

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.

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to begin a rulemaking process in order to jettison Title II protections and once again place broadband-access providers under Title I of the Communications Act -- a move that would undermine the sound and successful basis for the FCC's landmark 2015 Open Internet Order.
President Trump's FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, has said he intends to dismantle the legal framework essential to maintaining Net Neutrality.
On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to begin a rulemaking process in order to jettison Title II protections and once again place broadband-access providers under Title I of the Communications Act -- a move that would undermine the sound and successful basis for the FCC's landmark 2015 Open Internet Order.
President Trump's FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, has said he intends to dismantle the legal framework essential to maintaining Net Neutrality.
Prior to the FCC meeting, open-internet advocates were joined by Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Ron Wyden, Rep. Barbara Lee and Rep. Jared Polis at a rally outside FCC headquarters to voice their support for existing open-internet protections and to call on Pai to heed the overwhelming public support for Title II and Net Neutrality rules. Net Neutrality activists have already generated more than 1 million comments and signatures opposing Chairman Pai's scheme.
The last time the FCC conducted a Net Neutrality proceeding, the agency was flooded with comments from people from across the country, the vast majority of whom supported enforceable Net Neutrality protections under Title II.
Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron made the following statement:
"Pai pretends to care about the open internet, but his unworkable proposal takes away the rights of internet users. The federal courts rejected this kind of approach twice when the FCC tried it before. And now that Net Neutrality rests once again on the strong legal footing of Title II -- which the courts upheld twice in the last two years -- Pai can't simply tear it down because he feels like it. He has to build a case on more than ideology, innuendo and cable-industry press releases.
"The chairman's willingness to trot out alternative facts about broadband-industry investment and recycle long-debunked talking points should worry anyone who cares about the free and open internet. Pai's intent is clear: to destroy the internet as we know it and give even more gatekeeper power to a few huge companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.
"Any honest look at the facts reveals that Title II rules are working well, investment is up and the only confusion in the market is coming out of Pai's mouth. If the FCC ever passes this plan, it will face enormous challenges in court. But it should never get that far.
"Millions have already raised their voices to defend the free and open internet, and they won't be fooled by Ajit Pai's hand-wringing, flimsy arguments and fuzzy stats. The undeniable fact is that the FCC's 2015 Net Neutrality ruling restored legal certainty, boosted investment from the people and businesses that rely on the internet, and kept the ISPs humming along profitably.
"Just as importantly, Net Neutrality ensures that free expression and popular organizing are possible online. Pai's proposal serves only the interests of those who want to shut down speech and control all commerce. This plan may benefit a few phone and cable companies and the legion of lobbyists and front groups on their sizable payrolls, but it will harm everyone else. If the FCC continues down this path, the voices of the opposition will only grow louder at the agency, in Congress, in the courts and in the streets. Pai knows that getting rid of Net Neutrality is far easier said than done -- and we're going to stop him."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490The co-founder of Palestine Action called the decision "a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people."
The British High Court ruled Friday that the United Kingdom government's ban on the anti-genocide advocacy group Palestine Action was unlawful, a decision that campaigners cheered as a major victory while also demanding the dismissal of all charges against those arrested and imprisoned for backing the group.
The UK-based Stop the War Coalition noted that roughly 3,000 activists have been arrested on terrorism charges for "holding signs in support of Palestine Action," which has targeted the UK operations of Israeli weapons manufacturers and engaged in civil disobedience to protest Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. More than 250 people have been charged under the Terrorism Act due to the Palestine Action ban, according to the Associated Press, and more than 20 people are still jailed while awaiting trial.
Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, called the High Court's ruling "fantastic news" and "an utter humiliation for Yvette Cooper, Shabana Mahmood, and the rest in this most authoritarian government in living memory," referring to the UK's foreign secretary and home secretary.
German said UK authorities must now "drop all the charges against those wrongly arrested and imprisoned without trial for peacefully protesting a genocide."
Fantastic news! Utter humiliation for Yvette Cooper, Shabana Mahmood and the rest in this most authoritarian govt in memory
We call on Mark Rowley and Cooper to resign
Now drop all the charges against those wrongly arrested and imprisoned for peacefully protesting genocide! https://t.co/RRqhw2s5AW
— Stop the War Coalition (@STWuk) February 13, 2026
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action who brought the case against the government, said the ruling represents "a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people, striking down a decision that will forever be remembered as one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history.”
The Labour government's designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist group and ban on the organization, which took effect last summer, will remain in place pending appeal of the High Court's Friday decision. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she was "disappointed" by the ruling and intends to "fight this judgment," which characterized the ban as "disproportionate" and unjustified. Under the ban, membership in or support for Palestine Action was made punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
"Thousands of people of conscience saw that branding protest as terrorism was a move straight out of the dictator’s playbook," said a spokesperson for the advocacy group Defend Our Juries in response to the decision. "Together we took action at great personal risk—inspired by each other’s courage. We helped make this proscription unenforceable by saying, 'We do not comply.'"

Tom Southerden, Amnesty International UK’s law and human rights director, praised the High Court's ruling as "a vital affirmation of the right to protest at a time when it has been under sustained and deliberate attack."
"The High Court’s decision sends a clear message: The government cannot simply reach for sweeping counter‑terrorism powers to silence critics or suppress dissent," said Southerden. "We welcome this judgment as an essential check on overreach and a powerful reminder that fundamental freedoms still carry weight in UK law."
The demand came after a group of United Nations experts condemned the embargo as "a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order."
The United Nations' human rights chief on Friday called on the Trump administration to lift its oil embargo against Cuba as the humanitarian crisis on the island deepens, with fuel shortages disrupting critical functions on the island and food and medicine shortages leaving families desperate for relief.
Marta Hurtado, a spokesperson for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, said in a statement that "we are extremely worried about Cuba’s deepening socio-economic crisis—amid a decades-long financial and trade embargo, extreme weather events, and the recent US measures restricting oil shipments."
"This is having an increasingly severe impact on the human rights of people in Cuba," Hurtado said. "Given the dependence of health, food, and water systems on imported fossil fuels, the current oil scarcity has put the availability of essential services at risk nationwide. Intensive care units and emergency rooms are compromised, as are the production, delivery, and storage of vaccines, blood products, and other temperature-sensitive medications."
The spokesperson noted that more than 80% of Cuba's water-pumping equipment depends on electricity, which has been undermined by widespread power cuts stemming from fuel shortages.
"The fuel shortage has disrupted the rationing system and the regulated basic food basket, and has affected social protection networks—school feeding, maternity homes, and nursing homes—with the most vulnerable groups being disproportionately impacted," said Hurtado. "Access to essential goods and services, including food, water, medicine, and adequate fuel and electricity, should always be safeguarded, as they are fundamental in modern societies to the right to life and the ability to enjoy many other rights."
In the face of the growing humanitarian catastrophe, Turk "reiterates his call on all states to lift unilateral sectoral measures, given their broad and indiscriminate impact on the population," Hurtado said.
"Policy goals cannot justify actions that in themselves violate human rights," she added.
The US has been economically suffocating Cuba for decades, but the Trump administration intensified the assault last month by cutting the island off from its primary source of oil—Venezuela—and threatening to slap tariffs on countries that send fuel to the beleaguered Caribbean nation, which has long been in the crosshairs of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other right-wing supporters of regime change.
"Cuba is ready to fall," US President Donald Trump declared in early January after his administration kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
In a statement on Thursday, a group of UN human rights experts said that Trump's January 29 executive order imposing a fuel blockade on Cuba represents "a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order."
“It is an extreme form of unilateral economic coercion with extraterritorial effects, through which the United States seeks to exert coercion on the sovereign state of Cuba and compel other sovereign third States to alter their lawful commercial relations, under threat of punitive trade measures,” the experts said. "A democratic international order cannot be reconciled with practices whereby one State claims the authority to dictate the internal policies and economic relations of others through threats and coercion."
"Existing climate mitigation approaches, including scaling up renewable energy and protecting carbon-storing ecosystems, are critical to limit the increase in global temperatures," said the lead author.
In the lead-up to the Trump administration effectively destroying the US Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, an international team of scientists warned Wednesday that "Earth's climate is now departing from the stable conditions that supported human civilization for millennia."
Various institutions, including in the United States, have confirmed that 2025 was among the hottest years on record, and January continued that trend. Meanwhile, governments and polluting industries have repeatedly refused to impose policies that adequately heed experts' calls for action.
"In an effort to mitigate dangerous levels of warming, the Paris Agreement formalized the aim of limiting warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, yet global temperatures have recently breached this limit for 12 consecutive months, coinciding with record-breaking heat, wildfires, floods, and other extremes," the scientists noted Wednesday in the journal One Earth.
They wrote that "crossing critical temperature thresholds may trigger self-reinforcing feedbacks and tipping dynamics that amplify warming and destabilize distant Earth system components. Uncertain tipping thresholds make precaution essential, as crossing them could commit the planet to a hothouse trajectory with long-lasting and potentially irreversible consequences."
A "hothouse trajectory," they wrote, is "a pathway in which self-reinforcing feedbacks push the climate system past a point of no return, committing the planet to substantially higher long-term temperatures, even if emissions are later reduced."
"Sixteen major tipping elements have been identified, 10 of which could add to global temperature if triggered," the experts detailed. "Tipping may already be underway or could occur soon for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, boreal permafrost, mountain glaciers, and parts of the Amazon rainforest."
As an example, they pointed to ice melt in the Arctic, explaining that the resulting water "could perturb the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which is already showing signs of weakening. A weakened AMOC could alter global atmospheric circulation, shifting tropical rain belts and drying parts of the Amazon. This cascade of events could trigger large-scale Amazon forest dieback, with major consequences for the region's carbon storage and biodiversity."
Concerned about the Point of No Return? Today we published a paper on the risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory. You can read it here: authors.elsevier.com/c/1mbW49C~Iu...
[image or embed]
— Prof William Ripple (@williamripple.bsky.social) February 11, 2026 at 2:43 PM
The team of eight was led by William Ripple, who has previously emphasized alongside other experts that "we are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster" and "fossil fuels—and the fossil fuel industry and its enablers—are driving a multitude of interlinked crises that jeopardize the breadth and stability of life on Earth."
Ripple, distinguished professor of ecology at Oregon State University (OSU), said in a Wednesday statement that "after a million years of oscillating between ice ages separated by warmer periods, the Earth's climate stabilized more than 11,000 years ago, enabling agriculture and complex societies."
"We're now moving away from that stability and could be entering a period of unprecedented climate change," he stressed. "Existing climate mitigation approaches, including scaling up renewable energy and protecting carbon-storing ecosystems, are critical to limit the increase in global temperatures."
Study co-author Christopher Wolf, a former OSU postdoctoral researcher who is now a scientist with Terrestrial Ecosystems Research Associates (TERA), noted that already, "climate model simulations suggest the recent 12-month breach indicates the long-term average temperature increase is at or near 1.5°C."
"It's likely that global temperatures are as warm as, or warmer than, at any point in the last 125,000 years and that climate change is advancing faster than many scientists predicted," he said.
"Policymakers and the public remain largely unaware of the risks posed by what would effectively be a point-of-no-return transition," Wolf added. "And while averting the hothouse trajectory won't be easy, it's much more achievable than trying to backtrack once we're on it."
🆕 Several Earth system components may be closer to destabilisation than previously thought. Crossing key temperature thresholds could trigger feedback loops, pushing the planet toward a “Hothouse Earth” trajectory. Study by @oregonstate.edu, @iiasa.ac.at & PIK: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
[image or embed]
— PIK_climate (@pik-potsdam.bsky.social) February 11, 2026 at 11:52 AM
The team's warnings came in the wake of Big Oil-backed President Donald Trump claiming in a United Nations speech last year that climate change is "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world," and ditching dozens of relevant organizations and treaties, including the Paris Agreement.
On Thursday, the Trump administration continued its war on the climate, revoking the "endangerment finding" that allowed the EPA to pass regulations fighting the global emergency—which was forcefully condemned by scientists and activists.
"In case there was any remaining doubt, the truth is very clear: Trump cares nothing for the health and well-being of our communities or our climate," said Erin Doran, senior staff attorney at the advocacy group Food & Water Watch. "He is concerned only with making more money for the billionaire fossil fuel polluters that help to fund his dangerous political agenda."
"The notion that the EPA shouldn't regulate climate emissions is inconsistent with the law, the science, and the realities of the climate crisis," Doran added. "EPA is charged with protecting human health and the environment, yet this rule does neither, benefiting only the fossil fuel industry at our expense. It's absurd, and we'll be fighting back."