nations for a high-level meeting on
Sudan on September 24, 2010, should press Sudanese authorities to ensure
that the forthcoming referendum on southern independence is free of the
human rights violations that marred the April elections, Human Rights
Watch said today.
More than 30 nations and international organizations are expected to
attend the meeting, convened by the UN secretary-general to coincide
with the annual General Assembly meetings. Delegates are expected to
express their support for the January 2011 referendum, which will
determine whether Southern Sudan remains part of Sudan or secedes and
becomes an independent nation.
"The delegates at the Sudan meeting should do more than confirm that
the referendum will happen on time," said Rona Peligal, Africa director
at Human Rights Watch. "This is also a prime opportunity for them to
insist on better human rights conditions in Sudan."
The April elections and the upcoming referendum for southern
independence are milestones in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement,
which ended 22 years of civil war in which an estimated 2 million people
lost their lives.
Human Rights Watch remains concerned about impunity for human rights
violations by security forces across Sudan, restrictions on civil and
political rights, and the treatment of minority groups throughout Sudan.
The two parties to the peace agreement - the ruling National Congress
Party (NCP) and the southern ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement
(SPLM) - should state publicly that they will not expel each other's
minorities in the event of secession, Human Rights Watch said.
The delegates to the September 24 UN meeting should also address the deteriorating situation in Darfur.
"Focus on the southern referendum should not shift attention away
from the ongoing crises in Darfur," Peligal said. "The nations concerned
about the situation in Sudan need to press Khartoum now to end impunity
for ongoing human rights violations in Darfur."
Election-Related Violations
As Human Rights Watch has extensively documented, the national elections in April 2010
were deeply flawed. They were marred by human rights violations,
including restrictions on free speech and assembly, particularly in
northern Sudan. The elections also occasioned widespread intimidation,
arbitrary arrests, and physical violence against election monitors and
opponents of the ruling parties by Sudanese security forces across the
country.
In the period following the elections, the human rights situation
deteriorated further as the ruling party, using the National
Intelligence and Security Services, cracked down on opponents,
activists, and journalists in Khartoum and northern states. Human Rights
Watch documented additional cases of arbitrary arrests of activists in
August and September.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called on the Sudanese national
government to enact key human rights reforms required under the peace
agreement, such as reforming the repressive national security apparatus.
In Southern Sudan, election-related disputes sparked clashes between
the southern government army, the SPLM, and aggrieved candidates and
other opponents of the southern ruling party. In Jonglei state, for
example, General George Athor, who unsuccessfully ran for governor,
clashed with the southern army on multiple occasions. As of September,
large numbers of the southern army's soldiers were still deployed in
northern Jonglei state where civilians continue to report rape and other
abuses. Soldiers have also conducted violent operations against armed
groups aligned to opponents of the southern ruling party in Upper Nile
state, resulting in human rights violations there.
Both national and Southern Sudanese authorities should hold their
security forces accountable for human rights violations that occurred
during and after the elections, Human Rights Watch said.
Civil and Political Rights Threatened
Although the head of the national security service in early August
lifted pre-print censorship, other restrictions on political expression
remain in place. During research in Sudan in August, Human Rights Watch
found that both in the northern states, where authorities support the
continued unity of Sudan, and in Southern Sudan, where authorities
support southern secession, journalists and civil society are not free
to speak openly about any opposition to the prevailing sentiment.
Human Rights Watch also found increased anxiety over the citizenship
rights of southerners living in Khartoum and elsewhere in northern
states. Southerners living throughout Sudan will be eligible to vote in
the referendum. The vast majority of them live in Southern Sudan, but an
estimated 1.5 million live in Khartoum and other northern towns, many
in settlements for displaced persons.
In recent months, officials in the northern ruling party have
publicly threatened that southerners may not be able to stay in the
north in the event of a secession vote. Both southerners in the north
and northerners living in Southern Sudan told Human Rights Watch that
they feared retaliation, even expulsion, if secession were approved.
International standards protect people from arbitrary or
discriminatory removal or deprivation of their nationality. The Sudanese
authorities should publicly pledge that no one will be at risk of
statelessness, or risk losing enjoyment of other basic rights, as a
result of the outcome of the referendum.
"The UN meeting provides a perfect opportunity for the parties to
declare there will be no expulsions of southerners from the north, or
northerners from the south," Peligal said.
Impasse at Abyei
Delegates at the UN meeting this week should also press the two parties
to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to make it an urgent priority to
resolve the political impasse over Abyei, the oil-rich area along the
north-south border where northern and southern forces clashed in 2008. The issue remains a key flashpoint for further conflict and human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
"The situation in Abyei could easily deteriorate and lead to more
conflict without a concerted effort to protect civilians and defuse
tensions on the ground," Peligal said.
Under the peace agreement, the area is to hold its own parallel
referendum in January 2011 to decide whether it will belong to the north
or south, but the parties have made no progress in agreeing on the
arrangements for this vote or in taking steps to resolve differences
between local populations and protect their rights, as Human Rights
Watch documented in August.
The United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), which has a mandate to
protect civilians, should increase its patrols throughout Abyei and
other key volatile areas along the north-south border, and Sudanese
authorities should ensure peacekeepers' access to these areas, Human
Rights Watch said.
Abuses by Soldiers in Southern Sudan
The Sudanese government and international supporters should not ignore
human rights violations by security forces in Southern Sudan, where
election-related grievances have provoked human rights violations by the
southern government's soldiers in the months following the April vote,
Human Rights Watch said.
In northern Jonglei and Upper Nile states, for example, Human Rights
Watch documented killings and rapes committed by these soldiers in June
and July. The soldiers targeted civilians whom they accused of
supporting "renegade" commanders and local militia groups who opposed
the southern ruling party.
In Upper Nile state, the governing party's troops conducted
particularly violent operations against a militia group allegedly linked
to SPLM-DC, a breakaway political party led by Lam Akol. In one
village, a 60-year-old woman told Human Rights Watch that soldiers had
rounded up her son and three friends, tied their hands behind their
backs, and shot them dead.
"These incidents underscore the urgent need for the southern
government to instruct soldiers on their human rights obligations and to
hold them accountable for all violations," Peligal said.
Human Rights Watch also urged human rights personnel for the UN
mission to monitor and report on these abuses and to press the southern
armed force to strengthen its accountability mechanisms before the
referendum. International donors engaged in reforming the security
sector in Southern Sudan should include accountability and human rights
in their programs.
The Government of Southern Sudan has, appropriately, put the southern
police forces in charge of referendum security, rather than soldiers
who have been responsible for abuses, Human Rights Watch said.
Protect Civilians and Insist on Justice for Crimes in Darfur
Human Rights Watch also urged the international delegates to ensure
stronger protection of civilians from ongoing violence and rights abuses
in Darfur, Human Rights Watch said.
The delegates should insist that those wanted by the International
Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide allegedly committed in Darfur appear in The Hague to face the
charges against them. President Omar al-Bashir; Ahmed Haroun, the
country's former minister for humanitarian affairs and current governor
of Southern Kordofan state; and Ali Kosheib, a "Janjaweed" militia
leader whose real name is Ali Mohammed Ali, are all subject to arrest
warrants by the ICC.
The situation in Darfur has deteriorated in recent months, and the Sudanese government continues to carry out armed attacks on rebel factions and civilians.
In early September, for example, armed militias (some wearing
military uniforms) on camels and horses and in vehicles mounted with
guns killed 37 people in an attack on a market in North Darfur. The
UN-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID), which is
charged with protecting civilians and has a base 15 kilometers away at
Tawila, turned back in its first effort to reach the site on the advice
of a pro-government armed group and did not reach the market until
nearly a week after the attack.
The incident underscores the need for the peacekeeping operations to
interpret its protection mandate robustly and to insist on immediate
access to areas where violations occur, Human Rights Watch said.
Violence has also increased inside camps for people who have been
displaced by the conflict. At Kalma camp in South Darfur and at Hamadiya
camp in West Darfur, tensions in July between supporters and opponents
of peace talks, known as the Doha peace process, led to violence,
killing 11 people.
The impact of the fighting between armed groups in Darfur and of
government attacks on civilians has not been fully documented, in part
because the government and rebels have repeatedly denied peacekeepers
and humanitarian aid groups access to affected areas. Following violence
in Kalma camp, for example, the Sudanese government blocked
humanitarian organizations from the camp for several weeks.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly urged leaders of the peacekeeping
operation to increase human rights monitoring and public reporting and,
where necessary, issue statements pressing Sudanese authorities to end
specific abuses.
In September, the Sudanese government endorsed a new security and
development strategy for Darfur, which the peacekeepers have publicly
supported. The plan envisions the return of displaced people to their
homes, but it does not contain clear measures to ensure their returns
are voluntary, or that militias are disarmed and soldiers held
accountable, Human Rights Watch said.
"Darfur cannot be developed unless there is real security," Peligal
said. "The international actors need to press the Sudanese government to
immediately end attacks on civilians, let humanitarian groups and
peacekeepers operate effectively, and send people home only when they
want. The government also needs to bring to justice those who have
committed abuses in Darfur, including by cooperating with the
International Criminal Court."
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.
"We all knew they were going to spend their money," said Abdul El-Sayed. "We didn't know that they were going to outspend us $11 to $1. And yet we're still standing."
Abdul El-Sayed was on track Wednesday to narrowly win the Democratic nomination for US Senate in Michigan, overcoming tens of millions of dollars in outside spending by AIPAC and other special interests that sought to smear the progressive epidemiologist and boost his opponent, US Rep. Haley Stevens.
NBC declared El-Sayed the winner, but The Associated Press said the race was too close to call with over 90% of ballots counted. As of early Wednesday morning, El-Sayed was leading Stevens by roughly 21,000 votes—or just over one percentage point.
In his election night speech, El-Sayed stopped short of declaring victory but celebrated the "movement that we were able to inspire."
"Across that movement that we built, there was an inspiration in the idea that we could take our government back. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people instead of government of the corporations, by the special interests, and for the billionaires," El-Sayed told supporters. "And because you had the audacity to believe in that, you know that the billionaires, the corporations, and the special interests, they weren't going to give up lightly. We all knew they were going to spend their money. We didn't know they were going to spend $70 million of their money. We didn't know that they were going to outspend us $11 to $1. And yet we're still standing."
An El-Sayed victory would be a brutal defeat for AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying organization that shelled out over $30 million to defeat him. AIPAC cash accounted for nearly half of all the outside spending in the race, which was the most expensive Democratic primary in US history.
"AIPAC spent over $30 million to stop Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in this race, and that record-high sum wasn’t enough because Democratic voters have had it with the fringe and extremist view that our tax dollars should pay for Israel’s bombs, wars, and genocidal ambitions," said Margaret DeReus, executive director of the IMEU Policy Project. "With Michigan now playing a decisive role in selecting the next Democratic president, potential 2028 contenders should take notes."
The winner of the Senate contest will face Republican Mike Rogers in November.
Progressives also appeared poised to win other closely watched races in Michigan. The Associated Press projected that grassroots organizer and climate activist William Lawrence has won the Democratic primary in Michigan's 7th Congressional District, while progressive state Rep. Donavan McKinney led establishment-backed US Rep. Shri Thanedar—who received AIPAC support—in the 13th District, with more than 70% of the vote counted.
"AIPAC fell on its face in Michigan," the progressive advocacy group RootsAction said in response to the primary results. "Voters showed that they want what progressives have been clamoring for, including Medicare for All, a stop to endless wars, and true economic security."
"Typical Susan Collins: Votes against Trump when her vote doesn't change the outcome but lock-in-step when it does."
After Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans advanced Todd Blanche's nomination to be US attorney general, attention shifted to a few GOP senators, including Maine's Susan Collins, who—as she faces a formidable Democratic challenger in November—said late Tuesday that she would vote against President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer leading the Department of Justice.
Collins has been in office for nearly three decades and often played the part of a "concerned moderate" while voting with her party when it needs her. Perhaps the most notable example was when the senator, who claims to support abortion rights, helped confirm US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh—and then he helped overturn Roe v. Wade.
Now Collins—along with some other Republicans, such as Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Bill Cassidy (La.), who lost his May primary to a Trump-backed candidate—must contend with a DOJ nominee who, in a recent phone call hosted by the White House Faith Office, said that "we have a lot of work to do" rolling back the Biden administration's progress on abortion rights, and "some of that is taking longer than we want."
Blanche, who is currently acting AG, assured those on the call—a recording of which was posted online by the religious group Intercessors for America, according to Politico—that the DOJ is "working hand in hand" with the White House, Department of Health and Human Services, and Food and Drug Administration to ensure that the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, which reversed Roe and let states enact total abortion bans, "becomes permanent in every single state," promising "victory."
Politico reported that when "asked to explain what Blanche meant by 'victory' and by making the high court decision 'permanent in every single state,' the Justice Department said his comments were made solely 'with respect to mail order abortion drugs' and did not elaborate further."
Collins, who is running against former Democratic state Senate President Troy Jackson, had not said how she planned to vote on Blanche before the panel weighed in on Tuesday; he advanced out of committee after striking a deal with a pair of GOP senators on blocking the so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" sought by Trump for his allies, including January 6, 2021 insurrectionists.
A spokesperson for the Maine Republican told the Bangor Daily News on Monday that she was waiting for the results of the panel's vote and "also holding off on a decision until confirming all the details of the agreement hammered out between Blanche and the two senators who were previously holding out, Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina."
There are 53 Senate Republicans, and although Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC) has taken over for her late brother, former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) remains hospitalized, meaning that with otherwise full attendance, losing three GOP votes could block Blanche's path to the permanent post.
In a lengthy statement on social media Tuesday evening, Collins said that "I have carefully reviewed Todd Blanche's qualifications," and "while I believe Mr. Blanche is a capable lawyer, the Department of Justice has become increasingly political."
"Mr. Blanche has taken several actions that have further eroded the department's independence, and that is the basis for my vote to oppose his confirmation," she continued, citing his approval of an immunity deal for the Trump family and the Anti-Weaponization Fund, his promise to "prohibit the mailing of abortion medication to women nationwide," attempted indictments of Democratic senators over their video encouraging resistance to unlawful military orders, and opposition to Blanche within the DOJ.
Brendan Duke, a former Biden administration economic adviser who's now senior director at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, responded, "Guess Senate republicans have the votes."
Collins said less than two months ago that "I do not regret" voting for Kavanaugh, despite the fallout that followed. At the time, she was running against Democrat Graham Platner, who had responded to the senator, "You should." Like the Supreme Court Justice, Platner was accused of sexual assault, which he denied; unlike Kavanaugh, Platner stepped aside. He was recently replaced on the ballot with Jackson, via a convention process.
Jackson, a 58-year-old logger by trade, "began his political career as an abortion opponent, having grown up in a Catholic family in the socially conservative St. John’s Valley area of Aroostook County," the Portland Press Herald noted last month. The Democrat has talked openly about his transformation on the issue, influenced by conversations with women, doctors, and rights advocates.
In a July opinion piece endorsing Jackson, Andrea Tirrell and Amanda Gavin, University of Maine PhD candidates who have volunteered at Bangor's Mabel Wadsworth Center, a reproductive healthcare nonprofit, wrote for the Press Herald opinion that "his seven-year streak (2018-2024) of 100% ratings from Planned Parenthood shows a track record we can trust."
Appearing on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" last week, Jackson touted that record and called out Collins for her contribution to the Roe reversal, as well as GOP attacks on healthcare access more broadly.
"When Susan Collins was helping overturn Roe v. Wade,” Jackson highlighted, "here in Maine... I co-sponsored one of the most progressive reproductive rights bills in the country—fought incredibly hard for it."
"I was wrong" to oppose abortion rights many years ago, he said. "But I'm very proud of my record over the past decade or more fighting for access across the state."
"Americans deserve a government that works for them, not one that’s for sale to hedge funds and Wall Street banks."
US Sen. Alex Padilla on Tuesday introduced legislation aimed at blocking President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and future occupants of their offices from profiting by selling early access to official or personal social media posts that could move financial markets, calling the practice a blatant abuse of public office for private gain.
Padilla's (D-Calif.) Stop Corrupt Trading Act would prohibit any sitting president or vice president—and any business in which they hold a substantial financial interest—from selling advance or exclusive access to presidential social media announcements. It would also establish civil penalties for the sale of nonpublic government information through such services.
“This is out in the open—Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in American history," Padilla said in a statement introducing the legislation. "Despite already being the richest president in history, President Trump’s number one priority in office is to make himself richer while everyday Americans struggle to make ends meet."
“Selling access to his market-moving social media posts is just one example of the brazen corruption we’ve seen coming out of the Oval Office—and I am fighting back to put a stop to it," he added. "Americans deserve a government that works for them, not one that’s for sale to hedge funds and Wall Street banks that can afford the subscription fee.”
Padilla's bill comes days after the Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) launched a premium service offering subscribers expedited access to the president's Truth Social posts, a move that ethics watchdogs and government accountability advocates have warned could provide wealthy investors with an unfair advantage if presidential statements affect stock prices, tariffs, or other market-sensitive policies.
US House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) responded to TMTG's move by announcing an investigation into what he called an "insider-information scheme."
"These markets risk creating perverse incentives, undermining public trust, and commodifying human suffering in ways that warrant careful scrutiny."
As wildfires ravaged large swaths of the Western US, a group of Democratic senators on Monday called on federal regulators to rein in prediction markets offering contracts tied to such disasters, warning that turning climate-fueled extreme weather into financial wagers creates "perverse incentives" that could motivate arson and other crimes.
In a letter to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Michael Selig, Sens. Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Adam Schiff (Calif.), Jacky Rosen (Nevada), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada), Martin Heinrich (NM), Ron Wyden (Ore.), and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) wrote that "prediction markets have been enabled to expand rapidly, increasingly inviting speculation on war, political violence, disasters, and public emergencies that raise ethical and public policy concerns."
"These markets risk creating perverse incentives, undermining public trust, and commodifying human suffering in ways that warrant careful scrutiny," the lawmakers continued. "Recent public reports have highlighted how Polymarket—the largest prediction market platform in the world—accepted more than $1.2 million in bets surrounding the Palisades and Eaton fires in January 2025. These fires devastated the Los Angeles area, claiming the lives of 31 people and destroying more than 16,000 structures."
"Offering bets on destructive wildfires threatens to minimize communities’ suffering all so the rich and powerful can profit," the letter argues. "There’s also the heightened risk—according to state and local fire officials—that individuals could be tempted to commit arson in order to make sure their bets are successful."
"By offering contracts on fires, prediction market sites run the risk of encouraging people to influence fires that have already started, creating additional concerns around public safety and insider trading," the senators added.
The CFTC controversially considers Polymarket and Kalshi designated contract markets (DCMs)—over which the federal agency has control versus state gambling regimes—and is currently developing nationwide rules.
The letter's signers asked Selig:
"As the United States faces yet another record-breaking fire season this year, the [CFTC] cannot allow these prediction markets to offer unrestricted betting on wildfires," the senators stressed. "While these bets appear to be offered only on the offshore Polymarket site, it is only a matter of time before other US-based designated contract markets try to offer these. The CFTC must lead the charge to rein in these contracts in the US and offshore and put in place commonsense guardrails to prevent people from profiting as wildfires threaten communities."
In addition to wildfires, Polymarket users can place wagers related to earthquakes, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions.
Polymarket responded to the senators' letter in a statement to Claims Journal saying, "When tragedy unfolds, people turn to the news for commentary and to Polymarket for information.”
"While we recognize the risks associated with these markets, removing them does not prevent a tragedy," the company added. "It only makes timely, market-based information less accessible to those seeking to understand what may happen next.”
The senators' letter came days after Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a lawsuit targeting Polymarket competitor Kalshi for operating as “an illegal gambling operation" in "flagrant disregard” for the Empire State’s “Constitution, penal laws, and other statutes.”
Last month, a coalition of consumer advocacy groups condemned the CFTC's attempt to allow platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket “a green light to bypass state gambling regimes.”
“Calling a sports wager an ‘event contract’ does not transform it into a legitimate tool for managing economic risk,” said Eric Naing, communications director for Demand Progress Education Fund, one of the groups decrying the regulator's approach to such companies.
A Greenpeace representative urged governments to recognize the "once-in-a-generation opportunity to make those most responsible for the climate, nature, and inequality crises we are facing pay their share.”
As world governments meet at the United Nations for another round of negotiations on a first-of-its-kind "Global Tax Treaty," economic justice campaigners are urging them to think big or risk leaving on the table trillions of dollars that could help alleviate global inequality and the climate crisis.
The fifth round of negotiations for the treaty began in New York on Monday, with countries ironing out its language line by line as they seek a global framework to more fairly tax the rich and multinational corporations and crack down on tax avoidance.
Jenny Ricks, the general secretary of the Fight Inequality Alliance—a global coalition of anti-inequality groups—said the framework, which was first conceived in 2022 at the urging of poorer nations in Africa, "aims to make global tax governance more inclusive, transparent, and equitable, shifting it away from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and giving the global majority a genuine say in rules that have long been set by wealthy states."
The first drafts of the proposed tax convention were released in late July in advance of this month's negotiations. Advocates at Greenpeace International, however, argue that they contain many gaps that fail to adequately tax fossil fuel companies driving the climate crisis or other multinational corporations and extremely wealthy individuals.
In a briefing document released to media organizations, Greenpeace argued that the text lacks clear language linking taxation to sustainable development, despite it being demanded by 24 countries, and that it lacks provisions requiring polluters to bear the public cost of environmental damage.
The group also criticized the weakening of an article covering taxes on high-net-worth individuals, the lack of a minimum tax on multinational profits, and the absence of specific rules for taxing extractive industries such as oil, gas, and mining.
The oil and gas industry, the group pointed out, is in the midst of a boom, with companies reporting record profits as President Donald Trump's war against Iran drives global oil prices higher.
"The money is right there," said Nina Stros, Greenpeace International's global senior policy expert. "It is about time governments recognized this once-in-a-generation opportunity to make those most responsible for the climate, nature, and inequality crises we are facing pay their share, and reclaim trillions of dollars to invest in our shared future.”
An open letter from Tax and Fiscal Justice Asia, a group of over 50 civil society organizations across 13 Asian countries, emphasized many of the same concerns that the conference could end up merely affirming broad principles without creating concrete rules.
They said representatives of Asian nations at the negotiating table needed to push for a shift in taxing power away from wealthy countries where corporate headquarters are located and toward poorer ones where much of the workforce and resources are concentrated. They also argued for a move away from regressive consumption taxes that disproportionately fall on lower-income people.
"The majority of states in Asia were among the 125 states that voted in November 2023 to adopt a resolution for a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC)," the letter said. "The vote has brought forth a historic opportunity to leave behind unjust systems and build a new global tax architecture."
"The National Guard are not pawns, and taxpayer dollars are not a piggy bank for Trump’s political stunts."
Information provided to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office revealed that the deployment of the National Guard in Washington, DC is projected to cost taxpayers an extra $1.4 billion through the end of President Donald Trump's term.
As The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, Warren (D-Mass.) obtained the cost estimate for the National Guard deployment from Jules Hurst III, who is Trump’s nominee to become the comptroller for the US Department of Defense.
Hurst's estimate assumes there will be roughly 2,500 National Guard personnel deployed in the city through January 2029, when Trump is constitutionally mandated to leave office.
The estimate imagines a drawdown from the current 4,600 National Guard members deployed in the nation's capital, many of whom were sent to the city to oversee security at the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
In a social media post, Warren slammed the Trump administration for continuing to spend money on deploying the National Guard in the capital while ignoring the economic pain being felt across the country.
"While American families are getting flattened by skyrocketing costs, Donald Trump is spending $1.4 billion to keep troops on the streets in Washington for years on end," wrote Warren. "The National Guard are not pawns, and taxpayer dollars are not a piggy bank for Trump’s political stunts."
Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) also pointed to the opportunity cost of the service members' deployment.
"Trump says there's no money for healthcare or childcare," wrote Brown, "but he wants to spend billions to have the National Guard roaming around DC."
The Free DC campaign, which was founded last year to oppose the National Guard deployment in the city, warned that the continued presence of military forces was an ominous sign for Trump's future intentions.
"Trump is entrenching his power," the group wrote. "This is what that looks like in real time. It's tempting to call this money 'a waste,' but Trump has a clear reason he wants to spend this money on the National Guard's presence in DC. When January 6 comes around again, this time he'll have an army on call."
Unite for Veterans, an advocacy organization focused on defending the US Department of Veterans Affairs, also condemned Trump's use of the National Guard as a domestic law enforcement group.
"Spending $1.4 billion on a deployment that shouldn't be is not spending taxpayer money wisely or is it serving the military well," the group wrote. "The National Guard should not be policing the streets of America's cities. That is not their purpose. Let's send them home."
"Todd Blanche has one client, and it’s not the American people," said one coalition of advocacy groups.
Senate Democrats and advocacy groups are making the case for the full Senate to block Todd Blanche from being confirmed as US attorney general after Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance his nomination Tuesday along party lines.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Blanche, currently President Donald Trump's acting attorney general, "has aided and abetted the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States."
Democratic colleagues described Blanche's support for Trump's $1.8 billion "weaponization fund," his neglect of survivors abused by Jeffrey Epstein, and his obstruction of investigations into killings and misconduct by immigration agents, as evidence that he is, in the words of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), "probably the most discreditable person ever to seek the office of attorney general."
Their criticisms were echoed by anticorruption watchdogs and rights groups, who argued that Blanche, who was previously Trump's personal lawyer, was still acting like it even while serving as Acting Attorney General.
“Senators must urgently do the right thing and block Blanche," said Lisa Gilbert, the president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, who referred to him as a "Trump crony."
"If we make Todd Blanche America’s lawyer at the head of the Justice Department," Gilbert said, "we are accepting a man... who rubberstamped the corrupt IRS deal that Trump made with himself to shield all the Trumps and their businesses, not only from enforcement of any taxes they may have dodged or any fines or payments they may owe to American taxpayers, but from ‘any and all’ related consequences for violating any federal criminal or civil law."
In recent days, Blanche committed to kill the so-called "slush fund" in exchange for support from Republican holdouts like Sens. John Cornyn (Texas) and Thom Tillis (NC).
Gilbert and other co-chairs of the Not Above the Law Coalition—a collective of anticorruption advocacy groups—said that the agreement was "an unenforceable piece of paper that Trump never signed" and have warned that Blanche will revive efforts to pay government funds to Trump supporters, including those who took part in the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, as soon as he is confirmed.
Following Tuesday's vote, Cornyn said that Blanche "gave us the assurances that [the fund] was dead and would not be revived, and in this case we have no alternative but to take his word."
Arisha Hatch, the executive director of the women's organization UltraViolet, said the Republicans who voted for Blanche had also sided against "the majority of the American people, who demand integrity from our elected leaders and want everyone involved in Jeffrey Epstein's network—including those who enabled it—to be held accountable."
Epstein survivors have criticized Blanche for his role in overseeing the DOJ’s highly scrutinized release of files related to his alleged crimes, including the department's exposure of victims’ private information and intimate photos while omitting information that identified prominent associates, including Trump himself.
At the urging of Tillis, Blanche held an hour-long meeting where he met with victims of Epstein's abuse, who said in a letter published Tuesday that he appeared dismissive of their concerns.
"When we met with Todd Blanche, he interrupted us. He told us to 'get to the point.' He told us to report what happened to us to the FBI. We already have," the survivors said. "Some of us have been reporting these crimes for decades. This was a check-the-box meeting designed to secure Senator Tillis' vote."
Maya Wiley, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, added that Blanche had "pursued baseless claims against civil rights organizations, sought sweeping access to state voter data, permitted a lawless [Immigration and Customs Enforcement]," echoing criticisms about the DOJ’s withholding of evidence from Minnesota prosecutors related to the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents.
Republicans control the Senate by a margin of 53-47 and are down a vote with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) currently absent, meaning that just three defectors could be enough to block Blanche's confirmation, which could come to a vote within days.
"The Senate doesn’t need unanimous courage to block Blanche," said Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America. "It needs a few Republicans willing to put country over party.”
Gilbert, Edkins, and the other co-chairs of the Not Above the Law coalition—Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Kelsey Herbert, campaign director at MoveOn—noted Blanche's own statements that the DOJ, long described as a politically neutral agency, was not independent from the president, and a slip-up during a confirmation hearing during which he referred to himself as Trump's lawyer.
"Todd Blanche has one client, and it’s not the American people," the advocates said. "Committee Republicans just chose not to see it. The full Senate now has the final word, and every senator should use it to reject this nomination.”
"If this is a genuine change of heart from a president whose budget bill included $18 billion in taxpayer handouts to Big Oil, we welcome it," said one organizer. "But talk is cheap, here's the real test."
After President Donald Trump echoed climate campaigners' longtime condemnation of fossil fuel giants' massive profits—uttering "the only thing" the climate-denying president "has said about energy policy since taking office that makes any sense," according to one advocate, organizers on Tuesday urged him to put his money where his mouth is by backing a windfall profits tax for companies like Chevron and Exxon Mobil.
In the Oval Office on Monday, Trump called on those corporations and others to slash prices and give some of their record-breaking profits—specifically those made since the president joined Israel in waging an unprovoked war against Iran on Feb. 28—"back to the public.”
"They're making too much money, based on a shortage," said Trump, while noting that he is a "big free enterprise guy."
"I don't like it... Chevron, too much money. Exxon Mobil, too much money," he said. "When you look at one company, they made 12 times what they made the year before? Give some of that back to the public, and they'd better cut the retail price."
“Too much money.”
“Chevron too much money.”
“Exxon Mobil too much money.”
President Donald Trump attacked oil majors ExxonMobil and Chevron for earning windfall profits from energy shortages created by the U.S.-Iran war, demanding that both companies cut prices and return… pic.twitter.com/I3CfmmQlqv
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) August 3, 2026
With oil and consumer gas prices skyrocketing since Trump and Israel started the war, resulting in Iran's retaliatory measure of effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, which a fifth of the world's oil supply ordinarily travels through, Exxon reported that its second-quarter profits more than doubled compared with last year. The company took in $14.5 billion, while Chevron reported profits of $12 billion compared with $2.5 billion in 2025—nearly a 400% increase.
BP also reported profits that were $2.35 billion higher than last year.
An analysis by the Guardian published Tuesday showed that eight of the world's largest oil companies made nearly $93 billion in profits in the three months following the invasion.
Chevron just announced its highest quarterly earnings ever. Shell clocked its second-highest quarterly profits. ExxonMobil doubled its earnings.Combined, the three companies raked in, on average, some $404 million in profits every day for the last three months.
[image or embed]
— Make Polluters Pay (@polluterspay.bsky.social) August 3, 2026 at 12:16 PM
The climate action group 350.org noted that the record profits of oil and gas giants come as "communities across the world endure record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires, and rising living costs"—and as governments from around the world prepare to resume negotiations on a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, where a "mandatory surtax on highly polluting industries is gaining support as part of that process."
Two Democratic lawmakers in the US, Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, introduced the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act in March.
“From Bordeaux to Phoenix to Mumbai, families are living through the cost of climate delay, while the companies most responsible bank blockbuster bonanzas," said Anna Jellema, executive director of 350.org. "That is not a coincidence; it is a business model. Governments meeting in New York this month have a genuine opportunity to change it. Calls are growing across the political spectrum for a proper global profits tax, so the industry that helped cause these disasters pays towards the recovery, the solutions and the protection people need. It’s simple fairness: Those who caused the damage and profited from it should pay to fix it.”
Candice Fortin, US campaign manager for 350.org, emphasized that the latest comments from Trump, whose Interior Department just moved to weaken restrictions on Arctic drilling, must be taken with a grain of salt.
In the same Oval Office statement on Monday, said Fortin, "Trump criticized countries championing wind energy and supported more oil extraction in the North Sea."
"We don't just need to tax fossil fuels' windfall profits now, to be then forget about later," said Fortin. "We need to end our dependence on oil, gas, and coal—and we need a permanent mechanism to make the fossil fuel industry pay its fair share and redirect those revenues towards protecting people and communities from the climate and cost-of-living crises."
"If this is a genuine change of heart from a president whose budget bill included $18 billion in taxpayer handouts to Big Oil, we welcome it," added Fortin. "But talk is cheap, here's the real test: Will Trump throw his weight behind the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax bill, which his party has been stonewalling in Congress since March?"
“This report is a ready-made roadmap for prosecutors, investigators, and members of Congress to finally start holding the Epstein class accountable," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
A yearslong Senate investigation released on Tuesday revealed how some of the world's largest banks allegedly broke federal money laundering laws by failing to stop or promptly report financial transactions that allegedly helped sustain the sex trafficking of children and young women by Jeffrey Epstein, the late billionaire and former friend of President Donald Trump.
Released by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), "Looking the Other Way" examines "how years of complicity by top officials at multiple Wall Street Banks enabled Jeffrey Epstein to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars around the world to finance his sex trafficking operation."
"Major compliance failures at several Wall Street banks enabled Epstein for years," the publication states. "By failing to report—or choosing not to report—his suspicious financial transactions to federal law enforcement, these banks allowed Epstein to send cash payments and wire transfers to his victims, friends, and collaborators around the world. The bankers who needed to be asking questions didn’t ask them. Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were hiding in plain sight."
"The investigation found significant evidence that JPMorgan Chase (JPMC), Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America violated federal anti-money laundering laws by failing to screen and report Epstein’s suspicious financial transactions in a timely manner," the report continues.
"A review by Sen. Wyden’s staff of records housed at the US Department of the Treasury as well as internal bank records determined that top executives at major Wall Street banks were aware of Epstein’s suspicious financial activity for years but withheld information from the US government and protected Epstein from federal scrutiny," the publication says.
According to the report:
Wall Street banks looked the other way as Epstein withdrew millions of dollars in cash with no clear business purpose and was party to thousands of suspicious wire transfers worth more than $1 billion. These banks failed to conduct appropriate due diligence on more than $170 million in payments to Epstein from billionaire Leon Black. In fact, documents reviewed during this investigation demonstrate that JPMC’s senior leadership repeatedly protected Epstein as a client despite repeated warnings from internal compliance personnel.
The documents also show that even after JPMC formally terminated Epstein as a client due to human trafficking concerns, the bank still waited years to report his activity to regulators, and top bankers eagerly continued to work with him informally and through other channels where he could continue to be a source of referrals for other ultrawealthy clients.
The three banks were among four financial institutions from which House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) last year demanded records concerning over $1.5 billion in “suspicious” financial transactions tied to Epstein’s trafficking ring.
“I said from the start that if you want to get to the bottom of the Jeffery Epstein cover-up, you had to follow the money," Wyden said Tuesday in a statement announcing the report's publication.
"My small team of investigators did what Trump’s attorney general and treasury secretary said was impossible: They connected the dots and found evidence of multiple crimes related to Epstein’s associates," the senator continued. "Bank records they reviewed, along with public court filings, detail a shocking pattern of the biggest Wall Street banks in the country choosing to ignore clear evidence of sex trafficking and money laundering, just to keep a wealthy client on the books."
"This report is a ready-made roadmap for prosecutors, investigators, and members of Congress to finally start holding the Epstein class accountable," Wyden added.
That's highly unlikely to happen under the current Republican-controlled Congress. Republicans spent years insisting the Epstein case exposed elite corruption, promising full transparency, and rallying behind Trump's 2024 reelection bid in part because he vowed to release every file.
Trump, former Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and others promised transparency. Instead, the Trump administration has missed legal deadlines, released heavily redacted records, and withheld millions of pages in what critics say are violations of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act. Signed by the president last year, the law compelled the Department of Justice (DOJ) to publish all unclassified Epstein-related records within 30 days and explain every omission to Congress.
Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal attorney, angered many Epstein victims and others by announcing that there was no evidence of a secret client list, by falsely claiming that the DOJ was fully complying with the law, and by meeting with Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in prison shortly before she was suspiciously transferred to a lower-security prison.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12–10 Tuesday along party lines to advance Blanche's nomination to become permanent attorney general, sending it to the full upper chamber for a confirmation vote expected later this week.
As the Trump administration fails to fully comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, its authors—Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—recently proposed an updated version of the legislation, which strengthens the original by allowing state attorneys general, Epstein victims, members of Congress, and certain prosecutors to sue the DOJ if it fails to release required records.
The business-focused news site Bloomberg sought comment from the three banks. Deutsche Bank declined to respond, JPMC said it began notifying regulators “after the full scope of [Epstein's] crimes became public in 2019," and a spokesperson for Bank of America said that "we take our legal and regulatory responsibilities seriously and, as we have previously said, the bank did not facilitate wrongdoing.”
An attorney for Black told Bloomberg that the report's assertions “outrageous and false.”
Wyden's report came on the same day that The New Republic's Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling revealed that CBS' "60 Minutes" killed its own scoop on Wall Street's long-standing financial ties to Epstein after the network's incoming Trump-aligned boss, Bari Weiss, fired correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, who led the investigative report. Alfonsi had interviewed Wyden for the segment.
Yep. Earlier this year I was interviewed by Sharyn Alfonsi of 60 Minutes about my Epstein investigation. Subsequently, CBS pulled the segment and fired the reporter. The MAGA buyout of media is aiding the Trump administration’s Epstein cover up.
[image or embed]
— Senator Ron Wyden (@wyden.senate.gov) August 4, 2026 at 7:17 AM
"Yep," Wyden said on Bluesky, confirming his interview with Alfonsi. "The MAGA buyout of media is aiding the Trump administration’s Epstein cover-up."
"O nation, why are children getting killed in Gaza? Why are women getting killed in Gaza?" asked a Civil Defense spokesperson at the service. "Why are massacres committed against innocents in Gaza?"
Palestinians on Tuesday held a mass funeral in the Gaza Strip for more than 100 people killed in a 2023 Israeli attack as the local Ministry of Health's confirmed death toll for Israel's genocidal assault climbed to at least 73,377.
Since Israel launched its war on Gaza after the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack, experts have warned the true toll could be much higher, with an unknown number of remains trapped beneath the ruins of the besieged territory.
Tuesday's funeral in Gaza City was for 112 people, including 40 children, who were among the over 300 killed in a November 22, 2023 Israeli attack on the Sabra neighborhood, in which "warplanes flattened a residential block," according to The Associated Press.
For the funeral, the bodies were wrapped in Palestinian flags, with photos of the dead attached.
As CBS News detailed:
One mourner showered flower petals over the covered bodies of the Hassayna and Abu Sharia clan as women and children watched from atop partly demolished buildings around the earthen square. A banner with the faces of dozens of children served as the backdrop of a speech from the spokesperson of Gaza's Civil Defense.
"O nation, why are children getting killed in Gaza? Why are women getting killed in Gaza?" asked Mahmoud Basal at the service. "Why are massacres committed against innocents in Gaza?"
The words "Stop the genocide in Gaza," in both Arabic and English, had been scrawled on the podium he spoke from.
Mourners also held signs with messages in both languages. One said in English, "Children of Gaza have the right to live."
Gaza's Civil Defense said that while these remains were found in wrecked buildings in the area, as part of a search operation launched nearly two weeks ago that involved 136 hours of "arduous" work, at least 157 others are still missing.
Given the limited equipment in Gaza, despite months of a supposed ceasefire, "the crews were digging with their hands through masses of reinforced concrete," said Mohammed Abu Dan, who supervised the operation, according to Reuters.
"Many bodies disintegrated and evaporated because of the intensity of the explosion," he explained.
After the funeral prayers, one relative, Taysir al-Hassayna, told the AP, "The only crime of these martyrs was that they remained steadfast and resilient in their homes, believing that these homes would protect them."
For those who haven't been found, al-Hassayna added, it's "as if their bodies had evaporated without a trace."
Al Jazeera reported that surviving relatives used the funeral "to renew accusations that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza and demanded international investigations into the attack and the hundreds of bodies still believed to be buried under rubble across the territory."
The International Criminal Court in November 2024 issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, citing alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes, and Israel faces a genocide case led by South Africa at the International Court of Justice.
The latter tribunal has directed Israel to "take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations" of violations of the Genocide Convention, but a report published Monday details how Israeli soldiers and civilian contractors are systematically removing potential proof from Gaza.
Specifically, the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor said that at least 10 million tons of rubble "have been removed, crushed, or moved from their original sites within the areas under Israel's unlawful military control, which encompass about 66% of the Gaza Strip."
Meanwhile, as Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday, US President Donald Trump's Board of Peace for Gaza appears to be going back on the disarmament deal it reached last week with Hamas, potentially jeopardizing the entire process—a development that didn't surprise Tariq Kenney-Shawa, the associate director of editorial for the Institute for Middle East Understanding.
"The Board of Peace is just the administrative and fundraising arm of Israel's occupation of Gaza," he said. "It exists to facilitate Gaza's ethnic cleansing and concentration camps in a way that is palatable and profitable for the international community."