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.
Brian Campbell, brian.campbell[at]ilrf.org, 202-347-4100 x102 or 202-701-3021
Tim Newman, tim.newman[at]ilrf.org, 202-347-4100 x113 or 617-823-9464
Today, the US Department of Labor (DOL) released its second list of goods believed to have been
produced using forced or child labor globally. DOL also releases its 2010
Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor and a list of products produced by
forced or indentured child labor as required by Executive Order 13126.
The list of goods includes a number of industries where the International Labor
Rights Forum (ILRF) has identified these labor rights abuses to occur including
cocoa, cotton, tobacco and rubber.
Today, the US Department of Labor (DOL) released its second list of goods believed to have been
produced using forced or child labor globally. DOL also releases its 2010
Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor and a list of products produced by
forced or indentured child labor as required by Executive Order 13126.
The list of goods includes a number of industries where the International Labor
Rights Forum (ILRF) has identified these labor rights abuses to occur including
cocoa, cotton, tobacco and rubber.
As part of the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (TVPRA of 2005), DOL's Bureau of
International Labor Affairs (ILAB) was tasked with "develop[ing] and
mak[ing] available to the public a list of goods from countries that the Bureau
of International Labor Affairs has reason to believe are produced by forced
labor or child labor in violation of international standards." ILRF
is pleased to see that USDOL has published a second edition of this useful
resource. A continued commitment to updating the list will help consumers and
businesses received timely information and identify sectors that require
particular focus.
Since 2001, ILRF has been pushing US-based cocoa
importers and chocolate companies like Hershey to take effective action to end
the use of child, trafficked and forced labor on West African cocoa
farms. ILRF Campaigns Director Tim Newman said,
"By including cocoa on the list of products made by child labor, the US
government has acknowledged the lack of progress the chocolate industry has
made in eliminating serious labor rights abuses in this sector, despite years
of promises."
ILRF has also been working to stop forced and child
labor in the cotton industry globally, especially in Uzbekistan. Reports published
by ILRF and its global partners have confirmed the ongoing removal of thousands
of children from schools across Uzbekistan
who are forced to pick cotton during harvest season. While many of
world's largest retailers have agreed to address the severe abuses
associated with Uzbek cotton in their supply chains, the children's
clothing store Gymboree remain silent on this issue despite requests from
consumers and shareholders for the company to take action on this issue.
Other additional products that ILRF has publicly
identified potentially produced by forced and/or child labor that appear on the
official list are: cotton from Tajikistan,
cottonseed and stones from India,
rubber from Liberia, sugarcane
from Guatemala, surgical
instruments from Pakistan
and tobacco from Malawi.
ILRF also has a long history of working to eliminate child labor in the soccer
ball industry in India.
The fact that many of these products have been listed by USDOL for the second
time indicates that stronger efforts are urgently required to end egregious
labor rights abuses in these sectors.
Commenting on the importance of the list, Brian Campbell, ILRF Director of Policy and Legal Programs,
said, "This list is a critical tool that consumers and businesses can use
to identify the sectors where forced and child labor abuses continue. The
challenge now is to implement business practices that lead to higher labor
standards and living and working conditions for workers."
Tim
Newman added, "We support USDOL in its efforts to
identify products imported to the United States made using forced and
child labor. We hope that future iterations of USDOL's list of goods will
continue the work of this year's report in expanding the number of
countries that are investigated in the creation of the list."
ILRF is an advocacy organization dedicated to achieving just and humane treatment for workers worldwide. ILRF serves a unique role among human rights organizations as advocates for and with working poor around the world. We believe that all workers have the right to a safe working environment where they are treated with dignity and respect, and where they can organize freely to defend and promote their rights and interests.
"At the very same time that Trump is ordering strikes on a boat in Venezuela, he's cutting, gutting the programs that we use to interrupt the drug trade coming through Central America and Mexico," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
As new details emerged about the boat that the Trump administration bombed last week off the Venezuelan coast, legal experts and lawmakers said Wednesday that the White House's case for carrying out the unprecedented military strike against suspected drug smugglers had grown even weaker—with new evidence showing the vessel had turned away from the US, back toward Venezuela, just before it was bombed.
Legal analysts have said in the days since the attack that killed 11 people that the bombing amounted to an extrajudicial murder, dismissing President Donald Trump's claim that the White House has "tapes of [the victims] speaking" that proved they were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua—the only "evidence" that's been made public.
Even if the 11 people killed were members of the gang—which Trump has classified as a terrorist organization despite US intelligence agencies' finding that Tren de Aragua is a relatively low-level gang without connections to Venezuelan government—the administration used military force to stop a suspected criminal enterprise, instead of following law enforcement procedures, experts have said.
In a video posted on social media Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said it was highly unlikely that the boat was carrying fentanyl, which killed an estimated 48,422 people in the US in 2024 and which is primary trafficked through Central America and Mexico—not Venezuela.
"His stated reason for taking the strikes to try to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, makes no sense as the centerpiece of a counternarcotics strategy," said Murphy. "At the very same time that Trump is ordering these strikes on the boat in Venezuela, he's cutting, gutting the programs that we use to interrupt the drug trade coming through Central America and Mexico. We have dramatically fewer resources to stop fentanyl coming to the United States while we're taking airstrikes on a boat off the Venezeuelan coast."
The strike, said Murphy, particularly in light of the new information disclosed by US officials, is "another sign of Trump's growing lawlessness."
With US officials disclosing Wednesday that the boat had not been headed toward the US when it was bombed, a former military attorney told The New York Times that the new information further undermined Trump's claim that he ordered the strike to stop a threat to US national security.
"If someone is retreating, where's the 'imminent threat' then?" Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, a retired judge advocate general for the Navy, told the Times. "Where’s the 'self-defense’? They are gone if they ever existed—which I don’t think they did."
The people aboard the vessel had turned back after spotting US planes that had been surveilling them "for a significant period of time," The Intercept reported. Three sources including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has expressed outrage over the strike, said the boat was attacked by at least one drone, and The Intercept reported that the victims survived an initial attack before being killed in the second one.
The strikes were conducted after the boat turned back toward the Venezuelan shore.
Officials told the Times that a 29-second video Trump released that was purported to show several clips of a speedboat racing toward the US before an explosion, left out key details of the event.
"It does not show the boat turning after the people aboard were apparently spooked by an aircraft above them, nor does it show the military making repeated strikes on the vessel even after disabling it," the Times reported.
A high-ranking Pentagon official told The Intercept that even if the White House's claim that the boat's passengers were trafficking drugs is true, the strike was a "criminal attack on civilians."
"The U.S. is now directly targeting civilians. Drug traffickers may be criminals but they aren’t combatants,” the official said. “When Trump fired the military’s top lawyers the rest saw the writing on the wall, and instead of being a critical firebreak they are now a rubber stamp complicit in this crime.”
US officials have yet to share information confirming where the vessel was headed; before the administration began claiming it was headed to US shores and driven by "evil narco-terrorists trying to poison our homeland," as one White House spokesperson said, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters the boat was likely headed to another country in the Caribbean.
One foreign policy expert said these congressional authorizations "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
Almost exactly 24 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to finally repeal a pair of more than two-decade-old congressional authorizations that have allowed presidents to carry out military attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In a 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans joining all Democrats, the House passed an amendment to the next military spending bill to rescind the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the leadup to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 2003 War in Iraq.
The decision is a small act of resistance in Congress after what the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein described in Foreign Policy magazine as "years of neglected oversight" by Congress over the "steady expansion of presidential war-making authority."
As Weinstein explains, these AUMFs, originally meant to give presidents narrow authority to target terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and use military force against Saddam Hussein, "have been stretched far beyond their original purposes" by presidents to justify the use of unilateral military force across the Middle East.
President George W. Bush used the 2002 authorization, which empowered him to use military force against Iraq, to launch a full invasion and military occupation of the country. Bush would stretch its purview throughout the remainder of his term to apply the AUMF to any threat that could be seen as stemming from Iraq.
After Congress refused to pass a new authorization for the fight against ISIS—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—President Barack Obama used the ones passed during the War on Terror to expand US military operations in Syria. They also served as the basis of his use of drone assassinations in the Middle East and North Africa throughout his term.
During his first term, President Donald Trump used those authorizations as the legal justification to intensify the drone war and to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. He then used it to carry out the reckless assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
And even while calling for the repeal of the initial 2001 and 2002 authorizations, former President Joe Biden used them to continue many of the operations started by Trump.
"These AUMFs," Weinstein said, "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
The amendment to repeal the authorizations was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).
Meeks described the authorizations as "long obsolete," saying they "risk abuse by administrations of either party."
Roy described the repeal of the amendment as something "strongly opposed by the, I'll call it, defense hawk community." But, he said, "the AUMF was passed in '02 to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that guy's been dead... and we're now still running under an '02 AUMF. That's insane. We should repeal that."
"For decades, presidents abused these AUMFs to send Americans to fight in forever wars in the Middle East," said Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) shortly before voting for the amendment. "Congress must take back its war powers authority and vote to repeal these AUMFs."
Although this House vote theoretically curbs Trump's war-making authority, it comes attached to a bill that authorizes $893 billion worth of new war spending, which 17 Democrats joined all but four Republicans Republicans in supporting Wednesday.
The vote will also have no bearing on the question of President Donald Trump's increasing use of military force without Congressional approval to launch unilateral strikes—including last week's bombing of a vessel that the administration has claimed, without clear evidence, was trafficking drugs from Venezuela and strikes conducted in June against Iran, without citing any congressional authorization.
Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran and public policy advocate at Public Citizen, said, "the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs" are "good to remove," but pointed out that it's "mostly the 2001 AUMF that is exploited for forever wars."
"Not to mention, McCoy added, "we have reached a point where AUMFs almost seem irrelevant, because Congress has shown no willingness whatsoever to punish the president for just launching military actions without one, against Iran, and now apparently against Venezuela."
In the wake of Trump's strikes against Iran, Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and Senate aimed at requiring him to obtain Congressional approval, though Republicans and some Democratic war hawks ultimately stymied them.
However, Dylan Williams, the vice president of the Center for International Policy, argued that the repeal of the AUMF was nevertheless "a major development in the effort to finally rein in decades of unchecked use of military force by presidents of both parties."
The vote, Williams said, required lawmakers "to show where they stand on restraining US military adventurism."
"The middle-class squeeze from tariffs is here," observed one economist.
New economic data released on Thursday revealed fresh signs of stress for the US economy and working families.
A new Consumer Price Index report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) found that overall inflation rose by 2.9% year-over-year in August, while core inflation—a measure that excludes commodities such as food and energy—rose 3.1%, the highest reading recorded since this past January.
Both of these numbers were in line with economists' consensus estimates, although they still showed inflation trending in the wrong direction during a time when the US labor market is also showing signs of weakness.
Looking deeper into the report reveals that the cost of groceries continues to be a major pain point for US consumers, as food prices jumped by 0.6% on the month and 2.7% year-over-year.
The report comes days after US President Donald Trump said in a radio interview, "We have no inflation. Prices are down on just about everything."
New York Times economics reporter Ben Casselman said that the spike in food prices was notable because it came after a long period in which food inflation had been coming down.
"Grocery prices are once again rising relatively rapidly," he observed in a social media post. "Food inflation had eased significantly, and had been running well below overall prices, but that's no longer true."
Heather Long, the chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, singled out some particularly important household staples in the report that she argued were very likely being impacted by President Donald Trump's tariffs.
Among other things, Long said that coffee was now 21% more expensive than it was a year ago, while living room and dining room furniture saw a 10% year-over-year increase, and the price of toilet paper rose by an annualized 5%.
"The middle-class squeeze from tariffs is here," she said. "Inflation hit 2.9% in August, the highest since January and up from 2.3% in April. It's troubling that so many basic necessities are rising in price again: Food, gas, clothing, and shelter all had big cost jumps in August. And this is only the beginning."
Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project and a former member of President Joe Biden's National Economic Council, said that the new report shows "inflation is broadening" given that the "percent of items that had at least a 3% annualized price increase over the last month" increased to nearly 60%, which is the highest percentage seen in years.
The inflation report was not the only troubling economic indicator, however.
The BLS also revealed that jobless claims in the US jumped to 263,000 last week, which was significantly higher than the 235,000 claims expected by economists. Joe Weisenthal, the co-host of the Bloomberg "Odd Lots" podcast, noted that this was the highest total for weekly jobless claims in nearly four years.
Long also flagged the worrying jobless claims number and predicted that it was just the start of a further downturn in the US economy.
"'Cost cutting' is back among CEOs and that is corporate speak for more layoffs," she said. "It's going to be a rough few months ahead as the tariffs impacts work their way through the economy. Americans will experience higher prices and (likely) more layoffs."