

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.

Saudi Arabia should abolish the Specialized Criminal Court, set up in 2008 to try terrorism cases, but increasingly used to try peaceful dissidents and rights activists on politicized charges and in proceedings that violate the right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said today. In April, it sentenced two people to prison for their peaceful activism, and the trials of at least four others are ongoing, in violation of their rights to freedom of expression.
"Trying Saudi political activists as terrorists merely because they question abuses of government power demonstrates the lengths the Saudi government will go to suppress dissent," said Christoph Wilcke, senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch. "The trial of peaceful reformers in a terrorism court underlines the political nature of this court."
The charges against the rights activist and the dissident do not allege that they used or propagated violence.
On April 10, 2012, Judge Abd al-Latif al-Abd al-Latif sentenced Muhammad al-Bajadi to four years in prison and banned him from foreign travel for another five years. The court charged al-Bajadi, who has been on a hunger strike since March 11, with unlawfully establishing a human rights organization; distorting the state's reputation in media; impugning judicial independence; instigating relatives of political detainees to demonstrate and protest; and possessing censored books.
On April 11, 2012, the court also sentenced Yusuf al-Ahmad, an academic and cleric, to five months in prison for "incitement against the ruler, stoking divisions, harming the national fabric, diminishing the prestige of the state and its security and judicial institutions, and producing, storing, and publishing on the internet things that can disturb public order."
On July 7, al-Ahmad published a video on his Twitter account in which he called on King Abdullah to release arbitrarily detained persons. Security forces arrested him the next day. Domestic intelligence agents arrested al-Bajadi on March 20, when several dozen families of detainees had gathered in front of the Interior Ministry in Riyadh to press officials for the release of their relatives, some of whom had been detained for seven or more years without trial. Al-Bajadi is a founding member of the Saudi Association for Civil and Political Rights (ACPRA), which the government has not licensed.
On February 22, 2012, the Specialized Criminal Court began the trial of Khalid al-Juhani, who spoke to international journalists on the designated Saudi Day of Rage of March 11, 2011, to which only a handful of protesters showed up, in part because of heavy police presence. The Interior Ministry, on March 5, 2011, reiterated its ban on public protests. Al-Juhani demanded democracy and freedom of speech in his interview with the BBC, and was immediately arrested and has been detained ever since. He is charged with being present at the place of a prohibited demonstration; distorting the kingdom's reputation; and being in touch with Sa'd al-Faqih, a Saudi dissident abroad, according to a person familiar with the case who said officials designated the charge sheet "secret." His second trial session is due to be held at the end of April.
"Given their experience with the real harm caused by terrorist attacks, one would expect Saudi authorities to know the difference between peaceful political speech and acts of violence," Wilcke said.
Also in February, the court stopped the trial of Sa'id bin Zu'air, a former university professor arrested in 2007, begun about two months earlier, for a long list of charges related to the religious and political positions he had supposedly publicly adopted. A relative of bin Zu'air told Human Rights Watch that the prosecution could not substantiate its claims, which he said were based on statements by fellow prisoners. This is the only time to Human Rights Watch's knowledge that the court has not convicted a defendant accused before it of crimes related to peaceful expression. Bin Zu'air was released in February.
In December 2011, the court began the trial of Mubarak bin Zu'air, a lawyer and Sa'id's son, for "encumbering" the affairs of the ruler, not complying with rules and regulations, attending an unlicensed gathering, spreading sedition, and not obeying religious scholars. Mubarak's arrest came on March 20, 2011, as he was driving to the Interior Ministry to persuade a small crowd gathered there to meet officials to disperse. Mubarak, as the leader of a group of relatives of long-term detainees, had met Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, assistant minister of interior for security affairs, one day earlier to discuss the release or speedy and fair trial of their relatives, and was on his way to deliver Prince bin Nayef's promises of releases and trials.
Mubarak was released on bail in February 2012, but his trial continues. The same relative told Human Rights Watch, however, that a royal decree had ordered trials of peaceful dissidents to be transferred to regular Sharia (Islamic law) courts away from the Specialized Criminal Court, and that this had occurred with Mubarak's case.
This order, if it exists, is not being consistently followed, Human Rights Watch said. For example, in March and April, three trials of peaceful dissidents began before the Specialized Criminal Court. Mikhlif al-Shammari is being tried on seven charges: attempting to distort the reputation of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in foreign public opinion and belonging to suspicious organizations; producing and sending things that can disturb public order and religious values through the internet; stoking divisions and inciting public opinion against various public institutions of the country; doubting and impugning the fairness and integrity of officials in government agencies without sound proof; defaming instructions of religious scholars and describing them as calling for fragmentation, hatred, and takfir (declaring a Muslim an unbeliever) in international television; using his writings, which he claims to be nationalistic, for gain for himself and his tribe and using them to put pressure on the rulers of the country; and lying about belonging to the Human Rights Commission in the Eastern Province. The evidence the prosecution listed for these charges consisted entirely of al-Shammari's published articles or media interviews, and no claim was made that they incited violence, according to a copy of the charge sheet on file with Human Rights Watch.
Security forces arrested al-Shammari in June 2010, and held him in pretrial detention, initially on the charge of "annoying others," before his release on bail in February 2012. He received the new charges at his first trial date in March.
In April 2012, the trials against Fadhil al-Manasif, a human rights activist, and Fadhil al-Sulaiman, a religious activist, also began before the Specialized Criminal Court. Al-Sulaiman was arrested in March 2011, for participating in two protests in the Eastern Province's city of Hofuf where he spoke to the assembled crowd (his defense lawyers claim the prosecution confused the protests - they say he protested at the first, for which the local governor issued an amnesty, and tried to prevent the second).
Continued protests, since February 2011, in the heavily Shia Muslim-inhabited Eastern Province, have called for an end to religious discrimination and equal rights with the Sunni Muslim majority. Al-Sulaiman is now also charged with resisting arrest and breaking the camera of a member of the security forces at one of the protests, which he denies. Shia protesters on several occasions have tried to prevent intelligence forces in the protest crowd from filming protesters, leading a suspected member of the intelligence forces to draw a gun, shoot, and injure three protesters in a peaceful march in Qatif, another Eastern Province city, in March 2011, according to eyewitnesses Human Rights Watch spoke to at the time. Shia activists in Qatif told Human Rights Watch that security forces had made arrests of protesters based on their identification through film material.
Al-Manasif is charged with a long string of nonviolent political offenses, including withdrawing allegiance to the rule, stoking divisions (among the people), inciting public opinion against the state, and disturbing public order by participating in marches. Al-Manasif is also accused of supporting a person on a government-issued list of persons in the Eastern Province wanted for their alleged involvement in riots.
Al-Manasif was arrested on October 2, 2011, but the Interior Ministry published its list of 23 Shia men wanted for alleged acts of violence in relation to the protests only in January 2012. In response, several of the wanted men published detailed accounts online denying the Interior Ministry's allegations against them.
Al-Manasif's arrest came after he attempted to speak with the police in Qatif about their detention of two elderly persons, whose sons were wanted for participation in protests. When one of the elderly men collapsed, al-Manasif followed by car the ambulance taking the man to the hospital, and was stopped and arrested at a checkpoint.
"The charges against these peaceful critics are vague, overbroad, and of a political nature," Wilcke said. "By putting the rulers beyond any form of criticism the charges only serve to underline the lack of tolerance of political dissent."
Proceedings at the Specialized Criminal Court also violated the right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said. The Specialized Criminal Court was established in 2008 by the Supreme Judicial Council to try thousands of terrorism suspects, many of whom had languished in the kingdom's domestic intelligence jails for years without charge, trial, or prospect of release. It has no statute or other law setting up the court or specifying its jurisdiction that has been made public. Judges are individually selected to sit on a panel constituting the court, housed on one floor of the central Riyadh General Court, but sometimes also travel to other destinations such as Jeddah for hearings.
Saudi Arabia has no written criminal law and prosecutors and judges are free to criminalize any act in accordance with their own interpretation of precepts of Islamic law. The lack of clear and predictable criminal law violates international human rights principles prohibiting arbitrary arrest and guaranteeing fair trials, Human Rights Watch said. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be held guilty of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed." International human rights standards also prohibit the criminalization of speech that does not directly incite violence.
Furthermore, defendants do not have adequate means to defend themselves. All defendants were initially kept in incommunicado detention and were unable to meet with their lawyers before the start of a trial. Al-Bajadi wrote in a signed letter, which ACPRA said it received from him in prison, that Judge Abd al-Latif al-Abd al-Latif repeatedly prevented him from appointing a lawyer of his choice.
In August 2011, ACPRA members tried to attend the SCC trial of al-Bajadi, but they initially did not find the court, which was located in an unmarked villa in the Ubhur suburb north of Jeddah. When they arrived, the ACPRA members showed the court their legal power of attorney for the defense of al-Bajadi, but a clerk informed them that the judge refused to recognize their notarized document, claiming instead that al-Bajadi wanted to defend himself. In a telephone call the next day from prison, al-Bajadi informed ACPRA co-founder Muhammad al-Qahtani that he had been sitting blindfolded in a windowless truck outside the court and was not informed that his defense lawyers had come 1,000 kilometers from Riyadh to represent him.
Mubarak bin Zu'air, speaking to Human Rights Watch from his prison cell, said that he was not informed in advance of the start of his trial in December 2011 or of the charges he faced. In court, he said the judge also prevented him from appointing his defense counsel.
The trial of Abd al-'Aziz al-Wuhaibi, another ACPRA member arrested in February 2011, was held entirely behind closed doors, with the judge denying al-Wuhaibi the right to seek legal assistance to defend himself against politicized charges of disobeying the ruler for attempting to set up the first political party in the kingdom, in February 2011. The court did not supply al-Wuhaibi with a written verdict when he was sentenced to eight years in prison in September 2011. Al-Wuhaibi suffered a mental breakdown and is currently in a military hospital, according to a relative and two persons close to the family.
"If the trials were fair, there would be no reason to close them to the public," Wilcke said. "But it seems like the authorities are trying to obscure their injustices by hiding the courts, trial dates, and defendants from public view."
Lawyers were in attendance for the initial trial sessions of Fadhil al-Sulaiman and Khalid al-Juhani, lawyers and relatives told Human Rights Watch.
Articles 4 and 70 of the Saudi Law of Criminal Procedure guarantee the accused the right to seek a lawyer at all stages of investigation and trial, and prohibit officials from restricting access to the lawyer. Saudi Arabia is a party to the Arab Charter of Human Rights whose article 16(d) also guarantees that right. Article 13 of the Charter guarantees the right to a fair trial. The Charter furthermore guarantees the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly (articles 26, 27, and 29).
Human Rights Watch opposes all special courts for so-called national security crimes because they frequently try peaceful dissidents on politicized charges and in unfair proceedings.
A number of other dissidents have remained in detention for prolonged periods without referral to court, in violation of article 114 of the Law of Criminal Procedure, which mandates the release of a defendant unless the trial begins within six months of detention.
Tawfiq al-'Amir, a Shia activist, was arrested in August 2011 for calling for a constitutional monarchy. On April 17, 2012, Nadhir al-Majid completed one year in pretrial detention on charges of corresponding with a foreign journalist, taking part in demonstrations, and vague charges related to his published writings critical of Shia religious doctrine over the past seven years, according to al-Majid's wife. His trial has not yet begun.
On March 4, security forces arrested Muhammad al-Wad'ani as he protested silently, holding up a placard at a Riyadh mosque. In a late February YouTube video, al-Wad'ani had spoken about his demands for democracy and an end to the rule of the Saud family. No further information about his fate was available.
"It is time Saudi Arabia stopped politicized persecution of peaceful dissidents through the courts and respected its own laws on court proceedings and international human rights obligations," Wilcke said.
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.
"The oil industry's allies in Congress are ignoring public opinion and the undeniable realities of the climate crisis by moving to drill on the sacred Coastal Plain and endanger the freedom of local communities."
Indigenous leaders joined with climate and wildlife defenders on Friday to blast President Donald Trump's administration and Republicans in Congress over the newly announced fossil fuel lease sale for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's Coastal Plain in Alaska.
The US Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management revealed Friday that it will hold the first of four legally mandated lease sales on June 5. The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed last summer—requires BLM to hold the other three sales by 2035.
ANWR's Coastal Plain spans over 1.5 million acres and is known for its biodiversity. As a BLM webpage details, it is also believed to contain 4.25-11.8 billion barrels of "technically recoverable oil," according to US Geological Survey estimates.
Trump returned to the White House last year backed by Big Oil's campaign cash, and his deputy interior secretary, Kate MacGregor, said Friday that "after three acts of Congress and several successful lawsuits making it abundantly clear that oil and gas leasing in this area of Alaska is lawful, it is a great honor to once again announce another Coastal Plain lease sale."
MacGregor framed the forthcoming sale as just one piece of the administration's pro-fossil fuel agenda, adding that "President Trump has long supported Alaska's important contribution to American energy dominance, and Interior is proud to take the necessary and durable steps to unleash these important resources on behalf of the American people."
Earlier attempts to open up ANWR to drilling suggest that the sale may not draw much industry interest. Taxpayers for Common Sense pointed out Friday that two previous ones required by the Trump GOP's Tax Cut and Jobs Act "were originally estimated to bring taxpayers almost $1 billion in revenue but fell far short of this projection. The first lease sale, held in January 2021, brought in just $16.5 million. The second lease sale, held in January 2025, attracted no bidders and generated no revenue."
However, as the Anchorage Daily News reported, the plan for the next sale "comes on the heels of another recent lease sale, in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to the west of the refuge, that drew heavy interest from oil companies," which "raises questions about how much bidding might occur in the refuge," particularly as Trump's war on Iran has driven up global oil prices.
Still, critics highlighted the previous ANWR sales—including the Wilderness Society's Alaska senior manager, Meda DeWitt, who said: "Once again, the oil industry's allies in Congress are ignoring public opinion and the undeniable realities of the climate crisis by moving to drill on the sacred Coastal Plain and endanger the freedom of local communities to sustain their cultures and lifestyles for generations to come."
"Two previous lease sales have already been economic failures, proving that the absurd Arctic Refuge leasing program should be eliminated and permanent protection must be provided for the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd," DeWitt argued.
The Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of the American National Wildlife Refuge System – opening it up to drilling endangers the wildlife and the indigenous communities who have called the refuge their home for thousands of years.
— Senate Energy Dems (@energydems.senate.gov) April 17, 2026 at 1:24 PM
America Fitzpatrick of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) similarly said that "time and again, the American people have said that they oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The last lease sale in 2024 yielded no bids. Drilling here is not only bad economic—it's reckless and wildly unpopular. Instead of further handcuffing us to be more dependent on fossil fuels, the administration should focus on prioritizing cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable energy sources like clean energy."
"We simply cannot drill our way out of high energy costs," declared Fitzpatrick, the group's conservation program director. "The US is already producing more oil and gas than ever before, but when Trump forced a global energy crisis, prices skyrocketed once again. LCV stands with the Gwich'in people in their fight to ensure there is no drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Not now, not ever."
The Gwich'in, Indigenous people who live in Alaska and Canada, have long defended the refuge from fossil fuel intrusion, and are currently engaged in litigation over the Trump Interior Department's leasing program for the Coastal Plain.
"The Neets'ąįį Gwich'in have made our position clear that any development on the Coastal Plain would have irreversible, adverse effects on our people, our culture, and our way of life," Raeann Garnett, first chief of the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, said Friday. "This lease sale, once again, disregards our sovereignty and is a direct threat to the sacred land that sustains our people."
Karlas Norman, first chief of the Venetie Village Council, stressed that "no amount of money will make this land any less sacred to our people or any less vital to our way of life. The Trump administration's most recent actions to advance oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain does not change the fact that this land is sacred, that industry has walked away, and that the Gwich'in people will never stop fighting to protect it."
Galen Gilbert, first chief of the Arctic Village Council, charged that "the Trump administration's relentless push to auction off this sacred land despite overwhelming public opposition and industry that has already signaled they are not interested, makes clear that this administration values corporate interests over the rights and lives of Indigenous peoples."
Gilbert also vowed that "we will continue to fight with every tool available to protect the Coastal Plain for our children and all future generations."
Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, also pledged that "the Gwich’in Nation remains committed to be a voice for the caribou, and to fight oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge."
"We condemn these efforts by the Trump administration to exploit the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd for short-term gain, and we know that the majority of Americans stand beside us in opposing development in this cherished and irreplaceable landscape," Moreland continued. "We have been raising our voices and fight[ing] for the protection of this sacred land and our way of life for decades—and we are not backing down now."
Also noting the US public's position, Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at Alaska Wilderness League, put pressure on the industry to stay away from the lease sale later this spring.
"For decades, the American people have recognized that the Arctic Refuge is not an industrial zone for oil development, and this sale simply runs counter to common sense," said Moderow. "Any oil and gas company that is even thinking about buying these leases should know that, if they do, they will be sending a clear message to the American people—that no place in Alaska is too sacred to drill in a quest for corporate profits. We urge companies to take a pass on the Arctic Refuge lease sale, and we look forward to rightfully restoring protections for this landscape in the years to come."
According to the Anchorage Daily News, "Elizabeth Manning, a spokesperson with Earthjustice, said in an email Friday that any new leases will be subject to a lawsuit brought by Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the Earth."
“Such corporate impunity would twist the knife of the climate crisis that is already directly harming people across the country," said one campaigner.
Green groups warned Friday that Big Oil-backed Republican legislation would give fossil fuel companies immunity from laws or lawsuits aimed at holding them accountable for their role in causing the climate emergency.
On Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced a bill co-sponsored by Sens. Ted Budd (R-NC), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) that, if passed, would "prohibit liability against those engaged in the mining, extraction, production, refinement, transportation, distribution, marketing, manufacture, or sale of energy for damages or injunctive or other relief from the use of their products, and for other purposes."
Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) on Friday introduced the House version of the legislation, dubbed the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026, "to protect American energy from leftist legal crusades punishing lawful activity," as her office put it.
🚨After months of fossil fuel industry lobbying, Republican lawmakers have introduced federal legislation that would give oil and gas companies immunity from any laws or lawsuits that aim to hold them accountable for their role in the climate crisis. Time to get loud: 📣 NO IMMUNITY FOR BIG OIL 📣
[image or embed]
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climateintegrity.org) April 17, 2026 at 12:30 PM
If passed, the legislation would ban retroactive climate liability lawsuits, dismiss any such litigation pending upon the law's enactment, void all state energy penalty laws, and affirm that the federal government maintains exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and other interstate environmental standards.
Other Republican-controlled states including Tennesseee and Utah have recently passed such legislation, and others—including Iowa, Louisiana, and Oklahoma—have introduced similar bills.
“This blatant championing of some of the world’s largest polluters shows how far certain elected officials will go to undermine democratic policymaking and deny people and communities access to justice," Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Friday.
"No company should be above the law, especially those that planned, funded, and continue to engage in a coordinated decadeslong campaign to protect their profits by deceiving the public and blocking climate action," Mulvey continued.
"Such corporate impunity would twist the knife of the climate crisis that is already directly harming people across the country," she added. "Congress must not capitulate to wealthy special interests. Communities deserve the right to hold polluters accountable for the deadly and costly harms they are causing.”
Former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said in a statement that “every elected official who cares about the interests of their constituents more than those of corporate polluters should oppose this disgraceful proposal."
"Juries are a fundamental bastion of democracy, and it’s beyond dangerous to allow powerful and wealthy corporations to shield themselves from ever having to face jurors’ judgment," he added.
The Center for Climate Integrity said the bill "would put Big Oil above the law."
“Big Oil companies have raked in massive profits at the pump while lying to the American people about the catastrophic harm of their products, and now they want to deny Americans their rightful day in court and stick taxpayers with the bill for the mess they made," Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles said Friday. "If fossil fuel companies have done nothing wrong, why do they need immunity?”
While these and other climate advocates denounced the bill, their congressional sponsors—and those lawmakers' fossil fuel industry campaign donors—applauded its introduction.
“Energy security is national security, and we will not self-sabotage our critical industries with a cascade of costly lawsuits and extreme penalties that jeopardize American drilling,” Hageman said in a statement. “America’s energy producers should be protected from the dangerous legal precedent that would be set by the retroactive punishment of lawful activity.”
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers president and CEO Chet Thompson and American Petroleum Institute president and CEO Mike Sommers said in a joint statement, "We thank Sen. Cruz and Rep. Hageman for introducing legislation to stop a growing patchwork of state laws and lawsuits that threaten American energy and risk raising costs for consumers.”
“These efforts to retroactively penalize companies for lawfully meeting consumer demand are misguided and counterproductive," the lobbyists added. "Congress should act decisively to reaffirm federal authority over national energy policy and end this activist-driven state overreach.”
Eleven states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—along with the District of Columbia and dozens of city, county, and tribal governments have ongoing lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for lying to the public about their products’ role in causing and worsening climate change.
On Friday, the right-wing US Supreme Court unanimously issued an important procedural ruling that certain environmental damage lawsuits—in this case, one challenging Chevron's destruction of coastal wetlands in Louisiana—can be moved from state to generally friendlier federal courts. This, after a jury in Plaquemines Parish ordered Chevron and two other companies to pay $744 million in damages for harming coastal wetlands, a verdict that was appealed.
The US Supreme Court's decision came as its justices prepare to hear Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case in which the plaintiffs—three Suncor entities and ExxonMobil—are seeking to relocate a climate damages lawsuit from Colorado to federal court.
Big Oil-backed efforts to relocate cases to friendlier forums come amid wins for climate defenders, most notably Held v. Montana, a historic 2024 state court ruling in favor of youth-led plaintiffs based on the Montana Constitution's right to "a clean and healthful environment."
"While others open wounds, we want to mend them and cure them," said Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.
Arriving in Spain on Friday for a two-day visit that will center on a gathering of progressive leaders from more than 100 political parties across five continents, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva emphasized that the summit was not "an anti-Trump meeting."
But the contrast between US President Donald Trump's violent foreign and domestic policies and the international meeting, which will focus on wage inequality and electoral strategy for progressives, was unmistakable as Spanish President Pedro Sánchez opened the gathering at a press conference in Barcelona on Friday.
"We want to double our efforts to work for peace and for a reinforced multilateral order. While others open wounds, we want to mend them and cure them,” said Sánchez.
Da Silva—who is commonly called Lula—and Sánchez, as well as other leaders who will be attending the weekend event, have spoken out forcefully against Trump's policies and the rise of the far right in the US, Germany, Italy, and other European countries.
Sánchez has refused to allow US fighter planes to use Spanish military bases for missions in the US-Israeli war on Iran and closed the country's airspace to American military aircraft—plus doubled down on his condemnation of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war even after the US president threatened Spain with a trade embargo.
Lula expressed solidarity with Pope Leo this week after the pontiff denounced the Iran war, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who will also attend the meeting, took aim last month at Trump's claim that her country is the "epicenter of cartel violence"—blaming the US for the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico.
Lula emphasized that the 3,000 attendees of the summit, which will include the IV Meeting in Defense of Democracy as well as a gathering called the Global Progressive Mobilization on Saturday, will "discuss the state of democracy, to see what went wrong and what we have to do to repair it."
The Brazilian president added that "Brazil and Spain are side by side in the trenches together."
“We are an example that it is possible to find solutions to problems without giving into the empty promises of extremism," said Lula. "Democracy must go beyond just voting and bring real benefits to people’s lives.”
Sánchez added that "in a world that doubts and fragments, Spain and Brazil open a new chapter convinced that our countries have something the world needs: the strength to build bridges where others raise walls."
The Global Progressive Mobilization meeting will include roundtables dedicated to discussing economic inequality and other issues at a time when, as one report showed earlier this month, the richest 0.1% of people on the planet are stashing more than $2.8 trillion in tax havens—more than the wealth owned by the entire bottom 50% of humanity.
The economic hardships of working people have only been exacerbated by the war on Iran, which has sent global energy prices soaring.
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is the only federal US official planning to attend the gathering, while New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani—who has swiftly taken steps toward enacting a universal childcare program and announced a plan to tax second homes valued at over $5 million since taking office in January, is scheduled to participate virtually.
Also on Saturday, Lula and Sánchez will host the IV Meeting in Defense of Democracy, a summit first held in 2024 with the aim of combating "extremism, polarization, and misinformation."
European Council President António Costa, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, and leaders from Albania, Ghana, and Lithuania are among those attending the meeting on democracy.
Lula said the large number of attendees is evidence that progressive governments are winning more influence around the world despite the rise of authoritarian political parties.
"Our flock is growing. We must give hope to the world," said Lula. "Otherwise, what happened with [Nazi leader Adolf] Hitler is going to happen."
Economist Gabriel Zucman, who joined Mamdani this week in publishing an op-ed calling for an end to regressive tax systems and highlighting a proposal for a 2% tax on the wealth of those with more than €100 million, or $117 million, expressed hope that the global left is amassing power by building a cooperative international movement.
"The good news is that, from Zohran Mamdani and [Congresswoman] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York to Pedro Sánchez in Spain, from Lula in Brazil to [Green Party Leader] Zack Polanski in the UK, we may be seeing the early signs of a new cross-border alliance taking shape against global oligarchy," said Zucman. "And I have no doubt that in this fight—the defining battle of the 21st century—democracy will prevail. See you in Barcelona this weekend to press ahead!"