Of course the long-coveted, savagely panned parade for a man-child who would be king was a bust, "a pathetic event for a pathetic president," notably in contrast to the estimated 11 million angry Americans who came out to say, "No Cons, No Clowns, No Dicks, No Kings." The sad poseur raved about Marxist lunatics who want "transgender for everybody," but he evidently missed the silent, stellar protest by scores of Army troops who in "malicious compliance" were in fact doing "the fuck Trump shuffle."

The Continental Army was established 250 years ago this weekend on June 14, 1775 by the Thirteen Colonies as they fought to defend their freedoms against autocrats. Coincidentally, June 14 is also Flag Day, International Bath Day, Knit in Public Day, and the birthday of Che Guevara, yours truly and that orange stain on humanity, Commander Tinpot Bone Spur. So it was that the five-time draft dodger and aspiring despot was fundraising for "my military parade" while arguing America can't afford health care for seniors, free lunch for schoolchildren, HIV drugs for sick children - or more than two dolls each - so "a broken-inside narcissist can pretend he’s not the worthless piece of shit failure his father never stopped telling him he was" and have a bellicose vanity parade like all the other Big Boy Supreme Leaders like North Korea's Kim Jong Un - "We fell in love" - who isn't speaking to him any more.

Pretty much everyone else, including veterans furious about the gutting of the V.A, agreed it was a stupid, vulgar, deeply offensive, hideously timed idea, with Retired Maj. General Paul Easton of VoteVets calling it "an exercise in puffery" echoing Soviets marching around Red Square in the Cold War: "We didn’t do it because our greatest strength was our democracy. Today, that democracy is under attack." Indeed, even as House co-chairs of a new Democratic Veterans Caucus handed out small flags to colleagues because, "Patriotism does not belong to one party," one party was doing its damnedest to shred democratic governance. At that moment, ICE goons were handcuffing Sen. Alex Patilla for asking a question of Nazi Barbie Homeland as she vowed that illegally called-up military won't leave L.A. until they can "liberate" the city from its "socialist," albeit duly elected officials.

There's been a Dem mayor arrested, Dem Rep indicted, Dem comptroller detained, a goading, vicious Tinpot speech (behind bulletproof glass) at Ft. Bragg, a threat protests at his party "will be met with very big force - these are people who hate our country" (nope, just you) - and deranged taunts from a Florida sheriff that if fictional protesters "throw a brick..we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at, because we will kill you graveyard dead." Now, a few days later, we've seen real murders of Dem lawmakers in Minnesota, a Middle East increasingly, mindlessly facing conflagration, our own deportation police state's spiraling effort to render the military and every U.S institution a weapon of a madman's vengeful agenda, and untold reasons why a dog-and-pony-and-tank show for an idiot narcissist was not what we needed at this dark historic moment.

Yet here they came: 6,600 soldiers, Black Hawk helicopters, Chinooks, tanks, P-51 aircraft, B-25 bomber, 34 horses, two mules, robot dogs, paratroopers dropping, soldiers absurdly carrying drones like pizzas, a soundtrack of canned applause and bad covers of 80s rock songs, Lee Greenwood warbling "God Bless the U.S.A," an MC squawking, "Special thanks to our sponsors" - Lockheed Martin, Coinbase, Palantir, UFC, though he left out U.S. tax payers - because, "Corporate sponsorship for autocracy is such an American thing." They even hawked watches by Trump, who's wanted a parade since seeing a 2017 Bastille Day event in Paris; first term Defense Sec. James Mattis said he'd "rather swallow acid." Now Trump blathered, "We’re the hottest country in the world right now...Our warriors will charge into battle. They will plunge into the crucible of fire, and they will seize the crown of victory."

Uh huh. Facts owe: Everything he touches dies. Despite the $45 million price tag, trainloads of tanks and fears of goose-stepping storm-troopers, the day was "a flop at best," "a little underwhelming," a shoddy, bleak vision of aspiring fascism by a low-rent, third-world country whose sweaty denizens endured "a very long and uncomfortable day" of speeches, exhibits, humidity, slow lines, no shade, little food, sticky drizzle, shrieking music, kids clambering on tanks, warm Screamin’ Freedom energy drinks, too few signs - "Nobody knows what’s going on" - and sparse crowds: "I had more people at my bar mitzvah party," "I've seen more people at Applebees on a Tuesday." Much lampooned were near-empty stands of onlookers gazing silent, uncheering, perhaps pondering their life choices as lumbering tanks s-l-o-w-l-y squeaked past. The consensus from one young poet: "It was just...kind of lame."

— (@)

Online, many viewers mocked the sad small crowds peppering the vast National Mall: "I guess they didn't get much interest from the seat-filler Craigslist ad," "It's like watching a poorly attended golf tournament," "What a fucking clown show. What keeps surprising me is how embarrassing it all is - just one shameful, cringey, mortifying moment after another." Drawing particular ire were the "clusterfuck" of sloppy slouching troops, line after line of soldiers in fatigues not marching in step but numbly, blankly sauntering, often out of sync with the cheesy music: "How to embarrass our troops and country in one day," "Sad. Kim Jong Un will not be impressed," "Most ridiculous thing I have ever seen," "The marchers do not appear to be thrilled to be there - maybe they forgot to feed them," "I have seen first graders walking in a crosswalk do better than that."

It took a day or so for astute commentators, especially veterans, to surface and report, "This is 100% a silent protest," a deliberate rejection of “being treated like props for the benefit of an egomaniacal toddler," a "quiet, disciplined Foxtrot Delta Tango that says, 'We're here because we have to be, not because we believe in this clown show.' It’s protest through precision silence and damn, it speaks volumes." "Troops don’t forget how to march," insisted many veterans. "Former army here. It takes about a week of drill in basic to learn how to march. Once you do, it’s ingrained in you for life." Also: "If the cadence is off, they correct. If no one’s calling it, someone steps up. Unless...they don’t want to," "I took JROTC 2 decades ago. I can still march in step. It was absolutely on purpose," "Anyone vaguely familiar with actual military knew this on sight," "It's a big 'fuck you' to Trump from the soldiers."

They posted slick contrasting video to argue, "The Army knows how to march." They noted nobody returned Private Tinpot's limp mock salute; the irony of clueless officials playing Fortunate Son, a song about poor kids fighting in wars that rich kids dodge; the reality that, "To anyone that hasn’t served, it’s actually HARD to be this out of step." They praised "a classic example of messaging whilst under duress, hidden in plain sight" and "showing Don the Con the respect he deserves." They reported young soldiers drinking, hanging out, doing "a lot of eye-rolling" with chatter about playing "cosplay for a dumb ass wannabe dictator like you're a court jester." They celebrated that "6,000 troops voted with their feet on Saturday to tell President Bone Spurs where he can stick any plans for deploying them to enforce martial law." And they said, sincerely, pointedly, "Thank you for your service."

Dear Leader bedecked in cartoon gloryScreenshot from Bluesky

The White House claimed 250,000 people turned up for the whiny toddler's birthday; Planet Earth put the number at 17, or more generously, 40,000 tops. Enraged by yet more failure, "a big tub of rock salt poured on his wounds of lifelong insecurity," he lashed out - because he's a racist psycopath, at brown people and their allies trying to sneak them in to vote, though they're not and they can't. ICE is "herewith ordered, by notice of this TRUTH, to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History,” he raved of abducting dishwashers and house painters in L.A., Chicago, New York, "where millions upon millions of illegal aliens reside." He berated "Radical Left Democrats" who "are sick of mind," "hate our country," "want Transgender for Everybody" and "believe in Open Boarders" (sic), with friendly people staying at their houses.

Deservedly, foreign coverage of the day was merciless. Via Ireland's Waterford Whispers News, North Korea reported America "held a gaudy and vainglorious display of their dwindling military might," with "their inferior leader looking old, confused and tired (as) he sat next to an expensive prostitute and a drunk telvision host for the duration of the parade. In total, $40 million was spent on the parade by the debt-ridden failed state, shamefully so at a time of increasing poverty in the country. Many have noted how pudgy and overweight the Trump looks at a time when Americans struggle for food." They also cited several instances of political violence in a nation "unable to tolerate political dissent...The propaganda exercise was swallowed whole by the dull of mind and incurious of spirit. The helpless sheep believe themselves to be the envy of the world, but the world laughs in their faces."

Fresh from his squeaky-wheeled humiliation, our inferior leader then took his stunning incompetence to the G7 meeting in Alberta, where he made more of an ass of himself. He parroted Russian talking points, misstated history - Obama and "a person named Trudeau" didn't want Russia in G7 - yammered about Dems conspiring with immigrants until Mark Carney shut him up, confused the U.K. and E.U., claimed he made a trade deal before dropping the papers, earned a killer wink from the adults in the room, argued "Iran should have signed the deal I told them to sign" though he himself pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, proclaimed 9 million people "should immediately evacuate Tehran!” and left G7 early while bad-mouthing Macron - "Emmanuel always gets it wrong" - for saying he'd left to work on a ceasefire when he wants "a complete give-up" by Iran. Mr. Art-of-the-Taco strikes again.

— (@)

Back home, he still miserably failed. After the horrific shootings of Minnesota lawmakers, as MAGA-ites raved "the left has become a full blown domestic terrorist organization” about the anti-abortion, Trump-supporting perp, Trump vilely declined to call Gov. Tim Walz because, "The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess...Why waste time?" Meanwhile, rumors swirl about his own (further) cognitive and physical decline, from stumbles to diapers, catheters, his "unmistakable" odor. Mob-boss-like, he's ever more cruel, erratic, incoherent, a dumpster fire of random, head-swiveling "policies" enacted by his Nazi flunkies. He's rarely seen outside the Oval Office or Hell-a-Lago; when he is he nods off, or does nothing but sign illegal executive orders and post vindictive rants. Never up to the emotional, intellectual, moral demands of the job, now his physical decline may be "the last penny to drop."

But even incontinent and deranged, he's still grifting. Along with his $600 million worth of crappy watches, sneakers, Bibles, coins et al, he and his cretinous sons just launched a largely fictional, error-ridden Trump Mobile phone service and a $499 "sleek, gold smartphone engineered for performance" that "looks both bad and impossible" which may or may not ship in August or September unless, you know, it doesn't, but is available to pre-order now to try and fill that gaping hole of endless insatiable greed where a soul should be. The blurb says it's made in America but actually, said Eric right after calling L.A. protesters "mongoloids," that means it could eventually be made in America, "because our ethos is build for Americans, by Americans," maybe even by some of those workers we've disappeared to foreign gulags or are now ripping from their wives and children, they'll need work right?

No wonder up to 11 million Americans "radicalized by basic decency" came out last weekend to say we hate you rapacious shitheads. See us here, here, here with our fabulous signs: "It's A Beautiful Day to Melt Some Ice. No Clowns, No Dicks, No Nazis. Rapist, Felon, Putting the Dick Into Dictatorship. Deport Oligarchs Not Immigrants. Rejecting Kings Since 1776. This Sucks. Fuck Trump. Fuck ICE." Rev. William Barber: "Remember that no one can become our king if we refuse to bow." Cue 87-year-old veteran John Spitzberg, arrested for peacefully protesting with about 75 veterans who crossed a police line; one cop cuffed him, wobbly, behind his back - comrades yelled "Shame, Shame, Shame!" - as another wheeled away his walker. How did arrest at 87 feel, he was asked. "I'm just beginning, my friend," he said. "I'm gonna just get a little sleep, and I'm starting again."

Pictures of the parade crowd released by White HouseScreenshot from Bluesky

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Abby Zimet.

Trump said Wednesday he would impose an extra 50% tariff on Chinese goods if Beijing doesn’t drop the retaliatory 34% tariff it placed on U.S. products last week.

China and the U.S. are waging a tit-for-tat trade battle, which threatens to stunt the global economy, after Trump announced new tariffs on most countries last week, including a 34% tariff on Chinese goods. That was on top of an earlier 20% tariff on China in response to fentanyl trafficking.

“The US threat to escalate tariffs against China is a mistake on top of a mistake, which once again exposes the US’s blackmailing nature,” China’s commerce ministry said in a statement Tuesday.

“China will never accept this. If the US insists on going its own way, China will fight it to the end,” the ministry said. “If the US escalates its tariff measures, China will resolutely take countermeasures to safeguard its own rights and interests.”

​Trump upended the global trade status quo on April 2, imposing a universal 10% tariff on all imports, effective April 5, and additional tariffs on dozens of countries deemed to have unfair trade practices, effective April 9.

In this announcement, Trump singled out China as one of the “nations that treat us badly.” America’s trade deficit – the amount that imports exceed exports – with China was US$295.4 billion last year, the largest of any country.

Trump’s tariffs sent shockwaves through world markets. Japan’s Nikkei 225 plunged nearly 8% on Monday, triggering a temporary trading halt, before rebounding 5.5% later in the day. The S&P 500 index is down nearly 10% over five days.

Analysts warned that export-driven Asian economies are likely to be among the hardest hit by the U.S. tariff hikes.

With the April 9 deadline approaching, some countries are urgently seeking trade agreements with the Trump administration in an effort to minimize the damage to their economies.

Japan ‘getting priority’

Japan is sending a team to Washington to negotiate on trade, according to Trump, who said that he spoke on Monday with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. Separately, Shigeru said he told Trump to rethink tariffs.

Trump has put Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in charge of trade negotiations with Japan, Bessent said on social media.

Bessent, in a Fox News interview, said that he had not yet seen any proposals from Tokyo, but that he expected to have successful negotiations to reduce Japan’s non-tariff trade barriers.

Japan is among 50 to 70 countries that have approached the Trump administration so far about negotiations, Bessent said.

“Japan is a very important military ally. They’re a very important economic ally, and the U.S. has a lot of history with them,” he said. “So I would expect that Japan is going to get priority just because they came forward very quickly.”

In South Korea, Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok and other policymakers reviewed their strategy ahead of the trade minister’s visit to the U.S. this week, according to the finance ministry.

During the visit from Tuesday to Wednesday, Cheong In-kyo, the South’s minister for trade, plans to meet with Greer and make a request to lower the 25% rate, the trade ministry said.

Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te has said that Taiwan has no plans to retaliate with tariffs of its own against the U.S.

Taiwanese companies’ investment commitments to the U.S. would not change as long as they are in line with the democratic island’s national interests, Lai has said.

In Hong Kong, whose special trading privileges were removed by a Trump executive order in 2020, Financial Secretary Paul Chan said the city won’t impose countermeasures on the U.S., public broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong reported.

“Hong Kong should remain free and open,” he said.

Vietnamese appeal

Meanwhile, Vietnam’s offer to lower its trade barriers to delay the implementation of U.S. tariffs has been rejected by a White House adviser.

Deputy Prime Minister Bui Thanh Son met with the U.S. ambassador to Vietnam, Marc E. Knapper, on Sunday and reiterated his country’s willingness to lower the import tariff rate on U.S. products to zero in hope of postponing the onset of the new tariffs.

“Vietnam is ready to negotiate to bring the import tariff rate to 0% for US goods, increase procurement of US products that are strong and in demand by Vietnam, and at the same time create more favorable conditions for US enterprises to do business and invest in Vietnam,” said Son, cited by the government’s official information channel.

However, U.S. senior trade counselor Peter Navarro rejected this possibility later that day.

“This is not a negotiation, this is a national emergency based on a trade deficit that’s gotten out of control because of cheating,” Navarro told Fox News.

Even if both sides lowered tariffs to zero, the U.S. would still have a U$120 billion annual trade deficit with Vietnam, he said.

Vietnam consistently rebrands Chinese exports as its own products before shipping these to the U.S., Navarro said.

It also utilizes export subsidies, currency manipulation and “fake standards” which prevent U.S. manufacturers from making headway in Asian markets, he said.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet wrote a letter dated Friday seeking negotiations and for the U.S. to delay the 49% tariff to be imposed from April 9.

Hun Manet said that Cambodia would immediately reduce its top 35% tariff on American goods to 5% percent in 19 product categories, including American whiskey and beef.

In Thailand, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra announced on Sunday that Thailand will enter into talks with the U.S. following the imposition of tariffs on Thai goods.

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira will travel to the U.S. for discussions with key stakeholders.

“Thailand has been a long-term, reliable economic partner and ally of the U.S., not merely an exporter,” Shinawatra said in a statement.

Edited by Stephen Wright.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Amid a standout season last year, University of Illinois men’s basketball stars found themselves in high demand as they reached the Elite Eight in the 2024 NCAA Tournament.

Three players appeared in a commercial for a local BMW dealership.

One did an Instagram post for TurboTax.

Another promoted an apartment complex near the Urbana-Champaign campus.

But not one of those endorsements — which are allowed now that student-athletes can profit from their personal brands — was reported to the university, as state law requires.

In fact, the entire Illini team reported just $9,100 in name, image and likeness deals during the 2023-24 season, according to records obtained by the Chicago Tribune and ProPublica. By comparison, the average earnings reported for a male basketball player in the Big Ten and the three other biggest college conferences were more than $145,000 during that school year, according to data that institutions voluntarily provided to the NCAA.

The Illini basketball team’s missing disclosures reflect an indifference to documenting NIL deals across the athletic department, the news organizations found. Athletes from 20 sports combined have reported earning only about $1.2 million in three-plus years, compared with the $20 million Ohio State University’s football team reportedly received in a single year, or a University of Missouri quarterback who alone is estimated to have made more than $1 million in NIL deals.

By shrugging its shoulders at Illinois’ reporting requirements, the university is failing to compile a complete picture of how its students — some of them still teenagers — are navigating a relatively new terrain rife with legal, moral and financial pitfalls.

“I find that maddening and irresponsible,” said Bill Carter, founder of Student-Athlete Insights, which provides NIL consulting services. “It seems unethical to me to allow 18-to-23-year-olds to participate in something life-altering like this but provide no structure, no support, no direction.”

Officials from the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics say they inform the school’s athletes of their responsibilities but acknowledge they do not enforce compliance, despite the Illinois law requiring athletes to disclose all deals to their schools. The officials downplayed those failures by asserting that reporting is spotty nationwide.

Athletes “should just disclose the deals, but both here and across the country, they just kind of don’t really do that,” Kamron Cox, a U of I assistant athletic director and the school’s NIL specialist, said in an interview.

In a three-page response to questions, the athletic department acknowledged students are underreporting their earnings and did not dispute any of the figures in this story. The statement noted it is students’ responsibility to report NIL agreements and said the university has fulfilled its obligations under the law by paying for an app that allows athletes to do so. It called the state’s disclosure rules — which the university had advocated for — “ineffective,” noting the law carries no penalties and arguing that punishing players internally would harm the institution’s reputation.

“Our program, like most across the country, is doing its best to navigate in uncharted waters,” the statement said. It contended that 70% of NIL deals nationwide go unreported, citing one industry insider whose estimates have varied. “Blind adherence to an untenable process does not appear to be the expectation of the state, the NCAA, or our industry.”

Administrators also said they do not know how much money Illini basketball players — or any of the student-athletes — are receiving through NIL, even though today’s collegiate marketplace requires understanding the amounts needed to recruit and retain star athletes.

That lack of knowledge “is not possible and it’s not believable,” Carter said.

More than 20 states, including Illinois, passed laws requiring athletes to disclose their deals after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled four years ago that collegiate competitors have the right to make money. ProPublica and the Tribune obtained records of the deals reported by U of I athletes from July 2021 through October 2024 via the Freedom of Information Act, offering the public a rare look at the lack of accountability in the big-money world of college sports.

The records the U of I provided to the Tribune and ProPublica included 1,037 deals across all sports with the names of the athletes redacted by agreement. Sponsored social media posts were, by far, the most frequent way athletes reported earning money, followed by autograph signings and personal appearances.

In this far-from-complete data, deals ranged from a male basketball player’s $326,000 arrangement with a Porsche dealership in Kentucky to $10 for a track athlete to endorse a men’s soap called “Freshticles.”

The Illinois law on NIL requires athletes to provide their schools with copies of contracts when the deals are valued at $500 or more. Illini athletes reported more than 175 deals that meet that standard. But when the news organizations filed a public records request seeking contracts for 12 of the largest reported deals, a university administrator responded that the campus did not have any of them.

“There is nothing in the Illinois law that would be difficult for any Big Ten athletic program to follow,” said Michael LeRoy, a labor and employment relations professor at U of I and former chair of the school’s athletic board. “But they’re clearly choosing not to do it. You have to wonder why.”

The NCAA declined to speak with reporters for this story, but it has issued multiple statements stressing the need for transparency in NIL agreements. It established a policy last year to encourage athletes nationwide to report deals to their institutions, so schools could then provide the information to the NCAA to make available on a public dashboard intended to help students navigate the NIL marketplace.

But up to now, there have been no consequences for athletes or institutions that fall short.

That could soon change. Next week, a $2.8 billion settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought by student-athletes against the NCAA is expected to gain final approval, shifting the landscape again. Under the deal, known as the House settlement after one of the plaintiffs, a school would be able to pay its athletes directly from a revenue-sharing budget capped at $20.5 million for the next school year.

Schools also could be directly involved in negotiating NIL deals for their athletes, and deals worth at least $600 and those made with collectives would need to be reported to an outside entity. That entity would evaluate whether the payments align with a fair market value and ensure the money is not a pay-to-play deal. Those reports are not expected to be made public.

The four largest conferences — the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Southeastern Conference and Big 12 — have said they plan to create an organization that would both implement and enforce the rules as the NCAA’s oversight role shrinks. It also could issue penalties.

“The ante has been upped,” said Joshua Lens, a University of Iowa sports management professor who has studied NIL extensively. “It will require disclosure like we have all along, but now … the schools and athletes could be penalized.”

The NIL era in Illinois began on June 29, 2021, at the State Farm Center on the University of Illinois campus. Gov. JB Pritzker signed the groundbreaking legislation, known as the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act, while surrounded by several Illini athletes, including gymnast Dylan Kolak.

Illinois was among the first states to pass an NIL law, and Kolak was ready to seize the moment. He had begun making TikTok videos during the pandemic to promote men’s gymnastics and fitness, amassing more than 500,000 followers in a little over a year.

When companies approached him about the possibility of endorsement deals, Kolak said he either ignored their messages or explained that NCAA rules prohibited him from earning money that way. For Kolak, a partial-scholarship athlete who excelled at the floor exercise and vault, it stung each time he passed up an offer.

Watch video ➜

He’s the type of athlete state Rep. Kam Buckner, a former Illini defensive lineman, had in mind when the Chicago Democrat sponsored legislation codifying moneymaking opportunities for student-athletes. He was joined by two former Northwestern University athletes, state Sen. Napoleon Harris and Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch.

Buckner said he remembered what it was like to be a college athlete and need extra cash for necessities.

“In a way, it had the underlying air of indentured servitude where you don’t even own your own space,” Buckner said. “And so for me, this was about fairness.”

The state law’s rules for NIL are straightforward: Athletes can’t take money from the gambling, tobacco or alcohol industries. They can’t use a university logo without permission. They can’t wear their uniforms in advertisements unless they have prior approval from their institutions.

And they have to report their NIL deals to their schools. From Buckner’s standpoint, that clause offered universities and their athletes a baseline for understanding what kind of deals — and what kind of dollars — were available in this new and unfamiliar world. The data also could help identify any gender or racial gaps that emerged, Buckner said.

By all accounts, the school took the reporting requirement seriously in the beginning.

“We were told to report our deals constantly,” Kolak said. “We were told we could lose our eligibility if we didn’t. Nobody wanted to risk that.”

Kolak said he reported everything that came his way, including $900 for an Instagram post about a face wash, $1,300 for promoting men’s shoes on TikTok and $2,375 for documenting his physical therapy at Athletico.

The reporting requirement became so ingrained in Kolak and his teammates in those early NIL days that the men’s gymnastics squad logged 128 deals in 2021 and 2022. It was the most of any Illini men’s team, with only women’s softball recording more deals.

The number dropped significantly, however, by 2023 and 2024, after the university stopped stressing the importance of reporting. The men’s gymnastics team reported just 44 deals in those years — still the most reported by any men’s team.

Cox, the U of I assistant athletic director, said he regularly reminded students about the disclosure rules during the first year of NIL. But after the NCAA in October 2022 barred schools from arranging or negotiating NIL deals for athletes, the department stopped stressing the importance of reporting, according to Cox.

The fall 2022 guidance didn’t say to stop, however. In fact, it stated, “when permitted by applicable state laws — schools can and should require student-athletes to report NIL activities to the athletics department.”

Roger Denny, the U of I athletic department’s chief operating officer, said in an interview that the department still conducts several presentations each year for athletes to go over contracts, taxes and disclosure rules. The department’s statement said it sends weekly emails to athletes and conducts sessions with an NIL consultant. Asked for an example of the emails, the department shared the most recent newsletter, in which the last item reminded athletes to disclose their NIL deals.

Buckner, the Illinois lawmaker, said that he was unaware of the reporting practices and the rules should be followed so athletes understand the playing field. “I don’t believe in just throwing arbitrary mechanisms into policy that aren’t followed,” he said. “If they’re not doing what they’re intended to do, we’ve got to figure out how to change that.”

The university’s lack of attention to students’ reporting is apparent in the school’s data, which shows the reported value of NIL deals dropped by 85% on the Urbana-Champaign campus in the 2023-24 academic year. According to the records, student-athletes reported making a total of just $103,000 that year, down from $702,500 in 2022-23.

Illini gymnast Sam Phillips, a two-time All-American who transferred from the University of Nebraska last year, said NIL rules were mentioned at a meeting for new U of I athletes. But there hasn’t been additional discussion about NIL, he said. By contrast, at Nebraska, Phillips said he regularly received advice from an athletic department compliance officer who reminded him to disclose his deals to the university.

He did so through an app that many universities use called Opendorse, which helps athletes find NIL deals and report them to university officials. U of I is spending $260,000 on a contract with Opendorse through mid-2026, which the athletic department said fulfills its obligation under the state’s NIL law to facilitate reporting.

Nebraska’s compliance officer reviewed each of Phillips’ agreements at that school, according to the app, but as of December there was no indication U of I had examined the deals Phillips had reached since his transfer, including with Abbott, Degree deodorant and Savage X Fenty underwear. The university said its athletic department reviews deals submitted through Opendorse but that it does not document it on the app and it is not required to.

“I haven’t spoken to anyone in [the U of I] administration at all,” said Phillips, a nonscholarship athlete who uses the money to pay for living expenses. “It has been on my own.”

At Illinois, the reporting failures are best exemplified through the university’s marquee men’s sports: football and basketball.

Relying on social media, news releases and media interviews, ProPublica and the Tribune identified dozens of endorsements that were not included in the database provided by U of I. The missing endorsements include several promoted during March Madness in 2024, including the TurboTax ad from basketball player Marcus Domask and a popular commercial for a Serra Champaign car dealership that featured three of his teammates.

In that ad, Terrence Shannon Jr., Coleman Hawkins and Ty Rodgers wore Groucho Marx glasses as they sought an autograph from Illini teen superfan Tommy Rouse. The players, who have all driven luxury vehicles from Serra, had their cars cleaned while they shot the video in the showroom, according to dealership owner Ben Quattrone.

Quattrone, a longtime supporter of the athletic department, said he has sold cars to athletes at hefty discounts in exchange for their appearances and participation in ads, as well as provided car washes in exchange for signed basketballs, all permitted under the NIL rules. He estimates he has spent about $150,000 in the past few years to purchase TV ads and other media promotions featuring Illini athletes.

Illini athletes have posted videos on social media showing them driving BMWs, including a BMW XM, an SUV with a sticker price of $160,000. “I make them a ridiculously good deal,” said Quattrone.

Watch video ➜

No Illinois athlete, however, has disclosed a deal with Serra to the university, records show. Quattrone said he reminds athletes to set aside money to pay taxes on their NIL deals but said he was unsure of their reporting obligations to the university.

Around the same time as the Serra ad came out, the Pacifica on Green — a new apartment complex that caters to students — also tried to capitalize on the success of the university’s basketball team and its football program. The Tribune and ProPublica identified at least six football and men’s basketball players featured on the apartment complex’s Instagram, including then-Illini forward Dain Dainja, who appeared in multiple posts throughout the 2023-24 season.

In one post, which celebrated the team advancing to the Elite Eight, Pacifica gave a signed Dainja jersey to a tenant who renewed his lease during March Madness. An earlier photo showed Dainja signing the jersey for the renewal promotion while wearing an olive green Pacifica T-shirt.

No men’s basketball or football players disclosed receiving any kind of payment from the complex. Only one Illini athlete — a female basketball player — told the university about receiving compensation from Pacifica: more than $16,000 for Instagram reels, according to the data.

Watch video ➜

None of the athletes in the Serra, Pacifica or TurboTax promotions or their representatives agreed to comment for this story. A Pacifica representative also did not respond to interview requests.

The failure by many male athletes to disclose their deals also makes it difficult to assess differences in NIL compensation between male and female students at U of I — a stated goal of the Illinois law’s lead sponsor.

That a gender gap exists is clear, despite the flawed nature of the data. In the three-year period examined by the Tribune and ProPublica, male athletes accounted for more than $1 million in reported earnings, compared with $160,000 total for female athletes.

But in the 2023-24 school year, after administrators stopped stressing the importance of reporting, men disclosed only $44,500 in NIL deals, compared with $58,500 for the women.

The falloff in reporting also obscures the role played by a boosterlike nonprofit organization called the Icon Collective in raising NIL money for Illinois student-athletes. Such collectives have become common at many universities, raising millions of dollars paid to players in exchange for community service such as volunteering at a food bank.

Icon is supposed to be independent from the U of I’s athletic department, though records show they work together on everything from athlete appearances to the beer sold at Memorial Stadium.

In announcing Icon’s launch in early 2023, a university press release said the collective had raised more than $1.5 million intended for student-athletes.

But Illini athletes reported receiving only about $99,000 from Icon between February 2023 and October 2024, with the bulk of it — $75,000 — going to Illini football players. No men’s basketball players reported receiving any money via the collective, though the group regularly uses images of men’s players in its marketing material.

Icon’s president, Kathleen Knight, a former athletic department employee, declined to answer questions about the inconsistencies between the athletes’ reports and her organization’s purported fundraising.

In a brief statement, Knight said Icon does not publicly share its financial information.

Cox, the assistant athletic director and NIL specialist, said he does not know how much money Icon has distributed to its athletes, in part because of the lack of disclosures.

The university made a similar statement on Thursday. Leadership of the athletic department “remains unaware of the terms of Icon’s agreements with most of our student-athletes,” it said.

Several experts told ProPublica and the Tribune that the idea an athletic department wouldn’t know the amount of money a collective gave to its athletes defies credulity, given the well-known financial demands of the college marketplace and the typically close relationships between collectives and athletic departments.

“It’s not even putting their head in the sand,” said Carter, the NIL expert. “It’s patently false.”

At a congressional hearing last month, Illini athletic director Josh Whitman talked about the future of NIL and the importance of creating national standards for revenue-sharing and NIL deals instead of a patchwork of state-by-state legislation.

“We certainly don’t have an interest in micromanaging those opportunities for our student athletes,” he told federal lawmakers. “But it is important that we do try and create some system to monitor that, to create some level of transparency. Our student-athletes want that transparency.”

U of I administrators, however, have argued against public transparency when it comes to NIL deals. Cox, also an adjunct professor at the university’s law school, wrote in a law publication last year that “the best move for all institutions to support student-athletes is to refuse disclosure of student-athlete NIL information as a matter of policy.”

Administrators then succeeded in getting a law passed that they contend exempts NIL records from the Freedom of Information Act, severely hindering any further public analysis or accountability. Indeed, the U of I said in early January that it would no longer release the type of records obtained by the Tribune and ProPublica for this investigation.

“Our position is that that’s not the public’s business,” Whitman told a reporter last year.

The Illinois athletic department also referenced the FOIA exemption in its three-page response to ProPublica and the Tribune, saying that although there is public desire for NIL information, “the privacy of students is the more pressing concern.”

But even as Illinois administrators pushed to change the law last year, the requirement that athletes report the deals to their institutions remained. And athletes will be required to disclose their deals under the House settlement — a mandate the university celebrated in its written statement.

In the face of “strong and swift accountability,” officials said, their athletes would comply.

Joe Mahr of the Chicago Tribune contributed data analysis. Mariam Elba of ProPublica contributed research reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Stacy St. Clair, Chicago Tribune, and Jodi S. Cohen, ProPublica.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Amid a standout season last year, University of Illinois men’s basketball stars found themselves in high demand as they reached the Elite Eight in the 2024 NCAA Tournament.

Three players appeared in a commercial for a local BMW dealership.

One did an Instagram post for TurboTax.

Another promoted an apartment complex near the Urbana-Champaign campus.

But not one of those endorsements — which are allowed now that student-athletes can profit from their personal brands — was reported to the university, as state law requires.

In fact, the entire Illini team reported just $9,100 in name, image and likeness deals during the 2023-24 season, according to records obtained by the Chicago Tribune and ProPublica. By comparison, the average earnings reported for a male basketball player in the Big Ten and the three other biggest college conferences were more than $145,000 during that school year, according to data that institutions voluntarily provided to the NCAA.

The Illini basketball team’s missing disclosures reflect an indifference to documenting NIL deals across the athletic department, the news organizations found. Athletes from 20 sports combined have reported earning only about $1.2 million in three-plus years, compared with the $20 million Ohio State University’s football team reportedly received in a single year, or a University of Missouri quarterback who alone is estimated to have made more than $1 million in NIL deals.

By shrugging its shoulders at Illinois’ reporting requirements, the university is failing to compile a complete picture of how its students — some of them still teenagers — are navigating a relatively new terrain rife with legal, moral and financial pitfalls.

“I find that maddening and irresponsible,” said Bill Carter, founder of Student-Athlete Insights, which provides NIL consulting services. “It seems unethical to me to allow 18-to-23-year-olds to participate in something life-altering like this but provide no structure, no support, no direction.”

Officials from the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics say they inform the school’s athletes of their responsibilities but acknowledge they do not enforce compliance, despite the Illinois law requiring athletes to disclose all deals to their schools. The officials downplayed those failures by asserting that reporting is spotty nationwide.

Athletes “should just disclose the deals, but both here and across the country, they just kind of don’t really do that,” Kamron Cox, a U of I assistant athletic director and the school’s NIL specialist, said in an interview.

In a three-page response to questions, the athletic department acknowledged students are underreporting their earnings and did not dispute any of the figures in this story. The statement noted it is students’ responsibility to report NIL agreements and said the university has fulfilled its obligations under the law by paying for an app that allows athletes to do so. It called the state’s disclosure rules — which the university had advocated for — “ineffective,” noting the law carries no penalties and arguing that punishing players internally would harm the institution’s reputation.

“Our program, like most across the country, is doing its best to navigate in uncharted waters,” the statement said. It contended that 70% of NIL deals nationwide go unreported, citing one industry insider whose estimates have varied. “Blind adherence to an untenable process does not appear to be the expectation of the state, the NCAA, or our industry.”

Administrators also said they do not know how much money Illini basketball players — or any of the student-athletes — are receiving through NIL, even though today’s collegiate marketplace requires understanding the amounts needed to recruit and retain star athletes.

That lack of knowledge “is not possible and it’s not believable,” Carter said.

More than 20 states, including Illinois, passed laws requiring athletes to disclose their deals after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled four years ago that collegiate competitors have the right to make money. ProPublica and the Tribune obtained records of the deals reported by U of I athletes from July 2021 through October 2024 via the Freedom of Information Act, offering the public a rare look at the lack of accountability in the big-money world of college sports.

The records the U of I provided to the Tribune and ProPublica included 1,037 deals across all sports with the names of the athletes redacted by agreement. Sponsored social media posts were, by far, the most frequent way athletes reported earning money, followed by autograph signings and personal appearances.

In this far-from-complete data, deals ranged from a male basketball player’s $326,000 arrangement with a Porsche dealership in Kentucky to $10 for a track athlete to endorse a men’s soap called “Freshticles.”

The Illinois law on NIL requires athletes to provide their schools with copies of contracts when the deals are valued at $500 or more. Illini athletes reported more than 175 deals that meet that standard. But when the news organizations filed a public records request seeking contracts for 12 of the largest reported deals, a university administrator responded that the campus did not have any of them.

“There is nothing in the Illinois law that would be difficult for any Big Ten athletic program to follow,” said Michael LeRoy, a labor and employment relations professor at U of I and former chair of the school’s athletic board. “But they’re clearly choosing not to do it. You have to wonder why.”

The NCAA declined to speak with reporters for this story, but it has issued multiple statements stressing the need for transparency in NIL agreements. It established a policy last year to encourage athletes nationwide to report deals to their institutions, so schools could then provide the information to the NCAA to make available on a public dashboard intended to help students navigate the NIL marketplace.

But up to now, there have been no consequences for athletes or institutions that fall short.

That could soon change. Next week, a $2.8 billion settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought by student-athletes against the NCAA is expected to gain final approval, shifting the landscape again. Under the deal, known as the House settlement after one of the plaintiffs, a school would be able to pay its athletes directly from a revenue-sharing budget capped at $20.5 million for the next school year.

Schools also could be directly involved in negotiating NIL deals for their athletes, and deals worth at least $600 and those made with collectives would need to be reported to an outside entity. That entity would evaluate whether the payments align with a fair market value and ensure the money is not a pay-to-play deal. Those reports are not expected to be made public.

The four largest conferences — the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Southeastern Conference and Big 12 — have said they plan to create an organization that would both implement and enforce the rules as the NCAA’s oversight role shrinks. It also could issue penalties.

“The ante has been upped,” said Joshua Lens, a University of Iowa sports management professor who has studied NIL extensively. “It will require disclosure like we have all along, but now … the schools and athletes could be penalized.”

The NIL era in Illinois began on June 29, 2021, at the State Farm Center on the University of Illinois campus. Gov. JB Pritzker signed the groundbreaking legislation, known as the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act, while surrounded by several Illini athletes, including gymnast Dylan Kolak.

Illinois was among the first states to pass an NIL law, and Kolak was ready to seize the moment. He had begun making TikTok videos during the pandemic to promote men’s gymnastics and fitness, amassing more than 500,000 followers in a little over a year.

When companies approached him about the possibility of endorsement deals, Kolak said he either ignored their messages or explained that NCAA rules prohibited him from earning money that way. For Kolak, a partial-scholarship athlete who excelled at the floor exercise and vault, it stung each time he passed up an offer.

Watch video ➜

He’s the type of athlete state Rep. Kam Buckner, a former Illini defensive lineman, had in mind when the Chicago Democrat sponsored legislation codifying moneymaking opportunities for student-athletes. He was joined by two former Northwestern University athletes, state Sen. Napoleon Harris and Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch.

Buckner said he remembered what it was like to be a college athlete and need extra cash for necessities.

“In a way, it had the underlying air of indentured servitude where you don’t even own your own space,” Buckner said. “And so for me, this was about fairness.”

The state law’s rules for NIL are straightforward: Athletes can’t take money from the gambling, tobacco or alcohol industries. They can’t use a university logo without permission. They can’t wear their uniforms in advertisements unless they have prior approval from their institutions.

And they have to report their NIL deals to their schools. From Buckner’s standpoint, that clause offered universities and their athletes a baseline for understanding what kind of deals — and what kind of dollars — were available in this new and unfamiliar world. The data also could help identify any gender or racial gaps that emerged, Buckner said.

By all accounts, the school took the reporting requirement seriously in the beginning.

“We were told to report our deals constantly,” Kolak said. “We were told we could lose our eligibility if we didn’t. Nobody wanted to risk that.”

Kolak said he reported everything that came his way, including $900 for an Instagram post about a face wash, $1,300 for promoting men’s shoes on TikTok and $2,375 for documenting his physical therapy at Athletico.

The reporting requirement became so ingrained in Kolak and his teammates in those early NIL days that the men’s gymnastics squad logged 128 deals in 2021 and 2022. It was the most of any Illini men’s team, with only women’s softball recording more deals.

The number dropped significantly, however, by 2023 and 2024, after the university stopped stressing the importance of reporting. The men’s gymnastics team reported just 44 deals in those years — still the most reported by any men’s team.

Cox, the U of I assistant athletic director, said he regularly reminded students about the disclosure rules during the first year of NIL. But after the NCAA in October 2022 barred schools from arranging or negotiating NIL deals for athletes, the department stopped stressing the importance of reporting, according to Cox.

The fall 2022 guidance didn’t say to stop, however. In fact, it stated, “when permitted by applicable state laws — schools can and should require student-athletes to report NIL activities to the athletics department.”

Roger Denny, the U of I athletic department’s chief operating officer, said in an interview that the department still conducts several presentations each year for athletes to go over contracts, taxes and disclosure rules. The department’s statement said it sends weekly emails to athletes and conducts sessions with an NIL consultant. Asked for an example of the emails, the department shared the most recent newsletter, in which the last item reminded athletes to disclose their NIL deals.

Buckner, the Illinois lawmaker, said that he was unaware of the reporting practices and the rules should be followed so athletes understand the playing field. “I don’t believe in just throwing arbitrary mechanisms into policy that aren’t followed,” he said. “If they’re not doing what they’re intended to do, we’ve got to figure out how to change that.”

The university’s lack of attention to students’ reporting is apparent in the school’s data, which shows the reported value of NIL deals dropped by 85% on the Urbana-Champaign campus in the 2023-24 academic year. According to the records, student-athletes reported making a total of just $103,000 that year, down from $702,500 in 2022-23.

Illini gymnast Sam Phillips, a two-time All-American who transferred from the University of Nebraska last year, said NIL rules were mentioned at a meeting for new U of I athletes. But there hasn’t been additional discussion about NIL, he said. By contrast, at Nebraska, Phillips said he regularly received advice from an athletic department compliance officer who reminded him to disclose his deals to the university.

He did so through an app that many universities use called Opendorse, which helps athletes find NIL deals and report them to university officials. U of I is spending $260,000 on a contract with Opendorse through mid-2026, which the athletic department said fulfills its obligation under the state’s NIL law to facilitate reporting.

Nebraska’s compliance officer reviewed each of Phillips’ agreements at that school, according to the app, but as of December there was no indication U of I had examined the deals Phillips had reached since his transfer, including with Abbott, Degree deodorant and Savage X Fenty underwear. The university said its athletic department reviews deals submitted through Opendorse but that it does not document it on the app and it is not required to.

“I haven’t spoken to anyone in [the U of I] administration at all,” said Phillips, a nonscholarship athlete who uses the money to pay for living expenses. “It has been on my own.”

At Illinois, the reporting failures are best exemplified through the university’s marquee men’s sports: football and basketball.

Relying on social media, news releases and media interviews, ProPublica and the Tribune identified dozens of endorsements that were not included in the database provided by U of I. The missing endorsements include several promoted during March Madness in 2024, including the TurboTax ad from basketball player Marcus Domask and a popular commercial for a Serra Champaign car dealership that featured three of his teammates.

In that ad, Terrence Shannon Jr., Coleman Hawkins and Ty Rodgers wore Groucho Marx glasses as they sought an autograph from Illini teen superfan Tommy Rouse. The players, who have all driven luxury vehicles from Serra, had their cars cleaned while they shot the video in the showroom, according to dealership owner Ben Quattrone.

Quattrone, a longtime supporter of the athletic department, said he has sold cars to athletes at hefty discounts in exchange for their appearances and participation in ads, as well as provided car washes in exchange for signed basketballs, all permitted under the NIL rules. He estimates he has spent about $150,000 in the past few years to purchase TV ads and other media promotions featuring Illini athletes.

Illini athletes have posted videos on social media showing them driving BMWs, including a BMW XM, an SUV with a sticker price of $160,000. “I make them a ridiculously good deal,” said Quattrone.

Watch video ➜

No Illinois athlete, however, has disclosed a deal with Serra to the university, records show. Quattrone said he reminds athletes to set aside money to pay taxes on their NIL deals but said he was unsure of their reporting obligations to the university.

Around the same time as the Serra ad came out, the Pacifica on Green — a new apartment complex that caters to students — also tried to capitalize on the success of the university’s basketball team and its football program. The Tribune and ProPublica identified at least six football and men’s basketball players featured on the apartment complex’s Instagram, including then-Illini forward Dain Dainja, who appeared in multiple posts throughout the 2023-24 season.

In one post, which celebrated the team advancing to the Elite Eight, Pacifica gave a signed Dainja jersey to a tenant who renewed his lease during March Madness. An earlier photo showed Dainja signing the jersey for the renewal promotion while wearing an olive green Pacifica T-shirt.

No men’s basketball or football players disclosed receiving any kind of payment from the complex. Only one Illini athlete — a female basketball player — told the university about receiving compensation from Pacifica: more than $16,000 for Instagram reels, according to the data.

Watch video ➜

None of the athletes in the Serra, Pacifica or TurboTax promotions or their representatives agreed to comment for this story. A Pacifica representative also did not respond to interview requests.

The failure by many male athletes to disclose their deals also makes it difficult to assess differences in NIL compensation between male and female students at U of I — a stated goal of the Illinois law’s lead sponsor.

That a gender gap exists is clear, despite the flawed nature of the data. In the three-year period examined by the Tribune and ProPublica, male athletes accounted for more than $1 million in reported earnings, compared with $160,000 total for female athletes.

But in the 2023-24 school year, after administrators stopped stressing the importance of reporting, men disclosed only $44,500 in NIL deals, compared with $58,500 for the women.

The falloff in reporting also obscures the role played by a boosterlike nonprofit organization called the Icon Collective in raising NIL money for Illinois student-athletes. Such collectives have become common at many universities, raising millions of dollars paid to players in exchange for community service such as volunteering at a food bank.

Icon is supposed to be independent from the U of I’s athletic department, though records show they work together on everything from athlete appearances to the beer sold at Memorial Stadium.

In announcing Icon’s launch in early 2023, a university press release said the collective had raised more than $1.5 million intended for student-athletes.

But Illini athletes reported receiving only about $99,000 from Icon between February 2023 and October 2024, with the bulk of it — $75,000 — going to Illini football players. No men’s basketball players reported receiving any money via the collective, though the group regularly uses images of men’s players in its marketing material.

Icon’s president, Kathleen Knight, a former athletic department employee, declined to answer questions about the inconsistencies between the athletes’ reports and her organization’s purported fundraising.

In a brief statement, Knight said Icon does not publicly share its financial information.

Cox, the assistant athletic director and NIL specialist, said he does not know how much money Icon has distributed to its athletes, in part because of the lack of disclosures.

The university made a similar statement on Thursday. Leadership of the athletic department “remains unaware of the terms of Icon’s agreements with most of our student-athletes,” it said.

Several experts told ProPublica and the Tribune that the idea an athletic department wouldn’t know the amount of money a collective gave to its athletes defies credulity, given the well-known financial demands of the college marketplace and the typically close relationships between collectives and athletic departments.

“It’s not even putting their head in the sand,” said Carter, the NIL expert. “It’s patently false.”

At a congressional hearing last month, Illini athletic director Josh Whitman talked about the future of NIL and the importance of creating national standards for revenue-sharing and NIL deals instead of a patchwork of state-by-state legislation.

“We certainly don’t have an interest in micromanaging those opportunities for our student athletes,” he told federal lawmakers. “But it is important that we do try and create some system to monitor that, to create some level of transparency. Our student-athletes want that transparency.”

U of I administrators, however, have argued against public transparency when it comes to NIL deals. Cox, also an adjunct professor at the university’s law school, wrote in a law publication last year that “the best move for all institutions to support student-athletes is to refuse disclosure of student-athlete NIL information as a matter of policy.”

Administrators then succeeded in getting a law passed that they contend exempts NIL records from the Freedom of Information Act, severely hindering any further public analysis or accountability. Indeed, the U of I said in early January that it would no longer release the type of records obtained by the Tribune and ProPublica for this investigation.

“Our position is that that’s not the public’s business,” Whitman told a reporter last year.

The Illinois athletic department also referenced the FOIA exemption in its three-page response to ProPublica and the Tribune, saying that although there is public desire for NIL information, “the privacy of students is the more pressing concern.”

But even as Illinois administrators pushed to change the law last year, the requirement that athletes report the deals to their institutions remained. And athletes will be required to disclose their deals under the House settlement — a mandate the university celebrated in its written statement.

In the face of “strong and swift accountability,” officials said, their athletes would comply.

Joe Mahr of the Chicago Tribune contributed data analysis. Mariam Elba of ProPublica contributed research reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Stacy St. Clair, Chicago Tribune, and Jodi S. Cohen, ProPublica.

The U.N. climate summit known as COP29 is underway in Baku, Azerbaijan, where negotiators are trying to make progress on reducing emissions and preventing the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Many activists, however, have criticized the decision to hold the talks in an authoritarian petrostate. The host country is also facing accusations that it is using the climate talks for business, after the head of the talks, Elnur Soltanov, was caught in a secret recording promoting oil and gas deals. That sting was organized by the group Global Witness, which put forward a fake investor. “In exchange for just the promise of sponsorship money, that got us to the heart of the COP29,” says Lela Stanley, an investigator at Global Witness. “We need the U.N. to ban petro interests from sitting at the table, from influencing the COP.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Tom Andrews, special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar, told a Thai parliamentary hearing this month that Thailand had become Myanmar’s main supplier of military equipment through the international banking system. He called on Thailand to “take a clear and strong position opposing the transfer of weapons and dual use technologies into Myanmar.”

“The Bank of Thailand and the Anti-Money Laundering Office will jointly establish a task force to investigate these transactions that may be linked to the purchase of weapons and military supplies and the Myanmar government,” Thai foreign ministry spokesperson Nikorndej Balankura said in a statement.

Nikorndej said Thailand “attaches utmost importance to the human rights agenda and the well-being of the people of Myanmar” and would seek more information from Andrews and “review measures to further equip and enhance the ability of Thai financial institutions in support of the government policy and position regarding human rights violations in Myanmar.”

RELATED STORIES

Thailand considers action to stop Myanmar acquiring weapons

UN rights envoy urges action to stop Myanmar’s access to weapons, funds

Myanmar rebels rack up more gains as Operation 1027 enters new phase

Junta military preparations point to brutal next phase of Myanmar conflict

Myanmar still getting jet fuel despite call to cut supply: rights group

Myanmar has been in turmoil since the military ousted a government led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in early 2021. Pro-democracy activists have taken up arms and joined forces with autonomy-seeking insurgents in a bid to end military rule.

Andrews said airstrikes by the Myanmar military against civilian targets had increased five-fold over the past six months as it lost positions and troops to anti-junta forces.

On the question of cutting support to the Myanmar military, Andrews said in a report last month, that Singapore had implemented a clear policy opposing the transfer of weapons and, as a result, exports of arms and related materials from Singapore-registered entities using the formal banking system dropped from almost US$120 million in FY2022 to just over US$10 million in FY2023.

But Thailand, with no explicit public policy position opposing weapons transfer to Myanmar, saw exports from Thai-registered entities more than double over the same period, from just over US$60 million to nearly US$130 million, he said.

He named several Thai banks he said were involved in handling transactions for the Myanmar junta or its front companies.   

Thailand, which shares a long border with Myanmar and hosts many thousands of refugees fleeing conflict there, has tried to promote dialogue between Myanmar's military rulers and opposition forces but no progress has been made.

Pro-democracy activists handed a letter to the Thai parliament on Thursday calling for sanctions against the state-run Myanmar Economic Bank and Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, which the activists said the Myanmar military used to buy weapons and aviation fuel and to gain access to international financial markets.

Rangsiman Rome, chairman of the house committee on national security, who received the letter, said the committee would follow up on the issue with the Thai central bank and foreign ministry.

Edited by Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Pimuk Rakkanam for RFA.

Image by Samuel Regan-Asante.

One of the longest sagas of political persecution is coming to its terminus. That is, if you believe in final chapters. Nothing about the fate of Julian Assange seems determinative. His accusers and inquisitors will draw some delight at the plea deal reached between the WikiLeaks founder’s legal team and the US Department of Justice. Others, such as former US Vice President, Mike Pence, thought it unjustifiably lenient.

Alleged to have committed 18 offences, 17 novelly linked to the odious Espionage Act, the June 2020 superseding indictment against Assange was a frontal assault on the freedoms of publishing and discussing classified government information. At this writing, Assange has arrived in Saipan, located in the US commonwealth territory of Northern Mariana Islands in the Western Pacific, to face a fresh indictment. It was one of Assange’s conditions that he would not present himself in any court in the United States proper, where, with understandable suspicion, he might legally vanish.

As correspondence between the US Department of Justice and US District Court Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona reveals, the “proximity of this federal US District Court to the defendant’s country of citizenship, Australia, to which we expect he will return at the conclusion of proceedings” was also a factor.

Before the US District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, he will plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information under the Espionage Act of 1917, or section 793(g) (Title 18, USC). The felony carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or up to 10 years in prison, though Assange’s time in Belmarsh Prison, spent on remand for some 62 months, will meet the bar.

The felony charge sheet alleges that Assange knowingly and unlawfully conspired with US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, then based at Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, to receive and obtain documents, writings and notes, including those of a secret nature, relating to national defence, wilfully communicated those documents from persons with lawful possession of or access to them to those not entitled to receive them, and do the same from persons unauthorised to possess such documents.

Before turning to the grave implications of this single count and the plea deal, supporters of Assange, including his immediate family, associates and those who had worked with him and drunk from the same well of publishing, had every reason to feel a surreal sense of intoxication. WikiLeaks announced Assange’s departure from London’s Belmarsh Prison on the morning of June 24 after a 1,901 day stint, his grant of bail by the High Court in London, and his release at Stansted Airport. Wife Stella regularly updated followers about the course of flight VJ199. In coverage posted of his arrival at the federal court house in Saipan, she pondered “how overloaded his senses must be, walking through the press scrum after years of sensory depravation and the four walls” of his Belmarsh cell.

As for the plea deal itself, it is hard to fault it from the emotional and personal perspective of Assange and his family. He was ailing and being subjected to a slow execution by judicial process. It was also the one hook upon which the DOJ, and the Biden administration, might move on. This being an election year in the US, the last thing President Biden wanted was a haunting reminder of this nasty saga of political persecution hovering over freedom land’s virtues.

There was another, rather more sordid angle, and one that the DOJ had to have kept in mind in thinning the charge sheet: a proper Assange trial would have seen the murderous fantasies of the CIA regarding the publisher subject to scrutiny. These included various possible measures: abduction, rendition, even assassination, points thoroughly explored in a Yahoo News contribution in September 2021.

One of the authors of the piece, Zach Dorfman, posted a salient reminder as news of the plea deal filtered through that many officials during the Trump administration, even harsh critics of Assange, “thought [CIA Director Mike] Pompeo’s extraordinary rendition plots foolhardy in the extreme, and probably illegal. They also – critically – thought it might harm Assange’s prosecution.” Were Pompeo’s stratagems to come to light, “it would make the discovery process nightmarish for the prosecution, should Assange ever see trial.”

From the perspective of publishers, journalists and scribblers keen to keep the powerful accountable, the plea must be seen as enormously troubling. It ultimately goes to the brutal exercise of US extraterritorial power against any publisher, irrespective of outlet and irrespective of nationality. While the legal freight and prosecutorial heaviness of the charges was reduced dramatically (62 months seems sweetly less imposing than 175 years), the measure extracts a pound of flesh from the fourth estate. It signals that the United States can and will seek out those who obtain and publish national security information that they would rather keep under wraps under spurious notions of “harm”.

Assange’s conviction also shores up the crude narrative adopted from the moment WikiLeaks began publishing US national security and diplomatic files: such activities could not be seen as journalistic, despite their role in informing press commentary or exposing the venal side of power through leaks.

From the lead prosecuting attorney Gordon Kromberg to such British judges as Vanessa Baraitser; from the national security commentariat lodged in the media stable to any number of politicians, including the late California Democrat Dianne Feinstein to the current President Joe Biden, Assange was not of the fourth estate and deserved his mobbing. He gave the game away. He pilfered and stole the secrets of empire.

To that end, the plea deal makes a mockery of arguments and effusive declarations that the arrangement is somehow a victory for press freedom. It suggests the opposite: that anyone publishing US national security information by a leaker or whistleblower is imperilled. While the point was never tested in court, non-US publishers may be unable to avail themselves of the free speech protections of the First Amendment. The Espionage Act, for the first time in history, has been given a global, tentacular reach, made a weapon against publishers outside the United States, paving the way for future prosecutions.

The post The Release of Julian Assange: Plea Deals and Dark Legacies appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Julian Assange arriving at the federal court house in Saipan.

One of the longest sagas of political persecution is coming to its terminus.  That is, if you believe in final chapters.  Nothing about the fate of Julian Assange seems determinative.  His accusers and inquisitors will draw some delight at the plea deal reached between the WikiLeaks founder’s legal team and the US Department of Justice.  Others, such as former US Vice President, Mike Pence, thought it unjustifiably lenient.

Alleged to have committed 18 offences, 17 novelly linked to the odious Espionage Act, the June 2020 superseding indictment against Assange was a frontal assault on the freedoms of publishing and discussing classified government information.  At this writing, Assange has arrived in Saipan, located in the US commonwealth territory of Northern Mariana Islands in the Western Pacific, to face a fresh indictment.  It was one of Assange’s conditions that he would not present himself in any court in the United States proper, where, with understandable suspicion, he might legally vanish.

As correspondence between the US Department of Justice and US District Court Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona reveals, the “proximity of this federal US District Court to the defendant’s country of citizenship, Australia, to which we expect he will return at the conclusion of proceedings” was also a factor.

Before the US District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, he will plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information under the Espionage Act of 1917, or section 793(g) (Title 18, USC).  The felony carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or up to 10 years in prison, though Assange’s time in Belmarsh Prison, spent on remand for some 62 months, will meet the bar.

The felony charge sheet alleges that Assange knowingly and unlawfully conspired with US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, then based at Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, to receive and obtain documents, writings and notes, including those of a secret nature, relating to national defence, wilfully communicated those documents from persons with lawful possession of or access to them to those not entitled to receive them, and do the same from persons unauthorised to possess such documents.

Before turning to the grave implications of this single count and the plea deal, supporters of Assange, including his immediate family, associates and those who had worked with him and drunk from the same well of publishing, had every reason to feel a surreal sense of intoxication.  WikiLeaks announced Assange’s departure from London’s Belmarsh Prison on the morning of June 24 after a 1,901 day stint, his grant of bail by the High Court in London, and his release at Stansted Airport.  Wife Stella regularly updated followers about the course of flight VJ199.  In coverage posted of his arrival at the federal court house in Saipan, she pondered “how overloaded his senses must be, walking through the press scrum after years of sensory depravation and the four walls” of his Belmarsh cell.

As for the plea deal itself, it is hard to fault it from the emotional and personal perspective of Assange and his family. He was ailing and being subjected to a slow execution by judicial process.  It was also the one hook upon which the DOJ, and the Biden administration, might move on.  This being an election year in the US, the last thing President Biden wanted was a haunting reminder of this nasty saga of political persecution hovering over freedom land’s virtues.

There was another, rather more sordid angle, and one that the DOJ had to have kept in mind in thinning the charge sheet: a proper Assange trial would have seen the murderous fantasies of the CIA regarding the publisher subject to scrutiny.  These included various possible measures: abduction, rendition, even assassination, points thoroughly explored in a Yahoo News contribution in September 2021.

One of the authors of the piece, Zach Dorfman, posted a salient reminder as news of the plea deal filtered through that many officials during the Trump administration, even harsh critics of Assange, “thought [CIA Director Mike] Pompeo’s extraordinary rendition plots foolhardy in the extreme, and probably illegal.  They also – critically – thought it might harm Assange’s prosecution.”  Were Pompeo’s stratagems to come to light, “it would make the discovery process nightmarish for the prosecution, should Assange ever see trial.”

From the perspective of publishers, journalists and scribblers keen to keep the powerful accountable, the plea must be seen as enormously troubling. It ultimately goes to the brutal exercise of US extraterritorial power against any publisher, irrespective of outlet and irrespective of nationality.  While the legal freight and prosecutorial heaviness of the charges was reduced dramatically (62 months seems sweetly less imposing than 175 years), the measure extracts a pound of flesh from the fourth estate.  It signals that the United States can and will seek out those who obtain and publish national security information that they would rather keep under wraps under spurious notions of “harm”.

Assange’s conviction also shores up the crude narrative adopted from the moment WikiLeaks began publishing US national security and diplomatic files: such activities could not be seen as journalistic, despite their role in informing press commentary or exposing the venal side of power through leaks.

From the lead prosecuting attorney Gordon Kromberg to such British judges as Vanessa Baraitser; from the national security commentariat lodged in the media stable to any number of politicians, including the late California Democrat Dianne Feinstein to the current President Joe Biden, Assange was not of the fourth estate and deserved his mobbing.  He gave the game away.  He pilfered and stole the secrets of empire.

To that end, the plea deal makes a mockery of arguments and effusive declarations that the arrangement is somehow a victory for press freedom.  It suggests the opposite: that anyone publishing US national security information by a leaker or whistleblower is imperilled.  While the point was never tested in court, non-US publishers may be unable to avail themselves of the free speech protections of the First Amendment.  The Espionage Act, for the first time in history, has been given a global, tentacular reach, made a weapon against publishers outside the United States, paving the way for future prosecutions.

The post The Release of Julian Assange: Plea Deals and Dark Legacies appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Alleged to have committed 18 offences, 17 novelly linked to the odious Espionage Act, the June 2020 superseding indictment against Assange was a frontal assault on the freedoms of publishing and discussing classified government information.  At this writing, Assange has arrived in Saipan, located in the US commonwealth territory of Northern Mariana Islands in the Western Pacific, to face a fresh indictment.  It was one of Assange’s conditions that he would not present himself in any court in the United States proper, where, with understandable suspicion, he might legally vanish.

As correspondence between the US Department of Justice and US District Court Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona reveals, the “proximity of this federal US District Court to the defendant’s country of citizenship, Australia, to which we expect he will return at the conclusion of proceedings” was also a factor.

Before the US District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, he will plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information under the Espionage Act of 1917, or section 793(g) (Title 18, USC).  The felony carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or up to 10 years in prison, though Assange’s time in Belmarsh Prison, spent on remand for some 62 months, will meet the bar.

The felony charge sheet alleges that Assange knowingly and unlawfully conspired with US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, then based at Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, to receive and obtain documents, writings and notes, including those of a secret nature, relating to national defence, wilfully communicated those documents from persons with lawful possession of or access to them to those not entitled to receive them, and do the same from persons unauthorised to possess such documents.

Before turning to the grave implications of this single count and the plea deal, supporters of Assange, including his immediate family, associates and those who had worked with him and drunk from the same well of publishing, had every reason to feel a surreal sense of intoxication.  WikiLeaks announced Assange’s departure from London’s Belmarsh Prison on the morning of June 24 after a 1,901 day stint, his grant of bail by the High Court in London, and his release at Stansted Airport.  Wife Stella regularly updated followers about the course of flight VJ199.  In coverage posted of his arrival at the federal court house in Saipan, she pondered “how overloaded his senses must be, walking through the press scrum after years of sensory depravation and the four walls” of his Belmarsh cell.

As for the plea deal itself, it is hard to fault it from the emotional and personal perspective of Assange and his family.  He was ailing and being subjected to a slow execution by judicial process.  It was also the one hook upon which the DOJ, and the Biden administration, might move on.  This being an election year in the US, the last thing President Biden wanted was a haunting reminder of this nasty saga of political persecution hovering over freedom land’s virtues.

There was another, rather more sordid angle, and one that the DOJ had to have kept in mind in thinning the charge sheet: a proper Assange trial would have seen the murderous fantasies of the CIA regarding the publisher subject to scrutiny.  These included various possible measures: abduction, rendition, even assassination, points thoroughly explored in a Yahoo News contribution in September 2021.

One of the authors of the piece, Zach Dorfman, posted a salient reminder as news of the plea deal filtered through that many officials during the Trump administration, even harsh critics of Assange, “thought [CIA Director Mike] Pompeo’s extraordinary rendition plots foolhardy in the extreme, and probably illegal.  They also – critically – thought it might harm Assange’s prosecution.”  Were Pompeo’s stratagems to come to light, “it would make the discovery process nightmarish for the prosecution, should Assange ever see trial.”

From the perspective of publishers, journalists and scribblers keen to keep the powerful accountable, the plea must be seen as enormously troubling. It ultimately goes to the brutal exercise of US extraterritorial power against any publisher, irrespective of outlet and irrespective of nationality.  While the legal freight and prosecutorial heaviness of the charges was reduced dramatically (62 months seems sweetly less imposing than 175 years), the measure extracts a pound of flesh from the fourth estate.  It signals that the United States can and will seek out those who obtain and publish national security information that they would rather keep under wraps under spurious notions of “harm”.

Assange’s conviction also shores up the crude narrative adopted from the moment WikiLeaks began publishing US national security and diplomatic files: such activities could not be seen as journalistic, despite their role in informing press commentary or exposing the venal side of power through leaks.

From the lead prosecuting attorney Gordon Kromberg to such British judges as Vanessa Baraitser; from the national security commentariat lodged in the media stable to any number of politicians, including the late California Democrat Dianne Feinstein to the current President Joe Biden, Assange was not of the fourth estate and deserved his mobbing.  He gave the game away.  He pilfered and stole the secrets of empire.

To that end, the plea deal makes a mockery of arguments and effusive declarations that the arrangement is somehow a victory for press freedom.  It suggests the opposite: that anyone publishing US national security information by a leaker or whistleblower is imperilled.  While the point was never tested in court, non-US publishers may be unable to avail themselves of the free speech protections of the First Amendment.  The Espionage Act, for the first time in history, has been given a global, tentacular reach, made a weapon against publishers outside the United States, paving the way for future prosecutions.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

Photo by NIPYATA!

When last we checked in on Trump’s new media company, which has the full name of Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) and trades on Nasdaq under the monogrammatic ticket symbol DJT, the shares had gone public at around $60 a share, spiked close to $80 (giving the company a $10 billion valuation), and then—to use a Wall Street cliché—“consolidated” closer to $40 a share.

The post Wall Street Don Deals More Liar’s Poker appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Matthew Stevenson.

The states and tribes within the Colorado River basin have been fighting over the waterway for more than a century, but these three forces have come to a head over the past few years. As a severe drought shriveled the 1,450-mile river in 2022, negotiators from the seven states crisscrossed the country haggling over who should have to cut their water usage, and how much. As the arguments dragged on, the Biden administration chastised states for letting the water levels in the river’s two main reservoirs fall to perilous lows. The Navajo Nation, the largest tribe on the river, went before the Supreme Court to argue for more water access.

These issues are all converging ahead of this fall’s presidential election, which could upend negotiations by ushering in a new Congress and new leadership at the federal Bureau of Reclamation, which controls the river. With the clock running out, two major deals are now taking shape. They could fundamentally alter the way states and tribes use the river, bringing about a fairer and more sustainable era on the waterway — if they don’t fall apart by November.

The first deal would see the states of the river’s so-called Lower Basin commit to lowering their water usage by as much as 20 percent even during wetter years, addressing a decades-old water deficit driven by Arizona and California. There are still questions about how much water the states of the Upper Basin, led by Colorado and Utah, will agree to cut, but state leaders expressed optimism that a final agreement between all seven states will come together in the next few months. 

“This is not a problem that is caused by one sector, by one state, or by one basin,” said John Entsminger, the lead river negotiator for Nevada, in a press conference announcing the Lower Basin’s plan to cut water usage. “It is a basin-wide problem and requires a basin-wide solution.” 

The second deal would deliver enough new river water to the Navajo Nation to supply tens of thousands of homes, ending a decades-long legal fight on a reservation where many residents rely on deliveries of hauled water. 

If both of these deals come to fruition, they would represent a sea change in the management of a river that supplies 40 million people with water. But neither one is guaranteed to come together, and the clock is ticking as the election nears. 

The last time the seven river states drafted rules for how to deal with droughts and shortages was in 2007, long before the current megadrought reached its peak, and these rules are set to expire at the end of 2026. This deadline has triggered a flurry of talks among state negotiators, who are trying to reach a deal on new drought rules this spring. This would give the Biden administration time to codify the new rules before the presidential election in November, which states fear could tank the negotiations by thrusting a new administration into power.

The furious pace of negotiation is nothing new, but states have until now only managed to agree on short-term rules that protect the river over the next three years. Last summer, the states agreed to slash water usage in farms and suburbs across the Southwest in exchange for more than a billion dollars of compensation from the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Congress. That agreement helped stave off a total collapse of the river system, but it never represented a permanent solution to the river’s water shortage.

As the states turn their attention to a long-term fix, the political coalitions on the river have shifted. The marquee conflict last year was between California and Arizona, the two largest users, who disagreed over how to spread out painful water cuts. California argued that its older, more senior rights to the river meant that Arizona should absorb all the cuts even if it meant drying out areas around Phoenix. Arizona argued in turn that California’s prosperous farmers needed to bear some of the pain. In the end, the money from the Inflation Reduction Act helped paper over those tensions, as did a wetter-than-average winter that restored reservoir levels.

But now California and Arizona are on the same side. The two states, which along with Nevada make up the river’s “Lower Basin,” have pledged to cut water usage by as much as 1.5 million acre-feet even when reservoir levels are high, without federal compensation like that provided by the Inflation Reduction Act. The details still need to be hashed out, but these cuts would likely mean far less cotton and alfalfa farming in the region around Phoenix, tighter water budgets in many Arizona suburbs, and a decline in winter vegetable production in California’s Imperial Valley, an agricultural hub that is considered the nation’s “salad bowl.” 

This cut would free up enough water to supply almost 3 million households annually and would address the longstanding issues in the river’s century-old legal framework, which relied on faulty measurements of the river’s flow and thus guaranteed too much total water to the states. Experts have estimated the overdraft to be around 1.5 million acre-feet, the same amount that the Lower Basin is now signaling that it’s willing to give up, even before drought measures kick in.

The harder question is what to do during the driest years. The Lower Basin states are arguing that the seven states of the river should reduce their water usage by almost 3.9 million acre feet during the driest years, equivalent to about a third of the river’s total average flow. The Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico have a very different view: in a competing plan also released on Wednesday, they argued that the Lower Basin states should absorb the entirety of that 3.9 million acre-feet cut.

“If we want to protect the system and ensure certainty for the 40 million people who rely on this water source, then we need to address the existing imbalance between supply and demand,” said Becky Mitchell, the lead Colorado River negotiator for the state of Colorado, in a press release following the release of the Upper Basin’s plan. “That means using the best available science to work within reality.”

A representative from Colorado said the Upper Basin would keep investing in voluntary programs that pay farmers to use less water, but insisted that Arizona and California should bear the brunt of drought response.

Disagreement between the two regions is nothing new. The Upper Basin has often argued during past dry spells that, since it’s the Lower Basin that pulls water from Lake Powell and Lake Mead, it’s the Lower Basin that should cut usage when those reservoirs run low. 

But the commitment by Arizona and California to slash their water consumption for good even during wet years represents a significant breakthrough from previous talks, according to John Fleck, a professor at the University of New Mexico who has studied the Colorado River for decades. Fleck believes the Upper Basin states should make a voluntary commitment in turn, even though they have never used their full share of the river’s water.

“The idea behind what the Lower Basin is proposing is, ‘We recognize that we have to forever and permanently fix the structural deficit,’” he said. “That’s huge. My concern is that the Upper Basin’s approach to these negotiations is passing up an opportunity for a really useful compromise.”

Entsminger, the Nevada negotiator, conceded that wide gaps remain between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin proposals, but expressed optimism that the states would find an agreement.

“I know the sexy headline is going to be, ‘four versus three, states on the brink,’ but we are at one step in this process,” he said.

The other major water deal coming into focus would also rectify a longstanding issue in the river’s legal framework: its exclusion of Native American tribes. The dozens of tribal nations along the Colorado River have theoretical rights to river water, but they must sue the federal government to realize those rights, under a precedent known as the Winters doctrine. Some of those tribes, like Arizona’s Gila River Indian Community, have settled with the government for huge volumes of water, but others have been tied up in court for years.

The Navajo Nation, whose reservation stretches across much of Arizona and New Mexico, is among the largest tribes with so-called un-settled rights. The tribe has been suing the federal government for decades to obtain rights to the Colorado River as well as other waterways. Last year, the Supreme Court appeared to deal the Nation a serious setback when it ruled that the Biden administration didn’t have an obligation to study the Nation’s potential rights to the Colorado River.

In the aftermath of that Supreme Court defeat, tribal leaders set to work hashing out a landmark settlement that covers not only the Colorado River but also several of its tributaries, working with federal and state governments to resolve decades of litigation across numerous different court cases. 

The work has now culminated in a sprawling legal agreement between the Navajo, the neighboring Hopi and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribes, the Biden administration, Arizona, and more than a dozen other water users in the Southwest. The agreement would deliver at least 179,000 acre-feet of fresh water to parts of the reservation that currently rely on depleted aquifers or bottled water deliveries, enough to supply almost half a million average homes annually. This new water would come from entities like the state of Arizona and the Salt River Project water utility, who are voluntarily giving up their water to the Navajo to avoid the threat of further litigation. (The average Navajo Nation household uses around 7 gallons of water per day, less than a tenth of the national average.)

Not only would the settlement revolutionize water access on the Navajo and Hopi reservations, it will also resolve a huge uncertainty for Lower Basin states. A trial victory for the Navajo Nation would likely have slashed Arizona’s water supply, potentially reallocating much of Phoenix’s water system to the tribe.

“Given the background of climate change and the [seven-state] negotiations, just knowing what rights everyone has is really good,” said Heather Tanana (Diné), a law professor at the University of Utah who studies tribal water rights. “There’s this certainty now.”

But the success of this deal is far from a foregone conclusion, Tanana added. The settlement needs to be ratified by Congress and signed by the president. Congress must also provide billions of dollars for infrastructure that would pipe water from the Colorado River and its tributaries across the reservation. Tribal leaders are optimistic that the current Congress will support the deal, but they’re anxious that lawmakers won’t push it through before the November election. Past water settlements on the reservation have taken years to secure congressional approval and decades to actually construct.

The outlines of a potential solution are visible in both the interstate negotiations and the Navajo settlement, but both deals are a long way from being finalized. Time is of the essence; many observers are concerned that a second Trump administration would take a more lax approach to water management on the Colorado River than the Biden administration has, and that a shift in the control of Congress could scramble support for the Navajo deal.

The political jockeying of the next few months will go a long way toward determining the river’s future, said Elizabeth Koebele, a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, who studies water negotiations.

“These decisions now are very consequential for whether we’re going to pivot toward long-term sustainability in the basin,” she said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline States and tribes scramble to reach Colorado River deals before election on Mar 6, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Jake Bittle.

This week, following the news that special climate envoy John Kerry would depart the role this spring, President Joe Biden announced that Podesta would take over the position, putting the latter in charge of the administration’s climate policy abroad as well as at home.

Podesta arrives in this new role at a time when the United States is facing increasingly urgent calls to step up the amount of climate funding it sends to developing countries. As he represents the U.S. in international climate talks, he has a responsibility to follow up Biden’s domestic policy achievements with equal ambition on international issues, said Rachel Cleetus, a policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Despite important progress secured through the Inflation Reduction Act and other domestic policies, the country has repeatedly fallen short, especially on delivering climate finance for low- and middle-income countries to tackle climate change,” she said. She added that Podesta “will need to ensure international climate diplomacy is as much a priority as the domestic climate agenda.” 

Podesta has decades of experience in Beltway politics and has influenced the shape of climate policy under three Democratic presidents. As White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton, he helped Clinton hone his messaging on climate and environmental issues, and he later served as a top adviser to Barack Obama, who tried and failed to sell Congress on a cap-and-trade climate bill. When that bill died in the Senate, Podesta pushed Obama’s focus toward the executive branch, crafting a key regulation of power emissions.

After Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, Biden asked Podesta to return to the White House to help implement the landmark legislation. As Podesta told Grist last summer, this job entailed not only selling the law to companies and local governments but also getting in the weeds on complex policy questions relating to green hydrogen and carbon removal.

However, Podesta has less experience in foreign policy than his predecessor. The outgoing climate envoy served on the Senate foreign relations committee and as Obama’s secretary of state, and he has represented the United States at several United Nations climate conferences. Kerry was instrumental in negotiating the landmark Paris Agreement in 2015 and in hammering out last year’s so-called “UAE consensus” at COP28 in Dubai. The latter accord represented the first time that the world’s nations agreed to transition away from dirty fuels.

Kerry’s close relationship with his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, also allowed the United States and China to make progress on climate cooperation even amid a broader geopolitical chill. Last year, for instance, the two nations signed a joint agreement to accelerate renewable energy deployment. When Kerry gave his notice just months after Xie announced his retirement, The Guardian hailed the moment as the “end of an era in global climate politics.” 

Podesta engaged at length with China and India on climate issues when he served in the Obama administration, and he too consulted on the Paris accord.  Some observers said Podesta would likely continue on the path Kerry set in the climate envoy role.

“John Podesta is certainly a steady pair of hands,” said Li Shuo, director of the China climate program at the Asia Society Policy Institute, a think tank. “He has dealt with the China file very extensively together in the Obama administration with John Kerry, and I am expecting a continuation of where John Kerry left.”

But other climate advocates expressed concern about Podesta’s past focus on domestic affairs, and his plan to advise Biden on domestic and international matters simultaneously. 

“This stance suggests that international negotiations will become a secondary priority, despite the urgent global necessity to drastically escalate climate action,” said Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at the environmental group Climate Action Network, in a statement. He said the appointment “casts a shadow of doubt over the United States’ commitment to global climate leadership.”

The White House did not respond to Grist’s request for an interview with Podesta before publication.

Biden’s 2021 appointment of Kerry as the first ever “special envoy on climate change” drew the ire of many Senate Republicans, who accused Biden of bypassing the normal confirmation process for ambassadors and other senior diplomatic officials. Biden has appointed at least 40 special envoys, according to Ballotpedia, far more than any previous president. These diplomats handle issues from Yemen to the Arctic to Iran’s nuclear program. 

Congress passed a funding bill in 2021 that closed the loophole allowing for special envoy positions, meaning that future climate diplomats will be subject to confirmation by the Senate, just like their ordinary ambassador counterparts. The very idea of a climate envoy is anathema to many Republicans in Congress, meaning any successor Biden appoints will face a tough road to confirmation. If Donald Trump wins another term in November, the position will almost certainly vanish altogether.

In an apparent attempt to avoid this new Senate confirmation requirement, Biden has announced that Podesta will serve as “senior adviser” for “international climate policy.” Shelly Moore Capito, a Republican senator who is influential on climate issues, said the move was an attempt to “circumvent Congress on environmental policy.”

The biggest item on Podesta’s agenda will be the “new collective quantified goal,” a fundraising target that the world’s countries are hoping to hammer out at COP29 in Azerbaijan in November. Rich countries set a goal in 2009 to send poor countries $100 billion per year for decarbonization and disaster response, but they have lagged far behind schedule on meeting it. As the next climate conference approaches, developing countries are demanding that the United States make much stronger financial commitments. 

In addition to figuring out how the U.S. should engage with these demands, Podesta will also have to wrangle countries like China and Saudi Arabia, which weren’t obligated to donate to the funding pool established in the 2009 agreement. These countries are in a limbo zone between developed and developing, and much of the controversy around the “new collective quantified goal” has centered on how much they should be expected to contribute.

Some climate activists said the changing of the guard would give the Biden administration a chance to reposition itself in global climate talks. Many of these activists have criticized Kerry for rebuffing financial demands from developing countries — just last summer he told Congress that he would “under no circumstances” commit the United States to a policy of “climate reparations.” When rich countries launched a loss and damage fund at COP28 to help poor countries address the consequences of climate change, the United States volunteered to contribute just $17.5 million, a fraction of what smaller countries like Italy and Japan pledged.

Kerry and other U.S. diplomats have often focused on extracting commitments from other countries at climate talks rather than making commitments themselves, said Brandon Wu, policy director at ActionAid, an economic justice advocacy organization.

“Rather than engaging in the traditional U.S. negotiating tactics that Kerry favored — telling other countries what to do while pretending the U.S. is a leader despite its record of failure — he needs to shift the tone and substance of U.S. climate diplomacy altogether,” Wu said of Podesta. “It’s no easy job, but that’s the natural consequence of so many years of inaction from the world’s biggest historical climate polluter.”

The job is made even harder by the fact that the special climate envoy doesn’t control federal spending. Even if Podesta does pledge more international funding, it will be up to Congress to pass a law that makes that pledge a reality. With Congress split between Republicans and Democrats, and the outcome of the next presidential election still anyone’s guess, it will be hard for the diplomats opposite Podesta to take him at his word.

Zoya Teirstein contributed reporting to this story.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline John Podesta is a DC veteran. Can he make climate deals on the world stage? on Feb 2, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Jake Bittle.

As minister from 2016 to 2021, Tran Tuan Anh was responsible for “wrong advice” in the issuance of the mechanism for the development of solar energy and wind power under the country’s ambitious plan to transition away from coal usage, according to state media reports.

Additionally, officials under the ministry’s management also committed wrongdoings in the issuance of the trading mechanism for petroleum, the management of Vietnam’s oil supply and the bidding process for projects with the Advanced International Joint Stock Company, or AIC, the reports said.

AIC has been involved in the import of corporate electronics, pharmaceuticals, auto parts, machine tools and farm equipment.

The company’s former chairwoman and general director, Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan, has been accused of masterminding bid-rigging to win 16 contracts to supply medical equipment to several Vietnamese hospitals. She fled to Germany in 2022.

The Central Inspection Committee reported on the accusations against Tran Tuan Anh to the party’s Politburo and Secretariat this week, with a recommendation that he be “appropriately penalized,” state media reported. 

The committee’s report also named former deputy Minister of Commerce Do Thang Hai, who was arrested on Dec. 21 for allegedly taking bribes from the Xuyen Viet Oil Company.

Former Deputy Prime Minister Trinh Dinh Dung and Hoang Quoc Vuong, who also served as deputy minister of commerce and was the board chairman of state-owned PetroVietnam, were also named in the report, according to state media.

Anh is the latest Politburo member to face punishment for wrongdoings under the party’s “Blazing Furnace” anti-corruption campaign. 

His father, Tran Duc Luong, was state president between 1997 and 2006.

In 2019, Anh wrote a public apology letter after it became known that his wife and son were picked up in a state-owned car after a Vietnam Airlines flight. 

Edited by Matt Reed and Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Vietnamese.

As the largest-ever United Nations climate summit kicks off Thursday in Dubai, we look at how the COP28 president, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, who is also CEO of the United Arab Emirates state oil company, has used climate summit meetings to lobby countries for oil and gas deals. The Centre for Climate Reporting obtained documents from meeting briefings that include Abu Dhabi National Oil Company talking points. The Centre’s Ben Stockton lays out how the oil boss was put in charge of the climate summit, and how the UAE also hopes to use COP28 to deflect from “a record of human rights abuses.” The new revelations “call into question the integrity of COP28,” he says. Democracy Now! will broadcast from COP28 in Dubai next week.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The Philippines is seeking separate agreements with Southeast Asian neighbors to reduce the risk of conflict in the South China Sea, given the slow pace of progress on a long-sought regional code of conduct with China, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said Monday.

The situation for the Philippines in the disputed waterway “has become more dire” amid China’s increasing encroachment on the nation’s maritime boundaries, Marcos said, and Manila needed to partner with allies to maintain peace in the region.

“We are still waiting for the code of conduct between China and ASEAN and the progress has been rather slow unfortunately,” Marcos said during a live streamed event in Hawaii.

“We have taken the initiative to approach those other countries around ASEAN whom we have existing territorial conflicts with, Vietnam being one of them, Malaysia being another and to make our own code of conduct.”

China claims nearly the entire South China Sea, including waters within the exclusive economic zone of Association of Southeast Asian Nations members Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam. 

Negotiations to establish a code of conduct between ASEAN and China for the region have been going for more than two decades, but progress has been slow amid disputes over the scope and legal status of the document.Though a 2016 international arbitration ruling invalidated China’s sweeping claims to the South China Sea, Beijing has refused to acknowledge it.

Marcos was speaking at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii, where he stopped on his way home from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders’ Week summit in San Francisco.

He met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the event in a bid to ease bilateral tensions after a series of standoffs in the South China Sea. Chinese coast guard and maritime militia ships have in recent months stepped up efforts to block Philippine vessels from delivering supplies to a military outpost in Second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin Shoal).

Marcos said he requested the meeting with Xi “to voice to the Chinese leader his concern on some of the incidents that were happening between Chinese and Philippine vessels, culminating in an actual collision,” the Philippine Presidential Communications Office said in a statement Saturday.

On Monday, Marcos said the most pressing challenge for Philippine security was ensuring peace in the West Philippine Sea, Manila’s name for the South China Sea within its jurisdiction.

“The Indo-Pacific region, particularly the West Philippine Sea, is in the middle of a global geopolitical transformation and has become an arena of normative contestation,” he said.

“Tensions in the West Philippine Sea are growing, with persistent unlawful threats and challenges against Philippine sovereign rights and jurisdiction over our exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf.”

‘No Aloha for Marcos'

In Hawaii, Marcos also met with the top U.S. military commander in the Indo-Pacific, Adm. John Aquilino, who leads a 380,000-strong force of military and coast guard personnel, and connected with the large Filipino community there.

The visit was laden with personal significance for Marcos, whose late father Ferdinand Marcos Sr. fled to Hawaii after his regime was toppled in 1986. Thousands of activists and opposition politicians were jailed or disappeared during his brutal two-decade rule, during which he is accused of plundering state coffers of up to U.S. $10 billion.

The older Marcos died while in exile, but his family was allowed to return home where they rebuilt their political base, despite demands for an apology from the victims of his father’s dictatorship.

On Saturday, Marcos told a gathering of Filipino-Americans that he felt a “deep sense of nostalgia” to be back and wanted to thank members of the community “who hold a very special place in my heart.”

“My father is no longer with us, but when my mother found out that I was going to Honolulu, she said you make sure that you go back to all of those people who went out of their way to keep us comfortable to keep us alive,” he said.

Not everyone was happy with his visit, however. A small group of protesters rallied outside the Hawaii Convention Center in Honolulu carrying a black banner that read, “No Aloha for Marcos.”

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jason Gutierrez for BenarNews.

Wins from the tentative agreements:

• All three agreements will increase base wages by 25% through April 2028;
• Ford’s deal creates a pathway to allow workers at future battery plants, including the new EV complex in Tennessee, to join the union and be included in the master agreement;
• Stellantis’ deal will reopen the idled Belvidere Assembly Plant in Illinois and add a new battery plant in Belvidere;
• General Motors battery production workers will be included under the master UAW contract.

Tens of thousands of UAW workers have been on strike across the U.S. since the UAW contract expired on September 16. The Sierra Club, alongside many in the environment movement, has loudly echoed the demands of auto workers to ensure that the clean energy transition is a just transition.

Next, the tentative agreements for each automaker must be voted on and ratified by UAW members.

In response, Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous released the following statement:

“As UAW President Shawn Fain has said from the start, ‘Record profits mean record contracts.’ For workers and further ensuring a just transition to clean energy, these tentative contracts are truly historic.

“The transformation of the auto sector – and the economy more broadly – to meet U.S. climate commitments represents a generational opportunity to build an economy that works for everyone. This work will not be easy, but in negotiating historic contracts, UAW has reminded the world what is possible!”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Papua New Guinea’s Minister for International Trade and Investment Richard Maru has assured investors in Asia that his government has its sights set on free trade agreements with China and Indonesia.

He said his ministry, in tandem with a new parliamentary committee, would look into the “impediments to business”, with the aim to ease such disincentives to investors coming into the country in all sectors.

“We need to reduce the cost of doing business. Our Parliament last week established a new committee which is tasked to look at how we can reduce the difficulties in doing business and the committee has been established for the first time and they will look into
that aspect,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other PNG trade reports

“How do we make it easier — that aspect of business and the cost of doing business?

“We are now going to undertake a 6-month study on the viability of having a free trade agreement with China.

“I’m working to be in Indonesia in the coming weeks to start the discussions with the trade minister of Indonesia. We want to also undertake the study of Papua New Guinea looking at the viability of a free trade agreement with Indonesia,” Maru said.

He said PNG was serious about growth and economic partnership with the two large economies.

Maru reiterated that while the extractive sectors did raise revenue, they did not generate jobs except in their construction stage.

“Fisheries, forestry, hospitality, tourism — that is where the big jobs are.

“We will start putting trade commissions in cities with trade commissioners right around the world,” he added.

Republished with permission from the PNG Post-Courier.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Columbia University has been rocked by revelations about the university’s handling of the case of Robert Hadden, a former obstetrician-gynecologist who sexually abused patients for decades while working at the school.

A ProPublica investigation, published last month in collaboration with New York Magazine, detailed how Columbia failed to stop Hadden and then sought to deflect blame and distance the university from the scandal once his misconduct became public. Columbia has also refused to notify Hadden’s thousands of former patients that he’s been convicted of sexual misconduct.

Last week, more than 100 medical students wearing white coats were joined by some of the survivors in a protest at the inauguration of Columbia’s new president, Minouche Shafik. Throughout the event, they chanted, “Notify the patients.” The students have also called on Columbia to commission an independent investigation and to share the systemic changes the university has made as a result of the scandal. The students said administrators have not announced any actions in response to the students’ demands.

Also last week, an additional 301 former Hadden patients filed civil suits against the university, bringing the total to 538. Columbia has already settled with more than two hundred patients for $236.5 million.

Columbia did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment about the students’ demands or the new suits.

Hadden was arrested in 2012 after a patient called the police to report that Hadden had sexually assaulted her. Administrators at Columbia and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital then allowed Hadden to return to work, where he continued to abuse patients for five weeks before being suspended.

In 2016, Hadden agreed to a plea deal with the Manhattan district attorney’s office in which he received no jail time. The Department of Justice later charged Hadden, and he was convicted in federal court this January of abusing patients and is currently serving a 20-year sentence.

Following publication of our investigation, Columbia issued an apology for the first time. The statement was signed by Shafik and by Katrina Armstrong, the CEO of the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, where Hadden delivered babies. The letter says that the university “continues to grapple with the magnitude of harm done” to Hadden’s patients. “We are heartbroken for those who have suffered and continue to suffer from these terrible actions. Hadden will spend the rest of his life in prison thanks to these courageous women. We commend them for coming forward. We offer our deepest apologies to all his victims and their loved ones.” The letter did not lay out any specific shortcomings on Columbia’s part. Through a university spokesperson, Shafik declined to give further comment.

Two survivors, Marissa Hoechstetter and Evelyn Yang, along with their attorney, Anthony DiPietro, condemned the statement, calling it “self-serving propaganda.” They also said that the university continues to “keep thousands of patients in the dark.”

One reason that survivors are calling on the university to notify patients is so that if Hadden had other victims, they can seek justice through the courts. The Adult Survivors Act, a law passed in New York state last year, opened up a temporary one-year window in which survivors of sexual abuse can file cases against their abusers — or the institutions that protected them — even if the statute of limitations has expired.

On Sept. 28, during the annual State of the School address given at Columbia’s medical school, Armstrong gave a brief statement about Hadden, saying that she shared attendees’ distress and concern for the victims and their loved ones. “I also want you to know that we will be working as a community with everyone over the next weeks and days to make sure that we provide all the information about where we’ve come and all that’s been done to make sure that this will never happen again, to offer opportunities for support and engagement to everybody in our community for what you all need and deserve.”

Armstrong did not respond to a request for further comment.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Bianca Fortis.

Members of a Southern California community are grappling with a devastating blow to critical abortion access after a major fire engulfed a Planned Parenthood clinic in the early morning hours of August 15. Located in El Centro, Planned Parenthood’s Imperial Valley Homan Center is the only abortion provider in greater Imperial County. While the facility had been a staple for care in the region since it opened in 2015, it became a safe haven for out-of-state abortion patients following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson ruling in 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

“It’s a drastically medically underserved area already, so our services really were essential to the community here,” Sandra Duran, director of communications for Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest, told The Intercept. “We had patients coming to this health center from Arizona, from neighboring states, and it really became such a beacon of hope for so many.”

Bordering Mexico to the south and Arizona to the east, Imperial County is home to both the arid Colorado Desert and a severe medical desert. The rural county has one of the highest teen birth rates in California, and the loss of the Imperial Valley clinic leaves El Centro residents without another abortion provider for roughly 90 miles. The region has the second-lowest median income of any California county, with 17.3 percent of its residents living below the poverty line. The U.S. Census estimates that 86 percent of the county’s population is Hispanic or Latino.

“Maternal healthcare in El Centro is pretty bleak,” Eleanor Grano, a reproductive rights advocate who grew up in the city, wrote in a message to The Intercept. She noted that the El Centro Regional Medical Center closed its maternity ward in January, consolidating with a hospital about 15 miles away.

“We see a lot of patients who are low-income. We see a lot of patients who don’t have health insurance,” said Duran. “We see a lot of patients where Planned Parenthood is their primary source of health care, who do not have anywhere else to go to get access to basic health care services.” 

Some of these patients are also clients at WomanHaven, a domestic violence response agency in El Centro that provides emergency shelter and legal assistance to survivors. WomanHaven’s executive director, Gina Vargas, called Planned Parenthood “a great need in the community.”

Vargas noted that, as a facility located in a border town, WomanHaven sees many domestic violence survivors who lack documentation. “One of the common fears is that when they do have children, they’d be stripped of them,” Vargas said. “So they endure the abuse for a longer period of time, because they’re not informed of what their choices are. A lot of them are not allowed to take care of their health or reproductive care, because that abuser also holds that control over them.”

Duran, of Planned Parenthood, said that the facility had seen a substantial increase in out-of-state patients since 2022, particularly due to the lack of reproductive health care access in neighboring Arizona, where abortions are currently banned after 15 weeks.

The fall of Roe subjected Arizona residents to several confusing legislative shifts regarding the status of abortion care. Arizona providers initially halted abortion services after the Dobbs decision out of concern for a 2021 “personhood” law that granted legal rights to unborn children. Services restarted in July 2022, when a federal judge ruled the law could not be used to levy criminal charges against abortion providers. In December, after another protracted legal battle, an appeals court struck down a Civil War-era law that would have enacted a near-total ban on abortion in the state.

The Calexico Chronicle, an Imperial Valley news outlet, reported that fire crews were dispatched to the Planned Parenthood around 1:45 a.m. on Tuesday. The blaze had begun in a pile of items donated to the Salvation Army Thrift Store, which shares a fence line with the clinic.

“At this time, we are unsure of the cause of the fire and are working with officials to complete a full investigation,” Darrah DiGiorgio Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest, said in a statement. While the Imperial Valley clinic is closed, Planned Parenthood is directing patients who need in-person services to other clinics in San Diego and Riverside counties, while continuing to provide gender-affirming care through telehealth.

Although the cause of the fire is unknown, the loss of the clinic is a stinging reminder of another recent fire at a Southern California abortion clinic. On March 13, 2022, Planned Parenthood’s Costa Mesa Health Center in Orange County was firebombed with a Molotov cocktail. Last month, charges were announced against a third man for his alleged involvement in the attack. “Officials allege that Batten, along with two other men, including a U.S. marine, conspired to attack a women’s health clinic because it had provided reproductive health services,” The Guardian reported.

A report from the National Abortion Federation found a “sharp increase” in violence directed at abortion clinics last year, including arson, burglaries, death threats, and invasions. While President Joe Biden’s administration has prosecuted some of this anti-abortion extremism under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE, Act, it has also used the same federal law to crack down on reproductive rights advocates. Earlier this year, the Justice Department announced FACE Act charges against four abortion rights activists for allegedly spray painting a crisis pregnancy center: a type of facility that claims to offer reproductive health services but disseminates misleading, anti-abortion information.

The Imperial Valley Planned Parenthood itself faced opposition from anti-abortion groups. The clinic opened amid substantial pushback and was initially only able to provide non-abortion services, as El Centro’s fire chief declined to sign off on a fire safety clearance. The clearance was granted after Planned Parenthood sued the chief and the city of El Centro. 

“We’ve seen some really tough times. And unfortunately this is just another dark day in those times,” Duran said. “But we’re absolutely committed to rebuilding in the community. … This absolutely will not stop us from fulfilling our mission and getting the people the care that they need.”

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Schuyler Mitchell.

Image by Jay Rembert.

When the US gives arms to other nations, that is touted as diplomacy. If so, diplomacy needs a major makeover.

In 1978, against all predictions of success, Jimmy Carter sought to bring peace to the Middle East/North Africa (MENA). Others had presumed to try and had miserably failed, with all manner of wars featuring Egypt and others attacking Israel or Israel attacking them.

From 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, those nations seemed to jump into the buzzsaw of war more than once every 10 years.

Carter sought, and got, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to join him at Camp David to see if they could manage to prevent the next war, at least between Egypt and Israel. Sadat hated Begin. Begin loathed Sadat. What could go wrong?

Begin had a history as a terrorist. True. Against British officers, but also against random civilians in the area. He led the bombing plot that succeeded in killing many of them in the King David Hotel in 1946. If anything, that seemed to make him more attractive to Israelis, who saw that as part of their war of liberation, not a campaign of terror.

Begin was a master of setting low expectations and promising little, while working hard to deliver more. He said he saw Carter’s talks as just preliminary discussions toward when to have more detailed negotiations.

Sadat was a more cosmopolitan, relaxed, fashionable leader, prepared to go big if it worked to the advantage of Egypt.

Carter patiently worked with their teams for 13 days, staying there, not leaving in the sort of Attention Deficit Disorder that plagued other American would-be deal brokers in the past and would again in the future. In the end, they succeeded and the peace between Israel and Egypt has held ever since. Sounds like a win-win, right?

Not so much. There are long-range negative consequences to elements of the side deals that continue to this day and have cost many lives. It all relates to arms transfers–the sale or giving of weapons and munitions as diplomatic carrots. In the case of the vaunted Nobel Peace Prize-winning Camp David Accords, the malevolent aspect was the weapons aid Carter promised to both Israel and Egypt, aid the US has kept up ever since, arming both countries and assuring that many innocent lives would be lost.

With its advanced weapons from the US, Israel inflicts mass civilian damage on Palestine from time to time. For example, during Operation Cast Lead it killed more than 1400 Palestinians, many of them children and other noncombatants, while Israel suffered only 13 mortalities, a 100:1 ratio that has been typical of such armed conflicts. That is structural violence at its worst. This is only possible because of the “peace” deal brokered by Jimmy Carter.

Egypt had made the rights of Palestinians a trumpeted centerpiece of its deal at Camp David. I would assert that the results did not benefit Palestinians whatsoever.

And Sadat may have been a bit liberal compared to Egyptian leaders before and since, but all the weaponry that Carter offered him to induce the success of the Camp David talks has also been used to oppress people–especially Egyptians themselves–and to empower increasingly dictatorial Egyptian leaders. That oppression led to Arab Spring but Arab Spring was unraveled by the well-armed (by the US) Egyptian military and now it is a military dictatorship.

Perhaps Carter could not have foreseen those terrible outcomes of his efforts to bring peace to the region. But after this sort of thing plays out in the MENA, in Central Asia, in Colombia, and elsewhere, diplomats and other international negotiators should know better.

We’ve been here again and again. Arms to Saudi Arabia to make them happy. Then they decimated Yemen, turning a poor country into the worst humanitarian crisis on earth, thanks to weapons and munitions marked Made In America. Meanwhile, US humanitarian aid to Yemen, while helpful, is a snowball thrown into a hell created in part by US arms sent to the region.

Why does all this happen? Is it misplaced altruism?

Oh HTTFN (Hell To The F___ No). This is the arms industry, controlling State, controlling Congress, controlling it all the way to the US presidency.

The biggest obscenely profitable war profiteering corporations benefit enormously whether the US sells weapons or gives them. It all means cost-plus, no-bid contracts for them. The enormity of the grift and the bloodshed is staggering. It’s bipartisan. Trump bragged about his arms deals with Saudi Arabia and Biden is quieter but doing the very same.

Who pays for it?

We do. US taxpayers pay for every nickel in arms aid to Ukraine and many other countries, and it just means the war profiteers are rolling in profits that are reminiscent of what former Office of Management and Budget David Stockman meant when he told a reporter, “The hogs are really feeding now.”

They are feeding off your elder health care.

They are feeding off your student loans.

They are feeding off your sketchy infrastructure.

They take what is withheld from your income at paycheck time and they divert it to war profiteers.

And they are the ones most responsible for the ballooning federal debt and deficit. Congress can fuss all day long over inane culture war issues that are less than a rounding error in the federal budget, but the real theft from all of us who work for a living is from the war profiteer corporations. Congress can pretend that Social Security and Medicare are making us impoverished but it is the contractor corporations who take more than anyone from our paychecks, quite literally.

Only the American people can correct this. It will not be done by those we’ve elected so far, with some noteworthy exceptions. Change it up. Bring in those who are actually committed to fixing this.

This is not naive. This is the new realpolitik.

When American diplomats are dealing with trying to bring peace, they have much more than US weaponry to offer. Much much more. They can offer humanitarian aid. They can offer increased refugee numbers accepted into our country. They can offer many opportunities to foreign students to study here or support for decent universities in the warring nations once they make peace. They can offer better trade terms. There are many carrots, many inducements.

The sticks should be economic and reputational. For example, the US might tell a belligerent nation to stick with the agreement you signed and you will gain, or if you don’t you will be punished economically by the majority of countries and your reputation will suffer.

In short, coercion is not limited to violence and arms never need to be any sort inducement. This should be a law. Congress? Come in, Congress…

Seriously, if it were a law we wouldn’t waste our immense resources approving the $60 billion in military aid to Ukraine (so far). We would instead busy ourselves with finding those who can devise a solution through honest peace talks.

This is how peace came to places like Liberia and to the Philippines. Other gains besides weaponry can bring the parties to agreement.

The US is the number one supplier of weapons and munitions in the world. We are not helping by doing this. We are producing more death, more repression, more war. This can, and should, change.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Tom H. Hastings.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

As soon as Lisa Casteel learned her 78-year-old mother had agreed to sell her Kansas City home to a “We Buy Ugly Houses” franchise for far below its market value, she contacted the buyer to halt the deal.

In her letter to the company, she invoked a Kansas state law that grants three days to cancel certain sales agreements. She believed it would protect her mother and any other vulnerable homeowners entangled by questionable real estate deals. Her mother had no other place to live and had recently been showing signs of dementia, she said.

But the representative of the franchise, Red Rock REI, refused.

The experience more than three years ago revealed a glaring hole in regulations meant to protect people from unfair and deceptive practices. Even though HomeVestors franchises are in the business of buying properties, they use many of the same methods found in high pressure sales. In Kansas and many other states, laws that require a grace period for getting out of such sales contracts don’t apply to real estate transactions. Neither does a federal law aimed at protecting people from predatory sales practices.

Only after the Kansas Attorney General’s Office intervened at Casteel’s request was her mom able to keep her home. The attorney general ultimately demanded that Red Rock REI release Casteel’s mother from the contract by relying on state laws that protect the elderly from deceptive practices. And while Casteel succeeded in saving her mother’s house, no other action was taken against the franchise.

“I feel bad for others out there who are getting taken advantage of,” Casteel said. “They’ve got no help. And they feel like there’s no place to turn but to go ahead and sell to Red Rock and Ugly Houses and people like that.”

Adam Hays, who owned Red Rock before selling the franchise in 2021, said his sales representative did not observe that Casteel’s mother had any cognitive issues. He said HomeVestors demanded its franchises maintain a “strict standard of integrity and honesty.”

He said his company did not easily release homeowners from contracts because that would make it difficult to stay in business. His practice was to conduct “due diligence” into a homeowner’s reason for backing out of a deal to ensure another party wasn’t interfering with the homeowner’s decision. He said when he received the letters from the attorney general’s office about Casteel’s mother, he realized she had a legitimate reason for canceling the contract.

A corporate spokesperson for HomeVestors said the company was unaware of Red Rock’s dealing with Casteel’s mother and that it is no longer a franchise. HomeVestors recently prohibited some of the tactics Red Rock used to tie homeowners to contracts.

An investigation this year by ProPublica found some HomeVestors of America franchises used deception and aggressive sales tactics to persuade homeowners in vulnerable situations to sell their homes for far below market prices. The investigation also found few jurisdictions have laws or regulations to protect homeowners from aggressive tactics that fall short of outright fraud or elder abuse.

There have, however, been a few attempts by policymakers to protect vulnerable homeowners. A first-of-its-kind law in Philadelphia regulates real estate investors that participate in wholesaling properties — meaning they buy houses and resell them without making improvements or sell purchase contracts signed by the homeowner to another investor.

“A high pressure sales technique isn’t new, and we’ve been trying to protect people against it in all sorts of areas for years,” said Kate Dugan, staff attorney at Community Legal Services in Philadelphia, which worked on the law.

The law attempts to address a flaw in most consumer protection laws: Because homeowners are being pressured to sell rather than to buy something, the laws don’t cover them as consumers.

“The harm is the same, though: Parties with unequal bargaining power are engaging in a transaction, and the less sophisticated party loses,” Dugan said.

Oklahoma recently became one of a few jurisdictions to require licenses for residential real estate wholesalers. Unethical behavior can put wholesalers’ licenses at risk.

“When you don’t have reasonable guidelines, or restrictions or regulations in place to protect very minimum standards of abuse, then you’re going to open up the door for rampant abuse, like we’re seeing right now,” said Grant Cody, executive director of the Oklahoma Real Estate Commission.

ProPublica spoke to experts, including advocates for homeowners, real estate lawyers, a regulator and an individual in the business of flipping houses, about policies that could better protect homeowners. Here are their suggestions for regulations policymakers could consider.

Casteel was quick to answer when asked what policymakers could do to help people like her mother.

“There should be at least a cooling-off period,” she said. “And I don’t think three days is enough. Because for seniors who fall victim to this, they may not mention it to a family member within the first couple of days.”

Advocates for stronger homeowner protections agree the law should provide an efficient way to cancel a signed real estate contract within a set period under certain circumstances. Or, as an alternative, policymakers could adopt something similar to Philadelphia’s requirement that wholesalers give a homeowner three days to consider a contract before it’s signed.

Cooling-off periods are common in other transactions that involve high pressure sales or large assets. Many states, for example, have a right of rescission in timeshare sales, and a cooling-off period is built into many annuity purchases.

In particular, homeowners who have never publicly listed their houses for sale should be allowed a quick way out of a contract, said Sarah Bolling Mancini, co-director of advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center. Public listings attract competing offers and can better determine fair market value. Such a regulation would also protect homeowners from cash buyers who solicit sales.

Casteel said she’d also require that cash house buyers leave a copy of the contract with the homeowner along with the paperwork necessary to cancel it.

Asked by ProPublica whether HomeVestors would support such a regulation, a corporate spokesperson said the company is implementing a 72-hour cooling-off period requirement for its franchises.

“We require our franchisees to comply with our Systems and Standards, which generally go above and beyond state regulations, and we regularly update our standards to ensure our franchisees do the right thing and act to protect consumers,” she said.

HomeVestors and its franchises spend heavily on advertising — peppering neighborhoods with billboards and sending postcards to thousands of addresses at a time, promising quick cash and a painless sale process. Other homebuyers call and text endlessly.

Many homeowners view these aggressive, ground-level marketing strategies as a nuisance. And in some cities, policymakers have taken steps to curb them.

In Houston, residents can report illegally placed “bandit signs” to the city’s Department of Neighborhoods. Violators there can face up to $500 in fines, lawsuits and even arrest. Following reporting from WABE, the Atlanta City Council in 2020 prohibited real estate investors from “repeated and unsolicited attempts” to contact a homeowner after being asked to stop. Such overtures now amount to a form of “commercial harassment.” Violators can face fines or up to six months in jail.

And Philadelphia’s “do-not-solicit” list, launched last year, allows residents to opt out of in-person sales pitches, emails, phone calls and mailers. Offenders face up to $2,000 in fines. The city can ask a judge to assess larger fines on repeat offenders.

ProPublica’s investigation found some HomeVestors franchises routinely recorded documents against a homeowner’s title to trap them in a deal — a predatory practice known as “title clouding.” In response to ProPublica’s reporting, HomeVestors prohibited its franchises from clouding titles. But other cash homebuyers still do it.

Dugan said policymakers should consider restrictions on title clouding, including a waiting period between signing a contract and recording it and an easy way for a homeowner to contest the recording.

Many jurisdictions, including Philadelphia, allow homeowners to sign up to be notified when any document has been recorded against their title.

In many cases, months pass before homeowners learn that a contract had been recorded against the title. Sometimes the homeowner has died and their family must pay the house flipper to release the claim.

For example, six months passed before Casteel learned that Red Rock REI had recorded the sales contract against her mother’s title. When the Kansas Attorney General’s Office pressed Red Rock to remove the recording, the franchise owner tried to justify the action.

In an email to the attorney general’s office, the franchise owner said he recorded the contract to protect his interest in the property in the event Casteel’s mother “was being dishonest” and tried to sell the house to someone else.

Red Rock didn’t remove the recording until the attorney general’s office issued multiple warnings.

“It might discourage this predatory behavior if the bad actor knows that the homeowner will get notice immediately,” Dugan said.

A professional license, such as those required for real estate agents, isn’t a guarantee against unethical behavior. But experts said licensing could require a basic education so that wholesalers know such things as real estate laws, what should be included in a contract and what disclosures homeowners are entitled to. A licensing board could investigate homeowner complaints.

Philadelphia’s licensing of residential real estate wholesalers has provided transparency into who is wholesaling, Dugan said. The law also allows homeowners to cancel contracts at any time before closing if they’ve sold to an unlicensed wholesaler, which is a strong incentive for wholesalers to become licensed.

Kevin Link, a former Financial Industry Regulatory Authority investigator who co-owns a house-flipping business in Maryland, said he would welcome more regulation of the industry to weed out bad actors and ensure that those in the business have a minimum level of real estate education.

“Right now, the only regulations in place are those that govern white-collar crime,” he said.

HomeVestors’ corporate spokesperson said the company isn’t opposed to requiring wholesaler licenses.

“We look forward to exploring this, as well as other constructive ideas, on how we can best protect consumers within our industry,” she said.

Real estate regulation is largely the domain of cities, counties and states, creating a patchwork of policies and varying degrees of oversight and transparency. Because many regulatory bodies can only investigate licensed real estate activity, wholesalers often operate without the same guardrails as real estate agents.

Federal regulations to standardize local oversight, similar to the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act passed 15 years ago in the wake of the financial crisis, could help. The SAFE Act, which passed in 2008 after the explosion in predatory mortgage practices helped inflate a housing bubble and spark that year’s financial crisis, requires minimum local licensing standards for mortgage originators.

“I think a federal statute could be very helpful and meaningful,” Mancini said.

Rather than leaving it to states to enact a regulatory model, however, Mancini said federal rules could be applied to “we buy houses” transactions, such as by allowing a homeowner to cancel a sale if they have never publicly listed the home or obtained an appraisal, didn’t have a real estate agent or were directly solicited to sell the house.

She said states could also follow Maryland’s lead and ensure their unfair and deceptive acts and practices laws explicitly apply to real estate purchases in which high pressure sales tactics are used or a homeowner has been misled about the value or marketability of their house.

Mollie Simon contributed research.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Anjeanette Damon and Byard Duncan.

A Papua New Guinean academic says the new security deals with the United States will militarise his country and anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve.

In May, PNG’s Defence Minister Win Barki Daki and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed the Defence Cooperation Agreement and the Shiprider Agreement.

Last week they were presented to PNG MPs for ratification and made public.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Michael Kabuni talks defence treaties
• READ MORE: Other PNG-US defence pact reports

The defence cooperation agreement talks of reaffirming a strong defence relationship based on a shared commitment to peace and stability and common approaches to addressing regional defence and security issues.

Money that Marape ‘wouldn’t turn down’
University of PNG political scientist Michael Kabuni said there was certainly a need for PNG to improve security at the border to stop, for instance, the country being used as a transit point for drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine.

“Papua New Guinea hasn’t had an ability or capacity to manage its borders. So we really don’t know what goes on on the fringes of PNG’s marine borders.”

But Kabuni, who is completing his doctorate at the Australian National University, said whenever the US signs these sorts of deals with developing countries, the result is inevitably a heavy militarisation.

“I think the politicians, especially PNG politicians, are either too naïve, or the benefits are too much for them to ignore. So the deal between Papua New Guinea and the United States comes with more than US$400 million support. This is money that [Prime Minister] James Marape wouldn’t turn down,” he said.

The remote northern island of Manus, most recently the site of Australia’s controversial refugee detention camp, is set to assume far greater prominence in the region with the US eyeing both the naval base and the airport.

US fighter jets now (21.06.23) at Jacksons International Airport, Port Moresby.

Walen Parange pic.twitter.com/EVrOV7CWZ3

— Bobby Jr (@tambijr_4rmPNG) June 21, 2023

Kabuni said Manus was an important base during World War II and remains key strategic real estate for both China and the United States.

“So there is talk that, apart from the US and Australia building a naval base on Manus, China is building a commercial one. But when China gets involved in building wharves, though it appears to be a wharf for commercial ships to park, it’s built with the equipment to hold military naval ships,” he said.

Six military locations
Papua New Guineans now know the US is set to have military facilities at six locations around the country.

These are Nadzab Airport in Lae, the seaport in Lae, the Lombrum Naval Base and Momote Airport on Manus Island, as well as Port Moresby’s seaport and Jackson’s International Airport.

According to the text of the treaty the American military forces and their contractors will have the ability to largely operate in a cocoon, with little interaction with the rest of PNG, not paying taxes on anything they bring in, including personal items.

Prime Minister James Marape has said the Americans will not be setting up military bases, but this document gives them the option to do this.

Marape said more specific information on the arrangements would come later.

Antony Blinken said the defence pact was drafted by both nations as ‘equal and sovereign partners’ and stressed that the US will be transparent.

Critics of the deal have accused the government of undermining PNG’s sovereignty but Marape told Parliament that “we have allowed our military to be eroded in the last 48 years, [but] sovereignty is defined by the robustness and strength of your military”.

The Shiprider Agreement has been touted as a solution to PNG’s problems of patrolling its huge exclusive economic zone of nearly 3 million sq km.

Another feature of the agreements is that US resources could be directed toward overcoming the violence that has plagued PNG elections for many years, with possibly the worst occurrence in last year’s national poll.

But Michael Kabuni said the solution to these issues will not be through strengthening police or the military but by such things as improving funding and support for organisations like the Electoral Commission to allow for accurate rolls to be completed well ahead of voting.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Two Pacific nations considered by Washington as crucial in its competition with China for influence in the region have agreed to 20-year extensions of funding arrangements as part of security and defence treaties.

The Federated States of Micronesia signed off on a nearly-final Compact of Free Association on Monday with US Presidential Envoy Joseph Yun, followed by Palau on Wednesday.

Both documents are expected to be formally signed later this month, ending two years of negotiations.

• READ MORE: PNG’s Marape confident of pulling off PNG-US defence pact in spite of leak
• Other US defence reports

However, the Marshall Islands, the third North Pacific nation with a Compact, is unlikely to sign primarily because of outstanding issues surrounding the US nuclear testing legacy in the country.

The FSM will reportedly receive US$3.3 billion and Palau US$760 million over the 20-year life of the new funding agreements, according to US officials.

Yun was due to visit the Marshall Islands capital Majuro this week to discuss the situation further.

But the situation in the Marshall Islands appeared murkier than ever.

“The RMI (Republic of the Marshall Islands) looks forward to reaching an agreement soon with the US,” Marshall Islands Chief Negotiator and Foreign Minister Kitlang Kabua said on Wednesday.

Doubtful over new Compact
It is unclear at this stage when the two governments will reach agreement on a new 20-year deal, despite Kabua and Yun having initialled a memorandum of understanding in January that spelled out the amounts of funding to be provided to RMI over 20 years.

That would bring in US$1.5 billion and an additional US$700 million related to the nuclear weapons test legacy.

Yun acknowledged the situation with the Marshall Islands telling Reuters it was “doubtful” that the US and Marshall Islands would sign off on the Compact before he departs from Majuro this weekend.

At least one member of the Marshall Islands Compact Negotiation Committee said he was in the dark as to next steps.

“I really have no idea what is the game plan here,” he said.

In a widely-circulated email on the eve of Yun’s visit, Arno Nitijela (parliament) member Mike Halferty said there had been no involvement of the atoll of Arno and the majority of islands in the nation in developing the Compact.

“There is no report on the Compact negotiations for us to understand the situation,” he said. He objected to the exclusion of Arno and other islands from participation, saying the people of Arno are Marshallese like the people involved in the talks with the US.

‘Let people decide own fate’
“If we are truly a democracy, we should have had (a vote on Compact Two) and should now let the people vote to decide their own fate,” he said.

Reuters cited an unnamed “senior US official” who said the discussion between the US and RMI “is no longer about the amount of money but … about how the money will be structured and how it will be spent and what issues it will cover.”

Kitlang Kabua’s comments to the Marshall Islands Journal tended to confirm this analysis: “The RMI has matters tabled in the negotiations that are unique to our bilateral relationship with the US.

“These matters include the nuclear legacy, the communities affected by the US military operations and presence in-country, and the existential threat of climate change,” she said.

“We are also keen on strengthening processes to facilitate the RMI working jointly with the US, without jeopardising accountability and transparency, to utilise resources for areas of priorities as deemed by the RMI government’s strategic plan and other planning documents for the future.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

"It is time to end this absurdity," declared Sanders, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). "It is time for the United States to join nearly every other major country in the world and finally guarantee paid sick leave."

"In the richest country in the history of the world, it is a total disgrace that millions of workers are having to choose between their job and caring for their family, their newborn child, or themselves when they are sick and in need of care," he asserted. "It is time Congress passed this legislation to ensure workers receive the basic dignity and benefits that they deserve."

DeLauro and Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) also unveiled an updated version of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act, which would ensure that all workers in the United States have access to paid leave for serious medical events. The legislation would provide up to 12 weeks of partial income annually and ensure those with the lowest pay earn up to 85% of their normal wages.

The FAMILY Act would also ensure workers who have been at their job for over 90 days have the right to be reinstated after their leave, allow states to continue administering existing programs, and establish a new Office of Paid Family and Medical Leave. As DeLauro noted, she and Gillibrand have been fighting for versions of their bill for the past decade.

"Thirty years ago, we broke ground by enshrining the Family and Medical Leave Act into law, providing unpaid family and medical leave for working Americans," she said. "Let's break ground again by making it paid. Since 2013, I have been proud to be joined by Sen. Gillibrand in introducing the FAMILY Act, which would establish the nation's first universal, comprehensive paid family and medical leave program. This year, the fight continues, as we reintroduce a strengthened FAMILY Act to meet families where they are now and ensure no one has to make the impossible choice between their job and the health of themselves or their loved ones."

The proposals are backed by dozens of advocacy organizations and unions, with several groups and activists demanding swift passage of both bills—though the odds are unlikely, with slim Democratic control of the Senate and the House's GOP majority.

"I had my first child, I was a public school teacher, and I had to drain all my sick time to try to maintain some income during my unpaid maternity leave," said Rachel Shelton, a MomsRising member from Asheville, North Carolina, in a statement.

"That was a huge challenge, because babies get sick!" Shelton explained. "When I had my second, I made the tough decision to leave my job because the situation was unsustainable. It shouldn't be this hard to balance caregiving and work. We need Congress to pass the FAMILY Act and Healthy Families Act, now. It's past time we guarantee all working people the paid leave and paid sick days we need to care for our families and for ourselves."

National Nurses United also supports both bills. The organization's president, Jean Ross, said that "nurses want what is best for patients, and that's why our union supports paid sick and family leave for all workers. Nurses see the negative health consequences on patients when they are unable to take leave due to their own illness, or the need to care for family."

"Nobody should have to choose between their own health or the health of their loved ones, and their livelihood," Ross stressed. "Further, nursing is a majority female profession, and paid sick and family leave is essential to ensuring that nursing becomes a sustainable profession."

The introductions—which also featured remarks from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.)—come after a year of railway workers, backed by key congressional allies including Sanders, gaining national attention for their fight for paid leave in the face of dangerous working conditions and industry greed.

Mike Baldwin, president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, said Wednesday that "the BRS would like to thank those members of Congress who support paid sick leave. Rail workers were deemed essential during the pandemic. They came to work sick because they didn't want to miss a day's pay, or worse be disciplined for their absence."

"This legislation is important to rail workers," he said of the HFA. "It is an essential need, and it isn't just a frivolous want."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

“This shows how U.S. military power has actually become an obstacle to security and stability in the region.”

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Murtaza Hussain.

The report, entitled "This Is Why We Became Activists": Violence Against Lesbian, Bisexual, and Queer Women and Nonbinary People, looks "beyond the criminalization of same-sex conduct," Kilbride explained.

The document details violence that LBQ+ people endure from family members, security forces, and others, as well as discrimination, particularly related to employment; healthcare—especially fertility services; housing, land, and property rights; justice systems; and migration.

"The scale of brutal violence, legal discrimination, and sexualized harassment these communities face is rarely documented."

Kilbride and others on the call highlighted that while the discrimination and violence are often "highly visible," they are also "historically underdocumented," including by major human rights groups. The researcher expressed hope that the new report is "a step in the right direction" to fill that "immense gap."

"Lesbian, bisexual, and queer women are renowned for leading human rights struggles around the world," Kilbride said in a statement. "But the scale of brutal violence, legal discrimination, and sexualized harassment these communities face is rarely documented."

The interviewees ranged in age from 21 to 75 and the majority of them are "movement leaders, activists, and human rights defenders working at the local or national level," the report notes. They include Amani, who told HRW that "I got beaten by police in a protest for an arrested human rights defender Rania Amdouni in 2021."

According to the report:

Amani is a 27-year-old Lebanese-Tunisian lesbian activist, queer feminist, and woman human rights defender in Tunisia. She leads writing therapy workshops for people who have experienced trauma, human rights violations, and discrimination and for members of the queer community who have depression.

In 2021, police physically assaulted Amani. One of her ribs was broken, and she spent three days in the hospital.

[...]

Since the attack, the police have followed and stopped her three times on the street; each time, she was taken to a police station for questioning. She told Human Rights Watch that because she is a woman, the police have an "easy way" to harass her by asking if she ran away from home and if her family is looking for her, which is a gendered line of questioning that speaks to women's lack of freedom of movement and the control many families have over women... During those instances of police harassment, police often touched her short hair and arm tattoos, demanding to know why she did not present as more feminine.

"I think one queer woman's story can change those that come after it," Amani told Kilbride. "That is why I agreed to talk to you, to tell you what happened."

Andrea Rivas, a lesbian activist and lawyer in Argentina, said that "the first homophobic attack I suffered was at 12 years old: verbal violence from the father of the girl I was going with. He knew just by how I dressed. I liked pants. Parents tell girls like me if we won't stop dressing like this, we won't get to go to school. You are marginalized in the early stages, in primary school and high school."

After noting how LBQ+ people in Argentina have more limited education and employment opportunities, Rivas added that "the less economic options you have, the more exposed you are to violence. As a lawyer now, I receive so many reports that paint a picture of violence over a lifetime. We need to analyze it from the first moments, because it starts when you are little, when you are building your identity."

Along with Argentina and Tunisia, the interviewees are from Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malawi, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, and the United States.

Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine, launched nearly a year ago, has forced some Ukrainian parents to decide whether to remain in their war-torn country or flee to Poland, where they fear losing their children, the report states. LBQ+ people in other nations, such as the United States, also face various problems related to parenthood.

The report includes the story of Kris Williams and Rebekah Wilson, who divorced after Wilson gave birth to their child. Williams' lawyer, Robyn Hopkins, told HRW of the former U.S. couple's battle over the birth certificate and custody: "Mothers should not have to adopt their own children. My client and her ex-wife decided to have this child while they were married."

The publication also points out that "in the U.S., three large insurance companies cover fertility treatments for heterosexual couples who demonstrate an inability to get pregnant after a set amount of time, usually approximately a year. For LBQ+ couples, demonstrating that neither partner produces sperm is usually insufficient proof of an 'inability to get pregnant. Instead, LBQ+ couples are often asked to 'show receipt of multiple failed rounds of fertility treatments to qualify for insurance coverage,' meaning the price of proving 'inability' can be up to $30,000 higher for LBQ+ couples than for heterosexual ones."

In addition to sharing the experiences of LBQ+ people from across the globe, the report features policy recommendations for civil society, health departments, judiciaries, national legislatures, and security forces.

"LBQ+ activists are experts in the violence their communities experience," said Kilbride. "With this report, we provide governments and donors with concrete steps for action, starting with visibility, funding, and protection for LBQ+ movements."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The report, entitled "This Is Why We Became Activists": Violence Against Lesbian, Bisexual, and Queer Women and Nonbinary People, looks "beyond the criminalization of same-sex conduct," Kilbride explained.

The document details violence that LBQ+ people endure from family members, security forces, and others, as well as discrimination, particularly related to employment; healthcare—especially fertility services; housing, land, and property rights; justice systems; and migration.

"The scale of brutal violence, legal discrimination, and sexualized harassment these communities face is rarely documented."

Kilbride and others on the call highlighted that while the discrimination and violence are often "highly visible," they are also "historically underdocumented," including by major human rights groups. The researcher expressed hope that the new report is "a step in the right direction" to fill that "immense gap."

"Lesbian, bisexual, and queer women are renowned for leading human rights struggles around the world," Kilbride said in a statement. "But the scale of brutal violence, legal discrimination, and sexualized harassment these communities face is rarely documented."

The interviewees ranged in age from 21 to 75 and the majority of them are "movement leaders, activists, and human rights defenders working at the local or national level," the report notes. They include Amani, who told HRW that "I got beaten by police in a protest for an arrested human rights defender Rania Amdouni in 2021."

According to the report:

Amani is a 27-year-old Lebanese-Tunisian lesbian activist, queer feminist, and woman human rights defender in Tunisia. She leads writing therapy workshops for people who have experienced trauma, human rights violations, and discrimination and for members of the queer community who have depression.

In 2021, police physically assaulted Amani. One of her ribs was broken, and she spent three days in the hospital.

[...]

Since the attack, the police have followed and stopped her three times on the street; each time, she was taken to a police station for questioning. She told Human Rights Watch that because she is a woman, the police have an "easy way" to harass her by asking if she ran away from home and if her family is looking for her, which is a gendered line of questioning that speaks to women's lack of freedom of movement and the control many families have over women... During those instances of police harassment, police often touched her short hair and arm tattoos, demanding to know why she did not present as more feminine.

"I think one queer woman's story can change those that come after it," Amani told Kilbride. "That is why I agreed to talk to you, to tell you what happened."

Andrea Rivas, a lesbian activist and lawyer in Argentina, said that "the first homophobic attack I suffered was at 12 years old: verbal violence from the father of the girl I was going with. He knew just by how I dressed. I liked pants. Parents tell girls like me if we won't stop dressing like this, we won't get to go to school. You are marginalized in the early stages, in primary school and high school."

After noting how LBQ+ people in Argentina have more limited education and employment opportunities, Rivas added that "the less economic options you have, the more exposed you are to violence. As a lawyer now, I receive so many reports that paint a picture of violence over a lifetime. We need to analyze it from the first moments, because it starts when you are little, when you are building your identity."

Along with Argentina and Tunisia, the interviewees are from Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malawi, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, and the United States.

Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine, launched nearly a year ago, has forced some Ukrainian parents to decide whether to remain in their war-torn country or flee to Poland, where they fear losing their children, the report states. LBQ+ people in other nations, such as the United States, also face various problems related to parenthood.

The report includes the story of Kris Williams and Rebekah Wilson, who divorced after Wilson gave birth to their child. Williams' lawyer, Robyn Hopkins, told HRW of the former U.S. couple's battle over the birth certificate and custody: "Mothers should not have to adopt their own children. My client and her ex-wife decided to have this child while they were married."

The publication also points out that "in the U.S., three large insurance companies cover fertility treatments for heterosexual couples who demonstrate an inability to get pregnant after a set amount of time, usually approximately a year. For LBQ+ couples, demonstrating that neither partner produces sperm is usually insufficient proof of an 'inability to get pregnant. Instead, LBQ+ couples are often asked to 'show receipt of multiple failed rounds of fertility treatments to qualify for insurance coverage,' meaning the price of proving 'inability' can be up to $30,000 higher for LBQ+ couples than for heterosexual ones."

In addition to sharing the experiences of LBQ+ people from across the globe, the report features policy recommendations for civil society, health departments, judiciaries, national legislatures, and security forces.

"LBQ+ activists are experts in the violence their communities experience," said Kilbride. "With this report, we provide governments and donors with concrete steps for action, starting with visibility, funding, and protection for LBQ+ movements."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The Grace Road Church made 31 acquisitions of land during the reign of the FijiFirst government and it has several other land acquisition applications still pending.

Lands Minister Filimoni Vosarogo revealed this yesterday when responding to queries about a meeting on Friday where he briefed Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka about issues surrounding the South Korean church and business group.

He said he would investigate the church’s organisations dealings with the FijiFirst government once it was brought to his attention.

• READ MORE: Calls for inquiry into Fiji government’s ties to South Korea’s Grace Road Church
• Other Grace Road cult reports

“I’m sure there are a number of applications that are probably in the process of ministerial consent (under the Land Sales Act) so when it gets to my table then I will pay attention, the same as I have given to any other purchaser in relation to compliance,” Vosarogo said.

“I have not looked at each individual dealing the FijiFirst government had with Grace Road in the past and which have been approved. I will be looking into it, but I have not gone through each individual one.

“They have had 31 acquisitions so far during the time of the FijiFirst government.”

He said he felt the purchases of property by Grace Road were unnecessary.

Human rights allegations
Attorney-General Siromi Turaga said he was not aware about the issue.

“It has not been brought to my attention but I’m sure it will come out,” he said.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported last year allegations by investigative journalists in the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Korea Centre for Investigative Journalism (KCIJ-Newstapa) that the church received more than $8.5 million in loans from the Fiji Development Bank.

Four UN Special Rapporteurs claimed in 2020 that they had received information about Grace Road Group members being subjected to abusive and exploitative labour conditions, which could amount to forced labour and asked the group for their response.

Other human rights abuses reported referred to child labour, restricted freedom of movement, obstructed access to healthcare and education, as well as physical and psychological abuse.

Attempts to reach the management of the church proved unsuccessful yesterday.

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Adam Bychawski.

The Justice Department and Congress are facing new calls to investigate Donald Trump’s financial ties to Saudi Arabia. The latest controversy centers on a new golf tournament owned by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign Public Investment Fund, which is chaired by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. LIV has paid millions to golf resorts owned by Donald Trump, who has publicly supported the new league which is attempting to compete with the PGA. Meanwhile, an exposé has revealed that the Saudi government infiltrated Wikipedia to control information on the kingdom. Government administrators were recruited to edit the crowdsourced site in ways that portrayed Saudi Arabia in a positive light, and two noncompliant editors who contributed critical information about political detainees were themselves prosecuted and imprisoned. The Wikimedia Foundation, the parent company of Wikipedia, appears to have banned 16 Saudi users for “conflict of interest” editing, yet it is unclear what additional steps they have taken to combat the Saudi government’s disinformation campaign. We speak to Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), the organization that released the report on Wikipedia’s infiltration, who says that Saudi Arabia’s financial investments in American political leaders’ business dealings and deployment of government agents inside international organizations are key to its global project to conceal evidence of its human rights abuses.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy finally seized the House speaker's gavel in the early hours of Saturday morning, capping off a chaotic week of voting and heated floor confrontations that were nationally televised and closely documented by reporters stationed at the U.S. Capitol.

What remains less clear, though, is how much McCarthy (R-Calif.) conceded to his far-right detractors behind closed doors to win enough support to prevail on the 15th ballot—raising urgent questions and warnings about the havoc the House GOP could wreak in the coming months.

"What did McCarthy promise to get the collaboration of extremists?" Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) asked over the weekend. "The future of Social Security and Medicare? Our nation’s full faith and credit? Keeping our government open?"

Neither McCarthy nor the small faction of House Republicans that nearly sank his speakership bid have been fully transparent about the agreements that ultimately ended the impasse, but reports indicate that the new speaker expressed his willingness to leverage the debt ceiling to pursue spending cuts as well as potentially damaging changes to Social Security and Medicare.

The New York Times reported Saturday that McCarthy vowed "to allow open debate on spending bills and to not raise the debt limit without major cuts—including efforts to reduce spending on so-called mandatory programs, which include Social Security and Medicare—in a deal that brought many holdouts... into his camp."

Among the holdouts persuaded by McCarthy's pledges was Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who last week said the Republican leader should agree to "shut down the government rather than raise the debt ceiling," an arbitrary borrowing limit that the federal government is expected to reach some time this year.

Norman was a member of the committee that, just last year, proposed raising the Social Security eligibility age to 70, means-testing the program's benefits, and bolstering "private retirement options."

Failure to raise the debt ceiling carries vast economic consequences, potentially eliminating 6 million jobs and $15 trillion in household wealth. In 2011, House Republicans used the debt ceiling process to secure what one economist called "an anti-stimulus" that "led directly to the worst recovery following a recession since World War II."

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the new House minority whip, warned in an appearance on CNN Sunday morning that the debt ceiling agreement that McCarthy reportedly cut with GOP holdouts "is all about forcing us to make cuts to Social Security."

"They are going to use the debt ceiling as leverage to take American seniors hostage," Clark said.

\u201cNew Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) calls all the Republican talk about process a "smokescreen": \n\n"They are going to use the debt ceiling as leverage to take American seniors hostage ... This is all about forcing us to make cuts to Social Security ... and Medicare."\u201d

— The Recount (@The Recount) 1673189617

McCarthy, who has previously embraced his far-right colleagues' call for debt ceiling brinkmanship, will have little room to maneuver given another concession he granted to his erstwhile opponents: A single lawmaker will soon have the power to trigger a snap vote on whether to oust the speaker.

That change will be cemented as part of the rules package that the House is expected to vote on later Monday, a process that could prove tumultuous given some far-right Republicans' continued grumbling over the proposal.

The slate of proposed rules also includes a measure known as CUTGO, which would require any new spending to offset with spending cuts. Unlike the so-called PAYGO rule, CUTGO would not allow spending increases to be offset with tax hikes.

As Roll Call explained, Republicans would be allowed under the new rules to "pass tax cuts that would add to the deficit."

"House Republicans made this same rule change when they took power in the 112th Congress and it’s an even worse idea now than it was then. CutGo is the antithesis of fiscal responsibility," Rep. John Yarmuth (R-Ky.), the former chair of the House Budget Committee, said in a recent statement. "If Republicans adopt this proposed rule change, it will not only take a toll on our nation's budget and productivity, but it will take a toll on Americans' lives and livelihoods."

But Politico reported Monday that most of McCarthy's concessions "aren't up for a vote today."

"They are handshake agreements made as McCarthy desperately scrambled for votes last week," the outlet noted. "McCarthy has promised floor votes on an array of priority bills from the conservative flank of his party, including on border security, term limits for House members, and a balanced budget amendment."

"Promises have been made to try and cap discretionary spending at fiscal 2022 levels," Politico added. "Those are lower than the current enacted spending levels, which would lead to a potential 10 percent cut to defense spending and additional cuts to domestic spending, which is sure to stir trouble in the Senate."

The last time the GOP was able to force through a cap on domestic spending—using the debt ceiling as leverage—the results were highly destructive.

"People often invoke the damage done by the 2011 showdown over the debt ceiling," Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute wrote in a blog post last year. "They point to stock market losses, increases in 'economic uncertainty' indices, and estimates of how much higher interest rates went in the showdown's aftermath. But they tend to miss what was by far the greatest damage done by the 2011 debt ceiling episode: the passage of the Budget Control Act (BCA), a piece of legislation that is relatively unknown to the lay public."

"The BCA's caps on federal spending explain a large part of why this spending in the aftermath of the Great Recession was the slowest in history following any recession (or at least since the Great Depression)," Bivens observed. "This federal spending austerity fully explains why the recovery from the Great Recession was so agonizingly slow."

Speaking to the Post on Saturday, Sharon Parrott of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities echoed Bivens on the impact of the BCA, calling it "incredibly damaging."

The austerity imposed by the law, the Post reported, "fell hard on a wide array of agencies—from gutting child care spending to depleting the ranks of federal workers who oversee Social Security."

Progressives fear that House Republicans, with their majority and a speaker in place, are looking to repeat history.

"McCarthy just agreed to a deal with far-right insurrectionists that would hold the entire U.S. and global economy hostage to extreme cuts to everything from housing to education, healthcare, Social Security, and Medicare," Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said late last week. "Hard to overstate how dangerous this is."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy finally seized the House speaker's gavel in the early hours of Saturday morning, capping off a chaotic week of voting and heated floor confrontations that were nationally televised and closely documented by reporters stationed at the U.S. Capitol.

What remains less clear, though, is how much McCarthy (R-Calif.) conceded to his far-right detractors behind closed doors to win enough support to prevail on the 15th ballot—raising urgent questions and warnings about the havoc the House GOP could wreak in the coming months.

"What did McCarthy promise to get the collaboration of extremists?" Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) asked over the weekend. "The future of Social Security and Medicare? Our nation’s full faith and credit? Keeping our government open?"

Neither McCarthy nor the small faction of House Republicans that nearly sank his speakership bid have been fully transparent about the agreements that ultimately ended the impasse, but reports indicate that the new speaker expressed his willingness to leverage the debt ceiling to pursue spending cuts as well as potentially damaging changes to Social Security and Medicare.

The New York Timesreported Saturday that McCarthy vowed "to allow open debate on spending bills and to not raise the debt limit without major cuts—including efforts to reduce spending on so-called mandatory programs, which include Social Security and Medicare—in a deal that brought many holdouts... into his camp."

Among the holdouts persuaded by McCarthy's pledges was Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who last week said the Republican leader should agree to "shut down the government rather than raise the debt ceiling," an arbitrary borrowing limit that the federal government is expected to reach some time this year.

Norman was a member of the committee that, just last year, proposed raising the Social Security eligibility age to 70, means-testing the program's benefits, and bolstering "private retirement options."

Failure to raise the debt ceiling carries vast economic consequences, potentially eliminating 6 million jobs and $15 trillion in household wealth. In 2011, House Republicans used the debt ceiling process to secure what one economist called "an anti-stimulus" that "led directly to the worst recovery following a recession since World War II."

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the new House minority whip, warned in an appearance on CNN Sunday morning that the debt ceiling agreement that McCarthy reportedly cut with GOP holdouts "is all about forcing us to make cuts to Social Security."

"They are going to use the debt ceiling as leverage to take American seniors hostage," Clark said.

McCarthy, who has previously embraced his far-right colleagues' call for debt ceiling brinkmanship, will have little room to maneuver given another concession he granted to his erstwhile opponents: A single lawmaker will soon have the power to trigger a snap vote on whether to oust the speaker.

That change will be cemented as part of the rules package that the House is expected to vote on later Monday, a process that could prove tumultuous given some far-right Republicans' continued grumbling over the proposal.

The slate of proposed rules also includes a measure known as CUTGO, which would require any new spending to offset with spending cuts. Unlike the so-called PAYGO rule, CUTGO would not allow spending increases to be offset with tax hikes.

As Roll Callexplained, Republicans would be allowed under the new rules to "pass tax cuts that would add to the deficit."

"House Republicans made this same rule change when they took power in the 112th Congress and it’s an even worse idea now than it was then. CutGo is the antithesis of fiscal responsibility," Rep. John Yarmuth (R-Ky.), the former chair of the House Budget Committee, said in a recent statement. "If Republicans adopt this proposed rule change, it will not only take a toll on our nation's budget and productivity, but it will take a toll on Americans' lives and livelihoods."

But Politicoreported Monday that most of McCarthy's concessions "aren't up for a vote today."

"They are handshake agreements made as McCarthy desperately scrambled for votes last week," the outlet noted. "McCarthy has promised floor votes on an array of priority bills from the conservative flank of his party, including on border security, term limits for House members, and a balanced budget amendment."

"Promises have been made to try and cap discretionary spending at fiscal 2022 levels," Politico added. "Those are lower than the current enacted spending levels, which would lead to a potential 10 percent cut to defense spending and additional cuts to domestic spending, which is sure to stir trouble in the Senate."

The last time the GOP was able to force through a cap on domestic spending—using the debt ceiling as leverage—the results were highly destructive.

"People often invoke the damage done by the 2011 showdown over the debt ceiling," Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute wrote in a blog post last year. "They point to stock market losses, increases in 'economic uncertainty' indices, and estimates of how much higher interest rates went in the showdown's aftermath. But they tend to miss what was by far the greatest damage done by the 2011 debt ceiling episode: the passage of the Budget Control Act (BCA), a piece of legislation that is relatively unknown to the lay public."

"The BCA's caps on federal spending explain a large part of why this spending in the aftermath of the Great Recession was the slowest in history following any recession (or at least since the Great Depression)," Bivens observed. "This federal spending austerity fully explains why the recovery from the Great Recession was so agonizingly slow."

Speaking to the Post on Saturday, Sharon Parrott of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities echoed Bivens on the impact of the BCA, calling it "incredibly damaging."

The austerity imposed by the law, the Postreported, "fell hard on a wide array of agencies—from gutting child care spending to depleting the ranks of federal workers who oversee Social Security."

Progressives fear that House Republicans, with their majority and a speaker in place, are looking to repeat history.

"McCarthy just agreed to a deal with far-right insurrectionists that would hold the entire U.S. and global economy hostage to extreme cuts to everything from housing to education, healthcare, Social Security, and Medicare," Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said late last week. "Hard to overstate how dangerous this is."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Aage Borchgrevink.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

The deal had been orchestrated by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, but even her allies knew the optics were bad: Land long set aside for low-income housing would be turned over to a professional soccer team owned by a billionaire. And criticism was intensifying.

Bombarded with questions during a City Council committee meeting last month, a local housing official stressed that the deal would be scrutinized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development before it could proceed.

That assurance helped the mayor’s allies win approval in the council. Later that day, the Chicago Housing Authority sent an application asking HUD to sign off on the deal.

But if the past is any indication, the outcome of the federal review is hardly in doubt. Over the last decade, HUD has never blocked a public housing land deal in Chicago, according to records from HUD and the Chicago Housing Authority.

With HUD’s consent, the CHA has essentially become a land piggy bank for other government agencies and the private sector. Through sales, leases and swaps, the agency has turned over land for two Target stores on the North Side, a privately owned tennis complex on the South Side, and infrastructure in gentrifying neighborhoods, such as a fire house and a police station on the Near West Side.

HUD ultimately approved more than a dozen land transactions while applying little pressure on the CHA to measure the benefits for residents or produce more affordable housing. In several cases, the agency agreed to accept far less than a property’s market value.

The approvals in Chicago are part of a larger pattern. ProPublica found that HUD routinely signs off on plans to get rid of property owned by public housing authorities across the country, including in Atlanta, Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

In Chicago, the CHA justified its actions by saying the deals would generate more money for housing. Yet the projected units have been delayed repeatedly, and some didn’t materialize at all.

This wasn’t what was promised. In 2000, HUD officials helped the CHA launch its Plan for Transformation, a citywide effort to dismantle and redevelop public housing sites. As the CHA leveled most of its apartment buildings, thousands of families had to find new places to live. Within a few years, the agency was sitting on blocks of open land. Officials committed to building new homes for families with a range of income levels.

Two decades later, some of the former public housing sites have been rebuilt and are thriving, but many parcels remain empty, and the agency still needs to build hundreds of units of housing to comply with court agreements.

The Near West Side deal that Lightfoot is pushing would let the Chicago Fire build a new practice facility on CHA-owned land that was long reserved for new housing. The team is owned by billionaire Joe Mansueto, a Lightfoot ally. Questions about the deal grew after ProPublica and WTTW-TV published a story about it in June.

In August, housing advocates sent a letter to HUD officials asking them to oppose the Fire agreement. The CHA’s failure to build promised new homes “must not serve as a basis to jettison an important supply of coveted, available public housing land in a gentrifying community,” they wrote.

These types of deals show how the CHA has drifted away from its mission to provide affordable housing, said Don Washington, one of the authors of the letter to HUD. Washington is executive director of the Chicago Housing Initiative, a coalition of community organizations.

“What it’s doing is getting the CHA and HUD out of the business of creating brick-and-mortar housing for low-income, mostly Black and brown children and families,” he said. “They’re instead building new facilities for new people.”

CHA officials say they want to develop their land with more than housing. “CHA’s investments in communities go beyond replacing the failed public housing model of the past,” an agency spokesperson wrote in a statement.

Agency officials say they have used a formal procurement process to select developers for many of their sites. But in other instances, they have accepted pitches from businesses, nonprofit organizations and other government entities on a case-by-case basis, without soliciting competitive bids.

CHA officials say the land deals fit into the agency’s strategy of “mixed-income, mixed-use” development that leads to “economic independence,” and some residents and community leaders have welcomed that approach.

“Housing is our middle name,” Ann McKenzie, the CHA’s chief development officer, said at a recent city planning meeting. But, she added, “we can use some of this space for other things people want and need in their lives.” That could include schools, parks, jobs, health care access and grocery stores, McKenzie and other CHA leaders say.

For their part, HUD officials say they have little control over the CHA’s land management strategies and are limited to reviewing proposals one at a time.

Those reviews are meant to ensure that housing authorities follow a “fair and open process” while “residents’ voices are heard,” according to a statement from HUD. It added that land deals can generate money for housing and other community needs.

“HUD takes its obligation to enforce statutory requirements very seriously and will continue to do so,” Diane M. Shelley, the department’s Midwest regional administrator, wrote in a statement. She added that increasing the supply of affordable housing is “a high priority for the Biden-Harris administration.”

By law, local housing authorities are not allowed to dispose of public housing property unless low-income residents will benefit or the property is no longer needed.

No public housing land deals advance without HUD’s support. Its Special Applications Center is responsible for making sure that the property transactions comply with the law, and that they have been discussed with residents and have support from local government leaders.

To examine the volume and outcomes of these applications, ProPublica submitted open records requests to HUD, the CHA and housing authorities in six other cities. Each agency tracks land dispositions differently, and in many cases the CHA and HUD didn’t provide the same documents for the same transactions, making it challenging to get precise counts of such deals. But taken together, the records offer a revealing portrait of how the process works.

Records show that since 2011, HUD greenlit every property disposition application — more than 100 — from housing authorities in Chicago; Atlanta; Baltimore; Memphis, Tennessee; Milwaukee; Philadelphia; and Pittsburgh, all of which have received large revitalization grants from the agency.

HUD authorized plans to raze old apartment buildings, transfer land for new housing and redevelopment projects, and sell properties to private investors. But only the CHA appears to have received approval for so many applications that didn’t involve building new housing, according to the records.

CHA officials said that’s because the agency has a larger footprint than the other housing authorities.

A land deal on Chicago’s Near West Side illustrates HUD’s tendency to go along with CHA plans. In 2019, HUD allowed the CHA to give an acre of land in the ABLA Homes area to a local nonprofit for much less than its market value. Though an appraisal concluded that the parcel was worth $2.7 million, the CHA agreed to lease it to SOS Children’s Villages Illinois for $1 a year over 99 years so the nonprofit could build a community center. In return, SOS promised to provide social services to CHA families.

Some residents opposed the land transfer because there was an existing community center just two blocks away. In addition, they pointed out, the CHA had only constructed a fraction of the housing units promised for the redevelopment of ABLA, where 3,600 families lived before much of the complex was razed. But HUD signed off on the deal, agreeing with the CHA that it was “in the best interest of the public housing residents.”

The SOS community center is two blocks from the 23-acre site the CHA wants to lease to the Chicago Fire soccer team so it can build a new training facility.

Records show that CHA officials encountered HUD speed bumps just twice, and both ended up being temporary. On one occasion, HUD held up the sale of a vacant two-unit building to a county agency that planned to have it rehabbed. HUD determined some paperwork was missing from the CHA’s application, but once that was provided, HUD backed the sale.

The other delay was prompted by deeper concerns. In 2013, the administration of then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel engineered a land swap between the CHA and the city. The CHA gave up a vacant block that was formerly part of the Ickes Homes, a Near South Side development where 1,000 families lived before the apartment buildings were demolished in the Plan for Transformation. The city used that Ickes block to build a running track and turf field for a public, selective-enrollment high school a mile and a half away.

In return, the CHA received almost 10 acres on the Near North Side, across the street from the site of the CHA’s former Cabrini-Green complex. The CHA made plans to use that land for housing and retail as part of its Cabrini redevelopment.

HUD approved the land swap. But the process hit a snag when the CHA sought permission to transfer almost half of the Near North Side property — including an existing baseball diamond — to the Chicago Park District.

Attorneys for the Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council, the development’s elected residents’ group, opposed the move. They argued that the CHA should not get rid of land at Cabrini until the agency had delivered the 1,800 affordable housing units it had agreed to as part of a 2015 federal consent decree, which resulted from litigation to force the CHA to fulfill its promises. Then, as now, more than 30,000 people were waiting for housing assistance from the CHA.

“Displaced CHA residents and applicants on CHA’s waitlist have been waiting too many years for replacement housing in the revitalized Cabrini Green neighborhood, and disposing of four acres of valuable land before CHA can show its ability to replace the minimum 1,800 subsidized units without this land is unjustifiable,” wrote Richard Wheelock of the Legal Assistance Foundation, now known as Legal Aid Chicago, and Jeff Leslie from the University of Chicago Law School.

That’s when HUD took the unusual step of pausing the CHA’s land transfer. The federal agency cited the attorneys’ letter and questioned the CHA’s rationale for giving the land to the Park District for free when it was appraised at more than $17 million. HUD determined the CHA’s application for approval was “substantially incomplete.”

In the following months, the CHA submitted new documents stating that Cabrini residents wanted more park space. Agency officials noted that they had received twice as much land as they had given up in the original swap, arguing that they would still have plenty of property left for the housing they were obligated to build at Cabrini.

That was good enough for HUD, which approved the deal.

The Near North Side property now includes a park; when a ProPublica reporter visited on multiple occasions this summer and fall, it was largely used by white residents.

The parcel planned for Cabrini housing remains vacant and enclosed by fencing.

Over the last decade, the CHA has made no secret that it is open to land deals. The 2008 housing market collapse left it years behind in its commitments to build new homes, and in 2013 agency leaders appointed by Emanuel released a strategy statement, “Plan Forward.”

Its new goals included using vacant land for “long-term public and private investment” and “creative, community-building purposes” such as “performance or sports spaces.” HUD endorsed the plan.

CHA officials applied this new philosophy when leaders of XS Tennis, a nonprofit, approached the agency about acquiring 13.5 acres for a new athletic complex. The property, part of the former Robert Taylor Homes site on the South Side, was estimated to be worth $4 million, but the CHA agreed to sell it for half that when XS promised to provide free tennis lessons and tutoring to low-income youth.

HUD accepted the CHA’s justification for the XS Tennis deal in a 2015 letter, agreeing it was “in the best interest of the public housing residents.”

In a statement to ProPublica, the CHA said XS had followed through on the opportunities it had pledged to deliver, providing residents with access to the tennis center, academic tutoring and jobs.

The CHA plans to replace the Taylor homes with a new development, Legends South, that includes 2,400 total units, some integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. So far the agency has finished fewer than 500.

Despite its struggles to rebuild former public housing sites, CHA officials say they now serve more households than ever, largely by issuing 45,000 vouchers that can be used to subsidize rent in the private market.

But housing advocates say too many families still need help finding decent places to live amid a housing shortage and a spike in homelessness. More than 30,000 people are on the CHA’s waiting lists for public housing and for vouchers.

“The goals of the CHA need to return to providing public and affordable housing,” said Emily Coffey, senior counsel for the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights.

“And HUD has an obligation to make sure that each and every disposition complies with civil rights laws and holds CHA to its commitment to replace lost public housing units.”

In addition to the Chicago Fire agreement, it’s likely that the CHA will soon ask HUD to sign off on another hotly debated land deal that opponents believe will fuel more gentrification and displacement.

At a board meeting in July, CHA officials explained that the Chicago Public Schools had approached them about acquiring 1.7 acres of undeveloped property at the Ickes site on the near South Side. The school district wants to build a new high school there to serve the booming South Loop and Chinatown neighborhoods, as well as some South Side CHA developments.

In return for its property, the CHA would get a parcel a block away that McKenzie, the agency’s chief development officer, described as “pretty expensive.”

Tracey Scott, the CHA’s chief executive officer, argued that the agency would give up little for such a payoff. She acknowledged that the CHA had long planned to put new housing on its vacant Ickes land, but those plans would be changed. As a result of the land swap, the CHA would “increase the density” of the new housing and fit it into a smaller space near the school, Scott said.

“We felt this opportunity was available that would benefit the residents,” Scott said.

McKenzie also noted that two new apartment buildings, including 68 units reserved for public housing residents, are almost ready to open at Ickes. The agency still has to build additional units for the Ickes site, including another 176 for CHA families.

The school plan won the backing of the local alderman and some parents. But many CHA residents and Black community leaders have blasted it. The school district should invest in existing high schools, they say, and the CHA should build the replacement homes it committed to after forcing out hundreds of families who once lived at Ickes.

Audrey Johnson, whose family has deep roots at Ickes, has watched those promises get broken as the land grows more valuable.

Her grandfather and his 10 children were among the first residents at Ickes in 1955, and Johnson’s family — her parents and three brothers — moved there in 1970, when she was 1. Her mother worked for a railroad and then the post office; her dad was a janitor at Ickes for 30 years. The family lived at the south end of Ickes, land where the new school would be built.

While she now lives several miles away, Johnson has worked for 20 years as a lunchroom supervisor and student aide at the National Teachers Academy, a public elementary school that was built on the Ickes site even before the public housing buildings were torn down. In recent years, two of her adult children also started working at the school.

“I’ve been here all my life,” she said.

Johnson said she’s all in favor of quality schools — that’s why she works in one. But she said Black residents are tired of seeing public facilities in their communities closed or destroyed, then replaced with new infrastructure when the neighborhoods begin to gentrify.

“I think they’re trying to push us out,” Johnson said. “They’re trying to push the Black and the brown to the suburbs. And eventually they will if we allow them to.”

Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Mick Dumke.

Image by Juan Luis Ozaez.

By now, the images of the oil explosion that erupted in the Cuban province of Matanzas on Friday, August 5 and continues blazing have become international news. When lightning struck an oil tank in Cuba’s largest oil storage facility, it quickly exploded and began to spread to nearby tanks. As of now, four of the eight tanks have caught fire. Dozens of people have been hospitalized, over 120 have been reported injured, at least 16 firefighters are still reported missing and one firefighter has died.

This latest disaster – the largest oil fire in Cuba’s history – comes at a time when Cuba is currently undergoing an energy crisis due to soaring global fuel costs, as well as over-exploited and obsolete infrastructure. The raging fire will undoubtedly further exacerbate the electricity outages that Cubans are suffering from as a result of the on-going energy crisis that is occurring in the middle of one of the hottest summers on record globally.

Almost immediately, the Cuban government requested international assistance from other countries, particularly its neighbors that have experience in handling oil-related fires. Mexico and Venezuela responded immediately and with great generosity. Mexico sent 45,000 liters of firefighting foam in 16 flights, as well as firefighters and equipment. Venezuela sent firefighters and technicians, as well as 20 tons of foam and other chemicals.

The U.S., on the other hand, offered technical assistance, which amounted to phone consultations. Despite having invaluable expertise and experience with major fires, the U.S. has not sent personnel, equipment, planes, materials, or other resources to its neighbor that would actually help minimize the risk to human life and the environment. The U.S. Embassy in Havana instead offered condolences and stated on day four of the blazing fire that they were “carefully watching the situation” and that U.S. entities and organizations could provide disaster relief. They even posted an email, CubaHumanitarian@state.gov, for people who want to help, saying “our team is a great resource for facilitating exports and donations of humanitarian goods to Cuba or responding to any questions.” But people who have contacted that email for help receive an automated response in return, telling people to look at their fact sheet from a year ago.

Contrast this to Cuba’s response to Hurrican Katrina in 2005, when the Cuba government offered to send to New Orleans 1,586 doctors, each carrying 27 pounds of medicine—an offer that was rejected by the United States.

While the U.S. government pays lip service to helping in Cuba’s emergency, the truth is that U.S. sanctions on Cuba create real and significant barriers to organizations trying to provide assistance to Cubans, both in the United States and abroad. For example, Cuba sanctions often require U.S. organizations to get Commerce Department export licenses. Another obstacle is the lack of commercial air cargo service between the U.S. and Cuba, and most commercial flights are prohibited from carrying humanitarian assistance without a license. Cuba’s inclusion in the State Sponsor of Terrorism List means that banks, in both the United States and abroad, are reluctant to process humanitarian donations. And while donative remittances (which can be sent for humanitarian purposes) have been recently re-authorized by the Biden administration, there is no mechanism in place to send them, as the U.S. government refuses to use the established Cuban entities that have historically processed them. Moreover, payment and fundraising platforms such as GoFundMe, PayPal, Venmo and Zelle, will not process any transactions destined or related to Cuba due to U.S. sanctions.

In any case, the response to this disaster should come primarily from the U.S. government, not NGOs. An Obama-era Presidential Policy Directive specifically mentions U.S. cooperation with Cuba “in areas of mutual interest, including diplomatic, agricultural, public health, and environmental matters, as well as disaster preparedness and response.”  Despite the 243 sanctions imposed by the Trump administration – and overwhelmingly maintained by the Biden White House – the Policy Directive appears to remain in effect.  In addition, Cuba and the United States signed a bilateral Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Agreement in 2017 prior to Trump taking office, which the U.S. noted means both countries “will cooperate and coordinate in an effort to prevent, contain, and clean up marine oil and other hazardous pollution in order to minimize adverse effects to public health and safety and the environment.”  The agreement provides a roadmap for bilateral cooperation to address the current humanitarian and environmental disaster.  In addition, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, which is part of USAID, “is responsible for leading and coordinating the U.S. government’s response to disasters overseas,” including sending technical experts as they have in more than 50 countries. Neither OFDA nor any other part of USAID, which spends approximately $20 million annually in regime change funding in Cuba (primarily to Florida-based groups), have offered humanitarian aid thus far.

As Congress takes important steps to advance legislation to address climate change and disasters, the Biden administration is watching a potential ecological disaster 90 miles from the U.S. coastline without offering meaningful assistance to contain it, both to protect the Cuban people but also to mitigate any potential marine damage to the narrow strait that separates the two countries.

Withholding assistance at this critical time indicates to Cubans, Cuban Americans and the world that the Biden Administration is not really interested in the well-being of the Cuban people, despite statements to the contrary. This is an opportunity to show compassion, regional cooperation, environmental responsibility, and, overall, to be a good neighbor. It is also an opportunity for the Biden administration to finally reject the toxic Trump administration policies towards Cuba and restart the broad bilateral diplomatic engagement that was so successfully initiated under the Obama administration.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Medea Benjamin - Natasha Lycia Ora Bannan.

By now, the images of the oil explosion that erupted in the Cuban province of Matanzas on Friday, August 5 and continues blazing have become international news. When lightning struck an oil tank in Cuba’s largest oil storage facility, it quickly exploded and began to spread to nearby tanks. As of now, four of the eight tanks have caught fire. Dozens of people have been hospitalized, over 120 have been reported injured, at least 16 firefighters are still reported missing and one firefighter has died.

This latest disaster – the largest oil fire in Cuba’s history – comes at a time when Cuba is currently undergoing an energy crisis due to soaring global fuel costs, as well as over-exploited and obsolete infrastructure. The raging fire will undoubtedly further exacerbate the electricity outages that Cubans are suffering from as a result of the on-going energy crisis that is occurring in the middle of one of the hottest summers on record globally.

Almost immediately, the Cuban government requested international assistance from other countries, particularly its neighbors that have experience in handling oil-related fires. Mexico and Venezuela responded immediately and with great generosity. Mexico sent 45,000 liters of firefighting foam in 16 flights, as well as firefighters and equipment. Venezuela sent firefighters and technicians, as well as 20 tons of foam and other chemicals.

The U.S., on the other hand, offered technical assistance, which amounted to phone consultations. Despite having invaluable expertise and experience with major fires, the U.S. has not sent personnel, equipment, planes, materials, or other resources to its neighbor that would actually help minimize the risk to human life and the environment. The U.S. Embassy in Havana instead offered condolences and stated on day four of the blazing fire that they were “carefully watching the situation” and that U.S. entities and organizations could provide disaster relief. They even posted an email, vog.etatsnull@nairatinamuHabuC, for people who want to help, saying “our team is a great resource for facilitating exports and donations of humanitarian goods to Cuba or responding to any questions.” But people who have contacted that email for help receive an automated response in return, telling people to look at their fact sheet from a year ago.

Contrast this to Cuba’s response to Hurrican Katrina in 2005, when the Cuba government offered to send to New Orleans 1,586 doctors, each carrying 27 pounds of medicine—an offer that was rejected by the United States.

While the U.S. government pays lip service to helping in Cuba’s emergency, the truth is that U.S. sanctions on Cuba create real and significant barriers to organizations trying to provide assistance to Cubans, both in the United States and abroad. For example, Cuba sanctions often require U.S. organizations to get Commerce Department export licenses. Another obstacle is the lack of commercial air cargo service between the U.S. and Cuba, and most commercial flights are prohibited from carrying humanitarian assistance without a license. Cuba’s inclusion in the State Sponsor of Terrorism List means that banks, in both the United States and abroad, are reluctant to process humanitarian donations. And while donative remittances (which can be sent for humanitarian purposes) have been recently re-authorized by the Biden administration, there is no mechanism in place to send them, as the U.S. government refuses to use the established Cuban entities that have historically processed them. Moreover, payment and fundraising platforms such as GoFundMe, PayPal, Venmo and Zelle, will not process any transactions destined or related to Cuba due to U.S. sanctions.

In any case, the response to this disaster should come primarily from the U.S. government, not NGOs. An Obama-era Presidential Policy Directive specifically mentions U.S. cooperation with Cuba “in areas of mutual interest, including diplomatic, agricultural, public health, and environmental matters, as well as disaster preparedness and response.”  Despite the 243 sanctions imposed by the Trump administration – and overwhelmingly maintained by the Biden White House – the Policy Directive appears to remain in effect.  In addition, Cuba and the United States signed a bilateral Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Agreement in 2017 prior to Trump taking office, which the U.S. noted means both countries “will cooperate and coordinate in an effort to prevent, contain, and clean up marine oil and other hazardous pollution in order to minimize adverse effects to public health and safety and the environment.”  The agreement provides a roadmap for bilateral cooperation to address the current humanitarian and environmental disaster.  In addition, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, which is part of USAID, “is responsible for leading and coordinating the U.S. government’s response to disasters overseas,” including sending technical experts as they have in more than 50 countries. Neither OFDA nor any other part of USAID, which spends approximately $20 million annually in regime change funding in Cuba (primarily to Florida-based groups), have offered humanitarian aid thus far.

As Congress takes important steps to advance legislation to address climate change and disasters, the Biden administration is watching a potential ecological disaster 90 miles from the U.S. coastline without offering meaningful assistance to contain it, both to protect the Cuban people but also to mitigate any potential marine damage to the narrow strait that separates the two countries.

Withholding assistance at this critical time indicates to Cubans, Cuban Americans and the world that the Biden Administration is not really interested in the well-being of the Cuban people, despite statements to the contrary. This is an opportunity to show compassion, regional cooperation, environmental responsibility, and, overall, to be a good neighbor. It is also an opportunity for the Biden administration to finally reject the toxic Trump administration policies towards Cuba and restart the broad bilateral diplomatic engagement that was so successfully initiated under the Obama administration.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Medea Benjamin and Natasha Lycia Ora Bannan.

By now, the images of the oil explosion that erupted in the Cuban province of Matanzas on Friday, August 5 and continues blazing have become international news. When lightning struck an oil tank in Cuba's largest oil storage facility, it quickly exploded and began to spread to nearby tanks. As of now, four of the eight tanks have caught fire. Dozens of people have been hospitalized, over 120 have been reported injured, at least 16 firefighters are still reported missing and one firefighter has died. 

This latest disaster—the largest oil fire in Cuba's history—comes at a time when Cuba is currently undergoing an energy crisis due to soaring global fuel costs, as well as over-exploited and obsolete infrastructure. The raging fire will undoubtedly further exacerbate the electricity outages that Cubans are suffering from as a result of the on-going energy crisis that is occurring in the middle of one of the hottest summers on record globally. 

Withholding assistance at this critical time indicates to Cubans, Cuban Americans and the world that the Biden Administration is not really interested in the well-being of the Cuban people, despite statements to the contrary.

Almost immediately, the Cuban government requested international assistance from other countries, particularly its neighbors that have experience in handling oil-related fires. Mexico and Venezuela responded immediately and with great generosity. Mexico sent 45,000 liters of firefighting foam in 16 flights, as well as firefighters and equipment. Venezuela sent firefighters and technicians, as well as 20 tons of foam and other chemicals.

The U.S., on the other hand, offered technical assistance, which amounted to phone consultations. Despite having invaluable expertise and experience with major fires, the U.S. has not sent personnel, equipment, planes, materials, or other resources to its neighbor that would actually help minimize the risk to human life and the environment. The U.S. Embassy in Havana instead offered condolences and stated on day four of the blazing fire that they were "carefully watching the situation" and that U.S. entities and organizations could provide disaster relief. They even posted an email, CubaHumanitarian@state.gov, for people who want to help, saying "our team is a great resource for facilitating exports and donations of humanitarian goods to Cuba or responding to any questions." But people who have contacted that email for help receive an automated response in return, telling people to look at their fact sheet from a year ago.

Contrast this to Cuba's response to Hurrican Katrina in 2005, when the Cuba government offered to send to New Orleans 1,586 doctors, each carrying 27 pounds of medicine—an offer that was rejected by the United States. 

While the U.S. government pays lip service to helping in Cuba's emergency, the truth is that U.S. sanctions on Cuba create real and significant barriers to organizations trying to provide assistance to Cubans, both in the United States and abroad. For example, Cuba sanctions often require U.S. organizations to get Commerce Department export licenses. Another obstacle is the lack of commercial air cargo service between the U.S. and Cuba, and most commercial flights are prohibited from carrying humanitarian assistance without a license. Cuba's inclusion in the State Sponsor of Terrorism List means that banks, in both the United States and abroad, are reluctant to process humanitarian donations. And while donative remittances (which can be sent for humanitarian purposes) have been recently re-authorized by the Biden administration, there is no mechanism in place to send them, as the U.S. government refuses to use the established Cuban entities that have historically processed them. Moreover, payment and fundraising platforms such as GoFundMe, PayPal, Venmo and Zelle, will not process any transactions destined or related to Cuba due to U.S. sanctions.  

In any case, the response to this disaster should come primarily from the U.S. government, not NGOs. An Obama-era Presidential Policy Directive specifically mentions U.S. cooperation with Cuba "in areas of mutual interest, including diplomatic, agricultural, public health, and environmental matters, as well as disaster preparedness and response."  Despite the 243 sanctions imposed by the Trump administration—and overwhelmingly maintained by the Biden White House—the Policy Directive appears to remain in effect.  In addition, Cuba and the United States signed a bilateral Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Agreement in 2017 prior to Trump taking office, which the U.S. noted means both countries "will cooperate and coordinate in an effort to prevent, contain, and clean up marine oil and other hazardous pollution in order to minimize adverse effects to public health and safety and the environment."  The agreement provides a roadmap for bilateral cooperation to address the current humanitarian and environmental disaster.  In addition, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, which is part of USAID, "is responsible for leading and coordinating the U.S. government's response to disasters overseas," including sending technical experts as they have in more than 50 countries. Neither OFDA nor any other part of USAID, which spends approximately $20 million annually in regime change funding in Cuba (primarily to Florida-based groups), have offered humanitarian aid thus far.

This is an opportunity to show compassion, regional cooperation, environmental responsibility, and, overall, to be a good neighbor.

As Congress takes important steps to advance legislation to address climate change and disasters, the Biden administration is watching a potential ecological disaster 90 miles from the U.S. coastline without offering meaningful assistance to contain it, both to protect the Cuban people but also to mitigate any potential marine damage to the narrow strait that separates the two countries. 

Withholding assistance at this critical time indicates to Cubans, Cuban Americans and the world that the Biden Administration is not really interested in the well-being of the Cuban people, despite statements to the contrary. This is an opportunity to show compassion, regional cooperation, environmental responsibility, and, overall, to be a good neighbor. It is also an opportunity for the Biden administration to finally reject the toxic Trump administration policies towards Cuba and restart the broad bilateral diplomatic engagement that was so successfully initiated under the Obama administration. 

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Natasha Lycia Ora Bannan, Medea Benjamin.

Peace campaigners on Tuesday decried the Biden administration's approval of more than $5 billion in missile sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a move that came weeks after U.S. President Joe Biden visited the leaders of both countries despite pleas from human rights defenders.

The U.S. Department of Defense said the U.S. State Department approved the $3.05 billion sale of 300 Raytheon Patriot MIM-104E missiles to Saudi Arabia, as well as 96 Lockheed Martin Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles worth $2.25 billion for the UAE.

The move came just after the extension of a United Nations-brokered truce in Yemen, where a U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition that includes the UAE is waging a war against Houthi rebels backed by the Iranian government. The sale's approval also comes days ahead of a virtual Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) ministerial meeting.

Citing "persistent Houthi cross-border" drone and missile attacks against Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon said the proposed sales "will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf region."

However, anti-war voices argued that such sales will only prolong a seven-year war in which more than 300,000 people have been killed, millions have been displaced, and millions more face hunger and disease in what's widely considered the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

Yemeni independent journalist Naseh Shaker tweeted that U.S. professions of commitment to peace in his war-ravaged nation are belied by the Biden administration's desire to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, who will "use them in its aggression on Yemen."

The missile deals came weeks after U.S. President Joe Biden made a contentious visit to Saudi Arabia, where he met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Emirati President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and other regional leaders despite pleas from human rights defenders who drew attention to the coalition's alleged and documented war crimes in Yemen and the Saudi monarchy's repressive domestic rule.

A now-infamous photo of Biden fist-bumping bin Salman stood in stark contrast with then-candidate Biden's campaign promise to make Saudi Arabia a "pariah" over the gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and other human rights crimes.

After taking office, Biden temporarily froze arms sales to the country and the UAE and announced the offensive support ban. However, human rights defenders subsequently expressed disappointment when the administration approved a $650 million air-to-air missile sale to the Royal Saudi Air Force and a $500 million support services contract for Saudi military helicopters. Biden's July trip also followed reports that his administration is considering lifting its amorphous prohibition on the sale of "offensive" U.S. weaponry to Saudi Arabia.

Raytheon shares—which have soared more than 250% since the U.S. launched the so-called War on Terror in September 2001—were up slightly on the news of Tuesday's approval. Lockheed Martin stock rose over 2% on Tuesday and is up more than 800% since 9/11.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

The GOP-packed Iowa Supreme Court on Friday dealt a serious blow to abortion rights in the state amid heightened fears about the future of reproductive freedom nationwide.

"This law imposes medically unjustified obstacles for Iowans... and will effectively put abortion out of reach for many."

In a case challenging medically unnecessary restrictions, Iowa's high court determined that there is no fundamental right to abortion protected by the state constitution—which clears the way for state lawmakers to pass even stricter measures.

The move reverses the state court's own 2018 decision—which preceded Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds appointing four of the seven current justices—and comes as the nation awaits a U.S. Supreme Court ruling expected to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Demands for the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress to protect and expand reproductive rights have grown since a draft opinion on Roe leaked last month. Despite that pressure, U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) recently joined with Republicans to block the Women's Health Protection Act.

In response to the decision in the Hawkeye State on Friday, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has publicly discussed her abortion—warned that "other states will soon follow Iowa."

"The Senate needs to end the filibuster and codify Roe v. Wade," added Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

As the end of Roe has loomed in recent weeks, reproductive rights advocates have highlighted that due to so-called trigger bans and other laws, abortion will likely be outlawed in at least 26 states if the landmark 1973 ruling falls.

The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute earlier this month released an updated interactive map that, as the organization's president and CEO, Dr. Herminia Palacio, explained, "can help make sense of the complex and ever-changing landscape of abortion legality and access nationwide and offers important data on the populations impacted by these changes."

Though Iowa does not have a trigger law that would ban abortion if Roe is reversed, the institute still labeled Iowa "restrictive" even before Friday's ruling, which came in a case challenging a 24-hour waiting period.

"This law imposes medically unjustified obstacles for Iowans that will delay people who can't find the necessary transportation, time off work, or childcare to enable them to obtain care under the restriction—and will effectively put abortion out of reach for many," explained Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which took on the restrictions in court with the ACLU of Iowa.

Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, emphasized that despite the added rules, the organization will continue to provide abortion care in the state.

"We have a lot of work ahead of us to protect the right to abortion, and we are committed to fighting for the rights of all Iowans."

"I want to be very clear that abortion is still safe and legal in Iowa, even after today's court decision," Stoesz said Friday. "We are deeply disappointed that the Iowa Supreme Court is abandoning women in spite of overwhelming support for abortion access."

"Although it is a sad day, we are here for our patients to ensure they can receive the critical care that they need," she continued. "We have a lot of work ahead of us to protect the right to abortion, and we are committed to fighting for the rights of all Iowans. We will do everything we can to protect the right to abortion."

ACLU of Iowa legal director Rita Bettis Austen also vowed to keep fighting against the court's "devastating and shocking reversal" that allows "a dangerous and harmful restriction on vital healthcare" to take effect.

As Bettis Austen put it: "We will not give up the fight to protect Iowa women's equality and freedom."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

China has been successful in signing multiple bilateral agreements with almost a dozen Pacific Island nations during its Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to the region.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi started his region-wide tour last Thursday in Solomon Islands and has since met Pacific leaders from Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Niue, Cook Islands and Vanuatu.

He is on his final lap as he wraps up with visits to Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste today and tomorrow.

• READ MORE: China wanted a swift diplomatic victory in the Pacific – but Pacific leaders won’t be rushed
• RSF condemns Chinese curb on reporters during Pacific island tour
• Other China in the Pacific reports

Beijing’s approach has alarmed Pacific geopolitics-watchers as well as its traditional Western partners, who are cautioning Pacific nations to tread carefully when entering into deals with China, particularly in the sensitive area of security.

But the Asian superpower has declared its efforts to strengthen its relationship with the region does not have any political strings attached to it, even as its efforts to win-over Pacific foreign ministers over a multilateral trade and security deal received a major pushback, which is being seen as a “a big win” for the region.

However, Wang has struck several development agreements focusing on economy, health, disaster response, and technology, among others during his whirlwind visit to enhance China-Pacific Island countries relations.

Here is what we know so far:

Solomon Islands
Solomon Islands has been at the centre of regional political debate for the past few weeks because it signed up a controversial security agreement with China.

Aside from that deal, Beijing and Honiara signed up further mutual development cooperation agreements in the areas of economic cooperation, health cooperation, sectorial cooperation. These include:

• Non-Reciprocal Trade Arrangements.
• Visa waiver exemption agreement for diplomats, officials/service and Public Affairs passport holders for China.
• Civil Aviation Agreement.
• Memorandom of Understanding (MoU) on health between Solomon Islands China .
• Exchanged letters for construction of National Referral Hospital Comprehensive Medical Center.
• MoU on Disaster Risk Reduction.
• MoU between the two countries ministries of commerce on Deepening Blue Economy Cooperation to open up cooperation on infrastructure, marine industries, energy amongst other sectors.
• Commitment to complete 2023 Pacific Games facility and training Solomon Islands sportspeople for the Games.

“The two countries reaffirm their commitments to work together on all issues of mutual concerns,” Solomon Islands government said in a statement.

There was speculation that Kiribati was the potential target for the security pact.

But there were agreements formalised on security.

The Kiribati government confirmed the discussions, instead, ranged from China’s readiness to assist on climate action, covid-19, medical cooperation, and fisheries production and processing to maximise Kiribati’s benefits from our abundant resources.”

Up to 10 bilateral agreements were signed between the two countries in a range of areas. These included:

• Further elevating cooperation on the Belt and Road Initiaitve.
• 2022 Economic and Development Cooperation.
• Livelihood projects.
• Climate Change.
• Disaster Risk Reduction.
• Buota Bridge and adjacent road infrastructure development.
• Tourism.
• Protocols on Dispatching Medical Teams.
• Marine Transportation for the Line Islands.
• Covid-19 medical supplies.

“In just slightly over two years after the resumption of our diplomatic ties, both our countries have embarked on a very fruitful cooperation to cultivate our bilateral relations. These projects will deliver meaningful and tangible impacts on the lives of our people,” Kiribati president Taneti Maaau said.

Analysis – China has been successful in signing multiple bilateral agreements with almost a dozen Pacific Island nations during its foreign minister Wang Yi’s visit to the region.https://t.co/FXJK9wRStu

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) June 3, 2022

Samoa
In his stopover at Samoan, Wang signed three agreements. These were:

• Economic & Technical Cooperation Agreement for projects to be determined and mutually agreed between the respective Countries.
• Handover Certificate for the completed Arts & Culture Centre and the Samoa-China Friendship Park.
• Exchange of Letters for the Fingerprint laboratory for Police complementary to the construction of the Police Academy.

Samoan prime minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa said the bilateral cooperation agreements were initiated “a number of years ago” and were not new development.

Fiame has also labelled China’s proposal to push through its multilateral economic and security deal “abnormal” and such an agreement could not be agreed to if the “region has not met to discuss it.”

Fiji
China has enjoyed much favour in its relationship with Fiji’s Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama. This trip was no different.

According to China’s Ambassador to Fiji, the two countries signed three agreements focusing on economic cooperation but further details were not provided.

Wang said after meeting with Bainimarama: “Our two sides agreed to further synergise our strategies, expand cooperation in economy, trade, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, civil aviation, education, law enforcement and emergency management and other areas within the framework of Blet and Road cooperation for mutual benefit and win-win outcomes.”

Bainimarama stressed the two countries “have a solid foundation”.

He downplayed the geopolitical tussle taking place in the region between Beijing and Western countries as the most central issue facing the region.

He reinforced that climate change was the greatest threat facing the Pacific and sought greater commitment from China on climate action.

“I’ve sought stronger Chinese commitment to keep 1.5 alive, end illegal fishing, protect the #BluePacific’s ocean, and expand Fijian exports,” he said via a Tweet.

The Pacific needs genuine partners, not superpowers that are super-focussed on power. At an excellent meeting with Minister Wang Yi, I’ve sought stronger Chinese commitment to keep 1.5 alive, end illegal fishing, protect the #BluePacific‘s ocean, and expand Fijian exports. pic.twitter.com/vBSVJtDf6a

— Frank Bainimarama (@FijiPM) May 30, 2022

Tonga
Wang arrived at Nuku’alofa on Tuesday, where he met with King Tupou VI, Tongan prime minister Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni, and minister for foreign affairs Fekitamoeloa ‘Utoikamanu.

The Tongan government announced it had signed “several bilateral agreements” with China after discussions focusing on mutual respect and the common interest of the people of the two countries.

• MoU on Cooperation in the Area of Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Response.
• MoU on Deepening Blue Economy Cooperation.
• Handover Certificate on the China-Aid Non-intrusive Imaging Inspection Equipment Project to Tonga Customs.
• Letter of Exchanges on the Provision of One Fingerprint Examination Laboratory.
• MoU on the Grant-Aid Assistance provided by Dongguan City, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China to the Government of the Kingdom of Tonga in 2022.
• Agreement for the Peripheral Area of Mala’ekula Royal Tomb Improvement Project.

According to the China’s foreign ministry, China and Tonga “reached extensive consensus on deepening cooperation in various fields and advancing Belt and Road cooperation, and signed a batch of economic cooperation agreements.”

RNZ Pacific’s Tonga correspondent Kalafi Moala said China has been behind many development projects in the Kingdom.

“There’s been a lot of local developments in Tonga by the Chinese, and that includes the restoration of Nukualofa since the riots of 2006 and we still have a loan from China that we still need to make payments on, it’s about $118 million dollars,” Moala said.

Vanuatu
Vanuatu was Wang’s sixth stopover.

He met with prime minister Bob Loughman and his cabinet ministers on Wednesday, where the two countries finalised cooperation agreements in the areas of economic technology, medical and health case, and marine economy.

No further details on the agreements have been provided.

In a statement, China’s foreign ministry said Loughman “spoke highly of the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China with Xi Jinping at its core.”

Loughman, on the other hand, said China “has proved to be a true friend of Vanuatu with concrete actions”.

He “firmly believes that cooperation with China will better help PICs seize development opportunities, and will further enhance bilateral cooperation between PICs and China.

Loughman has also indicated his government’s full support towards China’s “important role” in the region and its plans to expand its common development vision with Pacific Island countries.

Cook Islands (Virtual)
Wang met Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown on Thursday.

Brown said China was willing to discuss and plan the next step of cooperation according to the development needs of the Cook Islands.

According to Wang, the two sides could expand cooperation in tourism, infrastructure and education at the sub-national level to help the economic recovery of the Cook Islands.

“China is also willing to discuss and conduct more trilateral cooperation on the basis of past successful experience,” he said.

Brown said, “the Cook Islands firmly believes that the future of the Cook Islands is closely tied to China, and is ready to work with China to push for even greater development of bilateral relations in the next 25 years.”

“The Cook Islands attaches great importance to the China-Pacific Island Countries Foreign Ministers’ Meeting mechanism and the next cooperation initiatives proposed by China,” he said.

Although there were no details for any formal agreements signed, China’s foreign ministry said “the two sides agreed to strengthen cooperation in Chinese language education, support and encourage young people in the Cook Islands to learn Chinese, and cultivate more friendly envoys”, adding “Both sides agreed to continue to support each other in the international community.”

Niue (Virtual)
Premier of Niue Dalton Tagelagi said Beijing had “made positive contributions towards Niue’s prosperity” and it is “pleased” the relationship between the two nations continues to grow.

“We will continue to progress our close relationship and friendship with China to further advance bilateral relations and achieve common development and prosperity,” Premier Tagelagi said.

“Joint initiatives with China, such as roading and other strategic development and investment opportunities, will ultimately improve the quality of life for everyone in Niue and are part of Niue’s key aspiration toward self-sufficiency. China has heard Niue’s call, and we are very grateful for that.”

He said Nuie “supports in principle” China’s proposal in investing in common development and prosperity in the region.

“We would like time to consider how the arrangement with China will support existing regional plans to ensure that our priorities are aligned and will be beneficial for all of us for regional prosperity.

“I am confident that Niue’s officials will work together to ensure that the final document will reflect our shared vision,” he said.

A working Sunday afternoon today @ForumSEC w the visit from the State Councilor and Minister for Foreign Affairs of China, HE Wang Yi. Partnerships are fundamental to the realisation of our priorities but they must be built on mutual respect and joint collaboration. #BluePacific pic.twitter.com/PRuilRmGb5

— Sec-General of the @ForumSec, @PacOceanComm (@henrytpuna) May 29, 2022

Regional reactions
University of Hawai’is Centre for Pacific Studies associate professor Tarcisius Kabutaulaka said: “China’s rise has changed international geopolitics and its increased presence is changing the dynamics of Pacific regionalism.”

He believed countries in the region need to work out how to better manage the power imbalance in their relationships with China.

“The issue for me is that how do we manage that? How are we aware of that huge force in the form of China? And how do we manage that in ways that will benefit us and here I mean Pacific Island countries,” Dr Kabutaulaka said.

Former Fiji prime minister Sitiveni Rabuka warned against “new influences” coming into the South Pacific.

Rabuka said the Pacific was comfortable with the relationships it had had with traditional partners in Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

“New influences will probably take us time to get used to. I am hopeful that the government of our friends of our joint development partners will continue to help us as we try to map our way forward,” he said.

Former Tuvalu prime minister Enele Sopoaga said the growing influence on China in the Pacific was a “scary development” for the region.

Sopoaga said Pacific nations were being used as “canary in the coal mine.”

“The decision to take the draft [Common Development Vision] is up to individual respective countries in the Pacific. But I think this is a rather scary development that we are hearing about now,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Environmental and Indigenous rights defenders on Tuesday welcomed a Brazilian court ruling that will continue to block a Canadian company from building what would be the South American nation's largest open-pit gold mine in the Amazon rainforest.

"Belo Monte already has had a major impact on the Xingu. A second project could mean the death of the local peoples."

In a 3-0 decision, the Federal Regional Court of Brasília on Monday upheld the suspension of an environmental license for Belo Sun Mining Corp., affirming a 2017 ruling that found the company failed to adequately consult with Indigenous peoples on the social and environmental impacts of an $800 million project located in the Volta Grande do Xingu region in the state of Pará.

"My community wasn't consulted about the Belo Sun project," Lorena Curuaia, a leader from Iawa village, told the Associated Press.

Referring to the world's third-largest hydroelectric dam—located just 12 miles from the proposed mine site—Curuaia added: "Belo Monte already has had a major impact on the Xingu. A second project could mean the death of the local peoples."

Federal prosecutor Felício de Araújo Pontes Jr. called the ruling "another victory for the Indigenous and riverine people of Volta Grande do Xingu," who "know that a mining project can have devastating impacts on the region."

"The judgment shows the resilience of this population," he told the AP.

Advocacy groups warn that Indigenous peoples—including Juruna, Arara, Kuruaya, Xipaia, and others—would suffer serious direct impacts from the Volta Grande project.

As the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) detailed:

According to experts, the Belo Sun mining project in Volta Grande do Xingu has serious structural flaws which were not clearly presented to the impacted communities during the consultation process. Environmental impact studies carried out by the mining company disregard both the potential seismic impacts on the tailings dam that needs to be built and the cumulative impacts it would cause along with the dam of the Belo Monte plant.

The dam designed for the mine would be similar in size to the Vale dam that collapsed in Mariana in 2015, causing Brazil's biggest environmental disaster. A report by an expert in geology and mining, Dr. Steven H. Emerman, claims that at least nine million cubic meters of toxic mining waste could reach the Xingu River and travel more than 40 kilometers in two hours, causing irreversible damage. These tailings could contain highly toxic metals, such as cyanide, arsenic, and mercury, which could lead to ecocide of the Xingu River.

"Other studies point to impacts such as changes in the reproductive cycle of fauna, deforestation and/or burning, pollution of water resources, and soil contamination," AIDA added.

The court ruling came as a series of bills backed by Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's right-wing president and self-described "Captain Chainsaw," advance through the National Congress. If passed, critics say the so-called "package of destruction" would allow mining on Indigenous lands, relax restrictions on the use of pesticides, and encourage illegal logging and land seizures.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Takeshi Ebisawa, who is a Japanese citizen, Thai nationals Somphop Singhasiri and Sompak Rukrasaranee, and American-Thai dual national Suksan Jullanan (alias Bobby) were arrested in Manhattan earlier this week following a probe that began as early as June 2019, according to a document filed in the U.S. Court for the Southern District of New York.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency began investigating Ebisawa in 2019 and identified him as a Yakuza organized crime leader.

“We allege Mr. Ebisawa and his co-conspirators brokered deals with an undercover DEA agent to buy heavy-duty weaponry and sell large quantities of illegal drugs,” U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a news release announcing the arrests.

“The drugs were destined for New York streets and the weapons shipments were meant for factions in unstable nations.”

“The Yakuza is a network of highly organized, transnational crime families with affiliates in Asia, Europe, and the Americas, and is involved in various criminal activities, including weapons trafficking, drug trafficking, human trafficking, fraud and money laundering,” U.S. justice officials said.

Investigators allege that Ebisawa introduced an undercover agent posing as a narcotics and weapons trafficker to associates in Japan, Thailand, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and the United States to set up drug and weapons transactions – noting that the four suspects “negotiated multiple narcotics and weapons transactions” with the undercover agent.

Ebisawa, Jullanan and Rukrasaranee conspired to broker the purchase of U.S.-made surface-to-air missiles and other weapons “for multiple ethnic armed groups in Burma, and to accept large quantities of heroin and methamphetamine for distribution as partial payment for the weapons,” the charges allege.

Joined by Singhasiri, Ebisawa sought to sell 500 kg (1,100 pounds) of methamphetamine and 500 kg of heroin to an undercover agent, justice officials said, adding that the drugs were to be distributed in New York. Singhasiri allegedly conspired to possess machine guns and other firearms to protect narcotics shipments and Ebisawa allegedly worked to launder U.S. $100,000 in “purported narcotics proceeds from the United States to Japan.”

Ebisawa faces charges of conspiracy to import narcotics; conspiracy to acquire, transfer and possess surface-to-air missiles; conspiracy to possess firearms including machine guns and destructive devices; and money laundering.

Charging documents allege that Ebisawa sought to buy the surface-to-air missiles, rockets, machine guns and automatic weapons for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a Sri Lankan rebel group also known as the Tamil Tigers.

“Though defeated militarily in 2009, the LTTE continues to attract international financial support,” the justice department said in the charging document, adding that the LTTE is designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Singhasiri faces charges of conspiracy to import narcotics and conspiracy to possess firearms including machine guns and destructive devices.

Jullanan and Rukrasaranee face charges of conspiracy to import narcotics; conspiracy to acquire, transfer and possess surface-to-air missiles; and conspiracy to possess firearms including machine guns and destructive devices. Justice officials allege the two and Ebisawa discussed potential deals to supply missiles and other weapons to the Myanmar groups including the Shan State Army and United Wa State Army.

The weapons and drug charges carry penalties of up to life in prison if convicted.

“The expansive reach of transnational criminal networks, like the Yakuza, presents a serious threat to the safety and health of all communities. Ebisawa and his associates intended to distribute hundreds of kilograms of methamphetamine and heroin to the United States, using deadly weapons to enable their criminal activities, at a time when nearly 300 Americans lose their lives to drug overdose every day,” DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a prepared statement.

“These arrests represent the unwavering determination of the DEA, together with our U.S. and international partners, to target and bring to justice violent criminals who lead transnational drug trafficking organizations that continue to flood our country with dangerous drugs.”

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated news outlet.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By BenarNews.

And, well, it is tax time, and these beasts of a nation — Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, MSM — they rally around the military offensive murdering complex for, well, billions thrown at the Nazi regime of Ukraine. And I have to pay more taxes on my subpar wages? Give me a few of those drones, please! Billions of dollars thrown at the most corrupt and evil of them all (well, there are many evil ones, so see this as hyperbole). One contract with this outfit, AeroVironment. Looking into that company, I find its current president to be an interesting man:

Wikipedia — Nawabi is an Afghan sub clan mega Barakzai the majority of this clan played an important role during the Barakzai dynasty – such as Ismail Khan Nawabi.

The name Nawabi is borrowed from the Arabic, being the honorific plural of Naib or “deputy”. The name Nawab is mostly used among South Asians. In Bengal it is pronounced Nowab. The English adjective nawabi (from the Urdu word nawwābī) describes anything associated with a nawab.

He says AeroVironment is a great place to work because: “There is no place like AeroVironment where a group of honorable, smart, and hardworking people can make such a big and positive impact on our lives and society. I am excited and honored to lead such a team in order to help all of our 3 stakeholders Proceed with Certainty.”

Wahid Nawabi

Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer

Yes, the face of the military murdering complex is a smile, a wink, and even a diversity statement validation.

As President and Chief Executive Officer at AEROVIRONMENT INC, Wahid Nawabi made $2,524,773 in total compensation. Of this total $632,319 was received as a salary, $535,513 was received as a bonus, $0 was received in stock options, $1,333,024 was awarded as stock and $23,917 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2021 fiscal year. President and Chief Executive Officer. AEROVIRONMENT INC

So, the wink and a nod, all those stock options, all of that base pay, all of it, all predicated on, hmm, contracts. Yes, US GI Joe fed contracts. And, well, a contract is a contract, whether Mario Puzo is writing about it, or if one of the slick female heads of the war complex companies is drafting and signing it. This is one company, which I have previously discussed in general and specifically is really not just one in Santa’s Serial Murder workshops, but one represents dozens of companies (contracted) relying on those contracts for these drones with payloads: wires, optics, diodes, motherboards, paint, metal, gears, etc. Kamikaze drones, what a lovely thing to be proud of, and this company is just one of thousands that makes money off of blood.

The officials told the outlet that the White House is currently considering supplying Ukraine with Switchblades, as part of a new package of military aid. However, they noted that no decisions on the matter have been made, yet.

There are two available variants of the loitering munition, the Switchblade 300 and the 600. The 300 was designed to target personnel and unarmored vehicles. It has a range of 10 kilometers and an endurance of 10 minutes. The larger 600 was designed to destroy armored vehicles, like battle tanks. This version has a range of 80 kilometers and an endurance of up to 20 minutes. (source)

Please, kind reader, look at these people — the website of their team: Aerovironment. For me, they are scary people, for sure, in that they are the paper-pushers and state college grads from engineering programs; they are the marketers, the CPAs and the HR folk. These are what I have faced my entire life teaching — people who have no reservation about making money selling drugs that kill (Big Pharma) or booze that kills or anything that kills, both human or environment. Look at their biographies on the “About Us” page above. This is the banality of evil, and I am afraid, that evil is much much deeper engrained than Hannah Arendt could have conjured up because there is no “great war,” no great global war against Nazis and fascists, as in WWII. It’s all transactional, money for blood, weapons ‘r us!

Under conditions of tyranny it is far easier to act than to think.

— Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 1958

I’m not sure she was thinking of the pure structural/sanctions-led/financial tyranny of capitalism, that soft tyranny of western consumerism, the constant inverted tyranny in a world where most First World folk eat, drink, sleep oil. A world that is run by business men and business women, under the umbrella of the Deep State and government thugs. I do not think she was in the know around how pernicious the marketing of lies and evil doing was under the guidance of a fellow Jew, Edward (Freud) Bernays. But she was onto something, for sure:

In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. … Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

You see, the totalitarianism is in the marketing of these spoils of war, and the war minders, and the war industry. Look at this company’s founder, Paul MacCready. Check him out on Wikipedia — Paul B. MacCready Jr. (September 25, 1925 – August 28, 2007) was an American aeronautical engineer. He was the founder of AeroVironment and the designer of the human-powered aircraft that won the first Kremer prize. He devoted his life to developing more efficient transportation vehicles that could “do more with less.”

In so many ways, MacCready represents the best and the brightest of his generation, the hope for mankind, the genius of the American System producing tools of war, tools of profit. He represents the undying American work ethic, with only the heavens (err, he said sky, as he was an avowed atheist) as his limit.

That is it, really — the biography of a military industrial complex tool of death, all started in the twinkle of a 15-year-old MacCready’s eye when he was designing planes and gliders in 1940. Now? Every sort of munition and payload delivered in the fuselages of those toys. Heck, why not drone-carrying bugs injected or engineered with viruses?

CNBC 3/16/2022: “Stocks making the biggest moves midday: Alibaba, AeroVironment, Boeing and more”. Again, success at the start of the trading and the end of the day bell on Wall Street! Get US taxpayer contract in the millions, and see you stock rise rise rise like sour dough bread,

Dark Side of Delivery: The Growing Threat of Bioweapon Dissemination by Drones —

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Paul Haeder.

The post The Impacts of Green New Deals on Latin America appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by John Feffer.