May, 01 2025, 10:37am EDT
AFL-CIO President on International Workers’ Day: ‘An Injury to One Is an Injury to All’
AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler issued the following statement on International Workers’ Day, or “May Day”:
On International Workers’ Day, working people around the globe are taking action to stand up to the billionaires who are threatening our rights and freedoms. Here at home, President Trump and Elon Musk have slashed thousands of union jobs, ripped up union contracts, cut essential services and are attacking our fundamental freedom to organize for a better life.
The Trump administration also has illegally targeted our fellow workers—union members like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was separated from his family in Maryland and sent to a prison in El Salvador without due process, and Rümeysa Öztürk, detained while walking to dinner in Massachusetts and thrown into a detention center thousands of miles away, despite neither of them having committed a crime. An injury to one is an injury to all. When Trump targets immigrant families like Kilmar’s and Rümeysa’s, he targets all workers.
This May Day, working people are standing together, unified in our commitment to a better future for all workers. We won’t allow billionaires to divide us—especially when it’s based on where we’re from. We’ll fight to protect all workers from the Trump administration’s illegal attacks on our jobs, our unions, our contracts and our freedoms. Our solidarity is our strength.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) works tirelessly to improve the lives of working people. We are the democratic, voluntary federation of 56 national and international labor unions that represent 12.5 million working men and women.
LATEST NEWS
Warren Asks If Bezos 'Subservience' to Trump Involves Tariff Quid Pro Quo
"What happened in that call?" asked the Democratic senator. "I'm pressing for answers."
May 01, 2025
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday pressed Jeff Bezos for answers after the Amazon founder abruptly ditched a reported plan to display tariff costs to customers following a phone call with President Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, the White House lashed out at what Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called "a hostile and political act" following reporting by Punchbowl News that Amazon "will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
"Yesterday's activity appears to be another example of Big Tech working together with President Trump to seek special favors."
However, after Trump and Bezos spoke over the phone, the president called the multibillionaire "a good guy" who "solved the problem very quickly."
In a letter to Bezos, Warren (D-Mass.) wrote that "these reports raise questions about the nature of your conversations with President Trump, acnd what promises or favors you may have received in exchange for your subservience to him."
"Yesterday's activity appears to be another example of Big Tech working together with President Trump to seek special favors or support his policies in what can appear to be a quid pro quo," the senator continued—an assertion refuted as "inaccurate" by an Amazon spokesperson.
Amazon had plans to show customers how much Trump tariffs are raising prices. Then Bezos got on the phone with Trump and reversed course. What happened in that call? I'm pressing for answers.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) May 1, 2025 at 7:58 AM
"If Amazon had followed through on any plans to provide transparency on tariff costs, it could have provided important information for consumers, allowing them to find out for themselves some of the true costs of President Trump's broad and chaotic tariff policies," Warren added.
Approximately 70% of the products sold on Amazon made in China, which Trump recently hit with a 145% levy on a sweeping range of imported goods. China retaliated with a 125% tariff on U.S. imports. Economists are in near-universal agreement that such tariffs are a regressive tax on consumers. According to reports citing Chinese state media, the Trump administration has reached out to Beijing seeking talks on de-escalating the mutually destructive trade war.
Warren previously pressed Apple CEO Tim Cook over the Trump administration's massive tariff exemptions for company products including iPhones, computers, and microprocessors.
"My concerns about the potential for tariff-related corruption to benefit Big Tech firms—who provided millions in donations to the Trump inaugural committee—and other insiders as the president rolls out, reverses, and modifies his policies have become more acute with each passing day," the senator said in her letter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Call for Probe Into 'Golden Dome' Defense Contract That Could Benefit Musk
SpaceX has emerged as a front-runner for the contract.
May 01, 2025
Democratic lawmakers on Thursday wrote to the acting inspector general of the U.S. Department of Defense, warning that SpaceX emerging as a front-runner to win a contract to build a proposed missile defense system raises major concerns over whether the proposal is "an effective way to protect Americans" or is simply "meant to enrich" Trump ally Elon Musk.
As Reutersreported last month, Musk's rocket and satellite company is partnering with two other firms on a bid to build parts of the Golden Dome, which would launch at least 400 and as many as 1,000 satellites across the globe to detect and track missiles.
A separate component of the Golden Dome, which could be put to use starting as early as 2026, would launch 200 attack satellites to bring enemy missiles down.
The Democrats, led by Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), called on DOD acting Inspector General Steven Stebbins to examine "any involvement" by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk—now a "special government employee" of the Trump administration and a top donor to the president's 2024 campaign—in the Pentagon's process of awarding the defense contract for the Golden Dome.
The news that Musk's company is a front-runner to build key parts of the system, which is expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, raises "serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest in the process," reads the letter sent by the lawmakers, who also included Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
The lawmakers noted that in the "deeply troubling" Reuters report two weeks ago, a source was quoted as saying the talks surrounding the Golden Dome contract were "a departure from the usual acquisition process."
"There's an attitude that the national security and defense community has to be sensitive and deferential to Elon Musk because of his role in the government," the source told Reuters.
The letter also notes that as a special government employee, Musk is subject to Office of Government Ethics regulations such as 5 CFR § 2635.702, which prohibits using public office for private gain.
"Mr. Musk is also subject to the criminal prohibition in 18 USC § 208 against participating in a particular matter in which he has a financial interest, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison," said the Democrats.
As the lawmakers wrote to the DOD inspector general's office, government watchdog Public Citizen also spoke out against the "useless and wasteful contract."
Experts have raised concerns about the feasibility of creating the Golden Dome system, especially on the accelerated timeline that has been reported—one that could benefit Musk's company but "result in a faulty end product that wastes billions of dollars and leaves our country with a false sense of security," wrote the lawmakers.
They quoted retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, who toldCNN recently that creating a ballistic missile defense system "could take 7-10 years, and, even then, would have severe limitations."
Reuters also reported last month that SpaceX has proposed a "subscription service" for its involvement in the creation of the Golden Dome, with the government paying for access to the technology rather than owning the system. The proposal could allow the system to be rolled out faster by circumventing Pentagon procurement rules.
"The Golden Dome contract comes at a time when the Pentagon has failed to ever pass an audit, and this year's budget is already expected to top $1 trillion," said the Democrats.
The lawmakers called on Stebbins to refer the case to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation, should his office find that Musk used his role in the federal government to secure a contract for SpaceX.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Rules Trump Deportations Under Alien Enemies Act 'Unlawful'
Also Thursday, Human Rights Watch released a report calling on Congress to repeal the wartime authority, the statute invoked by the U.S. President Donald Trump in March to deport over 130 Venezuelan nationals.
May 01, 2025
A federal judge ruled on Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump has illegally invoked the Alien Enemies Act and barred further deportations under the statute, a centuries-old wartime authority used to justify the deportation of over 130 Venezuelan nationals in March to a megaprison in El Salvador.
"The court concludes that the president's invocation of the AEA through the proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful," according to U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., a Trump appointee.
The judicial rebuke comes the same day that the group Human Rights Watch issued a report making the case that the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) is "entirely incompatible" with modern international law that constrains the United States with respect to human rights, and therefore should be repealed.
The report from Human Rights Watch, titled United States: Repeal the Alien Enemies Act, A Human Rights Argument, explains that the AEA was codified in 1798 and gives the president authority to detain and expel noncitizens who are nationals of a foreign country considered hostile.
The president can draw on these powers when there is a "declared war" between the U.S. and a foreign power, or when an "invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened" against the U.S. by a foreign nation.
When invoking the AEA, Trump accused the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) of "perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion" in the U.S., and said that the men targeted for deportation under the AEA have ties to TdA—though available reporting also casts doubt on this assertion.
The judge in his ruling on Thursday said that the government's evidence that TdA's presence in the U.S. constitutes an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" as characterized by the AEA fell short.
The American Civil Liberties Union cheered the court's decision. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement on Thursday: "The court ruled the president can't unilaterally declare an invasion of the United States and invoke a wartime authority during peacetime."
While the ruling is likely also welcome to Human Rights Watch, which has already spoken out against the administration's use of AEA, in their latest report the group argues that the law should be outright repealed.
"Congress has an important role in challenging the Trump administration's use of this outdated law to supercharge its mass deportation machine," said Akshaya Kumar, crisis advocacy director at Human Rights Watch and lead author of the report, in a statement on Thursday, prior to the release of Thursday's court ruling.
Since 2020, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) have repeatedly introduced the "Neighbors Not Enemies Act," which would repeal the Alien Enemies Act. The duo reintroduced it again on January 22, days after U.S. President Donald Trump returned to the White House. The report recommends immediate debate and consideration of the Neighbors Not Enemies Act of 2025. With Republican majorities in both chambers, passage of the Neighbors Not Enemies Act is highly unlikely.
The report argues that the United States is not engaged in any war or armed conflict that is relevant to the administration's current use of the AEA, and that the law "was drafted, and has always been applied and interpreted, in a manner that is adversarial to modern-day international human rights law frameworks and the laws of war."
The U.S. is a part of multiple human rights treaties that compel the government to ensure respect for rights like due process, and protection from removal from the U.S. to countries where a person would likely face persecution or torture, according to the report.
For example, in 1994 the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) was ratified by the U.S. with the understanding the treaty "was not self-executing and required implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts," according to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report.
The U.S. did enact statutes and regulations to prohibit the transfer of people to countries where they may be tortured, including the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998.
According to Human Rights Watch, CAT prohibits "the U.S. from expelling, returning, or extraditing any person to a state where there are 'substantial grounds' for believing that he would be in danger of being subject to torture.'"
In Thursday's court ruling, the judge noted the petitioners had invoked this protection under CAT as one of their legal arguments, but the court concluded that it does "not possess jurisdiction to consider petitioners' challenges" to Trump's AEA executive order based on CAT.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular