UltraViolet, along with over 300 national organizations including the ACLU, the National Women’s Law Center, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Women’s March, and Reproductive Freedom for All, publicly opposed HR 9495 when it was introduced in 2024 and again in 2025.

In reaction to the announcement, Nicole Regalado, Vice President of Campaigns at UltraViolet, a leading national gender justice organization which has been fighting to preserve the work of gender justice, issued the following statement:

“HR 9495 threatens to create a chilling effect on advocacy groups nationwide, arming the Trump administration with a tool to go after its political opponents. The bill would give the Trump administration the power to suppress free speech, silence dissent, and target a range of nonprofits, from civil rights groups to humanitarian aid foundations for any justification—with virtually no recourse or due process.

“Without the freedom to voice dissent and organize, the administration’s attacks on women will only get worse. Already, the Trump administration has gutted critical women’s health research, undermined federal protections that ensure women can access capital and credit, while continuing to criminalize pregnancy and reproductive healthcare. Make no mistake: this is about silencing our voices and the voices of advocacy groups fighting these attacks.

“Not one Democrat should vote for this immoral reconciliation package. Voting yes on this bill would give a fascist administration more power to hurt women, gender expansive people, LGBTQ+ people—all of our communities.”

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

This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on May 13, 2025. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

House Republicans on Monday quietly revived a proposal that would grant the Trump administration broad authority to crush nonprofits it views as part of the political opposition, from environmental justice organizations to news outlets.

Fight for the Future and other advocacy groups called attention to the measure, which was buried in the final pages of the House Ways and Means Committee’s draft reconciliation bill, starting on page 380.

A markup hearing for the legislation is scheduled to take place on Tuesday at 2:30 pm ET.

The proposal would empower the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits deemed material supporters of terrorism, with only a hollow simulacrum of due process for the accused organizations. It is already illegal for nonprofits to provide material support for terrorism.

“The House is about to hand the Trump administration the ability to strip nonprofits of their 501(c)3 status without any reason or recourse. This is a five-alarm fire for nonprofits nationwide,” said Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future. “If the text of last autumn’s H.R. 9495 is passed in the budget, any organization with goals that do not line up with MAGA can be destroyed with a wink from Trump to the Treasury.”

The measure passed the Republican-controlled House late last year with the support of more than a dozen Democrats, but it never received a vote in the Senate.

“This terribly thought-out legislation means that under the current administration, every environmental, racial justice, LGBTQ+, gender justice, immigration justice, and—particularly—any anti-genocide organization throughout the country may be on the chopping block,” said Holland. “If Democrats capitulate to the wanton destruction of crucial civil society institutions, they had better expect civil society to burn them to the ground for that betrayal.”

The GOP’s renewed push for what opponents have called the “nonprofit killer bill” comes as the Trump administration wages war on nonprofit organizations, threatening to strip them of their tax-exempt status as part of a sweeping attack on the president’s political opponents.

“In the months since inauguration, Trump and his Cabinet have found other means of cracking down on political speech—particularly speech in favor of Palestinians—by deporting student activists and revoking hundreds of student visas. He has already threatened to attempt to revoke the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, part of his larger quest to discipline and punish colleges,” journalist Noah Hurowitz wrote for The Intercept late Monday.

“But the nonprofit clause of the tax bill would give the president wider power to go after organizations that stand in his way,” Hurowitz added.

Robert McCaw, government affairs director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Monday that “this provision is the latest in a growing wave of legislative attacks on constitutional rights.”

“CAIR is urging every member of the Ways and Means Committee to VOTE NO on the inclusion of this provision and to support an expected amendment to strike the language,” the group said in a statement. “Three Democratic members of the committee—Reps. Brad Schneider (Ill.), Tom Suozzi (N.Y.), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.)—previously voted in favor of the Nonprofit Killer Bill on the House floor last year. They must reverse course and vote to oppose it in committee.”

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Jake Johnson.

The report, “Minimum Tax, Maximum Influence,” details an effort by Sen. James Lankford (R–Okla.) to allow U.S. oil and gas producers to escape the 15% corporate alternative minimum tax that was a cornerstone of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. This measure was designed to stop profitable corporations from taking advantage of loopholes to pay nothing or nearly nothing in taxes. The new report draws on investor calls and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission to identify oil companies that may benefit from Sen.Lankford’s legislation.

Earlier this year, Lankford (R–Okla.) introduced the Promoting Domestic Energy Production Act, which would provide oil and gas drillers a special loophole to deduct certain drilling costs from taxes owed under the corporate minimum tax. Lankford’s proposal may be added to the mammoth Republican tax cut package benefitting the wealthiest Americans and large corporations while slashing health benefits for everyday Americans later this year.

“It is simply outrageous that the GOP is using its trifecta to create yet another fossil fuel subsidy,” said Lukas Shankar-Ross, deputy director of Friends of the Earth’s Climate and Energy Justice Program and co-author of the report. “If this polluter handout is snuck into the GOP tax bill, then cuts to Medicaid and food stamps could well pay for another giveaway to Big Oil. That’s obscene.”

If passed, this newest tax break would add to more than $170 billion in existing subsidies for fossil fuel companies.

“Oil and gas companies are using the political influence they purchased to dodge paying even a minimal part of their fair share,” said Alan Zibel, energy research director with Public Citizen and co-author of the report. “If individual taxpayers understood the magnitude of the extreme subsidies for Big Oil, they would be shocked. The newest effort to bypass even the most modest of tax bills by the industry is shocking, but sadly not surprising.”

Read the full report “Minimum Tax, Maximum Influence” here.

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

“We condemn the latest set of weapons sales that the Biden administration has reportedly notified to congressional leaders. These weapon sales won’t bring hostages home and don’t get us closer to a viable long term solution that ensures Israelis and Palestinians can live with dignity without the threat of violence.

“Many of the types of weapons reported to be part of this $8 billion package have been used—or are likely to be used—to kill and wound Palestinian civilians in Gaza, in a war that drags on because the president and his advisors refused to exercise real leverage to end it. This new tranche of weapons will surely be used to the same horrific ends.

“President Biden and his senior advisors continue skirting U.S. laws that should prohibit the sale of deadly weapons while Israeli officials restrict humanitarian aid and seek to make Gaza uninhabitable.

“Finally, these latest sales mark a bleak hand-off to the incoming Trump administration, whose senior nominees openly ally with far-right Israeli government ministers who plan to settle Gaza and annex the West Bank, all but guaranteeing another generation of displacement and deprivation that will undermine security for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Trump, Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir will use these sales to advance that violent project. It is an utter shame that President Biden has chosen to abet it during his final days in office.”

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

An emergency 231 million euro (NZ$428 million) French aid package for New Caledonia has been reduced by one third because of the French Pacific territory’s current political crisis.

The initial French package was endorsed in early December 2024, in an 11th-hour vote at the French National Assembly, minutes before French Prime Minister Michel Barnier and his government fell in a motion of no confidence.

The “end of management 2024” bill amounted to 231 million euros, specifically to allow New Caledonia’s essential public services to keep operating in the next few weeks.

• READ MORE: ‘Bloc’ resignation over riots recovery plan topples New Caledonia’s government
• Valls hopes to tackle New Caledonia in Rocard-style ‘spirit of dialogue’
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia crisis reports

But the financial package was pre-conditioned to New Caledonia’s Congress endorsing reforms before the end of the year.

Out of the three tranches of the total aid, the Congress managed, during its December 23, 2024, sitting, to endorse two.

Then, on Christmas Eve, New Caledonia’s government fell, due to a resignation by one of its members, Calédonie Ensemble.

Domino effect
Since the government led by Louis Mapou was toppled on Christmas Eve, pro-independence MPs at the Congress refused to take part in further votes.

They did not turn up on the Boxing Day sitting on Thursday, December 26.

This made it impossible for Congress to endorse the third and last tranche of the reforms, which were a precondition to the last third of the French aid package.

Letter from Bayrou and Valls
In a letter received by New Caledonia’s MPs at the weekend, both new French Prime Minister François Bayrou and his new Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls explained the failure for New Caledonia’s Congress to endorse the last third of the demanded reform package.

It means the whole package of 231 million euros will not be paid in full, and that one third of the total will have to wait until this year.

The confirmed amount, for the time being, is now 154 million euros (NZ$285 million) which will go towards New Caledonia’s Provinces and municipalities (125 million euros — NZ$231 million).

The remaining 29 million euros (NZ$54 million) will be paid and used for the payment of New Caledonia’s unemployment benefits and to allow the French Pacific territory’s power company, ENERCAL, which is on the brink of collapse without immediate assistance.

77 million euros withheld
“The last third of the initial 231 million euros package for New Caledonia (77 million euros [NZ$143 million]) will be released in 2025, once the pre-condition as stipulated in the initial agreement, regarding a reform of the TGC (General Consumption Tax, a local equivalent of a VAT) is adopted by (New Caledonia’s) Congress. Failing that, it will not,” Bayrou and Valls explained in the same letter.

They further wrote that those reforms were “indispensable” to ensure “visibility and stability” for New Caledonia’s “economic stakeholders and more generally to all of New Caledonians at a time when a dialogue is supposed to take place on its institutional future.”

The bloc resignation from Calédonie Ensemble entails that the whole government of New Caledonia is deemed to have resigned and acts in a caretaker mode until the inception of a new government.

New Caledonia’s Congress has been convened for a special sitting next week on 7 January 2025 to elect a new government, under the principle of proportional representation and a spirit of “collegiality”.

One particular point of contention was Mapou’s efforts to secure a loan of up to 1 billion euros from France, under a ‘PS2R’ (reconstruction, refoundation and salvage) plan to rebuild New Caledonia after the riots’ damage (estimated at some 2.2 billion euros) and the subsequent thousands of job losses.

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.

On May 17, China slashed mortgage rates and requirements, and called on municipal governments to buy up unsold apartments for conversion into low-rent housing, in a bid to shore up the country's burst real estate bubble.

But an informal survey conducted by Reuters suggests that the impact of the rescue package has been uneven, boosting sales in Beijing and Shanghai but not so much in other cities.

Top real estate developers in China saw sales volumes rise by 4% in May compared with April, according to a Nikkei Asia analysis, which reported that just over 11 million square meters of real estate were sold among 20 major developers. While this was higher than April's total, it was a 34% decline from a year ago, the news service reported.

China's National Statistics Bureau reported that sales prices of newly built commercial housing in first-tier cities fell by 3.2% year-on-year. Prices in second- and third-tier cities fell by 3.7% and 4.9% year-on-year, respectively.

Meanwhile, sales of pre-owned homes in top-tier Chinese cities fell by an average of 9.3% year-on-year in May, with Guangzhou recording a fall of 11.4% compared with May 2023, according to government figures.

‘Marxist financial theory’

China’s Communist Party has vowed to step up control of the country's financial system, using "Marxist financial theory" to stave off systemic risks and boost the flagging economy.

"Risk prevention and control" were highlighted as "the eternal theme" of financial policy amid spiraling local government debt and a burst property bubble, according to an official report on the five-yearly Central Financial Work Conference that ran behind closed doors in Beijing from Oct. 30-31.

Meanwhile, reports have emerged on social media that authorities in the eastern port city of Qingdao have been putting pressure on anyone with lots of money in the bank to invest in real estate.

If residents have huge deposits in their bank accounts but do not buy houses, "it means they are not aware enough. We need to remind them and talk to them to persuade them [to buy]," according to a screenshot of new employee assessment guidelines at a sub-district office in Qingdao that emerged on social media and appeared in several media reports outside China.

A Guangdong real estate industry insider who gave only the surname Zeng for fear of reprisals told RFA Mandarin on June 12 that officials and state-owned enterprise employees are under similar pressure in the southern province of Guangdong.

"The leaders of a state-owned enterprise in Guangdong held a meeting of middle-ranking officials at which department-level cadres were encouraged to buy real estate voluntarily, with down payment requirements reduced to 7.5% to comply with the new policy," Zeng said.

"But the more favorable the policies are, the less people want to buy real estate," she said.

‘Too many apartments’

A Qingdao resident who gave only the surname Zhang for fear of reprisals said he had heard of similar moves where he lives.

"There are too many apartments in Qingdao right now," he said. "They've been building them everywhere in the last couple of years, but they aren't selling, new or second-hand."

"They're also offering trade-ins of old apartments for new, and there are government subsidies," Zhang said.

Analysts told RFA that there is a profound crisis of confidence in real estate that requires far more drastic measures to fix.

"Firstly, people have no money to buy property, so even if the Chinese government continues to cut mortgage interest rates, it will be pretty meaningless," Wang Guochen, assistant researcher of the First Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Economic Research, told RFA Mandarin.

"Secondly, anyone with money won't be buying new property, because they don't know whether the developers will go bankrupt, and they worry the building will be left unfinished."

"Thirdly, there's the psychological factor, which is that people expect property prices to fall further, so they are holding back and waiting to see what happens, even if they do have money," Wang said.

Buy them all up

Wang said the only way to fix the issue of unfinished buildings would be for the government to buy them all up, citing comments from Vice Premier He Lifeng on May 17.

But he said the government would need to spend at least 10 trillion yuan to solve the problem, compared with the 500 billion yuan price tag for last month's measures.

Reuters quoted analysts as saying that Beijing needs to direct more funds to smaller city governments to reduce inventories and stabilize those markets, "but most expect gradual support rather than any big-bang measures as authorities are wary of bailing out profligate developers."

Sina Finance quoted Lu Ting, chief economist of Nomura Securities China, as saying that Chinese developers have a serious delivery problem, estimating that 10-20 million housing units are currently overdue.

And the lackluster sales spell trouble for developers, even the largest state-owned enterprises, Lu warned.

Chen Songxing, director of the New Economic Policy Research Center at National Donghua University in Taiwan, told RFA Mandarin that the government is trying to boost sales of real estate to maintain liquidity and prop up developers.

"If a real estate developer gets into trouble, then a project becomes an unfinished building," Chen said. "Homebuyers will stop paying their mortgages, and that will lead to a rapid increase in bad debt for banks."

"Normally, you would inject capital to deal with a bad debt problem, but the problem is that there are too many hidden bad debts, and local governments just may not be able to do that right now," he said.

Many banks are getting out of the real estate business altogether, according to state-backed media The Paper.

It cited figures from the state financial regulator as showing that 1,257 branches stopped offering real-estate financing in the first five months of this year, a year-on-year increase of 30.4%.

Wang Guochen said the authorities have been trying to tap major state-owned enterprises to buy up real estate, but these companies are often sitting on their own hidden debts, and have little to offer.

"This isn't the first time state-owned enterprises have been expected to bail out the markets -- they were also told to come forward during the stock market crash in January," Wang said. "In other words, the banks have been squeezed dry, and now they're trying to squeeze state-owned enterprises."

"But recently, it has emerged that state-owned enterprises are also riddled with bad debt, so there's not much there to squeeze," he said.

He said even China's authoritarian system can't suppress all financial risks, which are rising even after the government has used all the tools at its command.

Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Huang Chun-mei and Qian Lang for RFA Mandarin.

• White House announces $225 million aid package to Ukraine as Biden commemorates D-Day 80th Anniversary.
• Deadly tornadoes touch down in Eastern US.
• Federal judge orders longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon to report to prison on contempt of Congress charges.
• SF judge dismisses several charges against man who assaulted Nancy Pelosi’s husband.
• San Francisco labor rights groups announce $60,000 settlement in immigrant unpaid labor case.
• State Supreme Court OKs University of California to build student housing at People’s Park.
• State Attorney General Rob Bonta issues report on state gun violence protection orders.

The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – June 6, 2024 White House announces $225 million aid package to Ukraine as Biden commemorates D-Day 80th Anniversary. appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Image source Wikipedia.

The Biden administration has been working on a package deal with Saudi Arabia that would guarantee a path to a Palestinian state in return for a permanent cease-fire and establishment of Saudi-Israel relations. But the Saudis want more for themselves: a U.S.-Saudi mutual defense pact and cooperation on a civilian nuclear program in the kingdom. Those are steps too far: They risk bringing the US into a war with Iran and contributing to a “peaceful” nuclear program that could evolve into a Saudi bomb program.

Of course, the biggest obstacle to this deal is Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government is unalterably opposed to a Palestinian state. To the contrary, Netanyahu and his far-right comrades seem determined to empty Gaza and the West Bank of Palestinians, and resettle those territories with Israelis—their final solution. Their military strategy since Oct. 7 makes clear that war is preferable to a negotiated settlement, with the invasion of Rafah and intensified fighting in the West Bank the latest examples.

The high-level diplomacy with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) that the New York Times is reporting (May 17) seems designed to force Netanyahu’s hand: Take the deal and obtain formal recognition from the Saudis or fight an endless war with decreasing support from your friends.

Peace or isolation, in short. But don’t bet on a change of mind in Tel Aviv. These people care most about staying in power and cleansing Israel of an entire people. And that’s quite apart from the merits of the proposed deal, which (to my mind) argue against pursuing it in its present form.

You can’t trust MBS any more than you can trust Netanyahu.

The post A Package Deal Full of Holes appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Mel Gurtov.

• Campus protests against Gaza war roil US university campuses.
• President Biden signs $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
• Hamas release hostage video of American Hersh Goldberg-Polin.
• Troubled aircraft manufacturer Boeing reports $355 revenue drop in first quarter.
• State legislative Committee advances bill to provide treatment instead of suspension for students who violate school drug rules.
• UN releases dire new report on state of global hunger.

The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – April 24, 2024 President Biden signs $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

• Senate moves closer to passing $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other allies.
• Environmental activists call on San Francisco water regulators to stop diverting water from state waterways.
• Former National Enquirer publisher takes the stand in Trump’s New York hush money trial.
• UN takes up plastic pollution as a global issue in need of solving.
• California mayors call on the state government to continue homeless assistance funding.
• Gaza refugee camp hit according to Gaza health officials.

The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – April 23, 2024 Senate moves closer to passing $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other allies. appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Andrija Mandic, the pro-Russian head of the New Serbian Democracy party, will continue to serve as the speaker of the Montenegrin parliament after surviving a no-confidence vote.

In a secret ballot, 44 lawmakers voted for Mandic to remain at the helm of parliament, while 27 voted for his dismissal. There are 81 legislators in the Montenegrin parliament.

Mandic's dismissal was sought by the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), which accused him of abusing the assembly for "party, nationalist, and anti-European interests."

DPS, the biggest opposition party, was outraged after Mandic received Milorad Dodik, the pro-Russian president of the Bosnian Serb entity on February 27.

Dodik visited Montenegro immediately after meetings with the authoritarian presidents of Russia and Belarus, Vladimir Putin, and Alyaksandr Lukashenka. The visit triggered violent protests in Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina, prompting the latter to send a note of protest to the Montenegrin authorities.

The note highlighted that only the flag of the Bosnian Serb entity, Republika Srpska, was displayed behind Dodik at the press conference and not Bosnia's. Dodik has called for the seccession of the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska from Bosnia. A quarter of Montenegro's population is ethnic Serb.

"Mandic is a representative of those who implement national-chauvinist politics, a promoter of Greater Serbian nationalism. For him, (Radovan) Karadzic and (Ratko) Mladic are his heroes," DPS deputy Ivan Vukovic said in explaining the request for Mandic's dismissal.

Karadzic and Mladic are Bosnian Serbs who were convicted of war crimes, including genocide, during the Yugoslav wars.

The DPS criticized Mandic for visiting the election headquarters of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic's party on the day of the parliamentary elections in Serbia. They also criticized him for placing a tricolor flag identical to the official national flag of Serbia in his cabinet. Montenegro declared its independence from Serbia in 2006.

The DPS called Mandic a "weight on the neck" of European Montenegro and claimed that Western ambassadors bypass the Montenegrin parliament because of his leadership role.

Mandic did not directly respond to the accusations and criticism, emphasizing instead that te public is primarily interested in the results delivered by the parliamentary majority.

"In response to claims by political opponents that I am a hindrance to European integration, I defer to [EU Enlargement Commissioner] Oliver Varhelyi and others in Brussels with whom I have engaged. They appreciate the efforts of the parliament and me," Mandic said.

Mandic received support from his own party as well as members of the ruling coalition, which includes the Europe Now Movement (PES) led by Prime Minister Milojko Spajic, the Democrats led by Deputy Prime Minister Aleksa Becic, and the Socialist People's Party.

However, during the parliamentary session, no member of the Europe Now Movement voiced support for Mandic, despite not voting for his dismissal.

Mandic was the leader of the former pro-Russian Democratic Front, which until 2020 was the main opposition to the DPS, which subsequently lost power.

The program guidelines of the Democratic Front included the withdrawal of recognition of Kosovo's independence, the lifting of sanctions against Russia introduced in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea, and the withdrawal of Montenegro from NATO.

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

David Slater entered the plea in federal court in Nebraska on March 5 in the latest in a series of embarrassing disclosures and leaks of classified U.S. intelligence, some of it concerning Russia’s ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine and U.S. support for Kyiv.

The federal public defender who represented Slater at the hearing didn't comment on the case, but the judge ordered Slater to hire his own attorney after reviewing financial documents indicating he owns several rental homes in Nebraska and a property in Germany.

The judge also confirmed during the hearing that Slater no longer has access to classified information, but it was not clear if that mean he lost his job.

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

U.S. prosecutors said on March 4 that Slater, a retired lieutenant colonel, was working as a civilian employee at U.S. Strategic Command, when he allegedly began an online relationship with a woman on a “foreign dating platform.” U.S. Strategic Command oversees U.S. nuclear arsenals, among other things.

It’s unclear whether Slater, 63, ever physically met the woman, who prosecutors said identified herself as Ukrainian.

In a series of e-mails and chats on the unnamed dating site between February and April 2022, the woman sent messages asking Slater specific questions about U.S. intelligence on Russia’s invasion.

"Dear, what is shown on the screens in the special room?? It is very interesting," the woman texted Slater around March 11, 2022, according to the unsealed indictment.

“By the way, you were the first to tell me that NATO members are traveling by train and only now (already evening) this was announced on our news. You are my secret informant, love! How were your meetings? Successfully?” the woman texted Slater days later.

"Beloved Dave, do NATO and Biden have a secret plan to help us?" the woman wrote on March 18.

“You are my secret agent. With love,” the woman allegedly wrote a week later.

The indictment does not quote any e-mails or messages authored by Slater, who was expected to be released on March 6 on the condition that he surrenders his passport, submits to GPS monitoring, and remains in Nebraska.

If convicted at trial, Slater faces up to 10 years in federal prison on each of the three counts laid out in the indictment.

A series of leaks of classified U.S. data on Ukraine and other issues have embarrassed the U.S. intelligence community and stirred doubts among U.S. allies sharing closely held information.

On March 4, a man who served in the U.S. Air National Guard unit pleaded guilty to leaking highly classified military documents about the Ukraine war and other U.S. national security secrets.

Jack Teixeira, 22, admitted to obtaining the information while he worked as an information technology specialist, and then sharing it with other users on Discord, a social media platform popular with online gamers.

The leaks, which included information about troop movements in Ukraine and the provision of U.S. equipment to Ukrainian troops, were seen as highly embarrassing for the Pentagon; more than a dozen military personnel were reprimanded in the subsequent investigation.

With reporting by AP

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

Speaking in an interview with RFE/RL to mark the second anniversary of Russia launching its full-scale invasion of its neighbor, the NATO chief said solidarity with Ukraine was not only correct, it's also "in our own security interests."

"We can expect that the NATO allies will do more to ensure that Ukraine prevails, because this has been so clearly stated by NATO allies," Stoltenberg said.

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

"I always stress that this is not charity. This is an investment in our own security and and that our support makes a difference on the battlefield every day," he added.

Ukraine is in desperate need of financial and military assistance amid signs of political fatigue in the West as the war kicked off by Russia's unprovoked invasion nears the two-year mark on February 24.

In excerpts from the interview released earlier in the week, Stoltenberg said the death of Russian opposition leader Aleksei Navalny and the first Russian gains on the battlefield in months should help focus the attention of NATO and its allies on the urgent need to support Ukraine.

The death of Navalny in an Arctic prison on February 16 under suspicious circumstances -- authorities say it will be another two weeks before the body may be released to the family -- adds to the need to ensure Russian President Vladimir Putin's authoritarian rule does not go unchecked.

"I strongly believe that the best way to honor the memory of Aleksei Navalny is to ensure that President Putin doesn't win on the battlefield, but that Ukraine prevails," Stoltenberg said.

Stoltenberg said the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the city of Avdiyivka last week after months of intense fighting demonstrated the need for more military aid, "to ensure that Russia doesn't make further gains."

"We don't believe that the fact that the Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from Avdiyivka in in itself will significantly change the strategic situation," he said.

"But it reminds us of that Russia is willing to sacrifice a lot of soldiers. It also just makes minor territorial gains and also that Russia has received significant military support supplies from Iran, from North Korea and have been able to ramp up their own production."

Ukraine's allies have been focused on a $61 billion U.S. military aid package, but while that remains stalled in the House of Representatives, other countries, including Sweden, Canada, and Japan, have stepped up their aid.

"Of course, we are focused on the United States, but we also see how other allies are really stepping up and delivering significant support to Ukraine," Stoltenberg said in the interview.

On the question of when Ukraine will be able to deploy F-16 fighter jets, Stoltenberg said it was not possible to say. He reiterated that Ukraine's allies all want them to be there as early as possible but said the effect of the F-16s will be stronger if pilots are well trained and maintenance crews and other support personnel are well-prepared.

"So, I think we have to listen to the military experts exactly when we will be ready to or when allies will be ready to start sending and to delivering the F-16s," he said. "The sooner the better."

Ukraine has actively sought U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to help it counter Russian air superiority. The United States in August approved sending F-16s to Ukraine from Denmark and the Netherlands as soon as pilot training is completed.

It will be up to each ally to decide whether to deliver F-16s to Ukraine, and allies have different policies, Stoltenberg said. But at the same time the war in Ukraine is a war of aggression, and Ukraine has the right to self-defense, including striking legitimate Russian military targets outside Ukraine.

Asked about the prospect of former President Donald Trump returning to the White House, Stoltenberg said that regardless of the outcome of the U.S. elections this year, the United States will remain a committed NATO ally because it is in the security interest of the United States.

Trump, the current front-runner in the race to become the Republican Party's presidential nominee, drew sharp rebukes from President Joe Biden, European leaders, and NATO after suggesting at a campaign rally on February 10 that the United States might not defend alliance members from a potential Russian invasion if they don’t pay enough toward their own defense.

Stoltenberg said the United States was safer and stronger together with more than 30 allies -- something that neither China nor Russia has.

The criticism of NATO has been aimed at allies underspending on defense, he said.

But Stoltenberg said new data shows that more and more NATO allies are meeting the target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, and this demonstrates that the alliance has come a long way since it pledged in 2014 to meet the target.

At that time three members of NATO spent 2 percent of GDP on defense. Now it’s 18, he said.

"If you add together what all European allies do and compare that to the GDP in total in Europe, it's actually 2 percent today," he said. "That's good, but it's not enough because we want [each NATO member] to spend 2 percent. And we also make sure that 2 percent is a minimum."

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

"I am 100 percent -- 1,000 percent -- sure that we will continue to support you in this," Brink told journalists on February 20 in Kyiv.

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

A critical $61 billion aid package has been stalled in Congress for months over political differences, despite warnings from President Joe Biden that failure by the Republican-led House of Representatives to authorize it would play into Russian President Vladimir Putin's hands.

"This is a very political issue that I cannot predict. But I can say that we all present the most compelling arguments why it is necessary, why this is not an open-ended request, why it is really important for you to succeed not only on the battlefield but also to have economic security and independence," Brink said.

She said she has spoken with House Speaker Mike Johnson (Republican-Louisiana) and knows that he supports Ukraine and "understands the importance of Russia losing the war."

Brink said Biden and all the U.S. diplomats working on the matter are pushing hard to move it forward as quickly as possible.

"My message is this: You can't waste time, you can't waste a single day, not a single hour, not a single second. People die here every day," she said, referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's comments over the weekend at the Munich Security Conference about the lack of weapons and the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the city of Avdiyivka.

Zelenskiy said in his nightly video message on February 19 that delays in weapons deliveries had made the fight “very difficult” along parts of the front line and that Russian forces are taking advantage of the delays in weapons deliveries.

Putin on February 20 congratulated his Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on capturing Avdiyivka and urged him to press Russia’s advantage.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said he and Oleksandr Syrskiy, commander in chief of Ukraine's armed forces, discussed the situation at the front and ammunition supplies in a phone call with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

Syrskiy "gave updates on the current dynamics on the front line," Umerov said on Facebook. "The common understanding of the situation and the action plan were discussed. The ammunition supply was in focus as well."

WATCH: In NATO, the United States can boast of an alliance that neither Russia nor China enjoys, says NATO's secretary-general. In an interview with RFE/RL in Brussels on February 20, Jens Stoltenberg said it is in Washington's interest to keep it that way, regardless of the outcome of the coming U.S. presidential election. He spoke to Zoriana Stepanenko of RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service.

On February 20, Sweden announced its biggest aid package since Russia launched its full-scale invasion two years ago -- worth 7.1 billion Swedish kroner ($684 million). Sweden’s 15th aid package to date will provide Ukraine with combat boats, mines, artillery ammunition, and air-defense equipment among other supplies, Defense Minister Pal Jonson said at a press conference in Stockholm.

Canada said a day earlier that it would expedite the delivery of more than 800 drones.

The announcements came as Russian drones killed more Ukrainian citizens and damaged private property.

Two people were killed and one was injured in the Kharkiv region on February 20 when a Russian drone hit a civilian car, said Oleg Synyehubov, head of the regional military administration.

The attack by a "kamikaze" drone occurred around 4:50 p.m. local time in the village of Petropavlivka. There were three passengers in the car -- a 38-year-old civilian driver and a 50-year-old civilian man, who died on the spot, and a 48-year-old woman, who was taken to a hospital, Synyehubov said on Telegram. The woman is the wife of the 50-year-old man.

According to Synyehubov, all three were local farm workers returning home after work.

Earlier on February 20 in the northern Ukrainian region of Sumy, a Russian drone struck a house, killing five members of the same family, the regional administration said.

A mother, her two sons, and two other relatives died as a result of the strike in Nova Sloboda, a village about 6 kilometers from the Russian border. The house was completely destroyed, Ukrainian officials said.

The Prosecutor-General’s Office in Kyiv announced a war crimes investigation.

WATCH: After withdrawing from Avdiyivka, Ukrainian units are scrambling to build new defensive positions west of the city.

The Ukrainian military dismissed a statement by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu that Moscow's forces had secured full control over the village of Krynky on the eastern bank of the Dnieper River in the Kherson region.

A statement on Telegram by the Ukrainian military's southern district said Russian forces had made no headway on the eastern bank.

Russian troops abandoned the western bank of the Dnieper in the Kherson region in late 2022 but remain in areas on the eastern bank. Ukrainian forces captured some districts on the eastern bank last November.

With reporting by Reuters, AP, and dpa

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

Photograph Source: Steve Jurvetson – CC BY 2.0

When is the acquisitive nature of open frontier capitalism too much?  When Elon Musk is told that US$56 billion as a pay package is unfair.  This, at least, was the finding by Delaware Court of Chancery by Judge Kathaleen McCormick regarding the spellbinding 2018 compensation package for the planet’s wealthiest human being.

McCormick and Musk already have inked some judicial history.  The same judge presided over the Twitter suit against Musk that eventually resulted in him parting with US$44 billion to acquire the company that is now sliding into merry decay as the platform X.

In her sharp ruling, daring to “boldly go where no man has gone before”, let alone a Delaware court, McCormick observed that Tesla, a company of Musk’s own creation, “bore the burden of proving that the compensation plan was fair, and they failed to meet their burden.”  The question of fairness first arose in 2019, when Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta filed a suit challenging the validity of the 2018 performance-based equity compensation plan, the largest of its type in the history of public markets.

Tornetta’s primary contention was that Musk was hardly showing much devotion to the carmaker, his duties and interests spread, as it were, across a number of other corporate entities: SpaceX, OpenAI, Neuralink and the Boring Company.  Tornetta’s legal team argued that the 2018 package did nothing to focus the billionaire’s interest on Tesla and, it followed, the interests of its shareholders.  The agreement, for instance, made no mention of any such requirements as time allocation.  “Indeed,” reads the lawsuit, “Musk testified that since the Grant’s approval, he has spent a little more than half his time on Tesla matters and has dedicated substantial time and attention to various other endeavours.”

The judgment acknowledges that any decision by the board of directors on what to pay a company CEO “is the quintessential business determination subject to great judicial deference.”  Delaware law, however, recognised “unique risks inherent in a corporation’s transactions with its controlling stockholder.”  When it came to dealing with “conflicted-controller transactions,” the “presumptive standard review … is entire fairness.”

Here, the defendants proved “unable to prove that the stockholder vote was fully informed because the proxy statement inaccurately described key directors as independent and misleadingly omitted details about the process.”  Even by the judge’s own reasoning, the task left to the defendants was an “unenviable” one, and “too tall an order.”

For the court, there were critical problems with the process leading to the approval of the compensation plan.  The judgment paints a picture of Musk essentially negotiating with himself through devotees, flunkeys and friends.  The adversarial atmosphere was never present; the “controlled mindset” all powerful.

The theme of the entrepreneurial God King holding his courtiers in thrall streaks McCormick’s observations.  Musk, for instance, maintained “extensive ties with the persons tasked with negotiating on Tesla’s behalf.”  The chair of the compensation committee, Ira Ehrenpreis, had known Musk well for 15 years.  Another member of the same committee, Antonio Gracias, had an enduring two-decade business relationship with Musk “as well as the sort of personal relationship that had him vacationing with Musk’s family on a regular basis.”

The entanglements do not stop there.  There is General Counsel Todd Maron, the main negotiating link between the committee and Musk.  Maron had acted as divorce attorney for Musk and admired him so much he was “moved … to tears during his deposition.”

With a flawed process, things did not get much better with the negotiated price.  Again, the defendants argued that, for Tesla to continue to grow, Musk’s continued leadership was indispensable.  Keeping Musk as the main helmsman meant a rise in stockholder value.  In one estimate, offering Musk a chance to increase his ownership of Tesla from 21.9% to 28.3% would mean “6% for (US)$600 billion of growth in stockholder value.”

Such arguments did not convince McCormick.  Musk already owned 21.9% of the company when the plan was approved.  He had every incentive to push the company “to levels of transformative growth” seeing what he stood to gain from it: “(US)$10 billion for every (US)$50 billion in market capitalization increase.”  The arrangements also came with no conditions on how much time Musk would devote to Tesla.  “Swept up by the rhetoric of ‘all upside,’ or perhaps starry eyed by Musk’s superstar appeal, the board never asked the (US)$55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary to retain Musk and achieve its goals?”  The answer: plainly not.

Such observations would have stung and made good the judge’s promise to go where no previous Delaware court had dared tread.  Here was a punchy assessment about the comfortable, clique-ridden tribalism of corporate non-governance.  Musk, riled and ruffled, took to the platform X (formerly Twitter) to vent.  “Never incorporate your company in the state of Delaware,” were his words of advice.

By no means does this end matter.  Musk is hardly going to be out of pocket, nor is he going to leave the company from which he continues to handsomely profit from via stocks he owns.  Fairness operates in otherworldly dimensions here.  A new compensation package, according to the judge, will have to be worked out with Tornetta.  An appeal is also possible.  “The judge’s ruling should be a wakeup call (for Tesla shareholders) that things have gotten out of hand,” remarks Andrew Poreda, who also invests in Tesla through exchange-traded funds.  In this overgrown corporate jungle, it is questionable whether things were ever really in hand.

The post When Much is Too Much: Elon Musk’s Compensation Package appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

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

A Delaware state court judge ruled that the $56 billion pay package awarded to Elon Musk by Tesla’s board of directors in 2018 was illegal. The gist of the ruling was that the board was composed of people who were close friends or relatives of Musk. The judge ruled that they gave him an outlandish compensation package, based on targets that they knew would be easily reached. She therefore threw out the contract.

To get an idea of the size of the pay package, Elon Musk’s compensation came to 89 percent of Tesla’s gross (pre-tax) profits over the years 2019-2023. It seems unlikely that that the company could not have attracted a competent CEO who would have agreed to work for a sum substantially less than 90 percent of the company’s profits. It is also seems likely that if an independent board had offered Musk a contract for 1-2 percent of the current contract ($560 million to $1,120 million) that he would have taken it, since it is unlikely that he had better paying options.

It is worth noting that the contract was not thrown out for moral reasons – the judge did not indicate that she felt Musk was making too much money in a general philosophical sense. It was thrown out because the judge determined that a board closely controlled by the CEO was ripping off shareholders with his generous compensation package.

Although most boards are not as tightly controlled by a CEO as Tesla’s, boards generally view their allegiances as being first and foremost to top management and not to shareholders. This is a main cause of outlandish CEO pay.

Last fall, when the UAW negotiated new contracts with the Big Three, it was striking how out of line CEO pay at the U.S. companies was compared with their counterparts in other wealthy countries. The pay of the top execs at Stellantis, Ford, and GM was $21 million, $25 million, and $29 million, respectively. By contrast, at BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche, it was $5.6 million, $7.5 million, and $7.9 million. At the large Japanese manufacturers, it was $2.3 million at Honda, $4.5 million at Nissan, and $6.7 million at Toyota.

It would be difficult to claim that the fact that, GM’s CEO got more than five times the pay of BMW’s CEO, and more than ten times the pay of Honda’s CEO, is explained by superior performance. Clearly the issue is different rules and norms of corporate governance that restrain CEO pay in other countries more than in the United States.

If we looked to change the rules of corporate governance, to give more control to shareholders, it is likely that we can bring pay of CEOs here more in line with their pay elsewhere in the world. This is a big deal, not just because a small number of CEOs get outlandish pay, but because the pay of CEOs distorts the pay structure at the top more generally.

If CEOs got $3 million or $4 million, rather than $20 million or $30 million, the CFO and other top execs would see corresponding cuts in pay, as would third tier executives. This would also spill over into the non-corporate sector. Currently, university presidents or heads of major foundations and charities often get paid $2 million or $3 million a year. When a senior person in the corporate takes a top-level government position at $200,000 a year, that is considered a major sacrifice.

We would be in a very different world if pay for CEOs in the U.S. looked more like pay in Europe and Japan. Elon Musk’s outlandish pay package shows us the route to getting there. It is fine to complain about the morality of CEOs getting $20 million or $30 million or even more, but the more practical issue is that they are ripping off the companies they work for.

If shareholders had more ability to challenge CEO pay, it is likely that we would see serious downward pressure on the size of pay packages CEOs now get. Shareholders have no more interest in CEOs getting two or three times what the market would bear than they do in having assembly line workers or retail clerks getting two or three times the market wage. There is a mechanism in place for restraining the pay of assembly line workers and retail clerks, we need a comparable mechanism for restraining the pay of CEOs and other top management.

This first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.  

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Dean Baker.

McCormick and Musk already have inked some judicial history.  The same judge presided over the Twitter suit against Musk that eventually resulted in him parting with US$44 billion to acquire the company that is now sliding into merry decay as the platform X.

In her sharp ruling, daring to “boldly go where no man has gone before”, let alone a Delaware court, McCormick observed that Tesla, a company of Musk’s own creation, “bore the burden of proving that the compensation plan was fair, and they failed to meet their burden.”  The question of fairness first arose in 2019, when Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta filed a suit challenging the validity of the 2018 performance-based equity compensation plan, the largest of its type in the history of public markets.

Tornetta’s primary contention was that Musk was hardly showing much devotion to the carmaker, his duties and interests spread, as it were, across a number of other corporate entities: SpaceX, OpenAI, Neuralink and the Boring Company.  Tornetta’s legal team argued that the 2018 package did nothing to focus the billionaire’s interest on Tesla and, it followed, the interests of its shareholders.  The agreement, for instance, made no mention of any such requirements as time allocation.  “Indeed,” reads the lawsuit, “Musk testified that since the Grant’s approval, he has spent a little more than half his time on Tesla matters and has dedicated substantial time and attention to various other endeavours.”

The judgment acknowledges that any decision by the board of directors on what to pay a company CEO “is the quintessential business determination subject to great judicial deference.”  Delaware law, however, recognised “unique risks inherent in a corporation’s transactions with its controlling stockholder.”  When it came to dealing with “conflicted-controller transactions,” the “presumptive standard review … is entire fairness.”

Here, the defendants proved “unable to prove that the stockholder vote was fully informed because the proxy statement inaccurately described key directors as independent and misleadingly omitted details about the process.”  Even by the judge’s own reasoning, the task left to the defendants was an “unenviable” one, and “too tall an order.”

For the court, there were critical problems with the process leading to the approval of the compensation plan.  The judgment paints a picture of Musk essentially negotiating with himself through devotees, flunkeys and friends.  The adversarial atmosphere was never present; the “controlled mindset” all powerful.

The theme of the entrepreneurial God King holding his courtiers in thrall streaks McCormick’s observations.  Musk, for instance, maintained “extensive ties with the persons tasked with negotiating on Tesla’s behalf.”  The chair of the compensation committee, Ira Ehrenpreis, had known Musk well for 15 years.  Another member of the same committee, Antonio Gracias, had an enduring two-decade business relationship with Musk “as well as the sort of personal relationship that had him vacationing with Musk’s family on a regular basis.”

The entanglements do not stop there.  There is General Counsel Todd Maron, the main negotiating link between the committee and Musk.  Maron had acted as divorce attorney for Musk and admired him so much he was “moved … to tears during his deposition.”

With a flawed process, things did not get much better with the negotiated price.  Again, the defendants argued that, for Tesla to continue to grow, Musk’s continued leadership was indispensable.  Keeping Musk as the main helmsman meant a rise in stockholder value.  In one estimate, offering Musk a chance to increase his ownership of Tesla from 21.9% to 28.3% would mean “6% for (US)$600 billion of growth in stockholder value.”

Such arguments did not convince McCormick.  Musk already owned 21.9% of the company when the plan was approved.  He had every incentive to push the company “to levels of transformative growth” seeing what he stood to gain from it: “(US)$10 billion for every (US)$50 billion in market capitalization increase.”  The arrangements also came with no conditions on how much time Musk would devote to Tesla.  “Swept up by the rhetoric of ‘all upside,’ or perhaps starry eyed by Musk’s superstar appeal, the board never asked the (US)$55.8 billion question: Was the plan even necessary to retain Musk and achieve its goals?”  The answer: plainly not.

Such observations would have stung and made good the judge’s promise to go where no previous Delaware court had dared tread.  Here was a punchy assessment about the comfortable, clique-ridden tribalism of corporate non-governance.  Musk, riled and ruffled, took to the platform X (formerly Twitter) to vent.  “Never incorporate your company in the state of Delaware,” were his words of advice.

By no means does this end matter.  Musk is hardly going to be out of pocket, nor is he going to leave the company from which he continues to handsomely profit from via stocks he owns.  Fairness operates in otherworldly dimensions here.  A new compensation package, according to the judge, will have to be worked out with Tornetta.  An appeal is also possible.  “The judge’s ruling should be a wakeup call (for Tesla shareholders) that things have gotten out of hand,” remarks Andrew Poreda, who also invests in Tesla through exchange-traded funds.  In this overgrown corporate jungle, it is questionable whether things were ever really in hand.

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

The United States continued to expressed outrage and vow a response to the deaths of American service members in Jordan following a drone attack it blamed on Iranian-backed militias, while Washington and London in a separate move stepped up pressure on Tehran with a new set of coordinated sanctions.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on January 29 doubled down on earlier vows by President Joe Biden to hold responsible those behind the drone attack, which also injured dozens of personnel, many of whom are being treated for traumatic brain injuries, according to the Pentagon.

"Let me start with my outrage and sorrow [for] the deaths of three brave U.S. troops in Jordan and for the other troops who were wounded," Austin told a Pentagon briefing.

"The president and I will not tolerate attacks on U.S. forces and we will take all necessary actions to defend the U.S. and our troops."

Later, White House national-security spokesman John Kirby told reporters that "we are not looking for a war with Iran."

He added, though, that drone attack "was escalatory, make no mistake about it, and it requires a response."

A day earlier, Biden said U.S. officials had assessed that one of several Iranian-backed groups was responsible for the attack and vowed to respond at a time of Washington’s choosing.

"While we are still gathering the facts of this attack, we know it was carried out by radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq," Biden said.

"We will carry on their commitment to fight terrorism. And have no doubt -- we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner of our choosing," Biden said in a separate statement.

Details of the attack remained unclear on January 29, but a U.S. official said the enemy drone may have been confused with a U.S.-launched drone returning to the military site near the Syrian border and was therefore not shot down.

The official, who requested anonymity, said preliminary reports indicate the enemy drone was flying at a low level at the same time a U.S. drone was returning to the base, known as Tower 22.

Iran on January 29 denied it had any link with the attack, with the Foreign Ministry in Tehran calling the accusations "baseless."

Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said that "resistance groups" in the region do not take orders from Tehran, though Western nations accuse the country of helping arm, train, and fund such groups.

Earlier, Iran's Permanent Mission to the United Nations said, "Iran had no connection and had nothing to do with the attack on the U.S. base."

Jordan condemned what it called a "terrorist attack" on a military site, saying it was cooperating with the United States to fortify its border defenses.

The attacks are certain to intensify political pressure in the United States on Biden -- who is in an election year -- to retaliate against Iranian interests in the region, possibly in Iraq or Syria, analysts say.

Gregory Brew, a historian and an analyst with the geopolitical risk firm Eurasia Group, told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that the attack in Jordan represented a "major escalation -- and the U.S. is bound to respond forcefully and promptly."

"The response is likely to come through more intense U.S. action against Iran-backed militias in either Syria or Iraq. It's unclear if this was an intentional escalation by Iran and its allies, but the genie is out of the bottle," he added.

Republican Senator Tom Cotton, a vocal critic of Biden, a Democrat, on January 28 said the "only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces.... Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward."

Many observers have expressed fears of a widening conflict in the Middle East after war broke out in Gaza following the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, which has been deemed a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. At least 1,200 were killed in those assaults, leading to Israel's retaliatory actions that, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza, have killed more than 26,000 Palestinians.

Because of its support for Israel, U.S. forces have been the target of Islamist groups in the Middle East, including Iranian-backed Huthi rebels based in Yemen and militia groups in Iraq who are also supported by Tehran.

In another incident that will likely intensify such fears of a wider conflict, the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights -- which has extensive contacts inside Syria -- said an Israeli air strike against an Iranian-linked site in Damascus killed seven people, including fighters of Tehran-backed militias.

The Tasnim news agency, which is close to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), attributed the attack to Israel, writing that "two civilians" had been killed, while Syrian state television said "a number of Iranian advisers" had been killed at the "Iranian Advisory Center" in Damascus.

However, Iran’s ambassador to Syria, Hossein Akbari, denied the Iranian center had been targeted or that "any Iranian citizens or advisers" had been killed.

Meanwhile, the United States and Britain announced a set of coordinated sanctions against 11 officials with the IRGC for alleged connections to a criminal network that has targeted foreign dissidents and Iranian regime opponents for "numerous assassinations and kidnapping" at the behest of the Iranian Intelligence and Security Ministry.

A statement by the British Foreign Office said the sanctions are designed "to tackle the domestic threat posed by the Iranian regime, which seeks to export repression, harassment, and coercion against journalists and human rights defenders" in Britain, the United States, and elsewhere.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron said the latest sanctions packages "exposes the roles of the Iranian officials and gangs involved in activity aimed to undermine, silence, and disrupt the democratic freedoms we value in the U.K."

"The U.K. and U.S. have sent a clear message: We will not tolerate this threat," he added.

With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Farda, Reuters, and AP

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, donated around $95,000 to Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., in November, according to The Intercept’s analysis of Federal Election Commission records. The pro-Israel lobbying group was Johnson’s top donor in 2023, pouring money into his campaign coffers just after he led the passage of a $14 billion aid package to Israel.

AIPAC’s political action committee donated a total of $104,000 to Johnson last year, with the majority of payments coming since the start of the Gaza war and after Johnson was elected House Speaker in late October. That’s more than four times the roughly $25,000 the group donated to his last congressional campaign, when it was also his top donor, as The Intercept previously reported.

AIPAC is a major powerbroker on Capitol Hill, where it gives money to lawmakers from both major political parties in order to preserve or enhance pro-Israel policies. In recent years, the group has become a more partisan actor, training its sights on Democratic critics of Israel. It has recruited primary challengers to progressive members of Congress and launched a super PAC, the United Democracy Project, through which it has spent millions of dollars to help defeat Democratic candidates who express concern or support for the people of Palestine in any way.

James Zogby, the founder and president of the Arab American Institute, said that the group’s campaign contributions have two purposes: to “reward candidates who vote their way” and as “a cudgel that is used to keep people in line,” citing AIPAC’s past attack ads against Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Summer Lee, and Rep. Jamaal Bowman. 

Stephen Walt, the co-author of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” told The Intercept that U.S. policy toward the Middle East is the foreign policy issue on which lobbyist groups have the most influence. “In terms of foreign policy, this is probably the one issue where money in politics has had the greatest negative effect,” said Walt, a professor of international relations at the Harvard Kennedy School.

AIPAC and Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.

According to the FEC records, Johnson received several small donations from AIPAC in late October, ranging from $10 to $500 a piece. These donations greatly increased the following month however, when Johnson received a total of 71 payments of up to $5,000 each, starting on November 5 and ending on November 29.

The cash influx came shortly after Johnson, then the newly minted speaker, led the House passage of a $14 billion aid package to Israel — a proposal he fought to fast-track by separating the bill from the tens of billions in aid earmarked for Ukraine and using IRS funds to finance it. Once the bill made it through the House, Johnson urged the Senate to approve it as quickly as possible. 

“This is necessary and critical assistance as Israel fights for its right to exist,” he said.

AIPAC, too, had loudly supported sending additional aid to Israel. In a late October tweet, the group described the bill as an effort to “fully fund critical security assistance for Israel.” In early November, the group targeted lawmakers who voiced their opposition to aiding Israel’s military or spread awareness of the growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Johnson, a steadfast supporter of Israel, started off his speakership by telling the Republican Jewish Coalition’s conference in Las Vegas that “God is not done with America yet, and I know he’s not done with Israel.” In the same speech, he said that the Squad’s solidarity with the people of Palestine reflected “an alarming trend of antisemitism,” before going on to quote renowned antisemite and British philosopher G.K. Chesterton.

During a trip to Israel in 2020, which was sponsored by a mysterious nonprofit called the 12Tribe Films Foundation, Johnson also claimed that it’s “not true” that Palestinians “are oppressed in these areas, and have these terrible lives,” adding, “we didn’t see any of it.” On his trip, Johnson visited the West Bank city of Hebron, which is notoriously segregated and home to hundred of Israeli settlers. His first trip to Israel, in 2017, was funded by the American Israel Education Foundation – AIPAC’s sister organization whose delegations to Israel are considered a rite of passage in Congress. 

Even as a growing number of Democrats is willing to buck the pro-Israel consensus in Washington and reject AIPAC’s influence, they remain heavily under-resourced. “The key is there’s no comparable groups on the other side,” said Walt. “There’s no set of pro-Palestinian or Arab American political action committees with anywhere near the same resources.”

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Catherine Caruso.

The two practices are seen by rights campaigners as ways for the junta to punish critics of its rule. But they can have a deadly effect on the lives of what Thailand’s Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) says are the more than 19,600 prisoners of conscience languishing in Myanmar’s poorly provisioned jails since the military’s February 2021 coup d’etat.

Traditionally, families of all inmates have been allowed to send enough food for two weeks at a time, as well as medicine and other supplies, to supplement what little is provided to them in prison by the state. The amount also allowed for inmates to share food with those whose families have less to give.

But beginning in August, several prisons across the country introduced limits on sending packages to political prisoners – but not the prisons’ general population – with no official announcement or explanation for the decision.

Family members told RFA Burmese that the new rules have left their loved ones without enough to eat and in need of medicine to address medical conditions.

The family member of a political prisoner in Pathein, who was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison, said that the new restrictions mean that what can be sent will now barely support them for a week.

She said that she can now only send seven packets of instant coffee, five packets of instant noodles, 14.4 ounces of dry snacks and 1.8 pounds of curry.

“He won’t even be able to eat [enough] for a week,” she said.

Min Lwin Oo, a member of the Dawei district strike committee, told RFA that the health of his 65-year-old imprisoned father, who was sentenced to two years in Dawei Prison in August 2022 for “defaming the state,” is now “worse than when he was outside.”

He said his father has asked for a daily supply of medicine to treat a fungal skin disease, but that he has been unable to send it due to the new restrictions.

“Before [prison], he used to visit clinics regularly, but he can’t do that anymore,” Min Lwin Oo said. “Things like creams don't work well for this problem, so I am worried about his health.”

In addition to the restrictions on packages, shortly after seizing power, the junta instituted a ban on in-person meetings between political prisoners and their lawyers on the pretext of preventing the spread of Covid-19. 

The ban, which remains in place despite drastically reduced Covid transmission numbers, has limited the ability of prisoners of conscience to fight charges for crimes they say are politically motivated and that they didn’t commit.

Prison transfers

Authorities have also used transfers to remote prisons – often without informing families – as a form of retribution against political prisoners that limits their access to lawyers, loved ones, and badly needed supplies, watchdog groups say.

Ko Ganang, a member of a group that sends supplies to prisons, said political prisoners who are sent to remote facilities can find themselves “in serious trouble.”

“Families can’t afford travel expenses, even if it is only once a month,” he said. “The country's economy is not good, so it is very difficult for family members of political prisoners. They are financially discriminated against.”

According to Thaik Tun Oo, a leading member of the Myanmar Political Prisoners Network, conditions for political prisoners became much worse in the country after the junta appointed Myo Swe – formerly of the regime’s ministry of defense – to replace Zaw Min as director general of the ministry of home affairs’ prison department.

“After a military officer became the director general of prisons, the [political] prisoners were forbidden from wearing clothes they used to wear and reading the books they used to read,” he said, noting that not even books published with official permission are allowed to be read in prisons anymore.

“They are no longer allowed to keep personal belongings, such as toothbrushes, and drinking water can no longer be sent from the outside,” he said. “We’ve learned that it’s the prison authorities who are carrying out this oppression.”

No legal basis for restrictions

Thaik Tun Oo said that at least 24 prisons across the country have been restricting the sending of packages to political prisoners, with no reason provided.

A lawyer, who declined to be named due to security reasons, said that under Myanmar’s laws, all inmates have the right to meet with their family members, engage in correspondence and receive supplies.

“All inmates are allowed to meet in-person with their family members … and if there is no opportunity to meet in person, they can receive supplies [or letters],” he said. “These are the ways that inmates can maintain contact with the outside. According to the prison manual, unless there are special circumstances, every prisoner must be provided these rights.”

RFA’s attempts to reach out to Naing Win, a spokesman for the prison department, regarding the restrictions on sending supplies to inmates went unanswered Friday.

Translated by Htin Aung Kyaw. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.

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

In response, Morris Pearl, the Chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and a former managing director at BlackRock, Inc., released the following statement:

"Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith is trying to sell the American Families and Jobs Act as a win for working people and small businesses, but that’s a flat-out lie. Just like its predecessor, this GOP Tax Scam 2.0 will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and corporations and leave only crumbs for the poor. This legislation will give the poorest 20% of Americans $1.4 billion in tax cuts, while the top 1% of Americans alone will receive a whopping $28.4 billion in cuts.

Smith said that he and his GOP Ways and Means colleagues introduced the bill in response to the concerns raised from the people that they met on the “field hearings” that they conducted across the country. As it happens, we’ve been doing our own field hearings as part of our Great Economy Project. After talking to real workers - not handpicked people loaded up with Chamber of Commerce talking points - we can tell you that this package isn’t anywhere near what they or small businesses need or want. They want lawmakers to raise, not cut, taxes on the rich and mega-corporations, and to give real and lasting financial relief to working families that ensure they can cover their basic needs. The GOP is trying to placate them with a short-term expansion of the standard deduction, but rest assured, it’s only there to cover up the bill’s massive corporate giveaways.

For months, Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling and held the entire global economy hostage until they extracted spending cuts to shrink the deficit. Now, just ten days after getting what they wanted, they are trying to pass a tax package that will explode the deficit by extending many of the 2017 Trump tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

If Republicans actually cared about deficits and doing what’s best for working people, then they would have never brought this bill to the floor in the first place. I’m left to assume this is what their rich friends are asking for, and they’re happy to oblige."

In response, Erica Payne, Founder and President of the Patriotic Millionaires, released the following statement:

“This new GOP tax package is a moral and economic debacle wrapped in an Orwellian bow. If the first bill that the House GOP introduced increases the deficit by defunding the IRS, you can rest assured that they don’t give a hoot about deficits.”

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

As House Republicans prepare to vote on H.R. 1 this week, environmental advocates warned Monday that the sprawling package of fossil fuel-friendly legislation would worsen the climate emergency and biodiversity destruction while saddling U.S. households with higher energy bills.

H.R. 1, misleadingly titled the "Lower Energy Costs Act" and dubbed the "Polluters Over People Act" by opponents, consists of 15 separate bills and a pair of resolutions. As GOP lawmakers made clear at a legislative hearing held last month and through recent amendments, they're seeking to dismantle a wide range of regulations to boost fossil fuel production and exports despite scientists' unequivocal warnings about the need to prohibit new coal, oil, and gas projects to avert the worst effects of the climate crisis.

Environment America explained Monday that if approved, the sweeping proposal introduced earlier this month by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) would, among other things:

• Expand oil and gas drilling on public lands and in the ocean;
• Speed the construction of polluting projects, including gas pipelines, while limiting the ability of the public, private landowners, and states to weigh in;
• Expand mining without requiring companies to clean up or compensate communities for toxic mining waste;
• Exempt many sources of pollution, including petroleum refineries, from some Clean Air Act and hazardous waste requirements;
• Undo bipartisan reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act;
• Lower the rates companies must pay for extraction on public lands and allow non-competitive lease sales; and
• Repeal programs that cut energy waste, including the Methane Emissions Reduction Program and rebates for energy-efficient and electric home appliances.

"This bill leads America in so many wrong directions at once, it's making me dizzy," said Lisa Frank, executive director of Environment America's Washington, D.C. legislative office.

"Instead of protecting the great American outdoors, it gives our public lands away to oil, mining, and gas companies," Frank pointed out. "Instead of cleaning up toxic pollution, it guarantees more drilling and more spilling, on land and in our oceans. And instead of slowing climate change or helping Americans save energy, it increases our dependence on dirty, expensive fuels."

"It's 2023. We have so many better options available to us, from the sun shining down on our roofs to the wind blowing off our shores and across our plains," she added. "Congress should reject this outdated and unnecessary push to sacrifice our lands, waters, and health in the name of energy production."

"Given how unpopular its provisions are, it's not surprising H.R. 1's authors also seek to limit public input and legal challenges to wrongheaded energy projects."

Included in the package is a resolution "expressing the sense of Congress that the federal government should not impose any restrictions on the export of crude oil or other petroleum products" and a bill that would "repeal all restrictions on the import and export of natural gas."

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)—chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security—argued last month that such measures are necessary because President Joe Biden and Democrats on the panel "have advocated for reinstating the crude oil export ban" that was originally enacted in 1975 and rescinded by congressional Republicans and then-President Barack Obama in 2015.

Last year, the Biden administration suggested—but never followed through on—resurrecting the federal ban on crude exports, a move that progressive advocacy groups urged the White House to make to bring down U.S. fuel prices.

While Duncan insisted that "lifting the export ban... has lowered prices," research demonstrates that precisely the opposite has occurred.

Since 2015, oil and gas production in the Permian Basin has surged while domestic consumption has remained steady, triggering a huge build-out of pipelines and other infrastructure that has turned the U.S. into the world's top exporter of fracked gas—intensifying planet-heating emissions, harming vulnerable Gulf Coast communities already overburdened by pollution, and exacerbating pain at the pump.

Matt Casale of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) said Monday that H.R. 1 "hands taxpayers the bill for expanded fossil fuel extraction and toxic waste clean-up, takes resources away from global warming solutions, and limits Americans' freedom to save energy in their own homes."

"Given how unpopular its provisions are, it's not surprising H.R. 1's authors also seek to limit public input and legal challenges to wrongheaded energy projects," said Casale, who directs PIRG's environmental campaigns.

"Our over-reliance on fossil fuels continues to hold us all over a barrel," he continued. "This bill looks for short-term fixes by doubling down on the energy sources of the past but contains more hidden costs that we can count, including more energy waste, more pollution, and a more dangerous future for our kids and grandkids. To protect ourselves now and in the future, we need to think beyond short-term solutions and take steps to end our fossil fuel dependence once and for all."

"To protect ourselves now and in the future, we need to think beyond short-term solutions and take steps to end our fossil fuel dependence once and for all."

Much to the chagrin of voters who put him in office, Biden has not been an enemy of the fossil fuel industry. His administration approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years than the Trump administration did in 2017 and 2018. Just two weeks ago, the White House ignored the scientists it claims to respect and rubber-stamped ConocoPhillips' massive Willow oil project.

Nevertheless, H.R. 1 even includes a resolution expressing disapproval of Biden's 2021 decision to revoke the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline―part of the GOP's push to blame what they deride as "rush-to-green energy policies" for skyrocketing gas prices, a narrative that obscures Big Oil's profiteering amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, as the GOP's deficit hawks threaten to withhold their support for raising the nation's debt limit unless Biden agrees to devastating social spending cuts, the Congressional Budget Office found that H.R. 1 would increase the federal deficit by $2.4 billion from 2023 to 2033.

Given that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has described H.R. 1 as "dead-on-arrival," it's unlikely the legislation will reach Biden's desk. If it does, however, Biden vowed Monday to veto it.

The GOP's energy package would replace "pro-consumer policies with a thinly veiled license to pollute," the White House said in a statement. "It would raise costs for American families by repealing household energy rebates and rolling back historic investments to increase access to cost-lowering clean energy technologies. Instead of protecting American consumers, it would pad oil and gas company profits—already at record levels—and undercut our public health and environment."

"H.R. 1," the White House added, "would take us backward."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins and Finance Minister Grant Robertson have announced a $50 million support package to provide immediate relief for businesses hit by Cyclone Gabrielle, as well as the extension of the national state of emergency, a new cyclone recovery taskforce and related ministerial role.

The full extent of the cyclone damage is becoming clearer as transport, power and telecommunications connections are re-established.

“Ministers will finalise the distribution of this funding in the coming week, but this will include support to businesses to meet immediate costs and further assist with clean-up,” Robertson said today.

• READ MORE: Cyclone Gabrielle: Lives ‘turned upside down . . . destroyed’, says PM
• RNZ photo essay: Cyclone Gabrielle damage becomes increasingly clear
• Cyclone Gabrielle: Death toll rises to 11, Civil Defence targets isolated communities
• Cyclone Gabrielle: Pasifika songs of gratitude ring out across Hawke’s Bay
• Follow RNZ live updates

“We will coordinate the allocation of this funding with local business groups, iwi and local government in the affected regions.

“The government recognises the weather events are having an impact on people and businesses meeting their tax obligations, so we are taking a range of tax relief measures as well.”

Tens of millions of dollars have already been put into cyclone recovery and support, including into Mayoral Relief Funds, Civil Defence payments, and a package for NGOs and community support groups, he said.

“I want to be very clear, this is an interim package and more support will follow as we get a better picture of the scale, cost and needs in the wake of this disaster,” Hipkins said.

Rolling maul approach
“I would note that in responding to previous major disasters a rolling maul approach has had to be taken and this situation is no different.”

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

Fijian Broadcasting Corporation (FBC) board chairman Ajay Bhai Amrit says he has receipts to prove former FBC chief executive officer Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum received an annual package of $387,790 including benefits and entitlements.

He said this worked out to $32,315 a month and that the board had evidence in the form of payslips and Sayed-Khaiyum’s contract.

Sayed-Khaiyum had denied the amount disclosed was what he received in salary.

• READ MORE: Behind the News: State media and independence
• Media freedom in Fiji

In response to media queries about going public with Sayed-Khaiyum’s salary, Amrit said the people owned FBC as the public broadcaster and they had every right to know where and how their money was being spent.

He also said the $93 million that FBC received over the past 14 years would be closely scrutinised to see where the money went — a process which he said could take weeks.

Responding to a question from the media on claims made by Sayed-Khaiyum that the government left FBC “short changed”, Amrit said the corporation could not continue without government funding.

Government funding was about $11.2 million a year — almost $1 million per month.

Amrit said since the ex chief executive had taken the reins at FBC, it had received about $93 million in public service broadcasting funds, but it would not be known for some time whether the funds were used for public service broadcasting or for other things.

“It takes quite a long time to work out where that money is going, how it came in, what it was used for, and 100 percent we need to work on this but it will take weeks,” he said.

“It’s not a simple situation where I can sit down and say hold on, this money went yeah there, everywhere.

“It was used for various means so we’ve got to find out.”

Amrit said some of FBC best customers were government departments.

Ian Chute is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Ryan Grim.

The Biden administration is expected to announce a roughly $2 billion military assistance package for Ukraine on Wednesday—one that includes Patriot missile systems and misleadingly named "precision bomb kits"—as the war-ravaged nation's president visits Washington, D.C. in his first trip outside of his country since the start of Russia's invasion 10 months ago.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is set to meet with U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House to accept the latest aid package, which comes on top of the nearly $45 billion in assistance Congress is poised to approve as part of its year-end omnibus spending bill. Later Wednesday, Zelenskyy is expected to speak to the press and deliver a primetime address to a joint session of Congress.

"We urge our government to take a leadership role in bringing the war in Ukraine to an end through supporting calls for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement."

During a background call with reporters late Tuesday, a senior Biden administration official called the planned shipment of long-flawed Patriot missile systems—which Moscow has deemed a provocation—a "critical" step to "defend the Ukrainian people against Russia's barbaric attacks on Ukraine's critical infrastructure."

"We will train Ukrainian forces on how to operate the Patriot missile battery in a third country," the official said. "This will take some time, but Ukrainian troops will take that training back to their country to operate this battery."

CNN reported Tuesday that the $2 billion package is also expected to include "precision bomb kits that will turn existing unguided munitions, or 'dumb' bombs, into precision-guided 'smart' bombs known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMs."

"The precision bombs could help Ukraine attack fixed Russian defensive lines or other large targets," CNN added. "But they need to be dropped from fighter jets, which remains a significant challenge because of Russia's own air defenses."

Zelenskyy's visit to the U.S. capital will come as the prospects of peace talks to end the war, now approaching its second year, appear as distant as ever with civilian deaths continuing to mount and the possibility of a broader war still looming.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, a persistent advocate of a diplomatic settlement to end the devastating war, said during a press conference earlier this week that he is "not optimistic about the possibility of effective peace talks" in the "immediate future."

"I do believe that the military confrontation will go on, and I think we will have still to wait a moment in which serious negotiations for peace will be possible," Guterres added. "I don't see them in the immediate horizon."

Last week, around 1,000 U.S. faith leaders including Bishop William J. Barber, Rev. Liz Theoharis, Dr. Cornel West, and Rev. Jesse Jackson released a statement calling for a "Christmas Truce in Ukraine."

"In the spirit of the truce that occurred in 1914 during the First World War," the statement reads, "we urge our government to take a leadership role in bringing the war in Ukraine to an end through supporting calls for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement, before the conflict results in a nuclear war that could devastate the world's ecosystems and annihilate all of God's creation."

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

Roughly every five years, lawmakers pass The Farm Bill, a spending bill that addresses the agriculture industry, food systems, nutrition programs, and more. This legislation is up for reauthorization next year. The political fighting comes on the heels of both the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law including billions of dollars for climate provisions.

John Boozman, a Republican Senator from Arkansas who is a high-ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, is among a growing number of Republicans who have said they will not allow additional climate provisions into the upcoming Farm Bill. If Republicans win back the House this November, which is still a possible outcome despite tightening Democratic races across the country, GOP members will be in control of drafting next year’s Farm Bill. 

“In their zeal to pass their reckless tax-and-spend agenda, they (Democrats) have undermined one of the last successful bipartisan processes in the Senate,” said Boozman in a Senate floor hearing this past August. Boozman said the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act without bipartisan support threatens the future of the Farm Bill, a generally bipartisan omnibus bill. The next bill needs to be authorized before September 2023.

Over a dozen members of the House Agriculture Committee, which steers the Farm Bill draft process, are up for reelection this November. For example, Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Congresswoman whose district is near the nation’s capital, and a committee member and subcommittee chair, currently faces a contested election in her state, with inflation’s impact on farming communities a key point in the race. Glenn Thompson, a Congressman who represents a western Pennsylvania district, is slated to be the Chair of the House Agriculture Committee if Republicans win the House. After the passage of the historic climate bill this August, the Pennsylvania Republican said the Inflation Reduction Act “only complicates the pathway to a Farm Bill and creates even greater uncertainty for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.”

Thompson has expressed interest in conservation efforts in the past, but in a September hearing, he said he won’t allow unnecessary climate items into next year’s bill.

“I will not sit idly by as we let decades of real bipartisan progress be turned on its head to satisfy people that at their core think agriculture is a blight on the landscape,” Thompson said in the hearing. “I have been leaning into the climate discussion, but I will not have us suddenly incorporate buzzwords like regenerative agriculture into the Farm Bill or overemphasize climate.”

Ahead of the November elections, House Republicans have already released insight into their priorities for this upcoming legislation. The Republican Study Committee, whose members make up 80 percent of all Republican members of Congress, released its draft budget in July. This draft document outlines a plan that completely defunds federal programs that support conservation efforts, as well as slashes federal food stamp and crop insurance programs. The draft document heralds the preliminary budget as “ undeniably pro-farmer.”

As Farm Bill debates continue, a group of over 150 progressive, agriculture, and environmental groups, from the nation’s largest federation of labor unions to the Sierra Club environmental group, have urged President Joe Biden to add climate reforms in the upcoming legislative package. In a letter to Biden, organizations urged the President to pass a Farm Bill that would help mend economic and racial divides in the industry, increase access to nutrition, support fair labor conditions in farming communities labor conditions, as well as tackle the climate crisis with a focus on agriculture. 

Sarah Carden, policy advocate for Farm Action, a progressive agriculture advocacy nonprofit that signed the letter, said that no farmer will deny the industry has been plagued by increased extreme weather events and the Farm Bill needs to address climate change as much as it does other problems in the industry. She said the organization has urged federal agencies to push more funding into programs that help conservation efforts, promote soil health, and mandate the use of climate-smart solutions, instead of contributing to a band-aid funding cycle.

“Farmers who are receiving federal support in the wake of increased extreme weather events and disasters should be practicing practices that contribute to resiliency,” Carden told Grist.

Carden said that the United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA, has created more climate-focused solutions in recent years, such as the recently announced Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities which directs $3 billion to small growers into the supply chain, but it’s important that sustainable solutions are written into the Farm Bill this upcoming cycle as administration changes could upend individual agency efforts.

Since its creation in the 1930s, the Farm Bill has provided direct, federal funding to farmers to address the evolving agricultural industry, from land management to economic development. What was created as a way to infuse cash into an industry decimated by the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, by 1973 the farm bill turned into a massive set of legislation that addresses everything from soil erosion to federal food stamp programs.

Farmers and growers need to address the changing climate, said Margaret Krome, the policy program director for Wisconsin and Midwest agriculture nonprofit research group Michael Fields Agricultural Institute. Krome said the industry is running out of time to address ongoing problems. “We have got climate change at our doorstep,” she said.

Krome, who works with state and federal officials on legislation about agriculture, said the Farm Bill has always been a way to have farmers focus on their current needs. As discussions and draft legislation begin, she said three issues are likely to be at the top of the debates; climate change, the future of farming and addressing historic racial injustices in the industry, and the intersection of nutrition and agriculture. 

With increasing polarization in politics and the upcoming midterm elections, she said it is important for those working on the bill to remember that farming touches everyone in the country and should, hopefully, remain bipartisan. Despite political differences at the state level across the country, a nonpartisan coalition of state agriculture department officials recently issued a letter declaring their desire for the Farm Bill to include increased disaster relief, nutrition programs, and subsidies for regional food production.

As farming adapts to warming crops and increased droughts, federal agencies are increasing funding and focusing on addressing the industry’s role in spurring a warming world. According to the USDA, the nation’s agriculture sector accounted for 11 percent of the country’s carbon emissions in 2020. 

The Farm Bill already includes language outlining two top USDA environmentally focused programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, and the Conservation Stewardship Program. Both of these programs are normally funded through the Farm Bill, but the Inflation Reduction Act added billions of funding to them, with $8.45 billion for EQIP and $3.25 billion for the conservation program. The infusion was praised by environmental groups and Democrats who hope the increased funding will help farmers implement climate-smart solutions like cover crops to help to increase crop resiliency or create wildlife habitats on farmland.

Key agricultural leaders on Capitol Hill also predict that, alongside the addition of climate provisions, fights over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, will stall next year’s Farm Bill. In both 2014 and 2018, efforts from House GOP members to cut SNAP funding slowed the bill’s passage. Earlier this year, Georgia Democratic Congressman David Scott, who is currently seeking re-election and is the Chair of the House Committee on Agriculture and represents a district just outside of Atlanta, warned that fights over SNAP could derail Farm Bill conservations. Given the Biden administration’s recent announcement of plans to end hunger by 2030, debates over nutrition funding are likely to flare up.  

The fight will boil down to the program’s funding as from 2024 to 2028, SNAP is estimated to cost roughly $531 billion, an increase caused by droves of new users coming to the program due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In comparison, all nutritional programs, not just SNAP, were estimated to cost $326 billion in the 2018 Farm Bill.

Recently passed landmark climate legislation may also interfere with what makes it into the Farm Bill, as Conservative House and Senate members have said funding from the Inflation Reduction Act could decrease the budget for climate proposals inside the Farm Bill.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Will the Farm Bill be the next big climate package? It depends on the midterm elections on Oct 3, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by John McCracken.

The post The Missing “Peace” in the $13.5 Billion Military Package appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Marcy Winograd.

Image by israel palacio.

The Department of Defense recently announced it would send nearly $3 billion

more in weapons and assistance to Ukraine. The White House news of the largest Ukraine arms package yet–rockets, drones, 350,000 rounds of ammunition– was drowned out by President Biden’s announcement to cancel federal student loan debt for almost half of the country’s 43-million debt-saddled people. So while our nation debated whether U.S. citizens should be burdened with huge predatory interest for seeking an education; predatory weapons of war were given the greenlight for Ukraine, even though there’s no accountability for who will receive those weapons, including the neo-Nazi Azov Batallion, an official wing of the Ukrainian military.

The latest announcement from the DOD brings the total in weapons, ammunition and military training to escalate the war in Ukraine to at least $13.5 billion dollars.

We cannot call for peace in Ukraine while simultaneously supplying that country with advanced rocket systems and missiles that could lead to a direct war between the US and Russia, the world’s most heavily armed nuclear nations. A new study estimates that a nuclear war would kill five billion people, over 60% of the human population, with 360 million burning up in the immediate aftermath, the rest dying from starvation during a dark subzero winter.

We must step back from the brink. How?

Ultimately, the US, the nuclear states and all NATO countries must become signatories to the United Nations’ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) to outlaw the development, possession, use and threatened use of nuclear weapons.

In the short term we must support an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, not simply around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear reactor under shelling in southeastern Ukraine, but throughout the entire country where the Russian invasion has displaced millions and destroyed much of the Soviet-era infrastructure: rail and electrical lines, bridges, hospitals.

We must tell Congress and the White House there is no military solution, only a diplomatic one that acknowledges the security interests of all stakeholders.

If Ukraine and Russia can negotiate grain exports, prisoner exchanges and an international inspection of a nuclear plant, they can reach a negotiated settlement. The more weapons we send, however, the less incentive there is to sit down and talk. Without the US and NATO fueling the war with more weapons, a settlement might have been reached months ago, perhaps as early as last March when Turkey brokered a deal scuttled at the last minute.

This war might have been stopped before it started had NATO not expanded to Russia’s neck and the US not shipped weapons to Ukraine to escalate a civil war with Russian separatists in Ukraine’s industrial region.

It is long past time for President Biden to pick up the phone and engage in direct talks with Russia’s President Vladamir Putin. There is much to talk about, starting with a request that Russia remove nuclear-capable missiles from Kaliningrad, a region sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania, in return for US agreement to rejoin US-Russia arms control agreements–Open Skies Treaty and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty– abandoned under the Trump administration. Also up for negotiation might be the removal of US nuclear weapons from five of Europe’s NATO countries–Turkey, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands with assurances that both Russia and US-dominated NATO will cease mock nuclear strikes.

Such a conversation could lead to a negotiated settlement in Ukraine. It has in the past. The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis ended when former President John F. Kennedy agreed to remove US nuclear missiles from Turkey and Italy in exchange for Soviet removal of missiles from Cuba.

We must ask ourselves what is the cost of war?

For the world, the cost is a worsening of the climate crisis with exponentially increased greenhouse gas emissions from missiles, rockets and tanks. Rockets also pollute the soil and groundwater; warships disrupt marine ecosystems.

For the Middle East and Africa, countries dependent for grain on Russia and Ukraine–the breadbasket of the world– the cost is famine.

For Ukraine, the cost of a protracted war is more lives needlessly lost, millions more displaced from their homes.

For the United States, the cost is rising inflation and shrinking paychecks for the working class.

Rather than risk World War III and nuclear annihilation, President Biden and Congress

must consider the urgent needs of people in the United States, where 100 million are steeped in medical debt, 100 million may face eviction, 38 million are food insecure and millions more contend with inflationary woes. Thousands of residents of Flint, Michigan, still have no clean water.

It is unconscionable to hurl money at war profiteers –Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman–for more weapons to fuel a protracted war over there while over here the people struggle to survive.

We have been here before.

In Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq–the US launched protracted wars that resulted in millions of civilian deaths. To what end?

Someone needs to tell the White House, Congress, the media, politicians, and political pundits that war is not the answer.

The outlines of a peace agreement–ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign troops and weapons, self-governance for Donetsk and Luhansk, control of state borders by Ukraine–already exist. MINSK II is an agreement signed by Ukraine and Russia in 2015 but never implemented for lack of political will.

The solution must be a diplomatic one centered around reparations and debt forgiveness for Ukraine, release of US sanctions in return for Russian concessions, semi-autonomy for the Donbas and guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO. The possibility to end the war in Ukraine starts with the missing peace. Diplomacy.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Marcy Winograd.

On the other side of the country, in swampy but fire-free Washington, D.C., Democratic lawmakers were feeling the heat. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a sweeping package of bills to bolster wildfire response and drought resilience on Friday. The 49-bill package was sponsored by Joe Neguse, a Democratic representative from Colorado who has devoted his short career in Washington to wildfire prevention policy, and passed largely along party lines.

One of the bill’s headline provisions would increase the minimum wage for wildland firefighters employed by the U.S. Forest Service to $20 per hour and allow them paid mental health leave. Federal firefighters are paid significantly less than their state-employed counterparts, and the agency has struggled with low retention rates. NPR reported in May that Forest Service vacancies were highest in the Pacific Northwest and California. The bipartisan infrastructure law that Congress passed last year temporarily raised the minimum wage for federal firefighters; this bill would make the pay hike permanent.

In addition to bolstering the government’s capacity to fight fires when they happen, the package contains a slew of measures that would address prevention and recovery. It would authorize $500 million for initiatives to remove dead trees and vegetation that have accumulated in forests due to a long history of fire suppression. It would also fund intentional, controlled fire projects that clear out overgrowth, which are known as prescribed burns. The package aims to train more people to manage prescribed burns with the creation of new “prescribed fire centers.” To restore ecosystems that have been impacted by past fires, the legislation would also establish a new “burned area recovery account” authorized at $100 million per year. The funds would be prioritized for projects that enhance public safety and protect water resources.

Protecting and shoring up water resources are major themes across the board in the package. It would boost funding for water recycling and reuse programs. There’s funding for desalination research and project development, which would help cities and states that are looking to suck up seawater, strip it of salty minerals, and use it to replenish groundwater supplies. It would authorize the Interior Department to spend $500 million on efforts to preserve water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, two major reservoirs with hydroelectric dams that store water and generate power for much of the West. It would also include a competitive grant program for clean water access projects that benefit Native American tribes. And it would create a new grant program at the Environmental Protection Agency to pay for states to establish incentives that help homes and businesses install more water-efficient appliances.

Only one House Republican voted for the bill, and other Republicans attacked it for authorizing new spending and for not reforming environmental review processes that inhibit forest thinning projects.

The White House was also somewhat lukewarm on the package. In a statement that asserted the Biden administration’s support for the bills, the Office of Management and Budget also suggested that some of the policies advanced were redundant. “The Administration appreciates the interest of Congress in the Administration’s efforts to address climate change and its effects on wildfires and drought,” it said, but it “would like to work with the Congress to ensure the many provisions in the Act avoid duplication with existing authorities and Administration efforts.”

The legislation faces an uncertain future in the Senate, which has recently turned its attention to a different climate-related package — a spending bill called the Inflation Reduction Act. Alongside a cornucopia of clean energy tax credits that experts say will help the country achieve its emission goals, that package would appropriate $1.8 billion over the next decade for removing hazardous fuels from federal forests.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline As West burns, House passes major drought and wildfire resilience package on Aug 2, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Emily Pontecorvo.

On the other side of the country, in swampy but fire-free Washington, D.C., Democratic lawmakers were feeling the heat. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a sweeping package of bills to bolster wildfire response and drought resilience on Friday. The 49-bill package was sponsored by Joe Neguse, a Democratic representative from Colorado who has devoted his short career in Washington to wildfire prevention policy, and passed largely along party lines.

One of the bill’s headline provisions would increase the minimum wage for wildland firefighters employed by the U.S. Forest Service to $20 per hour and allow them paid mental health leave. Federal firefighters are paid significantly less than their state-employed counterparts, and the agency has struggled with low retention rates. NPR reported in May that Forest Service vacancies were highest in the Pacific Northwest and California. The bipartisan infrastructure law that Congress passed last year temporarily raised the minimum wage for federal firefighters; this bill would make the pay hike permanent.

In addition to bolstering the government’s capacity to fight fires when they happen, the package contains a slew of measures that would address prevention and recovery. It would authorize $500 million for initiatives to remove dead trees and vegetation that have accumulated in forests due to a long history of fire suppression. It would also fund intentional, controlled fire projects that clear out overgrowth, which are known as prescribed burns. The package aims to train more people to manage prescribed burns with the creation of new “prescribed fire centers.” To restore ecosystems that have been impacted by past fires, the legislation would also establish a new “burned area recovery account” authorized at $100 million per year. The funds would be prioritized for projects that enhance public safety and protect water resources.

Protecting and shoring up water resources are major themes across the board in the package. It would boost funding for water recycling and reuse programs. There’s funding for desalination research and project development, which would help cities and states that are looking to suck up seawater, strip it of salty minerals, and use it to replenish groundwater supplies. It would authorize the Interior Department to spend $500 million on efforts to preserve water levels in Lake Mead and Lake Powell, two major reservoirs with hydroelectric dams that store water and generate power for much of the West. It would also include a competitive grant program for clean water access projects that benefit Native American tribes. And it would create a new grant program at the Environmental Protection Agency to pay for states to establish incentives that help homes and businesses install more water-efficient appliances.

Only one House Republican voted for the bill, and other Republicans attacked it for authorizing new spending and for not reforming environmental review processes that inhibit forest thinning projects.

The White House was also somewhat lukewarm on the package. In a statement that asserted the Biden administration’s support for the bills, the Office of Management and Budget also suggested that some of the policies advanced were redundant. “The Administration appreciates the interest of Congress in the Administration’s efforts to address climate change and its effects on wildfires and drought,” it said, but it “would like to work with the Congress to ensure the many provisions in the Act avoid duplication with existing authorities and Administration efforts.”

The legislation faces an uncertain future in the Senate, which has recently turned its attention to a different climate-related package — a spending bill called the Inflation Reduction Act. Alongside a cornucopia of clean energy tax credits that experts say will help the country achieve its emission goals, that package would appropriate $1.8 billion over the next decade for removing hazardous fuels from federal forests.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline As West burns, House passes major drought and wildfire resilience package on Aug 2, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Emily Pontecorvo.

Advocates for children and parents on Friday highlighted what they say is a major oversight in the Inflation Reduction Act, the climate and tax bill introduced this week after months of negotiations between Sen. Joe Manchin and Democratic leaders, as the package included no funding to help shore up struggling child care facilities across the United States.

"There is unanimous frustration that Congress continues to push child care to the side, threatening small businesses, keeping parents out of the workforce and putting childrens' development at risk."

The child care crisis, already looming before the coronavirus pandemic began in March 2020, forced an estimated 9% of U.S. child care centers to close permanently as of October 2021 as chronically low pay has pushed workers out of the industry, operating costs have gone up due to inflation, and attendance has been unpredictable due to Covid-19.

Despite the rippling effects the crisis has had throughout the economy—with parents forced to leave their jobs or change their work schedules to accommodate child care needs, amounting to $9.5 billion in lost earnings and placing a burden on employers—the struggles of the child care providers and parents were not addressed in the bill unveiled by Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—and backed by the White House.

"It is a complete shame that the Senate's Inflation Reduction Act does not include inflation-fighting funding for child care," said Michelle Kang, CEO of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), noting that early versions of the Build Back Better Act last year raised hopes in the industry that lawmakers would provide badly needed child care emergency funds—before Manchin announced in December that he would not support the package.

"In my conversations with early childhood educators, families, and business leaders, there is unanimous frustration that Congress continues to push child care to the side, threatening small businesses, keeping parents out of the workforce and putting childrens' development at risk," said Kang.

The American Rescue Plan, passed in March 2021, provided an historic investment of $24 billion for the child care sector, but those funds are scheduled to expire in September 2024—leaving the industry with "a potential fiscal cliff of $48 billion," according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

As NAEYC reported in a February 2022 study called Saved But Not Solved, 75% of child care providers say that without more federal funding, the expiration of the stabilization grants would be devastating to their programs, and one-third of early childhood educators say they are already struggling to keep their facilities open and will leave or close their programs by the end of 2022.

"The Senate must pass a reconciliation package that includes inflation-fighting funding for affordable, quality child care and early learning, to lower costs for families, and raise wages for providers," said Kang. "Millions of women, families, and educators are watching—and waiting—for Congress to act and solve child care before it's too late."

Manchin drew condemnation last year as he pressured his party to sharply reduce the Build Back Better Act, refusing to back a paid family leave policy and the extension of the enhanced child tax credit, which helped millions of families last year afford child care costs, groceries, and other essentials—even telling colleagues that he opposed the latter because he believed parents would spend the money on drugs.

By leaving child care funding out of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), MomsRising CEO Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner told Forbes on Thursday, the right-wing West Virginia senator is continuing to show hostility to the needs of parents and children.

"It's been a long, arduous journey to the budget reconciliation bill," said Rowe-Finkbeiner. "Despite some important advances, lawmakers have a lot of work still to do for our country's women and families."

Acknowledging that the IRA included badly needed investments in sustainable energy infrastructure and health coverage and provisions to ensure corporations pay more in taxes, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said Congress will fall short if it makes no effort to invest in child care.

"We absolutely have to deliver on these critical priorities," said Murray, "and I'm committed to doing exactly that and passing this legislation as quickly as we're able to."

"But at a moment like this, when child care is already really unaffordable and too hard to find for so many families, with our child care sector on the brink of collapse—and now with Republicans forcing women to give birth no matter their circumstance—it is even more urgent we lower child care costs," she said. "The simple reality is that if we don't act now, the child care crisis will only get worse."

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

The Massachusetts congressional delegation—currently nine representatives and two senators—is fairly unusual in the American political landscape of 2022 in being composed of members of a single party, the Democrats. Only five other states can make that claim (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), while nine states have all-Republican delegations (Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming), according to Smart Politics.

Is there no problem with giving so much money to a foreign power engaged in a regional conflict, however justified, when there are so many human needs going unmet here in the United States?

This means that, broadly speaking, the Bay State is left-leaning and elects left-leaning politicians to represent it in Congress. In practice, however, the actual voting record of the Mass delegation ranges considerably from center-right (e.g., voting to increase military spending) to something akin to European social democracy (e.g., voting for the child tax credit) depending on which issue is under consideration…and allowing for the politicians taking into account what the Germans call the zeitgeist, "the spirit of the age," and voting for things that have popular support at any given moment.

Thus it's common for members of the delegation to disagree with each other on key votes backed by Democratic congressional leadership and Pres. Joe Biden. Such disagreement was on full display last August when the Biden administration pulled American troops out of Afghanistan and Mass Rep. Seth Moulton joined with Republican colleague Rep. Peter Meijer (R – Mich) in leading a mission to Kabul during the pullout while heavily criticizing it. His fellow Mass reps and senators hewed "closer to the party line" on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to Politico—with Mass Rep. Jake Auchincloss, a veteran of the disastrous war against the ultimately victorious Taliban in that country, even appearing on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" to defend the controversial retreat.

Such public debate among members of a political party is healthy and is a sign of a (more or less) functioning democracy. It is therefore behavior that should be encouraged—particularly in a one-party state like Massachusetts. Not just the fact of a range of opinion on key issues by the Commonwealth's congressional delegation, but open and wide-ranging debate between its members in the agora of the press and social media. That way, even on issues where the delegation votes in lockstep with leadership, you can see real politicking happening in ways that affect the final outcome—sometimes mitigating damage from what would otherwise be problematic decisions by the Democrats or the federal government as a whole.

So what then am I to make of the recent unanimous vote by the Mass delegation in favor of H.R.7691, the "Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022?" Signed into law by President Biden on May 21, the act provides $40 billion for weapons, intelligence assistance, and humanitarian aid for the government of Ukraine to defend itself against the ongoing Russian military invasion of its sovereign territory. 

The full support for a Biden-administration initiative by an all-Democratic delegation is not surprising. Particularly in a period when the Dems control both houses of Congress (at least technically) and the White House. That happens fairly frequently—both on votes that I, as an observer to the left of the Democrats, consider good and votes that I think are bad. 

What's strange about the vote for this largest of what is already several aid packages to Ukraine totalling at least $54 billion as of late May, according to the New York Times (paywall), is the almost total lack of public discussion and debate about it by members of a congressional delegation that includes politicians who have been critical of the outrageously huge US military budget and have fought hard for increasing the budget for domestic social programs benefiting working families instead.

Yet is there no criticism to be leveled by the Mass delegation against a $40 billion package that is going to pump far more cash into the treasuries of major American military contractors than it is into desperately needed humanitarian aid for the Ukrainian people? 

Is there no problem with giving so much money to a foreign power engaged in a regional conflict, however justified, when there are so many human needs going unmet here in the United States?

Is there no risk in providing bigger, more long-range, and more powerful weapons systems to the Ukrainian military when their use could trigger a nuclear response from Russia that would lead swiftly and inevitably to a global conflagration that would end human civilization?

Apparently not.

It was those questions and many others that led me to ask all the Mass reps and senators for statements on why they voted for the aid package in an accompanying DigBoston article, "Every Mass Congressperson Voted in Favor of $40 Billion for Ukraine, We Asked Them Why." And other than Sen. Warren's throwaway final comment, "Congress must also exercise strong oversight and demand a full accounting of these taxpayer dollars"—something that she knows perfectly well is not going to happen with this or any aid package to Ukraine given bipartisan support for military victory by that country rather than a more sane drive for a diplomatic end to the war—not one member of the supposedly left-leaning Mass delegation uttered the slightest peep of criticism against giving a tremendous amount of money to the US military-industrial complex and only secondarily to the Ukrainian people. Including Rep. Ayanna Pressley in the statement made by a staffer on her behalf for my Dig piece that first said "[t]he Congresswoman voted in support of the bill in order to send an unprecedented amount of life-saving humanitarian aid and refugee assistance to address the crisis unfolding in Ukraine," as if one could vote for the nice part of the measure but not the larger military part; then went on to say that she was "concerned about the dangers of military escalation" and was "committed to using every diplomatic tool available to save lives, avoid further military conflict, and work towards a negotiated solution to this crisis." But those sentiments are still not critical of the weapons-heavy aid package that is literally a cause of the very military escalation that the staffer said Pressley's concerned about and are only now being publicly expressed after her vote in favor of it.  

And how tremendous an amount of money is being spent? Political cartoonist Ted Rall produced a whole list of comparisons to give readers an easy way to understand what else the US government could fund with $40 billion right here at home—ranging from "$72,000 to every homeless person" to repairing "almost all of the 220,000 bridges in the United States that need to be repaired and replace all of the 79,500 that need to be replaced."

Rall drove his point home with this passage:

"What if, for some strange reason, we don't want to use that $40 billion to help our own people right here at home, one out of nine of whom is officially poor—some of whom are actually starving? While the inclination to shovel money at other countries while so many of our own citizens are suffering is nearly impossible to understand, some people (the President, several hundred members of Congress) have such a mindset and therefore must be addressed. 

"If we're looking for a country in dire need of, and richly deserving of, $40 billion, we need look no further than Afghanistan. 

"Afghanistan, which the US brutally occupied for 20 years after invading without just cause, is suffering from the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world. Half its population—20 million people—is suffering from'acute hunger,' according to the UN. The nation collapsed because the US pulled the plug on the economy when it withdrew, imposed draconian economic sanctions in a fit of spiteful pique and seized $7 billion in Afghanistan government funds. Biden has promised a little aid, though none has shown up in Kabul."

The Massachusetts congressional delegation is certainly one of the best fielded by any state when it comes to supporting human needs and human rights, but I think they really blew it with this uncritical vote in support of a highly flawed aid package to Ukraine—focusing more on military than humanitarian aid and spending too much money that should be going to help solve our many domestic humanitarian crises instead. Fortunately, compared to many other congressional delegations, they are more responsive to public criticism.

So I recommend that Mass readers contact their representatives and senators immediately (via this handy congress.gov page) and tell them: Yes to humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Yes to diplomatic solutions to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine. No to escalating and unchecked military aid to Ukraine. No to any moves by the US and NATO that could lead to a general war with Russia and a nuclear war to end us all. And I would love it if readers in the other 49 states would contact their congresspeople with the same message.

Only swift action by voters here in the Bay State and around the country can start to move our nation's Ukraine policy toward some just and sane resolution of the present conflict with Russia. One that does its utmost to relieve the suffering of the Ukrainian people while remembering the needs of the American people in a time of lingering pandemic, rampant inflation, ecological disaster, and a declining standard of living.

Failure to act means continuing a war that gets more dangerous for humanity with each passing day … leaving all economic considerations aside, important as they are. And I can't believe that anyone—least of all the Mass congressional delegation—really wants to let the imaginary perfect Ukrainian victory over Russia be the enemy of the good of a future for our species.

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

The U.S. Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly voted to approve $40 billion in emergency military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine amid both Russia's ongoing invasion and warnings from peace advocates that prolonging the war makes the world a more dangerous, not safer, place.

"This war must be settled at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield!"

The Senate voted 86-11 in favor of H.R. 7619, a supplemental appropriations bill authorizing $7 billion more aid than requested by President Joe Biden. The package now goes to the president's desk for what is expected to be his swift approval.

Mirroring the measure's May 10 House vote—a 368-57 affair in which every dissenter was a Republican—all 11 "no" votes were cast by GOP senators.

Every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—99 House lawmakers plus Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—voted in favor of a measure that critics claim will not only prolong the war, but also dangerously provoke the world's other nuclear superpower and divert funds that could be better spent on programs of social uplift.

After U.S. officials last month pledged $700 million in military aid for Ukraine—less than 2% of the new package—Russian President Vladimir Putin's top diplomat accused NATO countries of "pouring oil on the fire" in Ukraine by "in essence, going to war with Russia through a proxy."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov—ignoring his country's brutal invasion of its sovereign neighbor—added that the risk of nuclear war is "serious" and "should not be underestimated," adding that "under no circumstances should a Third World War be allowed to happen."

Writing for Common Dreams after the House vote, Massachusetts Peace Action executive director Cole Harrison warned that "the danger of nuclear war has risen substantially during the Ukraine crisis, and escalations on the U.S. side are pushing us closer to the brink."

"Russia's invasion of Ukraine must be condemned. But the administration has been telegraphing for weeks that its war aims now go well beyond defending Ukraine," Harrison continued. "President Biden said that President Putin cannot remain in power. Secretary of Defense Austin said the U.S. seeks to weaken Russia. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that we are fighting until 'victory.'"

Cameron University political science instructor Stuart J. Hooper acknowledged in a Common Dreams opinion piece this week that "Russia should not have invaded Ukraine, and immediately lost any moral high ground it may have had upon doing so, and the Ukrainians had a right to defend themselves and seek help."

"But this situation is qualitatively different with its potential to ignite World War III," he cautioned. "With Russian forces clearly on the ropes after weeks in a stalemate, why was there not a significant effort to push for a peaceful withdrawal and resolution to the conflict?"

Hooper added: "Where was the Western attempt to seek compromise? Putin was willing to talk with French President Emmanuel Macron, why not use that line of communication to broker a way out? This is what an ethical hegemon, concerned with peace and stability, would do."

Noting that "in the face of war's atrocities, the tyranny of the immediate can be overwhelming and, for groups that have long opposed America's wars (and sometimes war in general), confusing," journalist Nan Levinson wrote this week that she hopes "there's more diplomacy going on behind the scenes than is now being reported and that realistic compromises on all sides, even hard-to-swallow ones, which will satisfy nobody, are being considered."

As Harrison stressed, "This war must be settled at the negotiating table, not on the battlefield!"

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

The post Prison and Fines in this Year’s Benefit Package appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Kathleen Wallace.

Comprehensive coverage of the day’s news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice.

• Congress poised to pass $900 billion pandemic relief package.
• California COVID-19 cases surge as hospitals weigh rationing care.
• President-elect Joe Biden receives 1st coronavirus vaccine.
• Moderna COVID-19 vaccine shipped across the U.S.
• Mutated COVID-19 strain outbreak in U.K.– E.U. imposes travel ban.
• Federal court to consider legal challenge to citizenship program, DACA.
• President-elect Joe Biden announces pick to lead Department of Interior, Native American Deb Haaland.

Photo from @JoeBiden.

The post Congress poised to pass $900 billion pandemic relief package; California COVID-19 cases surge as hospitals weigh rationing care appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

The post #10. Revive Journalism with a Stimulus Package and Public Option appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Project Censored.