

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.

Suriname's parliament must reject a proposed amnesty law that would allow the country's president to escape investigation for past gross human rights violations, Amnesty International said today.
The long-delayed trial of President Desi Bouterse, who is accused of abducting and killing opponents in December 1982 while he was a military leader, could be scrapped if the amnesty law is passed. The proposal will be debated in parliament today.
Suriname's parliament must reject a proposed amnesty law that would allow the country's president to escape investigation for past gross human rights violations, Amnesty International said today.
The long-delayed trial of President Desi Bouterse, who is accused of abducting and killing opponents in December 1982 while he was a military leader, could be scrapped if the amnesty law is passed. The proposal will be debated in parliament today.
Bouterse was elected president in 2010, but is accused of human rights violations committed during his two previous stints in power, between 1980 and 1991. The law proposed by Bouterse's coalition government provides impunity for offenses committed "in the context of defense of the state" during the period of Bouterse's former rule.
"This is a flagrant attempt by President Bouterse to evade investigation for human rights abuses committed during his rule and deny justice to his victims and their families," said Javier Zuniga, special ddvisor at Amnesty International. "The proposed law contravenes international law, which states that amnesties cannot be applied to those responsible for gross human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions."
Members of Bouterse's Mega Combination coalition party introduced the legislation on Monday and said it would pass through parliament by the end of the week.
Amnesty International says the proposed law must be scrapped, or amended so that crimes under international law and human rights violations are not included.
"Crimes under international law must not be subjected to amnesties; pre-trial amnesty laws for human rights violations amount to unacceptable self-amnesties," said Zuniga. "Suriname is obliged to investigate such crimes and prosecute those suspected of criminal responsibility."
Legal proceedings against Bouterse and 24 of his associates began in November 2007, but have faced repeated delays. The defendants are accused of the extrajudicial executions of 15 opponents of the military regime in December 1982. Reports received by Amnesty International at the time indicated that the victims were shot after being tortured.
Bouterse has denied charges that he presided over the killings, but his account was contradicted by the sole survivor of the incident, trade unionist Fred Derby, who died in May 2001.
Bouterse first came to power in 1980 when he led a coup. He allowed the return of civilian rule in 1987 but launched a second coup in 1990 -- taking power for an additional year.
A Dutch court convicted him in 1999 of trafficking cocaine from Suriname to the Netherlands, but he has avoided a prison sentence because he cannot be extradited under Surinamese law.
Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 3 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
"The court could not be more clear—the Trump-Vance administration must stop playing politics with people's lives by delaying SNAP payments they are obligated to issue," one lawyer said.
A federal judge on Thursday called out President Donald Trump's recent social media post about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and ordered the administration to release full funding for 42 million Americans' SNAP benefits by Friday.
Judge John McConnell, appointed to the District of Rhode Island by former President Barack Obama, previously gave the US Department of Agriculture a choice between making a partial payment by emptying a contingency fund or fully covering food stamps with that funding plus money from other sources. The USDA opted for the former, and warned that it could take weeks to get reduced SNAP benefits to recipients, millions of whom would lose the monthly food aid altogether.
Then, on Tuesday, Trump suggested that the administration would not disperse SNAP benefits until congressional Democrats voted to end what has become the longest government shutdown in US history. Although White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later claimed that "the administration is fully complying with the court order" and "the president is referring to future SNAP payments."
That same day, lawyers for the municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups behind the lawsuit that led to McConnell's initial ruling—one of two SNAP cases currently in the federal court system—filed an emergency request seeking further relief.
On Thursday, McConnell concluded that the USDA's plan ran afoul of his previous directive and issued the new oral ruling. He reportedly said: "Last weekend, SNAP benefits lapsed for the first time in our nation's history. This is a problem that could have and should have been avoided."
"The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP," the judge declared. "They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer."
Despite the White House's attempted clarification, McConnell also said that Trump's post "stated his intent to defy the court order."
While the Associated Press reported that the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order, it was celebrated by Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman, whose group is representing the plaintiffs with the Lawyers' Committee for Rhode Island. She said in a statement that "today is a major victory for 42 million people in America."
"The court could not be more clear—the Trump-Vance administration must stop playing politics with people's lives by delaying SNAP payments they are obligated to issue," Perryman continued. "This immoral and unlawful decision by the administration has shamefully delayed SNAP payments, taking food off the table of hungry families."
"We shouldn't have to force the president to care for his citizens, but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities," she added. "We are honored to represent our brave clients and to have secured this major victory for those who deserve better than what this administration has done to them."
US House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig (D-Minn.) also welcomed the development, while ripping Trump and his secretary of agriculture, Brooke Rollins. The congresswoman stressed: "As we've said from the beginning, the Trump administration has the money and the power to fully fund SNAP in November. They chose to ignore the harm caused by their actions and cut benefits instead."
"President Trump and USDA need to do the right thing and comply with the court ruling rather than further delay food assistance from reaching 42 million Americans in need," she argued. "It is truly shocking and demoralizing just how far President Trump and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have gone to take food out of the mouths of American children, seniors, working parents, veterans, and people with disabilities."
“This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents,” said a lawyer for the ACLU.
The US Supreme Court issued an emergency order Thursday upholding President Donald Trump's discriminatory policy barring transgender and nonbinary Americans from changing the gender listed on their passports from the gender assigned to them at birth.
Reversing a lower court decision blocking the policy in June, the six conservative justices assessed in an unsigned majority opinion that by requiring passports to reflect a person's sex at birth, the State Department "is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, which was joined by the two other liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor. Lamenting the Trump administration's "routine" reliance on the court to issue emergency rulings, Brown wrote that she would have denied the request, because “the documented real-world harms to these plaintiffs obviously outweigh the government’s unexplained (and inexplicable) interest in immediate implementation of the passport policy.”
Last month, a group of transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, requested that the court reject the Trump administration's petition for a stay on the lower court's ruling blocking the policy. That ruling had come after transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs testified that they were afraid to submit passport applications to the government as a result of the policy.
"Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance," said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
The attorneys argued last month before the Supreme Court that the policy "irrationally undermines the very purpose of passports—identifying a US citizen when they travel” and also is “motivated by anti-transgender animus.”
That animus has been on display since Trump's first day in office this term, when he signed an executive order declaring that his administration would only recognize “two sexes, male and female," based on one's “biological classification” at birth.
The passport policy has already led to confusion, which the actress Hunter Schafer—a transgender woman—put on display in February, when she was issued a passport that identified her as male in conflict with both her appearance and other legal documents like her driver's license.
“This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, following the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday. “The Trump administration's policy is an unlawful attempt to dehumanize, humiliate, and endanger transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans, and we will continue to seek its ultimate reversal in the courts.”
"The grassroots are demanding change," said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution.
Democrats' sweeping victories in elections across the country this week may not be buying goodwill for party leadership among grassroots Democratic activists.
Progressive organizing group Our Revolution on Thursday released a survey over more than 3,500 voters showing there is overwhelming support for running primary challenges against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who for months have come under fire for failing to more aggressively combat President Donald Trump's administration.
Overall, the survey found 90% of respondents want Schumer to step aside as leader, while 92% would back a primary challenge against him when he's next up for reelection in 2028.
The survey showed less support for dumping Jeffries, although 70% said he should step aside, with 77% backing a primary challenger.
Additionally, two-thirds of respondents said that "current Democratic leaders do not understand the struggles of the working class, with confidence in party leadership remaining in the single digits."
Our Revolution also hailed New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's insurgent campaign as a successful model for Democrats across the country, as the organization said a message of "lowering the cost of living and holding corporations accountable" strongly resonated with progressive voters.
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, warned that establishment Democrats could pay the price if they try to brush off democratic socialist Mamdani's victory as a fluke.
"Mamdani’s victory was not an outlier. It was a rallying cry,” he said. “The grassroots are demanding change. They want a Democratic Party that fights for working families, taxes the rich, and takes on Trump and the oligarchs driving this affordability crisis. The old guard must step aside or risk losing the movement that delivered these wins."
Mamdani wasn't the only candidate to successfully run on lowering the cost of living, as Democrats on Tuesday also scored upset victories by flipping two seats on the Georgia’s Public Service Commission, which is responsible for regulating utility prices in the state. In those elections, the Democrats hammered GOP incumbents for signing off on six rate increases for the state’s largest electricity provider over the past two years.