

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.
Rich Stahler-Sholk, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan
rsholk@gmail.com
734-660-1647
Steven Osuna, California State University, Long Beach, California
Steven.osuna@csulb.edu
213-247-6821
Suyapa Portillo, Pitzer College, California
Suyapa_portillo@pitzer.edu
323-637-7812
132 academics and researchers, specialists in Latin American Studies and Latino/a Studies, signed on to a letter in support of the 27 students who are currently facing charges for student activism at the Autonomous University of Honduras-UNAH campuses. Three of those students have been convicted and await sentencing for non-violent protest. Academics are asking for University to drop charges against all students, especially 3 of the students already convicted: Moises David Caceres Velasquez, Sergio Luis Ulloa Rivera, and Cesario Alejandro Felix Padilla.
132 academics and researchers, specialists in Latin American Studies and Latino/a Studies, signed on to a letter in support of the 27 students who are currently facing charges for student activism at the Autonomous University of Honduras-UNAH campuses. Three of those students have been convicted and await sentencing for non-violent protest. Academics are asking for University to drop charges against all students, especially 3 of the students already convicted: Moises David Caceres Velasquez, Sergio Luis Ulloa Rivera, and Cesario Alejandro Felix Padilla.
Students have been protesting the UNAH authorities since last year, 2016, seeking a voice on their campus reforms, which should include free and open student elections. Students seek to build a participatory and democratic system of shared governance to oversee changes to their curriculum and grading practices, as well as student elections, improvements to their major curriculums as well transparency in local campus reforms. Their non violent form of protest has involved marches and building take-overs, unarmed, for which they have been tear gassed, persecuted, held in constant surveillance, and have had direct intimidation from military units, such as the Cobra Unit, military police, anti-riot police and private security systems linked to the state, who have physically assaulted students.
The UNAH is the largest University in Honduras boasting 80,000 students, with regional satellite campuses throughout the nation and serving mostly working poor students, but open to students of all economic brackets. It is a public and an autonomous institution of higher learning, which claims to have shared-governance and lead itself without state or military intervention.
The full letter follows:
TO: Lic. Julieta Castellanos
Rector of the Autonomous University of Honduras, UNAH
Blvd. Suyapa, Ciudad Universitaria, Tegucigalpa, MDC, Honduras
We, the undersigned faculty members urge you and the administration of UNAH to drop the charges against student protestors: Moises David Caceres Velasquez, Sergio Luis Ulloa Rivera y Cesario Alejandro Felix Padilla, who were engaged in non-violent civil disobedience to call attention to needed reforms that include student voice and participation on campuses across the nation.
We call for solidarity with students on a hunger strike, among their demands the following: to end criminalization and judicial processes against students and to conduct legitimate and fair student elections in the UNAH. We also understand that students are dissatisfied with the university leadership and are seeking a recall of the administration because of their failure to dialogue and for their top-down politics of criminalizing their own student body. Recently, the father of Andres Gomez was killed after attending his son's judicial hearing. We call for a full investigation and prosecution of those culpable for this murder.
Students are not our enemies, they are our future. The rising politics of terror facing student protestors in Honduras, where militarization of the various UNAH campuses throughout the nation is becoming a standard response by administration under your leadership, harkens back to the 1980s violence. Students are receiving death threats, persecution and surveillance for standing up for their rights. Your very own intellectual work on the 1980s argues against militarization because it is not an avenue for progress. We would add that militarization and criminalization of our youth are not fruitful to building participatory democracy.
As educators we see the value of protest in helping students develop their own identity and voice and helping them develop into productive members of our society that seeks to build a participatory democracy, an aim for which Hondurans have been working since the 1980s.
Students' rights to protest should be a protected form of expression, a rite of passage, a form of building an active citizenship and a voice around national and even world affairs. In and out of the classrooms, we must encourage students to be critical and dialogical members of society and not just passive receptacles of knowledge.
We hope that a fruitful dialogue can take place among you, University authorities and students, so that an effective, constructive and collaborative University reform, which includes student voices, may be achieved.
We urge you to drop the charges against the 27 students, including those named above, to dialogue and reach an agreement that can open up the classrooms, where all students feel reflected.
Sincerely the undersigned,
Richard Stahler-Sholk, PhD Eastern Michigan University
Piya Chatterjee PhD Scripps College
Mario Pecheny PhD Universidad de Buenos Aires
Paul Espinosa PhD Arizona State University
Leisy Abrego PhD UCLA
Kency Cornejo PhD University of New Mexico
Pablo Gonzalez PhD University of California Berkeley
Michelle Watts PhD University of Southern Mississippi
Aaron Pollack PhD Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social (CIESAS)-Sureste
Richard Grossman PhD Northeastern Illinois University
Marc Zimerman PhD Emeritus, U. of Houston, U. of Illinois at Chicago
Maria Mendez PhD University of Minnesota
Rodolfo Rosales PhD Retired from University of Texas of San Antonio
Suyapa Portillo PhD Pitzer College
Alfonso Gonzales PhD University of California Riverside
Leece Lee Oliver PhD California State University Fresno
Kimberly Drake PhD Scripps College
Jorge Ramon Gonzalez Ponciano PhD Stanford University
Katy Pinto PhD California State University Dominguez Hills
Aurelia Lorena Murga PhD The University of Texas at El Paso
Estela Ballon PhD California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Javier Arbona PhD University of California, Davis
Katherine Hoyt PhD Alliance for Global Justice
Victoria Sanford PhD Lehman College, City University of New York
Samantha Fox PhD Binghamton University
Elena Shih PhD Brown University
Lilian Davila PhD University of California Merced
Joanna Perez PhD California State University Dominguez Hills
Claudia Arteaga PhD Scripps College
Rosalyn Negron PhD UMass Boston
X. Banales PhD California State University
Jih-Fei Cheng PhD Scripps College
Harry E. Vanden PhD University of South Florida
Laura J Enriquez PhD University of California at Berkeley
Eric Vazquez PhD Dickinson College
Holmfridur Gardarsdottir PhD Universidad de Islandia
Maria Socorro Tabuenca PhD-C The University of Texas at El Paso
Carla Gomes PhD-C Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Ariana Stickel PhD-C University of Arizona
Mara Aubel PhD University of Kansas
Molly Todd PhD Montana State University
Raquel I. Drovetta PhD CONICET-Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas
Ellie Walsh PhD GOVERNORS STATE UNIVERSITY
David Close PhD Memorial University of Newfoundland
Christopher Perreira PhD University of Kansas
Matthew J Countryman PhD University of Michigan
Edward Murphy PhD Michigan State University
Pite Rebekah PhD Lafayette College
Christopher Loperena MS University of San Francisco (USA)
Jose Rubio-Zepeda PhD University of Texas at Austin
Gloria Chacon PhD University of California San Diego
Sandra Haley PhD Brown University
Steven Osuna PhD California State University, Long Beach
Christine Wade PhD Washington College
Patricia Ornelas-Moya Otro California State University of Los Angeles
Griselda Martinez Otro California State University, Northridge
Dalesy Casasola PhD California State University Los Angeles
Joo Ok Kim MA University of Kansas
Bernabe Rodriguez PhD California State University Long Beach
Alicia Estrada PhD California State University, Northridge
Brenda Cruz MA California State University, Los Angeles
Olivia Jaffe-Pachuilo Otro San Diego State University
Tamara Favors PhD University of California Merced
Thelma Jimenez-Anglada PhD Lawrence University
Vernor Arguedas PhD Universidad de Costa Rica
K. Myers PhD C University of California, Mercer
Beezer de Martelly PhD University of California, Berkeley
Carmen Caamano PhD Universidad de Costa Rica
Rosemary L Lee Otro Retired
Emelyne Camacho Otro California State University Long Beach
Hector Fuentes MPA California State University, Northridge
Walter Abrego PhD Texas Tech University
Jorge Moraga MA California State University, Bakersfield
Rodolfo Rodriguez PhD University of California, Merced
Shannon Speed PhD UCLA
Adrienne Pine JD American University
Joseph Berra PhD University of California Los Angeles School of Law
Arely Zimmerman PhD Mills College
Ashley Lucas Otro University of Michigan
Christina Acosta PhD C University of California Merced
Amrah Salomon J. PhD C University of California, San Diego
Nalya Rodriguez PhD University of California Irvine
Guadalupe Bacio PhD Pomona College
Chris Zepeda-Millan MA University of California Berkeley
Fanny Garcia PhD Columbia University
Mita Banerjee MA Pitzer College
Esmeralda Garcia PhD University of California Irvine
Munia Bhaumik PhD Emory University
Salvador Vidal-Ortiz MA American University
Tricia Morgan PhD Pitzer College
Genevieve Carpio PhD UCLA
Sylvanna Falcon PhD University of California, Santa Cruz
Patricia Zavella PhD University of California
Beatriz Cruz Sotomayor Otro Universidad del Turabo
Alessandra Alvares PhD University of California Santa Cruz
Amalia Pallares PhD University of Illinois at Chicago
Mary Delgado Garcia PhD Scripps College
Ernesto Martinez Otro University of Oregon
Alvaro Huerta PhD California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Cristina Serna PhD Colgate University
Shannon Gleeson Otro Cornell University
Kim YuneHie PhD UC Berkeley
Ralph Armbruster-Sandoval MS UC Santa Barbara
Genevieve Negron-Gonzales, PhD, University of San Francisco
Enrique Ochoa, PhD California State University, Los Angeles
Karma R. Chavez PhD University of Texas at Austin
Victor Silverman PhD Pomona College
Maria Cristina Morales PhD-C University of Texas at El Paso
Gabriela Arguedas Otro Universidad de Costa Rica
Andrea Gonzalez Otro California State University Long Beach
Hao Huang PhD Scripps College
Marta Bustillo PhD Universidad de Puerto Rico
Adriana Garriga-Lopez PhD Kalamazoo College
Monica Moreno Figueroa PhD University of Cambridge
Joan Simalchik PhD University of Toronto Mississauga
Kemy Oyarzun PhD Universidad de Chile
Joel Mercado-Diaz PhD The University of Chicago
Stacey Schlau PhD West Chester University
Elizabeth Maier PhD Colegio de la Frontera Norte
Maria Amelia Viteri PhD USFQ
Jack Spence PhD University of Massachusetts Boston
Karina Oliva Alvarado PhD UCLA
Heather Vrana PhD University of Florida
Emilie Bergmann PhD University of California, Berkeley
Liv Sovik PhD Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Hillary Hiner PhD Universidad Diego Portales
Rosalind Bresnahan PhD California State University
Miguel Tinker Salas PhD Pomona College
Sonia Ticas PhD Linfield College
Dan Beeton Otro Center for Economic and Policy Research
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protest," one legal advocate said.
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to "antifa," which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
"The US lost today with this verdict."
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with "attempted murder of a police officer," according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump's designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government's case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
"When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result."
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife's home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
"The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, "Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top."
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
"We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges," they said. "What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up."
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
"Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because 'ANTIFA isn't even a real organization'? We told you that didn't matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result," said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: "The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you."
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a "serious threat to the First Amendment."
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury's decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech."
"Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official," one news network said.
In a move one administration critic described as "fragrantly unconstitutional," Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr wrote a post on social media on Saturday that appeared to threaten the broadcast license of any media outlet that reported information concerning President Donald Trump's war on Iran that the president did not like.
"Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions—also known as the fake news—have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not," Carr's message began.
Carr also shared a screenshot of a Trump post on Truth Social complaining about "Fake News Media" coverage of five US Air Force refueling planes that were reportedly hit and damaged in an Iranian missile strike on Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia.
"The[is] is the federal government telling news stations to provide favorable coverage of the war or their licenses will be pulled," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media in response to the post. "A truly extraordinary moment. We aren't on the verge of a totalitarian takeover. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. Act like it."
Several other media professionals, free speech advocates, and Democratic politicians understood Carr's post as a threat.
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that."
"The FCC is threatening the licenses of news stations that report on the effects of Iranian attacks on the American military," wrote journalist Séamus Malekafzali.
Bulwark economics editor Catherine Rampell wrote, "FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatens broadcast licenses over Iran War coverage."
Journalist Sam Stein posted, "The state doesn't like the war coverage, threatens the license of the broadcasters."
Independent news network MediasTouch wrote: "Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official."
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that," the group continued.
"This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Several pointed out that such a threat would be in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
"Constitutional law 101: It’s illegal for the government to censor free speech it just doesn’t like about Trump’s Iran war," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) posted on social media. "This threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has faced scrutiny from the administration for advising service members to disobey illegal orders, wrote: "When our nation is at war it is critical that the press is free to report without government interference. It is literally in the Constitution. This is overreach by the FCC because this administration doesn’t like the microscope and doesn’t want to be held accountable."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote, "If Trump doesn't like your coverage of the war, his FCC will pull your broadcast license. That is flagrantly unconstitutional."
Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, said: "The president's hand-picked misinformation czar is at it again, singling out 'fake news' that conflicts with his boss' political agenda. The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to censor information about the war it's waging."
Free Press senior director of strategy and communications Timothy Karr responded to Carr with a screenshot of the First Amendment and the words: "Here it is—as it seems you've forgotten what you swore an oath to 'support and defend.'"
This is not the first time that Carr has been accused of putting his loyalty to Trump over his duty to the Constitution. In September, he pressured ABC to take comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air over remarks Kimmel had made following the murder of Charlie Kirk.
While ABC eventually reinstated Kimmel's show following public backlash, free speech advocates warned at the time that the Trump administration would not stop trying to censor opposing views.
“The Trump regime’s war on free speech is no joke—and it’s not over," Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron said at the time.
Indeed, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote of Carr's Saturday statement: "This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Carr's note comes at a particularly urgent time for independent media coverage in the US, as Paramount Skydance, which is run by the son of pro-Trump billionaire Larry Ellison, is set to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN. The Trump administration has often criticized CNN's coverage, including of the war.
On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters, “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” as he complained about a CNN report on how the Pentagon underestimated the risk that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US aggression.
Carr has already spoken out in favor of the merger, telling CNBC he thought it was a "good deal, and I think it should get through pretty quickly."
This piece has been updated with quotes from Sens. Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, and Mark Kelly.
“Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill," one advocate said.
State leaders and environmental advocates responded with outrage after the Trump administration on Friday ordered the restarting of a California pipeline that caused one of the largest oil spills in the state's history, a move that comes as oil prices have skyrocketed following President Donald Trump's launching of an illegal war against Iran and Iran's subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
After Trump issued an executive order on Friday authorizing the Department of Energy (DOE) to ramp up oil and gas development under the Defense Production Act, Energy Secretary Chris Wright ordered Sable Offshore Corp. to restart operations on the Santa Ynez Unit and Pipeline System, which include an offshore rig and a network of offshore and onshore pipelines along the Santa Barbara coast. Among them is a pipeline that ruptured in 2015, spilling around 450,000 gallons of oil into Refugio State Beach and killing hundreds of marine mammals and sea birds.
“Californians have repeatedly rejected dangerous drilling off our coast for decades," Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Now, after dragging the US into a war with Iran and driving up oil prices, the Trump administration is trying to exploit this crisis to further enrich the oil industry at the expense of our communities and our environment."
In his statement, Wright emphasized the defense benefits of resuming drilling, arguing that "today’s order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness.”
“Directing a private oil company to push its project through without safety checks and adherence to California laws that keep our coast safe is appalling and illegal."
The DOE added that "Sable's facility can produce approximately 50,000 barrels of oil per day, a 15% increase to California’s in-state oil production, that can replace nearly 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude each month."
Yet, far from a novel response to an unexpected emergency, the order is actually an escalation in a preexisting battle between California and the Trump administration over the future of the pipeline system. The state's Attorney General Rob Bonta sued to stop the administration from a federal takeover of two of the pipelines in January.
Sable also faces several lawsuits due to its attempts to restart the system after it purchased it from ExxonMobil in 2024, and has not yet cleared all of the state permitting requirements, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.
"In its latest brazen abuse of power, the Trump administration is attempting to seize exclusive federal control over two of California’s onshore pipelines," Bonta said on social media Friday evening. "We will not stand by as this administration continues their unlawful all-out assault on California and our coastlines, and we are reviewing all of our legal options."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom also spoke out against Wright's announcement.
"Trump knew his war with Iran would raise gas prices," he wrote on social media. "Now he wants to illegally resurrect a pipeline shut down by courts and facing criminal charges. And it won't even cut prices. I refuse to let Trump sacrifice Californians, our environment, or our $51 billion coastal economy."
The Center for Biological Diversity noted that this order would mark the first time that the Defense Production Act was used to force an oil company to restart out-of-use Infrastructure and to disregard the state permitting process.
“This is a revolting power grab by an extremist president. Trump is misusing this Cold War-era law just to help a Texas oil company skirt vital state laws that protect our coastline, and Californians will pay the price,” Talia Nimmer, an attorney for the center, said. “Mandating a restart of these defective oil pipelines won’t curb high gas prices, but it will put coastal wildlife at huge risk of another oil spill. Overriding state law to let an oil company restart pipelines sets a radically dangerous precedent. It’s clear that no state is safe from Trump.”
The center also promised to push back against the order.
“Directing a private oil company to push its project through without safety checks and adherence to California laws that keep our coast safe is appalling and illegal,” Nimmer said. “We’re exploring all legal avenues. This dangerous action should be swiftly blocked by the courts.”