

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.

Governments and international institutions should do more to protect whistleblowers and confidential sources by adopting the recommendations in a new United Nations expert report, Human Rights Watch said today. David Kaye, the UN's specialist on freedom of expression and access to information, presents his path-breaking report to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on October 22, 2015.
Governments and international institutions should do more to protect whistleblowers and confidential sources by adopting the recommendations in a new United Nations expert report, Human Rights Watch said today. David Kaye, the UN's specialist on freedom of expression and access to information, presents his path-breaking report to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on October 22, 2015. It emphasizes that when those who divulge important facts are exposed to retaliation, the public suffers, as well as the individual.
"Disclosing secrets to the public is sometimes the only effective way to put an end to human rights abuses and hold those responsible to account," said Dinah PoKempner, general counsel at Human Rights Watch. "The Kaye report applies well-established human rights standards to a practice that many in government prefer to punish than encourage."
Those who break ranks to expose wrongdoing are often stigmatized, but they should be valued as a "fail safe" when there is no other way to alert the public, said Kaye. Whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Kathryn Bolkovac discussed the backlash they faced in trying to expose problems like mass surveillance or sex trafficking during peacekeeping missions in a video produced by Human Rights Watch. If governments would adopt the report's recommendations, the difference for whistleblowers would be "like night and day," Snowden said.
Governments should actively encourage disclosure in the public interest, the report says.
"Whenever the confidentiality of sources is compromised, whenever whistleblowers lack protection, we find that information simply doesn't get to the public," Kaye told Human Rights Watch. "What that means is in very concrete ways that we lose really full and robust public debate that's based on genuine equal access to information between government, and individuals, and activists, and others. It means a lack of accountability when there's wrongdoing, or unlawfulness that's committed by government."
The report notes that government surveillance and bans on encryptions and anonymity chill the willingness of sources and whistleblowers to come forward. A 2014 Human Rights Watch report documented this problem for journalists and lawyers.
Key features of the report include:
Public disclosure is often necessary
While internal channels can be an appropriate way for whistleblowers to express their concerns, the report observes that they are not always enough. Internal processes can leave whistleblowers unprotected from retaliation or fail to correct wrongdoing. The report stresses that where threats to a public interest are urgent or severe, such as violations of basic rights, public disclosure could be justified even if there are potentially effective internal channels.
Bolkovac, a police trainer who was subcontracted to the UN in Bosnia, revealed sex trafficking that implicated members of the UN police and was fired by her employer; her story was the subject of the film, The Whistleblower. "Protocols do exist on paper, especially within the United Nations, but the reality of implementing that on the ground or in the field is completely different," Bolkovac told Human Rights Watch. "There were just so many levels and various steps and groups to work through, that it became almost impossible to report wrongdoing."
Standards Apply to the UN and National Security Agencies
Whistleblowing in the national security context, or at international organizations such as the UN, should be protected under the same principles, the report says. There may be circumstances where an institution has a legitimate interest in keeping specific information secret - but avoiding embarrassment, hiding itself from view, or concealing wrongdoing are never acceptable reasons to punish or prohibit disclosures. Kaye told Human Rights Watch that organizations should not use terms like "national security" or "public order" as "a blanket way of preventing disclosure of information that's in the public interest."
Under the United States Espionage Act, which has been invoked by the Obama administration more often than by any previous administration, no consideration can be given to whether an unauthorized disclosure of classified materials might be justified in the public interest. Snowden, a former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor whose revelations of mass surveillance programs sparked global debate and US reform efforts, exposed secret orders by the closed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, lies to Congress, and sweeping programs whose scope was unknown to most legislators. Snowden told Human Rights Watch, "There's always a danger in allowing any government, any state, or any organization more broadly, to declare an entire category of information beyond the reach of public hands."
Government Bears the Burden of Justifying Non-Disclosure
The report stresses that the government in all situations carries the burden of showing that public disclosure threatens a specific harm to a legitimate state interest that overrides the public's interest in knowing the information. It is not enough to simply assert that disclosure of secrets will harm national security generally.
Even where the government can show harm that overrides the public's interest in a whistleblower's disclosure, it should not impose disproportionate punishments, said Kaye. Such penalties harm not only the whistleblower but the public, because they deter valid disclosures as well.
Prevent Retaliation to Avoid Stifling Whistleblowers
Whistleblowers often live under a heavy stigma, and face professional retaliation as well as legal threats. "I'm quite sure that I've been turned down for various positions throughout the years because of my whistle-blowing, so that really does kind of stymie your career and put a real damper on what you do with the rest of your life once you come forward with this," Bolkovac told Human Rights Watch.
The report strongly urges that states punish retaliation against whistleblowers, to avoid discouraging future disclosures of wrongdoing. Snowden agreed. "If we structure our societies in such a way that people reporting wrongdoing of the most serious nature have to basically stand up and light themselves on fire, we are very quickly going to find ourselves out of volunteers the very moment when society needs them the most."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
Democratic lawmakers said if reports of Hegseth attempting to buy defense stock weeks before the war are true, it "would be a profound conflict of interest" and a "betrayal of the nation paying the price for this war."
Senate Democrats are pushing for an investigation into US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following a report that he attempted to make a “big investment” in weapons stock just weeks before President Donald Trump launched an aggressive war against Iran.
Three Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee—Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) were joined by Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Jeff Merkley to send Hegseth a letter on Wednesday.
They told the secretary that his reported attempt to broker the deal "would be a profound conflict of interest and a potential violation of your federal ethics agreement—and betrayal of the nation paying the price for this war and the troops you are sending into harm’s way."
The Financial Times reported earlier this week that Hegseth's "broker at Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock in February about making a multimillion-dollar investment in the asset manager’s Defense Industrials Active ETF... shortly before the US launched military action against Tehran.”
However, the purchase was reportedly never made because the massive bundle of stocks was not available to Morgan Stanley clients at the time.
A Pentagon spokesperson has also denied the story, calling it "entirely false and fabricated" and claiming that neither Hegseth nor any of his representatives ever approached BlackRock.
But, as the lawmakers noted, FT reported that the inquiry was significant enough for BlackRock to flag it internally.
Hegseth and other Pentagon officials confirmed by the Senate are prohibited by law from owning or purchasing publicly traded stock in the 10 companies that have received the largest Defense Department contracts over the past five years.
But the fund held stocks in several of these companies, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls, Boeing, RTX Corporation, and L3Harris Technologies.
Reports of the proposed deal by Hegseth's broker come as the Trump administration has faced other accusations of trading on insider information about the president’s next moves to win big on prediction market services. Platforms like Polymarket have seen bettors take home monster winnings by placing wagers predicting major military actions in Venezuela and Iran just hours before Trump launched them.
The lawmakers noted that while the war is costing American taxpayers more than $1 billion per day and has saddled Americans with soaring gas prices, it has proven highly lucrative for major defense contractors, whose stocks jumped significantly in the days after the war was launched, even as the rest of the market took a tumble.
The Trump administration is currently demanding another $200 billion to prosecute the war on top of a $1.5 trillion budget request to fund the Defense Department, which the lawmakers said would likely result in these companies’ profits and stock prices continuing to climb.
The US-Israeli war against Iran, launched on February 28, has been condemned as illegal by many international law experts and human rights groups, who have accused the US of violating the UN Charter and committing war crimes.
According to a report on Wednesday from the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), a US-based human rights monitor for Iran, more than 1,600 civilians have been killed since the war began, including 244 children. At least 13 US troops have also been killed since the conflict broke out.
The lawmakers told Hegseth regarding his reported investment attempt: “If this report is accurate, it would appear to represent an appalling effort to profit off of your knowledge of the president’s plans for war.”
A political group in the European Parliament and dozens of human rights groups have called for suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
Global criticism has mounted since Israeli lawmakers approved a death penalty law targeting Palestinians earlier this week, including fresh calls for the European Union to suspend a key political and trade deal, the EU-Israel Association Agreement.
On Thursday, 31 groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam, said in a joint statement that "we are appalled by the Israeli Knesset's decision to approve a bill that makes death penalty effectively mandatory in the West Bank and which will de facto apply exclusively to Palestinians."
The coalition also specifically put pressure on the EU, noting that the bloc "has consistently held that capital punishment is cruel, inhuman, and incompatible with human dignity under all circumstances," and that the Israeli law violates "the right to life and protections enshrined in international humanitarian and human rights law, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Regulations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture."
"Diplomatic engagement by the EU and its member states urging Israel to reverse course has so far proven ineffective. This appalling development occurs amid an ongoing manmade humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, which a UN Commission of Inquiry, multiple Palestinian, Israeli, and international organizations, and independent experts have characterized as constituting genocide, and against the backdrop of an accelerating de facto annexation of the West Bank," the coalition wrote, pointing to the July 2024 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. "The adoption of the death penalty law is thus part of a pattern of discriminatory policies and practices against Palestinians."
The coalition continued:
In furtherance of these policies, Israel has already crossed established EU red lines: the advancement of settlement construction in the E1 area, which breaks the territorial contiguity of the West Bank, with the intent to prevent a future Palestinian state; the ban on [the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] and attacks on its facilities, including schools and clinics built and run with EU contributions; the expulsion of international NGOs through restrictive registration procedures; forced evictions of Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem; forced displacement of tens of thousands of Palestinians and widespread demolitions of Palestinian homes and infrastructure in the West Bank, including EU-funded projects; persistent impunity for abuses by Israeli security forces and state-backed settler violence; reports of widespread and systemic torture and mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners; restrictions on religious freedoms; attacks on journalists; and denial of access to EU officials.
As also recalled by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kallas in her statement... the EU-Israel Association Agreement establishes respect for democratic principles as an essential element of EU-Israel relations. A review conducted by the EU in June 2025 based on Article 2 of the agreement found Israel in breach of its human rights obligations for serious abuses against Palestinians and violations of the laws of war, both in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
When the bloc refused to halt the trade deal over Gaza last year, Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard called the decision "a cruel and unlawful betrayal—of the European project and vision, predicated on upholding international law and fighting authoritarian practices, of the European Union's own rules, and of the human rights of Palestinians."
The coalition concluded Thursday: "Nine months on, the time for action is long overdue. The European Union must uphold its stated principles and legal obligations by finally suspending, as a minimum immediate measure, the trade component of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and adopting other measures."
One political group in the European Parliament, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D Group), also expressed "deep concern following the Israeli Knesset's approval of legislation introducing the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of terrorism," and put pressure on the European Council, which is made up of the bloc's heads of state or government.
"The S&D Group is calling on the European Council to urgently suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement in light of Israel's continuous and grave violations of Article 2 of the Agreement on human rights, which is central to the partnership," the group said in a Tuesday statement, the day after the law passed.
Yannis Maniatis, S&D Group vice president for foreign affairs, said that "reintroducing the death penalty is a step back into the past and yet another blow to the values that underpin our partnership with Israel. We cannot and will not remain silent."
"When a partner repeatedly ignores the warnings from its friends and civil society alike, there must be consequences," added Maniatis, a Greek politician. "It is high time the Council suspended the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The time to act is now."
The S&D Group's statement came not only after the death penalty law's passage but also amid a European citizens' initiative collecting signatures to demand the suspension in response to Israel's "unprecedented level of killing and injury of civilians, a large-scale displacement of population, and the systematic destruction of hospitals and medical facilities" in the Gaza Strip. So far, over 645,000 people from EU member states, of the necessary 1 million, have signed on to that call.
The Council of the European Union—which is composed of national ministers from each member state—this week issued a statement reiterating the EU's "principled position against the death penalty in all cases and in all circumstances," condemning the Israeli law as "a grave regression," and highlighting deep concerns about its "de facto discriminatory character."
"Consistent with our global efforts towards universal abolition of the death penalty, the EU urges Israel to abide by its previous principled position and with its obligations under international law, as well as its commitment to democratic principles, as reflected also in the provisions of the EU-Israel Association Agreement," the council said.
However, there have been no signals from EU leadership about progress toward suspending the agreement in light of the law's passage.
"She will not escape accountability and remains legally obligated to appear before our committee under oath," said the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
US President Donald Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday after reportedly growing frustrated by her failure to pursue his political enemies with sufficient zeal and her handling of the Epstein files.
Trump confirmed in a Truth Social post that Bondi is out as attorney general and will be moving to an "important new job in the private sector." The president said Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, will replace Bondi in an interim capacity as the White House considers its options for a permanent replacement. Lee Zeldin, a Trump loyalist who currently heads the Environmental Protection Agency, has been floated as a leading candidate.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement responding to Bondi's ouster that "she will not escape accountability and remains legally obligated to appear before our committee under oath," referring to a subpoena the panel approved last month.
"Bondi has been leading a White House cover-up of the Epstein files. She has weaponized the Department of Justice to protect Donald Trump and put survivors in harm’s way by exposing their identities," said Garcia. "Oversight Democrats have been leading serious investigations into Bondi and Secretary Kristi Noem. If they think we are moving on because they were fired, they are gravely mistaken."
In her response to the news, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) pointed to Bondi's refusal to apologize to Epstein victims whose identities were exposed in the Justice Department's disclosures, which Democrats said were rolled out and redacted in a way that protected the powerful—including Trump himself.
"Bondi called apologizing to the Epstein survivors getting into the 'gutter,'" Jayapal wrote Thursday. "Good riddance."
Politico reported ahead of Bondi's removal that she "has been under pressure since last summer over her ill-fated handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files inquiry, with even close ally Susie Wiles admitting Bondi 'completely whiffed' her response."
Trump also publicly complained late last year that Bondi was not being aggressive enough in trying to prosecute the president's political opponents.
"Pam," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post in September. "I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, 'same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam 'Shifty' Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.'"
Following Trump's post, the Justice Department pursued charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, but a federal judge tossed the cases in November.
“No one can be loyal enough. No one can punish Trump’s enemies fast enough," Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said Thursday. "Pam Bondi took the DOJ in a lawless, non-independent, shameful direction, and the institution of justice has suffered as a result. Bondi has trivialized the DOJ, the sanctity of law, and the attorney general position."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted that under Bondi's leadership, the Justice Department was "handing out merger approvals as political favors."
"Under AG Pam Bondi, the DOJ became a cesspool of corruption," Warren wrote on social media. "Good riddance."