

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
We need more Jared and Laurie Berezins who are standing up for democracy as civil rights and due process rights are being undermined by the Trump administration.
For Jared and Laurie Berezin who live outside Boston, the final straw was the video in mid-April showing an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in New Bedford, Massachusetts shattering a Guatemalan couple’s car window with an axe before dragging them out onto the sidewalk.
One week later, on April 23, the couple—an MIT lecturer and a jewelry maker—held their first protest outside ICE’s New England field office in Burlington, Massachusetts.
Standing alone on a grassy knoll holding a sign, reading, “Just Say No to Harassing Immigrants,” they watched ICE agents coming and going from the two-story ICE facility where thousands of immigrants have been detained, many for multiple days, since January. Both were struck by the casualness of it all, especially the unmasked agents walking around laughing and joking.
They also saw dozens of immigrants arriving, looking stone-faced and nervous, for their deportation hearings. Coming out, a few of them waved to the couple to thank them for their support.
History—from the American Revolution to the civil rights movement—has shown that chipping away at vital institutions can erode political power and force positive change.
Those twin moments—ICE agents performing their jobs with apparent nonchalance against a backdrop of immigrants looking petrified and powerless—struck a chord.
“The minute we started standing on that grass, it hit us that we needed to keep coming back,” Jared Berezin recalled.
One week later, four friends joined their protest. Six weeks after that, there were 60. On December 3, the 33rd consecutive Wednesday protest, there were more than 600.
Beyond speeches and songs, the “Bearing Witness” standouts are producing action: In October, after widespread media attention, the Burlington Town Meeting voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution demanding that the ICE facility end “inhumane” conditions and all overnight detentions, which violate local zoning limits set in 2007 when the facility first opened. After repeated requests from federal legislators, ICE has consented to site inspections in the coming weeks.
This is what peaceful, sustained civil resistance looks like.
We need more Jared and Laurie Berezins who are standing up for democracy as civil rights and due process rights are being undermined by the Trump administration.
But resistance needs strategy, training, and unwavering commitment to exercise that power.
In small but encouraging ways, it is happening. One Million Rising, a national civil resistance movement launched in July by the nonprofit group Indivisible, now has more than 350,000 trained volunteers organizing protests, sit-ins, and other types of nonviolent interference aimed at businesses, federal agencies, and other entities supporting the president’s policies.
This has less to do with broad-based demonstrations, such as October’s No Kings Day, and more with sharply focused, continuous collective action to disrupt key pillars of support, such as businesses and government enforcement agencies, that the administration is relying on.
History—from the American Revolution to the civil rights movement—has shown that chipping away at vital institutions can erode political power and force positive change. The president cannot be effective without airplanes to handle his deportation flights, banks that finance his detention centers, and a media that spreads his misinformation and squelches truth.
We’re seeing positive progress across the board.
When Disney and its ABC affiliate suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s show in September over his remarks about Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting, viewers quickly responded. Disney’s streaming apps lost more than 1 million paid subscribers in a matter of days. The show was quickly restored—a major victory for free speech.
Avelo Airlines, a budget commercial airline that flies out of Hartford, New Haven and dozens of other US cities, is also facing intense opposition over its contract to handle deportation flights for ICE. After numerous protests at Bradley Airport, Avelo announced in October that it was ending all Bradley flights. Similar protests are underway in New Haven and other airports.
Protesters are also targeting local governments such as Holyoke, Massachusetts, a mostly Latino city sensitive to escalating ICE raids. Like Burlington, the first protest was started last spring by a young woman, Claire McGale, who stood alone at a popular street intersection holding a sign reading, “Solidarity Without Action is Meaningless.”

The weekly protests swelled. McGale then organized a diverse coalition, The Real Holyoke Majority, that took its protests to City Hall where city councillors were considering a resolution declaring that Holyoke is not a sanctuary city and supports all federal laws, including ICE raids. In October, after Latinos, youth, and trans residents spoke in opposition, the resolution was defeated in a 7-6 vote. A few weeks later, the councillor leading the resolution effort was voted out of office
The movement needs more people like Claire McGale and Jared and Laurie Berezin.
They are writing American history right now. What will your story be?
“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” said one of the lawyers representing the fired workers.
Six former employees of the US Environmental Protection Agency filed a First Amendment challenge in court on Wednesday to their firing earlier this year for criticizing the Trump administration's environmental policies.
The employees were among 160 who were fired shortly after signing a "declaration of dissent" in June against EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, whom they said was “recklessly undermining” the agency’s mission and “ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters.”
In their claim before the US Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates appeals from fired federal workers, the six employees argued that they were illegally fired for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and that those firings were carried out in retaliation for their political affiliation.
The fired workers also argued that they arbitrarily received harsher treatment than many other employees who signed the letter, who were suspended without pay for two weeks.
According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), one of the groups defending the employees, many of them had lengthy, distinguished careers of federal service.
One of them, John Darling, was a senior research biologist who spent over two decades helping the EPA curb the damage to endangered aquatic species.
Another, Tom Luben, is an expert in environmental epidemiology who worked at the EPA for over 18 years investigating how air pollution can cause pregnancy complications, and had received 14 National Honor Awards for his contributions over the years.
A third, Missy Haniewicz, served for a decade and was working on hazardous waste cleanup projects at more than 20 sites across Utah at the time she was fired.
PEER provided an example of one of the termination notices the fired employees received. Both the names of the employee and the official who sent the notice were redacted, along with other identifying information.
The termination notice states that the individual was fired for "conduct unbecoming of a federal employee." Although the document notes the employee's "[years] of federal service, most recent distinguished performance rating, awards, and... lack of disciplinary history," it says all of that was outweighed by the “serious nature of your misconduct.”
"The agency is not required to tolerate actions from its employees that undermine the agency’s decisions, interfere with the agency’s operations and mission, and the efficient fulfillment of the agency’s responsibilities to the public," the notice adds. "As an EPA employee, you are required to maintain proper discipline and refrain from conduct that can adversely affect morale in the workplace, foster disharmony, and ultimately impede the efficiency of the agency."
The legal team defending the employee and their colleagues argues that this is untrue. They argue that these employees' terminations violate the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which says employees are "protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes." It also protects whistleblowers who publicize information they reasonably believe to be a violation of law, abuse of authority, or danger to public health and safety.
“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” says Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER. “EPA is not only undermining the First Amendment’s free speech protections by trying to silence its own workforce, it is also placing US citizens in peril by removing experienced employees who are tasked with carrying out EPA’s critical mission.”
The second Trump administration has laid off approximately 300,000 federal civil servants over the past year, with some of them being carried out in apparent retaliation for dissent.
On Tuesday—after being briefly reinstated—14 employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were placed back on administrative leave for signing an open letter of dissent in August, warning that cuts to the agency were putting it at risk of similar failures to those after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
And weeks after over a thousand anonymous Department of Health and Human Services employees called for the resignation of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in September, accusing him of "placing the health of all Americans at risk," more than a thousand employees across the department were culled in what was dubbed a "Friday Night Massacre."
Eden Brown Gaines, whose law firm is also defending the employees, said, “If America is to remain on the course of democracy and honor the principles of its Constitution, we must allow its judicial system to restore employment for those unjustly fired and our collective faith in our country."
"Truth is not a fireable offense," PEER said in a statement.
"It is illegal to remove books from public libraries because some people do not like them," said a coalition of 33 library groups, publishing companies, and civil rights organizations.
Public libraries in Tennessee have begun to shut down as they carry out an order from state officials to remove children's books containing LGBTQ+ themes or characters.
For Popular Information, Rebecca Crosby and Noel Sims reported Tuesday that the "book purge" is required to be carried out at all 181 libraries in the Tennessee Regional Library System, which encompasses most of the state, aside from cities like Nashville and Memphis.
It comes after Tennessee's Republican Secretary of State, Tre Hargett, sent a pair of letters earlier this fall. The first, sent on September 8, said that in order to receive state and federal grants, which run through his office, libraries needed to comply with a Tennessee law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices from agencies, as well as President Donald Trump's executive order on "gender ideology," which effectively ended the federal recognition of transgender and nonbinary individuals.
As the report notes, neither of these orders says anything about library books. However, Hargett argued that compliance with the executive order mandated book bans because it states that "federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.”
Not only do executive orders typically not apply to state and local governments, but the federal funds Tennessee's libraries receive are not used to purchase books at all. Instead, according to the secretary of state's website, they “provide all state residents with online access to essential library and information resources, including licensed databases, a statewide library catalog and interlibrary loan system, bibliographic services, and materials for the disadvantaged.”
The Every Library Institute, an advocacy group that supports federal funding for libraries, said that Hargett's instructions "contain significant errors, likely exceeding the secretary’s authority and reflecting a political agenda rather than a neutral or accurate interpretation of federal or state law."
"Hargett is setting a dangerous precedent by placing Tennessee’s state and municipal government under the authority of any executive order by any president," the group continued. "Executive orders are not laws."
But Crosby and Sims argued: "Even if the executive order did apply to Tennessee local libraries, simply having books with LGBTQ stories and characters does not constitute 'promoting gender ideology.' The classic fairytale Little Red Riding Hood involves a wolf eating a little girl, but does not promote violence. Children’s books are stories, not instruction manuals."
On October 27, Hargett sent another letter, giving libraries 60 days to undertake an "age appropriateness review" of all books in their children's section to find any books that may be inconsistent either with Tennessee's age appropriateness law or with Trump's executive order.
As Ken Paulson, the director of Middle Tennessee University's Free Speech Center, noted, the age appropriateness law, which was last updated in 2024, "is modeled after obscenity laws and prohibits nudity, excessive violence, and explicit sexuality, hardly the stuff of children’s sections. Further, the law applies to school libraries, not public libraries."
Though Hargett provided no criteria for how to assess what books would need to be purged, he did provide an example of one he felt violated both orders: Fred Gets Dressed, a 2021 picture book by the New York Times bestselling author Peter Brown. As Popular Information noted:
The book, which was written by a straight, cisgender man, does not feature any LGBTQ characters. Instead it is based on a childhood experience of the author in which he tried on his mother’s clothing and makeup. If a book about a boy trying on his mother’s clothes is the strongest example of “promoting gender ideology” that Hargett could identify, it raises questions about the necessity of the review.
Earlier this month, the state's Rutherford County Library System, which serves the cities of Smyrna and Murfreesboro, shut down several of its library branches for up to a week to “meet new reporting requirements" from Hargett's office.
It's unclear why the Rutherford County system determined it needed to shut down in order to carry out the review, nor has it been made clear whether other library systems will be expected to do the same.
As former librarian Kelly Jensen noted for the blog Book Riot, the Rutherford County system has made its own efforts to ban transgender-friendly books, but backed off from the policy earlier this summer for fear of litigation after a Murfreesboro law branding "homosexuality" as a form of "public indecency" resulted in the city being forced to settle a lawsuit for $500,000.
Kelly wrote that for Rutherford library system's board, Hargett's order is "a convenient means of subverting their fears of litigation, which drove them to change their anti-trans book policy earlier this summer. If the directive is from the state, then they 'have to' comply. The Tennessee secretary of state is granting permission slips to public library boards to ban away."
This week, a group of 33 major publishers, library advocacy groups, and free speech and civil rights organizations signed onto a letter to Hargett expressing "profound concern" over its review mandate.
The coalition included PEN America, the American Library Association, the National Coalition Against Censorship, and the transgender rights advocacy organization GLAAD. Major publishing houses also signed on, including Penguin Random House, Macmillan, and Simon & Schuster.
"These types of reviews create immense administrative burdens for library systems and often lead to illegal censorship, which raises liability risks for local communities and the state," the groups said. "Many libraries, uncertain about the legal and procedural basis for the mandate, have had to redirect limited resources, with some temporarily closing branches to complete these reviews, which are implied to be necessary for future funding."
"The demands in your letter need immediate clarification, as it is not reasonable to expect libraries to follow directives that would risk violating applicable law, including the US Constitution," they added. "It is illegal to remove books from public libraries because some people do not like them. This is a well-settled legal principle."
The Rutherford County Library Alliance, which has challenged municipal anti-LGBTQ+ laws as well as the censorship policies of the library's own board, said that “we have seen firsthand the concrete harm of the Secretary’s directives—library closures during story time, intimidation of professional librarians, and the breakdown of democratic representation in our public library system."
"We hope Secretary Hargett will fulfill their duty to promote library development by supporting our constitutionally-guaranteed rights and our highly trained librarians," the alliance added, "rather than enabling censorship from 0.001% of our community for 100% of our community.”