

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The United States should suspend military assistance to countries using child soldiers, Human Rights Watch said today.
On June 27, 2011, the US State Department released a list of six governments that use child soldiers in violation of US legislation adopted in 2008: Burma, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Five of the countries - excluding Burma - receive US military assistance.
"The US strategy of just telling countries to stop using child soldiers is not working," said Jo Becker, children's rights advocate at Human Rights Watch. "So long as they keep getting US military assistance, these countries have little incentive to stop recruiting children."
The Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 prohibits governments using child soldiers from receiving US foreign military financing, military training, and several other categories of US military assistance. The six countries identified in the new 2011 Trafficking in Persons report for using child soldiers were all included in the first State Department list in June 2010. In October, President Barack Obama issued national interest waivers to allow Chad, Congo, Sudan, and Yemen to continue to receive military aid despite their use of child soldiers.
Human Rights Watch called on the Obama administration not to issue blanket waivers to countries violating the Child Soldiers Prevention Act unless the governments sign agreements with the United Nations to end their use of child soldiers and take concrete steps to implement these agreements.
The administration contends that the military assistance it provides to Somalia is peacekeeping assistance that is not covered by the law. On June 22, Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and John Boozman of Arkansas introduced legislation that would amend the Child Soldiers Prevention Act to prohibit peacekeeping operations assistance to governments of countries that recruit and use child soldiers.
In Congo, government forces actively recruit children and have hundreds of children in their ranks. The government has promoted military officers who have been charged - or even convicted - with using child soldiers and has failed to cooperate with the United Nations in finalizing a plan to end its recruitment and use of child soldiers.
In Southern Sudan, which will gain independence from Sudan in July, the Sudan People's Liberation Army has continued to recruit children, according to credible reports received by Human Rights Watch. It has also failed to carry out fully a 2009 agreement to demobilize all children from its ranks.
Yemeni government forces have recruited children as young as 14 and government-affiliated militia have also used children as soldiers.
In Chad, a February 2011 report issued by the UN secretary-general documented ongoing recruitment of children by the Chadian army, including the recruitment of Sudanese refugee children. The government signed an agreement with the UN on June 14 committing itself to end all child recruitment, to release all children from its military and security forces, and to allow UN monitoring of its military installations.
The Chad agreement is a positive step, but progress in other countries has been too slow, Human Rights Watch said.
"Congress was clear in its intent that the US should not be militarily assisting governments that use child soldiers in their forces," Becker said. "Last year the administration gave these governments a pass. It shouldn't do so again."
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.
Critics pointed out that Trump has often endorsed violence against protesters when they opposed him.
President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to attack Iran on Thursday in response to its government's increasingly violent crackdown on ongoing protests.
"If they start killing people, which they tend to do during their riots—they have lots of riots—if they do it, we're going to hit them very hard," he said.
Addressing the Iranian people, he added: "You must stand up for your right to freedom. There is nothing like freedom. You are a brave people. It’s a shame what’s happening to your country."
The Norway-based Iran Human Rights (IHR) reported on Thursday that Iranian security forces have killed at least 45 protesters since demonstrations against the regime began in late December. Wednesday was the bloodiest day yet, with 13 people reportedly killed.
On Thursday, Iranian authorities shut down internet access for the population, which has limited the flow of information in and out of the country.
The protests kicked off in response to the sudden collapse in the value of Iran's currency, the rial, which exacerbated the country's already spiraling cost-of-living crisis, heightening inflation and putting many basic goods out of reach for many Iranians.
This economic crisis has been shifted into hyperdrive since Trump returned to office last year and re-implemented his “maximum pressure” strategy against Iran, including more severe economic sanctions and a 12-day war in June during which the US struck several Iranian nuclear sites. Over the past year, the average cost of food has increased by 70%, while the cost of medicine has increased by 50%.
The rial has lost 95% of its value since 2018, when Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear agreement with Iran, which included sanctions relief.
Last Friday, just one day before he bombed Venezuela as part of an operation to overthrow its leader Nicolás Maduro and seize the nation's oil reserves, Trump wrote on Truth Social that "if Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go."
On Tuesday, US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a leading proponent of regime change, warned Iran's leaders that "if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life—Donald J. Trump is going to kill you." Just days before, Graham said that Iran's "weakened" state was thanks in part to Trump's efforts to "economically isolate" the country.
Iran has blamed the unrest on "interference in Iran’s internal affairs” by the United States. The nation's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has urged authorities to exhibit the “utmost restraint” in handling protesters. But earlier this week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini said "rioters" must be "put in their place," while a top judge accused demonstrators of being agents of the US and Israel.
The latest swell of protests began after Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince and son of Iran's former US-backed shah, called for demonstrators to take to the streets. On Thursday, Pahlavi, who has lived most of his life in the US after the royal family was run out of Iran during the 1979 revolution, met with Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog.
Critics pointed out that Trump has often endorsed violence against protesters when they opposed him. Just a day before he issued his latest threat, he defended a federal immigration agent who fatally shot an unarmed mother in Minneapolis, while members of his administration falsely described her as a "domestic terrorist."
He has previously advocated for the US military to be deployed to use force against protesters and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell peaceful protests, including the No Kings demonstrators who mobilized nationwide in October.
"The most urgent need now is for the DOJ to produce all the documents and electronically stored information required by the act."
The congressmen behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act on Thursday asked a federal judge to appoint a "special master and/or independent monitor" to ensure that the Trump administration actually releases the documents from the trafficking case against deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as required by the new law.
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) led the monthslong congressional effort to pass the legislation, which Trump—a former friend of Epstein who's repeatedly mentioned in the files—signed in November. Since then, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has published some heavily redacted materials but blown the December 19 deadline to release everything.
"We have offered for six months to meet with the Justice Department to help them get the right documents out, and we're now going to be intervening with the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to ask those judges to appoint a special master and ensure that all the documents are released," Khanna told NPR last week.
Khanna and Massie did so with a Thursday letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, writing to the appointee of former President Barack Obama that "we have urgent and grave concerns about DOJ's failure to comply with the act as well as the department's violations of this court's order."
As MS NOW—which initially reported on the letter—explained, "Engelmayer oversees the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and last month, the Justice Department obtained Engelmayer's permission to release grand jury materials and other evidence provided to Maxwell in discovery that were redacted or sealed per a court order."
On December 24, the DOJ announced that it had received over a million more documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and SDNY "to review them for release, in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, existing statutes, and judicial orders." The department added then that "due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks."
Khanna and Massie noted in their letter that the DOJ's most recent court filing on Monday states the department has only produced "approximately 12,285 documents (compromising approximately 125,575 pages)" and there is still "more than 2 million documents potentially responsive to the act in various phases of review."
As the lawmakers pointed out: "Other reports suggest that the DOJ may be reviewing more than 5 million pages. Because these figures are self-reported and internally inconsistent with prior representations, there is reasonable suspicion that the DOJ has overstated the scope of responsive materials, thereby portraying compliance as unmanageable and effectively delaying disclosure."
According to their letter:
The conduct by the DOJ is not only a flagrant violation of the mandatory disclosure obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but as this court has recognized in its previous rulings, the behavior by the DOJ has caused serious trauma to survivors.
In addition, the DOJ has not complied with Section 3 of the act, which requires the attorney general, within 15 days of the deadline for release, to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary committees identifying the categories of records released and withheld and summarizing all redactions and their legal bases. To date, no such report has been provided. Without it, there is no authoritative accounting of what records exist, what has been withheld, or why, making effective oversight and judicial review far more difficult.
Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the act.
Khanna and Massie added that "while we believe that criminal violations have taken place and must be addressed, the most urgent need now is for the DOJ to produce all the documents and electronically stored information required by the act."
The pair has threatened to bring inherent contempt proceedings against US Attorney General Pam Bondi. Asked about that on Tuesday, Massie told MS NOW that they were assessing the situation and still hoped for DOJ compliance.
"Hopefully, we don't have to do it," the congressman said. "But when we feel like we need to do it, we'll do it."
The vice president's remarks came after analysis by both the New York Times and Washington Post undercut the Trump administration's claims about Good's killing.
Vice President JD Vance on Thursday lashed out at the media and "left-wing" activists whom he blamed for the death of Minneapolis resident Renee Good at the hands of a federal immigration enforcement agent.
During a press conference at the White House, a reporter asked Vance if there was anything he could say to unite America in the wake of Good's killing by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, and Vance responded by immediately attacking the media.
"The reporting over this has been one of the biggest scandals I've ever seen in media," Vance complained. "I've never seen a case so misrepresented and misreported. We have a guy who was defending himself, who is now being treated as some sort of federal assassin by so many of the people in this room."
Vance also described Good as "a woman who aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator."
JD Vance on the killing of Renee Good: "The reporting over this has been one of the biggest scandals I've ever seen in media. I've never seen a case so misrepresented and misreported." pic.twitter.com/GLWad9g2Qt
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
In-depth video analyses of Good's killing published by both the New York Times and the Washington Post on Thursday undercut the Trump administration's claims that the she was trying to run over the ICE agent before he fatally shot her.
The Times analyzed footage from three different camera angles and concluded that Good's vehicle "appears to be turning away from a federal officer as he opened fire."
The Post, meanwhile, found that the agent fired "at least two of three shots from the side of the vehicle as it veered past him."
Observers of various footage circulating online have reached similar conclusions.
Elsewhere in the press conference, Vance baselessly asserted that Good had been indoctrinated by left-wing politics.
"There is a part of me that feels very sad for this woman," he said. "And not just because she lost her life, but because I think she is a victim of left-wing ideology. What young mother shows up and decides they're going to throw their car in front of ICE officers who are enforcing law? You've got to be a little brainwashed to get to that point."
Vance also accused unnamed people and institutions of funding violent attacks on ICE agents.
JD Vance on Renee Good: "I think she's a victim of left-wing ideology. What young mother shows up and decides they're gonna throw their car in front of ICE officers who are enforcing law? You've got to be a little brainwashed." pic.twitter.com/7sdh0WT69Y
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
"If you are funding violence against our law enforcement officers... my guess is that's not the sort of thing that earns capital punishment, but it should sure as hell earn you a few years in prison," Vance said.
JD Vance: "If you are funding violence against our law enforcement officers, I'm not a prosecutor, my guess is that's not the sort of thing that earns capital punishment. But it should sure as hell earn you a few years in prison." pic.twitter.com/2AklZQtKFh
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
The vice president's remarks about organizations purportedly "funding" attacks on law enforcement come just weeks after it was revealed that US Attorney General Pam Bondi had written a memo directing the US Department of Justice to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”
The memo identified the “domestic terrorism threat” as organizations that use “violence or the threat of violence” to advance political goals such as “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality.”