

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.
Brihannala Morgan, brihannala@borneoproject.org, Skype: brihannala, Borneo Project, +60 13 570 4983
Liza Bong, lizabong@gmail.com, SAVE Rivers, +60 12 886 0067
Zachary Hurwitz, Policy Program Coordinator, International Rivers +60 13 560 4972
More than three hundred indigenous people of the Penan, the Kenyah, the Kayan, and Iban ethnic groups protested this morning against the recently finished Bakun Dam, the Murum Dam currently under construction, and a series of controversial dams on the island of Borneo, at the opening of the International Hydropower Association's (IHA) biennial conference.
Cumulatively, the dams would affect tens of thousands of indigenous people and flood over 2000 square kilometers of rainforest. Dam builder Sarawak Energy has not published the environmental impact assessments of any of the dams, despite persistent calls to do so from affected communities. China Three Gorges Corporation began construction on the 944 MW Murum Dam in 2012 before its environmental impact assessment had even commenced, leaving affected communities with no option to negotiate resettlement outcomes.
"We call on the Sarawak government to stop building these dams as long as it continues to disrespect our rights," said Peter Kallang, chairman of SAVE Rivers, a network representing affected indigenous peoples.
SAVE Rivers demanded that Sarawak Energy and the Sarawak Government respect indigenous peoples' native, customary rights, as protected in Malaysian law in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The communities have demanded the government resolve outstanding impacts left from Batang Ai, Bakun and Murum dams, and for the IHA to suspend Sarawak Energy's association membership, as well as remove CEO Torstein Dale Sjotveit from the interest group's board until the Sarawak state government and Sarawak Energy attend to the grievances.
In a show of distrust and poor relations with affected communities earlier this week, Sarawak Energy barred Mr. Kallang from participating in a workshop organized by the IHA and the International Finance Corporation to discuss regional stakeholder cooperation. Mr. Kallang had paid to attend, and filed a police report upon being prevented entry. In a statement, SAVE Rivers decried the tactics as an example of civil society repression.
The Sarawak state government has been marred by allegations of corruption, as a recent undercover video filmed by Global Witness illustrated contract hand outs to family members of Chief Minister of Sarawak Abdul Taib Mahmud, who was returned to power in a tense election in early May. Transparency International dubbed the recently completed Bakun Dam a "monument of corruption," and has criticized the IHA's choice to engage with Sarawak Energy.
The congress is the world's largest gathering of dam builders and financiers who convene every two years to discuss industry topics. In 2011, the IHA launched a voluntary auditing tool for dam builders to assess their social and environmental performance, called the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP).
"While the HSAP may be useful to guide dam builders and governments internally, there is a risk that dam builders could use it to greenwash the worst dams, especially given such a context of heavy-handed repression and corruption," said Zachary Hurwitz, Policy Program Coordinator at International Rivers.
The controversial dams would form the energy backbone of the Sarawak government's SCORE Initiative, a plan to rapidly industrialize the state primarily through the expansion of aluminum smelting facilities, palm oil plantations, and other commodity sectors.
High res photos available here.
More information:
SAVE Rivers
International Rivers
The Borneo Project
Bruno Manser Fonds
"At this point, Trump’s economic policy is starting to look less like governing and more like Publishers Clearing House with a campaign logo."
With the midterm elections just weeks away, President Donald Trump announced on Friday that more than 20 million Medicare Part B beneficiaries will receive a one-time $90 payment this month.
Trump, who declared on Truth Social that his administration would send out "checks," said the money will come from the $2 billion Medicare Improvement Fund and is expected to appear in seniors' bank accounts around October 8.
The $90 payment is not even enough to cover half of the standard monthly Medicare Part B premium payment, which is about $202. But Trump described the comparatively small payment as proof that Americans could trust his promise of a much heftier windfall if Republicans prevail in next month's elections.
"Because I delivered on this very important issue for the American people, they can also rest assured the highly popular $5,000 Trump Dividend will be distributed to every U.S. Citizen if, and when, the Republicans win the Midterm Elections!" Trump said.
Americans have reason to be skeptical that they will ever see such a payout. Although roughly 1 million unsubsidized Affordable Care Act enrollees are currently receiving $500 payments, Trump has on several other occasions floated or promised Americans larger sums of free money that never materialized.
In February 2025, he proposed $5,000 "DOGE dividend" checks for Americans, purportedly funded by savings generated by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, but the payments were never authorized by the GOP-controlled Congress.
That November, he promised that most Americans would receive tariff payments of "at least $2,000 a person," but Congress has still not authorized them nearly a year later.
Sending all 240 million adult citizens a $5,000 check, as Trump has promised to do if the GOP wins the midterms, would cost an estimated $1.2 trillion.
"At this point Trump’s economic policy is starting to look less like governing and more like Publishers Clearing House with a campaign logo," remarked the Indiana-based political commentator Mike Young.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) described the payments as "Trump's latest attempt to bribe the American public," arguing that $90 amounts to a pittance compared with the higher costs seniors are facing under Trump's policies.
"This year, Trump handed seniors a $200 monthly Medicare premium for the first time ever, and he also shoveled $20 billion in extra payments to insurance companies selling private Medicare plans,” Wyden said. “This is another desperate attempt by a failed president to escape Americans’ revulsion with his failed agenda, amounting to one tank of Trump-inflated gas.”
"Often at the request of the Bolsonaro family, the US has engaged in a pressure campaign to weaken the Lula government," explained one analyst.
Just two days before Brazil's closely watched presidential election, the campaign of its left-wing president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has asked the nation's top election court to examine the sudden shutdown of US consular services as part of a broader investigation into alleged election "interference" by the Trump administration.
On Friday night, the US suspended in-person consular services at its embassy and consulates across Brazil on Friday and advised Americans to avoid US diplomatic facilities, citing unspecified "security concerns."
In a petition filed to Brazil's Superior Electoral Court, Lula's campaign said taking such an action just days before Brazilians vote "projects instability over the electoral environment," something it said was part of a larger "infrastructure of external intervention in the Brazilian electoral process.”
In recent days, Brazil's intelligence agency said it confirmed the existence of interference by the US in Brazil's election to support Sen. Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro—who is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence under house arrest for orchestrating a coup attempt in 2022.
"Although Trump has not formally endorsed him, Bolsonaro is undoubtedly Washington’s preferred candidate," explained Nick Cleveland-Stout, a research associate at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, on Friday. "Often at the request of the Bolsonaro family, the US has engaged in a pressure campaign to weaken the Lula government, sparking fears of further interference."
Trump responded with hostility to the prosecution of the disgraced ex-president—imposing tariffs of up to 50% on Brazilian imports in retaliation, sanctioning the Supreme Court justice overseeing the case, and threatening to use American "military might" against Brazil.
He's also designated two Brazilian crime groups as "narcoterrorist" organizations, invoking a similar pretext Trump used to justify his invasion of Venezuela to kidnap its leader Nicolás Maduro in January.
As the election has approached, Trump has appeared to put his thumb on the scale in an effort to stop Lula from achieving what would be an unprecedented fourth term.
In July, the US consulate in São Paulo invited right-wing pro-Bolsonaro social media influencers to a closed-door roundtable meeting to discuss “freedom of expression and the digital environment.”
The Guardian reported on Thursday that the State Department was also diverting $1 million from its human rights fund to oppose "judicial overreach and censorship" by Brazil’s Supreme Court, an apparent reference to the court's actions against Bolsonaro and his allies.
The Brazilian government has denied visas to two State Department officials whom it said were seeking to discuss "election integrity," which it perceived as an effort to “undermine the electoral system.”
Trump and his allies have previously spread baseless conspiracy theories to cast doubt upon Lula's victory in 2022, which helped to fuel the failed coup. They've done the same with the victories of other left-wing candidates in Latin American elections—including Bolivia's Evo Morales in 2019 and Guatemala's Bernardo Arévalo in 2023.
Lula's campaign said the sudden US suspension of consular services was "yet another extremely serious development in the interference in Brazilian elections by the US government," alleging that it was "coordinated, by all indications, directly by the brothers Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro.”
The filing noted that even “the legislative branch of the foreign state itself… recognizes the pattern of external pressure." It pointed to a letter sent earlier this week by Democratic US Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Peter Welch (Vt.), and Tim Kaine (Va.) to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which said that "the administration’s most recent actions point toward an effort to interfere with, and potentially undermine, Brazil’s general election in October."

The first round of Brazil's election will begin on Sunday. Should neither candidate receive 50% of the vote, a runoff between the top two candidates will be held on October 25. Several major polls show Lula with a narrow first-round lead entering Sunday, although others have the race effectively tied or Bolsonaro slightly ahead.
But Lula has also seized upon Trump's meddling to portray Bolsonaro as a tool of foreign powers, drawing on a history of US-backed coups and election interference that have undermined Brazilian democracy.
“Flávio Bolsonaro is Trump’s candidate and what Trump wants is to colonize Brazil, take our riches, steal our future and leave us in the dust," said a campaign ad that began airing last week.
The Trump administration, for its part, has continued to double down on public overtures toward imperialist ambition. On Thursday, an official US State Department social media account reposted a video created in August glorifying the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine and declaring that "American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again."
Dov H. Levin, a political scientist at the University of Hong Kong who recently published research on the effects of foreign election interference, told the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo that, if too overt, Trump's intervention could backfire.
"There are cases of failure," he said, "and cases where the reaction provoked by the intervention harms precisely the side it intended to help."
Weeks earlier, Kraft pushed for NFL stadiums to ban Macklemore over his pro-Palestine comments.
Country music star Zach Bryan wore a "Free Palestine" T-shirt during a performance at Gillette Stadium on Friday night in what was widely interpreted as a gesture of defiance against the venue's pro-Israel owner Robert Kraft.
Weeks earlier, the New England Patriots owner drew international backlash when he banned the rapper Macklemore from his venue over his pro-Palestine comments onstage and rallied other NFL owners to do the same, a campaign that led to Macklemore's ouster from Ed Sheeran's US tour.
Sheeran—one of the world's most recognizable pop stars—was branded a spineless coward by many critics and faced a mutiny from his fellow touring acts after caving to the billionaire Kraft's heavy-handed censorship tactics. Sheeran's vague statement denying that he was "complicit" with Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza—which has killed more than 74,000 people, including over 21,000 children over nearly three years, according to official numbers—did little to quiet them.
In sharp contrast, Bryan and his band made their position clear as they performed before a sold-out crowd in Foxborough, Massachusetts on Friday.
Drummer Nate Head wore a cream-colored "Palestine" baseball jersey bearing the name Hind Rajab and the number 5 on the back—a reference to the 5-year-old Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces in 2024. Macklemore had similarly referenced Rajab in the song that led to his ban.
Guitarist Noah Le Gros wore a green "Palestine" jersey onstage. After the show, he posted a photo of himself wearing the jersey in front of a Kraft Sports & Entertainment sign, making the message unmistakable.
The company behind the jerseys, Wear the Peace—which donates all profits to organizations providing food, water, medical care, and other aid in Gaza—praised Bryan and his band for having "stood for Palestine tonight on a stage that tried to ban the simple mention of it."
Bryan, who served eight years in the US Navy, has a history of taking political stances that run counter to the conservatism long associated with mainstream country music. He has defended transgender people against public attacks and last year wrote lyrics criticizing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's aggressive deportation tactics.
But the “I Remember Everything” singer does not map cleanly onto either side of the political spectrum. In the past, he has described himself as a "total libertarian" and more recently stressed political unity: "Left wing or right wing we’re all one bird and American," he said in an interview last year.
The shirt he wore on Friday night also raised questions: Beneath the phrase "Free Palestine," the shirt featured a pine tree emblem and the phrase "An Appeal to Heaven"—iconography associated with George Washington's army in the Revolutionary War and later adopted by some far-right Christian nationalists.
Bryan has not yet publicly commented on what he intended to convey with his shirt on Friday night. Nor has Kraft—who previously referred to pro-Palestine comments on his stage as "hate speech"—publicly responded to Bryan's display.
The band is scheduled to perform another show at Gillette Stadium on Saturday night, and it remains to be seen whether they will face any pressure to back down.
In the meantime, Bryan has drawn praise from commentators who contrasted his display with Sheeran's response to Kraft.
Idrees Ahmad, the associate editor of New Lines Magazine, called it "a real Spartacus moment in music."
"All true artists resist conformity and control," he said. "Trying to tell the most recalcitrant people what they can or can't say was always going to backfire. This trend will only grow the more there is an attempt to censor."
Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, an Israeli-born foreign policy analyst who has become an outspoken critic of Israel's wars, celebrated it as yet another sign of how dramatically public opinion had shifted against the country over the past few years.
“We got the country singers. We won the culture wars," he said. "Break out the moonshine."
"This fight is far from over," said one campaigner. "We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
A federal judge in El Paso on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from continuing construction of border barriers, roads, and other infrastructure across the Big Bend region, a win for environmentalists, landowners, and other Texans from across the political spectrum who are united in their opposition to the project.
US District Judge Kathleen Cardone—who was appointed by former President George W. Bush—granted a preliminary injunction sought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and other plaintiffs.
"The court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims in [their] suit, that there is a likelihood that they will suffer serious, irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor," Cardone wrote in her two-page decision.
BIG WIN FOR BIG BEND!! A federal judge just issued an emergency injunction to block border barrier and road construction across the #BigBend region. The injunction will remain in place while the court considers a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s waiver to fast-track construction.
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) October 2, 2026 at 2:18 PM
Cardone's order immediately prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies from building “border barrier or related infrastructure” or engaging in “any construction or ground-disturbing activities” in the Big Bend Sector until they comply with applicable laws. It also stays the effect of three Trump administration waivers that had allowed officials to bypass numerous federal protections.
“This is a historic victory for Big Bend and everyone who loves this wild corner of Texas,” said Laiken Jordahl, CBD's national public lands advocate. “No administration has the right to destroy a crown-jewel national park for political theater."
"With a federal court ordering the bulldozers to stop, Big Bend gets to breathe," Jordahl added. "But this fight is far from over. We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
Clara Bensen, director of communications for No Big Bend Wall and a board member of Conserve Big Bend, also welcomed the ruling.
"For months we've watched the federal government send bulldozers into a national park that belongs to all of us. Today a federal judge told them to stop," she said in a statement.
"Since we learned the Trump administration planned to seize public and private land and destroy the Big Bend region as we know it, this community has come together across the political aisle to fight back," Bensen added. "The government tried to ignore the law to build unnecessary border infrastructure, and the court made clear it can't. This is a victory, but we are not letting our guard down."
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: A federal judge just HALTED the destruction of Big Bend.This is a massive victory for the landowners, local communities, and everyday Texans who stood up to protect one of our state's greatest treasures.The fight isn't over, but today, the people won.
[image or embed]
— Clayton Tucker (@claytontuckertx.com) October 2, 2026 at 2:16 PM
The ruling comes after contractors began bulldozing roads and building other infrastructure in and around Big Bend National Park in August, including near Santa Elena Canyon and Mariscal Mountain. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) temporarily halted construction on August 17, but that pause expired earlier this week.
The Trump administration has argued that the project—which initially included plans for a 30-foot-high reinforced steel wall—is necessary to achieve what it calls “operational control” of the border. Plaintiffs in the case challenged the administration's determination under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that the region is an area of “high illegal entry,” noting that the government's claim is contradicted by its own statistics.
The Big Bend Sector is among the least-trafficked portions of the southern border, accounting for roughly a quarter of the international boundary's length, but no more than 3% of annual migrant apprehensions. The sector recorded just 1.3% of total border apprehensions in 2025, according to CBP data.
Plaintiffs in the case argued that the administration unlawfully used extraordinary powers to waive environmental and other laws, including the Endangered Species Act, National Park Service Organic Act, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Indigenous groups alleged violations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act.
At Friday's hearing, Rio Grande river guide and landowner Danny William Miller described the prospect of a barrier cutting across his property and blocking access to the river as “a bullet to the head," according to The Big Bend Sentinel.
Miller testified that once the landscape is altered, it cannot simply be restored. His guide work, he said, would become “a tour of the military-industrial complex, rather than a tour of the wilderness.”
Another local resident, Bill Guerra-Addington, told the court, “They’re taking the river away from us, and it’s devastating.”
Friday's injunction is temporary. The underlying lawsuit will continue, and the broader legal battle over Trump's Big Bend border project—and the administration's legally dubious waivers—remains unresolved. On Wednesday, US District Judge Orlando Garcia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, rejected a request from an Indigenous group and business owners for a temporary restraining order in one of several separate cases seeking to halt work on the project.
Still, National Parks Conservation Association president and CEO Tiernan Sittenfeld called Cardone's order “a victory for Big Bend and for all of America’s national parks.”
"While national park advocates are grateful for this halt to border construction in Big Bend, the devastating toll it has already taken on this national park must be studied and remediated," she said. "The administration must repair the damage it has done to the beautiful, fragile desert ecosystems that make Big Bend National Park one of America’s most iconic places."
“The administration’s border plan at Big Bend has faced strong bipartisan opposition from local landowners, experienced local borderland sheriffs, and conservationists alike," Sittenfeld added. "Big Bend is no place for border barriers. It’s time for the administration to come to the table with the border communities that know Big Bend best, repair the damage from this ill-conceived project, and find new solutions.”
s
"It doesn’t have to be this way. ICE doesn’t have to traumatize children, tear families apart, and treat people like this," said one Austin, Texas official.
Since Republicans in the US Senate this week blocked a bill to make school bus stops off-limits for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, community members in Pennsylvania and Austin, Texas have expressed outrage by arrests made in front of children—in at least one reported case, leaving a child abandoned as officers detained his mother.
"It doesn’t have to be this way. ICE doesn’t have to traumatize children, tear families apart, and treat people like this," said José "Chito" Vela III, the mayor pro tempore of Austin, on social media late Thursday.
Vela made the comments as he posted a video that he said shows the aftermath of an ICE arrest at a school bus stop, with officers driving away with the mother of a 9-year-old boy who was left with other community members.
"They fucking took her," said one woman angrily as the child sat on the ground crying. "What the fuck are they going to do with the child now? ... Y'all have no fucking shame."
ICE arrested the mom of a 9-year-old at a school bus stop in Austin, leaving him alone and crying. The video has profanity and is heartbreaking to watch, but it shows the fear/pain of what happened.
This is evil. This is wrong. And it has to stop.
Video: Leonardo Pelaez on FB pic.twitter.com/F52rCjZwIF
— Mayor Pro Tem Chito Vela, III (@chitoforatx) October 2, 2026
Vela posted the video a day after Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) introduced a bill aimed at stopping ICE and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies from conducting enforcement operations at school bus stops.
In August, Murphy and many of his constituents were outraged when ICE arrested parents at school bus stops in Danbury, Connecticut—detaining them after their children boarded buses, leaving them without anyone to pick them up after school let out and giving the family no time to ensure their children would be cared for.
Murphy said on the Senate floor Wednesday that the bus stop arrests were part of an operation in which 118 people were detained in Connecticut. Federal data has shown that a majority of people being arrested by ICE, which is carrying out President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, have no criminal convictions.
“For parents in this body, you know how anxious that first day of school is, how kids are just brimming with nervous anxiety about that first day, and you know what that feels like to watch your kid walk onto that school bus," said Murphy. "Well, what do you think it does to those kids on that first and second day of school to see ICE officers at the school bus stop? Imagine that 6-year-old who boarded the school bus, and when he got back from school that day and got off, his parent wasn't there. A 6-year-old feeling like he had been abandoned. In this case, he may or may not have seen the arrest because it happened almost immediately after he got on.”
The senator added that ICE has "blatantly lied" about its practice of carrying out arrests at school bus stops.
"When they were presented with these stories from Danbury, DHS doubled down and said any claim that ICE targeted parents at a school bus stop is false," he said. "Then just days afterwards, we had the video evidence. This often happens—ICE says something didn't happen, and then we have the video proving that it did."
Also on Wednesday, about 75 community members gathered at the corner of Tremont Avenue and East Fornance Street in Norristown, Pennsylvania, where ICE reportedly detained three people in front of a group of children who were waiting for the school bus.
They called on Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and local officials to pass legislation to bar law enforcement from cooperating with ICE.
“When enforcement happens in places where families live their everyday lives, at bus stops, on streets, near schools, or in neighborhoods, the effects can reach beyond the person who is detained,” Jorge Liborio, 16, told WHYY. “It can affect children, parents, coworkers, friends, and entire communities.”
Jay Lee, an advocacy and civic engagement manager at the Woori Center, which provides resources for the area's large immigrant population, said that "attendance is falling" in local schools. Immigrants make up about 18% of Norristown's population.
Chalkbeat reported this week that nearly two years after Trump rescinded a policy that barred immigration enforcement in sensitive areas like schools and hospitals, school attendance dropped below 40% at one Indianapolis school when ICE was conducting operations in the city.
Two federal lawsuits challenging Trump's termination of the sensitive locations policy are ongoing.
On Wednesday, Murphy denounced Republicans for blocking his bill, pointing to Sen. Jim Banks' (R-Ind.) claim that it would create "sanctuary bus stops"—safe havens for immigrants who commit crimes.
"If we prohibit ICE from operating at school bus stops, you know what will happen?" said Banks. "All the illegals in the country will just hide out at bus stops, knowing that ICE isn’t allowed to touch them! Bus stops will become the most unsafe places in the country."
Murphy called Banks' objection "bizarre" and "dishonest."
"I did not anticipate that one of the arguments against this bill would be that it would lead to the development of ‘sanctuary bus stops,'" said the senator. "But what do we imagine here? People are going to live at bus stops? We're going to have encampments around bus stops of people who are here without documentation? I just think it's an example of how this whole debate has gone way off the rails. It is just fundamentally detached from the reality.”
In Austin, Vela said that "families pay the price" when ICE "chooses to use these tactics."
"This is evil. This is wrong. And it has to stop," said Vela. "We must demand accountability. We must demand better. Our children deserve better."
"It is no coincidence that this is taking place at exactly the same time that Donald Trump's poll numbers are sagging."
Experts are raising alarms after Georgia's Republican-led State Election Board requested that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice launch an investigation into state voting machines just over a month before the 2026 midterm elections.
As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday, James Mills, executive director of the State Election Board, sent a letter to US Attorney General Todd Blanche asking the DOJ "to put additional security measures in place before the midterm election and give the state a six-month deadline to eliminate the use of QR codes on ballots to tally votes."
The AJC noted that Georgia would need to "revamp its in-person voting process" to comply with this demand since it currently "relies on scanners reading QR codes on ballots to count votes."
In a Thursday analysis of Mills' letter, Democracy Docket reporter Jacob Knutson described it as "an extraordinary assault on Georgia’s voting system by unelected officials appointed to make and enforce the state’s election rules."
Knutson also questioned whether the Trump administration could even legally carry out Mills' request.
"The DOJ lacks the legal authority to declare voting machines unlawful or unilaterally seize voting equipment," Knutson wrote, "as the US Constitution gives state and local officials the power to administer elections."
In a video published Friday, election attorney and Democracy Docket founder Marc Elias said that Mills' request for DOJ interference in his own state's election process boils down to Republicans fearing that they're about to be swept out of power in the coming elections.
"It is no coincidence that this is taking place at exactly the same time that Donald Trump's poll numbers are sagging," Elias said, "at exactly the same time that it appears that his efforts in court are failing, and exactly the same time that [Democratic US Sen.] Jon Ossoff looks clear to win that Senate race in a walk."
Later in the video, Elias explained that Trump and his allies have been telegraphing for months that they will take extraordinary measures to maintain their full grip on all three branches of the federal government.
"This is all happening when you have a White House that is looking for excuses to take over voting," he said. "They are looking for excuses to seize ballots. They are looking for excuses, as Donald Trump said, to take control of the tabulation of votes."
Kristin Nabers, Georgia state director for voter rights advocacy group All Voting is Local, accused the State Election Board of "trying to sow chaos into the midterms before voting takes place."
"Certain members of this board continue to show that they do not serve Georgia voters, they serve the interests of the Trump administration," Nabers said. "The board has already advocated for the administration’s interference in elections many times in Trump’s second term, including when multiple board members served as witnesses in the FBI’s bogus investigation into Fulton County."
After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump infamously waged an unsuccessful campaign to strong-arm Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" the votes necessary to overtake former President Joe Biden's lead in the Peach State.
Led by student groups and opposition parties, the protesters are demanding the resignation of India's elections chief as more than 133 million people have been deleted from voter rolls since last year.
Police in New Delhi detained hundreds of people Friday amid a crackdown on demonstrations challenging India's election authorities and their controversial revision of voter rolls, prompting Amnesty International to accuse the government of trampling fundamental rights in the world's largest democracy.
More than 700 protesters—including former Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena; Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bharadwaj; and Neha Bora, who is president of the leftist All India Students' Association—were reportedly detained in the capital as demonstrators sought to protest outside Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Journalists covering the protests were also reportedly detained and blocked from doing their jobs.
The Cockroach Janta Party—which led last summer's successful youth-led protests to oust embattled Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan after devastating leaks of critical university entrance exams—is again playing a central role in the demonstrations.
Police cited Section 163 of India's criminal code—a provision intended to address immediate public order threats that critics say is misused to broadly restrict peaceful political assembly—to justify the mass detentions.
“The right to protest is not dependent on government approval. It is protected by the Indian Constitution and international human rights law," Amnesty International India board chair Aakar Patel said. “Prohibitory orders like Section 163 of India’s criminal procedure law, which grant temporary emergency powers to restrict gatherings in the name of public order, have become a convenient way for authorities to routinely prevent peaceful protests."
“Detaining people simply because they intend to protest is a blatant attack on the rights to liberty and freedom of peaceful assembly," Patel added. "Detentions must have a lawful basis and cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory. Those arbitrarily detained for solely exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly must be released at once, and authorities must guarantee their right to protest."
The sweeping overhaul of India's electoral rolls has resulted in more than 133 million names being removed from draft voter lists across 30 states and union territories since the process began last year. That's about 14.1% of the pre-SIR rolls. Delhi recorded the largest reduction, with 32.8% of registered electors removed from its draft list.
While the Election Commission says SIR intended to verify voter eligibility and clean up electoral rolls, critics warn that mass deletions could disenfranchise legitimate voters, particularly people who have migrated, lack documentation, or belong to marginalized communities.
The controversy intensified last month after an Indian Express investigation revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions involving voter additions, deletions, and other SIR-related procedures. The two commissioners reportedly raised concerns, including over what they characterized as “unauthorized” or “illegal” actions.
"This is a disenfranchisement of millions of voters.”
Protesters are demanding Kumar's resignation amid doubts about the transparency and impartiality of the SIR and those behind it.
“The protest is against Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission," protester Pawan, a 36-year-old IT professional, told The Indian Express Friday at Jantar Mantar. "But there’s a larger context, I feel. Demanding the resignation of the CEC isn’t the only thing. People are upset with the SIR. This is a disenfranchisement of millions of voters.”
AAP spokesperson Anurag Dhanda, who was among those detained, told Indo-Asian News Service that "we are simply demanding that democracy should not be destroyed. We were saying that people should have the right to vote. Gyanesh Kumar took away the right to vote and committed vote theft, yet the vote thief is not being put in jail. Instead, they brought us here and made us sit at the police station."
"This is a complete dictatorship of the Modi government," he added, referring to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party.
Marlena, better known mononymously as Atishi, said that "when the British ruled India, Gandhiji fought for people's right to vote. Today, when we have that right, Gyanesh Kumar is trying to take it away."
Atishi said that when demonstrators tried to reach Jantar Mantar—an officially designated protest site—police hauled them away in buses and detained them at a local police station.
"We are not afraid of Modiji's police," she said, referring to Modi. "We will continue to fight to protect the right to vote. The fight against vote theft will continue. The EC's system will have to be corrected, and Gyanesh Kumar will have to resign."
At one point, Bora and other detained demonstrators were sprung from a police bus by fellow protesters in the streets.
After escaping detention, Bora defiantly called for a fresh wave of protests for Saturday.
"Get rest after today's detention," she said. "Because if you don't, how will you reach Jantar Mantar at 1 pm tomorrow?"
"Thousands of police officers are working to save one man—Gyanesh Kumar—whom we have to ensure gets removed from office," Bora continued.
"Jantar Mantar 2.0 is not done!" she added, implicitly referring to the earlier Cockroach Janta Party protests. "It has just begun!"
One environmental advocate said the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards "will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices."
A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to block the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards, which they called a "giveaway" to the oil and auto industries.
Earlier this week, the US Department of Transportation finalized a rule weakening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
The Biden administration required annual fuel-efficiency improvements aimed at bringing the average for new vehicles to 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under the Trump administration’s new rule, the 2031 requirement would fall below the 35.4 mpg already achieved by the 2024 fleet, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) own analysis.
NHTSA estimated that as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas by 2050 than they would have under the old standards, increasing average lifetime fuel costs by more than $1,600 per vehicle—more than the roughly $1,300 the administration has claimed they'll save on average in upfront vehicle costs.
It is also projected to add about 1 billion additional metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared with retaining the previous standards—equivalent to more than six months' worth of emissions from the entire US transportation sector.
“Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Climate Law Institute. "We’ll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We’re asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto.”
CBD was joined by the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, which filed a petition on Friday to ask an appeals court to review the rule change. They argue that the rollback is illegal because federal law requires NHTSA to set fuel-economy standards at the “maximum feasible” level manufacturers can achieve.
“The Trump administration’s rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices,” said Andy Su, senior transportation attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “We’re going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive.”
"Instead of strengthening public education," said one union leader, "Trump is diverting $500 billion in taxpayer cash into private hands, with everyone else left fighting for scraps in a real-life Hunger Games."
The US Department of the Treasury this week released proposed regulations for the first federal "school choice" program, as proponents call it, drawing a fresh wave of condemnation from critics who have expressed concerns since President Donald Trump signed last year's Republican budget package.
"The Trump administration's proposed rules confirm what we expected, that their federal private school voucher program is designed to direct public resources to private schools and organizations and will provide little benefit to the 90% of children who attend public schools," said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the Legal Defense Fund, in a Friday statement.
"Instead of using federal resources to serve all children, this administration has dismantled the Department of Education, weakened long-standing civil rights protections, and worked to build a two-tiered system of education that benefits a select few," McCain continued. "Our children deserve better."
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act established the Education Freedom Tax Credit, which is set to begin next year. According to the Treasury Department, under the proposed rules, eligible taxpayers could claim an annual credit of up to $1,700—or $3,400 for married couples filing jointly—for contributions to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs).
The program is widely seen as a scheme to funnel tax dollars toward private school tuition, but the department noted that the rules would also allow scholarships to support "academic tutoring, special needs services, books, supplies, computers and other equipment, and other qualifying expenses connected with a student's enrollment or attendance."
That "aspect of the program has put Democratic governors in a bind," The Washington Post reported Thursday. There is no cost to states that participate, but "governors must approve all SGOs that meet the rules. States that want to opt into the program for the benefit of public school students will have to allow private school vouchers as well, and vice versa."
As the Post detailed:
Governors have until January 1 to opt in. Thirty mostly Republican-led states have already joined. Most of the remaining states that have not rejected the plan are led by Democrats.
The proposed regulations include income limits for eligible families, protections for scholarship funds, and details on how the funds can be used. States cannot restrict the types of schools that benefit, Treasury and Education department officials said, meaning public funds could go toward a religious school that bars LGBTQ students or a private school that doesn't have certified teachers.
Among the Democrats facing some calls to opt out are New York Gov. Kathy Hochul—who, as Chalkbeat pointed out, "has said she plans to participate unless she finds a 'poison pill' in the program," but "declined Thursday to make it official."
New York State United Teachers president Melinda Person declared Thursday that "the regulations are loaded with poison pills. If New York opts in, the state would be prohibited from setting standards for scholarship organizations, deciding which organizations can participate, or limiting the types of schools and expenses that receive these federal tax dollars."
"That means New York could be forced to help funnel taxpayer-subsidized dollars to private schools that have admissions policies and practices that would never be acceptable in our public schools, while being denied the authority to put stronger safeguards around the program," Person warned. "New York puts its name on the program, but Washington writes the rules."
"We take responsibility for participating, but surrender much of our ability to determine where the money goes and what standards recipients must meet," she added. "This isn't local control. It is a one-way door into a federally designed voucher program, one that could use public resources to support schools that discriminate, while stripping New York of the ability to provide the protections New Yorkers expect. Gov. Hochul should make clear now that New York will not walk through that door."
Josh Cowen, a Michigan State University education policy professor who authored the book The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers, laid out the "good" and "bad" of the regulations on social media Thursday.
It’s striking that the FSTC has clear revenue streams for public schools and families, guided by sensible rules to promote service access and quality—such as you might expect from progressive policymakers——jammed Frankenstein-style alongside rules permitting anything-goes on the private side.
[image or embed]
— Josh Cowen (@joshcowenmi.bsky.social) October 1, 2026 at 5:37 PM
So the decision basically comes down to eating a sh-t sandwich with some stuff we really don’t like in the private sector, with some meaningful money that you might expect any number of progressive lawmakers to have crafted.
— Josh Cowen (@joshcowenmi.bsky.social) October 1, 2026 at 5:37 PM
Leaders at the nation's two largest teachers unions also weighed in. National Education Association president Princess Moss said that "with back-to-school in the rearview mirror, more Americans are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of school supplies, packed lunches, and gas continues to outpace salaries and paychecks."
"Instead of helping families make ends meet, the Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale for private school vouchers at the expense of the public schools that serve 90% of America's students," she asserted. "At a time when educators, students, and families are calling for more resources to strengthen neighborhood public schools, this administration is advancing a plan to divert taxpayer dollars to subsidize private education for a select few."
"We will closely review the Treasury Department's new voucher regulations and continue fighting to ensure public funds remain invested in public schools where every student—regardless of their race, ZIP code, disability, family income, or immigration status—can learn, grow, and thrive," Moss pledged. "America's students deserve policies that expand opportunity, not vouchers that leave most children behind."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten similarly charged that "this scheme is a poison pill for the 90% of American children who attend public schools. Instead of strengthening public education, President Trump is diverting $500 billion in taxpayer cash into private hands, with everyone else left fighting for scraps in a real-life Hunger Games."
While the Congressional Budget Office estimated the program would cost the federal government $26 billion in lost revenue over the next decade, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has found it could cost up to $51 billion per year. A January report from US Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted that's more than the combined federal spending on programs to support students with disabilities and those who are from low-income backgrounds.
Weingarten said that "state governors should reject it—not least of all because they will have no say or oversight over how the vouchers operate. The reality is that for every precious public dollar funneled to private schools—money that could be spent on instruction, lowering class sizes, modern buildings, or new books in the library—public school parents will be hunting for pennies on the floor."
"This isn't about 'school choice'; it's the about the school's choice: Private schools can simply refuse to accept poor kids, those with special needs, or those with different religions. And they can refuse to submit to the basic accountability measures their backers hypocritically demand of public schools," she stressed. "If this were really about 'choice' then the administration would be trying to help public schools succeed, rather than eviscerating them."
"This is yet another cruel chapter in the Trump's administration's war on families after the Big, Ugly Bill slashed trillions in support for young people by gutting Medicaid, food assistance, and student loans," she continued. "If we are serious about the promise of education, then we have an obligation to make every public school a place where parents want to send their kids, educators want to work, and kids thrive."
The union leader argued that "instead of this voucher scheme, we should commit to creating safe and welcoming schools with a curriculum that is engaging, relevant, and rigorous. That means multiple pathways to career and college, expanding community schools, focusing on literacy and critical thinking, and protecting children against the perils of artificial intelligence while harnessing its potential. These regulations do the exact opposite."
"In every state, a day’s delay in delivery means that if mail voters wait until the last day or two before the election to mail their ballot... they could be disenfranchised."
An analysis published Friday by Democracy Docket warned that "tens of thousands" of voters across the US face "risk of disenfranchisement" thanks to actions being taken by the United States Postal Service.
The analysis, written by veteran election reporter Jim Saksa, points to a new USPS policy known as Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) that "will eliminate evening mail pickups from post offices more than 50 miles away from a regional processing facility, most of which are located in major urban areas."
For people who live in these areas, ballots sent on Election Day will be postmarked and delivered at least a day later than in previous election years, thus making it ineligible to be included in final election tallies.
"In every state, a day’s delay in delivery means that if mail voters wait until the last day or two before the election to mail their ballot," Saksa explained, "they could be disenfranchised."
Saksa reported that this policy is currently active in "about 42.5% of all ZIP codes" in the continental US, and is scheduled to eventually take effect in around 70% of all ZIP codes. No additional ZIP codes are expected to be added between now and election day.
Saksa also said that voters concerned about their ballots not being counted should deliver them in person to their local post office, where they can ask an employee to postmark it.
President Donald Trump has tried for the last several months to use USPS to meddle with states' mail-in voting systems.
In March, the president signed an executive order that instructed the United States Postal Service to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to their voter lists.
The US Supreme Court last month rejected Trump's efforts to interfere with mail-in voting, allowing states to continue sending ballots to voters as they've done in past elections.
Even with the Supreme Court loss, however, the president's repeated attacks on voting by mail has had a major impact on the 2026 midterm elections.
An NBC News poll released in September showed that just 23% of Democratic voters said they planned to vote by mail this year, a double-digit drop from 2024 when 34% of Democrats said they were voting by mail.
In an interview with Politico published Thursday, Quentin James, founder and president of The Collective Political Action Committee, said Black voters have been expressing concerns about sending in their ballots for fear that Trump will order USPS to not deliver them.
“I think there’s confusion,” James said. “We know that the president has spent six months talking about changing the rules regarding mail-in voting, and a lot of folks are concerned about their ballot being secure."
Indivisible co-founder Leah Greenberg also told Politico that her group is "absolutely hearing concern" about the mail voting process this year.
"But more importantly," Greenberg added, "what we’re hearing is people trying to figure out what they can do and how they can organize locally in order to protect elections."