

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.

Hundreds of thousands of mostly South Asian migrant construction workers in Qatar risk serious exploitation and abuse, sometimes amounting to forced labor, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Both the government and the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) need to make sure that their commitments to respect workers' rights in preparation for the 2022 World Cup are carried out. Construction contractors should also make specific, public commitments to uphold international labor standards,.
The 146-page report, "Building a Better World Cup: Protecting Migrant Workers in Qatar Ahead of FIFA 2022," examines a recruitment and employment system that effectively traps many migrant workers in their jobs. The problems they face include exorbitant recruitment fees, which can take years to pay off, employers' routine confiscation of worker passports, and Qatar's restrictive sponsorship system that gives employers inordinate control over their employees. Workers' high debts and the restrictions they face if they want to change employers often effectively force them to accept jobs or working conditions they did not agree to in their home countries, or to continue work under conditions of abuse, Human Rights Watch found. Workers face obstacles to reporting complaints or seeking redress, and the abuses often go undetected by government authorities.
"Workers building stadiums won't benefit from Qatar's general promise to end the sponsorship system: they need a deadline for this to happen before their work for the FIFA games starts," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The government needs to ensure that the cutting edge, high-tech stadiums it's planning to build for World Cup fans are not built on the backs of abused and exploited workers."
Human Rights Watch found that Qatar has one of the most restrictive sponsorship laws in the Gulf region, as workers cannot change jobs without their employer's permission, regardless of whether they have worked two years or 20, and all workers must get their sponsoring employer to sign an "exit permit" before they can leave the country. Saudi Arabia is the only other Gulf country that retains the problematic exit permit system, while other countries now allow workers to change jobs after serving out their contract or after a two-to-three-year period with their first employer. In May, Deputy Labor Minister Hussein al-Mulla announced that Qatar may replace the sponsorship system with contracts between employers and employees, but failed to specify how these contracts could replace current immigration laws or whether workers would be entitled to switch jobs.
Qatari laws also prohibit migrant workers from unionizing or striking, though the International Labour Organization (ILO) identifies free association as a core labor right. A recent government proposal for a "worker's union" fails to meet minimum requirements for free association by restricting all decision-making positions to Qatari citizens, Human Rights Watch said.
Migrant workers comprise a staggering 94 percent of Qatar's workforce, and the country has the highest ratio of migrants to citizens in the world. The country may recruit up to a million additional migrant construction workers in the next decade to build the stadiums and infrastructure improvements Qatar promised in its bid to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup soccer tournament.
Human Rights Watch interviewed 73 migrant construction workers for the report, and met and corresponded with government officials, employers, contracting companies, recruitment agents, diplomats from labor-sending countries, and worker advocates.
Workers reported a range of problems, including unpaid wages, illegal salary deductions, crowded and unsanitary labor camps, and unsafe working conditions. All but four of the workers said they paid recruitment fees ranging between US$726 and $3,651, borrowing from private money lenders at interest rates that ranged from 3 to 5 percent per month to 100 percent interest on their debt per year.
"We don't complain because if we complain for anything, the company will punish us," Himal K., an 18-year-old construction worker from Nepal told Human Rights Watch. Most workers told Human Rights Watch they feared the consequences of complaining to their employers or to the authorities.
"If I don't pay [my debt], the bank will kick my family out from my house," said Mahmud N., a 27-year-old Bangladeshi worker who said he owed 270,000 Bangladeshi taka (US$3,298) in recruitment fees.
"The Qatar government and companies in the construction industry need to make sure that employers, not impoverished workers, are paying these recruiting fees," Whitson said. "Until the government seriously enforces its laws to make sure it is the employers who are paying these fees, and imposes serious penalties on companies that look the other way, this problem is not going to just disappear."
Human Rights Watch said most workers it interviewed had mortgaged their homes or sold off family property to obtain their jobs, and thus faced tremendous pressure to stay in their jobs regardless of the conditions. Nearly all said that their employers had confiscated their passports, and some said employers refused to return passports when requested. The ILO has identified passport confiscation as a key indicator of forced labor, particularly when combined with the threat or possibility of financial penalties, turning workers over to police, firing them, or preventing them from obtaining other employment - all common fears of construction workers in Qatar.
Dinesh P., a 20-year-old Nepali worker, said that he and 15 others employed at his company wanted to quit their jobs and return home, but that they would not do so.
"We feel like we were cheated, we didn't get the jobs we were expecting," he said. Because they could not change jobs without their sponsor's permission, he and his colleagues had to decide between forfeiting their employment and continuing under conditions to which they said they had not agreed.
"I have this loan so I'll end up staying," he said.
In a letter to Human Rights Watch, Labor Ministry officials stated that "the Ministry has received no complaint of forced labor and it is inconceivable that such a thing exists in Qatar, as the worker may break his contract and return to his country whenever he wishes and the employer cannot force him to remain in the country against his will."
"It's deeply disturbing that the Labor Ministry denies the problem of forced labor, when Qatar's laws and employment practices enable this very type of situation," Whitson said. "When you have thousands of workers who are scared to quit jobs and who only complain as a last resort, it's past time to face up to the problem."
A number of the key actors in the 2022 World Cup preparations have made public promises to uphold worker's rights, but have not yet made the specific public commitments that Human Rights Watch has urged. The local organizing committee for the tournament, the Supreme Committee for Qatar 2022, as well as the company it appointed to help it oversee World Cup construction, CH2M HILL, has said they will establish labor standards that builders and other contractors hired to build World Cup venues must meet. In correspondence with Human Rights Watch, they also said they are considering using mandatory contract language to set out these requirements. FIFA has pledged to raise worker rights issues with the government of Qatar.
Those commitments are a beginning, Human Rights Watch said, but additional steps are needed. FIFA should urge the Supreme Committee for Qatar 2022, the official body formed to manage the 2022 World Cup, to require private contractors involved in World Cup-related construction to set minimum employee standards in line with Qatari law and international labor standards. Any minimum standards the Supreme Committee sets for contractors should strictly prohibit confiscation of workers' passports and require that contractors take all possible steps to ensure that workers do not pay recruiting fees or reimburse workers who do pay them. The Supreme Committee should also engageindependent labor monitors to publicly report on contractors' compliance with Qatari law and international labor standards, Human Rights Watch said. The group also called on private contractors to publicly commit to protect the rights of all workers associated with their projects, including in relation to recruitment fees and worker passports.
"The Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee has said that it plans to conform to or surpass international labor standards through labor policies," Whitson said. "What the international community needs to hear are specific, public, and enforceable commitments from them and the construction companies. FIFA should also push for such action, given its public promise to promote labor rights in Qatar."
The report addresses concerns about worker safety in Qatar's construction industry. It highlights disturbing discrepancies between the number of construction worker deaths reported by local embassies and the number reported by the government. For example, the Nepali embassy reported 191 Nepali worker deaths in 2010, and the Indian embassy reported 98 Indian migrant deaths, including 45 deaths of young, low-income workers due to cardiac arrest, thus far in 2012. An Indian embassy spokesperson told local media that heat stroke likely contributed to this unusual rate of heart failure.
Yet in a letter to Human Rights Watch, Labor Ministry officials stated that, "Over the last three years, there have been no more than six cases of worker deaths. The causes are falls." The lack of any requirement for companies to regularly publish data on worker deaths and injuries contributes to this lack of transparency and information, Human Rights Watch said.
"How can Qatar confidently green-light such massive construction projects when they don't even know with any confidence the rate of worker deaths and injuries in the country?" Whitson said. "A very basic starting point is for the government to investigate and publish exact and detailed data on where, how, and how many workers have died or suffered injuries in the country."
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.
"These investments are complicit in genocide: They are killing our culture, our history, and destroying the biodiversity of the Amazon.”
A day after the Brazilian state-run oil firm Petrobras announced it would begin drilling for oil near the mouth of the Amazon River "immediately" after obtaining a license despite concerns over the impact on wildlife, an analysis on Tuesday revealed that banks have added $2 billion in direct financing for oil and gas in the biodiverse Amazon Rainforest since 2024.
The report from Stand.earth—and Petrobras' license—come weeks before officials in Belém, Brazil prepare to host the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), where advocates are calling for an investment of $1.3 trillion per year for developing countries to mitigate and adapt to the climate emergency.
Examining 843 deals involving 330 banks, Stand.earth found that US banks JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citi are among the worst-performing institutions, pouring between $283 million and $326 million into oil and gas in the Amazon.
The biggest spender on oil and gas in the past year has been Itaú Unibanco, the Brazilian bank, which has sent $378 million in financing to oil and gas firms for extractive activities in the Amazon.
"Oil and gas expansion in the Amazon endangers one of the world’s most vital ecosystems and Indigenous peoples who have protected it for millennia," said Stand.earth. "In addition to fossil fuels leading global greenhouse gas emissions, in the Amazon their extraction also accelerates deforestation, and pollutes rivers and communities."
The group's research found that banks have directly financed more than $15 billion to oil and gas companies in the Amazon region since the Paris Agreement, the legally binding climate accord, was adopted in 2016. Nearly 75% of the investment has come from just 10 firms, including Itaú, JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America.
The analysis comes weeks after the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance said it was suspending its operations, following decisions by several large banks to leave the alliance that was established in 2021 to limit banks' environmental footprint, achieve net-zero emissions in the sector by 2050, and set five-year goals for reducing the institutions' financing of emissions.
"Around 1,700 Indigenous people live here, and our survival depends on the forest. We ask that banks such as Itaú, Santander, and Banco do Nordeste stop financing companies that exploit fossil fuels in Indigenous territories."
Devyani Singh, lead researcher for Stand.earth's new bank scorecard on fossil fuel financing, noted that European banks like BNP Paribas and HSBC have "applied more robust policies to protect the sensitive Amazon rainforest than their peers" and have "significantly dropped in financing ranks."
But, said Singh, "no bank has yet brought its financing to zero. Every one of these banks must close the existing loopholes and fully exit Amazon oil and gas without delay.”
More than 80% of the banks' Amazon fossil fuel financing since 2024 has gone to just six oil and gas companies: Petrobras, Canada's Gran Tierra, Brazil's Eneva, oil trader Gunvor, and two Peruvian companies: Hunt Oil Peru and Pluspetrol Camisea.
The companies have been associated with human rights violations and have long been resisted by Indigenous people in the Amazon region, who have suffered from health impacts of projects like the Camisea gas project, a decline in fish and game stocks, and a lack of clean water.
“It’s outrageous that Bank of America, Scotiabank, Credicorp, and Itaú are increasing their financing of oil and gas in the Amazon at a time when the forest itself is under grave threat," said Olivia Bisa, president of the Autonomous Territorial Government of the Chapra Nation in Peru. "For decades, Indigenous Peoples have suffered the heaviest impacts of this destruction. We are calling on banks to change course now: by ending support for extractive industries in the Amazon, they can help protect the forest that sustains our lives and the future of the planet.”
Stand.earth's report warned that both the Amazon Rainforest—which provides a habitat for 10% of Earth's biodiversity, including many endangered species—and the people who live there are facing "escalating threats" from oil and gas companies and the firms that finance them, with centuries of exploitation driving the forest "toward an ecological tipping point with irreversible impacts that have global consequences."
Oil and gas exploration is opening roads into intact parts of the Amazon and other forests, while perpetuating the new fossil fuel emissions that scientists and energy experts have warned have no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating.
"With warming temperatures, the delicate ecological balance of the Amazon could be upset, flipping it from being a carbon-absorbing rainforest into a carbon-emitting savannah," reads the group's report.
Jonas Mura, chief of the Gavião Real Indigenous Territory in Brazil, said "the noise, the constant truck traffic, and the explosions" from Eneva's projects "have driven away the animals and affected our hunting."
"Even worse: they are entering without our consent," said Mura. "Our territory feels threatened, and our families are being directly harmed. Around 1,700 Indigenous people live here, and our survival depends on the forest. We ask that banks such as Itaú, Santander, and Banco do Nordeste stop financing companies that exploit fossil fuels in Indigenous territories."
"These companies have no commitment to the environment, to Indigenous and traditional peoples, or to the future of the planet," he added. "These investments are complicit in genocide: They are killing our culture, our history, and destroying the biodiversity of the Amazon.”
"The Trump administration's extremely short-sighted effort to gut the Fish and Wildlife Service will throw gasoline on the raging fire that is the extinction crisis," said one conservation advocate.
Court documents released Monday show that the Trump administration is exploiting the ongoing government shutdown to pursue mass firings at the US Fish and Wildlife Service amid the nation's worsening extinction crisis.
The new filings came as part of a legal fight between the administration and federal worker unions, which took emergency action earlier this month to stop the latest wave of terminations.
While the unions secured a victory last week in the form of a temporary restraining order against the new firings, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court has repeatedly proven willing to permit large-scale job cuts that labor unions and legal experts say are patently illegal and dangerous.
Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Monday that the newly revealed administration push to terminate dozens of staffers at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is "really sad and troubling." The court filings show that the administration has proposed eliminating positions at the FWS Migratory Birds Program, Office of Conservation Investment, Fish and Aquatic Conservation, National Wildlife Refuge System, and other areas.
"The Trump administration's extremely short-sighted effort to gut the Fish and Wildlife Service will throw gasoline on the raging fire that is the extinction crisis," said Zuardo. "We've lost 3 billion birds since 1970, yet the administration is slashing funding for migratory birds. It's incredibly cynical to cut programs that help struggling fish and other aquatic animals and assist landowners in conserving endangered species habitats."
The latest firing push is part of the Trump administration's sweeping effort to terminate thousands of jobs at the US Interior Department, which oversees FWS.
The attempted terminations come months after the Trump administration issued a proposal that would eviscerate habitat protections for endangered species in the United States—a push that closely aligns with the far-right Project 2025 agenda. More than 150,000 Americans used the public comment process to express opposition to the Trump administration's plan.
The Center for Biological Diversity said Monday that the proposed mass elimination of jobs at FWS would "deliver devastating blows to programs put in place to protect, restore, and conserve bird populations and their habitats."
"Court disclosures also report severe cuts to additional agencies including the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Geological Survey, and others," the group noted.
One congresswoman pointed out that "she does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email."
Congressional Democrats were among the critics taking aim at US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Monday for the Louisiana Republican's "genuinely insane" remarks on his refusal to swear in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona.
Twenty days into a federal government shutdown that resulted from Republicans' fight for healthcare cuts set to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans, Johnson said he would administer the oath of office to Grijalva, "I hope, on the first day we come back."
"Instead of doing TikTok videos, she should be serving her constituents," Johnson added. "She could be taking their calls. She could be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government."
Another Democrat elected to represent Arizonans, Congressman Greg Stanton, fired back at the speaker: "How pathetic. Mike Johnson is now blaming Adelita Grijalva for not doing her job. Quit taking orders from Trump and swear her in now."
Grijalva won the special election for her late father's seat last month, pre-shutdown. Johnson could have swiftly administered the oath of office, and despite the shutdown, he can still do so. He has denied that he has intentionally delayed swearing her in to push off a vote on releasing files about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of President Donald Trump—but many critics don't believe him.
Responding to the speaker on Monday, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: "Republicans refuse to swear in an elected member of Congress. Why? They are covering up the Epstein files."
As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatens legal action over the delay—with a filing expected this week—Grijalva, Democratic lawmakers, and others have used various social media platforms to call out Johnson.
In one such video, posted online last week, Grijalva speaks with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), the newest member of the House, about how he was sworn in just a day after winning his special election, like two of his GOP colleagues.
As viewers of Grijalva's videos know, she finally got access to her office on Capitol Hill last week, but her ability to functionally serve constituents remains limited.
Pointing to similar comments that the House speaker made last week on CNN, Congresswoman Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.) explained Monday: "Unlike Mike Johnson, I actually spoke to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva this week. She does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email to receive news like the rest of Congress. Why? Because until Johnson swears her in, she is not a member of Congress."
Podcaster and writer Matthew Sitman is among those highlighting how this is bigger than Grijalva. He said: "I really don't think it's possible to make a big enough deal of this. If it's accepted that this quisling has absolute, unilateral power to decide when, or even if, to swear in duly elected representatives, they will further abuse that power—why not refuse other Democrats?"
Writer Nick Field similarly wondered, "So why do we think Donald Trump and Mike Johnson will accept the results and seat new House members if they lose the majority in next year's midterms?"