SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Center for Popular Democracy Network Statement on Moratorium on Deportations
Ana Maria Archila, Co-Executive Director of Center for Popular Democracy issued this statement following the announcement a moratorium on deportations from the Biden Administration.
WASHINGTON
The new Biden Administration released a first-ever order to institute a moratorium on deportations. This policy was unimaginable in previous years, and it is the result of many years of organizing by immigrant communities who made visible to the country the inhumanity of our detention and deportation systems. So today, we celebrate this victory, while also calling attention to the fact that detention and some ICE arrests will continue during this moratorium. We look forward to working with the administration and Congress to address the longstanding and ongoing harms of ICE raids, mass detention, and deportations and to transform our ineffective and inhumane immigration enforcement system from one focused on punishment to one focused on facilitating compliance and safeguarding dignity.
The Center for Popular Democracy works to create equity, opportunity and a dynamic democracy in partnership with high-impact base-building organizations, organizing alliances, and progressive unions. CPD strengthens our collective capacity to envision and win an innovative pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda.
(347) 985-2220LATEST NEWS
Report Highlights ‘Pattern of Dishonesty' on 2020 Election From Trump’s Far-Right Judicial Picks
“It is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts," said the president of Demand Justice.
Nov 11, 2025
President Donald Trump has appointed 27 judges to federal courts so far in his second term, and in addition to their right-wing interpretation of the law, an analysis of the judges' comments to senators during the confirmation process reveals a key commonality between the president's appointees: All were willing to evade direct questions about whether Trump lost the 2020 election and whether the US Capitol was attacked by a violent pro-Trump mob on January 6, 2021.
Demand Justice examined the Questions for the Record (QFRs) that were submitted by the Senate to the 27 judicial nominees regarding the election and January 6, and found that their answers to those two specific questions were nearly uniform in many cases—repeating certain phrases verbatim and "overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events."
None of the 27 nominees affirmatively answered that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, as proven by numerous courts that rejected lawsuits claiming otherwise and by both Republican and Democratic election officials. Instead, the nominees said Biden was "certified" as the winner, and 16 of them said he "served" as president.
Some of the nominees, including Emil Bove of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Whitney Hermandorfer of the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and Kyle Dudek of the Middle District of Florida, expanded on their answers, saying they would avoid "opining on the broader political or policy debate regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election."
Demand Justice said those comments "strongly, and falsely," suggested the 2020 election results are still a matter of legal dispute.
Josh Orton, president of the group, told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Tuesday that the nominees' answers preserved "their ability to say, 'I did not contradict Donald Trump' on what we know are the two most third-rail issues to Donald Trump."
"If nominees don't answer these two questions, I think it amounts to, essentially, a political loyalty test," said Orton.
NEW: Demand Justice report finds a pattern of dishonesty and evasion from Trump's judicial nominees. Watch as @joshorton explains on @Morning_Joe how Trump's judges are effectively taking loyalty tests to the President. pic.twitter.com/MFj2m8gElj
— Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) November 11, 2025
Regarding questions about whether the US Capitol was attacked on January 6 and whether the attack was an insurrection, said Demand Justice, "not one nominee was willing to speak to the events that occurred on that day."
Twenty-one of them, including Bove, Hermandorfer, and Joshua Divine of District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, characterized the attack—in which Trump supporters tried to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results—as a matter of debate.
None of the nominees mentioned the law enforcement officers who died as a result of the attack, even though some mentioned violence against law enforcement broadly in their other QFR answers; the fact that the House and Senate chambers were broken into; or the death threats rioters directed at then-Vice President Mike Pence.
“It is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth,” said Orton.
Orton added that "the kicker" of the report is that 15 members of the Democratic Caucus have voted for Trump's judicial nominees despite their evasive and dishonest answers about January 6 and Trump's 2020 loss.
"Excuse me? People died," said Orton. "If you're willing to appease Trump's big lies, you have no business anywhere near a court, period."
This morning, @joshorton unveiled a new report that found all 27 of Trump's judicial nominees, who have gone through the process in his second term, have used strikingly similar, evasive language to answer basic questions about the 2020 election and January 6th. Watch --> pic.twitter.com/WaqdyFcAC7
— Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) November 11, 2025
Democrats who have voted in favor of confirming Trump's nominees include Sens. Chris Coons (Del.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Foreign Policy Experts Warn US-Saudi Security Pact Would Be 'Risky' to Middle East Stability and Human Rights
The assumption of US backing allowed the Saudis to wage a brutal war in Yemen that cost close to 400,000 lives without fear of consequences. "Now imagine if Saudi Arabia had an ironclad US security guarantee," wrote one scholar.
Nov 11, 2025
As Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman prepares to meet with US President Donald Trump next week, experts are warning that it could cause even greater instability in the Middle East if the president agrees to the Gulf regime's requests for a defense pact.
On November 18, the crown prince, commonly known as MBS, will be welcomed in Washington for the first time since 2018. That meeting with Trump came just months before the prince signed off on the infamous murder of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi as part of a brutal crackdown on dissenters in the country.
Trump defended MBS from international outrage and isolation at the time and has continued to sing his praises since returning to office. In May, after inking a record $142 billion weapons sale to the Saudis during a tour of the Middle East, Trump gave a speech, practically salivating over the crown prince.
“We have great partners in the world, but we have none stronger, and nobody like the gentleman that’s right before me, he’s your greatest representative, your greatest representative,” Trump said. “And if I didn’t like him, I would get out of here so fast. You know that, don’t you? He knows me well.”
“I do, I like him a lot. I like him too much, that’s why we give so much, you know?” the president continued. “Too much. I like you too much!”
“Oh, what I do for the crown prince,” he added.
Now, according to a report Tuesday from the Financial Times, the Saudis are coming to Washington seeking a similar security guarantee to the one Trump recently granted Qatar, which one State Department diplomat referred to as "on par with the mutual defense commitments the United States provides its closest allies.”
Trump signed an executive order stating that the US would respond to any attack on Qatar by taking all “lawful and appropriate measures—including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military."
That agreement came weeks after Israel launched an unprecedented assault on Hamas leadership as they met for negotiations in Qatar's capital city of Doha to end the two-year genocide in Gaza. Without the security agreement, the Qataris had threatened to walk away from their role in mediating the talks that ultimately led to October's "ceasefire" agreement.
The deal expected to be reached between Trump and the Saudis has been described as "Qatar-plus," not just pledging defense of the state were it to come under attack, but regarding it as a threat to American “peace and security."
Such an agreement was already underway during the tenure of former President Joe Biden, following the normalization of relations with Israel, but was upended by Hamas's October 7 attacks and two years of indiscriminate slaughter Israel launched in response, which bin Salman referred to as a "genocide."
While MBS has publicly stated that he would not agree to continue normalization with Israel without a Palestinian state, he has not shied away from a separate security deal with the US, which reportedly includes "enhanced military and intelligence cooperation."
According to Christopher Preble and Will Smith, a pair of foreign policy researchers at the Stimson Center's Reimagining US Grand Strategy program, the Trump team hopes that by pursuing a heightened security and financial relationship with the Saudis, they can coax them back towards detente with Israel and bring them back into the US orbit in response to what Trump views as an overly flirtatious posture toward China.
"These developments suggest a troubling belief that handing out security guarantees is a quick, cost-free way to reassure anxious partners and ensure their alignment with US priorities. That belief is mistaken," the researchers wrote in Responsible Statecraft Tuesday. "A US-Saudi defense pact would be unnecessary, risky, and unlikely to achieve its unclear aims. Rather than revive the misguided Biden administration initiative, the Trump administration should shelve the idea once and for all."
They said there are few upsides to the normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and that if it were to occur, it would be little more than a formal recognition of the cooperation between the two nations that already exists in combating Iran's influence.
While a deal would lead to few benefits, they argued it would "come with significant downsides," potentially forcing the US to ride along with "reckless driving" by the Saudis, especially with its neighbors in Yemen.
"Extensive US support emboldened Saudi Arabia to wage a disastrous, failed intervention there that dragged on for seven years, fueling a war that claimed close to 400,000 lives, including nearly 20,000 civilians killed by airstrikes," the researchers said.
International relations scholar Adam Gallagher pointed out that the Saudis did all of this merely "because of what it assumed would be continual US backing."
"Now imagine if Saudi Arabia had an ironclad US security guarantee," he said.
The result, he warned, would be something akin to Israel's sense of total impunity to wage destruction in Gaza.
"When a great power provides a security pledge to a less powerful ally, the weaker state is more willing to take on risk, and the patron often ends up paying the price," he wrote. "There is simply no strategic reason for the United States to imperil its interests or incur costs if Saudi Arabia engaged in renewed adventurism."
Human rights groups have noted that a deal also has massive implications for the Saudi regime's actions at home, where its leaders have faced little accountability for their repression of dissent.
“Saudi Arabia’s crown prince is trying to rebrand himself as a global statesman, but the reality at home is mass repression, record numbers of executions, and zero tolerance for dissent," said Sarah Yager, the Washington director at Human Rights Watch. "US officials should be pressing for change, not posing for photos.”
Matt Wells, the deputy director of Reprieve US, emphasized that outside pressure on the regime has mattered in the past: "In the fallout from Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination, Mohammed bin Salman’s regime felt international pressure to improve its human rights record, and that pressure made a difference. Some child defendants on death row were resentenced and released, and from July 2021 to July 2025, there were no executions for childhood crimes.”
“Beneath Saudi Arabia’s glittering facade, the repression of Saudi citizens and residents continues unabated," said Abdullah Aljuraywi, monitoring and campaigns officer at ALQST for Human Rights. "To avoid emboldening this, the US should use its leverage to secure concrete commitments, including the release of detained activists, lifting of arbitrary travel bans, and an end to politically motivated executions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'State-Backed Terrorism': Israeli Settler Attacks on West Bank Palestinians Hit Record High
"The systematic escalation forms part of a broader effort to consolidate Israeli control over the West Bank by depopulating it and expanding the territorial and operational influence of settlements," said one group.
Nov 11, 2025
Palestine defenders this week decried the ongoing surge in attacks by Israeli settler-colonists on Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank, which the United Nations humanitarian office says are occurring at the highest rate it has ever seen.
Israeli settlers seeking to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their lands in order to steal them have ramped up violent attacks on local residents including olive farmers, as well as their trees and equipment, during the crucial harvesting season. Journalists who document the assaults and international activists trying to protect locals from the rampaging assailants have also been attacked.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said Friday that "October 2025 recorded the highest monthly number of Israeli settler attacks since OCHA began documenting such incidents in 2006, with more than 260 attacks resulting in casualties, property damage, or both—an average of eight incidents per day."
"Settler violence during this olive harvest season has reached the highest level recorded in recent years, with about 150 attacks documented so far, resulting in the injury of more than 140 Palestinians and the vandalism of over 4,200 trees and saplings across 77 villages," OCHA added.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) says it has documented 704 settler attacks this year through October, up from 675 in all of 2024. Israel's military says that police and Shin Bet—the internal state security agency—have failed to address this violence due to pressure from members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, right-wing lawmakers, and religious leaders who believe that Israel has a divinely ordained right to steal all of Palestine.
However, Israeli and international human rights groups have long documented IDF participation or complicity in settler attacks.
On Tuesday, at least dozens of masked settlers launched a sweeping assault around the village of Beit Lid east of Tulkarm, setting fire to farmland, vehicles, and the al-Junaidi dairy factory.
The settlers reportedly wounded at least four Palestinians, attacked IDF soldiers, and damaged an army vehicle. Israeli police said they arrested four Israelis for who allegedly took part in the raid.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported additional settler attacks Tuesday targeting a Bedouin community and the nearby village of Deir Sharaf, east of Beit Lid. Videos show residents trying to extinguish fires set by the attackers. Eyewitnesses told reporters that IDF troops prevented emergency responders from helping to put out the fires.
Over the weekend, dozens of masked settlers attacked Palestinian olive harvesters, activists, and journalists, injuring more than 10 people including Reuters photographer Raneen Sawafta—who was severely beaten—people who tried to help her, a Palestinian medic, an IDF reservist, and local farmers.
The Foreign Press Association (FPA) said it was "appalled" by the surge in settler attacks.
"Journalists, both local and foreign, have proven to be a clear target as they document an unprecedented level of unchecked violence against Palestinians during this year's olive harvest," FPA said. "Israeli forces routinely harass and intimidate journalists, in some cases detaining them and threatening them with deportation. This is all part of a deepening climate of hostility toward the media by Israeli authorities."
Palestinian human rights activist Ihab Hassan said Tuesday on social media: "Israeli settler terrorism in the West Bank is state-backed terrorism. Armed, funded, and protected by the Israeli government and army. The world must stop watching in silence. Sanction the Israeli government that enables and sponsors the settler terrorism."
Mohammed Hijaz, a West Bank olive farmer, told NPR Monday: "We want to live in peace. We don't want this war, and we want to be able to get to our land, and to have a better life than what we have right now."
Settler violence has surged as the world's attention was focused on Israel's genocidal assault and siege on Gaza, which has left more than 249,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
During that period, OCHA says Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, including at least 213 children and 20 women—among them a 78-year-old who died after being denied medical care for a heart attack suffered during an IDF raid northwest of Ramallah last week.
The Trump administration—which supports Israel with billions of dollars in armed aid and diplomatic cover—has lifted limited sanctions imposed during the tenure of former President Joe Biden against the most extreme settlers, some of whom have been slapped with sanctions by other countries.
This, even as President Donald Trump and his administration publicly oppose Israeli moves to steal and colonize more and more of the West Bank, which has been under illegal occupation since 1967.
"The systematic escalation forms part of a broader effort to consolidate Israeli control over the West Bank by depopulating it and expanding the territorial and operational influence of settlements," the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor said in a statement Sunday.
"This includes turning settlers into practical extensions of the army in attacks and land seizure operations, while imposing new patterns of field control that entrench separation and isolation between Palestinian communities, undermining any possibility of establishing a contiguous or independent Palestinian entity," the group added.
In a recent interview with ITV News' Peter Smith, Daniella Weiss, an extremist settler leader who advocates the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from not only the West Bank but also Gaza, denied that Israelis are attacking Palestinians in the West Bank.
Israeli settler leader Daniella Weiss tries to claim that "there is no settler violence" against Palestinians.
In response, ITV News' Peter Smith pulls out his phone and plays a video of a recent attack on a grandmother in the West Bank.
Watch her reaction: pic.twitter.com/2o2FWCDQOu
— Decensored News (@decensorednews) November 1, 2025
When asked by Smith who supports plans by Israel's far-right to annex the West Bank given their illegality under international law and even opposition from the Trump administration, Weiss—who is under British and Canadian sanctions—replied, "Our sovereignty's here anyway, 'cause we got it from God."
Asked if her understanding of "God's plan" includes divine endorsement of violence to force Palestinians from their lands, Weiss rejected the premise of the question and refused to view footage of settlers attacking an elderly Palestinian woman.
"There is violence against settlers," she insisted, "there is no settler violence."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular