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
protests
'We Are Grieving, We Are Furious': Mainers Protest Fatal ICE Shooting in Biddeford
"It is horrific. ICE needs to be disbanded. People who work for ICE are untrained. And we want them out of Biddeford," one resident said. "Killing people in cold blood. They need to be out of Maine."
Jul 13, 2026
Mainers descended on the city of Biddeford Monday after a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot a 26-year-old Colombian man, with protesters demanding an end to a federal agency that has killed citizens and immigrants alike.
"Is this the America we want?" asked a sign carried by a woman through the streets of the city, which is about 18 miles southwest of Portland. Other messages included "Abolish ICE," "ICE Out Now," "ICE Kills," and "Murderers."
The agency's deadly invasions of US cities—including in Maine earlier this year—as part of President Donald Trump's mass detention and deportation campaign have fueled growing calls for abolishing ICE.
"It is horrific. ICE needs to be disbanded. People who work for ICE are untrained. And we want them out of Biddeford," Maine resident Marcia Hanes told WGME. "Killing people in cold blood. They need to be out of Maine. They need to be out of the United States."
While authorities have not named the man killed on Monday, the Portland Press Herald identified him as Joan Sebastian Guerrero, citing one of his neighbors and an immigrant advocacy organization that said it had been in touch with the family.
The Maine Immigrants' Rights Coalition (MIRC) and Presente! Maine said in a statement that "the young man was authorized to work in the United States and had been issued a Social Security number," and that they "are devastated and outraged" by his death.
"Our communities are hurting," said MIRC executive director Mufalo Chitam. "Today, a 26-year-old member of our community is dead following an incident involving ICE. We are grieving, we are furious, and we will not allow his death to be treated as routine or inevitable. How much more harm must our communities endure before those with the power to act acknowledge that this has gone too far?"
As with previous shootings involving ICE and other Department of Homeland Security agents, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin claimed that the deceased man had "weaponized" a vehicle he was driving, according to US Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).
Videos from earlier shootings have cast doubt on or debunked some of the Trump administration's claims, including in Texas last week. While some clips of Monday's encounter have circulated online, King noted that there is apparently no body camera footage.
"Body cameras were not on the agents. So we have no video evidence of what occurred in this case," the senator said. "We don't know the circumstances at this point, but my statement to Secretary Mullin, I said, 'I'm going to say that you have committed to me that this investigation will be full, fair, and transparent. Can I say that? He said, 'Yes, absolutely.'"
King added that Mullin told him the driver was not the target of the warrant the officers were executing in Biddeford.
The office of Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey said that it "is investigating a fatal use of deadly force that occurred this morning," and "Biddeford, Saco, and the Maine State Police are assisting with the investigation as well as federal authorities."
Initial statements indicate ICE "was conducting an enforcement operation related to a final order of removal when the subject attempted to flee in a vehicle in the direction of the officer and was fatally shot," the attorney general's office said. "We encourage any member of the public to come forward if they have information they feel would be helpful to the investigation. Please contact your local law enforcement agency."
Some of the protesters headed to the local office of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is up for reelection in November.
According to the Press Herald:
As the crowd marched down Main Street and gathered outside Sen. Collins' Biddeford office, about a dozen people made it inside the entryway, chanting "Vote her out!" and banging their fists on the office’s locked doors.
Staffers inside could be seen on the phone as the crowd grew. Minutes later, five Biddeford police officers pushed through the entryway and placed themselves between protestors and the door.
"This is your fault Susan!" one man shouted.
"You're a fascist!" another person yelled at the officers.
Collins responded to the shooting by calling for "a full and impartial investigation," and faced fierce responses from some Democrats running to replace primary winner Graham Platner as her challenger in the November election.
"Sen. Collins voted for the Republican bill to give ICE another $70 billion to terrorize our communities with no accountability. Maybe sit this one out," said Nirav Shah, who previously led the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention and then served in leadership at the federal CDC. "I'm running for Senate to end this blank check, stop ICE's lawlessness, and protect Mainers."
Jordan Wood, another Senate hopeful who was previously a congressional chief of staff, told Collins, "What it requires is for you to have the courage to stop funding this lawless agency that's been terrorizing our streets for over a year."
"ICE needs to get out of Maine," Wood said. He called for ICE to be "abolished and replaced with a new agency that protects and serves the people," and will "not murder them."
The national progressive group Our Revolution—which is backing former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson as Platner's replacement—declared: "Collins voted to hand ICE $70 billion. No reforms. No accountability. She funded this. She owns this. Vote her out!"
As with previous ICE shootings, Monday's deadly encounter drew alarmed responses from across the United States. "When is shit like this going to end?" asked US Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).
In Minnesota—where federal agents fatally shot US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and injured Venezuelan national Julio Sosa-Celis, in January—Democratic Gov. Tim Walz said: "Americans are once again watching in horror as Trump's lawless federal agents took another life—this time in Maine. We must seek accountability and justice and an end to this madness."
The elected attorney in Minnesota's Hennepin County, Mary Moriarty, announced Monday that after "six months of relentless collective effort," prosecutors had finally "obtained hard drives of previously withheld evidence" about the shootings from the federal government.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Pro-Palestine Movement Is Rewriting the Rules of US Politics
Recent election cycles represented the first time in modern American history where Palestine factored as a major, decisive variable in how citizens cast their ballots.
Jul 10, 2026
A major showdown on the House floor seemed imminent. An amendment, advanced by the Rules Committee, was poised to force a rare and telling record vote on stripping Israel of $3.3 billion in annual US military aid.
Brought forward by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and drawing support from key progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Greg Casar (Texas), the measure was set to put every lawmaker's stance on unconditional foreign assistance under a public microscope.
However, the high-stakes vote never actually happened. On June 30, the entire legislative package collapsed under the weight of Washington's internal political warfare. In a dramatic procedural twist, a coalition of Democrats and disgruntled conservative Republicans voted down the mandatory "rule" required to even begin debating the underlying State Department spending bill.
But even if the vote on Massie's amendment had occurred, the result would have been entirely predictable. It would have been defeated, as support for Israel on both sides of the congressional aisle remains structurally entrenched—even as the American public shifts against Israeli policy in historic numbers.
The strategic focus must remain on reaching out to the public, who hold the true power to influence—and even coerce—politicians into making the right choices.
According to a watershed Gallup poll published on February 27, a plurality of Americans now sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, leading by a margin of 41% to 36%. This marked the first time since Gallup began tracking the metric over two decades ago that Israel did not hold the upper hand in public sympathy.
Yet the shift is part of a broader, undeniable trend. A nationwide survey published in late June 2026 by Quinnipiac University revealed that an unprecedented 48% of American voters now think the United States is “too supportive” of Israel—the highest percentage recorded since the pollster first began tracking the question in 2017.
This is precisely why Massie's amendment carries such profound weight. It is significant not because US politicians have suddenly developed a collective moral conscience, but because recent election cycles represented the first time in modern American history where Palestine factored as a major, decisive variable in how citizens cast their ballots.
For years, conventional political analysts dismissed pro-Palestinian mobilization, claiming Americans only vote based on immediate socioeconomic interests and rigid party loyalties. That assessment has since proven faulty.
The political cost of Washington's complicity became undeniable following the fallout of the 2024 presidential race, a reality later confirmed by those within the inner sanctums of power. In the post-election debates, senior administration insiders admitted that the handling of the Gaza genocide alienated core voter blocks.
The political cost of Washington's complicity became undeniable after the 2024 presidential race. According to Axios, top Democratic strategists conducting the party's post-election audit explicitly admitted to advocacy groups that internal party data proved the administration's Gaza policy was a "net-negative" on the ballot.
This finding—disclosed during internal briefings by Democratic National Committee autopsy author Paul Rivera—confirmed that the party's unconditional backing of Israel directly fractured its base, and ultimately contributed to its loss of the elections.
The upcoming November elections are expected to be fiercely contested, and Gaza will, once more, be on the ballot. Following a series of progressive, anti-war victories in local primaries, The Guardian reported that US foreign policy toward the conflict has effectively "turned into something of a litmus test for the left."
This historic transformation in the popular American perception of Palestine and Israel does not indicate that a political rupture is soon to follow, as US politicians are notorious for their moral flexibility and their ability to spin language in whatever way is necessary to remain in power.
Indeed, the evolution of the language used by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez regarding the word "genocide" in Gaza tells the entire story of how the Democratic establishment is never compelled by genuine moral urgency, but rather by sheer political expediency.
In the early months of the genocide, Ocasio-Cortez hesitated to adopt the term, acutely aware of the deep sensitivities surrounding such language in US media and mainstream society.
"The fact that this word is even in our discourse... demonstrates the mass inhumanity that Gaza is facing," she stated, attempting to navigate an acceptable rhetorical middle ground in January 2024 during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Yet, under the relentless weight of pressure from an increasingly mobilized progressive constituency, she systematically upgraded her language in March of the same year, declaring on the House floor: "If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like, open your eyes. It looks like the forced famine of 1.1 million innocents."
This linguistic shift continued to intensify until it reached the Munich Security Conference last February, where Ocasio-Cortez finally deployed the term without any qualification. Unconditional US aid, she flatly argued, "enabled a genocide in Gaza."
Ocasio-Cortez is just one of many Democratic progressives who carefully filtered their vocabulary to avoid the political fallout of using the term genocide too early, or too late. Her position was eventually corrected not because of a sudden moral awakening or the discovery of new information regarding the "unfolding genocide," but because the margins of error allowed by a newly conscious American public have completely closed.
Therefore, the strategic focus must remain on reaching out to the public, who hold the true power to influence—and even coerce—politicians into making the right choices.
Ultimately, the current movement serves as a crucial barometer, proving that sustained, grassroots, anti-war pressure is successfully destabilizing Israel's traditionally unquestioned shield in Washington.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Would President Trump Want to Celebrate the Declaration of Independence?
President Trump has long seemed fascinated by notions of “central casting.” Well, Donald Trump seems a more natural fit for the role of King George III than that of a framer of the Declaration of Independence.
Jul 04, 2026
For months President Donald Trump has been funneling money and interest toward the semi-private Freedom 250, and away from America 250, the congressionally created nonpartisan commission that has spent years preparing for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026. As a result, staggering sums of money have been contributed to Freedom 250, much of it by private companies that do business with the government or are in heavily regulated industries. It’s unsurprising that large corporations might want to seek favor from the Trump administration by opening their checkbooks, and it’s unsurprising that President Trump would welcome these checks with minimal transparency.
What is surprising is that President Trump would be keen to celebrate the Declaration of Independence at all. This document expresses the people’s desire to be free from the rule of a king, a hunger for the rule of law, and respect for an independent judiciary. Nothing could be less Trumpy.
While the Declaration announces liberation from the tyranny of monarchy, Trump seems fairly obsessed with framing himself as a king. Examples abound. In lauding his own efforts to kill a congestion pricing plan in Manhattan, Trump ended his social media post with the self-congratulatory, “LONG LIVE THE KING.” In response to historic nationwide peaceful protests, Trump posted an AI-generated video of himself wearing a crown and dumping excrement upon American demonstrators. During a recent official British state visit, the White House posted a picture of King Charles with President Trump, captioned “TWO KINGS.” And Trump’s fondness for monarchical trappings is no secret globally. For instance, while wearing a gold tie that reflected “President Trump’s taste for gold,” South Korean President Lee Jae Myung presented Trump with a golden crown that was a replica of an ancient artifact, and Trump responded by saying, “I’d like to wear it right now.”
Notably, the Declaration’s first grievance against King George III of Great Britain was his refusal to “Assent to Laws,” conveying the belief that no one—not even a nation’s highest leader—is above the law. Yet President Trump seems offended by such a notion, and he contests it regularly. Trump implies that the law does not apply to him when he posts messages like “[h]e who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” a quote often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, the general who declared himself emperor of France in the 1800s. And Trump has proclaimed that Article II of the Constitution grants him “the right to do whatever I want as president,” a statement that not only misreads Article II, but ignores the way presidential power operates with, and is checked by, Article I congressional power and Article III judicial power.
Thankfully, we need not look to President Trump for inspiration on how to mark the Declaration’s 250th anniversary.
Numerous high-ranking Trump administration officials, including Solicitor General John Sauer, have declined to commit to obeying court orders and the administration’s track record reflects this defiance: In just the first six months of the administration, courts in more than 12 cases determined that the administration violated court orders. More recently, a study cited hundreds of instances of administration non-compliance with court orders. The situation has become so dire that many judges have lost confidence in this administration’s representations and are reducing the deference customarily given to federal government lawyers.
Finally, further down in the Declaration’s list of grievances against King George III is that “[h]e has made Judges dependent on his Will alone.” Today, this could describe Trump’s aspirations. He has railed against judges—even those whom he appointed in his first presidential term—when they dare to rule against his administration’s policies. Trump is infuriated when judges honor their oaths of office and follow the facts and the law regardless of where this leads them. After immigration-related rulings halted Trump administration policies, US District Judge James Boasberg found himself the target of President Trump’s call for Congress to remove him from the bench. Trump railed about Boasberg on social media, calling the judge a “troublemaker and agitator,” and suggested that many other judges should be impeached as well.
Trump’s harsh rhetoric even prompted a rare statement from Chief Justice John Roberts, who explained that “[f]or more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” And it’s not just lower court judges who find themselves targeted by Trump’s invective. After the Supreme Court struck down his administration’s tariff scheme by a 6-3 margin, Trump criticized the court and justices in strikingly personal terms, saying, “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court,” and in reference to Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you wanna know the truth, the two of them.”
President Trump has long seemed fascinated by notions of “central casting.” Well, Donald Trump seems a more natural fit for the role of King George III than that of a framer of the Declaration of Independence.
Thankfully, we need not look to President Trump for inspiration on how to mark the Declaration’s 250th anniversary. Inspiration can be found in the broad array of Americans who gathered nationwide to protest autocracy in peaceful No Kings demonstrations; the March 28, 2026 No Kings mobilizations drew an estimated 8 million participants in over 3,000 sites, arguably the largest single-day of protests in United States history.
We can be inspired by the bravery of Minnesotans killed while protesting the mistreatment of immigrant community members, and Minnesotan community-based efforts to help neighbors too frightened to leave their homes in the face of brutal abuses by immigration enforcement officers, ones that call to mind the Declaration’s complaint that King George had “sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” And who isn’t inspired by countless Americans who joined interfaith vigils to protest the inhumane and lawless detention of people at facilities like Florida’s infamous “Alligator Alcatraz”?
These members of the American family, true patriots, honor a Declaration that ends with the promise to “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” They understand that embedded within our Declaration of Independence lies a Declaration of Interdependence. Now that’s something to celebrate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular