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
new mexico
Screwworm Parasite 'No Longer Contained in Texas' as Trump USDA Doubles Down on Efforts to Blame Biden
"This has nothing to do with Joe Biden," one senator said, "but Trump and DOGE definitely screwed our cattle industry."
Jun 09, 2026
The Trump administration has emphasized in recent days that the New World screwworm infection found in a calf in Texas did not pose a threat to the United States' larger cattle herd, which is at its lowest point in 75 years due largely to drought conditions—but the US Department of Agriculture is now acknowledging that cases of the parasite have been found outside the Texas containment zone and as far away as in New Mexico, as Republican officials attempt to blame the Biden administration for the outbreak.
While Democratic lawmakers are among those connecting the arrival of screwworm—a flesh-eating bug that feeds off the living tissue of warm-blooded animals and had been eradicated in the US in 1966—to cuts by President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that specifically targeted screwworm monitoring programs, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins doubled down on claims that an "open border policy" under the Biden administration was to blame.
"This does trace back to the last administration and the open border policy, and the movement of millions of people and their animals up from South America through Central America," said Rollins with certainty on Monday.
As David Dayen explained at The American Prospect Tuesday, former President Joe Biden placed a ban on bison, horse, and cattle imports from Mexico in 2024, which Trump lifted in February 2025. At the same time, DOGE, under the leadership of Trump megadonor and tech billionaire Elon Musk, cut screwworm monitoring efforts and animal disease control and prevention efforts, slashing 1,300 employees from USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Rollins did reinstate the live import ban last May as screwworm cases were rising in Mexico and began funding prevention programs in Texas. But a $600 million facility for breeding sterile screwworm flies—a key component of successful eradication efforts—is not scheduled to be completed until late next year, and sterile flies that have been dispersed from a facility that opened in February at Moore Air Force Base in South Texas only amount to "about one one-hundredth of what it would take each week to eradicate the pest," Dayen wrote.
He also noted that Rollins has attempted to blame Biden—who has not been in office since January 2025—despite the fact that the total average lifespan of a screwworm fly is 21 days.
"The more likely explanation is that an administration with an antipathy to government ignored government’s purpose until it was too late," wrote Dayen.
The USDA established a 12-mile quarantine area around the affected area last week when the case was detected in South Texas, but on Monday the agency said another case had been found in Gillespie County, over 100 miles from where the initial case was reported.
A dog was also found to be infested in Lea County, New Mexico, more than 400 miles away.
The parasite is not expected to affect food safety, as it feeds on living tissue, but the outbreak raises concerns about rising beef prices, which are already high due to the low volume of cattle in the US. The high prices of fertilizer and fuel due to the war in Iran, and of equipment and repairs due to Trump's tariff policy, have also put a strain on the cattle industry.
“The cattle producer in the US has already been under extreme financial stress,” Joe Maxwell, president of Farm Action Fund and a farmer in Missouri, told The American Prospect. “This is serious, the screwworm outbreak. But it’s even more serious because of the financial position they were already under.”
In response to Rollins' claims, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Tuesday: "Let's be clear about what happened: DOGE cut the programs and staff that tracked dangerous outbreaks like screwworm."
"So this has nothing to do with Joe Biden," she said, "but Trump and DOGE definitely screwed our cattle industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Mexico Jury Orders Meta to Pay $375 Million for Endangering Kids
While the company plans to challenge the decision, the state's attorney general said the figure "should send a clear message to Big Tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law."
Mar 24, 2026
Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez and other child advocates on Tuesday celebrated a state jury's landmark verdict against Meta, despite the social media giant's plans to fight the decision requiring it to pay $375 million in civil penalties.
"The jury's verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta's choice to put profits over kids' safety," said Torrez, who had accused the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp of violating the state's Unfair Practices Act. "Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew. Today, the jury joined families, educators, and child safety experts in saying enough is enough."
The Associated Press highlighted that "the landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case."
Torrez said that "New Mexico is proud to be the first state to hold Meta accountable in court for misleading parents, enabling child exploitation, and harming kids. In the next phase of this legal proceeding, we will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta's platforms that offer stronger protections for children."
"The substantial damages the jury ordered Meta to pay should send a clear message to Big Tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law," he added. "Policymakers and law enforcement officials across the country can help make this verdict a turning point in the fight for children's safety. This is a watershed moment for every parent concerned about what could happen to their kids when they go online—and this victory belongs to them."
Josh Golin, executive director of the nonprofit Fairplay, welcomed the verdict. He said in a statement that "we've known for years that Meta enables the sexual exploitation of children. Now, that has been proven by a jury."
"As an organization that fights to protect children from Big Tech's deadly business model, Fairplay thanks Attorney General Torrez for his leadership in taking Meta to court," Golin continued. "Between this case and the ongoing trial in Los Angeles, parents, survivors, and state officials are doing their part to hold Big Tech accountable. Now, it's time for our leaders in the US Congress to get off the sidelines and pass the Senate's version of the Kids Online Safety Act to force these companies to change their addictive and dangerous product designs."
As Common Dreams has reported, while a diverse coalition supports the Kids Online Safety Act, civil rights groups have also expressed concerns about the legislation. Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, warned last year that "the overbroad language in KOSA and similar legislation risks censoring everything from jokes and hyperbole to useful information about sex ed and suicide prevention."
Amid celebrations over the New Mexico jury's decision on Tuesday, Meta said in a statement that "we respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."
NBC News noted that "separately, Meta is facing thousands of lawsuits accusing it and other social media companies of intentionally designing their products to be addictive to young people, leading to a nationwide mental health crisis. Some of the lawsuits, which have been filed in both state and federal courts, seek damages in the tens of billions of dollars, according to Meta’s filings with financial regulators."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Week Is Here; Our Governors Are Still Siding with Polluters
Frontline communities are exposing blue state governors that sell themselves as climate leaders while favoring polluters.
Sep 23, 2025
I grew up in New Mexico, where oil rigs appear in every direction and wildfire smoke fills the summer air. For years, I’ve sat through state climate hearings and planning sessions, believing our leaders might finally act with courage. Instead, what I’ve seen is a machine built to protect industry and silence communities.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham sells New Mexico as a climate leader, but her record tells another story. This year alone, her administration advanced industry schemes like the Strategic Water Supply Act, moving forward with rules to recycle toxic fracking waste.
This comes in addition to leaving basic protections like a drilling setback law off the table and welcoming Wall Street giant Blackstone to place a bid to take over PNM, our largest utility in New Mexico—handing over our energy future to corporate profiteers.
This isn’t climate leadership. It’s industry power dressed up as progress—at the expense of our health, water, and future.
So here is our challenge to Governors Lujan Grisham, Shapiro, and Newsom: If you truly oppose Trump’s fossil fuel agenda, prove it.
Pennsylvania and California tell a similar story.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro brands himself as a pragmatic moderate. In reality, he green-lit new gas plants, advanced fossil fuel-powered data centers, and supported liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals—projects that lock in fossil fuel expansion while exposing Pennsylvanians to deadly risks.
Worse, his administration is backing legislation like HB 502 and SB 939 that strip municipalities of the power to reject harmful facilities, in direct violation of Pennsylvania’s constitutional right to clean air and water. Families already sick from fracking are being sacrificed so Shapiro can keep industry happy and court national credibility. That isn’t pragmatism. It’s siding with polluters over people.
Gov. Gavin Newsom positions himself as a global climate champion. But in California, frontline communities experience a different reality. Basic health protections like the oil drilling setback law remain under attack, while projects like the Sable Pipeline continue to threaten communities and ecosystems.
Newsom touts his “climate leadership” on the world stage, yet at home he delays, waters down, or sidesteps measures that would phase out fossil fuels. Recently, Democratic lawmakers—backed by Newsom—passed a “climate” package that extends California’s cap-and-trade system for another 15 years while also permitting new drilling. It’s yet another regulatory giveaway to Big Oil. California is sold as a model of climate action, but the truth is clear: Fossil fuel power still dictates the terms.
The pattern is undeniable: governors who pose as climate leaders while protecting fossil fuel interests. Their playbook is the same—adopt the language; sign onto climate alliances; and then push carbon capture, cap-and-trade systems, produced water, hydrogen, and LNG as “solutions.” These are not solutions. They are lifelines for oil and gas, designed to extend extraction.
This is not accidental. It is a deliberate political strategy—a blue-state echo of US President Donald Trump’s fossil fuel agenda. Yet the result is the same: communities poisoned, democracy sidelined, industry shielded. The message to frontline communities is clear: Our lives are expendable if they threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies.
That’s why this Climate Week in New York City, frontline communities from New Mexico, California, and Pennsylvania are coming together to expose the truth. Behind the speeches and pledges, our governors are siding with polluters. They cannot continue to market themselves as climate champions while advancing the fossil fuel agenda at home.
We know what real climate leadership looks like. A just transition—led by communities and workers, not corporations—can phase out fossil fuels, create union jobs, and protect public health. It means rejecting false solutions. It means putting water, air, and people before industry. It means confronting the political power of fossil fuels head-on.
As the 2026 gubernatorial races approach, young people like me are paying attention. We don’t just want new leaders. We demand leadership that stands up to polluters and delivers a future worth living in.
So here is our challenge to Governors Lujan Grisham, Shapiro, and Newsom: If you truly oppose Trump’s fossil fuel agenda, prove it. Stop greenwashing. Stop silencing frontline communities. Stop pushing industry scams dressed up as climate policy.
Because climate action without justice isn’t action—it is betrayal. And frontline communities are not backing down until we win the future we deserve.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Democratic Freedoms' Under Threat as Migrants Charged for Entering Trump Militarized Border Zone
"As presidential overreaches pile up, they underscore the urgent need for Congress and the courts to reassert their roles as checks on executive authority," said two experts at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Apr 30, 2025
At least 28 migrants who crossed into the U.S. over the southern border could face up to a year in detention and $100,000 in fines after being charged Monday not only with "illegal entry" but also with violating "security regulations"—the result of U.S. President Donald Trump's transformation of the border into a 170-mile-long "National Defense Area."
As Common Dreams reported last month, the White House has pushed to create a "buffer zone" patrolled by U.S. troops along a stretch of the southern border in New Mexico, with soldiers empowered to immediately detain anyone who "trespasses" in the 60-foot-wide area before handing them over to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The Washington Post reported that the migrants were apprehended on a route that has been used for years by people entering the U.S., and were accused in court filings of violating "the order issued on April 18, 2025, by the U.S. Army Garrison Fort Huachuca military commander designating the New Mexico National Defense Areas, also known as the Roosevelt Reservation, as both a restricted area and a controlled area under Army Regulation 190-13."
Carlos Ibarra, a court-appointed attorney for the migrants facing charges, told the Post that the government was "piling on" by adding the security violation charge, and said that "if these folks had $100,000, they wouldn't be coming over here."
The arrests came after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made an appearance at the border last week, saying in a video posted on the Pentagon's social media accounts, "This may as well be a military base."
"Any illegal attempting to enter that zone is entering a military base," he said. "You add up the charges of what you can be charged with, misdemeanors and felonies, you could be looking up to 10 years in prison when prosecuted."
Ordinarily people who are charged for crossing the border without authorization have faced a potential six-month jail term and up to $5,000 in fines.
The area was turned into a de facto military base when Trump signed an executive order earlier this month giving the Pentagon jurisdiction over the Roosevelt Reservation, saying in a memo that the southern border "is under attack from a variety of threats" and requires a more direct security role for the U.S. military.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, apprehensions of migrants by U.S. Border Patrol sank to just 7,000 in March, the fewest in at least 25 years.
The memo creating a military installation at the border was designed to give federal troops a "legitimate military reason" to apprehend, search, and detain troops without violating the Posse Comitatus Act and without Trump having to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, the Brennan Center for Justice explained in a blog post on Monday.
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits federal armed forces from engaging in civilian law enforcement without the approval of Congress. The Insurrection Act provides an exception to that law, as does a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act called the "military purpose doctrine." Trump's advisers have so far recommended against invoking the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to enforce the law in certain situations.
Trump's memo allowing the military to "act as a de facto border police force," wrote Elizabeth Goitein and Joseph Nunn at the Brennan Center, "could have alarming implications for democratic freedoms."
"It continues a pattern of the president stretching his emergency powers past their limits to usurp the role of Congress and bypass legal rights," they wrote. "He has misused a law meant to address economic emergencies to set tariffs on every country in the world. He declared a fake 'energy emergency' to promote fossil fuel production. And he dusted off a centuries-old wartime authority to deport Venezuelan immigrants, without due process, to a Salvadoran prison notorious for human rights violations."
"As presidential overreaches pile up, they underscore the urgent need for Congress and the courts to reassert their roles as checks on executive authority," wrote Goitein and Nunn.
Along with concerns about the legality of Trump's move, Goitein and Nunn noted that troops "are trained to fight and destroy an enemy; they're generally not trained for domestic law enforcement." Empowering them to engage with civilians now could make it easier for the administration to "justify uses of the military in the U.S. interior in the future."
"Asking them to do law enforcement's job creates risks to migrants, U.S. citizens who may inadvertently trespass on federal lands at the border, and the soldiers themselves," they wrote.
Rebecca Sheff, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Mexico, wrote last week that Trump's creation of a military installation on public border land "represents a dangerous erosion of the constitutional principle that the military should not be policing civilians."
"By authorizing service members to detain, search, and conduct 'crowd control,' these new authorities undermine our state's values of dignity, respect, and community," said Sheff. "We don't want militarized zones where border residents—including U.S. citizens—face potential prosecution simply for being in the wrong place. This isn't how we want to be in relation with our neighbors. This dangerous expansion of military authorities threatens both our civil liberties and the cultural fabric that makes our borderlands unique."
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, also described potential impacts on U.S. citizens who live in border areas.
In addition to endangering migrants who cross the border, Shamsi wrote, Trump's actions "are worsening the conditions under which civilian border communities live."
"Our southern border is home to approximately 19 million people, in addition to the regular business and trade commuters who come across the border every day," wrote Shamsi. "The new policy has serious implications for border residents living under this expanded militarized zone, which includes cities like San Diego, California; Nogales, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and other heavily populated, thriving communities. People in these areas could now face federal prosecution for trespassing if they unintentionally walk or drive onto a designated 'national defense area.'"
Shamsi warned that while Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act, "his administration continues to invest in the theater of war," and called on Congress "to insist on oversight for these expanded actions... and to call for safeguards and transparency to protect border residents from escalating military control over their daily lives."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Moral Crisis for This Nation': Trump Sued Over Access to Gitmo Prisoners Held 'Illegally' Offshore
“Our Constitution does not allow the government to hold people incommunicado, without any ability to speak to counsel or the outside world."
Feb 13, 2025
A coalition of civil liberties and immigrant rights groups have sued the Trump administration for detaining migrants incommunicado at the offshore prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, after they were initially taken into custody in the United States.
The lawsuit—filed Wednesday in federal court by the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), and ACLU of the District of Columbia—was brought on behalf of several plaintiffs, including the sister of a Venezuelan man being held at the facility. It demands that all those being detained have immediate access to legal assistance.
According to the groups, the administration "has provided virtually no information about immigrants newly detained at Guantánamo, including how long they will be held there, under what authority and conditions, subject to what legal processes, or whether they will have any means of communicating with their families and attorneys."
“Our country must not create a shadow system of indefinite detention, stripping noncitizens of their legal protections simply by transferring them offshore."
After pictures emerged last week of the first batch of prisoners shipped to the island and a large tent city that has been erected at Gitmo since President Donald Trump took office less than four weeks ago, fears over what the administration has in store for the facility have only grown.
On Sunday, a federal judge blocked the transfer of three men, currently held in New Mexico, to the island prison complex, but that order only pertained to those specific individuals. The individuals already transferred to Gitmo have yet to be identified by the administration, according to the right groups, or given access to outside legal assistance.
"By hurrying immigrants off to a remote island cut off from lawyers, family, and the rest of the world, the Trump administration is sending its clearest signal yet that the rule of law means nothing to it. It will now be up to the courts to ensure that immigrants cannot be warehoused on offshore islands," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a Wednesday statement announcing the lawsuit.
Deepa Alagesan, senior supervising attorney at IRAP, said, "Secretly transferring people from the United States to Guantánamo without access to legal representation or the outside world is not only illegal, it is a moral crisis for this nation."
In an interview with the New York Times published Tuesday, Yajaira Castillo, who lives in Colombia, said she only realized her brother, Luis Alberto Castillo of Venezuela, was among those detained at Gitmo because she spotted him in photos posted on social media by Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, who visited the island Friday.
"My brother is not a criminal," said Castillo. “This is all discrimination and xenophobia, just because he's Venezuelan.”
Eucaris Carolina Gomez Lugo, a plaintiff in the suit filed Wednesday, has a similar story: she only discovered her brother was in detention after photos of him in shackles were spotted.
While the administration has claimed those migrants sent to Gitmo are the "worst of the worst," they have presented no evidence to back up these claims, and the relatives of those who have come forward, like Castillo, say they are completely fraudulent. Castillo shared details and documentation about her brother's asylum claim efforts with the Times.
"Detaining immigrants at Guantánamo Bay without access to legal counsel or basic due process protections is a grave violation of their rights and an alarming abuse of government power," said Rebecca Lightsey, co-executive director of American Gateways. "Our country must not create a shadow system of indefinite detention, stripping noncitizens of their legal protections simply by transferring them offshore."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Small But Important Win': Court Blocks Trump From Sending 3 Immigrants to Guantánamo
"Our clients refuse to be used as pawns in this twisted game of punishment theater," said a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Feb 10, 2025
A federal court late Sunday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from sending three Venezuelan immigrants to Guantánamo Bay, where the U.S. president is planning to jail tens of thousands of people in new detention facilities that critics have likened to concentration camps.
The decision from Judge Kenneth Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico came in response to a request for a temporary restraining order filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and other advocacy organizations on behalf of three Venezuelan men currently being held in U.S. immigration detention in New Mexico.
"I fear being taken to Guantánamo because the news is painting it as a black hole," said Abrahan Barrios Morales, one of the petitioners. "I also see that human rights are constantly violated at Guantánamo, so I fear what could happen to me if I get taken there."
Baher Azmy, CCR's legal director, called the judge's decision Sunday a "small but important win for clients otherwise bound to the latest iteration of the legal black hole."
"Will the judge allow the executive branch to smuggle away individuals who have a pending case to a military prison on a remote island where there is no guarantee their rights will be respected or that they will even be able to make a phone call to their lawyers or their loved ones?"
The Trump administration has already moved dozens of people it characterized as Venezuelan gang members from El Paso, Texas to Guantánamo, the site of a notorious U.S. military prison that Amnesty International has described as "a symbol of torture, rendition, and indefinite detention without charge or trial."
The New York Times noted over the weekend that the administration "has not released any of their identities, though they are believed to all be men, nor has it said how long they might be held at the island outpost."
"So far, none of the first arrivals have been taken to an emerging tent city that has been set up for migrants," the Times reported. "Instead, they have been housed in the military prison."
According to CCR, its clients "came to the United States seeking asylum, and each passed an initial Credible Fear Interview with U.S. asylum officers by establishing a credible fear of persecution or torture in their home country" of Venezuela.
Jessica Vosburgh, a senior staff attorney at CCR, said in a statement Sunday that "our clients refuse to be used as pawns in this twisted game of punishment theater."
"The question before the court is simple," said Vosburgh. "Will the judge allow the executive branch to smuggle away individuals who have a pending case to a military prison on a remote island where there is no guarantee their rights will be respected or that they will even be able to make a phone call to their lawyers or their loved ones? The answer must be a resounding no."
Rebecca Sheff, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Mexico, warned that "transferring immigrants from Otero County to Guantánamo is a blatant attempt to obstruct their legal rights by placing them thousands of miles from their families and attorneys."
"We're outraged that New Mexico and El Paso, against the backdrop of the horrific cruelty of family separation in the first Trump administration, are once again being used as a testing ground for dehumanizing and dangerous immigration policies," Sheff added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court That 'Let Trump Off the Hook' Allows Insurrection Ban on State Official
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection," said the head of one watchdog group.
Mar 18, 2024
Just two weeks after handing former U.S. President Donald Trump a crucial win, the country's Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from the only public official removed from office for participating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife backed the Republican's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss—declined to take the case of Couy Griffin, who was booted off the Otero County Commission by a New Mexico court in 2022, after he was convicted of breaching and occupying Capitol grounds.
In response to a lawsuit brought by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of New Mexico residents, the state's 1st Judicial District Court removed Griffin from his local post under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection."
CREW also represented Colorado Republican and Independent voters who recently sought to get Trump—facing off against Democratic President Joe Biden in this year's presidential election—off their state's primary ballot, one of several 14th Amendment battles that emerged before the ongoing primaries. In Trump's case, the court determined that states can't ban federal candidates from ballots.
"We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," reads the majority opinion in Trump v. Anderson. "But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency."
Because of that first line, legal experts stressed, the Griffin denial is actually consistent with the justices' ruling in the Trump case, despite the apparent discrepancy. CREW said Monday that the high court "let Trump off the hook" but the group also welcomed the Griffin decision.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection, and ensures that states can still apply the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause to state officials," said CREW president Noah Bookbinder.
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection, and Donald Trump engaged in that insurrection," he added. "Now it is up to the states to fulfill their duty under Section 3 to remove from office anyone who broke their oath by participating in the January 6th insurrection."
Griffin said on social media Monday that "I just found out (through the media) that my appeal to the SCOTUS has been denied. Very disappointed. I don't even know what to say. But I thank you for your prayers and for standing with me through this."
Less than an hour later, the Cowboys for Trump co-founder publicly pitched himself as a potential running mate for the presumptive GOP nominee, saying: "Has Donald Trump picked a vice president yet? Would be such an honor to only be considered."
The twice-impeached former president has not yet announced a VP. While Trump has defeated the 14th Amendment effort for now—though a November win could spark another court fight—he faces four ongoing criminal cases, two of which stem from his attempt to overturn the 2020 results. It's not clear if any of those cases will go to trial before the next presidential election.
In a bid to get his federal election interference case—and possibly others—dismissed, Trump is trying to claim presidential immunity. After declining to weigh in early on, the Supreme Court agreed to hear immunity arguments on April 25.
Trump's other election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia has been plagued by controversy involving the district attorney's love life. He also faces a federal case involving classified documents and a New York state case related to hush money.
Also in New York state, Trump, his real estate company, his adult sons, and a former executive were hit with major fines in a civil fraud case last month. His attorneys said in a Monday filing that obtaining a bond for the $464 million judgment—which includes what is owed by Don Jr. and Eric Trump—while he appeals is a "practical impossibility," meaning asset seizure is possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lessons From 4 States That Boosted Tax Equity
Lawmakers seeking fair tax systems based on the ability to pay have many options.
Mar 09, 2024
While many state lawmakers have spent the past few years debating deep and damaging tax cuts that disproportionately help the rich, more forward-thinking lawmakers have improved tax equity by raising new revenue from the well-off and creating or expanding refundable tax credits for low- and moderate-income families.
Many of these positive developments are quantified in the appendices of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s (ITEP) recent Who Pays? report, where we created alternative analyses to show the distribution of a state’s tax system before and after certain policy changes.
As the transformations below illustrate, upside-down state and local tax codes are not a given. Lawmakers seeking equitable tax systems based on the ability to pay have many options.
New Mexico
Tax changes made in New Mexico since 2018 led the state to jump 18 spots in ITEP’s Tax Inequality Index to the No. 9 least regressive tax code, the biggest positive change of all the states. These policy changes included the expansion of low-income credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, the creation of a new Child Tax Credit, and tax increases on investment income and high-earning residents. Without those and other changes made since 2018, New Mexico would currently have the 25th most regressive tax system in the country.
Massachusetts
Tax changes made in Massachusetts since 2022 led the state to jump nine spots in ITEP’s Tax Inequality Index to the No. 8 least regressive tax system. These policy changes included 2022 voter approval of the Fair Share Amendment, which created a 4% surcharge on income over $1 million to fund education and transportation projects, as well as legislation in 2023 that among other things, bolstered the state’s refundable credits (which improved equity) and cut estate and capital gains taxes (which detracted from equity but not enough to erase the impact of the other equity-increasing policies). Without all these changes, Massachusetts would currently have the 35th most regressive tax code in the country.
Minnesota
Minnesota was already a national leader on tax fairness. But tax changes made in Minnesota since 2018 led the state to rise three spots in ITEP’s Tax Inequality Index to the No. 2 least regressive tax code, behind only Washington, D.C. These policy changes included the creation of a new, robust Child Tax Credit coupled with tax increases on high investment incomes and some corporations. Without these and other changes made since 2018, Minnesota would currently have the No. 5 least regressive tax system in the country.
Washington
Washington had long been home to the most regressive tax code in the nation due to its lack of an income tax and heavy reliance on sales and excise taxes. But changes made by state lawmakers in the past few years helped Washington shed that dubious distinction and rise one spot on ITEP’s Tax Inequality Index. The state now has the No. 2 most regressive tax system in the country. The small but important move up the rankings was driven by two policy changes: the creation of the state’s Working Families Tax Credit, which functions much like an Earned Income Tax Credit, and the creation of a new Capital Gains Excise Tax.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oppenheimer Ignores the First Victims of the Nuclear Era
The movie repeats the myth that the New Mexico bomb site was in a desolate area with “nothing for 40 miles in either direction.”
Jul 25, 2023
On July 16, 1945, the world ended. Or at least it seemed that way to residents of the Tularosa Basin in New Mexico.
Unbeknownst to local civilians, J. Robert Oppenheimer had chosen their backyard as the proving ground for the world’s first nuclear weapon. The explosion, which U.S. officials publicly claimed to be an accident at a local ammunition depot, tore through the morning sky, leaving a 40,000-foot-tall cloud of radioactive debris that would cake the surrounding area with dust for days on end.
Tina Cordova, whose hometown of Tularosa lies just 45 miles from ground zero, remembers her grandmother’s stories about wiping that infernal dust off every nook and cranny of her childhood home. No one knew what had happened quite yet, but they figured it must have been something special. After all, a local paper reported that the explosion was so bright that a blind woman had actually seen it.
“We don’t ask ourselves if we’re gonna get cancer. We ask ourselves when, because it just never ends.”
When the initial shock wore off, the 40,000 locals who lived within 50 miles of ground zero returned to their daily lives. They drank from cisterns full of radioactive debris, ate beef from cattle that had grazed on the dust for weeks on end, and breathed air full of tiny plutonium particles. Only later would the real impact become clear.
Bernice Gutierrez, born just eight days before Oppenheimer’s “Trinity Test,” moved from a small town near the blast site to Albuquerque when she was 2 years old. Cancer followed her like a specter. Her great grandfather died of stomach cancer in the early 1950s. She lost cousins to leukemia and pancreatic cancer. Her oldest son died in 2020 after a bout with a “pre-leukemia” blood disorder. In total, 21 members of Gutierrez’s family have had cancer, and seven have died from it.
“We don’t ask ourselves if we’re gonna get cancer,” Gutierrez told RS. “We ask ourselves when, because it just never ends.”
Oppenheimer—the latest film from famed director Christopher Nolan—is a three-hour-long exploration of the “dilettante, womanizer, communist sympathizer,” and world-historic genius behind the ultimate weapon. The movie, based on the book American Prometheus, delves deeply into Oppenheimer’s psyche, from his struggles as a young student at Cambridge to his profound melancholy over the world he helped create.
Yet nowhere in the film will viewers find an acknowledgement of the first victims of the nuclear era. Indeed, the movie repeats the myth that the bomb site was in a desolate area with “nothing for 40 miles in either direction.” This was not for lack of effort, according to Cordova, who leads an activist group called the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium. (“Downwinders” refers to those who live in the fallout zone of nuclear tests.)
When Nolan’s team got to New Mexico to film, Cordova and her team published an op-ed in the local newspaper that called on the Oppenheimer crew to “grapple with the consequences of confronting the truth of our stories, of our history.” When that didn’t work, she reached out to the production through Kai Bird, the journalist who co-wrote American Prometheus, in an attempt to get a meeting. She received a flat “no.”
Cordova says she was “aggravated, angry, and disappointed” that the filmmakers had come to New Mexico to shoot the movie (and rake in state-funded tax breaks) but showed little interest in engaging with locals affected by Oppenheimer’s work. “Tens of millions of people are going to flock to theaters to see this movie, and a lot of them have never been exposed to this history,” she added. A short mention at the end of the movie could have changed that, Cordova argues. (Universal Pictures, which produced the film, did not respond to a request for comment from RS.)
And her concerns are not just about recognition. In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which gave insurance and lump-sum payments to the people affected by decades of nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. RECA payouts to date total more than $2.5 billion. But New Mexican downwinders were not included in the original law or a broader version of it passed in 2000, a fact that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson attributes to a simple lack of awareness about their plight.
“It’s an inconvenient truth. People just don’t want to reflect on the fact that American citizens were bombed at Trinity.”
Cordova and her team have lobbied for years for an expanded version of RECA that would include New Mexican downwinders and some previously ineligible uranium miners, many of whom had little knowledge of just how dangerous their work was. A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a RECA expansion bill earlier this month.
“Imagine having radioactive waste fall down like dirty snow on your homes and communities causing cancer and disease,” said Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.), who sponsored the bill in the House, in a statement. “Then think about the despair when you learn that the U.S. government compensated other communities exposed to radiation during the nuclear testing program but not yours.”
Lawmakers have introduced similar proposals several times in recent years, but, with limited public awareness behind their efforts, the proposal has never quite gotten enough support in Congress to pass.
“It’s an inconvenient truth,” Cordova said. “People just don’t want to reflect on the fact that American citizens were bombed at Trinity.”
Born in 1947 in Alamogordo, New Mexico, John Greenwood grew up a short distance from the Trinity Test site. Years of radiation exposure caught up with him in 2008, when he was first diagnosed with colon cancer.
Greenwood and his family spent four years fighting for his life. Their insurance covered 80% of costs, but the remaining 20% added up quickly given that a single chemotherapy treatment could cost $100,000. Other expenses fell by the wayside. One after another, utilities companies cut off their electricity and phone lines. Their car was repossessed.
But Laura Greenwood, John’s wife, knew their only option was to keep going. “I can’t tell you how stressful it was,” she remembered. “You go to bed crying every night wondering what you’re going to do the next day.”
John passed away in 2012, just six months after learning that the cancer had metastasized to his liver. He was the 13th member of his family to die from cancer since the Trinity Test.
Greenwood’s story highlights the devastating economic impact that years of health problems have had on downwinders. This, in part, is why RECA expansion has struggled to get off the ground in Congress, according to Laura. Many lawmakers argue behind closed doors that it would simply be too expensive to compensate downwinders and cover future medical costs related to radiation exposure.
Advocates of RECA expansion also have limited data to back up their claims of a link between the test and later cancers, which they blame in part on government secrecy surrounding the event. “The specter of endless lawsuits haunted the military, and most of the authorities simply wanted to put the whole test and its after-effects out of sight and mind,” according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report on the history of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
A years-long study from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) found that “no firm estimates can be established” of how many cancer cases came from the test due to limited radiation data from Oppenheimer’s team and a lack of reliable information on cancer rates and daily habits in rural New Mexico at the time. Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), who supports RECA expansion, called the NCI research “limited” when it was released.
But one impact of the test is clear. In the months after the explosion, the entire state of New Mexico saw an unprecedented spike in infant mortality, with 56% more New Mexican babies dying during live births in 1945 than in 1944. That number went back down in 1946 and has never reached such high levels since, a statistical anomaly with a 0.0001% chance of being caused by natural conditions, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
“I don’t think it glorifies nuclear weapons at all, which was the concern that some people had.”
To Nolan’s credit, Oppenheimer includes affecting scenes in which the scientist wrestles with the pain wrought by his life’s work. While it leaves out some notable parts of the history, the film offers a powerful and largely accurate account of Oppenheimer’s quest to build—and later try to contain—the ultimate weapon, according to Stephen Schwartz, an expert on the history of nuclear weapons and a non-resident senior fellow with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
“I don’t think it glorifies nuclear weapons at all, which was the concern that some people had,” Schwartz told RS. Viewers will leave with “a better understanding of why he did what he did and all the complications that ensued,” he added. “I hope that it sparks many conversations.”
But Cordova sees the lack of engagement with downwinders as a major missed opportunity. She remembered back in 2018, when the Santa Fe Opera put on a production of “Dr. Atomic,” an opera about the lead-up to the Trinity Test. When Peter Sellars, who wrote the show’s libretto, found out about the problems faced by downwinders, he invited Cordova and her team to talk about their experiences on stage before each performance.
At a climactic moment of the show, Sellars portrayed a general arguing with scientists over whether to warn locals about the blast as a group of downwinders quietly watched on from the other side of the stage. “History is about what’s happening to people you’ve never met,” Sellars told RS. “Their bodies are carrying the traces of what you did.”
Sellars says the engagement with locals affected by the blast—most of whom were Latinos or native New Mexicans—helped make the show a hit. “The show was sold out, and the talks were packed,” he remembered.
Despite her lack of luck with the Oppenheimer team, Cordova remains optimistic. She hopes the movie will encourage people to learn more about the impacts of nuclear tests and boost support for her cause. “Every movement that has ever been started has a tipping point,” she said. “This movie could [have been] that tipping point. And it still might be that tipping point.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups Demand End to Drilling on 'All Public Land' as Biden Blocks New Oil Leases in Chaco Canyon
"Today's decision just isn't enough to give our communities a fighting chance against the climate emergency," said one campaigner.
Jun 02, 2023
Climate and environmental protection campaigners welcomed an announcement by the Biden administration on Friday that the U.S. Interior Department is blocking new oil and gas leases in the area surrounding Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, but emphasized that the move will not undo the damage done by President Joe Biden's approval of drilling on other public lands or by years of fossil fuel extraction in the region.
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced that after a public comment period and decades of campaigning by Indigenous rights groups, her agency will block new oil and gas leasing on public lands within a 10-mile radius of the Chaco Canyon National Historical Park.
Existing oil and gas leases on public and private lands within the 10-mile area will not be affected, and Diné C.A.R.E., a group representing Diné, or Navajo, communities affected by environmental issues, noted that the Greater Chaco Region in northwestern New Mexico is suffering the effects of oil and gas drilling, including the formation of a 2,500-square-mile methane cloud over the area.
"Protection of Chaco Canyon is a great first step, but protections for the Greater Chaco Region, where there are living communities of Diné relatives, wildlife, and plant life, including countless sacred sites throughout the region, are just as critical and should be a priority for the Biden administration," said Robyn Jackson, executive director of Diné C.A.R.E. "We cannot ignore the devastating impacts that oil and gas have on our climate, region, culture, living communities, and future generations."
Jackson called on the Biden administration to entirely phase out fossil fuel extraction, as climate scientists and energy experts have said all countries must in order to avoid planetary heating over 2°C above preindustrial levels, and "support a renewable and sustainable economy."
"We will continue to push for an end to oil and gas drilling on all public land in the U.S. so we may all enjoy a healthy, livable future in which our leaders prioritize environmental justice."
"Our Indigenous communities deserve environmental justice," she said.
The Chaco Canyon National Historical Park is a UNESCO World Heritage site and covers roughly 30,000 acres which were integral to Pueblo culture between the ninth and 13th centuries.
The Chaco Canyon Coalition, which includes Indigenous groups and has demanded protections for the park and the surrounding region for years, noted that the Interior Department's own estimates have found the administration's decision will block only a few dozen oil and gas wells, reducing natural gas production in the area by 0.5% and oil production by 2.5%.
"More than 90% of Greater Chaco is already either industrialized by oil and gas extraction or promised to industry for more drilling in the future, even as we recognize this activity's impacts on the area's communities and the climate," said attorney Ally Beasley of the Western Environmental Law Center, a member of the coalition. "We will continue to push for an end to oil and gas drilling on all public land in the U.S. so we may all enjoy a healthy, livable future in which our leaders prioritize environmental justice."
Biden approved more drilling permits on public lands in his first two years in office than former Republican President Donald Trump did in the same amount of time, and has outraged environmental and climate justice campaigners this year by approving ConocoPhillips' Willow project, a massive oil drilling operation on federal land in Alaska; negotiating a debt ceiling bill that will expedite the completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline; and holding a gas and oil lease auction in the Gulf of Mexico.
The limited protections for Chaco Canyon are "a welcome first step," said Soni Grant, New Mexico campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity, on Friday. "But the Biden administration needs to follow up by ending all fossil fuel leasing on public lands and phasing out extraction."
"It's high time that Biden lives up to his promise to end the fossil fuel era, and it's critical that the entire Greater Chaco Landscape is protected," said Grant. "Today's decision just isn't enough to give our communities a fighting chance against the climate emergency."
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