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
For Immediate Release
April, 01 2018, 10:00am EDT
Contact:
enquiries@cnduk.org
Anti-Nuclear Activists Hold Protest at Aldermaston Bomb Factory Today
LONDON
In April 1958, the first march to Aldermaston, Britain's bomb factory in Berkshire, unleashed a new movement which was to have global repercussions. It mobilised thousands against the Bomb and shaped radical protest for generations. The famous symbol produced for the march by artist Gerald Holtom became CND's own symbol and is universally recognised as the sign of peace.
Today, 1st April, anti-nuclear campaigners from across Britain will gather at the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to mark the 60th anniversary of that first Aldermaston march. Groups from Bristol, Bath, Leeds, Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Oxford, and Manchester are among those expected at the protest event.
A giant reproduction of the iconic CND logo will be installed in front of the bomb factory. It is part of a UK wide tour visiting over 20 sites, including the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol and the White Cliffs of Dover.
Kate Hudson, CND General Secretary, said:
"Protest, speeches, music and poems will recall the 60 years of campaigning against nuclear weapons since that the first path-breaking Aldermaston march, and we will look to the future. We will recall our movement's many achievements as well as recommitting to protest and political action to eliminate all nuclear weapons.
"The world will not be safe from the horrors of nuclear warfare until we have achieved that goal. Those dangers cannot be imagined away, they remain a real and present threat unless concrete and bold actions are taken by our political leaders."
Bruce Kent, CND vice president, said:
"It took 40 years to get votes for women. The ending of slavery took almost 50 years, so the fact that things take a long time doesn't deter us. CND will keep campaigning and demanding change until all nuclear weapons around the world have been abolished."
CND campaigns non-violently to rid the world of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and to create genuine security for future generations. CND opposes all nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction: their development, manufacture, testing, deployment and use or threatened use by any country.
LATEST NEWS
'Justice Demands No Less': ICE Agent Arrested on Charges of Lying About Minneapolis Shooting
“In Minnesota, we believe in equal justice under the law," said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. "That means nobody is above the law, including agents of the federal government."
May 29, 2026
A US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent was arrested in Texas on Friday after he was charged by Minnesota officials for allegedly shooting a Venezuelan immigrant during an ICE operation in Minneapolis and lying about what happened.
Christian Castro, 52, was deployed as part of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation push in the Twin Cities, dubbed “Operation Metro Surge,” and was charged by Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty earlier this month with four counts of felony assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime.
The charges stem from the shooting of Venezuelan national Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis at his home on January 14 as ICE agents pursued his roommate, another Venezuelan immigrant named Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna.
According to The New York Times, Castro was arrested Friday after being tracked down by investigators with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Texas Rangers and agents with the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General carried out the arrest, according to the Minnesota-based Sahan Journal.
“Today’s arrest is a critical step forward in our prosecution of Mr. Castro,” Moriarty said. “The BCA’s investigative work was instrumental in this process, and we’re grateful for their collaboration as we pursue accountability for this incident on behalf of Mr. Sosa-Celis, his family, and our community.”
Sosa-Celis and Aljorna were originally charged by the US Department of Justice (DOJ), after Castro claimed that he had shot in self-defense when the men assaulted him with a broom and a shovel, claims that were parroted by then-Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.
But the charges were later dropped after video of the incident and an examination of X-ray evidence demonstrated that Castro's claims were false. Castro and another agent were subsequently placed on administrative leave by DHS while they were investigated internally for lying under oath.
“In Minnesota, we believe in equal justice under the law. That means nobody is above the law, including agents of the federal government,” said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison following news of Castro's arrest on Friday. “I am pleased to hear Christian Castro has been taken into custody and will stand trial for the crimes he allegedly committed in Minnesota. Justice demands no less.”
Castro is the second ICE agent to be charged by Moriarty's office for their role in Operation Metro Surge, which civil rights groups and Minnesota officials have characterized as a lawless immigration crackdown involving racial profiling, warrantless arrests, violent raids, and multiple shootings by federal agents.
Another agent, Gregory Morgan Jr., was charged last month with two counts of felony second-degree assault after he allegedly pulled a gun on two local residents during a traffic stop. Morgan turned himself in to local authorities last week and was released on bond.
Ellison also sued the Trump administration in March for refusing to cooperate with the state investigation into the shooting of Sosa-Celis, and other probes into the fatal shootings of two US citizens.
Moriarty's office has not yet brought charges against ICE officer Jonathan Ross, who fatally shot Minneapolis mother Renee Good in January, or Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez in connection with the deadly shooting of Department of Veterans Affairs nurse Alex Pretti later that month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
El-Sayed Takes Aim at Opponents’ AIPAC, For-Profit Insurance Donations in Michigan Senate Debate
"My votes will never be influenced by AIPAC or any corporate PAC because I don't take money from them," said Abdul El-Sayed.
May 29, 2026
At Thursday evening's Democratic primary debate on Mackinac Island, Michigan, former public health official and US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed suggested the three contenders play a game: "If you're on the stage and you have never taken a corporate PAC check from Blue Cross Blue Shield, raise your hand."
The progressive Medicare for All advocate put his hand up, while his two opponents—US Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow—looked on.
El-Sayed's challenge on campaign donations from the for-profit healthcare industry followed McMorrow's comment that "people can't afford to wait for a revolution that may never come"—a remark on progressives' push to expand the existing Medicare program to the entire population that, as journalist David Sirota said, appeared recycled nearly verbatim from former US presidential candidate "Hillary Clinton's talking points from a decade ago."
The people of Michigan are sick and tired of politicians who tell us what we can't have and shouldn't fight for...
We can fight for a world where everybody can be guaranteed healthcare. pic.twitter.com/AoqNVoI4zl
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) May 28, 2026
"Well, I'll tell you this, the revolution is definitely not coming if we're not fighting for it," El-Sayed said in response to McMorrow. "Anyway, all of that is to say, I think we really can fight for a world where everybody can be guaranteed healthcare."
"It is important for us to recognize that all of these issues go back to how we finance campaigns," he added.
According to state and federal campaign finance records, Stevens' US House campaign took $2,500 from Blue Cross Blue Shield's political action committee (PAC) last year, while McMorrow took $5,500 from the PAC over the course of six years.
"The only reason we do not have Medicare for All," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who has endorsed El-Sayed, "is the corruption of private health insurance money and Democrats who have been unwilling to fight for it."
One observer pointed to a recent poll showing 65% of voters support a Medicare for All system, and emphasized that "the revolution in healthcare is here despite what Mallory McMorrow thinks."
"We just need dedicated fighters like Abdul El-Sayed to make it a reality," they said.
Along with campaign donations from the for-profit healthcare industry, the topic of the powerful but increasingly toxic pro-Israel lobby came up when moderator Nolan Finley asked the candidates how they decide "how much influence" their donors have "over what you do, how you cast your vote."
"Haley Stevens, you take money from [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]," said Finley. "Walk us through what that money means, and what it buys, and maybe what it doesn't buy."
Stevens responded by expressing her gratitude to various people whom she said had donated to her Senate campaign, including "grocery store workers" and "retired teachers," as well as pointing to political leaders who have endorsed her candidacy—but said nothing in reply to Finley's direct question about how she might be influenced by the more than $5.4 million she's received from pro-Israel lobby groups, including AIPAC, over her political career.
During a Michigan Democratic Senate debate, moderator Nolan Finley calls out Haley Stevens for completely dodging a question on how AIPAC's support of her campaign could influence her votes in the Senate.
"You're also just not answering the question." pic.twitter.com/3dGpQJ6F5R
— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) May 29, 2026
El-Sayed confronted Stevens for "just not answering the question" before offering his view on what AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby donations "buys" from lawmakers.
Such contributions ultimately pay for "$3.5 billion sent to a foreign military that can be used here to give classes here, to provide healthcare here, to build schools here," said El-Sayed, referring to the military funding the US provides to Israel each year—including at least $16.3 billion the government has sent to Israel since it began its assault on Gaza in October 2023, helping the Israel Defense Forces to kill more than 75,000 Palestinians as the country blocked humanitarian aid and destroyed over 90% of residential buildings.
Resources for Michigan and other US states, said El-Sayed, is "where our money should be used.”
As The Detroit News reported Thursday, AIPAC has not directly sent donations to Stevens' campaign during the Senate election, but has instead appealed to its direct donors to also send contributions to Stevens.
More than 30% of donors who gave at least $200 to Stevens' campaign also donated to AIPAC since the beginning of 2025, according to The Detroit News' investigation—"well above her current primary opponents and her own benchmarks from prior US House bids."
AIPAC's apparent effort to direct its supporters to also back Stevens is legal under campaign finance law, but Ryan Grim of Drop Site News argued that the group's use of "obvious backdoor vehicles to move money to Haley Stevens only ends up making her look more corrupt."
AIPAC is hosting a fundraising page on its website, "paid for and authorized by Stevens' campaign," according to The Detroit News, while ensuring its name is not attached to the donations that are sent to the candidate through the page. Since Israel began attacking Gaza, approval of both the Israeli government and AIPAC have plummeted, particularly among Democratic voters.
Ahead of the debate, Stevens took umbrage at being asked about AIPAC's efforts to direct contributions to her campaign.
“I’m not breaking [Federal Elections Communications] laws by any stretch of the means," said Stevens. "Look, why would you ask me that question, first of all?”
Haley Stevens when pressed about AIPAC quietly funneling a massive chunk of donations to her camping and tens of millions of outside expenditures:
"Why would you ask me that question?" 💀 pic.twitter.com/LGGBeU9bJK
— umichvoter (@umichvoter) May 28, 2026
At the debate on Thursday, El-Sayed—who has rejected donations from corporate PACs—explained "what would absolutely not shape my perception" should he win the US Senate race.
"It's AIPAC money, which is being spent already in this race to pump up one of my colleagues on this stage," said El-Sayed. "I'm the only candidate today who didn't ask AIPAC for their support. I don't think that our taxpayer dollars which we pay every April ought to be going to bomb children, to fund bombs and tanks for other countries, when we got kids who can't afford basic things in our own."
Should he be elected to the Senate, he said on social media, "my votes will never be influenced by AIPAC or any corporate PAC because I don't take money from them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blatant Abuse of Power' Blocked as Judge Puts Temporary Halt on Trump's $1.8 Billion Slush Fund
"Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician," said the head of one advocacy group.
May 29, 2026
A federal judge in Virginia on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from moving to create a so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that would use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to reward supporters, including people convicted of seditious and violent felonies during the January 6 insurrection.
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a 2-page order barring any action “pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.”
Brinkema—a nominee of former President Bill Clinton—set a June 12 hearing date for arguments on whether she should extend the pause amid numerous legal challenges to what critics have called a "felon-to-felon slush fund," a reference to President Donald Trump's 34 felony convictions and the serious crimes, including violent assaults on police officers with dangerous weapons, committed by January 6 insurrectionists who were later pardoned by the president.
In January, Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns by a former IRS contractor. Trump’s own Justice Department settled the case earlier this month by agreeing to create the roughly $1.776 billion settlement slush fund for people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.
January 6 insurrectionists are expected to be among the fund's beneficiaries. Trump was accused of rewarding political violence by granting clemency to roughly 1,500 Capitol attackers, dozens of whom have since been charged or convicted for serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
Brinkema's decision came less than 24 hours after plaintiffs in one of the legal challenges to the fund, who are represented by Democracy Forward, filed a motion for emergency relief. Plaintiffs' attorneys told Brinkema that they’re “already being irreparably harmed by the unconstitutional and unlawful creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund," and that such harm "will be permanent if the administration takes action, including by irreversibly disbursing funds, before this court can act."
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said following Friday's ruling, "Today, a federal court recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme before the legality of that program can be fully reviewed by the court."
“This is a victory for transparency, the rule of law, and the American people," Perryman added. "No administration has the authority to spend public money through a political rewards program that Congress never authorized. We look forward to the next stages in this case.”
Case plaintiffs issued a statement following Brinkema's order:
We are pleased that the court granted our request to ensure the administration does not distribute taxpayer funds until our motion has been considered. The court acted quickly to stop this unlawful scheme before money could start flowing out the door. The Trump-Vance administration attempted to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded program that rewards political allies, operates without oversight, and evades the constitutional safeguards that protect our democracy. We are grateful that the court recognized the urgency of the situation and acted to preserve the status quo before further irreparable harm occurred.
Democratic lawmakers welcomed Brinkema's order, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling it "an important win."
"Of all Trump’s corrupt schemes, his insurrectionist slush fund is one of the most depraved," said Schumer, who acknowledged the battle over Trump's fund is far from over. "We’ll keep fighting in the courts and in Congress to make sure this $2 billion giveaway to cop beaters, criminals, and MAGA cronies never sees the light of day."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) posted on social media: "I’ve said from the start that this is an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. This needs to be stopped permanently."
Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said in a statement that “today’s ruling is a critical reminder that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States."
"Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for his friends and diehard loyalists—including those who tried to overthrow our democracy on January 6—is a blatant abuse of power, and the court rightly blocked it," Harvey added. "Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular