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
vermont
Vermont Applauded for Banning Parkinson's-Linked Neurotoxic Herbicide Paraquat
Noting that "70+ countries and one US state" have banned the chemical, the Michael J. Fox Foundation said that "this is a clear and critical message" to federal and state lawmakers that "the time to ban paraquat is now."
May 26, 2026
In a move cheered by advocates for public health and the environment, Vermont on Tuesday became the first US state to ban paraquat, a neurotoxic herbicide banned in over 70 countries but protected by the Trump administration despite being linked to Parkinson's disease.
Democratic Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed H. 739, which bans the sale and use of paraquat, after the legislation was passed by the state Legislature with strong bipartisan support. The ban—which contains a provision allowing for limited use of the chemical on fruit orchards through the end of 2030—is set to take effect on November 1.
As Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) campaigner Liam Sacino recently noted, the US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] acknowledges that "even a small amount" of paraquat "can be fatal, and there is no known antidote."
"The agency has also decided that due to health risks, it should never be used around home gardens, schools, recreational parks, golf courses, or playgrounds," Sacino added. "Regardless of these conclusions, the EPA still allows paraquat to be sprayed on farms, posing a potentially increased risk to those who work on the farms and live nearby."
The EPA paradoxically calls paraquat "an important tool for the control of weeds in many agricultural and non-agricultural settings," a stance promoted by the chemical industry, some of whose highly toxic products the pesticide-friendly Trump administration has designated as vital to US national security.
Ban advocates point to mounting evidence that paraquat exposure greatly increases the risk of developing Parkinson's disease, a neurodegenerative illness. One recent UCLA study found that the odds of developing Parkinson's could more than double for people living within 500 meters of paraquat application.
That study added to a body of research linking paraquat to Parkinson's that dates back to at least 2011, when National Institutes of Health researchers concluded that the brain disorder is “positively associated” with the herbicide. A 2013 paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Neurology found that exposure to paraquat roughly doubled the risk of developing Parkinson’s. In 2020, four of the world’s leading neurologists published a book citing paraquat as a cause of the ailment.
Parkinson's advocacy groups, including the Parkinson's Foundation and Michael J. Fox Foundation, hailed the Vermont ban.
The Michael J. Fox Foundation noted that "70+ countries and one US state have now banned paraquat."
"This is a clear and critical message to other states and our federal government: The time to ban paraquat is now," the group added.
Environmental groups also cheered the ban.
"We applaud Gov. Scott and the champions in the Legislature that made this moment possible that will protect all Vermonters, including farmers and children, from being exposed to this dangerous chemical,” Environmental Working Group legislative director Geoff Horsfield said in a statement.
“With Vermont leading the way, states across the country now have a clear path to end the use of one of the most toxic herbicides still on the market,” Horsfield added. “This is a turning point in the effort to protect public health from a chemical that has been tied to devastating neurological harm.”
Other states including California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania have either introduced bills to ban or strictly limit paraquat, or are considering doing so.
"We should not wait for federal action when we can act now to protect farmworkers and families," PIRG's Sacino said Tuesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Vermont Winter Gets ICEier
It’s been coming for months: the first big Vermont confrontation among ICE, the local police, and the community in a state that prides itself on caring for neighbors and individual liberty as well as collective responsibility.
Mar 15, 2026
The little boy with curly red hair clutched his huge stuffed bunny and stayed close to his mother, whose face was tight with anxiety. No wonder. Close by was a crowd of more than 100 protesters, clustered around a small white house with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in the back and local police in the front. A line of Vermont state troopers in their green uniforms was across the street on the median. There was a lot of yelling.
I took off my mask and asked the boy if he understood what was going on. He shook his head and put his thumb in his mouth. “The police want to get into the house to take someone away, and the rest of us don’t want them to because it’s not fair,” I said.
“Is he a bad guy?”
“We don’t think so.” The boy was about 3, the same age as the child who was trapped inside the house until his family decided whether it was safer to let him go to friends.
I keep thinking about the little boy frightened of the crowd and the noise. About those three people in the house from 8:30 am until 5:30 pm, then in a vehicle, now in detention. About their farewell to a 3-year-old child.
The red-haired boy’s mother said they couldn’t get through the protest, so I walked them around it, in the blocked-off street.
It’s been coming for months: the first big Vermont confrontation among ICE, the local police, and the community in a state that prides itself on caring for neighbors and individual liberty as well as collective responsibility. By the time the day was done, ICE broke into the house with the help of Vermont State Police, then arrested and removed three people, including two asylum-seeking sisters (ages 20 and 31) from Ecuador, according to Migrant Justice.
Thursday morning, the US attorney admitted that none of them was the person named in the warrant which ICE finally obtained after showing up without one. No mention was made of any criminal charges against the people who were removed from their home. Less than a dozen protesters were also detained, some violently: those who attempted to prevent ICE from entering the home or keep official vehicles from leaving. At the end of the evening, tear gas dispersed the remaining protesters and the final vehicle sped away.
The day began when ICE tried to trap a vehicle in which the driver attempted to escape, damaging several other cars in the process. Eventually the driver fled on foot, leaving the car behind. Only then were local police notified that ICE would attempt an arrest at a nearby address associated with the car. Police and protesters were both on the scene early. ICE officers said they had a warrant but were unable to produce one. Police first said that people had a right to protest but couldn’t on private property—but then the property manager arrived, asked to be shown a warrant, and said he was not asking the police to remove people.
Song broke out, led by Rabbi Grace Oedel. Someone brought a guitar. Soon hands linked around the house. A nearby business put up a tent, and snacks and supplies poured in. A local store sent pizza. Half a dozen ICE agents (some masked, mostly not) were hanging out in the backyard, waiting for the warrant. Most protesters were peaceful, but a few were angry and confrontational, taunting and insulting officers. Several people tried to cool the loud voices out to no avail, until a soft-spoken woman talked directly to an officer, and two angry young men backed off. The local police were in a very difficult position and overall showed restraint in the early part of the day. But after they called in the Vermont State Police, the tone of the situation changed. The warrant was on its way, and the die was cast.
The parking lot of a nearby mall suddenly swarmed with State Police vehicles, not only to transport them, but also what used to be called paddy wagons. Reporters later said that about 60 law enforcement personnel were involved at the height of the situation, including some in “tactical gear.” Soon, local and state police cars filled the street in front of the house, as well as unmarked ICE vehicles.
About 5:30 pm local time, after state troopers cleared a path from the ICE vehicle to the front door of the house, I watched what I’ve seen so many times on the news. An implacable man with a stony face stood in the doorway, after it was broken down. A line of helmets led up to that door. Lots of screaming, including my own, lots of whistles. Then a brown face in the doorway, a short man’s, full of fear. I was so upset that I didn’t even see the two women who were taken afterward. The crowd surged in front of the vehicles to keep them from leaving, shouting, “No están solos” (They are not alone). When the cars tried to back out, people blocked them again. Only the use of force cleared the path, and in the process a number of people were roughed up, sprayed with pepper spray, or pushed to the ground or against the cars. Some were arrested.
Thursday morning, in Vermont fashion, our Republican Gov. Phil Scott has attempted to issue a balanced statement and primarily blames the feds: “The actions of federal law enforcement, from outside the state yesterday, further demonstrates a lack of training, coordination, leadership, and outdated tactics which put both peaceful protesters and Vermont law enforcement in a difficult situation.”
The local South Burlington Police Chief William Breault also criticized the ICE approach, saying, “To attempt an arrest of a subject in a moving vehicle on Dorset Street in the area of a high school and middle school at 7:45 in the morning when the school is getting in was not probably the most appropriate.” In fact, MSN’s report of a press conference by the three local police departments says, “Police say they tried to convince federal agents to avoid the high-tension arrest.”
I keep thinking about the little boy frightened of the crowd and the noise. About those three people in the house from 8:30 am until 5:30 pm, then in a vehicle, now in detention. About their farewell to a 3-year-old child. About what the two asylum-seekers may have suffered before they came here looking for safety. For what we used to call the American Dream.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Vermont State Senator Sam Douglass Resigns Over Hate-Filled Group Chat
Many social media users had the same reaction to Douglass' resignation: "Good riddance!"
Oct 19, 2025
Vermont state Sen. Sam Douglass is set to step down Monday after being exposed as a participant in a Young Republican group chat in which members—including at least one Trump administration official—exchanged hate-filled messages.
Douglass, a Republican, said in a statement Friday: “I must resign. I know that this decision will upset many, and delight others, but in this political climate I must keep my family safe.”
“If my governor asks me to do something, I will act, because I believe in what he’s trying to do,” the 27-year-old freshman lawmaker added, referring to Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott's call for him to step down.
“I love my state, my people, and I am deeply sorry for the offense this caused and that our state was dragged into this," Douglass added.
Douglass is the only known elected official involved in a leaked Telegram chat first reported by Politico on Tuesday in which members of Young Republican chapters in four states exchanged racist, anti-LGBTQ+, and misogynistic messages, including quips about an "epic" rape and killing people in Nazi gas chambers.
Group chat participants included Michael Bartels, a senior adviser in the office of general counsel at the US Small Business Administration.
The chat included one message in which Douglass equated being Indian with poor hygiene, and another exchange in which his wife, Vermont Young Republican national committee member Brianna Douglass, admonishes the organization for “expecting the Jew to be honest.”
Prominent Republicans have rallied in defense of what Vice President JD Vance called the private jokes of "young boys"—who are apparently all in their 20s and 30s.
The fallout from the group chat leak has cost a majority of participants in the Telegram chat their jobs or employment offers.
Most prominently, ex-New York State Young Republicans chair Peter Giunta—who posted "I love Hitler"—was fired from his job as chief of staff to New York Assemblyman Michael Reilly (R-62).
Many social media users had the same reaction to Douglass' resignation: "Good riddance!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Must Unite in Nonviolent Insurgency to Stop Trump
A government changes its behavior when a country becomes ungovernable.
Sep 30, 2025
On July 17, I joined a group of Vermonters for a Good Trouble Lives On action in a village near where we were staying that month. Over the past 161 straight days, a small but determined contingent of mostly white, mostly grey-haired, mostly too-polite-to-make-much-trouble residents had been gathering at noon to protest US President Donald Trump’s policies on a little triangle of land where two streets meet in the village center. Their number had swelled to several dozen on that very hot day, a significant turnout for a community of fewer than 1,000 people. The majority of those driving past us flashed their lights, waved, or nodded in support, including the driver of a giant Pepsi delivery truck. (Since signs asked drivers-by not to honk because the noise upset the neighbors, honkers, I was told, were the opposition.) A young organizer tried to start a chant of protest, but the majority made it clear that they preferred to stand quietly, and she gave up.
It was civil, respectful, and earnest—very Vermont and, as it should have been, lots of fun. In the midst of it, I found myself thinking about a conversation several days earlier with a woman I’ll call Laura, whom I’ve come to know over the summers we’ve spent in Vermont. She’d stopped by to say hello and chat. And though we usually steer clear of national politics, recognizing, I think, that our views on the subject don’t align particularly well, this time we ventured carefully into talk about Trump’s America the second time around.
She told me that she didn’t see much difference. The stock market was still strong, and her groceries didn’t cost her much more when she went to shop.
She probably stands to benefit (as do I) from some of the revisions in tax legislation misnamed Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” She claimed not to pay much attention to political news, and she’s hardly alone there. People’s lives are overburdened enough, or they simply find the news too upsetting. News about that bill was hard to miss, however.
It makes little sense to play by the rules when we have a president who doesn’t even think there are rules.
I told her about the Turkish graduate student at Tufts University (where I had taught journalism) who was nabbed on a street in my neighborhood in March by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, apparently guilty of nothing more than co-writing an op-ed on Palestine for the college newspaper, which no one reads, including the students there. Laura recognized my distress. ICE was preying on Vermonters then, too. Still, its predatory policies seemed far away from the serenity of our shared afternoon.
Laura is an older woman, highly educated, actively devout, intelligent, resourceful, good-humored, and a long-time resident of a community that struggles to balance its relative wealth with the neediness of surrounding communities. Although she lands on the side of the comfortable, most of her wealth seems to be in land on which taxes keep rising to the limit of what she can afford. She’s deeply invested in local politics when it comes to housing and taxes in her area and particularly the tensions between longstanding Vermonters and newer arrivals. The newcomers—“We call them the stroller mafia,” she told me—pushed through new taxes aimed at curbing short-term rentals to tourists that limit the already-scarce housing available to residents. It was a laudable goal, but bad news for many longtime residents, including some of Laura’s friends who rely on the income from renting out extra rooms in the big houses they bought long ago.
Vermont, for people who have never been there, is cows, multicolored leaves, and Bernie Sanders. Its politics do lean notably progressive, but 10% of Vermonters still live in poverty. The state also suffered devastating floods in 2 of the last 3 summers, and it struggles to pay for adequate education and healthcare for its inhabitants. In other words, it’s like all too many other states, just smaller and with more maple syrup.
I like and respect Laura. Still, while I was patting myself on the back for finding common ground with someone I had classified as “on the other side”—that generous and high-minded territory we’re supposed to seek out in these uncommon and ungenerous times—I had to acknowledge that civility only gets you so far. I struggle to believe that a shared gripe or a joke about the absurdities of American politics brings us closer to agreeing on tax policy or a viable safety net for poor Americans or the humane treatment of immigrants, because common ground is not common cause and that’s what matters now.
It’s not important, maybe not even desirable, that Laura and I agree on everything. Still, in these grim Trumpian times, until reasonable, caring people like her start to reckon with the draconian policies raining down on our heads, as well as on the heads of people without papers and on neighboring Vermonters who stand to lose their healthcare and more in the years to come, I fear that the policies coming out of Washington will only get endlessly meaner and more destructive.
So, there I was, in common cause with those stalwart protesters, cheering the friendly drivers and flashing everyone the peace sign, and all I could think was: This shit is not working.
Beyond Civility
Neither has much else we’ve tried. Letter writing? Laura would toss out mail from someone she doesn’t know. Phone banking? She’d hang up. (So would I, which is why I no longer make those calls.) Door knocking? Vermont’s small congressional delegation is already left of center, and voters tend to like their own representatives, even when they dislike Congress as a whole, giving incumbents a significant advantage. So, while flipping Congress to the Democrats would revive the possibility of checks and balances, I’m leery of putting too many of my hopes into next year’s midterm elections.
I’m cautious, too, about trusting the rule of law when, despite many favorable lower court rulings, the arc of the Supreme Court seems to bend ever more Trumpward. And sure, so many of us can keep harping on the Epstein files, since that scandal is creepy and (let’s admit it) deliciously dirty, but I doubt any new disclosures—no matter what they reveal—will bring about Donald Trump’s downfall any more readily than his other messes have.
How about congregating in some public arena with thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?) of people who already agree with me? May such communal resistance continue to grow in size, commitment, and wit. Building a movement takes time, and such demonstrations bolster solidarity and help create more resistance. So far, however, even the largest protests appear to have dented Trump’s consciousness only in leading him to want to charge George Soros with racketeering for supposedly financing them.
I can sign every petition and read every email from organizations I admire and others I’ve never heard of, each proclaiming calamities scarier than the last one—and then, of course, asking for a donation. And I am scared. Just hearing the words “Stephen Miller” or “Laura Loomer” sends my blood pressure soaring, but I suspect that neither hypertension nor money are the keys to the sea change our political culture needs. The problem isn’t just the challenge of getting Trump to pay attention. It’s that the kinds of political activism I’m used to (and that have been effective in the past) no longer get enough Americans worked up enough, or inconvenience them enough, to take on Trump and his agenda.
Strategic Thinking
To succeed, a political campaign generally needs specific, clear, and easy-to-grasp goals and a nimble strategy where benchmarks can be set and progress charted. (Probably a good soundtrack too, but that’s another matter.) What we have now, on the other hand, is a sprawling outcry against a slew of unbelievably rotten policies and a wildly out-of-control president. God knows, there are enough rotten policies, not to speak of corruption and mendacity, to keep everyone busy, and a mass movement does need to be widely inclusive. But the misgovernance extends beyond Donald Trump, and simply excoriating him and dreading autocracy isn’t faintly enough.
It shouldn’t be hard to come up with some goals that would be widely shared. For starters, a healthy economy, affordable (evidence-based) healthcare, decent schools, and breathable air are all basic necessities being visibly undermined by this administration. Nonetheless, in this all too strange Trumpian world of ours, it’s proving all too hard to find a winning strategy—especially given that so much of what’s coming out of Washington falls into the category of (to borrow a favorite Trump phrase) never-seen-anything-like-it-before (at least when it comes to both intensity and sheer looniness). It makes little sense to play by the rules when we have a president who doesn’t even think there are rules, except for whatever ones he makes on the spur of the moment to support his own whims, prejudices, and self-interest.
So, what if the strategy is not to change Trump’s mind (good luck on that!), but to change the public’s mind?
Pillars Prop Up, Pillars Can Crumble
Which brings me to the consent theory of power, a favorite of theorists and agitators from way back, updated by Gene Sharp, an advocate of nonviolent resistance. For those who want to change the mess we’re in, that seems to me the way to go, as injury to people—in fact, personal or mob violence of any sort—is counterproductive, not to mention wrong. The recent murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was a distinct reminder (not that we should have needed one) of where extreme intolerance of opposing ideologies from all directions all too often leads.
Add to that the finding of political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan that, historically speaking, nonviolent resistance has been more successful than violent campaigns. In that context, Sharp’s pragmatic strategies for noncompliance can be considered an active, peaceful response to the sense of powerlessness that authoritarians like “our” president aim to foster. According to Sharp, “The rulers of governments and political systems are not omnipotent, nor do they possess self-generating power.” Their power to keep a country functioning, he stresses, relies on the cooperation and obedience of those they govern. And that’s their vulnerability, too, because the governed can undermine the power of their rulers by withdrawing that very compliance and assistance.
In the consent theory, political power is seen as an inverted triangle balanced on its point and kept from tipping over by various supporting pillars, including the police, the military, media organizations, businesses, schools, and civic and religious groups. Dissidents are encouraged to think of ways to get members of those institutions and groups to disengage or defect until those pillars become unstable and cause the triangle of power to at least tilt, if not topple. An obvious barrier to enlisting those pillars to challenge the status quo is, of course, that many of them are the status quo. Just think, for instance, of the tech billionaires in full grovel mode to Donald Trump. But since it doesn’t take every pillar or even universal defiance in any one pillar to weaken a government like his, focusing on the most persuadable of his followers, along with the fence-sitters, is a place to start.
If the grassroots action is sustained and substantial, if it really is inconvenient enough, he might indeed have to deal.
Obvious forms of noncooperation include boycotts or strikes, but that’s just a beginning. (Sharp suggested 198 methods.) For instance, federal government workers withheld their consent earlier this year by ignoring Elon Musk’s time-wasting demand for weekly emails listing their accomplishments. And what began as a kind of unorganized grassroots opposition worked its way up (as such things often do) to a few department heads who, of course, then took credit for the defiance.
Refusal can be powerful, allies are sometimes found in surprising places, and small actions have a tendency to multiply.
Here’s an example from elsewhere: In 2020, after the Polish government stripped its judges of procedural power and independence, they donned their legal regalia and took to the streets of Warsaw, along with hundreds of jurists from 22 European countries and about 30,000 citizens in a mass protest that came to be called the 1,000 Robes March. It took a few more years and additional pressures to unseat the ruling party, but the symbolism was stunning and effective. While it might be hard to imagine berobed American judges marching through our streets in protest, not so long ago it was hard to imagine a president thumbing his nose at their rulings.
Such resistance requires savvy planning and sharp thinking, though not necessarily centralized leadership. And while some challenges to power include individual defiance, Sharp argues that, “If the rulers’ power is to be controlled by withdrawing help and obedience, the noncooperation and disobedience must be widespread.” In other words, what’s needed in America now is a nonviolent insurgency, one that enlists all those folks holding clever signs on that grassy sward in Vermont and all the drivers flashing their lights in solidarity, not to speak of that Pepsi truck driver (as well as Coke truck drivers) and even some modest portion of the drivers who honked in opposition. (Don’t at least a few have buyer’s remorse by now?) And don’t forget those people passing by in embarrassed silence and everyone like them across the country and their friends and relatives, all refusing to go along until their demands are addressed. Think of it—it could happen—as an epidemic of passive aggression against a brazenly aggressive president.
Noncooperation, nonviolent as it is, isn’t without risks, and you can bet Trump would respond to any organized, widespread challenge with a hissy fit of historic proportions and a slew of punitive, repressive executive orders. But he’s also been known to cave in to pushback, as bullies often do. (TACO—yep, Trump always chickens out—anyone?) If the grassroots action is sustained and substantial, if it really is inconvenient enough, he might indeed have to deal. His deal offers are, of course, invariably one-sided and self-serving, but as he loses power, so too will he lose the capacity to make deals solely on his terms.
Sharp’s strategy reminds me of a prediction Charley Richardson, a very good troublemaker who cofounded Military Families Speak Out, made to me long ago. A government changes its behavior, he told me, when a country becomes ungovernable. My question is: When will that happen in the latest version of Donald Trump’s America?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Airplanes Are Today’s Deportation Trains; How Can We Slow Them Down?
ICE has taken over 450 people through Burlington Vermont’s airport, most without due process. How can local authorities and citizens intervene?
Aug 11, 2025
Vermont’s airport is finally moving toward providing some legal support for the shocking number of detainees who are being abducted here. It happened after a long evening of impassioned pleas by dozens of citizens on August 6, a month after the story broke about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s use of commercial flights to transport more than 450 detainees between January and June this year.
Brave activists have been showing up in the wee hours of the morning to bear witness, speak to detainees when possible, and try to prevent people from being taken away against their will. In the absence of due process, the ICE actions amount to human trafficking. The activists once succeeded in stopping three people from being boarded onto a plane. The next time, ICE used a private side door, which was captured on video. Since the airport’s position had been to treat ICE like any other law enforcement agency in public areas, this attempt at secrecy resulted in packed halls at the Airport Commission meeting August 6.
Why do we even have detainees in the obscure state of Vermont? We are the second smallest in the union, where the Trump administration has generally turned a blind eye rather than stop the flow of milk through New England. But because the state has a contract to house detainees, ICE scoops them up fast elsewhere and dumps them as far as possible from their lawyers, families and communities—first in Vermont, then via the Burlington Airport to Louisiana and Texas or beyond. Less than half the people being shipped out of Vermont had access to a lawyer, according to Vermont Public Radio. Three widely covered cases—Rumeysa Ozturk, Mohsen Mahdawi, Kseniia Petrova—showed that, when ICE impulsively pounces on people and shackles them, judges set people free because they were denied due process.
The state has drawn some lines in cooperating with ICE, in addition to having the most outspoken and effective congressional delegation fighting the current madness. Gov. Phil Scott, one of the dying breed of open-minded Republicans, refused a request to delegate some of our National Guard to ICE to do paperwork. At the Airport Commission, Courtney O’Connor, a Montpelier attorney who has worked internationally, quoted a letter from the governor which stated, “Our administration will support efforts to ensure that those detained in our state are treated fairly and afforded full due process guaranteed under the law.”
He implied that it’s ridiculous for the airport to treat ICE like any other law enforcement agency, because they don’t behave like one.
The moment is ripe to look for every possible means for airports around the country to resist collaboration with ICE’s unconscionable practices. Airports are in a tough spot, because they are federally regulated and, to some extent, funded. But a recent court case brought by Vermont and 19 other states established that, at least for now, funding cannot be withheld from states which refuse to cooperate with “immigration enforcement.”
“The airport, at a minimum, has a responsibility to let the public know what’s happening inside these walls, and on the tarmac,” said Julie Macuga, a key activist. For inspiration, we can look to the King County Airport in Washington State, where activists have interrupted buses with banners as a last resort, and to the Connecticut attorney general who challenged Avelo Airlines’s practices. These strategies may or may not be effective in the long run, but at least they show resistance.
The full cast of Vermont characters was present at the Airport Commission, three minutes at a time: the eloquent professor who investigated human rights abuses in Central America, the young activists who have assembled the data and aren’t afraid of late nights and early mornings, the former state representative with grey locks and strong feelings, the lawyer who sets up guardianship for children of parents who might be deported, the uneasy elder naturalized citizen, the fiery Democratic Socialist, the household name Palestinian activist, the troubled veteran who fought for democracy, the professional whose refugee client checks in every few hours, the humanitarian aid worker, and many others. Not one spoke in favor of ICE.
“If we don’t stand up, who is going to?” they asked.
“Why is the airport complying?”
“Is this the way for families to be treated in Vermont or anywhere?”
“Stop collaborating with this criminal deportation machine.”
“This is incremental fascism, and we have to say no to it.”
“Our state is always brave enough to stand up for what’s right.”
“I don’t know what other airports are doing, but we need to be first.”
Some made specific legal points. Courtney O’Connor stressed that Vermont officials are at risk of civil litigation and criminal prosecution if they collude with constitutional violations. Although as an attorney she has visited countless prisons around the world, “I’ve never heard in my entire career heard of [airport] side doors being used in a democracy to protect government officials who were acting feloniously from detection.”
Saul Steinzor, a criminal prosecutor for 32 years, emphasized that ICE isn’t like other Vermont law enforcement agencies who seek evidence carefully for probable cause or reasonable suspicion. No other agency uses masks and pounces on people in the dark. Over two-thirds of detainees have no criminal record whatever. He implied that it’s ridiculous for the airport to treat ICE like any other law enforcement agency, because they don’t behave like one.
Jeanne Keller of Burlington, a longtime community activist, said the commission was going through a typical process with a controversial issue. Stage one is “We can’t do that,” followed by “Let’s ask if we can do that,” and finally, “We’re going to do it, let’s figure out how.”
By the end of the evening, the airport director Nic Longo was ready to say that he’d explore one of the activists’ key suggestions. Vermont Public Radio reported that “[Mr. Longo] is working with Burlington Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak to address people’s concerns about ICE at the airport. He indicated they are looking into activists’ suggestion that they establish a special position to screen whether detainees are able to exercise their legal rights. ‘We as a city and I as an airport director are committed to trying to find a facilitation to help people with representation when they fly through this airport,’ Longo said.”
One activist made a stronger statement: “We’ll keep showing up, so they know they’re not alone and we won’t allow them to be disappeared.”
The activists are there at 4:00 am ET and sometimes before. What about the rest of us?
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Fate of Detained Workers Depends on Us
Only by making it politically and socially unacceptable—and ultimately illegal—to hunt for undocumented people and treat them inhumanely, can we really change this situation.
Jul 13, 2025
For everyone who cares about Migrant Justice leaders Ignacio “Nacho” de la Cruz and his 18-year-old stepdaughter Heidi Perez, it’s great news that the immigration court has ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to release them—at least for now.
Well more than 100 people protested outside Burlington, Vermont’s Federal District Court for a rally with moving speakers both Monday and Tuesday—and just as many had shown up at the Statehouse a few weeks before to demand their release. The courtroom itself was also packed for a habeas corpus hearing for Heidi, which is probably irrelevant given her upcoming release. But she and her stepfather are still vulnerable to deportation.
Why were the two detained at all? Coverage in Vermont Digger presents an unnerving picture of a “fishing expedition.” Perez and de la Cruz describe in “declarations” injuries which occurred when the driver’s window was broken by a Border Patrol supervisor, as well as physical maltreatment and a threat to their children once they were in custody. At the time, they say the agent refused to answer why he had stopped them apart from the fact that the driver spoke Spanish. The report of his affidavit in Digger reported that he expected to see more people in the back of the van (which he did not). He said that the driver and Perez refused to roll the window down fully, produce a driver’s license, or respond to his questions. From their point of view, they were within their rights to call the Migrant Justice hotline, and asked repeatedly why they were stopped and whether they were free to go. Since the detention, the government has also alleged that de la Cruz may have been involved in smuggling people based on the phone they seized from him. The alleged incident involves six people (reported here.) No charges have yet been filed against him.
Situations like this are going to arise more and more often everywhere in the country, and on our doorstep in Vermont. Under new legislation which eviscerates low-income healthcare access, ICE will gobble up more than the combined budgets of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the U.S. Marshals Service; and the Bureau of Prisons.
If there was ever a time to show up in public and financially for Vermont’s dairy workers and their organization, it’s now.
Even after hearing of the upcoming release, a progressive lawyer friend and I were left with a queasy feeling about the ultimate outcome after Monday’s hearing for Heidi—despite Heidi’s being a poster child for everything we would want for an immigrant in this country. She graduated from Milton High School just days before she was detained. Even as a junior, she was a leader and speaker with the Milk with Dignity campaign to improve conditions for Vermont’s migrant dairy workers. Perez was among those behind the Education Equity Act, which allows financial aid and in-state tuition regardless of a student’s immigration status. Her opinion piece in Vermont Digger, coauthored with Brissia Hernandez, said, “When we first moved to Vermont, there was basically no hope for students like us to go to college, even though we have been dreaming of it since we were little.” Perez has a scholarship to attend Vermont State University this fall. She thinks far beyond her own needs, and made our state a fairer, better place.
She’s done everything right—except that she is undocumented.
In the same Vermont Federal District courtroom, habeas corpus hearings were also held for Rümeysa Ozturk, Mohsen Mahdawi and Kseniia Petrova. Each was in the country legally, and their legal status was capriciously revoked without due process. In contrast, Perez and de la Cruz are caught in a trap, a “cruel system” as several rally speakers described it. We depend on their labor but make it all but impossible for them to achieve legal status in the U.S. The government in power is pushing to expunge them from our country.
The power of the federal government is now behind every Border Patrol agent, the quotas are out there, and the agents are expected to fill them. We can’t really count on the administration’s mixed messages. Most of Vermont’s dairy workers and many of our construction and landscape workers are vulnerable to the same treatment that was meted out to Perez and de la Cruz. Recent raids have upset the whole dairy industry. No matter what someone’s rights may be in the technical sense, Border Patrol has carte blanche in most of Vermont. Only by making it politically and socially unacceptable—and ultimately illegal—to hunt for undocumented people and treat them inhumanely, can we really change this situation.
Even if these two prominent leaders were not targeted initially (and they may have been), a simple identity check would have revealed who they are. Conservative estimates say we have 800-900 dairy workers plus families in Vermont, and only a handful have been detained, fewer deported—and two of that handful are Migrant Justice leaders.
Will the legal system—whether the District Court or the immigration court—ultimately give relief to the undocumented workers who have been persecuted under every president, Democrat or Republican? Except when the government missteps or treats people badly, it’s hard to imagine real relief. Watching a 4-year-old girl in pigtails cavorting on the edge of the rally, I shuddered to think her undocumented parents might be deported. Among the speakers was Wuendy Bernardo, the primary caregiver for her own five children and two orphaned younger sisters. ICE requires her to report every month now, where hundreds have accompanied her on the last several visits. Her quiet dignity, her grave face, and the child clinging to her side told the whole story. She said “Here, we can feel the sun and the wind. In detention, you don’t feel that. You don’t even know if it is night or day.”
If the legal system offers only limited relief because it has now been tuned toward cruelty and persecution, our answers are in the streets, in the legislature, in the media—and beyond that in human kindness. People on dairy farms are afraid to go shopping. They are afraid to send their kids to school. Migrant Justice needs our presence and our help. As a worker-led organization, it has been a consistently positive force in winning legislative victories, with de la Cruz as an important figure in most. It builds solidarity, exposes abuses, and fights for better conditions.
If there was ever a time to show up in public and financially for Vermont’s dairy workers and their organization, it’s now. It's too dangerous for them to be on the streets themselves, and besides, most of them are working 12-hour shifts. It’s our turn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Facing 'Dangerous Attacks on Care' From GOP, At Least 20 Planned Parenthood Clinics Close
"We have been fighting to hold together an unsustainable infrastructure as the landscape shifts around us and an onslaught of attacks continues," said the head of Planned Parenthood North Central States.
Jun 02, 2025
On the heels of Planned Parenthood announcing clinic closures in the Midwest last month, The Guardian published a Monday analysis showing that the reproductive healthcare provider has closed or disclosed plans to shutter at least 20 locations across seven states since the beginning of the year "amid immense financial and political turbulence."
"The Planned Parenthood network, which operates nearly 600 clinics through a web of independent regional affiliates and is overseen by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is facing a number of threats from the Trump administration," the newspaper reported, detailing closures in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Utah, and Vermont.
In a May statement, Planned Parenthood North Central States (PPNCS) detailed cost-saving closures, consolidation, and layoffs impacting eight health centers in Iowa and Minnesota, and stressed that "dangerous attacks on care continue."
"My heart hurts as we announce the closure of health centers and the departure of trusted and talented colleagues, but our patients come first—always," said Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of PPNCS. "We have been fighting to hold together an unsustainable infrastructure as the landscape shifts around us and an onslaught of attacks continues."
Since the U.S. Supreme Court empowered abortion opponents by reversing Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022, those attacks have included the freezing of Title X funds and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voting last month to advance a reconciliation package that would defund Planned Parenthood.
In response to the House's May vote, Jessica Barquist, Kayla Montgomery, and Lisa Margulies, vice presidents of public affairs at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE), said, "To be clear, 'defunding' Planned Parenthood and taking away health insurance from millions will do nothing to lower healthcare costs, address challenges in our healthcare system, or save lives."
"Taking healthcare away from people struggling to deal with rising costs and preventing people from using their health insurance at their trusted provider is cruel," they continued. "We know what happens when people lose access to care: they skip cancer screenings, delay STI testing, miss birth control appointments. These delays lead to worsened health outcomes and more costly emergency care down the line."
In addition to warning of "catastrophic" consequences for patients, the trio highlighted that "analysis from the Congressional Budget Office finds 'defunding' Planned Parenthood would cost $300 million and is the only provision in the healthcare portion of the bill that would increase the deficit."
PPNNE in April announced the closure of a Vermont health center, citing "serious financial hardship." Nicole Clegg, president and CEO of the regional group, said at the time that the decision was "very difficult" and "PPNNE attempted many different investments and organizational changes to tackle the complexities of delivering care in St. Johnsbury, but the challenges persisted."
That same month, Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) said that it had to restructure due to the Trump administration's attacks, "including the recent withholding of $2.8 million in Title X funding."
"The painful decisions to close Logan and St. George health centers, reduce PPAU's staff, and increase service fees are forced on us by the Trump administration," declared PPAU interim CEO Sarah Stoesz. "We believe that by consolidating our healthcare delivery and expanding telehealth, we will be in a better position to continue serving those who rely on us for healthcare."
Planned Parenthood of Michigan (PPMI) also revealed in April that it "is reducing its brick-and-mortar footprint and reorganizing operations statewide," which includes closing three health centers in Jackson, Petoskey, and Marquette; consolidating two clinics in Ann Arbor; and expanding its telehealth offerings.
PPMI president and CEO Paula Thornton Greear said at the time that "the Trump administration and its anti-abortion allies have made clear their intention to defund Planned Parenthood and attack access to sexual and reproductive healthcare nationwide," and "these necessary changes strengthen PPMI's ability to adapt quickly in a challenging political landscape."
The Guardian noted that PPMI "was not among the Planned Parenthood affiliates that saw their Title X funding frozen," and "did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the clinic closures and the role of Title X in those closures."
According to the newspaper:
Planned Parenthood’s financial woes have raised eyebrows for some advocates of abortion rights and reproductive health. The organization has weathered several crises, including allegations of mismanagement, in the years since Roe collapsed—but as the face of U.S. abortion access it continued to rake in donations. (Most abortions in the US are in fact performed by small "independent" clinics, which are grappling with their own financial turmoil.) As of June 2023, the Planned Parenthood network had about $3 billion in assets, according to its 2024 report.
In March, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York (PPGNY) announced it would put its property that houses the Manhattan Health Center up for sale as part of an "ongoing strategy to ensure future, long-term patient access for underserved communities throughout New York state."
Just two days after U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office in January—following a campaign in which the Republican tried to downplay how much voters care about reproductive rights while also bragging about his role in reversing Roe—Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL) said it would close four health centers, downsize administrative staff, and boost telehealth.
Illinois, a blue state surrounded by red ones, saw an influx of "abortion refugees" post-Dobbs. PPIL interim president and CEO Tonya Tucker said in January that "we made plans for the patient surge, however, rising care costs and lower reimbursement rates from insurers is jeopardizing PPIL's sustainability."
"Unfortunately, this is the reality many other Planned Parenthood affiliates are facing in the rapidly evolving healthcare environment," Tucker added. "We are making the difficult decisions today so we can continue providing care tomorrow and well into the future."
Other recent reporting has also highlighted how reproductive healthcare providers, particularly those that offer abortion, are struggling to stay open, even in places where politicians haven't passed laws that make it harder to end pregnancies.
"At least 17 clinics closed last year in states where abortion remains legal," NPR reported last month, citing the Guttmacher Institute. "Experts say the closures indicate that financial and operational challenges, rather than future legal bans, may be the biggest threats to abortion access in states whose laws still protect it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warning of Grave Threat to Free Speech, Judge Frees Rümeysa Öztürk
"There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed," U.S. District Judge William Sessions III said, referring to Öztürk's article urging divestment from Israel.
May 09, 2025
Rümeysa Öztürk, one of several pro-Palestine scholars kidnapped and imprisoned by the Trump administration under its dubious interpretation of an 18th-century law and a Cold War-era national security measure, was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody Friday following a federal judge's order.
U.S. District Judge William Sessions III in Vermont ruled that Öztürk—a 30-year-old Turkish Ph.D. student at Tufts University in Massachusetts and Fulbright scholar—was illegally detained in March, when masked plainclothes federal agents snatched her off a suburban Boston street in broad daylight in what eyewitnesses and advocates likened to a kidnapping and flew her to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Louisiana.
"Thank you so much for all the support and love," Öztürk told supporters outside the facility following her release.
The government admits that Öztürk committed no crime. She was targeted because of an
opinion piece published in Tufts Daily advocating divestment from Israel amid the U.S.-backed nation's genocidal assault on Gaza and its apartheid, occupation, ethnic cleansing, and colonization in the rest of Palestine. Öztürk was arrested despite a U.S. State Department determination that there were no grounds for revoking her visa.
"There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed," said Sessions, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. "That literally is the case."
BREAKING: a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to immediately release on bail Rumeysa Ozturk, a Muslim grad student at Tufts University who was abducted and abused by ICE agents, all because she wrote an editorial, yes, an editorial, critical of the Israeli government's genocide.
[image or embed]
— CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) ( @cairnational.bsky.social) May 9, 2025 at 11:12 AM
"There is no evidence here as to the motivation, absent consideration of the op-ed, so that creates unto itself a very significant substantial claim that the op-ed—that is, the expression of one's opinion as ordinarily protected by the First Amendment—form the basis of this particular detention," the judge continued, adding that Öztürk's "continued detention potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens."
"There is absolutely no evidence that she has engaged in violence, or advocated violence, she has no criminal record," Sessions noted. "She has done nothing other than, essentially, attend her university and expand her contacts in her community in such a supportive way."
"Her continued detention cannot stand," he added.
The Trump administration has openly flouted judge's rulings—including a U.S. Supreme Court order—that direct it to release detained immigrants. Sessions' Friday ruling follows his earlier order to send Öztürk to Vermont and Wednesday's 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of the judge's directive, both of which have been ignored by the administration.
Seeing that Öztürk was still in ICE custody hours after his order, Sessions reiterated his directive Friday afternoon.
"In light of the court's finding of no flight risk and no danger to the community, petitioner is to be released from ICE custody immediately on her own recognizance, without any form of body-worn GPS or other ICE monitoring at this time," the judge wrote.
Mahsa Khanbabai, Öztürk's attorney, told Courthouse News Service she's "relieved and ecstatic" that her client has been ordered released.
"Unfortunately, it is 45 days too late," Khanbabai lamented. "She has been imprisoned all these days for simply writing an op-ed that called for human rights and dignity for the people in Palestine. When did speaking up against oppression become a crime? When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?"
The Trump administration has dubiously invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows the president to detain dor deport citizens of countries with which the U.S. is at war, in a bid to justify Öztürk's persecution. The administration has also cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which empowers the secretary of state to order the expulsion of noncitizens whose presence in the United States is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests.
"When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?"
Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who lied about Öztürk supporting Hamas—has used such determinations to target people for engaging in constitutionally protected speech and protest.
"We do it every day," Rubio said in March in defense of the policy. "Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas."
Rubio has invoked the law to target numerous other students who the government admits committed no crimes. These include Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Yunseo Chung—all permanent U.S. residents—as well as Ranjani Srinivasan and others. Far-right, pro-Israel groups like Betar and Canary Mission have compiled lists containing the names of these and other pro-Palestine students that are shared with the Trump administration for possible deportation.
Foreign nationals—and some U.S. citizens wrongfully swept up in the Trump administration's mass deportation effort—are imprisoned in facilities including private, for-profit detention centers, where there are widespread reports of poor conditions and alleged abuses.
These include denial of medical care, insufficient access to feminine hygiene products, and rotten food at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center, where Öztürk—who, according to Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), has received no religious or dietary accommodations and had her hijab forcibly removed—is being held.
Öztürk also suffers from asthma and told Sessions via Zoom Friday that her attacks have increased behind bars due to stress. Dr. Jessica McCannon, a pulmonologist, testified that Öztürk's asthma appears to be poorly controlled in ICE custody, according to
courtroom coverage on the social media site Bluesky by freelance journalist Joshua J. Friedman.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was among those who on Friday demanded Öztürk's immediate release, while other lawmakers and human rights and free speech defenders celebrated Sessions' decision.
"Rümeysa Öztürk has finally been ordered released," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said on social media. "She has been unlawfully detained for more than six weeks in an ICE facility in Louisiana, more than 1,500 miles away from Somerville. This is a victory for Rümeysa, for justice, and for our democracy."
In the United States, we guarantee free speech. No one here will lose their rights and freedom for publishing an op-ed. This is a win for the rule of law. Rümeysa is free!
[image or embed]
— Representative Becca Balint ( @balint.house.gov) May 9, 2025 at 1:24 PM
Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement that "it is unfathomable that in the United States legal system, it takes 45 days for a judge to rule that people can't be put behind bars for writing op-eds the government doesn't like."
"Without a system committed to its principles, the Constitution is just words on paper, and they don't mean much if this can happen here," Stern continued. "Öztürk's abduction and imprisonment is one of the most shameful chapters in First Amendment history."
"We're thankful that Judge Sessions moved it one step closer to an end and we call on the Trump administration to release Öztürk immediately and not attempt to stall with any further authoritarian nonsense," he added.
Amid President Donald Trump's defunding threats and pressure from ICE officials, universities have told "many hundreds" of international students that they have lost their immigration status and must immediately self-deport. These notifications were based on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) termination of students' records on the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a database used by schools and authorities to access visa information.
Although DHS admitted in court that it had no authority to use SEVIS to revoke students' status, the Trump administration still canceled more than 1,800 visas before reversing course last month pending an ICE policy revamp.
In addition to moving to deport pro-Palestine students, the Trump administration is sending Latin American immigrants—including wrongfully expelled Maryland man Kilmar Abrego García—to a notorious prison in El Salvador, and the president has repeatedly threatened to send natural-born U.S. citizens there.
As with Öztürk and other detained students, the Trump administration has dubiously invoked the Alien Enemies Act in trying to deport García and others. However, federal judges—including multiple Trump appointees—have thwarted some of these efforts.
On Friday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Millersaid that Trump and his advisers are "actively looking at" suspending habeas corpus as a means of overcoming judicial pushback against the administration's deportation blitz.
"Well, the Constitution is clear—and that of course is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion," Miller told reporters at the White House. No foreign entity has invaded the United States since Japanese forces landed in the Aleutian Islands in the then-territory of Alaska during World War II.
Critics pointed out that Miller's proposal is, in fact, blatantly unconstitutional.
"Since it appears needs to be said: The authority to suspend habeas corpus lies with Congress, not the president, and is only legal during extreme circumstances of rebellion or invasion," Democratic pollster and strategist Matt McDermott said on Bluesky. "Stephen Miller is full of shit."
It wasn't just Democrats and Palestine defenders who cheered Sessions' ruling Friday. Billy Binion, who covers "all things injustice" for the libertarian website Reason, said on social media that the government's "entire case against her is that... she wrote an op-ed."
"Hard to overstate how bleak—and frankly embarrassing—it is that the Trump administration wants to jail and deport someone for speech," he continued. "In America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's 'Phony Energy Emergency' Used by DOJ to Target State Climate Laws
"There is no energy emergency, and Trump's stated reasoning for it is as much a scam as every other pathetic con and hustle this president attempts," said one consumer campaigner.
May 02, 2025
Defenders of climate and the rule of law blasted the Trump administration on Friday for using what one consumer campaigner called a "phony" emergency to wage lawfare against states trying to hold Big Oil financially accountable for the planetary crisis.
On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed complaints against New York and Vermont over their climate superfund laws, which empower states to seek financial compensation from fossil fuel companies to help cover the costs of climate mitigation. The burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of human-caused global heating.
Separately, the DOJ also sued Hawaii and Michigan "to prevent each state from suing fossil fuel companies in state court to seek damages for alleged climate change harms."
"The use of the United States Department of Justice to fight on behalf of the fossil fuel industry is deeply disturbing."
Hours later, Hawaii became the 10th state to sue Big Oil for lying about the climate damage caused by fossil fuels. The Aloha State's lawsuit targets ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and other corporations for their "decadeslong campaign of deception to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change" and sow public doubt about the existence and main cause of the crisis.
"The federal lawsuit filed by the Justice Department attempts to block Hawaii from holding the fossil fuel industry responsible for deceptive conduct that caused climate change damage," Hawaii Attorney General Anne E. Lopez said. "The use of the United States Department of Justice to fight on behalf of the fossil fuel industry is deeply disturbing and is a direct attack on Hawaii's rights as a sovereign state."
The DOJ on Thursday cited President Donald Trump's April 8 executive order, " Protecting American Energy From State Overreach," which affirms the president's commitment "to unleashing American energy, especially through the removal of all illegitimate impediments to the identification, development, siting, production, investment in, or use of domestic energy resources—particularly oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, geothermal, biofuel, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources."
Trump also signed a day-one edict declaring a "national energy emergency" in service of his campaign pledge to "drill, baby, drill" for climate-heating fossil fuels. The "emergency" has been invoked to fast-track fossil fuel permits, including for extraction projects on public lands.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division said in a statement Thursday, "When states seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authority, they harm the country's ability to produce energy and they aid our adversaries."
"The department's filings seek to protect Americans from unlawful state overreach that would threaten energy independence critical to the well-being and security of all Americans," Gustafson added.
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy watchdog Public Citizen, on Friday accused the Trump administration of "using a phony energy emergency declaration to illegally attack state climate and clean energy laws."
"There is no energy emergency, and Trump's stated reasoning for it is as much a scam as every other pathetic con and hustle this president attempts," Weissman continued. "Fake constitutional claims based on a fake emergency cannot and will not displace sensible and long overdue state efforts to hold dirty energy corporations accountable."
"These corporations have imposed massive costs on society through their deceptive denial of the realities of climate change, and through rushing us toward climate catastrophe," he added. "It's good policy, common sense, and completely within state authority, for states to hold these corporations accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Using ICE to Freeze Speech Isn't New, But Has an American Spring Arrived?
Mohsen Madhdawi is now free, but the fight for immigrant justice goes on for all those illegally detained for speaking their mind or asserting their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.
May 01, 2025
You may not have heard but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) planted a covert informant within a migrant rights organization, engaged in widespread electronic and physical surveillance of its members, and utilized other government agencies to collect information about them, which led to the detentions, and at times deportations, of some of its key members. They did this to freeze the organization’s political speech and put an end to their organizing.
You may or may not be surprised that this started during the Obama administration and ending during Trump’s first term—well before the onslaught of constitutional and human rights abuses against politically active immigrants (and others) that we have seen over the last several weeks.
The use of immigration enforcement to freeze political speech is not new; in fact, it’s a practice that dates far back in the country’s history.
However, it’s possible the current administration is pushing the practice to a breaking point and waking the U.S. public up to its gross and extreme injustices. And we just may have seen one of the first signs of this breaking point with the release of Palestinian rights activist and green card holder Mohsen Mahdawi on Wednesday.
To start, the organization mentioned above is a powerful and internationally recognized migrant rights group, Migrant Justice, which has been organizing migrant workers in the state of Vermont’s dairy industry since 2009. Migrant Justice is perhaps best known for its work improving conditions for migrant workers on farms sourced by the ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s (now owned by Unilever) but out of necessity expanded its organizing to include fighting for protections from police and ICE collaborations, winning access to drivers’ licenses for undocumented residents in Vermont, successfully organizing workers in the construction industry, expanding access to in-state tuition and financial aid for undocumented residents in the state, and fighting to keep many immigrants out of detention (among other ongoing campaigns and programs).
For its successes, however, the group garnered much attention from the country’s increasingly belligerent and internally focused immigration enforcement agencies.
“I've brought you a famous person,” an ICE officer boasted when he brought Enrique Balcazar, one of the organization’s lead organizers, into detention, mockingly referring to the national recognition Balcazar had gained for his work.
The depth to which ICE knew the details of Migrant Justice members’ lives, references to colleagues and friends and family, and a specific refusal for those detained to contact other Migrant Justice members, whom the officers specified by name, all revealed that ICE had been surveilling the group down to the minute details of their lives through what Migrant Justice has since shown were illegal means and reasons.
However, Migrant Justice, being who they are, sent the Trump administration back to their corner.
In a subsequent lawsuit filed by the group in 2018 against the Department of Homeland Security, they argued that ICE did not have probable cause to go after its members, and none of them fit the high priority ‘criminal’ profile of immigration cases that ICE claims to focus on. Instead, Migrant Justice argued, they had been targeted specifically for their successful organizing and that the federal government was attempting to retaliate and freeze their speech by harassing, intimidating, and deporting them. In so doing, ICE infringed on their First Amendment rights.
Migrant Justice went on to engage in an ongoing public campaign in support of their case, with large support in the state of Vermont including rallies at the Federal courthouses in Burlington, garnering national attention.
ICE eventually said uncle. By 2020 DHS settled outside of court with Migrant Justice. As a part of the stipulations of the settlement, ICE implemented a policy in which employees are obligated to act “in accordance with the First amendment, including its commitment to not profile, target on account of, or discriminate against any individual or group for exercising First Amendment rights.” This new wording clarified that all migrants (regardless of status) are protected under this constitutional right.
However, several years later, the Trump administration is at it again, as we have seen with the detention and attempted disappearance of Palestinian rights activists and other organizers of various backgrounds and immigration statuses. Once again, we see an executive branch using immigration enforcement in attempts to freeze speech. A few of those recently detained for their speech include Georgetown Professor Badar Khan Suri; Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, Tufts University Student Rumeysa Ozturk; Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil; Aditya Wahyu Harsono; Farmworker union leader Alfredo “Lelo” Juarez Zeferino; and 37 workers at a roofing company in Washington state who had not too long ago attempted to unionize.
This is not to mention the more than 1,000 international students across 160 colleges that had their visas or legal status revoked or the countless others taken from their homes, places of worship, schools, vehicles, you name it, and detained or deported without due process—another constitutionally protected right.
And just last Monday evening, Border Patrol agents detained eight farmworkers associated with Migrant Justice on a dairy farm in Northern Vermont, in addition to one other who was on his way to deliver groceries to farm workers on that very same farm. Migrant Justice is now rallying for their release.
The connection between Migrant Justice’s ongoing struggle and what is happening to Palestinian rights activists today is not lost on the group.
In fact, these farmworkers were held in the same room as Mohsen Mahdawi prior to his release.
In an earlier speech at a rally for Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil, Balcazar, stated:
“…for this organizing, the struggle in which we find ourselves, we have faced persecution from immigration authorities. Immigration uses the threat of detention and deportation to keep us silent, just as they do with Mahmoud Khalil and all the immigrant students who are fighting against the genocide in Gaza.”
He continued:
“I went through what Mahmoud Khalil is going through today…but thanks to the brave and powerful solidarity of the community, [we] won back our freedom. We fought our case to stay in this country and denounced ICE’s abuse of power. It was a long fight, but we won. And we are going to win the freedom of Mahmoud Khalil. We demand that this government respect the constitutional right of freedom of expression! Free Mahmoud Khalil now!”
In their case, Migrant Justice and their legal representation (ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and others) had followed in a long line of court cases that have proven that immigrants, of all statuses, are protected under the U.S. constitution; and thus the U.S. government cannot use immigration enforcement to retaliate for political reasons.
The history of case law in the U.S. is quite clear:
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) -Supreme Court unanimously ruled biased enforcement of the law against non-citizens is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
- Bridges v. Wixon (1945) - Supreme Court ruled in favor of an immigrant’s First Amendment right to free speech: “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country”
- Chew v. Colding (1953) - Supreme Court ruled in favor of an immigrant’s First and Fifth amendments
- Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) - found that all persons accused of a crime on U.S. soil, no matter their immigration status, are guaranteed due process
- Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) - Supreme Court ruled due process, a Constitutional right, applies to everybody in the U.S. even if their presence is “unlawful, involuntary, or transitory”
- In 2014 several federal district courts found ICE detainer requests that kept noncitizens in custody longer than citizens was unconstitutional, e.g., Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Cty. (2014).
- For a more comprehensive review of this history check out Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal.
And Migrant Justice’s case influenced coinciding cases that had similarly dealt with the question of First Amendment rights for immigrant organizers. Notably, shortly after the settlement, migrant rights activists Maru Mora-Villalpando and Ravi Ragbir won their respective cases against ICE and the right to remain in the country.
The U.S. Department of Justice has, throughout history, repeatedly attempted to deny constitutional rights for documented and undocumented immigrants alike. And, of course, there are cases that have not fallen in favor of immigrant plaintiffs, often due to abstract (and arguably unconstitutional) legal practices such as the Plenary Power doctrine, in which the court has at times deferred jurisdictional authority over matters of immigration to the Executive branch.
Despite some legal setbacks for immigrant rights over time, however, the federal court system has increasingly taken up immigrant rights cases, and despite some cases to the contrary, have mostly shown in undeniable ways that immigrants are included within the U.S. Constitution’s protections. I argue that this has happened in tandem with public protest, immigrant rights campaigns, and a shift in public opinion.
At this point, any case against the federal government on the grounds of constitutional rights for immigrants in the U.S. should be cut and dry. But it’s painfully obvious we should not feel comfortable resting on those laurels. We know this administration is breaking the law – denying rights that they have no authority to take away. So, what is to be done?
As history has shown us, rights aren’t won or protected in the courts alone, in a vacuum. Any legal scholar will tell you; it is the timbre of public opinion, and protest, that the courts often react to when making these decisions. Public opinion, can certainly affect the way the federal courts lean, as was seen in the civil rights movement and its relationship to the massive gains made during the years of the Warren Court era (1953-1969). While rights won through civil rights movements are latent within the constitutional expression “we the people,” those words only come into fruition when people challenge the forms of power within American democracy that seek to border, territorialize, and limit inclusion of those rights to just a select few.
The same is possible for all persons present in this country regardless of immigration status. While mass public outrage increased during Trump’s first term, it is building arguably to new heights today, particularly against its most publicly visible acts like the disappearance of Palestinian rights activists and the mass deportation of immigrants to a prison known for its torturous conditions in El Salvador.
Last weekend saw another round of mass protests across the country against the Trump administration’s extra-judicial actions. Last weekend also saw the U.S. Supreme Court block the Trump administration from sending another group of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador with no due process. And we saw a federal judge order the Trump administration to transfer Rumeysa Ozturk to Vermont, stating, "The government cannot undermine the justice system and attempt to manipulate a case's jurisdiction by secretly transporting and imprisoning someone over a thousand miles from home." And after a considerable amount of pushback, including 65 lawsuits, the Trump administration appears to be reversing its attempts to strip thousands international students of their visas through the SEVIS system.
The Supreme Court is today stacked with judges implanted by Trump in his first term. And yet, today, they appear to be, in some cases, holding him accountable to the law, in what I might argue is in lockstep with immigrant rights activists and the supporting public opinion that is only made known by those growing crowds of protesters who dare to continue speaking out.
For the last two weeks I have attended morning rallies outside of the Federal courthouses in Burlington for the release of Mohsen, the same place we rallied for in support for Migrant Justice’s case against ICE almost 7 years ago. The crowd last Wednesday was big. The crowd Wednesday was even bigger. One can assume that the chants of “Free Mohsen!” and “Free them all!” could be heard inside the court room.
And the whole world heard that same crowd burst out when Mohsen walked free from building, peace signs in the air.
What history tells us is that we must continue showing up in protest in the streets, outside of court rooms, outside of detention centers, in our public spaces, and show the courts, and all of our branches of government for that matter, where our alliance lies: not with some rogue executive branch bent on ruling at will, but in the principles laid out in the U.S. constitution, those of equal dignity and rights for all.
As Mohsen said today: “From this place, in front of this court, me standing here with you, among you, it sends a message that is loud and clear not only to Vermont but to the rest of America: We the people will hold the constitution accountable to the principles and values we believe in.”
The Trump administration has shown it is willing to defy court orders, and has now detained a judge for refusing to comply with an extrajudicial action by the Trump administration. Mohsen has court dates ahead of him yet. And there is a long road ahead for any of the current cases mentioned here. As some have suggested, the country may by on the brink of a constitutional crisis.
That is one reason why we all need to continue to protest and make our voices heard. Today, at your local May 1 rally is a great time to do so.
Today we remember (again) that together, working in tandem and in support of migrant activists from all backgrounds, we can all actually affect these processes.
I write this from the chilly state of Vermont one month into Spring. If you listen closely, you can hear a great thawing, as protesters continue to speak out in favor of the inalienable human, civil, and constitutional rights of all persons in the U.S. As the movement grows, perhaps we could be witnessing an American Spring in the name of human dignity, at least if we continue to fight for it. Its mud season in Vermont. Our boots are still laced up, but the heavy coats are being put away for the year. There is still some snow in the mountains, but the ice is sure to melt.
*A small portion of this article is excerpted from my book, Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal, recently published by University of Georgia Press.
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