

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.

Most of Israel's largest banks are providing services that help support, maintain, and expand unlawful settlements by financing their construction in the occupied West Bank.
The 41-page report, "Bankrolling Abuse: Israeli Banks in West Bank Settlements," details new research on the scope of banking activities in settlements and the violations to which these activities contribute. Israel's seven largest banks provide services to settlements. The report also documents the involvement of most of them in building housing units that expand settlements by acquiring property rights in new construction projects and shepherding the projects through to completion. The transfer by the occupier of members of its civilian population into the occupied territory, and the deportation or transfer of members of the population of the territory, are war crimes. By facilitating expansion of settlements, these banking activities facilitate unlawful population transfers.
A map created by Human Rights Watch provides a partial picture of the financial services the banks provide throughout West Bank settlements. In addition to construction projects, banks provide loans to settlement regional and local authorities and mortgage loans to homebuyers in settlements and operate bank branches there. Palestinian West Bank residents, forbidden by military order to enter settlements except as laborers bearing special permits, cannot use these services. Palestinian and foreign banks provide services to Palestinian customers outside the settlements.
Settlements are unlawful under international humanitarian law. They contribute to a discriminatory regime in which Israeli authorities restrict and stunt Palestinian economic development, while subsidizing and supporting Israeli settlements built on land unlawfully seized from Palestinians. International humanitarian law forbids an occupying power from using land except for military purposes or to benefit the local population living under occupation.
Banks that finance or "accompany" construction projects in the settlements become partners in settlement expansion, supervising each stage of construction, holding the buyers' money in escrow, and taking ownership of the project in case of default by the construction company. Most of that construction is on what the Israeli authorities declared to be "state land," which can include land unlawfully seized from private Palestinian landowners. Israel uses this land in a discriminatory fashion, allocating one third of state or public land in the West Bank, not including East Jerusalem, to the World Zionist Organization and just 1 percent for use by Palestinians.
In the Palestinian village of Azzun, for example, Murshed Suleiman's family lost regular access to their land when Israel erected its separation barrier between Azzun and the nearby settlement of Alfei Menashe, on the Israeli side. Bank Leumi, Israel's second largest bank, is partnering with an Israeli construction company to build five new buildings in this settlement, on land that belongs to Azzun.
Just outside the Palestinian village of Mas-ha, Mizrahi Tefahot, Israel's fourth largest bank, is accompanying two new housing projects, with a total of 251 housing units. The project essentially expands the settlement of Elkana toward Mas-ha, exacerbating restrictions on land access. The Aamer family has largely lost access to what had been about 500 dunams (50 hectares) of their land. Family members say that part of the new construction is on land that their father bought but has been seized without their permission and is now off-limits to them.
In Mas-ha, too, the Israeli authorities built the separation barrier to veer deep into the West Bank, to situate Elkana and other settlements on the "Israeli" side.
Human Rights Watch contacted both banks for their response but received no substantive replies.
Settlements inherently contribute to serious human rights abuses. Companies that conduct business in or with settlements cannot mitigate or avoid contributing to these abuses, because the activities they conduct take place on unlawfully seized land, under conditions of discrimination, and through a serious violation of Israel's obligations as an occupying power. These activities raise concerns about pillage, due to land seizure policies by the Israeli military that make it difficult to ascertain whether the landowners have freely given their consent.
Human Rights Watch believes that to comply with their human rights responsibilities, banks, like other businesses, should cease doing businesses in or with Israeli settlements. They should stop locating or carrying out activities inside settlements, financing, administering or otherwise supporting settlements or settlement-related activities and infrastructure, and contracting to purchase settlement-produced goods.
"Banks cannot do business in settlements without contributing to discrimination, displacement, and land theft," Bashi said. "To avoid this outcome, they should end their settlement activities."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"It is outrageous that, while the billionaire class has never had it so good, one in five children will go hungry in America this year," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
As federal food aid cuts enacted by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans wreak havoc across the US, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ilhan Omar on Wednesday led the reintroduction of legislation that would make free school meals available to every student in the country—regardless of family income.
The Universal School Meals Program Act of 2026 would offer free breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a snack to every student—including during the summer months—without forcing parents to fill out burdensome applications proving their income level.
The legislation would also reimburse schools for unpaid school meal debt, ending "the harassment of parents and students," according to a fact sheet released by Sanders' (I-Vt.) office. Supporters say the bill, if enacted, would "end child hunger in the United States."
“It is outrageous that, while the billionaire class has never had it so good, one in five children will go hungry in America this year,” the Vermont senator said in a statement Wednesday. “The United States is the richest country in the history of the world. Nobody should be going hungry. And what we learned during the pandemic is that a universal approach to school meals works and helps kids do better in school. States across the country continue to prove this every day. It is time for Congress to reinstate universal school meals at the national level to finally ensure no student goes hungry."
Omar (D-Minn.), a leading congressional champion of universal free school meals, said that "no child should have to sit in a classroom hungry or worried about where their next meal will come from."
"As a former nutrition educator and someone who experienced hunger firsthand, this fight is deeply personal to me," said Omar. "I have always believed you must feed kids’ bellies before you can feed their brains. That is why I am proud to partner again with Bernie Sanders to introduce the Universal School Meals Program Act, which would provide free breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks to students year-round. Universal school meals are not a luxury—they are a necessity.”
The updated legislation, which is backed by more than 100 lawmakers in the House and Senate, comes as Trump and the GOP's unprecedented cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) take hold nationwide, sending food bank demand surging as tens of thousands of families lose benefits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has estimated that the SNAP cuts enacted as part of the 2025 Trump-GOP budget law would slash nutrition benefits for around a million children.
The School Nutrition Association said following passage of the Trump-GOP budget package that the law's SNAP cuts would mean that "fewer children are automatically eligible for free school meals as families lose SNAP and Medicaid benefits."
"As this bill is implemented and families lose access to food assistance through SNAP benefits, their children will also lose automatic eligibility for school meals, making access to nutrition more difficult or out of reach completely," SNA warned last summer. "Meanwhile, schools facing staff shortages and budget constraints will struggle to manage increased paperwork and application processing requirements."
Trump and Republicans are also pursuing additional food aid cuts by moving to slash funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in the coming fiscal year. A recent CBPP analysis found that congressional Republicans' proposed WIC cuts would strip "fruit and vegetable benefits from nearly 5.4 million toddlers, preschoolers, and pregnant and postpartum WIC participants."
Democratic insider Rob Flaherty revealed what he told the DNC for its still-unreleased autopsy of the 2024 election.
With the Democratic National Committee rejecting demands to release its autopsy of the 2024 presidential election, one Democratic Party insider has gone public with his own take on what went wrong.
In a lengthy analysis published by The Bulwark on Thursday, Rob Flaherty, former deputy campaign manager for Kamala Harris' 2024 presidential campaign, revealed what he told DNC officials when they interviewed him for their post-election report.
Flaherty identified multiple problems with the Democrats' 2024 effort, one of them being President Joe Biden's support for Israel's assault on Gaza that has killed at least 72,000 Palestinians.
While Flaherty didn't say Gaza single-handedly cost Harris the election, he said it cast a dark shadow over the entire campaign.
"For many voters watching the horrific, painful footage out of Gaza, it became a moral question—one we didn’t have a good answer for," Flaherty said. "In ways that may not be reflected in a poll, it meaningfully reduced enthusiasm."
The Democratic insider then quoted another campaign official who told him that Biden's Gaza policy was "a giant, rotting fish around our necks" throughout the entire election.
Flaherty put the blame for this squarely on Biden, whom he said "misread the nation’s support for Israel as an endless, fixed object, and missed how much the ongoing visuals were seeping into the public consciousness."
He also predicted that Israeli brutality in the Gaza assault would permanently change the Democratic Party's stance toward Israel, even among traditionally pro-Israel Democrats.
"Senators who would never have considered it in years past are now signing on to the [Sen. Bernie] Sanders (I-Vt.) resolution to block offensive military aid to Israel," Flaherty noted. "Rahm Emanuel of all people is raising doubts about funding the Iron Dome. But we were seeing this emerge on the ground during the campaign. My hot take is that the eventual Democratic nominee in 2028 will support conditions on aid to Israel in one way or another."
While Gaza certainly cost Democrats in 2024, Flaherty argued an even bigger issue was the party's economic message, as voters simply did not believe that Harris would deliver meaningful change from the status quo overseen by Biden.
"In a country fervently pissed off at the status quo and with Biden’s numbers being what they were," he contended, "anyone from the Biden administration would have lost."
In contrast, Flaherty said, "Trump’s message was much clearer: 'The economy feels bad and Harris says it’s good,'" which he noted was "tough to argue with."
"Withholding reimbursements only further hurts patients, strains providers, and drives up costs," said one Democratic congresswoman. "We will fight this with everything we’ve got."
"Political retribution, plain and simple," was how US Sen. Alex Padilla described an announcement by Vice President JD Vance late Wednesday regarding the White House's decision to withhold $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursement payments to California.
Vance and Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, claimed the state's Medicaid records have generated "red flags" and demanded officials clarify $630 million in billing, $500 million that's been spent on home health services, and $200 million in what Oz called "questionable expenditures," which he claimed had been used to provide coverage for undocumented immigrants, who are not eligible for Medicaid.
The announcement came a month after Vance's federal anti-fraud task force suspended the licenses of nearly 450 hospice care facilities and 23 home health agencies in the Los Angeles area, accusing them of fraud.
Vance also warned that all 50 states could soon see federal funding for their Medicaid Fraud Control Units frozen if they fail to "aggressively prosecute Medicaid fraud."
"We can turn off other resources within their state Medicaid programs as well," said the vice president.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has frequently sparred with the Trump administration, said Vance and Oz were "attacking programs that keep seniors and people with disabilities OUT of nursing homes," which are far more expensive to run than home healthcare agencies.
Newsom said the growth of the state's In-Home Supportive Services program has saved taxpayers "$107,000 per person" by reducing reliance on nursing homes.
"MAGA hates in-home support programs—which help people stay out of costly institutional settings like nursing homes and get the care they deserve, typically from loved ones," said Newsom.
Newsom also said the Trump administration had informed state officials that the deadline to review California's Medicaid records "before deciding whether to defer funding" would be later in the month.
Democratic members of Congress warned that their constituents rely heavily on Medicaid, with seven out of 10 of the congressional districts with the highest Medicaid enrollment located in California.
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said that 56% of her constituents rely on "this lifesaving program," and many have already been harmed by the Republican Party's slashing of Medicaid funding in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year.
"Withholding reimbursements only further hurts patients, strains providers, and drives up costs," said Kamlager-Dove. "We will fight this with everything we’ve got."
Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) said more than 120,000 people in his district depend on the federal healthcare program for low-income households and people with disabilities.
"This administration needs to stop playing politics with people’s health and lives," said Panetta. "When people commit fraud, they should be punished accordingly. However, this administration continues to punish California for political purposes, including penalizing innocent people by taking their healthcare away."
State Attorney General Rob Bonta noted that California has "not hesitated to challenge unlawful actions by the Trump administration," and suggested the state could file a legal challenge against the withholding of Medicaid funds.
He also accused the administration of targeting the heavily Democratic state "for political reasons."
The anti-fraud task force led by Vance has so far exclusively focused on rooting out alleged fraud in federal programs in blue states. The White House suspended $259 million in federal payments to Minnesota earlier this year after a scandal regarding the state's social services system.
"The Trump administration is attacking California over claims that they can't back up," said Padilla. "Let's be real, this isn't about fraud—it's about punishing a state that didn't vote for" President Donald Trump.