

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.

press@ccrjustice.org
The filing comes after the government failed to respond to a FOIA request demanding urgent transparency over President Trump’s illegal strikes
The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking the immediate release of an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion and other documents related to President Trump’s illegal lethal strikes on civilian boats in international waters.
“The public deserves to know how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians as lawful and why it believes it can hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards to people committing these crimes,” said Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Trump administration must stop these illegal and immoral strikes, and officials who have carried them out must be held accountable.”
Since September 2, the Trump administration has conducted at least 22 strikes, murdering over 87 civilians, in clear violation of domestic and international law. Indeed, the U.S. military may not, under any circumstances, execute civilians who are merely suspected of smuggling drugs. The federal government must first pursue non-lethal measures like arrest and demonstrate that lethal force is an absolute last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Despite bipartisan outrage over these plainly unlawful attacks, the Trump administration has said they will continue.
The groups are suing to force the disclosure of a legal opinion authored by OLC — a part of the Justice Department whose opinions are generally treated as binding within the executive branch — that apparently blesses the ongoing strikes as lawful acts in an alleged “armed conflict” with unspecified “drug cartels.” According to news accounts, the memo also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in these unlawful strikes from future criminal prosecution for what would otherwise simply be homicides.
Contrary to the government’s public assertions, the United States is not, and could not be, in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels. Under international law, an armed conflict between a state and a non-state actor exists only if the non-state actor is an “organized armed group” that is structured and disciplined like regular armed forces and is engaged in “protracted armed violence” against the state. There is no plausible argument that any drug cartel satisfies this test vis-a-vis the United States.
“The Trump administration is displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name.”
The Trump administration has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of the memo and continues to assert that their strikes are on “firm legal ground,”" yet they are still refusing to publicly release the OLC opinion that details their reasoning. In mid-November, the Trump administration allowed members of Congress and their staffs to read the opinion. Many found its analysis deeply troubling. Indeed, one senator remarked that the opinion “would not constrain any use of force anywhere in the world. I mean, it is broad enough to authorize just about anything.”
“The public deserves to know how the Trump administration is rubber-stamping the bombing of civilians in the Caribbean Sea, with no accountability,” said Ify Chikezie, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “By claiming that these attacks are legal while refusing to provide any evidence or rationale, Trump shows once again his disdain for basic transparency, human rights, and the rule of law. The courts must step in and order the administration to release these documents immediately.”
The groups are asking the court to intervene because the government has not released any records in response to their request, despite urgent public interest in the OLC opinion and the Freedom of Information Act’s (FOIA) clear statutory deadlines.
Read the complaint here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464"For a representative democracy like ours to work, citizens must have some confidence that, through... political engagement, they have a fighting chance to turn their priorities into government policy," said an elections expert.
Billionaires exerted an unprecedented amount of influence over the 2024 US federal elections, accounting for almost one-fifth of the nearly $16 billion spent to elect candidates during that cycle, according to a New York Times analysis published Monday.
Just 300 billionaires and their immediate families poured an unprecedented $3 billion into the election, either giving directly to candidates or through political action committees.
These individuals represent just about 0.0087% of the 3.46 million people who donated more than $200 to one or multiple candidates during the election cycle.
And yet, with an average donation of $10 million apiece—equivalent to what 100,000 typical donors would give—they amounted to about 19% of all spending, allowing their interests to be pushed to the center of major races.
The Times highlighted the extraordinary role that billionaire fundraisers played in pushing Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) over the finish line in his bid to unseat the three-term incumbent Democrat, then-Sen. Jon Tester.
Sheehy's long shot campaign was given a boost by Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, who donated $8 million to his super PAC after previously investing $150 million in the candidate's struggling firefighting business, which helped seed his campaign.
As the report explains, Schwarzman "was not the only financial heavyweight in Mr. Sheehy’s corner":
At least 64 billionaires and 37 of their immediate family members donated directly to his campaign, a New York Times analysis found. When also accounting for money that flowed through political committees that support Mr. Sheehy, an analysis shows that billionaires contributed about $47 million in the race that Mr. Sheehy went on to win.
Sheehy's campaign drew support from a who's who of GOP power brokers: Jeff Yass, the founder of the Pennsylvania-based trading firm Susquehanna International Group and a major funder of Trump's massive White House ballroom project; the Uihlein family, which owns Uline shipping and has been central to backing anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, and election-denialist causes; and Florida hedge fund founder Ken Griffin, who spent $12 million to stop an initiative in the state to legalize marijuana.
In installing Sheehy, the ultrawealthy bought themselves "a key ally on tax policies that benefit the wealthy" who "cosponsored a proposal to eliminate the estate tax," the Times reported.
While billionaires still have their talons in both political parties, the Times noted a distinct shift toward Republicans in 2024—for every one dollar given to Democrats, five went to the GOP in the election.
Trump, who openly begged for donations from oil tycoons on the campaign trail, was the single largest beneficiary of this avalanche of spending.
According to a study by Americans for Tax Fairness in October 2024, less than a month before election day, Trump had already received $450 million from 150 billionaire families, 75% of their $600 million total to major candidates, and three times Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris's $143 million.
By the end of the campaign, Trump and his affiliated PACs would amass more than $250 million from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and more than $100 million from both the pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson and the banking heir Timothy Mellon, according to OpenSecrets.
Trump has since appointed more than a dozen billionaires to administration positions, including Musk, who was tasked with eviscerating public spending as the de facto head of the so-called "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE).
But as the Times reported, "Many of those billionaires are not only hoping to reshape the federal government... but to win influence in state legislatures, city councils, school boards, and courthouses."
"Ultrawealthy donors... have helped overhaul political leadership and policy in states across the country, expanding private charter schools, restricting abortion rights, advancing artificial intelligence in government, and blocking laws that would make it harder to evict tenants," the report explained.
As the 2026 midterm cycle begins, another spending blitz is coming. As the Times reported last month, the artificial intelligence industry, crypto industry, the pro-Israel lobby, and Trump's super PAC have each amassed war chests of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to help elect their allies to Congress.
Silicon Valley billionaires, including PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, meanwhile,have collectively dumped tens of millions into stopping a proposal in California for a one-time 5% tax on billionaires in the state, which would replace Medicaid funding slashed by Republicans' massive budget law last year.
The explosion in spending by the ultrarich has come quickly. Where billionaires spent just $16.6 million to influence the 2008 election cycle, that number has steadily ballooned up to $3 billion in 2024, a more than 12,000% increase when adjusted for inflation.
Daniel Weiner, the director of the Brennan Center for Justice's elections and government program, said that the "astonishing stat" was a "legacy of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision" in 2010, which allowed billionaire-funded dark money groups to spend unlimited amounts of cash on political communication advocating for candidates.
"The resulting collapse of campaign finance rules has combined with a resurgence in the sort of high-level self-dealing that was pervasive during the Gilded Age, when bribery and graft were common, and corporations used their wealth to secure monopolies, government subsidies, and other benefits," Weiner wrote for TIME on Monday.
"As in the past, the question now is who will offer Americans a real alternative, including a commitment to stamp out self-dealing in all three branches of the government," he said, recommending a constitutional amendment to restore campaign finance limits tossed aside by the Supreme Court, a ban on spending by government contractors seeking contracts, and bans on congressional stock trading.
"For a representative democracy like ours to work, citizens must have some confidence that, through voting and other forms of political engagement, they have a fighting chance to turn their priorities into government policy," he concluded. "Far too many Americans have lost that faith, and they identify pervasive corruption at the top of our government as a big part of the reason. But cycles of corruption followed by reform are an enduring feature of American history. A new round of ambitious reform is overdue."
“Iran does not want to harm ordinary Americans who overwhelmingly voted to end involvement in costly foreign wars," the embattled country's foreign minister said.
As US and Israeli forces continued to bomb 30 of Iran's 31 provinces, killing more than 1,300 people including hundreds of women and children, the top Iranian diplomat said Monday that his country does not want to hurt American civilians.
"Iran does not want to harm ordinary Americans who overwhelmingly voted to end involvement in costly foreign wars," Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said on social media. "Blame for surging gas prices, costlier mortgages, and pummeled 401(k)s lies squarely with Israel and its dupes in Washington."
Araghchi was responding to a previous post by US petroleum analyst Patrick De Haan noting that gasoline prices have spiked by more than 50 cents per gallon in at least 18 states as a result of the US-Israeli war of choice.
"Nine days into Operation Epic Mistake, oil prices have doubled while all commodities are skyrocketing," Araghchi posted earlier on Monday, mocking Operation Epic Fury, the official US moniker for the war. "We know the US is plotting against our oil and nuclear sites in hopes of containing huge inflationary shock. Iran is fully prepared. And we, too, have many surprises in store."
Araghchi's remarks came as Iranian officials said that more than 1,300 people—including at least 198 women and 190 minors—have been killed over nine days of US-Israeli attacks, including massacres like the missile strike on a girls' elementary school in Minab that left around 175 people dead, most of them children.
Hundreds of civilians, including 42 women and 83 children, have also been killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon.
Retaliatory strikes by Iran and its Hezbollah ally in Lebanon have killed at least 11 Israelis, seven US troops, and at least 15 people in Gulf Arab nations.
Araghchi's comments stood in stark contrast with US President Donald Trump's cavalier public attitude toward potential American casualties from Iranian attacks.
Asked last week if American civilians should expect terror attacks in retaliation for the war, Trump replied, “I guess."
“We expect some things," the president added. "Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.”
"The Trump administration is admitting that they have strategically failed and this has been a disaster," said one foreign policy expert.
President Donald Trump signaled on Monday that he's nearly done with his unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran, despite declaring mere days ago that he would only accept the country's "unconditional surrender."
In an interview with CBS News' Weijia Jiang, Trump said that the Iran war is "very complete, pretty much," then falsely claimed that US and Israeli strikes had eliminated Iran's navy and even its ability to communicate.
Jiang's reporting on Trump's declaration that the war was nearly over came just one hour after the US Department of Defense (DOD) posted a message on social media declaring, "We have Only Just Begun to Fight."
Additionally, noted journalist Yashar Ali, CBS News' "60 Minutes" aired an interview with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday in which he said that the war was still in its early days.
The president's abrupt shift in rhetoric about the war came hours after the prices of both Brent crude oil and WTI crude oil futures surged past $100 per barrel, as countries across the Middle East announced production cuts in the wake of chaos and destruction caused by the Iran war.
The impact of the price surge on the US stock market was immediate, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened Monday trading down by more than 600 points, while the Nasdaq dropped by 300 points.
In the wake of Trump's statement about the war being "pretty much" complete, shares on the US stock market rallied and oil futures began to drop.
Trump administration officials said that the initial goal of the attack was ending Iran's uranium enrichment program—and while they claimed it wasn't a "regime change" war, the president last month urged Iranians to "take over" their government. However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday outlined a more modest set of goals that included destroying its navy and its missile launch capacity.
Phillips O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, argued that this set of goals showed "the Trump administration is admitting that they have strategically failed and this has been a disaster."
Political scientist Ian Bremmer also took note of Rubio's revised goals and said they make "declaring victory and ending war with Iran much easier."
However, just because Trump is saying he thinks the war is almost over doesn't mean that it will end soon. Iran has still shut the Strait of Hormuz, and it maintains the ability to launch drone attacks on energy infrastructure throughout the Middle East.