

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.

22 Groups Urge Congress: Advance Real Solutions, Not Extremist Nonsense, to Address Fentanyl Crisis
Win Without War joined a diverse coalition of peace, drug policy, and human rights organizations in signing a statement (copied below) opposing H.R. 3205, the ‘Project Precursor Act.’ The bill seeks to label fentanyl a “chemical weapon” by directing the Biden administration to push for its insertion into the international Chemical Weapons Convention.
“The illicit trafficking and use of fentanyl is devastating U.S. communities, and Congress should take measures to address this public health crisis in ways that reduce demand and support people wrestling with drug dependence,” said Stephen Miles, Win Without War’s president. “But normalizing the misguided notion that fentanyl is a ‘chemical weapon’ will only bolster extremist demands to conduct military strikes in Mexico, deepen our failed war on drugs, and weaken a vital international arms control treaty.”
“We’re proud to join a strong coalition in urging Congress to vote down a bad idea with terrible policy implications. Communities in the U.S. and around the world deserve humane and people-first solutions, not dangerous rhetoric in the service of an extremist, pro-war agenda.”
###
JOINT STATEMENT OPPOSING H.R. 3205, THE “PROJECT PRECURSOR ACT”
The undersigned organizations urge the House of Representatives to vote down H.R. 3205, the “Project Precursor Act.” We represent a diverse set of civil society groups with different mandates, missions, and areas of expertise, and not all of us can comment on every facet of H.R. 3205. We are firmly aligned, however, in rejecting the bill’s central aim of labeling fentanyl a “chemical weapon” – a dangerous rhetorical stunt that feeds calls for military action in Mexico, weakens the international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and further entrenches a failed, militarized approach to addressing the harms caused by illicit fentanyl trafficking.
Title II of H.R. 3205 states that “The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General, shall use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States…to seek to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention to include each covered fentanyl substance on schedule 2 or 3 of the Annex on Chemicals to the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Pushing to add fentanyl to any of the CWC schedules fundamentally misrepresents the crisis caused by illicit fentanyl use. Fentanyl is not a weapon of war. It is a drug, and while it has some therapeutic uses, it is dealing real and lasting damage to U.S. communities.
Congress adopting this “chemical weapon” rhetoric will only give further oxygen to growing calls for, and even congressional authorization of, U.S. military strikes in Mexico. The executive branch Office of Legal Counsel has previously taken the position that the president can invoke his Article II authorities to target chemical weapons facilities in another country, without first seeking approval from Congress. Acclimating both Congress and executive agencies to the claim that fentanyl is a “chemical weapon” would embolden an executive branch that already views its war powers as virtually unchecked. If H.R. 3205 is passed, a future president could instrumentalize both the view of Congress and prior OLC positions to justify unilateral strikes on cartels in Mexico, embroiling the United States in a destabilizing cross-border conflict that would endanger people in both countries.
The push for strikes into Mexico would be closely paired with increased border militarization and even greater restrictions on people who are migrating to and seeking protection in the United States. Powerful politicians are already, wrongly, scapegoating these populations for fentanyl-related deaths. If H.R. 3205 is adopted and migrants become viewed as perpetuating “chemical weapon attacks,” congressional rhetoric will open the door to an even greater military buildup at the U.S.-Mexico border, and our hobbled asylum and refugee resettlement systems will further atrophy as people already fleeing conflict and crisis are baselessly treated as threats.
H.R. 3205 not only plays into the hands of those seeking conflict in Mexico, but also risks undermining international efforts to verify and destroy chemical weapons. The CWC is a successful and durable international arms control agreement that has facilitated the destruction of 99% of the world’s declared chemical weapons stockpiles. In pushing an international arms control treaty body to address a drug policy matter entirely divorced from its mission, the United States would open the door to other governments revisiting and even contesting the CWC in a manner that both distracts from efforts to verify and destroy chemical weapons and degrades the international taboo on chemical weapons’ storage and use.
Finally, in seeking to present fentanyl as a weapon of war, H.R. 3205 entrenches the cardinal failure of the war on drugs – militarizing a public health challenge. The U.S. government viewing people who use fentanyl as wielding a “chemical weapon” would imperil desperately needed access to treatment and health services that can prevent overdoses and address drug dependence. In particular, the bill’s authors have not clarified how amending the CWC to include fentanyl as a chemical substance would impact enforcement of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 11B, which mandates severe penalties, including fines and possible imprisonment for possessing a chemical weapon, in addition to life imprisonment or capital punishment for any person in violation of the law “and by whose action the death of another person is the result” (18 U.S.C. § 229 and 229A). As a result, medical professionals may avoid fentanyl’s licit and beneficial applications for fear of prescribing a “chemical weapon.” And any further police, prosecutorial, or even military action or expanded authority to disrupt this “chemical weapon” would disproportionately fall, as has the rest of the war on drugs, on communities of color, people who use drugs, and the working class.
All too often, we see overheated and politically expedient statements set the stage for spiraling international crises and attacks on the most vulnerable. We urge Congress to reject H.R. 3205, and stop today’s rhetoric from encouraging tomorrow’s conflict.
Afghans For A Better Tomorrow
AIDS United
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)
Center for International Policy
Demand Progress Action
Drug Policy Alliance
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Justice is Global
Kino Border Initiative
Law Enforcement Action Partnership
National Immigration Project
National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies
NEXT Distro
Oxfam America
Peace Action
Physicians for Human Rights
Project On Government Oversight
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Washington Office on Latin America
Win Without War
Win Without War is a diverse network of activists and organizations working for a more peaceful, progressive U.S. foreign policy. We believe that by democratizing U.S. foreign policy and providing progressive alternatives, we can achieve more peaceful, just, and common sense policies that ensure that all people--regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, or economic status--can find and take advantage of opportunity equally and feel secure.
"She needs to be fired, resign, or she will be impeached."
President Donald Trump offered a one-word answer—"No"—when asked Tuesday if Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will resign following her decision to smear Alex Pretti as a violent domestic terrorist immediately after he was gunned down by border security agents on a Minneapolis street, but Democrats in Congress noted that many in the Republican Party have not appeared so confident regarding Noem's conduct following the killing.
Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee emphasized that since "Operation Metro Surge" in the Minneapolis area led to the killing of a second US citizen by Border Patrol agents on Saturday, and Noem accused Pretti of approaching officers with a gun and resorting to violence despite the fact that footage from multiple camera angles showed nothing of the sort, "she has been rebuked by Republicans in Congress, by her own senior staffers, and even the president."
Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said Noem's comments "came before all the facts were known and weakened confidence," while Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called for Noem and the heads of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration agencies to testify before Congress.
Former DHS general counsel John Mitnick, an architect of the agency, said he was "enraged and embarrassed by DHS’s lawlessness, fascism, and cruelty" and demanded Trump's impeachment, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt attempted on Monday to distance the administration from Noem's response to the killing.
The Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee posted MS NOW's fact-check of Noem's comments directly after Pretti was killed, along with their demand: "She lied about Alex Pretti... She needs to be fired, resign, or she will be impeached."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) released a statement outlining why—regardless of how—Noem must leave her position leading DHS.
"Taxpayer dollars are being weaponized by the Trump administration to kill American citizens, brutalize communities, and violently target law-abiding immigrants," said the Democratic leaders. "Dramatic changes at the Department of Homeland Security are needed. Federal agents who have broken the law must be criminally prosecuted. The paramilitary tactics must cease and desist. Taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for Americans, not kill them in cold blood."
"Kristi Noem should be fired immediately, or we will commence impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives," they added. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."
On MS NOW, Jeffries on Tuesday called Noem "a despicable, corrupt, pathological liar."
Hakeem Jeffries: "Kristi Noem is a despicable, corrupt, pathological liar. We've seen her slander not just one, but American citizens, patriotic Americans who were killed without justification on the streets of Minneapolis ... we are prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings… pic.twitter.com/MEnBXIJDdt
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 27, 2026
The GOP-controlled House is not likely to move forward with impeaching Noem, but a resolution to do so now has 150 Democratic cosponsors, with more than two-thirds of the party's House members backing the call to bring charges against the homeland security secretary and former South Dakota governor. Should Democrats win back control of the House in the November elections, they could move forward with the effort if she is still in office.
"Secretary Noem has blood on her hands," Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) who introduced the impeachment articles, said in a statement. "Under her leadership, Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good were murdered."
"President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping."
A watchdog group is raising concerns that President Donald Trump may have violated federal recordkeeping laws by using an auto-deleting message application to text world leaders.
On Tuesday, the group American Oversight sent a letter to White House Counsel David Warrington asking for information about whether the president is taking all the required steps to comply with the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of all presidential records—including digital correspondence—during official duties.
The group highlighted two posts Trump made on Truth Social last Tuesday in which appeared to reveal that he was using Signal or another similar messaging app to discuss world affairs with world leaders.
The first screenshot shows a message from French President Emmanuel Macron, who discussed plans to meet with Trump about his proposal to take over Greenland and meetings with other foreign diplomats.
The second was sent from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who told Trump he'd use his "media engagements" in Davos to "highlight" Trump's work in Ukraine and Gaza, and expressed an interest in "finding a way forward on Greenland."
While some European diplomats found it troubling that any intimate communication they have with Trump could be exposed to the world on a whim, American Oversight said it also raised concerns about the preservation of records.
Trump has a long history of flouting rules surrounding the proper storage of documents. The group pointed out that during his first term, the president would often rip up notes, memos, and documents after reading them and at least twice reportedly attempted to flush them down the toilet.
More recently, he was indicted for improperly stashing away classified documents at his personal residence at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House and showing them to people without security clearances.
The second Trump White House has already been involved in a scandal surrounding their use of deleting message apps when a journalist was accidentally invited into a private Signal chat last year, which contained the administration's plans for an imminent strike on Yemen. The messages in that chat were reportedly set to delete after one week, before later being changed to four, which would have also violated the Presidential Records Act.
“President Trump has repeatedly made clear his contempt for laws governing presidential transparency and proper recordkeeping,” said American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. “The Presidential Records Act exists to ensure transparency of presidential decisions and safeguard the historical record for the American people."
"Given President Trump’s well-documented history of mishandling sensitive information and presidential records," he added, "the White House must assure the public that these communications are secure and being preserved and protected in full compliance with the law.”
The group has requested that the White House counsel disclose any other messages Trump may have sent using auto-deleting apps and ensure that any messages sent through mobile messaging programs are properly preserved.
“People may not simply be gunned down by the government, and the Trump administration’s claims to the contrary risk making America a pariah state," said one attorney in the case.
Relatives of two Trinidadian men killed during the Trump administration's internationally condemned bombing spree against boats allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea filed a wrongful death lawsuit Tuesday against the United States.
Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, were killed in one of the at least 36 strikes the Trump administration has launched against civilian boats in the southern Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean since last September. According to the lawsuit and the Trump administration's own figures, at least 125 people have been killed in such strikes, which are part of the broader US military aggression targeting Venezuela.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts by lawyers from the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School on behalf of Joseph's mother Lenora Burnley and Samaroo's sister Sallycar Korasingh. The complaint alleges that the US violated the Death on the High Seas Act, which allows relatives to sue for wrongful deaths at sea, and the Alien Tort Statute, which empowers foreign citizens to seek legal redress in US federal courts.
According to the lawsuit:
On October 14, 2025, the United States government authorized and launched a missile strike against a boat carrying six people traveling from Venezuela to Trinidad. The strike killed all six, including Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian nationals who had been fishing in waters off the Venezuelan coast and working on farms in Venezuela, and who were returning to their homes in Las Cuevas, in nearby Trinidad and Tobago.
The October 14 attack was part of an unprecedented and manifestly unlawful US military campaign of lethal strikes against small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean... The United States has not conducted these strikes pursuant to any congressional authorization. Instead, the government has acted unilaterally. And Trump administration officials, including President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have publicized videos of the boat strikes, boasting about and celebrating their own role in killing defenseless people.
"These premeditated and intentional killings lack any plausible legal justification," the lawsuit asserts. "Thus, they were simply murders, ordered by individuals at the highest levels of government and obeyed by military officers in the chain of command."
Burnley said in a statement announcing the lawsuit: "Chad was a loving and caring son who was always there for me, for his wife and children, and for our whole family. I miss him terribly. We all do."
“We know this lawsuit won’t bring Chad back to us, but we’re trusting God to carry us through this, and we hope that speaking out will help get us some truth and closure," she added.
Korasingh said, “Rishi used to call our family almost every day, and then one day he disappeared, and we never heard from him again."
“Rishi was a hardworking man who paid his debt to society and was just trying to get back on his feet again and to make a decent living in Venezuela to help provide for his family," she added, referring to her brother's imprisonment for taking part in the 2009 murder of a street vendor. "If the US government believed Rishi had done anything wrong, it should have arrested, charged, and detained him, not murdered him. They must be held accountable.”
Trump officials have offered very little concrete evidence to support their claims that the targeted vessels were smuggling drugs. Critics allege that's why attorneys at the US Department of Defense reportedly inquired about whether two survivors of an October bombing in the Caribbean could be sent to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) maximum security prison in El Salvador, which has been described by rights groups as a "legal black hole."
The survivors were ultimately returned to their home countries of Colombia and Ecuador. Some observers said their repatriation showed the Trump administration knew that trying the survivors in US courts would compel officials to explain their dubious legal justification for the attacks, which many experts say are illegal.
Trump officials also considered sending boat strike survivors to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but that would allow their lawyers to sue for habeas corpus—a right granted by the US Supreme Court in its 2008 Boumediene v. Bush decision during the era of extrajudicial imprisonment and torture of terrorism suspects, as well as innocent men and boys, at the facility. The Trump administration has even revived the term “unlawful enemy combatant”—which was used by the Bush administration to categorize people caught up in the War on Terror in a way that skirts the law—to classify boat strike survivors.
The Trinidadian and Tobagonian government has also been criticized for hosting joint military exercises with the United States in the Caribbean Sea amid Trump's boat-bombing campaign.
ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman said Tuesday that “the Trump administration’s boat strikes are the heinous acts of people who claim they can abuse their power with impunity around the world."
“In seeking justice for the senseless killing of their loved ones, our clients are bravely demanding accountability for their devastating losses and standing up against the administration’s assault on the rule of law," he added.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy argued that “these are lawless killings in cold blood; killings for sport and killings for theater, which is why we need a court of law to proclaim what is true and constrain what is lawless."
"This is a critical step in ensuring accountability, while the individuals responsible may ultimately be answerable criminally for murder and war crimes," Azmy added.
Hafetz said that "using military force to kill Chad and Rishi violates the most elementary principles of international law."
“People may not simply be gunned down by the government," he stressed, "and the Trump administration’s claims to the contrary risk making America a pariah state.”
Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, contended that Trump's "lethal boat strikes violate our collective understanding of right and wrong."
“Rishi and Chad wanted only to get home safely to their loved ones; the unconscionable attack on their boat prevented them from doing so," Rossman added. "It is imperative that we hold this administration accountable, both for their families and for the rule of law itself.”