

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.

An international coalition of human rights law groups, public health experts, and civil society organizations is taking legal action against the US, UK, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland, on the grounds that these countries are in violation of international human rights law by failing to intervene on what has been an inequitable and racially discriminatory rollout of the vaccine and other COVID healthcare technologies.
In an appeal to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the coalition charges that by failing to lift intellectual property barriers on all COVID-19 medical technologies through a TRIPS waiver (or to effectively implement it through technology transfers), the US, UK, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland are in violation of the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a human rights convention ratified by nearly all countries in the world.
Because the rich countries currently making and hoarding vaccines are majority white, and the formerly colonized countries suffering due to vaccines being withheld are majority Black, indigenous, or other people of color, the current inequitable vaccine rollout is a textbook example of structural racial discrimination.
The International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination requires that countries take effective measures "to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws or regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists." Countries have an obligation under the convention to "prevent, prohibit and eradicate" all practices of racial discrimination particularly "racial segregation and apartheid."
Yet the US, UK, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland have opposed or willfully failed to take all available measures to increase global supply of and equitable access to vaccines and other COVID-19 medical technologies, a violation of their obligations under the human rights convention.
Globally, 73% of all COVID-19 vaccine doses have gone to just 10 countries. Rich countries have administered 61 times more doses per capita than poorer countries and delivered only 14% of the 1.8 billion doses promised to poor countries. Just 5.8% of Africans have been vaccinated. The top 10 high-income countries will have hoarded 870 million excess doses of vaccines by the end of 2021. Countries in the Global South stand to lose $2.3 trillion from now until 2025 if they can't vaccinate 60% of their population by mid-2022.
The appeal asks the CERD Committee to compel the US, UK, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland to "respect, protect and fulfil their human rights obligations," as well as to take several immediate actions, including:
The CERD meets from November 15 in a weeks-long session coinciding with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial meeting on November 30. The WTO ministerial is a key opportunity to resolve the year-long impasse on the proposal to break the corporate monopoly control of COVID-19 healthcare technologies by granting the TRIPS waiver.
Tian Johnson, Founder & Lead Strategist, African Alliance and member of the People's Vaccine Alliance, said: "As a consequence of neocolonial economic and social policies in Africa, fragile health systems impact communities' access to health services in much of the continent. Africa will become known as the continent of COVID-19 - not because of vaccine hesitancy but because of the inequity, greed, and inaction of pharmaceutical companies and political leaders of the North. Having to rely only on the continent's own capacity and resources will not be enough to save African lives. Nor should it be. African lives matter just as much as lives in Berlin, Washington, Tel Aviv, Geneva, London, Toronto or Brussels. COVID-19 is a global crisis that requires global action, whose response all countries should be able to share equally."
Paula Litvachky, from the Center for Legal and Social Studies in Argentina, said: "Latin America has been extremely affected by the pandemic. It concentrates almost 25 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in a continent that is less than 10 percent of the world's population. Although there is regional industrial capacity, many States have had problems accessing vaccines. Groups such as indigenous peoples, Afro descendants and racialized sectors are harder hit than others, both by the virus and by the dramatic social and economic crises it is provoking."
Anele Yawa, General Secretary of the Treatment Action Campaign and a member of the People's Vaccine Alliance, said: "Big Pharma has prioritized excessive profits over protecting people's health for too long. Often they are aided and abetted by governments in the Global North through their inaction or opposition to a more just system. We have repeatedly seen this occur in many fights for access to affordable medicines, from the fight for HIV medicines in the early 2000s and more recently in our fight to Fix the Patent Laws to ensure more affordable medicines for cancer, TB, mental health and beyond. Yet again now with COVID-19, we are seeing Big Pharma greed being prioritized over people's lives all over the world. Governments must fulfil their international obligations and help prioritize people over profits by ensuring vaccine equity for all, irrespective of where you were born, poverty, gender or immigration status."
Joshua Castellino, Executive Director of Minority Rights Group International, said: "COVID-19 has hit people of colour, women, indigenous people, and other minority and discriminated groups harder in terms of infections, deaths, lack of access to healthcare, resultant poverty, and even violence and emotional trauma. The discrimination of the virus is being revisited by vaccine discrimination, as rich nations deliberately withhold and deny these same groups of people equitable access to it."
Meena Jagannath, coordinator of the Global Network of Movement Lawyers at Movement Law Lab, said: "We have tabled an evidenced-based challenge to the UN, an institution meant to embody the spirit of multilateral cooperation. Our evidence points to specific actions by the named states in perpetuating structural divisions between the global north and the global south that are rooted in historical colonialism, all in the service of profit and the corporate capture of power. This contravenes their legal obligations under international covenants and agreements they've ratified. This is a test-of-our-times for the UN system to engage and correct. We are deadly serious in our resolve to seek justice and redress."
Mandivavarira Mudarikwa, Attorney, Women's Legal Centre, South Africa, a member of ESCR-Net - International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said: "It is undeniable that women in their diversity, especially those of color, have disproportionately been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including in shouldering the greatest burden of healthcare and unpaid care work. The inequitable availability of access to health care, personal protective equipment and the distribution of vaccines, and other lifesaving treatments has laid bare the ongoing discrimination that women face in their daily lives. Critical, transformative action is needed immediately if we are to substantively effect change and bring about just and equal access to the right to health. We therefore support the submission of the CERD urgent action appeal aimed at addressing the gender and racial injustice that persists and hope that others will join in this collective action."
The petition urges CERD to find that these countries must prioritize actions that will protect people's lives instead of the corporate-controlled intellectual property of the vaccine. They should be supporting -- rather than blocking -- a proposal at the WTO to waive these intellectual property monopolies, so that more countries are able to make more and cheaper vaccines and other COVID healthcare technologies.
Germany, the UK, Norway and Switzerland have actively opposed moves to waive intellectual property barriers on all COVID-19 vaccine technologies at the WTO. The US has declared support but only for a narrow waiver on the vaccine alone, while failing to use other mechanisms at its disposal e.g. mandating technology transfers through use of the Defence Production Act.
The petition is also strengthened by a separate legal brief signed by jurists around the world which finds that these "blocking" states are also, by their actions, breaching a number of covenant and treaty obligations under international human rights law. The brief says these countries are violating both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, along with a number of treaties they have signed as members of the WTO, including their legal obligations of international cooperation. A broad legal coalition is also advancing additional complaints in other forums, including a submission to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to surface the gender discrimination.
The petitioning groups include African Alliance, Center for Economic and Social Rights, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, Minority Rights Group, Oxfam International and Treatment Action Campaign. The petition was coordinated by Global Network of Movement Lawyers (of Movement Law Lab) and ESCR-Net, and is supported by SECTION27 and other organizations within the People's Vaccine Alliance.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
"When leaders traffic in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violence follows," said one Democratic senator. "We must confront Islamophobia with the urgency it demands."
A pair of teenagers allegedly fatally shot three men at a San Diego mosque on Monday before killing themselves in an attack condemned by many—but welcomed or denied by a handful of far-right figures.
The alleged shooters, who the FBI said were 19 and 17 years old, attacked the Islamic Center of San Diego (ICSD) in the Clairemont neighborhood of California's second-largest city, with officers dispatched to the site at 11:43 a.m., according to San Diego Police Chief Scott Wahl. The center contains a mosque and a school where children were studying at the time of the attack.
The chief said one of the victims was a security guard who played a "pivotal" role in preventing more people from being shot at the county's largest mosque just before hundreds of worshippers were expected for afternoon prayers. The guard has been identified as Amin Abdullah.
Wahl said that two shooters—who have yet to be publicly identified—appear to have died from self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Investigators are treating the shooting as a hate crime.
ICSD director Imam Taha Hassane said that all students and staff members were safely evacuated from the facility.
“It is extremely outrageous to target a place of worship,” Hassane added.
The New York Times reported that investigators recovered anti-Islamic material in the vehicle used by the shooting suspects, and that the words "hate speech" were written on one of the guns used in the attack.
President Donald Trump called the shooting a "terrible situation," while some of his supporters denied or seemed to welcome the attack.
Taheen Nizam, director of the San Diego branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement after the shooting that “we strongly condemn this horrifying act of violence at the Islamic Center of San Diego."
"Our thoughts are with everyone impacted by this attack," Nizam added. "No one should ever fear for their safety while attending prayers or studying at an elementary school. We are working to learn more about this incident and we encourage everyone to keep this community in your prayers.”
The Jewish Democratic Council of America also condemned the attacks. JDCA said that "we're deeply saddened by the shooting at a mosque in San Diego, and our thoughts are with the San Diego Muslim community and all impacted by this tragedy."
"Attacks on our fellow Americans at places of worship are unacceptable," the group added.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani was among the Democratic leaders who denounced the shooting, posting on X that he is "horrified by the deadly attack," which he called "an apparent act of anti-Muslim violence."
Several Democratic US lawmakers also condemned the attack.
"What happened at the Islamic Center of San Diego today is devastating," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said on X. "I’m praying for the victims, their families, and their loved ones."
"This is horrifying, and it did not happen in a vacuum," Coons added. "Muslim communities in this country have been demonized and treated as inherently suspect by those willing to fuel fear for power. When leaders traffic in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violence follows. We must confront Islamophobia with the urgency it demands."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also took to X, writing, "I condemn the deadly shooting at a mosque in San Diego, California."
"Every American should be able to practice their religion without fear of violence," he added. "We must do more to combat anti-Muslim bigotry."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said she is "devastated to see the news of this deadly attack on a mosque in San Diego."
"Our places of worship should be safe spaces for all people," she added. "We must all stand up and condemn this attack and all forms of Islamophobia, racism, and hatred that are on the rise in our communities."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who is Muslim and the only Palestinian American in Congress, posted on social media: "I am praying for all the families at the Islamic Center of San Diego. My heart breaks every time senseless violence shatters the safety all of our communities deserve."
Gun control advocates also weighed in on the shooting, with March for Our Lives executive director Jaclyn Corin saying, "We reject the idea that this kind of tragedy is inevitable."
"We have the power to build a society where hatred is confronted before it turns deadly, where communities are protected instead of targeted, and where every person can worship freely and safely without fear," Corin added. "This moment demands more than grief. It demands courage, solidarity, and a collective commitment to rejecting the violence, dehumanization, and extremism that continue to endanger our communities."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged the GOP to "realize that this war didn't end at the 60-day mark and will not end until Republicans show some backbone and support Democrats' war powers resolution."
As President Donald Trump announced Monday that he hit pause on a planned attack against Iran at the request of three Gulf monarchs, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer renewed Democrats' push for a war powers resolution to end the illegal conflict.
Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform Monday afternoon that "I have been asked by the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, and the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to hold off on our planned Military attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was scheduled for tomorrow, in that serious negotiations are now taking place, and that, in their opinion, as Great Leaders and Allies, a Deal will be made, which will be very acceptable to the United States of America, as well as all Countries in the Middle East, and beyond."
"This Deal will include, importantly, NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR IRAN!" the president continued. "Based on my respect for the above mentioned Leaders, I have instructed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Daniel Caine, and The United States Military, that we will NOT be doing the scheduled attack of Iran tomorrow, but have further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached."
Responding to the post on X, Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, concluded that "once again, Trump has realized that escalation will end up badly for the US. That does not necessarily mean, though, that the necessary realism, discipline, and creativity will be mustered for the talks."
Prior to the president's Monday announcement, Parsi had warned that "the Middle East is once again teetering on the brink as Trump appears poised to reignite war with Iran," pointing out reporting that he would convene military advisers on Tuesday and that he had "flooded Truth Social with a barrage of incendiary threats."
The Trump administration partnered with Israeli forces to launch an assault on Iran—without authorization from Congress and in violation of the United Nations Charter—on February 28. Just hours after Trump's genocidal threat against Iran on April 7, a ceasefire agreement was reached; it has since been extended, though the US has maintained its naval blockade while Iran has continued to restrict ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
The beginning of this month marked a key deadline under the War Powers Act, which the administration tried to dodge by claiming that the current ceasefire means the conflict has been "terminated." While key Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), have tried to stick to that talking point, Democratic leaders and legal experts aren't buying it.
Nope.Not how this works.A naval blockade is an act of war and U.S. armed forces remain engaged in hostilities for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) May 17, 2026 at 10:15 AM
Congressional Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass war powers resolutions in the Republican-controlled chambers.
Last Thursday, Congressman Jared Golden (D-Maine) cast the deciding vote on the latest war powers resolution considered in the House of Representatives. The retiring former Marine sided with all Republicans except Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Thomas Massie (Ky.) to block the measure.
As The Hill reported Monday:
Golden, a former Marine who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has indicated he'll support the next war powers resolution. He said he only opposed the last measure because it had a withdrawal deadline that had already passed.
"I look forward to voting for a clean, relevant resolution as soon as possible," Golden said in a statement Wednesday.
And Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) could return to Congress after being absent for four weeks and not voting on any issue since April 17. Wilson released a statement Thursday that she recently underwent eye surgery and was unable to fly but plans to be back in Washington, DC, soon.
With Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) also absent since March 5 because of a "personal medical issue," Republicans can't have more than two defections on an otherwise party-line vote.
In other words, "it may [come] down to absences," as Punchbowl News reporter Anthony Adragna said on social media Monday.
Like in the House, the latest Senate vote also came down to a Democrat: Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) has repeatedly voted with nearly all Republicans against war powers resolutions on Iran, and did so again last Wednesday. Unlike Golden, Fetterman told Semafor on Monday that Senate Democrats know he's "pretty much locked and loaded" regarding his support for Trump's war.
"Something like this is much more important than just voting what your base might demand. Because I think things are much bigger and more important than that. And Iran with a nuclear bomb is one of those things," Fetterman said, taking aim at anti-war campaigners. "I'm very much aware how damaging it is as a Democrat to hold these views. I had 20 CodePink dopes in my office."
CodePink held a "brown bag teach-in" lunch last week. The group said that "many of Fetterman's constituents feel betrayed by the person they campaigned to elect in 2022. Since becoming a senator in 2023, he has repeatedly broken with fellow Democrats to support Trump's wars and militaristic policies. Constituents hope this lunchtime educational session will help him better understand the human consequences of these positions and the growing opposition among Pennsylvanians to endless war and continued support for Israel."
While Fetterman opposed the latest resolution, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) all voted in favor of it, and Schumer (D-NY) made clear on the chamber's floor Monday that he's pushing for an eighth vote.
"Over the weekend, Donald Trump told Iran, 'The clock is ticking, and they better get moving, fast, or there won't be anything left of them,'" Schumer noted. "How can Donald Trump say the clock is ticking when he told the Senate that the clock had paused when his war recently passed the War Powers Act's 60-day threshold to either end hostilities or get congressional authorization?"
"Senate Republicans need to stop playing dumb and realize that this war didn't end at the 60-day mark and will not end until Republicans show some backbone and support Democrats' war powers resolution to end the fighting," he declared. "This week, Democrats will force an eighth vote on our war powers resolution to withdraw our troops from hostilities with Iran."
Schumer added that "I urge Republicans to support our war powers resolution, end the war, get the troops out of harm's way, or else Republicans will learn that the clock is ticking not only on this war but on their own political futures."
President Donald Trump is yet again facing accusations of breaking his campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again" after the US Environmental Protection Agency on Monday proposed repealing and delaying some landmark limits on "forever chemicals" in drinking water.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are commonly called forever chemicals because they persist in the environment, humans, and wildlife for long periods. Despite their links to various health issues, including cancer, they have been used in products such as firefighting foam, food packaging, nonstick pans, and water-resistant fabrics for clothing and furniture.
The Biden administration was praised for its historic steps to reduce PFAS contamination of tap water and urged to go even further. However, the Trump EPA is now pushing to delay those limits for two common contaminants, PFOA and PFOS, and abandon the restrictions for four others: PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA, and HFPO-DA—also known as GenX.
Announcing the proposed rules on Monday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed not only that the Biden administration failed to follow federal law in implementing its restrictions, but also that the new proposals are part of the president's Make America Healthy Again pledge. They highlighted "innovative" technologies plus funding for states to address PFAS in tap water.
However, campaigners who have long called for stricter PFAS policies excoriated the Trump administration over its two proposed rules—which are set to be published in the Federal Register with a 60-day public comment period, and the subject of an EPA hearing scheduled for July 7.
"Zeldin and Kennedy are trying to sell potions out of the back of a covered wagon. The millions of Americans demanding safe drinking water are not going to fall for their hocus pocus," said Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. "By repealing and delaying PFAS standards, EPA is abandoning communities in desperate need of drinking water protections, especially those who live near polluting industries."
Food and Water Watch's water program director, Mary Grant, declared that "with today's proposals, the Trump administration is telling the public to drink poison. It has once again shown that it represents the interests of billionaire corporate polluters—not the health of people in this country."
"One thing is absolutely clear, we cannot roll back or delay protections against PFAS," she said. "For decades, communities have been sounding the alarm and demanding action on these toxic forever chemicals. Instead of implementing commonsense regulations, Trump's EPA has doubled down on weakening our drinking water protections. Every person deserves and needs clean, safe water, and today's proposed rules are threats to millions of people."
Grant argued that "EPA must not delay or roll back these hard-won limits on toxic PFAS contaminants in drinking water. It must immediately cease these deregulatory actions, stop approving new PFAS chemicals, ban all nonessential uses, hold polluters accountable for clean up, expand protections to regulate the entire class, and ramp up support to ensure that every community has access to safe, affordable water."
Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which has tracked PFAS contamination across the United States and publicly released its findings, was similarly outraged by the EPA proposals.
"You cannot make America healthy again while allowing toxic PFAS to flow freely from our taps," Cook said. "The Trump EPA is caving to chemical industry lobbyists and water utility pressure—and in doing so, it is condemning millions of Americans to drink contaminated water for years to come."
"The price of this decision will be paid by ordinary people, in the form of more PFAS-related diseases," he warned.
While Trump's agency leaders claimed Monday that the Biden administration ran afoul of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EWG accused them of violating that same law, given its requirement that any revision to a tap water standard "maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons."
Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at EWG, said that "this is a deliberate decision to expose American families to chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health harms. Rolling back limits on four PFAS and then allowing water systems to push compliance deadlines to 2031, when contamination is ongoing, is unconscionable."
"The communities least able to protect themselves will pay the highest price," she added. "That is not regulatory reform. It is an environmental injustice."