

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.
Despite a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, since 1987, Japan has continued to kill whales in the Southern Ocean as a member body of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in the name of scientific research.
Sea Shepherd stands firm that Japan's whaling in Antarctica has always been a commercial operation permitted only by the International Whaling Commission under the guise of scientific research.
In 2014, Sea Shepherd's stance was vindicated when the Governments of Australia and New Zealand took the Government of Japan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Netherlands with the judgement deeming Japan's Southern Ocean whale hunt both non-scientific and illegal. The whale war in the Southern Ocean continued between Sea Shepherd and the Japanese whaling fleet until this year when Japan announced an end to their Antarctic whaling program.
Other nations such as Norway, Iceland and Denmark have left the IWC and continued their commercial hunts within their territorial waters. Sea Shepherd has always deemed these countries as pirate whaling nations that are breaking international laws and treaties put in place to safeguard our oceans for future generations.
Sea Shepherd considers Japan among these last remaining pirate whaling nations and regards their announcement to leave the IWC and openly call their continuation of whaling a commercial operation as an arrogant disregard to International Conservation Law.
CEO of Sea Shepherd Global Alex Cornelissen said, "We see the resumption of Japan's commercial whaling as merely a continuation of the Japanese Government's blatant disregard of international laws and treaties - a fight that we have been leading for over a decade. If they want to continue whaling, Sea Shepherd will continue to stand with the global community that wants to see an end to whaling."
Sea Shepherd Founder, Captain Paul Watson said, "Whaling in Japan is a dying industry that survives only by the politically motivated injection of massive government subsidies. We have driven the Japanese whalers from the Southern Hemisphere, and now their illegal slaughter continues in their own waters, second in numbers only to the unlawful killing of whales in Norwegian waters. This summer, we stopped the Icelanders from killing endangered Fin whales, and we will be actively opposing the massacre of pilot whales and dolphins in the Danish Faroe Islands.
"Our opposition to whaling is global and we will continue to pressure Japan and the other outlaw whaling nations until we achieve our ultimate goal - the complete and total global eradication of the merciless madness of whaling by anyone, everywhere for any reason."
"For decades we have been the most direct and effective whale defence movement on the planet and will continue to do so," said Sea Shepherd Australia Managing Director Jeff Hansen. "As shepherds of the sea, we remain focused and effective, especially with our recent campaigns to combat illegal fishing, where an estimated 333,000 whales and dolphins are killed in fishing gear each year.
"We will continue to look at innovative ways to stop whaling by Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Japan.
"For now we ask the people of Japan to join us in this global fight, calling on your Government to lay down their harpoons once and for all, for the critical role whales play in maintaining a thriving and healthy ocean for us all."
Established in 1977, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is an international non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization. Our mission is to end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world's oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species.
"It's our way of fighting back against all of the the racist gerrymandering happening across the country," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Election watchers across the country and even overseas were anticipating the results in New York City on Tuesday as progressives hoped for a victory for state Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani and his mayoral campaign that's relentlessly focused on the needs of working people, but democracy advocates also urged attention on a key ballot measure in California aimed at countering Republican gerrymandering.
The grassroots group Our Revolution was sending canvassers out to advocate for a "yes" vote on Proposition 50, which would throw out the state's current district map in favor of one that could give Democrats five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
If approved, the ballot measure would pass the Election Rigging Response Act "to counter [President] Donald Trump’s scheme to rig next year’s congressional election and [reaffirm] California’s commitment to independent, nonpartisan redistricting after the next census."
Trump has called on Republican-controlled states including Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina to redraw their district maps and employ racial gerrymandering to increase the likelihood that the GOP will win more seats in the House.
"Trump’s GOP is rigging maps to steal Congress. Prop 50 is how we fight back," said Our Revolution.
On Monday, US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)—who has previously spoken out in favor of Prop 50—addressed her nearly 10 million followers on Instagram in a video regarding the New York City election, the president's attacks on federal food assistance, and the ballot measure in California.
"It's our way of fighting back against all of the the racist gerrymandering happening across the country," said Ocasio-Cortez, who is reportedly considering a Senate or presidential run. "Approving Prop 50 in California helps balance the scale against all of the attacks on communities across the country."
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) also campaigned for Prop 50 on Monday, saying at a rally that after passing the measure, Democrats "are going to win the midterms."
"And when we win the midterms, we are going to cut our time in hell by half," he said.
Saikat Chakrabarti, who is running to unseat former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2026, said that Prop 50 is one thing that he and the longtime congresswoman "actually agree on."
"This," he said, "is how we fight back against Trump."
"It's impossible to overstate how much of what ICE is doing on the ground reflects this completely preposterous conflation of hostile speech and hostile conduct," commented one legal expert.
A court filing released late on Monday alleged that US Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino said that merely making what he called "hyperbolic comments" about immigration enforcement operations, including President Donald Trump's "Operation Midway Blitz" in Chicago, was enough to justify being arrested.
As reported by the Chicago Sun-Times on Tuesday, attorneys representing several Chicago-based media organizations who are suing to restrict federal immigration agents' use of force in their city claimed that Bovino said during a sworn deposition that "he has instructed his officers to arrest protesters who make hyperbolic comments in the heat of political demonstrations."
The attorneys also said in the court document that Russell Hott, the field director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Chicago, said during his deposition that he did not agree that it would be "unconstitutional to arrest people" simply for expressing opposition to his agency's current mass deportation operation in the Windy City.
This section of the filing caught the attention of Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, who said it appeared federal immigration officials are straightforwardly violating the First Amendment right to peacefully protest.
"It's impossible to overstate how much of what ICE is doing on the ground reflects this completely preposterous conflation of hostile speech and hostile conduct," he wrote in a post on Bluesky. "The First Amendment protects—or, at least, is supposed to protect—the former up and until it's a 'true threat,' which none of this is."
Elsewhere in the filing, the plaintiffs' attorneys alleged that Bovino said during testimony that he had "interacted with many violent rioters and individuals" at the ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, which in recent weeks has become the focal point of local protests. Additionally, the attorneys wrote, Bovino would "not admit he has ever seen protesters who were not violent rioters."
The attorneys commented that "by Bovino's logic, anyone who shows up to protest is presumptively violent or assaultive and he can 'go hard' against them."
The case involving the Chicago media organizations and federal immigration enforcement officials is currently being overseen by US District Court Judge Sara Ellis, who last month issued a temporary restraining order that barred federal officers from using riot control weapons “on members of the press, protestors, or religious practitioners who are not posing an immediate threat to the safety of a law enforcement officer or others.”
Federal immigration officials have been employing increasingly aggressive and violent tactics in the Chicago area in recent weeks, including attacking a journalist and a protesting priest with pepper balls outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility; slamming a congressional candidate to the ground; dragging US citizens, including children, out of their homes during a raid in the middle of the night; and fatally shooting a man during a traffic stop.
A hearing on whether to make permanent Ellis’ restraining order which strictly limits the use of riot control munitions has been set for November 5.
“If Trump had any shred of humanity in him, he would do whatever was necessary to prevent hunger and suffering in the country he claims to love," said one critic.
In apparent open defiance of two federal court rulings, President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration will not fund a key federal nutritional aid program until after the Republican government shutdown ends, leaving millions of families even more vulnerable to hunger at a time of crisis-level food insecurity.
In a post on his TruthSocial network, Trump took aim at both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the administration of former President Joe Biden.
"SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly 'handed' to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!), will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!" the president wrote. "Thank you for your attention to this matter."
"Trump's message to 42 million Americans: Eat dirt."
Responding to the president's post, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media, "After a judge ordered Donald Trump to make SNAP payments, the wannabe king declared he will defy a court order and won't help people afford groceries."
"Trump's message to 42 million Americans: Eat dirt," she added.
Trump is now saying he will only pay SNAP benefits once the Republican shutdown is over, despite a federal court order.As a result, 42 million kids, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities could go hungry. This is illegal, immoral, and absolutely cruel.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ted Lieu (@reptedlieu.bsky.social) November 4, 2025 at 8:49 AM
Seemingly contradicting Trump's claim, the White House said later Tuesday that the administration is complying with one of the court orders.
Data from the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office have shown that approximately 70% or more of working-age, non-disabled adults receiving Medicaid and SNAP benefits work full-time—defined as 35 hours or more per week.
On Friday, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled against the US Department of Agriculture’s refusal to pay at least part of the $8 billion in SNAP benefits—also known as food stamps—to rightful beneficiaries in November via a contingency fund established by Congress.
The administration responded to the rulings by saying it would only fund around 50% of the total monthly benefits, while warning of likely payment delays.
Plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case—represented by Democracy Forward and the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island—subsequently filed an emergency request seeking a court order compelling Trump and his administration to comply with Friday's order.
“The Trump-Vance administration continues to play politics with people’s lives through failing to ensure SNAP payments are expeditiously available," Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement Tuesday. "This is immoral and unlawful."
"The political posturing should stop now," Perryman added. "The administration needs to fully fund SNAP benefits so people can eat, today. We should not need to go to court to force the administration to provide food all people are entitled to in this country, but here we are—back in court to demand that the administration acts consistent with the judge’s order."
Alejandra Gomez, executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), said ahead of a planned Tuesday press conference: “It took two court orders and mounting public pressure for the Trump administration to fund SNAP assistance partially, which is not good enough. Arizona families in need deserve better."
“December SNAP benefits are not guaranteed, and every day that Congress fails to act, children will go hungry, food banks run dry, and working families will pay the price," she added. "It is time to end the shutdown, fund healthcare and SNAP.”
Now in its 35th day, the ongoing federal government shutdown is tied for the longest in US history. Vulnerable people—already reeling from record cuts to social programs to pay for tax breaks for billionaires and corporations under the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump in July—are feeling even more pain, at a time when more than 47 million Americans, including 1 in 5 children, are living in food insecure households.
"I did not receive any benefits at all... And they said there is no promise of even getting any type of benefits for November," Danielle Rodriguez, a single mother in Pennsylvania who lost $400 in monthly SNAP aid, told MSNBC's Ana Cabrera Monday.
"'Mommy, do you want my piggybank money to help with groceries?'"
"Unfortunately, I've had to reach out to my utility companies and stuff like that to go on payments to use some of my bill money to buy groceries for me and my kids," she continued.
"It's very stressful being a single mom of two kids. I have a 9-year-old, and she is offering her piggybank money," Rodriguez added. "And she's like, 'Mommy, do you want my piggybank money to help with groceries?' And it's sad to hear my child say that to me because I'm mom—I'm supposed to do everything. I'm supposed to be their protector."
Mitch Jones, managing director of policy and litigation at Food & Water Watch, said in a statement: “At a time when rampant corporate consolidation has driven grocery prices sky-high, Trump continues to choose cruelty over the rule of law. He must abide by recent court orders and immediately release SNAP aid to the millions of low-income American families suddenly hanging on the precipice of an unconscionable hunger crisis."
“If Trump had any shred of humanity in him, he would do whatever was necessary to prevent hunger and suffering in the country he claims to love," Jones added.
Update: This piece has been updated with the White House's statement of compliance with one of the court orders.