Category: Americas

  • Every several years for the past 25 years, the federal government has published a comprehensive look at the way climate change is affecting the country. States, local governments, businesses, farmers, and many others use this National Climate Assessment to prepare for rising temperatures, more bouts of extreme weather, and worsening disasters such as wildfires.

    On Monday, however, the Trump administration told all of the more than 400 volunteer scientists and experts working on the next assessment that it was releasing them from their roles. A brief memo said the scope of the report was being “reevaluated” within the context of the Congressional legislation that mandates it.

    The move throws the National Climate Assessment, whose sixth iteration is supposed to be released in late 2027 or early 2028, into even deeper uncertainty. Earlier this month, the Trump administration canceled funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the White House office that produces the report and helps coordinate research across more than a dozen federal agencies.

    Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was among the authors who were dismissed on Monday. She and her colleagues had just submitted a draft outline for a chapter about coastlines, with information on how sea level rise could affect communities and urban infrastructure. 

    “It was an honor and I was looking forward to contributing,” Cleetus said. “This is the kind of actionable science that people need to help prepare for climate change and address the challenges that climate change is already bringing our way.”

    Cleetus said it was “irresponsible” that the administration would dismiss hundreds of experts working on the assessment, seemingly without a plan for creating an alternative. Although the memo says participants may still have “opportunities to contribute or engage,” it doesn’t elaborate and the White House did not respond to a list of questions from Grist. 

    The Trump administration is required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to, among other things, commission a scientific report every four years on “global change, both human-induced and natural.” The report is supposed to cover the latest science on a wide range of climate and environmental trends and how they might affect agriculture, energy production, human health, and other areas for the next 25 to 100 years.

    Since 2000, this report has taken the form of the National Climate Assessment. The last one, released in 2023, broke down climate impacts by topic and geography, with individual chapters on the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, and so on. It also laid out the state of the science on mitigating and adapting to climate change, including examples of what many cities and states are already doing. The fourth assessment was published in 2018, during Trump’s first term in the White House.

    Smoke billows from a wildfire in the hills behind houses, while the sky is dark red.
    Smoke billows from the Airport Fire in Rancho Santa Margarita, California, in September 2024. Patrick T. Fallon / AFP via Getty Images

    All of the science that informs the national assessments must be peer-reviewed, and the reports themselves don’t endorse specific policies. “They’re not telling anyone what to do,” said Melissa Finucane, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ vice president of science and innovation and an author of the fifth assessment. “They’re just providing information on how to best address problems with effective solutions.”

    What’s next for the National Climate Assessment is unclear. Legally, only Congress can scrap it altogether, but experts say the Trump administration could decide to publish a dramatically scaled-back version or use it as a tool for misinformation — by, for instance, downplaying the link between global warming and the use of fossil fuels.

    “One might be concerned that the administration will replace it with something much less robust, replacing it potentially with junk science,” Finucane said. 

    The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a list of policy recommendations that the Trump administration seems to have drawn from during its first 100 days, only mentions the National Climate Assessment in a short section about the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Russell Vought, now director of the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget, recommended that the program be scaled back to a limited advisory role. He wrote that the program typified “climate fanaticism” and “the woke agenda.”

    Another possibility is that the experts involved in the assessment will continue their work, even without federal support. That’s what happened earlier this year with what was supposed to be the country’s first National Nature Assessment. When the Trump administration canceled work on it in February, its authors vowed to carry on and publish their results anyway.

    Finucane said the Nature Assessment had been farther along than the sixth climate report, and that it wouldn’t be possible for a small group of volunteers to take on the massive amount of work and coordination required to put together the sixth assessment  “I absolutely hope that the work that has been done can continue in some way, but we have to have our eyes wide open,” Finucane said.

    Dave White, director of the Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation at Arizona State University, said there are some international and state-level climate reports that could fill in the gaps left by a scaled-back or canceled National Climate Assessment. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, synthesizes climate science on a global level every few years (although the Trump administration recently blocked federal scientists from participating in it). 

    “I’m disappointed, upset, frustrated on behalf of not only myself and my colleagues, but also on behalf of the American communities that benefit from the knowledge and tools developed by the assessment,” White said. “Those will be taken away from American communities now.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Trump administration just dismissed all 400 experts working on America’s official climate report on Apr 29, 2025.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Joseph Winters.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • More than 130 women and children who fled Haiti to seek healthcare rounded up in hospitals and sent back

    Pregnant women and new mothers are being rounded up in hospitals in the Dominican Republic and deported back to Haiti as part of what observers say is an openly cruel, racist and misogynist government policy.

    More than 130 Haitian women and children were removed on the first day of a new crackdown on undocumented migrants last week targeting the Caribbean country’s main public hospitals. Dominican authorities said 48 were pregnant, 39 were new mothers and 48 were children. Local media reported that one woman was deported while in labour.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The UN has called the detention of Pablo López Alavez ‘arbitrary’, while human rights organisations say his sentence is part of a systematic and alarming pattern of criminalisation of Mexico’s environmental activists

    The meeting room in the prison of Villa de Etla, a town in Oaxaca, Mexico, doubles as a classroom with school desks and a small library. The walls feature motivational phrases such as “First things first”, “Live and let live” and “Little by little, you’ll go far”.

    Pablo López Alavez, a 56-year-old environmental defender, has had nearly 15 years to contemplate these sentiments – and faces 15 more, after being imprisoned for murders he says he did not commit.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.


  • This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by ProPublica.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by ProPublica.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Lured by promises of an education but allegedly trapped in servitude and self-mortification, the former members are suing the ultra-conservative organisation over their ‘exploitation and abuse’

    The first item Opus Dei gave 12-year-old Andrea Martínez was a pink dress. The second was a schedule that detailed every task for every minute of her day. Then, when she was 16, she was given a cilice – a spiked metal chain to wear around her thigh – and a whip.

    In the late 1980s, Opus Dei, a secretive and ultra-conservative Catholic organisation, promised Martínez an escape from a life of poverty in rural Argentina. By attending one of their schools, they said, she would receive an education and opportunities.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Legislation was repealed in 2018 but Caribbean country’s supreme court last week recriminalised the act after appeal

    The privy council in London will soon be called upon to make the final decision on a court case to remove homophobic laws in Trinidad and Tobago.

    The laws were repealed in 2018 in a high court judgment that struck from the statute book the “buggery law” that had criminalised consensual anal sex since an act passed in 1925 under British rule. However, last week Trinidad’s supreme court upheld a government appeal against the ruling and recriminalised the act, dealing a hammer blow to LGBTQ+ rights in the Caribbean country and prompting the UK Foreign Office to update its advice for LGBTQ+ travellers.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.


  • This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by ProPublica.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by ProPublica.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • February 21, 2025 – Today, the US/NATO Out of Our Americas Network officially launches, marking a bold and action-oriented next phase in the Zone of Peace campaign. This date, commemorating the assassinations of Malcolm X and Augusto C. Sandino, serves as a powerful reminder of the enduring struggle for sovereignty, self-determination, and liberation from colonialism, imperialism and all nefarious forces that impede peace. The Network is dedicated to building a coordinated, internationalist struggle to expel the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination from the Americas and beyond.

    The post The Struggle For A Zone Of Peace Continues appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • TAIPEI, Taiwan – China expressed “strong dissatisfaction and opposition” to U.S. President Donald Trump’s imposition of a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports and vowed to take “corresponding countermeasures.”

    Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 1, imposing the tariff on goods from China, accusing it of not doing enough to combat the smuggling of the opioid fentanyl into the United States, while criticizing China’s high trade surplus with the U.S.

    China’s foreign and commerce ministries denounced the action, vowing to file a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization, or WTO.

    “There are no winners in trade wars or tariff wars. The U.S.’s unilateral tariff hikes seriously violate WTO rules, fail to solve its own problems, and harm both sides as well as the global economy,” the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement on Sunday.

    The ministry added fentanyl was “a U.S. problem,” saying that at the request of the United States, China was the first country in the world to officially regulate all fentanyl-related substances in 2019.

    “The U.S. should take an objective and rational approach to addressing its fentanyl problem rather than resorting to tariff threats against other countries,” the ministry said.

    Fentanyl is a highly potent synthetic opioid that U.S. authorities blame for killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Precursors for the drug are produced in China and then turned into fentanyl by Mexican transnational drug trafficking groups to be smuggled into America.

    Efforts to stem the outflow of fentanyl precursors from China formed a key part of former U.S. President Joe Biden’s diplomacy with Beijing. A pledge from Chinese President Xi Jinping to crack down on precursor exports was one of three major outcomes of a summit between Biden and Xi in San Francisco in 2023.

    In the months after that meeting, Biden administration officials largely credited their Chinese counterparts with following through on their promises, but Trump said that still not enough was being done.

    RELATED STORIES

    Trump says China tariffs could begin Feb. 1

    Beijing sees Trump presidency as ‘critical’ juncture for Sino-US ties

    Trade and tariffs to dominate US-China ties under Trump

    Tariffs on Canada, Mexico

    Besides China, Trump has also imposed a 25% additional tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico over fentanyl smuggling and what Trump says is their failure to stop the flow of cross-border migrants.

    The White House said that the tariffs are being imposed under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which grants the president power to regulate commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the country.

    China’s relatively mild response stood in contrast to Canada’s strong retaliation and sharp language, as well as Mexico’s, the largest buyer of U.S. exports.

    Canada announced it would impose a 25% retaliatory tariff on U.S. goods worth 107 billion U.S. dollars for Trump’s tariff measures.

    As for Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum also said she would order retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. but had not provided details by the time of publication.

    She said in a statement on X that the Mexican government sought to address the issue through dialogue rather than confrontation but had now been “forced to take reciprocal action.”

    Edited by Taejun Kang.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alan Lu for RFA.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Thank you for joining us for this critical webinar exploring the multifaceted tools of imperialism and their impact on the Americas, or rather, Our Americas or Nuestra América. This discussion will unpack how sanctions, soft power mechanisms like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, militarization, and global banking systems are weaponized to uphold U.S. power and undermine sovereignty across the region. Panelists will analyze the historical and contemporary roles these tools play in destabilizing governments, fostering dependency, and suppressing popular people’s movements for self-determination, highlighting resistance strategies and pathways to combat imperialism and defend sovereignty while building solidarity among peoples and nations in the Americas.

    The post Zone of Peace In Haiti And The Americas appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • First Quantum Minerals’ copper operation was shut down more than a year ago, but Indigenous people report restrictions on movement and unexplained illness and death

    For the people of the nine Indigenous communities within the perimeter of the sprawling Cobre Panamá copper mine, travelling into and out of the concession is far from straightforward. An imposing metal gateway staffed by the mining company’s security guards blocks the road. People say the company severely restricts their movement in and out of the zone, letting them through only on certain days.

    The mining concession, located 120km (75 miles) west of Panama City, is owned by Canada-based First Quantum Minerals, which operates through its local subsidiary, Minera Panamá. The company’s private security guards, not the national police, patrol the concession. Local residents, mostly subsistence farmers of modest means, say that First Quantum operates as a state within a state.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • When Joe Biden first became president, some found it hard to believe that he cared very much about climate change.

    With a global pandemic raging, the former vice president and longtime senator pitched his 2020 campaign as a return to normalcy and a referendum on the erratic leadership of Donald Trump. His campaign pledges to ban drilling on federal lands and spend trillions of dollars to decarbonize the economy — though they amounted to among the most ambitious climate agenda ever put forward by a major-party candidate — were widely seen as consolation prizes to skeptical progressives and climate hawks, like those who had backed Senator Bernie Sanders or former Washington Governor Jay Inslee in the 2020 Democratic primaries.

    It’s clear now that these skeptics underestimated the outgoing president. Biden’s climate agenda, broader and more ambitious than that of any U.S. president before him, is poised to stand as the most consequential feat of his presidency, especially given his self-evident failure to “heal the soul of the nation” by ushering it into a post-Trump era. He succeeded in getting Congress to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, a misleadingly titled law that amounts to an unprecedented subsidy for renewable energy and climate-friendly technologies like electric vehicles. The measure triggered a wave of investment that has begun to reshape the nation’s economy and finally put the U.S. within reach of its commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement.

    “I think Biden will go down in history as passing the biggest climate bill that was ever passed in the world’s history,” said Sean Casten, a Democratic member of Congress from Illinois (and former contributor to Grist).

    If Biden’s presidency represents a major step forward in the climate fight, though, it is also a cautionary tale about the limits of climate policy in the United States. The success of the IRA shows that a massive clean energy push is politically viable, under the right circumstances. (Whether or not it’s politically advantageous, or even prudent, is a story that the 2024 election called into question.) But Biden’s attempts to restrict fossil fuel production throughout his presidency were far less successful — not only did his push to curb oil and natural gas production get mired in litigation before it could bear any real fruit, but it also generated political backlash that never really dissipated. 

    It’s too early to tell whether Biden’s comprehensive climate policy — feeding renewable energy with the proverbial carrot and punishing fossil fuels with the stick, essentially — is a historical anomaly or a preview of how future Democratic administrations might tackle the issue. An even more fraught question is whether Biden’s renewable energy victory will prove durable. Even though Biden revolutionized U.S. climate policy, the public was barely aware that he did anything at all on the issue. Donald Trump now has four years to claw that progress back.


    Biden took office at a moment when passing a Green New Deal-inspired climate plan seemed almost feasible: Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the upheavals of the COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated a new appetite for massive government spending to kickstart the economy, as demonstrated by the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that passed early in Biden’s term.

    This was the political environment that gave birth to “Build Back Better,” a governing agenda that encompassed all the major legislative priorities that the Democratic Party had developed since the first Barack Obama administration. Months of public and private haggling within the Democratic party ensued. In the end, the only progressive priority that survived in anything close to its fullest form was climate change.

    This surely has something to do with the fact that concern about climate change has only grown since Democrats’ first efforts to pass a major climate bill in 2010 — and the fact that activists like those in the Sunrise Movement staged dramatic demonstrations that kept the issue at the top of the party’s agenda. Still, to this day nobody can say for sure why the Democrats of 2022 ended up passing a pathbreaking climate bill rather than, say, the “care economy” proposals that were another major pillar of Build Back Better.

    By many accounts, it was the war in Ukraine, which exposed the dangers of global reliance on Russian natural gas, that launched energy to the top of Democrats’ agenda. Suddenly, diversifying the country’s energy sources to include more wind, solar, and geothermal energy, along with increased battery storage, was something that all 50 Democratic senators could theoretically agree on — even the party’s most conservative member, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who’d once released a campaign ad in which he fired a rifle at the party’s Obama-era climate change bill. 

    “Joe Manchin clearly believed in this,” said Josh Freed, senior vice president for climate and energy at the think tank Third Way. “He could have walked away at any point.”

    But nothing — not Manchin’s willingness to play ball, not the war in Ukraine, and certainly not any clamoring from Biden’s 2020 majority — can fully explain what inspired the party to tackle climate change head-on. In the view of Casten, the Democratic representative from Illinois, the IRA got done thanks to the unsung work of a humble House committee. 

    In 2019, after Democrats took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in eight years, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi revived a committee that hadn’t existed since the chamber’s failed efforts to tackle climate change in the Obama years. The Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Pelosi told The New York Times in 2018, would “prepare the way with evidence” for future climate legislation. In 2020, months before Trump left the White House, committee chair Kathy Castor, a representative from Florida, and her colleagues (including Casten) released a 500-page smorgasbord of recommendations that a future president could use to develop a climate agenda. Unlike prior reports from the first iteration of the committee, which focused on making carbon emissions more costly, this report was chock-full of incentives that could entice energy utilities and American homeowners alike to adopt clean energy.

    “We relied almost exclusively on carrots rather than sticks,” Casten said. “Pelosi’s skill in holding all factions of the Democratic House together and figuring out how to get both the infrastructure bill and the climate bill done is really why that stuff survived. 

    “Kathy gave her the recipe, and Pelosi did the cooking,” Casten added.

    Nancy Pelosi seated in front of a portrait of George Washington, surrounded by lawmakers
    House Democrats applaud after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi signed the Inflation Reduction Act, a bill with $369 billion in tax breaks and other funding for clean energy programs. Drew Angerer / Getty Images

    But Biden’s team knew that they had a limited window of time to turn this long-awaited policy platter into a bill that the Senate could pass and the president could sign. According to White House Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi, in his meetings with congressional leaders Biden insisted that climate and energy provisions remain at the center of Build Back Better. The result was the IRA.

    “Every single time, he brought up the importance of carrying forward climate and clean energy,” Zaidi told Grist.

    Now, as incoming president Donald Trump prepares to take a hatchet to the nation’s environmental policies for a second time, the power of the IRA is beginning to come into view. The climate component of the bill revolves around incentives that encourage households, businesses, state governments, and even school districts to adopt clean energy and reduce emissions. These were specifically designed to have political resilience: States and private parties don’t often turn down free money or readily pass up the opportunity for more economic development. If Trump tries to repeal Biden’s clean energy tax credits, the thinking is that he’ll run into opposition from members of his own party, who have constituents that are starting to feel the benefits of Biden-era investments in their communities. 

    According to projections from the Rhodium Group, a leading climate research firm, the IRA will reduce U.S. carbon emissions by up to 42 percent from its peak levels. While this assessment assumes cooperation from banks, corporations, and even oil companies, most other projections agree that the law will put the U.S. within striking distance of Biden’s goal of halving emissions by the end of this decade.

    But the IRA only accomplishes the first part of what most climate advocates believe is supposed to be a two-step process: Entice decarbonization with incentives, punish carbon intensity with rules and regulations. Dangle the carrot, beat with the stick. 

    The passage of the IRA was a tremendous political feat. But all the while, the Biden administration’s other climate efforts were starting to run aground.


    Even as climate hawks celebrated the passage of the IRA, the United States was on the brink of becoming the world’s largest-ever producer of fossil fuels, pulling almost enough crude oil out of the ground each day to supply all of Europe. The technological advances of the fracking boom had allowed drillers to more than double production of both oil and natural gas since 2010, and oil became a key part of the nation’s trade balance after President Obama lifted a long-standing ban on crude oil exports in 2015.

    Biden’s main attempt to stem this massive tide was through an unambiguous campaign promise: “no new drilling on federal lands, period.” Though federal lands and waters account for only around a quarter of U.S. oil production, and around 10 percent of natural gas production, Biden’s pledge sent a clear signal: He was going to use the biggest tool available to the president to slow the growth of U.S. fossil fuel production.

    But this attempt to restrict fossil fuel supply met with far greater opposition than the Inflation Reduction Act, and was far less successful. Just after taking office, Biden ordered the Interior Department, which manages federal lands and waters, to pause all new oil and gas lease sales pending a review of their climate impacts. This pause soon fell victim to a tangle of contradictory legal rulings around the scope of executive authority, an issue where courts have been happy to rein in presidential power. A federal court in Louisiana declared in early 2022 that the administration could not pause all lease sales, accepting a conservative argument that the executive branch was overreaching in its interpretation of federal law. But after the Interior Department held a lease sale, a separate court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the administration had erred in doing so without considering the climate impacts of increased oil production — boxing Biden in between contradictory mandates.

    In the background, a post-pandemic spike in gasoline prices had changed the optics of Biden’s drilling pledge for the worse. While new drilling leases on federal lands have a negligible impact on gasoline prices — new leases wouldn’t produce new gas for the market for close to a decade — Republicans and oil industry figures slammed the administration at every opportunity for what Wyoming Senator John Barasso called “attack[ing] American energy.” The attacks seemed to stick. By the time Biden and Manchin negotiated the IRA in 2022, the anti-oil position had become a political loser, and Manchin was able to negotiate a provision in the climate law requiring new lease sales on federal lands and in the Gulf of Mexico.

    The legal ping-pong continued after the IRA passed. With its hand finally forced by the courts in December 2023, the Interior Department held a large lease sale on a block of offshore waters that had been tied up in litigation for the better part of a decade. The sale drew almost $400 million in bids from oil majors like Hess, Occidental, and Shell, in what was the highest-grossing lease sale since before the pandemic. If there had been any doubt, Biden’s campaign pledge was officially dead.

    The culmination of the Biden administration’s turnabout on fossil fuel production, and the decision that generated the greatest furor among climate activists, was the Interior Department’s March 2023 approval of the Willow oil project on the North Slope of Alaska. Former Vice President Al Gore called the approval “recklessly irresponsible”: Burning the 600 million barrels of oil that ConocoPhillips plans to produce from the project is poised to add the equivalent of 2 million cars’ worth of carbon dioxide to the air. Nevertheless, the final decision to approve the project reportedly came from the White House itself. Facing spiking gasoline prices at home and global upheavals in the oil market — plus the specter of lawsuits from ConocoPhillips, which had started the project well before Biden came on the scene — administration officials no longer appeared willing to try to meaningfully slow down the future rate of U.S. oil production.

    Earlier this month, in the waning days of his administration, Biden revived the long-dormant lease issue, announcing that he would prohibit future oil drilling on more than 600 million acres of ocean territory on both coasts. The move drew praise from environmental advocates, and it would be hard for Trump or future presidents to undo — but it is largely symbolic, and won’t fundamentally change the trajectory of the oil industry. The shoreline sections that Biden has protected have never drawn much interest from drillers, and even Trump backed off a pledge to open them up for oil production during his first term. In the geographies where it matters, like the crude-rich Gulf of Mexico, the fight was long since over.


    In the battle over oil leases, the Biden administration learned the hard way that it’s very difficult to restrict fossil fuel production, especially with high gas prices and a hostile court system. Last year, as the election approached, the administration had to learn another bruising lesson: Even if you do restrict fossil fuel production, it’s hard to know how much you’re influencing the climate fight. This lesson came during a political squabble over the export of liquefied natural gas, or LNG.

    In the decade since the fracking boom, natural gas companies have built several huge facilities along the Gulf Coast that condense and export fracked gas to China and the European Union. Proponents of the industry argue that it helps the climate and national security by weaning other countries off coal (which emits about twice as much carbon per unit of energy produced) and Russian gas, respectively. But activists have come out in force against the industry in recent years, arguing that LNG exports encourage other countries to build out gas-dependent power rather than renewable energy. 

    In January of last year, young climate activists led a social media campaign urging the Biden administration to reject a permit for one of the largest proposed LNG export facilities. This campaign caught the attention of White House climate advisors Ali Zaidi and John Podesta, who believed they needed to win back young climate-engaged voters as the president’s reelection campaign approached. The Department of Energy controls export authorization for natural gas facilities, and the Biden administration soon announced a moratorium on new export permits for LNG, pending a study on whether they were in the “public interest.” This move drew support from studies showing that gas exports raise domestic energy prices and that methane leakage along the gas supply chain may make them more emissions-intensive than even the coal power that they replace in the best-case scenario.

    Yet again, conservatives and oil industry figures seized on the move as evidence of a Green New Deal agenda and pilloried Biden for it, with a group of red-state leaders calling it evidence of a “reckless environmental agenda.” A coalition of Republican attorneys general sued to stop the pause, and a conservative judge ruled in their favor within a few months. The pause was dead, and very few supporters or detractors appeared to even notice.

    But the move did appear to push oil-industry heavyweights even further toward the Trump campaign: A few months after the administration announced the pause, several industry leaders reportedly discussed it with Trump during a now-infamous summit at Mar-a-Lago at which Trump pressed the leaders for campaign contributions in exchange for a friendly agenda. (They ended up giving him around $75 million.)

    By the time the election arrived, it became clear that the administration saw these supply-side efforts to limit U.S. fossil fuel production as a political liability rather than an asset. When Biden dropped out and Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, she touted the fact that the U.S. has produced a record amount of oil and gas in recent years, and reversed her prior position in favor of banning fracking in an unsuccessful attempt to win over swing voters in Pennsylvania. Trump, meanwhile, attacked the natural gas export pause as “Kamala’s ban.”

    The controversy over LNG unfolded in spite of the fact that the climate impact of the policy was never clear. There is a large body of conflicting research about whether LNG exports, which are often used to replace coal plants in developing countries, increase or decrease emissions relative to an identical world without them. The answer depends on how much methane you think is leaking from U.S. gas fields (this depends where you are and whom you ask), as well as on shifting domestic energy policies in importing nations like China and Vietnam. Indeed, reputable studies reach opposite conclusions, sometimes on the very same day, about whether LNG will help the climate by displacing coal power or harm it by displacing renewables. 

    a giant fireball comes out of a stack near a ship called clean energy
    A flare shoots out of a smokestack at Venture Capital’s Calcasieu Pass LNG terminal. Biden’s decision to pause new LNG export approvals dominated the final year of his climate agenda. Courtesy of John Allaire

    Even after Trump won the 2024 election, the Biden administration hurried to finish its “public interest” study. This gave activists some tentative optimism: If Biden released a study finding that LNG exports raise energy prices or harm the climate, it might make it harder for the Trump administration to approve future terminals.

    But the study the Energy Department ended up releasing was largely symbolic. While the department said that “unfettered” gas exports would be “neither sustainable nor advisable” and found that new exports would likely lead to more carbon emissions worldwide, it did not issue any concrete recommendations to guide future policy and stopped short of calling for a halt to new export approvals. 

    Most devastating of all for proponents of the LNG pause, the long-awaited study noted that the United States has already approved enough LNG capacity to meet global demand through the middle of the century, ensuring the country will remain a gas powerhouse regardless of what future administrations do. After years of campaigning, activists had succeeded in pushing the Biden administration to act on LNG. But by the time the administration made a move, it was already too late.


    There is one objective metric by which Biden’s climate policy can be judged: the Paris Agreement, which vows to hold global temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius. In order to help the world meet that agreement, the United States needs to cut its emissions by more than half relative to its 2005 levels.

    Assuming Trump doesn’t gut the Inflation Reduction Act — a real possibility, but far from a certainty in a nearly evenly split Congress — Biden’s signature bill will get the United States a great deal of the way toward meeting that goal. But the country is still falling short, and time is running out.

    Biden showed that “carrot” climate policy is both politically possible and effective at slowing down climate change — but he failed to create the same roadmap for “stick” policies to curb the expansion of fossil fuels. The president’s losses on oil leases and LNG were significant, because they were some of the few short-term actions Biden could have taken to restrict fossil fuels. 

    While the administration did also push several ambitious climate rules through the Environmental Protection Agency, including regulations that would eliminate power plant pollution and force a wholesale transition away from gasoline-powered vehicles, those high-profile moves are unlikely to bear fruit anytime soon. Designing the rules took almost the entire four years of Biden’s term, and they have yet to come into effect; the gas-powered vehicles rule, for instance, applies to cars of model year 2027 and later. Repealing the IRA requires help from Congress, but the incoming administration has the authority to unwind those rules on its own, and Trump reportedly wants to start doing so on day one.

    cars on a production line
    Ford Motor Company’s electric F-150 Lightnings sit on the production line at the company’s Rouge Electric Vehicle Center in Dearborn, Michigan.
    Jeff Kowalsky / AFP via Getty Images

    These defeats appear to have led to some soul-searching within the administration. When Zaidi, the White House Climate Advisor, reflected on Biden’s legacy in a press gaggle at last year’s United Nations climate conference, he questioned whether fossil fuel-restricting policies would ever be politically viable, though he hinted that future policy might have to try them anyway.

    “I don’t think there is social license for a decarbonization playbook that puts upward price pressure for consumers in the marketplace,” Zaidi said. However, not everyone agrees. Jay Inslee, who passed a carbon tax as governor of Washington and then defended that tax against a repeal effort, says voters can get behind fossil fuel disincentives if they benefit from those policies.

    “We tested that question [of support for a carbon tax], and it was not a narrow thing,” he said. “We emphasized what you’re getting for these investments, and people by thunderous applause accepted it.” (It helps that Washington state has not elected a Republican to statewide office since 2017.)

    An even more urgent question is whether Biden’s carrots will themselves endure. From inside the Beltway, the IRA looked like a political miracle, and it is popular with Republican officials like Georgia Governor Brian Kemp — Georgia has seen more than $10 billion in investment from the IRA, resulting in almost 40,000 new jobs — but it has had a negligible impact on voters so far. In 2023, nearly a year after the bill had passed, a majority of voters thought it was still being considered or that lawmakers had given up on it — or didn’t know that such a bill had existed at all. This year, fewer than 3 in 10 voters said they thought the IRA had improved their lives. The 2024 election featured remarkably little discussion about Biden’s signature achievement at all.

    The issue may be one of scope. A truly successful climate policy would do nothing less than reshape the world economy — a tall order for an administration with four years and a slim legislative majority. The IRA, with its big bets on a wide array of both proven and new decarbonization technologies, may still succeed in this. But we won’t know until it’s too late for anyone to take credit for it.

    “Long-term policy doesn’t have immediate impact,” said Freed, of the think tank Third Way. “Rising wages, better standards of living, better opportunities for communities were always going to take longer than one election cycle to be visible. They didn’t happen physically in communities quickly enough to shift voter perception.” 

    As Biden prepares to leave office, he will have to contend with the fact that voters may finally begin to feel the benefits of his signature law when Trump is in office — and that they may ascribe those improvements to Trump’s policies, rather than his own. Biden will have to bear that cross, Freed said. 

    “If our goal is to have clean energy [that is] durable and pervasive — and people start seeing the benefits in their communities and it makes them more amenable to clean energy and demand more — that’s a good thing,” he said. “The positive impacts of clean energy and decarbonization need to be able to transcend elections and partisan politics.” 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Joe Biden was America’s first climate president. Did it matter? on Jan 17, 2025.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on The Grayzone and was authored by The Grayzone.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A state of emergency has been declared amid unprecedented gun violence, but no one in our stagnating government is taking responsibility

    Just before the new year, Trinidad and Tobago’s government declared a state of emergency after a weekend of gun violence.

    Trinidad and Tobago, a country of about 1.5 million people and once the wealthiest in the Caribbean, has been plagued by decades of poor economic and social leadership, gang violence, home invasions, murders and corruption.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.


  • This content originally appeared on Laura Flanders & Friends and was authored by Laura Flanders & Friends.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • From an exuberant mountaineering woman to a boy representing unheard refugees, here are some of the brave individuals that gave us hope

    Nine years ago, Cecilia Llusco was one of 11 Indigenous women who made it to the summit of the 6,088 metre-high Huayna Potosí in Bolivia. They called themselves the cholitas escaladoras (the climbing cholitas) and went on to scale many more peaks in Bolivia and across South America. Their name comes from chola, once a pejorative term for Indigenous Aymara women.

    Continue reading…

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

    There was a time when Sharelle Menard thought her son would never be able to speak. She couldn’t soothe Benji when he cried, couldn’t read him books he could follow, couldn’t take him out in public. “The screaming, and screaming, and screaming,” she said. “He would get so frustrated because he couldn’t communicate.”

    Benji was nearly 3 when he was diagnosed with severe autism and soon after started a specialized therapy to help him develop basic skills. After two years in treatment, his murmuring gave way to small words, with “bubbles” among the first. To celebrate, Menard powered up a bubble machine she found at the dollar store, and for hours, they watched the iridescent orbs drift over their porch.

    Menard, who is raising Benji alone in south-central Louisiana, began to picture a future for her son that diverged from the stories she’d heard about some kids with similar diagnoses, who grew up still unable to manage their frustrations and had to live in nursing homes or institutions.

    But now, she’s worried again.

    The insurer that has been paying for her son’s therapy, UnitedHealthcare, has begun — to the befuddlement of his clinical team — denying him the hours they say he requires to maintain his progress. Inside the insurance conglomerate, the nation’s largest and most profitable, the slashing of care to children like Benji does have a reason, though it has little to do with their needs. It is part of a secret internal cost-cutting campaign that targets a growing financial burden for the company: the treatment of thousands of children with autism across the country.

    Sharelle Menard cares for Benji at their home in Louisiana. Benji, who is severely affected by autism, requires a specialized therapy. (Annie Flanagan, special to ProPublica)

    ProPublica has obtained what is effectively the company’s strategic playbook, developed by Optum, the division that manages mental health benefits for United. In internal reports, the company acknowledges that the therapy, called applied behavior analysis, is the “evidence-based gold standard treatment for those with medically necessary needs.” But the company’s costs have climbed as the number of children diagnosed with autism has ballooned; experts say greater awareness and improved screening have contributed to a fourfold increase in the past two decades — from 1 in 150 to 1 in 36.

    So Optum is “pursuing market-specific action plans” to limit children’s access to the treatment, the reports said.

    “Key opportunities” are outlined in bullets in the documents. While acknowledging some areas have “very long waitlists” for the therapy, the company said it aims to “prevent new providers from joining the network” and “terminate” existing ones, including “cost outliers.” If an insurer drops a provider from its network, patients may have to find a new clinician that accepts their insurance or pay up to tens of thousands of dollars a year out of pocket for the therapy. The company has calculated that, in some states, this reduction could impact more than two-fifths of its ABA therapy provider groups in network and up to 19% of its patients in therapy.

    Internal company documents reveal the strategy by Optum, a UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, to prevent ABA providers from participating in its network. (Obtained by ProPublica)

    The strategy targets kids covered through the company’s state-contracted Medicaid plans, funded by the government for the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable patients. To manage Medicaid benefits, states often pay private insurers a fixed amount of funds per patient, regardless of the frequency or intensity of services used. When companies spend less than the allotted payment, they are typically allowed to keep some or all of what remains, which federal investigators and experts acknowledge may be incentivizing insurers to limit care.

    United administers Medicaid plans or benefits in about two dozen states and for more than 6 million people, including nearly 10,000 children with autism spectrum disorder. Optum expects to spend about $290 million for ABA therapy within its Medicaid plans this year, and it anticipates the need increasing, documents show. The number of its Medicaid patients accessing the specialized therapy has increased by about 20% over the past year, with expenses rising about $75 million year-on-year.

    So Optum — whose parent company, UnitedHealth Group, earned $22 billion in net profits last year — is “heavily investing” in its plan to save millions by limiting access to such care.

    In addition to culling providers from its network, the company is scrutinizing the medical necessity of the therapy for individual patients with “rigorous” clinical reviews, which can lead to denials of covered treatment. Optum has developed an “approach to authorizing less units than requested,” the records state.

    Internal company documents reveal Optum is deploying “rigorous utilization management” in response to an increased need for ABA therapy. (Obtained by ProPublica)

    Mental health and autism experts and advocates reviewed ProPublica’s findings and expressed outrage over the company’s strategy. Karen Fessel, whose Mental Health and Autism Insurance Project helps families access care, called the tactics “unconscionable and immoral.”

    “They’re denying access to treatment and shrinking a network at a time when they clearly know that there is an urgent need,” she said.

    United and Optum declined a request ProPublica made more than a month ago for an on-the-record interview about their coverage of behavioral health care. They have not answered questions emailed 11 days ago, citing the Dec. 4 killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO as the reason. In an email, a spokesperson said “we are in mourning” and could not engage with a “non-urgent story during this incredibly difficult moment in time.” Offered an additional day or two, the company would not agree to a deadline for comment.

    Benji, who is now 10, requires 33 hours of weekly therapy to be able to progress, his therapists have concluded. They have documented the consequences of having even a few hours less: toppled furniture, scratched-up classroom aides, a kid in unremitting tears, unable to learn. But in a letter to Menard, Optum said it was refusing to pay for the full hours, stating that her son had been in therapy for too long and was not showing enough progress to ultimately graduate from it.

    “Your child still has a lot of difficulty with all autism-related needs,” Optum wrote. “Your child still needs help, but it does not appear that your child will improve enough to end ABA.”

    The response confounded experts who spoke with ProPublica, who said such an approach misunderstands the long-term nature of his condition. “Challenges that often come with autism shouldn’t be looked at like an injury that you’re going to get better from quickly and then the treatment can stop,” said Christa Stevens, who directs state government affairs for the advocacy group Autism Speaks. “Treatment may still be medically necessary even if it’s for skill maintenance or the prevention of regression.”

    The company’s denial also appears to contrast with recent professional guidelines for the therapy — which are cited as a reference in Optum’s own clinical criteria — that state “there is no specific limit on the duration of a course of treatment.”

    The appropriate duration of treatment, according to those standards and experts interviewed by ProPublica, should be based on the patients’ needs, as evaluated by the clinicians working directly with the patients.

    “This is a very blunt instrument to chase after excessive costs,” said Tim Clement, the vice president of federal government affairs at the nonprofit group Mental Health America.

    Several advocates told ProPublica the company’s strategy is legally questionable.

    The federal mental health parity law requires insurers to provide the same access to mental health and physical care. As ProPublica recently reported, United has gotten in trouble in the past for targeting therapy coverage in a way that violates the law; while denying the allegations, it agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement. It continues to use arbitrary and one-size-fits-all thresholds to scrutinize its therapy claims, ProPublica previously found.

    It would raise legal questions if the company restricted ABA more stringently than comparable physical care, the advocates said.

    “Medicaid managed care organizations are subject to the parity act,” said Deborah Steinberg, a senior health policy attorney with the nonprofit advocacy group Legal Action Center. The company may be violating Medicaid regulations, she said, which require managed care organizations to maintain networks sufficient to provide covered services to all enrollees.

    Last year, the federal government formally affirmed that ABA therapy is a protected benefit, and it recently investigated health plans for entirely excluding its coverage; legislators have passed laws in every state requiring insurance companies to pay for it.

    “Yes, this therapy can be expensive,” said Dan Unumb, an attorney and president of the Autism Legal Resource Center. “But solving the problem by denying kids access to medically necessary care is a terrible solution.”

    “What Happens if We Withdraw the Care?” Benji dances with his behavior analyst, Whitney Newton, at Aspire Behavioral Health Center in Lafayette. (Annie Flanagan, special to ProPublica)

    Benji was making progress about three years ago.

    For more than 33 hours a week in the specialized therapy, his clinicians broke down the learning process into basic steps, using repetition and positive reinforcement to affirm behaviors. The state’s Medicaid contractor, UnitedHealthcare, covered the bill.

    Researchers have found that about a quarter of kids diagnosed with autism are severely affected; these children are often minimally or non-speaking or require extensive assistance for basic daily needs. “Things a lot of people take for granted,” said Menard. While experts continue to debate which therapies are most effective and appropriate for these kids, ABA is one of the most widely recommended.

    By 7, Benji had accumulated a few dozen words, and his aggressive, prolonged tantrums had grown less frequent, allowing his mother to take him grocery shopping and to mass on Sundays. It was time for him to go to school, she thought.

    Menard enrolled him in their public school district, St. Martin Parish. He attended Breaux Bridge Primary twice a week in a special education classroom and continued therapy the other days. Menard urged the district to allow a therapeutic technician to shadow him in school, but it refused. (The district declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing privacy restrictions.)

    With the diminished hours of treatment, Benji grew increasingly disruptive. “It was a disaster,” said Menard. He snapped a swing in gym class and struggled to sit still during lessons. When teachers tried to give him instructions, he hit them. His speech plateaued and eventually regressed.

    Menard, who cleans pools for a living, grew to fear the moment her phone rang. School employees, unable to soothe Benji’s tantrums, frequently called her to take him home. One morning last spring, they told her Benji had lashed out when an aide tried to persuade him to work, aggressively poking their hand with a pencil. He hadn’t broken the skin, but after a dozen incidents, the situation was becoming unsalvageable. The district made her sign a behavioral contract, his second in two years: If Benji didn’t behave, he could be suspended or expelled.

    Menard felt she had no choice but to withdraw Benji. She enrolled him full time in a home-study program run by his therapy group, Aspire Behavioral Health Center in Lafayette, which costs about $10,000 a year in tuition, a substantial portion of her paycheck. That was in addition to the therapy cost, which his insurance still covered.

    Benji’s clinicians determined he needed direct support for most of the day and told Optum they wanted him to scale up his therapy from 24 hours a week to 33. They expected the insurer would approve the request; after all, it was less than what was previously covered and only nine hours more than it was currently paying for.

    But Optum denied the increase in a letter to Menard this past May. “Your child has been in ABA for six years,” the insurer wrote. “After six years, more progress would be expected.”

    The response disturbed Whitney Newton, Benji’s behavior analyst and a clinical director at Aspire; it didn’t seem rooted in the established medical standards for the treatment. She’d seen firsthand how critical the therapy had been to his growth. “We know what he needs. It’s in our scope of practice and it’s our right as the provider to determine that,” she said. “They’re cutting and denying an unethical amount.”

    Newton has worked with Benji since he was 3. (Annie Flanagan, special to ProPublica)

    The center’s founder, psychologist Joslyn McCoy, has grown accustomed to battling insurers. Her practice serves about 160 patients between the ages of 2 and 19 across five centers, and many have Medicaid coverage. In 2022, Louisiana expanded its Medicaid parameters, allowing parents with higher incomes to access coverage for children with complex medical needs.

    “What I’m seeing is that children now have this ticket to access this care, but then once they go to try to access it, it’s being denied,” she said.

    Nearly two years ago, Optum selected her center for a payment integrity audit, demanding to inspect its clinical and billing records. After her team turned over thousands of pages of documentation, Optum conducted a separate in-person quality review.

    Internal company records show Optum is targeting ABA providers for scrutiny based on how much they invoice and how many services they provide. Groups like McCoy’s can be be flagged for patterns that providers told ProPublica are are typical in the delivery of ABA therapy: billing on weekends or holidays, serving multiple family members in one practice, having long clinician or patient days, providing an “above average delivery” of services, or abruptly increasing or decreasing the number of patients or claims.

    Internal company documents reveal Optum’s strategy for identifying ABA providers for scrutiny based on “outlier patterns.” (Obtained by ProPublica)

    McCoy said that a company executive who visited her office for the quality review told her that she approved of the center’s work and thought Aspire should expand across the state.

    But Optum has continued to challenge her patients’ individual therapy claims.

    When her team received the denial for Benji’s care, McCoy set out to gather hard evidence to demonstrate the necessity of his treatment. “It’s what we call a reversal to baseline, where we will withdraw the treatment for a short period of time,” McCoy said. “The reason is to demonstrate what happens because we’re curious, too: What happens if we withdraw the care?”

    Joslyn McCoy, founder and director of Aspire Behavioral Health Center (Annie Flanagan, special to ProPublica)

    Much of the therapy is driven by positive reinforcement; for example, if Benji pays attention and engages in his academic exercises, he can take a break to play on his iPad. But the reward is contingent on him not hitting anyone for at least 10 minutes at a time. During the experiment, the clinicians took away the possibility of his reward, and without an incentive, they had limited leverage to manage his behavior.

    At first, Benji lightly hit the staff, they said, as though testing the limits. But when there was no response to his behavior, it began to escalate. He tossed chairs and flipped tables. He pushed Newton into a bookshelf, which collapsed to the ground. He hit walls and windows, eventually turning his fists on his aide. They stopped the experiment early, both for his safety and theirs.

    Once they resumed the interventions, Benji was able to calm down.

    Newton drafted a report, including line charts that quantified his behavior with and without the interventions and photographs of her team’s injuries. She faxed it to Optum, asking the company to reconsider the denial.

    The insurer did not change its decision.

    “The Need Is Not Going Away” Benji works with registered behavioral technician Hortencia Cervantez during ABA treatment. (Annie Flanagan, special to ProPublica)

    Last month, inside a cubicle decorated with posters of Minions and Mario Brothers, a behavior technician placed a laminated card with an image of a sneaker in front of Benji.

    “What is this?” she asked him.

    Benji paused, rubbing the edge of his baseball cap and pursing his lips. “Sh,” he said, stuck on the consonant.

    “Shoes, that’s right,” the technician responded. She pulled out another card, showing a slice topped with white frosting. “Is this cake?”

    “No,” Benji said.

    “Is this cake?” she repeated, before adding, “yes.”

    “Yes,” echoed Benji, but her correction appeared to frustrate him. He hit the technician on the leg, softly but with determination.

    “We’ll let it go,” she warned with a sugared voice, “but hands to self, OK?”

    After 10 minutes, a timer beeped. It was time for Benji’s reward, getting to hear a reggaeton hit by Daddy Yankee. “It’s a big reinforcer here,” Newton said.

    Even though Optum denied the additional hours of treatment, Benji has continued to receive them. “We’re giving the hours even if they were not approved,” McCoy said. “We don’t think it would be safe for him to do what the insurance is saying.”

    Next month, a state administrative law judge will hear an appeal for the additional hours. If the request is approved, Benji’s clinicians will be paid for the six months of services that they’ve provided without reimbursement.

    Even if that happens, their battle with the insurer will go back to square one. Each insurance authorization typically lasts for only six months, and soon after the hearing date, the clinicians will have to request coverage for his treatment again.

    They will be doing so at a time when internal records show Optum has deployed more than 90 “care advocates” to question clinicians about the medical necessity of their patients’ ABA treatment, using “quality initiatives to decrease overutilization and cost.”

    Optum is focusing on states whose Medicaid plans yield the highest costs for ABA therapy, including Arizona, Nebraska, Tennessee, Virginia, New Jersey, Indiana and Louisiana, where Menard and her son live. ProPublica reached out to the state Medicaid programs with questions about their oversight of United’s practices. Arizona’s Medicaid agency told ProPublica that all managed care organizations, including United, are required to provide timely services within their networks, and that the agency has been closely monitoring ABA networks. (Read its full response.) No other state Medicaid agencies responded to ProPublica’s questions.

    Internal company documents reveal Optum’s strategy for managing its ABA coverage. (Obtained by ProPublica)

    Autism experts said such a strategy may not only be harmful to children, it could also ultimately be more expensive for states, as children age and require more intensive services, like residential or nursing care.

    “If these kids get the intervention they need as children, then there will be tremendous cost savings over the course of their lives,” said Lorri Unumb, an attorney and CEO of the Council of Autism Service Providers.

    Menard worries about what will happen to her son’s hard-fought gains if he can’t get the level of therapy he needs. And even if the additional nine hours are approved, she fears that with the next authorization, they could face a more drastic denial that could be challenging to overturn.

    “This motivation and momentum — when you lose that,” she said, “it’s so hard to get it back.” She doesn’t believe that Benji needs to be fixed or cured or changed from who he is. She just hopes the therapy helps him to be better able to advocate for himself and, ultimately, be safe. “There’s nothing else that I’ve known to work,” she said.

    McCoy resents being put in the position of scaling back care that her patient needs because an insurer is refusing to pay. “It puts us in a tough place, because we don’t want to discontinue therapy of our client who’s not ready,” she said.

    When such denials become common, it disincentivizes clinicians from working with insurance companies, she said, and can ultimately drive clinics into the ground. “The patients can’t afford it,” she said, “so eventually the private provider goes out of business.”

    But even if children like Benji get pushed out of treatment, there is no shortage of children seeking care. McCoy’s center currently has a waitlist of about 260 children.

    That list may likely expand. Internal documents show Optum is aiming to exclude from its network about 40% of Louisiana groups that offer ABA therapy. About 1 in 5 children whose treatment is covered by the company’s Medicaid plan in the state could lose access to care.

    “If the insurance company wants to deny all of our clients, we’re going to replace them,” she said. “The need is not going away.”


    This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Annie Waldman.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Activists targeted as US-linked hard-right campaigns sow disinformation ahead of inter-American court of human rights ruling on case of woman who was denied abortion in 2013

    Earlier this year, Morena Herrera woke up to find that a video about her had been posted on social media. It claimed that the 64-year-old campaigner for abortion rights in El Salvador had “chased down” a young woman in hospital and “terrorised” her into seeking an abortion.

    The young woman was Beatriz, who had been denied an abortion in 2013, even though she was seriously ill and the foetus would not have survived outside the uterus.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • GlobalFoundries, a New York-based company, is the world’s third largest maker of semiconductor chips. It landed in hot water this month when U.S. authorities fined it $500,000 for selling its products to SJ Semiconductor, a Chinese company that can be found on a growing list of firms deemed a national security threat.

    Known unofficially as “America’s blacklist,” this catalog of over a thousand companies is maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security, a division of the Commerce Department. Officially called the Entity List, it dates back decades and includes firms that are part of China’s military industrial complex. Companies from other countries like Iran and Russia are also on the list, but Chinese companies have the highest representation.

    U.S. businesses have to obtain a special license in order to trade with these companies.

    New firms are added regularly.

    Why are Chinese companies a focus on the blacklist?

    China has one of the most robust economies in the world and is attempting to modernize their military, the People’s Liberation Army, on air, land and sea. U.S. officials believe that China has been expanding their military in recent years in order to achieve dominance over the United States and gain an edge over its armed forces.

    Buying U.S. products helps Chinese manufacturers make weapons and develop technology, Western experts say. “China’s basically using these civilian companies to bolster its military,” says University of Tennessee’s Vasabjit Banerjee, coauthor of an October 2022 Foreign Affairs article, “The Coming Chinese Weapons Boom.”

    Chinese officials counter that they are promoting international cooperation through trade, not trying to dominate others with it.

    “The Chinese side has all along firmly opposed the U.S.’ arbitrary use of [the] ‘Entity List,’ as well as other export control instruments, to suppress Chinese companies,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson at the Chinese embassy in Washington, told RFA. “We urge the US side to stop using national security as a catch-all phrase to politicize and weaponize trade issues.”

    What happens when a company gets “blacklisted”?

    Companies can get added to the Entity List when employees at federal agencies such as State, Energy or Homeland Security draw up a request to consider whether a foreign company should be added. They explain why they believe the firm poses a threat to national security and then submit their request to a group known as the End-User Review Committee. Members of the committee evaluate the request and then vote. If a majority agrees that a company poses a threat, then it’s added. There are currently more than 1,100 companies on the list. China has the most entries.

    A drone made by sanctioned Chinese company DJI is seen in 2023.
    A drone made by sanctioned Chinese company DJI is seen in 2023.

    Those in the U.S who try to secretly export goods may be punished. The penalties may range from hefty fines to imprisonment.

    A smaller, more recently formed list known as the UFLPA Entity List is maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and blacklists Chinese companies that use Uyghur forced labor, but this is separate to the better-known Commerce blacklist.

    Does it work?

    Once a company is placed on the Entity List, most U.S. business owners steer clear of them. This makes it harder for the foreign company to get new parts to build weapons and develop advanced military technology. And so, experts say, the list is working.

    Being put on the list is “a huge red flag,” says Craig Phildius, a former official with the bureau who now works for a Washington-based group, Export Controls and Sanctions Advisors. “A lot of companies will simply not do business with them.”

    But there are clear limitations. Chinese manufacturers can circumvent the U.S.-imposed restrictions by buying products from other countries, or just make the parts themselves.

    “China is simply too big for the West to actually hope to stop it from developing technologically,” says Sam Perlo-Freeman, a research coordinator at a London-based nonprofit, Campaign Against Arms Trade.

    One recent study shows that blacklisted Chinese firms invest more in their own research. Firms placed on the list increase their investment in research and development by 16 percent on average, the study authors said.

    What has China done in response to the blacklist?

    Chinese officials have established their own mechanism for controlling exports of valuable resources. Last year, they imposed restrictions on sales of a chemical element, gallium, used to make computer chips. Chinese officials say they have taken these steps in order to ensure their own national security.

    China's President Xi Jinping speaks during a meeting with President Joe Biden on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Lima, Peru, Nov. 16, 2024.
    China’s President Xi Jinping speaks during a meeting with President Joe Biden on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Lima, Peru, Nov. 16, 2024.

    In early November, China’s Ministry of State Security officials said they had blocked an attempt to smuggle a bottle of gallium out of the country.

    People in Washington and Beijing are waiting to see whether the list gets longer or shorter in the coming year. The newly elected president, Donald Trump, will take office in January, and he’s promised big changes.

    Still, Trump has spoken out forcefully against China. Says Phildius: “I think he will—for lack of a better word—keep the screws tightened.”


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tara McKelvey.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • Twenty-four civil society organizations working in seven Latin American countries, including the Committee to Protect Journalists, released a November 2024 report titled “Impact of state censorship measures on the right to freedom of expression in the Americas,” which included information provided during the 190th regular session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in July 2024. 

    The press freedom groups work in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Nicaragua. 

    The report named three types of indirect censorship that are evident in the region and are being used to stifle freedom of expression: stigmatization; forms of social control facilitated by new technologies with surveillance capacity; and the judicialization of freedom of expression on matters of public interest.

    The report made several recommendations, including developing a model protocol that addresses the standards established by the Inter-American system regarding the freedom of expression ofpublic officials, the rights and obligations involved, and their impact on state communications and the digital world.

    Read the full report here


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Laura Flanders & Friends and was authored by Laura Flanders & Friends.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Sakharov prize goes to María Corina Machado and Edmundo González after contested presidential election

    The European parliament has awarded its top human rights honor, the Sakharov prize for freedom of thought, to Venezuelan opposition leaders María Corina Machado and Edmundo González for “representing the people of Venezuela fighting to restore freedom and democracy”.

    Machado was set to run as the democratic opposition candidate against the incumbent president, Nicolás Maduro, in Venezuela’s contested 2024 election, but she was disqualified by the government, so González took her place. He had never run for office before the presidential election.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Rights group in Caracas says at least 40 people affected, as Maduro government continues clampdown on opposition

    The Venezuelan government has cancelled the passports of dozens of journalists and activists since President Nicolás Maduro claimed a re-election victory, part of what rights groups said is an intensifying campaign of repression against the authoritarian president’s opponents, the Financial Times has reported.

    At least 40 people, mostly journalists and human rights activists, have had their passports annulled without explanation, the newspaper reported on Saturday, citing Caracas-based rights group Laboratorio de Paz.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Hundreds of poor and desperate children targeted in anticipation of long and bloody battle, says Human Rights Watch

    Haitian armed gangs are recruiting starving children to swell their ranks ahead of an anticipated long and bloody battle with international security forces, a report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) has found.

    Armed groups – which control most of Haiti – are enticing hundreds, if not thousands, of impoverished children to take up arms with offers of food and shelter, the rights groups said.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Nathan Ryder raises livestock and grows vegetables on 10 acres of pasture in Golconda, Illinois with his wife and three kids. They also live in a food desert; the local grocery store closed a few months ago, and the closest farmers market is at least 45 miles away, leaving their community struggling to access nutritious food. 

    Opening another supermarket isn’t the answer. The U.S. government has spent the last decade investing millions to establish them in similar areas, with mixed results. Ryder thinks it would be better to expand federal assistance programs to make them more available to those in need, allowing more people to use those benefits at local farms like his own. 

    Expanding the reach of the nation’s small growers and producers could be a way to address growing food insecurity, he said, a problem augmented by inflation and supply chains strained by climate change. “It’s a great opportunity, not only to help the bottom-line of local farmers, instead of some of these giant commodity food corporations … but to [help people] buy healthy, wholesome foods,” said Ryder.

    That is just one of the solutions that could be codified into the 2024 farm bill, but it isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. The deadline to finalize the omnibus bill arrives Monday, and with lawmakers deadlocked along partisan lines, it appears likely that they will simply extend the current law for at least another year. 

    Congress has been here before. Although the farm bill is supposed to be renewed every five years, legislators passed a one-year extension of the 2018 policy last November after struggling to agree on key nutrition and conservation facets of the $1.5 trillion-dollar spending package. 

    Extensions and delays have grave implications, because the farm bill governs many aspects of America’s food and agricultural systems. It covers everything from food assistance programs and crop subsidies to international food aid and even conservation measures. Some of them, like crop insurance, are permanently funded, meaning any hiccups in the reauthorization timeline do not impact them. But others, such as beginning farmer and rancher development grants and local food promotion programs, are entirely dependent upon the appropriations within the law. Without a new appropriation or an extension of the existing one, some would shut down until the bill is reauthorized. If Congress fails to act before Jan. 1, several  programs would even revert to 1940s-era policies with considerable impacts on consumer prices for commodities like milk.

    After nearly a century of bipartisanship, negotiations over recent farm bills have been punctuated by partisan stalemates. The main difference this time around is that a new piece is dominating the Hill’s political chessboard: The election. “It doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen before the election, which puts a lot of teeth-gnashing and hair-wringing into hand,” said Ryder. He is worried that a new administration and a new Congress could result in a farm bill that further disadvantages small farmers and producers. “It’s like a choose-your-own-adventure novel right now. Which way is this farm bill going to go?”

    A combine harvests wheat in an expansive hillside field in rural Washington.
    The Farm Bill covers everything from crop subsidies to food assistance programs and even conservation measures. Typically a bipartisan effort, it has of late been bogged down by politics.
    Rick Dalton for Design Pics Editorial / Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    The new president will bring their own agricultural policy agenda to the job, which could influence aspects of the bill. And, of course, whoever sits in the Oval Office can veto whatever emerges from Congress. (President Obama threatened to nix the bill House Republicans put forward in 2013 because it proposed up to $39 billion in cuts to food benefits.) Of even greater consequence is the potential for a dramatically different Congress. Of the 535 seats in the House and Senate, 468 are up for election. That will likely lead to renewed negotiations among a new slate of lawmakers, a process further complicated by the pending retirement of Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the Democratic chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Although representatives are ramping up pressure on Congressional leadership to enact a new farm bill before this Congress reaches the end of its term, there is a high chance all of this will result in added delays, if not require an entirely new bill to be written.

    That has profound implications for consumers already struggling with rising prices and farmers facing the compounding pressures of consolidation, not to mention efforts to remake U.S. food systems to mitigate, and adapt to, a warming world, said Rebecca Wolf, a senior food policy analyst with Food & Water Watch. (The nonprofit advocates for policies that ensure access to safe food, clean water, and a livable climate.) “The farm bill has a really big impact on changing the kind of food and farm system that we’re building,” said Wolf. 

    Still, Monday’s looming deadline is somewhat arbitrary — lawmakers have until the end of the calendar year to pass a bill, because most key programs have already been extended through the appropriations cycle. But DeShawn Blanding, who analyzes food and environment policy for the science nonprofit the Union of Concerned Scientists, finds the likelihood of that happening low. He expects to see negotiations stretch into next year, and perhaps into 2026. “Congress is much more divided now,” he said. 

    The House Agriculture committee passed a draft bill in May, but the proposal has not reached the floor for a vote because of negotiating hang-ups. Meanwhile, the Senate Agriculture committee has yet to introduce a bill, although the chamber’s Democrats and Republicans have introduced frameworks that reflect their agendas. Given the forthcoming election and higher legislative priorities, like funding the government before December 20, the last legislative day on the congressional calendar, “it’s a likelihood that this could be one of the longest farm bills that we’ve had,” Blanding said.

    As is often the case, food assistance funding is among the biggest points of contention. SNAP and the Thrifty Food Plan, which determines how much a household receives through SNAP, have remained two of the biggest sticking points, with Democrats and Republicans largely divided over how the program is structured and funded. The Republican-controlled House Agriculture committee’s draft bill proposed the equivalent of nearly $30 billion in cuts to SNAP by limiting the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s ability to adjust the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, used to set SNAP benefits. The provision, supported by Republicans, met staunch opposition from Democrats who have criticized the plan for limiting benefits during an escalating food insecurity crisis

    The farm bill “was supposed to be designed to help address food insecurity and the food system at large and should boost and expand programs like SNAP that help do that,” said Blanding, which becomes all the more vital as climate change continues to dwindle food access for many Americans. Without a new farm bill, “we’re stuck with what [food insecurity] looked like in 2018, which is not what it looks like today in 2024.” 

    Nutrition programs governed by the current law were designed to address pre-pandemic levels of hunger in a world that had not yet crossed key climate thresholds. As the crisis of planetary warming deepens, fueling crises that tend to deepen existing barriers to food access in areas affected, food programs authorized in the farm bill are “an extraordinarily important part of disaster response,” said Vince Hall, chief government relations officer at the nonprofit Feeding America. “The number of disasters that Feeding America food banks are asked to respond to each year is only increasing with extreme weather fueled by climate change.” 

    That strain is making it more critical than ever that Congress increase funding for programs like the Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP. Its Farm to Food Bank Project Grants, established under the 2018 law, underwrites projects that enable the nation’s food banks to have a supply of fresh food produced by local farmers and growers. It must be written into the new bill or risk being phased out. 

    David Toledo, an urban farmer in Chicago, used to work with a local food pantry and community garden that supplies fresh produce to neighborhoods that need it. To Toledo, the farm bill is a gateway to solutions to the impacts of climate change on the accessibility of food in the U.S. He wants to see lawmakers put aside politics and pass a bill for the good of the people they serve.

    “With the farm bill, what is at stake is a healthy nation, healthy communities, engagements from farmers and rising farmers. And I mean, God forbid, but the potential of seeing a lot more hunger,” Toledo said. “It needs to pass. It needs to pass with bipartisan support. There’s so much at the table right now.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The election could shape the future of America’s food system on Sep 27, 2024.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Ayurella Horn-Muller.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Despite his convictions for corruption and human rights abuses, many see the president who has died at 86 as the country’s greatest leader

    At 11.45 on Thursday morning, six white-gloved pallbearers carried a coffin holding the body of the most divisive, beloved and reviled Peruvian politician of the last four decades. They passed the mourners, the cameras and the flag-topped lances of the Húsares de Junín cavalry regiment, and set it down in the hall of Lima’s brutalist culture ministry.

    Behind the coffin, holding hands and dressed in black under a pale but warm spring sky, came its occupant’s eldest daughter and youngest son. A crowd of ministers, political allies and military top brass awaited them at the ministry.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.