SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 06 2025, 09:49am EDT
Contact:
Deana Rutherford, deana@thepeopleslobbyusa.org;
Unai Montes, u.montes@peoplesaction.org, (Bilingual)
Will AT&T Choose Profits Over People? New Petition Demands Corporation Cut Ties With ICE
AT&T Helps ICE Terrorize the Very Same Diverse Communities the Corporation Has Used to Build Its Brand and Line Its Pockets
CHICAGO
The People’s Lobby and People’s Action have introduced a petition calling on AT&T to end its contract with ICE. With $30.7 billion in revenue in the third quarter of 2025 alone, AT&T does not need its 2024 or 2025 contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to remain profitable. Yet, the telecom giant is choosing to both collect money from customers who are in the crosshairs, and line its pockets with public dollars to help ICE agents – who are masked, unidentifiable, and operating without warrants – as they terrorize members of the public in communities like Chicago.
“AT&T has a choice to make: Be a good business, or exploit people. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t put people from every ethnicity in your ads, take TV, internet and cell phone money from customers who live in communities that are being scapegoated, and then provide ICE with the surveillance and first responders communications infrastructure they used to turn people’s homes into war zones. We don’t want Blackhawk helicopters and heavily armed infantrymen kicking down doors in the middle of the night to kidnap parents and zip tie children. Not in Chicago. Not anywhere,” said The People’s Lobby Executive Director Will Tanzman.
In the wake of President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune passing a 10-year budget that included the unprecedented expansion of ICE resources, the largest transfer of wealth to the rich in history, and devastating cuts to vital programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP, more and more Americans have begun to question why the billionaire and corporate beneficiaries of the tax cuts in the Big Ugly Bill are also on Trump donor lists and getting big government contracts funded with public dollars.
“There is more than enough for all of us to thrive if billionaires, CEOs, and corrupt politicians don’t hoard it. Corporations depend on our labor and earnings. Elected officials work for us. If they refuse to stop themselves from profiting off of our pain and threatening our rights and freedoms, then we have to organize to peacefully stop them. It’s time for AT&T to refuse to allow ICE to use their technology to separate families. It’s time for AT&T to take away access to communications systems meant to keep us and our neighbors safe from outside agents who seek to terrorize our communities. It’s time for AT&T to end their contract with ICE,” said People’s Action Executive Director Sulma Arias.
The petition calling on AT&T to end its contract with ICE is part of a growing movement to hold accountable the corporations that put profits over people. Other corporations named in grassroots campaigns launched recently include Home Depot, Amazon, and Target. Organizers expect that these campaigns will intensify in the coming weeks as the Thanksgiving holiday approaches, SNAP benefits are curtailed, and the resolution of the federal government shutdown over the extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire in December remains uncertain.
People's Action builds the power of poor and working people, in rural, suburban, and urban areas to win change through issue campaigns and elections.
LATEST NEWS
'Crimes Against Humanity': US Murders 2 More People in Pacific Ocean Boat Bombing
The latest killing came a day after a Democratic senator revealed that "the presence of narcotics on the boat has never been a targeting criteria" in the boat bombings.
Jun 04, 2026
The Trump administration killed two more people in a boat bombing in the eastern Pacific Ocean Wednesday, bringing the total number of people killed in the operation human rights experts have condemned as an "extrajudicial killing" spree to at least 207.
"The Trump administration’s lawless killing spree at sea continues," said Brian Finucane, senior adviser at the US program at the International Crisis Group. "The term for premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder—and there is no armed conflict here."
As with previous announcements of the lethal boat strikes, at least 63 of which have now been carried out by the US military in an operation the Trump administration has insisted is stopping drugs from reaching the US, US Southern Command presented no evidence Wednesday night when it said the victims were "two male narco-terrorists" and that the boat was "engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
Finucane noted that "even if there were an armed conflict, there’s no indication these supposed 'narco-terrorists' are lawful targets."
President Donald Trump has claimed the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels in Latin America, and that the Caribbean and eastern Pacific are a legitimate battleground where the conflict has played out. But a number of victims have been identified as fishermen, and families have filed legal complaints against the US over the killings.
After the bombings began in September, Vice President JD Vance all but publicly admitted that the operation would put innocent people at risk, joking at a rally that he "wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world."
The US in the past has treated drug trafficking as a criminal issue, in accordance with international law. A top military lawyer warned the Pentagon last August, just before the operation began, that carrying out the boat bombings could put top officials as well as rank-and-file service members at risk of being held criminally liable.
"Over 200 people killed so far, some who seem likely to have died agonizing deaths by drowning after clinging to wreckage for hours, with no trials, and without a single piece of evidence released to the public of their guilt or of any intent to smuggle drugs to the United States," said Aaron Rechlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.
The latest boat bombing came a day after US Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) revealed a key detail about the "targeting criteria" the military has been using as it's conducted the bombings since last September.
On Tuesday at a hearing where Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified, Kaine noted that "evidence of narcotics on the boat" has not been a prerequisite for US Southern Command to conduct lethal strikes in Operation Southern Spear, despite the fact that the administration has insisted the operation is aimed at stopping drug trafficking boats from reaching the US.
"I've been briefed on Southern Spear since the first operation on September 2 and most recently within the last couple of weeks, and I've asked again and again, 'Have the targeting criteria changed?' 'No they have not,'" said Kaine. "The presence of narcotics on the boat has never been a targeting criteria."
Despite that, Kaine noted, "The administration has always announced, 'This is against narco-traffickers'" when a new strike has been carried out.
Adam Isacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, pointed out that Operation Southern Spear comes two decades after human rights groups presented evidence to US military leaders that "their Colombian military partners were carrying out extrajudicial executions" in what became known as the "false positive" killings.
As Human Rights Watch has explained:
Between 2002 and 2008, army brigades across Colombia routinely executed civilians. Under pressure from superiors to show “positive” results and boost body counts in their war against guerrillas, soldiers and officers abducted victims or lured them to remote locations under false pretenses—such as with promises of work—killed them, placed weapons on their lifeless bodies, and then reported them as enemy combatants killed in action. Committed on a large scale for more than half a decade, these “false positive” killings constitute one of the worst episodes of mass atrocity in the Western Hemisphere in recent decades.
"Now," said Isacson, US officials are "carrying out their own extrajudicial executions every few days. No middleman."
Journalist Joseph Bouchard said the boat strikes could be called the United States' "own false positives scandal."
"None of these have been military targets," said Bouchard. "And even then, do we just kill drug traffickers now, without trial? Better name might be the classic 'crimes against humanity.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pediatricians Warn Trump Attack on Medicaid 'Will Harm Children's Long-Term Health'
"Efforts to undercut or undermine Medicaid for the children who rely on it are a bet against the future of the country," said the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Jun 04, 2026
The American Academy of Pediatrics warned Wednesday that the Trump administration's new rule governing Medicaid work requirements will damage the health of children across the US, as additional bureaucratic barriers make it more difficult for families to access and maintain coverage.
AAP, the largest professional association of pediatricians in the country, said it "strongly opposes" the rule unveiled by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) earlier this week, calling it "an intentional policy choice that will harm children’s long-term health and well-being." The group said the rule should be rescinded.
“When parents have healthcare coverage, their children are more likely to be covered and stay covered over time, allowing uninterrupted access to the care they need to grow up healthy," said Andrew Racine, AAP's president. "Work requirements have not been shown to help adults gain employment. Instead, the added red tape makes it more difficult for eligible people to stay enrolled in Medicaid and makes the program less efficient overall. These administrative barriers will disproportionately hurt people with disabilities, and parents of children with special healthcare needs will lose coverage."
"The new burdensome requirements that many parents will face under this rule will ultimately undermine families’ health and financial stability," Racine added. "The policies to narrowly define who qualifies for exemptions will add to the state costs to administer the program, create headaches for families trying to navigate the bureaucracy, and harm the very people that Medicaid is meant to serve. Medicaid is a program designed around the needs of children. Efforts to undercut or undermine Medicaid for the children who rely on it are a bet against the future of the country."
Analysts and advocacy groups have said the Trump administration's rule, which implements work requirements included in a Republican budget law enacted last summer, will likely push millions of people off Medicaid—including many who are eligible but fail to comply with complex new reporting procedures.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) noted in Wednesday analysis that state agencies "will have to significantly re-work policy and systems" in light of the new rule, likely resulting in "errors and delays that could affect health coverage and care for the entire Medicaid population—including groups to whom the work requirement doesn’t apply, such as children, seniors, and people with disabilities."
Nearly half of all children in the US are enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). A recent analysis by the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University found that two million fewer children were enrolled in Medicaid in April compared to the start of President Donald Trump's second White House term—and the number of uninsured kids is expected to grow as the GOP budget law's unprecedented Medicaid cuts take hold.
In addition to its impacts on children, critics say the new CMS rule will harm people with serious illnesses such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. The rule does not necessarily exempt such people from the Medicaid work mandates, which require certain program enrollees to document at least 80 hours per week of employment or related activities. The requirement is set to take effect nationwide in January 2027.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, said in a statement earlier this week that the Trump administration's new rule appears to run afoul of the law.
"People who have special medical needs, including those with a serious or complex medical condition, are statutorily exempt from the community engagement requirement," said Schmid. "People living with HIV have a lifelong serious and complex medical condition and have special medical needs—they cannot stay healthy without continuous access to lifesaving HIV treatment. Any gap will put them at risk of serious health consequences."
"We are disappointed that the Trump administration ignored the law and, while they agree that HIV/AIDS and viral hepatitis are serious or complex medical conditions, they are proposing that states will have to determine for every individual if their health is impaired and that they can’t comply with the work requirement," Schmid continued. "This added requirement was not in the law and puts the health of people living with HIV and viral hepatitis at risk."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Huge Win for the Constitution' as House Finally Passes Iran War Powers Resolution
"Now it’s time for the Senate to act," said CodePink's Medea Benjamin. "Let’s keep the pressure on and send this resolution to Trump’s desk. No more illegal wars. No more blank checks for militarism."
Jun 03, 2026
Raucous applause erupted in the House of Representatives on Wednesday after US lawmakers passed a war powers resolution aimed at ending Donald Trump's illegal war of choice against Iran—although skeptics cautioned that the measure will likely have little impact on the actions of a president who has habitually shown utter contempt for the rule of law.
House lawmakers voted 215-208, with 7 legislators not voting, in favor of H.Con.Res.86, introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and cosponsored by Reps. James Himes (D-Conn.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Gabe Amo (D-RI), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
Every Democrat present voted for the resolution, while three Republicans—Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.)—broke ranks with their GOP colleagues and joined Massie in voting to approve the measure, which directs Trump to "remove United States armed forces from hostilities with Iran."
“We are trapped in a war that won’t end because an incompetent president launched it thinking of only his own ego while failing to prepare for the consequences,” Meeks, the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during floor debate ahead of Wednesday's vote. “Diplomacy is the only exit from this, not more bombing, not more bluster.”
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and limiting such action to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, unless lawmakers declare war or issue an authorization for the use of military force.
It's been 95 days since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, which followed last summer's separate bombing campaigns by both allies. Since then, more than 3,400 Iranians—many of them civilians—have been killed and over 26,000 others wounded by airstrikes, while Iranian counterattacks have killed 13 US troops, 26 Israelis, and over 20 people in Gulf Arab states aligned with the US.
House lawmakers had tried and failed to pass Iran war powers resolutions on three previous occasions. Last month, after four US Senate Republicans helped Democrats advance one of the resolutions, GOP leadership in the House canceled two subsequent votes on the measure.
“Since President Trump’s illegal war of choice on Iran began, I have been extremely clear over and over again that Congress alone has the power to declare war," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who did not vote Wednesday because she was in India due to a family health emergency—said in a statement. "This war has had disastrous effects for the American people and for the world in the nearly 100 days since Trump began it without congressional approval."
Jayapal continued:
"Waged with absolutely no imminent threat and no endgame, this war has already killed 13 US service members and injured many more; killed thousands of civilians in Iran and Lebanon, and displaced millions more; wasted billions in US taxpayer dollars that should have been spent on lowering healthcare and housing costs for Americans; and all while causing gas prices and grocery costs to skyrocket.
"The simple truth is that the American people are paying the price for Trump’s lawlessness," Jayapal added. “Every day that this war continues is a violation of our Constitution."
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) asserted that "our victory—while monumental—does not change the truth that this war never should have began, and never would have began, had the president not disgraced America and our laws to ensure that it did."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on social media: "The American people are tired of presidents abusing their power by spending billions of our taxpayer dollars on unnecessary wars. I urge the Senate to quickly pass this bill to end Trump’s illegal war in Iran."
Civil society groups opposed to the war applauded Wednesday's vote, which Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, called a "total rebuke of Trump."
"After 95 days of illegal war, Congress is finally enacting the will of the people, who overwhelmingly oppose President Trump’s disastrous war on Iran," Eric Eikenberry, government relations director at Win Without War, said in a statement.
"While congressional action is welcome, it is woefully late. Congress should not have taken over three months to pass a resolution that would force Trump to end this war," he continued. "Their delay has left millions of people struggling amidst unnecessary, unacceptable human and economic consequences."
"Lawmakers who've placed their loyalty to Trump over acting to determine when and whether the United States goes to war have failed both their constituents and their constitutional duty," Eikenberry added.
Naveed Shah, political director of the veterans' group Common Defense, said following the vote, "Veterans understand the costs of war better than most Americans, which is why we commend the Republicans who joined Democrats on this vote and showed the kind of courage and independence this moment demands."
"This was an important step toward ending a dangerous war and ensuring that the American people have a voice through their elected representatives," Shah added. "It is long past time to put guardrails on this brazen president, who launched us into an illegal war with Iran."
Alix Fraser, vice president of advocacy at Issue One, a group dedicated to reducing the role of money in politics, said in a statement that “today’s vote is a huge win for the Constitution and for the American people."
"The House finally had the political willpower to stand up to the president’s unconstitutional war," Fraser added. "Americans should celebrate this massive victory, but have every right to feel frustrated that it took this long for Congress to work on behalf of the people. That must change. Our democracy will not survive if Congress fails to uphold its responsibility to check executive power at this critical juncture."
“Every day that this war continues is a violation of our Constitution.”
Some observers noted that Wednesday's vote is likely to be largely symbolic, pointing to Trump's veto—and the Senate's failure to overturn it—of a 2019 bipartisan war powers resolution directing him to end US military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
Still, lawmakers and advocates urged the Senate to pass the Iran resolution to uphold the rule of law and force Trump's hand.
"Ending this war is a moral imperative," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.).
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) implored upper chamber lawmakers to "immediately follow suit and act to end this war."
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) posted on Bluesky: "Now it’s time to pass the Senate. The power to declare war has been with Congress. Now let’s get it done and end this war!"
Benjamin said: "Now it’s time for the Senate to act. Let’s keep the pressure on and send this resolution to Trump’s desk. No more illegal wars. No more blank checks for militarism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular