December, 18 2017, 02:15pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jonathan Leaning, 617-524-1400, jleaning@grassrootsonline.org, Elise Roberts: cell: 920.421.2269, elise@witnessforpeace.org
Honduras: US Rights Groups Condemn Election Result as Not Credible
Call on US to refrain from hasty recognition of results, halt US military aid.
WASHINGTON
On the heels of the announcement of the election win by Honduras' globally discredited Electoral Tribunal amidst turmoil, violence, and mounting evidence of fraud, US rights and civil society groups called on the US Congress and the State Department to halt military aid to Honduras, and not recognize the announced results until a credible, independent investigation into the election has been conducted which addresses all claims of fraud and political violence. The Organization of American States has even called for fresh elections in Honduras, only hours after President Juan Orlando Hernandez was declared the winner.
"This has been a 'coup against democracy' in Honduras," said Victoria Cervantes of the Honduras Solidarity Network. "The levels of violence against the citizens by the government and the suspension of constitutional rights to defend fraud are the acts of dictatorship. 14 people have been killed. The unprecedentedly slow tabulation of final results by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) was blatantly fraudulent with sudden, inexplicable computer shutdowns, and disappearing and reappearing Actas (vote tally sheets). We are further outraged at the support of the US and Canadian governments for legitimizing a dictatorship in Honduras."
The call for an independent investigation follows on the heels of a call earlier this month for transparency in the Honduran elections by over US 100 human rights, faith and civil society rights groups, many outraged by the as-yet unsolved assassination of world renowned Honduran environment and indigenous leader, Berta Caceres.
"We have seen a massive increase in human rights violations, including threats and violence against journalists, Indigenous communities, and human rights defenders, since the 2009 coup," says Elise Roberts of Witness for Peace. "The assassination of Berta Caceres marked a new level of state violence and impunity, and the reported fraud in the November 26th elections, and the violence and repression since, are a reinforcement of this illegitimate and violent government. Throughout this escalation of state repression and corruption, the US has remained a powerful funder and supporter of the government. It is critical that the US immediately suspend all aid to Honduran security forces and not recognize the presidential election results as valid amidst ongoing fraud, violence, and repression."
"The US must not declare a hasty recognition of today's election announcement. That would be tantamount to legitimizing fraud and repression. We remember too well, how the US support of the 2009 military coup ushered in years of brutal dictatorship," said Jovanna Garcia Soto of Grassroots International. "We cannot be part of bulldozing over legitimate objections of lack of transparency, lack of independent oversight and violence against civilians and social movements. Democracy cannot be squelched -- not in our name."
The current administration of the National Party is led by Juan Orlando Hernandez and is in control of the government, military and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE in Spanish) overseeing the election. Mr. Hernandez originally came to power during the period following the 2009 military coup d'etat supported by the US government.
After the initial release of official results by the TSE showed the opposition candidate leading by approximately 5 percentage points based on more than half the returns, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal did not resume releasing presidential election results for more than a day. For comparison, in the 2013 presidential election, the winner was declared with a similar proportion of the returns in. When the updates resumed, the TSE's numbers began showing that the number of votes for the incumbent, President Hernandez, had passed the opposition candidate, although these results have been widely criticized as not credible. The long delay, and the dramatic shift in the tendency of the vote count reported before and after that delay, raised serious doubts about the integrity of this election.
In addition, international delegations from La Voz de los de Abajo, Code Pink, and Witness for Peace witnessed and heard testimony of violent beatings of civilians, the ongoing intimidation through use of security forces, including US-funded security forces, as well as numerous incidents of fraud and violence at polling places.
On December 1, a presidential decree suspended Constitutional rights, imposed a curfew, and the military has used live ammunition and violence toward civilians, resulting in at least 22 deaths of protesters already, as reported by human rights groups in Honduras.
The coalition is calling on the US Congress and US State Department to:
- Not recognize the announced election outcome due to widespread reports of state involvement in electoral fraud and violence.
- Immediately suspend diplomatic relations with the Honduran government, including recalling our Charge D'Affaires/acting Ambassador, until the rule of law has been re-established, constitutional guarantees are fulfilled, and democratic processes and institutions are actually respected.
- Revoke the State Department's certification that the Honduran government is meeting human rights and anti-corruption conditions.
- End US security aid to Honduras, including police and military aid, and support for Honduran security forces though the so-called "Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle" program; Pass HR 1299, the Berta Caceres Human Rights in Honduras Act and its companion bill in the Senate.
- Condemn the Honduran government's violent crackdown of protesters and suspension of Constitutional rights, and demand the the Honduran government immediately cease using live ammunition against civilians and remove the military from the streets;
- Extend Temporary Protected Status for the more than 57,000 Hondurans currently in the United States under its protection; and
- Respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples (including Garifuna communities) and peasant communities organizing to defend and protect ancestral territories, land, water and Mother Earth in the face of militarization and repression by the current Honduran regime.
"I spent 10 days in Honduras with a delegation of human rights and election observes with La Voz de los de Abajo. On the day of the elections we witnessed outright voter intimidation, bribery and fraud by representatives of the National Party, the party of the current President, Juan Orlando Hernandez. The days following the election thousands of Hondurans took to the streets to protest the fact that the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE by its Spanish initials) would not announce a winner of the presidential elections. We witnessed first hand repression of protesters. The Honduran military and police fired tear gas and opened water hoses on protestors on the first day of mass protest in Tegucigalpa, Nov. 30th. The following night, after a curfew was announced, the army fired live ammunition at protesters. The death toll since the curfew was announced has risen to 22 people," stated Ana Orozco, Feminisms and Gender Justice Organizer, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance
Grassroots International, www.grassrootsonline.org 179 Boylston Street, 4th Floor, Boston, MA, USA 02130, 617-524-1400
Witness for Peace/Accion Permanente por la Paz, https://witnessforpeace.org/
1115 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington DC, USA 20005
Honduras Solidarity Network, https://www.hondurassolidarity.org
Grassroots International connects people in the US with global movements solving the root causes of poverty and climate change. We are a trusted link to communities building power to protect their rights to land, food, and water for the well-being of people and the planet.
LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


