

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 Chinese government has ended a key policy of allowing Tibetan monasteries to be run by monks who comply with government regulations and have instead introduced a system that will place almost every monastery in Tibet under the direct rule of government officials who will be permanently stationed in each religious institution, Human Rights Watch said today.
On January 4, 2012, the Party Secretary of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), Chen Quanguo, announced that government or party officials will be stationed in almost all monasteries permanently, and that in some cases they will have the senior rank and pay of a deputy director of a provincial-level government department. The permanent posting of government or party officials inside monasteries is unprecedented in Tibet, let alone at such a senior level.
"Although the Chinese government has placed many restrictions on the practice of religion in Tibet, these new regulations represent an entirely new level of intervention by the state," said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. "This measure, coupled with the increasing presence of government workers within monasteries, will surely exacerbate tensions in the region."
According to official documents, the new policy, known as the "Complete Long-term Management Mechanism for Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries," is described as, "critical for taking the initiative in the struggle against separatism," and aims to "ensure that monks and nuns do not take part in activities of splitting up the motherland and disturbing social order."
The order to post resident cadres within monasteries in the TAR was contained in an "important memorandum" on "mechanisms to build long-term stability in Tibet" issued by Politburo Standing Committee Member Jia Qinglin, Minister of Public Security Meng Jianzhu and other state leaders in late December 2011. That memorandum orders the TAR to "have cadres stationed in the main monasteries to further strengthen and innovate monastery management," according to an official news report on December 20.
"This new decision is a major departure. It overturns the central guarantee of 'autonomy' that has guided policy on Tibet for decades," said Richardson.
China's policy for Tibetan monasteries, first introduced in 1962, provides that all monasteries are supposed to be run by monks - under close governmental supervision, but with only indirect involvement of officials. The policy was abandoned during the Cultural Revolution (from 1966 to 1979 in Tibet), when almost all monasteries were closed and many were physically destroyed.
The policy allowing nominal self-rule of monasteries was reinstated in the early 1980s and had been upheld ever since. China's constitution guarantees freedom of religious belief, but control over religious activities of ethnic minority groups such as Tibetans and Uighurs has always been markedly more severe.
Under the previous policy, all places of worship, including Tibetan monasteries, have until now been administered by a structure called the "Democratic Management Committee." Although the nomination and selection of the committee members are controlled by government and party officials (and rigid political constraints are imposed on the nominees), the committees were comprised of monks who had at least been elected by their own community.
The new system now requires an unelected "Management Committee" - also referred to as zhusi danwei/gongzuozu ("monastic government work-unit")- to be established in every monastery, with up to 30 lay officials stationed in each monastery, depending on the size of the institution, according to a February 15, 2012 article in the government-run Global Times. The new "Management Committees" will run the monasteries and will have authority over the previous "Democratic Management Committees," which will now be responsible for rituals and other matters.
The new arrangement is referred to as "the combination of management by administration with self-rule" in monasteries and means that "officials are selected and sent to manage the monastery together with the monks." In monasteries that are at "grassroots level," the administration will be in the hands of officials from the local village-level organizations of the government or party.
The new system of cadre-supervised monasteries is the result of a research project initiated in 2008 by the United Front Work Department, the agency of the CCP in charge of religion and nationality issues. The research was initiated as an "emergency response project" by a team of experts in Beijing following widespread unrest in Tibetan areas in 2008, according to an August 26, 2011 article by Gong Xuezeng, a professor at China's Central Party School.
In November 2011, the authorities began establishing the "Management Committees" in the 1,787 monasteries that are allowed to operate in the TAR. The stated objectives of the new management scheme are:
However, according to Gong's article, the temples will have to "rectify their religious style," though the meaning of this is unclear.
The rationale for the new system is explained in official documents as "enhancing social management" in temples. This is seen as developing an underlying objective established in 1994 which aimed to "adapt Tibetan Buddhism to socialism." The new theory argues that since monks are members of society as well as monks, their institutions should be run by social forces, meaning party and government organizations. As a result, in the new system, besides the party cadres stationed within monasteries, numerous local government offices at each level will have day-to-day responsibility for directly managing different aspects of Tibetan monastic life. Twenty-four government organs, including the offices of public security, foreign affairs, and justice, are listed in regulations issued in Aba (Ngaba in Tibetan) prefecture in 2009 as involved in managing local monasteries (article 4).
Under the new system, according to Gong's article, these government offices are also required to provide practical services, such as running water, electricity, roads, and social security payments, to monks and monasteries, "especially those that are supportive and helpful for patriotism."
In eastern Tibetan areas outside the TAR, reports indicate that instead of establishing a new committee, the old Democratic Management Committees will be retained as the leading body in each monastery, but are expected to have a government official inserted as the deputy director of each committee. For example, regulations have been passed in Qinghai, which place each township-level monastery in that province under a "Masses Supervision and Appraisal Committee" that will supervise, monitor, and report to the government on the management and religious practices in local monasteries.
Two leading monasteries in the TAR, Tashilhunpo (Zhashilunbuin Chinese) in Shigatse (Xigaze in Chinese) and Champaling (Qiangbaling in Chinese) in Chamdo (Changdu in Chinese), will be allowed to retain their Democratic Management Committees without creating a committee of unelected officials above it because they have "have actively explored the path of self-education and self-rule, creating an effective management pattern with their own characteristics" and so have "achieved monastery self-rule and democratic management." The two monasteries are considered politically reliable and are the traditional seats of two lamas, the Panchen Lama and Phagpa-lha Gelek Namgyal (a leading lama), who hold national-level office in China.
Human Rights Watch called the decision to impose direct rule on almost all monasteries and to station cadres permanently in them is a worrying indication that the state is becoming increasingly invasive in its management of religion in Tibet. These policies are likely to lead to further tensions and to further exacerbate social difficulties that have been growing in Tibetan areas since 2008. The move also appears to undermine statements by China's Premier, Wen Jiabao, this week that "we should respect Tibetan compatriots' freedom of religious belief" and that "we must treat all of our Tibetan compatriots with equality and respect."
Strict security measures and restrictions on fundamental freedoms in Tibetan areas were imposed, following a series of street protests against Chinese rule in March 2008. Immediately following the protests, thousands of people were detained and arrested, though the total number is unknown, and at least two Tibetans were executed in October 2009 on charges stemming from their involvement in the protests. Security measures and restrictions on the exercise of religious freedom imposed on monasteries in Aba (Tibetan: Ngaba) and Ganzi (Tibetan: Kardze) Tibetan autonomous prefectures in Sichuan were especially severe, including intimidating raids and arbitrary detentions of monks, as detailed by Human Rights Watch.
Twenty-eight Tibetans have set themselves on fire since March 2011 to protest China's policies, including at least 18 from Aba.
"If the Chinese government is committed to reducing tensions in Tibetan areas, it should repeal these policies immediately," said Richardson.
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.
"Yet, they never have the funds for healthcare coverage for all," said Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib.
Reality once again clashed uncomfortably with Argentinian President Javier Milei's so-called "libertarian revolution" Wednesday as the Trump administration said it is working to double a $20 billion private sector bailout to prop up the South American nation's moribund currency amid enduring high poverty and inflation and broader economic fragility.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters in Washington, DC Wednesday that the $20 billion currency swap—essentially a loan—for Argentina announced last month "would be a total of $40 billion," with funding coming from banks and sovereign wealth funds to enable the country to pay off its more than $300 billion in external debt.
The bailout is aimed at boosting Argentina's flagging peso, which has fallen by nearly one-quarter against the US dollar this year. A decade ago, $1 was equal to 18 pesos. Today, a single dollar will buy 1,361 pesos. That's a loss of more than 99% in value over the past 10 years.

Although poverty in Argentina has fallen significantly from over 50% shortly after Milei's election, around 30% of Argentinians remain poor and prices and inflation are again rising significantly. While Milei has drastically slashed inflation, the reduction has come via the devaluation of the peso and massive cuts in government spending, including the evisceration of social programs resulting in more expensive housing, healthcare, and education.
Bessent's announcement comes ahead of Argentina's October 26 midterm elections that will test the mandate for Milei—an admirer and close ally of President Donald Trump—to continue with his slash-and-burn approach to streamlining government.
While meeting with Milei at the White House Tuesday, Trump said the bailout is contingent upon the Argentine president remaining in power.
“If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina,” Trump told reporters. “I think he’s going to win, and if he wins, we’re staying with him, and if he doesn’t win, we’re gone.”
The combination of fiscal austerity, gutting of government agencies, dangerous deregulation, inflation, and currency devaluation have caused Milei's unfavorability rating to soar to over 60% in some polls, it's highest level ever.
Milei—a self-described anarcho-capitalist who was elected in November 2023 on a wave of populist revulsion at the status quo—campaigned on a platform of repairing the moribund economy, tackling inflation, reducing poverty, and dismantling the state. He made wild promises including dollarizing Argentina’s economy and abolishing the central bank.
However, the realities of leading South America’s second-largest economy have forced Milei’s administration to abandon or significantly curtail key agenda items, leading to accusations of neoliberalism and betrayal from the right, and hypocrisy and rank incompetence from the left.
“Let’s not get confused: Milei went to beg for money and a photo of Trump because his economic plan failed," Argentine lawmaker Emilio Monzó said Tuesday.
Another lawmaker, Margarita Stolbizer, said on social media Tuesday that "freedom is crawling."
"Trump tells us Argentines that if we don't vote for Milei, we'll be punished," she added. "The interference is absolute, the libertarian surrender is total. Let's have confidence in the pride of our people: We are millions who don't want to be told what we have to do."
US singer and political commentator Blakeley Bartley skewered Milei, "the based anarcho-capitalist conservative," in a social media post on Wednesday."
"He was gonna get in power, cut government spending," Bartley continued. "Remember, all your favorite right-wingers and American media said, 'You gotta support him, man, he's a based conservative that's gonna save Argentina."
"What's that?" Bartley added. "Oh, that's right, he drove the economy into the fucking ground and now he needs a welfare check from Daddy America."
Others—ranging from progressives angry over tens of billions of dollars being spent on foreign bailouts while so many people are struggling and suffering in the US to hardcore MAGA supporters—are asking, how is bailing out Argentina "America First?"
"Trump wants to DOUBLE Argentina's bailout to $40 billion to save his political ally," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media. "Yet he is doing nothing to prevent 15 million Americans from losing their healthcare and 20 million from seeing a doubling in their premiums. Is this what Trump means by America first?"
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said: "Apparently $20 billion of our taxpayer money wasn't enough to bail out Argentina. Now Trump wants US banks to divert ANOTHER $20 billion away from lending to American businesses, farmers, and families to prop up Milei's corrupt presidency and failing economy."
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich said, "So much for 'America First.'"
John Bartam, a soybean farmer from Illinois, slammed the bailout in a Tuesday interview with the Daily Beast, noting that Trump’s $20 billion lifeline enabled Milei to lower his country's export tax, leading to China buying seven million tons of Argentinian soybeans at the expense of the US. This, as American soybean farmers reel from Trump's tariff war with China, which until recently was the world's leading buyer of the top US export crop.
“MAGA," Bartam said, "now means Make Argentina Great Again."
The reporting came as rights groups sought the legal memo on the president's deadly strikes on alleged drug-running boats in the Caribbean.
As outrage over US President Donald Trump's deadly boat bombings mounts, The New York Times reported Wednesday that his administration secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency "to carry out lethal operations in Venezuela and conduct a range of operations in the Caribbean," with the ultimate aim of ousting the country's leader, Nicolás Maduro.
"The agency would be able to take covert action against Mr. Maduro or his government either unilaterally or in conjunction with a larger military operation," according to the Times, which cited unnamed US officials. "It is not known whether the CIA is planning any operations in Venezuela or if the authorities are meant as a contingency."
"But the development comes as the US military is planning its own possible escalation, drawing up options for President Trump to consider, including strikes inside Venezuela," the newspaper noted. The administration's Venezuela strategy was "developed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with help from John Ratcliffe, the CIA director."
The White House and CIA declined to comment on record, though some observers speculated it was "an authorized leak." The reporting comes as Democrats in Congress, human rights groups, and legal scholars sound the alarm of Trump's five known strikes on boats he claims were smuggling drugs, which have killed at least 27 people.
Critics highlighted the United States' long history of covert action in Latin America, as well as how the reported CIA authorization contrasts with Trump's so-called "America First" claims.
"This is absolutely insane," said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama administration official who went on to co-found Crooked Media. "America First was not sold as CIA regime change operations in Venezuela."
Critics also noted Trump's mission to secure the Nobel Peace Prize; this year, it went to María Corina Machado, a right-wing Venezuelan who dedicated the award to not only the people in her country, but also the US president.
"Now that Trump has delegated his preposterous politicking for a Nobel Peace Prize to sycophants, he can finally get around to declaring unilateral war on Venezuela, a war crime, as he murders Colombian civilians at sea, another war crime, and endorses collective punishment in Gaza, another war crime," journalist Seth Abramson said Wednesday.
As Senate Democrats last week unsuccessfully fought to stop Trump's boat strikes of the Venezuelan coast, Colombian President Gustavo Petro said on social media that one of the bombed vessels appeared to be carrying citizens of his country.
"A new war zone has opened: the Caribbean," he said at the time. "Evidence shows that the last boat bombed was Colombian, with Colombian citizens inside. I hope their families come forward and file complaints. There isn't a war against smuggling; it's a war for oil, and the world must stop it. The aggression is against all of Latin America and the Caribbean."
The Trump administration recently claimed in a confidential notice to Congress intended to justify the deadly bombings that the president decided drug cartels "are nonstate armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States."
While that notice leaked to the press, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on Wednesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the Office of Legal Counsel's guidance and other related documents regarding the strikes.
"All available evidence suggests that President Trump's lethal strikes in the Caribbean constitute murder, pure and simple," said Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. "The public deserves to know how our government is justifying these attacks as lawful, and, given the stakes, immediate public scrutiny of its apparently radical theories is imperative."
CCR legal director Baher Azmy stressed that "in a constitutional system, no president can arbitrarily choose to assassinate individuals from the sky based on his whim or say-so."
"The Trump administration is taking its indiscriminate pattern of lawlessness to a lethal level," Azmy added. "The public understanding of any rationale supporting such unprecedented and shocking conduct is essential for transparency and accountability."
"The United States and particularly the Democratic Party, we have to be leaders on this issue," said podcast host Jennifer Welch.
Two podcast interviews with potential Democratic 2028 presidential candidates went viral Tuesday—but observers said they served only to illustrate how disconnected the party establishment is from its base on the subject of Israel and Palestinian rights and how much work Democrats have ahead of them to reach out to the growing number of voters who oppose Israel after two years of its US-backed assault on Gaza.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) appeared on I've Had It, hosted by Jennifer Welch and Angie "Pumps" Sullivan—Oklahoma-based former Bravo reality TV stars who were called "the future of viral left podcasting" by Rolling Stone last month.
With Welch and Sullivan's "thick southern accents made complete by their Ann Taylor-coded outfits, sharp red lipstick, and blonde highlighted hair" as Rolling Stone noted, some progressive commentators have mused that Democratic politicians eager to engage with podcast audiences are likely to underestimate the pair, who are outspoken in their criticism both of the Trump administration and Democratic leaders.
That appeared to be the case with Booker, who claimed he had to leave the interview as Welch hammered him on Democrats' support for Israel and his vote for Charles Kushner, the disbarred attorney and father of President Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to be US ambassador to France.
When Welch asked Booker what he had to say about "the capitulation that [he] participated in" the senator replied with a criticism of "purity tests" that Democratic lawmakers and organizers force on each other.
"That’s such bullshit,” Welch replied, echoing her response to former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel when he criticized Democrats for standing up for transgender rights on the podcast earlier this year. "It's not a purity test, it's, 'Are we in this fight and are we being beholden to corporations and corporate interests or are we being really the party of the working class?'"
“That is such bullshit” @MizzWelch isn’t having it when @CoryBooker tries to blame Democratic failures to stand up to Trump (including his own vote for Kushner’s dad) on a “circular firing squad”
Full @ivehaditpodcast ep: https://t.co/Qg8kAl0LuH pic.twitter.com/MjMHFSa836
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) October 14, 2025
The hosts were no less direct when the discussion turned to Israel. Welch and Sullivan have been outspoken in their condemnation of Israel's assault on Gaza over the past two years and the support that both the Biden and Trump administrations have given to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as civilian casualties have mounted, a famine has been declared, and top Israeli officials have publicly said they aim to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
"The United States and particularly the Democratic Party, we have to be leaders on this issue, with Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. It's something that there is a big loud beat in the base that's permeating all across the country," said Welch. "I think for us to come together as a party in 2026, it's going to take leadership saying things like, 'Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal.'"
Booker attempted to turn the conversation to conflicts in Africa and claimed the International Criminal Court, which has a warrant out for Netanyahu's arrest for war crimes, "singles out Israel," before dodging what Welch called a "simple yes or no question."
"Do you think he's a war criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu?" asked Welch.
Booker, who voted several times to provide Israel with military aid since it began bombarding Gaza in 2023, answered that such questions "undermine" his efforts to solve the conflict in the Middle East.
It’s a simple yes or no question pic.twitter.com/D6jY01uflY
— I've Had It Podcast (@ivehaditpodcast) October 14, 2025
"The thing that Democrats get so frustrated with, where we are right now, where you see the Zohran Mamdanis and the Graham Platners rise up, because they can go on podcasts and you can say, 'Do you think Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal?' and they just say yes," said Welch. "And that's the end of it, it's not all of the rhetoric."
Some observers said the interview, in which Welch also pressed Booker about the more than $871,000 in donations he's received from the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), should be taken as a warning to Democratic lawmakers as they look toward the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election in a country where polls show the public is shifting away from decades of support for Israel.
"Democratic politicians are getting a preview of the gauntlet they'll have to run in 2028 if they can't break from Israel," said journalist Branko Marcetic.
Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo added that "not only is Jennifer Welch awesome, but what an indictment of our mainstream media and political press that it takes nontraditional journalist podcasters to ask these simple and direct questions of our electeds."
That preview was also visible in an interview Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom did on the podcast Higher Learning with Van Lathan, who told Newsom he would not vote for the candidate who had accepted money from AIPAC.
"It's interesting, I haven't thought about AIPAC—it's interesting, you're the first to have brought up AIPAC in years, which is interesting," said Newsom. "Not relevant to my day-to-day life."
When asked about AIPAC Gavin Newsom freezes and repeats “it’s interesting” 10 times.
He’s a Zionist btw. Never trust him.
pic.twitter.com/76rl6OfY9o
— ADAM (@AdameMedia) October 15, 2025
Any candidate hoping to run for president in 2028, said Matt Duss of the Center for International Policy, "is gonna have to come up with a waaaaay better answer on this than 'it’s interesting.'"
In addition to revealing that top Democrats are unprepared for tough questions on US relations with Israel, said a number of observers, the interviews showed "the utter failure and brokenness of corporate media."