

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.

In response to Fight for the Future & Students for Sensible Drug Policy's nationwide campaign to ban facial recognition from university campuses, dozens of institutions of higher learning have responded to clarify whether or not they use, or plan to use this technology that threatens the liberty of their students and staff.
See the scorecard here: https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/campus
A new scorecard provides information about facial recognition use for nearly 100 top university campuses in the United States--whether they currently use facial recognition, don't use (and don't plan to use), or refused to say. 45 schools have given statements clarifying that they are not using and have no plans to use. More than 30 schools have not responded or refused to comment, and two campuses have been reported by CNET to be actively using facial recognition--Stanford, and the University of Southern California. Both did not return requests for clarification, though we have heard from reporters that Stanford claims they are no longer using the tech on campus. A facial recognition vendor claims that small number of colleges have restaurants on campus with facial recognition payment options. At least some of those schools say they no longer use the system, and we were not able to verify that others were actually on the campuses they claimed to be on.
Additionally, three schools issued ominously vague statements that implied they may have plans to use facial recognition in the future. George Washington University's assistant director of media relations Crystal L Nosal stated that they are not currently using facial recognition technology, but also said "there is no way to predict the future and it would be disingenuous to give a position on something other than what we are doing right now." Duke University's executive director of news and communications Keith Lawrence, when asked about future plans to install facial recognition technology, declined to "comment further." An American University spokesperson refused to give any information about the institution's plans, providing the following statement: "As a private university, AU reserves the right to implement security measures to mitigate risk and protect our community from threats to their safety and security. To that end, security enhancements are undertaken only after a thorough review to ensure they meet the standards of general community acceptance which balance security with expectations of privacy."
Campuses that have stated they have no intention of using facial recognition include Boston College, Brown University, Columbia University, Colorado State University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, DePaul University, MIT, Michigan State University, Georgia Tech, NYU, Hampshire College, Kent State University, Rice University, University of Florida, Oregon State University, UPenn, and John Hopkins University. University of San Francisco clarified that it abandoned its controversial facial recognition program in 2016. Activists made multiple attempts to contact every institution on the scorecard. More than 30 schools did not respond after multiple attempts, including Harvard, Yale, Oberlin, Howard University, Ohio State, Reed, Sarah Lawrence College, and UCLA.
"As this campaign continues, we're ready to up the pressure on campuses that haven't shared their facial recognition policies," said Erica Darragh, board member at Students for Sensible Drug Policy (pronouns: she/her). "Students deserve to know whether they are being experimented on with what was characterized as 'Black Mirror-like technology'" (language used by Representative Ocasio-Cortez in a house oversight hearing this month). "The idea that your campus could spy on you, that this technology could automate racial prejudice, and that the whole system could be exposed so all your inalterable personal details are stolen lead us to conclude that the technology is a huge threat to students and to society. If a university's facial recognition system gets hacked, students can't just change our faces and our lives like a credit card number."
Thousands of students, faculty, alumni, and community members are signing petitions on the campaign homepage, calling for a complete ban on the non-personal use of facial recognition on their campus. Student groups across the country are circulating an open letter demanding that facial recognition be banned from their campuses, and organizing to introduce student government resolutions using a toolkit created by Students for Sensible Drug Policy.
"College students should not be used as lab rats. Everyone, including faculty, staff, and community members have a right to know if administrations are using or planning to experiment with dangerous facial recognition technology on campus," said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her). "Whether it's used for Big Brother style monitoring of student behavior or for more mundane purposes like accessing meal plans or dorms, biometric surveillance technology on campus puts students' physical safety at risk and violates their most basic rights. This technology is unsafe, discriminatory, and politically toxic. We are known for our ruthless campaigning. There's nowhere to hide. College administrators need to get on the right side of history by committing to not use facial recognition on campus -- or prepare for battle."
While there have been several reports indicating that elementary and grade schools are experimenting with facial recognition, the technology is not widely used at US colleges and universities. This campaign aims to ensure it stays that way.
This effort is part of Fight for the Future's broader BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed by more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban government and law enforcement use of facial recognition. Several cities have already banned the controversial technology outright, including San Francisco, Somerville, MA, Berkeley, CA, and Oakland, CA, and there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address the issue at the federal level.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026US Central Command said that the "lone ISIS gunman" who targeted the Americans "was engaged and killed."
This is a developing story… Please check back for updates…
Despite publicly seeking a Nobel Peace Prize, President Donald Trump on Saturday told reporters that "we will retaliate" after US Central Command announced that a solo Islamic State gunman killed three Americans—two service members and one civilian—and wounded three other members of the military.
"This is an ISIS attack," Trump said before departing the White House for the Army-Navy football game in Baltimore, according to the Associated Press. He also said the three unidentified American survivors of the ambush "seem to be doing pretty well."
US Central Command said that the "lone ISIS gunman" who targeted the Americans "was engaged and killed," and that in accordance with Department of Defense policy, "the identities of the service members will be withheld until 24 hours after their next of kin have been notified."
Citing three local officials, Reuters reported that the attacker "was a member of the Syrian security forces."
The news agency also noted that a Syrian Interior Ministry spokesperson, Noureddine el-Baba, told the state-run television channel Al-Ikhbariya that the man did not have a leadership role.
"On December 10, an evaluation was issued indicating that this attacker might hold extremist ideas, and a decision regarding him was due to be issued tomorrow, on Sunday," the spokesperson said.
"Noem's decision to rip up the union contract for 47,000 TSA officers is an illegal act of retaliatory union busting that should cause concern for every person who steps foot in an airport," said the AFGE president.
On the heels of a major win for federal workers in the US House of Representatives, the Transportation Security Administration on Friday revived Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's effort to tear up TSA employees' collective bargaining agreement.
House Democrats and 20 Republicans voted Thursday to restore the rights of 1 million federal workers, which President Donald Trump had moved to terminate by claiming their work is primarily focused on national security, so they shouldn't have union representation. Noem made a similar argument about collective bargaining with the TSA workforce.
A federal judge blocked Noem's first effort in June, in response to a lawsuit from the American Federation of Government Employees, but TSA moved to kill the 2024 agreement again on Friday, citing a September memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief. AFGE pledged to fight the latest attack on the 47,000 transportation security officers it represents.
"Secretary Noem's decision to revoke our union contract is a slap in the face to the dedicated workforce that shows up each and every day for the flying public," declared AFGE Council 100 president Hydrick Thomas. "TSA officers take pride in the work we perform on behalf of the American people—many of us joined the agency following the September 11 attacks because we wanted to serve our country and make sure that the skies are safe for air travel."
"Prior to having a union contract, many employees endured hostile work environments, and workers felt like they didn't have a voice on the job, which led to severe attrition rates and longer wait times for the traveling public. Since having a contract, we've seen a more stable workforce, and there has never been another aviation-related attack on our country," he noted. "AFGE TSA Council 100 is going to keep fighting for our union rights so we can continue providing the very best services to the American people."
As the Associated Press reported:
The agency said it plans to rescind the current seven-year contract in January and replace it with a new "security-focused framework." The agreement... was supposed to expire in 2031.
Adam Stahl, acting TSA deputy administrator, said in a statement that airport screeners "need to be focused on their mission of keeping travelers safe."
"Under the leadership of Secretary Noem, we are ridding the agency of wasteful and time-consuming activities that distracted our officers from their crucial work," Stahl said.
AFGE national president Everett Kelley highlighted Friday that "merely 30 days ago, Secretary Noem celebrated TSA officers for their dedication during the longest government shutdown in history. Today, she's announcing a lump of coal right on time for the holidays: that she’s stripping those same dedicated officers of their union rights."
"Secretary Noem's decision to rip up the union contract for 47,000 TSA officers is an illegal act of retaliatory union busting that should cause concern for every person who steps foot in an airport," he added. "AFGE will continue to challenge these illegal attacks on our members' right to belong to a union, and we urge the Senate to pass the Protect America's Workforce Act immediately."
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) president Liz Shuler similarly slammed the new DHS move as "an outrageous attack on workers' rights that puts all of us at risk" and accused the department of trying to union bust again "in explicit retaliation for members standing up for their rights."
"It's no coincidence that this escalation, pulled from the pages of Project 2025, is coming just one day after a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives voted to overturn Trump's executive order ripping away union rights from federal workers," she also said, calling on senators to pass the bill "to ensure that every federal worker, including TSA officers, are able to have a voice on the job."
The DHS union busting came after not only the House vote but also a lawsuit filed Thursday by Benjamin Rodgers, a TSA officer at Denver International Airport, over the federal government withholding pay during the 43-day shutdown, during which he and his co-workers across the country were expected to keep reporting for duty.
"Some of them actually had to quit and find a separate job so they could hold up their household with kids and stuff," Rodgers told HuffPost. "I want to help out other people as much as I can, to get their fair wages they deserve."
"We will continue to fight alongside all immigrants and their families who are unjustly targeted by this callous administration," vowed the legal director at Justice Action Center.
As a "chilling" report in the New York Times revealed that the Transportation Security Administration is providing the names of all airline passengers to immigration officials, President Donald Trump's administration on Friday also openly continued its war on immigrants by announcing an end to allowing relatives of citizens or lawful permanent residents to enter the United States while awaiting green cards.
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement that it is terminating all categorical family reunification parole programs for immigrants from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras, and "returning parole to a case-by-case basis." An official notice has been prepared for publication in the Federal Register on Monday, and the policy is set to take effect on January 14.
Responding in a statement late Friday, Anwen Hughes, senior director of legal strategy for the refugee programs at Human Rights First, said that "this outrageous decision to pull the rug out from under the thousands of people who came to the US lawfully to reunite with their families is shocking."
"Yet again, this administration is taking extraordinary measures to delegalize as many people as possible, even when they have done everything the US government has asked of them," she continued. "The government did this in March when they announced their intent to take away lawful status from hundreds of thousands of humanitarian parole beneficiaries; they are doing it now with more than 10,000 people who came lawfully to reunite with their families; they are taking their attacks on birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court; and they are escalating their threats to delegalize untold numbers of others without notice."
"This outrageous decision to pull the rug out from under the thousands of people who came to the US lawfully to reunite with their families is shocking."
Guerline Jozef, executive director of the grassroots group Haitian Bridge Alliance, said in a Saturday statement: "Let's be clear: This is not about security. This is about an administration using racist, nativist scare tactics to dismantle lawful family reunification and terrorize Black and Brown immigrants."
"Family reunification parole was created to keep families together and provide a safe, legal pathway while people waited for visas that the US government itself told them would take years," Jozef noted. "Now those same families—many of them Haitian—are being punished for trusting the system. It is state violence, it is anti-Black, and it is an unacceptable betrayal of basic human dignity."
Lawyers behind a class action lawsuit against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and other key administration leaders over the March policy—Svitlana Doe v. Noem—plan to also challenge the new move.
"Those who entered under the family reunification program should contact their immigration attorney immediately to better understand their options, as those options may change on December 15," warned Esther Sung, legal director at Justice Action Center, which represented plaintiffs in the earlier case.
"The legal team in Svitlana Doe v. Noem will also alert the court as soon as possible to ensure that our clients and class members are not unlawfully harmed by this move," Sung said. "Today's news is devastating for families across the country, but we will continue to fight alongside all immigrants and their families who are unjustly targeted by this callous administration."
Ending family reunification parole won't make us safer, it will only tear families apart. Our immigration policies should be fair and humane. This is just cruel.www.uscis.gov/newsroom/ale...
[image or embed]
— Rep. Linda Sánchez (@replindasanchez.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Meanwhile, as the Times reported Friday, in March, TSA began sending the names of all air travelers to another DHS agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which "can then match the list against its own database of people subject to deportation and send agents to the airport to detain those people."
"It's unclear how many arrests have been made as a result of the collaboration," the newspaper detailed. "But documents obtained by the New York Times show that it led to the arrest of Any Lucía López Belloza, the college student picked up at Boston Logan Airport on November 20 and deported to Honduras two days later. A former ICE official said 75% of instances in that official's region where names were flagged by the program yielded arrests."
In López Belloza's case, she tried to board her plane, but her ticket didn't work. The 19-year-old—who said she didn't know about a previous deportation order—was sent to customer service, where she was met by agents with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), another DHS agency playing a key role in Trump's sweeping and violent crackdown on immigrants.
Like the new attack on family reunification, the Times reporting sparked a wave of condemnation. David Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said on social media, "Make sure people you know who need this information have this information."
Jonathan Cohn, political director for the group Progressive Mass, declared that "the Trump administration wants to make flying unsafe: unsafe because of surveillance, unsafe because of understaffed air traffic controllers, and unsafe because of gutted consumer protections."
Eva Galperin, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's director of cybersecurity, pointed to the constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, saying, "I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like the Fourth Amendment has something to say about this."
Immigration Agents Are Using Air Passenger Data for Deportation EffortThe Transportation Security Administration is providing passenger lists to ICE to identify and detain travelers subject to deportation orders.www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/u... obvi lawlessly…Prosecute all of them…
[image or embed]
— Sarah Szalavitz💡 (@dearsarah.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Amid protests over Trump's broader deportation push and the president's plunging approval rating on immigration, unnamed DHS sources confirmed Friday that CBP teams "under Commander Gregory Bovino will change tactics," according to NewsNation. "Instead of sweeping raids like those that have taken place at locations including Home Depot, agents will now be narrowing their focus to specific targets, such as illegal immigrants convicted of heinous crimes."
NewNation's reporting came just days after DHS published a database on ICE arrestees that led Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, to conclude that the department "is implicitly admitting that less than 5% of the people it arrests are people they believe are 'the worst of the worst.'"
This article has been updated with comment from Haitian Bridge Alliance.