

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.

A coalition of more than 40 civil rights organizations have penned an open letter raising the alarm about the growing trend of anti-mask legislation and urging lawmakers to oppose mask bans.
Read the full letter here.
This letter, from a coalition of groups championing privacy, civil liberties, reproductive freedom, disability rights, COVID justice, mutual aid, LGBTQ+ rights, Palestinian liberation, and labor power, comes just weeks after the news that a second Trump administration, keen on targeting political opposition, will once again operate a massive surveillance infrastructure and embolden violence against marginalized communities from the highest office in the country.
However, as the letter notes, banning masks has been a bipartisan effort a long time in the making, with both Democrats and Republicans in North Carolina, New York, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Louisville, and more driving the latest push to ban masks in response to masking at Palestine solidarity protests.
Rights experts cite three main concerns with anti-mask legislation: suppression of free expression, forced exposure to police and commercial surveillance, and increased violence against marginalized people. Notably, a new mask ban in Nassau County, New York has already been weaponized to arrest a pro-Palestine protester without cause, while maskers in North Carolina note that even before it formally passed, a statewide ban escalated public harassment.
The coalition argues that lawmakers should oppose mask bans regardless of health and religious exemptions, as exemptions are likely to be enforced arbitrarily by police and do not prevent bans from stigmatizing masking in public. This creates a dangerous culture for all who mask to protect from a multitude of threats, including the ongoing risks of COVID and Long COVID, especially singling out immunocompromised and disabled people who have long masked to protect themselves in public.
The letter ends by calling on lawmakers to urgently denounce mask bans, oppose efforts to pass anti-mask legislation or revive defunct bans in their jurisdictions, and defend the right to mask in public for all.
The following can be attributed to Evan Greer (she/her), Director of Fight for the Future:
“It’s no surprise that fascists and science-deniers want to ban masks from protests. But it’s alarming that supposedly progressive lawmakers are helping them do it. There are many reasons to cover your face at a protest or in public, from defending yourself from harassment and doxing to protecting your community from COVID during an ongoing public health crisis. Like other anti-protest laws, these draconian measures will be selectively enforced, and used as an excuse by law enforcement to crack down on marginalized communities and protesters who they don’t like. Mask bans only escalate our current swing toward fascism and suffocating surveillance culture. It’s clear that the authoritarian desire to silence pro-Palestine and anti-racist activists is the main goal of this latest push for mask bans, but if they go into effect, they will impact everyone who dares to speak out and exercise their rights. We can’t let that happen.”
Several organizations who signed the letter provided additional comment:
Ricci Levy (she/her), President & CEO of Woodhull Freedom Foundation writes, “Banning masks is a clear violation of personal autonomy and bodily freedom – fundamental human rights that the Woodhull Freedom Foundation has long defended. Just as we advocate for sexual freedom as a human right, we believe individuals have the right to make their own choices about their health and safety, including wearing masks. Government overreach that restricts personal freedoms, whether related to sexuality or public health measures, sets a dangerous precedent. We urge policymakers to respect human rights and individual liberty by allowing people to make their own informed decisions about mask usage.”
Shahinaz Geneid (she/they), UAW Labor for Palestine facilitator and member of Unite All Workers for Democracy writes, “The labor movement and the Palestine movement must join the fight to stand against mask bans. We know all too well that the health of workers and everyday people, especially those of us in precarious employment positions, living under colonialism like our comrades in Palestine, or otherwise already at risk, will be placed at increasingly serious risk if these reactionary measures clearly meant to chill free speech by exposing pro-Palestine protesters to widespread surveillance and doxxing become the widespread norm, leaving workers unable to protect themselves from infection and potential long-term disability or death. Add to that the unequal and classist nature of the American healthcare system and the barriers that the working class in particular faces to accessing adequate healthcare when they do get sick, and it is clear that fighting anti-mask legislation must be all of our fight across movements.”
Sean O’Brien (he/him), founder, Yale Privacy Lab writes, “Masks provide people with the potential for anonymity and vital protection from not only harassment but the pervasive and growing tendrils of surveillance in our society. Mask bans create a chilling effect on speech and allow for biased and predictive policing, making it possible for facial recognition technology to follow individuals from protests and rallies all the way to their homes.”
Antoine Ghoston (he/him), Executive Director, Arkansas Black Gay Men’s Forum writes, “As an organization committed to the health and dignity of Black LGBTQ+ individuals, the Arkansas Black Gay Men’s Forum recognizes mask bans as a direct threat to our communities. They exacerbate health disparities and undermine public safety, disproportionately impacting those who are already vulnerable. Ensuring our community members have access to essential protections is non-negotiable.”
Jenna Sherman (she/her) Campaign Director at gender justice nonprofit UltraViolet writes, “The move to ban masks outright is an act of suppression under the guise of public safety. Particularly in an era of increased surveillance and facial recognition, people are living in fear of being targeted for what should be routine, protected parts of our lives like accessing reproductive healthcare. Everyone must have the right to choose to wear a mask regardless of whether it’s to protect their health or safeguard their privacy. The trend to revoke this right is deeply troubling, and has a disproportionate impact on women, trans people, and nonbinary people seeking out healthcare or protesting to fight for their right to do so.”
The full list of signers includes:
18 Million Rising
1021 Members for Palestine
Access Now
Adalah Justice Project
API Equality-LA
Arkansas Black Gay Men’s Forum
Assembly Four
Disability Rights California
Erotic Service Provider Legal Education and Research Project
Faith Choice Ohio
Fiat Fiendum
Freedom Oklahoma
Housing Works
If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice
Jewish Voice for Peace
Lavender Phoenix
Long COVID Justice
Mask Bloc Louisville
Mask Bloc Sunset San Francisco
Mask Together America
Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition
MEAction NY
MediaJustice
Muslim Advocates
Oakland Privacy
PDX Privacy
Restore The Fourth
Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project
Secure Justice
Senior and Disability Action
Strategies for High Impact (S4HI)
SWOP Behind Bars
The Wayside
Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT)
Transgender Law Center
UAW Labor for Palestine
UltraViolet
Unite All Workers for Democracy
United We Dream
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Yale Privacy Lab
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"
"These hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
Rep. Ro Khanna this week was detained by a group of Israeli settlers whom he described as "hoodlums... with machine guns" while making a visit to a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank.
In an interview with Reuters published on Saturday, Khanna (D-Calif.) said he and his tour group were surrounded by armed settlers as they were traveling through the West Bank on Wednesday.
"We were at a village that Israeli settlers had destroyed, they had destroyed the school, they had destroyed that village, and we were just looking at it," said Khanna. "And these hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
The California Democrat said that the settlers called in members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to help them deal with him and his group.
"The IDF is on their side," Khanna remarked, "not on the side of the Americans."
Cameron Kasky, an aide to Khanna, told Reuters that the group was held for over an hour before officials whom he believed to be police intervened and secured their release.
The IDF told Reuters that both military troops and police officers dispersed the settlers who had set up a roadblock near the small Palestinian village of Khirbet Zanuta.
Khanna wasn't the only American to have a run-in with Israeli settlers this week, as CNN reported that four settlers attacked groups of journalists, including CNN reporters and crew, who were traveling through an area north of the Palestinian city of Ramallah on Saturday.
As the journalists were driving, four settlers blocked off the road with their cars and began attacking the reporters' vehicles with wooden clubs and metal rods.
"The settlers then began to jump on the vehicle behind CNN's—carrying another group of journalists—and smashed the windshield of that vehicle," the network reported. "Another group of settlers tried to block a separate exit route before chasing the journalists towards the town of Sinjil."
Israeli police arrived on the scene and arrested four settlers who were allegedly responsible for the attacks, CNN reported.
"The Israel Police and the IDF view any manifestation of violence or causing damage to property very seriously," the Israeli officers said after the arrests, "especially when it concerns media personnel performing their work."
Israeli settlers for years have carried out violent attacks on Palestinians living in the West Bank, and witnesses have regularly described IDF soldiers at the scene either standing by as the attacks occur or even actively helping the attackers.
In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that claims about settler violence have been "blown up beyond belief," describing attacks as being carried out by a small number of "juvenile delinquents."
"This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
The Trump administration on Friday escalated its war with the press by subpoenaing several reporters at The New York Times days after the paper published a story on Wednesday that detailed security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
According to the Times, the subpoenas are attempting to force reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday next week, a move that the paper describes as an "extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations."
The issued subpoenas do not specifically name the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet as the reason for the grand jury probe, although they were given to all four journalists—Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and Eric Lipton—who reported the story.
Additionally, the Times noted, a senior official at the FBI had asked the paper to hold off publishing its story on the jet before it came out on Wednesday, citing unspecified national security concerns about its content.
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times' newsroom, denounced the subpoenas as an attack on the freedom of the press.
"The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects," said McGraw. “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
It is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather information.
Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state for President Barack Obama, said that the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet, whose security upgrades are being financed with US tax dollars, is completely within the scope of constitutional protections for press freedom.
"The reporting that the Times journalists have been subpoenaed for is exactly the kind of journalism the First Amendment is designed to protect: matters involving national security and taxpayer dollars," wrote Stengel in a Saturday social media post. "Reporting that embarrasses a president is protected speech."
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin also denounced the Trump administration for trying to drag reporters into a grand jury investigation.
"This action by the US government to subpoena reporters for reporting legitimate news on security concerns about Air Force One should alarm every American," Griffin wrote.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, accused the Trump administration of abusing government power not to defend national security, but to protect the president from personal humiliation.
"We've long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security," said Stern. "This is as clear an example as you can get. The administration's embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn't secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press."
This is the second time in recent weeks that the Trump administration has tried to subpoena reporters to compel their testimony in grand jury investigations.
In June, the US Department of Justice issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.