Leroy Douglas, 43, has spent almost half his life in prison because he stole a mobile phone.
Back in 2005 when he was addicted to drugs in Cardiff, he robbed a man’s phone and was told he must serve a minimum of two and a half years. But twenty years have passed, and Leroy is still in prison. His sister, Natalie Douglas is campaigning for his release.
She said:
It was non-violent street robbery. Leroy walked up to the boy and asked if he could use his phone. The boy said yes, and Leroy just walked away with it. There was no violence. After two and a half years they should have looked at his case again, and he should have been let out, but he had an IPP added.
IPP sentences are a form of arbitrary detention
An Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP), which was introduced through the Criminal Justice Act in 2003, could be given for more than 150 crimes – many of which were non serious. It was controversial from its outset.
More than 8,700 people in England and Wales were given an IPP sentence – which gave a minimum jail term but no maximum, before the European Convention on Human Rights forced the government to abolish it in 2012, declaring detention beyond the term of sentence unlawful.
But although this meant no new IPP sentences could be given out, those prisoners already sentenced would remain subject to the sentence. So, many who have served years more than their given tariffs are still in jail.
The sentence has three parts: a mandatory period in prison, based on the seriousness of the offence, known as a tariff, followed by indefinite detention until the Parole Board deems that the person has reduced their risk enough to be safely released – generally by engaging in rehabilitative activities.
If a person serving an IPP sentence is finally released, they are then on licence in the community, subject to specific conditions. If there are even minor breaches of regulation, or the person reoffends, then they may be recalled back to prison at any time.
Indefinite detention is causing serious psychological harm
The sentence operates almost entirely on the principle of what someone might do rather than what they have done, and takes its toll on prisoners. It wrecks their lives by making them feel powerless and helpless, trapped in a system with no way out.
There are currently more than 2,600 people in prison serving an IPP sentence. Leroy is one of them – despite kicking his drug habit and having psychiatric assessments which claim he is not a danger to the public.
Natalie says:
He’s lost in the system. They said he had to complete some courses first, but he’s already done 36 of them. The justice system isn’t doing anything to help and he’s rotting away in there.
They keep fobbing us off, and keep putting his parole back all the time.
I don’t trust the prison system. It’s all backwards and they don’t have any idea what’s going on, and something needs to be done about it.
A couple of years ago, when he had a parole hearing, they even got his name wrong! He’s managing to keep going, because we are a very religious family, but we worry every single day about him- when we hear of people committing suicide in prison, or losing their head.
With no idea of when they will be released, studies have found the indefinite nature of detention can lead to significant psychological harm, including feelings of hopelessness, anxiety, and despair, with the self-harm rate for IPP prisoners double that of other life sentenced prisoners, and almost double that of determinately sentenced prisoners.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr. Alice Edwards, has also criticized IPP sentences for the severe harm they inflict, not just on the prisoners but also their families.
During his imprisonment several of Leroy Douglas’s family members have passed away, including his 19 year old daughter who was just a baby when he first went inside. Natalie claims he has not yet had a chance to grieve properly:
But the situation is especially hard for my mum.
We live in Cardiff but Leroy is in HMP Stocken so, as neither of us drive, we don’t visit him often, although we speak with him every day. He says to tell you that he’s feeling very sad, and hurt, and feels he’s fighting a losing battle. He needs to come home where he belongs.
He’s not a threat to society, but they’re keeping him there like they’ve forgotten about him. It’s terrible. I need my brother’s story to get noticed, but at the moment he’s just lost among the many thousands of other prisoners who are also suffering.
Release all those serving an IPP – including Leroy Douglas
More than 90 people have killed themselves in prison while serving an IPP sentence, while many others languish indefinitely in jail although committing only minor crimes.
There are ongoing calls from campaigners and human rights advocates for the government to pass legislation that requires the resentencing of all those still serving an IPP, and for the sentence to be proportionate to the crime which, in very many cases, it is not.
Even David Blunkett, the former Labour Party home secretary who introduced IPP sentences, now regrets this decision, claiming that IPPs have resulted in ‘deeply damaging outcomes’ for many prisoners, including those serving sentences for minor offences. He acknowledges that although IPPs were intended for serious crimes, they were often applied to petty criminals, leading to long term incarceration for minor crimes.
Help Natalie’s campaign to free Leroy from prison, by signing her petition here.
It is a difficult time for the transgender community in Kentucky and those who support them. Less than two years ago, the state legislature, gripped with anti-trans hysteria, passed a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. And in recent weeks, an onslaught of executive orders from President Donald Trump further imperiled access to gender-affirming care nationwide.
But Oliver Hall, director of trans health at the Kentucky Health Justice Network, knew how to respond. When the state decimated care for vulnerable youth, they helped families connect with providers out of state. When Trump released his anti-trans orders, Hall pressed to make sure those providers held the line.
“One of the first things we needed to do was call the clinics in other states, making sure they weren’t going to start preemptively complying, and stop providing care,” said Hall.
Immediate mobilization isn’t new to the staff at the Kentucky Health Justice Network. In addition to connecting LGBTQ+ people to services, it also serves as an abortion fund. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it triggered a near-total abortion ban in the state — changing the landscape for abortion access almost overnight.
“We prepared to just kind of shift on a dime to be able to do more of the travel support,” Hall said.
As Hall and others in the reproductive justice and LGBTQ+ rights space know all too well, the assaults on transgender Americans are occurring against the backdrop of a wider war on bodily autonomy.
In 2025 alone, state legislatures have already passed 11 anti-trans bills, and roughly 614 bills are under consideration that could negatively impact trans and gender-nonconforming people. In 2024, 87 anti-trans bills were introduced in Congress, according to the Trans Legislation Tracker. Despite many conservatives’ attempts to create distance from anti-abortion politics, many of the states that moved to restrict access to gender-affirming care have some of the strictest abortion bans. The same president who issued a slew of executive orders targeting transgender youth also appointed the Supreme Court nominees who made it possible to overturn Roe. And the court he reshaped is expected to make a ruling on gender-affirming care for transgender youth this spring.
For decades, abortion providers, advocates, and funds have persisted under an ever-shifting and intentionally vague legal landscape dead set on, if not outright, banning abortion care, making it as difficult as possible for abortion providers to effectively and ethically treat their patients.
Now, providers who offer gender-affirming care find themselves in that same landscape, working tirelessly for their patients as the proverbial sand shifts constantly beneath their feet.
But if these fights are inextricably linked, so are the solutions.
“We have to be more imaginative of what care can or may need to look like.”
“In both the gender-affirming care space and abortion care space and again, broadly even immigrant health, we have to always be prepared for the ground to shift and change underneath us,” said Dr. Lakshmi Sundaresan, a family medicine physician in Michigan. “And I think that is the hardest thing.”
Sundaresan, who like many provides both abortion and gender-affirming care services, said that one lesson from both practices is that you have to be “imaginative.”
“Flexibility is important,” she said. “We have to be more imaginative of what care can or may need to look like.”
In abortion care, providers have shifted, where possible, toward counseling patients through self-managed abortions at home and sending pills by mail to states, Sundaresan said. Evidence suggests this strategy has been broadly effective. In the year after Roe was overturned, the number of abortions went up, with experts attributing it to a rise in telemedicine and self-managed medication abortions.
Thinking outside of the traditional approaches can help transgender patients, Sundaresan said. One way to do this is by looking for off-label uses of medications that might have gender-affirming side-effects, such as spironolactone, a blood pressure medication that also can block the production and action of testosterone. “The question would be, can we use a side effect or an alternative way that a medication works to help support folks in their gender journeys if there are restrictions placed on traditional hormone replacement therapy?” she said.
The answers may also lie outside of the health care space.
“Part of what imagination has to look like is how we can provide care – or people can manage their care — outside of interacting with the medical establishment,” she said.
Ongoing court battles over Trump’s anti-trans executive orders show how rapidly the legal landscape can and will change.
Before Trump returned to the White House, access to gender-affirming care varied widely by state, similar to abortion care since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. In recent years, more than two dozen states passed laws prohibiting care for trans minors, the most extreme of which criminalized prescribing puberty blockers as a felony. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Tennessee’s law, in a case advocates hoped might set some guardrails at the state level. After oral arguments in December, many worry the conservative justices will uphold the law and give states wide latitude to restrict care.
In late January, Trump flexed federal power to target gender-affirming care for trans youth nationwide. He issued an executive order that threatened to withhold federal funding from hospitals, medical schools, and other institutions that offer gender-affirming care to anyone under 19 years old, even puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The president also directed the Justice Department to investigate doctors under the federal statute that criminalizes female genital mutilation, in coordination with state officials.
“It’s a coordinated, concerted effort to use trans people and trans youth in particular as political pawns,” said Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA, an association of medical providers that advocates for LGBTQ+ health equity, which joined a lawsuit challenging the executive order.
Many hospitals and clinics across the countryquickly canceled appointments for young trans patients, who weren’t sure if they would ever be rescheduled.
This left “a patchwork landscape,” Sheldon said, “where your access to care not only depends on your geography but also institutional leadership and interpretation of the executive orders, rather than medical expertise.”
“Your access to care not only depends on your geography but also institutional leadership and interpretation of the executive orders, rather than medical expertise.”
In early February, coalitions of doctors, patients, parents, advocacy groups, and Democratic attorneys general filed two federal lawsuits: one in Maryland, the other in Washington state. By mid-February, two different judges granted temporary restraining orders that blocked the Trump administration from implementing the executive order provisions.
Doctors and other health care workers around the country were relieved, both for themselves and their patients.
“I felt like I could finally breathe again,” wrote a Seattle physician, Physician Plaintiff 1, who is one of three doctors suing the Trump administration under pseudonyms for fear of being targeted under the executive order, in a court filing in the Washington case.
Many were in tears at a staff meeting held just a few hours after the federal judge in Washington first blocked Trump’s order, Physician Plaintiff 1 wrote. Providers rushed to deliver good news to patients and their families, as the court orders gave some hospitals enough reassurance to continue offering care.
But the relief is temporary and subject to the uncertainties of litigation, including the Trump administration’s potential defiance of court orders. Both federal courts initially blocked the Trump administration’s plans until the end of February, then granted injunctions that will last until further developments in the case.
Despite the injunctions, the Trump administration still attempted to pull funding from some hospitals, and the plaintiffs in the Washington case have asked the court to hold the Trump administration in contempt for defying orders.
Amid the uncertainty, some health systems haven’t been willing to risk restarting their gender-affirming care programs. Others have been slow to give providers and patients concrete guidance about the evolving situation.
“We have not had clear communication around resuming care,” said D, a provider in Pennsylvania who spoke with The Intercept on condition of anonymity for fear of being targeted. D said their institution’s leadership and legal teams were still reviewing the executive orders and the court rulings blocking them.
“We’re put into this new role as future-tellers and legal experts,” D said. “I’m not sure we’re going to have a lot of clarity for some time, and possibly not until we have more final resolution of the lawsuits.”
Now that Trump has shown his playbook of leveraging federal funding to block care, doctors are weighing how to insulate themselves and their patients from this form of pressure.
“I have been trying to figure out if there is a place I could practice medicine that doesn’t accept federal funding,” wrote Physician Plaintiff 3 in another court filing in the Washington case, “or whether I could set up my own medical practice so that I could continue providing care to both my cisgender and transgender patients on an equal basis.”
Navigating the shifting legal risks is a key part of the puzzle for both abortion and gender-affirming care providers.
“These directives don’t carry legislative power, but it will take months to years to litigate them,” said Sundaresan.
The shifting landscape leaves providers at the whim of hospital and clinic executives. “It’s often hospital policy, not actual laws, that are dictating what kind of care we’re allowed to provide,” Sundaresan said.
One way to combat preemptive compliance in both the abortion and gender-affirming care space is by providing consistent and persistent messaging on what the laws actually mean, argued Hall, the Kentucky trans health director.
Not unlike much of the confusion that swept through the country in the early days after the Dobbs decision, Hall said that confusion about the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth further hindered access to care.
“We had providers in the state who thought they couldn’t refer their patients out of state, providers, which is not true. We had therapists who thought they couldn’t provide gender-affirming mental health care, which was also not true. We had pharmacists who thought that they couldn’t dispense hormone therapy that was prescribed by an out-of-state prescriber, which was also not true,” said Hall.
In this case, research and messaging played a critical role in making sure that not just the medical establishment but also “the public, and particularly those families, understand that they still have options they don’t have to just give up,” they said.
Building resiliency among providers and advocates is also crucial when facing an opposition not averse to acts of violence.
Throughout the decades, anti-abortion protesters have reigned terror upon providers, bombing clinics and murdering doctors. In 1984, for example,there were 29 cases of arson, firebombing, or bombings against abortion clinics. And in 1993, Dr. David Gunn was infamously fatally shot by an anti-abortion extremist.
Today, while those threats still persist against abortion providers; hospitals and clinics that provide gender-affirming care now find themselves under that same violent spotlight. In 2022, a Massachusetts woman called in a fake bomb threat to the Boston Children’s Hospital in retaliation for their transgender youth services. “There is a bomb on the way to the hospital; you better evacuate everybody, you sickos,” she said, according to court records.
Mabel Wadsworth Center in Bangor, Maine, which provides a range of health care services, including abortion and gender-affirming care, counsels both staff and volunteers about the risks before they ever put on a uniform.
“There are inherent risks, unfortunately, in our culture with working at an abortion care provider, and now that also is associated with being a gender-affirming care provider,” said Aspen Ruhlin, the community engagement manager at the center. “We just make sure folks who are coming onto this staff are aware of what those risks are.”
Even with training, facing backlash and threats for work in both abortion and gender-affirming care spaces isn’t easy. But Sundaresan in Michigan said that she has no plans to stop.
“I don’t have any special coping skills,” she said. “I’m a person that has to sit with uncertainty, just like our patients have to sit with uncertainty.”
Protesters demonstrate in front of police along the perimeter of the Columbia University campus in New York City, on April 30, 2024. Photo: Melissa Bender/NurPhoto via AP
Columbia University could hardly have been more draconian in the last year and a half since students began speaking out against Israel’s assault on Gaza.
In early November 2023, four months before the Columbia Gaza solidarity encampment even began, the university banned its chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. A few hundred students from the groups had had the audacity to walkout from classes and hold a “die-in” protest on campus – some of the most widely celebrated nonviolent-protest tactics available.
The crackdown was just getting started.
There is no appeasing a political force like the Trumpian right.
Since then, the university has ordered police raids on campus three times, leading to the arrest of over 100 students. Last week, the school expelled four students, three from Barnard College, one from Columbia. Many dozens of students have faced discipline and suspensions for participating in pro-Palestine protests and speech. Professors have been slandered before Congress, censured, removed from positions, and reportedly pushed into retirement over their support for Palestine and criticism of Israel. The campus has been essentially locked down for almost a year.
Again and again, Columbia has shown a willingness to throw students, faculty, free speech, and academic freedom under the bus in acquiescence to a right-wing, pro-Israel narrative that treats support for Palestinians as an affront to Jewish safety.
For all Columbia’s appeasement, President Donald Trump’s Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced last week that it would cancel $400 million in federal grants and contracts to the university.
“Columbia has worked overtime to appease,” wrote Layla, a student at Columbia’s School of Social Work, who asked to withhold her last name having faced doxxing attacks and harassment from Zionist groups. “Students are miserable. Campus is a panopticon. And their funding was still cut.”
The Trump administration can be expected to use its perverted conception of antisemitism to further its explicit plans to decimate, further corporatize, and re-whiten higher education. The shame here lies with university leaderships — at Columbia and schools nationwide — that have failed to stand up for their purported missions of critical thinking and academic freedom. Instead, they have put some of their most vulnerable community members, particularly international students and students of color, at risk.
There is no appeasing a political force like the Trumpian right, intent on a program of destruction. And there is no appeasing a nationalist Zionist worldview that, defying reason, sees antisemitism in every call for Palestinian freedom. Columbia is proof of the failure of caving in; the administration has offered up a platter of repression for more than a year and is still slated to lose $400 million.
“Number One Priority”
Schools nationwide, especially elite, wealthy institutions like Columbia, have a choice: Take a collective stance in opposing Trump’s assaults on education or continue their obsequiousness to a government that has already made clear that it wants to destroy them regardless.
Columbia leadership, much to its shame, has made its decision clear.
In a letter to the university community responding to the cuts, Columbia’s interim president Katrina Armstrong appeared unwilling to change course.
“I want to assure the entire Columbia community that we are committed to working with the federal government to address their legitimate concerns,” she wrote. “To that end, Columbia can, and will, continue to take serious action toward combatting antisemitism. This is our number one priority.”
“This is not about antisemitism. It is about crushing dissent.”
Antisemitism is no doubt a legitimate concern in a country led by antisemites; the Trump administration and pro-Israel organizations’ concerns are anything but legitimate. So far, Columbia’s purported crackdown on antisemitism has included anti-Palestinian, Islamophobic repression, the consistent conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and a willingness to only prioritize the concerns of certain Jewish voices, while silencing the dissent of the dozens of anti-Zionist Jews on campus.
“This is not about antisemitism. It is about crushing dissent,” said Reinhold Martin, a Columbia historian of architecture and president of the university’s American Association of University Professors, or AAUP, chapter. “And for those who take the Trump administration’s actions at face value, remember Charlottesville.”
Martin was referring, of course, to the 2017 white supremacist gathering, where neo-Nazis marched with tiki torches chanting “Jews will not replace us,” a fascist murdered an anti-fascist counter-protester with his car, and Trump responded by calling participants “some very fine people.”
While university campuses have been historic sites of dissent and political critique, it would be a mistake to see the contemporary, neoliberal university as a terrain of liberatory struggle. Universities have become ever more privatized and policed factories for the production of human capital, often appended to massive investment assets. The student-led Gaza encampments were all the more impressive considering how unrevolutionary university life has become.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is waging a counterrevolution against every shred of progress won by Black, Indigenous, queer and feminist struggle in the last century. Far-right education crusaders like Christopher Rufo are unambiguous about their aims here. Institutions of higher education participate in such a project at their own peril.
“The Trump administration is seeking to deprive universities of fiscal autonomy, to constrain universities politically,” said Martin, the Columbia professor. “To use the lever of government funding to quash dissent, with the expectation that a paradigm emerges out of this of a truly corporate university, in which it will be impossible to dissent, just as one cannot dissent in the boardroom or in the office suite of a real estate development company or a financial institution.”
Columbia is the largest private landowner in New York City and boasts an endowment of $14.8 billion; a significant amount of its income comes from its huge hospital complex, as well as tuition.
As an institution, Columbia can survive the federal cuts, but they would undeniably risk harming certain federally funded research and grants. Trump’s attack on Columbia is also intended to chill other schools more dependent on government money. All the more reason, then, for wealthy institutions to refuse the acquiescence trap.
Celebrating Funding Cuts
In the same letter announcing that the university would continue its crackdown in the face of the funding cuts, Armstrong, the school interim president, called for a “unified Columbia, one that remains focused on our mission and our values.”
Meanwhile, according to an anonymous source, members of the 1,000-plus member-strong Columbia Alumni for Israel WhatsApp group were celebrating Trump’s funding cut as a victory. One group chat member wrote on Friday that they “can’t wait for the rest of the funding to be cut.” This was the same group, which includes professors, whose members were strategizing about reporting pro-Palestinian foreign students and faculty deported.
As a Jewish professor and Columbia alum myself, who also spent time at the Columbia Gaza solidarity encampment, including during a Shabbat dinner service, I am disgusted but not shocked that claims to Jewish safety have been turned into Trumpian weapons to dismantle higher education. And I am dismayed that university administrators and Democratic leaders have so readily laid the ground for these attacks over a year of repressive actions against students protesting a U.S.-backed genocidal war.
There is unity to be found in the educational communities. Many people understand that the Trump regime’s plans to eliminate all anti-racist, anti-colonial, and trans-inclusionary content from educational spaces cannot be disentangled from its attacks on pro-Palestine speech.
If university leaders won’t reverse their repressive course, professors, students, and staff must come together to resist, within and across campuses.
Protesters demonstrate in front of police along the perimeter of the Columbia University campus in NYC on April 30, 2024. Photo: Melissa Bender/NurPhoto via AP
Columbia University could hardly have been more draconian in the last year and a half since students began speaking out against Israel’s assault on Gaza.
In early November 2023, four months before the Columbia Gaza solidarity encampment even began, the university banned its chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. A few hundred students from the groups had had the audacity to walk out from classes and hold a “die-in” protest on campus — some of the most widely celebrated nonviolent protest tactics available.
The crackdown was just getting started.
There is no appeasing a political force like the Trumpian right.
Since then, the university has ordered police raids on campus three times, leading to the arrests of over 100 students. Last week, the school expelled four students, three from Barnard College, one from Columbia. Many dozens of students have faced discipline and suspensions for participating in pro-Palestine protests and speech. Professors have been slandered before Congress, censured, removed from positions, and reportedly pushed into retirement over their support for Palestine and criticism of Israel. The campus has been essentially locked down for almost a year.
Again and again, Columbia has shown a willingness to throw students, faculty, free speech, and academic freedom under the bus in acquiescence to a right-wing, pro-Israel narrative that treats support for Palestinians as an affront to Jewish safety.
For all Columbia’s appeasement, President Donald Trump’s Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced last week that it would cancel $400 million in federal grants and contracts to the university.
“Columbia has worked overtime to appease,” wrote Layla, a student at Columbia’s School of Social Work, who asked to withhold her last name having faced doxxing attacks and harassment from Zionist groups. “Students are miserable. Campus is a panopticon. And their funding was still cut.”
The Trump administration can be expected to use its perverted conception of antisemitism to further its explicit plans to decimate, corporatize, and re-whiten higher education. The shame here lies with university leaderships — at Columbia and schools nationwide — that have failed to stand up for their purported missions of critical thinking and academic freedom. Instead, they have put some of their most vulnerable community members, particularly international students and students of color, at risk.
There is no appeasing a political force like the Trumpian right, intent on a program of destruction. And there is no appeasing a nationalist Zionist worldview that, defying reason, sees antisemitism in every call for Palestinian freedom. Columbia is proof of the failure of caving in; the administration has offered up a platter of repression for more than a year and is still slated to lose $400 million.
“Number One Priority”
Schools nationwide — especially elite, wealthy institutions like Columbia — have a choice: Take a collective stance in opposing Trump’s assaults on education, or continue their obsequiousness to a government that has already made clear that it wants to destroy them regardless.
Columbia leadership, much to its shame, has made its decision clear.
In a letter to the university community responding to the cuts, Columbia’s interim president Katrina Armstrong appeared unwilling to change course.
“I want to assure the entire Columbia community that we are committed to working with the federal government to address their legitimate concerns,” she wrote. “To that end, Columbia can, and will, continue to take serious action toward combatting antisemitism. This is our number one priority.”
“This is not about antisemitism. It is about crushing dissent.”
Antisemitism is no doubt a legitimate concern in a country led by antisemites; the Trump administration and pro-Israel organizations’ concerns are anything but legitimate. So far, Columbia’s purported crackdown on antisemitism has included anti-Palestinian, Islamophobic repression, the consistent conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and a willingness to only prioritize the concerns of certain Jewish voices, while silencing the dissent of the dozens of anti-Zionist Jews on campus.
“This is not about antisemitism. It is about crushing dissent,” said Reinhold Martin, a Columbia historian of architecture and president of the university’s American Association of University Professors, or AAUP, chapter. “And for those who take the Trump administration’s actions at face value, remember Charlottesville.”
Martin was referring, of course, to the 2017 white supremacist gathering, where neo-Nazis marched with tiki torches chanting “Jews will not replace us,” a fascist murdered an antifascist counter-protester with his car, and Trump responded by calling participants “some very fine people.”
While university campuses have been historic sites of dissent and political critique, it would be a mistake to see the contemporary, neoliberal university as a terrain of liberatory struggle. Universities have become ever more privatized and policed factories for the production of human capital, often appended to massive investment assets. The student-led Gaza encampments were all the more impressive considering how unrevolutionary university life has become.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is waging a counterrevolution against every shred of progress won by Black, Indigenous, queer, and feminist struggle in the last century. Far-right education crusaders like Christopher Rufo are unambiguous about their aims here. Institutions of higher education participate in such a project at their own peril.
“The Trump administration is seeking to deprive universities of fiscal autonomy, to constrain universities politically,” said Martin, the Columbia professor. “To use the lever of government funding to quash dissent, with the expectation that a paradigm emerges out of this of a truly corporate university, in which it will be impossible to dissent, just as one cannot dissent in the boardroom or in the office suite of a real estate development company or a financial institution.”
Columbia is the largest private landowner in New York City and boasts an endowment of $14.8 billion; a significant amount of its income comes from its huge hospital complex, as well as tuition.
As an institution, Columbia can survive the federal cuts, but they would undeniably risk harming certain federally funded research and grants. Trump’s attack on Columbia is also intended to chill other schools more dependent on government money. All the more reason, then, for wealthy institutions to refuse the acquiescence trap.
Celebrating Funding Cuts
In the same letter announcing that the university would continue its crackdown in the face of the funding cuts, Armstrong, the school interim president, called for a “unified Columbia, one that remains focused on our mission and our values.”
Meanwhile, according to an anonymous source, members of the 1,000-plus member-strong Columbia Alumni for Israel WhatsApp group were celebrating Trump’s funding cut as a victory. One group chat member wrote on Friday that they “can’t wait for the rest of the funding to be cut.” This was the same group, which includes professors, whose members were strategizing about reporting pro-Palestinian foreign students and faculty deported.
As a Jewish professor and Columbia alum myself, who also spent time at the Columbia Gaza solidarity encampment, including during a Shabbat dinner service, I am disgusted but not shocked that claims to Jewish safety have been turned into Trumpian weapons to dismantle higher education. And I am dismayed that university administrators and Democratic leaders have so readily laid the ground for these attacks over a year of repressive actions against students protesting a U.S.-backed genocidal war.
There is unity to be found in the educational communities. Many people understand that the Trump regime’s plans to eliminate all anti-racist, anti-colonial, and trans-inclusionary content from educational spaces cannot be disentangled from its attacks on pro-Palestine speech.
If university leaders won’t reverse their repressive course, professors, students, and staff must come together to resist, within and across campuses.
Activists in Aotearoa New Zealand marked International Women’s Day today and the start of Ramadan this week with solidarity rallies across the country, calling for justice and peace for Palestinian women and the territories occupied illegally by Israel.
The theme this year for IWD is “For all women and girls: Rights. Equality. Empowerment” and this was the 74th week of Palestinian solidarity protests.
First speaker at the Auckland rally today, Del Abcede of the Aotearoa section of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), said the protest was “timely given how women have suffered the brunt of Israel’s war on Palestine and the Gaza ceasefire in limbo”.
Del Abcede of the Aotearoa section of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) . . . “Empowered women empower the world.” Image: David Robie/APR
“Women are the backbone of families and communities. They provide care, support and nurturing to their families and the development of children,” she said.
“Women also play a significant role in community building and often take on leadership roles in community organisations. Empowered women empower the world.”
Abcede explained how the non-government organisation WILPF had national sections in 37 countries, including the Palestine branch which was founded in 1988. WILPF works close with its Palestinian partners, Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC) and General Union of Palestinian Women (GUPW).
“This catastrophe is playing out on our TV screens every day. The majority of feminists in Britain — and in the West — seem to have nothing to say about it,” Abcede said, quoting gender researcher Dr Maryam Aldosarri, to cries of shame.
‘There can be no neutrality’
“In the face of such overwhelming terror, there can be no neutrality.”
Dr Aldosarri said in an article published earlier in the war on Gaza last year that the “siege and indiscriminate bombardment” had already “killed, maimed and disappeared under the rubble tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children”.
“Many more have been displaced and left to survive the harsh winter without appropriate shelter and supplies. The almost complete breakdown of the healthcare system, coupled with the lack of food and clean water, means that some 45,000 pregnant women and 68,000 breastfeeding mothers in Gaza are facing the risk of anaemia, bleeding, and death.
“Meanwhile, hundreds of Palestinian women and children in the occupied West Bank are still imprisoned, many without trial, and trying to survive in abominable conditions.”
The death toll in the war — with killings still happening in spite of the precarious ceasefire — is now more than 50,000 — mostly women and children.
“Achieving durable and equitable peace demands addressing the root causes of violence and oppression. This means adhering to the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion by dismantling the foundational structures of colonial violence and ensuring Palestinians’ rights to self-determination, dignity and freedom.”
Action for justice and peace
Abcede also spoke about what action to take for “justice and peace” — such as countering disinformation and influencing the narrative; amplifying Palstinian voices and demands; joining rallies — “like what we do every Saturday”; supporting the global BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign against Israel; writing letters to the government calling for special visas for Palestinians who have families in New Zealand; and donating to campaigns supporting the victims.
Lorri Mackness also of WILPF (right) . . . “Women will be delivered [of babies] in tents, corridors, or bombed out homes without anasthesia, without doctors, without clean water.” Image: David Robie/APRLorri Mackness, also of WILPF Aotearoa, spoke of the Zionist gendered violence against Palestinians and the ruthless attacks on Gaza’s medical workers and hospitals to destroy the health sector.
Gaza’s hospitals had been “reduced to rubble by Israeli bombs”, she said.
“UN reports that over 60,000 women would give birth this year in Gaza. But Israel has destroyed every maternity hospital.
“Women will be delivered in tents, corridors, or bombed out homes without anasthesia, without doctors, without clean water.
“When Israel killed Gaza’s only foetal medicine specialist, Dr Muhammad Obeid, it wasn’t collateral damage — it was calculated reproductive terror.”
“Now, miscarriages have spiked by 300 percent, and mothers stitch their own C-sections with sewing thread.”
‘Femicide – a war crime’
Babies who survived birth entered a world where Israel blocked food aid — 1 in 10 infants would die of starvation, 335,000 children faced starvation, and their mothers forced to watch, according to UNICEF.
“This is femicide — this is a war crime.”
Eugene Velasco, of the Filipino feminist action group Gabriela Aotearoa, said Israel’s violence in Gaza was a “clear reminder of the injustice that transcends geographical borders”.
“The injustice is magnified in Gaza where the US-funded genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people has resulted in the deaths of more than 61,000.”
‘Pernicious’ Regulatory Standards Bill
Dr Jane Kelsey, a retired law professor and justice advocate, spoke of an issue that connected the “scourge of colonisation in Palestine and Aotearoa with the same lethal logic and goals”.
Law professor Dr Jane Kelsey . . . “Behind the scenes is ACT’s more systemic and pernicious Regulatory Standards Bill.” Image: David Robie/APR
The parallels between both colonised territories included theft of land and the creation of private property rights, and the denial of sovereign authority and self-determination.
She spoke of how international treaties that had been entered in good faith were disrespected, disregarded and “rewritten as it suits the colonising power”.
Dr Kelsey said an issue that had “gone under the radar” needed to be put on the radar and for action.
She said that while the controversial Treaty Principles Bill would not proceed because of the massive mobilisations such as the hikoi, it had served ACT’s purpose.
“Behind the scenes is ACT’s more systemic and pernicious Regulatory Standards Bill,” she said. ACT had tried three times to get the bill adopted and failed, but it was now in the coalition government’s agreement.
A ‘stain on humanity’
Meanwhile, Hamas has reacted to a Gaza government tally of the number of women who were killed by Israel’s war, reports Al Jazeera.
“The killing of 12,000 women in Gaza, the injury and arrest of thousands, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands are a stain on humanity,” the group said.
“Palestinian female prisoners are subjected to psychological and physical torture in flagrant violation of all international norms and conventions.”
Hamas added the suffering endured by Palestinian female prisoners revealed the “double standards” of Western countries, including the United States, in dealing with Palestinians.
Filipino feminist activists from Gabriela Aotearoa and the International Women’s Alliance (IWA) also participated in the pro-Palestine solidarity rally. Image: David Robie/APR
Women from Aotearoa, Philippines, Palestine and South Africa today called for justice and peace for the people of Gaza and the West Bank, currently under a genocidal siege and attacks being waged by Israel for the past 16 months.
Marking International Women’s Day, the rally highlighted the theme: “For all women and girls – Rights, equality and empowerment.”
Speakers outlined how women are the “backbone of families and communities” and how they have borne the brunt of the crimes against humanity in occupied Palestine with the “Israeli war machine” having killed more than 50,000 people, mostly women and children, since 7 October 2023.
The speakers included Del Abcede and Lorri Mackness of the International Women’s League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), Gabriela’s Eugene Velasco, and retired law professor Jane Kelsey.
IWD 1: A West Papua flag on display at the International Women’s Day rally for peace and justice in Palestine. Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 2: “Women unite to eliminate violence and war.” Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 3: Peace and justice for Gaza in Auckland’s “Palestine Square”.
IWD 4: WILPF’s Del Abcede speaking at the Palestine rally. Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 5: Gabriela’s Eugene Velasco speaking at the Palestine rally. Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 6: WILPF’s Lorri Mackness and Del Abcede, speakers at the Palestine rally. Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 7: The International Women’s Alliance (of the Philippines) at the Palestine rally. Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 8: Retired law professor Jane Kelsey speaking at the Palestine rally. Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 9: The Gabriela group from the Philippines in solidarity with Palestinians. Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 10: Duet singers for Palestine. Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 11: “Israel’s war against Palestine didn’t start on 7 October 2023” – it began with the Nakba (“catastrophe”) in 1948, and even earlier. Image: David Robie/APR
IWD 12: International Women’s Day protesters for solidarity with Palestine and a cruise ship backdrop. Image: David Robie/APR
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
A high-ranking kingpin and so-called “Narco Prince” was sentenced to life in prison by a federal judge on Friday in Washington, D.C. in one of the first drug war trials to conclude since the Trump administration declared certain Mexican cartels to be “terrorist” organizations.
Ruben Oseguera-Gonzalez is the U.S.-born son of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, who founded the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) and is Mexico’s most wanted man. While his father, alias “El Mencho,” is still at large, Oseguera, alias “El Menchito,” was convicted by a U.S. jury in September of conspiring to traffic cocaine and meth, and possessing weapons to further his drug trafficking operations.
Oseguera, 35, stood silently, with his left hand behind his back, as Judge Beryl A. Howell sentenced him to life in prison plus 30 years and ordered him to forfeit more than $6 billion. Oseguera refused to address the court when given the opportunity to do so. During the trial, prosecutors accused El Menchito of not only working for the criminal group, but helping found it and co-leading it, alongside his father. In a sentencing document, prosecutors placed El Menchito at the same level as other cartel leaders, including Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the former high-profile leader of the Sinaloa Cartel.
“This defendant helped build Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación into a brutal terrorist organization that pumps poison onto our streets and commits horrific acts of violence,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement.
Since President Trump stepped into office, his administration has pushed for an even more aggressive approach to targeting drug smuggling organizations, as he also pressures the Mexican government to stem immigration and fentanyl trafficking by threatening tariffs. But the Trump administration’s actions, Oseguera’s sentencing, and major developments in judicial processes for over two-dozen high-profile traffickers will likely do little to reduce drug trafficking and drug war-related violence. Rather, it may further splinter criminal groups, leading to further violence in Mexico.
“The capture and imprisonment of alleged bosses of drug organizations only serves the purpose of propaganda for the militarized ‘drug war,’” said Oswaldo Zavala, a professor at the City University of New York. “They never interrupt the trafficking of drugs, and in many cases, it has the opposite effect: cheapening drug products and decreasing their quality, endangering the lives of consumers even more.”
In recent years, the CJNG has been a high-priority target for the U.S. government. As a relatively new organization, the group, armed with weapons sourced from the U.S., has rapidly grown to be one of Mexico’s largest criminal groups, controlling large, sporadic swathes of territory, mostly in western, central, and southern Mexico, and engaging in battles with rivals. The CJNG has grown to be “arguably the most prolific and most violent cartel in Mexico today,” D.C. prosecutors said in Oseguera’s sentencing memorandum.
The history of CJNG can be traced through Oseguera’s short life. Compared to his aging former collaborators, he is quite young. But he has spent nearly a third of his life in detention, first in Mexico and then in the U.S.
The CJNG organization was created after the 2006 launch of the U.S.-Mexican drug war. Its origins can be traced to the Milenio Cartel, which was once allied with the Sinaloa Cartel. After arrests and killings of top-level leaders, the group splintered, and a bloody war ensued in 2010. Eventually one faction, led by “El Mencho,” came out on top, with the group calling itself the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. The organization took hold of old cocaine trafficking routes. According to court records, El Mencho and his son also controlled numerous meth labs in Mexico, importing precursor chemicals from China to manufacture the drug.
“They’re pioneers in synthetic drugs,” said Dr. Nathan P. Jones, an expert on Mexican organized crime and associate professor of security studies at Sam Houston State University. “And they were pioneers in fentanyl — if you know how to do one type of synthetic, you can do another type of synthetic. And we’ve all seen what fentanyl has done and the role it’s playing.”
The CJNG grew rapidly and attempted to elbow Sinaloa out of the way, leading to an eventual fissure between the two. The CJNG is known for its use of violence and propaganda efforts. In 2015, the organization made international news when it shot down a Mexican military helicopter, killing nine officials. And in 2016, as a show of force, CJNG members kidnapped two of El Chapo’s sons, then released them.
As a teenager, Oseguera began working with his father and other top Mexican organized crime leaders, prosecutors say. When he was arrested in 2015 in Mexico, the then-25-year-old threatened soldiers and cops with his rifle and grenade launcher that bore his moniker. “CJNG 02 JR,” his rifle read. While in Mexican prison, Oseguera continued to help run the organization, prosecutors alleged.
According to trial testimony and sentencing records, Oseguera was not just a typical “narco-junior” — the term used for the preppy children of Mexican drug lords who flaunt their wealth. Rather, he ran the organization alongside his father, using only the title of “Number 2” as a show of respect. Prosecutors highlighted his violent tactics, including a 2015 instance in which he allegedly slashed five men’s throats with a “half-moon-shaped knife.” Oseguera “is nothing less than a cold, calculated mass murderer,” the prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memo.
But his defense attorneys attempted to paint a different picture of Oseguera. While his attorneys tried to poke holes at cooperating witnesses’ testimony, they also signaled that Oseguera had no choice but to live a life of crime. He did not choose to be El Mencho’s son, rather, he is “both a product and a victim of that environment.”
After Friday’s hearing, one of Oseguera’s attorneys, Anthony Colombo, said they would appeal the sentencing, adding that the case should have been tried in Mexico, not the U.S.
Oseguera was extradited in 2020 to the U.S. But his sentencing, along with the arrest of other top Mexican cartel leaders recently sent to the U.S., is unlikely to slow drug trafficking, drug consumption, and drug war violence.
“These are highly decentralized organizations, so any one person being removed, it requires a sustained succession of kingpin strikes or high-value targeting to actually dismantle these groups,” said Jones. “But even when they’re dismantled, they break up, fragment into different cells, and then they form up under new banners. And that’s the consistent thing that we’ve seen.”
“When that happens, one of the unintended consequences is increased violence,” Jones added.
In the past year, there have been major developments in drug war arrests and prosecutions, starting under the Biden administration. This will likely continue under Trump’s presidency, considering his desire to escalate the drug war and a raging civil war within the Sinaloa Cartel.
Last summer, Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, the former, elusive leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, who arguably wielded more power than El Chapo, was arrested by U.S. officials. One of El Chapo’s sons kidnapped the aging drug lord, flew him across the border, and turned him over to U.S. authorities. His judicial processes are just beginning in New York, where prosecutors may request the death penalty for him.
In October, Genaro Garcia-Luna, a former high-ranking Mexican official and the “architect” of the drug war, was sentenced to nearly 40 years in prison after being convicted in 2023 of working with the Sinaloa Cartel. For years, Garcia-Luna served as one of the U.S. government’s closest drug war allies.
The Trump administration, pointing to the fentanyl overdose crisis in the U.S., is hellbent on increasing attacks on Mexican organized crime. Trump’s State Department placed several groups on the U.S.’s terrorist list, opening the door to further sanctions and possible military intervention. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently threatened military action on Mexican soil. And a Justice Department guidance document urged employees to work towards the “total elimination of cartels.” This has further placed a strain on Mexico, which views any potential military intervention as an attack on its sovereignty.
President Trump is pressuring the Mexican government to further combat organized crime groups. Trump threatened and imposed tariffs on Mexico, and then postponed some of them until April 2.
Last week, in an unprecedented move, the Mexican government handed over nearly 30 major criminal leaders from various organizations to the U.S. government, including from the Sinaloa, Zetas, Beltran-Leyva, Jalisco New Generation cartels, and others. Among them was the 72-year-old co-founder of the Guadalajara Cartel, Rafael Caro Quintero, who is accused of having participated in the 1985 murder of DEA special agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena. The 29 men were not extradited, but instead were sent to the U.S. for “national security” reasons, Mexican and U.S. officials said. Because the U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty is not at play, five of the men, including Caro Quintero, may face the federal death penalty.
On Friday morning, before Oseguera’s sentencing, the same federal judge held brief hearings for other CJNG leaders, including Oseguera’s brother-in-law, his uncle, and a cartel chemical broker. The latter two were part of the group of 29 men sent to the U.S. last week.
Don’t expect these steps to curb the flow of drugs into the U.S., Zavala argues, pointing to corruption among U.S. border agents, financial networks for criminal groups, and the lack of addiction treatment institutions in the U.S.
“The sentencing of “El Menchito” means very little in this failed ‘war,’” Zavala said. “We have seen this movie many times before and I’m afraid we will keep seeing it in the near future to no effect.”
A key legal test over the right to protest has culminated in a verdict at the Court of Appeal today. A judge has today ruled that some of the original sentences handed down to 16 climate crisis activists were “manifestly excessive” and did not comply with human rights laws. However, Just Stop Oil has reacted angrily – saying the UK justice system has been “captured” by the rich and powerful.
Just Stop Oil mass appeal: piecemeal changes
The mass-appeal hearing for the 16 Just Stop Oil activists, which took place over two days last month, has resulted in sentence reductions for the following six protesters (ages are those at the date of the incidents in question):
The Whole Truth Five’ – Roger Hallam (aged 58; sentenced to five years; reduced to four years), Cressida Gethin (aged 20; four years; reduced to 2.5 years), Louise Lancaster (aged 57; four years reduced to three years), Daniel Shaw (aged 36; four years; reduced to three years) and Lucia Whittaker De Abreu (aged 33; four years; reduced to 2.5 years). All had been convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, for planning nonviolent disruption on the M25 to stop the granting of new oil and gas licences.
Gaie Delap (20 months; reduced to 18 months); Ms Delap was 75 years old at the time and was convicted of public nuisance for her involvement in the M25 protest.
The sentences of 10 other protesters involved in the conjoined appeal were not reduced:
‘M25 Gantries’– George Simonson (aged 22; two years), Theresa Higginson (aged 24; two years), Paul Bell (aged 22; 22 months), and Paul Sousek (aged 71; 20 months). Along with Ms Delap, they had participated in the action planned by the Whole Truth Five (above), by climbing onto gantries over the M25.
‘Navigator Tunnellers’ – Larch Maxey (aged 50; three years), Chris Bennett (aged 31; 18 months), Samuel Johnson (aged 39; 18 months) and Joe Howlett (aged 32; 15 months) occupied tunnels dug under the road leading to the Navigator Oil Terminal in Thurrock, Essex.
‘Sunflowers’ – Phoebe Plummer (aged 21; two years) and Anna Holland (aged 20; 20 months). They had thrown soup on the glass protecting Van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting.
Captured by the wealthy
Just Stop Oil has issued the following statement:
The British Courts have been captured, lock, stock and barrel by the powerful, by the ultra wealthy, by those who can not see beyond business as usual. These Judges would be sending those who hid Anne Frank to the cattle trucks while hiding behind ‘the rule of law’.
To consider what the Just Stop Oil 16 have done without considering the horror of a heating world, of billions dying in the coming decades, without recognising that our current economic system risks ending the rule of law and ordered civil society is frankly immoral. Today’s ruling is another nail in the crucifixion of Justice.
Just Stop Oil recognises the courage of the many hundreds of ordinary people who have been tried and imprisoned over the last three years, many routinely denied any legal defence and the reasons why they acted considered neither ‘here nor there’ by the court. We recognise and honour the sacrifice of those who are still in prison, and those facing court cases that could end in imprisonment.
The protesters’ legal arguments were supported by the environmental justice organisations Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace UK, who had permission to intervene specifically in the sentencing appeal of the ‘Whole Truth Five’.
The UK: world-beating in authoritarianism
Hundreds of people gathered outside the court across both days of the hearing in January in a show of solidarity with the appellants. This included TV presenter Chris Packham and the actor Juliet Stevenson, and campaign groups Amnesty International, Liberty and Not1More were among those who joined calls for leniency with regard to peaceful protest. The great-granddaughter of famed suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst, Helen Pankhurst, shared her support for the 16 activists ahead of the appeal.
Research published in December found that Britain leads the world in cracking down on climate activism, with environmental protesters arrested at nearly three times the global average rate. Until recent changes to the law were brought in by the former government, it was virtually unheard of for peaceful protest to result in jail time.
Speaking to the Financial Times at the time of the hearing, UN special rapporteur for environmental defenders, Michel Forst, said that “Disproportionate sanctions for protests… have a significant adverse impact on the most fundamental freedoms.” He added that these are not felt just by those “personally criminalised” for protesting, but for all who’d like to participate in protest actions that are then deterred for fear of punishment. This same argument was made by Friends of the Earth in their submissions to the court.
Katie de Kauwe, senior lawyer at Friends of the Earth, said:
Supreme Court judge Lord Hoffmann once ruled that civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. We welcome the point of principle in today’s ruling that sentencing for peaceful protest needs to factor in both the defendant’s conscientious motivation, and protections afforded under the European Convention of Human Rights. This is a positive development for the environmental movement as a whole, and for all peaceful movements holding the government to account.
Friends of the Earth is pleased that the Court of Appeal has reduced at least some of the climate activists’ sentences. Ultimately however, we believe that locking up those motivated by their genuine concern for the climate crisis is neither right or makes any sense – and at a time when our prisons are so grossly overcrowded.
Friends of the Earth is proud to have supported the climate activists in their pursuit of justice. We urge the government to repeal the raft of regressive anti-protest legislation brought in by its predecessors to curb dissent and set about restoring the UK’s reputation as a tolerant country.
Just Stop Oil: this isn’t over
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director at Greenpeace UK, said:
Despite some modest reductions, these sentences are still unprecedented and they still have no place in a democracy that upholds the right to protest.
This appeal has led to some important clarifications and a recognition that the trial judge was mistaken in denying the protestors the protection of certain legal rights and in discounting the conscientious nature of their motivations.
But this ruling will not halt, let alone reverse, the UK’s slide towards authoritarianism that began under the last government but is being enthusiastically embraced by this one. Even the most everyday protests, marches and rallies organised in cooperation with the police, are being demonised and blocked. If you care about anything any corporation or anyone in a position of power is doing, or should be doing, you should be incredibly concerned about your freedom to speak out. If you don’t raise your voice now, you may lose it forever.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress in a highly partisan 100-minute speech, the longest presidential address to Congress in modern history on Wednesday.
Trump defended his sweeping actions over the past six weeks.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years or eight years, and we are just getting started.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump praised his biggest campaign donor, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who’s leading Trump’s effort to dismantle key government agencies and cut critical government services.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And to that end, I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps.
Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight. Thank you, Elon. He’s working very hard. He didn’t need this. He didn’t need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
AMY GOODMAN: Some Democrats laughed and pointed at Elon Musk when President Trump made this comment later in his speech.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It’s very simple. And the days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over.
AMY GOODMAN: During his speech, President Trump repeatedly attacked the trans and immigrant communities, defended his tariffs that have sent stock prices spiraling, vowed to end Russia’s war on Ukraine and threatened to take control of Greenland.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland: We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it.
But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.
‘A declaration of war against the American people.’ Video: Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: During Trump’s 100-minute address, Democratic lawmakers held up signs in protest reading “This is not normal,” “Save Medicaid” and “Musk steals.”
One Democrat, Congressmember Al Green of Texas, was removed from the chamber for protesting against the President.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Likewise, small business optimism saw its single-largest one-month gain ever recorded, a 41-point jump.
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 1: Sit down!
REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 2: Order!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions. That’s your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant-at-arms to restore order to the joint session.
Mr Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir.
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: He has no mandate to cut Medicaid!
SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Take your seat. Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant-at-arms to restore order, remove this gentleman from the chamber.
AMY GOODMAN: That was House Speaker Mike Johnson, who called in security to take Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green out. Afterwards, Green spoke to reporters after being removed.
Democrat Congressman Al Green (Texas) . . . “I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare.” Image: DN screenshot APR
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: The President said he had a mandate, and I was making it clear to the President that he has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare. And I want him to know that his budget calls for deep cuts in Medicaid.
He needs to save Medicaid, protect it. We need to raise the cap on Social Security. There’s a possibility that it’s going to be hurt. And we’ve got to protect Medicare.
These are the safety net programmes that people in my congressional district depend on. And this President seems to care less about them and more about the number of people that he can remove from the various programmes that have been so helpful to so many people.
AMY GOODMAN: Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green.
We begin today’s show with Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, former presidential candidate. Ralph Nader is founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. His most recent lead article in the new issue of Capitol Hill Citizen is titled “Democratic Party: Apologise to America for ushering Trump back in.”
Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, all these different programmes. Ralph Nader, respond overall to President Trump’s, well, longest congressional address in modern history.
Environmentalist and consumer protection activist Ralph Nader . . . And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza. Image: DN screenshot APR
RALPH NADER: Well, it was also a declaration of war against the American people, including Trump voters, in favour of the super-rich and the giant corporations. What Trump did last night was set a record for lies, delusionary fantasies, predictions of future broken promises — a rerun of his first term — boasts about progress that don’t exist.
In practice, he has launched a trade war. He has launched an arms race with China and Russia. He has perpetuated and even worsened the genocidal support against the Palestinians. He never mentioned the Palestinians once.
And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza.
But taking it as a whole, Amy, what we’re seeing here defies most of dictionary adjectives. What Trump and Musk and Vance and the supine Republicans are doing are installing an imperial, militaristic domestic dictatorship that is going to end up in a police state.
You can see his appointments are yes people bent on suppression of civil liberties, civil rights. You can see his breakthrough, after over 120 years, of announcing conquest of Panama Canal.
He’s basically said, one way or another, he’s going to take Greenland. These are not just imperial controls of countries overseas or overthrowing them; it’s actually seizing land.
Now, on the Greenland thing, Greenland is a province of Denmark, which is a member of NATO. He is ready to basically conquer a part of Denmark in violation of Section 5 of NATO, at the same time that he has displayed full-throated support for a hardcore communist dictator, Vladimir Putin, who started out with the Russian version of the CIA under the Soviet Union and now has over 20 years of communist dictatorship, allied, of course, with a number of oligarchs, a kind of kleptocracy.
And the Republicans are buying all this in Congress. This is complete reversal of everything that the Republicans stood for against communist dictators.
So, what we’re seeing here is a phony programme of government efficiency ripping apart people’s programmes. The attack on Social Security is new, complete lies about millions of people aged 110, 120, getting Social Security cheques.
That’s a new attack. He left Social Security alone in his first term, but now he’s going after [it]. So, what they’re going to do is cut Medicaid and cut other social safety nets in order to pay for another tax cut for the super-rich and the corporation, throwing in no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, which will, of course, further increase the deficit and give the lie to his statement that he wants a balanced budget.
So we’re dealing with a deranged, unstable pathological liar, who’s getting away with it. And the question is: How does he get away with it, year after year? Because the Democratic Party has basically collapsed.
They don’t know how to deal with a criminal recidivist, a person who has hired workers without documents and exploited them, a person who’s a bigot against immigrants, including legal immigrants who are performing totally critical tasks in home healthcare, processing poultry, meat, and half of the construction workers in Texas are undocumented workers.
So, as a bully, he doesn’t go after the construction industry in Texas; he picks out individuals.
I thought the most disgraceful thing, Amy, yesterday was his use of these unfortunate people who suffered as props, holding one up after another. But they were also Trump’s crutches to cover up his contradictory behavior.
So, he praised the police yesterday, but he pardoned over 600 people who attacked violently the police [in the attack on the Capitol] on 6 January 2021 and were convicted and imprisoned as a result, and he let them out of prison. I thought the most —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, I —
RALPH NADER: — the most heartrending thing was that 13-year-old child, who wanted to be a police officer when he grew up, being held up twice by his father. And he was so bewildered as to what was going on. And Trump’s use of these people was totally reprehensible and should be called out.
Now, more basically, the real inefficiencies in government, they’re ignoring, because they are kleptocrats. They’re ignoring corporate crimes on Medicaid, Medicare, tens of billions of dollars every year ripping off Medicare, ripping off government contracts, such as defence contracts.
He’s ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare, including that doled out to Elon Musk — subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, you name it. And he’s ignoring the bloated military budget, which he is supporting the Republicans in actually increasing the military budget more than the generals have asked for. So, that’s the revelation —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, if I — Ralph, if I can interrupt? I just need to —
RALPH NADER: — that the Democrats need to pursue.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph, I wanted to ask you about — specifically about Medicaid and Medicare. You’ve mentioned the cuts to these safety net programmes. What about Medicaid, especially the crisis in this country in long-term care? What do you see happening in this Trump administration, especially with the Republican majority in Congress?
RALPH NADER: Well, they’re going to slash — they’re going to move to slash Medicaid, which serves over 71 million people, including millions of Trump voters, who should be reconsidering their vote as the days pass, because they’re being exploited in red states, blue states, everywhere, as well.
Yeah, they have to cut tens of billions of dollars a year from Medicaid to pay for the tax cut. That’s number one. Now they’re going after Social Security. Who knows what the next step will be on Medicare? They’re leaving Americans totally defenceless by slashing meat and poultry and food inspection laws, auto safety.
They’re exposing people to climate violence by cutting FEMA, the rescue agency. They’re cutting forest rangers that deal with wildfires. They’re cutting protections against pandemics and epidemics by slashing and ravaging and suppressing free speech in scientific circles, like CDC and National Institutes of Health.
They’re leaving the American people defenseless.
And where are the Democrats on this? I mean, look at Senator Slotkin’s response. It was a typical rerun of a feeble, weak Democratic rebuttal. She couldn’t get herself, just like the Democrats in 2024, which led to Trump’s victory — they can’t get themselves, Juan, to talk specifically and authentically about raising the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, cracking down on corporate crooks that are bleeding out the incomes of hard-pressed American workers and the poor.
They can’t get themselves to talk about increasing frozen Social Security budgets for 50 years, that 200 Democrats supported raising, but Nancy Pelosi kept them, when she was Speaker, from taking John Larson’s bill to the House floor.
That’s why they lose. Look at her speech. It was so vague and general. They chose her because she was in the national security state. She was a former CIA. They chose her because they wanted to promote the losing version of the Democratic Party, instead of choosing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, the most popular polled politician in America today.
That’s who they chose. So, as long as the Democrats monopolise the opposition and crush third-party efforts to push them into more progressive realms, the Republican, plutocratic, Wall Street, war machine declaration of war against the American people will continue.
We’re heading into the most serious crisis in American history. There’s no comparison.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, we’re going to have to leave it there, but, of course, we’re going to continue to cover these issues. And I also wanted to wish you, Ralph, a happy 91st birthday. Ralph Nader —
RALPH NADER: I wish people to get the Capitol Hill Citizen, which tells people what they can really do to win democracy and justice back. So, for $5 or donation or more, if you wish, you can go to Capitol Hill Citizen and get a copy sent immediately by first-class mail, or more copies for your circle, of resisting and protesting and prevailing over this Trump dictatorship.
AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, four-time presidential candidate, founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. This is Democracy Now!
The original content of this programme is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence. Republished by Asia Pacific Report under Creative Commons.
Houses of Parliament (Cape Town, South Africa). Photograph Source: I, PhilippN – CC BY-SA 3.0
There is no discourse in South Africa more ancient, more unresolved, and more weaponised than that of land. The passage of the Expropriation Act in South Africa has set the air thick with tension, a moment that peels open the past to reveal its jagged edges. A history that never ended, only submerged beneath the language of legality and market transactions, is once again clawing at the present.
The land is not just dirt and fences—it is memory, survival, identity and belonging, resistance, dispossession of labour, the looting of minerals, and the establishment of racial capital. It is the primordial question—older than the Republic of itself.
On 23 January 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the controversial Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 into law. Like the screech of rusted gears grinding against time’s stubborn wheel, the Act has sent a raucous clatter through the nation and beyond—its champions hailing it as long-overdue justice for stolen land, its detractors warning of economic ruin, while distant powers, draped in their own self-interest, tighten their grip, their protests echoing not in the name of principle, but of privilege.
The Act, replacing its apartheid 1975 predecessor, is no mere legislative housekeeping. It is the state’s uneasy reckoning with a history of plunder—a tentative attempt to confront the theft that built South Africa’s economy, the dispossession that cemented its class hierarchies. Yet, as the ink dries, old ghosts stir. Who truly benefits? Who is left behind? And what of the landless, for whom restitution has remained a vanishing horizon, a promise deferred by bureaucracy and broken by politics?
At its core, the Act seeks to bring the law in step with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 108 of 1996, aligning the legal framework with the imperatives of land reform. It corrects the lingering contradictions between the outdated Expropriation Act and Section 25 of the democratic constitution, which speaks of expropriation in the public interest, the just terms of compensation, and the broader commitments of a nation still struggling to unshackle itself from its past. The Act echoes previous iterations—2015, 2018—bearing the scars of legislative battles, the residue of failed consultations. It insists: expropriation must not be arbitrary; compensation must be just.
Yet, as the legal scaffolding is erected, the fundamental question remains—does the law merely refine the mechanics of ownership, or does it reimagine justice itself?
As they moved eastward, they met fierce resistance from the Xhosa, who for a hundred years fought a series of wars against colonial encroachment. The Xhosa stood as one of the longest-lasting obstacles to settler domination, pushing back against British and Boer forces in a struggle that shaped the landscape of resistance. Yet, even as these wars raged, the British tightened their grip on the Cape, and tensions between white factions deepened—Boers, losing their cheap slave labour, trekked north to claim new territories, leaving a trail of blood and conflict.
Despite their divisions, settlers were bound by a shared imperative: the extraction of land and labour at the expense of the indigenous majority.
The discovery of minerals in the late 19th century marked a turning point, shifting South Africa from an agrarian society to an industrial economy fuelled by forced native labour. Capital’s hunger for wealth deepened racial segregation, culminating in the Anglo-Boer Wars, where white capital fought itself before ultimately uniting. In 1910, the Union of South Africa was formed, excluding native South Africans from political and economic power. This exclusion was cemented in 1913 with the passing of the Natives Land Act, which stripped natives of land ownership, confining them to impoverished reserves with the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936 and into “tribal” boundaries called homelands by the Bantu Authorities Act of 1951. The foundation for apartheid had been laid—not just through law, but through centuries of war, theft, and the relentless logic of capital.
The new Expropriation Act of 2024 attempts to pull South Africa’s legal framework closer to the constitutional imperatives of Section 25—the so-called property clause. The legal fiction of “just and equitable compensation” introduced in the Act is an attempt to balance constitutional propriety with the pressure of historical injustice. But whose justice? And what is equitable in a country where land was not bought but taken?
To date, land reform has largely been cosmetic, measured in hectares redistributed rather than in the dismantling of agricultural monopolies or capital structures. The state has danced cautiously around the issue, unwilling to provoke market unrest or dislodge the deeply entrenched privileges of the white agrarian elite. And so, the Expropriation Act emerges as both a promise and a limitation.
The Act permits expropriation in the “public interest,” a term rooted in the Constitution but destined to be contested in courts for years, entangling the process in legal bureaucracy. While the Act provides a framework for expropriation with and, in limited cases, without compensation, it does not fundamentally alter the state’s cautious approach to reclaiming large tracts of unused, unproductive, or speculatively held land. Instead, it remains tethered to negotiation, reinforcing a slow and measured redistribution. The Act acknowledges the rights of unregistered land occupiers, yet recognition alone does not guarantee security or restitution—leaving many still at the mercy of protracted legal and administrative processes.
As argued before, for the nearly 60% of South Africans living off-register in communal areas, informal settlements, or Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) houses, the Expropriation Act of 2024 offers little more than a symbolic gesture. Without title deeds, their claims to land are not legally secured, yet their histories and lived realities are deeply embedded in it. If expropriation is not accompanied by a robust land administration strategy that formalises tenure rights for the dispossessed, it risks becoming another performance of reform rather than a transformative intervention.
The Act’s recognition of unregistered land rights is a step forward, but recognition alone does not equate to protection. Unless the expropriation process is integrated with a comprehensive land administration system to document the rights of unregistered occupiers, those most vulnerable to dispossession will remain in legal limbo. The enactment of a Land Records Act, as recommended by the High-Level Panel Report on the Assessment of Key Legislation (2018) and the Presidential Advisory Panel on Land Reform (2019), is essential to ensuring security of tenure.
Additionally, both panels proposed a National Land Reform Framework Act to establish clear legal principles for redistribution, restitution, and tenure reform. Rather than replacing existing laws, this framework would provide coherence by setting legal criteria for beneficiary selection, land acquisition, and equitable access. It would also introduce mechanisms for transparency, accountability, and alternative dispute resolution, including a Land Rights Protector. The Expropriation Act should not stand in isolation—it must align with these broader legislative efforts to ensure that land reform is not only legally sound but also meaningfully transformative.
Land, under capitalist relations, is not merely a resource—it is a commodity. Any attempt at expropriation without rupturing this logic is bound to be a compromised one. The Act, while acknowledging that compensation may, in certain instances, be set at nil, does not articulate a decisive framework for when and how this will occur, leaving these decisions to courts and policymakers. The absence of a robust redistributive mechanism means that expropriation may ultimately reinforce rather than disrupt market logic.
This is not mere conjecture. In countries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela, land reform initiatives were sabotaged by a combination of domestic elite resistance and international financial retaliation. In South Africa, capital has already signaled its intention to resist large-scale redistribution, with organizations such as AgriSA warning of economic collapse should expropriation be pursued aggressively. This fearmongering is not new. It echoes the same panic-driven narratives that were used to justify land theft in the first place.
Beyond South Africa’s borders, the passage of the Expropriation Act has triggered predictable reactions from Western powers. U.S. President Donald Trump, following a well-worn script of white minority protectionism, issued an executive order cutting aid to South Africa, claiming the law targets white farmers. The European Union has expressed “concern,” a diplomatic prelude to potential economic pressures. Additionally, the U.S. administration has threatened to revoke South Africa’s benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade agreement that facilitates tariff-free exports to the U.S. market. Yet, even as these forces decry land reform under the guise of defending property rights, Trump’s administration has quietly extended refugee status to white Afrikaners, framing them as victims of persecution. This move—granting asylum to the descendants of colonial settlers while barring refugees from war-torn Middle Eastern and African nations—reveals the racialised logic underpinning Western foreign policy. These responses are not about human rights or democracy. They are about the continued assertion of Western interests in the Middle East and Africa’s resources, protecting economic and racial hierarchies that long predate the Expropriation Act.
International finance capital is already tightening its grip, with investment ratings agencies hinting at further downgrades should expropriation proceed in ways deemed unfavourable to the market. The South African state, historically timid in the face of international economic leverage, may find itself retreating into a defensive crouch, reducing expropriation to an instrument of negotiation rather than transformation.
The Expropriation Act has reopened historical wounds, but it is not, in itself, a radical break. Its success or failure will depend on political will, legal battles, and grassroots mobilisation. The Landless People’s Movement, shack dwellers’ organisations, and rural activists have long articulated a vision of land reform that centres the dispossessed rather than the property-owning class. Will the state listen? Or will it once again privilege legal technicalities over substantive justice?
For expropriation to mean something beyond legalese, it must be tied to a broader transformation of land relations in South Africa. This means:
+ Implementing a National Land Reform Framework Act, as proposed by the High-Level Panel and Presidential Advisory Panel on Land Reform, to set clear criteria for redistribution and beneficiary selection.
+ Recognising and securing tenure rights for the millions who live without formal documentation of their land occupancy.
+ Creating mechanisms for community-driven expropriation, where citizens can initiate claims rather than relying solely on the state’s discretion.
+ Dismantling the commercial agrarian monopolies that continue to hoard vast tracts of land.
Expropriation cannot be reduced to a bureaucratic procedure, a sterile legal exercise bound by the logic of the market. It must be a rupture—a deliberate act of redress, dismantling centuries of theft and exclusion. The state stands at a threshold: waver in hesitation, or grasp the weight of history and reimagine South Africa’s land ownership beyond the margins of negotiation. But history is restless. The dispossessed will not wait in endless queues of policy revisions and court battles. The land is calling—not for half-measures, not for another paper revolution, but for a reckoning that answers the injustice written into the soil.
Environmental group River Action is bringing a legal challenge to the Water Services Regulation Authority otherwise known as Ofwat. They’re accusing Ofwat of:
acting unlawfully by using recent, significant bill hikes to cover past infrastructure failures—forcing customers, rather than investors, to foot the bill for decades of neglect.
This particular legal case relates to Lake Windermere in particular, but could have implications for water services around the country.
Pumping sewage – and Ofwat has enabled it
Local campaign groups Save Windermere and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution investigated the regulation of water services in Lake Windermere. They discovered that there had been thousands of hours of raw sewage being pumped into the lake.
Save Windermere explain that when sewage is pumped into bodies of water, this adds phosphorus to the water. This, in turn, creates algal blooms which occur when toxin-producing algae grows rapidly in water. This algae starves the lake of dissolved oxygen. This can be catastrophic for any life forms in the water.
The group also showed just how much sewage United Utilities have been pumping into Lake Windermere. In 2020, they found that 7,236 hours of untreated sewage was pumped into the water. For 2021 and 2022, the number of hours of sewage pumped was just below 6,000. And, in 2023 8,787 hours of untreated sewage was pumped into Windermere.
Over 10 years ago the decision was made not to invest in the removal of United Utilities discharges on the basis of cost. We must stop prioritising cost savings over the protection of the environment.
River Action shared this conclusion, saying in a statement:
River Action has commenced legal action claiming Ofwat has allowed the company to divert funds meant for future projects to deal with past failures—rather than investing in vital improvements to wastewater treatment and pumping stations around the lake.
Effectively, this means that Ofwat has allowed money from customers that should be for infrastructure go to fixing problems that should never have happened, like pumping sewage into a river.
Customers footing the bill
River Action believe that many water companies are doing the same thing. River Action’s Emma Dearnaley said:
We believe Ofwat has acted unlawfully by approving these funds without ensuring they are spent on genuine improvements to essential infrastructure. Instead, this so-called ‘enhanced funding’ is being allowed to be used to cover up years of failure.
Dearnaley explained why River Action are pushing back against Ofwat:
Effectively, Ofwat has signed off on a broken system where customers are being charged again for services they have already funded—while water companies continue to mark their own homework and pollute for profit.
This scandal must be addressed. The cost of fixing the UK’s crumbling water infrastructure should fall on the companies and their investors—not on the British public.
River Action’s statement concluded:
River Action is calling for immediate regulatory action to ensure water companies stop passing the cost of failure onto customers—and start taking responsibility for the environmental damage they have caused.
Denials from Ofwat
In response to the claims, Ofwat said:
We reject River Action’s claims. The PR24 process methodically scrutinised business plans to ensure that customers were getting fair value and investment was justified.
We agree that customers should not pay twice for companies to regain compliance with environmental permits, and have included appropriate safeguards in our PR24 determinations to ensure this, which we will monitor closely, taking action if required. We will respond to their letter in due course.
The “PR24” they refer to is the Price Review of 2024. However, Ofwat, alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and the Environment Agency (EA) were warned at the end of 2024 that they could be taken to court for failing to regulate sewage dumping. The very idea that Ofwat can claim their safeguards are enough when brazen water companies keep pumping sewage into rivers and upping bonuses for bosses is disconcerting to say the least.
Now, it appears that environmental groups like River Action, Save Windermere, and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution have had enough of waiting for regulators to do their jobs.
SPECIAL REPORT: By Markela Panegyres and Jonathan Strauss in Sydney
The new Universities Australia (UA) definition of antisemitism, endorsed last month for adoption by 39 Australian universities, is an ugly attempt to quash the pro-Palestine solidarity movement on campuses and to silence academics, university workers and students who critique Israel and Zionism.
While the Scott Morrison Coalition government first proposed tightening the definition, and a recent joint Labor-Coalition parliamentary committee recommended the same, it is yet another example of the Labor government’s overreach.
It seeks to mould discussion in universities to one that suits its pro-US and pro-Zionist imperialist agenda, while shielding Israel from accountability.
The UA definition comes in the context of a war against Palestinian activism on campuses.
The false claim that antisemitism is “rampant” across universities has been weaponised to subdue the Palestinian solidarity movement within higher education and, particularly, to snuff out any repeat of the student-led Gaza solidarity encampments, which sprung up on campuses across the country last year.
Some students and staff who have been protesting against the genocide since October 2023 have come under attack by university managements.
Some students have been threatened with suspension and many universities are giving themselves, through new policies, more powers to liaise with police and surveil students and staff.
Palestinian, Arab and Muslim academics, as well as other anti-racist scholars, have been silenced and disciplined, or face legal action on false counts of antisemitism, merely for criticising Israel’s genocidal war on Palestine.
Randa Abdel-Fattah, for example, has become the target of a Zionist smear campaign that has successfully managed to strip her of Australian Research Council funding.
Intensify repression The UA definition will further intensify the ongoing repression of people’s rights on campuses to discuss racism, apartheid and occupation in historic Palestine.
By its own admission, UA acknowledges that its definition is informed by the antisemitism taskforces at Columbia University, Stanford University, Harvard University and New York University, which have meted out draconian and violent repression of pro-Palestine activism.
It should be noted that the controversial IHRA definition has been opposed by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) for its serious challenge to academic freedom.
As many leading academics and university workers, including Jewish academics, have repeatedly stressed, criticism of Israel and criticism of Zionism is not antisemitic.
UA’s definition is arguably more detrimental to freedom of speech and pro-Palestine activism and scholarship than the IHRA definition.
In the vague IHRA definition, a number of examples of antisemitism are given that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but not the main text itself.
By contrast, the new UA definition overtly equates criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism and claims Zionist ideology is a component part of Jewish identity.
The definition states that “criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic . . . when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel”.
Dangerously, anyone advocating for a single bi-national democratic state in historic Palestine will be labelled antisemitic under this new definition.
Anyone who justifiably questions the right of the ethnonationalist, apartheid and genocidal state of Israel to exist will be accused of antisemitism.
Sweeping claims The UA definition also makes the sweeping claim that “for most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity”.
But, as the JCA points out, Zionism is a national political ideology and is not a core part of Jewish identity historically or today, since many Jews do not support Zionism. The JCA warns that the UA definition “risks fomenting harmful stereotypes that all Jewish people think in a certain way”.
Moreover, JCA said, Jewish identities are already “a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel are not”.
Like other aspects of politics, political ideologies, such as Zionism, and political stances, such as support for Israel, should be able to be discussed critically.
According to the UA definition, criticism of Israel can be antisemitic “when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions”.
While it would be wrong for any individual or community, because they are Jewish, to be held responsible for Israel’s actions, it is a fact that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former minister Yoav Gallant for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But under the UA definition, since Netanyahu and Gallant are Jewish, would holding them responsible be considered antisemitic?
The implication of the definition for universities, which teach law and jurisprudence, is that international law should not be applied to the Israeli state, because it is antisemitic to do so.
The UA’s definition is vague enough to have a chilling effect on any academic who wants to teach about genocide, apartheid and settler-colonialism. It states that “criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions”.
What these are is not defined.
Anti-racism challenge Within the academy, there is a strong tradition of anti-racism and decolonial scholarship, particularly the concept of settler colonialism, which, by definition, calls into question the very notion of “statehood”.
With this new definition of antisemitism, will academics be prevented from teaching students the works of Chelsea Watego, Patrick Wolfe or Edward Said?
The definition will have serious and damaging repercussions for decolonial scholars and severely impinges the rights of scholars, in particular First Nations scholars and students, to critique empire and colonisation.
UA is the “peak body” for higher education in Australia, and represents and lobbies for capitalist class interests in higher education.
It is therefore not surprising that it has developed this particular definition, given its strong bilateral relations with Israeli higher education, including signing a 2013 memorandum of understanding with Association of University Heads, Israel.
All university students and staff committed to anti-racism, academic freedom and freedom of speech should join the campaign against the UA definition.
Local NTEU branches and student groups are discussing and passing motions rejecting the new definition and NTEU for Palestine has called a National Day of Action for March 26 with that as one of its key demands.
We will not be silenced on Palestine.
Jonathan Strauss and Markela Panegyres are members of the National Tertiary Education Union and the Socialist Alliance. Republished from Green Left with permission.
The Marshall Islands marked 71 years since the most powerful nuclear weapons tests ever conducted were unleashed over the weekend.
The Micronesian nation experienced 67 known atmospheric nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958, resulting in an ongoing legacy of death, illness, and contamination.
The country’s President Hilda Heine says her people continue to face the impacts of US nuclear weapons testing seven decades after the last bomb was detonated.
The Pacific Islands have a complex history of nuclear weapons testing, but the impacts are very much a present-day challenge, Heine said at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Tonga last year.
She said that the consequences of nuclear weapons testing “in our own home” are “expensive” and “cross-cutting”.
“When I was just a young girl, our islands were turned into a big laboratory to test the capabilities of weapons of mass destruction, biological warfare agents, and unexploded ordinance,” she said.
“The impacts are not just historical facts, but contemporary challenges,” she added, noting that “the health consequences for the Marshallese people are severe and persistent through generations.”
“We are now working to reshape the narrative from that of being victims to one of active agencies in helping to shape our own future and that of the world around us,” she told Pacific leaders, where the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres was a special guest.
President Hilda Heine and UN Secretary-General António Guterres at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Nuku’alofa, Tonga, in August 2024 Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
She said the displacement of communities from ancestral lands has resulted in grave cultural impacts, hindering traditional knowledge from being passed down to younger generations.
“As well as certain traditional practices, customs, ceremonies and even a navigational school once defining our very identity and become a distant memory, memorialised through chance and storytelling,” President Heine said.
“The environmental legacy is contamination and destruction: craters, radiation, toxic remnants, and a dome containing radioactive waste with a half-life of 24,000 years have rendered significant areas uninhabitable.
“Key ecosystems, once full of life and providing sustenance to our people, are now compromised.”
Heine said cancer and thyroid diseases were among a list of presumed radiation-induced medical conditions that were particularly prevalent in the Marshallese community.
Displacement, loss of land, and psychological trauma were also contributing factors to high rates of non-communicable diseases, she said.
Runit Dome, also known as “The Tomb”, in the Marshall Islands . . , controversial nuclear waste storage. Image: RNZ Pacific
“Despite these immense challenges, the Marshallese people have shown remarkable resilience and strength. Our journey has been one of survival, advocacy, and an unyielding pursuit of justice.
“We have fought tirelessly to have our voices heard on the international stage, seeking recognition.”
In 2017, the Marshall Islands government created the National Nuclear Commission to coordinate efforts to address testing impacts.
“We are a unique and important moral compass in the global movement for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation,” Heine said.
Kurt Campbell at the Pacific Islands Forum . . . “I think we understand that that history carries a heavy burden.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
The US Deputy Secretary of State in the Biden-Harris administration Kurt Cambell said that Washington, over decades, had committed billions of dollars to the damage and the rebuilding of the Marshall Islands.
“I think we understand that that history carries a heavy burden, and we are doing what we can to support the people in the [Compact of Free Association] states, including the Marshall Islands,” he said.
“This is not a legacy that we seek to avoid. We have attempted to address it constructively with massive resources and a sustained commitment,” he told reporters in Nuku’alofa.
A shared nuclear legacy The National Nuclear Commission chairperson Ariana Tibon-Kilma, a direct descendant of survivors of the nuclear weapons testing programme Project 4.1 — which was the top-secret medical lab study on the effects of radiation on human bodies — told RNZ Pacific that what occured in Marshall Islands should not happen to any country.
“This programme was conducted without consent from any of the Marshallese people,” she said.
“For a number of years, they were studied and monitored, and sometimes even flown out to the US and displayed as a showcase.
“The history and trauma associated with what happened to my family, as well as many other families in the Marshall Islands, was barely spoken of.
“What happened to the Marshallese people is something that we would not wish upon any other Pacific island country or any other person in humanity.”
She said the nuclear legacy was a shared one.
“We all share one Pacific Ocean and what happened to the Marshall Islands, I am, sure resonates throughout the Pacific,” Tibon-Kilma said.
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Pacific head Heike Alefsen at the Pacific Islands Forum . . . “I think compensation for survivors is key.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
Billions in compensation The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Pacific head, Heike Alefsen, told RNZ Pacific in Nuku’alofa that “we understand that there are communities that have been displaced for a long time to other islands”.
“I think compensation for survivors is key,” she said.
“It is part of a transitional justice approach. I can’t really speak to the breadth and the depth of the compensation that would need to be provided, but it is certainly an ongoing issue for discussion.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
A gripping three-part documentary series for ITV1 and ITVX: The Undercover Police Scandal: Love and Lies Exposed – to be broadcast on 6, 13, and 20 March – is based on the book Deep Deception by founder members of Police Spies Out Of Lives. It will explore the story behind the now-infamous Spycops scandal, from the point of view of some of the survivors.
The Undercover Police Scandal: Love and Lies Exposed
Five women who were deceived and blew the lid off this scandal, have entrusted ITV, makers of the award-winning drama series Mr Bates Vs the Post Office, to expose how they turned detective to uncover one of the state’s biggest secrets.
Speaking together on camera for the first time (some of them disguised with wigs and make-up to protect their anonymity) they explain the disturbing similarities between their experiences and how they brought the scandal to public attention: from the way the women were seduced into these relationships, to the almost identical letters they received when they were abandoned – and ghosted – by the men they loved.
The women featured in the documentary have been working together to expose this policing scandal since we first met in 2011.
They said in a joint statement:
Our lives were devastated by the actions of undercover police and this powerful three-part series highlights how we fought back against dehumanising spycops intrusion and abuse, which was sanctioned by the state for decades to undermine progressive campaigns for change.
By shining a light on the role of these undemocratic, secret, political policing units, we hope the programmes contribute to a dramatic shift away from the culture of misogyny that the police and security services have normalised and puts pressure on decision makers to reverse the current legislation that places undercover officers completely beyond the law.
From All3Media production company RAW, The Undercover Police Scandal: Love and Lies Exposed features privileged access to the Guardian journalists who, alongside survivors at the heart of this scandal, broke the story.
Creating a culture shift
Together, they exposed the vast, systemic scale of this 40-year undercover policing operation and unearthed the chilling ‘Tradecraft Manual’ the cops created to guide their abhorrent behaviour. Ultimately, this story is ongoing with a fight for truth and justice that reaches into the present day.
Alison, one of the women who exposed the scandal, said:
We hope that this contributes to a shift in the culture, a shift away from misogyny and sexism that’s been institutionalised in the police. We hope it makes some change, because that is why we got involved in this in the first place.
Rebecca North, Executive Producer at RAW, said:
This is an inspirational, empowering story about women who refused to go away quietly, instead using their ingenuity and tenacity to expose the lies they’d been told by the men they loved, leading to a David vs Goliath battle with the Metropolitan Police. We hope it brings awareness to the scandal.
Jo Clinton-Davis, Controller of Factual ITV said:
When I first learnt about this story, I was determined it needed to be made for a TV audience – and made for ITV. That these five women finally agreed to give ITV and RAW up close and personal access is testament to their courage and resilience. They have been up against a state sponsored operation and with many of them turning detective, such a twist in the story could be the stuff of a thriller – except this is all too shockingly true. Another British scandal of major importance.
In the last five years, police forces in the UK have paid nearly £80m in compensation following claims against them. Figures obtained by Public Interest Lawyers found that 47,658 claims have been lodged against police forces since 2019.
Claims are often put in against a police force if someone feels they have been mistreated or if they feel the police abused their position.
Examples of claims against the police include malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest, sexual misconduct, assault, traffic accidents, and property damage.
Some claims against the police can be made for exceptional circumstances, for example, forces across the UK paid out more than £300,000 in compensation in the last three years after officers raided the homes of innocent people, according to the Express.
This amount resulted from at least 255 separate cases of police forces battering down the wrong doors.
Complaints against the police are rocketing
In 2019/2020, 8,240 claims were lodged against police forces, 2,627 of which were settled, the lowest number of claims over the past five years.
A year later, this number increased to 8,365 claims, with 2,237 of these settled.
Services have experienced another rise in claims over the past year, totalling 11,436.
Another reason for a claim against the police is sexual misconduct. Worryingly, this has become the main source of complaints to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) – the UK police watchdog.
In a May 2022 report, the IOPC said it was ‘highly likely’ the scale of sexual misconduct within law enforcement ‘remains under-represented’, as not all victims report misconduct, with some fearing they won’t be believed.
Signs of inappropriate sexual behaviour by a police officer, such as private contact, nurturing dependence or being overly familiar, have all been grounds for victims to pursue a claim in the past.
In the year ending March 2023, 1,300 police officers and staff across the 43 UK police forces were referred to formal misconduct proceedings as a result of cases such as police complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters.
Also, during this time, 51,605 police complaints involving 42,854 identifiable police officers were finalised, involving 120,243 allegations.
The amount of compensation is also growing
Public Interest Lawyers also obtained figures on the amount of money police forces in the UK have paid out to successful claims since 2019.
Over the past five years, forces have paid out a total of £79,373,401.07, with the highest amount coming in 2023/24 standing at £18,201,878.46.
Compensation claims made against UK police forces since 2019 can include both public claims and those brought internally by police officers and staff.
The most common reason for claims is property damage, with motor-based claims such as car crashes also ranking high.
More alarmingly, claims for unlawful arrests, wrongful imprisonments, and forced entries into properties have been submitted more and more against police forces over the years.
Based on figures gathered from police forces across the country, the forces with the highest claim costs since 2019 have been revealed.
The Met Police had the highest claim costs at nearly £42m, while Police Service Northern Ireland and West Yorkshire Police also had costs of over £4m.
The rise in police compensation: endemic of other issues
Speaking to Public Interest Lawyers, JF Law solicitor Lucy Parker said:
The number of claims made against police forces in the UK shines a light on a crucial issue and highlights the importance of holding institutions accountable.
Potential reasons to claim may include wrongful arrest, assault, malicious prosecution, or negligence however, it’s crucial to remember that each case is unique.
Reasons such as property damage and forced entry by police, without lawful justification, are serious matters and can constitute a significant breach of an individual’s rights.
If you believe the police have wronged you, it’s essential to seek legal advice promptly to understand your options and potential outcomes.
Public Interest Lawyers offers support to people who believe the police have mistreated them and free advice on whether they can claim compensation.
They operate a 24-hour helpline and claim online form, which you can access on their website.
Police in Warwickshire, Thames Valley, Wiltshire, Surrey, Humberside, Hampshire, Gloucestershire, Durham and Cumbria did not respond to Public Interest Lawyers’ Freedom of Information request.
Toxic Thames Water is now trying to get out of the fines that Ofwat imposed upon it for sewage spills and service failures. Predictably, this is on top of the controversial loan that a High Court judge signed off on, despite public outcry. Given the company’s history, all of this was entirely predictable.
Thames Water: now trying to get out of its public fines
Thames Water, the UK’s largest water and wastewater services provider, is currently embroiled in a financial crisis, grappling with a debt exceeding £16 billion.
The company’s creditors, holding approximately £12 billion of this debt, are negotiating a rescue package that may involve converting debt into equity to stabilise Thames Water’s financial standing. A now-shocking aspect of these negotiations is the creditors’ appeal to the industry regulator, Ofwat, to defer fines related to the company’s performance shortcomings, including water leaks and sewage spills, for several years during the company’s turnaround efforts.
The creditors’ rationale for requesting a pause on fines is to ensure that any new capital injected into Thames Water is allocated towards enhancing its deteriorating infrastructure rather than being diverted to pay penalties. They contend that imposing fines during the recovery phase could undermine the effectiveness of the investment, making the rescue plan less viable. A source familiar with the discussions told the Times:
Without further concessions [from Ofwat], there is no investable case for Thames that works for anybody.
Thames Water’s financial predicament is exacerbated by its substantial debt obligations, with annual interest payments amounting to approximately £500 million. This financial strain has raised concerns about the company’s ability to maintain operational stability and meet regulatory standards.
In response, Ofwat has placed Thames Water under a turnaround oversight regime, appointing an independent monitor to regularly assess the company’s operations. The regulator has not publicly commented on the possibility of deferring fines.
Dodgy ‘refinancing’
The proposed refinancing plan for Thames Water includes an initial £3 billion loan, which was approved by the High Court despite concerns over its high 9.75% interest rate. Moreover, there was outrage from the public and many politicians over the fact that the judge sided with the company and shareholders.
This emergency funding is intended to provide the company with sufficient liquidity to continue operations until October 2025. However, junior creditors, who stand to incur significant losses under this plan, have lodged an appeal against the decision, with a hearing scheduled for 11 March.
Failure to secure the necessary funding could result in Thames Water entering a special administration regime, effectively leading to temporary nationalization.
In addition to the immediate financial challenges, Thames Water is exploring options to attract new investors as part of its broader restructuring efforts.
Five bidders, including KKR, CK Infrastructure, Covalis, Castle Water, and the existing group of creditors, are reportedly in contention to invest in the company. The outcome of these negotiations will significantly influence Thames Water’s ability to implement its turnaround strategy and address longstanding operational issues.
Thames Water customers will end up paying
The situation is further complicated by the potential for substantial fines if Thames Water fails to meet performance targets. The company estimates that it could face up to £1 billion in fines over the next five years, particularly concerning external sewage flooding.
Ultimately, though, throughout all of this it is the public that is once again footing the bill. Not only will Thames Water customers end up paying for it’s £3bn loan – it now seems that they are also being swindled out of the fines that Ofwat imposed. It remains to be seen how long the Labour Party government can allow this catastrophe to continue without a serious intervention.
Bribery, theft, conflicts of interest, and other forms of corruption are hampering global efforts to fight climate change and protect the environment. That’s according to a new study by Transparency International that reveals countries that experience high levels of corruption often bypass environmental laws to exploit natural resources, and rely on violence to silence resistance. That violence, one author explains, is often directed at Indigenous peoples.
“Coruption has always existed and probably always will exist unfortunately,” said Brice Böhmer, a researcher with Transparency International. “But at the same time, we have tools to stop corruption like proper consultation and oversight.”
Böhmer said the spillover to Indigenous peoples happens when governments adopt weak policies to address climate change, exposing communities to extreme weather events, first, and later, exploiting those communities through fraud, or political manipulation of policies and funds.
“This is impacting those groups more than other groups,” said Böhmer.
According to the report, countries that support democratic principles, like freedom of expression and assembly, are better protected from corruption. Access to information is important too. For instance, last year, the Dominican Republic’s score improved from previous reports after the country implemented data and collaboration practices to address corruption. Russia has also shown increased corruption as of late with the report showing that the invasion of Ukraine has deepened authoritarianism that suppresses “criticism of the government.”
Indigenous communities have long been stewards of biodiversity, defending vast territories from exploitation — despite that globally, only 35 percent of Indigenous lands are legally protected. Those without protection frequently fall victim to illegal logging, mining and animal trafficking, leading to frequent clashes between land defenders and settlers. In Indonesia, officials look the other way as the production of palm oil destroys Indigenous land. And in Brazil, corruption contributes to the fraudulent sale of protected Indigenous territories, leaving communities vulnerable to displacement and violence.
“You can think of corruption as a tax on everyone. So it’s an additional cost to the services provided by the government,” said Oguzhan Dincer, the director of the Institute for Corruption Studies at Illinois State University. He added that corruption is using public office for private gain and this affects anyone sending their kids to public schools, using public health care systems, or who wants clean air and water. “It takes a long, long time to get rid of corruption. It’s like a virus,” he said.
According to reports from Global Witness, environmental land defenders are at a high risk of intimidation and violence. Last year, nearly 200 people, half of whom were Indigenous or of Afrodescent, were killed for their environmental activism. Since 2012, an estimated 800 Indigenous people have been killed for protecting their lands and territories. According to Transparency International, most killings have occurred in countries who rank high in corruption.
But researchers also found that low levels of corruption did not always correspond with respect for Indigenous peoples. Finland, for instance, is one of the world’s least-corrupt countries according to Transparency International. However, in 2024, the United Nations Human Rights Council urged Finland to undertake justice measures that would address “the legacy of human rights violations endured by the Sámi people. That same year, the United Nations also recommended the country “initiate the process of legal recognition of the rights of Indigenous people to their traditional lands,” because they do not have the protected legal ability to make decisions regarding their homelands. Finnish officials did not respond to requests for comment on this story.
“People should demand anti-corruption policies and see the damage that corruption causes and be notified of the corrupt acts of the representatives,” Dincer said. “I’m portraying an awful picture here, but unfortunately this is really the case.”
Has any nation squandered its diplomatic capital, plundered its own political system, attacked its partners and supplicated itself before its far weaker enemies as rapidly and brazenly as Donald Trump’s America?
The fiery Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday saw the American leader try to publicly humiliate the democratically elected leader of a nation that had been invaded by a rapacious and imperialistic aggressor.
And this was all because Zelensky refused to sign an act of capitulation, criticised Putin (who has tried to have Zelensky killed on numerous occasions), and failed to bend the knee to Trump, the country’s self-described king.
The Oval Office meeting became heated in a way that has rarely been seen between world leaders.
What is worse is Trump has now been around so long that his oafish behaviour has become normalised. Together with his attack dog, Vice-President JD Vance, Trump has thrown the Overton window — the spectrum of subjects politically acceptable to the public — wide open.
Previously sensible Republicans are now either cowed or co-opted. Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is gutting America’s public service and installing toadies in place of professionals, while his social media company, X, is platforming ads from actual neo-Nazis.
The Department of Health and Human Services is helmed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine denier, just as Americans have begun dying from measles for the first time in a decade. And America’s health and medical research has been channelled into ideologically “approved” topics.
At the Pentagon, in a breathtaking act of self-sabotage, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered US Cyber Command to halt all operations targeting Russia.
And cuts to USAID funding are destroying US soft power, creating a vacuum that will gleefully be filled by China. Other Western aid donors are likely to follow suit so they can spend more on their militaries in response to US unilateralism.
What is Trump’s strategy? Trump’s wrecking ball is already having seismic global effects, mere weeks after he took office.
The US vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia for starting the war against Ukraine placed it in previously unthinkable company — on the side of Russia, Belarus and North Korea. Even China abstained from the vote.
States that voted against the resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
In the United Kingdom, a YouGov poll of more than 5000 respondents found that 48 percent of Britons thought it was more important to support Ukraine than maintain good relations with the US. Only 20 percent favoured supporting America over Ukraine.
And Trump’s bizarre suggestion that China, Russia and the US halve their respective defence budgets is certain to be interpreted as a sign of weakness rather than strength.
The oft-used explanation for his behaviour is that it echoes the isolationism of one of his ideological idols, former US President Andrew Jackson. Trump’s aim seems to be ring-fencing American businesses with high tariffs, while attempting to split Russia away from its relationship with China.
These arguments are both economically illiterate and geopolitically witless. Even a cursory understanding of tariffs reveals that they drive inflation because they are paid by importers who then pass the costs on to consumers. Over time, they are little more than sugar pills that turn economies diabetic, increasingly reliant on state protections from unending trade wars.
And the “reverse Kissinger” strategy — a reference to the US role in exacerbating the Sino-Soviet split during the Cold War — is wishful thinking to the extreme.
Putin would have to be utterly incompetent to countenance a move away from Beijing. He has invested significant time and effort to improve this relationship, believing China will be the dominant power of the 21st century.
Putin would be even more foolish to embrace the US as a full-blown partner. That would turn Russia’s depopulated southern border with China, stretching over 4300 kilometres, into the potential front line of a new Cold War.
What does this mean for America’s allies? While Trump’s moves have undoubtedly strengthened the US’ traditional adversaries, they have also weakened and alarmed its friends.
Put simply, no American ally — either in Europe or Asia — can now have confidence Washington will honour its security commitments. This was brought starkly home to NATO members at the Munich Security Conference in February, where US representatives informed a stunned audience that America may no longer view itself as the main guarantor of European security.
Vice-President Vance’s controversial speech to European leaders. Video: DW
The swiftness of US disengagement means European countries must not only muster the will and means to arm themselves quickly, but also take the lead in collectively providing for Ukraine’s security.
Whether they can do so remains unclear. Europe’s history of inaction does not bode well.
US allies also face choices in Asia. Japan and South Korea will now be seriously considering all options – potentially even nuclear weapons – to deter an emboldened China.
There are worries in Australia, as well. Can it pretend nothing has changed and hope the situation will then normalise after the next US presidential election?
The future of AUKUS, the deal to purchase (and then co-design) US nuclear-powered submarines, is particularly uncertain.
Does it make strategic sense to pursue full integration with the US military when the White House could just treat Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul and Canberra with the same indifference it has displayed towards its friends in Europe?
Ultimately, the chaos Trump 2.0 has unleashed in such a short amount of time is both unprecedented and bewildering. In seeking to put “America First”, Trump is perversely hastening its decline. He is leaving America isolated and untrusted by its closest friends.
And, in doing so, the world’s most powerful nation has also made the world a more dangerous, uncertain and ultimately an uglier place to be.
With international media’s attention on the Israeli and Palestinian captives exchange, Israel’s military and settlers have been forcibly displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, says Al Jazeera’s Listening Post media programme.
The European Union has condemned Israel’s military operation in West Bank, attacking and killing refugees, and destroying refugee camps while the Western media has been barely reporting this.
It has also criticised the violence by settlers in illegal West Bank villages.
Israel’s military operation in the occupied territory has been ongoing for more than 40 days and has resulted in dozens of casualties, the displacement of about 40,000 Palestinians from their homes, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
“The EU calls on Israel, in addressing its security concerns in the occupied West Bank, to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law by ensuring the protection of all civilians in military operations and allow the safe return of displaced persons to their homes,” the statement read.
“At the same time, extremist settler violence continues throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
Israel ‘has duty to protect’
“The EU recalls that Israel, as the occupying power, has the duty to protect civilians and to hold perpetrators accountable.”
The bloc also condemned Israel’s policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank, and urged that demolitions “including of EU and EU member states-funded structures, must stop”.
“As we enter the holy month of Ramadan, we call on all parties to exercise restraint to allow for peaceful celebrations,” the EU said.
Meanwhile, Israeli journalists are parroting military talking points of security operations.
Israel invades the West Bank. Video: AJ: The Listening Post
Contributors:
Abdaljawad Omar – Assistant professor, Birzeit University
Jehad Abusalim – Co-editor, Light in Gaza: Writings Born of Fire
Ori Goldberg – Academic and political commentator
Samira Mohyeddin – Founder, On the Line Media
On the Listening Post radar: This week, the return of the Bibas family bodies dominated Israeli media coverage.
Tariq Nafi reports on how their deaths have been used for “hasbara” — propaganda — after the family accused Netanyahu’s government of exploiting their grief for political purposes.
The Kenyan ‘manosphere’ Populated by loudmouths, shock artists and unapologetic chauvinists, the Kenyan “manosphere” is promoting an influential — and at times dangerous — take on modern masculinity.
Featuring:
Audrey Mugeni – Co-founder, Femicide Count Kenya
Awino Okech – Professor of feminist and security studies, SOAS
Onyango Otieno – Mental health coach and writer
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
Protesters fill the Iowa State Capitol to denounce a bill that would strip the state civil rights code of protections based on gender identity on Feb. 27, 2025, in Des Moines.Photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP
Over the last five years, legislators across the country have escalated their attacks on trans youth and adults.
Iowa, however, now holds the dubious distinction of becoming the first statehouse to repeal civil rights protections for trans people. The bill legislators passed on Thursday explicitly removes civil rights protections that had been enshrined in state law. Once the pro-discrimination bill is signed by Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, trans people in Iowa will no longer be considered a protected category under state law.
The bill’s supporters were clear: They want to be able to discriminate against trans people — and don’t want any barriers like pesky civil rights protections in the way.
“If signed, Iowa will become the first state in American history to remove a protected class from its Civil Rights Act,” wrote Erin Reed, a journalist and trans rights advocate, “setting a dangerous precedent for broader rollbacks of anti-discrimination protections.”
Introduced last week, the new legislation was pushed through at breakneck speed. The Republican-led Iowa Legislature voted 60 to 36 in the House and 33 to 15 in the Senate to pass the bill, which now heads to Reynolds’s desk for signing. Reynolds has been a keen participant in the Republicans’ anti-trans onslaught so is unlikely to push back.
Iowa included gender identity in its civil rights code since 2007 with the aim of protecting against employment, housing, health care, education, and other widespread discrimination that trans people face.
A 2024 study from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law found that 82 percent of trans people reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work due to their gender identity or sexual orientation — nearly double the number of cis LGBTQ+ individuals who reported experiencing discrimination. One in 5 trans people have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives.
The move to revoke civil rights — and remove “gender identity” as a protected category — is directly at odds with the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees against discrimination based on sex and gender identity. In line with the Trump administration’s anti-scientific enforcement of two strictly binary sexes, the Iowa bill defines sex as assigned by anatomy at birth.
The Republicans behind the law were unambiguous that civil rights protections were a barrier to enforcing other anti-trans laws on their traditionalist, pro-natalist agenda. It is harder to ban people from bathrooms, from educational spaces, from the public and professional sphere, when those people are understood to have rights.
“All of these common-sense policies are at risk so long as gender identity remains in the Iowa civil rights code,” state Rep. Steven Holt, a Republican supporter of the bill, said on the House floor.
Holt was, of course, referring to the sort of policies that have led to the harassment of both trans and cis people in women’s bathrooms. Such measures have opened the door to proposed genital inspections for children who want to play sports, not to mention the denial of potential lifesaving health care — all in the name of a “common-sense” gender fascism that, for all its alleged naturalness, takes an extraordinary amount of effort and violence to enforce.
Republican claims to women’s safety concerns are based on a phantasma of threat, and part of a broader drive to erase bodily autonomy.
It should not need repeating that trans women have never been found to pose a higher risk of perpetrating an assault in a women’s bathroom than cis women; there is no correlation between trans-inclusive policies and a rise in safety risks. Rather it is trans people, particularly trans people of color, who are at significantly elevated risks of violence, including deadly violence.
I only restate this here because much mainstream coverage of anti-trans attacks like the Iowa legislation — including in the New York Times — depicts these discriminatory assaults as if they represent a debate with two reasonable opposing sides, without clarifying the truth: Republican claims to women’s safety concerns are based on a phantasma of threat, and part of a broader drive to erase bodily autonomy.
Over 2,500 people arrived at the Iowa State Capitol on Thursday to protest the bill, with hundreds filling the building’s rotunda. Their understanding of the situation was far more accurate than the mainstream press. “Fuck you, fascists!” they chanted, as lawmakers took away their fellow Iowans’ civil rights
In the year marking 40 years since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French secret agents and 71 years since the most powerful nuclear weapons tested by the United States, Greenpeace is calling on Washington to comply with demands by the Marshall Islands for nuclear justice.
“The Marshall Islands bears the deepest scars of a dark legacy — nuclear contamination, forced displacement, and premeditated human experimentation at the hands of the US government,” said Greenpeace spokesperson Shiva Gounden.
To mark the Marshall Islands’ Remembrance Day today, the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior is flying the republic’s flag at halfmast in solidarity with those who lost their lives and are suffering ongoing trauma as a result of US nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.
On 1 March 1954, the Castle Bravo nuclear bomb was detonated on Bikini Atoll with a blast 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
On Rongelap Atoll, 150 km away, radioactive fallout rained onto the inhabited island, with children mistaking it as snow.
The Rainbow Warrior is sailing to the Marshall Islands where a mission led by Greenpeace will conduct independent scientific research across the country, the results of which will eventually be given to the National Nuclear Commission to support the Marshall Islands government’s ongoing legal proceedings with the US and at the UN.
Still enduring fallout
Marshall Islands communities still endure the physical, economic, and cultural fallout of the nuclear tests — compensation from the US has fallen far short of expectations of the islanders who are yet to receive an apology.
Former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony deBrum’s “nuclear justice” speech as Right Livelihood Award Winner in 2009. Video: Voices Rising
“To this day, Marshall Islanders continue to grapple with this injustice while standing on the frontlines of the climate crisis — facing yet another wave of displacement and devastation for a catastrophe they did not create,” Gounden said.
“But the Marshallese people and their government are not just survivors — they are warriors for justice, among the most powerful voices demanding bold action, accountability, and reparations on the global stage.
“Those who have inflicted unimaginable harm on the Marshallese must be held to account and made to pay for the devastation they caused.
“Greenpeace stands unwaveringly beside Marshallese communities in their fight for justice. Jimwe im Maron.”
Rainbow Warrior crew members holding the Marshall Islands flag . . . remembering the anniversary of the devastating Castle Bravo nuclear test – 1000 times more powerful than Hiroshima – on 1 March 1954. Image: Greenpeace InternationalChair of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission Ariana Tibon-Kilma . . . “the trauma of Bravo continues for the remaining survivors and their descendents.” Image: UN Human Rights Council
Ariana Tibon Kilma, chair of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission, said that the immediate effects of the Bravo bomb on March 1 were “harrowing”.
“Hours after exposure, many people fell ill — skin peeling off, burning sensation in their eyes, their stomachs were churning in pain. Mothers watched as their children’s hair fell to the ground and blisters devoured their bodies overnight,” she said.
“Without their consent, the United States government enrolled them as ‘test subjects’ in a top secret medical study on the effects of radiation on human beings — a study that continued for 40 years.
“Today on Remembrance Day the trauma of Bravo continues for the remaining survivors and their descendents — this is a legacy not only of suffering, loss, and frustration, but also of strength, unity, and unwavering commitment to justice, truth and accountability.”
The new Rainbow Warrior will arrive in the Marshall Islands early this month.
Alongside the government of the Marshall Islands, Greenpeace will lead an independent scientific mission into the ongoing impacts of the US weapons testing programme.
Travelling across the country, Greenpeace will reaffirm its solidarity with the Marshallese people — now facing further harm and displacement from the climate crisis, and the emerging threat of deep sea mining in the Pacific.
For two years, Joseph Czuba, had a friendly relationship with his Palestinian American tenants in Plainfield, Illinois. But after the war on Gaza ignited, a switch flipped.
Days after October 7, 2023, Czuba told his tenant Hanan Shaheen that she needed to move out, citing the war, and insinuated she was dangerous, Czuba’s ex-wife testified. On the morning of October 14, Shaheen later told investigators that Czuba said he was angry at her for what was happening in Jerusalem. “Let’s pray for peace,” Shaheen responded.
That day, Czuba attacked her and her 6-year-old son with a knife, saying “You, as a Muslim, must die,” Shaheen recalled in testimony this week. Stabbed more than a dozen times, Shaheen escaped to the bathroom and called 911. Czuba then attacked her son, Wadee Alfayoumi, stabbing him 26 times across his body. Alfayoumi did not survive.
An Illinois jury on Friday convicted Czuba, 73, of first-degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated battery, and hate crimes, bringing to a close one of the most shocking hate crime trials to shake the nation after the war on Gaza broke out. He faces up to life in prison.
Czuba’s hateful comments about Palestinians and Muslims took center stage in the trial this week at Will County Courthouse, about 45 miles southwest of Chicago. It included testimony from about 20 witnesses, police footage, and 911 call recordings.
Hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute, but experts say damning evidence of both the killing and the motive in this case likely paved the way for a guilty verdict.
Jeannine Bell, a law and social justice professor at Loyola University Chicago, said there is “abundant evidence” of Czuba’s motivation based on the gruesome nature of the assault and his comments expressing anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia.
In the final stretch of the trial Thursday, prosecutors played a clip of Czuba’s comments about Arabs and Muslims after the stabbing.
“I can’t believe all the protests of people that are supporting PLO,” Czuba said in a video from the back of a patrol car, referring to the Palestine Liberation Organization. “It’s so evil.”
“They are just like infested rats,” he said.
Czuba said that he was afraid for his life and for his wife. He said he was trying to help Shaheen out, and that she couldn’t afford a house. “Didn’t tell me she is a Muslim.”
Czuba said he “begged” Shaheen to “get out for three days,” and she wouldn’t leave. At one point, he said she was a “trained fighter.” “Let me tell you she was a problem.”
Czuba’s attorney, George Lenard, attempted to poke holes in the prosecutions and the police investigation, and argued that just because his client dislikes the PLO does not mean he is hateful.
Abed Ayoub, director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee who has been involved in civil rights advocacy for about two decades, says the common thread in hate-fueled instances is ignorance, and attackers are often people who are easily “radicalized.”
“We need to pay attention in this country to what is driving these …individuals to do this, to commit these crimes, and it’s no secret. It’s the hate rhetoric itself,” Ayoub said.
In Czuba’s case, prosecutors said he had shown a deep interest in the war abroad and had been listening to conservative talk radio.
Ayoub noted he has also seen a rise in anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia from media and politicians across the spectrum since the war on Gaza began.
“Now we’re seeing it in the open,” he said.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a nonprofit civil rights organization, tracked a dramatic rise in complaints in wake of Israel’s assault on Gaza. The organization said it documented 8,061 complaints in 2023 — nearly half of which were from the last three months — the highest tally CAIR has recorded since its founding in 1994.
Bell, of Loyola University, noted similar spikes in hate crimes at two points since the turn of the century: after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, and during the first election of President Donald Trump.
The trial comes amid an attack on civil rights legislation. Trump effectively ordered a freeze on the Justice Department’s current civil rights prosecution and banning new cases. If the order remains in place, one expert says people will have to rely on a patchwork of state laws in hate crime cases.
“Our hate crimes law enforcement system simply is dysfunctional, or non-functional, and has-been.”
“That means that we cannot rely on the federal government to prosecute hate crimes, and so states are going to have to do it for there to be meaningful prosecution of hate crimes,” said Richard Wilson, a law and anthropology professor at the University of Connecticut.
Most cases are tried in state court, and hate crime laws vary significantly across the U.S. Removing federal litigation could have major consequences, especially in jurisdictions with weak protections, Wilson said. Washington state and New York, for instance, have a rigorous prosecution record; South Carolina and Wyoming do not, he said.
“Our hate crimes law enforcement system simply is dysfunctional, or non-functional, and has-been,” Wilson said.
While convictions like Czuba’s show the importance of state law, the federal retreat poses a major problem. “The conclusion has to be that we tolerate hate crimes,” Wilson said.
The University of Cambridge has lost its legal bid to stop pro-Palestine, anti-genocide protests on certain parts of its campus.
University of Cambridge: draconian actions
Palestine campaigners have welcomed an important victory in defence of their rights to protest. At short notice the University of Cambridge attempted to secure a draconian five year long injunction to prevent specifically Israel and Palestine-related protest at key sites on campus.
This unprecedented attack on the right to protest and freedom of expression was defeated in court by the ELSC, who intervened in support of campaigners.
The University of Cambridge attempted to argue that the injunction until 2030 was urgently required before graduation ceremonies this weekend, but the judge Mr Justice Fordham dismissed this application, saying he would grant only a “very narrow and limited court order” until Saturday 1 March 2025.
This only prohibits entry and erecting structures – other protest is not injuncted.
A further hearing is scheduled for March as the judge said it was “a matter of significant concern” that the university’s application offered little time for potential interested parties to properly respond.
Ahead of the hearing, ELSC, PSC, Liberty, and UCU were joined by Cambridge SU and the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Assembly to condemn the university’s discriminatory attack on fundamental rights to protest, which disproportionately affects Palestinian students and staff.
The university sought to silence those demanding that it ends its complicity in Israel’s genocide. PSC research has previously found that British universities invest nearly £430m in companies complicit in Israel’s violations of international law.
A significant victory
Ben Jamal, PSC director, said:
This is an important victory for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, both of which should be cornerstones of university life. The University of Cambridge tried to single out Palestinian staff and students and those speaking up for international law, and subject them to draconian restrictions not applied to protestors on any other issue. This decision should mark a watershed in defence of freedom of expression and the right to protest.
Anna Ost, senior legalofficer, ELSC, said:
This is a significant victory – one that sends a strong message to other universities attempting to impose such draconian restrictions on freedom of assembly and protest. The University of Cambridge’s efforts to undermine its students’ civil liberties – by seeking an injunction to effectively ban expressions of Palestine solidarity both on and off campus until 2030 – represented the broadest restriction on university protests to date. We are thrilled that the court has refused to grant it today, but this fight is not over. Another hearing is scheduled for the end of March, and we hope the court will recognise, as we do, that this is a blatant violation of students’ fundamental rights.
Since October 2023, we have witnessed ongoing attempts to undermine students’ right to protest and to challenge their institutions’ complicity in violations of international law and genocide. It is our responsibility to fight this wider pattern of repression against our movement, on university campuses or otherwise, and against our civil liberties in the legal terrain.
Cambridge 4 Palestine commented:
This decision represents a massive political victory for our movement in solidarity with Palestine, and for student political expression at large. The court has revealed that Cambridge’s racist targeting of Palestinian identity, and demonisation of students and staff who protest the University’s complicity in genocide is baseless and unacceptable.
At the same time, however, C4P asserted that “the freedom to protest is the bare minimum and a fundamental right. Our true win will come when we see an end to the University’s partnership with Israel’s genocidal campaigns”.
The Trump administration has officially eliminated guidelines that protect transgender people in federal prisons. It is the latest step in implementing one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting trans inmates and detainees in federal custody.
In a brief directive circulated to federal Bureau of Prisons employees on Thursday, a copy of which was reviewed by The Intercept, the acting director of the federal Bureau of Prisons, William Lothrop, rescinded the agency’s Transgender Offender Manual. The guidelines were removed from the BOP website in late January, but the agency has continued to cite them in ongoing lawsuits over Trump’s executive order.
Lothrop’s memo, dated February 25, cancels the Transgender Offender Manual “effective immediately” and orders it removed from the BOP intranet and prison libraries.
BOP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The Transgender Offender Manual was based on constitutional protections and federal law, so I think it is a very dangerous step backwards,” said Richard Saenz, an attorney at Lambda Legal.
The guidelines had been last updated in 2022, reversing changes made during the first Trump administration. They had instructed prison wardens and staff on minimal protections for trans inmates, consistent with federal regulations and the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The policy reflected the “increased risk of suicide, mental health issues and victimization of transgender inmates.”
Under the prior guidelines, protections included considering housing placements for trans and intersex prisoners on a “case-by-case basis” to “ensure the inmate’s health and safety,” as well as shielding trans women from being searched by male guards and forbidding staff from deliberating misgendering inmates.
In separate guidance circulated last week, a copy of which was also shared with The Intercept, the BOP acknowledged that Trump’s executive order “does not supersede or change BOP’s obligation to comply with Federal law and regulations.” Saenz also emphasized that the Trump administration cannot erase constitutional protections for incarcerated trans people.
“It’s attempting to defy these well-established protections” for inmates’ safety and adequate healthcare, Saenz said of the BOP’s rescission order.
The new guidance says nothing about how BOP will proceed with plans to move trans women to male facilities, which is currently being challenged in court. “The risk of serious violence Plaintiffs face if transferred to men’s facilities is known to BOP and is why these individuals were permitted to live in female facilities in the first place,” lawyers for a dozen trans women in federal custody wrote in a court filing earlier this week.
On Monday, a federal judge blocked BOP from transferring the women to male prisons, finding this likely violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The BOP’s new guidance for trans prisoners is also silent about gender-affirming care, which Trump’s executive order also attempts to eliminate. On Monday, the judge also ordered the BOP to maintain the same medical care for the dozen inmates that the bureau received before Trump took office.
But under the new agency guidance, search accommodations for trans inmates “are no longer authorized.” BOP staff must “refer to individuals by their legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex.”
The new guidance also prohibits inmates from receiving “clothing accommodations,” such as “undergarments that do not align with an inmate’s biological sex.” The rescinded manual allowed trans inmates to select undergarments that reflected their gender identity, and wardens could approve other items on an individualized basis. Under the new guidance order, inmates who previously purchased commissary items can keep them, a reversal of moves by some wardens earlier this month to confiscate clothing items.
Although the immediate impact of rescinding the BOP guidelines is unclear as lawsuits proceed over Trump’s executive orders, advocates fear the signal that such moves send to corrections officials around the country.
“These unconstitutional and dangerous attacks by the Trump administration should not be seen as a green light for state systems to follow along,” Saenz said. “These actions and this hostile, hateful rhetoric does not change the fact that there are laws protecting trans people.”
Guantánamo Bay has been a fiendish experiment in US law for decades. The fiendishness lies in the subversion. Operating as a naval base in Cuba, this contentious facility has been the site and location for the cruelties of paranoia and empire, a place where such laws as due process are subverted, and the presumption to innocence soiled. In this contorted way, the civilian and military branches have mingled and corrupted, the result proving a nightmare for legal authorities keen to ensure that such a facility does, at the very least, observe that sad, dusty relic known as the rule of law.
Legal sharpshooters have been baffled by the latest experiment with the facility, this time from the Trump administration and its efforts to use it as a detention centre for unwanted migrants. On January 29, the US president directed the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security “to take all appropriate actions to expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to full capacity to provide additional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States”. Furthermore, the secretaries were directed “to address attendant immigration enforcement needs identified” by the departments. The first flight transferring migrants from US soil to the facility took place on February 4 this year.
The intention is to house up to 30,000 people, but it is already clear that not all, contrary to what the president claims, are “the worst criminal aliens threatening the American people.” Some have been found to be of a “low-threat” category, hardly the sort to terrify the peace of mind of your average US citizen. Yet again, we find himself inhabiting a world of dismal illusions.
Such an authorisation can hardly be said to fall within the all too conveniently expansive 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which focuses on the interminable prosecution of the formerly known Global War on Terror. The MOC is its own beast, a separate instrument controversial for “housing” (as opposed to “detaining”) its residents. It is located on the Leeward side of the base and was created to house Caribbean migrants interdicted at sea in the 1990s.
The entities relevant to running the MOC are the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) responsible to the Department of Homeland Security. Interdicted migrants are assessed to see if they deserve “protected” status, one that is granted if the individual has a genuine fear of harm arising if they are returned to their country or origin. Historically, during the phase of their assessment, migrants receive a basic set of services in healthcare, housing, education, and job training.
The use of the island to deal with immigrants has been a blighted practice undertaken by US administrations since the 1970s. The Ford and Carter administrations held Haitians at the base as they awaited asylum interviews. After a cessation of immigration detention onsite under the Reagan administration, the unsavoury practice was resumed in 1991. Again involving Haitians, only this time in greater numbers, given the military coup, some 12,500 were transferred to a shoddy, makeshift camp. Under Bill Clinton’s presidency, the camp was emptied, but the rights of those interdicted was systematically stripped to enable them to be repatriated. In 1994, the camp, in all its squalid ingloriousness, was reopened to house Cubans and Haitians in their tens of thousands.
The issue of valid authorisation is not a mere semantic quibble. Trump’s actions have consequential disturbances to the rule of law. The administration is seemingly pushing, not merely a smudging of the categories in terms of dealing with migrants, but their obliteration. What we are left with is a nasty mixture of terror and malfeasance, a point that utterly repudiates basic protections offered by the UN Refugee Convention.
Nor is it clear whether the administration can legally carry out these measures. The MOC migrants being transferred will not be deprived of legal rights afforded them under the US Constitution, which include access to the judicial system and legal counsel, due process protections which cover arbitrary or indefinite detention, the right to appropriate conditions of confinement, and the right to seek release from unlawful detention. It is also important to distinguish those immigrants interdicted at sea who seek asylum in the United States, and those already on US soil. A case is currently pending on the issue before US Judge Carl Nichols in Washington, D.C., though a court date is yet to be set.
In terms of both cost and logistics, this detention measure is also untenable. It has been estimated that the average cost for an immigration detention bed will be quintupled from its current annual total of $57,378. Ensuring access to legal counsel and guaranteeing humane treatment will also present a nightmarish scenario for the authorities, given the scale of the expansion sought by Trump.
So far, lawyers from the Justice Department have unconvincingly claimed that the limited availability of phone calls to counsel located off the base was a “reasonable and consistent” measure when it comes to the “temporary staging” of migrants with final deportation orders to other countries.
The Trump administration’s waspish approach to unwanted immigrants replicates the pattern of deterrence and demonisation used by other countries (member states in the European Union and Australia comes to mind) that have treated unwanted arrivals as an interchangeable commodity with political objects and national security: the terrorist, the hardened criminal, the deviant, the immoral figure best barred from entering their borders. But at the very least, a firmly established legal system, if mobilised correctly, has some prospect of sinking this hideous experiment.
Avocados are entrenched in American cuisine. The rich, creamy fruit, swaddled in a coarse skin, is often smashed into guacamole, slathered on toast, or minced into salads.
The nation’s demand forPersea americanahas surged by 600 percent since 1998. Most of the avocados consumed in the U.S., and many of those eaten elsewhere in the world, are a single variety grown in Michoacán, a state in west-central Mexico with an immensely profitable export industry worth at least $2 billion annually. But this “green gold rush” has come at a steep climatic cost, as vast tracts of protected land are razed for orchards.
“We are losing the forest,” said Alejandro Méndez López, who has been the secretary of environment in Michoacán since 2022. Every year, up to 24,700 acres are illegally cleared for avocado production. “The main contribution of Michoacán for climate change is land-use change. So I think the whole world should be concerned.”
The state government hopes to mitigate that through a certification program that ensures packinghouses that ship the fruit to international markets are buying sustainably grown avocados. The effort, called Pro-Forest Avocado certification, launched last fall, and uses satellites to monitor orchards for signs of clear-cutting. Ultimately, the aim is to do away with deals between processors and producers that aren’t adhering to Mexico’s sweeping anti-deforestation law.
That hasn’t gone over well with everyone in a business that has grown so profitable that it’s attracted interest from drug cartels and civilian militias.
Méndez López helped create this program and is its public face. He has spent the past month meeting with angry avocado growers throughout Michoacán, always in a car outfitted with bulletproof windows and accompanied by police. Despite his attempts to ease their concerns, he says many leave no less irate. Their problem isn’t so much with him, but what his presence represents: the government’s rollout of a program that is voluntary for packinghouses but leaves growers fearing they have little choice but to comply.
“They were very angry. I was telling them that this certification is not compulsory, but many of them believe that this is a hidden way to tax them,” he said. Given the powerful role cartels play in the avocado business, his efforts to address the industry’s ecological and climatic impact has created no small risk to his safety. Some growers have started anonymously boycotting packinghouses that join, denouncing them as “traitors.” “I don’t want to be killed,” he said. “I’m a bit afraid, because right now we are touching their economic interests.”
Climate activists and analysts say the program could replicate the market changes seen with other ethical labeling efforts like fair trade coffee and dolphin-free tuna. Locals are more skeptical, and worry that the industry’s history of corruption will undermine progress. And there’s always the question of it receiving the support needed to succeed. But Méndez López believes this is a legitimate solution to a grave issue. Even threats of violence won’t deter the work.
“We have very few resources,” he said. “They can come to my office and put a gun to my head, but they won’t be able to shut down a satellite.”
A worker holds an avocado in an orchard on February 6, 2025 in Tenancingo de Degollado, Mexico. Cristopher Rogel Blanquet via Getty Images
Nearly a third of the avocados consumed worldwide — more than 2 million metric tons annually — are grown in Michoacán’s “Avocado Belt.” Fertile volcanic soils, elevated terrain, and warm, subtropical microclimates with ample rainfall make it the only region in the world with large-scale production year-round.
Michoacán started moving toward the center of the global avocado trade in 1994 when the North American Free Trade Agreement opened the U.S. to imports from south of the border. By 2007, it was the only Mexican state authorized to send avocados throughout the U.S. This provided consumers with year-round access to the fruit, which further drove demand. Since 2019 alone, avocado exports to the United States have surged 48 percent. (Some 90 percent are the market-dominating Hass variety.)
That explosive growth has brought opportunity to economically disadvantaged areas. Juan Gabriel Pedraza, an Indigenous Purépecha farmer in the town of Sicuicho, told Grist that his people plant orchards even as they strive to protect the forests. He raises roughly 720 avocado trees alongside the pines. The crop “has brought life” to his community, which was once “extremely, extremely poor.”
“We are like guardians of the forest, because if the forest disappears, then it’s going to affect everything else,” he said in Spanish. “We are always careful with keeping the forest healthy. It’s a duty of ours.”
Over the years, enormous avocado export profits have led to an escalation of violence that has surged alongside demand. Local cartels have bribed agricultural officials and police and extorted or kidnapped growers to maintain a stronghold in the lucrative business, while civilian militias have fought for control of their communities. Avocados are now Michoacán’s, and one of Mexico’s, biggest agricultural exports. This booming industry has triggered widespread violation of a federal law banning clear-cutting without government approval. About 95 percent of the deforestation in Mexico happens illegally.
The problem has since expanded to neighboring Jalisco, the only other Mexican state authorized to ship avocados to the U.S. Some 40,000 to 70,000 acres across the two states were cleared between 1983 and 2023 to grow the fruit destined for American supermarkets, according to a Climate Rights International report. It also found that major U.S. supermarket chains, including Costco, Target, and Walmart, bought from packinghouses whose supply chains included orchards on recently deforested land.
“More and more, these forests were disappearing and being transformed into avocado orchards,” said Antonio González-Rodríguez, a forest conservation scientist at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Michoacán’s capital city of Morelia.
In 2022, his team estimated that another 100,000 hectares of orchards could be established in Michoacán by 2050 — an area roughly 17 times the size of Manhattan — of which more than two-thirds would lead to forest loss. That includes protected reserves home to endangered species like the eastern Monarch butterfly. Such a loss would represent “more than 10 percent of the remaining forest,” said González-Rodríguez.
That comes with a staggering planetary cost. Chopping down forests eliminates vital carbon sinks and diminishes an ecosystem’s ability to store carbon. Meanwhile, warming threatens to reduce the amount of land highly suited to avocado cultivation by up to 41 percent worldwide within 25 years.
Clear-cutting also contributes to water scarcity by increasing soil erosion and disrupting natural filtration processes, throwing off the water cycle. Over the course of one decade, deforestation can have the same impact on a community’s access to clean drinking water as a 9 percent decrease in rainfall. This is increasingly an issue as Mexico faces a severe supply crisis.
It doesn’t help that avocado trees need a lot of water and are only getting thirstier as the world warms. Water demand for the crop in Uruapan, Michoacán’s second largest city, rose nearly 24 percent from 2012 to 2017, with orchards drawing 120 percent of the amount allocated to agriculture, creating shortages. Last year, droughts prompted some growers to illegally siphon it from lakes or basins into unlicensed irrigation ponds.
“The expansion of the avocado industry is creating a conflict over water,” González-Rodríguez said. “It’s going to become one of the more serious problems, socially and politically.”
Juan Gabriel Pedraza, an Indigenous Purépecha farmer in the town of Sicuicho, told Grist that his people plant orchards even as they strive to protect the forests. Juan Gabriel Pedraza
Voluntary certification programs that rely on public interest in fair and sustainable practices have reshaped consumer purchasing of everything from coffee to tuna. But assessing their impact can be difficult, said Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director of the Center for Biological Diversity.
One fundamental flaw many of these efforts share is a reliance on self-reporting, with little accountability and inadequate follow-up. Those that operate independently of the government often lack regulatory oversight, while others attempt to cover so many products, or so large a geographic area, that they rarely disrupt large industries or markets, she said. Crops associated with widespread deforestation, such as the Cavendish banana, often end up bogged down in too many certification schemes, with multiple retailers requesting several iterations of “sustainable” labels. At worst, these efforts provide little more than greenwashing, and typically at a high cost to producers.
Michoacán’s Pro-Forest program sidesteps many of those issues by focusing on a single product grown in a specific region and sold primarily to one international market. Its labeling scheme was created by a forest conservation nonprofit working in collaboration with the state government, researchers at local universities, and environmental organizations. It could soon end up boosted by Mexico’s federal government, which on January 30 announced the forthcoming launch of a national program to eliminate deforestation and water exploitation for agricultural exports. A week later, Michoacán Governor Alfredo Ramírez Bedolla issued anti-deforestation certificates to six packing plants and two orchards that together supply roughly 31 percent of the state’s avocados sold to the U.S.
Orchards qualify for the scheme if they’ve had no deforestation since 2018, no forest fires since 2012, and do not operate on protected land. Government subsidies cover enrollment costs for packinghouses, while growers are charged about $40 for every 2.5 acres for certification. Growers must also pay for the conservation of a forest area to make up for the water consumption of their avocado cultivation. In a “plus” version of the program, companies commit to prioritizing buying from locally certified orchards. (No incentive for this tier exists just yet).
So far, about 10 percent of the state’s packinghouses that send avocados to the U.S. have signed on. That means they’ve agreed to be informed which orchards are complying with the guidelines — and to cease working with those that do not. Packinghouses that continue buying from orchards in violation of the anti-deforestation guidelines lose the ability to certify their avocados as sustainably sourced.
But no one is promising to buy avocados only from orchards bearing the state’s official seal of approval, because there simply aren’t enough of them. As it stands, 937 out of the state’s 53,105 orchards have signed up, a number that changes almost daily, Heriberto Padilla Ibarra told Grist. Ibarra leads Guardian Forestal, the nonprofit overseeing the program’s remote sensing efforts.
The scant participation may reflect the fact that local producers must pay for certification that packinghouses receive for free. It could also be because growers like Icpac Escalera have little faith in government initiatives. Escalera runs his family’s organic avocado orchard in the town of Acuitzio del Canje. Although he considers the labeling a valiant effort, he says the 2018 date barring deforestation “is not enough.” He also doubts the state has sufficient resources to enforce it, and is worried that it will further disenfranchise smaller producers “without political clout.”
“The political situation hasn’t really helped anything in terms of making sure that deforestation is being properly handled,” Escalera said in Spanish. “Many politicians have avocado fields. It’s a well-known secret. There are not enough incentives for the smaller producers to maintain the forest, and because of that, the forests are disappearing.”
All the while, global demand for avocados continues to soar. Production in other top exporters like Colombia, Peru, and the Dominican Republic is booming, and breeders are developing new varieties. Even as avocados could overtake pineapples and mangos to become the world’s most traded tropical fruit as early as this year, regulators are stepping in to minimize their environmental and climatic impacts.
The European Union is set to begin implementing “deforestation-free” product regulations in December. The United States took strides in that direction one year ago when several senators urged the Biden administration to address the role the country takes in driving the crisis as a primary market for avocados. Ken Salazar, the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, announced that avocados grown in illegally cleared orchards should be blocked from the market, before the administration released a policy framework on how to begin doing so for all agricultural imports in December.
President Donald Trump has yet to address the topic, but given his administration’s hostility toward climate action, he isn’t likely to do much about the issue for that reason. But the impending threat of tariffs on Mexico imply the administration may be interested in doing something about it, if for no reason than to limit overall imports from the country, said James Sayre, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis. “In a way, the Trump administration could end up acting on the deforestation issue,” he said.
Despite the controversial reputation of product labeling, Méndez López remains optimistic about Michoacán’s certification initiative. He hopes to see Mexico and its biggest avocado market federally mandate the need for such schemes. “It would be wonderful if the U.S. had a compulsory [requirement] for the imports of avocado to be deforestation-free. That would be perfect. But, we didn’t get so far [with the Biden administration]. And I don’t know if this new administration will do that,” he said.
For Julio Santoyo Guerrero, an environmental activist in the Michoacán municipality of Madero, the program, while “barely a lifeline” is at least a measure that warns people of the dire ethical and environmental costs linked to every avocado they consume.
“Our biggest cancer is corruption … I believe that the cause that originated the expansion of avocados, the market demand, will be the same thing that can stop it,” said Guerrero in Spanish. “If the market continues to function without regulation, our forests will continue to be destroyed.”
