

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.
The British Prime Minister today refused to re-establish an independent, judge-led inquiry into UK involvement in the CIA torture programme - despite having promised on taking office in 2010 to do so.
The British Prime Minister today refused to re-establish an independent, judge-led inquiry into UK involvement in the CIA torture programme - despite having promised on taking office in 2010 to do so.
Earlier this month, British prosecutors published the first official confirmation that the Government had been involved in the kidnap and 'rendition' of two families to Libya, and that 'political authority' had been sought in some form. However, despite having received a 28,000 page file from London's Metropolitan Police after a five-year investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said that there was 'insufficient evidence' to charge any suspect.
Today, Alistair Carmichael MP asked the Prime Minister whether, in the wake of the decision not to prosecute, he would "reconstitute" a judge-led inquiry into torture. David Cameron had promised and set up such an inquiry in July 2010, shortly after taking office - however, it was wound up by the Government in 2012, before it could finish its work. Its objectives have since been passed to Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which is subject to a Government veto on all evidence it can see--and what it can publish.
In 2010, Mr Cameron told Parliament that "I do not think for a moment that we should believe that the ISC should be doing this piece of work," adding that "For public confidence, and for independence from Parliament, party and Government, it is right to have a judge-led inquiry."
However, today he claimed that "the right approach...is [that] the ISC has agreed to look at these issues...and I think they should continue to do so."
The issue will be further discussed by MPs this evening, when they hold an adjournment debate on UK involvement in rendition.
While the CPS has announced that it does not intend to prosecute anyone, the victims of the 2004 Libyan renditions - which include four children who were aged 12 and under at the time, and a woman who was heavily pregnant - have demanded an independent review into the decision. However, The Times recently reported concerns that the review will be carried out by CPS staff junior to those who made the original decision not to prosecute.
Commenting, Cori Crider, a director at Reprieve and lawyer for the Libyan families said: "The Prime Minister said the ISC were not up to the job in 2010--and he was right. They failed to spot the abduction of two families happening right under their noses. The blinders the Government rules put on them, and the Government veto on any reporting, means that they have not a snowball's chance of finding and publishing the truth.
"Still in Britain there has been zero accountability for torture. It boggles the mind how the CPS saw a 28,000-page investigative file produced by diligent police as 'insufficient.' Their decision didn't even get the victims' names right, they've walked back their offer to meet the victims, and they have handed the review to people who answer to the two prosecutors who already made the decision. The CPS has left MI6 a law unto itself. We very much fear that the whole review will be one fat rubber stamp.
"We need an independent review of the CPS' decision and a truly independent inquiry into how the Government allowed our country to become shamefully involved in CIA torture."
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.
"If you take away our democratic stability, we will take away the economic stability."
A centrist Democratic US senator is now talking about taking drastic measures to protect democracy from President Donald Trump.
Speaking with the Court of History podcast on Thursday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) outlined a plan to stop Trump in case he tries to follow through on his threat to "nationalize the vote" ahead of the 2026 midterm elections or if he tried to enact ally Steve Bannon's proposal to "surround the polls" with US Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents.
"We have to prepare for the outmost scenario, the worst scenario," said Gallego, "which is they try to either capture the ballot box as ballots are being counted, they try to stop the count, they try to surround polling places, whatever it is."
Getting more specific, Gallego said that something like a general strike along the lines of the one that took place in Minneapolis last month to protest ICE deployment in the city would be justified.
"We need to make sure that we have an ultimate response to that which, I believe, has to be a true national strike," he said, "in the sense that, if they do this, if they try to overthrow our democracy, if you are allied with democracy, do not go to work. If you’re a pilot, do not show up. If you drive a train, do not show up. If you’re a teacher, do not show up. We grind the country to a halt."
Gallego acknowledged the damage that this would do to the US economy, but said that "if we have to destroy the stock market to save democracy, we need to accept that."
He also said such an action would send an unmistakeable message to the billionaires who have given Trump their full-throated backing during his second term.
"The richest and the most powerful people in the world and in this country need to understand that that is a real possibility," he emphasized. "There is no economic stability without democratic stability. If you take away our democratic stability, we will take away the economic stability."
Gallego isn't alone in saying that concrete steps may have to be taken to protect US democracy from the president this year.
Elections expert Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, said in an interview published by the New Republic on Friday that both state and city governments, as well as individual citizens, may be needed to ensure the integrity of the 2026 midterms.
"I think states and local governments need to be prepared for this," he said. "I would suggest trying to get injunctions against the federal government to keep them away. I would suggest that lawyers for voting rights groups and Democrats be prepared to go to court."
Failing that, he said that citizens must be prepared to get involved on the ground.
"I mean, it may take people in the streets protecting the offices where ballots are being tabulated," he said. "To take the Brooks Brothers riot—from the 2000 disputed election where some people were trying to storm an office where they were recounting ballots in Bush v. Gore—that would look very tame compared to what, you know, we might see in 2026."
"Trump has dressed up yet another corporate giveaway as a boon to patients," said one watchdog. "Real drug price reform doesn’t look like a website."
US President Donald Trump on Thursday launched a website, branded with his name, in a purported effort to help patients buy prescription drugs at lower prices.
But experts, watchdog groups, and Democratic lawmakers said TrumpRx will likely do little for consumers—or for the broader goal of bringing down exorbitant medicine costs—while further enriching Big Pharma and potentially lining the pockets of his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.
TrumpRx.gov, launched in partnership with pharmaceutical giants, points users to direct-to-patient sales platforms hosted by drug companies to facilitate the purchase of an extremely limited selection of medications. For example, TrumpRx's listing for Farxiga links users to AstraZeneca Direct, where patients can pay out of pocket for the type 2 diabetes medication.
Donald Trump Jr. is on the board of BlinkRx, a prescription drug platform that stands to benefit from the Trump administration's promotion of direct-to-patient medicine sales. In December, the president's son reportedly met with top drug company executives and administration officials responsible for regulating the pharmaceutical industry—a gathering hosted by BlinkRx.
Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement Thursday that TrumpRx "not only threatens patients’ health, safety, and privacy, but also likely includes kickback schemes designed to enrich President Trump, his family, and their friends."
"TrumpRx has been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning because the administration clearly does not want anyone to know it likely won’t save patients money," said Pallone. "However, we do know Trump only slaps his name on things when there’s something in it for him."
Last week, a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to the inspector general of the US Department of Health and Human Services warning that "without stricter safeguards before its official launch, TrumpRx could be used as a potential vehicle for unlawful kickback schemes that result in excessive costs for the federal government."
In addition to sending users to direct-to-patient sales sites, TrumpRx offers Trump-branded coupons for some medications. To obtain a coupon, site users must accept terms that state: "You agree that by redeeming this coupon, you (and anyone else acting on your behalf) agree not to seek reimbursement from any insurance plan for out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions purchased with this coupon. You also agree not to count the cost of prescriptions toward your deductible or true out-of-pocket costs."
The Washington Post reported that pharmaceutical companies "have agreed to list their drugs on TrumpRx.gov."
"TrumpRx is designed to help Big Pharma keep its prices high by diluting the bargaining power of insurance companies, weakening an important check on pharma."
Experts warned that patients who use TrumpRx could end up paying more for their medications than if they pursued other available options.
"TrumpRx’s offerings are very limited, fewer than 50 drugs listed, and most are niche products used by few patients," Rena Conti, an associate professor at Boston University, told ABC News. "Many are available in generic form at even lower prices or already available to consumers at low or even very low prices elsewhere. This suggests it pays for consumers to check their insurance coverage and ask their regular doctor or pharmacist before they use this service."
Peter Maybarduk, access to medicines director at Public Citizen, offered a more scathing assessment of TrumpRx, saying the president has "dressed up yet another corporate giveaway as a boon to patients."
"Most patients will do better through their insurance than through TrumpRx. Many patients without insurance will not be able to afford drugmakers’ still-high prices funneled through TrumpRx," said Maybarduk. "But drugmakers certainly will appreciate TrumpRx’s free promotion of their products, delivered with a false veneer of price accountability. TrumpRx is designed to help Big Pharma keep its prices high by diluting the bargaining power of insurance companies, weakening an important check on pharma."
“TrumpRx also appears to be another example of this president’s repeated corruption," he continued. "Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., sits on the board of BlinkRx, a key business that may benefit financially from TrumpRx. Getting serious about medicine affordability means getting serious about challenging Big Pharma. For all Trump’s talk, Big Pharma is getting a lot of special favors from this White House, while patients still are waiting. Real drug price reform doesn’t look like a website."
Throughout his second White House term, Trump has made outlandish promises to cut drug costs and hosted top executives at the White House to tout splashy deals—only for pharmaceutical giants to continue jacking up prices. Reuters reported last month that drugmakers planned to "raise US prices on at least 350 branded medications, including vaccines against Covid, RSV, and shingles and blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance" in 2026.
Merith Basey, CEO of Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, said in a statement that the Trump administration's "voluntary agreements" with drug companies "lack clear enforcement mechanisms and still put the power to set and increase prices firmly in the hands of pharmaceutical corporations."
"Patients in our community will soon learn if they can reliably access these discounts at the pharmacy counter, where the program will ultimately be tested and where affordability matters most," Basey said of TrumpRx.
"The most foundational racist idea is likening Black people to apes," said Howard University historian Ibram X. Kendi.
President Donald Trump, a documented racist, drew swift condemnation on Friday night after he posted a video on his Truth Social account depicting former President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama as monkeys.
As reported by The Guardian, the racist depiction of the Obamas was part of a longer video that featured "false and disproven claims that ballot-counting company Dominion Voting Systems helped steal the 2020 presidential election" from Trump.
The outrage over the post was immediate, even as Trump's racism is well known and documented over many years.
"The most foundational racist idea is likening Black people to apes," said Howard University historian Ibram X. Kendi in a social media post. "Since humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, racist ideas cast white people as the most evolved people and the furthest away on the evolutionary scale from apes. Racist ideas cast Black people as the least evolved people and the closest on the evolutionary scale to apes. Almost all racist ideas build on this foundational one expressed by Trump."
A screenshot of the video Trump shared:

Tom Jocelyn, senior fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security, predicted how Trump and his allies would defend his promotion of obvious racism.
"Let’s call out a game Trump and MAGA play," he wrote. "1. Trump posts, says or does something racist. 2. Some point out it’s racist. 3. Trump (with MAGA’s help) pretends to be the victim for being called a racist. MAGA stews in its imaginary grievances. 4. Rinse and repeat."
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, called out the New York Times for writing that it was "unclear if Mr. Trump was aware" that the racist depiction of the Obamas "had been included in the video before he shared it."
"What the hell is the New York Times doing?" he asked. "In its article on Trump posting a video that included a clip of the Obamas as apes, NYT tries to help him come up with an excuse."
Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser under Obama, argued that Trump's post was yet another sign that he will be remembered as a deeply loathsome historical figure.
"Let it haunt Trump and his racist followers that future Americans will embrace the Obamas as beloved figures," he wrote, "while studying him as a stain on our history."