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
brazil
Rare Earth Minerals Don't Have to Feed the War Machine
A nation can spend billions building supply chains designed to manufacture the next generation of weapons, or it can use the same industrial capacity to build the infrastructure required for the next generation of human life. The minerals are the same.
Aug 31, 2026
On August 24, the Department of War announced a $750 million investment to secure rare-earth elements produced by Serra Verde at its Pela Ema project in Brazil. Combined with a $300 million purchase commitment from the Defense Logistics Agency and $500 million from a major bank, the arrangement represents a $1.55 billion investment structure aimed at reducing US dependence on Chinese-controlled supply chains.
There is a legitimate problem here.
There is also a troubling choice about how we intend to solve it.
Rare-earth elements such as neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium are essential components of modern life. They are used in permanent magnets found in electric vehicles, wind turbines, electronics, industrial equipment, and other technologies. They are also used in fighter jets, guided missiles, nuclear submarines, drones, and other weapons systems.
A mineral dug from the ground does not know whether it will eventually become part of an offshore wind turbine or the guidance system of a missile. That decision is political.
China currently dominates this supply chain. According to the International Energy Agency, China accounted for about 60% of global mining of magnet rare earths in 2024, 91% of their refining, and 94% of sintered permanent-magnet production. That level of concentration creates a genuine economic vulnerability, particularly after Chinese export restrictions demonstrated how quickly access to these materials can become a geopolitical bargaining chip.
Diversification makes sense.
But listen carefully to the language the US government is using to describe it.
Assistant Secretary of War for Industrial Base Policy Mike Cadenazzi called resilient supply chains a “fundamental warfighting requirement.” The department says the agreement will guarantee materials necessary to manufacture “next-generation weapons systems.” Its announcement specifically highlights nuclear submarines, fighter jets, guided missiles, combat vessels, and drones.
That framing deserves scrutiny.
The United States is not simply securing minerals. It is incorporating another piece of the global economy into an increasingly militarized conception of national security.
A Mineral Can Power a Wind Turbine or a Missile
There is nothing inherently military about neodymium.
A mineral dug from the ground does not know whether it will eventually become part of an offshore wind turbine or the guidance system of a missile.
That decision is political.
And that is precisely why this $1.55 billion initiative should provoke a broader conversation about the kind of economy the United States is building.
If Washington treats critical minerals primarily as inputs for weapons, we should not be surprised when the industries surrounding them increasingly organize themselves around weapons production.
Serra Verde is an important source of these materials. Its Pela Ema operation began commercial production in 2024 and is the first large-scale producer outside Asia of all four critical magnetic rare-earth elements: neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium. The company expects production to reach roughly 6,400 metric tons of rare-earth oxides annually by the end of 2027.
That makes Brazil potentially important to reducing the world's dangerous dependence on a single supplier.
But reducing dependence on China should not automatically mean subordinating a new international supply chain to the needs of the Pentagon.
Rare-earth resilience could instead be treated as civilian industrial policy: an effort to ensure reliable supplies for renewable energy, public transportation, resilient electrical grids, medical technologies, communications infrastructure, and other components of human security.
The difference is more than rhetorical.
Government priorities influence markets. Purchase guarantees influence production. Subsidies determine which industries expand. Billions of public dollars can create an ecosystem in which manufacturers orient themselves toward military customers because those customers offer enormous, guaranteed demand.
If Washington treats critical minerals primarily as inputs for weapons, we should not be surprised when the industries surrounding them increasingly organize themselves around weapons production.
Security Is Bigger Than Military Power
The Department of War's announcement actually exposes the contradiction.
The same release that celebrates rare earths as essential to fighter aircraft and nuclear submarines acknowledges that they are vital to “energy infrastructure, transportation, aerospace, and electronics.”
Exactly.
Those civilian applications should not be an afterthought.
The United States could reproduce the very system it says it wants to escape: concentrated supply chains organized around geopolitical blocs, each treating access to minerals as leverage against the other.
Climate change threatens lives. An unreliable electrical grid threatens lives. Fragile transportation and communications systems threaten economic stability. Supply-chain disruptions can close factories and eliminate jobs.
Those are security issues too.
Yet American policymakers repeatedly define security through the narrowest possible lens: military capability first, virtually everything else second.
A peace economy asks a different question.
Instead of asking only, "What materials do we need to maintain our technological advantage in warfare?" we should ask: "What materials do people need to live safely, sustainably and prosperously—and how can we obtain them without creating new forms of exploitation, environmental destruction, or international conflict?"
That would still require diversifying the rare-earth supply chain.
It would still require investment.
It would still require cooperation with countries such as Brazil.
But the purpose would be different.
Don't Replace One Dependency With Another
There is another danger in framing critical minerals as part of strategic competition with China.
The United States could reproduce the very system it says it wants to escape: concentrated supply chains organized around geopolitical blocs, each treating access to minerals as leverage against the other.
Minerals essential to decarbonization could become another source of great-power confrontation.
The result would not necessarily be resilience. It could be a global scramble for resources.
Countries possessing lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare-earth deposits would increasingly become arenas for competition among powerful states. Supply agreements would become security agreements. Economic relationships would become tests of allegiance.
Minerals essential to decarbonization could become another source of great-power confrontation.
That is not a theoretical concern when officials explicitly describe access to raw materials as a “warfighting requirement.”
The alternative is not continued dependence on China. Diversification is necessary. The IEA itself has repeatedly warned that extreme concentration in rare-earth refining and magnet production represents a significant economic risk.
But diversification should mean creating many reliable suppliers and processing centers—not dividing the mineral economy into rival military camps.
Build a Peace Supply Chain
A different critical-minerals strategy is possible.
The United States could invest aggressively in recycling and recovery of rare-earth materials. It could develop domestic processing capacity while applying strong labor and environmental standards. It could enter long-term partnerships with Brazil and other producing countries that emphasize shared economic development rather than simply extracting resources for American strategic advantage.
And the government could prioritize civilian demand—renewable power, electric transportation, grid modernization, and other public infrastructure—alongside legitimate defense requirements.
It could guarantee that communities near mines and processing facilities benefit economically and retain meaningful influence over development decisions.
And the government could prioritize civilian demand—renewable power, electric transportation, grid modernization, and other public infrastructure—alongside legitimate defense requirements rather than allowing military procurement to dictate the direction of an entire emerging industry.
Serra Verde itself demonstrates why the choice matters. The company's rare earths can supply permanent magnets for electric vehicles and wind turbines just as surely as they can supply defense and aerospace manufacturers.
The question is not whether America should secure access to critical minerals.
It should.
The question is what we intend to do with the security that access provides.
A nation can spend billions building supply chains designed to manufacture the next generation of weapons.
Or it can use the same industrial capacity to build the infrastructure required for the next generation of human life.
The minerals are the same.
The economy we build around them is a choice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Brazil's Election: Lula, Bolsonaro, and the Battle for the Future
At a time when so many Latin American governments have shifted to the right—or even the far right—all eyes are on Brazil.
Aug 17, 2026
This week marks the beginning of Brazil's presidential campaign, with the two front-runners—current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro—officially launching their campaigns. After visiting Brazil and talking with politicians, activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens, I came away with the conviction that this is one of the most consequential presidential elections in Brazil's recent history. The outcome on October 4 will shape not only Brazil's future but also the political direction of Latin America.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, now 80 years old, is seeking a fourth presidential term. Brazil's Constitution allows presidents to serve only two consecutive terms, but they may run again after sitting out at least one term. That is how Lula returned to office in 2023 after governing from 2003 to 2010.
Following the four-year presidency of the far-right Jair Bolsonaro, Lula’s supporters say he has rebuilt many of the institutions and policies weakened under Bolsonaro. His government has reduced hunger, expanded social programs, strengthened environmental protections for the Amazon, and pursued a more independent foreign policy rather than simply following Washington's dictates. Brazil has reasserted itself as an important voice in the Global South, advocating for a more multipolar world and strengthening ties with countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Although Lula remains popular and has a good chance of winning the election, many Brazilians are frustrated by sluggish economic growth, persistent concerns about crime, and political fatigue after years of bitter polarization. His more ardent critics say Lula is a corrupt left-wing politician who has remained in public life for too long.
The outcome on October 4 will shape not only Brazil's future but also the political direction of Latin America.
Lula also has detractors on the left, who accuse him of being too centrist. They point to his inability to deliver many campaign promises, harsh austerity measures under his administration, policies that expand privatization, and his reluctance to reverse several of Bolsonaro-era regressive policies. They criticize him for moving too slowly on land reform and for accommodating powerful agribusiness and fossil fuel interests. Some also call on him to go much further in challenging US influence in Latin America, including by sending oil to Cuba as it suffers under the cruel decades-long US blockade.
Yet despite these criticisms, most of Brazil's progressive movements remain united behind Lula. Whatever their frustrations with his government, they see defeating the far right as the overriding priority. They also recognize that Brazil's far right is stronger, better organized, and more deeply rooted than it was a decade ago. They believe Lula's cautious approach reflects not only political pragmatism but also a desire to avoid provoking forces that have already demonstrated a willingness to challenge democratic institutions through violence.
That became clear when the right, led by President Jair Bolsonaro, refused to accept that Lula had won the 2022 elections. On January 8, 2023, Bolsonaro supporters stormed Brazil's Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential palace in an effort to overturn the election. The similarities with the January 6 insurrection by Trump supporters are striking.
But in Brazil, Bolsonaro was actually convicted for his role in the conspiracy. He is now serving a prison sentence under house arrest and is unable to run for president. So his movement is represented by his son, 45-year-old Senator Flávio Bolsonaro.
Flávio brings his own political baggage. His reputation was damaged by allegations that members of his legislative staff were required to kick back part of their taxpayer-funded salaries in a scheme to enrich him personally. His campaign has also been shaken by revelations that he sought millions of dollars from a jailed banker to finance a film celebrating his father's presidency in hopes of boosting his own presidential campaign. Even his own family has become a political liability. A bitter public dispute with his stepmother, former First Lady Michelle Bolsonaro, exposed deep divisions within the Bolsonaro movement and deprived him of one of the Brazilian right's most influential voices among women voters.
As Flávio struggles to broaden his support at home, he has sought help from abroad. Argentine President Javier Milei traveled to Brazil to campaign on his behalf. Donald Trump and members of his administration have openly supported Flávio, aggravating US-Brazil tensions that recently blew up when Lula's government refused visas to two US State Department officials on grounds that they intended to interfere in Brazil's democratic process. The Trump administration responded by revoking the US visa of Brazil's ambassador to Washington. The episode reflects growing concern about US attempts to influence Brazil’s election.
Perhaps the most astonishing example of foreign influence comes from Israel. Instead of announcing his presidential ambitions to the Brazilian people at home, Flávio first did so during a visit to Israel, where he accused Lula of antisemitism and pledged to move Brazil's embassy to Jerusalem. Benjamin Netanyahu later publicly endorsed him.
At a time when so many Latin American governments have shifted to the right—or even the far right—all eyes are on Brazil. It is Latin America's largest country, its largest economy, and one of the most influential voices in the Global South.
Polls show Lula with a narrow lead over Flávio. But if no candidate secures more than 50% of the vote in the October 4 first round, the election will go to a runoff between the top two contenders on October 25.
If Lula is reelected, Brazil is expected to continue pursuing an independent foreign policy, strengthening South-South cooperation, deepening its role in BRICS, and resisting efforts to pull Latin America back into Washington's geopolitical orbit. A Flávio Bolsonaro victory, by contrast, would likely bring Brazil into much closer alignment with the Trump administration and revive the nationalist, authoritarian politics associated with his father's presidency.
That is why so many Brazilians see this election as far more than a contest between two political rivals. For them, it is a choice between two fundamentally different visions of Brazil's future—and of its place in the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
7 Lessons From the US and Brazil for Durable Democracy
Sociologists Aldon Morris and Nara Roberta Silva remind us that authoritarianism is neither inevitable nor self-defeating: Democracy endures only when ordinary people organize creatively, disrupt oppressive arrangements, build durable institutions, and discover new capacities through struggle.
Aug 11, 2026
By late summer of 2026, the campaign against America's democratic institutions had become almost dizzying in its reach. It moved through turbulent waters from the Strait of Hormuz to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, raised new tariff barriers and imagined golden ballrooms, revived Jim Crow at the polls and McCarthyism at the State Department, and found time, between denunciations of Canadian wildfires and Democratic Socialists of America, to take aim at the Smithsonian Institution.
The widely admired museum, established “for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men” and celebrating the 180th anniversary of its founding on August 10, 2026, became the object of a sustained assault. Complaining about the institution’s allegedly “woke agenda,” the Trump administration displaced the Smithsonian’s traditional Folklife Festival by holding something it named "The Great American State Fair" in its place. Notwithstanding the failure of the latter, the Smithsonian’s celebration of the US Republic’s Semiquincentennial also drew the administration’s ire.
The resulting “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” Executive Order (July 24, 2026) demanded “content corrections” and warning notices across Smithsonian exhibits and buildings. On August 4, a federal funding cut of more than 10% reduced the Smithsonian’s budget to its lowest level in over a decade.
If there was any doubt that the censorship and the budget cut belonged to the same antidemocratic project, Samuel J. Redman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor and student of Smithsonian history, notes that he cannot “recall a single instance where exhibits have been directly wrestled with by the upper echelons of the federal government.” Among the administration’s grievances was the Smithsonian’s depiction of race relations. The White House report specifically objected to the Smithsonian framing civil rights activist Emmett Till’s murder as being “not just part of a racist past” but a reflection of “our ongoing present” (p.113). It also decried a Smithsonian web page featuring the bullet-riddled historical marker showing where Till’s body was found in 1955.
Crises become politically meaningful only when people build institutions, practice disruption, invent new forms of solidarity, defend truth, sustain hope, and connect local struggles to global ones.
Grappling with this history and its antidemocratic turn, I sat down to have a conversation with two prominent scholars of social movements, Dr. Aldon Morris of Northwestern University and past president of the American Sociological Association, and Dr. Nara Roberta Silva of the Brooklyn Institute for Social Research and author of an award-winning Brazilian book on the #Occupy movement in the US, for a better understanding of this moment.
The situation in the United States is, after all, not completely unique. Brazil and the United States are both headed into pivotal national elections this fall. Both countries experienced violent coup attempts in 2020. And the two multiracial giants of the Americas are both countries where Black leadership in the struggle for democracy remains critical.
For Dr. Morris, the administration’s consternation at the Emmett Till story is suggestive of the conversations that authoritarians wish to preempt. Mamie Elizabeth Till-Mobley, Emmett’s mom notably insisted on an open casket at his funeral, “I think everybody needed to know what had happened to Emmett Till.” And so, the world saw Till’s mutilated body and his community’s grief, sparking a global movement. It is “the story about how a mother ignited and fired up the country and therewith the world about racial inequality,” Morris observes.
Before drawing general lessons about the long struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, Morris and Silva pause to reckon with the immediate crisis. Both begin from the creativity and agency of social movements, yet Morris—speaking for a generation shaped by the Civil Rights Movement—admits to a profound sense of historical surprise. “We had no idea that we would be here right now,” he reflects. “We did not think that truth itself would become something that was to be banned.” In his view, the administration’s campaign against the Smithsonian is therefore not only a dispute over museum exhibits or Black history. “He is not simply attacking Black history,” Morris argues. “He is attacking the distribution of truth about the relationships between human beings, races, and nations. An attack on something like the Smithsonian is a flash point revealing the kind of trouble we face.”
For Dr. Silva, a scholar of US movements as well as those active in her native Brazil, the administration initiatives are a “defining feature of our historical moment” characterized by “the erosion of the public sphere.” In fact, looking at former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s negative impact on that country’s democratic project, Silva concludes, that the “very idea of public has been severely damaged.” Although Morris and Silva disagreed about the extent of erosion, both were similarly concerned about authoritarian historical revisionism. Invoking one of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s favorite quotes, “Truth, crushed to Earth, will rise again,” Morris outlined a hopeful, but by no means certain path into the future. “I think that work like that of Nara and myself shows that human agency among the oppressed is a very important social change factor, and it has to be ignited and energized to make a difference.”
Both thinkers are extremely sober about the prospects for democratic change. Looking at the structure of authoritarian movements in Brazil, Silva suggests that we have to address its broad base, even if it is minoritarian in nature: “Coordination exists at the top, but, as a system, the structure is hydra-headed, with several foci working to galvanize followers, create narrative lines, and break new ground.” As such, progressive projects, while themselves broad based and majoritarian in conception, must necessarily carry out institutional reform and enact “a socioeconomic program that meaningfully addresses the crises that brought about the reemergence of authoritarianism.”
Taking a long view, Morris cautions: “What we see is a dialectical process between oppression and efforts of change, social movement activity... We fought a civil war to overthrow slavery in the 1860s. [W. E. B.] Du Bois showed that it was the agency of the slaves themselves that essentially freed the slaves through the general strike. So we get this brief period that looks like we're finally going to have democracy, equality between the races. That lasts for about 11 or 12 years, and then we get the overthrow of Reconstruction, and all of what came after that. All of the violence against Black people, the lynching, and the Jim Crow regime, right?” The US continued “in this oppressive situation and then comes the Civil Rights Movement” and only to be followed by the current, long rollback. “My sense,” Morris avers, “is that social movements, especially the effective ones, are always trial and error.”
Following along with Silva, Morris offers a transnational vision: “We need grassroots movements connected from the United States to Brazil, to South Africa, to Gaza—to all over including the Congo. What I'm saying is that the struggle has always had these global dimensions, but the world has never been so globalized as it is now. We have to be much more concerned with worldwide democracy, worldwide transformation, because what we know is that the systems of oppression are global.”
Before outlining the elements of a hoped-for transnational, pan-democratic movement, Morris finds hope in the face of dismal, on-the-ground facts: The shared global attention to Gaza. This point often confounds liberal and conservative commentators alike, as seen in the handwringing over Michigan US Senate nominee Abdul al-Sayed and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, both whom have been outspoken on Palestine. But, for Morris, recalling the Emmett Till moment, “It is hard for large numbers of people across the globe to really wrap their minds around 20 to 30 thousand babies being starved to death and killed, to whole families being wiped out, and 90% of the population and more dislocated, the destruction of every university in Gaza, the destruction of hospitals, and so forth. This is the one place that seems to be generating some kind of international coherence.”
Silva agrees that a transnational human rights politics is well established, but she is concerned, “We are still a little lost about how to operate in the new terrain of digital media ecosystems, fragmented and precarious workforces, declining organizations, and unstable party systems.” Further, she laments that movements that often put hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people onto the streets nevertheless may secure few immediate positive outcomes or even significant media attention—a point explored adroitly in several national contexts by journalist Vincent Bevins in If We Burn. For Bevins, as with Silva and Morris, the capacity to formulate demands, move beyond mere mobilization to develop organization and leadership, explain the discrepancy between the scale of popular mobilization and outcomes.
Morris shares this concern: “Another March on Washington to celebrate the 1963 March on Washington is not going to accomplish anything as long as it is merely ritualized behavior. The real challenge is whether this generation of activists will be creative again—whether they will figure out how to engage in protest that matters. Marches and demonstrations become ritual when they don’t create social disruption against oppressive forces.”
Silva sees a version of this dilemma in Brazil, as social movements gained greater access to the state under Workers’ Party administrations but also saw their capacity for independent mobilization and disruption decline. Yet recent experience shows that protesting can still exert considerable leverage—in September 2025, nationwide demonstrations blocked attempts to further entrench oligarchic control. Some of the most effective moments of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's current administration have come precisely when pressure from below has reinforced, or forced, action from above. For Silva, the Brazilian experience suggests that the challenge for social movements is not simply to mobilize large numbers of people but also to disrupt political routines.
Over the course of our conversation together, the two sociologists reach agreement on the following lessons for durable democracy:
- Crises matter, but they do not by themselves produce successful mobilizations. Prompted by a question about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minnesota, Morris and Silva emphasized that the decisive issue is how people transform moments of crisis into collective action. Morris’ scholarship on the US Black community’s early bus boycotts during the Civil Rights Movement offers one such example. On the other hand, Silva writes about how Brazilian protests over bus fares were initiated by leftists but later co-opted by the far right.
- Movement institutions and organizations matter. Durable movements require infrastructure: legal support, sustained dialogue between activists and scholars, leadership development, and the patient work of building organized communities.
- Disruption is necessary. Alluding to my own South African heritage, Morris asked me, “What did Mandela’s ANC do? It made Apartheid ungovernable.” Returning to the United States, he continued: “It wasn’t just marching. It wasn’t just singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’ It was crippling the economy in Birmingham. The activists mastered the process of social disruption.” Channeling Dr. King, Morris recalled the wisdom of creating crises “so crisis-packed that the oppressors have got to deal with us.”
- Truth is a social movement resource. Neither Silva nor Morris is tempted by epistemological relativism. As Morris put it, “We are not going to go backwards and act as if the truth doesn't matter anymore.” The attacks on the Smithsonian, museums, books, and critical race theory matter because authoritarianism seeks to monopolize historical understanding. A democracy movement, by contrast, depends on an accurate account of history and the public institutions capable of sustaining it.
- If truth is a democratic resource, so too is hope. But hope should not be confused with naïveté. It requires acknowledging the seriousness of authoritarian movements while recognizing that history still offers grounds for optimism. Hope arises not only from past victories, but also from democratic possibilities emerging in the present—from global solidarity with Gaza to neighbors standing with neighbors in Minneapolis and Chicago. These moments remind us that ordinary people continue to discover new capacities for collective action and democratic renewal.
- Internationalism is indispensable: Democracy must become transnational. In response to Silva’s statement that Brazilian and US authoritarian movements are already global, Morris calls for “pan-democracy movements.” Democracy movements must become equally interconnected, for “the local and the global are now inseparable.” Yet, befitting a social scientist who made local organizers visible where others had often emphasized charismatic leaders, Morris also cautions: “You can't forget what's happening at the local level and just go global, but you can't just concentrate on the local and not go global.” Both thinkers view recent electoral insurgencies in the United States as promising precisely because they have incorporated global themes, international solidarity, and organizing among immigrant workers—the most globalized of local actors.
- Finally, people discover themselves through struggle. Reformulated several times over the course of our conversation, this point gathers the preceding lessons together: Crises become politically meaningful only when people build institutions, practice disruption, invent new forms of solidarity, defend truth, sustain hope, and connect local struggles to global ones. In that process, movements do more than oppose domination; they also create the capacities, organizations, and democratic subjects needed to overcome it.
For me, then, the attack on the Smithsonian is about far more than the fate of public museums or competing interpretations of the past. It is part of a broader struggle over whether democratic societies can sustain the institutions, historical memory, and public spaces needed to preserve truth, solidarity, and collective action. Morris and Silva remind us that authoritarianism is neither inevitable nor self-defeating: Democracy endures only when ordinary people organize creatively, disrupt oppressive arrangements, build durable institutions, and discover new capacities through struggle. If there is a lesson from US history and from contemporary Brazil for this moment, it is that the next democratic turn will not be granted from above; it will be ignited from below.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Cannot Forget the Palestinian Prisoners,' Freed Gaza Flotilla Member Says While Returning Home
“I left behind me thousands of Palestinian prisoners—children, women, and men," said Saif Abu Keshek after he and Thiago Ávila were released by Israel without charges.
May 11, 2026
As the final two Global Sumud Flotilla members violently abducted at sea by Israeli forces last month made their way home following their release without charge, one of the activists said Sunday that the world must remember the thousands of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
Saif Abu Keshek and Thiago Ávila—whom Israel accused of having links to Hamas, without providing evidence—were seized in international waters off the coast of Greece during the night of April 29-30. They were among the roughly 175 people aboard the flotilla, which was attempting to break the decadeslong Israeli blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid to its people amid an ongoing genocide.
After suffering abuse that allegedly included broken ribs, noses, and other injuries, all of the flotilla members except Abu Keshek and Ávila were released. The pair was taken to Israel for further interrogation. Israel twice extended their detention for further interrogation, which, according to their legal representatives, included physical and psychological abuse amounting to torture. The men reportedly went on a hunger strike to protest their detention.
United Nations officials, Brazil, and Spain all called for the pair's release. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva condemned their detention as "a serious affront to international law."
As Abu Keshek—a Spanish-Swedish national of Palestinian origin—arrived in Greece on Sunday following his deportation from Israel, he implored the world to remember the suffering of Palestinians imprisoned for their physical and intellectual resistance to Israeli oppression.
"I left behind me thousands of Palestinian prisoners—children, women, and men," he said in Athens. "I am sure that the treatment I faced does not compare to the suffering they are going through, the testimonies we hear of their torture, of their violation on a daily basis. We have to continue mobilizing. We cannot forget the Palestinian prisoners.”
Ávila, meanwhile, transited through Egypt en route to his native Brazil after his deportation. He is expected to arrive in São Paulo on Monday afternoon. Ávila's mother, Teresa Regina de Ávila e Silva, died while he was held in Israel.
Global Sumud Flotilla issued a statement following the activists' release, which it called "a victory over Israel’s attempts to criminalize the flotilla movement and smear international solidarity with Palestine as 'terrorism.'"
"If Israel had any evidence to support its outrageous accusations that the flotilla was affiliated with Hamas or engaged in unlawful activity, Thiago and Saif would not be released without charges," the statement says. "Their release further exposes these claims for what they are: politically motivated propaganda aimed at justifying violence against civilian flotilla participants and suppressing growing global resistance to Israel’s genocide and settler-colonial violence."
"However, their release underscores a painful reality: Thiago and Saif had governments, diplomatic channels, and international visibility advocating for them," Global Sumud Flotilla stressed. "Millions of Palestinians living under brutal Israeli occupation have no such political protection. More than 10,000 Palestinians remain imprisoned in Israeli dungeons and torture camps, subjected to starvation, abuse, isolation, medical neglect, sexual assault, and other cruel and degrading treatment, without international intervention or accountability."
Other Palestine defenders also used the activists' release to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.
"We insist that the global mobilization for the release of Saif and Thiago must not stop but must instead grow for the liberation of all Palestinian prisoners jailed by the Zionist regime," said Samidoun, also known as the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, "as well as Lebanese and Arab prisoners detained in its prisons, as well as the Palestinian prisoners and the prisoners for Palestine held in imperialist prisons around the world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Tragedy for Thiago': Mother of Gaza Flotilla Activist Dies as Son Suffers Torture in Israel
One Brazilian lawmaker said Teresa Regina de Ávila e Silva's death occurred "against a backdrop of extreme distress for the family, with the unjustifiable detention of Thiago in Israel."
May 06, 2026
The mother of detained Brazilian Gaza flotilla activist Thiago Ávila died Tuesday while her son is allegedly being abused in Israeli custody after being seized off the coast of Greece last week.
Brazilian media reported that Teresa Regina de Ávila e Silva, 63, died after a decadeslong affliction with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, a progressive neurodegenerative disorder.
The Civil Police Union of the Federal District in Brasília—where Luana de Ávila, Ávila e Silva's daughter, is vice president—said in a statement that "Teresa Regina is remembered as a woman of admirable joy and strength, whose life was marked by her ability to face life with lightness, dignity, and love."
"Throughout her journey, she built strong bonds with everyone around her, leaving behind a legacy of affection, presence, and care for her family," the statement continued. "Later in her life, she faced a delicate condition, which she confronted with courage and serenity, always supported by the unconditional dedication of her children, grandchildren, nephews, and all her family and friends."
Erika Kokay, a member of Brazil's ruling Workers' Party representing Brasília in the Federal Chamber of Deputies, said on X that "Teresa will be remembered as a woman of strength and joy, who faced life's challenges with dignity and left a legacy of love for her family."
"My solidarity is even deeper when considering that this grief is unfolding against a backdrop of extreme distress for the family, with the unjustifiable detention of Thiago in Israel," Kokay added. "He was arrested while on a humanitarian mission headed to the Gaza Strip, enduring violations of his rights."
Thiago Ávila and at least 175 other Global Sumud Flotilla members were intercepted and abducted by Israeli forces on April 30 approximately 45 nautical miles from the Greek coast and more than 600 nautical miles from Gaza while trying to deliver humanitarian aid to the Palestinian territory in dozens of boats.
After allegedly enduring abuse and brutal attacks that left over 30 flotilla activists with injuries including concussions and broken ribs and noses, all but two of the convoy's members were released.
Ávila and another member of the Global Sumud Flotilla steering committee, Spanish-Swedish national Saif Abu Keshek, were taken to Israel, which claims without evidence that the pair have links to Hamas, the militant Palestinian resistance group that led the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
Israeli authorities have twice extended the pair's detention. According to the Global Sumud Flotilla, Ávila and Abu Keshek “are being subjected to systemic psychological torture and explicit threats to the lives of their families.”
Adalah Legal Center, which represents the pair, said Ávila is being "subjected to repeated interrogations lasting up to eight hours," and “interrogators have explicitly threatened him, stating he would either be ‘killed’ or ‘spend 100 years in jail.’”
“Both activists remain in total isolation, subjected to 24/7 high-intensity lighting in their cells, and kept blindfolded whenever they are moved, including during medical examinations,” the group added.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, and their respective governments have condemned the activists' detention and demanded their release.
On Wednesday, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights joined calls for the pair's release, asserting that "it is not a crime to show solidarity and attempt to bring humanitarian aid to the Palestinian population in Gaza, who are in dire need of it."
Gazans are suffering from 31 months of what UN experts say is a genocidal war and siege perpetrated by Israel, whose leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a fugitive from the International Criminal Court. The Hague-based tribunal accuses Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation.
Since October 2023, more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded—including thousands of bodies still buried beneath rubble—and most of the Gaza Strip's more than 2 million people have suffered forced displacement, starvation, or illness caused by Israel's onslaught.
Ávila isn't the first high-profile person to lose his mother while jailed by Israel. Samiha Abu Safiya died of a heart attack attributed to “severe sadness” after her son, Kamal Adwan Hospital director Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, was imprisoned by Israeli forces, including in the notorious Sde Teiman prison. Abu Safiya—who has allegedly been subjected to torture including electric shock and has suffered broken ribs—is still being held by Israel.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Former Brazilian Political Officials Found Guilty of Plotting Murder of Marielle Franco
"What the killers did not expect is that her legacy would become greater than all of this," said Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Carmen Lúcia.
Feb 25, 2026
A five-judge panel on Brazil's Supreme Court on Wednesday voted unanimously to convict former Congressman Chiquinho Brazão and his brother, politician Domingos Brazão, of ordering the 2018 murder of Rio de Janeiro City Councilwoman Marielle Franco and her driver, Anderson Gomes.
As reported by Reuters, the court sentenced the Brazão brothers to each serve 76 years in prison for plotting to assassinate the 38-year-old Franco because they feared she and her allies in the Socialism and Liberty Party would be an impediment to their illegal scheme that involved taking public lands to develop private real estate projects.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversaw the trial of the brothers, said that the two men did not think they would be held accountable for killing Franco because she was a Black woman who represented a poor neighborhood in Rio.
"Inside the misogynistic, prejudiced minds of those who ordered and carried out the crime, who would care about that?" Moraes said. “They did not expect such wide repercussions."
Justice Carmen Lúcia also said that the Brazão brothers seemed to believe that they would be allowed to get away with murder.
"What the killers did not expect," said Lúcia, "is that her legacy would become greater than all of this."
The court also sentenced former Rio de Janeiro Police Chief Rivaldo Barbosa to an 18-year prison sentence for obstructing the investigation into Franco's murder.
Franco's widow, current Rio City Councilwoman Mônica Benício, told Payday Report that the court's conviction of the plotters was a landmark decision for Brazilian democracy.
"For the country, this is an opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to break with the selective penal system that protects criminal structures and their political ties," Benício said. "We must learn a lesson from what the assassination of Marielle and Anderson reveals about Brazil: the obscure connections between crime, politics, and the police."
Anielle Franco, a sister of Marielle Franco who currently serves as Brazil's Minister of Racial Equality, hailed the verdict as "justice" in a social media post, vowing that "our fight continues for all victims of violence."
Agnes Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, said that justice for Franco and Gomes was "a long time coming," and added that "their killings are emblematic of the broader and highly alarming trend of lethal violence and structural racism against human rights defenders in Brazil."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Venezuela Calls on UN Security Council to Back Immediate Release of Maduro, Condemn Unlawful US Attack
"Today, it is not only Venezuela's sovereignty that is at stake, but the credibility of international law."
Jan 05, 2026
Governments throughout Latin America and beyond on Monday blasted the US military's invasion of Venezuela and its abduction of President Nicolás Maduro during an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
Samuel Moncada, the permanent representative of Venezuela to the United Nations, demanded that the Security Council call for Maduro's immediate release and condemn the US invasion of his country.
Moncada also warned that President Donald Trump's actions would lead to a dangerous unraveling of international law and return to a system in which militarily strong countries feel free to invade weaker ones with impunity.
"Allowing such acts to go without an effective answer would amount to normalizing the replacement of law by might, while eroding the very foundations of the collective security system," he said. "Today, it is not only Venezuela's sovereignty that is at stake, but the credibility of international law, the authority of this organization, and the validity of the principle that no state can set itself up as a judge, party, and executor of the world order."
Venezuela Ambassador to the @UN Samuel Moncada: "No state can set itself up as a judge, party and executor of the world order...Venezuela is the victim of these attack because of its natural resources." pic.twitter.com/j17sHZk5kA
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 5, 2026
Representatives from several other nations joined Moncada's condemnation of the US invasion.
Sérgio França Danese, permanent representative of Brazil to the United Nations, said that the US military's actions "cross an unacceptable line," and set "an extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community."
"The acceptance of actions of this nature would inexorably lead to a scenario marked by violence, disorder, and the erosion of multilateralism, to the detriment of international law and institutions," said Danese. "As Brazil has reiterated on numerous occasions, the norms that govern coexistence among states mandatory and universal."
At the UN security council the representative of Brazil condemns the actions of the United States as a flagrant violation of international law and goes on to mention the genocide in Gaza as an example of how international governance mechanisms are being weakened. pic.twitter.com/36tEUoJtAv
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) January 5, 2026
Héctor Enrique Vasconcelos y Cruz, permanent representative of Mexico to the United Nations, said that the US military's actions in Venezuela "must not be allowed," as they "constitute a severe blow to the charter and to multilateralism."
Ernesto Soberón Guzmán, permanent representative of Cuba to the United Nations, accused the US of targeting Venezuela purely for reasons of imperial aggression.
"The US military attack against Venezuela has no justification whatsoever," Guzmán said. "It does not respond to any provocation, nor does it possess legitimacy. It is based on the... doctrine of peace through force, and undermines the stability and peace that had characterized our Latin American and Caribbean region for years."
Guzmán added that the "ultimate objective" of the US operation is "not the false narrative of combating drug trafficking, but control over Venezuela’s natural resources, as has been shamelessly declared by President Trump."
Cuban Representative: Its ultimate objective is not the false narrative of combating drug trafficking, but control over Venezuela’s natural resources as has been shamelessly declared by President Trump and his Secretary of State. pic.twitter.com/FDCJoFcduX
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 5, 2026
Jonathan Passmoor, acting deputy permanent representative of South Africa to the UN, accused the US of dangerously degrading the UN charter with its unprovoked attack on Venezuela.
"We all benefit from a rules-based international order based on international law," said Passmoor. "When we break these norms, we invite anarchy and an environment where might make right, ignoring the complexity of interrelations and interdependence in our modern world."
The South African ambassador also warned of the US setting dangerous precedents that could herald more global conflict.
"The belief that might is right, is reinforced and diplomacy is undermined," he said. "History has repeatedly demonstrated that military invasions against sovereign States yield only instability and deepen crisis."
[ Watch] Statement by the Republic of SouthAfrica to the United Nations Security Council Meeting on the situation in Venezuela delivered by Mr Jonathan Passmoor Acting Deputy Permanent Representative https://t.co/DPPXBKIAxO pic.twitter.com/KuQZdJqBVa
— Chrispin Phiri 🇿🇦 (@Chrispin_JPhiri) January 5, 2026
Trump over the weekend said that the US would be "running" Venezuela for the foreseeable future, although it is not clear how he plans to administer control over the nation given that the rest of Maduro's government, led by Acting President Delcy Rodriguez, remains in control of the state.
Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday that Rodriguez would follow US orders or a fate "worse than" Maduro's awaits here.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Brazilian Official Warns Trump of 'Vietnam-Style' Regional Conflict If He Attacks Venezuela
"The last thing we want is for South America to become a war zone," said Celso Amorim, chief foreign policy adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Dec 08, 2025
A top Brazilian official is warning President Donald Trump that a US military attack on Venezuela could easily spiral out of control into a "Vietnam-style" regional conflict.
Celso Amorim, chief foreign policy adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said in an interview published on Monday by the Guardian that a US military strike on Venezuela would inevitably draw nations throughout Latin America into an armed conflict that would be difficult to contain.
"The last thing we want is for South America to become a war zone—and a war zone that would inevitably not just be a war between the US and Venezuela," he said. "It would end up having global involvement and this would be really unfortunate."
Amorim added that "if there was an invasion, a real invasion [of Venezuela]... I think undoubtedly you would see something similar to Vietnam—on what scale it’s impossible to say."
While acknowledging that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is disliked by many other South American leaders, Amorim predicted that even some of Maduro's adversaries would rally to his side in the face of destabilizing military actions by the US government.
He also predicted that anti-US sentiment would surge throughout the continent in the event of an invasion, as there is still major resentment toward the US for backing right-wing military coups during the Cold War in Chile, Brazil, and other nations.
"I know South America," he emphasized. "Our whole continent exists because of resistance against foreign invaders."
The Trump administration in recent weeks has signaled that it plans to launch attacks against purported drug traffickers inside Venezuela, even though reports from the US government and the United Nations have not identified Venezuela as a significant source of drugs that enter the United States.
The administration has also accused Maduro of leading an international drug trafficking organization called the Cartel de los Soles, despite many experts saying that they have seen no evidence that such an organization formally exists.
Trump late last month further escalated tensions with Venezuela when he declared that airspace over the nation was "closed in its entirety," even though he lacks any legal authority to enforce such a decree.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that Maduro is remaining defiant in the face of US pressure, as he is refusing to go into exile despite the threat of an attack on his country.
According to the Post's sources, Maduro's inner circle of allies "shows no signs of imminent collapse," even as he has limited his public appearances and beefed up his personal security amid fears that he could be the target of an assassination attempt.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Brazil Just Succeeded Where America Failed' as Coup-Plotting Ex-Pres Bolsonaro Arrested
Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro was taken into custody over concerns he might attempt to flee the country after he tampered with his ankle monitor.
Nov 22, 2025
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing ally of US President Donald Trump, was arrested in Brazil early Saturday morning following concerns he might flee the country.
Bolsonaro was under house arrest awaiting the result of his appeal after he was tried and sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup and the assassination of current Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and other officials.
“Brazil just succeeded where America failed. Bringing a former president who assaulted democracy to justice,” filmmaker Petra Costa wrote on social media, as The Guardian reported.
Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the arrest after discovering Bolsonaro's ankle monitor had been tampered with at 12:08 am local time Saturday. Bolsonaro's lawyers said that this was not the case, but Bolsonaro later admitted to taking a soldering iron to the device "out of curiosity" in a video released by the Supreme Court.
"This isn't curiosity, it's a crime," said State Deputy to the Legislative Assembly of Rio de Janeiro Renata da Silva Souza, on social media. "Bolsonaro is not a victim: He is convicted, ineligible, and is IMPRISONED. Turning this absurdity into a justification is a mockery of Brazilian democracy."
The ex-president's arrest also came the same day that his son Flávio Bolsonaro had planned a protest outside the Brasilia condo where Bolsonaro has been living.
De Moraes said Bolsonaro's tampering with his monitor fed his suspicions that he would attempt to flee the country in “the confusion that would be caused by a demonstration organized by his son," according to The Associated Press.
“He is located about 13 kilometers (8 miles) away from where the United States of America embassy lies, in a distance that can be covered in a 15-minute drive," de Moraes added.
Trump, who has sanctioned de Moraes and supports Bolsonaro, reacted to news of the arrest by saying it was "too bad."
Bolsonaro was arrested around 6:00 am local time and is now detained in an approximately 130-square-foot room in the federal police headquarters in Brasilia, according to Reuters. The entire five-judge panel that originally sentenced Bolsonaro will review his detention on Monday.
Institutional Relations Minister Gleisi Hoffmann was the highest-ranking member of the current government to comment on the detention, according to Reuters.
Hoffmann wrote on social media:
The pretrial detention of Jair Bolsonaro strictly follows the rites of due process of law, overseen by the Federal Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Office in each stage of the criminal action against the attempted coup d'état in Brazil. The decision by Minister Alexandre de Moraes is grounded in the real risks of flight by the leader of the coup organization, as well as the imminent finality of his conviction for the serving of his sentence. It also rightly takes into account the background of a process marked by violent attempts to coerce the Judiciary, such as the tarifaço and the Magnitsky sanctions. In a democracy, justice must be upheld.
Ordinary Brazilians also celebrated the news of Bolsonaro's arrest, with some uncorking champagne bottles outside police headquarters.
"The message to Brazil, and to the world, is that crime doesn’t pay," Reimont Otoni, a Workers’ Party congressman, said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Potent Metaphor': Fire Forces Evacuation of UN Climate Conference
"Between the booths flooding and a fire breaking out in the Blue Zone, feels like maybe someone is trying to tell us something at COP30," said one journalist.
Nov 20, 2025
Delegates at the United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Belém, Brazil were forced to evacuate after a fire broke out at the Hangar Convention and Exhibition Center on Thursday.
Brazilian government officials told BBC that the fire, which broke out early in the afternoon, is now under control.
BBC climate editor Justin Rowlatt, who was covering the conference, described seeing "huge columns of smoke rising up into the air through the hole that's been burnt in the top of the conference center," and said that there was "a huge panic, people have been running out of here."
#COP30 is on fire pic.twitter.com/VWAIhjVrqm
— Mike Szabo / @szabotage.bsky.social (@MikeSzaboCP) November 20, 2025
Imagens obtidas pelo @Metropoles mostram o momento exato do início do fogo na COP30.
Foi durante um evento da delegação africana. pic.twitter.com/5A6J3NAr3I
— Sam Pancher (@SamPancher) November 20, 2025
Officials do not yet know what caused the fire, but the Guardian reports that Brazilian Minister of Tourism Celso Sabino cast doubt on any suspicions that the blaze could have been set deliberately.
"You’d have to be a really awful person to set fire to a COP," he said.
Some climate activists argued that the fire at COP30 could be seen as an ill omen for the conference's outcome, especially given criticisms over the conference being packed to the brim with fossil fuel lobbyists.
US-based activist Jes Vesconte told the Guardian that the COP30 blaze was "a potent metaphor" for what's been happening at the conference.
"As capitalist fossil fuel companies, imperialist countries, and militarist powers block the talks here (or in abstentia in the case of the US)," Vesconte said, "they are putting profits over planet and people, profiteering off ecocide, genocide, and countless deaths, at the expense of all life on Earth, and pouring fuel on the fire of the burning planet."
Emily Pontecorvo, staff writer at Heatmap News, also picked up on the symbolism of the fire.
"A literal fire has erupted in the middle of the United Nations conference devoted to stopping the planet from burning," she wrote in a post on Bluesky.
Climate reporter Amy Westervelt noted that the fire wasn't the only disaster to befall COP30 this week.
"Between the booths flooding and a fire breaking out in the Blue Zone, feels like maybe someone is trying to tell us something at COP30," she observed.
A report released last week by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition said it tallied the “largest ever attendance share” for fossil fuel lobbyists, dimming hopes of reaching a breakthrough agreement to curb emissions. In total, KBPO counted 1,602 fossil fuel lobbyists at the climate summit, representing roughly 1 out every 25 participants at this year's conference.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy