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
california billionaires tax
In Big Win, Appeals Court Affirms Release of Georgetown Peace Scholar Detained by ICE for His Speech
The decision creates a circuit split on whether federal courts can review claims of unconstitutional immigration detention.
Jul 23, 2026
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to re-detain Georgetown scholar Dr. Badar Khan Suri and affirmed a lower court order that required the government to release him on bail as his case proceeded. The court also rejected the government’s request to move the case from Virginia to Texas.
“[In] our view,” the court wrote, “denying judicial review of detention claims like Suri’s misreads Congress’ statutes and undermines the protections guaranteed all persons on American soil by the writ of habeas corpus.”
The court later expanded: “[An] unbroken line of caselaw also accords with common sense: if a noncitizen is challenging their detention pending removal, then waiting for their removal proceedings does them no good. They have already been detained, allegedly in violation of the Constitution. This ‘absurd’ reading of the INA would make such detention claims ‘effectively unreviewable,’ and the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to embrace it.”
In March 2025, ICE arrested and detained Dr. Suri, a lawful visa holder from India whose wife is a U.S. citizen, outside his Virginia home in retaliation for his associations and speech in support of Palestinian rights. Dr. Suri was detained for nearly six weeks over a thousand miles away from his wife and children at an infamous private detention center in Texas known for its human rights abuses. A federal judge ordered his release from detention in May 2025 while his case continued in federal court.
“Today reaffirms my faith that an independent judiciary remains the truest guardian of liberty, due process, and the rule of law. I am profoundly grateful to the judges who upheld these constitutional principles and gave my case the careful, deliberate consideration it deserved,” said Dr. Badar Khan Suri. “I remain, as ever, committed to the pursuit of justice through lawful and peaceful means. We should remember that a democracy without an accessible writ of habeas corpus is a democracy in name only; as the honorable court so aptly observed, the scope of habeas corpus ‘must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.’ I am proud of those who fought for me, and I am proud of every moment of life. Be courageous and stand for justice. Free Palestine.”
On appeal, the Trump administration argued that federal district courts don’t have the authority to review the constitutionality of Dr. Suri’s detention until the Department of Justice-controlled immigration process, which can take months or even years, is completed. The administration also argued that because it quickly swept Dr. Suri out of Virginia without notice to his family or lawyers, the Virginia court does not have jurisdiction to hear his petition, and that it should be handled by a court in Texas, where it chose to take him.
Today, a panel of judges from the Fourth Circuit rejected both arguments 2-1, finding that federal courts must be able to review constitutional claims stemming from immigration detention, and that his case should stay in Virginia.
“We are elated that Dr. Suri will remain free with his family and we are grateful that the court has seen through the government's brazen attempts to silence pro-Palestine speech,” said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The federal government cannot do an end run around the First Amendment by locking people up for their speech and denying them their day in court. Immigration laws cannot be abused to silence dissent, and we are grateful that today, justice prevailed.”
This ruling is the third opinion from a federal court of appeals addressing the question of whether the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars immediate federal court review of a noncitizen’s claim of unlawful detention in retaliation for their speech. In January, the Third Circuit ruled against Mahmoud Khalil, holding that the INA does bar such claims. And just two days ago, the Second Circuit ruled against Mohsen Mahdawi, agreeing with the Third Circuit’s analysis. Addressing the Khalil v. Trump decision, the Fourth Circuit was clear: “We disagree.”
“We are gratified that the court recognized the basic principle that the government cannot escape judicial review of their patently unconstitutional actions — here, arresting Dr. Khan Suri, transferring him far away from his family and community, and detaining and attempting to deport him for nothing more than his associations and constitutionally protected advocacy for Palestinian rights,” said Astha Sharma Pokharel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Similar to the cases of Mr. Khalil, Mr. Mahdawi, and other students, Dr. Suri was arrested in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights. He was additionally targeted because of his U.S. citizen wife’s speech, her Palestinian origins, and her familial ties. On social media, Dr. Suri criticized U.S. support of Israel’s assault on Gaza, motivated by the time he spent volunteering in Gaza and fear for his wife’s family members who still lived there with no way to flee during the war. The administration has falsely argued that Dr. Suri’s presence in the United States “compromised a compelling foreign policy interest” and therefore, under a rarely used section of the INA, it had the right to deport him. Dr. Suri’s immigration court proceedings remain ongoing.
“ICE abducted Dr. Khan Suri from his home in Virginia before moving him among five different ICE facilities across three states in a shameless attempt to find a court that would be friendlier to his unlawful detention,” said ACLU-VA Legal Director Eden Heilman. “We are elated that the Fourth Circuit saw through the Trump administration’s blatant attempt to bend the law to their will and rejected their bid to re-detain our client thousands of miles away from his family in Virginia. The First Amendment protects all of us — regardless of citizenship — and we will continue to fight for his constitutional rights.”
Dr. Suri is represented in his federal lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Van Der Hout LLP.
For more information, see the case page. The opinion can be read here.
Keep ReadingShow Less
World Famine Authorities Warn Most Gazans Still Suffering 'Crisis'-Level Hunger
"The October 2025 ceasefire has led to measurable gains in humanitarian access and overall conditions across the Gaza Strip. However, the situation remains deeply fragile."
Jul 23, 2026
Although the Gaza Strip is no longer officially enduring famine, a majority of Palestinians there are suffering "crisis or worse" levels of hunger in an emergency that is expected to worsen in the coming months if Israel's bombardment and siege—which many experts say is a key component of an ongoing genocide—continue.
The Integrated Phase Food Security Classification—which ranks food security levels on a scale of 1 to 5—on Thursday published an analysis showing that from mid-April to the end of June, more than 1.2 million people, or 59% of Gaza’s population, were experiencing IPC Phase 3 (crisis) or worse levels of food insecurity. This included about 212,000 people in IPC Phase 4 (emergency). All five Gaza governorates were classified as being in Phase 3.
"After two years of conflict, the October 2025 ceasefire has led to measurable gains in humanitarian access and overall conditions across the Gaza Strip," IPC said in a statement. "However, the situation remains deeply fragile, with civilians continuing to endure harsh conditions."
#Gaza Strip The Oct 2025 ceasefire has led to measurable gains in humanitarian access & conditions across the Gaza Strip, yet the situation remains deeply fragile. 1.4 million people are facing high levels of acute food insecurity through Dec 2026. More: www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-webs...
[image or embed]
— The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (@theipcinfo.bsky.social) July 23, 2026 at 5:43 AM
This marks an improvement from a year ago, when a "worst-case scenario" was developing into a Phase 5 (catastrophe) famine that was formally declared by the IPC in August 2025. At least hundreds of Palestinians, many of them children, have died from malnutrition since Israel launched its US-backed war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
The IPC declared last December that while Gaza was no longer in a famine, the situation remained critical for the war-ravaged Palestinians there. The new IPC report warns that two-thirds of Gaza's population are projected to face Phase 3 crisis conditions by the end of the year.
The organization also said that 74,200 Palestinian children under the age of 5 in Gaza will likely need treatment for acute malnutrition through next April.
(Image by Integrated Phase Food Security Classification)
Responding to the new IPC data, United Nations Children's Fund Executive Director Catherine Russell said Thursday that “acute malnutrition has fallen, but many children are still going hungry, and some children may never fully recover from prolonged lack of proper nutrition."
"This progress shows that when humanitarian access improves and aid gets through, children can be pulled back from the brink," she added. "But it rests on a supplementary feeding program that doesn’t reach all children, and where funding is running out."
Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 250,000 Palestinians since then, and forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened over 2 million others since then, resulting in worldwide allegations of genocide embodied in an International Court of Justice case filed by South Africa at the end of 2023 and now formally supported by nearly 20 nations.
Leading global famine experts accused Israel of deliberately starving Palestinians in Gaza. The International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued in late 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister who ordered the "complete siege" of Gaza, accuse the pair of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder and forced starvation.
Like many members of their public, Israeli and US officials under both the Biden and Trump administrations initially denied that Israel was starving Gazans. However, Israeli officials warned in private that Gaza was facing starvation, while US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other administration figures have acknowledged that Palestinians were starving to death in the strip. That did not stop them from continuing to give billions of dollars in US armed aid to Israel.
In response to the new IPC report, acting United Nations World Food Program Executive Director Carl Skau said that “there is progress on food security in Gaza, but it is fragile and can easily be reversed."
"The overall humanitarian situation remains brutal: Families lack water, sanitation, and medicine," Skau added. "We need sustained access, funding, and stability so people of Gaza can begin recovery.”
The heads of various United Nations agencies concurred that a lasting peace—which Israel is not allowing as it continues bombing and besieging Gaza despite a nominal nine-month ceasefire—is imperative for that recovery.
“Food security in Gaza cannot recover unless local food production starts again and farmers, herders, fishers, and other producers can rebuild their livelihoods,” UN Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General Qu Dongyu said on Thursday. “Producers need access to farmland and the sea, and to seeds, tools, livestock supplies, and other agricultural inputs, as well as technical support."
"Restrictions on agricultural imports and humanitarian supplies must be lifted," Qu added. "Without these essentials, food production, and security will remain a pressing situation."
The IPC said that "recent gains remain fragile," and that "advancing peace plans is essential to support recovery, enable the safe return of displaced populations, and help households rebuild their livelihoods."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Abuse of the USGS, the Environment, and Our Intellects': Trump Admin Uses Public Lands Report to Push Coal
One critic of the president recently said that he's "forcing higher power bills" on Americans while "fattening the wallets of his cronies—all with billions of our tax dollars."
Jul 23, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration has dedicated over $1 billion to boosting the coal industry, and on Thursday announced a report about reserves beneath federally managed public lands, with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum claiming that the polluting fossil fuel "is more important than ever to the production of electricity."
The US Geological Survey (USGS) publication, titled Coal Beneath Federal Lands in the United States—Mines, Reserves, and Resources, says that "in 2024, the 34 coal mines on Federal lands produced more than 261 million short tons of coal." A short ton, the standard unit of measurement for coal in the United States, is equal to 2,000 lbs.
"These 34 coal mines control more than 4.2 billion short tons of reported coal reserves. Most of the coal mines (31) and more than 98% of the reported coal reserves are on federal lands west of the Mississippi River," according to the report. "Of all the states, Wyoming has the most coal mines on federal lands (14) and produces the most coal from federal lands."
"The USGS estimates that more than 355 billion short tons of available coal resources remain beneath federal lands in the conterminous United States," the document details. "Alaska contains substantial quantities of coal resources. The USGS estimates that Alaska has at least 140 billion short tons of identified available coal resources but may ultimately have as much as 5.5 trillion short tons of coal resources."
A US Department of the Interior statement announcing the report highlights that if the reserves accounted for in the document were produced, "that would be enough coal to supply all the nation’s needs for at least 600 years at the current rate of consumption."
Scientists have long argued that the international community must stop burning coal—plus oil and gas—to prevent a worst-case scenario future as the planet's inhabitants already face a fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and its related extreme weather.
However, climate crisis-denying Trump—who returned to the White House backed by Big Oil's campaign cash—and his Cabinet have spent his second term pushing polluting sources of energy, particularly as his illegal war on Iran drives up global prices, with oil surpassing $100 per barrel on Thursday.
Staying on message, Burgum declared in Interior's Thursday statement that "American Energy Dominance is more important than ever, and so is beautiful clean coal's role in the production of electricity needed to fuel our future prosperity."
"Thanks to the USGS's rigorous and independent assessment, we're better equipped to manage America's vast public lands responsibly while supporting energy security and economic opportunity," he continued.
Sharing the statement on the social media platform Bluesky Thursday, science journalist Emily Willingham said, "What an abuse of the USGS, the environment, and our intellects."
An ore deposit geologist named Elizabeth also ripped the statement on Bluesky, writing: "There is a lot messed up with this press release, but the thing that bothers me the most is how poorly it is written. What an embarrassment!"
The USGS report came just two days after the Energy and Labor departments signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) creating a framework to accelerate the deployment of artificial intelligence, automation, and other emerging technologies in the mining sector.
Acting Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling said, "It is our commitment to you that this MOU will further President Trump's promise to restore coal as a key driver of America’s energy supply chain and American coal will again be the envy of the world for generations to come."
While attacking clean energy initiatives, including offshore wind projects, the administration "has bolstered coal, the dirtiest and most expensive fossil fuel," The Guardian reported earlier this month.
According to the newspaper:
In September, the Department of Energy announced it would spend $625 million to "expand and extend the life of" coal-fired power plants, allocating $350 million to "modernize" coal plants, $175 million to fund coal projects powering rural communities, and $50 million to upgrade wastewater management systems to extend coal plants' lifespans.
Last month, the agency also set aside up to $500 million from the Defense Production Act to “expand and reinvigorate” the capacity of 13 coal plants, and to help build a coal export terminal in Oakland, California. A week later, the department announced an additional $3.6 million to "refurbish or retrofit" nine existing coal plants.
Former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a climate advocate and Trump critic, told the paper that the president is "forcing higher power bills" on Americans "by blocking clean energy, then he's fattening the wallets of his cronies—all with billions of our tax dollars."
"We pay more," he said, "Republicans rubber-stamp it, and Trump's donors walk off with the bag."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Underhanded' Stevens Sends Out Fake El-Sayed Press Release Claiming He’s Endorsed by Their GOP Opponent
Not only was the press release fake, but Republican Mike Rogers didn't even endorse El-Sayed.
Jul 23, 2026
With less than two weeks before the critical Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, Rep. Haley Stevens is reportedly resorting to some underhanded tactics to attack her opponent, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, by sending out an email making it appear as if he was celebrating an endorsement from their Republican rival.
Remington Hernandez, a political reporter at WWMT-TV, reported on Thursday that the Stevens campaign had sent a fake press release meant to look like it had come from El-Sayed's team.
"ENDORSEMENT ALERT: Mike Rogers Endorses Abdul El-Sayed in the Democratic US Senate Primary," the email says, beneath an "Abdul for Senate" graphic identical to the one used in his campaign communications.
The email quotes Rogers, a former Republican US congressman expected to be the GOP Senate nominee, saying he wants to face El-Sayed in the general election because he'd be easier to beat than Stevens.
“If he wins, I think we’re in good shape,” it quotes Rogers saying. "I think we’ll do well if he in fact is the nominee.”
The quote from Rogers is real. It comes from a CNN report published on Thursday about a call with supporters last month, in which he reportedly called El-Sayed "so radical" and predicted he'd "lose big parts of the west part of the state."
But it is not true, as the email claims, that Rogers had "endorsed" El-Sayed.
Ben Solis, a reporter at Michigan Advance who also received the email, noted that it appeared designed to look authentic, with multiple graphics at the bottom mimicking those El-Sayed's social media team has posted following actual endorsements.
"Is this ethical or legal to make a fake campaign endorsement ad like this?" he asked. "And even if it is, is that playing fair? Seems pretty underhanded at first glance."
Despite the criticism, Stevens has run with the quote herself as part of her pitch against El-Sayed and posted the fake graphics to her own social media accounts, claiming that Rogers was "really wanting Abdul to win this primary."
But it's also not entirely clear whether Rogers was even saying that he'd prefer to take on El-Sayed over Stevens.
The CNN article states that Rogers was "responding to a question about his campaign’s strategy for El-Sayed."
"What is Rogers supposed to say?" asked media critic Adam Johnson. "Of course he's saying they're in good shape, just as he would if he was asked about Stevens."
It's unclear what, if any, response Rogers gave to the prospect of facing Stevens. But Johnson said that on a call full of potential donors, it was probably something similar.
"Was Rogers asked about Stevens? Has anyone seen the full donor call?" he asked. "If he was asked about Stevens, do we think he said, 'Gee, golly, she is gonna be tough to beat'? Or do we think he also projected confidence he would defeat her as well because this is the thing you tell donors?"
He also pointed out that Stevens' largest source of financial backing during the race has been the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) super PAC, the United Democracy Project, whose two largest donors, hedge fund manager Paul Singer and WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum, are both major supporters of Republicans who spent millions backing President Donald Trump in 2024.
"Yes, Republicans are so excited to take on El-Sayed. Stevens' two biggest backers are Republican megadonors," Johnson quipped.
While Stevens has attempted to portray her progressive opponent as less electable, an average of four recent polls from 270ToWin shows El-Sayed with a slightly larger polling lead over Rogers than she has.
An official account for El-Sayed's campaign noted that it's not the first example of deceptive tactics being used to promote Stevens.
Michigan airwaves have been blanketed by a pro-Stevens super PAC ad heavily implying that she'd been endorsed by former President Barack Obama. Though Stevens did work on the team supporting Obama's efforts to revive the automobile industry during the post-2008 financial recovery, the former president has not endorsed her Senate campaign in 2026.
"Mike Rogers has not endorsed Abdul just like President Obama has not endorsed Haley," said El-Sayed's campaign on Thursday. "But there’s so much disinformation coming out of her campaign it’s hard to tell if this is satire or just another lie unbefitting of a congresswoman."
Keep ReadingShow Less
250 Organizations Urge Senate: Put Americans’ Health Before Chemical Industry Profits
National alliance urges Congress to reject industry efforts to weaken nation’s chemical safety law and encourages Congress to hear from impacted communities, veterans, workers, and health professionals—not just chemical industry lobbyists.
Jul 23, 2026
Today, 250 organizations and groups from across the country urge leaders of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to reject industry-led efforts to weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act, America’s primary chemical safety law, and encourage Congress to hear from the people, workers, and communities whose health would be most affected.
In the letter sent to EPW Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and to Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), organizations representing public health professionals, scientists, consumer advocates, environmental justice leaders, community organizations, environmental advocates, and impacted communities wrote that Congress has not yet publicly heard testimony in hearings from the people who would bear the greatest consequences of weakening the law.
Those voices include veterans, workers, families, and frontline communities facing cancer, Parkinson's disease, and other illnesses linked to toxic chemical exposures, as well as states on the front lines of managing contamination, cleanup, and rising health costs.
“Strong chemical safety reviews protect families from hazardous chemicals before they reach the market,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group.
“Weakening TSCA doesn't cut red tape. It makes it easier for toxic chemicals to end up in our homes, our drinking water, and our bodies,” Benesh said.
The letter also highlights TSCA’s broad public health benefits since Congress overwhelmingly voted to modernize the law in 2016, including actions to address toxic chemicals such as asbestos, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and other harmful substances found in homes, schools, workplaces, consumer products, drinking water and communities across the country.
“We urge the Committee to ensure that any proposed legislation to revise TSCA receives full and careful review and input from all interested parties,” the letter states.
“The vast majority of Americans across party lines support more protections from toxic chemical exposure and more accountability from corporate polluters. For an issue of this magnitude and importance, we urge you to not rush to mark up a bill that has not been seen by the public nor received a hearing with opportunity for testimony or comment from all interested stakeholders,” the organizations wrote.
“Congress should not make changes to our nation's chemical safety law to placate the chemical industry," said Liz Hitchcock, federal policy director at Toxic-Free Future. "Americans need stronger protections from toxic chemicals, not weaker ones. Lawmakers must hear from the health professionals, veterans, workers, state leaders, and communities that would be most affected—not just the companies that profit from these chemicals.”
The sign-on letter was organized by the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals, a national coalition of more than 85 organizations and networks united around one principle: put people’s health first. Together, Alliance members are working to defend TSCA against efforts to weaken it and preserve strong federal public health protections from toxic chemicals.
About the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals
The Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals is a national coalition of more than 85 organizations and networks united around the principle: put people’s health first. The Alliance fights for national protections to prevent harm from toxic chemicals that contribute to cancer, infertility, learning disabilities, and other health challenges. We work for justice and health for all, wherever you live, work, and play.
Keep ReadingShow Less
ISA Hands Contract Extension to TMC Despite Support for Unlawful Deep Sea Mining, Proving Need for Immediate Moratorium
Jul 23, 2026
Greenpeace International strongly condemns the International Seabed Authority (ISA) Council’s decision to extend The Metals Company subsidiary Nauru Ocean Resources Inc’s (NORI) exploration contract, even though NORI has been supporting the pursuit of unlawful deep sea mining via US unilateralism.[1]
It is public that NORI will be making payments to the government of Naoero (Nauru) if The Metals Company USA engages in unilateral mining.[2] Attention in the remaining days of the ISA Council now turns to the next steps in the global inquiry into companies supporting unilateral mining.
Louisa Casson, campaigner at Greenpeace International, said:
“Granting an extension sets a dangerous precedent for both the deep sea and the rule of law. This decision risks showing that companies can use aggressive lawsuits to avoid consequences. It also calls into serious question the regulator’s ability to enforce basic compliance under its existing rules and makes the case for an immediate moratorium on deep sea mining more urgent than ever.”
Last Saturday, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) explicitly refused to suspend the ongoing inquiry into potential non-compliance by contractors, after TMC’s subsidiaries sued the ISA. Instead, the ITLOS decision focused on ensuring the inquiry follows due process.[3][4][5]
Greenpeace International now demands that governments at the ISA Council establish a clear and robust timeline for concluding the inquiry, to enable governments to act if non-compliance is confirmed. Through these ITLOS legal proceedings, NORI and Tonga Offshore Mining Limited (TOML), another wholly owned The Metals Company subsidiary, have identified themselves as “requiring specific attention to possible non‑compliance” in the inquiry process.
Louisa Casson added:
“The political responsibility now falls squarely on governments to step up their game to set a clear direction that unlawful deep sea mining will not be tolerated, and fend off a corporate group that deploys strategic litigation to evade scrutiny. This inquiry cannot become a toothless box-checking exercise. The ISA must execute it with absolute rigour, establish a firm timeline without delay, and stand firm against corporate intimidation. Additionally, States must take immediate responsibility and act against any company or national connected to unilateral mining, to disrupt and limit unlawful deep sea mining supply chains. At the ISA, governments must enact a moratorium to protect our ocean and multilateralism from this dangerous industry."
In July 2025, governments of the ISA Council unanimously decided to investigate potential contractual breaches in light of TMC USA’s highly controversial applications to gain unilateral permission for deep sea mining from the Trump administration, including in the same areas where NORI and TOML hold ISA exploration contracts. At the March 2026 meeting, the ISA Council called for the inquiry to include publicly available information.
Multiple legal experts argue that States Parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) have both an opportunity and an obligation to take action against companies and nationals under their control to prevent their participation in unilateral, unlawful deep sea mining. This is notably the case of Swiss-Dutch offshore giant Allseas, which has signed an agreement to provide TMC USA the technology and infrastructure needed to proceed with unlawful mining, as shown by a legal opinion commissioned by Greenpeace Netherlands.[6]
ENDS
Notes:
- ISA Council decision, adopted 20 July 2026: https://isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ISBA_31_C_L.9-Draft-decision-of-the-Council-of-the-ISA-relating-to-an-application-for-extension-of-the-contract-for-exploration-for-PMN-with-Nauru-Ocean-Resources-Inc-fv-AUV.pdf
- Following TMC USA’s first application under US national regulations, NORI revised its agreement with its sponsoring state, Naoero (formerly known as Nauru). The new clauses inserted into the contract provide for additional payments from NORI to Naoero if mining by a TMC subsidiary in the international seabed begins under unilateral authorisation from the US government. This establishes a financial mechanism explicitly predicated on the commencement of unlawful mining in the Area. Consequently, if TMC USA mines the international seabed, NORI will pay Naoero. These updated agreements indicate that NORI willingly anticipated and prepared to accommodate unlawful mining activities – an issue the ISA membership must act upon. See Sponsorship agreement, revised 29 May 2025, between The Republic of Naoero and Nauru Ocean Resources Inc, available here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1798562/000110465925056465/tm2516970d1_ex10-1.htm
- The ITLOS Seabed Disputes Chamber did not rule on whether the ISA violated NORI’s rights, nor did it order a contract extension. It merely directed that both the compliance inquiry and decisions over extensions of ISA contracts proceed separately under standard due process rules. https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/34/Provisional_Measures/Order_180726/C34_Order_18.07.2026_orig.pdf
- A Greenpeace International compilation of the events that led to the ITLOS proceedings, as well as the network of companies connected to The Metals Company's activities, is available: “Corporate capture of the deep sea. A call for action to protect the commons against unlawful deep sea mining" (July 2026) https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2026/07/1ae0383d-corporate-capture-of-the-deep-sea-itlos-unclos-isa-tmc.pdf.
- Compilation of public information evidencing breaches of contract by NORI and TOML available from Greenpeace International: “Inquiry on potential breaches by ISA contractors" (March 2026) https://isa.org.jm/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Briefing_by_Greenpeace-2_March_2026.pdf
- See legal opinions, for example: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-netherlands-stateless/2026/06/3d8ed6b1-greenpeace-legal_opinion_-nollkaemper_fin-260605.pdf
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-latest-trump-threat-to-international-law-unilaterally-mining-the-area/
Keep ReadingShow Less
FDA Should Ban Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements
Jul 23, 2026
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should ban direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs, Public Citizen said today in a petition filed with the agency. Banning DTC ads would align U.S. policy with international best practices, protect the public from misleading and harmful drug promotion, and promote rational, evidence-based prescribing.
“DTC ads often mislead consumers because they are designed to persuade rather than to inform or educate patients,” said Nina Zeldes, PhD, health researcher for Public Citizen and lead author of the petition. “These ads typically employ emotional manipulation techniques and visual distractions to highlight information about a drug’s benefits while minimizing its risks. When DTC ads work, they do so by interfering with the doctor-patient relationship – persuading physicians to prescribe medications they otherwise would not have prescribed.”
A large body of peer-reviewed evidence demonstrates that DTC ads:
- Misleadingly present the benefits and risks of medications, distorting patients’ understanding of drug safety and effectiveness;
- Use favorable and selective imagery to manipulate consumers’ emotions;
- Contribute to the overdiagnosis of disease and overprescription of medications;
- Erode the patient-physician relationship;
- Promote low-value medications and medications with uncertain benefits and harms; and
- Harm the economy and the health care system.
Because DTC advertising is often misleading and because prohibiting it would advance a substantial government interest, a ban would comply with the First Amendment, according to the petition. Greater enforcement of existing regulations, with uncertain effectiveness, is not an adequate substitute for a new rulemaking. Warning letters simply react to violations that have already occurred; they do not constitute a proactive approach to remedy the harms of DTC advertising.
“The harms of DTC ads outweigh any supposed benefits,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, Health Research Group director at Public Citizen and an author of the petition. “Now is the time to advance public health by banning these ads.”
Nearly all other developed nations, including Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and those of the European Union, have long prohibited DTC advertising for prescription drugs that include medical claims. Only two developed countries, the U.S. and New Zealand, allow unfettered DTC advertising of prescription medications. There is no evidence that consumers in countries that ban DTC advertisements suffer any adverse health effects.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Fight and You Win': Free Press Advocates Cheer as Trump DOJ Withdraws Subpoenas of NYT Reporters
"We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place," said an attorney representing The New York Times.
Jul 23, 2026
The US Department of Justice on Thursday withdrew its subpoenas of New York Times reporters that were heavily criticized by free press advocates.
According to the Times, Deputy US Attorney Sean Buckley told US District Judge Arun Subramanian that "the government is prepared to unilaterally withdraw the subpoenas," which were issued earlier this month shortly after the paper published a story detailing security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
All Rise News reported that Buckley also told the court that the DOJ made a "mistake" when it issued subpoenas to phone companies for subscriber information and toll records for phone numbers used by one reporter’s mother and by two reporters’ spouses.
“That was an error,” Buckley said of the subpoenas related to reporters' family members. “It was a consequence of trying to move quickly.”
Eric Lipton, one of the Times journalists who had been subpoenaed, wrote in a social media post that he was "glad to hear" the government's decision to back down.
"Enormous thank you to the entire NYT legal team and outside counsel that has worked with such clarity and determination to challenge this," Lipton added, "from the moment we first heard FBI agents were starting to show up at our houses."
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times’ newsroom, called the DOJ's decision "an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press."
"We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place," McCraw added. "The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these."
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press celebrated the DOJ's subpoena withdrawal, while crediting Subramanian for pointed questioning of government lawyers.
"Targeting reporters to appease the White House has reached a dead end once again in the federal courts," the group said. "Judge Subramanian saw DOJ’s effort clearly for what it was: a brazen and careless government overreach."
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression described the DOJ decision as a "welcome reversal," but warned that the dangers posed to the First Amendment by the Trump DOJ were not over.
"Withdrawing the subpoenas does not erase the chilling effect of issuing them in the first place, and the DOJ should not reissue them," the group said. "Journalists should not have to choose between protecting confidential sources and facing government threats. A free press depends on reporters being able to pursue the truth, and on sources being able to share information the public has a right to know."
John Schwartz, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Journalism and Media, said there was a practical lesson to be learned from how the Times handled the Trump administration's efforts to force its reporters into court.
"Fight and you win," wrote Schwartz. "Always punch the bullies in the nose."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Press Freedom Groups Warn 'No Newsroom in America Is Safe' After House GOP Subpoenas Left-Wing Outlet
"BreakThrough News is not the first, nor will it be the last, to come under official attack," said one press freedom advocate.
Jul 23, 2026
Press freedom groups are issuing dire warnings on Thursday that House Republicans' efforts to subpoena the nonprofit left-wing news organization BreakThrough News represent a dangerous new step in a McCarthyite war on political dissent.
On Wednesday, Fox News reported that BreakThrough, a New York-based outlet, was one of three nonprofits that had been issued subpoenas by the GOP-controlled House Ways and Means Committee as part of an investigation into $39 million worth of donations from tech mogul Neville Roy Singham, a self-described socialist who has used his wealth to fund left-wing nonprofits.
In letters sent Tuesday, the committee, led by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), said that BreakThrough, as well as two other organizations—the People’s Forum Inc., a New York-based activist hub, and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research—had not turned over any documents that had been requested as part of an investigation into whether rules around tax exempt status for nonprofits should be tightened to protect against foreign influence.
The committee has accused Singham, an American who now lives in Shanghai, of exploiting the tax code and using shell companies and donor-advised funds to hide foreign money that has been used to promote the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. It does not, however, make any specific accusation of legal wrongdoing.
The subpoena requires BreakThrough News to turn over records about its finances, foreign donors and grant recipients, fiscal-sponsorship arrangements, and communications with Singham and any foreign entities.
In a statement on Wednesday, BreakThrough News said it was "under attack."
"For years, Republican lawmakers have painted a target on our backs, falsely claiming that our political views and reporting are part of some foreign plot," the outlet said. "Now, the MAGA-dominated House Ways and Means Committee has issued us a subpoena—demanding internal communications, financial records and more. Make no mistake, this is a flagrant abuse of power, and a direct attack on our work as journalists and on the First Amendment generally."
BreakThrough said it does not receive any funding from foreign governments or institutions and that it already complies with all the tax and public reporting requirements that nonprofits have to follow.
"We are not charged with any crime, because our only 'crime' has been to tell the truth–by covering the activities of the Palestine solidarity movement, unmasking the truth of ICE’s terror in our streets, and exposing Washington’s crimes around the world, from Cuba to the Congo," the outlet said. "That’s the journalism they want to shut down. Their goal is to saddle us with legal proceedings and hostile media to drain our resources and stop this important work."
While the committee stated that they are investigating BreakThrough over its financing rather than its politics, letters sent to the organization have treated the content of its reporting as circumstantial evidence of malign foreign influence, referring to it as "anti-American" and claiming that its negative coverage of Israel was "sowing division within the United States."
Chip Gibbons, the policy director of the free speech advocacy group Defending Rights & Dissent, told Common Dreams that the subpoena of BreakThrough was a "deeply chilling assault on the First Amendment."
"Such tactics are, quite literally, a throwback to the House Un-American Activities Committee, which today is mostly viewed as a disgrace," Gibbons said. "I say mostly, because just three days ago [Secretary Marco] Rubio's State Department released a report preposterously attacking the US left, including some of these groups, as Cuban fronts that cited old HUAC reports."
He further emphasized in a press release that there was "no plausible need" for a news organization to provide documents as part of a broad congressional inquiry.
"The only thing these groups are accused of is essentially receiving donations from a US citizen who has been the subject of an intensive campaign of demonization," Gibbons said. "It is lawful for Americans to donate to activist causes and media projects while holding views disfavored by Congress. This is clearly not a valid legislative inquiry at all, but an attempt to intimidate and chill dissenting opinions."
Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed that “Congress shouldn’t be using a tax investigation as a pretext to dig through a newsroom’s internal communications or financial records.
"Freedom of the press," he said, "applies to all journalists, regardless of whether politicians like their editorial slant or their politics."
In what it has portrayed as a fight against "left-wing terrorism," the Trump administration has increasingly blurred the lines between violent activity and protected political speech that they claim "incites" violence.
National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, signed by Trump in September, designates large swathes of left-wing viewpoints on race, gender, immigration, and other topics as "indicators" of domestic terrorism that have been used to link entire groups of people to violent acts they themselves did not commit.
Rubio said last week that the administration would soon be designating more left-wing organizations as terrorist groups, while senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller said that the full force of the state would be used to "disrupt, identify, defund, de-bank, arrest, prosecute" those deemed to "foment" political violence, not just those who actually commit it.
He has previously pledged to use the law to "dismantle" organizations that use heated rhetoric to refer to their right-wing opponents, including calling them "fascist" or "authoritarian."
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, described the subpoena of BreakThrough as an extension of a "retaliatory ethos" Trump has taken towards critical journalists "with the goal of shutting down criticism and dissent."
She told Common Dreams, "BreakThrough News is not the first, nor will it be the last, to come under official attack for bringing people alternative and useful news coverage about ICE abuses, foreign policy, Palestinian rights, and other topics."
"Allowing a congressional committee to harass an independent newsroom with a broad subpoena sets an awful precedent," Stern said. "If lawmakers can abuse tax oversight to single out outlets whose reporting offends them today, no newsroom in America is safe from government intimidation tomorrow.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Iran War Hits US Farmers With $1.4 Billion More in Diesel Fuel Costs: Report
"Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran drove up the cost of diesel fuel just as farmers were set to start their spring planting."
Jul 23, 2026
President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran is putting significant financial stress on US farmers, according to a report issued on Thursday by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee.
The report finds that US farmers spent $1.4 billion more on diesel fuel this year when planing corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice than they did a year ago, representing a 63% yearly increase.
The six states to get hit with the biggest yearly percentage increases in diesel costs all voted for Trump in three consecutive presidential elections: Florida (90.6% yearly increase in diesel costs), Alabama (86.2%), Oklahoma (85.9%), West Virginia (85.8%), Kansas (83.8%), and Indiana (79.5%).
Diesel prices in 2026 hit their peak right in the middle of planting season, and the report estimates that "the average farmer spent $1,500 more to refil their farm's onsite fuel tank... compared to the same high point during the 2025 planting season."
The report notes that it doesn't capture the full extent of economic damage caused the president's unlawful assault on Iran, as its analysis "doesn’t take into account other war-related increases such as the increased costs of running diesel generators that power some greenhouses or the increases at the pump that farmers and truckers face when they drive products to market."
The report adds that the economic pain being felt by farmers thanks to Trump's war will soon hit US grocery shoppers.
"Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran drove up the cost of diesel fuel just as farmers were set to start their spring planting," the report says. "This comes after Trump’s tariffs have already significantly increased costs for farmers and made it more difficult for them to plan for the future. These increased costs... are likely to further contribute to rising grocery costs."
According to data published by the US Energy Information Administration, diesel prices peaked in May this year when they averaged $5.60 per gallon.
While prices initially fell after Trump announced a ceasefire agreement with Iran in June, the war's resumption this month has sent them jumping upward again.
Data published by the American Automobile Association on Thursday showed that the average price of diesel in the US is now back up to $5.20 per gallon, an increase of $0.20 from one week ago.
Despite the economic turmoil caused by his illegal war of choice, Trump has shown little sign of backing off. In an interview with Axios published Thursday, the president said that he was “close” to making a decision on whether to authorize what he described as a “massive attack” on Iran that he vowed would be “bigger than ever before.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'They're Trying to Scare People': AOC Dismisses Latest GOP Warnings of 'Communism'
"We can’t even raise the minimum wage. Do Republicans really think this stuff is going to happen?"
Jul 23, 2026
Republican fearmongering that communism is on its way to the United States is a perennial feature of US political discourse—despite the fact that their warnings proved wrong in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt passed Social Security and other New Deal programs and recently when Mayor Zohran Mamdani neglected to usher in a communist era in New York City, even as he moved forward with plans for universal childcare and a network of city-run grocery stores.
On Thursday, progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) mocked the GOP's latest claims that Democratic politicians who support Medicare for All and other broadly popular universal proposals are putting the US on what House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) recently called a "dark road of death to communism."
"We can’t even raise the minimum wage. Do Republicans really think this stuff is going to happen?" Ocasio-Cortez told a reporter on Capitol Hill after they'd asked whether the recent victories of democratic socialists and other progressives could end up "as full-blown communism."
Reporter: Isn’t there concern that this slippery slope to socialism inevitably ends up as full-blown communism?
AOC: I mean, no. I think that’s very silly. We can’t even raise the minimum wage. Do they really think communism is going to happen? No. They’re trying to scare people… pic.twitter.com/RiFhqpwd6T
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 23, 2026
With 78% of Democratic voters supporting an expansion of the Medicare program to everyone in the US—which would end healthcare's treatment as a for-profit endeavor in the US and put the medical system on equal footing with those in other wealthy countries—a number of Democratic House candidates who support the proposal have won primary races in recent months, including Melat Kiros in Colorado, Claire Valdez in New York, and Adam Hamawy in New Jersey. In Michigan, US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Medicare for All advocate, has polled ahead of his centrist opponent Rep. Haley Stevens in numerous recent surveys.
As Republicans aim to maintain control of the Senate and House in the midterm elections—having ripped nutrition assistance and Medicaid away from millions of Americans, driven up healthcare costs for people who have insurance through the Affordable Care Act, supported the invasion of Iran as it has sent gas prices soaring, backed billions of dollars in Pentagon spending and military aid for Israel as Americans struggle to afford essentials, and supported a president who says he doesn't "think about Americans’ financial situation"—they've attempted to revive old claims that the new crop of progressive Democrats "are a danger to you and your family," as Johnson said this week.
The House speaker called the progressive primary winners "crazy little mini-Mamdanis who are popping up all around the country," while House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) warned that "the radical left feels they need to hide what their policies are... Let’s call it what it is: It’s communism.”
Ocasio-Cortez, who is said to be a potential 2028 presidential or Senate candidate, called the warnings "very silly" and suggested they came from lawmakers who are dead-set against healthcare being treated as a right in the US instead of a profit-making business.
"They’re trying to scare people because they don’t want us talking about the fact that we all have a right to healthcare," said the congresswoman. "So they want to call everything they don’t like communist because if people actually wake up to the fact that their elected officials are screwing them over when they get here, then they’re going to realize they deserve better and that healthcare as a right isn’t crazy, it isn't pie-in-the-sky."
"They want to call this stuff communist because they don’t want us to realize that the rest of the developed world has guaranteed healthcare," she added. "So they want to call it communist because they don’t want you to know that Germany, Italy, the UK, Canada—everybody else—has it better than us, and we spend the most money for the worst care in the modern, developed world."
In another interview Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez expanded on her condemnation of Republicans' healthcare policies.
"This administration is killing Americans," she said. "They are killing people by taking away their healthcare. They are killing women by having them bleed out in parking lots. They are killing seniors by imposing cuts to Medicaid and to Medicare recipients... The fact of the matter is they are for UnitedHealth. They are for Big Pharma. They are for these corporations, and they are cutting your healthcare."
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