
A climate activist with Stop the Money Pipeline holds a sign during a rally in midtown Manhattan on April 17, 2021. (Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
A climate activist with Stop the Money Pipeline holds a sign during a rally in midtown Manhattan on April 17, 2021. (Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images)
The well-known US climatologist Michael E. Mann is no pussyfooter. He likes to provoke, which makes his new book downright entertaining. In The New Climate War, Mann defies expectations. While it is unsurprising that he takes to task the decades-long machinations of large energy companies and their backers, other actors also attract his attention here.
Although climate denial no longer convinces the wider population, the 'climate war' is not over. There simply is a new form. Having lost the war against science, fossil-fuel lobbyists are now doing their best to thwart decisive action. Denial has given way to distraction. Today, the crisis is downplayed, deflected, and delayed--and doom mongering abounds.
Michael Mann describes the earlier tactics the fossil-fuel lobby of industrial and oil-producing countries used--which has always taken their cues from the arms lobby, and the tobacco and beverage industries--and how they operate today. Sometimes, Mann seems to be personally feuding with the scientists who once helped the fossil fuel industry lie and now are guiding their deflection campaign. But we should indulge that from an author who has been subjected to personal attacks and defamation for decades.
Mann not only examines the interests of the fossil fuel industry, but also those of petrostates and governments. The meagre results of the latest COP show that Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Russia are keen to prevent implementation of climate change measures. As Mann sees it, fossil fuel's self-interest explains Russia's support for both Brexit and Trump's presidential campaign. For him, 'Russia Gate' is synonymous with fossil fuels.
Mann's illuminating survey of lobbying practices includes the story of how the climate debate in Europe has taken the wrong turn in recent years. That Germany, too, is headed the wrong way became clear from an election campaign dominated by a debate around personal travel and meat consumption instead of structural issues. The distractors prevailed.
We easily get more worked up about our neighbour's personal failings than over systemic change.
The diversion campaign shifts responsibility from companies and industry to individuals, whose behaviour and personal decisions are critically scrutinized. The battle is no longer about international financial markets and the commodity exchange--but rather diets and flights.
We easily get more worked up about our neighbour's personal failings than over systemic change. An attack on lifestyles serves well to divide society, as it is bound to identity. Making someone else look bad has become a kind of reward--proof of our own moral superiority. According to Michael Mann, that's dangerous. It creates and sustains a false dilemma that helps get the fossil fuel industry lobby off the hook. Mann is clear that individual behavioural changes are not an alternative to systemic change. We definitely need both. But only changing the system will ensure our future.
Not only does criticising individual behaviour make us lose sight of the real goal, but it also weakens the community of climate advocates. Nagging about dietary and travel choices and about purity and virtue divides the movement. Natural allies attack each other, and the potential recruits from the political centre who are urgently needed to democratically restructure our economic system get scared off.
Mann shows that some activists don't want to just slow down climate change. He distrusts those who turn the fight against global warming into a fight for veganism or anti-capitalism and rejects the view that embracing technical and economic solutions equals being hoodwinked by neoliberalism. Advocating asceticism empowers those who preach that we should do nothing: The 'inactivists'--as Mann calls them--portray climate advocates as freedom-hating totalitarians.
While Mann is not against technology, he warns against pseudo-solutions like geo-engineering. Carbon capture and storage only makes sense for sectors that are hard to decarbonise, such as cement production. A bridge of natural gas with methane leaks leads us nowhere: The problem caused by fossil fuels cannot be solved using any fossil fuel. Nuclear energy's inherent dangers and high cost exclude that, too. Such non-solutions only delay the necessary investments in renewable energies.
Fear does not motivate: Instead, it causes people to turn away from the movement.
Although Mann's views jibe with the young climate protectors of Fridays for Future,they will not like everything he writes. Mann acknowledges that they have managed to push the issue high on the political agenda and maintain public pressure. But he warns against overdoing it. Aggressive blaming and shaming hinders progress. Cautioning about the end of humanity, disparaging all negotiation results and demanding drastic measures can boomerang and make it harder to protect the climate. To get as many people as possible onboard, rather than tongue-lashing and foretelling doomsday, we've got to stress the benefits of what's necessary.
It would be a sad irony if the engaged, progressive camp were to get in its own way by refusing to accept compromise and consensus, or to recognise them as progress. Unfortunately, many climate protectors view any compromise as a hypocritical pretext for doing nothing--or even as cowardice--rather than recognising that it's crucial for peaceful coexistence in a democratic and pluralistic society.
Some activists obviously believe that people have to be shocked and scared into taking climate change seriously. With the fossil fuel lobby strategically using doom mongering, Mann warns that climate protectors' excessive demands and exaggerations--what he calls 'climate doom porn'--play into inactivists' hands. Such apocalyptic reading material sells well. But it doesn't help us fight climate change. Fear does not motivate: Instead, it causes people to turn away from the movement.
According to Mann, we are not facing a dystopia. Obviously, we have got to act--but the global community is capable of acting. Although he credits Greta Thunberg and her movement with stimulating public discussion, Mann has little time for her scolding. Thunberg's accusation that next to nothing is being done is false and condescending towards the efforts being made worldwide. Mann's book helps us to evaluate the results of the most recent climate conference in Glasgow. The glass is half full.
Nevertheless, we must remain vigilant. Mann sees climate protection threatened by the same witches' brew that brought Donald Trump to power in 2016: the meddling of malicious state actors mixed with cynical disgust, even amongst leftists, who declared that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton--so voting was pointless.
Mann's New Climate War shows that we have indulged climate change deniers and opponents of climate policy for too long. Often they were just clever in mass communication. We should no longer give them a bully pulpit. In this respect, too, Mann's book is enlightening. Despite the seriousness of the subject, his book entertains, raises awareness, and inspires optimism. That is how we fight for the climate.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The well-known US climatologist Michael E. Mann is no pussyfooter. He likes to provoke, which makes his new book downright entertaining. In The New Climate War, Mann defies expectations. While it is unsurprising that he takes to task the decades-long machinations of large energy companies and their backers, other actors also attract his attention here.
Although climate denial no longer convinces the wider population, the 'climate war' is not over. There simply is a new form. Having lost the war against science, fossil-fuel lobbyists are now doing their best to thwart decisive action. Denial has given way to distraction. Today, the crisis is downplayed, deflected, and delayed--and doom mongering abounds.
Michael Mann describes the earlier tactics the fossil-fuel lobby of industrial and oil-producing countries used--which has always taken their cues from the arms lobby, and the tobacco and beverage industries--and how they operate today. Sometimes, Mann seems to be personally feuding with the scientists who once helped the fossil fuel industry lie and now are guiding their deflection campaign. But we should indulge that from an author who has been subjected to personal attacks and defamation for decades.
Mann not only examines the interests of the fossil fuel industry, but also those of petrostates and governments. The meagre results of the latest COP show that Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Russia are keen to prevent implementation of climate change measures. As Mann sees it, fossil fuel's self-interest explains Russia's support for both Brexit and Trump's presidential campaign. For him, 'Russia Gate' is synonymous with fossil fuels.
Mann's illuminating survey of lobbying practices includes the story of how the climate debate in Europe has taken the wrong turn in recent years. That Germany, too, is headed the wrong way became clear from an election campaign dominated by a debate around personal travel and meat consumption instead of structural issues. The distractors prevailed.
We easily get more worked up about our neighbour's personal failings than over systemic change.
The diversion campaign shifts responsibility from companies and industry to individuals, whose behaviour and personal decisions are critically scrutinized. The battle is no longer about international financial markets and the commodity exchange--but rather diets and flights.
We easily get more worked up about our neighbour's personal failings than over systemic change. An attack on lifestyles serves well to divide society, as it is bound to identity. Making someone else look bad has become a kind of reward--proof of our own moral superiority. According to Michael Mann, that's dangerous. It creates and sustains a false dilemma that helps get the fossil fuel industry lobby off the hook. Mann is clear that individual behavioural changes are not an alternative to systemic change. We definitely need both. But only changing the system will ensure our future.
Not only does criticising individual behaviour make us lose sight of the real goal, but it also weakens the community of climate advocates. Nagging about dietary and travel choices and about purity and virtue divides the movement. Natural allies attack each other, and the potential recruits from the political centre who are urgently needed to democratically restructure our economic system get scared off.
Mann shows that some activists don't want to just slow down climate change. He distrusts those who turn the fight against global warming into a fight for veganism or anti-capitalism and rejects the view that embracing technical and economic solutions equals being hoodwinked by neoliberalism. Advocating asceticism empowers those who preach that we should do nothing: The 'inactivists'--as Mann calls them--portray climate advocates as freedom-hating totalitarians.
While Mann is not against technology, he warns against pseudo-solutions like geo-engineering. Carbon capture and storage only makes sense for sectors that are hard to decarbonise, such as cement production. A bridge of natural gas with methane leaks leads us nowhere: The problem caused by fossil fuels cannot be solved using any fossil fuel. Nuclear energy's inherent dangers and high cost exclude that, too. Such non-solutions only delay the necessary investments in renewable energies.
Fear does not motivate: Instead, it causes people to turn away from the movement.
Although Mann's views jibe with the young climate protectors of Fridays for Future,they will not like everything he writes. Mann acknowledges that they have managed to push the issue high on the political agenda and maintain public pressure. But he warns against overdoing it. Aggressive blaming and shaming hinders progress. Cautioning about the end of humanity, disparaging all negotiation results and demanding drastic measures can boomerang and make it harder to protect the climate. To get as many people as possible onboard, rather than tongue-lashing and foretelling doomsday, we've got to stress the benefits of what's necessary.
It would be a sad irony if the engaged, progressive camp were to get in its own way by refusing to accept compromise and consensus, or to recognise them as progress. Unfortunately, many climate protectors view any compromise as a hypocritical pretext for doing nothing--or even as cowardice--rather than recognising that it's crucial for peaceful coexistence in a democratic and pluralistic society.
Some activists obviously believe that people have to be shocked and scared into taking climate change seriously. With the fossil fuel lobby strategically using doom mongering, Mann warns that climate protectors' excessive demands and exaggerations--what he calls 'climate doom porn'--play into inactivists' hands. Such apocalyptic reading material sells well. But it doesn't help us fight climate change. Fear does not motivate: Instead, it causes people to turn away from the movement.
According to Mann, we are not facing a dystopia. Obviously, we have got to act--but the global community is capable of acting. Although he credits Greta Thunberg and her movement with stimulating public discussion, Mann has little time for her scolding. Thunberg's accusation that next to nothing is being done is false and condescending towards the efforts being made worldwide. Mann's book helps us to evaluate the results of the most recent climate conference in Glasgow. The glass is half full.
Nevertheless, we must remain vigilant. Mann sees climate protection threatened by the same witches' brew that brought Donald Trump to power in 2016: the meddling of malicious state actors mixed with cynical disgust, even amongst leftists, who declared that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton--so voting was pointless.
Mann's New Climate War shows that we have indulged climate change deniers and opponents of climate policy for too long. Often they were just clever in mass communication. We should no longer give them a bully pulpit. In this respect, too, Mann's book is enlightening. Despite the seriousness of the subject, his book entertains, raises awareness, and inspires optimism. That is how we fight for the climate.
The well-known US climatologist Michael E. Mann is no pussyfooter. He likes to provoke, which makes his new book downright entertaining. In The New Climate War, Mann defies expectations. While it is unsurprising that he takes to task the decades-long machinations of large energy companies and their backers, other actors also attract his attention here.
Although climate denial no longer convinces the wider population, the 'climate war' is not over. There simply is a new form. Having lost the war against science, fossil-fuel lobbyists are now doing their best to thwart decisive action. Denial has given way to distraction. Today, the crisis is downplayed, deflected, and delayed--and doom mongering abounds.
Michael Mann describes the earlier tactics the fossil-fuel lobby of industrial and oil-producing countries used--which has always taken their cues from the arms lobby, and the tobacco and beverage industries--and how they operate today. Sometimes, Mann seems to be personally feuding with the scientists who once helped the fossil fuel industry lie and now are guiding their deflection campaign. But we should indulge that from an author who has been subjected to personal attacks and defamation for decades.
Mann not only examines the interests of the fossil fuel industry, but also those of petrostates and governments. The meagre results of the latest COP show that Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Russia are keen to prevent implementation of climate change measures. As Mann sees it, fossil fuel's self-interest explains Russia's support for both Brexit and Trump's presidential campaign. For him, 'Russia Gate' is synonymous with fossil fuels.
Mann's illuminating survey of lobbying practices includes the story of how the climate debate in Europe has taken the wrong turn in recent years. That Germany, too, is headed the wrong way became clear from an election campaign dominated by a debate around personal travel and meat consumption instead of structural issues. The distractors prevailed.
We easily get more worked up about our neighbour's personal failings than over systemic change.
The diversion campaign shifts responsibility from companies and industry to individuals, whose behaviour and personal decisions are critically scrutinized. The battle is no longer about international financial markets and the commodity exchange--but rather diets and flights.
We easily get more worked up about our neighbour's personal failings than over systemic change. An attack on lifestyles serves well to divide society, as it is bound to identity. Making someone else look bad has become a kind of reward--proof of our own moral superiority. According to Michael Mann, that's dangerous. It creates and sustains a false dilemma that helps get the fossil fuel industry lobby off the hook. Mann is clear that individual behavioural changes are not an alternative to systemic change. We definitely need both. But only changing the system will ensure our future.
Not only does criticising individual behaviour make us lose sight of the real goal, but it also weakens the community of climate advocates. Nagging about dietary and travel choices and about purity and virtue divides the movement. Natural allies attack each other, and the potential recruits from the political centre who are urgently needed to democratically restructure our economic system get scared off.
Mann shows that some activists don't want to just slow down climate change. He distrusts those who turn the fight against global warming into a fight for veganism or anti-capitalism and rejects the view that embracing technical and economic solutions equals being hoodwinked by neoliberalism. Advocating asceticism empowers those who preach that we should do nothing: The 'inactivists'--as Mann calls them--portray climate advocates as freedom-hating totalitarians.
While Mann is not against technology, he warns against pseudo-solutions like geo-engineering. Carbon capture and storage only makes sense for sectors that are hard to decarbonise, such as cement production. A bridge of natural gas with methane leaks leads us nowhere: The problem caused by fossil fuels cannot be solved using any fossil fuel. Nuclear energy's inherent dangers and high cost exclude that, too. Such non-solutions only delay the necessary investments in renewable energies.
Fear does not motivate: Instead, it causes people to turn away from the movement.
Although Mann's views jibe with the young climate protectors of Fridays for Future,they will not like everything he writes. Mann acknowledges that they have managed to push the issue high on the political agenda and maintain public pressure. But he warns against overdoing it. Aggressive blaming and shaming hinders progress. Cautioning about the end of humanity, disparaging all negotiation results and demanding drastic measures can boomerang and make it harder to protect the climate. To get as many people as possible onboard, rather than tongue-lashing and foretelling doomsday, we've got to stress the benefits of what's necessary.
It would be a sad irony if the engaged, progressive camp were to get in its own way by refusing to accept compromise and consensus, or to recognise them as progress. Unfortunately, many climate protectors view any compromise as a hypocritical pretext for doing nothing--or even as cowardice--rather than recognising that it's crucial for peaceful coexistence in a democratic and pluralistic society.
Some activists obviously believe that people have to be shocked and scared into taking climate change seriously. With the fossil fuel lobby strategically using doom mongering, Mann warns that climate protectors' excessive demands and exaggerations--what he calls 'climate doom porn'--play into inactivists' hands. Such apocalyptic reading material sells well. But it doesn't help us fight climate change. Fear does not motivate: Instead, it causes people to turn away from the movement.
According to Mann, we are not facing a dystopia. Obviously, we have got to act--but the global community is capable of acting. Although he credits Greta Thunberg and her movement with stimulating public discussion, Mann has little time for her scolding. Thunberg's accusation that next to nothing is being done is false and condescending towards the efforts being made worldwide. Mann's book helps us to evaluate the results of the most recent climate conference in Glasgow. The glass is half full.
Nevertheless, we must remain vigilant. Mann sees climate protection threatened by the same witches' brew that brought Donald Trump to power in 2016: the meddling of malicious state actors mixed with cynical disgust, even amongst leftists, who declared that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton--so voting was pointless.
Mann's New Climate War shows that we have indulged climate change deniers and opponents of climate policy for too long. Often they were just clever in mass communication. We should no longer give them a bully pulpit. In this respect, too, Mann's book is enlightening. Despite the seriousness of the subject, his book entertains, raises awareness, and inspires optimism. That is how we fight for the climate.
While acknowledging that "hunger is a real issue in Gaza," the US ambassador to the UN repeated a debunked claim that the world's leading authority on starvation lowered its standards to declare a famine.
Every member nation of the United Nations Security Council except the United States on Wednesday affirmed that Israel's engineered famine in Gaza is "man-made" as 10 more Palestinians died of starvation amid what UN experts warned is a worsening crisis.
Fourteen of the 15 Security Council members issued a joint statement calling for an immediate Gaza ceasefire, release of all remaining hostages held by Hamas, and lifting of all Israeli restrictions on aid delivery into the embattled strip, where hundreds of Palestinians have died from starvation and hundreds of thousands more are starving.
"Famine in Gaza must be stopped immediately," they said. "Time is of the essence. The humanitarian emergency must be addressed without delay and Israel must reverse course."
"We express our profound alarm and distress at the IPC data on Gaza, published last Friday. It clearly and unequivocally confirms famine," the statement said, referring to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification's declaration of Phase 5, or a famine "catastrophe," in the strip.
"We trust the IPC's work and methodology," the 14 countries declared. "This is the first time famine has been officially confirmed in the Middle East region. Every day, more persons are dying as a result of malnutrition, many of them children."
"This is a man-made crisis," the statement stresses. "The use of starvation as a weapon of war is clearly prohibited under international humanitarian law."
Israel, which is facing a genocide case at the UN's International Court of Justice, denies the existence of famine in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Court of Justice for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and forced starvation.
The 14 countries issuing the joint statement are: Algeria, China, Denmark, France, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Somalia, and the United Kingdom.
While acknowledging that "hunger is a real issue in Gaza and that there are significant humanitarian needs which must be met," US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea rejected the resolution and the IPC's findings.
"We can only solve problems with credibility and integrity," Shea told the Security Council. "Unfortunately, the recent report from the IPC doesn't pass the test on either."
Shea also repeated the debunked claim that the IPC's "normal standards were changed for [the IPC famine] declaration."
The Security Council's affirmation that the Gaza famine is man-made mirrors the findings of food experts who have accused Israel of orchestrating a carefully planned campaign of mass starvation in the strip.
The UN Palestinian Rights Bureau and UN humanitarian officials also warned Wednesday that the famine in Gaza is "only getting worse."
"Over half a million people currently face starvation, destitution, and death," the humanitarian experts said. "By the end of September, that number could exceed 640,000."
"Failure to act now will have irreversible consequences," they added.
Wednesday's UN actions came as Israel intensified Operation Gideon's Chariots 2, the campaign to conquer, occupy, and ethnically cleanse around 1 million Palestinians from Gaza, possibly into a reportedly proposed concentration camp that would be built over the ruins of the southern city of Rafah.
The Gaza Health Ministry (GHM) on Wednesday reported 10 more Palestinian deaths "due to famine and malnutrition" over the past 24 hours, including two children, bringing the number of famine victims to at least 313, 119 of them children.
All told, Israel's 691-day assault and siege on Gaza has left at least 230,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, according to the GHM.
"What would the reaction would be if an Arab state wrote this about synagogues and Jews?" asked one critic.
Israel faced backlash this week after its Arabic-language account on the social media site X published a message warning Europeans to take action against the proliferation of mosques and "remove" Muslims from their countries.
"In the year 1980, there were only fewer than a hundred mosques in Europe. As for today, there are more than 20,000 mosques. This is the true face of colonization," posted Israel, a settler-colonial state whose nearly 2 million Muslim citizens face widespread discrimination, and where Palestinians in the illegally occupied territories live under an apartheid regime.
"This is what is happening while Europe is oblivious and does not care about the danger," the post continues. "And the danger does not lie in the existence of mosques in and of themselves, for freedom of worship is one of the basic human rights, and every person has the right to believe and worship his Lord."
"The problem lies in the contents that are taught in some of these mosques, and they are not limited to piety and good deeds, but rather focus on encouraging escalating violence in the streets of Europe, and spreading hatred for the other and even for those who host them in their countries, and inciting against them instead of teaching love, harmony, and peace," Israel added. "Europe must wake up and remove this fifth column."
Referring to the far-right Alternative for Germany party, Berlin-based journalist James Jackson replied on X that "even the AfD don't tweet, 'Europe must wake up and remove this fifth column' over a map of mosques."
Other social media users called Israel's post "racist" and "Islamophobic," while some highlighted the stark contrast between the way Palestinians and Israelis treat Christian people and institutions.
Others noted that some of the map's fearmongering figures misleadingly showing a large number of mosques indicate countries whose populations are predominantly or significantly Muslim.
"Russia has 8,000 mosques? Who would've known a country with millions of Muslim Central Asians and Caucasians would need so many!" said one X user.
Israel's post came amid growing international outrage over its 691-day assault and siege on Gaza, which has left more than 230,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and hundreds of thousands more starving and facing ethnic cleansing as Operation Gideon's Chariots 2—a campaign to conquer, occupy, and "cleanse" the strip—ramps up amid a growing engineered famine that has already killed hundreds of people.
Israel is facing an ongoing genocide case at the International Court of Justice, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, are fugitives form the International Criminal Court, where they are wanted for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity including murder and forced starvation.
European nations including Belgium, Ireland, and Spain are supporting the South Africa-led ICJ genocide case against Israel. Since October 2023, European countries including Belgium, France, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and Spain have either formally recognized Palestinian statehood or announced their intention to do so.
"This is unfathomable discrimination against immigrants that will cost our country lives," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
The Trump administration is reportedly putting new restrictions on nonprofit organizations that would bar them from helping undocumented immigrants affected by natural disasters.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is "now barring states and volunteer groups that receive government funds from helping undocumented immigrants" while also requiring these groups "to cooperate with immigration officials and enforcement operations."
Documents obtained by the paper reveal that all volunteer groups that receive government money to help in the wake of disasters must not "operate any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration." What's more, the groups are prohibited from "harboring, concealing, or shielding from detection illegal aliens" and must "provide access to detainees, such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien."
The order pertains to faith-based aid groups such as the Salvation Army and Red Cross that are normally on the front lines building shelters and providing assistance during disasters.
Scott Robinson, an emergency management expert who teaches at Arizona State University, told The Washington Post that there is no historical precedent for requiring disaster victims to prove proof of their legal status before receiving assistance.
"The notion that the federal government would use these operations for surveillance is entirely new territory," he said.
Many critics were quick to attack the administration for threatening to punish nonprofit groups that help undocumented immigrants during natural disasters.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) lashed out at the decision to bar certain people from receiving assistance during humanitarian emergencies.
"When disaster hits, we cannot only help those with certain legal status," she wrote in a social media post. "We have an obligation to help every single person in need. This is unfathomable discrimination against immigrants that will cost our country lives."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that restrictions on faith-based groups such as the Salvation Army amounted to a violation of their First Amendment rights.
"Arguably the most anti-religious administration in history," he wrote. "Just nakedly hostile to those who wish to practice their faith."
Bloomberg columnist Erika Smith labeled the new DHS policy "truly cruel and crazy—even for this administration."
Author Charles Fishman also labeled the new policy "crazy" and said it looks like the Trump administration is "trying to crush even charity."
Catherine Rampell, a former columnist at The Washington Post, simply described the new DHS policy as "evil."