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
Trump Administration Makes Shameful Decision to Shroud Civilian Casualties in Secrecy
Reacting to news that the Trump administration has revoked a part of an Obama executive order requiring reporting on civilian casualties, Daphne Eviatar, Amnesty International USA's Director of Security with Human Rights stated:
"This is a shameful decision that will shroud this administration's actions in even more secrecy with little accountability for its victims.
"The public deserves to know how many civilians are killed by U.S. actions. This is an unconscionable decision and in complete disregard of fundamental human rights.
WASHINGTON
Reacting to news that the Trump administration has revoked a part of an Obama executive order requiring reporting on civilian casualties, Daphne Eviatar, Amnesty International USA's Director of Security with Human Rights stated:
"This is a shameful decision that will shroud this administration's actions in even more secrecy with little accountability for its victims.
"The public deserves to know how many civilians are killed by U.S. actions. This is an unconscionable decision and in complete disregard of fundamental human rights.
"It is incomprehensible that this vital work will be left only to human rights organizations such as ours."
Background
In 2016, Amnesty International USA spoke out on the Obama-era policy documenting standards for airstrikes, when they were first announced, calling for more transparency and accountability.
On June 6, 2018 Amnesty International published a report on air strikes in Raqqa, Syria documenting gaping holes in the US-led Coalition's insistence that their forces did enough to minimize civilian harm, providing a strong prima facie case that many Coalition attacks that killed and injured civilians and destroyed homes and infrastructure violated international humanitarian law.
Note: On March 20, Amnesty International will release new information about civilian casualties from US air strikes in Somalia. Contact media@aiusa.org for more.
This statement is available at: https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/trump-administration-makes-shameful-decision-to-shroud-civilian-casualties-in-secrecy/
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
Secret Trump Drug Deals Reveal Perks for Big Pharma, Uncertainty for Patients
"The Trump team appears to be doing more to protect pharma profits than patients’ pocketbooks,” said Public Citizen.
Sep 20, 2026
The Trump administration’s secretive deals with Big Pharma to lower prescription drug prices included benefits for the companies that were not publicly disclosed, according to documents obtained by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen via a Freedom of Information Act request and published Saturday.
Public Citizen said the deals allow drugmakers to raise prices overseas and limit the scope of promised savings for American patients.
“Trump’s drug pricing deals are a mirage, designed to convince Americans that he’s taken significant action on drug pricing while creating minimal, if any, downside for Big Pharma,” Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program, said Saturday.
“The texts show Trump handing out favors to Big Pharma, undercutting his own models to lower prices, and throwing the support of the US government behind corporate decisions to deny medicines entirely to other countries,” he added.
Read Public Citizen’s analysis of Trump’s secretive deals with pharma: www.citizen.org/article/publ...
[image or embed]
— Access to Meds | Public Citizen (@pcmedsaccess.bsky.social) September 19, 2026 at 1:19 PM
The disclosures come as President Donald Trump continues to tout his “most-favored nation” (MFN) drug-pricing initiative. On Friday, the administration announced that all 50 states, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico had applied to participate in a Medicaid program built around MFN pricing, under which participating drugmakers are supposed to offer certain medicines at prices comparable to those charged in other wealthy nations.
However, Public Citizen said the newly disclosed contracts raise questions about how much patients will actually save. The deal with Eli Lilly excludes the company’s blockbuster GLP-1 drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound from the definition of products subject to certain MFN discounts. Public Citizen said a similar carveout for Novo Nordisk could reduce potential Medicaid savings by $1.7 billion.
Eli Lilly’s agreement also permits the company to stop supplying a medicine to another country under certain circumstances, removing that nation’s price from the calculation used to determine the US MFN price.
“That practice threatens patients’ health,” Public Citizen said, adding that such provisions could effectively encourage pharmaceutical companies to make medicines unavailable abroad rather than reduce US prices.
“By agreeing to terms that endorse and facilitate pharma companies discontinuing supplying drugs in other countries, so they can continue to charge US customers more, the Trump team appears to be doing more to protect pharma profits than patients’ pocketbooks,” it said.
Public Citizen also said that the documents do not publicly reveal the full scope of tariff exemptions and other incentives provided to drugmakers, including reported benefits involving expedited US Food and Drug Administration reviews. The Pfizer agreement indicates that the company may share additional revenue generated by higher prices abroad with the US government. But crucial portions are redacted, leaving the public unable to determine how much money is involved, who receives it, or how it would be spent.
“The Trump administration continues to favor secrecy in these limited disclosures under FOIA today,” Maybarduk said, noting that the government has blacked out “the prices, product lists, and information needed to assess whether Trump accomplished anything of substance.”
Public Citizen's disclosures follow months of criticism over Trump's claims that his administration has dramatically reduced drug prices. In August, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) accused the administration of failing to make the agreements public despite Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s previous commitment to provide them, saying, “still crickets.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Violence Cannot Continue': ICE Shooting of Man in Austin Sparks Outrage
"ICE has been terrorizing our country for far too long," said Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar, who represents the district where the shooting occurred.
Sep 20, 2026
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and wounded a man in Austin, Texas on Sunday, prompting demands for an independent investigation and renewed calls from progressive lawmakers and activists to abolish ICE amid the Trump administration's deadly immigration crackdown.
Local ABC affiliate KVUE reported that the shooting occurred in the 7000 block of West Anderson Lane, near the intersection of Research Boulevard and Anderson Square. An unidentified man was taken to a hospital. His condition was initially unclear; the Austin American-Statesman later reported that he was alert and talking.
The circumstances leading to the shooting are under investigation.
Independent journalist Emiliano Tahui Gómez spoke with two witnesses.
"Nedevia Bolaños and her husband, Carlos, own a business just off the intersection where the shooting happened," Gómez reported on social media. "Shortly before 1 pm they say they heard what sounded like two gunshots. Carlos ran out first. A blue Toyota sedan and a black Escalade were stopped under the highway."
Carlos said he saw a man who looked like he was in his 30s "leaning backwards against his seat. A masked agent was standing outside the car. The agent refused to answer questions. Within a few minutes, as many as 10 other ICE agents arrived."
Gómez continued:
Carlos asked the victim if he was ok. “Yes,” the man said in Spanish, but he looked exhausted. Carlos asked why they had shot him. “Because I didn’t stop.”
Bolaños ran up next. She said she continuously asked the ICE agents about why they’d shot him and if they were going to render aid. They didn’t answer her. It was an [Austin Police Department] officer who later arrived and cut open the young man's shirt, revealing a deep hole between his shoulder blades.
The ambulance arrived about 10 minutes after and carried him off.
“I’ve never seen all this. Thank God I’m a citizen,” Bolaños said in Spanish. “Or I’d be living like this. In a dream of terror.”
CBS Austin reporter Vinny Martorano said on social media that Austin City Councilman Mike Siegel told him that "an ICE agent, who is well-known in the city’s Latino community, sideswiped the man’s car. Then the officer got out and shot the driver five times through the windshield."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas)—who represents the district where the shooting occurred—said on social media that "the horror has come to our city: ICE has shot a person in Austin this morning."
"As the facts emerge, I am demanding a full, independent investigation, immediate release of the body camera footage, and accountability for any ICE officer who broke the law," he continued. "Over and over, ICE has shot people and then lied about what happened. We can see the lies with our own eyes. We will demand truth, transparency, and accountability."
"Just like Americans have from Minneapolis to Houston, Austinites will speak out peacefully against this deadly mass deportation machine," Casar added. "ICE has been terrorizing our country for far too long. We will not be silent."
Breaking: ICE shot and injured a man in Austin, Texas, earlier today. Trump has allowed ICE to flood our streets and put our communities in harms way again and again and Governor Abbott is complicit every time.I am demanding the body camera footage and full accountability.
[image or embed]
— Joaquin Castro (@joaquincastrotx.bsky.social) September 20, 2026 at 1:39 PM
Austin Mayor Kirk, a Democrat, said at a press conference: "I'm very angry about this. I'm extremely unhappy. A person being shot on the streets of Austin by someone purporting to be law enforcement, particularly when it's ICE, is something that causes me to be unhappy and angry about it."
"And while I'm unhappy and I'm angry about it, I'm not surprised at all. It's happened in other cities with the nature of ICE and the way ICE is doing its business these days and the chaos that we see it performing and fomenting. There's no reason for us to be surprised by it."
Texas state Rep. Vikki Goodwin (D-47), who is running for lieutenant governor, said that "this violence cannot continue."
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) contended that the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "remains the biggest threat to our collective safety."
"This weekend, after abusing and hurting peaceful protesters in Illinois, they have just shot another person in Austin, Texas," she added. "The pattern is clear. The agency can't be reformed. I’ve heard the community: I am ready to melt ICE and dismantle DHS! My colleagues in Congress should be too."
Sunday's shooting came 10 weeks after an ICE agent fatally shot Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a 52-year-old Mexican man, in Houston. Salgado's death followed a series of shootings involving federal immigration agents, including the January killing of US citizens Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
A letter sent in July by Democratic lawmakers to DHS officials noted that agents had shot at least 22 people since President Donald Trump's return to office, with six of those shootings fatal. The lawmakers said that in multiple cases, federal authorities had made allegations against shooting victims that were later contradicted by evidence.
More than 50 people have died in ICE custody during Trump's second term.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Do I Blow the Entire Nation Up?': Trump Says He's in 'Deciding Mode' on Iran War
A senior Iranian official said that “our conditions are an end to the war on all fronts, the release of our frozen funds, and an end to the naval blockade."
Sep 20, 2026
Three days after saying that he's weighing whether or not to “annihilate” Iran in a bid to end his increasingly unpopular and protracted war against the Middle Eastern nation, US President Donald Trump on Sunday again said that he is deciding if he should destroy the entire country of over 90 million people.
Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst reported he "just spoke with President Trump about the situation with Iran" and that the US leader said he's "in a deciding mode and that very big things are going to be happening in the not-so-distant future."
Trump said he is considering three strategies for ending the 204-day war: "wiping Iran out, letting them rot economically, or making a deal."
"My question is, if and when do I blow the entire nation up, they better behave," Trump added, according to Yingst.
Fox correspondent: "The president said the US is in constant communication with the Houthis, and that they've agreed not to fight the United States. But the big headline here is the president said he's in a deciding mode as it relates to Iran, adding that the Iranians better… pic.twitter.com/nCTMRlEvWY
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 20, 2026
On Saturday, Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told Al Jazeera that Tehran has conveyed its conditions for ending the war to Qatari mediators and is "awaiting President Trump's response."
“Our conditions are an end to the war on all fronts, the release of our frozen funds, and an end to the naval blockade,” Rezaei added. “It is in Washington’s interest to accept these conditions. Trump’s threats will not achieve any results. We are prepared for a decisive war.”
Iran's military responded to Trump's latest threat by warning US allies Sunday that they will be considered "complicit" if American strikes resume, vowing "painful attacks" in retaliation.
Trump—who has been threatening to destroy Iran since at least 2019—is facing pressure on multiple fronts to end his highly unpopular and illegal war of choice, in which at least 23 US troops have died and tens of thousands of Iranians have been killed or wounded.
Americans are feeling the pain of higher consumer prices, especially for gasoline and diesel fuel, for a war that many say is making the country less safe. Six in 10 US voters queried in a new Fox News poll said Trump was wrong to wage war on Iran, while 7 in 10 respondents believe that his administration has no clear strategy for ending the conflict.
Republican lawmakers are also increasingly expressing dissatisfaction with the war and distancing themselves from the conflict ahead of November's midterm elections, with some going as far as helping to pass a war powers resolution directing Trump to withdraw US forces from hostilities with Iran, and one—outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky—supporting the impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Greenland Deal Panned as 'Largely a Rebranding of the Status Quo to Claim a Win'
"Trump did an incredible job negotiating for things we already had in Greenland," said one US critic.
Sep 19, 2026
Danish and international commentators dismissed President Donald Trump's claim that the deal he announced Friday gives the United States "permanent control" over Greenland's security as what one journalist called a "repackaging" of long-standing agreements spun as a foreign policy win.
Trump—who has repeatedly threatened to gain control of the autonomous Danish territory, including by military force—said on his Truth Social network: "I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many US concerns. There will be NO COST to the United States!"
"Additionally, from now on, no US adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval," the president continued. "This is an 'Infinite Life' Agreement, there is no end!"
"We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land," Trump added. "We will be very protective of it! This is a dream come true for the United States of America, one that is very important, historic, and special."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed what he called a "historic deal" and "a huge win for the United States and the American people."
A joint statement released by the office of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Jens-Frederik Nielsen, who chairs the Naalakkersuisut—Greenland's governing body—confirmed that "Greenland, Denmark, and the United States are expected to sign an agreement on strengthened security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic area next week" at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
Frederiksen stressed that the agreement "recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom [of Denmark] and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination," while Nielsen said the pact "is to the benefit of us all."
While the official text of the deal is not yet public, observers said it is unclear how it differs from the terms of a Cold War-era agreement that already gives the US broad military access to Greenland.
“In terms of rights, they were already allowed quite a lot under the original agreement,” Mikkel Runge Olesen, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen, said of the United States in a Saturday interview with The New York Times. “Is there anything here that one could not have achieved without this crisis?”
Trump did an incredible job negotiating for things we already had in Greenland.
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) September 18, 2026 at 6:10 PM
University of Maryland government and politics professor David Karol said on Bluesky that "this seems to be largely a rebranding of the status quo to claim a win."
Karol likened the Greenland deal to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that replaced the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement—which Trump called the "worst trade deal ever made"—during the president's first term. Critics noted that differences between the two pacts were "mostly cosmetic," as one expert put it.
As the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against Iran dragged on with no end in sight, the US president also pursued a deal to end the conflict that observers noted was broadly similar, and even more favorable to Tehran, to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—better known as the Iran nuclear deal—signed during the Obama administration and unilaterally abandoned by Trump during his first term, despite Iranian compliance.
Sofie Pultz, an international policy research fellow at the progressive UK think tank Institute for Public Policy Research, told LBC on Saturday that "it does sound like the Americans have accepted a repackaging of all deals and agreements, maybe with Denmark footing some of the defense bill. But overall, there's not a lot of new stuff in here."
Some Danish commentators were more blunt in their assessment of the deal. Henrik Højgaard Sejerkilde wrote for Jyllands-Posten that “everything suggests that Donald Trump’s agreement on the military presence in Greenland is a flea market find, found in diplomatic recycling.”
Other Danish observers expressed relief that what many viewed as an utterly unnecessary clash between two NATO allies has seemingly been defused.
"One can hope that the crisis of Greenland ends here—but one can never be sure," Jacob Heinel Jensen of the Danish daily newspaper Berlingske said. “There is reason to be cautiously optimistic that this nonsense of taking over Greenland is now over. But with Trump, you can never be sure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NAACP Sues to Stop Trump From Sending Armed Agents to 'Intimidate' Minority Voters at Polls
"When the federal government puts fear between people and the ballot box, that is voter intimidation—plain and simple."
Sep 19, 2026
A coalition of civil rights and labor groups led by the NAACP sued the Trump administration Friday in a bid to prevent armed federal agents from being deployed at or near polling places during November's midterm elections, warning that the threatened presence of such officers could intimidate voters of color and repress turnout.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia by the NAACP, National Urban League, Mi Familia en Accion, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, SEIU, American Federation of Teachers, International Union of Painters, and United Food and Commercial Workers International.
The complaint names senior Trump administration officials as defendants, including Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and White House border czar Tom Homan. The lawsuit seeks an order barring the administration from "deploying agents in a manner that unlawfully intimidates voters or anyone urging or aiding voters."
The plaintiffs are represented by the Legal Defense Fund, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, National Immigration Law Center, Protect Democracy, and Democracy Defenders Fund. They argue that the administration's policies and statements have created a reasonable fear among Black, Latino, Asian American, naturalized, immigrant, and mixed-status voters that they could face questioning, surveillance, detention, or force while voting.
Asked in May whether he would send National Guard troops or ICE agents to polling locations, President Donald Trump refused to rule out such a move, saying that he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.”
Other senior administration officials have similarly refused to rule out the deployment of federal forces to polling places in the name of fighting voter fraud—which is extremely rare.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, has denied that it is preparing to send agents to polling places. Spokesperson Kiersten Pels called such suggestions "fearmongering," while Mullin has said ICE would not patrol polling locations.
The coalition is suing under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits intimidation, threats, or coercion of people for voting or attempting to vote, as well as those assisting others in voting.
“All American voters have the sacred right to have a voice in our democracy, and should be able to exercise that right freely and without fear,” said Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund.
“Using federal law enforcement as a scare tactic to target and intimidate Black communities is illegal and antithetical to the promise of a multiracial democracy that was enshrined in the Voting Rights Act," Nelson added. "Neither Black, Latino, Asian, or any other voters nor any other communities should ever again face the threats of terror and intimidation at the ballot box that defined the Jim Crow era.”
“We are experiencing a level of voter intimidation like we haven’t seen since the civil rights era."
AALDEF executive director Bethany Li asserted that "when the federal government puts fear between people and the ballot box, that is voter intimidation—plain and simple."
“We are experiencing a level of voter intimidation like we haven’t seen since the civil rights era, when local governments and the KKK openly intimidated Black voters," Li added. "This time, it is the federal government ordering ICE and other federal law enforcement to intimidate naturalized citizen voters and immigrant communities. In 2026, voters should not have to choose between their safety and their right to vote.”
NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke said the threatened deployment would turn polling places into "militarized zones."
"Turning the fundamental right of exercising our vote into a high-stakes encounter with the militarized strong arm of the current administration isn't protection and it isn't oversight; it's disenfranchisement, period," she argued.
The lawsuit comes one week after a similar challenge was filed by the League of United Latin American Citizens, UnidosUS, Common Cause, and the city and county of Denver, Colorado. That case cites an 1865 federal law that generally prohibits federal officials from bringing "troops or armed men" to places where elections are being held, except when necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.
“The Trump administration has been waging a campaign to undermine American elections, and their insinuations that federal law enforcement agents might be at the polls this November are part of that effort,” Jasleen Singh, senior counsel and manager in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, said during Friday's announcement of the new suit. “We’re bringing this lawsuit so that voters are protected against intimidation and can have their voices heard.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unforgivable Sin': Pentagon Reportedly 'Hiding' US Deaths in Iran War
"When the government hides the true cost of its war, it misleads the country and dishonors the fallen," said one veterans' group.
Sep 19, 2026
The Trump administration—which calls itself the "most transparent administration in history"—is once again under fire for its lack of transparency after The Washington Post on Friday published a report in which US officials said more American troops have died during the Iran War than the Pentagon has disclosed.
Five officials familiar with the Pentagon's internal casualty accounting told the Post under condition of anonymity that at least 22 US service members have died since Trump launched the Iran War on February 28—four more than the 18 fatalities currently listed in the Pentagon's public Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS. A sixth official put the number at 23.
The officials said that not all of the additional deaths were necessarily caused directly by Iranian attacks, but rather involved US personnel stationed in the Middle East.
The report raises questions regarding transparency, as well as the military's line-of-duty investigations following service member deaths that can affect survivors' benefits.
Retired US Army Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson asked some of those questions in a Friday Substack post directed at Hegseth and calling the reported obfuscation an "unforgivable sin":
- Why are you hiding from the American people and the media?
- Why haven’t you done a press conference in the Pentagon for four months?
- What were the families of the fallen told about the circumstances around the deaths of their loved ones? Were they denied recognition for their loved ones’ service and sacrifice in war?
- Who made the call to hide the number from the American people?
- How many more people have been wounded than we know about?
- What are [you] going to do to make this right?
Responding on social media to the Post report, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote, "This is DISGUSTING and FAKE. A complete LIE."
"Shame on The Washington Post—they’re worse than Iranian state media," Hegseth added.
Hegseth's denial follows earlier controversies over the Pentagon's casualty reporting.
In July, the department's public database briefly excluded four US service members killed during renewed fighting, even though the Pentagon had separately announced the deaths. Officials subsequently blamed the discrepancy on technical problems.
Also in July The New York Times revealed that the Pentagon hid dozens of US military injuries from Iranian strikes on bases in Jordan.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a disabled Iraq War veteran, wrote on Bluesky in response to the Post report that "22 of our service members have been killed in Trump's illegal war. Not 18 like we were told."
"The Pentagon hid four more heroes' deaths from us for months," she added. "Congress cannot let them get away with this."
To that end, Duckworth and other Democratic lawmakers in both the House and Senate have introduced legislation aimed at preventing the Pentagon from manipulating troop casualty data.
Last month, Duckworth led 17 upper chamber colleagues in introducing the Honoring the Sacrifices of Our Troops in War Act, which her office said came partly in response to the Trump administration's "shameless attempt to downplay the damage done and evade accountability to the American people."
Outgoing Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on Thursday separately moved to force a House vote on impeaching Hegseth, accusing the defense secretary of violating provisions of the War Powers Resolution by continuing hostilities without congressional authorization.
After several failed attempts, both houses of Congress in June passed a war powers resolution directing Trump to withdraw US forces from hostilities with Iran. Trump did not comply.
The number of US troops killed and wounded in the Iran War pales in comparison to Iranian casualty figures. Thousands of Iranians—including more than 3,500 civilians, more than 380 of them children—have been killed and tens of thousands more wounded by US and Israeli attacks since February 28, according to Iranian and international officials.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Pushes AI Data Centers on Public Land as Big Tech Reaps Billions in Tax Breaks
One expert asserted that "the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway."
Sep 18, 2026
The Trump administration is considering construction of at least a dozen artificial intelligence data centers on thousands of acres of public land across six Western states, reporting revealed Friday, while a separate analysis found that Big Tech is receiving tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for AI investments they were already likely to make.
The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is reviewing proposals for at least 12 data centers and related infrastructure projects on 17,600 acres of public land across Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, according to an investigation published Friday by The Washington Sun's Mara Hoplamazian and Jade Lozada. Many of the proposals had not previously been publicly reported.
The Sun's report came on the heels of an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis published Thursday that found that five major technology companies—Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle—received approximately $70 billion in federal tax breaks in 2025.
The Trump administration is considering proposals for at least 12 data centers and data center-related infrastructure projects to be built on federal public lands — far more than previously known.
[image or embed]
— The Washington Sun (@washingtonsun.bsky.social) September 18, 2026 at 4:00 AM
Matthew Gardner, who authored the ITEP analysis, wrote that "AI leaders have acknowledged that the demand from other companies for data centers is 'insatiable,' suggesting that the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway."
According to Gardner:
Few investments in the American economy look less in need of encouragement right now than the hundreds of billions of dollars the world’s largest technology companies are already racing to spend on AI. And it’s hard to think of an investment that American taxpayers value less: Polling shows that Americans dislike data centers, distrust AI, and are concerned about the economic and environmental effects it may bring.
At the same time, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has directed BLM officials to identify federal lands "ripe for data center development," according to the Sun. State BLM officials were reportedly given only three days to compile lists, with the effort described as a "top priority."
Burgum has also been meeting with Big Tech executives about accelerating data center development, an effort stemming from an executive order President Donald Trump signed in July 2025 directing the federal government to identify lands that could be used for data centers.
Mary Jo Rugwell, president of the Public Lands Foundation—a nonprofit advocacy group—and a former BLM state director, recently accused the Trump administration of “bending [the] knee to the tech oligarchs and letting them do whatever they need to do” without adequate consideration for the impact of data centers on public lands.
Environmentalists warn that building on public land would help tech companies skirt growing public opposition to data centers, which is increasingly transcending the political divide. It would also have outsized consequences for Western states where public lands comprise a disproportionate share of total land area.
“In Oregon, this would be a really bad precedent,” Ben Brint , the senior climate program director at the Oregon Environmental Council, told the Sun. “Some very large percentage of the state is public lands, and if we’re starting to allow that, that’s large swaths of the state that really could be at risk of further development.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Third Country Removal Policy Putting Unlawfully Detained Men At Risk of Torture: Amnesty
The group believes Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane were targeted by police in Equatorial Guinea for speaking out about poor treatment in the hotel they were detained in following their deportation.
Sep 18, 2026
As Amnesty International warned that two men are now at risk of being tortured in detention in Equatorial Guinea, where the Trump administration deported them earlier this year under one of several secretive deals, US. Rep. Adelita Grijalva said that the "ultimate responsibility lies with" the White House, which sent the men "into harm's way."
The human rights group issued an urgent appeal, calling on supporters to send letters to the vice president of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, saying that that Ahmed Soliman, an Egyptian national, and Samson Birhane, who is from Eritrea, were "beaten and violently taken by police officers from the Hotel Bamy in Malabo," the capital of Equatorial Guinea.
They had been "arbitrarily" held at the hotel along with dozens of other people since US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent them there on deportation flights earlier this year. Soliman and Birhane had protection from refoulement to their countries of origin from US immigration courts, but President Donald Trump's administration has arranged with five governments, through direct payments of tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money, to send hundreds of migrants to countries where they have never lived—many with records of human rights abuses.
Soliman has publicly spoken out against their arbitrary detention, and international media recently published a video showing a police officer at Hotel Bamy pointing a weapon at him and another man.
Last Friday, days after the video went public, said Amnesty, Soliman and Birhane were "targeted" by police, who arrived at the hotel and took them away briefly.
Amnesty continued in its letter and call to action:
Later during the day police officers went back to the hotel, bringing Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane back with them, who had their heads covered with bags tied with a rope. Police officers beat them in their heads, backs, and ribs with their elbows, knees, and guns, asking them where they hid the phones. They pushed one of the men down the stairs of the hotel and said to others that they may never see Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane again.
The group wrote that the men were taken "the Malabo gendarmery station known as 'La Luna'" and were accused of breaking a mirror at the hotel.
"Since then, they have not been informed of the charges against them, nor allowed to speak to their lawyers, and are held in an overcrowded police cell, in inhumane conditions," reads the sample letter. "I am concerned that they are at heightened risk of torture."
The New York Times reported that a lawyer who has been able to get some information about Soliman and Birhane's condition said they have been denied food and are "covered in bruises."
"The authorities must immediately release them, inform them of any charges against them, and allow them unimpeded access to counsel," said Amnesty International.
Officials in the Trump administration, said Grijalva (D-Ariz.), "need to take responsibility and demand Ahmed’s immediate release."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Straight Out of the Authoritarian Playbook': Trump Bans CNN, MSNOW, and Politico From White House
One press freedom advocate said it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment."
Sep 18, 2026
In one of his most direct assaults on the First Amendment, President Donald Trump announced in a Friday afternoon tirade that he would ban CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House.
"I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW... and Politico from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" the president wrote in a rambling Truth Social post.
"Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America," he added, though he did not specify any particular reports he objected to. He added that bans on "Other Fake News Media Outlets" would soon follow.
Trump, who has long portrayed himself as a defender of free speech, has taken unprecedented actions to censor news outlets during his second term, including threatening networks' broadcast licenses through the Federal Communications Commission over unfavorable programming.
As of Friday afternoon, it's unclear whether Trump actually plans to follow through on his White House ban.
Reacting to the news on the air, CNN anchor Brian Stelter said that the network's reporting team "remains at the White House working just like a usual normal Friday afternoon." He added that "right now, there is no indication that the administration is taking any steps to actually follow through on his threat."
"Certainly, if there is an attempt to remove journalists from the White House, well, our cameras are rolling. I think viewers will see it happen," he said.
"CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting," the network said in a statement following news of the ban. "We have a right under the US Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government."
Bruce D. Brown, the president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Common Dreams in an email Friday that simply banning news organizations from the White House over the content of their reporting "would be flatly unconstitutional."
"The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can't ban others because it doesn't like their reporting," he said. "This is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged."
Federal courts have previously struck down attempts by Trump to bar certain press outlets on First Amendment grounds. Last year, a judge ruled that Trump's removal of the Associated Press from the White House press pool for its refusal to adopt the name "Gulf of America" for the Gulf of Mexico was an unconstitutional form of viewpoint discrimination.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's rule banning reporters from obtaining information not authorized by the Pentagon, which led dozens of journalists to turn over their press badges and walk out of the building in protest, was also struck down as a violation of press freedom.
In light of these previous failures, Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, expressed bewilderment that Trump was once again trying to ban news outlets from the White House.
"With so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now," he said in a statement.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government."
"It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move," he said. "The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him. The press keeps exposing his corruption and his failures. These outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public."
He added that the press must "fight back to protect their rights, not only to access the White House but to access the public records and whistleblowers this administration so desperately wants to keep from them."
Trump's announcement was met with outrage from Democrats in Congress, who described it as an assault on a basic constitutional freedom.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) responded to the news simply by posting the full text of the First Amendment on X.
"Fascist and communist governments limit press access to only favorable outlets, persecute journalists, and suppress truthful reporting," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a post to social media. "Trump’s administration is doing all of that."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) agreed the move was "straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Outrageous': Sanders Slams FCC for Approving Saudi and UAE Ownership of Paramount-Warner Bros.
"We don't need Middle East dictators to control American media."
Sep 18, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday joined a growing chorus of critics angered by the Federal Communications Commission's approval of foreign investment in the company that would be created if Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery are allowed to merge.
Led by Chair Brendan Carr, an appointee of President Donald Trump, the FCC on Thursday approved Paramount's petition to allow foreign investors to hold over 25% of ownership. The commission concluded it would be in the "public interest" to greenlight a plan for 49.5% foreign ownership, including 38.5% from investment funds based in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
"Trump's FCC just approved Trump pal David Ellison's deal to allow Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE to own nearly 50% of a merged Paramount-Warner Bros," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media Friday, referring to Paramount's chair and CEO—and the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison.
The merged company would include CBS, CNN, HBO, the Discovery Channel, BET, Fandango, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount, PlutoTV, Showtime, TBS, The CW, TNT, Warner Bros., and more, the senator noted. He added: "Outrageous: We don't need Middle East dictators to control American media."
Anna Gomez, the sole Democratic commissioner, was similarly critical: "The FCC just let some of the most repressive governments in the world indirectly control nearly all of a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. An investment this large in one of America's biggest media companies doesn't just buy equity, it secures influence over what gets said and made."
"That's why I called for this new and novel issue to go to a full commission vote given what's at stake," she noted. "Instead, the FCC snuck this ruling out as a staff-level decision, with no public vote and no accountability for a call of this magnitude."
Welcoming Gomez's comments, Michael Sozan pointed to his and Andrew Miller's June article for the Center for American Progress highlighting that "the three Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes have deep financial relationships with Trump and his family, and... long records of human rights abuses and engage in media censorship."
"These autocracies could leverage Paramount's news outlets and other media properties to advance their own interests at the expense of the United States' national security and foundational rights, including press freedoms," the pair warned. "Given these factors, these foreign ownership levels are another reason why regulators must rigorously review this merger and take all lawful actions to block it."
As the Los Angeles Times reported:
Several groups, including the 1st Amendment nonprofit Free Press, asked the FCC to consider additional safeguards to shield the news organizations—CNN and CBS—from foreign control. One suggestion was to spin off CBS and CNN into a subsidiary that would be wholly owned by Americans.
Paramount and the FCC were dismissive, arguing "the concerns raised in the record... are speculative and unsupported," according to the FCC ruling.
While a Paramount spokesperson welcomed the FCC's decision not to block the plan—and pointed out that "when the proposed transaction with Warner Bros. Discovery closes, the Ellison family and RedBird will collectively hold the largest equity stake in the combined company and 100% of the voting shares, with no other equity participant having any governance rights"—fresh outrage mounted over the already widely criticized $111 billion merger.
Lee Hepner, an antitrust lawyer and senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, addressed the questions: "But it's just indirect equity interests, right? What about the condition that the Saudis, UAE, and Qatar cannot interfere with or even comment on any decisions related to content?"
As he explained: "The only way that firewall is conceivably enforceable is if the FCC assigns an independent monitor to sit in on every meeting, taps every burner phone, and is invited to every Signal chat between any representative of Paramount and its new financial backers. The point is not that that should happen, but that this condition is patently unenforceable. Which is all to say, the FCC just approved the sale of a crown jewel of the entertainment and media industry to foreign interests that relish in exercising economic, political, and regional military leverage over the United States. All based on a pinky promise."
"The reality is that ownership alone, even of nonvoting, indirect equity interests, creates its own financial leverage and influence," he warned. "To the extent Paramount's new owners are prohibited from exercising influence, it's patently paradoxical. Paramount won't approve anything that risks losing half of its financial backing, including criticizing a regime that not too long ago ordered the execution of a Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi, who became an international figurehead for politically persecuted journalists."
"Does anyone think CBS' new leadership has the will, much less fortitude, to prioritize truth over financial ruin?" he added. "If this all sounds like a total mess, that's because it is. And it only becomes doubly worse if Paramount acquires Warner Bros.-Discovery."
Due to legal pushback from state attorneys general and unions, the merger—which some opponents have condemned as an "existential" threat—is on hold until the outcome of a trial scheduled to begin in March.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular