

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.

Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Parker Deighan, No More Deaths, (520) 330-0848, abusedocumentation@nomoredeaths.org
Today, as the humanitarian-aid group No More Deaths and community organization La Coalicion de Derechos Humanos released the third installment of their "Disappeared" report about the ongoing crisis of death and disappearance along the U.S.-Mexico border, No More Deaths and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The lawsuit seeks information regarding CBP policies and practices that advocates say are fueling the missing persons crisis at the border.
Hundreds of migrants die every year in the unforgiving terrain in and around the greater-Sonoran desert, on the U.S. side of the border, while crossing into the United States in search of safe haven; some estimates reach into the thousands.
Along the border, state, county, and local law enforcement refer 911 calls for emergency assistance to Border Patrol when the callers are Spanish-speaking, a discriminatory practice that effectively renders it the primary emergency services provider along the border--a role that advocates note is squarely at odds with CPB's explicit charge as an immigration enforcement agency. Key findings in "Left to Die: Border Patrol, Search and Rescue, and the Crisis of Disappearance," the third installment of the "Disappeared" report, show that Border Patrol is "fatally unresponsive" to emergency search and rescue requests.
The lawsuit filed today seeks documents on policies, procedures, and protocols that attorneys say are crucial to understanding the causes and effects of the crisis.
"For years, Border Patrol has acted without any transparency about their supposed rescue operations," said No More Deaths Abuse Documentation Coordinator Parker Deighan. "Meanwhile, families and advocates searching for missing people have experienced Border Patrol's hostility and refusal to help."
No More Deaths and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a Freedom of Information request in April of 2019, seeking documents and data related to Border Patrol's response to requests for search and rescue including quantity of calls received, details of their response or lack of response, and the outcomes of each case. CBP failed to produce a single document in response to the request. The lawsuit filed today seeks a court order compelling CBP to provide the requested documents.
According to No More Deaths' data, in 63 percent of distress calls, Border Patrol did not conduct any confirmed search or rescue; in 40 percent of cases, there was clear documentation that the agency did not search at all. The quality of searches that were conducted was dramatically inferior to those conducted for U.S. citizens or non-citizen tourists--for example, searches rarely lasted more than one day, some lasted as little as one hour. Twenty-seven percent of searches ended without the person being found. By contrast, local county search and rescue teams responding to cases involving U.S. citizens have a near 100-percent success rate. Meanwhile, Border Patrol also actively obstructs family and humanitarian search efforts by lying about whether a search is being conducted, harassing and criminalizing humanitarian search and rescue teams in the field, refusing to share critical information for a search or providing false or misleading information, and endlessly transferring calls to non-working, unchecked, or otherwise inapplicable phone lines, among other tactics.
"Each year, the U.S. government lets hundreds of migrants die in the borderlands out of intentional neglect," said Angelo Guisado, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Border Patrol, CBP's enforcement arm, operates as a rogue paramilitary outfit under the guise of agency legitimization. In addition to well-publicized accounts of abusive conduct, the agency is known to employ aggressive enforcement tactics that have caused thousands of migrants to go missing in the first place. And this is the agency tasked with emergency rescue services along our border? The public deserves to know more about it."
Alarmingly, No More Deaths also reports that Border Patrol is more than twice as likely to directly cause a person to go missing - chasing and scattering groups of people through rugged terrain, causing many to become injured, disoriented, and separated from guides and traveling companions - than it is to participate in locating one.
"If my dad was a different person, or a citizen, I think he would have received a different search," said the daughter of a 52-year-old man from Honduras who disappeared after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in 2016, as quoted in the report.
While No More Deaths and the Center for Constitutional Rights demand an immediate end to the transfer of calls for emergency assistance to Border Patrol, they emphasize that CBP and Border Patrol's mission of immigration enforcement is inherently at odds with search and rescue efforts. Ultimately, they say, the only solution to the crisis of death and disappearance in the borderlands is to demilitarize the border, defund Customs and Border Protection, and decriminalize migration.
According to official government records, the remains of at least eight thousand migrating people have been found in U.S. deserts since 1994, the majority of deaths reportedly related to elemental exposure; tens of thousands more have disappeared. Both the lawsuit and the report emphasize that the crisis is not only exacerbated by Border Patrol, but was created by the agency's 1994 "Strategic Plan" to "force [migrants to cross] over more hostile terrain," where they may "find themselves in mortal danger," in an attempt to discourage migration.
Read "Left to Die: Border Patrol, Search and Rescue, and the Crisis of Disappearance," the third installment of No More Deaths' and La Coalicion de Derechos Humanos' "Disappeared" report.
For more information on the lawsuit filed today, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights' case page.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."