Category: Democracy


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg3 smithsonian

    President Trump said Tuesday the Smithsonian Institution was too narrowly focused on negative aspects of U.S. history, including “how bad slavery was.” Trump’s social media post minimizing the horrors of chattel slavery came after the White House ordered a far-reaching review of Smithsonian museum exhibitions in order to ensure they align with Trump’s interpretation of U.S. history.

    In early 2020, Democracy Now! spoke with the newly appointed secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Lonnie G. Bunch III, in Washington, D.C. Bunch was previously the founding director of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. He shares stories of the work of building the museum and its collections, and the time when President Trump made a visit during his first term. “The museum has become a pilgrimage site, a site of resistance, a site of remembering what America could be and a site to engage new generations,” said Bunch.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg2 e1 2

    Israel gave final approval Wednesday for a controversial settlement project in the occupied West Bank, sabotaging efforts at creating a future Palestinian state. The project has been on hold for over 20 years, largely due to pressure from previous U.S. administrations. The “E-1” settlement would see the construction of about 3,400 new housing units and would sever one of the last remaining territorial links between major Palestinian cities like Ramallah in the northern West Bank and southern cities including Bethlehem, as well as cut off East Jerusalem. “The West Bank is nearly 6,000 kilometers squared in size, and it has been the prize for Israel,” says Mariam Barghouti, Palestinian writer and journalist based in Ramallah. Barghouti says Israeli officials have blatantly expressed their intent to bury the prospect of a Palestinian state. “Israel is not engaging in just a war on Gaza,” she says. “It is engaging in a war of annihilation of Palestinians.”


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg1 gaza4

    Israel’s military says it has established a foothold on the outskirts of Gaza City and is calling up an additional 60,000 reservists ahead of a full-scale invasion of Gaza’s largest urban area. This follows days of escalating airstrikes and artillery fire that have killed scores of Palestinians in one of the world’s most densely populated regions.

    Dr. Mimi Syed is an emergency medicine physician who’s been on two medical missions in Gaza working in hospitals that were under Israeli siege and was just denied reentry into Gaza, mere hours before she was scheduled to travel there for a third medical mission. Syed was planning to bring in a small amount of aid to the besieged enclave. “As a doctor, I shouldn’t have to smuggle in baby formula,” she says. “I shouldn’t have to smuggle in protein.”

    Syed also received harrowing voice memos from a Palestinian medical student in Gaza with whom she had become friends. The medical student lives in Gaza City and received evacuation orders as Israeli forces prepare to invade. “I no longer have any hope,” said the student in a recorded message.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Democracy Now! Thursday, August 21, 2025


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Democracy Now! Thursday, August 21, 2025


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Thursday Democracy Now! show for rebroadcast – HD


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4 and was authored by Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Thursday Democracy Now! show for rebroadcast – HD


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4 and was authored by Democracy Now! for Broadcasters – HD MP4.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    “Speak Up Kōrerotia” — a radio show centred on human rights issues — has featured a nuclear-free Pacific and other issues in this week’s show.

    Encouraging discussion on human rights issues in both Canterbury and New Zealand, Speak Up Kōrerotia offers a forum to provide a voice for affected communities.

    Engaging in conversations around human rights issues in the country, each show covers a different human rights issue with guests from or working with the communities.

    Analysing and asking questions of the realities of life allows Speak Up Kōrerotia to cover the issues that often go untouched.

    Discussing the hard-hitting topics, Speak Up Kōrerotia encourages listeners to reflect on the issues covered.

    Hosted by Dr Sally Carlton, the show brings key issues to the fore and provides space for guests to “Speak Up” and share their thoughts and experiences.

    The latest episode today highlights the July/August 2025 marking of two major anniversaries — 80 years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, and 40 years since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior here in Aotearoa.

    What do these anniversaries mean in the context of 2025, with the ever-greater escalation of global tension and a new nuclear arms race occurring alongside the seeming impotence of the UN and other international bodies?


    Anti-nuclear advocacy in 2025           Video/audio podcast: Speak Up Kōrerotia

    Speak Up Kōrerotia
    Speak Up Kōrerotia . . . human rights at Plains FM Image: Screenshot

    Guests: Disarmament advocate Dr Kate Dewes, journalist and author Dr David Robie, critical nuclear studies academic Dr Karly Burch and Japanese gender literature professor Dr Susan Bouterey bring passion, a wealth of knowledge and decades of anti-nuclear advocacy to this discussion.

    Dr Robie’s new book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior was launched on the anniversary of the ship’s bombing. This revised edition has extensive new and updated material, images, and a prologue by former NZ prime minister Helen Clark.

    The Speak Up Kōrerotia panel in today's show, "Anti-Nuclear Advocacy in 2025"
    The Speak Up Kōrerotia panel in today’s show, “Anti-Nuclear Advocacy in 2025”, Dr Kate Dewes (from left), Sally Carlton, Dr David Robie, Dr Karly Burch and Susan Bouterey. Image: Screenshot

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • 2024, as an election year in the United States, was a year of special concern that featured aggravating political strife and social division. Such a landscape offers an opportunity to review the state of human rights in the country in an intensive manner.

    Money controls U.S. politics, with partisan interests above voter rights. The total spending for the 2024 U.S. election cycle exceeded 15.9 billion U.S. dollars, once again setting a new record for the high cost of American political campaigns. Interest groups, operating in the “gray areas” beyond the effective reach of current U.S. campaign laws, used money to wantonly manipulate the fundamental logic and actual functioning of U.S. politics.

    The post The Report On Human Rights Violations In The United States In 2024 appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    The advocacy and protest group Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has condemned New Zealand’s “deliberate distraction” over sanctions against Israel and has vowed more protests against Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ “failed policy” on Gaza.

    After the huge turnout of thousands in Palestine solidarity rallies across more than 20 locations in New Zealand last weekend, PSNA has announced it is joining an International Day of Action on September 6.

    Rallies next weekend will have a focus on Israel’s targeted killing of journalists in Gaza.

    PSNA co-chair John Minto said in a statement there was “an incredible show of marches and rallies throughout Aotearoa New Zealand for sanctions against Israel during the past weekend.”.

    “But with [Foreign Minister] Peters obstinately running the Foreign Ministry, the government will ignore all expressions of public support for Palestinian rights.

    “We’ll be back with even more people on the streets on the 6th.”

    “An opinion poll released by PSNA last week showed that of people who gave an opinion, 60 percent supported sanctions against Israel.”

    Shocking images
    Minto said that number would have risen significantly in the past few weeks as people were seeing the shocking images of Israel’s widespread use of starvation as a weapon of war, especially against the children of Gaza.

    “Around the world, governments are starting to respond to their people demanding sanctions on Israel to end the genocide.

    A family rugged up against the rain and cold expressing their disappointment with New Zealand's "weak" policy over the Gaza genocide
    A family rugged up against the rain and cold expressing their disappointment with New Zealand’s “weak” policy over the Gaza genocide last weekend. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    “Yet, Winston Peters is most reluctant to even criticise Israel, let alone take any action.”

    Minto said actions were vital otherwise Israel took no notice.

    “We’ve seen Israel’s arrogant impunity in increasingly violent action and showing off its military capacity and intentions,” he said.

    “Not a peep from our ministers over anything.

    “Just on the Occupied West Bank, there are settlers freely shooting and lynching Palestinians.

    New illegal settlement plans
    “Israel’s Parliament has just voted to annex the West Bank, as plans are also announced for [an illegal] new settlement strategically designed to sever it irreparably into two parts.

    “In Gaza, Israeli troops are reinvading Gaza City to ethnically cleanse a million people to the south and Israeli aircraft are still terror bombing a famine-devastated community.”

    Minto said Netanyahu had started talking about a Greater Israel again.

    “That would mean an invasion of all of its neighbours and the extinction of at least Lebanon and Jordan, which in Israeli government eyes have no right to exist.”

    The New Zealand government thought that it was “responding appropriately” by going through a process of considering recognition of a Palestinian state.

    “That can only be seen as a deliberate distraction from a focus on sanctions,” Minto said.

    “Back in 1947, New Zealand voted in the UN for a Palestinian state in part of Palestine.

    “Recognition is token now, and it was token then, because the world stood aside and let Israel conquer all of Palestine, expel most of its people and impose an apartheid regime on those who managed to stay.”

    Minto said the global movement in support of Palestinian rights would not be distracted.

    Comprehensive sanctions were the only way to force an end to Israel’s genocide.

    Australia slams Israeli PM
    Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reports that Australia has hit back at Netanyahu after the Israeli leader branded the country’s prime minister “weak”, with an Australian minister accusing the Israeli leader of conflating strength with killing people.

    In an interview with Australia’s national broadcaster ABC, Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke said that strength was not measured “by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry”.

    Burke’s comments came after Netanyahu on Tuesday launched a blistering attack on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on social media, claiming he would be remembered by history as a “weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia’s Jews”.

    Speaking on the ABC’s Radio National Breakfast programme, Burke characterised Netanyahu’s broadside as part of Israel’s “lashing out” at countries that have moved to recognise a Palestinian state.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

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

    Officials in a large North Texas county decided this week to cut more than 100 Election Day polling sites and reduce the number of early voting locations, amid growing concern about GOP efforts to limit voting access ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

    The 3-2 vote on Tuesday by commissioners in Tarrant County, which includes Fort Worth, came one day after President Donald Trump vowed to end the use of mail-in ballots. The president lacks the unilateral power to decide how individual states run elections, but his declaration speaks to long-brewing and unfounded claims by some conservatives that the country’s electoral system is insecure and vulnerable to widespread fraud. Trump has repeatedly and falsely asserted that he won the 2020 presidential election instead of Joe Biden.

    Tarrant County Judge Tim O’Hare, who heads up the commissioners court, has also raised numerous questions about the security of local elections, helping to launch an electoral integrity unit in the county after he became judge in 2022. As of last summer, however, the unit had received fewer than 100 allegations of voter fraud. He and fellow Republican commissioners also cut funding to provide free bus rides to the polls for low-income residents. “I don’t believe it’s the county government’s responsibility to try to get more people out to the polls,” O’Hare said at the time. And commissioners prohibited outside organizations from registering voters inside county buildings after Tarrant County GOP leaders raised concerns about what they said were left-leaning groups holding registration drives. (ProPublica and The Texas Tribune have previously written about O’Hare’s political influence in North Texas.)

    On Tuesday, O’Hare voted with the two Republican commissioners on the court to reduce the number of polling sites in the county to 216, down from 331 in 2023. The decision also cut down the number of early voting sites.

    County officials said the move was to save money, as they historically see low voter turnout in nonpresidential elections.

    Throughout the meeting, O’Hare repeatedly emphasized that the cuts were intended to make the election more efficient. He argued that both the switch to county-wide voting in 2019, which allows voters to cast a ballot at any polling site in the county, and the expected low turnout made the cuts appropriate.

    “I would venture to guess 99% of the public cannot name a single thing on (the 2025 ballot),” he said during the meeting.

    Fewer voting sites means fewer voters, Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, told the Report.

    “If you move a polling place farther away from someone’s house, then they’re less likely to vote because you’ve increased the cost of voting,” said Rottinghaus, who has studied poll placement and its impact on turnout. “The cost can be your time. It can be your gas.”

    The county’s move falls in line with a national trend that generally sees Republican-led states and localities “restrain and restrict” how voting operates — often in the name of discouraging illegal voting or, in Tarrant County’s recent case, cutting costs, Rottinghaus said. This could look like reducing voting locations or shortening early voting hours, he said.

    Texas has led multiple efforts to make going to the polls more difficult, he said, such as making mail-in ballots harder to obtain and requiring photo IDs when casting a ballot.

    No single law dramatically impacts voter turnout, Rottinghaus said, rather, it’s the collective of ever-changing policies that can discourage people from voting.

    “The more you move around how voting occurs, like the hours and the locations, the harder it is for voters to understand exactly what they’re supposed to do and when,” he said. “A confused voter is usually a nonvoter.”

    This is not the first time Tarrant County has been at the forefront of changing political headwinds. Earlier this summer, the commissioners, led by O’Hare, voted along party lines to redraw the county precincts; such changes usually happen after the decennial census rather than in the middle of the decade. O’Hare admitted the goal of the redrawn maps was to favor Republican candidates.

    “This is about Republican versus Democrat, period,” O’Hare told Dallas television station WFAA ahead of the commissioners’ June 3 vote. “If it passes with one of the maps that I would want to see pass, it’s a very strong likelihood that we will have three Republicans on the Commissioners Court.”

    In July, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott added redistricting to the agenda of a special legislative session — a step he was apparently reluctant to take until he received a call from Trump to discuss the issue, the Tribune reported. The proposal has sparked a national fight over the redrawing of congressional maps. On Wednesday, the GOP-led Texas House took an initial vote adopting a new map designed to increase the number of Republican seats in the U.S. Congress.

    Abbott has also fanned concerns about allegations of illegal voting, last year announcing the removal of more than 1 million ineligible voters from the state’s rolls, including more than 6,500 potential noncitizens. An investigation by ProPublica, the Tribune and Votebeat, however, found that the number of alleged noncitizens the governor cited was likely inflated and, in some cases, wrong.

    Concerns About the Cuts

    More than three dozen speakers at Tuesday’s meeting denounced the move to cut polling sites and early voting locations, with some raising concerns that it amounted to the suppression of Black, Hispanic and college-age voters. Several speakers called the cuts a more extreme version of O’Hare’s failed effort to remove eight early voting locations at colleges last year. Only one person spoke in favor of the reductions.

    Sabrina Ball, who opposed reducing the polling sites, said she has worked as an election judge in Republican Commissioner Manny Ramirez’s district in northwest Tarrant County. She said she’s seen firsthand people working hard to find the time to get to a polling location and vote.

    “You’re not saving money. You’re sacrificing democracy to save a buck,” she said.

    The two Democratic commissioners, Roderick Miles Jr. and Alisa Simmons, voted against the changes after unsuccessfully trying to delay the decision.

    “Everybody deserves the right to have a place that they are comfortable with and familiar with to go and to cast their vote,” said Miles, who represents predominantly Black neighborhoods that saw a reduction in voting locations. He later added, “To dismantle or take those rights away from us that we worked hard to get is unacceptable at any level.”

    Simmons said it was inappropriate to reduce voting locations as Tarrant County’s population grows. She pointed out that the Republican members of the Commissioners Court used that growth as a reason to redistrict the county’s precincts midcycle this year — a change that would significantly increase the chances of a GOP candidate defeating her in 2026.

    A Texas law passed in May reduces the county’s minimum Election Day voting locations to 212 — rolling back a 2023 requirement of 347.

    Tarrant County Commissioners Alisa Simmons, a Democrat, first image, and Manny Ramirez, a Republican, second image. The move to reduce polling places passed by a 3-2 vote. (Drew Shaw/Fort Worth Report)

    Tarrant County Election Administrator Clinton Ludwig said the sites meet the state’s new “bare minimum,” with “a little bit of wiggle room” in case certain planned locations fall through. He told commissioners that the initially proposed cuts aimed to save about $1 million.

    He said he based the reductions on voter turnout in 2023, which saw about 12.5% registered voters cast ballots, he said. Locations’ accessibility and ability to securely store voting information were also considered, Ludwig said.

    He said that no commissioner had any influence on the list and that no partisan analysis was taken into account.

    Ludwig and O’Hare’s office did not immediately respond to requests to comment following the vote. O’Hare has also not responded to ProPublica and the Tribune’s previous reporting about him, declining multiple interview requests and refusing to answer questions, though a spokesperson sent the newsrooms a list of eight of his major accomplishments, including cutting county spending and lowering local property tax rates.

    Rottinghaus said some counties “yo-yo” year to year in the number of polling places they have. Elections such as November’s typically have fewer locations than presidential and midterm ones, he said. Still, Tarrant County’s reduction seems “aggressive,” he said.

    Once the number of polling places goes down, it usually stays down, Rottinghaus said.

    “You’re going to generally see that same number continue for at least the near term,” he said.

    Though he ultimately voted to reduce polling locations, Ramirez pushed back on the initial list of cuts to early voting sites, some of which he said were established and popular with voters. Ramirez said the county must balance access and efficiency. Commissioners then added back nine early voting locations. O’Hare was the lone vote against that move, saying some of those sites had historically low turnout.

    “The formula for where you put these voting sites has to be scientific,” Ramirez told the Report ahead of the vote. “It should be population-based and proximity to additional site-based.”

    Several Fort Worth City Council members urged their constituents to speak against the effort in the lead-up to the vote.

    Council member Carlos Flores, who represents parts of northwest Fort Worth, issued a statement against the vote, saying fewer sites negatively impact diverse communities. In a statement to the Report, he added that limited polling locations and inconvenient voting procedures contribute to low turnout.

    Mia Hall, who represents southwest Fort Worth, sent a news release to her district on Monday, decrying the proposed cuts in parts of her district that are predominantly Black or Hispanic.

    “These communities have long fought for equitable access to the ballot box, and removing their polling locations is simply unacceptable,” Hall wrote. “While I understand the pressures of state regulations and budgetary constraints, disenfranchising entire communities is not an acceptable response.”

    Drew Shaw is a government accountability reporter for the Fort Worth Report. Contact him at drew.shaw@fortworthreport.org.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease nearly all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order prohibited local public radio and television stations, and any other recipient of CPB funds, from using federal grants to purchase programming from these public media organizations and mandated a review of existing grants for compliance with the administration’s ideological priorities. The Trump administration’s attempt to cut public media funding is part of their “rescission” strategy—a process to roll back previously appropriated budgets.

    The House gave final approval on July 18, 2025, to the Trump administration’s plan to rescind approximately $9 billion in previously allocated funds. This measure included a $1.1 billion cut to the CPB, effectively eliminating all federal support for NPR, PBS, and their member stations. Following this, the CPB announced on August 1, 2025, that it would begin an orderly shutdown of its operations after the Senate-Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill excluded its funding for the first time in nearly sixty years. These actions are part of a broader initiative spearheaded by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to streamline the federal government, eliminate programs deemed unnecessary by the administration, and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency.

    While the administration claims its efforts are motivated by fiscal responsibility and safeguarding taxpayer dollars, critics argue that these moves are politically motivated attempts to silence dissent and reshape the media landscape to favor partisan narratives. Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, told Project Censored, “The administration frames the cuts as ‘efficiency cuts,’ but that is not necessarily the case. They frame it that way because they decided that’s a more palatable way to sell it to the American people. But at the end of the day, public media broadcasting costs the American taxpayer, on average, $1.60 per year, and the level of value that Americans get out of that $1.60 per year is tremendous.”

    The CPB, established in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation, was specifically designed to insulate public broadcasting from political interference, with its charter expressly forbidding government control over broadcasting content while ensuring that over 70 percent of federal appropriations flow directly to more than 1,500 local affiliate stations rather than centralized bureaucracies.

    “It’s really important that people understand how public media is funded in this country,” Weimers shared with Project Censored. Local affiliates have the freedom to purchase programming from NPR and PBS that caters to their audiences’ preferences. He explained how Trump’s executive order essentially bans affiliate stations from buying this programming, thereby infringing on their First Amendment rights. Weimers emphasized that “it is up to the individual local independent stations what they want to show their audience on air, and they should make that decision based on what their audiences want to see and what their audience wants to hear, not based on what politicians in Washington think they ought to hear.” He challenged the Trump administration’s claim that public media is a biased tool of his political opponents, “Some of the editorial coverage might lean left and the audience might lean left, but it’s a complete mischaracterization. Public media in this country has over a thousand different broadcast, television, and radio stations. It’s not just any one thing. There isn’t one political line across all of public media.”

    Other voices in the media industry echo Weimers’s statements regarding the motivations behind the Trump administration’s CPB rescissions. Victor Pickard, Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, explained to Project Censored that public media was created to address gaps in commercial broadcasting and to ensure that all audiences, especially low-income communities and communities of color, would have access to high-quality, trusted content. Pickard warned that defunding public media will force communities to “learn that lesson once again” about the limitations of commercial broadcasting, which “will never provide all of the information and communication needs of a democratic society.”

    Lisa Graves, founder and Executive Director of True North Research, told Project Censored that the Trump administration’s cuts to the CPB are a systematic effort to undermine independent journalism, not address legitimate concerns about bias or fiscal policy. Graves explained that the targeting of NPR and PBS stems from coordinated and widespread disinformation and propaganda being perpetuated by the Trump administration. “These entities are important public investments that help bring national, international, as well as local news into our communities,” Graves told Project Censored. “The administration claims that there is political bias or partisan bias at these outlets, when in fact they are just covering the news. … The attack on public broadcasting is an attack on facts, truth, and journalistic independence. It has to be seen as such.”

    This strategy poses an Achilles’ heel: While the rhetoric employed by the Trump administration targets elite, national outlets, the most damaging impact will fall on the hyperlocal media infrastructure already struggling to survive. Many small-town, rural, and tribal affiliates rely on CPB funding and syndicated content from NPR and PBS to fill gaps in local coverage, provide educational programming, and serve communities with little to no other media access, otherwise known as news deserts. Eliminating this support could crater regional journalism ecosystems—leading to programming losses, station closures, and widespread layoffs that ripple down the media supply chain. In many conservative and underserved communities, where public broadcasting often remains the only consistent source of local and noncommercial news, the cuts could unintentionally harm the very constituencies that the defunding narrative claims to serve.

    Noting that public media receive only paltry funding from federal sources, Pickard called the defunding of the CPB a “tragic irony,” because it will “hurt individual stations, especially in rural and conservative areas in states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Texas.” He explained to Project Censored that some stations depend on CPB funding for 25–50 percent of their budgets and “will likely go under if federal subsidies are entirely cut, leaving news deserts in their wake.”

    The Trump administration frames these funding cuts as fiscal responsibility, but smaller local news outlets view them as politically motivated attacks and part of a campaign to delegitimize public media and the services they provide. NPR and three Colorado public radio stations filed a lawsuit alleging that the May executive order is “textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment. PBS, along with Lakeland PBS in rural Minnesota, also filed a similar lawsuit, disputing claims of bias and asserting that the Constitution forbids the President from arbitrating content. These lawsuits suggest Trump has far exceeded the expansive powers of the presidency, usurping congressional prerogatives and eroding free speech rights.

    Seth Stern, Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Project Censored that the Trump administration has adopted what he calls a “throw-it-at-the-wall approach,” where they challenge the Constitution despite knowing most cases will fail on constitutional grounds. However, Stern explained that the strategy behind this approach is to find any legal opening the administration can exploit. “They are looking for the case they win, looking for the one instance where the courts give them an opening, and once they have that opening, they are going to barge through it.”

    The Trump administration has adopted a multifaceted strategy to politicize public media by portraying these institutions as adversaries rather than recognizing them as informational resources or allies. Through rhetorical attacks, the administration frames public media and their content as ideologically biased, financially irresponsible, and increasingly unnecessary. This approach is implemented through executive orders and policies that employ loaded language such as “woke propaganda,” citing questionable fiscal justifications like “cost efficiency,” downplaying societal value, and implementing disruptive measures that create instability for essential broadcasting programs, ultimately exploiting public media rather than leveraging its potential for effective public communication.

    Experts like Reporters Without Borders’ Weimers contend that the Trump administration has “shown a very strong disposition towards using whatever levers of power they have to punish those who oppose their agenda in any way.” Weimers emphasized to Project Censored that this targeting can affect public media outlets simply for “accurately reporting on what they’re doing.” The implications of these executive actions extend far beyond public media, he cautioned. “There is no reason that that would not also impact nonprofit media that publish content that the Trump administration does not like, even for-profit media.”

    Weimers warned of a troubling escalation, characterizing the Trump administration’s campaign against public media as “a slippery slope.” Once the government gains control over public media and broadcast licensees, he argued, “they are one step closer to getting their hands on the rest of the media as well.”

    Pickard told Project Censored that while the federal funding cuts will have a “chilling effect” on an already compromised media system, they also open the possibility of “building something entirely new out of the wreckage.” That wreckage is not merely financial—it is the collapse of a decades-old compact between government, media, and the public.

    But from that imminent destruction comes a rare opportunity to reimagine public media not as a government-funded institution vulnerable to political whims, but as a truly community-owned resource, insulated from both partisan interference and commercial pressures. Rebuilding cannot depend on Washington reversing course or a future administration restoring support. Instead, citizens must take action: establishing community-supported journalism cooperatives, developing hyperlocal news networks sustained by their audiences, and building media infrastructures accountable to neighbors rather than distant politicians or corporate shareholders. The Trump administration may have dismantled decades of public media investment, but it cannot destroy the fundamental human need for trustworthy, bipartisan information and community connection.

    Originally published on https://www.projectcensored.org/trump-admin-hijacked-public-broadcasting/

    The post Pulling the Levers of Power: How the Trump Administration Hijacked Public Broadcasting first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On May 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to cease nearly all federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order prohibited local public radio and television stations, and any other recipient of CPB funds, from using federal grants to purchase programming from these public media organizations and mandated a review of existing grants for compliance with the administration’s ideological priorities. The Trump administration’s attempt to cut public media funding is part of their “rescission” strategy—a process to roll back previously appropriated budgets.

    The House gave final approval on July 18, 2025, to the Trump administration’s plan to rescind approximately $9 billion in previously allocated funds. This measure included a $1.1 billion cut to the CPB, effectively eliminating all federal support for NPR, PBS, and their member stations. Following this, the CPB announced on August 1, 2025, that it would begin an orderly shutdown of its operations after the Senate-Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill excluded its funding for the first time in nearly sixty years. These actions are part of a broader initiative spearheaded by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to streamline the federal government, eliminate programs deemed unnecessary by the administration, and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency.

    While the administration claims its efforts are motivated by fiscal responsibility and safeguarding taxpayer dollars, critics argue that these moves are politically motivated attempts to silence dissent and reshape the media landscape to favor partisan narratives. Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, told Project Censored, “The administration frames the cuts as ‘efficiency cuts,’ but that is not necessarily the case. They frame it that way because they decided that’s a more palatable way to sell it to the American people. But at the end of the day, public media broadcasting costs the American taxpayer, on average, $1.60 per year, and the level of value that Americans get out of that $1.60 per year is tremendous.”

    The CPB, established in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation, was specifically designed to insulate public broadcasting from political interference, with its charter expressly forbidding government control over broadcasting content while ensuring that over 70 percent of federal appropriations flow directly to more than 1,500 local affiliate stations rather than centralized bureaucracies.

    “It’s really important that people understand how public media is funded in this country,” Weimers shared with Project Censored. Local affiliates have the freedom to purchase programming from NPR and PBS that caters to their audiences’ preferences. He explained how Trump’s executive order essentially bans affiliate stations from buying this programming, thereby infringing on their First Amendment rights. Weimers emphasized that “it is up to the individual local independent stations what they want to show their audience on air, and they should make that decision based on what their audiences want to see and what their audience wants to hear, not based on what politicians in Washington think they ought to hear.” He challenged the Trump administration’s claim that public media is a biased tool of his political opponents, “Some of the editorial coverage might lean left and the audience might lean left, but it’s a complete mischaracterization. Public media in this country has over a thousand different broadcast, television, and radio stations. It’s not just any one thing. There isn’t one political line across all of public media.”

    Other voices in the media industry echo Weimers’s statements regarding the motivations behind the Trump administration’s CPB rescissions. Victor Pickard, Professor of Media Policy and Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, explained to Project Censored that public media was created to address gaps in commercial broadcasting and to ensure that all audiences, especially low-income communities and communities of color, would have access to high-quality, trusted content. Pickard warned that defunding public media will force communities to “learn that lesson once again” about the limitations of commercial broadcasting, which “will never provide all of the information and communication needs of a democratic society.”

    Lisa Graves, founder and Executive Director of True North Research, told Project Censored that the Trump administration’s cuts to the CPB are a systematic effort to undermine independent journalism, not address legitimate concerns about bias or fiscal policy. Graves explained that the targeting of NPR and PBS stems from coordinated and widespread disinformation and propaganda being perpetuated by the Trump administration. “These entities are important public investments that help bring national, international, as well as local news into our communities,” Graves told Project Censored. “The administration claims that there is political bias or partisan bias at these outlets, when in fact they are just covering the news. … The attack on public broadcasting is an attack on facts, truth, and journalistic independence. It has to be seen as such.”

    This strategy poses an Achilles’ heel: While the rhetoric employed by the Trump administration targets elite, national outlets, the most damaging impact will fall on the hyperlocal media infrastructure already struggling to survive. Many small-town, rural, and tribal affiliates rely on CPB funding and syndicated content from NPR and PBS to fill gaps in local coverage, provide educational programming, and serve communities with little to no other media access, otherwise known as news deserts. Eliminating this support could crater regional journalism ecosystems—leading to programming losses, station closures, and widespread layoffs that ripple down the media supply chain. In many conservative and underserved communities, where public broadcasting often remains the only consistent source of local and noncommercial news, the cuts could unintentionally harm the very constituencies that the defunding narrative claims to serve.

    Noting that public media receive only paltry funding from federal sources, Pickard called the defunding of the CPB a “tragic irony,” because it will “hurt individual stations, especially in rural and conservative areas in states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Texas.” He explained to Project Censored that some stations depend on CPB funding for 25–50 percent of their budgets and “will likely go under if federal subsidies are entirely cut, leaving news deserts in their wake.”

    The Trump administration frames these funding cuts as fiscal responsibility, but smaller local news outlets view them as politically motivated attacks and part of a campaign to delegitimize public media and the services they provide. NPR and three Colorado public radio stations filed a lawsuit alleging that the May executive order is “textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment. PBS, along with Lakeland PBS in rural Minnesota, also filed a similar lawsuit, disputing claims of bias and asserting that the Constitution forbids the President from arbitrating content. These lawsuits suggest Trump has far exceeded the expansive powers of the presidency, usurping congressional prerogatives and eroding free speech rights.

    Seth Stern, Director of Advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Project Censored that the Trump administration has adopted what he calls a “throw-it-at-the-wall approach,” where they challenge the Constitution despite knowing most cases will fail on constitutional grounds. However, Stern explained that the strategy behind this approach is to find any legal opening the administration can exploit. “They are looking for the case they win, looking for the one instance where the courts give them an opening, and once they have that opening, they are going to barge through it.”

    The Trump administration has adopted a multifaceted strategy to politicize public media by portraying these institutions as adversaries rather than recognizing them as informational resources or allies. Through rhetorical attacks, the administration frames public media and their content as ideologically biased, financially irresponsible, and increasingly unnecessary. This approach is implemented through executive orders and policies that employ loaded language such as “woke propaganda,” citing questionable fiscal justifications like “cost efficiency,” downplaying societal value, and implementing disruptive measures that create instability for essential broadcasting programs, ultimately exploiting public media rather than leveraging its potential for effective public communication.

    Experts like Reporters Without Borders’ Weimers contend that the Trump administration has “shown a very strong disposition towards using whatever levers of power they have to punish those who oppose their agenda in any way.” Weimers emphasized to Project Censored that this targeting can affect public media outlets simply for “accurately reporting on what they’re doing.” The implications of these executive actions extend far beyond public media, he cautioned. “There is no reason that that would not also impact nonprofit media that publish content that the Trump administration does not like, even for-profit media.”

    Weimers warned of a troubling escalation, characterizing the Trump administration’s campaign against public media as “a slippery slope.” Once the government gains control over public media and broadcast licensees, he argued, “they are one step closer to getting their hands on the rest of the media as well.”

    Pickard told Project Censored that while the federal funding cuts will have a “chilling effect” on an already compromised media system, they also open the possibility of “building something entirely new out of the wreckage.” That wreckage is not merely financial—it is the collapse of a decades-old compact between government, media, and the public.

    But from that imminent destruction comes a rare opportunity to reimagine public media not as a government-funded institution vulnerable to political whims, but as a truly community-owned resource, insulated from both partisan interference and commercial pressures. Rebuilding cannot depend on Washington reversing course or a future administration restoring support. Instead, citizens must take action: establishing community-supported journalism cooperatives, developing hyperlocal news networks sustained by their audiences, and building media infrastructures accountable to neighbors rather than distant politicians or corporate shareholders. The Trump administration may have dismantled decades of public media investment, but it cannot destroy the fundamental human need for trustworthy, bipartisan information and community connection.

    Originally published on https://www.projectcensored.org/trump-admin-hijacked-public-broadcasting/

    The post Pulling the Levers of Power: How the Trump Administration Hijacked Public Broadcasting first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed Mother Jones‘ Ari Berman about the erasure of the Voting Rights Act for the August 15, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

     

    Mother Jones: The Nation’s Landmark Voting Rights Law Just Turned 60. It May Not Survive Trump.

    Mother Jones (8/6/25)

    Janine Jackson: Goings on in Texas, where Republicans are pushing to redraw congressional districts so as to give their party five new House seats, and Democrats have left the state to deny them the quorum to do it, have a lot of us looking for our eighth-grade civics books. How is this legal, and if it is, how does it comport with what we’ve been told is democracy, the reason we had to stand up and put our hands on our hearts and recite a pledge—the medicine, we’re told, the US should invade other countries to force them to take? The defining element of that story is voting: Everyone gets a voice. That’s what makes us different, special and better. Is that ideal being subverted, or have we misunderstood it all along?

    Ari Berman is national voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones, and author of a number of books, including Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America and, most recently, Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People—and the Fight to Resist It, out now from Farrar, Straus and Giroux. He joins us now by phone; welcome back to CounterSpin, Ari Berman.

    Ari Berman: Hey Janine, thanks for having me back.

    JJ: We’re on the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, often understood as a, or the, keystone civil rights law. We’ve seen the chipping away, the undermining, but this is my big question: How did we get here, such that in August 2025, we are in fear of losing it altogether?

    NBC: Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting case

    NBC (8/1/25)

    AB: Yeah, well, it was a pretty somber 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, and there’s real questions about whether we’re going to be celebrating a 61st anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, let alone anniversaries after that, because the law has been repeatedly gutted by the Supreme Court through a series of decisions.

    They have ruled that states that have a long history of discrimination, like Texas, no longer have to approve their voting changes with the federal government. That really opened up a floodgate to new voter suppression, new gerrymandering.

    Then they’ve chipped away at the law in other respects. For example, they’ve made it much harder to strike down discriminatory voting laws. They’ve made it so that you can’t challenge partisan gerrymandering, no matter how blatant it is.

    And now they are preparing to possibly strike down the ability to counteract racial gerrymandering as well, and that has given a green light to states like Texas to engage in voter suppression, to engage in new kinds of gerrymandering, and to not really feel like there’s going to be accountability from the courts or from the federal government, like there has in the past.

    JJ: I would like to anchor us in the fact that the voting rights fight is not some sort of general, ephemeral thing: “Voting is good.” It’s really about Black people, and white supremacists’ unending attempts to keep Black people from being treated as people, including in our right to a political voice, right? That’s at the core of it.

    Mother Jones: Trump’s Texas Gerrymander Is Supercharging a New War on Democracy

    Mother Jones (7/30/25)

    AB: I mean, that’s certainly what it was about at the beginning. It was about the effort to end Jim Crow in the segregated South. It was about the effort to restore voting rights to people that have been disenfranchised for so many years. And in the decades since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, it’s enfranchised millions of people—not just Black Americans, but other minority groups, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans.

    They’ve all been protected, and the voting rights of millions of people have been expanded because of the Voting Rights Act. And that’s really what’s under threat now, is that states feel free to do the kind of discriminatory actions that they might have not have gotten away with in the past.

    For example, Texas has violated the Voting Rights Act in every single redistricting cycle. Its current redistricting maps, the ones that predated Donald Trump’s push for five seats, those are already being challenged as discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act by Black and Hispanic plaintiffs.

    And now they’re trying to pick up five more seats, largely by going after districts represented by Black or Latino Democrats, or places where Black and Latino voters have influence. And so it’s really a full-on attack on the Voting Rights Act. And they’re betting, and perhaps not incorrectly, that a very extreme Supreme Court is going to let them get away with it if they succeed.

    JJ: Just to lay it out briefly, what we’re talking about, and I think folks may think they know it, but maybe they don’t. It’s often presented as “voters are supposed to elect officials, and this is officials trying to choose their voters.” When we talk about redistricting, how do you explain that to someone who maybe doesn’t understand it?

    AB: Yeah, the idea is that voters elect representatives to represent them, but the way that redistricting works, often, when redistricting becomes gerrymandering, what’s happened is districts are represented to boost one party or one interest at the expense of another, and elections are pretty much predetermined.

    And I think what’s happening in Texas is even worse, because, even if there is gerrymandering, it usually happens once a decade, after the census comes out. Now they’re trying to re-gerrymander the state, because Texas is already gerrymandered.

    And they’re not just doing it to prevent Texans from holding their representatives accountable. They’re trying to do it to prevent voters from holding Donald Trump accountable, which is the whole reason he’s pushing for this redistricting.

    He doesn’t care about taking up five new Republican seats in Texas. The only reason why he wants to pick up five Republican seats is so that Democrats don’t take back the House and hold his administration accountable.

    So this is why it has national significance, because what’s happening in Texas is going to affect the entire US House race, and that is something where every state’s redistricting process has an impact. But this kind of gerrymandering mid-decade is extremely unusual, and it’s even more unusual for the White House to be the one that’s precipitating it.

    JJ: So to put it boldly, I mean, you’ve indicated it, but what happens? What can we imagine happening if the Voting Rights Act is essentially eviscerated? What will it change? How will things be different?

    Mother Jones' Ari Berman

    Ari Berman: “It’s been the mission of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to roll back things like the Voting Rights Act for 30 or 40 years.”

    AB: I think it’s going to be a lot easier for states to discriminate against voters of color, to pass voting laws and redistricting maps that roll back protections for all voters. And so you’re going to see states enact new restrictions on voting. You’re going to see them enact more egregious gerrymanders.

    They could very well roll back districts that are represented by Blacks or Latinos, that have been protected for 50 or 60 years. And it’s going to be reminiscent of things that were done in the pre–Voting Rights Act era, when you had widespread disenfranchisement in the Jim Crow South. I don’t think we’re going to go back to those days, but we’re going to go back to days when the federal courts, the federal government, they really didn’t have any checks on what states could or couldn’t do. And that’s why you had poll taxes and literacy tests and grandfather clauses and all-white primaries and all of those things.

    And I think it’s been the mission of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to roll back things like the Voting Rights Act for 30 or 40 years. John Roberts, for example, the chief justice, has been trying to weaken the Voting Rights Act since he was a young lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department.

    So this is not a new fight for them, and they’ve been aggressive in doing this, in a series of phases. Every time they strike down one part of the Voting Rights Act, they say, “Oh, well, this other part’s left,” and then they go after that part. “Well, this part’s left,” and now it’s becoming a situation where there’s almost nothing left, and the almost nothing is on the verge of becoming nothing. And I think it’s going to be a very sad day for American democracy, if and when that happens.

    JJ: Well, yeah, because as you point out, it’s been John Roberts’ mission over years. And it’s always been, and this is part of a bigger picture of the public opinion argument, it’s always been, “Well, we have bans on racial discrimination. We have laws against that. We’re not touching them. We’re just greenlighting the discrimination that happens every day in every way by saying any measure you might introduce to fight that is prohibited.” And it’s part of this unspoken, or sometimes spoken, notion that fighting racism against people of color is somehow anti-white; it’s somehow discriminatory against white people to have equity.

    Brennan Center: Black Louisianians Fight in Court to Preserve Fair Voting Map

    Brennan Center (4/5/24)

    AB: Exactly, and that’s what happened in the Louisiana redistricting case, which is the one where they could further gut the Voting Rights Act, and perhaps kill it once and for all, where they were going to decide this question of whether Louisiana should have drawn a second majority Black district. That seemed relatively uncontroversial, because the Supreme Court said Alabama should do that. So then Louisiana followed, and then a group of “non-African-American plaintiffs” challenged the map, and basically said it was discriminatory against white people, even though white people controlled every single district in Louisiana except for one.

    And really what it is, it’s an effort to redefine the entire battle after the Civil War, and the entire battle of Reconstruction, which was meant to give rights to formerly enslaved people that had been denied for so many years. And now they’re arguing that violates the 14th and 15th amendments, that drawing districts that allow formerly enslaved people to elect the candidates of their choice violates the 14th and 50th amendments. It’s a totally ahistorical argument, but they have done this in a lot of different areas. Now they’re doing the Voting Rights Act.

    And so it’s really an attempt, not just to take us back to the pre-Voting Rights era, but in many ways, it’s an attempt to rewrite Reconstruction, to take us back to the pre-Reconstruction era itself.

    This is part of a larger project here, that has gone on in a lot of different ways, but the Voting Rights Act has remained a consistent target, because the Voting Rights Act has prevented states that want to discriminate, like Texas, that have tried to discriminate over a 60-year period. It has been very effective until recently at preventing them from doing so.

    JJ: I wish folks would see it or understand it as part of that larger picture. If you’re used to superiority, then equity is a downgrade, right? And that’s a larger conversation that we have to have societally.

    But on voting rights, I feel like everyone, including media, but everyone should understand that this is tied to every issue you care about. If you don’t want the US to fund genocide in Gaza, for example, well, you should be able to vote in politicians that reflect that view, particularly when it is a widely shared view. I do understand the exhaustion with electoral politics, but I think that’s because it doesn’t deliver, and I worry that some folks have abandoned the field.

    AB: For sure, and I think this kind of thing, politicians predetermining election outcomes, is the very kind of thing that breeds more distrust in the political process, and distrust in institutions, and then they disconnect from the political process of institutions altogether.

    I would totally understand why people say, “Hey, why should we vote if elections are predetermined. What’s the point?” I hope that people don’t take that away, but I certainly think that may be part of why they’re doing this.

    As you said, this is part of the bigger fight, but what I worry about is that the fight over redistricting in Texas is thought of as, “Oh, this is just politics,” right? And then if Democrats respond, they’ll say, “Oh, the Democrats are just doing it too. This is just a political fight between Texas and California,” without acknowledging, first off, the Republicans started this fight, and they’ve been much more aggressive about gerrymandering than the Democrats.

    But even leave that aside, this is about a bigger project to repeal 60 years of the Voting Rights Act, and an even bigger project than that, to repeal, essentially, what happened during Reconstruction, and the fact that equality was written into the Constitution. This is much bigger than just a political skirmish. And so I think that it’s important to have that context, because that context is often what’s missing when this conversation happens. And to understand this is part of a larger authoritarian playbook that is being used by the president, to essentially turn representative democracy into something that only benefits him or his party, and to weaponize every aspect of the federal government, and now, by extension, every aspect of state government, to try to protect Trump, or to try to protect the interests that protect Trump.

    Guardian: Democrats are fighting fire with fire over redistricting – but will democracy burn?

    Guardian (8/15/25)

    JJ: Let’s talk about fightback. Legislatively, I see this John Lewis Voting Rights Act. What else is afoot? Because, obviously, this is not going unnoticed, but the question is, what tools do we have in hand? So what do you see, first of all maybe at the legislative level, but what do you see in terms of resistance?

    AB: The thing that worries me is that the resistance is basically Democrats saying, “Well, we’re going to gerrymander too.” And I totally understand why they’re doing it, because it’s unfair for one party to play by one set of rules and the other party to play by a different set of rules. But ultimately, a race to the bottom for gerrymandering, the people that are going to suffer are the voters themselves.

    And so I think what has to happen is what happened previously, which is Democrats tried to pass federal legislation that would ban this kind of partisan gerrymandering. They almost succeeded in doing so in 2021, 2022, with the Freedom to Vote Act. Everyone but three Democrats supported it, every Republican opposed it.

    And this is a case in point of why we need federal legislation, because right now, if one state does something, other states tend to follow along. You also have Florida and Ohio and Missouri and Indiana saying they might do this kind of gerrymandering, along with Texas, and you have other states, like California and New York and Illinois, saying, “Well, we’re going to fight back. We’re going to do our own kind of gerrymandering.” And that’s the exact situation that Democrats wanted to prevent from happening.

    So I think we definitely need new federal legislation, but this is not going to be a short-term fix. I mean, no legislation is going to be passed as long as Trump is president. You’re going to have a conservative Supreme Court that will weigh in on the legality of whatever Congress does. So we need a broader, longer-term strategy here for how to pass legislation, how to change the course, and how to get public consciousness to rise on this issue.

    I think one of the things that’s been good about Texas is it’s attracting a lot of attention from people who are angry about gerrymandering and saying, “What can we do about the problem?” But the solution can’t just be more gerrymandering to counteract gerrymandering. That is, ultimately, not going to be a long-term solution that is good for Democrats or good for democracy.

    JJ: Big picture, I also worry that what people think we need to “get back to,” as though there were some halcyon days of democracy, is a fuzzy and flawed image. And then we really need the energy that it takes to think about what we can move forward to, what we can create, the idea that’s so liberating and inspiring to many of us, and then more of us who don’t have a choice, the present is just untenable.

    But I worry that there’s a huge admixture of people who think, “Ugh, meetings? Can’t I just push a button and fix it?” But there’s no GoFundMe for democratic aspirations. We have to do more.

    AB: For sure. Some of these things, there’s a short-term and a long-term component. And the short-term component is obviously organizing resistance elections. And the longer-term component is changing some of these institutional structures, whether it’s laws that are passed by Congress or the composition of the courts or things like that. And that’s a longer-term fight.

    And I think sometimes it’s so easy to get caught up in resisting whatever Trump does in a given day, which just can be so overwhelming, it’s easy to lose track of that longer-term picture. Which gets back to this original conversation of, how do we end up like this in the first place?

    JJ: Right. Well, here’s my final, last question. What would you like to see news media do more of, or do less of, in their coverage of this set of issues?

    AB: I think covering the larger context is really important. This fight over gerrymandering did not begin this summer; there’s much deeper roots to it. And then again, just not both-sidesing the issue, not making false equivalence that, “OK, well, Texas is doing it and now California is doing it. So this is just how politics works.”

    Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People―and the Fight to Resist It

    Farrar, Straus and Giroux (2024)

    And this is a deeply abnormal fight. It’s deeply abnormal to have mid-decade gerrymandering. It’s deeply abnormal to have the president push for that kind of gerrymandering. It’s deeply abnormal that the Supreme Court is on the verge of gutting the crowning achievement of the Voting Rights Act.

    None of this is normal, and Democrats have been put in an unenviable position, which Trump often does to people, of having to play in the gutter. But, ultimately, this is part of the broader Republican authoritarian takeover. And I would like to see that larger, that bigger picture, present in more of the stories about this.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with reporter and author Ari Berman. You can find his work at MotherJones.com. The latest book is Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People—and the Fight to Resist It. It’s out now from Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Ari Berman, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    AB: Thanks so much, Janine.

     

    This post was originally published on FAIR.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg3 aclu

    We speak with ACLU lawyer Eunice Cho about a new federal lawsuit brought on behalf of immigrants held at the detention center in the Florida Everglades dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.” The detainees allege being routinely subjected to human rights abuses, denied due process and access to legal counsel, while families have complained of being unable to find their loved ones “disappeared” into the facility. “These are basic constitutional rights that are afforded to anybody that is held in government custody. And what was happening at Alligator Alcatraz is simply unprecedented and not normal,” says Cho, senior counsel at the ACLU National Prison Project.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg2 trump2

    “How much is Trump pocketing off the presidency?” That’s the question driving a major new investigation by journalist David D. Kirkpatrick in The New Yorker, which finds that the first family has been leveraging its place atop U.S. politics to rake in billions. According to Kirkpatrick, Donald Trump and his immediate family have made $3.4 billion from his time in the White House, including more than $2.3 billion from various cryptocurrency ventures alone.

    “What really surprised me about all this is just how fast they’re making this money. They seem to turn down no opportunity,” says Kirkpatrick. “It really sharpens the question of what a buyer, so to speak, might be getting for that.”


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg1 dc2

    Six Republican-led states have now pledged National Guard troops to the Trump administration’s takeover of Washington, D.C., where it has assumed control of policing under the claim of tackling crime. Along with the D.C. National Guard that Trump already controlled, this brings the total number of troops in the streets of the capital to more than 2,000. The federal takeover comes even as violent crime in the capital is at a 30-year low — numbers the Trump administration now disputes, with the Justice Department launching an investigation into whether those crime statistics were manipulated by city officials.

    “What we’re seeing is lawlessness, but it’s all coming from the White House,” says community activist Keya Chatterjee, the executive director of the group Free DC.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg1 dc2

    Six Republican-led states have now pledged National Guard troops to the Trump administration’s takeover of Washington, D.C., where it has assumed control of policing under the claim of tackling crime. Along with the D.C. National Guard that Trump already controlled, this brings the total number of troops in the streets of the capital to more than 2,000. The federal takeover comes even as violent crime in the capital is at a 30-year low — numbers the Trump administration now disputes, with the Justice Department launching an investigation into whether those crime statistics were manipulated by city officials.

    “What we’re seeing is lawlessness, but it’s all coming from the White House,” says community activist Keya Chatterjee, the executive director of the group Free DC.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.