SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Iraq: Alarming Reports of More Than 3,000 People Facing Death Over Terror-Related Offenses
Responding to an Associated Press report that Iraqi authorities have detained or imprisoned at least 19,000 people accused of links to the armed group calling itself the Islamic State (IS) or other terror-related offenses, and sentenced more than 3,000 of them to death, Lynn Maalouf, Middle East Research Director at Amnesty International, said:
"We are deeply alarmed by this report and the Iraqi authorities' mass use of the death penalty and the courts' reliance on torture-tainted "confessions" to secure convictions.
WASHINGTON
Responding to an Associated Press report that Iraqi authorities have detained or imprisoned at least 19,000 people accused of links to the armed group calling itself the Islamic State (IS) or other terror-related offenses, and sentenced more than 3,000 of them to death, Lynn Maalouf, Middle East Research Director at Amnesty International, said:
"We are deeply alarmed by this report and the Iraqi authorities' mass use of the death penalty and the courts' reliance on torture-tainted "confessions" to secure convictions.
"Amnesty International has documented the flawed screening process by Iraqi forces to which men and boys fleeing areas of conflict have been subjected. Thousands of them have been arbitrarily arrested, forcibly disappeared, and routinely subjected to torture and horrific conditions in detention. It is vital therefore that all those detained are held in officially recognized and supervised detention facilities.
"The Iraqi authorities must immediately address serious flaws in the criminal justice system and institute effective safeguards against torture and enforced disappearance, and ensure all defendants are given a fair trial, including the right to legal representation. They must implement an immediate moratorium on executions as a first step towards total abolition of the death penalty."
Background
The Associated Press (AP) said its count was based partially on an analysis of a spreadsheet listing all 27,849 people imprisoned in Iraq as of late January, provided by an official who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
AP said thousands more people were believed to be held in detention by other bodies, including the Federal Police, military intelligence and Kurdish forces.
This statement can be found online at https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/iraq-alarming-reports-of-more-than-3000-people-facing-death-over-terror-related-offences/
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400LATEST NEWS
‘Illegal and Senseless’: 71% of Americans Want Swift End to Trump’s Iran War
"Lawmakers can act on that right now by passing legislation to prohibit more funding for the war, and by not passing any bills that continue to fund it," said one policy expert.
Nov 10, 2026
As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is expected to face an impeachment vote in the US House in part for his role in launching the illegal war with Iran, declared Tuesday that the US had "achieved a historic MILITARY VICTORY" in the Middle Eastern country, the latest polling on the broadly unpopular conflict suggests few Americans would be convinced by such claims.
Seventy-one percent of people surveyed by Reuters/Ipsos said they wanted the US Congress to urgently pass legislation to end the war in Iran, in which more than 3,400 Iranians, 13 US service members, and thousands of people across the Middle East have been killed as the conflict has wreaked havoc on economies around the world.
Those who were demanding a swift end to the war included 93% of Democrats, 70% of independents, and 51% of Republican voters who expressed their disapproval in the days after the Democratic Party's victory in the midterm elections.
Sixty-three percent of respondents said that Congress should focus "a great deal" or "quite a bit" on ending the war in the first 100 days of the new legislative session, starting January 3, and 54% said the negative impact of the conflict, such as higher gas prices, have not been worth any benefit even as Hegseth and President Donald Trump have claimed, without offering any evidence, that the US waged the war to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
"Their navy sunk. Their air force grounded. Their defense industrial base—gone. More than 80% of their nuclear industrial base—gone. Their military in ruin. The ironclad blockade, UNBROKEN," said Hegseth Tuesday, without mentioning that the Trump administration had declared months before waging the war that it had already weakened Iran's nuclear infrastructure. "We control the Strait of Hormuz."
Tehran has disputed Hegseth's repeated claims of victory, and the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, on Monday evening called on the Trump administration to "SURRENDER to the seven conditions Iran has repeatedly set out," including an end to the US blockade of Iranian ports and vessels, an end to fighting on all fronts, the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil and gas sales, and other measures and reparations.
Meanwhile, Trump, who faced a 32% approval rating in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, attempted to deflect questions about ending the conflict, telling reporters Monday: "Iran, militarily, is effectively over. We're just keeping it the status quo."
He added that the US military is "fully locked and loaded with the best equipment ever made" but said, "We don't think there's going to be any reason to use it however."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute of Responsible Statecraft, wrote at Substack Tuesday that Trump may ultimately reject "both war and peace" and choose a "Swiss cheese status quo" that leaves the conflict simmering without any major resolution.
In that scenario, he wrote, Trump "walks away and claims to retain the blockade and sanctions infrastructure, but in reality imperceptibly begins to let it wither away."
"Given Trump’s aversion to admitting defeat, his fear of coming across as a loser, his impatience with complicated diplomacy, his obsession with outdoing Obama’s [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action], and Iran’s disinterest in giving him an ego-soothing exit ramp, he may end up choosing the Swiss cheese walk-away option," wrote Parsi.
While Hegseth continued to deny the reality of the deeply unpopular war, the anti-war group Just Foreign Policy urged Democratic leaders in the US House and Senate to listen to the vast majority of Americans and take action immediately, without waiting for the new session to begin, to cut off funding for the war.
The group reminded Democrats ahead of the election that they could block more funding for the Iran War on December 11, when current government spending expires, and force a government shutdown if Trump insists on continuing the conflict after that date.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is considering a possible run to serve as Senate Majority Leader, threw his support behind blocking the funding.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said the results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll provide Democrats with clear marching orders.
"A 71% supermajority of Americans, including most Republicans, want Congress to end the Iran war," he said. "Lawmakers can act on that right now by passing legislation to prohibit more funding for the war, and by not passing any bills that continue to fund it."
Seeing the poll numbers, political scientist Yousef Munayyer said that many Americans were "enraged" by Trump's decision to join Israel in attacking Iran not just because "it was a stupid decision, [but] it was a stupid decision that was taken with no public debate at all."
"There was not effort at all on the part of the White House to present a rationale for this or convince the public ahead of time," said Muayyer. "They didn't feel they had to because they felt empowered to do whatever the hell they wanted and had a Republican-controlled Congress who would allow it. Voters saw that not only as stupidity, but out-of-control stupidity that needed to be checked before it further wrecked the country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Defining Test': Press Freedom Group Urges New Democratic Majority to Impeach Trump's FCC Chair
"Few individuals have been more instrumental to the White House’s campaign to weaken the First Amendment than Brendan Carr," said Reporters Without Borders.
Nov 10, 2026
A leading press freedom organization on Monday urged Democratic lawmakers to impeach US President Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission chairman when they take control of Congress in January, pointing to the official's efforts to "intimidate and punish" media outlets that publish criticism of the White House.
The demand marked the first time that Reporters Without Borders, known internationally as Reporters sans frontières (RSF), has called for the removal of a US official in the group's 40-year history, the organization said in a statement. Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF North America, said the "severity and persistence" of FCC Chair Brendan Carr's alleged wrongdoing "demand an extraordinary response."
RSF points to Carr's erosion of the FCC's independence from the executive branch and eager willingness to act as the president's attack dog, pursuing investigations into networks that Trump has publicly targeted.
"When Trump took office, Carr reinstated complaints against and announced inquiries into broadcasters that questioned the Trump administration’s policies, from public service media NPR and PBS to major private channels ABC, CBS, and NBC," the group noted. "Carr’s relentless investigations have also targeted local stations, such as California radio station KCBS, which has faced politically motivated scrutiny for its reporting."
RSF also pointed to Carr's threat earlier this year to pull the broadcast licenses of networks accused by the administration of "news distortions"—a threat that came in direct response to Trump's complaint about media coverage of his illegal war on Iran.
"Few individuals have been more instrumental to the White House’s campaign to weaken the First Amendment than Brendan Carr," Weimers said on Monday. "The incoming Congress now faces a defining test of its commitment to the Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. Press freedom cannot be defended through words alone."
In addition to his attacks on journalism and legally dubious effort to roll back limits on media consolidation, RSF argued that Carr "likely violated the Hatch Act" by hailing his government work at a political rally for Republican US Senate candidate Dan Sullivan in Alaska. RSF and the Democracy Defenders Fund filed a formal complaint last month demanding an investigation into Carr's appearance at the rally.
RSF's call for Carr's impeachment came days after Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) demanded that the FCC chair hand over records as part of an investigation into "how the president and the Federal Communications Commission’s actions erode and undermine freedom of speech and freedom of the press and bear on the laws governing media consolidation."
Jessica González, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press Action, welcomed Blumenthal's investigation and argued that Carr's actions "should lead to his removal from office, by impeachment if necessary."
"Carr’s capricious abuse of the law has no place in a legitimate democracy," said González. "Over the past two years, Carr has regularly violated his oath to support and defend the Constitution. He’s been more than happy to browbeat and jawbone broadcasters into silence, though his claims have zero legal merit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jeffries Refuses to Say If He’ll Support Holding Up Funding Bill to Stop Iran War
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who may mount a leadership challenge against Sen. Chuck Schumer, called on Congress to “end this war now” by blocking the bill next month.
Nov 10, 2026
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to say on Monday whether he'd support holding up a spending bill next month in an effort to force President Donald Trump to end his war in Iran before Democrats retake Congress in January.
"We're going to end the war in Iran one way or the other," Jeffries (D-NY) said during a news conference Monday, but added that the appropriations process was "in the hands of" Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrats on their chambers' respective appropriations committees.
Since Republicans’ resounding defeat in last Tuesday’s midterms, Trump has fluctuated wildly between declarations that the Iran War may soon end and bellicose threats to “destroy the rest” of the country. Some Democrats have taken this as a sign that urgent action is needed even before their new majorities take office in January.
Their most immediate point of leverage is the next government funding bill, which needs to be enacted by December 11 in order to avert a government shutdown.
With Trump ignoring the war powers resolution passed by Congress earlier this year, some Democrats have said they will withhold their votes unless the next bill contains clear language prohibiting federal funds from being used to continue waging the unauthorized war.
A Reuters/Ipsos post-election survey published Monday showed that 71% of all adults supported legislation to end the war, including 51% of Republicans.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who has suggested launching a leadership challenge against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said Tuesday morning that Democrats must use their leverage to end the war as soon as possible.
"The American people have spoken loudly and clearly: We need to end the war in Iran now," Van Hollen said in a video posted to social media. "We're now 255 days into that war, a war that Donald Trump said would be over in a matter of weeks."
"What's the fastest way to end this war? Well, to stop funding it, to stop giving it the fuel it needs to keep going," he continued, pointing to the December 11 deadline for a new spending bill.
"If President Trump wants to tell the country that he'll shut down the entire government, all federal agencies, in order to keep his illegal war going, that's his decision," Van Hollen said. "But the American people have rendered their decision. Let's end this war and end it now: not a penny more."
Schumer, whom several incoming members of the Senate Democratic caucus have pledged to vote against as majority leader, has not publicly stated a position on whether he'd support using the December 11 deadline to force concessions from Trump. Last week, he told Politico he was working with Murray to “get something done” on government funding before December 11, but did not say whether he would demand a cutoff of war funding.
In a joint statement Monday, following a Democratic leadership meeting, Schumer and Jeffries pledged to “stop the reckless war of choice in Iran," but did not indicate what action they planned to take. They added that "a new day is coming on January 3."
Jeffries said last week that his goal was “to reach a spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people and prioritizes their economic well-being, health, and safety.”
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim suggested that Van Hollen’s demand for Democrats to hold up the December spending bill may put more pressure on Schumer to endorse a similar strategy. Jeffries, on the other hand, has not had his leadership role challenged, and several progressive members of Congress have said they’ll back him as speaker despite their policy disagreements.
Grim said Jeffries’ response showed he was “feeling absolutely no pressure to end this war, clearly very confident he’ll become speaker regardless.”
Since Trump launched the war in February, critics have argued that Jeffries' response was lackluster. As independent journalist Adam Johnson recounted, Jeffries focused largely on procedural objections to the war while reinforcing many of the Trump administration's justifications for it, including saying that Iran needed to be "aggressively confronted."
While Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) were pushing for a war powers resolution as Trump built an “armada” in the Middle East weeks before the start of “Operation Epic Fury,” Jeffries did not force a vote on it to occur until several days after the bombing began.
Johnson argued that Jeffries has been "at best sleepy, useless, and indifferent" in response to the war.
The anti-war group Just Foreign Policy, one of the groups that pressured Democrats to ultimately invoke the War Powers Resolution against Trump, said that cutting off funding was one of the only guaranteed ways to bring the war to an end.
The group noted that Congress' July 1973 decision to cut off funding played a decisive role in forcing President Richard Nixon to end direct combat operations elsewhere in Southeast Asia amid the US withdrawal from Vietnam.
It noted that the US bombing of Cambodia ceased the day that the funding prohibition took effect. After the House voted to restrict funding, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared, "That finishes us."
"The ONLY way to truly rein in war criminals like [Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth] and Kissinger is for Congress to be willing to force the White House to risk a government shutdown if it wants to continue the war," Just Foreign Policy said. "Time to shut the funding down like Congress did for Vietnam. Force Republicans to fund it themselves if they refuse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘I Would Do It Again’: Facing Impeachment Vote, Hegseth Celebrates Alleged War Crimes
"No... secretary of defense has ever been impeached for carrying out lawful military operations," said Hegseth, who is facing impeachment for allegedly carrying out unlawful military operations.
Nov 10, 2026
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday defended his record, including an unconstitutional war on Iran and a murderous boat-bombing campaign in international waters, during a defiant press conference held one day before an expected impeachment vote in the US House of Representatives.
Hours after Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) advanced articles of impeachment against Hegseth that accuse him of waging an illegal war and committing war crimes, the former Fox News host accused his critics of waging a partisan "show trial" with no historical precedent.
"In the 250 years of our American republic," Hegseth said, "no secretary of war or secretary of defense has ever been impeached for carrying out lawful military operations—and in our case, successful ones at that."
my "no treason" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt https://t.co/Z0qSUb5ACN
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2026
Hegseth is not facing impeachment for carrying out lawful military operations, but for carrying out unlawful military operations.
Among other things, the impeachment articles filed against him allege he systematically dismantled rules of engagement intended to minimize civilian casualties, while also carrying out an unlawful campaign of extrajudicial killings by bombing suspected drug trafficking vessels in international waters.
Hegseth expressed no regret for any of these operations, including the deadly US attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in the city of Minab, Iran, which killed more than 150 people, including more than 100 children.
"I stand behind every one of these operations," Hegseth said. "I was proud to execute them, and I would do it again tomorrow."
Hegseth linked the current impeachment effort against him to the past two impeachments of his boss, President Donald Trump.
"We've seen this show before: They impeached President Trump over a perfect phone call," said Hegseth, in reference to Trump's efforts in 2019 to shake down the Ukrainian government to open a criminal investigation into political rivals. "They impeached him again in his final week in office. Both times, they failed."
Hegseth denounces "show trials" and says, "we've seen this show before. They impeached President Trump over a perfect phone call." https://t.co/htAsMLolsJ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2026
Trump's second impeachment came after he tried to unlawfully stay in power after losing the 2020 election to former President Joe Biden, an effort that culminated in a deadly riot carried out by the president's supporters at the US Capitol that sent lawmakers fleeing for their lives.
Later in the press conference, Hegseth predicted that US servicemembers who carried out his orders would also face legal consequences, claiming that Democrats plan to "put the secretary on trial today, and the men and women who carried out those orders tomorrow."
"If they want to come for the warriors," Hegseth added, "they're going to have to come through me."
Hegseth: "Put the secretary on trial today, and the men and women who carried out those orders tomorrow. If they want to come for the warriors, they're going to have to come through me." https://t.co/XplGs8CTQq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2026
Hegseth's performance earned a rave review from Trump in a Thursday social media post.
"Pete Hegseth gets an 'A' PLUS, PLUS, PLUS for his defense against a disgruntled, angry, defeated, former Congressman, Thomas Massie, a TOTAL LOSER!" the president wrote.
Jan-Albert Hootsen, Mexico representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists' Americas program, said that the charges against Hegseth outlined in Massie's impeachment articles are extremely serious and likely warrant prosecution.
"Pete Hegseth ordered the extrajudicial execution of over 100 Latin Americans," said Hootsen. "No trial, no evidence. Instead of even a weak attempt to justify the killings, he gloated. Merely firing him is not accountability—it should be the beginning of criminal investigations."
The House is scheduled to take up a procedural vote on the impeachment articles on Tuesday. If a majority votes to advance it, a full debate and final vote on impeaching Hegseth will likely occur on Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
600,000-Member Machinists Union Calls on Schumer To Allow ‘A New Generation To Lead’ Democrats
"Our country is at a critical crossroads and a moment of extraordinary opportunity. This week’s elections sent a clear message: Working people are demanding change," said the IAM Union international president.
Nov 10, 2026
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's bid to continue leading the Democratic Party when it takes control of the US Senate in January continued to falter Monday night as a key machinists' union asked the New York senator to step aside and allow "a new generation to lead Senate Democrats."
In a letter, Brian Bryant, international president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM Union) thanked Schumer for "many years of leadership, friendship, and unwavering commitment to working people" before telling him that "after thoughtful discussions," the IAM Union Executive Council had opted not to support Schumer's push to remain as the Senate leader.
"With the utmost respect and appreciation for your service, we respectfully urge you not to seek another term as Senate
Democratic leader," Bryant wrote. "We also encourage all returning and newly elected Democratic senators to join together through a fair and open process to select a consensus leader who can unite the party, build on your legacy and carry forward a bold vision for working people."
The letter came hours after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told reporters that he was considering a challenge to Schumer, after initially saying he was not interested in running for the Senate majority leader post following the party's electoral sweep last week.
Candidates who won Senate seats include several outspoken proponents of Medicare for All, such as Sens.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.), Troy Jackson (D-Maine), and Peggy Flanagan (D-Minn.), and others who centered in their campaigns the need to decisively take on billionaires and worsening economic inequality.
A decision by Schumer to step aside in favor of "new leadership," said Bryant, would allow the party to "turn this moment into lasting progress."
He wrote that the party must push to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, restore collective bargaining rights to all federal workers, reinstate Affordable Care Act and give "every American the healthcare they need, and pass "meaningful rail safety legislation."
"Our country is at a critical crossroads and a moment of extraordinary opportunity. This week’s elections sent a clear message: Working people are demanding change," said Bryant. "The IAM Union’s Workers vs. Billionaires movement reflects a growing desire for an economy and political system that puts working families ahead of wealthy special interests. We have a tremendous opportunity to build on this momentum, but doing so will require fresh ideas, new energy, and a new generation of leadership."
Bryant's message made clear that "it's time" for Schumer to step aside, said author and commentator Don Winslow.
"The Democratic Party will make a catastrophic mistake if they lock out all of these voters for a man who has been in political office for 51 years," said Winslow.
The letter came after Schumer's support among senior Democrats appeared to crack on Monday, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) telling reporters, “We need a conversation about leadership going forward because we need new energy and ideas."
But later that evening, the senator said that he expected Schumer to become Senate majority leader and plans to back him.
Van Hollen, who has reportedly received a steady stream of phone calls since last week from voters calling on him to take the helm of the party in the Senate, reiterated Monday evening that he believes there should be "a full caucus discussion" about the path forward.
"I am in listening mode," he said of the possibility that he could challenge Schumer. "There are clearly lots of people around the country and a number of our members, quite a few of our members, who want to have this discussion... I haven't closed the door."
He also told Semafor: “I am listening to the thousands of people who have been calling for change, but especially listening to our members, but in particular to new members who have just come off the campaign trail. So what I've said from the very beginning is, we shouldn't have a coronation.”
Van Hollen also met Monday with Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who has not endorsed Schumer.
On Monday afternoon, Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is also facing calls from newly elected progressive lawmakers to step aside in his push to become House speaker, released a statement saying that "Democrats are united and ready to lead."
But several representatives-elect, including Melat Kiros (D-Colo.) and Adam Hamawy (D-NJ) suggested that even if Jeffries secures the top post in the House, he will have to contend with many new members of Congress who will be pushing for far-reaching action.
"It's about the agenda, an agenda that actually reflects the priorities of the American people," said Kiros. "We might have different ideas about how to accomplish certain things but we all agree that we have to reduce costs for working families, we all agree that we have to root out corruption in government, we all agree that our foreign policy has to reflect our values. And in order for us to be able to do that we need an agenda that's bold enough to meet that vision. And so what we're demanding is an agenda, it's not about the individual."
"We, as progressives, want to build," she added. "We want to accomplish things, we want to work together with this caucus to actually get work done, and we haven't had that conversation yet."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Days After Midterm Blowout, 22 Democrats Join GOP to Advance 'Massive Giveaway' to Big Oil
"It’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants," one critic said of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act.
Nov 10, 2026
The US Senate on Monday voted in bipartisan fashion to advance a fossil fuel industry-backed permitting reform bill that would weaken the Clean Water Act and other key environmental protections to make it easier for the federal government to streamline energy projects—including climate-wrecking gas pipelines.
The 73-25 vote to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) sets the stage for what's expected to be a contentious amendment process. The bill's Democratic supporters—including Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, and Chuck Schumer of New York—argue it is a necessary compromise to accelerate construction of clean energy projects. Environmentalists, tribal organizations, and progressive lawmakers say the legislation is a gift to fossil fuel companies, tech giants, and other corporate interests at the expense of local communities and the planet.
The 22 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus who voted with Republicans for passage were:
- Blumenthal (D-CT)
- Coons (D-DE)
- Cortez Masto (D-NV)
- Fetterman (D-PA)
- Gallego (D-AZ)
- Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Heinrich (D-NM)
- Hickenlooper (D-CO)
- Kim (D-NJ)
- King (I-ME)
- Klobuchar (D-MN)
- Ossoff (D-GA)
- Peters (D-MI)
- Reed (D-RI)
- Rosen (D-NV)
- Schatz (D-HI)
- Schumer (D-NY)
- Shaheen (D-NH)
- Slotkin (D-MI)
- Warner (D-VA)
- Warnock (D-GA)
- Whitehouse (D-RI)
"The Senate’s supporters of BAAJA just cleared an initial hurdle towards offering Big Oil and Big Tech a massive giveaway at the expense of our clean air, clean water, and communities' right to protect themselves from polluting projects," said Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International. "Just days after voters demanded accountability and relief from soaring costs, 73 senators chose Trump’s energy policies over the American people."
“BAAJA is not a compromise—it’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants," Bast added.
The bipartisan permitting reform legislation is backed by the Trump White House—which has waged war on clean energy projects while working to boost fossil fuel production—and the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil and gas industry trade association in the US. Trump said Monday that he would not approve the construction of any wind turbines, confirming critics' fears that the White House sees the bill as an opportunity to advance dirty energy projects.
The bill would exempt pipeline expansions and other energy projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act and make it harder for opponents of the projects to challenge them in court. The legislation would also restrict courts' ability to pause projects due to inadequate environmental reviews.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), one of the 25 senators who voted against advancing BAAJA on Monday, said in a statement that while the legislation "has a number of other features that merit careful analysis," it "has never had a public hearing" despite its potentially massive impact.
Merkley warned that, as currently written, the bill "accelerates the extraction and burning of fossil fuels," effectively offsetting the benefits of the measure's promotion of clean energy projects.
“The bill restricts states’ ability to raise and address clean water concerns on gas pipelines as well as transmission lines," said Merkley. "It shortens timelines that make it hard-to-impossible for grassroots and community groups to raise concerns about projects. It eliminates tools that states and localities use to fight the development of new data centers and detention centers. And it impacts the sovereignty and rights of tribes."
"Permitting reform for electrical transmission lines is essential," the senator added. "But the current bill raises too many serious issues that require more deliberation."
Environmental groups and tribal organizations urged lawmakers to pause consideration of the permitting bill until the next Congress, when Democrats will take control of the House and the Senate.
“We shouldn’t and don’t need to endanger our wildlife just to save a few dollars on gas," said Lisa Frank, executive director of Environment America. "We shouldn’t and don’t need to weaken the rules that protect our water from pollution in order to build more clean energy. We shouldn’t facilitate more global-warming air pollution. And we definitely shouldn’t be taking away the public’s right to weigh in on projects that can ruin their environment, make them sick, and lessen their quality of life.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Citizen Shot by ICE in California Sues Trump Administration for $25 Million
Carlos Jimenez claims the FBI drove him from the hospital to the scene for an interrogation, "while the bullet and fragments remained lodged in his body," even as he "kept bleeding and vomiting in the agents' van."
Nov 09, 2026
Carlos Jimenez, a US citizen and father of three who still has bullet fragments lodged near his lung after being shot by a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in California last year, is suing the Trump administration, San Bernardino County, and various agents for over $25 million in damages.
Jimenez, who is from Ontario, east of Los Angeles, filed his complaint against the United States, the county, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officer Eusebio Ortiz, two US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) special agent, and 20 unnamed defendants on Friday.
While Jimenez was driving to work on the morning of October 30, 2025, he approached agents conducting an immigration operation to let them know they were near a bus stop for schoolchildren. Ortiz ultimately shot him, but it was Jimenez, not the officer, who then faced charges that have since been dropped.
As with some other people ICE or CBP agents have shot—sometimes fatally—the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees both agencies, has claimed Jimenez "attempted to run officers over" federal agents "by reversing directly at them without stopping," but his lawyers have disputed that account.
After the shooting, at a local hospital, FBI agents "interfered with his medical care," according to a complaint. They allegedly prevented Jimenez from talking to healthcare providers, removed him from the hospital bed, and "handcuffed him with a leather waist restraint."
As the FBI drove Jimenez back to the scene for an interrogation, "while the bullet and fragments remained lodged in his body," he "kept bleeding and vomiting in the agents' van," and they told him not to "ruin their vehicle," the filing claims. He was taken to West Valley Detention Center, where he was also denied adequate medical care.
A few weeks later, a grand jury indicted Jimenez, whom federal prosecutors charged with assaulting a federal officer using a deadly or dangerous weapon, but "the criminal case later became the subject of a dispute over evidence," Newsweek reported Monday.
As the outlet detailed:
On May 5, US District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato ordered the government to turn over communications and operational records sought by the defense; this included responsive communications on government-issued and personal phones. The order also required a declaration under penalty of perjury from Ortiz if no responsive messages from him existed.
Jimenez entered into a diversion agreement shortly afterward. After he completed its conditions, Kato dismissed the indictment with prejudice on November 2, meaning the charge cannot be refiled. The dismissal order did not make a finding that federal officers used excessive force or otherwise acted unlawfully.
The Guardian highlighted that in addition to calling the criminal charges against Jimenez "fabricated," the complaint "alleges that the FBI falsely claimed that two neighbors witnessed the incident and told an agent that Jimenez's vehicle had enough room to pull forward without reversing. When Jimenez’s legal team interviewed those witnesses, both denied making those statements and said they were unaware there had been a shooting until they saw news reports."
While the FBI declined to comment and DHS referred questions to the US Department of Justice, Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesperson for the DOJ in Los Angeles, said in an email to the newspaper that Jimenez "could have exercised his right to take the case to trial, but he instead requested that our office agree to resolve the case through a diversion agreement."
Jimenez is among at least 32 people fired upon by federal immigration agents as part of Republican President Donald Trump's mass detention and deportation campaign. Others include Renee Good and Alex Pretti, US citizens killed early this year in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Silverio Villegas González, a Mexican man fatally shot last year near Chicago, Illinois.
At the beginning of October, Good's family filed a pair of lawsuits against the federal government and immigration officials over her death and an alleged conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in Minnesota's Twin Cities. A week later, Villegas González's relatives filed a legal claim against the administration over his "execution-style killing." Pretti's family hasn't yet sued, but his parents demanded justice at a press conference late last month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Beaten and Disinterested' Trump Makes 'Flaccid' Claim That Midterms Were Rigged
"Trump can’t admit his policies fucked the midterms," said one critic. "Nothing is ever his fault. So now the accusation is that red states cheated against themselves."
Nov 09, 2026
As Republicans reel from last week's "blue tsunami" midterm wipeout, President Donald Trump—who previously congratulated Democrats on their historic takeback of both houses of Congress—on Monday reverted to the kind of election denial that sparked the 2021 Capitol insurrection, making a baseless claim of voting machine fraud.
“Does anybody really believe that this ‘Election’ was honest,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “How could the Polls be so wrong??? Some early voting ‘dumps’ were so large that it was impossible to win, no matter how many people went to vote. It’s all about the machines, which are far more important than the voter!”
The polls, which widely forecast Democrats reclaiming one or both chambers of Congress, were largely accurate. And despite a handful of localized issues with voting machines, there is no evidence of any widespread problems.
I was just thinking how weird it was that Trump didn’t call the midterms rigged.Well…
[image or embed]
— Matt Novak (@paleofuture.bsky.social) November 9, 2026 at 7:16 AM
On Election Night, Trump said during a phone call to Fox News: "Congratulations to the Democrats. I think the Democrats did a good job. I really do. I think they did a good job. They fought hard. They were, you know, they've been fighting for a long time. They've been fighting me for a long time. This fight's been going on for ages."
However, as unfounded claims of fraud proliferated on social media—and amid posts promoting a January 3 "Million Crusader Cross March" on the Capitol headlined by racist provocateur Jake Lang—the president changed his tune.
"Trump now claims the midterms were rigged," noted the political action group Blue Georgia. "It was just a matter of time."
Conspiracy theory journalist Mike Rothschild said on Bluesky: "After a week of meekly accepting the midterm results, Trump has veered into 'the machines are rigged' denial." But this is a pale shadow of 2020 denialism. He sounds beaten and disinterested."
Former Chicago Tribune metro editor Mark Jacobs also took to Bluesky, touting his prediction that the president would cry fraud and writing, "I knew Trump could never resist the impulse to declare that the election was rigged if he lost."
"The View" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin said on X, "Lather, rinse, repeat."
Former Obama and Biden administration appointee Andrew Weinstein said: "Losing isn't proof of fraud. It's proof you lost."
Tangle News founder Isaac Saul also took to X, opining that Trump's denial "feels pretty flaccid."
"Nobody *actually* thinks these results are nefarious, and it seems like there's a lot of impatience on the right with anyone suggesting these losses were due to fraud and not policy," he added. "Even Trump seems to be offering this as an afterthought."
That right-wing impatience was evident in just two words from commentator Megyn Kelly, who posted, "Just stop."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Without Demarcation, There Is No Climate Solution,' Brazilian Indigenous Leader Tells COP31
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is moving to demarcate scores of Indigenous territories by the end of the year—but many say the government needs to act faster amid deadly attacks.
Nov 09, 2026
A tribal leader from Brazil stressed on Monday, the opening day of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Türkiye, that protecting Indigenous lands is a critical part of tackling the climate emergency, remarks that came as Brazil's government advances a plan to demarcate dozens of Indigenous territories amid surging violence against native people.
Joziléia Kaingang, co-founder and executive director of the National Network of Indigenous Women Warriors of Ancestral Wisdom (ANMIGA), told attendees of a session in COP31's Brazil Pavilion in Antalya that there are no real climate solutions without Indigenous participation.
"This means a very simple thing for us Indigenous peoples, something that our grandmothers have been saying for a long time and have known for a long time. Protecting Indigenous territory is indeed a climate policy," said Kaingang, who is a member of the Kaingang people of southern Brazil. "It is not charity, it is not compensation, it is a solution."
Kaingang hailed progress under the government of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was reelected last month with the support of 608 of the country's 658 Indigenous polling places. Lula's overwhelming support from Indigenous Brazilians is in no small part due to his government's substantial—yet tenuous—progress against illegal mining, logging, and other invasions of tribal lands.
Lula's policies marked a sharp reversal from former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro's deliberate dismantling of Indigenous territorial protections and other actions that lived up to his self-bestowed "Captain Chainsaw" moniker.
"The state withdrew invaders from our lands," Kaingang said. "The forest breathes again from the action of the last government of President Lula, and will continue to do so in this presidency in the next four years."
Kaingang continued:
In the Yanomami territory... 98% of illegal mining fell. This is important for all of us. Indigenous lands and local communities keep about a third of the carbon that humanity cannot lose.
And we want to say that we, Indigenous peoples, are here to celebrate the Brazilian government. We want to advance the roadmap to stop and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. But it is necessary that the roadmap brings the perspective of Indigenous peoples, of traditional communities, of our knowledge.
"Let's reaffirm that without demarcation, there is no climate solution," Kaingang added. "So let's keep demarcating the Indigenous territories so that we are the solution."
Brazil's government is preparing to approve dozens of additional Indigenous land demarcations before the end of 2026, Indigenous Peoples Minister Eloy Terena, who is a member of the Terena people, told Brasil de Fato on Sunday, as native communities face continuing deadly violence, land invasions, and encroachment by agribusiness interests.
During Lula’s third term, Brazil's government has recognized 20 Indigenous lands, declared 21 others, and established 31 reserves, according to the minister.
However, recent Indigenous land demarcation protests across Brazil have decried the government's failure to move faster in recognizing and protecting Indigenous territories amid ongoing violence.
Terena linked recent attacks against Guarani Kaiowá communities in Mato Grosso do Sul—including reported murders, vehicle attacks, and threats to poison drinking water—to the government's failure to secure their ancestral territories. He said that more than 150 technical working groups are advancing demarcation procedures, but warned that executive action alone cannot overcome entrenched political and judicial resistance, which is sustained by pressure from agribusiness and other destructive interests.
The minister added that the government seeks "to strengthen Indigenous organizations, the Indigenous movement, and communities. Because we understand that if eventually the democratic winds turn, we need to have a very committed society and very well-structured social movements."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Groups Boost Pressure on Schumer to Block Permitting Bill That Guts Environmental Protections
"If Texas of all places can go blue, then we can be bold enough to say a better bill is possible."
Nov 09, 2026
Environmental groups are making a last-ditch push to persuade Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to block a bipartisan permitting bill that they warn would speed up approvals for polluting projects and data center infrastructure.
Activists gathered outside Schumer’s (D-NY) Midtown Manhattan office Monday morning, hours before the US Senate’s planned evening vote on whether to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA).
In a media advisory, organizers from the New York Public Interest Research Group, Food & Water Watch, and New York Communities for Change, who led Monday’s protest and a previous one at Schumer’s apartment on Friday, called the bill an “aggressive attack on federal environmental protections in order to facilitate rapid, unregulated development of fracked gas power plants, dirty fossil fuel pipelines, and expensive hyperscale data centers.”
The motion needs 60 votes to advance, so some Democrats will have to support holding a final vote. The bill’s leading Democratic sponsor, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), said he believes supporters “have the votes to proceed.”
The bill faces longer odds in the US House of Representatives, especially after Tuesday’s Democratic blowout in the midterms, when voters across the country also backed restrictions on data centers.
Sponsors have revised the bill, but David Watkins, director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy programs at the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that the amendment “fails to address the fundamental imbalance of the legislation” in favor of polluting energy.
“To get bipartisan support for negligible reductions in emissions,” he said, “this deal would convert compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Water Act into largely voluntary exercises.”
While some Democratic proponents of the bill have argued that these compromises are necessary to speed up permits for clean energy infrastructure, Watkins said existing law already allows much of that work and saw no need to enact “the most significant legislative reversal in environmental and community protections in decades.”
A coalition of conservation groups, including Earthjustice Action, Defenders of Wildlife, and Friends of the Earth, sent a letter to the Senate on Monday urging members to delay the vote until newly elected members of the US Congress—some of whom made opposition to data centers central to their campaigns—can be sworn in.
“The elections on November 3 sent a clear message from the American public denouncing the administration’s actions over the past two years and, in states across the country, rejecting the accelerated proliferation of data centers,” they wrote. “We strongly encourage you to heed the public’s wishes and advance energy infrastructure needs and an affordability agenda without making false and unnecessary trade-offs that severely undermine tribal sovereignty and our bedrock environmental, public lands, waters, wildlife, ocean, and historic preservation laws.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said he would vote against advancing the bill without substantial changes, adding that “robust consideration of the bill should be a priority in the new Congress.”
"Permitting reform for electrical transmission lines is essential," he said. But, he added, "Getting more renewable electrons where they are needed doesn’t tackle climate change if you simultaneously promote the burning of more fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this bill does exactly that."
As questions mount about whether Democratic leaders will use their new mandate to pursue a bold legislative agenda, some see BAAJA as a worrying sign that Schumer and other party leaders may squander the moment by reverting to business as usual.
“If Texas of all places can go blue, then we can be bold enough to say a better bill is possible,” said Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement. “Young people and the working class deserve it. To stop the climate crisis, America needs Senate Democrats to fight harder. Senate Democrats must deliver.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular