

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.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Texas Civil Rights Project, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and Oxfam have filed a legal challenge to the Trump administration's order restricting immigration at the border based on an unprecedented and unlawful invocation of the Public Health Service Act, located in Title 42 of the U.S. Code.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Texas Civil Rights Project, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and Oxfam have filed a legal challenge to the Trump administration's order restricting immigration at the border based on an unprecedented and unlawful invocation of the Public Health Service Act, located in Title 42 of the U.S. Code.
The order authorizes the summary removal of unaccompanied children without any due process -- even if the child is fleeing danger and seeking protection in the United States and shows no signs of having COVID-19. It also authorizes the summary removal of adults seeking protection in the United States.
The plaintiff, G.Y.J.P., is a 13-year-old girl from El Salvador. Her mother, a former police officer, was targeted by the notorious Salvadoran gangs after she refused to cooperate with them. Forced to quickly flee for her life, G.Y.J.P.'s mother was granted legal protection by the United States and now lives here lawfully. The girl sought to join her mother when the gangs began threatening her life.
When G.Y.J.P. arrived in the United States, she let officials know she was fleeing danger, that her mother lives here, and that she had her mother's phone number. The officials did not contact her mother and simply removed the girl to El Salvador without a hearing, where she has gone into hiding.
Under longstanding immigration statutes protecting children and those seeking protection, G.Y.J.P. should have been given shelter in a children's facility until she could be released to her mother, and she should have had a full and fair proceeding to determine her right to protection in the United States -- which would have allowed her to reunite permanently with her mother.
"The Trump administration is hiding behind COVID-19 as a way to send children back to grave danger," said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. "Like Trump's horrendous family separation policy, the courts should conclude this latest attack on children is illegal."
The groups are asking the court to declare the use of the order against G.Y.J.P. to be unlawful and allow her to return to have her asylum request heard.
"This isn't some ivory tower legal battle," said Karla M. Vargas, senior attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project. "In our name, the government used a dog to chase a girl into the river and never even bothered to check if she had a mother. Then sent her back to a country where she fears being killed. The administration's racist agenda to end asylum for refugees means dismantling basic protections for the most vulnerable children in the world."
The lawsuit argues that the administration is not authorized to issue the expulsion order under public health provisions in Title 42 of the U.S. Code -- provisions that have rarely been used and never in this way. Title 42 does not permit expulsions of non-citizens who are in the United States, nor does it legally allow the removal of children. Besides violating U.S. immigration law, G.Y.J.P.'s expulsion also violates the nation's international obligations to protect people fleeing persecution and torture.
"G.Y.J.P. arrived at our border fleeing unthinkable violence, desperate to reunite with her mother," said Jamie Crook, CGRS director of litigation. "Under the illegal order, our government sent her right back into harm's way. The pandemic does not absolve the Trump administration of its legal obligations to children like G.Y.J.P. Numerous countries have shown us that it is possible to protect public health while continuing to uphold the rights of refugees."
The case also cites violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Convention Against Torture.
"From our decades of work in Central America, Oxfam knows firsthand the severity of conditions, including persecution and torture, that people are fleeing," said Noah Gottschalk, Oxfam America humanitarian policy lead. "As a global organization working to end the injustice of poverty, defend human rights, and advocate for and with the world's most vulnerable people, we are proud to stand alongside our partners to challenge the Trump administration's continued assault on this country's legacy as a refuge for people fleeing persecution. This lawsuit is a critical step to begin repairing the damage being done by these harmful attacks against our common humanity."
The lawsuit, G.Y.J.P. v. Wolf, was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. The ACLU of Texas and ACLU of D.C. are co-counsel.
Complaint: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/gyjp-v-wolf-complaint
Case details: https://www.aclu.org/cases/gyjp-v-wolf
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"This reward to Big Tech is a disgraceful invitation to reckless behavior by the world’s largest corporations," said one watchdog group.
US President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at preventing state-level regulation of the burgeoning artificial intelligence industry, a gift to tech corporations that bankrolled his inauguration and are currently funding his White House ballroom project.
Trump's order instructs the US Justice Department to establish an AI Litigation Task Force with a single mandate: sue states that enact AI laws that the administration deems "onerous and excessive." The order also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that implement AI regulations.
Public Citizen, a watchdog group that has tracked increasingly aggressive AI influence-peddling in Congress and the administration, said Trump's order "grants his greedy Big Tech buddies’ Christmas wish."
"This reward to Big Tech is a disgraceful invitation to reckless behavior by the world’s largest corporations and a complete override of the federalist principles that Trump and MAGA claim to venerate," said Robert Weissman, Public Citizen's co-president. "Everyone should understand why this is happening: During and since the last election cycle, Big Tech has spent at least $1.1 billion on campaign contributions and lobby expenditures. Big Tech corporations poured money into Trump’s inaugural committee and to pay for his garish White House ballroom. A major Big Tech and AI investor is serving as Trump’s 'AI czar' and driving administration policy."
"While Trump has ensured the federal government is doing almost nothing to address the harms that AI is already causing, states are moving forward with sensible AI regulation," Weissman added. "These include efforts to address political deepfakes, nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, algorithmic pricing manipulation, consumer protection measures, excessive data center electricity and water demand, and much more. Big Tech is whining about these modest measures, but there is zero evidence that these rules are impeding innovation; in fact, they are directing innovation in more positive directions."
Jenna Sherman, a campaign director focused on tech and gender at Ultraviolet Action, said Trump's order "only has one group of winners: his wealthy donors in the tech sector."
"Every other person loses from this wildly unpopular move. And not just in theory, as stripping away state AI regulations puts many—namely, women and children—at risk of real harm," said Sherman. "These harms of AI—which the Trump and the tech sector are clearly happy to ignore—are already here: non-consensual deepfake porn sexualizing women and girls, children being led to suicidal ideation by AI chatbots, and AI-powered scams and crimes targeting older Americans, especially women, to name but a few."
The US Chamber of Commerce and other corporate lobbying organizations representing tech giants such as Microsoft and Google celebrated the order, predictably characterizing it as a win for "small businesses."
The leaders of California and other states that have proposed and finalized AI regulations were defiant in the face of Trump's threats of legal action and funding cuts."
"President Trump and Davis Sacks aren’t making policy—they’re running a con," said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, referring to the scandal-plagued White House AI czar. "Every day, they push the limits to see how far they can take it. California is working on behalf of Americans by building the strongest innovation economy in the nation while implementing commonsense safeguards and leading the way forward."
Trump signed the order after the Republican-controlled Congress repeatedly rejected efforts to tuck a ban on state AI regulations into broader legislation.
"After months of failed lobbying and two defeats in Congress, Big Tech has finally received the return on its ample investment in Donald Trump," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement Thursday. "With this executive order, Trump is delivering exactly what his billionaire benefactors demanded—all at the expense of our kids, our communities, our workers, and our planet."
"A broad, bipartisan coalition in Congress has rejected the AI moratorium again and again," he added, "and I intend to keep that streak going. I will use every tool available to challenge this indefensible and irresponsible power grab. We will defeat it again."
"President Trump betrayed workers," said the head of the AFL-CIO. "Working people delivered a rare bipartisan majority to stop the administration's unprecedented attacks on our freedoms."
US labor leaders on Thursday celebrated the House of Representatives' bipartisan vote in favor of a bill that would reverse President Donald Trump's attack on the collective bargaining rights of 1 million federal workers.
Trump's sweeping assault on federal workers has included March and August executive orders targeting their rights under the guise of protecting national security. In response, Congressmen Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) spearheaded the fight for the Protect America’s Workforce Act. They recently collected enough signatures to force the 231-195 vote, in which 20 Republicans joined all Democrats present to send the bill to the Senate.
"The right to be heard in one's workplace may appear basic, but it carries great weight—it ensures that the people who serve our nation have a seat at the table when decisions shape their work and their mission," Fitzpatrick said after the vote.
"This bill moves us closer to restoring that fundamental protection for nearly 1 million federal employees, many of them veterans," he added. "I will always fight for our workers, and I call on the Senate to help ensure these protections are fully reinstated."
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) president Liz Shuler joined union leaders in applauding the lower chamber on Thursday and calling on the Senate to follow suit. She said in a statement that "President Trump betrayed workers when he tried to rip away our collective bargaining rights. In these increasingly polarized times, working people delivered a rare bipartisan majority to stop the administration's unprecedented attacks on our freedoms."
"We commend the Republicans and Democrats who stood with workers and voted to reverse the single-largest act of union busting in American history," she continued. "Americans trust unions more than either political party. As we turn to the Senate—where the bill already has bipartisan support—working people are calling on the politicians we elected to stand with us, even if it means standing up to the union-busting boss in the White House."
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers union, similarly praised the members of Congress who "demonstrated their support for the nonpartisan civil service, for the dedicated employees who serve our country with honor and distinction, and for the critical role that collective bargaining has in fostering a safe, protective, and collaborative workplace."
"This vote marks an historic achievement for the House's bipartisan pro-labor majority, courageously led by Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania," he said. "We need to build on this seismic victory in the House and get immediate action in the Senate—and also ensure that any future budget bills similarly protect collective bargaining rights for the largely unseen civil servants who keep our government running."
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees president Lee Saunders also applauded the House's passage of "a bill that strengthens federal workers' freedoms on the job so they can continue to keep our nation safe, healthy, and strong."
"This bill not only provides workers' critical protections from an administration that has spent the past year relentlessly attacking them," he noted, "but it also ensures that our communities are served by the most qualified public service workers—not just those with the best political connections."
Randy Erwin, the head of the National Federation of Federal Employees, declared that "this is an incredible testament to the strength of federal employees and the longstanding support for their fundamental right to organize and join a union."
"The president cannot unilaterally strip working people of their constitutional freedom of association. In bipartisan fashion, Congress has asserted their authority to hold the president accountable for the biggest attack on workers that this country has ever seen," he added, thanking the House supporters and pledging to work with "senators from both parties to ensure this bill is signed into law."
"For someone who claims to care about hostages, going to bat for a leader who sacrificed them for his own political survival... is the height of cynicism," said one Israeli critic.
US Sen. John Fetterman recently asked Israel's president to pardon Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is on trial in his country for alleged bribery, fraud, and breach of trust—Talking Points Memo revealed on Thursday.
In a previously unreported December 2 letter sent to Israeli President Isaac Herzog and obtained by TPM, Fetterman (D-Pa.) asserted, “In a world this dangerous, I question whether any democracy can afford to have its head of government spending valuable hours, day after day, in a courtroom rather than the situation room."
“I believe there is a strong case to be made for a pardon—not to erase the past, but to secure the future," Fetterman added.
Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump have also asked Herzog to pardon the beleaguered Israeli prime minister, who in addition to facing domestic criminal charges is also a fugitive from the International Criminal Court, which last year issued a warrant for his arrest for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
Scoop, w the incomparable @kateriga.bsky.social: John Fetterman asked Israel's President to pardon Netanyahu in a previously unreported letter talkingpointsmemo.com/news/fetterm...
[image or embed]
— Josh Kovensky (@joshkovensky.bsky.social) December 11, 2025 at 10:03 AM
Fetterman has taken more than $370,000 in campaign contributions from the pro-Israel lobby, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker. He has been an ardent supporter of Israel's US-backed genocidal war on Gaza, which has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing and 2 million others forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
In addition to repeatedly opposing calls by progressive members of his own party for an arms embargo on Israel, Fetterman has amplified Israeli claims regarding the war, and even giddily accepted a silver-plated beeper gifted by Netanyahu following the September 2024 pager bombings that killed at least 20 people in Lebanon, including children.
Asked Thursday about his letter to Herzog, Fetterman said, "I fully support it" and called the TPM's reporting "a pointless distraction."
“I know you guys use things like leaks, but I don’t know who did that," he told TPM reporters Kate Riga and Josh Kovensky, who broke news of the letter.
Responding to theTPM article, Israeli journalist Etan Nechin said on social media that "for someone who claims to care about hostages, going to bat for a leader who sacrificed them for his own political survival... is the height of cynicism"—a reference to allegations that Netanyahu prolonged the war, and thus the release of the more than 250 Israelis and others abducted by Hamas during the October 7, 2023 attack, in order to delay his corruption trial.