

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.

Military courts have tried at least 7,420 Egyptian civilians since October 2014, when President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi decreed a major new law that expanded military court jurisdiction.
A list of civilians tried in military courts, provided by the Egyptian Coordination for Rights and Freedoms, an independent legal and human rights group, documents for the first time the extent to which al-Sisi's administration has used the military justice system to expedite its harsh crackdown on opponents.
Most defendants were sentenced after mass trials that violate fundamental due process rights, and some courts relied on confessions extracted under torture, relatives of the defendants said.
"Apparently unsatisfied with tens of thousands already detained and speedy mass trials that discarded due process in the name of national security, al-Sisi essentially gave free rein to military prosecutors," said Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East and North Africa director. "He has handed back to the military judiciary the powerful role it enjoyed in the months after Egypt's uprising, when the nation was governed by a council of generals."
The list provided to Human Rights Watch documented 324 cases, identifying defendants by name, sex, home governorate, and case number, and in many cases by profession and age. The largest case involved 327 defendants.
The list did not describe the charges in each case. But a Human Rights Watch survey of about 50 Egyptian media reports since October 2014, describing the referrals of thousands of people for military trials, indicates that most of those charged in military courts were transferred there because the broad provisions of al-Sisi's law essentially put all public property under military jurisdiction, not because they committed crimes involving the armed forces.
The media reports indicated that a large number were accused of participating in illegal or violent protests, as well as membership in or support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Since July 2013, when the military removed Mohamed Morsy, Egypt's first freely elected president and a former Brotherhood member, Egyptian judges have sentenced thousands of members of the group.
These military trials have swept up at least 86 children, as well as students, professors, and activists, including individuals who were forcibly disappeared and allegedly tortured. Military courts have handed down 21 death sentences since October 2014, though a lawyer with the Egyptian Coordination for Rights and Freedoms said that none have yet been approved by the Supreme Military Court of Appeals.
Human Rights Watch interviewed relatives of seven people, including four men sentenced to death and one child, who were all tried in military courts in the past year. Six told their families that agents of the Interior Ministry's National Security branch tortured or beat them to elicit confessions, including four who were tortured with electric shocks. Five said they were forcibly disappeared by the authorities for weeks or months. In all but one case, their convictions were based in large part on the confessions, according to their relatives and case files.
In one case, following a mass trial of 27 defendants, a military court sentenced Seif al-Islam Osama, who was 15 when arrested, to three years in a juvenile detention facility for allegedly participating in an illegal protest, despite defense lawyers' arguments that he was too young to face military trial and had not actually been a participant.
In another case, a high school student arrested in the street outside his school told his mother that National Security agents stripped him, walked on him, extinguished cigarettes on his skin, and gave him electric shocks on various parts of his body, including his genitals, to make him confess to belonging to a "terrorist cell" that planted explosives and burned electricity stations. A military court sentenced him to three years in prison.
Thousands of civilians were retroactively referred to military trials for crimes they allegedly committed before al-Sisi imposed the law. Hundreds, and possibly thousands, of the civilians referred for military trial faced charges that stemmed from the violent unrest that broke out in mid-2013 after the military removed Morsy from power.
The list identified 1,468 defendants from Minya governorate - the most from any one governorate - where violent mobs attacked churches and Christian-owned homes and businesses following Morsy's removal and the subsequent mass killing of Morsy's supporters by security forces in August 2013. The media reports reviewed by Human Rights Watch corroborated the retroactive referral of hundreds of Minya residents to military trials for participating in the 2013 violence.
Another military trial involves Sohaib Sa'ad, a 22-year-old man arrested on a Cairo street on June 1, 2015, as he walked with friends. The authorities forcibly disappeared Sa'ad for four weeks, during which time he alleged he was tortured. Sa'ad, who used to film protests and sell the footage to news media, had been charged in a prominent case targeting three journalists from Al Jazeera and was detained from January 2, 2014, until February 12, 2015, when he was released pending retrial.
On July 10, 2015, almost two weeks after he reappeared, the Defense Ministry published a video on YouTube announcing the arrest of Sa'ad and others in what it said was "one of the most dangerous terrorist cells belonging to a special operations unit of the terrorist Brotherhood organization." The video showed Sa'ad and several others confessing their alleged roles in the group. The court hearing the Al Jazeera case sentenced Sa'ad and the other defendants to three years in August 2015, and on April 3, 2016, the military court hearing the terrorism case against Sa'ad and 27 other defendants postponed its verdict to April 24.
Such mass trials, in both Egypt's regular and military judiciaries, have violated due process guarantees and failed to establish individual guilt. In 2014, a criminal court judge issued 220 death sentences against defendants accused in mass trials of participating in Minya's 2013 violence. In February 2016, a military court mistakenly handed down a life sentence to a 3-year-old child following a mass trial against 116 protesters from Fayoum governorate, whose case was transferred to a military court under al-Sisi's law.
Egypt's military courts are administered by the Defense Ministry. The judges are serving military officers. Military court proceedings typically do not protect basic due process rights or satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality of courts of law. Children can fall under the jurisdiction of military courts, which Human Rights Watch opposes under any circumstances.
The use of military courts to try civilians violates international law, including the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which Egypt ratified in 1984. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has stated that civilians should never face military trial.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations body charged with interpreting the Convention on the Rights of the Child, has stressed that "the conduct of criminal proceedings against children within the military justice system should be avoided." Egypt ratified the convention in 1990, making it one of the earliest state parties to the convention.
"The referral of so many civilians to military courts is an attempt by Egyptian authorities to provide a judicial rubber stamp for their crackdown," Houry said. "But these military trials - often involving hundreds of civilians at a time - are neither fair nor credible."
Al-Sisi's Military Courts Law
On October 27, 2014 - three days after armed extremists killed dozens of soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula - al-Sisi, in the absence of a parliament, decreed Law 136 for the Securing and Protection of Public and Vital Facilities.
The law placed essentially all public property under military jurisdiction for two years and specifically included electricity stations, gas pipelines, oil wells, railroads, road networks, and bridges, in addition to similar state-owned property. To charge civilians under the law, military prosecutors filed charges such as blocking road and rail networks, burning electricity infrastructure or attacking government property, such as telephone exchanges.
On November 11, 2014, Prosecutor General Hisham Barakat issued a memo to prosecutors instructing them to review their files for cases that might fall under the new law, prepare memos about them, and refer them to military prosecutors "whenever requested."
Article 204 of Egypt's Constitution, approved by popular referendum in January 2014, under the interim government that followed Morsy's removal, specifies a range of crimes for which civilians can face military trial, though it ostensibly limits such cases to assaults on military personnel or equipment, or crimes that involve military factories, funds, secrets, or documents. The article is largely the same as one in the previous constitution, passed during Morsy's administration, which also allowed military courts to try civilians, despite protests from activists and some politicians.
The wave of military prosecutions against civilians since October 2014 marks a return to the practice, which the authorities employed widely after Egypt's 2011 uprising. Between January 28 and August 29, 2011, 11,879 civilians faced military trials, and at least 8,071 were convicted, according to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which governed Egypt during most of that period.
Under the rule of Hosni Mubarak, the longtime president ousted in 2011, emergency law allowed him to refer civilians directly to military trial. Between 1992 and 1998, military courts tried more than 1,000 civilians in mass trials, most of them alleged members of al-Jihad or the Islamic Group, extremist Sunni Muslim organizations that were waging an antigovernment insurgency.
Such trials were rarer during the 2000s and mostly reserved for sensitive political cases, such as those against members of the Brotherhood leadership. Military trials of civilians virtually halted during Morsy's one-year administration, which began in June 2012, though the practice remained legal.
Three cases documented by Human Rights Watch show how military trials under al-Sisi have relied solely on the word of National Security officers, some of whom are accused by defendants of using torture during their enforced disappearance to force them to confess.
The Damietta "Terrorist Cell"
In late April 2015, National Security agents arrested two men from Damietta, a city near Egypt's Mediterranean coast. Their families told Human Rights Watch that the agents forcibly disappeared the men by holding them in Damietta's central police station without access to lawyers for 15 days, while the families' requests for information about their whereabouts went unanswered. Both men told their families that National Security agents tortured them during their detention to elicit confessions.
Police arrested Mohamed al-Sayed Korat from home at around 3 a.m., said his wife, who was awake with their 4-month-old son at the time. Korat told his lawyer that, while in detention, National Security agents blindfolded him and his fellow detainees, cuffed their wrists to opposite legs and administered electric shocks. He said they threatened to pull out one of his eyes and to arrest his wife and son. Eventually, he said, he agreed to appear in a video, confessing that he had been the ringleader of a terrorist gang.
The other detainee, a high school student who was known for criticizing the government, was arrested on the street outside his school on his way to take an exam, his mother said. He told his family that to force him and the others in the group to confess, National Security agents stripped them, walked on them, extinguished cigarettes on their skin, and gave them electric shocks on various parts of their bodies, including their genitals.
On May 5, fifteen days after their arrests, Korat and the student appeared before a local prosecutor for questioning and were allowed to meet with lawyers. Korat, the student and two other men accused in the case seemed to have been included randomly and did not know each other, the student's mother said.
Later that month, the Interior Ministry published a video of their confessions on YouTube, claiming that police had arrested them as part of a 12-man cell in Damietta. The ministry said the arrests were part of efforts to counter the "terrorist Muslim Brotherhood group" and disrupt its plans to attack the authorities and sabotage state infrastructure.
In the video, a narrator claimed that authorities had found "activated explosive devices, machine guns, and explosive-making materials" in their homes. The narrator accused the men of belonging to a "specific operations committee" and said they had admitted to placing explosives under gas pipelines and beside Damietta's police station and traffic department.
Two months later, the prosecutor handling the case transferred it to a military counterpart, who eventually brought it before a military court.
The military prosecutors charged the defendants with burning a Tax Authority car and two electricity stations belonging to the North Delta Company for Electricity Distribution, with the goal of "terrorizing and intimidating" citizens and "exposing their lives and assets to danger," according to the prosecution's order sending the case to court. The order did not mention the claims made in the confession video, such as planting explosives.
The order stated that the military prosecution's case rested on the testimony of three security officers, two of whom worked in the same police station where the defendants said they had been tortured.
The primary witness was Cpt. Ahmed Ibrahim Kiwan, chief of investigations at Damietta's central police station, who testified that the defendants had confessed to burning the car and two electricity stations. Cpt. Faisal al-Saudi Sarhan, a National Security officer also based at the police station, and Lt. Col. Mohsin Naguib Mowafi, a local police inspector, corroborated Kiwan's testimony.
During a five-month trial, the panel of military trial judges allowed the defense lawyers to present their case and seemed to regard the student sympathetically. His mother said that one judge remarked that he should be released.
Because the case relied solely on the word of the National Security officers, the defendants' families believed their relatives would be acquitted. But on January 20, 2016, the military court sentenced the high school student to three years in prison and Korat to seven years. They have since been transferred to Gamassa Prison, near Damietta.
"He's very depressed because his son doesn't know him, and he can't sit with him," Korat's wife said. "They've made us come to the point that I just thank God my husband is alive."
A Child in Military Court
On the night of August 3, 2014, Seif al-Islam Osama, then 15, set out to New Damietta City with friends. As they walked down a seaside promenade, police stopped them at a checkpoint set up in the aftermath of a protest elsewhere in the city, his father told Human Rights Watch.
His friends ran, but he stayed. Men in civilian clothes working for the police attacked him, his father said, punching him in his face and stomach. They bundled him into a police truck, drove him to Damietta's central police station and held him overnight. During the night, other inmates told his parents, the police beat him and threatened to torture him with electricity if he told his parents.
The next day, police brought Osama before a local prosecutor for questioning. A photograph taken by a lawyer at the prosecutor's office shows him sitting on a hallway bench, handcuffed to another detainee by his left wrist, wearing his red T-shirt from the previous day, which is stained with dried blood. He looks at the camera dejectedly. After the interrogation, a prosecutor ordered him detained for 15 days pending investigation.
The prosecution held Osama in temporary detention for five months, while the authorities moved him from one small-town police station to another. In December 2014, two months after al-Sisi issued his law expanding military court jurisdiction, the prosecutor referred al-Islam's case to a military counterpart.
The case included 27 defendants, most from the small town of Kafr Saad, near Damietta. They were accused of protesting illegally, carrying weapons, blocking roads, possessing publications that promoted the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, and trying to sabotage state institutions.
Prosecutors charged many of them with breaking a 2013 law that effectively banned protests, using a provision that criminalizes any demonstration that "impedes the interests of citizens," "influences the course of justice," or "blocks traffic," among other acts.
A military court at al-Galaa Military Camp in Ismailia, a city on the Suez Canal, began hearing Osama's case in January 2015, more than four months after he was detained. In April, he took the end-of-year exams for his first year of high school while in detention.
The military court relied on the testimony of two security officers: 1st Lt. Mahmoud Abd al-Ghani, an assistant investigator with the Damietta police station, and Maj. Mahmoud Gelal, a National Security officer, according to a copy of the verdict seen by Human Rights Watch.
Adb al-Ghani testified that on August 3, 2014, he had observed a march of about 70 people in New Damietta City carrying signs that said "Down with the Coup" and chanting slogans "hostile to the army, police and judiciary." The crowd blocked a road with trash cans and set them on fire before security forces confronted them and arrested three people, among them Osama, he said. Gelal, the other officer, testified that the marchers had carried sticks and flares and said he had identified 22 participants, including Osama.
On August 4, 2015, a year later, the court found Osama guilty of violating the protest law and sentenced him to three years in a juvenile facility, one year more than the two-year minimum. The court also leveled the minimum fine of 50,000 Egyptian pounds (US$5,630).
The court dismissed the defense lawyers' argument that only a juvenile court was competent to try a child of Osama's age. The judges pointed to article 122 of Egypt's 1996 Child Law, which allows for the trial of children in criminal courts or Egypt's Supreme State Security Court if they were 15 or older at the time of the alleged crime, participated with an adult accomplice, and "the case necessitated" trying the two defendants together. The Child Law requires the court to "examine the circumstances of the child from all aspects" in making its ruling and allows the court to seek expert assistance.
Osama's father told Human Rights Watch that a civilian social worker would usually provide such expertise in a regular criminal court, to assess Osama's education, mental state, and other aspects of his life, but that the military court assigned a military prosecutor to perform that role.
The court appeared to rely entirely on the testimony of the National Security officers, requiring no evidence other than their statements. It dismissed the defense claim that police had arrested Osama after, and not at, the demonstration, saying that the charges were credible because they were based on Abd al-Ghani's eyewitness testimony.
In November 2015, the authorities transferred Osama to al-Marg Punishment Institute, a juvenile facility outside Cairo. The family now faces a more than 230-kilometer round trip to visit and must leave at dawn to get in line before the institute's 8 a.m. opening time, which the authorities sometimes change at random, they said.
"He is tired, psychologically. He doesn't say much," his mother told Human Rights Watch. "I know from the letters ... when I read the letters they're all miserable. He told me, 'I'll be standing, bending my legs, I have to take permission from the person who's older than me to stretch them. Everything, there is punishment in it.'"
Sentenced to Death
Just before noon on April 15, 2015, an explosive device detonated inside a room next to a gate at the main sports stadium in Kafr al-Sheikh, a provincial capital in the Nile Delta. The explosion blew a hole through the concrete wall that faced the gate, killing three military academy students and wounding two others. The gate served as a bus stop for the students, who had gathered there to wait for a ride back to school following the Sham al-Nasim spring holiday.
In early July, the prosecutor general's office in Cairo ordered the bombing investigation - which then involved 63 defendants - transferred to military prosecutors in Tanta, a nearby provincial capital. They later sent the case to their counterparts in Alexandria.
In October, Alexandria military prosecutors referred to trial 16 defendants, including the president of the Muslim Brotherhood's administrative office in Kafr al-Sheikh governorate, his deputy, and the local assistant secretary of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party.
In March 2016, an Alexandria military court sentenced seven defendants to death, only four of whom were in custody. Human Rights Watch spoke to their relatives, who said that the case against them was based on the false testimony of National Security officers and confessions obtained through torture during three of the men's forced disappearances.
One of them was 23-year-old Lotfy Ibrahim, arrested four days after the bombing by police at about 4 p.m., as he returned home from his mosque.
The next day, his mother sent telegrams to the public prosecution's office in Kafr al-Sheikh and to the prosecutor general in Cairo seeking information but received no response.
His parents said they heard nothing for more than two months. During his disappearance, he later told them, the authorities rotated him between Kafr al-Sheikh's Military Intelligence office, the National Security office, and the central police station.
At the Military Intelligence office, he said, his interrogators tortured him. They stripped him, laid him on his stomach, and gave him electric shocks on multiple parts of his body, including his genitals. They threatened to arrest his mother and sister.
In a room they called the "oven," he said they forced him into various stress positions. They hung him by his legs, for what he estimated were six-hour sessions, or by his arms, slung over the top of a door behind his back, a position that put extreme pressure on his shoulders. Sometimes, they laid him over the upturned legs of a chair, with his hands and legs tied together.
"The whole case was built on torturing Lotfy after he forcibly disappeared, to accuse certain people," his father said. "If they did this to me - and I'm old - and they accused me of blowing up the World Trade Center, I'd admit it."
The day after Ibrahim's arrest, on April 20, police went to Ahmed Abd al-Moneim Salama's advertising office. Encountering Salama, 41, as he came down the stairs with a friend, they arrested both men and blindfolded Salama. Soon afterward, they released Salama's friend, who told Salama's family that Salama was being tortured in custody.
Like Ibrahim's mother, Salama's wife sent telegrams to the prosecutor general in Cairo and the local prosecutors in Kafr al-Sheikh and Tanta, requesting information about Salama's whereabouts. For more than two months, she received no response.
On May 6, she learned that Salama was being held at a nearby Central Security Forces camp. When she visited the camp and conscripts brought Salama out, she told Human Rights Watch, he seemed unable to walk on his own, and his nose was broken.
"I almost died several times," he told his wife. A minute later, the conscripts took him away.
Police arrested 29-year-old Ahmed Abd al-Hadi Mohamed, who worked on cooling systems at an ice cream factory, the day before the bombing, on April 14, 2015. Abd al-Hadi had received a call to repair one of the factory's refrigerators around midday, and sometime that evening, before he returned home, police arrested him and his brother, his mother told Human Rights Watch.
His brother was later released, but their mother could not find Abd al-Hadi. Like other families, she searched for him at local detention facilities and police stations. Each time, officers told her to look elsewhere.
About 15 days after Abd al-Hadi's disappearance, his mother managed to visit him at Kafr al-Sheikh's central police station. He was limping, appeared skinny and "yellowish," and would not talk about his detention, she said.
He later told her that National Security agents had come every morning at 2 a.m. to beat him and other detainees and give them electric shocks to force them to confess, ordering him to identify the others accused in the bombing case, though he protested that he did not know them.
Abd al-Hadi told his mother that he had gone on hunger strike for a time to protest the torture, and that the head of investigations at the Kafr al-Sheikh police station threatened to retaliate. Abd al-Hadi believed that his hunger strike was why National Security investigators decided to name him in the bombing case, his mother said.
Shortly after the bombing, security forces also came looking for Sameh Abdallah Youssef, a 32-year-old Kafr al-Sheikh resident who was working in October 6th City, a Cairo suburb. Youssef tried to leave Egypt on August 28, 2015, but was stopped at passport control in Cairo International Airport and sent to Alexandria 24 hours later.
During the military trial, each defendant called alibi witnesses who testified that the men had been elsewhere at the time of the bombing, the families told Human Rights Watch. Youssef called witnesses who said that he had been working in October 6th City at the time, and Abd al-Hadi's witnesses testified that he had been arrested while repairing a refrigerator the day before the bombing. Other witnesses testified that Ibrahim had been at work at a construction firm a mile from the stadium from morning to nightfall on the day of the bombing, a relative told Mada Masr, an independent news website.
Prosecutors introduced two flash drives, each containing a video of Ibrahim's confession, in which he said that he had triggered the bombing with a particular kind of remote control.
The defense team said that Ibrahim had been tortured into making a false confession and pointed to testimony from a technical expert who said that the bombing was probably activated by a mobile phone and could not have been accomplished by that type of remote control. The court did not investigate the allegations of torture or enforced disappearances, despite requests from defense lawyers, a lawyer told Human Rights Watch.
The Alexandria military court handed down initial death sentences for the seven defendants on February 1, 2016. The court confirmed the death sentences on March 2, after receiving the unbinding but legally mandated advice of Egypt's grand mufti, the country's highest Islamic official. The men, most of whom are now in Alexandria's Borg al-Arab Prison, have one opportunity to appeal the ruling, to the Supreme Military Court of Appeals.
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.
Canadians' disdain toward the US is driven almost completely by Trump, with 64% saying their opinions of the country would likely change if he were no longer president.
A survey released Saturday by polling firm Leger finds that a plurality of Canadians now view the US as an "enemy" nation thanks to President Donald Trump's repeated attacks on their economy and national sovereignty.
In all, the poll finds that 41% of Canadians now consider the US enemy, compared with 22% who say the US is an ally, and 22% who say the US is a neutral country.
In a similar poll conducted in June 2025, Leger noted, only 26% of Canadians said the US was an enemy.
Trump's trade war is a major driver of negative opinion among Canadians, as 63% of those surveyed say they expect the president's tariffs to have either a moderate or major impact on their personal financial situations.
Additionally, 74% of Canadians say they agree with their government's decision to retaliate against Trump's tariffs, even while acknowledging such retaliation will hurt the economy.
Canadians are also resentful of Trump's demands that Canada become the 51st US state, with 85% saying they do not want to become part of America.
The disdain toward the US is driven almost entirely by Trump, the survey finds, with 64% of Canadians saying their opinions of the country would likely change if he were no longer president.
In an interview with The National Post, Leger vice president Andrew Enns emphasized the centrality of Trump in Canadians' deteriorating views of their neighbor to the south, arguing that the US president "can move public opinion like nobody’s business."
Brian Rathbun, professor of international relations and political science at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, told The National Post that while Canadians aren't letting their dislike of Trump tarnish their opinions of Americans as a whole, that could change in the coming years.
"At some point, I think Canadians will start to get frustrated if this persists, even if it’s not what the American public wants," said Rathbun. "They can say, ‘Why is it that no one’s standing up to this particular bully?’ Then I think that you could get into something like a deeper problem that couldn’t be fixed by kicking this guy out."
US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said President Donald Trump is "trying to drive these prices down," even though the president's war has been the primary reason they've been going up.
The price of diesel fuel in the US hit another record high on Saturday, as data published by the American Automobile Association showed the average cost for a gallon of diesel now stands at $5.88.
According to a Saturday report from Axios, incumbent Republicans are fretting about the impact that skyrocketing gasoline and diesel prices will have on the 2026 midterm elections, particularly since their own internal polling shows voters are placing blame for the price hikes on President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
"Diesel's at an all-time high," one GOP operative told Axios. "Gas is about $4 a gallon. We can't message that away."
Another Republican source told Axios that GOP candidates don't even have the option of distancing themselves from the president and his unpopular war given the iron grip he has on voters they will need to turn out in crucial races.
"We have no choice," said the source. "We're stuck on the boat with him whether we like it or not."
US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy tried to spin the record-high diesel prices as something outside the president's control during a Saturday interview on Fox News.
"When you look at diesel, you have to look at Russia and Ukraine," Duffy said. "Russia was a major exporter, the second-biggest exporter in the world, on diesel. They stopped their exports, so that puts pressure on the global market. But President Trump has pushed American energy dominance, we are producing more energy now than in the past."
Duffy added that "it's only President Trump who's trying to drive these prices down," even though the president's war has been the primary reason they've been going up.
Fox & Friends weekend host Charlie Hurt gives Trump credit for record high diesel prices: "Uhhh, they'd be a lot higher if it wasn't for the efforts of the administration"
"When you look at diesel, you have to look at Russia and Ukraine," Duffy replies 🥴 pic.twitter.com/Wm5bLJ6exA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 5, 2026
As a report published Friday by The Associated Press explained, the cost of diesel has a particularly strong impact on the price of food since the fuel is used to power both farm equipment and the trucks used to deliver food to grocery stores.
"Fuel accounts for roughly 15% to 30% of the total cost of food, according to the Independent Grocers Alliance, a grouping of 7,500 global supermarkets," reported the AP. "So higher diesel costs often result in more expensive groceries, although it can take a while for energy shocks to wind their way through the supply chain."
The rising cost of groceries has been a major source of stress for US consumers for years, and Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign vowed that prices on groceries would come down starting on his very first day in office.
Dozens of officers were grilled on whether they leaked classified information about the Iran War leaving the US with critical shortages in key munitions, The New York Times reported.
The US Department of Defense last month forced roughly 50 members of the military's Joint Staff to undergo polygraph exams as part of an effort to discover who leaked damaging information about President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, The New York Times reported on Friday.
According to the Times' sources, dozens of officers were strapped into polygraph machines and grilled on whether they leaked classified information about the war leaving the US with critical shortages in key munitions, including long-range missiles and Patriot interceptors.
The polygraph campaign "appeared aimed at not just ferreting out anyone who may have shared information, but intimidating others who might do so in the future," the Times reported.
The Times reported that the hunt for leakers has "intensified an atmosphere of deep distrust and paranoia inside the Pentagon" under the leadership of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has purged multiple top military officials during his tenure leading the department.
Ret. Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter told the Times that he has "never seen polygraphs employed this broadly or at this seniority level," adding that "in my experience, it’s unprecedented."
In a separate report published Friday, the Times revealed that a recent US intelligence assessment has determined that Iran is digging in for a long conflict with the American military, as it feels confident it can "exacerbate President Trump’s political problems ahead of the US midterm elections."
In fact, the intelligence indicates that Iran could be planning to escalate its campaign against the US in the coming weeks by attacking American bases in the Middle East and targeting ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump unlawfully attacked Iran more than six months ago without any authorization from the US Congress. The war sent energy prices surging after Iran shut down shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply travels.
High gas prices have become a major political headache for Trump, and a recent analysis estimated that Americans have paid $71.5 billion more to fill up their cars thanks to the president’s war.
The cost of diesel fuel has also spiked since the start of the war, and data published by the American Automobile Association on Saturday showed the average price for diesel in the US now stands at a record $5.88 per gallon.
One conservation advocate said the impact of wolves on livestock pales in comparison to that of "recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Although President Donald Trump was surrounded by farmers and ranchers while signing a pair of beef-related executive orders in the Oval Office on Friday, some critics cast doubt on their effectiveness—plus highlighted how one proposal could prove lethal for protected wolves.
Trump is facing high beef prices and the looming midterm elections. After meeting with Brazilian billionaire Joesley Batista, a key shareholder for JBS, the world's largest meatpacker, the president last month paused tariffs on 300,000 metric tons of beef for 90 days to be sold at a discount. While signing the new orders on Friday, Trump signaled that the cheaper beef will be imported from Argentina, Brazil, and "a couple of other places."
Trump's latest orders are intended to appease the US cattle industry, which was angry about the August proclamation, by "cracking down on major meatpackers' dominance of the industry and seeking to implement new labeling standards," Politico explained. However, "it's not clear whether any of the steps announced Friday will assuage ranchers' concerns or have any impact in the short term, given that most of them would require regulatory changes or congressional action."
Food & Water Watch (FWW) food policy director Rebecca Wolf said in a statement that "President Trump is on an apology tour after his deal to flood US markets with foreign-imported beef—it's not working. Today's executive orders will do nothing to reverse the last two years of Trump's disastrous food policy."
"Under his watch, consumer beef prices are at record highs, and ranchers can't make ends meet, all while the multinational meat monopolies profit hand over fist," she stressed. FWW found last month that while JBS reported $131.7 billion in revenue and $2.4 billion in profit, and fellow industry giant Tyson reported $82.65 billion in revenue and $681 million in profit, "prices are up 23% for choice beef, 24.2% for ground beef, 24.7% for ground chuck, and 25.2% for chuck roast."
Wolf noted that "US agencies charged with protecting market competition sit on the sidelines, made toothless by Trump's reckless job cuts," pointing to thousands of staff reductions across the Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and threats to slash funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Packers and Stockyards Division.
Since Congress repealed mandatory country-of-origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork in 2015, FWW has been among those pushing for its restoration. Trump's order directs Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, to "review all statutory and regulatory authorities that may permit the establishment" of MCOOL for beef products, then issue or amend regulations, as permitted by law, and develop legislative recommendations.
"Consumers deserve to know where their food comes from. There is no excuse for keeping consumers in the dark."Tell the #WhiteHouse and #Congress, restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling for #Beef.#MCOOLSign & Share: form.jotform.com/262434091212...
[image or embed]
— Consumer Federation of America (@consumerfed.bsky.social) September 3, 2026 at 8:52 AM
As a diverse coalition that includes FWW circulates a "Label Our Beef" petition, Wolf said Friday that "it is clearer than ever that Congress must heed popular demand and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling to give American producers an even playing field. And Trump must put his money where his mouth is and fund antitrust and fair trade enforcement to truly help American families and ranchers."
While FWW declared that "Trump's beef executive orders won't help consumers or ranchers," Angela Huffman, president and CEO of Farm Action, was more diplomatic, welcoming the language on MCOOL, meat processing, and Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement.
"These actions show the administration is listening to problems farmers and ranchers have raised for years, and we appreciate that," Huffman said. "They move in the right direction, but stop short of the stronger reforms independent producers need."
Farm Action supports legislation to restore MCOOL for beef, as well as Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement, but has argued that the latter "should be paired with stronger producer protections" and urged USDA "to reverse its planned rescission of the Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity rule, which would protect producers against undue prejudice, unjust discrimination, retaliation, and deceptive practices."
As for the harm that Trump's orders could do, one directs Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to "make a determination as to whether the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf have met the recovery criteria for delisting or downlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and, if he determines that the recovery criteria has been met," begin the process to end protections.
In addition to working with other officials on a legislative recommendation to strip federal protections from wolves, Trump told Burgum to "engage with states to encourage them to delist gray wolves and Mexican wolves from any state-specific lists of protected species and to revise their standards" for killing the animals "to assist ranchers in combating predation."
During an exchange in the Oval Office, Trump falsely suggested that ranchers can now shoot protected wolves.
Trump’s audience uncomfortably laughs as he makes a premature announcement that ranchers can now kill wolves who are on the endangered species list
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) September 4, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals, responded Friday that "the war on wolves needs to end, not escalate. They remain absent from much of their historic range and vulnerable to the same cruel trophy hunting, recreational trapping, bounties, and other relentless killing that nearly wiped them out of the lower 48 states. Rolling back federal protections now—or setting that process in motion—would jeopardize decades of recovery and open the door for brutal killing."
"Gray wolves are essential to healthy ecosystems, and decisions about their survival should be based on science, not political favors to farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods are threatened not by wolves but by tone-deaf global trade policies," she added.
Advocates at the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Wildlife for All, and Wolf Conservation Center also ripped the order's wolf language.
"This is a huge distraction to placate a handful of ranchers and make them believe that wolves are a greater threat than President Trump's own policies," said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. "The impact of wolves on the livestock industry [pales] in comparison to the impacts of recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, emphasized that "the Mexican gray wolf is not recovered simply because the population has grown... With just 317 wolves in the wild and a population still facing serious genetic challenges, weakening federal protections now would put decades of recovery work at risk. Decisions about the future of lobos must be based on the best available science and what these wolves need for long-term recovery, not political pressure."
Arguing the wolves "desperately need more care and less persecution," Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, promised that "we’re prepared to prove in court that downlisting Mexican wolves and a steep increase in killings would not only be cruel but also deeply unwise and illegal."
"This proposal declares open season on the nation's waterways," one critic charged.
President Donald Trump's administration sparked fresh fury on Friday when it proposed a supplemental rule to further gut Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands in the wake of a "catastrophic" US Supreme Court ruling three years ago.
The supplemental proposal from the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency builds on their widely criticized proposed rule from November for defining "waters of the United States" (WOTUS)—both of which go further than the high court did with its 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA.
While the American Petroleum Institute and some Republicans in Congress joined Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in promoting the new proposal, environmental and public health advocates sounded the alarm.
"What the Supreme Court did in its Sackett decision was an inexcusable assault on clean water," Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a Friday statement. "Communities and wildlife will pay the price until Congress fixes it. The Trump administration's answer has been to make a bad situation worse."
"This proposal declares open season on the nation's waterways. It denies federal protection to virtually all wetlands and more than three-quarters of our streams, endangering drinking water supplies and flood-prone communities—and the agencies admit it themselves," he noted. "The proposal would virtually eliminate protection for freshwater wetlands. Their own analysis says most streams would lose protection, with the West hit hardest."
Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen declared that "Trump is taking yet another sledgehammer to our bedrock Clean Water Act, shamelessly doubling down on his initial terrible proposal to strip protections from countless streams and wetlands."
"Make no mistake: This unlawful proposal gives bad actors the green light to fill, drain, and poison sensitive waterways from coast to coast," she warned. "The result will be dirtier water for everyone. The administration must reverse course on this dangerous proposal."
Gary Belan, senior director of American Rivers' Clean Water Program, stressed that "our nation's water resources are precious and increasingly at risk. This is not the moment to be jeopardizing the nation's water security by narrowing the safeguards of the Clean Water Act."
The public comment period for the initial proposal has closed but, as Belan noted, the publication of the supplemental rule in the Federal Register kicks off a new 30-day period. He said that "while we appreciate EPA's effort to seek more public comment, the proposed changes will have consequences that will impact communities across the nation if finalized."
"The proposed definitions do not reflect the established science on how rivers function and would significantly reduce the scope of the Clean Water Act," he continued. "When headwater and intermittent streams and wetlands lose protection, downstream flooding worsens, the costs of drinking water treatment rises, and water supplies become less reliable."
Jim Murphy, the National Wildlife Federation’s associate vice president for legal advocacy, pointed out that "this is now the fifth effort to define the scope of the waters protected by the Clean Water Act in the past decade. We need Congress' help to get off this merry-go-round at a place that protects our waters, our wildlife, and our way of life."
"The administration is clearly struggling to craft a rule that will hold up in court while satisfying their donors' desire to effectively scrap these protections wherever possible," he added. "One thing is clear: If we don’t protect our streams and wetlands, the cost of dirtier drinking water and increased flooding will flow downstream to households at a time when most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck."
"Right now, all of the political incentives are there to bring this war to an end," Khanna said, warning it could become "endless" if it goes on past November 3.
Rep. Ro Khanna said President Donald Trump's war with Iran must end before the November 3 midterms, or it may become "another endless war."
"Right now, all of the political incentives are there to bring this war to an end," Khanna (D-Calif.) said in a video posted to X on Friday. "Food prices are high, gas prices are high, the American people are demanding that the war end before they cast their votes in November."
A Reuters/Ipsos poll out Friday shows that just 25% of Americans view the war as worthwhile, compared with 54% who do not and 21% who were unsure or did not answer.
Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Trump aides were seeking to stop the war from escalating for now to keep it out of the headlines and prevent Republicans from losing even more support before November. But once the votes are cast, they said Trump—who won't have to deal with concerns about reelection—may ramp up military action.
For this reason, Khanna—a leading advocate in the House of Representatives for restricting Trump's war powers—said the next two months are crucial.
"If we don't end this war now," he said, "then there will not be the same political pressure to bring it to a close."
Khanna said Democrats in Congress need to form an "unconventional coalition" with Republicans to force Trump's hand. He said he'd reached out to Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), with whom he's co-sponsored multiple war powers resolutions, as well as other Republicans.
"If you believe that we need to be for America First, if you voted for Trump on the promise of no new wars," he urged, "then please let us work together to bring a ceasefire to the war in Iran, to have diplomacy and negotiation, and prevent America from getting into another forever war."
Congress has already passed a war powers resolution directing Trump to end unauthorized hostilities with Iran, but he has so far ignored it, with his administration arguing that it does not have binding force.
In July, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a resolution that would compel House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to sue Trump and enforce the will of Congress to end the war.
Other Democrats have introduced bills that would forbid funding for military force in Iran without congressional authorization.
"How much more is there that we don't know about?" asked one historian after it was revealed that OpenAI had buried reports that its AI agents had hijacked a German website without the company's knowledge.
Calls for artificial regulation are growing louder following a report Friday that OpenAI hid evidence from the public about another incident in which its AI agents went rogue.
The company is already dealing with the fallout from the catastrophic security breach that occurred over the summer, in which a swarm of agents autonomously hacked the tech platform Hugging Face during an internal cybersecurity test.
Now Reuters reports that months earlier, another potentially even more concerning attack took place that went undisclosed. According to the report:
A swarm of rogue OpenAI agents hijacked a German website this spring and transformed it into a bulletin board for other AI agents, according to new research published Friday and two people familiar with the matter.
OpenAI officials learned of the incident weeks ago but kept it under wraps as executives grappled with the fallout from the July breach of the open source repository Hugging Face, the people said.
The activity was uncovered in late August by researchers at an AI safety organization called the Nightingale Collective, who were searching the web for cases of AI programs disobeying their human users.
As they detailed in a report shared with Reuters, they found that OpenAI's agents had taken over the German-language wiki site DseWiki.
"The agents used this wiki to communicate information with each other, primarily to help them succeed at their task," the researchers explained. "They asked for answers, pooled results, and shared techniques for bypassing their restrictions. This allowed them to use the work of others to cheat on their task."
The researchers described it as "another example of a 'swarm' of internally deployed OpenAI agents using the internet in unintended ways."
But unlike the Hugging Face cyberattack, which occurred as part of a security test to measure agents' capabilities, the attack on DseWiki seems to have occurred without any prompting from OpenAI.
"It seems extremely unlikely that OpenAI wanted them to do this,” Sydney Von Arx, the CEO of Nightingale, told Reuters. “I doubt they’re supposed to be coordinating with each other. I doubt they’re supposed to be writing on the open internet.”
The researchers found messages in which the agents plotted to evade detection, using the dark web platform Tor to maintain communication after being shut down, creating backup pages as the originals were cleaned up, and tampering with the website itself.
Maurice Chiodo, a researcher at Cambridge University’s Center for the Study of Existential Risk, told Reuters their behavior resembled "the operation of some sort of underground network, hell-bent on achieving a task or mission.”
OpenAI has denied the characterization that its agents engaged in hacking. It says it was not able to respond thoroughly to the Nightingale report because it was not given access to the report before Reuters released it to the public.
However, the Nightingale report indicates the company became aware of the agents' activity and apparently attempted to intervene as far back as June 21, leading the agents to stop posting the following day—this is weeks before news of the Hugging Face attack was first reported.
Reuters reported that some investigators within OpenAI had wanted to scrutinize behaviors like that which led to the hack of the German website more closely, but that these efforts "met resistance from others inside OpenAI, including legal advisers."
A spokesperson for OpenAI said, "Claims that our legal team discouraged investigation of the incident are false."
Another of the researchers who uncovered the breach, Thomas Larsen of the AI Futures Project, said he was "pretty sure OpenAI did know about this."
"I'm in favor of much more transparency so that we can prevent future incidents with much more capable AIs and existential stakes," he said.
"I really hope OpenAI didn't know about this," said AI research engineer Elie Bakouch, who previously worked at Hugging Face. "It might be the worst decision in the history of this field if they deliberately chose not to disclose it. The impact on trust would be very hard to recover from."
For some, that trust is already deteriorating.
"The Hugging Face incident was probably just the tip of the iceberg. OpenAI has lost control, and they're hiding important facts from the public—it's as simple as that," said Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman in a post to X. "How much more is there that we don't know about?"
News of this incident comes as lawmakers demand more transparency and restrictions on the development of "superintelligent" AI that can surpass the capabilities of humans.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) sent letters to OpenAI and Anthropic earlier this week, chastising executives for failing to answer his questions about security lapses resulting from rogue AI behavior.
On Thursday, he joined Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to introduce legislation that would halt the development of superintelligent AI and create new federal regulatory authorities for the technology.
"If the leaders of the major AI companies acknowledge that they are losing control of their extremely dangerous technology, it is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced," Sanders said in a post to X on Thursday. "Let me be clear: A superintelligent AI that escapes human control will not be an American problem. It will not be a Chinese problem. It will be humanity’s problem."
Bregman said the incident showed the public, lawmakers, and the developers themselves were not taking the threat AI posed nearly seriously enough.
"Things are getting even more insane now," he wrote in a post to X, noting a safety evaluation out Thursday from OpenAI which found that its newly released model Astra was dramatically better than previous iterations at evading human monitoring and lying about its reasoning to users.
That report notes that if the technology continues to improve, OpenAI researchers would soon have "significantly reduced confidence" in their ability to monitor unauthorized, dangerous, and potentially illegal behaviors.
"Many people still think we're discussing future sci-fi scenarios. But all of this is really happening, right now," Bregman said drawing a comparison to the Covid-19 pandemic. "It's like March 2020. So many people are still in AI denial. What will it take to wake everyone up? How big does the disaster need to be?"
"Without congressional action to reverse the SNAP cuts, children will lose critical food benefits that help families keep hunger at bay."
Millions of children across the United States are at risk of losing access to free school meals due to the unprecedented federal nutrition aid cuts that President Donald Trump signed into law last summer.
The 2025 Republican budget law enacted the largest cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) since its inception more than six decades ago. The cuts have already pushed SNAP enrollment to its lowest level in 17 years, with roughly five million people—including 1.5 million kids—losing aid. Because school districts across the US use SNAP participation rolls to automatically sign children up for free school meals, kids who lose federal aid are at risk of also losing access to free school-time meals.
“Cuts to SNAP are not going to stop at the grocery store,” Clarissa Hayes, deputy director of child nutrition programs and policy at the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC), told Stateline earlier this week. “They really are going to threaten children’s access to school meals, which is obviously going to increase hunger at home and in the classroom, and is going to have that negative ripple effect across children’s health and academic performance.”
FRAC estimated in a recent report that a record 55,362 schools nationwide "offered breakfast and lunch to all their students through the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)" during the 2025-2026 school year.
But the number of children who are directly certified for free school meals determines schools' eligibility for CEP as well as the federal reimbursement schools receive under the program, meaning huge declines in SNAP participation could result in schools losing eligibility for CEP or leave them unable to afford it.
Students who are no longer automatically enrolled in free school meal programs will have to apply, an often confusing process that requires family income documentation and other paperwork hurdles.
“Without congressional action to reverse the SNAP cuts, children will lose critical food benefits that help families keep hunger at bay, and the progress we have made on Healthy School Meals for All could unravel,” said Crystal FitzSimons, the president of FRAC, which estimates that nearly 28 million children attended a CEP school during the 2025-2026 school year.
A survey released last month by the No Kid Hungry campaign found that close to 60% of parents said "their child wouldn’t have enough to eat if it weren’t for the meals they receive during the school day," underscoring the potentially devastating impact of a large-scale loss of access to school breakfast, lunch, and snacks.
"An overwhelming majority (89%) indicate that school meals take some pressure off their family when it comes to feeding their children," the campaign said.
Democratic members of Congress are increasingly sounding the alarm over the 2025 GOP budget law's impact on school meals as the new school year begins.
US Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) wrote in a letter to the US Department of Agriculture last week that "no child should lose access to breakfast or lunch at school because a parent was unable to satisfy a new bureaucratic requirement for food assistance."
"And no school should be forced to jeopardize its meal program because federal policy has made it harder to identify children who qualify for assistance," Krishnamoorthi added.
"Donald Trump and his administration are rigging our markets to work for the wealthy and well-connected while working people pay the price."
The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday proposed axing anti-corruption rules designed to prevent investment advisers from using political donations to obtain business from public pension funds.
Finance industry watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers warned the SEC's proposal would potentially harm Americans' retirement accounts and further boost corruption in the federal government, where graft has become increasingly common and overt under the leadership of billionaire President Donald Trump. Better Markets said the SEC's plan to rescind the agency's longstanding "pay to-play" regulations "makes buying politicians great again."
“SEC Chair Paul Atkins has yet to meet a rule he does not want to rescind," said Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy at Better Markets. "He has the SEC proposing to rescind a rule that prevents so-called ‘pay-to-play’ practices by investment advisers, where advisers make political contributions to government officials in the hopes that those officials will select them for the lucrative assignment of managing public pension funds and other government assets."
“Chair Atkins says the SEC is proposing to rescind the rule because it ‘has effectively resulted in the suppression of political speech.’ Not so," added Schiffrin. "It has resulted in the suppression of corruption. The rule was intended to, and does, ‘combat pay to play arrangements in which advisers are chosen based on their campaign contributions to political officials rather than on merit.’ Chair Atkins apparently believes that such arrangements should be promoted.”
The SEC's "pay-to-play" rules, enacted in 2010, barred investment advisers from providing paid services to government clients for at least two years after making a political contribution to an elected official or candidate.
The Trump SEC's proposal will face a 60-day public comment period once it is published in the Federal Register.
The Lever's Katya Schwenk and Freddy Brewster noted Friday that "after years of relatively weak enforcement, Biden’s SEC brought several charges against investment advisers for violating the pay-to-play rule in 2023 and 2024." For example, the Biden SEC charged Obra Capital Management for "continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation from a government entity following a campaign contribution made by an associate to an elected official with influence over selecting investment advisers for the government entity."
"Since Trump came to office, the pay-to-play rule has been the subject of lobbying by financial powerhouses that are invested in public pension funds," Schwenk and Brewster reported. "BlackRock Funds Services Group, LLC, a subsidiary of the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock, Inc., spent more than $1.5 million in 2025 lobbying the SEC, Congress, the White House, and other regulators on the pay-to-play rule, among other matters, disclosures show."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the rules targeted by Trump's SEC prevent "elected officials from rewarding wealthy campaign donors with lucrative contracts to advise government investments."
The proposed rollback, said Warren, represents "another example of how Donald Trump and his administration are rigging our markets to work for the wealthy and well-connected while working people pay the price.”
"The American people do not want American military integration with a country responsible for war crimes, international law violations, and mass killings amounting to genocide."
A coalition of over 50 rights groups on Thursday wrote to leaders in Congress to "strongly urge" them to reject not only specific proposals in each chamber's version of the next Pentagon budget, but also "any legislation seeking to intertwine US and Israeli defense or intelligence capabilities."
The provision in the House-approved National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 (HR 8800) is Section 219—previously titled Section 224—and the related but slightly different proposal in the pending Senate bill (S. 4784) is Section 1217. Congressional leadership is expected to negotiate a version of the full NDAA that can pass both GOP-controlled chambers.
"The provisions would establish a new US Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative aimed at accelerating joint research, development, and integration of Israeli-origin and jointly developed defense technologies into US military systems and programs of record," says the new letter to the chairs and ranking members of both Armed Services committees: Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jack Reed (D-RI) and Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.).
"This would expand US-Israeli military integration across some of the most sensitive domains of emerging technology, including quantum computing, AI and autonomous systems, cyber and electronic warfare, directed energy, and defense industrial base co-production, while expediting pathways from R&D into procurement," notes the letter, first reported by Reuters.
Congressional consideration of the provision comes nearly three years into US-armed Israeli forces' campaign in the Gaza Strip—decried as genocide by many activists, experts, and governments around the world—in response to the Hamas-led October 2023 attack on Israel. The violence has claimed over 73,000 Palestinian lives and continues, despite a nearly year-old ceasefire.
"Israel's grievous violations of US and international law and its other human rights violations include the use of US-supplied weapons in killing Palestinian civilians, extrajudicial killings by Israeli soldiers, the systemic use of torture and sexual abuse by Israeli security forces, and policies such as the withholding of humanitarian assistance, other forms of collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide," the coalition highlighted in its letter to lawmakers.
"These facts alone should prevent even the discussion of deepening military ties, especially given the complete inability of the United States to apply existing laws, such as the Foreign Assistance Act or the Arms Export Control Act, that would require the suspension of US military aid and arms transfers to Israel," the groups argued. "The American people do not want American military integration with a country responsible for war crimes, international law violations, and mass killings amounting to genocide."
Pointing to polling that has shown growing opposition to US military aid to Israel "across the political spectrum," the coalition wrote that "Section 219/1217 works to hide continuing US military support to Israel from public scrutiny and congressional oversight and involvement. Far from working to shift the US-Israel relationship in line with American public opinion, this section encourages the direct use of Israeli-manufactured technology into the US' systems, which may render the United States dependent on Israel’s provision of such technologies, and make disentangling the relationship in the future ever more difficult."
"At a time in which American interests are increasingly diverging from those of Israel, and American public opinion is turning increasingly against unconditional support to Israel, creating new points of influence for Israel in the U.S. defense-technology ecosystem is exceptionally dangerous," stresses the letter.
It also sounds the alarm about Section 622 of the 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act, which was introduced in May by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and "would limit the president's ability to restrict America's intelligence-sharing and military collaboration with Israel by requiring the president to identify and document a specific national security concern that necessitates any changes, and expand intelligence sharing and cooperation with countries that have normalized relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords."
"Governments have an obligation to ensure the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms when advancing their national security interests, including countering threats to their populations' right to privacy or other freedoms," the letter declares. "Intertwining US and Israeli information-gathering and defense raises significant concerns given the recent evidence of Israeli espionage against people in the US, including government officials."
Signatories include A New Policy, Amnesty International USA, Demand Progress, IfNotNow Movement, Jewish Voice for Peace, Just Foreign Policy, National Lawyers Guild, National Nurses United, Peace Action, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, RootsAction, Win Without War, and dozens of other organizations.