January, 10 2011, 11:26am EDT

US: Act on Pledge to Close Guantanamo
Indefinite Detention Nine Years Later With No End in Sight
WASHINGTON
US President Barack Obama should ramp up efforts to prosecute in federal court or otherwise return and resettle detainees at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, now entering its tenth year, Human Rights Watch said today. Congressional obstacles to closing Guantanamo should invigorate, not dampen, Obama administration efforts to ensure US compliance with international law, Human Rights Watch said.
"Closing Guantanamo is as essential today as it was when President Obama took office in 2009," said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. "But Obama can't keep hoping that a political consensus will form and Congress will make it easy - he has to act to make it happen."
The US first began bringing foreign prisoners to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay on January 11, 2002. Nine years later, despite a promise by President Obama to close the facility by January 2010, 173 detainees remain. The administration has recently acknowledged that Guantanamo will stay open for the foreseeable future.
Since the Bush presidency, Human Rights Watch has called for the closure of Guantanamo and the treatment of foreign terrorism suspects in accordance with US obligations under international law. The Obama administration, while departing from its predecessor by committing to closing the facility, has made missteps and endured setbacks that keep Guantanamo a blight on the US' human rights record. These include failing to end the practice of indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects; continuing to use military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects instead of US federal courts; making insufficient efforts to repatriate safely or resettle detainees; and inadequately responding to overcome obstacles from Congress to prevent Guantanamo's closure.
"Obama still has the authority he needs to bring Guantanamo detainees to justice in US courts or to send them home," said Prasow. "If he truly believes that Guantanamo is a scar on America's reputation, he should assert his authority now."
Key issues in the Obama administration's efforts to close Guantanamo are addressed below.
Indefinite Detention in the US
On January 22, 2009, one of President Obama's first acts was to sign an executive order to close Guantanamo within one year. While the order seemed to turn a page on the abusive counterterrorism policies of the previous administration, the failure of the Obama administration to even develop a plan for Guantanamo's closure, let alone meet the deadline, was a major setback for ensuring respect for human rights.
The first sign that Obama would not meet his self-imposed deadline came in his May 2009 speech at the US National Archives. In describing the population at Guantanamo, Obama outlined five categories of detainees, including a set of persons "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people." He said his administration would work with Congress to develop a legal framework setting out the rules and procedures for the "prolonged" detention of such persons. The Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force, created to review the status of each detainee, completed its report on January 22, 2010, and recommended that 48 of the 240 men whose cases it reviewed be held indefinitely, without charge. The report made clear that even if Guantanamo were physically closed, the lawlessness and indefinite detention without trial that the facility symbolized would be retained.
In November 2009, the administration announced its intention to purchase the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois and to transfer detainees there from Guantanamo. Writing to Illinois legislators, the administration emphasized that the facility would not be used for detainees who would be tried in federal court or in military commissions, but instead for those who would be detained indefinitely. Thus "closing" Guantanamo really meant just moving the problem of indefinite detention to a facility on the US mainland. Congress has since taken action to prevent the purchase of Thomson, though primarily to keep Guantanamo open, rather than out of opposition to the indefinite detention regime.
In December 2010, press reports indicated that Obama would sign an executive order detailing a periodic review process for detainees the administration intends to hold indefinitely. Even if such a review process is limited to those 48 detainees identified for further prolonged detention, it would mark a formal legal authorization by the president to continue to hold people without charge.
Military Commissions
Instead of repudiating the military commissions at Guantanamo, President Obama in May 2009 announced that he would work with Congress to amend the commission rules, ultimately resulting in the Military Commissions Act of 2009. The new law made a number of improvements to the Bush-era military commissions system, creating, among other changes, important restrictions on the use of hearsay and coerced evidence.
The military commissions nonetheless still fail to meet international fair trial standards and remain vastly inferior to federal courts as a forum for trying terrorism cases. They have been marred by procedural problems, the use of evidence obtained by coercion, inconsistent application of varying rules of evidence, poor translation, and lack of public access. They are also susceptible to legal challenge for violating the prohibition on retroactive criminal charges, for applying only to non-citizens, and may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional if appeals ever reach the Supreme Court.
Despite Obama's stated intent to pursue military commissions for at least some of the 36 cases designated for prosecution by the Task Force, no new cases have been referred since he took office, and only two of the previously referred cases have been concluded. Only five cases in total have been completed at Guantanamo since 2002. The first prosecution by the Obama administration was of Ibrahim al-Qosi, a Sudanese man who worked as Osama bin Laden's cook for several years. His case resulted in a secret plea agreement that reportedly involved two more years of imprisonment. He has been detained since 2002. The prosecution of Omar Khadr - a Canadian citizen who was 15 years old when apprehended by US forces in Afghanistan - drew international criticism because the United States was the first Western nation to prosecute someone for alleged war crimes committed as a child and because the conduct with which he was charged had never before been considered a violation of the laws of war. Currently, only one detainee, Noor Uthman Muhammed, from Sudan, faces referred charges before a military commission.
Federal Court Trials
Despite President Obama's stated preference for federal court trials, only one detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, a Tanzanian national, has been transferred to the United States for prosecution. Ghailani faced a pre-existing indictment in federal court in New York for his alleged role in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. His five co-defendants were all convicted in federal court before Ghailani was even apprehended. His case was the first and only one to be transferred from Guantanamo to US federal court.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced in November 2009 that the cases of the five men accused of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States would also be transferred from Guantanamo to US federal court in New York. However, following public pronouncements by local officials claiming high costs to secure the trial site, the administration announced it would reconsider the trial venue. To date, the Obama administration has still not announced where, or even if, the 9/11 co-accused will be prosecuted.
After more than a year with no decision on a trial venue, Congress in late 2010 imposed funding restrictions, under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) discussed below, that may make it even more difficult to transfer Guantanamo detainees to federal court. While Congress debated these restrictions, Holder vigorously and publically opposed them. His opposition however was undermined by Obama's failure to make any public statement of his own. Obama did issue a signing statement after the bill passed, when he signed it into law, vowing to work to repeal the restrictions and to "mitigate their effects." He still has the power to use funds from other sources than those appropriated under the act to bring the detainees to the US for trial. However, it remains to be seen whether he will make the politically difficult choice to do so and move forward on closing the detention facility that for nine years has been a black mark on the US' human rights record.
Repatriation and Resettlement
As early as September 2002, the Bush administration began transferring detainees out of Guantanamo to their home countries. Eventually 532 detainees were transferred out of Guantanamo during the Bush presidency. Since Obama took office in January 2009, 67 detainees have been transferred home or to third countries. The Bush administration repatriated several detainees to countries where they faced torture or other ill-treatment, such as Russia and Tunisia, in violation of the Convention Against Torture, which United States has ratified. In an effort to avoid unlawful returns, the Obama administration appointed a special envoy for the closure of Guantanamo, Ambassador Daniel Fried, who has been successful at convincing other countries to resettle Guantanamo detainees even in the face of a US ban on resettling them in the United States. While the administration has made a significant commitment to resettling detainees who cannot be repatriated, it missed an important opportunity to resettle several Uighur detainees -Muslims from China who had taken no action against the US. A Uighur community in the United States was eager to receive them. Obama's failure to take early, decisive action on resettlement facilitated congressional transfer restrictions that continue to hinder the administration's efforts to close the detention facility.
During the Obama administration two detainees have been returned to Algeria against their will without being provided an opportunity to contest their repatriation. According to the Convention against Torture, which the US ratified in 1994, no one can be sent to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment. The Committee against Torture, the international expert body that monitors compliance with the Convention against Torture, said in 2006 that the United States "should always ensure that suspects have the possibility to challenge decisions of refoulement [return]."
The two men - Aziz Abdul Naji and Saeed Farhi bin Mohammed - had expressed fear of government ill-treatment if they were repatriated. US officials claim that Algeria's human rights record has improved significantly over the past decade, and asserted that the Algerian government provided so-called "diplomatic assurances" - promises to treat returned detainees humanely. Human Rights Watch's research has shown that diplomatic assurances provided by receiving countries, which are legally unenforceable, do not provide an effective safeguard against torture and ill-treatment. Algerian human rights groups report that torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment are at times used on those suspected of terror links.
Of the 173 detainees currently at Guantanamo, the Task Force has cleared 59 for release. Of these, 16 are slated for resettlement to third countries, but Ambassador Fried's office has not been able to place them because, among other things, US allies that might accept them are not convinced that Obama is serious about his commitment to close Guantanamo.
An additional 30 detainees from Yemen have been cleared for release, but they continue to be detained in Guantanamo because the administration imposed a moratorium on transfers to Yemen following the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing of an airliner. The man accused in the plot allegedly received training in Yemen. In October 2010, another plot was uncovered that involved sending bombs via cargo planes from Yemen to addresses in the United States. The administration has made exceptions to the moratorium to comply with court orders, yet 57 of the remaining Guantanamo detainees are from Yemen.
Congressional Action
In 2009, Congress enacted a series of funding restrictions that prohibited the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the US. These restrictions made an exception for those being transferred for prosecution. Only one detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, was transferred to face trial in federal court. In November 2009 he was convicted of conspiracy to destroy government property and now faces a sentence of 20 years to life.
In late 2010 however, Congress passed even more strict funding prohibitions affecting the administration's Guantanamo policies. The NDAA, passed by Congress during its 2010 "lame duck" session, barred the use of Defense Department funds for the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo to the US even for prosecution.
In signing the bill, Obama attached a statement expressing strong opposition to the hurdles imposed by Congress. Although he did not expressly state an intention to proceed with transferring detainees out of Guantanamo he noted that the bill's restrictions only apply to funds appropriated by the act, that prosecuting terrorism suspects in federal courts is "a powerful tool" for protecting national security, and that "[a]ny attempt to deprive the executive branch of that tool" undermines counterterrorism efforts. Since the legislation applies only to funds allocated to the Defense Department, other funds, such as those from the Department of Justice or State, for example, can still be used to transfer detainees to the US or to other countries.
The NDAA also bars the use of Defense Department funds for the purchase of the Thomson Correctional facility in Illinois, where the administration intended to transfer dozens of detainees. It also contains new rules requiring that, prior to transferring a detainee even to his home country, the secretary of defense must certify certain factors exist related to that country's ability to monitor and control the detainee and its past experience with terrorism. As a result, detainees who have already been cleared for release, some of whom have been held for more than eight years, may continue to be held indefinitely without trial in violation of US obligations under international law.
The new rules also restrict the use of Defense Department funds for the transfer of a detainee to a country with cases of "confirmed recidivism," which is not defined. While government reports claim confirmed recidivism rates among released Guantanamo detainees as high as 13 percent, these reports have been discredited by academics and experts who have analyzed the figures and cross-referenced them with publicly available information. The US government has never released a list of names of alleged recidivists or details of their alleged conduct. While there are cases of former detainees engaging in violent acts, an attempt by Congress to bar the release of detainees cleared for transfer by the administration is overbroad, would prevent the US from meeting its international legal obligations, and would harm the administration's global counterterrorism efforts by deterring international cooperation. Since the ban only applies to Defense Department funds, the administration retains the ability to repatriate and resettle detainees even to countries that have experienced recidivism, using other government funds.
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.
LATEST NEWS
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Warn GOP Just Unveiled 'Most Dangerous Higher Ed Bill in US History'
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," said the Debt Collective.
Apr 29, 2025
At a markup session held by a U.S. House committee on the Republican Party's recently unveiled higher education reform bill Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker had a succinct description for the legislation.
"This bill is a dream-killer," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) of the so-called Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) as part of an effort to find $330 billion in education programs to offset President Donald Trump's tax plan.
Tasked with helping to make $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans possible, Walberg on Monday proposed changes to the Pell Grant program, which has provided financial aid to more than 80 million low-income students since it began in 1972. The bill would allocate more funding to the program but would also reduce the number of students who are eligible for the grants, changing the definition of a "full-time" student to one enrolled in at least 30 semester hours each academic year—up from 12 hours. Students would be cut off from the financial assistance entirely if they are enrolled less than six hours per semester.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges, suggested the legislation doesn't account for the realities faced by many students who benefit from Pell Grants.
"These students are almost always working a substantial number of hours each week and often have family responsibilities. Pell Grants help them meet the cost of tuition and required fees," Baime toldInside Higher Ed. "We commend the committee for identifying substantial additional resources to help finance Pell, but it should not come at the cost of undermining the ability of low-income working students to enroll at a community college."
The draft bill would also end subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest when a student is still in college and gives borrowers a six-month grace period after graduation, starting in July 2026. More than 30 million borrowers currently have subsidized loans.
The proposal would also reduce the number of student loan repayment options from those offered by the Biden administration to just two, with borrowers given the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time or an income-based plan.
At the markup session on Tuesday, Bonamici pointed to her own experience of paying for college and law school "through a combination of grants and loans and work study and food stamps," and noted that her Republican colleagues on the committee also "graduated from college."
"And more than half of them have gone on to earn advanced degrees," said the congresswoman. "And yet those same individuals who benefited so much from accessing higher education are supporting a bill that will prevent others from doing so."
“In a time when higher ed is being attacked, this bill is another assault,” @RepBonamici calls out committee leaders for wanting to gut financial aid.
“With this bill, they will be taking that opportunity [of higher ed] away from others. This bill is a dream killer.” pic.twitter.com/UjTYvnOEKv
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
Democrats on the committee also spoke out against provisions that would cap loans a student can take out for graduate programs at $100,000; the Grad PLUS program has allowed students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
The Parent PLUS program, which has been found to provide crucial help to Black families accessing higher education, would also be restricted.
"Black students, brown students, first-generation college students, first-generation Americans, will not have access to college," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).
“We cannot take away access to loans, and not replace it with anything else, not make the system better. We know the outcome here—Black, brown, and poor students will not figure it out. Instead, only elite students from the 1% will continue to access education.”@RepSummerLee🙇 pic.twitter.com/oGbRH154Ed
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
As the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) warned last week, eliminating the Grad PLUS program without also lowering the cost of graduate programs would "subject millions of future borrowers to an unregulated and predatory private student loan market, while doing little to reduce overall student debt and the need to borrow."
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for SBPC, told The Hill that the draft bill is "an attack on students and working families with student loan debt."
"We've seen an array of really problematic proposals that are on the table for congressional Republicans," Canchola Bañez said. "Many of these would cause massive spikes for families with monthly student loan payments."
With the proposal, which Republicans hope to pass through reconciliation with a simple majority, the party would be "restructuring higher education for the worse," said the Debt Collective.
"It's the most dangerous higher ed bill in U.S. history," said the student loan borrowers union. "It strips the Department of Education of virtually every authority to cancel student debt. Eliminates every repayment program. Abolishes subsidized loans."
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," the group added. "We have to push back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In First 100 Days, Trump Waged 'Relentless Assault on Working People'
"We are either patriots fighting the regime, or we are complicit in its tyranny," wrote former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. "There is no middle ground."
Apr 29, 2025
Tuesday is the 100th day of U.S. President Donald Trump's second term, which so far has featured plummeting public opinion poll numbers and mobilizations against his billionaire inner circle's mounting attacks on working people.
"Since Franklin D. Roosevelt's earthshaking first 100 days in office, no president has matched the sheer drama and disruption of that 15-week sprint in 1933, which rewrote the relationship between Americans and their government. At least until now," Naftali Bendavid wrote Monday for The Washington Post.
"Roosevelt's onslaught, in the depths of the Great Depression, was aimed at expanding the federal government's presence in Americans' lives. Trump's crusade is aimed largely at dismantling it," Bendavid added, noting that while FDR's agenda was enacted by Congress, the current president "has governed largely by unilateral executive action."
Ahead of nationwide protests planned for later this week, many Trump critics marked the 100-day milestone by chronicling how the president's policies are making life harder for the working class, from cutting federal employees and funding to pursuing mass deportations and economically devastating tariffs.
"The cruelty is unnerving, the disregard for the Constitution and rule of law is reckless, and the day-to-day pain can never be justified."
"It is a fallacy to argue that we must choose between fighting for a fair economy and protecting our democracy," the watchdog Accountable.US said in a Monday memo. "Trump's first 100 days, which will be marked this week, clearly show that the two are interconnected, and he's failed Americans on both."
"What we have seen over the past 100 days is a president who has flouted the law, gutted checks and balances, and consolidated power for himself," the memo continues. "He has also, with the help of Elon Musk and allies in Congress, done catastrophic damage to our economy, injecting chaos and uncertainty for small businesses and investors, undermining workers' rights, tanking consumer confidence, and increasing the likelihood of a recession."
The Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped 7.9 points this month to 86—meaning "consumer confidence declined for a fifth consecutive month in April, falling to levels not seen since the onset of the Covid pandemic," according to Stephanie Guichard, a senior economist at the think tank.
Calling those numbers "sobering" and a "signal that we are plunging headfirst into a recession," Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens said that "if this is the level of pain the president is willing to inflict on Americans in just a few short months, it's no wonder that consumers and businesses are bracing themselves for a long, dark road ahead."
"This is a man-made crisis," Owens declared. "In his first 100 days, Trump did all he could to engineer a recession."
Donald Trump promised to end inflation and lower costs on his first day in office. Instead, Americans are paying a higher price on groceries, cars, utilities, and housing — with the looming fear of a recession. He's crashing our economy and leaving you with the bill.
— Governor JB Pritzker (@govpritzker.illinois.gov) April 29, 2025 at 2:31 PM
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) last week compiled a list of "100 ways Trump has hurt workers in his first 100 days," which includes terminating grants to fight forced and child labor, nominating Crystal Casey to be general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, and leaving the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service with what one employee recently toldCommon Dreams is "a very skeletal crew."
In addition to detailing Trump administration actions to degrade wages and working conditions, the think tank's report lays out Trump's attacks on anti-discrimination protections, immigrant workers, public education, and more.
"During the campaign, Trump promised to put working people first, lower rising costs on groceries and gas, and preserve our earned benefits and healthcare," American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) president Lee Saunders noted Monday. "Instead, the first 100 days of this billionaire-run administration have been fueled by lies, broken promises, and a relentless assault on working people and unions."
"He has handed over the reins of government to billionaires—appointing the wealthiest Cabinet in American history, kicking off a trade war that is raising prices on everyday goods, attacking Social Security and Medicaid, cutting wages for workers, and stripping collective bargaining rights from more than 1 million federal employees," the union leader said. "The White House claimed it had nothing to do with Project 2025, yet it has already implemented over one-third of the anti-worker agenda, often sidestepping Congress and the courts to do so."
Saunders stressed that "the fallout has been immediate. Retirees are left wondering how to navigate Social Security as staff are laid off, offices are closed, and services are cut. People are watching their retirement savings shrink. Lifesaving health and safety regulations have been put on hold. Students with disabilities are losing vital support from the Department of Education. The Department of Health and Human Services is clawing back funding from states, cities, and towns to fight infectious diseases as measles is on the rise, and it's just the beginning."
AFSCME and the American Federation of Teachers are challenging some of Trump's moves in court. AFT president Randi Weingarten on Tuesday condemned a similar list of Trump actions, including cuts to "research grants to colleges and universities that fund cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's research," and said that "it's no wonder his public approval is tanking."
"The cruelty is unnerving, the disregard for the Constitution and rule of law is reckless, and the day-to-day pain can never be justified," Weingarten added. "That's why our members are fighting back."
Some of the actions highlighted by union leaders are also included in First Focus on Children's Monday timeline for what the advocacy group called the Trump administration's "systematic war on the nation's children."
"I'm not sure we've ever seen an administration so laser-focused on targeting the nation's children for harm," said the group's president, Bruce Lesley. He called out Trump, his appointees, and the GOP-controlled Congress for planning to cut children's healthcare by $880 billion, shutter the Education Department, and "steal the lunch money of the nation's poorest kids."
"Babies have been singled out for special punishment with the proposed revocation of birthright citizenship and deportation of U.S. citizen children. This administration is also promoting tax policies that penalize families for having newborns," Lesley continued, also pointing to the "decimation" of the United States Agency for International Development. "The president has left children overseas to die of AIDS, malaria, and starvation by the millions."
“'100 Days of Destruction': Top Historian on Trump's Presidency So Far” Writing for Zeteo, Princeton's @zelizer.bsky.social explains how past US presidents used their first 100 days to build, while Trump has used his to dismantle, intimidate, and destroy. Read/share/subscribe:
[image or embed]
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan.bsky.social) April 29, 2025 at 7:53 AM
Trying to end birthright citizenship is one of several ways Trump is attacking immigrants. The advocacy group America's Voice this week published a fact sheet titled, High Costs, No Benefits: 100 Days Of Trump's Immigration Agenda.
"Let this sink in: Our government is deporting American kids, including kids with cancer, and is now trying to defend and excuse their choices on national television," said the organization's executive director, Vanessa Cárdenas. "Their actions embody the cruelty, chaotic, and harmful nature of their agenda the past 100 days, and what they want from the next 100 weeks and beyond."
"As Americans see the cruelty and overreach in action," Cárdenas noted, "a growing majority is expressing disapproval, connecting it to broader concerns regarding the rule of law, the tanking economy, cuts to Americans' healthcare, and overall chaos and extremism."
The Trump administration's anti-immigrant agenda is featured in several of the items on a new Human Rights Watch (HRW) list of actions "that pose significant risks to the human rights of people living in the United States and around the world."
Tanya Greene, U.S. program director at HRW, said that the administration has already "inflicted enormous damage to human rights" and "we are deeply concerned that these attacks on fundamental freedoms will continue unabated."
Item 51 on HRW's list warns that "people in the United States risk seeing their democratic power weakened by a politically motivated effort to skew long-standing U.S. Census Bureau policies and methods aimed at ensuring accurate population counts that determine how presidents, members of Congress, and others are elected and how federal funding is allocated to states and localities."
All Voting Is Local executive director Hannah Fried said in a Tuesday statement that "these first 100 days have been a five-alarm fire for the freedom to vote," citing Trump's executive order on elections, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, "and copycat bills in Ohio and Michigan that would require voters to show a passport or birth certificate to vote."
"The voting rights assaults during this time specifically hurt Black, Brown, Native American, and other historically marginalized communities," she emphasized. "They also set a tone for further efforts to erode voting rights and consolidate power at all levels of government in the lead-up to next year's midterm elections."
A growing number of public figures and watchdogs are sounding the alarm about the consolidation of power under Trump. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been crisscrossing the country for his Fighting Oligarchy Tour, and the advocacy group Public Citizen this week put out a list of highlights from the president's first "100 days of oligarchy and conflicts of interest."
Public Citizen's resource outlines how Trump "is handing people with clear corporate conflicts of interest—like stakes in Big Oil companies, long corporate lobbying careers, and seats on major company boards—the power to regulate and oversee corporations," dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and ridding the government of inspectors general, among other actions that enrich him and his allies at the expense of the public.
"People aren't fooled. They see what's going on. It's why millions took the streets on April 5th to protest Trump and Musk's attacks on working families."
The organization Issue One also has a new report—Unchecked Exec—about how "Trump's first 100 days have been focused on consolidating power and sidestepping anti-corruption safeguards."
"The Founders were deeply concerned about concentrating too much power in the presidency," said Issue One CEO Nick Penniman. "The Founders fought a revolution to get rid of concentrated executive authority, and they placed 'We, the People'—and Congress—at the center of the Constitution."
"A hundred days into this administration, it's clear the White House is intent on pushing the limits of its power to the point where it risks violating the Constitution and eroding the freedoms of every American," Penniman added. "This is a time for total vigilance, before the America we were living in 101 days ago begins to disappear."
The public is already fighting back in the form of protest. Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, said Tuesday that "calling Trump's first 100 days a dumpster fire would be an insult to dumpster fires."
"In less than four months, Trump has destroyed jobs, brought the economy to the brink of ruin, and done absolutely nothing to lower costs," he continued. "People aren't fooled. They see what's going on. It's why millions took the streets on April 5th to protest Trump and Musk's attacks on working families. It's why more and more people are joining community organizations or stepping up to run for office."
"Trump and his billionaire friends want us to fight against each other, so they can take an even larger share of the pie," he added. "But we're not playing their game. Instead, we're going to bring working people together, from every background and geography, to stop Trump and his MAGA cronies in their tracks."
A national day of action is planned for Thursday, recognized globally as May Day. There are more than 1,100 rallies scheduled—including one at Philadelphia City Hall, where Sanders is set to join the city's AFL-CIO chapter under the banner, "For the Workers, Not the Billionaires."
While Sanders and those who have joined him on tour, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), have been praised for their response to the second Trump administration, constituents across the United States are calling on many members of Congress to do more.
Although Republicans control both chambers of Congress, recent polling shows rising support for impeaching Trump a historic third time, and Congressman Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) on Monday filed seven articles of impeachment against the president. Thursday will feature some actions focused on pressuring lawmakers to pursue impeachment.
Given Congress' current makeup, Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, is specifically calling on Republican lawmakers who "aided and abetted" Trump to instead fight back against his "relentless assault on our democracy, our freedoms, and the basic services hardworking Americans depend on to survive."
"What more will it take for Republicans in Congress to find the courage to stand up for their constituents?" she asked Tuesday. "The president is not a king, and Congress is meant to be a co-equal branch of government. We can't afford to wait another 100 days for them to finally remember that."
Over the first 100 days, we @sddfund.bsky.social have taken 100 actions challenging the Trump admin’s lawlessness—incl. repping conservatives opposing his foreign abductions We’ll keep fighting in the courts of law & public opinion. I discussed @msnbc.com
[image or embed]
— Norm Eisen (@normeisen.bsky.social) April 29, 2025 at 11:57 AM
Opponents of the president's agenda are also fighting in the courts. In a 100-day roundup, the ACLU said that "Trump has tested every limit, abused every power, and exploited every loophole to silence dissent, disenfranchise marginalized communities, and erode our rule of law."
"These are deliberate tactics designed to enforce compliance through fear, force, and censorship. But we aren't backing down. If the Trump administration wants to go after people's rights and freedoms, they'll have to go through us first. And we were ready for this fight," declared the group, which so far has filed 107 legal actions.
In a Monday blog post, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich argued that everyone must fight to save a nation that "is tottering on the edge of dictatorship."
"We are no longer Democrats or Republicans. We are either patriots fighting the regime, or we are complicit in its tyranny. There is no middle ground," Reich wrote. "Soon, I fear, the regime will openly defy the Supreme Court."
"Americans must be mobilized into such a huge wave of anger and disgust that members of the House are compelled to impeach Trump (for the third time) and enough senators are moved to finally convict him," he added. "Then this shameful chapter of American history will end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular