

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.

Following the confirmation of the 200th judge nominated by Donald Trump, Demand Justice announced it is calling for the next Democratic president to dramatically expand the number of circuit and district judgeships and to fill the new judgeships with a diverse set of candidates to undo the damage Trump has done to the diversity of the courts.
Demand Justice Chief Counsel Christopher Kang said:
"President Obama picked the most diverse judicial nominees in history, but Mitch McConnell blocked them with the fewest confirmations in generations, so he could leave more than 100 vacancies for Donald Trump to fill. Trump has done so overwhelmingly with young, white men who have done enormous damage to our courts' diversity and legitimacy.
"Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans alike have failed for decades to add the judges we need to keep up with the number of cases being filed. If he is elected, Joe Biden needs to make repairing the damage done to our courts by decades of neglect and Trump's bad picks a top priority. Expanding the number of district and circuit court seats will make our courts more efficient and effective, and it will give Biden an opportunity to appoint a diverse group of judges to counterbalance Donald Trump's overwhelmingly white and male picks. It should be a top priority for the White House and Congressional leadership."
Though Congress routinely increased the number of judges to keep up with population and number of cases filed throughout the 20th Century, the number has not been significantly increased since 1990. The Judicial Conference, the national policy-making body for the federal courts, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, has recommended creating a significant number of new judgeships to help address the significant increase in the number of cases now being filed.
Trump has nominated more than one-fifth of all federal judges, and he has selected the least diverse set of judges of any president since George H. W. Bush, including zero African American circuit judges and only one Hispanic circuit judge.
Demand Justice is a progressive movement fighting to restore the ideological balance and legitimacy of the federal courts by advocating for court reform and vigorously opposing extreme nominees.
"Wherever there is resistance to this industry, more people learn that they are not powerless and that they can play a role in determining what happens in their community and with the future of AI and data centers," one organizer said.
As the national backlash against hyperscale data centers and the artificial intelligence they power grows, hundreds of people turned out to 19 events across Washington state on Sunday as part of a day of action to demand a statewide moratorium on data centers.
The call for a Washington-wide pause builds on momentum at the city and county level, as Seattle became the largest US city to halt the data center buildout in June, followed by other major municipalities including Spokane and Tacoma’s Pierce County.
Several of the communities that organized events on Sunday are also trying to stop projects already planned in their backyards. But concerned residents across the state—mobilized under the banner of Washington AI Resistance (WAAIR) in partnership with several other environmental and public interest organizations—want state-level protections to ensure that no community falls through the regulatory cracks. To do that, they aimed to raise their voices louder than the powerful Big Tech lobby in a state where both Microsoft and Amazon have headquarters.
"Communities have a right to determine which industries get to move into their backyards."
“We need to demonstrate to candidates and sitting legislators that there is real public demand for a data center moratorium in every corner of the state,” Evan Sutton, a Seattle-based activist with WAAIR, told Common Dreams.
Lauren Redfield, WAAIR president and co-chair of the Seattle Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Ecosocialism working group, said the day of action was significant “because it demonstrates wide-ranging support from diverse communities across Washington that people are angry about data centers.”
“Communities have a right to clean air, clean water, affordable energy. Communities have a right to determine which industries get to move into their backyards. Representatives who are more responsive to the tech industry than their community constituents, who are allowing data centers to drive up electricity prices and pollute air, water, and land systems—these representatives are going to be held accountable,” Redfield told Common Dreams.

In Seattle, activists held four separate events over the course of the day: one at a freeway bridge in the north of the city, another in West Seattle, a third outside the light rail station in the south Seattle neighborhood of Beacon Hill, and a fourth at a central square of the University of Washington.
Sutton, who organized the north Seattle action, said it was important to look beyond local regulations and stand in solidarity with communities across the state.
“In the end our natural resources are shared by everyone,” he told Common Dreams, explaining that Seattle's moratorium might push developers to look to unincorporated parts of the county, and if Seattle’s King County passed a moratorium, they would then turn to other parts of the state.
“We shouldn't have to play whack-a-mole with billionaire developers and AI tech bros,” Sutton said as passing cars honked in support of the protest. “Our legislature should step up and pass rules that everybody has to follow everywhere in the state.”
Thomas Meyer, the deputy political director of Food & Water Watch, who led a group of 10 volunteers in distributing flyers and gathering signatures for a moratorium in Beacon Hill, said that “data centers in Seattle are most likely to be proposed in the south end or in nearby cities like Tukwila, Burien, and Renton. Just like in other parts of the state and the country, data centers are more often proposed in areas with larger populations of people of color.”
Indeed, a study by Washington environmental justice group Front and Centered found that 57% of the data centers it surveyed were placed in census tracts with the highest proportion of people of color.
“It's important to pass a data center moratorium to protect Washington residents from the pollution and extraction from these facilities, and to prevent big tech companies from further concentrating their wealth and power at our expense,” Meyer told Common Dreams.

In Wenatchee in central Washington, concerned residents gathered by the Loop Trail along the Columbia River and asked passersby if they would like to see a data center moratorium.
“We had them sign their initials on a poster board under ‘YES’ or ‘NO,’ one of the organizers explained. “During the time that we were there, we collected 24 ‘YESes’ and zero ‘NOs.’"
The activists plan to bring the board to a meeting with Chelan County Commissioner Kevin Overbay on Wednesday to oppose data centers in Malaga, an unincorporated community in the county.
“Malaga is ground zero for hyperscale data centers in Chelan County, and currently hosts a 288 megawatt Microsoft data center,” the organizer said. “We want to show Overbay that the Wenatchee community as a whole does not want to see any more data centers. The Columbia is the lifeblood of our community. It provides us with power as well as water. These resources do not belong to private corporations like Microsoft to use as they please.”
While Wenatchee is focused on the county fight, a statewide moratorium would ease their efforts.
“A statewide moratorium would save us from having to spend our time fighting for a moratorium on a county-wide level,” the organizer said. “We could spend our time fighting instead for long-term protections to ensure that our region is permanently protected from exploitation.”

In Olympia, the state capital, activists gathered to put pressure on state Rep. Beth Doglio (D-22). Doglio introduced a bill in the 2026 legislative session with some basic data center regulations that was watered down due to pressure from the tech lobby before dying in committee. Protesters wanted Doglio to know she would have public support to back a moratorium and push for stronger regulations.
“Washington needs to halt the out-of-control tech oligarchs with a moratorium on data center construction,” said Tina Simcich of Olympia DSA. “Working-class jobs and our land, water, energy, and air resources must be protected from this greed-driven grab.”

In Walla Walla, residents are mobilizing to stop a planned Amazon data center after the Port of Walla Walla sold land to the company in the nearby Wallula Gap.
“Everyone has their own concerns” about the proposed data center—which is projected to use as much power as Seattle–Allison Carney, a member of the Walla Walla Anti Data Center League, told Common Dreams, “whether it be not knowing if their power bills are going to go up, not knowing if their land is going to be seized through eminent domain,” water pollution and availability, noise, light, and the fact that it will be located near the McNary National Wildlife Refuge and could potentially harm endangered wildlife.
However, she said, “The biggest thing that unites everyone's concerns is the fact that we don't trust Amazon. We don't trust this company coming into our community. We don't trust that they're going to be doing what's best for us. We trust that they're going to do what's best for their profits."
Beginning at 2:00 pm PT on Sunday, around 60 people attended a rally and march in downtown Walla Walla to the County Office of Community Development, where Community Development Department Director Melissa Shumake will determine whether to require a full environmental impact statement for the project, something community members are demanding.
A statewide pause would assist in their efforts by increasing the chance that any data center would be governed by stronger rules to protect the community and environment.
“A statewide moratorium would give time for regulators to catch up with this industry,” Carney said.

The largest action of the day took place starting at 3:30 pm PT in Spokane, where 150 people marched from Riverfront Park, past the City Hall and the Public Works Building where the County Commission meets, and back to the park to say, "This is what we're fighting for: our river,” Zenthia Peterson, the lead organizer for the event, told Common Dreams.
Demonstrators, including members of WAAIR, 350 Spokane, the Visibility Brigade, West Plains Water Coalition, and long-time local environmental campaigner Terry Horne, demanded statewide action but also expressed concern about how local data centers would impact a region already under pressure from the climate crisis. The march came about two months after a devastating wildfire scorched Spokane in August, destroying homes and forcing 600,000 to evacuate. Locals are concerned that a large data center could deplete the water resources needed to fight the next blaze.
“We're doing a march tomorrow to save the literal world."
In particular, activists are watching a 1,000-megawatt project slated for the nearby community of Airway Heights, outside the bounds of the city moratorium. While Spokane County has also announced a pause, it ends in December. It is unclear whether it will be extended, and the ordinance that was supposed to follow it has been delayed.
These concerns make a statewide moratorium all the more important, Peterson said, as that “would protect us even if the county sits on their asses."
Organizers had intended to have participants call Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson to demand state action, only to discover the night before that he had turned off his voicemail. Peterson encouraged participants to call him during the week instead.
"My speech was quite literally, ‘May you get bit back tenfold,” Peterson said, referring to Ferguson.
Jeremiah Harding, who organizes with WAAIR and the Spokane Community Organized Response Network, also decried the use of AI technology for layoffs, mass surveillance, and military targeting.
“We're doing a march tomorrow to save the literal world,” Harding told Common Dreams the night before the protest.
He continued: “It's bad enough that it pollutes the environment and fills the air with noise, while draining our water and destroying local homes. It's bad enough that Spokane just had the single largest fire in our history, and we need all the water we can get. But the technology itself is also used to disempower, leech, destroy, and kill people.”

Now that the day of action has passed, WAAIR will continue to put pressure on state lawmakers and Gov. Ferguson, Sutton told Common Dreams. After the November election, activists will also seek out lawmakers to sponsor moratorium legislation and other AI regulations while “pushing forward with future actions that people can take to make sure that legislators understand this isn’t an issue they can ignore.”
At the same time, organizers realize that the actions in Washington are part of a national struggle.
Meyer of Food & Water Watch said Washington was "one of dozens of states with active grassroots campaigns against data centers. Wherever there is resistance to this industry, more people learn that they are not powerless and that they can play a role in determining what happens in their community and with the future of AI and data centers.”
Within that broader movement, Washington may have a unique role to play, Sutton said.
“As the home of Microsoft and Amazon and a state that is deeply tied to Big Tech, if we can achieve this here, then I think it creates momentum for states everywhere else to believe that they can do the same,” he told Common Dreams.
Editor’s note: Olivia Rosane is a member of WAAIR and Seattle DSA.
"Walmart has amassed the most intimate information about its customers and is developing the technology that can be used to put that data to work at checkout," said Lindsay Owens of Groundwork Collaborative.
As Walmart attempted to debunk research into its pricing practices by watchdog group Groundwork Collaborative on Monday, the organization released a new report detailing more than a dozen patents the $833 billion corporation holds or has applied for—all aimed at monitoring customers' behavior to determine what products to market to them, deceiving them about an item's price, and upcharging them.
“Corporations don’t spend years building high-tech pricing tools, hiring experts, and filing patents just to let them collect dust. They do it because they see a path to higher profit—one that runs right through everyday consumers’ budgets," said Lindsay Owens, president and CEO of Groundwork and the author of the book Gouged: The End of a Fair Price—And What That Means for Your Wallet.
On Monday, Owens and Elizabeth Pancotti, Groundwork's vice president of policy, advocacy, and research, released “The Walmart Watchtower: Patents Speak Louder Than Pledges,” noting that Walmart CEO John Furner just recently attempted to do damage control on Owens' reporting in Gouged regarding the company's artificial intelligence-enabled pricing tactics.
While Walmart executives have "openly touted" the ability of "Sparky," the AI shopping assistant the company launched last year, to push customers to spend an average of 40% more during a shopping trip, Furner insisted last month that Walmart will "price the product, not the person.”
But Groundwork said that beyond its deployment of Sparky, "Walmart’s own investments and patents suggest that the retail giant is building a vast arsenal of tools that can be used to track shoppers and even potentially determine what they pay."
The report reveals that technology patented by Walmart can:
The company has also filed applications for technology that could:
"Walmart has amassed the most intimate information about its customers and is developing the technology that can be used to put that data to work at checkout," said Owens. "Shoppers will have to decide whether to believe Walmart’s patent applications or its PR statements.”
As the report was released, Dan Bartlett, Walmart's executive vice president of corporate affairs, released a public letter accusing Owens of "mischaracterizations" regarding the company's pricing practices.
"Walmart does not and will not use an individual customer’s personal information, income, shopping history, urgency, or willingness to pay to set an individualized price," said Barlett. "We do not engage in dynamic pricing, raising prices in response to a hot afternoon or an approaching snowstorm, for example."
He also said Groundwork has wrongly taken Walmart's patents "as evidence that we will pursue individualized or dynamic pricing," and said the company has "committed not to."
Although Bartlett denied that the company uses AI to upcharge customers, Walmart US CEO Dave Guggina told investors just last month that “when customers engage with Sparky, their average order value jumps 40%.”
Owens responded to Bartlett's letter by saying that any "confusion around Walmart’s pricing practices is of its own making."
"Walmart says one thing in its damage-control letters to customers, another to its investors behind closed doors, and a different thing entirely to the United States Patent and Trademark Office," said Owens.
She called on Walmart to publicly release information about "what data Sparky can see, how that information shapes the recommendations and purchases it makes, and whether sensitive consumer information could be exposed, misused, or used against shoppers," especially considering recent hacking incidents by AI models.
"The arsenal of technologies the company is building that can be used to profile and track us should worry every American who is concerned about their privacy and pocketbooks," Owens said. "This personal data, according to Walmart’s own patents, is a critical element of the new pricing strategies the company is developing."
The report on Walmart's patents released by Groundwork on Monday, said Owens, will allow Americans to "decide for themselves" whether to believe executives' denials.
"Federal law prohibits officeholders from controlling a super PAC or directing its spending," noted one campaign finance expert.
Facing widespread backlash, President Donald Trump said late Monday that he would stop unlawfully funding political ads with taxpayer dollars and instead use money from a pro-Trump super PAC—a scheme that watchdogs said would also be illegal.
Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social that he has "decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc." The president's announcement came amid growing outrage over his administration's use of more than $10 million in taxpayer funds for political propaganda, a violation of federal law.
But Brendan Fischer, director of strategic investigations at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), said Trump's new scheme to finance the ads with super PAC cash would also run afoul of federal law.
"After charging taxpayers $10 million for thinly-veiled campaign ads, Trump now says he'll have his super PAC pay instead. One problem: Federal law prohibits officeholders from controlling a super PAC or directing its spending," said Fischer, who noted that his organization "has already filed a complaint" against the president for directing MAGA Inc. spending.
CLC's complaint, filed last month, notes that Trump and his allies have openly indicated that he controls MAGA Inc., in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
“President Trump’s repeated assertions that he controls a super PAC show that he has committed a clear-cut violation of campaign finance law,” said Saurav Ghosh, CLC's director of federal campaign finance reform. “Our laws are clear: No federal officeholder or candidate is allowed to direct the money raised or spent by a super PAC. President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption.”
The recent ads launched by the Trump White House just weeks ahead of the November midterms were funded by money from the Department of Homeland Security. Major networks, including CNN and MS NOW, faced intense backlash for airing the ads even though they were financed illegally.
"These campaign ads never should have run on the taxpayer’s dime to begin with. Clearly wrong. Clearly illegal," Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) said following Trump's announcement on Monday. "But there’s a lesson here: We can’t underestimate the difference that citizens can make in our country when they speak out and hold their leaders to account."
A recent analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that donors to the MAGA Inc. super PAC include:
“The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history," said one campaigner. "Eventually, it will be held to account.”
The US Supreme Court on Monday appeared skeptical of efforts by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to prevent a Colorado climate liability lawsuit from going to trial, with justices across the ideological spectrum questioning the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for shutting down the case before evidence of their alleged deception can be heard.
The case—Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County—could determine the fate of nearly 60 similar lawsuits filed by states, counties, cities, and Indigenous tribes seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate-related harms.
Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor in 2018, alleging that the companies knew for decades about the dangers associated with burning fossil fuels while misleading the public about those risks. The city and county seek compensation for costs associated with wildfires, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and other climate impacts.
The companies, backed by the Trump administration, argue that federal law preempts the state law claims because greenhouse gas pollution crosses state and national borders. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in May 2025 that the climate lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor could proceed under state law.
Today at the Supreme Court, my home town of Boulder, Colorado is going head-to-head against ExxonMobil in a case that could determine the future of climate litigation and holding Big Oil accountable for the toll of its harms and lies.Boulder County residents who have lost homes and health spoke.
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) October 5, 2026 at 7:55 AM
Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney for the companies, contended in oral arguments Monday that climate accountability lawsuits "reflect an all-too-regrettable trend of trying to resolve political issues in court rather than in the political branches where they belong.”
However, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared unconvinced that the interstate argument means that state courts can't consider climate claims.
“There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of a state has broad effects among other states,” the conservative justice said, “and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation that affects that.”
Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, also pressed the companies over their claim that federalism prevents Boulder’s lawsuit from proceeding. Kagan repeatedly demanded a legal foundation for the argument, asking: “Where’s the text for that? Where’s the support for that? Where’s the precedent for that?”
Kagan also compared the case to successful lawsuits against tobacco and opioid companies, calling the fossil fuel cases “Chapter 3” in that legal history.
“This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm,” she said. “And I guess I’m not understanding how this one would be preempted, and the other is not?”
Climate defenders rallied outside the Supreme Court Monday as the justices heard oral arguments in the case.
Corey Riday-White, legal director at the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Monday that "Big Oil’s desperation to escape trial for climate deception is still in search of a legal justification. Justices across the ideological spectrum asked good, skeptical questions that poked holes in Big Oil’s attempt to stop Boulder’s case before it can go to trial."
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct, and the people of Boulder should have their day in court to present the evidence of Exxon and Suncor’s deception," he added.
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said Monday that “today’s oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder were the latest act in Big Oil’s desperate attempt to preempt state tort lawsuits and prevent evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s campaign of deception from being heard in court."
"ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy’s efforts to evade accountability hinge on misrepresenting Boulder’s lawsuit as an attempt to regulate emissions," she stressed.
“This last-ditch effort before the Supreme Court is part of a coordinated, well-resourced push to shut down fossil fuel accountability efforts across the country," Mulvey noted. "So far, Big Oil has not achieved its top federal lobbying priority—a bill to grant the industry sweeping immunity from climate laws and lawsuits such as Boulder’s."
“Communities deserve to have their day in court," she added. "The Supreme Court should let this case be heard on its merits in Colorado, and Congress must not stand in the way by gifting Big Oil a get-out-of-jail-free card.”
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct."
In August, UCS and other experts filed an amicus brief in the case "offering a historical account of ExxonMobil’s and Suncor Energy’s concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products."
The brief notes that in 1965, "Frank Ikard, then president of the American Petroleum Institute, informed the organization’s member companies—including Exxon and Suncor’s predecessor Sun Oil—that then-President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee had concluded continued fossil fuel combustion could produce significant climatic changes by the end of the 20th century."
"Ikard warned industry leaders the report would generate significant public concern, noting that ‘there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out,'" the brief added.
In 1977, an Exxon senior scientist briefed company leadership that the “general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Exxon then conducted rigorous research on the matter, and concluded in a 1982 internal document that there was “little doubt” that atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising due to fossil fuel burning and that the resulting greenhouse effect “would warm the Earth’s surface, causing changes in climate affecting atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, and … potentially melting the polar ice caps.”
Despite this, starting in the late 1980s, Exxon—later ExxonMobil—publicly stressed uncertainties, questioned models, and supported organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition that challenged the need for climate action.
Local governments sued to hold Big Oil accountable. So on Monday, with backing from the Trump administration, fossil fuel companies like Suncor will ask the Supreme Court to let them off the hook for their lies. Why? Because giant corporations know they have an ally in the corrupt Roberts majority.
[image or embed]
— Demand Justice (@wedemandjustice.bsky.social) October 2, 2026 at 9:28 AM
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's Climate Program, said Monday that “this case is about whether local communities experiencing devastating climate harms should get their day in court against Big Oil companies that spread climate deception."
"The fossil fuel industry has been going to extraordinary lengths to attack these climate cases, not just asking the Supreme Court to end the lawsuits, but also pushing Congress and state legislatures to grant fossil fuel companies immunity from all climate-related liability," Arkush noted.
"The current offensive isn’t just about defeating the cases. It’s also about preventing the public from learning the extent and severity of the industry’s wrongdoing," he continued. "It’s about fossil fuel CEOs’ profound fear of sitting in front of a jury of 12 Americans and trying to defend their companies’ deceptive conduct—because they know it’s indefensible."
“Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Suncor, it’s hard to imagine these companies can bury the evidence and escape accountability indefinitely," Arkush added. "The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history. Eventually, it will be held to account.”
The justices are expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Far-right Justice Samuel Alito—who holds stock in fossil fuel companies facing dozens of lawsuits that could be affected by the Suncor decision—last week recused himself from the case, leaving his eight colleagues to decide it, and raising the prospect of a 4-4 split that would leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling intact.
Hundreds of people have been arrested in recent days at youth-led protests over the removal of more than 130 million names from voter rolls.
As one advocate warned India's Supreme Court on Monday that "this country will burn" unless action is taken to stop what thousands of protesters have denounced as an illegal purge of voters by the head of the country's Election Commission, the court demanded accountability from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said in a hearing that the court had not approved changes to a new form used by the Election Commission of India for registering new voters, contradicting a statement from the ECI last month which said the document had been upheld by the court.
"Modified Form 6 has not been approved by us, let us be very clear," said Kant.
The court called on Modi's government, the ECI, and the head of the commission, Gyanesh Kumar, to answer "in a clear, transparent manner” for the massive upheaval of the national voter rolls, from which more than 130 million names have been removed in recent months.
The changes to the voter list have sparked calls for Kumar's resignation, particularly at protests that have erupted across the country, led by student groups and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a political movement led by young people whom Kant compared to cockroaches earlier this year.
The group's website declares, "Gyanesh, it's done, bro," and thousands of people have joined protests like those that forced the resignation of India's education minister over the summer.
Last week, hundreds of protesters were detained, with journalists reportedly among those who were arrested—prompting outcry from Amnesty International over the government's "blatant attack on the rights to liberty and freedom of peaceful assembly."
In New Delhi in particular, police have been denounced for their aggressive response to the uprising, forcing hundreds of people into police vehicles. Authorities said they were investigating reports that officers had sexually assaulted three journalists at the protests over the weekend.
The Supreme Court took up two petitions Monday, questioning the credibility of the ECI's efforts to "purify" the voter rolls, as the commission has said, and calling for an independent inquiry into Kumar's management of the "special intensive revision" (SIR) process.
Another hearing will be held later this week.
Kant said the court wanted a response from Kumar and the commission about allegations that decisions about the SIR were made unilaterally by Kumar. Media reports last month said the two other ECI commissioners had objected to the revision of voter rolls, which the government has claimed is aimed at eliminating duplicates and the names of dead and ineligible voters, as well as "illegal infiltrators."
People across Delhi and states including Bihar and West Bengal have said they were wrongly removed from voter rolls, and protesters have said the revision appeared to target Muslim voters, who have opposed Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party.
Protesters on Monday symbolically posed as dead people to show that voters have been wrongly eliminated from voter rolls, despite still being alive and eligible to participate in elections.
“Deletions of voters have been made in the largest democracy,” Menaka Guruswamy, a lawyer for one of the petitioners who brought the cases to the Supreme Court, told The Guardian. “We have grown up with free and fair elections, that is not the case now.”
"The argument that I think we continue to need to learn is that less war in the world is usually safer."
Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed on Monday schooled Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum about President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
While appearing on MacCallum's show, the Michigan Democrat made the case that Trump's war, which he launched without congressional authorization in February, was one "we shouldn't be fighting."
"Why are we fighting this war, to what end?" El-Sayed asked. "Who benefits from it? Why did we do this? What are we paying for it?"
El-Sayed: Why are we fighting this war?FOX: Iran created a huge threat to the neighborhoodEl-Sayed: The nuclear threat had been contained. FOX: I don't know, they had been breaking JCPOA by many estimations. El-Sayed: By estimations people like to cherry-pick, sure https://t.co/qYiCeq4lB3
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 5, 2026
MacCallum responded that Iran "created a huge threat" in the Middle East, and pointed to Iran's role in the 1983 bombing of a barracks that was housing US Marines in Beirut, Lebanon as evidence.
El-Sayed noted that former President Barack Obama had signed a deal with Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program, which Trump scrapped during his first term even though Iran was complying with the terms of the agreement at the time.
"Donald Trump came and tore that agreement up, and then, in his second administration, created a war that the people of Michigan are now paying for," said El-Sayed. "Then you ask yourself, does more war make us actually safer? And the argument that I think we continue to need to learn is that less war in the world is usually safer."
"We're in a situation right now where we could have chosen peace," he added. "And instead we chose war. And right, you've got a situation with the Strait of Hormuz where we can't move oil and gas."
Elsewhere in the interview, El-Sayed explained his rationale for raising taxes on the wealthy, whom MacCallum credited with making the US the "engine of the world."
FOX: I understand thinking that some people have too much money. We are engine of the world for these things and people end up being billionaires as a result. El-Sayed: The issue is not that some people have too much money. It’s that the engine that created their opportunity to make money is being underfunded…FOX: You said you wanted to choke them out.El-Sayed: I don't want to choke anyone out. I want to make sure everyone can breathe. Right now, you have an economy where people are getting choked out because they don’t have the basic means for a dignified life because we are more focused on allowing a billionaire to make another billion…
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 5, 2026
"I would rather live in a society where, rather than a billionaire making a second billion, I'm invested in a public school," he said, "so that some kid out there gets a great education, gets to participate in capitalism, builds an amazing business, and gets to make money too."
"I don't want to choke anyone out," El-Sayed explained. "I want to make sure everyone can breathe. Right now, you have an economy where people are getting choked out because they don’t have the basic means for a dignified life because we're all a lot more focused on allowing a billionaire to make a second, third, fifth billion than we are in making sure a kid gets good schools."
"In several cases, AI recommended banning books that were banned elsewhere, creating a snowball effect for frequently banned books while the expertise of librarians and the communities they serve are ignored."
PEN America released a report on Monday documenting nearly 12,000 book bans involving more than 7,300 individual titles in US schools during the 2025-2026 school year, which the organization said were the largest censorship case numbers it had ever recorded.
The state of Texas accounted for more than 8,100 book bans—roughly three-fourths of the nationwide total and more than double that of Florida, which was the second-most censorious state with over 3,200 book bans.
PEN America said that the surge in Texas book bans came from SB 13, a state law passed in 2025 that banned a broad array of books that censorship proponents view as "profane" or "indecent."
According to PEN America, the Texas book bans carried out over the last year have been particularly broad because officials in the state used artificial intelligence to make a recommended list of banned books.
"In several cases, AI recommended banning books that were banned elsewhere," the report notes, "creating a snowball effect for frequently banned books while the expertise of librarians and the communities they serve are ignored."
Sold, a 2006 young adult novel by journalist Patricia McCormick about a teenage girl in Nepal who gets sold into sexual slavery, was the most frequently banned book in the US.
Popular horror writer Stephen King was the most banned individual author, according to the report.
Kasey Meehan, director of PEN America’s Freedom to Read program, said that banning popular young adult titles was a particularly harmful policy given the broad decline in reading throughout the US.
"Schools should be doing everything possible to connect kids with reading by introducing them to engaging stories and formats," Meehan said. "Instead, many are doing the opposite, banning books that help kids see themselves in literature, deepen their understanding and empathy of others, and develop their imaginations."
Philomena Polefrone, senior manager of the Freedom to Read program, said the broad books bans documented by the PEN America report are due to "chilling directives from state politicians" that "have created chaos and fear."
"Unsure how to comply, districts are removing books en masse, sometimes with the ‘help’ of crude AI tools that only make the problem worse," Polefrone said. "Increasingly, these bans are invisible. Thousands of these cases are only recorded because of public information requests by Florida Freedom to Read and Texas Freedom to Read. Books paid for by taxpayers are being removed from shelves and the local community may not even know about it."
"As long as there are US military bases in Okinawa, such incidents will occur," said one former Japanese senator.
Anger over the US military presence in Okinawa is growing anew this week after Japanese police arrested a Marine Corps lance corporal accused of robbing and murdering a local woman, prompting protests and renewed calls for a revision of the US-Japan Status of Forces Agreement and even the removal of American bases.
Lance Cpl. Devin Jacob Ballard, 20, who is stationed at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, was arrested Sunday on suspicion of killing 39-year-old Anna Yagi at the Naminoue Crustal Hotel in Naha early Saturday and stealing her wallet and backpack. Yagi died from asphyxiation caused by pressure to her neck, according to Okinawa police. Ballard has denied the allegations.
The Japan Times reported that area surveillance cameras captured footage of a man with "distinctive features," including tattoos on both arms and a shaved head, leaving the hotel carrying the woman’s backpack, which was later found nearby.
The killing sparked protests in Okinawa and Tokyo.
"How much longer do we have to bear this?" one protester asked outside the Okinawa prefectural government headquarters in Naha, according to Jiji Press.
A woman in her 40s from Nago said, "I feel it's a contradiction that a serviceman stationed at a US military base in Okinawa to protect Japan has killed a civilian."
Another woman at the protest said, "I don't want to see any more people hurt."
The advocacy group Femibridge Okinawa said on social media: "Anger has reached its boiling point. We don't want to hear words like 'refrain from commenting.'"
On Monday, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi—who leads the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and supports US troops in Japan as a strategic deterrent to China—condemned the "heinous crime" in a speech to the Kokkai, or Parliament.
“The Japanese government has lodged a strong protest with the US side and has strongly demanded full cooperation with the investigation," she added, "as well as strict disciplinary action against US military personnel and thorough measures to prevent a recurrence of such incidents."
Okinawa Gov. Genta Koja, who has no party affiliation but was elected last month with LDP support, issued a statement Sunday calling Yagi's killing "absolutely unforgivable."
"I feel deeply outraged," he continued. "It has come as a great shock to residents of the prefecture, who are forced to live in close proximity to bases, and has sparked fresh anxiety."
“Although the prefecture has consistently demanded that the US military take measures to prevent recurrence whenever such incidents have occurred in the past, the fact that this type of incident has happened again compels us to conclude that the US military’s efforts to maintain discipline and educate its personnel are completely ineffective," Koja added.
US Ambassador to Japan George Glass—who on Sunday was summoned by Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi over Yagi's killing—on Monday expressed his condolences and pledged "full cooperation" with investigators.
“I am speaking with US military commanders this week about how we continue to hold our American service members to the very highest levels of discipline and integrity,” he said, according to The Japan Times.
The Third Marine Expeditionary Force also said it was “actively cooperating" with Japanese officials in regard to the case, and that the US Marine Corps "takes these allegations very seriously and expects every Marine to adhere to the highest standards of behavior."
In Naha, Okinawa's prefectural capital, residents expressed their anxiety over the continued US military presence.
One 53-year-old woman said she has been "afraid to walk at night" in Naha.
"If we do not change the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement, the crime of US soldiers will not decrease," she asserted.
Hidekiyo Shinkawa, 89, expressed outrage over the number of people killed by US troops in Okinawa over the past eight decades.
"When I was a junior high school student, a classmate of mine died after being hit by a US military vehicle," Shinkawa told Kumamoto Nichinichi Shimbun.
Okinawa was under US occupation from 1945-72. Today, the southern archipelago hosts 70% of US military bases in Japan and most of the 50,000 troops stationed in the country.
While many Okinawans appreciate the economic and security benefits of having US bases in their backyards, distrust of American troops in Okinawa—which was conquered during the closing months of World War II at the cost of over 100,000 civilian lives—runs deep.
Okinawans have been trying in vain to get the Americans to leave since the beginning of the occupation, when property was seized at gunpoint, residents were expelled, and homes and farms were bulldozed or burned. The Americans promised Okinawans good farmland and financial aid if they resettled in Bolivia. Thousands accepted the offer only to find themselves shipped off to an inhospitable wilderness where many died from disease. Much of the promised assistance was never delivered.
In Okinawa, the US military built more than 100 military facilities—over 30 of which are still in operation—on a series of islands roughly the size of Los Angeles. Washington forced the Japanese government to accept status of forces agreements that gave the US jurisdiction over all American personnel on Japanese soil.
US troops stationed in or visiting Okinawa have committed thousands of crimes, including at least dozens of murders and over 100 alleged rapes. In one six-month period in 1949, US troops killed 29 Okinawans and raped 18 more, including a 9-month-old infant.
The US military has also fired and lost nuclear weapons in local waters, leaked the deadly nerve agent sarin, and exposed residents to chlorine gas, to name but a handful of the most egregious environmental incidents over the decades.
Although the 1995 gang-rape of a 12-year-old girl by two Marines and a sailor led to a revision of the US-Japan SOFA so that Japanese authorities could convict and imprison Americans who commit the most heinous offenses—a development that led to scores of convictions—crimes against Okinawans and the local environment continue to this day.
On Monday, Koja argued in the wake of Yagi's killing that “to ensure that such an incident never happens again, I strongly urge the Japanese and US governments to take responsibility and implement effective, fundamental measures—including a review of the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement.”
Some Japanese went even further, demanding an end to US bases in Okinawa.
"As long as there are US military bases in Okinawa, such incidents will occur, and the fear that such incidents will occur and that they may happen in the future will continue," wrote Keiko Itokazu, a former leftist lawmaker in the House of Councillors, the Kokkai's upper chamber.
"How long will this pain and sorrow be felt by the people, especially women?" she added. "Such incidents have been repeated in the past, and each time the government and the US military have said that they will provide proper education to US soldiers... But is this the result of education?"
Former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said on social media: "Once again, an incident that should never have happened has occurred. A woman was murdered in a hotel in Naha City, and a Marine was arrested."
"Far from protecting Japan's peace, the safety of women in Okinawa is being threatened," he added. "As the nature of warfare changes, the Marines are no longer necessary for Japan's peace. Voices calling for the Marines to leave will likely grow louder in Okinawa."
"Trump is once again in power, and he is again telling us his plan. He has weaponized the entire federal government—including the Department of Justice and the US Postal Service—to make voting more difficult."
With just four weeks to go until the 2026 midterm elections, democracy watchdogs are warning that President Donald Trump is breaking the law in a desperate bid to retain Republican control of the US Congress.
A Monday report in USA Today highlighted the unprecedented steps that Trump is taking to rig the midterms for the GOP, ranging from his promises to pay every American $5,000 if Republicans retain Congress, to his efforts to get the US Postal Service to not deliver ballots to voters, to his push to have Republican-led states redraw their electoral maps in the middle of the decade.
Adav Noti, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, told USA Today that the president has shown he is willing to behave lawlessly to keep power.
"I think the president is trying to use all of the powers at his disposal to control the election results, and almost all of those efforts are illegal," Noti said, "but that has not deterred the administration."
Noti added that Trump has gone well above and beyond what any past president has done to meddle in elections.
"We've never seen anything like this before," he said. "The issue of the president of the United States using the powers of the presidency to try to control the election. That is a new development with this election."
In an analysis published by Democracy Docket on Monday, election attorney Marc Elias warned that Trump in the coming weeks could take even more extreme steps, many of which he has already mused about publicly.
"Trump is once again in power, and he is again telling us his plan," Elias explained. "He has weaponized the entire federal government—including the Department of Justice and the US Postal Service—to make voting more difficult."
The "most dangerous" threat Trump has made, Elias continued, has related to the counting, tabulation, and certification of votes.
"Despite what the US Constitution says, he has repeatedly claimed the power to direct this process," Elias warned. "This is not a new idea. It has been his plan all along."
Elias also slammed the US media for continuing to downplay Trump's authoritarian attacks on democracy, arguing that the press has learned nothing since the president incited a violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Elias isn't alone in his concern about another January 6-style event.
In an interview that aired on CBS News Sunday, retiring US Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) was asked about the potential for Trump to try to overturn Democratic victories in this year's elections, and he expressed real concern.
"I think there's a risk," Tillis said. "I really do. It would be another political unforced error if we do that."
Condemning the "illegal campaign of extrajudicial killings" as "murder at sea," Amnesty International USA asked, "Where is Congress to stop the horror?"
US President Donald Trump's boat-bombing spree continued on Sunday despite condemnation from around the world, claiming four more lives and bringing the death toll from the 13-month campaign to at least 238.
Sharing a video of the strike, US Southern Command said on social media late Sunday that "under the direction of SOUTHCOM, Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere executed a lethal, kinetic strike on a go-fast vessel operating along established narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean."
"Confirmed intelligence revealed the vessel's active involvement in narco-trafficking," SOUTHCOM continued, without offering any evidence, as with at least 70 previous strikes since September 2025. "The operation killed four narco-terrorists."
Citing a federal memo that it aims to keep concealed from the public, the Trump administration claims to be at war with drug cartels and that the killings in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean are justified. Legal experts and human rights advocates argue the bombings are at least war crimes, if not outright murder.
Sunday's strike was the administration's first confirmed boat bombing since Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, said last month that even if the targeted vessels were engaged in drug trafficking, there are no "international legal rights to unilaterally use military force" to counter cartels.
After SOUTHCOM's announcement, Gizmodo reporter Matt Novak declared, "We murdered four more people in a boat today."
Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who now advises the US Program at the International Crisis Group, called it "more performative killing at sea."
Highlighting the rising death toll from Trump's "illegal campaign of extrajudicial killings, ie, murder at sea" initiative, Amnesty International USA asked, "Where is Congress to stop the horror?"
The Republican-controlled Congress has declined to pass war powers resolutions intended to stop the strikes—though the odds of passage could change if Democrats reclaim one or both chambers in next month's midterm elections.
Trump's bombing spree has apparently been not only illegal but ineffective. The Washington Post reported in July that a Drug Enforcement Administration analysis concluded that the boat-bombing campaign has not "reduced the amount of cocaine entering" the United States.