

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.
UK: donald[dot] campbell [at] reprieve.org.uk / +44 (0) 207 553 8140
US: katherine [dot] oshea [at] reprieve.org / +1 917 855 8064
MPs today urged David Cameron to raise human rights and Egypt's use of the death penalty with President Sisi, including the case of Ibrahim Halawa, an Irish teenager facing a potential death sentence in a mass trial.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4 in an interview broadcast this morning, Ibrahim's sister Somaia said that her mother had had a distressing visit to Ibrahim on Tuesday at Wadi Natrun prison, where he has said he suffers regular beatings. Somaia said: "She's a mother - she can't hold her tears when she sees her son in this situation. He kept telling her, please Mama don't cry, because if you do I will cry too."
Ibrahim, who was 17 when he was arrested during the Egyptian military's breakup of protests, is facing a potential death sentence in a mass trial of 494 people that has been frequently postponed over the past 2 years. During that time, he has faced a series of abuses in prison. His family have written to David Cameron, calling on him to raise Ibrahim's case during the Egyptian President's visit today.
Somaia also spoke of the poor trial conditions, saying that Ibrahim had been beaten and tortured as punishment for demanding a fair trial during at least one hearing. He had been beaten with metal chains by prison authorities, she said, for no reason other than that he is 'foreign'. "Let's not forget that he is facing the death penalty [...] just for peacefully protesting", she added. The Halawas are trying to "keep strong",she said, adding that they were "very hopeful" that Mr Cameron would intervene with President Sisi.
The interview came as MPs raised concerns in Parliament about abuses in Egypt, including Ibrahim's case. This morning, an urgent question tabled by Tom Brake MP asked if the Prime Minister would raise the case. In response, Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood confirmed that British officials had raised it with Egypt "this summer". However, he stopped short of confirming that Mr Cameron would press the case during his meeting with Mr Sisi, saying only that "many matters" relating to human rights would be discussed. Other MPs, including Foreign Affairs Committee chair Crispin Blunt MP, raised concerns about the timing of Mr Sisi's visit, amid widespread reports of torture and political repression in Egypt.
Human rights organization Reprieve, which is assisting Ibrahim, has urged the Prime Minister to raise Ibrahim's case during Sisi's visit.
Commenting, Maya Foa, head of the death penalty team at Reprieve, said: "Ibrahim and his family have been through a heartbreaking ordeal since he was swept up in Sisi's brutal crackdown on dissent. Despite having been just a child when he was arrested for the 'crime' of attending a protest, Ibrahim is facing a death sentence in a manifestly unfair mass trial of 494 people. Cameron must make clear to Sisi that the UK rejects these terrible abuses - the Prime Minister must demand Ibrahim's release, and urge Sisi to end his wave of repression."
Reprieve is a UK-based human rights organization that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantanamo Bay.
“Starbucks must reverse course from its current posture, resolve its existing labor disputes, and bargain a fair contract in good faith with these employees.”
As Starbucks workers prepare to strike amid stalled contract talks with management, more than 80 US lawmakers on Monday demanded that bosses at the world's largest coffee chain stop union busting and negotiate a fair deal for employees.
Starbucks workers—who have been in talks with company bosses led by CEO Brian Niccol for over a year—accuse management of stonewalling on key contract issues including higher pay, more hours, and an end to unfair labor practices and union busting. Last week, members of Starbucks Workers United overwhelmingly voted to authorize an unfair labor practices strike—they're calling it a "Red Cup Rebellion"—at over 650 locations if the company fails to finalize a fair contract by November 13.
Members of the Congressional Labor Caucus led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Senate and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) in the House sent letters to Niccol expressing their concern over management's "failure to reach a fair first contract with its baristas" and a "troubling return to union busting."
"In February 2024, Starbucks and Workers United announced a path forward to commit to negotiating a foundational framework for contracts, establishing a fair process for organizing, and resolving outstanding legal issues," the Senate letter states. "We were hopeful that the company would abide by this commitment and bargain in good faith with Starbucks workers who exercised their right to form a union."
The lawmakers continued:
As you well know Starbucks is not a poor company. Last year Starbucks made over $3.6 billion in profit and paid out nearly $5 billion in stock buybacks and dividends. In fact, in the first three quarters of the year, Starbucks made $1.7 billion in profit and paid out over $2 billion in dividends. Last year, you made $95 million in compensation for the four months you worked in 2024, roughly 6,666 times more than what your average worker was paid for the entire year.
Despite that extravagant spending on executives and shareholders, Starbucks refuses to reach an agreement with its own workers even though you are less than one average day’s sales apart from a contract. To make matters worse, Starbucks recently began closing stores across the country and laying off hundreds of workers as part its $1 billion restructuring plan. It is clear that Starbucks has the money to reach a fair agreement with its workers.
"Starbucks must reverse course from its current posture, resolve its existing labor disputes, and bargain a fair contract in good faith with these employees," the letter demands.
Starbucks Workers United has already filed more than 100 charges against the coffee giant over the past 11 months, alleging unfair labor practices including reprisals against unionizing baristas. The union calls Starbucks "the biggest violator of labor law in modern history," as administrative law judges and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have found that the company has committed more than 500 violations of labor law.
Niccol—who last year became Starbucks’ fourth CEO in just two years—brought with him a history of union busting during his previous job as the head of Chipotle. Under his leadership, the fast-food chain closed a store in Augusta, Maine in 2022 after employees there tried to make it the company’s first unionized location. The workers filed a complaint at the NLRB, which ruled that the closure was an illegal act of union busting.
Workers at more than 600 Starbucks locations across the United States have voted to unionize since baristas at a store on Elmwood Avenue in Buffalo, New York became the first to do so in late 2021.
“Union baristas mean business and are ready to do whatever it takes to win a fair contract and end Starbucks’ unfair labor practices,” Michelle Eisen, a Starbucks Workers United spokesperson and 15-year veteran barista, said in a statement announcing last week's strike authorization. “We want Starbucks to succeed, but turning the company around and bringing customers back begins with listening to and supporting the baristas who are responsible for the Starbucks experience."
"If Starbucks keeps stonewalling, they should expect to see their business grind to a halt," Eisen added. "The ball is in Starbucks’ court.”
One policy expert warned the move was likely meant to signal to Republican election officials that if they take actions to steal future elections, "they'll be pardoned."
President Donald Trump has given a "full, complete, and unconditional” pardon to a long list of allies who conspired to help him overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Late Sunday night, Justice Department attorney Ed Martin posted a list of over 70 people who would receive pardons. Many of the figures included were named as unindicted co-conspirators or charged at the state level for their roles in the plot to knowingly spread false claims of widespread voter fraud in an attempt to push states to reject former President Joe Biden's victories in key swing states and pressure Vice President Mike Pence into stopping the certification of the election.
Among those pardoned are Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who publicly promoted baseless claims of a vast conspiracy against the president to the public, claiming that the election was stolen by a cabal of foreign infiltrators and scheming election officials. They later faced defamation lawsuits for these claims, and in legal proceedings, Giuliani conceded he made false statements about election workers, while Powell's lawyers argued that "no reasonable person" would conclude her public claims were statements of fact.
Trump also pardoned former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who acted as a facilitator between the president and state officials he attempted to bully into saying he won the election. Aside from the president himself, Meadows was the highest-ranking White House staffer on the phone call in which Trump asked Georgia's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" him enough votes to be declared the winner of the election.
Also receiving pardons were attorneys John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro. They were part of what Pence called Trump's "gaggle of crackpot lawyers," who concocted the tortured legal theory that the vice president could declare Biden's victory in swing states illegitimate and anoint Trump as the winner. Eastman privately admitted to Trump that the scheme was illegal but pressed ahead with it anyway, culminating in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol, during which Trump supporters chanted, "Hang Mike Pence," and tried to stop the election results from being certified.
Also pardoned were several of the right-wing activists who signed documents falsely claiming to be electors from states that had certified the election for Biden.
Crucially, the individuals listed never faced federal criminal indictments for their election subversion attempts. However, dozens of those on the list were charged with crimes in swing states—including Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada—related to the effort. The pardons mean these officials cannot be indicted at the federal level for these crimes.
Though the pardon list is broad, giving clemency to "all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting activities, participation in or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of presidential electors… as well for any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 presidential election," it explicitly states that it "does not apply" to Trump himself, indicating that his legal team is not yet ready to test the theory that the president can pardon himself.
Still, the language Martin used in the announcement—"No MAGA left behind"—signaled the goal of creating a two-tiered justice system where those who display loyalty to Trump are immune from the law.
"The stated goal of the pardon attorney is to reward the president's political supporters," wrote Matt Gertz, a senior fellow for Media Matters for America on social media.
It coincides with Trump's broader efforts to give get-out-of-jail-free cards to anyone who gives him political support. Immediately after returning to office, he gave blanket pardons to more than 1,500 people who participated in the violent effort to overturn the election on his behalf on January 6. Since then, his Justice Department has moved to fire or suspend those who brought cases against them, even for unrelated crimes.
Simply being a public Trump supporter has often been enough for people to be let off the hook for petty crimes. Florida healthcare executive Paul Walczak, who was convicted of federal tax evasion, reportedly got a pardon after his mother made a substantial donation to Trump's Super PAC. He later gave pardons to reality stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, a pair of vocal supporters, who were convicted of bank and tax fraud. He also pardoned Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins, another prominent supporter, who was convicted in a bribery scandal for accepting "cash for badges."
"Pardon attorney Ed Martin explicitly linked the pardons to his 'No MAGA left behind' mantra—tweeting the news in reply to a post that said exactly that," noted senior Lawfare editor Anna Bower. "Ironically, Martin also leads the Weaponization Working Group, which probes alleged 'politicization' of the Justice Department."
Tyson Slocum, an energy policy expert at Public Citizen, warned that these pardons send a clear message to those hoping to help Trump subvert future elections.
"Trump's pardons of Republicans who have committed crimes," he said, "is a setup to encourage state-level Republican election officials to take actions to illegally steal the election, knowing that if they succeed, they'll be pardoned."
"Bold choice going with a strategy of 'we are losers,'" wrote one critic of King's statement.
Sen. Angus King, one of the senators who broke with the majority of the Democratic caucus to support a deal to end the federal government shutdown, drew swift anger when defending his vote on Monday morning.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," King (I-Maine) tried to make the case that shutting down the government had only given President Donald Trump a free hand to consolidate power in the White House.
"In terms of standing up to Donald Trump, the shutdown actually gave him more power, Exhibit A being what he's done with [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]," he said. "So, standing up to Donald Trump didn't work, it actually gave him more power."
Sen. Angus King: "Standing up to Donald Trump didn't work" pic.twitter.com/Y751B5SajR
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2025
Senate Democrats who supported the deal have been denounced by progressives, and even some moderates, for agreeing to fund the federal government without securing an extension for enhanced tax credits for people who buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges. The tax credits have been at the center of the shutdown—the longest in US history—but the Democrats who voted with the GOP did so after securing only the Republicans' claim that they'll hold a vote on healthcare in the future.
Polls have shown a majority of voters have blamed the Republican Party for the shutdown, and a plurality of respondents to a KFF survey last week said Democrats should hold firm in their demand on healthcare subsidies. Trump said last week that the election results put more pressure on the GOP—not the Democrats—to take action to end the shutdown.
Additionally, the decision to cave on the shutdown came less than a week after Democrats won sweeping victories in key elections where candidates unapologetically stood up to Trump and vowed to fight his administration's unpopular policies.
Given this, King's statement that "standing up to Donald Trump didn't work" was met by swift and immediate blowback.
"Bold choice going with a strategy of 'we are losers,'" wrote Matt Gertz, senior fellow at Media Matters for America, in a post on X.
"Breaking Points" host Krystal Ball reacted with angry profanity to King's statement.
"Jesus fucking Christ," she fumed. "Resign. Genuinely just fucking resign."
Photographer Brett Banditelli accused King and his likeminded Democratic senators who supported the deal of "living in another reality."
"They're just DC brained," he wrote on Bluesky. "They live in a world where Politico and Punchbowl News are the most important publications."
Indivisible cofounder Leah Greenberg sarcastically imagined Democrats incorporating such "inspiring messaging" about failing to stand up to Trump into fundraising appeals.
Fordham University economist Tony Annett marveled at King's belief that it was ineffective to stand up to a president with historically low approval ratings, which stood at just over 41% last month according to one poll.
"No wonder their brand is in the toilet," he said of the Democratic Party.
A Pew Research poll released in late October found that two-thirds of Democratic voters said they were "frustrated" by the party, with the top listed reason being that Democrats have "not pushed back hard enough against the Trump administration."