

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.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Trump's Muslim Ban. The decision upholds the President's authority over national security and immigration policy overall. In his decision, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to pass judgment on the soundness of the Muslim ban or the lawfulness of the President's past statements against Islam. Instead Chief Justice Roberts held that the justifications for the ban were a proper exercise of the President's foreign policy authority.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Trump's Muslim Ban. The decision upholds the President's authority over national security and immigration policy overall. In his decision, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to pass judgment on the soundness of the Muslim ban or the lawfulness of the President's past statements against Islam. Instead Chief Justice Roberts held that the justifications for the ban were a proper exercise of the President's foreign policy authority. Hawaii was therefore unlikely to win its case at the lower court, making an injunction inappropriate at this time.
The ban continues to be in place.
New York Immigration Coalition Executive Director, Steven Choi, issued the following statement:
"Today's Supreme Court ruling enshrines bigotry into policy under the pretext of national security, and represents a blow to the very values this country was built on. America will not be greater or safer by turning our backs on our Muslim neighbors, friends, and family. We will continue to march in the streets, and fight back in the courts to protect the people who truly make America great."
The state of Hawaii argued that Trump's executive order exceeds his executive constitutional powers, illegally discriminates based on nationality, and violates religious freedom laws by specifically targeting Muslims -- an argument based on Trump's statements about a "Muslim ban." The administration claimed the president has broad powers over immigration policy and that the revised ban is appropriate given his constitutional authority on national security, not religion.
The New York Immigration Coalition will hold an emergency press conference TODAY
WHEN: TUESDAY, June 26th at 12:30pm
WHERE: Foley Square, New York, NY 10001
WHO: The New York Immigration Coalition, advocates, affected individuals
WHAT: Press conference on SCOTUS decision on Trump v. Hawaii.
The New York Immigration Coalition and MPower Change will also be holding a rally TONIGHT
WHEN: TUESDAY, June 26th at 6pm
WHERE: Foley Square, New York, NY 10001
WHO: The New York Immigration Coalition, MPower Change, Women's March, Arab American Association of New York, Yemeni American Merchants Association, CAIR-NY, MCN, advocates, affected individuals
WHAT: Rally in response SCOTUS decision on Trump v. Hawaii.
"In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that African Americans 'had no rights which the white man was bound to respect,'" said CAIR-NY Legal Director Albert Fox Cahn. "In 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the imprisonment of more than 120,000 Americans for their Japanese ancestry. Today, that same court upheld President Trump's Muslim Ban. Like its predecessors Dredd Scott and Korematsu, today's decision was unjust. And like its predecessors, this ruling will be condemned by future generations as a betrayal of the promise of equality and justice for all. Today is certainly a setback, but history teaches us that the fight is far from over. Muslim activists and allies will continue to fight for justice however we can. We will continue to challenge discriminatory immigration policies, lobby against unconstitutional surveillance, and pursue those who commit acts of violence against their Muslim neighbors. Trump v. Hawaii, like Dred Scott and Korematsu before it, is now part of our history, but it is far from the last chapter."
"The Arab American Association of New York serves to empower and advocate for the Arab and Muslim community in New York. We are deeply saddened by the Supreme Court's ruling of the Muslim Ban, and enabling the administration's immoral, Islamophobic and unconstitutional policies. This is a direct attack on our community that has fled war-torn countries to find peace and prosperity and an attack on their basic right to religious freedom. This ruling puts our members at further risk, and feeds into the administration's inhumane immigration policies of separating families. We will continue to fight these policies and this SCOTUS decision day-in and day-out until all our immigrant communities are welcomed," said Rama Issa-Ibrahim, Executive Director of the Arab American Association of New York.
"Today's US Supreme Court decision will go down in history where people 50 years from now will judge us by our actions. Let it be known regardless of the decision, we did everything in our power to defend the rights of our communities and we will continue to do so! We will win some and lose some, but our spirit of justice for everyone remains unwavering!" said Dr. Debbie Almontaser, Yemeni American Merchants Association.
Background
The NYIC has been leading the fight against the Muslim Ban since January, 2017 when the first Executive Order came out, with the #NoBanJFK movement, and assisting travelers from over 20 countries and organizing hundreds of lawyers and volunteers. The protests at JFK sparked actions across the nation, including a rally held in Battery Park the next day, which drew over 30,000 people. In July, the NYIC was back out at JFK to monitor the situation and provide legal assistance if necessary.
Watch the documentary: "48 Hours at JFK"
Trump's third iteration of the Muslim ban- which would seriously limited travel and emigration from Muslim-majority countries Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, as well as, North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials- was issued on September 24th, 2017 and supposed to take effect October 18th, 2017. However, two federal judges issued temporary halts to the ban (preliminary injunctions), with the second judge issuing a 91-page ruling calling the ban an "inextricable re-animation of the twice-enjoined Muslim ban."
In December 2017, the US Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction that allowed full enforcement of Trump's ban on travel from eight nations, six of which are Muslim-majority, while legal challenges proceed through the lower courts.
The bans against Venezuela and North Korea are not part of the challenge before the Supreme Court, and the administration removed Chad from the list on April 10th, 2018.
The New York Immigration Coalition aims to achieve a fairer and more just society that values the contributions of immigrants and extends opportunity to all. The NYIC promotes immigrants' full civic participation, fosters their leadership, and provides a unified voice and a vehicle for collective action for New York's diverse immigrant communities.
The agency demanded that all parties protect civilians and reiterated the secretary-general's call "to end the fighting and engage in diplomatic negotiations."
Since the United States and Israel launched an unprovoked war on Iran at the end of February, more than 1,100 youth have been killed or injured in related violence across the Middle East, the United Nations Children's Fund said Wednesday, calling for a swift diplomatic resolution.
"The situation is becoming catastrophic for millions of children across the region," UNICEF said in a statement, noting that at least 200 children are reportedly dead in Iran, 91 in Lebanon, four in Israel, and one in Kuwait. "These numbers will likely climb as the violence intensifies and spreads."
Most of the kids killed in Iran died in what mounting evidence suggests was a US attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' school in Minab on February 28. That attack killed an estimated 175 people, mostly students ages 7-12, part of an overall death toll that the Iranian government has said exceeds 1,300.
Responding to the school bombing, Gordon Brown, a former UK prime minister who's now the UN special envoy for global education, argued in a Guardian opinion piece Thursday that "the world will now need stronger mechanisms to ensure accountability," such as a body complementing the International Criminal Court but specifically for children, "focusing its attention on the bombing of schools, abductions of pupils, and militias that enslave boys and girls."
With the widening conflict in the Middle East, UNICEF noted Wednesday, "widespread disruption to education has left millions of children out of school across the region, while hundreds of thousands of children have been displaced by unrelenting bombardment."
In Lebanon, where Israeli attacks are allegedly targeting the Lebanese political and paramilitary group Hezbollah despite a November 2024 ceasefire deal, nearly 800,000 people, including around 200,000 children, have been forced from their homes, according to Mercy Corps. The Lebanese government has said at least 570 people have been killed and 1,444 injured.
"Civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and water and sanitation systems—upon which children depend to survive—have been attacked, damaged, or destroyed by parties to the conflict," UNICEF said. "Nothing justifies the killing and maiming of children, or the destruction and disruption of essential services that children depend on."
"Grave violations against children in armed conflict can constitute violations of international law, including international humanitarian law, and international human rights law," the UN agency continued.
Across Iran, several United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage sites have also been damaged by the US-Israeli war, which experts worldwide argue violates both the US Constitution and UN Charter.
The UN Security Council, which is currently led by President Donald Trump's administration, on Wednesday adopted a resolution condemning Iran's retaliatory attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan—nations that host US military bases—without even mentioning the US-Israeli bombing campaign.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres last Friday demanded a return to negotiations. Trump, who abandoned a previous Iranian nuclear deal during his first term, ditched recent talks with Iran in favor of bombing the country with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who has used war on Iran to again close crossings into the Gaza Strip, or as critics have put it, reinstate a "starvation policy" in the Palestinian territory devastated by Israel's 29-month genocidal assault.
In addition to reiterating "the secretary-general's call on parties to the conflict to end the fighting and engage in diplomatic negotiations," UNICEF on Wednesday urged everyone involved "to take all necessary precautions in the choice of means and methods of warfare to minimize harm to civilians, including by avoiding the use of explosive weapons that disproportionally affect children."
"The region's children—all 200 million of them—are counting on the world to act quickly," the agency concluded.
A Wednesday letter signed by every member of the US Senate Democratic Caucus but Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)—who previously helped Republicans block a war powers resolution intended to halt Trump's assault on Iran—called for a probe of the Minab school attack and sounded the alarm about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's rhetoric that "only serves to endanger civilians."
Specifically, Hegseth has said that the US assault on Iran, which they're calling Operation Epic Fury, would have "no stupid rules of engagement," and there will be "death and destruction from the sky all day long."
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale," said the executive director of the International Energy Agency.
The International Energy Agency said Thursday that the US-Israeli war on Iran and its reverberating impacts across the region have sparked "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market," with flows of crude and other fossil fuel products through the Strait of Hormuz plummeting and Gulf nations slashing production as they run out of storage space.
The agency noted in its monthly report on the state of the global oil market that "oil prices have gyrated wildly since the United States and Israel launched joint airstrikes on Iran on 28 February," pointing to "disruptions to Middle Eastern supplies due to attacks on the region’s oil infrastructure and the cessation of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz," which have "sent Brent futures soaring, trading within a whisker of $120/bbl."
The IEA's report came a day after the agency's 32 member nations—including the US—agreed unanimously to release a total of 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves to "address disruptions in oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East."
"The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale, therefore I am very glad that IEA member countries have responded with an emergency collective action of unprecedented size,” said the agency's executive director, Fatih Birol.
The IEA assessment on Thursday came as oil prices surged again as Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran's new supreme leader, vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed. An estimated 20% of the world's oil passes through the route each year.
Earlier on Thursday, Iraq—which has among the largest confirmed reserves of crude oil in the world—suspended all of its oil terminal operations after two vessels were attacked off the nation's coast. NPR reported that Iran "took responsibility for attacking one of the tankers, which it said was owned by the US."
The US and Israel have also bombed Iran's oil infrastructure, choking Tehran with black smoke and spraying toxic rain that prompted warnings from the World Health Organization (WHO).
"The black rain and the acidic rain coming with it is indeed a danger for the population, respiratory mainly," WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier told reporters in Geneva earlier this week.
Heba Morayef, Amnesty International's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said Wednesay that "the potential for vast, predictable, and devastating civilian harm arising from strikes targeting energy infrastructure, including uncontrolled deadly fires, major disruptions to essential services, environmental damage, and severe long-term health risks for millions, means there is a substantial risk such attacks would violate international humanitarian law and in some cases could amount to war crimes."
“Regardless of whether a military objective is cited to justify targeting energy infrastructure, under international humanitarian law all parties have a clear obligation to take all feasible precautions to reduce civilian harm and refrain from attacks that cause disproportionate death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects," said Morayef. "This includes any foreseeable knock-on, indirect adverse effects on civilians’ life and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals.”
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” said a researcher at Gallup, which found even insured Americans in higher income brackets have avoided daily expenses to pay medical bills.
As the Trump administration spends an estimated $1 billion per day in taxpayer money bombing targets across Iran that have reportedly included an elementary school and healthcare facilities, Gallup released a survey Thursday that found one-third of Americans reported making financial trade-offs in order to pay for medical expenses last year.
The West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America polled nearly 20,000 US adults between June and August 2025 and found that roughly one-third of them—equivalent to about 82 million people in the richest country in the world—were forced cut back on at least one expense in order to afford healthcare.
Eleven percent of respondents—equivalent to 28 million Americans—skipped a meal or intentionally drove less in order to pay a medical bill. Fifteen percent, the equivalent of nearly 40 million people, said they prolonged a current prescription or borrowed money, and 9% cut back on utilities.
Those numbers were strikingly similar among people who have health insurance, with 14% of insured people prolonging prescriptions to avoid paying for a new one and 9% skipping meals. Among insured Americans, 29% made at least one trade-off to afford healthcare.
The crisis is also not exclusively affecting low-income people. A quarter of people in households earning $90,000 to $120,000 per year skipped meals or other expenses to pay medical bills, and 11% of people in households earning $240,000 or more did the same.
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” Ellyn Maese, a senior researcher at Gallup and research director for the West Health-Gallup Center, told The New York Times.
Sixty-two percent of people without healthcare coverage were forced to make trade-offs, and 55% of people with household incomes lower than $24,000 per year as well as 47% of people earning $24,000 to $48,000 avoided expenses.
Gallup also released the results of a separate poll taken between October and December 2025, which showed how Americans are delaying major life decisions as well as altering their daily lives to afford healthcare under the for-profit insurance system.
As the Trump administration's policies slashed healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare premiums for tens of millions of people—and as the White House demanded that families have more children—6% of respondents said they had postponed having or adopting a child due to healthcare costs, equivalent to about 16 million Americans.
Nearly 30% said healthcare costs led them to avoid taking a vacation, 18% said they delayed finding a different job, 15% said they postponed pursuing education or job training, and 14% said they postponed buying a home.
The polls are “telling a consistent story here,” Maese said.
The survey results were released weeks after the Trump administration proposed new regulations for healthcare plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace that would charge deductibles as high as $15,000 for individuals and $31,000 for families to offset lower monthly premiums—underscoring how the healthcare law passed 16 years ago has left American households vulnerable to rising costs under the for-profit health insurance system.
A survey taken last November by Data for Progress found that 65% of voters support expanding the Medicare system to everyone in the US, a proposal that would save an estimated $650 billion annually.
But as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the House—noted on Wednesday, Republicans and establishment Democrats continue to claim the proposal is unaffordable.
"When we ask for Medicare for All it’s 'too expensive,' and we 'don’t have the money,'" said Jayapal. "When the president drags us into his own personal war, no expense is spared. Our priorities are backwards."