

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.

Americans United: Moisés Serrano, media@au.org
ACLU of Texas: Kristi Gross, media@aclutx.org
ACLU: Ella Wiley, media@aclu.org
FFRF: Amit Pal, apal@ffrf.org
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP: mediainquiries@stblaw.com
In a victory for religious freedom and church-state separation, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction today in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, prohibiting the school district defendants from implementing a Texas law that requires all public elementary and secondary schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom.
In his decision U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery held that Texas Senate Bill 10, which is due to take effect on Sept. 1, likely violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Ruling that the law would likely lead to unconstitutional religious coercion of the child plaintiffs and interfere with their parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious education, Judge Biery explained:
“[T]he displays are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State’s favored religious scripture, and into suppressing expression of their own religious or nonreligious background and beliefs while at school.”
“As a rabbi and public school parent, I welcome this ruling,” said plaintiff Rabbi Mara Nathan. “Children’s religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools.”
“Public schools are not Sunday schools,” said Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Today’s decision ensures that our clients’ schools will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed and can learn without worrying that they do not live up to the state’s preferred religious beliefs.”
“Today’s ruling is a major win that protects the constitutional right to religious freedom for Texas families of all backgrounds,” said Tommy Buser-Clancy, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “The court affirmed what we have long said: Public schools are for educating, not evangelizing.”
“Today’s decision will ensure that Texas families – not politicians or public-school officials – get to decide how and when their children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “It sends a third strong and resounding message across the country that the government respects the religious freedom of every student in our public schools.”
"It is gratifying to see the federal court honoring our First Amendment, with the wisdom to understand how wrong it would be to impose bible edicts on public students as young as kindergartners,” says Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Religious instruction must be left to parents, not the state, which has no business telling anyone how many gods to have, which gods to have or whether to have any gods at all."
“We are heartened by today’s well-reasoned decision that underscores a foundational principle of our nation: the government cannot impose religious doctrine,” said Jon Youngwood, Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher’s Litigation Department. “This ruling is critical to protecting the First Amendment rights of students and families to make their own determinations as to whether and how they engage with religion.”
The preliminary injunction, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, prohibits the school-district defendants from “displaying the Ten Commandments pursuant to S.B. 10.”
Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Rabbi Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District are a group of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families, including clergy, with children in public schools.
The ruling can be found online here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/08/Texas-SB-10-Ruling.pdf
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666A petition signed by nearly 6,500 healthcare workers demands accountability for the Israeli Medical Association, accusing the organization of complicity in human rights violations.
Thousands of healthcare workers from across the globe are calling on the World Medical Association to suspend Israel’s membership in the organization over the government's mass killing and detention of medical professionals in Gaza, destruction of the Palestinian territory's healthcare system, and ongoing genocide.
The demand came as the WMA's General Assembly gathered in The Netherlands for its annual meeting, which runs through Saturday. A petition addressed to WMA leadership and signed by around 6,500 healthcare workers declares that the Israeli Medical Association (IMA) has "failed to uphold core medical ethical standards" and is "complicit in serious violations of medical neutrality and human rights, committed by the Israeli military and government."
The petition points to Israel's systematic attacks on Palestinian healthcare infrastructure and personnel, detention and torture of medical professionals such as Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, obstruction of medicine and other humanitarian aid in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Supporters of the petition campaign demanded that the WMA suspend the IMA "until it publicly upholds medical ethics and humanitarian law, condemns murder and torture of Palestinian health workers and takes action against violations by its members." They also called on individual national members of the WMA to follow the example of the South African Medical Association, the British Medical Association, and the Turkish Medical Association in cutting institutional ties with the IMA.
"Medical ethics are the foundation of trust in healthcare," the petition states. "The international medical community has acted before, including during apartheid in South Africa. If medical ethics are to mean anything in the future, and we are to have confidence that the WMA can fulfill its role as the international guardian of medical ethics, then it must take concerted action to hold the IMA to account."
The Israeli military has killed around 1,700 healthcare workers and detained hundreds more without charge since it began its massive assault on Gaza in the aftermath of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks.
Last year, the IMA defeated a similar effort to suspend its WMA membership. Instead, the WMA General Assembly adopted a toothless resolution calling on the Israeli government to "instantly halt all forms of attacks on healthcare personnel, patients, healthcare facilities, and food and medical aid logistics."
“Thirty years of WMA dialogue with the IMA has done nothing but give the IMA a sense of impunity. Why should they change?” Jonathan Fluxman, a British Medical Association member and retired doctor, said in a statement on Friday. “It is time for national medical associations and the WMA to speak out and take action. Break your ties with the IMA and suspend the IMA from the WMA now.”
"Either a white coat is worth protecting everywhere, or it is protected nowhere."
Earlier this week, Doctors Without Borders—known internationally as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)—called on the WMA to "join the calls to conduct swift, transparent, and impartial investigations into attacks on healthcare in Gaza and the West Bank, while reiterating its call for the release of all arbitrarily detained healthcare workers."
Dr. Javid Abdelmoneim, MSF's international president, highlighted the case of Abu Safiya, the former head of Gaza's Kamal Adwan hospital who has been detained by Israeli authorities for over 18 months without charge.
"He continues to endure prolonged solitary confinement, severe weight loss, and untreated pre-existing conditions; an international petition for his release has drawn signatories from 41 countries," Abdelmoneim noted. "Alongside him stands Dr Mazen Al-Rantisi, the 71-year-old family physician from Ramallah, known as the ‘doctor of the poor,' arrested in June 2026 in a pre-dawn raid on his home. In addition, our long-time Médecins Sans Frontières colleague, Dr Mohammed Hassan Ali Obeid, a respected 43-year-old Palestinian orthopedic surgeon and father of three children, has been detained under the Unlawful Combatant Law in Israel for more than 600 days without charges."
"Healthcare workers are not targets," wrote Abdelmoneim. "Either a white coat is worth protecting everywhere, or it is protected nowhere. The test is not simply whether we affirm these principles, but whether we uphold them when it matters most."
“I love my Somali friends and neighbors," said one former Democratic official in the state. “If Trump tries to come for them, he needs to come through all of us.”
Fear is running high in Minnesota after President Donald Trump went on yet another racist tirade against the state's Somali community on Thursday—this time verging into what was widely interpreted as a call for vigilante violence.
"The once Great State of Minnesota is being taken over by Somali Immigrants," Trump wrote Thursday afternoon on Truth Social. "There is Violence, Murder, and Mayhem all over the State. The people of Minnesota must fight back."
Trump raged against Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, whom he described as an "incompetent thief who doesn't want to get involved," and seemed to suggest that if ordinary Minnesotans took matters into their own hands, they'd have the blessing of the federal government.
"The Somalians [sic] should not be allowed to get away with what they are doing," Trump said. "They view you as weak and stupid people. Fight back, Minnesota, fight back! If you need, the Federal Government will come to your rescue."
It's hardly the first time Trump has slurred Somali immigrants. He's previously referred to them as "garbage," "very low-IQ people," and "pirates," and said they should all be deported from the country.
But Trump’s comments on Thursday went a step further than that, leaving community members on edge about the possibility that they could instigate violent attacks by his supporters.
“President Trump is placing a target on the backs of Somali Americans," said Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Minnesota, in a statement. "His words are not simply political rhetoric. They are a dangerous invitation to hatred and potentially violence."
"Minnesota has led the nation in attacks on mosques, including fire-bombings," he said. "We know firsthand what happens when hateful rhetoric turns into violence.”

Faisa Ahmed, a Somali American political organizer and senior adviser to the reelection campaign of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, said unease ran deep in her home city of Minneapolis on Thursday night.
"Every Somali I know is walking through our own neighborhoods scared tonight," she said.
"The president just told Minnesotans to 'fight back' against Somalis by name," she added. "This is incitement, and everyone should call it that."
Though most of them are US citizens, Somalis were aggressively targeted when thousands of immigration agents descended on Minnesota during Trump's Operation Metro Surge earlier this year.

In numerous cases, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents were documented engaging in explicit racial profiling directed at Somali citizens—as well as other immigrants—many of whom were detained arbitrarily and attacked with physical violence.
Ellison, who has sued the administration for civil rights violations and pushed for agents to be investigated under state law, said he would not let this happen again.
"We've seen what Trump's government coming to the 'rescue' looks like," he wrote on social media Thursday. "It ended with two Minnesotans shot dead by federal agents, racial profiling, assaults, and the violation of our rights."
"Never again. If Trump tries, I'll drag him back to court," he said. "Somali Minnesotans are our neighbors. They are part of Minnesota. And the Minnesota I know and love is so much better than this bigotry."

With less than a month to go before the midterm elections, Minnesota Republicans have sought to harness bigotry against Somalis to rally support.
Democratic candidate Doug Chapin, who is trying to unseat Republican House Majority Whip Tom Emmer in Minnesota's 6th district, put it plainly during an event on Thursday night.
"I'll call it what it is," Chapin said. "The president is trying to foment a race war here in Minnesota."
But as the violent rhetoric has ramped back up, so have expressions of solidarity from community members who have called it out as a cynical political tactic.
"This is KGB-style fear-mongering before an election. Trump’s terrified he’s going to lose the House and Senate and get impeached," said Mike Norton, the former vice chair of the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party in Minneapolis.
"I love my Somali friends and neighbors. They make Minnesota a better place," Norton said. "If Trump tries to come for them, he needs to come through all of us."
"The world’s supposedly greatest (or formerly greatest) democracy has arrived at a horrific new moral nadir," said one columnist of the plan to livestream the killing by firing squad of Nidal Hasan.
As rights advocates across the US expressed horror at the Trump administration's confirmed plans to publicly broadcast the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former military psychiatrist who was convicted of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood in 2009, the top United Nations human rights expert warned that the public state killing would violate international laws prohibiting torture.
“The livestreaming of an execution is tantamount to a public execution and would breach the absolute prohibition of torture,” the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) told Agence France-Presse Friday.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday, the US Army announced that Hasan would be executed by firing squad at Fort Hood on December 3, with the Trump administration inviting the public to watch the shooting via livestream.
The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions said in a report to the UN Human Rights Council in June that all capital punishment must be abolished worldwide, as "severe physical pain and psychological distress are an inherent part of the design and implementation" of the practice.
The OHCHR has particularly spoken out against public executions, such as those that have been carried out in Afghanistan and Iran.
Public killings by the state "constitute a form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," the office has said.
"This planned livestreamed execution says it all about what is happening in America today, opening the window ever wider on the Trump administration’s moral vacuity and its paucity of human decency."
Should the livestream go forward, Hasan's execution will be the first public state-sanctioned killing in the US in 90 years, according to Michael L. Radelet, professor emeritus at the University of Colorado Boulder, an expert on capital punishment.
Rainey Bethea, a Black man, was hanged in Kentucky in 1936 after reportedly confessing to the killing of a white woman. He was never charged with murder. Thousands of people attended his execution outside a courthouse.
As Edmarverson A. Santos wrote at the independent research platform Diplomacy & Law, the Trump administration's proposed execution livestream "raises substantial concerns under international human rights law."
"The UN Human Rights Committee expressly interprets Article 7 of the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] as prohibiting public executions and considers executions conducted in violation of that provision to constitute arbitrary deprivations of life under Article 6," wrote Santos. "A government-sponsored livestream accessible to the general public could fall within that interpretation, particularly where the condemned person's death is deliberately displayed as part of the state's punitive message."
"Hasan's conviction for intentional murder and the presidential approval of his death sentence do not independently establish the legality of publicly broadcasting his execution," Santos added.
Paul Daley, a columnist for The Guardian Australia, wrote Thursday that the planned livestream—and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's statement that the execution will be made viewable to all to show that "there’s serious consequences for these types of things"—amounted to "state-sanctioned killing as entertainment."
"The world’s supposedly greatest (or formerly greatest) democracy has arrived at a horrific new moral nadir," wrote Daley. "This represents a significant lurch in the US from civilization towards savagery... And this planned livestreamed execution says it all about what is happening in America today, opening the window ever wider on the Trump administration’s moral vacuity and its paucity of human decency."
"We are seeing the limitations of the US military’s training program and ability to maintain discipline, and have to say that it is not functioning as an organization."
The Okinawa Prefectural Assembly on Friday adopted a resolution calling for a formal review of its Status of Forces agreement with the US military amid outrage over the alleged murder of local woman by an American Marine.
As reported by Kyodo News, the assembly passed the resolution by an overwhelming margin, with 45 members in favor and just two opposed.
According to Kyodo News, the two opponents of the resolution said that it didn't go far enough and demanded language calling for the dismissal of the head of the US military in Okinawa.
The Status of Forces agreement, established in 1960, has been criticized for being too preferential to US service members, who are seen as being totally outside the reach of Japan's domestic law enforcement.
Kyodo News noted that the Okinawa assembly "passed a similar protest resolution and opinion statement in 2024 when a series of sexual assaults by US servicemen in Okinawa came to light."
Ryotaro Odo, leader of the assembly's special committee on US military bases, said the resolution was necessary because "we are seeing the limitations of the US military’s training program and ability to maintain discipline, and have to say that it is not functioning as an organization."
The resolution will now be delivered to the US embassy in Japan.
Authorities on Sunday arrested 20-year-old US Lance Cpl. Devin Jacob Ballard on suspicion of murdering 39-year-old Anna Yagi, whom Okinawa police say died from asphyxiation caused by pressure to her neck. In addition to facing murder accusations, Ballard also faces charges that he stole Yagi's wallet and backpack.
The US Marine has denied all allegations.
The alleged murder sparked angry protests and led right-wing Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who supports US military presence in Japan, to condemn what she called a "heinous crime" in a speech delivered in Japan's parliament.
“The Japanese government has lodged a strong protest with the US side," said Takaichi, "and has strongly demanded full cooperation with the investigation, as well as strict disciplinary action against US military personnel and thorough measures to prevent a recurrence of such incidents."
"Thank you so much," said the international jurist in a moment of jest. "If you clap a little bit more, I may share this prize with Trump."
The international reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize, which has suffered in progressive and human rights circles over recent years, may be on the path to improvement after Friday's announcement that this year's award has been given to Navi Pillay, a person of "exceptional courage" who has been at the forefront of accountability efforts for apartheid, prosecuting war crimes, and upholding international law for decades.
In its statement, The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Pillay—who during her career served as a judge on the High Court in South Africa, her native country, and later the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court (ICC)—"has been instrumental in ensuring that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are prosecuted."
Pillay also served for six years as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, from 2008 to 2014, and more recently chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which generated a 2025 report concluding that the Israeli government had committed genocide in Gaza.
"The last thing I did is the report on Gaza naming what is happening there as genocide. One of the main reactions to that report [was] paying tribute to me for my courage.. why would you need courage to speak the truth?" Navi Pillay upon winning the 2026 Nobel peace prize https://t.co/hYPA94eFLe
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) October 9, 2026
"The last thing I did is the report on Gaza naming what is happening there as genocide," Pillay said Friday. "One of the main reactions to that report is paying tribute to me for my 'courage.' And you can imagine our surprise—why would you need courage to speak the truth?"
"Is it true?" asked Pillay when first notified of the award, fittingly while at the Nuremburg Court where Nazi's were tried for their atrocities of last century.
In a moment of levity, surrounded by colleagues applauding her achievement, Pillay said, "Thank you so much. If you clap a little bit more, I may share this prize with [US President Donald] Trump."
Trump, accused of war crimes himself, has notoriously said he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize despite his record of violating international laws, kidnapping or assassinating foreign heads of state, initiating wars of aggression, and carrying out a lawless campaign of lethal attacks in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean which human rights experts have denounced as "murder spree."
Volker Türk, the current UN high commissioner for human rights, said the award going to Pillay represents "a proud moment for the global human rights movement," and that to call it "well-deserved" would be "a understatement."
"At a time when human rights are under attack on so many fronts, including from those who wield enormous power, this award is particularly poignant," Türk continued. "It is an award to all those who, around the world, dedicate their lives to the defense of human rights—at great risk to their security."
Agnes Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, called Pillay's selection an "amazing moment" for human rights.
"We are at the Nuremberg Court; I cannot think of a stronger symbol for her Nobel prize," said Callamard. "We are all so thrilled!"
Amazing moment. Navi Pillay has received the Nobel Peace Prize ! https://t.co/HL3r1PJzLOWe are at the Nuremberg Court; I cannot think of a stronger symbol for her Nobel prize. We are all so thrilled! This is her first reactions upon hearing the news: https://t.co/Crbj6XdiyQ
— Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) October 9, 2026
"At a time of existential challenges—including more wars and conflicts than the world has seen in a long time—international law is no longer just a supplement to peace and security. It is an absolute necessity," the Nobel Committee said in its announcement.
Warning that "the system of international law is under tremendous pressure, and its institutions are under attack," the committee said "a shift towards power politics at the expense of legal frameworks and global respect for law and justice" threatens peace and stability worldwide, a veiled but clear reference to the antagonism the US government under Trump has shown to the ICC, the United Nations, and other legal institutions and frameworks.
"Whenever might overtakes right, it undermines stability, trust and peaceful co-existence," the statement said. And continued:
History has shown that a world operating without the rule of law is unjust, unwise and inhumane. The judges – those who guard the thin red line between order and chaos—are therefore highly deserving of our praise. But today, as these same judges are sanctioned, and their institutions are attacked, we need people of courage, vision and determination—qualities that Navi Pillay demonstrates in her work on the bench.
Pillay, it concluded, "is one of the great defenders of international legal principles in our time. Her distinguished career reminds us of the need to support, fortify and expand the global rule of law. Navi Pillay’s commitment to justice and human dignity is a source of hope and inspiration to all who seek to bring about a more peaceful world."
As Türk put it in his remarks, recognition of Pillay's work and legacy by the Nobel committee is "a reaffirmation that human rights, the rule of law and justice and accountability are fundamental to everything—to peace, security and prosperity."
"This is a guy who wants to do service for the corporations," the Democratic US Senate candidate said of his Republican opponent.
Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed said during a televised debate Thursday night that his opponent, Mike Rogers, is "bought off," pointing to the Republican's financial support from the pharmaceutical industry and his opposition to legislative efforts to lower prescription drug prices and provide healthcare to all Americans as a right.
El-Sayed noted that Rogers once described himself as a "champion" of the pharmaceutical industry, which benefited from the Republican's tenure in the US House.
"This is what you can expect from a guy who's bought off: $5 million from corporations to run his previous campaigns," El-Sayed said of Rogers, who opposed the push to let Medicare negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.
El-Sayed said that Rogers "voted to raise your prescription drug prices or to keep them high 19 times" during his seven congressional terms.
"He has the audacity to do an ad looking at the drug prices in Canada," the Democratic candidate continued. "Except for he voted four times to keep you from buying the prescription drugs in Canada."
El-Sayed also touted his support for Medicare for All—which, according to new polling, is backed by two-thirds of US adults—and contrasted that position with Rogers'.
"He voted against the ACA, for God's sake," said El-Sayed, referring to Rogers' opposition to the Affordable Care Act. "I want to guarantee every single person in this country cradle-to-grave coverage, without premiums, co-pays, deductibles. That doesn't have a network. That does not pay a corporate CEO tens of millions of dollars a year."
"This is a guy who wants to do service for the corporations," the Democrat said of Rogers.
Later in the debate, El-Sayed accused Rogers of vying for the "Peeping Tom" vote, citing the Republican's consistent support for mass surveillance.
El-Sayed said he "absolutely" supports putting federal guardrails on Flock cameras and questioned why "we continue to have a situation in which we're watching more and more technology steal more and more data."
"The very Big Tech corporations that are buying his campaigns," El-Sayed added.
Ravi Mangla, national press secretary for the Working Families Party, applauded El-Sayed's performance in Thursday's debate and said that Rogers "has spent his career doing the bidding of Wall Street and Big Pharma CEOs, while watching jobs in Michigan get shipped overseas and prescription drugs grow more and more expensive."
"Tonight’s debate made it crystal clear that Abdul El-Sayed is the only candidate who will fight to put money back in the people's pockets, end the reckless wars abroad, and stand up to the billionaire CEOs who think they should be able to call the shots in Washington," said Mangla.
“Our New York communities have been built by generations of immigrant love, ingenuity, creativity, and resilience," said one organizer. "Trump can’t take that from us."
Outraged community members gathered in New York City's Marble Hill neighborhood Thursday night to demand that federal immigration agents leave the city after a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fired at least seven shots into a vehicle on a bustling street, wounding the driver while a five-year-old boy sat in the back seat.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani expressed anger at the shooting that had left the child "traumatized and terrified," and accused the Trump administration of "terrorizing" the city.
“Tonight, millions of our neighbors are wondering whether they will be safe on our streets, in our schools, at their work sites," said Mamdani, a democratic socialist. "We know that ICE is rotten to its core. Tonight's shooting is only further confirmation of what we have long known, which is that ICE operates with impunity... that they have killed far more of our neighbors than they have ever claimed to save."
Mamdani: What happened today was an outrage. Today's shooting is only further devastating confirmation of what we have long known, which is that ICE operates with impunity, that they sow chaos and terror across our country, that they have killed far more of our neighbors than they could ever have claimed to save. This is an agency that must be abolished.
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 9, 2026
Mamdani said he had spent two hours on the phone with President Donald Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin in an attempt to negotiate the release of the man who was shot, identified as 28-year-old Oscar Belgal, but ICE instead "put the man in an unmarked vehicle and whisked him away" after he was treated at a hospital for his injuries.
The shooting took place around 4:00 pm on West 225th Street, as children were being let out of numerous schools in the neighborhood, Mamdani emphasized.
According to surveillance footage, Belgal was parked in front of a fire hydrant when a plainclothes ICE officer, dressed in a construction vest and wearing a face mask, approached the driver's side window of the car with his gun drawn.
After another plainclothes agent approached the front of Belgal's car, he began pulling away from the curb. One of the ICE officers then opened fire, hitting Belgal in the neck as the boy, whom New York City authorities believe to be the man's son, sat feet away.
An eyewitness, Viely Herrera, told The New York Times that she had heard several gunshots before seeing Belgal's SUV crash into a concrete barrier. Belgal then exited the car, holding his neck and shouting in Spanish.
Herrera added that the boy in the car was crying, and the officers would not allow a woman to remove him from the scene.
With limited exceptions, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers are prohibited from shooting into a moving vehicle to stop or apprehend the driver.
Mamdani demanded to know how DHS is "keeping anyone safe" by having "individuals in construction vests, wearing masks, with long guns? Residents have no idea if these are law enforcement agents or if they are simply attacking someone on the street. And when it comes to ICE, it begs the question, what's the difference?"
I am angry tonight.Because today ICE shot a New Yorker. They shot a New Yorker while his five year old child was in the car.ICE makes this city less safe.We want them out. Now. https://t.co/ZizKB0OP7S
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) October 9, 2026
DHS did not explain why its agent had fired into a moving vehicle against department policy, or mention the child who was inside the car. Officials said in a social media post that Belgal was a "criminal illegal alien" from the Dominican Republic with a prior conviction for grand larceny and a history of arrests for other crimes.
The agency said New York City authorities had previously released Belgal after his arrests.
Darializa Avila Chevalier, who is running to represent New York's 13th Congressional District, where Marble Hill lies, joined Mamdani in demanding that ICE be abolished—a call that is supported by 50% of Americans, according to a YouGov poll taken earlier this year.
Revulsion over the agency's practices has grown as Trump's mass deportation operations have intensified. DHS officers have fatally shot at least six people during enforcement operations, including three US citizens. Two of them were protesting the anti-immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.
In the past three months, two immigrants have been killed during enforcement operations—Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine. Like Belgal, the two men were operating their vehicles when the shootings took place.
Chevalier emphasized that Trump is overseeing his violent nationwide crackdown on immigrant communities "to make us feel powerless."
https://t.co/qdrtxkPNP1
— Darializa for Congress (@DarializaforNY) October 9, 2026
"But I want us to look around and look at how many people came out for this community. That is how powerful this community is," she said. "He messed with the wrong fucking city."
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said New Yorkers had shown up to rally against ICE "because ICE is a rogue, unaccountable, violent, and racist plague on our communities. Because Trump is the fascist-in-chief. We are here to bear witness and be in solidarity with our immigrant friends and neighbors."
“Our New York communities have been built by generations of immigrant love, ingenuity, creativity, and resilience," she said. "Trump can’t take that from us. ICE cannot scare, brutalize, or shoot that out of New York. And no one—no one—has the right to terrorize our communities and traumatize our kids. We are immigrant New York!"
“We demand a full investigation. We demand humanity. We demand our rights," she added. "We demand ICE get the fuck out of New York.”
"The death penalty on its own is morally indefensible," said one critic. "Turning it into a public spectacle is an abomination."
The Pentagon on Thursday confirmed plans to livestream an execution by firing squad in December—a revelation that came amid fresh calls for the United States to end the death penalty after Tennessee botched two attempts to kill Christa Pike with injections of pentobarbital.
The US Army announced Wednesday that Nidal Hasan—a former military psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people and injuring 32 more in a 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood—will be executed at the Texas base at 1:00 pm Central Standard Time on December 3.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the right-wing outlet Real America's Voice News that "we'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public, because people need to understand that... there's serious consequences for these types of things."
Then, other outlets, including The Associated Press, reported that "officials in the Pentagon clarified Thursday that the execution would be livestreamed and that more details would follow."
The Washington Post reported that "if Hasan's execution is carried out, it would mark the first US military execution since April 13, 1961, when Army Pvt. John A. Bennett was hanged after being convicted of rape and attempted murder, according to the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center, which monitors capital punishment. The military's last known firing squad execution was carried out by 'musketry' on November 9, 1945."
Hegseth's comments and the subsequent confirmation from the US Department of Defense were met with disgust and outrage.
"What a sick man," former National Nurses United communications director Charles Idelson said of the Pentagon chief on social media. "A. Executions have never been proven to be a deterrent to capital crimes. B. The spectacle of a public execution is morbid, it recalls the public lynchings so common during the Jim Crow era. C. If the shooter was white, I don't believe this would be public."
Hasan is a US citizen born to Palestinian immigrant parents. Just before he opened fire on soldiers who were set to deploy to Afghanistan, he shouted "Allahu akbar," an Arabic phrase commonly used by Muslims that translates to "God is great!"
While some critics called out Hesgeth, Obama administration speechwriter-turned-podcaster Jon Favreau took aim at Vice President JD Vance, who recently published a book about his faith journey, including his conversion to Catholicism. Favreau said that "I would like to hear our Catholic vice president explain why they're intentionally choosing to broadcast the death of a human being for the entire world to see, including children."
Producer and journalist Simon Thompson wrote on social media: "Just when I think this administration couldn't get any worse. Livestreaming executions by firing squad? This administration, a Christian administration apparently, is making a snuff movie and treating it like a [pay-per-view] event."
Journalist Séamus Malekafzali similarly said, "Content with having desensitized the American public by broadcasting faceless images of Iranian sailors dying and buildings full of people leveled to the soundtrack to Halo, the government is now moving to livestreaming snuff films, faces and all."
"I know people hate when people make comparisons to American adversaries, but this is literally what ISIS did, save for the live aspect," he added. "Those executions were also done on camera under the auspices of nominally government institutions, just a different kind of government."
Although Trump left office the first time after overseeing a federal execution spree, American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said Thursday, "Jesus Christ, I didn't think we'd actually get to the 'public executions' stage of Trump's project to roll back the last 100 years of societal development."
Corbin Trent, co-founder of Justice Democrats, suggested it could backfire for the Republican administration. He wrote: "I'm completely in favor of this. I think more of this would go a long way to ending the death penalty."
"The Trump administration is putting corporate profits ahead of people and the planet, and the Western Arctic will pay the price."
Just over a week after a leading US Senate Democrat described President Donald Trump's relationship with fossil fuel giants as "old-fashioned corruption, by a thuggish government and a desperate industry," his administration on Thursday announced yet another giveaway to climate polluters who want to exploit the Arctic.
The US Department of the Interior is moving forward with a plan to allow oil and gas companies to conduct certain wintertime activities at the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska without reviews generally required by the National Environmental Policy Act—a landmark law long targeted by Trump's Republican Party.
"In issuing this categorical exclusion, this administration is seeking to fast-track large-scale oil drilling and seismic exploration without any further environmental analysis or public input," warned Earthjustice attorney Janet Bering. "It is cutting the public out of this decision and future decisions."
"The administration finalized this new approach with zero public input," Bering noted. "Combined with a similar proposal that rubber-stamps new oil production, this is a one-two punch. It's bad policy, and it is unlawful."
The 60-day public comment period is ongoing for the earlier proposal she cited, which is designed to streamline decision-making for construction and operation of oil and gas production sites in the same 23-million-acre Alaska reserve.
When the Interior Department unveiled that policy in early September, Earthjustice Attorney Erik Grafe declared that "what we're seeing here is a concerted attack by the Trump administration to greenlight oil and gas drilling in the Western Arctic while ignoring the harm it will cause to these irreplaceable public lands and also the government's obligation to protect these lands for wildlife and future generations."
"These are large-scale, industrial activities that cause permanent damage to sensitive Arctic ecosystems, nearby communities, and the climate," Grafe stressed. "The administration's proposal flaunts basic environmental laws meant to protect land, wildlife, and people and allow for fully informed decision-making."
Earthjustice is far from alone in blasting Trump's recent attacks on the Arctic. Dan Ritzman, director of Sierra Club's conservation campaign, condemned last month's proposal as "another piece of the administration’s relentless effort to expand drilling across Alaska's public lands."
"The Western Arctic is home to caribou, migratory birds, and countless other wildlife, and decisions about its future deserve careful scrutiny—not a permitting process designed around the demands of the oil and gas industry," Ritzman said at the time.
His colleague Mike Scott, Sierra Club's national oil and gas campaign manager, was similarly critical of Thursday's announcement.
"The Trump administration is handing Big Oil another free pass to exploit America’s public lands, this time by gutting environmental oversight in one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet," said Scott. "Oil companies have already shown the risks they pose to the Western Arctic, and now this administration wants to make it even easier for them to drill without scrutiny."
"This isn't about lowering energy costs or helping Alaskans," he continued—as the president drives up fuel costs with an illegal war on Iran. "It's about doing the fossil fuel industry's bidding at the expense of wildlife, Alaska Native communities, and our public lands. The Trump administration is putting corporate profits ahead of people and the planet, and the Western Arctic will pay the price."
Trump campaigned for a second term on a pledge to serve fossil fuel interests—even telling industry executives that he'd roll back climate policies if they poured $1 billion into his campaign. Last week, US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) released a report detailing how the president has delivered on that promise since returning to power last year.
"The fossil fuel industry and their allies bought their way into the Trump White House with hundreds of millions of dollars in political donations, after Trump promised fossil fuel bigwigs at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser that he'd do anything and everything they wanted, for the right price," Whitehouse said. "Now, their minions run the government from the inside, driving up energy bills to deliver payouts to the donors that put Trump back in office."
One lawyer called the targeting of ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson "a chilling and corrupt indictment" but also "yet another opportunity for the Trump DOJ to shit its pants in court."
In what appears to be its latest effort to target President Donald Trump's political foes, the US Department of Justice is reportedly seeking criminal charges against former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as a star witness in Congress' investigation of the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Punchbowl News reported on Thursday that the DOJ is pursuing federal criminal charges against Hutchinson for allegedly making false statements during her bombshell testimony in June 2022, in which she claimed that Trump attempted to assist the rioters as they tried to violently overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Hutchinson, who was an aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, told Congress she overheard Trump demand the removal of metal detectors at his rally near the White House before the riot, despite knowing that some attendees were armed. She quoted him saying, "They're not here to hurt me."
She also relayed information she claimed to have learned secondhand from others in the Trump White House. She said that Anthony Ornato, the deputy White House chief of staff for operations, told her that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of his SUV away from the Secret Service agent driving it so he could join supporters at the Capitol.
Ornato has since said he does not recall recounting this incident to Hutchinson, and the agents in the vehicle have denied that it took place, according to a subsequent investigation by Republicans in the House of Representatives. However, other witnesses have testified more broadly to Trump's anger that he could not join his supporters at the Capitol.
Hutchinson also said Meadows was reluctant to intervene as rioters threatened to hang then-Vice President Mike Pence. She claimed Meadows told her that Trump believed Pence—who'd refused to assist his efforts to overturn the election result—deserved the threats and that the rioters had done nothing wrong.
Trump has since pardoned every one of the more than 1,500 people convicted of offenses related to the Capitol attack, including those who committed violent felonies.

Asked about plans to bring charges against Hutchinson, a DOJ spokesperson said, "The department does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations, or the lack thereof."
But the department's pursuit of Hutchinson has been public knowledge since at least April, when The New York Times reported that a criminal investigation into the former White House aide had been opened.
The Times noted that it was highly unusual for such a probe to be undertaken by the Civil Rights Division—which usually handles cases of discrimination—rather than the US attorney for the District of Columbia.
Efforts to prosecute Hutchinson follow attempts by the DOJ to bring charges against the president's other perceived enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of which have been thrown out of court.
In a post on social media, Andrew Fleischman, a Georgia-based trial and appeals lawyer, decried the targeting of Hutchinson as "a chilling and corrupt indictment of a woman who told the truth," but also "yet another opportunity for the Trump DOJ to shit its pants in court."