July, 02 2012, 10:01am EDT

Ocean-Farmed Fish, Brought to You by Monsanto and Cargill
Soy Industry Stands to Gain Hundreds of Millions Annually from Open Ocean Aquaculture
WASHINGTON and BRUSSELS
If proponents of soy in aquaculture alliance have it their way, soy will be used to feed fish in open ocean pens in federal waters, a move that would negatively impact the marine environment as well as the diets of both fish and consumers.
Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe's new report, "Factory-Fed Fish: How the Soy Industry is Expanding Into the Sea," shows how a collaboration between two of the most environmentally damaging industries on land and sea --the soy and open ocean aquaculture industries, respectively--could be devastating to ocean life and consumer health. And since much of the soy produced in the United States is genetically engineered (GE), consuming farmed fish would likely mean eating fish that are fed GE soy.
"Our seas are not Roundup ready," said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. "Soy is being promoted as a better alternative to feed made from wild fish, but this model will not help the environment, and it will transfer massive industrial farming models into our oceans and further exacerbate the havoc wreaked by the soy industry on land--including massive amounts of dangerous herbicide use and massive deforestation."
The powerful soy industry, which is well represented in Washington, D.C. and Brussels, stands to gain over $200 million (EUR160 million) each year by aggressively promoting the use of soy to feed farmed fish at a time when more and more consumers are eating seafood sourced from aquaculture or fish farms. Close to half of the seafood we consume globally comes from these factory fish farms.
Unfortunately, increased use of soy in fish feed could do greater harm to the health of fisheries by increasing the amount of soybeans grown. Like other monoculture crops, soybeans require large amounts of fertilizer for their production. Much of this fertilizer gets washed off the fields and into waterways that eventually lead to important fisheries such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Chesapeake Bay. The nitrogen and phosphorus from this fertilizer contributes to the dead zones in these fisheries, reducing the number of fish that live there and the ability of fishermen to catch them.
Relying on soy to feed farmed fish could also have devastating affects on consumer choice. In 2007, there were total of 279,110 soybean farms. A 2008 report indicated that only 1,336 soybean farms were certified organic, which do not allow the use of GE crops. This leaves a lot of room for non-organic soybean farms to produce crops from GE seeds. GE soy-fed fish would probably not need to be labeled, so consumers wouldn't know that they were eating fish fed with GE soy. Considering that Monsanto and Cargill would be big players--two agribusinesses that use GE seeds--this scenario seems likely.
While the soy industry is busy promoting soy as an environmentally friendly alternative to fish feed from wild fish, it is clear that soy is not a natural food for fish to eat, and that its use can be destructive to ocean ecosystems. Fish have a difficult time digesting it, and it causes nutrient deficiency. As a result, fish tend to produce excessive amounts of waste, which attracts disease and bacteria, and disrupts the normal ecology of the immediate marine environment.
To access the report, go to: https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/factory-fed-fish/
For any questions regarding the report, please contact Rich Bindell at 202-683-2457 or RBindell@fwwatch.org.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Are Israeli Opposition Parties 'Brave Enough' to Join Forces and End 'Blood-Soaked' Netanyahu Government?
"We have no future here if we don’t stop being afraid," said Yair Golan, the leader of the left-wing Democrats party. "We must no longer accept Netanyahu’s racist division between Jewish votes and Arab votes."
Oct 28, 2026
Israel’s opposition parties appeared to have secured enough Knesset seats in Tuesday’s elections to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from power and end a four-year reign marked by genocidal war in Gaza and escalating terror and dispossession against Palestinians in the West Bank.
But will they?
With about 86% of ballots counted as of Wednesday morning, Netanyahu's far-right religious bloc is projected to have lost about 11 seats, putting them at 53, eight shy of an outright majority.
The Jewish opposition bloc, led by Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot, is projected to win 48 seats, putting it in a position to take control. But it would likely have to cooperate with the parties representing Israel’s Arab minority, which together won a record 19 seats on Tuesday thanks to unprecedented turnout among Arab voters who braved racist incitement from the Netanyahu camp and widespread suppression tactics at the ballot box.

Ameer Fakhoury, an analyst at Israel’s Van Leer Jerusalem Institute think tank, described the mobilization of Palestinian citizens in the elections as a “truly historic development.”
"They went to the polls in extraordinary numbers to confront a political leadership responsible for what they regard as the gravest crimes against their people: devastation in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and years of persecution and intimidation at home," he told Middle East Eye.
"History has placed Palestinian citizens of Israel in an extraordinary position. Having mobilized first and foremost to protect their own people, they may now also help rescue Jewish Israelis from their country's destructive trajectory," he said.
"Bibi or Tibi"
With a limited window for the parties to negotiate a new government before another election is triggered, the Arab parties now hold leverage to press their demands.
Mansour Abbas, the leader of the smaller of the two Arab factions, Ra’am, signaled his willingness to compromise on Tuesday evening as the results emerged, saying his priority was to “bring down Benjamin Netanyahu, [Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich], and [National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir] in this election.”
Ra’am has featured in further-right governments before, previously helping to cobble together the majority that briefly allowed former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett—also part of the Eisenkot coalition—to form one in 2021. But with the current parliamentary math, Abbas’ seven seats alone would not be enough to form a majority.
The larger Arab coalition, the left-wing Joint List, has also offered to back Eisenkot’s government. Its parliamentary leader, Ahmad Tibi, has been vocal about his demands for concessions, including commitments to fight crime in Arab communities, end the demolition of unauthorized homes often built due to permit discrimination, halt racist incitement against Arab citizens, and offer a potential “political horizon” for Palestinian self-determination.
He said the choice was between "either Bibi or Tibi."
Eisenkot has likewise described “Netanyahu’s retirement from political life” as a central goal. But in an effort to court Jewish Netanyahu voters hostile to Arabs and hold together his own bloc, he ruled out working with Arab parties unless they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, accept conscription of Palestinian citizens of Israel into the Israeli military, and denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Amjad Shbita, the general secretary of Hadash, the socialist party that is the biggest faction in the Joint List, has expressed hostility to the idea that Eisenkot would get to dictate terms.
“Laying down conditions won’t work with the Joint List,” Shbita said. “We will negotiate as equals because we need each other.”
Tibi said the opposition could form a coalition “if it wants to, if it is brave enough to.”
Making things more complex is pressure from within Eisenkot's bloc. Bennett and former Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman have rejected forming a government dependent on Arab parties’ support or abstention.
Liberman has urged members of Netanyahu’s Likud party to defect and join the opposition to form a “true” right-wing government. One potential opening would be to peel away Likud hawks opposed to Netanyahu’s concessions to ultra-Orthodox parties, most notably draft exemptions for yeshiva students.“Anyone who tries to erase the voices of Arab citizens is surrendering to Netanyahu and giving up on Israel."
On the other side of the opposition, Yair Golan, the leader of the left-wing Democrats party, has urged Eisenkot to cooperate with the Arab parties and form a coalition that would decisively push Netanyahu out of power.
“Netanyahu lost. I know how to count to 120. Sixty-five is more than 55. That’s how Israeli democracy works. Period,” Golan wrote Wednesday on social media. “The reality must teach us one resounding lesson: We have no future here if we don’t stop being afraid. And if we don’t stop with the racism. We must no longer accept Netanyahu’s racist division between Jewish votes and Arab votes.”
"Anyone who tries to erase the voices of Arab citizens is surrendering to Netanyahu and giving up on Israel," he said.
Another possibility on the table is a “national unity government” that would involve a power-sharing agreement between the Netanyahu and Eisenkot factions, likely boxing out the Arabs entirely.
Eitan Tzelgov, an expert on Israeli populism and democratic backsliding at the UK's University of East Anglia, presented the choice for Eisenkot's bloc as a binary one: "govern with the Arab parties, or with Netanyahu."
"Israel is a tribal society, with cohesive right-wing tribes and a shrinking liberal tribe that will need to make a decision," he said in an email to Common Dreams. "Over the years, Netanyahu and the far right have built an ideological firewall around the Arab parties by presenting any Jewish-Arab collaboration as support for terrorism."
"The leaders of the change bloc, representing Israel’s liberal camp, now must decide if they are willing to break it," he continued. "That is the only way to bring about a U-turn from the current government’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank."
He was not optimistic about their stomach for it: “A more likely outcome at the moment,” he said, “is a split within the change bloc and collaboration of some of its components with Netanyahu, a result [US President Donald Trump] reportedly supports.”
Joint List Chair Yousef Jabareen put the stakes in plain terms: “Anyone who wants to offer a substantive and genuine alternative to Netanyahu’s blood-soaked government will have to talk to us,” he said. “It’s either the continuation of racism, the continuation of exclusion, and the continuation of supremacy, or a genuine Jewish-Arab partnership.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Led by Elon Musk, 515 Superrich People Have Donated $4.2 Billion to Super PACs for 2026 Elections
"Until something is done, like overturning the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision, the wealthy’s stranglehold on our political system will continue to tighten."
Oct 28, 2026
The "almost cartoon-villain level of political spending" by SpaceX CEO and former Trump administration adviser Elon Musk has reached a fever pitch ahead of the midterm elections, with the right-wing billionaire's donations of $445 million to super political action committees accounting for 10% of the $4.2 billion the PACs have brought in.
As an analysis released Tuesday by the government watchdog Public Citizen found, Musk has led the way in contributing huge sums to super PACs. The PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates and causes and have increasingly influenced elections following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which said the government cannot restrict political spending by corporations.
But excluding Musk, just 514 donors have contributed about $3.8 billion to super PACs this election cycle, as Republicans attempt to hold onto control of the US Senate and House of Representatives despite President Donald Trump's plummeting approval rating and his record of raising the prices of gas and other essentials with his illegal war on Iran and his tariff policy.
Altogether, the donations from the 515 contributors account for 73% of all super PAC funding from individuals, corporations, and nonprofits this election cycle, according to Public Citizen.
"The figures add to a growing body of evidence that unlimited political spending has concentrated influence over elections among a tiny number of wealthy individuals and corporations," said the organization, noting that Musk's contributions come two years after he poured nearly $300 million into the 2024 elections, boosting Trump and other Republicans and spending close to $120 million more than the next closest donor.
The report follows an earlier Public Citizen analysis that found more than 100 super PACs that have raised at least $1 million received the majority of the funding from just a single donor, collectively gathering more than $1 billion to boost the candidates of their choice.
The Senate Leadership Fund has the most donors contributing at least $1 million each, with 61 people contributing $496 million.
“When 500 donors account for more than 70% of super PAC contributions, we should be asking whose voices our political system is prioritizing.”
MAGA Inc., the super PAC affiliated with Trump, has taken $405 million from 102 contributors ahead of the crucial midterms, while the Senate Majority PAC has received $244 million from 44 people or groups.
Fifty-three donors have sent $231 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, while 31 donors have contributed $183 million to the House Majority PAC.
“Super PACs have helped create a political system where a small number of wealthy interests can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections and shape the choices voters face,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “When 500 donors account for more than 70% of super PAC contributions, we should be asking whose voices our political system is prioritizing.”
After Musk, GOP megadonors Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein have been the second-largest contributors to super PACs this year. The Uihleins own the packing company Uline, and have pushed for years for government deregulation and against labor unions.
Other top contributors include multiple dark money groups, right-wing megadonor Jeffrey Yass—a longtime funder of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-choice, and anti-public school campaigns—and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who said earlier this year that he would prefer to use artificial intelligence in his business rather than hire human workers.
As The Washington Sun reported Tuesday, dark money groups, which don't have to reveal the source of their contributions, have poured more than $392 million into the four congressional leadership PACs this year.
The Public Citizen report stresses that the hundreds of top donors to super PACs this year gave amounts of money that "most Americans could not fathom donating to a political cause."
More than 85% of the money raised by super PACs ahead of the midterms came from donors who gave at least $20,000—"nearly a quarter of the median household income," said Public Citizen.
"Until something is done, like overturning the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision," said the group, "the wealthy’s stranglehold on our political system will continue to tighten."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Growing Hunger Crisis, Trump Tells Voters They Couldn’t Even Afford a Burger at His Private Club
"Making fun of the decor at Cheesecake Factory was elitist. Bragging that the crowd wouldn't be able to afford the food at his private club is, what exactly?"
Oct 28, 2026
US President Donald Trump, whose policies have significantly driven up food costs during his second term, said at a Texas campaign rally on Tuesday that voters likely wouldn't even be able to afford "a hamburger and a small dessert" at his private Mar-a-Lago resort, remarks that came amid a worsening national hunger crisis fueled by Republican cuts to federal nutrition aid.
Trump made the comment in the context of his farcical pledge to send every American adult a $5,000 check if Republicans retain control of the US Congress in next month's midterm elections. "The problem," Trump said, "is that for $5,000 the most you'll be able to buy is a hamburger and maybe a small dessert. I'm not even sure you could buy that."
"No, don't go there," the billionaire president said of Mar-a-Lago, where he frequently hosts rich allies and donors. "That's not a good place if you're price-conscious."
Watch:
"Working people are struggling to make rent and pay for groceries, and President Trump wants to sell you a $5,000 hamburger at his private golf club. (Fries and a drink extra.)," the AFL-CIO wrote in response to the president's remarks, which drew laughter from the audience gathered in Corpus Christi.
Progressive activist Jordan Uhl noted that Trump's comments came just days after former President Barack Obama sparked right-wing furor by mocking Trump's gaudy White House renovations.
"Making fun of the decor at Cheesecake Factory was elitist," Uhl wrote on social media. "Bragging that the crowd wouldn't be able to afford the food at his private club is, what exactly?"
Trump's remarks came amid what one analyst described as a "hunger disaster unrolling before our eyes" as millions of Americans—including many children—lose federal nutrition assistance due to the Republican budget package that the president signed into law last year.
"About 2 million kids have lost SNAP since deep cuts were enacted last year," Katie Bergh, an expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, observed last week. "The ripple effects: Kids losing SNAP also lose automatic enrollment for free meals at school."
According to a recent analysis by Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) office, grocery prices have risen 2.6% since Trump signed the Republican budget legislation, and "costs of several everyday staples are rising at a faster annual pace than wages (up 3% in September 2026), including apples (7.5%), coffee (7.1%), fish (6.9%), tomatoes (6.8%), ground beef (5.4%), rice (4.3%), peanut butter (3.8%), and bread (3.3%)."
"President Trump’s policies are a key driver of these price increases," the senator's analysis observed. "His chaotic and unlawful tariffs have raised the cost of food... And President Trump’s reckless and illegal war with Iran is pushing those costs higher still, as rising transportation and fertilizer costs put additional pressure on food prices and supply."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Official Price Tag of Iran War Jumps to $47 Billion as Trump Says It Will End 'Whenever I Want It To'
The president's comments and the official cost estimate came amid reports that the US military is preparing for a new onslaught against Iran after the midterm elections.
Oct 28, 2026
US President Donald Trump told a crowd of his supporters on Tuesday that his illegal war of choice in Iran will end "whenever I want it to" as the conflict's official price tag reportedly jumped to $47 billion—a figure that independent analysts believe to be a dramatic underestimate.
"It can be over whenever I want it to be over," Trump said of the historically unpopular war during a rally in Texas, a week before the midterm elections. "But we have to have it end properly, with... a total statement [that] they will never have a nuclear weapon." (Iran has already said repeatedly that it would never develop nuclear weapons, including in the opening pages of the Obama-era agreement that Trump shredded during his first White House term.)
Trump's remarks came as The Hill reported that the federal government's official estimate of the Iran war's cost has jumped $3 billion since last month, rising to $47 billion.
"The biggest chunk of the cost is munition replacement at $29 billion," The Hill reported, citing a US Central Command estimate that the outlet obtained on Tuesday. "Nearly $12 billion is obligated for incremental costs of military action and another $6.1 billion to replace equipment losses, according to the estimate. Air Force’s support for deployed personnel, airlift, base, communication support, and transportation in theater costs $7.6 billion. The estimate does not include the cost to damaged US military bases in the Middle East."
When such damage—which has been far more extensive than the Pentagon has acknowledged publicly—and other factors are included, the price tag balloons. Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated in July that the US spent more than $103 billion in the first four months of the war, which has killed thousands of people and sent gas prices soaring.
In the US, consumers have spent an extra $146 billion on gasoline and diesel since the war's beginning in February, according to a running tracker maintained by the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Trump said Tuesday that the unauthorized war's end would come "very quick," despite evidence that his administration is preparing for yet another round of heavy bombings in Iran after the midterm elections.
"The US has told several Gulf Arab countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign after the US midterm elections," The Wall Street Journal reported late Tuesday, citing unnamed people briefed on the conversations. "The communications through diplomatic and military channels are among a growing number of indications that the US and Israel are readying to launch a new round of heavy combat operations against Iran, risking a major escalation in hopes of degrading Tehran’s strength and pushing it toward negotiations."
"US forces in the region have been restocking their munitions, and bomber aircraft and jet fighters are preparing for strikes," the Journal added. "An additional aircraft carrier strike group and Marine expeditionary unit are also poised to join an armada of roughly 20 other warships operating in the Middle East next month, although some ships could rotate out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Rats Run Away’: Facing Criminal Probe, Flávio Bolsonaro Flees Brazil to US After Loss to Lula
"This reveals the DNA of Bolsonarism," said one critic. "Bolsonarism is made of cowardice."
Oct 27, 2026
Just one day after vowing he would remain in Brazil to disprove allegations of money laundering, corruption, and other crimes, far-right Brazilian Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro followed in his disgraced father's footsteps by fleeing to the United States after losing a presidential election.
Bolsonaro, his wife Fernanda Bolsonaro, and their two daughters, ages 14 and 12, left Brazil for an unknown location in the United States, according to initial reporting by Isadora Teixeira at the Brasília-based news site Metrópoles, which was subsequently confirmed by other Brazilian and international media.
The Argentinian site Infobae reported that Bolsonaro and his family may have crossed into Argentina—which is run by his ally, far-right President Javier Milei—and then traveled to the US in a private jet. It is not known where the family went in the US.
Bolsonaro's brother, Eduardo Bolsonaro, lives in Texas while facing criminal punishment in Brazil after trying to use the Trump administration to pressure Brazilian authorities over the prosecution of his father, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who last year was convicted of conspiring to violently remain in power following leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's 2022 election win.
Flávio Bolsonaro, a 45-year-old senator representing Rio de Janeiro, was defeated by Lula in Sunday's second-round election, but refused to accept the results and groundlessly demanded an annulment. The following day, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the seizure of Bolsonaro's passport. He was supposed to have turned in the document Tuesday, but he didn't.
US President Donald Trump also cast doubt on the election's outcome, saying the contest appeared to be "rigged."
Jair Bolsonaro also fled to the United States while refusing to acknowledge his own 2022 defeat, which occurred during the administration of former President Joe Biden.
Like Trump, Bolsonaro incited a violent insurrection in his nation's capital following his loss.
Unlike Trump, Bolsonaro was held accountable for his crimes, and, in addition to a 27-year prison sentence—now being served under house arrest—is banned from running for any political office for the rest of the decade.
Now, with Trump back in the White House and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in charge at Foggy Bottom, Bolsonaro and his relatives are set to be issued US visas, a senior State Department official told The Associated Press.
The younger Bolsonaro's flight—which may have been aided by his obtaining an Italian passport in 2023—contradicts his pledge on Monday, when he said, "I have never thought about leaving the country" and "I will hand over my passports and defend myself against this travesty."
He was referring to de Morães' order to surrender his passport amid accusations of corruption, money laundering, tax evasion, and foreign currency violations.
Bolsonaro is also the subject of an inquiry pertaining to the millions of dollars he raised from a disgraced banker implicated in a massive corrupt plot to finance a biopic of Jair Bolsonaro.
The senator has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing.
Bolsonaro's flight stands in stark contrast to Lula, who spent 580 days in prison after being convicted in corruption cases stemming from the sprawling Operation Car Wash investigation.
In 2021, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court annulled Lula’s convictions on procedural grounds, ruling that the court in Curitiba lacked jurisdiction over the cases and separately finding that former judge Sergio Moro had acted with bias in one of them. The decisions restored Lula’s political rights and eligibility to run for office, paving the way for his 2022 presidential victory over Bolsonaro.
Lula responded to the senator's departure by saying, "Unfortunately, the Bolsonaro family is like that."
"Brazil is his second homeland," the president continued, accusing Bolsonaro of "bootlicking in the United States."
Secretary-General of the Brazilian Presidency Guilherme Castro Boulos ripped Bolsonaro, saying: "Leaders face things head-on! Rats run away!”
"It is a shameful thing, which should make Brazilian society as a whole reflect, especially those who supported and voted for Flávio Bolsonaro," Boulos asserted. "He slapped his supporters in the face and left them on the side of the road."
"Almost 60 million Brazilians trusted him as political leadership to run the country, and 24 hours later, he flees," he continued. "And it's no use coming up with this talk of persecution, of dictatorship. He ran away because he must."
"This reveals the DNA of Bolsonarism," Boulos added. "Bolsonarism is made of cowardice."
Erika Hilton, a member of the Chamber of Deputies—the lower house of Brazil's Legislature—representing São Paulo for the Socialism and Liberty Party, weighed in on social media, calling Bolsonaro "a traitor to the homeland."
In the United States, Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said on X that "losing an election is not grounds for asylum."
"Yet the Trump administration is giving Flávio Bolsonaro safe haven in the United States," he continued. "The Trump administration owes Congress answers on its role helping Bolsonaro flee Brazil in contravention of Brazilian law."
Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR), told Common Dreams:
Trump is now the most corrupt president in US history, raking in billions from his presidency. It's no surprise when the most powerful corrupt authoritarian government in the hemisphere uses international law designed to protect the persecuted to shield another corrupt authoritarian government from criminal prosecution. Perhaps this is what is meant by the Trump-led 'Shield of the Americas.'
Francesca Emanuele, senior international policy associate at CEPR, noted that "the United States has long served as a destination for numerous right-wing Latin American political figures who fled their home countries while facing corruption allegations, criminal investigations, or accusations of grave human rights violations, including crimes against humanity."
"The list is extensive," she added, "ranging from former presidents such as Panama’s Ricardo Martinelli and Bolivia’s Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada to dictators such as Nicaragua’s Anastasio Somoza."
Emanuele also contrasted the actions of the Bolsonaros and Lula, arguing that the latter's decision to remain in Brazil "reflected a commitment to the Brazilian people and a determination to defend his rights through the country’s own institutions, even when those institutions failed to uphold them."
"Rather than leaving Brazil," she told Common Dreams, "Lula stayed, fought to clear his name, and continued his political struggle alongside the people he sought to represent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Want Our Son's Killers Brought to Justice,' Says Mother of Alex Pretti Months After CBP Slaying
The father of the late nurse, killed during a Trump administration crackdown on immigrants in Minnesota, urged leaders at the US Department of Justice to "do your job and stop shielding Alex's killers."
Oct 27, 2026
"I'm Michael Pretti, Alex's father. Our son Alex was shot and killed by the government—federal immigration agents—on January 24, 2026."
After thanking those gathered, that's how Michael Pretti began his remarks at a Tuesday press conference in Minneapolis, just over nine months after US Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez fatally shot the 37-year-old intensive care nurse in the Minnesota city during President Donald Trump's "Operation Metro Surge."
Michael Pretti recalled his son's upbringing in the Midwest, and conversations about "cars, hiking, biking, or anything that came to our mind." His wife, Susan Pretti, who also spoke at the press conference, called their first-born child "exceptionally kind and caring," adding that he "did not tolerate bullies," "loved working with the veterans" he served as a nurse, and "had a deep sense of justice."
"We are not political activists," Susan Pretti stressed. Her husband pointed out that their son was observing the immigration crackdown: "He was peaceful... He was not protesting."
Federal immigration agents "executed" Alex Pretti, his father said. The family learned about his death from the media, and "that video haunts our family... I think it haunts many Americans."
After the agents "murdered our son," Susan Pretti said, "the federal government went on TV and lied about Alex. They tried to slander his memory to cover up their crime."
Members of the Trump administration have repeatedly tried to smear Pretti and others killed during the president's mass detention and deportation initiatives as "domestic terrorists" endangering agents on the ground, even as video footage has contradicted their claims.
Michael Pretti highlighted that "no one from the federal government has called us since" his son's killing. He also said that "even in our grief, we understand that investigations need to be done carefully and thoroughly. We know that the wheels of justice move slowly—but even then, there is cooperation and communication."
Instead of justice, the Pretti family has been subjected to "cruelty," he argued. "Do your job and stop shielding Alex's killers," he urged Dan Rosen, who serves as the US attorney for the District of Minnesota, and US Attorney General Todd Blanche, who leads the Department of Justice.
The parents, who live in Colorado, are "begging for the Department of Justice to do what is right," according to Susan Pretti. "We want to clear our son's name. We want the world to understand who Alex really was. We want our son's killers brought to justice once and for all."
In March, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, and state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans sued the Trump administration over its refusal to cooperate with state investigators probing federal immigration agents' killings of Pretti and Renee Good, both US citizens, as well as their shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan who was wounded but survived.
"The Trump administration has suggested that state prosecutors don't have jurisdiction to investigate federal officers, while Minnesota officials have said they don’t trust the federal government to investigate itself," The Associated Press noted Tuesday. "The state is still seeking the cellphones of the officers involved... and recordings of key interviews."
As The New York Times reported:
Steven L. Schleicher, a lawyer representing Mr. Pretti's parents, said the Justice Department's refusal to share basic information with the family amounted to a violation of the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act. He expressed similar sentiments in a letter he sent to Attorney General Todd Blanche in July.
Hoang Bui, a spokesman for the US attorney's office in Minnesota, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While the Prettis haven't yet sued over their son's homicide, their press conference comes after families of other victims launched cases in recent weeks. On October 1, Good's relatives filed a pair of lawsuits against the federal government and immigration officials over her killing and an alleged conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in Minnesota's Twin Cities.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot Good—the 37-year-old writer, poet, and mother—in her vehicle while she and her partner were observing ICE operations on January 7 in Minneapolis.
"What happened to her on January 7th and what has happened to far too many people in the last year is not what America is about," said her brother, Brent Ganger. "We can and must do better, and the Constitution must be the roadmap back to decency and the rule of law."
A week after those suits were filed, groups representing the family of Silverio Villegas González filed a legal claim against the Trump administration over an immigration agent's "execution-style killing" of the 38-year-old Mexican man in Illinois on September 12, 2025.
"We are united by the same pain that every family who has been impacted by this inhumane immigration system faces," his relatives said. "A year has not erased or diminished the ache we feel in his absence. Our family demands justice for Silverio, and we hope that those responsible for his death are held accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Press Trump USDA Over Aid Cuts as Seniors 'Struggle to Put Food on the Table'
"No senior should have to choose between putting food on the table, paying rent, or affording lifesaving medication."
Oct 27, 2026
A group of almost 20 Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday pressed US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to explain the adverse effects of President Donald Trump's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act on older Americans, including the administration's plan to eliminate a program serving nearly 700,000 low-income seniors and expanded food stamp work requirements.
"At a time when Americans continue to face elevated grocery costs, Washington Republicans enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will reduce federal [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] spending by approximately $187 billion through 2034," 18 House Democrats led by Rep. Analilia Mejia (D-NJ) wrote in a letter to Rollins.
"The law expanded SNAP’s three-month time limit and associated work requirements to certain adults ages 55 through 64, restricted states’ ability to obtain geographic waivers from those requirements, and made additional changes to state cost-sharing requirements expected to reduce SNAP participation and benefits," the letter continues.
"These cuts come as the same law provides substantial tax benefits that will help disproportionately benefit the rich, with CBO finding that the law will decrease resources available to households towards the bottom of the income distribution while increasing resources for households toward the top," the lawmakers noted.
The letter decries Trump's stated goal of eliminating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which the lawmakers described as "the most extensive hunger-relief federal program for seniors and services to nearly 700,000 low-income seniors across the nation."
"The administration justified the elimination of this crucial program by focusing 'on supporting seniors through the SNAP program' as they passed a law to make SNAP more inaccessible for seniors," the letter laments. "Congress has been responsible for keeping the CSFP fully funded and maintained while the administration continues to threaten this critical federal food assistance program."
"Even so, as Americans—particularly seniors—struggle to put food on the table, you have failed to meet the urgency of this affordability crisis, even as the department you lead reports that food prices have climbed another 3% in the past year," the Democrats added.
The letter requests state-by-state figures showing how many adults ages 55 to 64 have lost or suffered reductions in SNAP benefits because of expanded work requirements, as well as how many have received exemptions. The lawmakers are also seeking data regarding the health and financial consequences of eliminating the CSFP and how the administration would ensure seniors retain access to nutritious food. The legislators requested a written response from Rollins' office by November 6.
"You have failed to meet the urgency of this affordability crisis."
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), approximately 5.5 million people, including roughly 2 million children, have lost SNAP assistance since Trump signed the OBBBA in July 2025. This, despite more than 47 million Americans—including 1 in 5 children—living in food-insecure households.
Seniors are experiencing their own unique set of hardships, given that many of them have limited resources.
"Many seniors rely heavily on fixed or limited incomes from Social Security, retirement savings, and pensions, leaving them particularly vulnerable as the cost of living continues to rise," the letter states, adding that "rather than protect older and low-income Americans from rising costs, you and the Trump administration continue to pursue policies that threaten to make it harder for them to afford basic necessities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders: Billionaires Fighting Prop 40 Would 'Rather Poor Kids With Cancer Die Than Pay a Little More in Taxes'
The senator noted that "billionaires in California are spending $333 million to wage a war" on the proposed one-time tax.
Oct 27, 2026
As one Golden State tech billionaire suggested he wouldn't move away even if voters passed the California Billionaire Tax Act that he opposes, progressive US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday took aim at the wealthy taxpayers working to defeat Proposition 40.
"Billionaires in California are spending $333 million to wage a war," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media. "Against what? Homelessness? No. Cancer? No. Child poverty? No. They're waging war against a 5% billionaire wealth tax. They'd rather poor kids with cancer die than pay a little more in taxes. That is obscene."
Sanders, a former Democratic presidential candidate who has campaigned in California for the ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the state's billionaires to offset healthcare funding cuts, was citing contributions to Building a Better California, a group created in January.
"Eighty or so donors have provided more than $333 million to Building a Better California, state records show, making it among the best-funded political efforts in California history," The New York Times reported Tuesday. "The donor list is a who's who of tech celebrities: the Google co-founder Sergey Brin; the former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt; the Stripe chief executive Patrick Collison; the legendary investor John Doerr."
Abby Lunardini, a spokesperson for the group, told the Times that "our supporters have created companies, entirely new industries, and hundreds of thousands of jobs here in California, and they want our state to remain the place where the future is built and where people can still afford to live, dream big, and succeed."
Lunardini claimed the wealth tax would "permanently damage the state's budget, tax base, and economy," though dozens of multimillionaire Californians have signed an open letter supporting the one-time wealth tax, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—one of the richest men in the world—is preparing to potentially pay it, and Anduril co-founder Palmer Luckey said Monday that he won't leave the state.
TechCrunch reported on his latest comments, in which Luckey—whose defense company won key US military contracts after he was announced as one of the leaders of a new Pentagon project on the "future of warfare"—made clear that he opposes Prop 40:
"I think that this tax act, if you can call it a tax, is going to cause a lot of problems. It’s causing a lot of people to run who I don’t want to be running. It’s going to cause companies that I work with to leave the state, which is a problem for me. As of right now, though, I’m not running. I am staying. I think California is something special. I want to fight for California," Luckey said during an invite-only press conference on Monday.
He added that he's felt pressure from other billionaires to declare his intention to leave.
"This has been a point of friction between me and some of my other billionaire friends," he said. "They've said things like: 'Palmer, you have to have solidarity for us. You can't enable these really bad policies. If you stay and if you don't leave, it's going to show them that there's no consequences.' I empathize with that argument, but it's not one that I'm going to participate in right now because I still believe that we can fix things."
Luckey has publicly sparred with US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—who, like Sanders, supports Prop 40. Leading political opponents in the state include term-limited Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who's expected to run for president in 2028, and former US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat running to replace the governor.
Estimates vary on how much the tax—which would apply to any billionaire residing in the state as of January 1, 2026—could cost the richest Californians, if approved by voters in next week's midterm elections.
Forbes pointed to one of them on Tuesday: "$104 billion. That's how much economists Jasper Boll, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman estimate California's billionaires would owe if Proposition 40 is enacted, according to an analysis by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Saez and Zucman helped draft the tax proposal."
Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review editor and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted in a Tuesday column at The Washington Post—owned by Jeff Bezos, another one of the world's richest men—that "a new study by Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh, two economists affiliated with the Hoover Institution, challenges that projection."
After trying to "account for the uncertainty over whether taxes can be collected from other billionaires, such as the ones who have left since the beginning of the year and may thus have a legal case for escaping the tax," Ponnuru summarized, those economists estimated Prop 40 would generate around $30 billion. The columnist also acknowledged that Zucman "has issued a barrage of attacks on that paper."
Specifically, Zucman called it "spectacularly misleading" and explained "its crucial flaw," which is that "they assume that billionaires will leave permanently, frightened by the prospects of an annual wealth tax."
"Let's be clear: This is a highly inappropriate way to model the effect of Prop 40 on taxpayer behavior. For one, it's a basic violation of rational expectations, a cornerstone of modern economics," Zucman said.
In Jaros and Rauh's world, "the billionaires act irrationally: They respond to a policy that does not exist and will never exist," he added. "Economics students around the world are taught this is not an appropriate way to model behavior—but apparently in this context (fighting Prop 40) it's OK."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu Accused of 'Incitement' as Arab Israelis Face Intimidation and Surveillance at Polls
The prime minister's coalition has sent around 2,000 activists, some of them armed, to surveil voters in what they called “Arab population centers.”
Oct 27, 2026
The leader of one of Israel's main Arab parties accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of "incitement" against Arab voters, whom civil rights groups warn are facing deliberate obstruction and intimidation at the polls on Tuesday.
“Benjamin Netanyahu is lying and inciting against Ra’am, using it as a scare tactic to mobilize right-wing voters and drive them to the polls,” the party’s leader, Mansour Abbas, said in a video message Tuesday.
Abbas was responding to a video posted by Netanyahu warning supporters of his Likud party that Arab voters in the south were “racing to the ballots.” He also accused Ra’am of “trying to steal the election from us,” citing the arrest the previous night of three people on suspicion of attempting to bribe voters to cast ballots for the party. Though Netanyahu has claimed that the three were “senior Ra’am” figures, he has not provided evidence of this.
Gadi Eisenkot, the leader of the Jewish-led Change coalition seeking to oust Netanyahu, has sworn off an alliance with Arab parties. However, Ra’am is hoping for an opposition victory narrow enough that the inclusion of Arab parties will be essential to form a governing coalition in the Knesset.
Tuesday’s election is the first since Netanyahu launched Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza and comes amid unprecedented state-backed terrorism by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. Accusing the other side of being too soft on Palestinians has been a central campaign tactic for both Netanyahu and his opponents.
Reuters reported on Tuesday that cars flying Likud banners were seen driving through Jerusalem playing the Islamic call to prayer and warning that "Arabs are voting" and that the prime minister had shared videos of long lines at Arab polling places to frighten his supporters.
"If you want this country to be Jewish and Zionist, you must go out and vote," National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of the far-right Jewish Power party, told voters for the Likud coalition. "Don’t let them win.”
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) warned Tuesday of potential deliberate efforts by Israeli authorities to slow down Arab voters. In a letter demanding urgent action from the chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Judge Noam Sohlberg, the group said that in Arab communities, “the voting process is proceeding slowly, without explanation, and voters are being forced to wait for extended periods.”
ACRI reported that police and National Guard troops kept about 200 voters waiting outside a high school in the Bedouin town of Segev Shalom in southern Israel, citing overcrowding, even though relatively few voters were actually inside. Voters there had waited up to five hours before casting ballots.
The group said it received reports of long queues in other Arab communities, including Rahat, Tel Sheva, Laqiya, Umm Batin, Tira, and Tamra.
"There are numerous reports of severe slowdowns at many polling stations," Yeela Raanan, a member of a team monitoring election integrity in Bedouin communities, told Haaretz.
In many Bedouin communities, Raanan said, "people report waiting for hours, and polling station staff are taking a very long time to verify each voter's identity."
Police have been dispatched to many Arab polling places, where they've reportedly been checking voters' identification, a duty that, under the law, belongs to election officials, Haaretz reported.
Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, said that at some locations, Palestinian voters were slowed down by election officials who asked them irrelevant questions, blocked doors, and suspended voting.
The group reported that at one polling station in Kafr Qara in central Israel, only one person had voted during the first three hours after polls opened.
At several other polling places in ethnically diverse and Arab cities—including in Haifa, Nazareth, I’billin, Eilabun, Shefa-Amr, and Nof HaGalil—Arab voters arrived to find that ballots printed in Arabic were not available. Adalah sent a letter to the head of Israel’s Central Elections Committee demanding that these polling centers immediately be supplied with Arabic-language ballots.
There are also reports of direct intimidation. Likud and its coalition partner, the far-right Religious Zionism party, led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, announced plans to send about 2,000 activists to what they called “Arab population centers” to observe elections, claiming without evidence that Arabs were committing fraud on a massive scale.
Israel's Supreme Court on Sunday night rejected a petition to ban firearms at polling places on Election Day. Adalah warned that the decision "allows those taking part in Netanyahu and Smotrich's provocation to show up at polling stations in Arab communities like armed militias."
The Mossawa Center, which advocates for Arab citizens’ rights in Israel, urged election officials to intervene Tuesday, saying Israeli settlers had arrived at polling stations to obstruct voting and that it had documented confrontations in Tayibe, Majd al-Krum, Shefa-Amr, Haifa, and I’billin, according to The New Arab.
The outlet separately reported that residents in Majd al-Krum stopped a right-wing activist from forcing his way into a polling station after provoking voters.
"Settlers at polling stations in Arab communities are deliberately obstructing and slowing down the voting process," said Ahmad Tibi, a Palestinian member of the Knesset. "A sick woman fainted while waiting. I'll put it this way: It won't help you. People will stay there until they cast their votes."
Haaretz reported Tuesday that Likud also paid unofficial teams “millions of shekels” to record Arab voters to help push the conspiracy theory that the election was rigged if Netanyahu’s coalition falls short.
Despite the obstacles, Arab turnout is reportedly significantly higher than during Israel's last elections in 2022, according to estimates by the coalition of left-wing Arab parties, known as the Joint List.
Joint List Chairman Yousef Jabareen predicted ahead of Tuesday’s vote that intimidation would be widespread. He said it would be answered with turnout from voters eager to oust Netanyahu.
"They will get our answer at the ballot box," he said, "when we, with our own hands, send them home.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rogers Cashes Checks From Anti-Abortion Extremists in Final Days of Senate Campaign
"Michigan voters fought hard to protect reproductive freedom, and these extremist groups want a senator who will help them undermine it in Washington."
Oct 27, 2026
Michigan voters were clear in 2022 when they voted by a 13-point margin to codify the right to abortion care in the state constitution, and the state's Republican US Senate candidate, former Rep. Mike Rogers, claimed two years ago that he had no interest in "going back to Washington, DC to undo what the people of Michigan decided to do.”
But a recent campaign contribution from the National Pro-Life Alliance political action committee (PAC) left reproductive rights advocates warning that Rogers has shown throughout his political career that he will fight to stop Michiganders from accessing abortion care—and that extremist groups are counting on him to win the Senate race to ensure abortion is banned nationwide.
Recent filings from the Federal Election Commission show that on October 23, just before Michigan residents began voting early ahead of the November 3 midterms, the National Pro-Life Alliance PAC donated $5,000 to the Rogers for Senate campaign.
The group has lobbied for the passage of the Life at Conception Act, which would ban all abortions with no exceptions for rape, incest, or health risks for the pregnant patient, and previously donated $1,700 to Rogers between 2000-10.
In 2010, when the then-congressman received $1,000 from the group, the National Pro-Life Alliance stipulated that candidates they supported must support the Life at Conception Act.
Shanay Watson-Whittaker, director of Michigan campaigns at Reproductive Freedom for All, told Common Dreams on Tuesday that the "last-minute donation shows how desperate anti-abortion groups are to buy this election—and they’re counting on Mike Rogers to deliver for them."
"His record gives them every reason to believe he will," she added.
"We need someone who will fight for our rights, and Rogers has spent his entire career showing us he won’t.”
Despite Rogers' earlier claims that should he win the Senate seat, he would respect Michiganders' support for the right to abortion care, he spent his 14 years in office backing a constitutional amendment to enshrine "personhood" in the US Constitution, aiming to ban all abortions from the moment of conception, and supporting a national 20-week ban—"still very much a national ban that could carry disparate harm for people experiencing medical emergencies and fetal conditions," wrote Kylie Cheung at Jezebel in 2024.
"I oppose abortion at any time except to save the live [sic] of the mother," Rogers wrote in a candidate questionnaire distributed by the Michigan Catholic Conference, affirming that he supported the Human Life Amendment. He added that he opposed the use of "taxpayer funds for any abortions.”
Rogers was also a sponsor of four fetal "personhood" bills that aimed to ban nearly all abortions nationwide.
Watson-Whittaker urged Michigan voters to keep Rogers' donation from the National Pro-Life Alliance and his record in mind as they go to the polls in the coming week.
"Michigan voters fought hard to protect reproductive freedom, and these extremist groups want a senator who will help them undermine it in Washington," said Watson-Whittaker. "We need someone who will fight for our rights, and Rogers has spent his entire career showing us he won’t.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular









