Category: Justice

  • COMMENTARY: By Mandy Henk

    When the US Embassy knocked on my door in late 2024, I was both pleased and more than a little suspicious.

    I’d worked with them before, but the organisation where I did that work, Tohatoha, had closed its doors. My new project, Dark Times Academy, was specifically an attempt to pull myself out of the grant cycle, to explore ways of funding the work of counter-disinformation education without dependence on unreliable governments and philanthropic funders more concerned with their own objectives than the work I believed then — and still believe — is crucial to the future of human freedom.

    But despite my efforts to turn them away, they kept knocking, and Dark Times Academy certainly needed the money. I’m warning you all now: There is a sense in which everything I have to say about counter-disinformation comes down to conversations about how to fund the work.

    DARK TIMES ACADEMY

    There is nothing I would like more than to talk about literally anything other than funding this work. I don’t love money, but I do like eating, having a home, and being able to give my kids cash.

    I have also repeatedly found myself in roles where other people look to me for their livelihoods; a responsibility that I carry heavily and with more than a little clumsiness and reluctance.

    But if we are to talk about President Donald Trump and disinformation, we have to talk about money. As it is said, the love of money is the root of all evil. And the lack of it is the manifestation of that evil.

    Trump and his attack on all of us — on truth, on peace, on human freedom and dignity — is, at its core, an attack that uses money as a weapon. It is an attack rooted in greed and in avarice.

    In his world, money is power
    But in that greed lies his weakness. In his world, money is power. He and those who serve him and his fascist agenda cannot see beyond the world that money built. Their power comes in the form of control over that world and the people forced to live in it.

    Of course, money is just paper. It is digital bits in a database sitting on a server in a data centre relying on electricity and water taken from our earth. The ephemeral nature of their money speaks volumes about their lack of strength and their vulnerability to more powerful forces.

    They know this. Trump and all men like him know their weaknesses — and that’s why they use their money to gather power and control. When you have more money than you and your whānau can spend in several generations, you suddenly have a different kind of  relationship to money.

    It’s one where money itself — and the structures that allow money to be used for control of people and the material world — becomes your biggest vulnerability. If your power and identity are built entirely on the power of money, your commitment to preserving the power of money in the world becomes an all-consuming drive.

    Capitalism rests on many “logics” — commodification, individualism, eternal growth, the alienation of labour. Marx and others have tried this ground well already.

    In a sense, we are past the time when more analysis is useful to us. Rather, we have reached a point where action is becoming a practical necessity. After all, Trump isn’t going to stop with the media or with counter-disinformation organisations. He is ultimately coming for us all.

    What form that action must take is a complicated matter. But, first we must think about money and about how money works, because only through lessening the power of money can we hope to lessen the power of those who wield it as their primary weapon.

    Beliefs about poor people
    If you have been so unfortunate to be subject to engagement with anti-poverty programmes during the neoliberal era either as a client or a worker, you will know that one of the motivations used for denying direct cash aid to those in need of money is a belief on the part of government and policy experts that poor people will use their money in unwise ways, be it drugs or alcohol, or status purchases like sneakers or manicures.

    But over and over again, there’s another concern raised: cash benefits will be spent on others in the community, but outside of those targeted with the cash aid.

    You see this less now that ideas like a universal basic income (UBI) and direct cash transfers have taken hold of the policy and donor classes, but it is one of those rightwing concerns that turned out to be empirically accurate.

    Poor people are more generous with their money and all of their other resources as well. The stereotype of the stingy Scrooge is one based on a pretty solid mountain of evidence.

    The poor turn out to understand far better than the rich how to defeat the power that money gives those who hoard it — and that is community. The logic of money and capital can most effectively be defeated through the creation and strengthening of our community ties.

    Donald Trump and those who follow him revel in creating a world of atomised individuals focused on themselves; the kind of world where, rather than relying on each other, people depend on the market and the dollar to meet their material needs — dollars. of course, being the source of control and power for their class.

    Our ability to fund our work, feed our families, and keep a roof over our heads has not always been subject to the whims of capitalists and those with money to pay us. Around the world, the grand multicentury project known as colonialism has impoverished us all and created our dependency.

    Colonial projects and ‘enclosures’
    I cannot speak as a direct victim of the colonial project. Those are not my stories to tell. There are so many of you in this room who can speak to that with far more eloquence and direct experience than I. But the colonial project wasn’t only an overseas project for my ancestors.

    In England, the project was called “enclosure”.

    Enclosure is one of the core colonial logics. Enclosure takes resources (land in particular) that were held in common and managed collectively using traditional customs and hands them over to private control to be used for private rather than communal benefit. This process, repeated over and over around the globe, created the world we live in today — the world built on money.

    As we lose control over our access to what we need to live as the land that holds our communities together, that binds us to one another, is co-opted or stolen from us, we lose our power of self-determination. Self-governance, freedom, liberty — these are what colonisation and enclosure take from us when they steal our livelihoods.

    As part of my work, I keep a close eye on the approaches to counter-disinformation that those whose relationship to power is smoother than my own take. Also, in this the year of our Lord 2025, it is mandatory to devote at least some portion of each public talk to AI.

    I am also profoundly sorry to have to report that as far as I can tell, the only work on counter-disinformation still getting funding is work that claims to be able to use AI to detect and counter disinformation. It will not surprise you that I am extremely dubious about these claims.

    AI has been created through what has been called “data colonialism”, in that it relies on stolen data, just as traditional forms of colonialism rely on stolen land.

    Risks and dangers of AI
    AI itself — and I am speaking here specifically of generative AI — is being used as a tool of oppression. Other forms of AI have their own risks and dangers, but in this context, generative AI is quite simply a tool of power consolidation, of hollowing out of human skill and care, and of profanity, in the sense of being the opposite of sacred.

    Words, art, conversation, companionship — these are fiercely human things. For a machine to mimic these things is to transgress against all of our communities — all the more so when the machine is being wielded by people who speak openly of genocide and white supremacy.

    However, just as capitalism can be fought through community, colonialism can and has been fought through our own commitment to living our lives in freedom. It is fought by refusing their demands and denying their power, whether through the traditional tools of street protest and nonviolent resistance, or through simply walking away from the structures of violence and control that they have implemented.

    In the current moment, that particularly includes the technological tools that are being used to destroy our communities and create the data being used to enact their oppression. Each of us is free to deny them access to our lives, our hopes, and dreams.

    This version of colonisation has a unique weakness, in that the cyber dystopia they have created can be unplugged and turned off. And yet, we can still retain the parts of it that serve us well by building our own technological infrastructure and helping people use that instead of the kind owned and controlled by oligarchs.

    By living our lives with the freedom we all possess as human beings, we can deny these systems the symbolic power they rely on to continue.

    That said, this has limitations. This process of theft that underlies both traditional colonialism and contemporary data colonialism, rather than that of land or data, destroys our material base of support — ie. places to grow food, the education of our children, control over our intellectual property.

    Power consolidated upwards
    The outcome is to create ever more dependence on systems outside of our control that serve to consolidate power upwards and create classes of disposable people through the logic of dehumanisation.

    Disposable people have been a feature across many human societies. We see it in slaves, in cultures that use banishment and exile, and in places where imprisonment is used to enforce laws.

    Right now we see it in the United States being directed at scale towards those from Central and Latin America and around the world. The men being sent to the El Salvadorian gulag, the toddlers sent to immigration court without a lawyer, the federal workers tossed from their jobs — these are disposable people to Trump.

    The logic of colonialism relies on the process of dehumanisation; of denying the moral relevance of people’s identity and position within their communities and families. When they take a father from his family, they are dehumanising him and his family. They are denying the moral relevance of his role as a father and of his children and wife.

    When they require a child to appear alone before an immigration judge, they are dehumanising her by denying her the right to be recognised as a child with moral claims on the adults around her. When they say they want to transition federal workers from unproductive government jobs to the private sector, they are denying those workers their life’s work and identity as labourers whose work supports the common good.

    There was a time when I would point out that we all know where this leads, but we are there now. It has led there, although given the US incarceration rate for Black men, it isn’t unreasonable to argue that in fact for some people, the US has always been there. Fascism is not an aberration, it is a continuation. But the quickening is here. The expansion of dehumanisation and hate have escalated under Trump.

    Dehumanisaton always starts with words and  language. And Trump is genuinely — and terribly — gifted with language. His speeches are compelling, glittering, and persuasive to his audiences. With his words and gestures, he creates an alternate reality. When Trump says, “They’re eating the cats! They’re eating the dogs!”, he is using language to dehumanise Haitian immigrants.

    An alternate reality for migrants
    When he calls immigrants “aliens” he is creating an alternate reality where migrants are no longer human, no longer part of our communities, but rather outside of them, not fully human.

    When he tells lies and spews bullshit into our shared information system, those lies are virtually always aimed at creating a permission structure to deny some group of people their full humanity. Outrageous lie after outrageous lie told over and over again crumbles society in ways that we have seen over and over again throughout history.

    In Europe, the claims that women were consorting with the devil led to the witch trials and the burning of thousands of women across central and northern Europe. In Myanmar, claims that Rohinga Muslims were commiting rape, led to mass slaughter.

    Just as we fight the logics of capitalism with community and colonialism with a fierce commitment to our freedom, the power to resist dehumanisation is also ours. Through empathy and care — which is simply the material manifestation of empathy — we can defeat attempts to dehumanise.

    Empathy and care are inherent to all functioning societies — and they are tools we all have available to us. By refusing to be drawn into their hateful premises, by putting morality and compassion first, we can draw attention to the ridiculousness of their ideas and help support those targeted.

    Disinformation is the tool used to dehumanise. It always has been. During the COVID-19 pandemic when disinformation as a concept gained popularity over the rather older concept of propaganda, there was a real moment where there was a drive to focus on misinformation, or people who were genuinely wrong about usually public health facts. This is a way to talk about misinformation that elides the truth about it.

    There is an empirical reality underlying the tsunami of COVID disinformation and it is that the information was spread intentionally by bad actors with the goal of destroying the social bonds that hold us all together. State actors, including the United States under the first Trump administration, spread lies about COVID intentionally for their own benefit and at the cost of thousands if not millions of lives.

    Lies and disinformation at scale
    This tactic was not new then. Those seeking political power or to destroy communities for their own financial gain have always used lies and disinformation. But what is different this time, what has created unique risks, is the scale.

    Networked disinformation — the power to spread bullshit and lies across the globe within seconds and within a context where traditional media and sources of both moral and factual authority have been systematically weakened over decades of neoliberal attack — has created a situation where disinformation has more power and those who wield it can do so with precision.

    But just as we have the means to fight capitalism, colonialism, and dehumanisation, so too do we — you and I — have the tools to fight disinformation: truth, and accurate and timely reporting from trustworthy sources of information shared with the communities impacted in their own language and from their own people.

    If words and images are the chosen tools of dehumanisation and disinformation, then we are lucky because they are fighting with swords that we forged and that we know how to wield. You, the media, are the front lines right now. Trump will take all of our money and all of our resources, but our work must continue.

    Times like this call for fearlessness and courage. But more than that, they call on us to use all of the tools in our toolboxes — community, self-determination, care, and truth. Fighting disinformation isn’t something we can do in a vacuum. It isn’t something that we can depersonalise and mechanise. It requires us to work together to build a very human movement.

    I can’t deny that Trump’s attacks have exhausted me and left me depressed. I’m a librarian by training. I love sharing stories with people, not telling them myself. I love building communities of learning and of sharing, not taking to the streets in protest.

    More than anything else, I just want a nice cup of tea and a novel. But we are here in what I’ve seen others call “a coyote moment”. Like Wile E. Coyote, we are over the cliff with our legs spinning in the air.

    We can use this time to focus on what really matters and figure out how we will keep going and keep working. We can look at the blue sky above us and revel in what beauty and joy we can.

    Building community, exercising our self-determination, caring for each other, and telling the truth fearlessly and as though our very lives depend on it will leave us all the stronger and ready to fight Trump and his tidal wave of disinformation.

    Mandy Henk, co-founder of Dark Times Academy, has been teaching and learning on the margins of the academy for her whole career. As an academic librarian, she has worked closely with academics, students, and university administrations for decades. She taught her own courses, led her own research work, and fought for a vision of the liberal arts that supports learning and teaching as the things that actually matter. This article was originally presented as an invited address at the annual general meeting of the Asia Pacific Media Network on 24 April 2025.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • NEW YORK, NEW YORK - APRIL 24: Demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025 in New York City. Many of the deportees now detained at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) were sent there without court hearings under the Alien Enemies Act after a deal was brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele. A federal judge in Maryland recently ordered the return of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man who was deported, citing a prior ruling involving Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia who was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador. The Trump administration has stated the justification as gang affiliation and as part of a broader deportation strategy. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
    Demonstrators against the forced disappearances of immigrants to El Salvador gather to protest on April 24, 2025, in NYC. Photo: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

    The FBI arrested a sitting judge in a Milwaukee County court in Wisconsin on Friday, claiming that she obstructed immigration enforcement agents from detaining an undocumented immigrant in her courtroom.

    Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest is not only the latest escalation in Donald Trump’s fascist deportation program, it also marks the administration’s eagerness to take aim at any and all constraints on its power to act.

    “We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse,” wrote FBI director Kash Patel in a post on X. Patel added that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents “chased down the perp on foot and he’s been in custody since.”

    For the Trump administration, due process and an independent judiciary are hurdles to be kicked down.

    Dugan faces charges of obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the U.S., as well as a charge of concealing an individual to prevent their discovery and arrest. According to reports, the judge escorted a man sought by ICE and his defense attorney through a non-public jury door.

    In Wisconsin, there’s no explicit law dictating that judges must allow immigration enforcement into their courtrooms. Members of the judiciary nationwide have consistently stressed that the presence of ICE agents interferes with legal proceedings, as defendants fearing deportation miss court appearances for fear of ICE detention.

    For the Trump administration, however, court appearances are beside the point: Due process and an independent judiciary are hurdles to be kicked down.

    In the absence of any meaningful opposition party challenges, activists and organizers are struggling to gain ground in building robust resistance in the face of extraordinary repression. Unions, for their part, are disempowered. That has left courts as one of the few sites of actionable pushback on Trump’s agenda.

    That we are left with only the courts is no good thing; the U.S. criminal legal system with its carceral designs has never been suitable terrain for achieving justice. And our current Supreme Court has been a regular aid to the far right and the president’s authoritarian ambitions.

    Whatever limitations there are to Trump’s expansive power grabs, however, must be championed. Judges willing to push back on the administration’s unconstitutional and illegal behavior are a lifeline.

    Related

    The Evidence Linking Kilmar Abrego Garcia to MS-13: A Chicago Bulls Hat and a Hoodie

    Just last week, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a new round of mass deportations of Venezuelan immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act. Judge James Boasberg has also recently found probable cause to hold the government in contempt for defying his orders to halt previous deportations to El Salvador’s prison camp under the act.

    ICE on Friday also announced it will restore thousands of students’ previously terminated records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS, after dozens of cases were brought by students led by the government to believe that their legal student immigration statuses had been revoked.

    The SEVIS case is instructive. Again and again, judges sided with the students. One excoriated the government’s actions as “Kafkaesque.” Dozens of rulings have, at least temporarily, been a breakwater against Trump’s tidal wave of executive orders and his modus operandi of chaos, speed, and relentlessness.

    Lawless in the Name of the Law

    Questions of how flagrantly the administration will continue to disobey the courts abound — and there aren’t many reasons for optimism.

    The targeting of judges for arrest is another clear signal that Trump will continue to attack the independent judiciary by force. The insult added to injury is that he will keep calling it the law.

    “Judge Dugan wholeheartedly regrets and protests her arrest. It was not made in the interest of public safety,” her attorney told reporters on Friday.

    Related

    The Long History of Lawlessness in U.S. Policy Toward Latin America

    She was an apt target for the Trump administration: Dugan, before her current stint on the bench, was the executive director of Catholic Charities in Milwaukee, a group that has done considerable work with poor and vulnerable people.

    Dugan is not the first judge to be arrested for allegedly obstructing ICE. During Trump’s first term, federal prosecutors charged Judge Shelley Joseph in Massachusetts with obstruction of justice after she allegedly allowed a defendant to leave the building through a rear door and evade ICE. The federal charges were dropped, but the judge continues to face a judiciary disciplinary process.

    There’s reason to fear that Dugan’s arrest will not stand alone in Trump’s second term, in all its authoritarian excess. In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a message to other judges who might stand in the way of the administration’s deportation machine: “We are prosecuting you.”

    Bondi had posted on X to confirm the judge’s arrest earlier in the day.

    “No one is above the law,” she wrote.

    For Bondi, like too many others in Trump world, the law appears to be Trump’s word alone.

    The post Judges Are Slowing Down Trump’s Fascist Deportation Regime. Now He’s Arresting Them For It. appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • In September 2024, Malone News published an article on Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, titled “The Persecution of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, A POLITICAL PRISONER.” German authorities continue to illegally imprison Dr. Fuellmich. This is an update.

    *****

    Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is known and respected internationally for his work as a consumer defense lawyer and for winning major lawsuits against corporate giants such as Volkswagen, Kühne & Nagel, and Deutsche Bank. He was one of the first individuals to recognize that the COVID measures constituted crimes against humanity and decided, along with three other lawyers, to create the Corona Investigative Committee, which aimed to shed light on the actions of governments, public institutions, and the medical community in the context of the so-called “pandemic.”

    Thanks to his brilliant investigative work, and after consulting more than 150 scientists and experts in all fields around the world, as well as numerous whistleblowers (from Pfizer, WHO, CDC, UN), he was able to collect an abundance of evidence of what he calls “the biggest crime ever perpetrated against humanity.”

    He was ready to take action

    However, the German secret services, in cooperation with Göttingen public prosecutor Simon Phillip John and Fuellmich’s accusers, had already decided to construct a case against Fuellmich, aimed at stopping him.

    He is accused of having embezzled 700,000 euros, but, in truth, he did not. The imminent threat of seizure of the Corona Investigative Committee’s bank accounts by the German government during the fallout of the COVID pandemic, along with the risk of no longer being able to use the funds raised by private donations to carry out their investigative work, Reiner Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer took steps to protect those funds. They purchased 1 million euros worth of gold (current value: 1.8 million euros), and each took out personal loans (700,000 euros to Reiner Fuellmich, and 100,000 euros to Viviane Fischer). Their loan agreements were documented in written, signed contracts.

    When the defense demonstrated the erroneousness of the original accusation which asserted that Fuellmich had no authority to take a personal loan without the other committee member’s consent, the judge had to invent a new allegation in order to justify Fuellmich’s continued imprisonment. The judge thus declared that that the loans were “fake”.

    Interestingly, the previous Göttingen lead prosecutor Reinicke, who had been asked by the secret services to open an investigation on Fuellmich, had clearly stated that there were no grounds upon which to investigate him and archived the case in June 2022. Merely two and a half months later, a young, inexperienced prosecutor by the name of Simon Phillip John was transferred from Hanover to Göttingen and given the task of doing the dirty work that Reinicke had previously deemed unjustified.

    Judge Carsten Schindler and prosecutor John are, without any shadow of a doubt, following someone else’s instructions. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has been unlawfully held in pre-trial detention in the German maximum-security prison in Rosdorf for 18 months. This, even though the maximum term for pre-trial detention in Germany is 6 months. This, after his having been lured under false pretenses, subsequently abducted in Mexico, and then deported to Germany – without an international arrest warrant NOR a formal extradition order — where he was then arrested and imprisoned.

    The circumstances of his illegal arrest and subsequent mistreatment in prison are very concerning.

    From June 2024 until December 2024, Reiner Fuellmich was placed in solitary confinement. The official reason was that he was providing fellow inmates with legal advice. Fuellmich was also subjected to various forms of abuse, in clear violation of his human rights: physical and psychological mistreatment including prolonged solitary confinement, deprived of sunlight, deprived of outdoor physical activity, deprived of sleep, forced to choose between taking a shower or having his one-hour outdoors, and even prohibited from calling his lawyers. Aside from their brief (and monitored) telephone calls on Skype, he has not seen his wife since his arrest.

    He is only permitted three hours per month of visits and telephone calls. On top of that, he has been denied adequate medical care, including simple access to vitamins.

    Moreover, Reiner was not allowed to visit his dying mother, nor attend her funeral.

    Both the inhumane prison conditions and how his trial is being conducted raise serious doubts about the level of respect for fundamental rights in the German judicial system.

    From June 10, 2024 to this day, Reiner Fuellmich, after being body-searched, is brought to the court and back to prison in shackles and handcuffs, escorted by armed security officers in armored vehicles, as if he were a serial killer!

    He is being denied a fair trial because any motions presented by his defense lawyers are rejected without explanation. As of July 2024, Judge Schindler ordered that the defense motions and arguments, instead of being read aloud to the court, were from then on to be presented in writing only, thus impeding court observers from understanding and properly documenting the proceedings. These same court spectators, as have Fuellmich’s defense lawyers, have been subject to threats.

    In addition to not permitting defense witnesses to take the stand, Judge Schindler refuses to allow the person who pocketed the funds to testify in court.

    This “kangaroo court” proceeding is now in its final phase. As we write this, the defense lawyers have completed their closing statements, and Fuellmich has begun to make his final, closing statement before the court, which, to silence him, interrupted and admonished him at least 12 times. It is feared that the court may impose upon Fuellmich a time limit for the presentation of his final defense statement, as they did to his defense lawyers, forcing them to shorten their closing statements.

    In the course of 51 hearings, what we have witnessed is nothing less than an egregious case of obstruction of justice– a criminal offense in Germany– which confirms the intent of the German secret services as stated in their dossier on Reiner Fuellmich.

    One of Fuellmich’s defense lawyers presented this dossier to the court. It specified that Fuellmich was to be stopped “at all costs”; that “it is necessary to prepare a criminal case against Fuellmich, [including the] collaboration of prosecutors and suitable third parties”; and recommending “the recruitment and involvement of trusted persons amongst Fuellmich’s closest circle.”

    It was also their stated objective to convict Fuellmich; that “the possibility of [him] obtaining a politically exposed position must be prevented by any means”. This dossier, provided by a whistleblower, demonstrates that Reiner Fuellmich was already under special surveillance as far back as 2021.

    That said, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that Reiner Fuellmich had to be stopped to prevent him from continuing his precious investigational work exposing the truth regarding the “pandemic” as well as the so-called “vaccines”.

    Fuellmich is clearly a political prisoner, punished for speaking the truth. His case demands the attention of international human rights organizations and the indignation of worldwide public opinion.

    Pre-trial detention must never be used as an instrument to defer, suppress, or completely substitute the justice system as a legitimized punishment without a sentence.

    Justice, free speech, and respect for fundamental human rights are the pillars of a democratic state, not only for but especially for those individuals who raise uncomfortable questions and dare to speak up.

    Seba Terribilini

    Cynthia Salatino

    April 17, 2025


    A postscript from Dr. Robert Malone:

    Even CHAT-GPT3 writes that the treatment of Dr. Fuellmich is indefensible. It writes:

    The treatment of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is not defensible under normal German legal standards. His prolonged solitary confinement, excessive security measures, and extended pre-trial detention are all highly unusual and have prompted widespread concern and condemnation from legal experts, human rights advocates, and international observers2,5,7,10,11,12,14. The available evidence suggests that his case is an outlier and may be politically motivated, rather than a routine application of German justice.

    When the CHAT-GPT3 doesn’t back up the German government, an AI summarizer trained on data that supports the administrative state, you know things are bad…

    Note that German courts usually opt for a suspended sentence (probation) or a fine for a first-time offender convicted of a standard embezzlement offense (without aggravating factors).

    Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has been held in that high-security prison for over 18 months during his trial process. This duration of pre-trial detention is highly unusual in Germany, particularly for non-violent offenses. This is political persecution.

    The post The Persecution of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • For the last week,  Indigenous leaders from around the world have converged in New York for the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, or UNPFI. It’s the largest global gathering of Indigenous peoples and the Forum provides space for participants to bring their issues to international authorities, often when their own governments have refused to take action. This year’s Forum focuses on how U.N. member states’ have, or have not, protected the rights of Indigenous peoples, and conversations range from the environmental effects of extractive industries, to climate change, and violence against women.

    The Forum is an intergenerational space. Young people in attendance often work alongside elders and leaders to come up with solutions and address ongoing challenges. Grist interviewed seven Indigenous youth attending UNPFII this year hailing from Africa, the Pacific, North and South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Arctic.


    Joshua Amponsem, 33, is Asante from Ghana and the founder of Green Africa Youth Organization, a youth-led group in Africa that promotes energy sustainability. He also is the co-director of the Youth Climate Justice Fund which provides funding opportunities to bolster youth participation in climate change solutions. 

    Since the Trump administration pulled all the funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, Amponsem has seen the people and groups he works with suffer from the loss of financial help.

    Courtesy of Joshua Amponsem

    It’s already hard to be a young person fighting climate change. Less than one percent of climate grants go to youth-led programs, according to the Youth Climate Justice Fund.  

    “I think everyone is very much worried,” he said. “That is leading to a lot of anxiety.” 

    Amponsem specifically mentioned the importance of groups like Africa Youth Pastoralist Initiatives — a coalition of youth who raise animals like sheep or cattle. Pastoralists need support to address climate change because the work of herding sheep and cattle gets more difficult as drought and resource scarcity persist, according to one report. 

    “No matter what happens we will stand and we will fight, and we will keep pushing for solutions,” he said.


    Janell Dymus-Kurei, 32, is Māori from the East Coast of Aotearoa New Zealand. She is a fellow with the Commonwealth Fund, a group that promotes better access to healthcare for vulnerable populations.

    At this year’s UNPFII, Dymus-Kurei hopes to bring attention to legislation aimed at diminishing Māori treaty rights. While one piece of legislation died this month, she doesn’t think it’s going to stop there.

    She hopes to remind people about the attempted legislation that would have given exclusive Maori rights to everyone in New Zealand.

    Courtesy of Janell Dymus-Kurei

    The issue gained international attention last Fall when politician Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke performed a Haka during parliament, a traditional dance that was often done before battle. The demonstration set off other large-scale Māori protests in the country

    “They are bound by the Treaty of Waitangi,” she said. Countries can address the forum, but New Zealand didn’t make it to the UNPFII. 

    “You would show up if you thought it was important to show up and defend your actions in one way, shape, or form,” she said.

    This year, she’s brought her two young children — TeAio Nitana, which means “peace and divinity” and Te Haumarangai, or “forceful wind”. Dymus-Kurei said it’s important for children to be a part of the forum, especially with so much focus on Indigenous women.

    “Parenting is political in every sense of the word,” she said.


    Avery Doxtator, 22, is Oneida, Anishinaabe and Dakota and the president of the National Association of Friendship Centres, or NAFC, which promotes cultural awareness and resources for urban Indigenous youth throughout Canada’s territories. She attended this year’s Forum to raise awareness about the rights of Indigenous peoples living in urban spaces.

    The NAFC brought 23 delegates from Canada this year representing all of the country’s regions. It’s the biggest group they’ve ever had, but Doxtator said everyone attending was concerned when crossing the border into the United States due to the Trump Administration’s border and immigration restrictions.

    A woman wearing a UN badge stands on a bridge
    Taylar Dawn Stagner

    “It’s a safety threat that we face as Indigenous peoples coming into a country that does not necessarily want us here,” she said. “That was our number one concern. Making sure youth are safe being in the city, but also crossing the border because of the color of our skin.”

    The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, protects Indigenous peoples fundamental rights of self-determination, and these rights extend to those living in cities, perhaps away from their territories.

    She said that she just finished her 5th year on the University of Toronto’s Water Polo Team, and will be playing on a professional team in Barcelona next year. 

    Around half of Indigenous peoples in Canada live in cities. In the United States around 70 percent live in cities. As a result, many can feel disconnected from their cultures, and that’s what she hopes to shed light on at the forum — that resources for Indigenous youth exist even in urban areas.


    Liudmyla Korotkykh, 26, is Crimean Tatar from Kyiv, one of the Indigenous peoples of Ukraine. She spoke at UNPFII about the effects of the Ukraine war on her Indigenous community. She is a manager and attorney at the Crimean Tatar Resource Center.

    The history of the Crimean Tatars are similar to other Indigenous populations. They have survived colonial oppression from both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union — and as a result their language and way of life is constantly under threat. Crimea is a country that was annexed by Russia around a decade ago. 

    A young woman in a red shirt poses for a photo
    Taylar Dawn Stagner

    In 2021, President Zelensky passed legislation to establish better rights for Indigenous peoples, but months later Russia continued its campaign against Ukraine. 

    Korotkykh said Crimean Tatars have been conscripted to fight for Russia against the Tatars that are now in Ukraine. 

    “Now we are in the situation where our peoples are divided by a frontline and our peoples are fighting against each other because some of us joined the Russian army and some joined the Ukrainian army,” she said. 

    Korotkykh said even though many, including the Trump Administration, consider Crimea a part of Russia, hopes that Crimean Tatars won’t be left out of future discussions of their homes. 

    “This is a homeland of Indigenous peoples. We don’t accept the Russian occupation,” she said. “So, when the [Trump] administration starts to discuss how we can recognize Crimea as a part of Russia, it is not acceptable to us.”


    Toni Chiran, 30, is Garo from Bangladesh, and a member of the Bangladesh Indigenous Youth Forum, an organization focused on protecting young Indigenous people. The country has 54 distinct Indigenous peoples, and their constitution does not recognize Indigenous rights. 

    In January, Chiran was part of a protest in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, where he and other Indigenous people were protesting how the state was erasing the word “Indigenous” — or Adivasi in Hindi — from text books. Chiran says the move is a part of an ongoing assault by the state to erase Indigenous peoples from Bangladesh.

    A man in a red vest stands next to a statue of a gun with a muzzle tied up so it can't fire
    Courtesy of Toni Chiran

    He said that he sustained injuries to his head and chest during the protest as counter protesters assaulted their group, and 13 protesters sustained injuries. He hopes bringing that incident, and more, to the attention of Forum members will help in the fight for Indigenous rights in Bangladesh.

    “There is an extreme level of human rights violations in my country due to the land related conflicts because our government still does not recognize Indigenous peoples,” he said. 

    The student group Students for Sovereignty were accused of attacking Chiran and his fellow protesters. During a following protest a few days later in support of Chiran and the others injured Bangladesh police used tear gas and batons to disperse the crowd. 

    “We are still demanding justice on these issues,” he said.


    Aviaaija Baadsgaard, 27, is Inuit and a member of the Inuit Circumpolar Council Youth Engagement Program, a group that aims to empower the next generation of leaders in the Arctic. Baadsgaard is originally from Nuunukuu, the capital of Greenland, and this is her first year attending the UNPFII. Just last week she graduated from the University of Copenhagen with her law degree. She originally began studying law to help protect the rights of the Inuit of Greenland..

    Recently, Greenland has been a global focal point due to the Trump Administration’s interest in acquiring the land and its resources – including minerals needed for the green transition like lithium and neodymium: both crucial for electric vehicles.

    “For me, it’s really important to speak on behalf of the Inuit of Greenland,” Baadsgaard said.

    a woman wears a UN badge in a room with lots of chairs and tables
    Taylar Dawn Stagner

    Greenland is around 80 percent Indigenous, and a vast majority of the population there do not want the Greenland is around 80 percent Indigenous, and a vast majority of the population there do not want the U.S. to wrest control of the country from the Kingdom of Denmark. Many more want to be completely independent. 

    “I don’t want any administration to mess with our sovereignty,” she said. 

    Baadsgaard said her first time at the forum has connected her to a broader discussion about global Indigenous rights — a conversation she is excited to join. She wants to learn more about the complex system at the United Nations, so this trip is about getting ready for the future.


    Cindy Sisa Andy Aguinda, 30, is Kitchwa from Ecuador in the Amazon. She is in New York to talk about climate change, women’s health and the climate crisis. She spoke on a panel with a group of other Indigenous women about how the patriarchy and colonial violence affect women at a time of growing global unrest. Especially in the Amazon where deforestation is devastating the forests important to the Kitchwa tribe. 

    She said international funding is how many protect the Amazon Rainforest. As an example, last year the United States agreed to send around 40 million dollars to the country through USAID — but then the Trump administration terminated most of the department in March.

    Courtesy of Cindy Sisa Andy Aguinda

    “To continue working and caring for our lands, the rainforest, and our people, we need help,” she said through a translator. Even when international funding goes into other countries for the purposes to protect Indigenous land, only around 17 percent ends up in the hands of Indigenous-led initiatives. “In my country, it’s difficult for the authorities to take us into account,” she said. 

    She said despite that she had hope for the future and hopes to make it to COP30 in Brazil, the international gathering that addresses climate change, though she will probably have to foot the bill herself. She said that Indigenous tribes of the Amazon are the ones fighting everyday to protect their territories, and she said those with this relationship with the forest need to share ancestral knowledge with the world at places like the UNPFII and COP30. 

    “We can’t stop if we want to live well, if we want our cultural identity to remain alive,” she said.

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline From Greenland to Ghana, Indigenous youth work for climate justice on Apr 25, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • COMMENTARY: By Nour Odeh

    There was faint hope that efforts to achieve a ceasefire deal in Gaza would succeed. That hope is now all but gone, offering 2.1 million tormented and starved Palestinians dismal prospects for the days and weeks ahead.

    Last Saturday, the Israeli Prime Minister once again affirmed he had no intention to end the war. Benjamin Netanyahu wants what he calls “absolute victory” to achieve US President Donald Trump’s so-called vision for Gaza of ethnic cleansing and annexation.

    To that end, Israel is weaponising food at a scale not seen before, including immediately after the October 7 attack by Hamas. It has not allowed any wheat, medicine boxes, or other vital aid into the Gaza Strip since 2 March.

    This engineered starvation has pushed experts to warn that 1.1 million Palestinians face imminent famine.

    Many believe this was Israel’s “maximum pressure” plan all along: massive force, starvation, and land grabs. It’s what the Israeli Minister of Defence, Israel Katz, referred to in March when he gave Palestinians in Gaza an ultimatum — surrender or die.

    A month after breaking the ceasefire, Israel has converted nearly 70 percent of the tiny territory into no-go or forced displacement zones, including all of Rafah. It has also created a new so-called security corridor, where the illegal settlement of Morag once stood.

    Israel is bombing the Palestinians it is starving while actively pushing them into a tiny strip of dunes along the coast.

    Israel only interested in temporary ceasefire
    This mentality informed the now failed ceasefire talks. Israel was only interested in a temporary ceasefire deal that would keep its troops in Gaza and see the release of half of the living Israeli captives.

    In exchange, Israel reportedly offered to allow critically needed food and aid back into Gaza, which it is obliged to do as an occupying power, irrespective of a ceasefire agreement.

    Israel also refused to commit to ending the war, just as it did in the Lebanon ceasefire agreement, while also demanding that Hamas disarm and agree to the exile of its prominent members from Gaza.

    Disarming is a near-impossible demand in such a context, but this is not motivated by a preserved arsenal that Hamas wants to hold on to. Materially speaking, the armaments Israel wants Hamas to give up are inconsequential, except in how they relate to the group’s continued control over Gaza and its future role in Palestinian politics.

    Symbolically, accepting the demand to lay down arms is a sign of surrender few Palestinians would support in a context devoid of a political horizon, or even the prospect of one.

    While Israel has declared Hamas as an enemy that must be “annihilated”, the current right-wing government in Israel doesn’t want to deal with any Palestinian party or entity.

    The famous “no Hamas-stan and no Fatah-stan” is not just a slogan in Israeli political thinking — it is the policy.

    Golden opportunity for mass ethnic cleansing
    This government senses a golden opportunity for the mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank — and it aims to seize it.

    Hamas’s chief negotiator Khalil al-Hayya recently said that the movement was done with partial deals. Hamas, he said, was willing to release all Israeli captives in exchange for ending the war and Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza, as well as the release of an agreed-on number of Palestinian prisoners.

    But the truth is, Hamas is running out of options.

    Netanyahu does not consider releasing the remaining Israeli captives as a central goal. Hamas has no leverage and barely any allies left standing.

    Hezbollah is out of the equation, facing geographic and political isolation, demands for disarmament, and the lethal Israeli targeting of its members.

    Armed Iraqi groups have signalled their willingness to hand over weapons to the government in Baghdad in order not to be in the crosshairs of Washington or Tel Aviv.

    Meanwhile, the Houthis in Yemen have sustained heavy losses from hundreds of massive US airstrikes. Despite their defiant tone, they cannot change the current dynamics.

    Tehran distanced from Houthis
    Finally, Iran is engaged in what it describes as positive dialogue with the Trump administration to avert a confrontation. To that end, Tehran has distanced itself from the Houthis and is welcoming the idea of US investment.

    The so-called Arab plan for Gaza’s reconstruction also excludes any role for Hamas. While the mediators are pushing for a political formula that would not decisively erase Hamas from Palestinian politics, some Arab states would prefer such a scenario.

    As these agendas and new realities play out, Gaza has been laid to waste. There is no food, no space, no hope. Only despair and growing anger.

    This chapter of the genocide shows no sign of letting up, with Israel under no international pressure to cease the bombing and forced starvation of Gaza. Hamas remains defiant but has no significant leverage to wield.

    In the absence of any viable Palestinian initiative that can rally international support around a different dialogue altogether about ending the war, intervention can only come from Washington, where the favoured solution is ethnic cleansing.

    This is a dead-end road that pushes Palestinians into the abyss of annihilation, whether by death and starvation or political and material erasure through mass displacement.

    Nour Odeh is a political analyst, public diplomacy consultant, and an award-winning journalist. She also reports for Al Jazeera. This article was first published by The New Arab and is republished under Creative Commons.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • As President Donald Trump guts the federal government, there’s a greater need than ever for nonprofit organizations to step up and fill the void. But there’s a Trump-shaped fundraising problem looming over the nonprofit sector.

    Fearful of Trump’s penchant for targeting his perceived political enemies, some nonprofit leaders say the large donors who help subsidize their operations are pulling back. Even though the Trump administration has said it will not move forward with a series of rumored executive actions targeting nonprofits, this retreat by large donors poses a critical problem — especially as the federal government has slashed grants and issued stop-work orders already restricting key services.

    “It’s kind of a perfect storm of the federal cuts happening and philanthropy not moving as quickly as one would hope,” said Lynn English, president and co-founder of English Hudson Consulting, a development and consulting firm that works with dozens of nonprofits across the United States, including groups that have been outspoken against Trump. “Anyone who has federal money is cutting expenses, cutting staff, and trying to figure out where they can possibly make up the gap.”

    Threats from senior administration officials to foundations and nonprofits’ tax-exempt status have heightened donors’ concerns about giving to causes that might be perceived as opposing Trump and singled out for retribution — like law firms, universities, and news organizations, leaders of nonprofits told The Intercept.

    The consequences are being felt at nonprofits that focus on climate, transgender rights, racial justice, and gender equality.

    Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance have made no secret of their animosity toward certain nonprofits and major funders. In his 2021 Senate campaign, Vance argued that major foundations and academic institutions should lose their tax-exempt status. “The Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Harvard University endowment, these are fundamentally cancers on American society, but they pretend to be charities so they benefit from preferential tax treatment,” Vance told Tucker Carlson during a 2021 Fox News interview.

    More recently, Trump has publicly threatened to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status, while implying broader risks to other nonprofit organizations and foundations. “Tax-exempt status, it’s a privilege. It’s really a privilege. And it’s been abused by a lot more than Harvard,” Trump told reporters last Thursday. Last week, the administration cut billions of dollars in federal funding to the university for research purposes, though its tax-exempt status for now remains unchanged.

    At the Thursday news conference, Trump also threatened specific nonprofit organizations, namely Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog organization that has repeatedly sued the Trump administration. “It’s supposed to be a charitable organization,” Trump told reporters. “The only charity they had is going after Donald Trump. So, we’re looking at that. We’re looking at a lot of things.”

    Related

    The House Just Blessed Trump’s Authoritarian Playbook by Passing Nonprofit-Killer Bill

    Were a nonprofit to lose its 501(c)(3) status, it would have to pay corporate income tax, and in some cases back taxes. It would also block an organization from receiving most types of federal and foundation grants. Donations to that group would no longer be tax-exempt, making it significantly more difficult to fundraise.

    A rumored executive order targeting climate organizations on Earth Day did not materialize. The White House told Politico this week “No such orders are being drafted or considered at this time.”

    However, Trump on Thursday urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate alleged unlawful foreign contributions on ActBlue, a fundraising platform widely used by Democratic campaigns. Many nonprofits, including The Intercept, use ActBlue Charities to process donations.

    This climate is causing hesitation among large donors, said English. “They’re being much more cautious,” she explained, “and I think it is the threat of either litigation or attacks on their 501(c)(3) status or attacks on their endowment that are causing some real delays in getting money on the ground.”

    “If they’re going to be attacking us, I want to show people why.”

    Kaniela Ing, national director of the Green New Deal Network, said that organizers focused on climate change have been warned to stay quiet to avoid attacks on their 501(c)(3) status, like those in the rumored executive order. “Some of the advice that I’ve been getting is to be silent on social media,” said Ing.

    But he rejects that logic.

    “If they’re going to be attacking us, I want to show people why. I don’t want to have to tell them after the fact,” Ing said. “I want to make it clear that this a fight of good and evil. And we’re the good guys.”

    While it’s still too early to get a full financial picture of how donors are responding across the nonprofit ecosystem, layoffs at large nonprofit organizations working on left-leaning issues like LGBTQ+ rights provide a clue. In February, Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization in the U.S., laid off 20 percent of its staff. Another major LGBTQ+ nonprofit, GLSEN, laid off 60 percent of its staff that same month.

    English said donors were much more willing to support causes in opposition to Trump in his first term, illustrating how much landscape has shifted in a second term focused in large part on revenge. “They are trying to figure out what position they can take under the administration,” she said. “Under Trump 1.0, the foundations came out very quickly to fund the pushback, and they came out with a lot of money to fund litigation and movement-building organizing. This time around, they are taking more time.”

    Part of the problem with hitting so many nonprofits at once with federal funding cuts and freezes is that all of these groups are fighting for the same pool of funding of nongovernmental funding. At least 30 percent of the estimated 1.8 million nonprofits in the U.S. receive federal grant funding. Larger organizations are more reliant on grants, with 55 percent of nonprofits with budgets over $5 million receiving at least one government grant. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the administration had canceled over 400 environmental justice grants, totaling $1.7 billion in losses across multiple organizations. In the foreign assistance sector, Trump slashed 90 percent of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s foreign aid contracts in February, totaling $60 billion, meaning the thousands of contractors relying on this funding now have to fight for the same pot of donor money. 

    So even if an individual donor isn’t fearful of attacks by the Trump administration and might have more leeway than a corporate donor or a large foundation, demand for their dollars is now at an all-time high.

    alicia sanchez gill, executive director of Emergent Fund, which provides rapid-response funding to BIPOC and LGBTQ+ organizations and also co-runs the Action for Transformation Fund along with the Transgender Law Center, said the groups they fund are seeing donors pull back at a critical moment.

    “What we’re seeing from the philanthropic ecosystem is that there is not [the] bump that we saw in 2016,” she said. “And in fact, we’re seeing a lot of funder retraction in this moment.”

    sanchez gill argues that funders are scared of associating with nonprofits that could be targets. “We are seeing our grantees actually be either denied funding in order to minimize funder risk,” she said. “Or just complete — for lack of a better term — ghosting by funders.”

    sanchez gill noted that many of the organizations Emergent Fund and the Action for Transformation Fund work with already struggled to get funding. Less than 1 percent of philanthropic dollars goes toward support trans-led organizations, according to the Equitable Giving Lab. 

    “Many of the groups that we fund, actually, at Emergent Fund and at the Action for Transformation Fund already are deeply divested from the federal government and from state institutions and from philanthropy itself,” she said. If their organization no longer existed, many of these organizations could go without the “rapid-response” funding they need to survive.

    The bitter irony is that this is the exact moment that marginalized communities need these resources the most. “We’ve really seen a surge in applications from groups that are facing state violence and surveillance,” said sanchez gill. Last year, sanchez gill said that her organization received roughly 70 to 100 proposals in a month. Last month, it received roughly 180 proposals, underscoring the increased need in the communities it serves.

    “There is no greater risk in this moment than defunding the communities who are doing the most mission-oriented and necessary work right now,” she said. 

    Federal cuts to nonprofit grant recipients have already had devastating consequences. Trump has frozen billions in federal grants to universities, states, and other nonprofit entities across the country.

    Last month, for instance, the Trump administration cut funding to programs that provide legal services to unaccompanied minors. Unlike in the criminal legal system, in the U.S., people do not have a right to counsel in immigration court, which means that every year, tens of thousands of children are forced to represent themselves against the government. In 2023, nearly half of all unaccompanied minors represented themselves in immigration court. But federal funding cuts from the Trump administration are threatening even the existing services in place for these children, and philanthropic dollars cannot fill the gap.

    A judge has blocked the implementation of these cuts for now, but the impacted nonprofits expect the Trump administration to continue its assault on the program, as well as other immigrant legal services.

    “We’re talking about 26,000 children across the country who will lose an attorney.”

    Abegail Baguio, development and communications director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said these cuts would directly impact minors in their legal services program. “We’re talking about 26,000 children across the country who will lose an attorney,” said Baguio.

    The threat to the organization runs deeper than just its program for unaccompanied minors. Baguio said that the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights receives roughly 70 percent of funding through federal contracts. Even with an outpouring of new philanthropic support, it won’t be able to make up the loss of federal funds if the Trump administration succeeds in fulling stripping them away. “There’s no way that private philanthropy can fill that gap,” she said.

    If the federal coffers fully close, “we’re going to see families separated, families separated. We’re going to see people being deported without having access to due process rights,” said Baguio.

    Organizations with federal funding, doing work from cancer research to feeding people, are being forced to lay off up to 40 percent of staff, said English, the nonprofit consultant. Next, she said it will be cuts to services. An analysis from the Urban Institute, after Trump temporarily froze nearly all federal grants nationwide, found that in every state, 60 to 80 percent of nonprofits that receive federal funding could fail to cover their expenses if government funding remained frozen or disappeared.

    Despite the risks to funders, donors, and nonprofits, sanchez gill said the worst mistake would be to concede defeat. “Now is really the time to double down on trust-based funding that resists authoritarian control,” she said. “Now is the time to push back. We can’t cede power in advance. We can’t cower in advance, or retreat in advance.”

    The post Trump Is Scaring Donors Away From Progressive Nonprofits appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • As President Donald Trump guts the federal government, there’s a greater need than ever for nonprofit organizations to step up and fill the void. But there’s a Trump-shaped fundraising problem looming over the nonprofit sector.

    Fearful of Trump’s penchant for targeting his perceived political enemies, some nonprofit leaders say the large donors who help subsidize their operations are pulling back. Even though the Trump administration has said it will not move forward with a series of rumored executive actions targeting nonprofits, this retreat by large donors poses a critical problem — especially as the federal government has slashed grants and issued stop-work orders already restricting key services.

    “It’s kind of a perfect storm of the federal cuts happening and philanthropy not moving as quickly as one would hope,” said Lynn English, president and co-founder of English Hudson Consulting, a development and consulting firm that works with dozens of nonprofits across the United States, including groups that have been outspoken against Trump. “Anyone who has federal money is cutting expenses, cutting staff, and trying to figure out where they can possibly make up the gap.”

    Threats from senior administration officials to foundations and nonprofits’ tax-exempt status have heightened donors’ concerns about giving to causes that might be perceived as opposing Trump and singled out for retribution — like law firms, universities, and news organizations, leaders of nonprofits told The Intercept.

    The consequences are being felt at nonprofits that focus on climate, transgender rights, racial justice, and gender equality.

    Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance have made no secret of their animosity toward certain nonprofits and major funders. In his 2021 Senate campaign, Vance argued that major foundations and academic institutions should lose their tax-exempt status. “The Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Harvard University endowment, these are fundamentally cancers on American society, but they pretend to be charities so they benefit from preferential tax treatment,” Vance told Tucker Carlson during a 2021 Fox News interview.

    More recently, Trump has publicly threatened to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status, while implying broader risks to other nonprofit organizations and foundations. “Tax-exempt status, it’s a privilege. It’s really a privilege. And it’s been abused by a lot more than Harvard,” Trump told reporters last Thursday. Last week, the administration cut billions of dollars in federal funding to the university for research purposes, though its tax-exempt status for now remains unchanged.

    At the Thursday news conference, Trump also threatened specific nonprofit organizations, namely Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog organization that has repeatedly sued the Trump administration. “It’s supposed to be a charitable organization,” Trump told reporters. “The only charity they had is going after Donald Trump. So, we’re looking at that. We’re looking at a lot of things.”

    Related

    The House Just Blessed Trump’s Authoritarian Playbook by Passing Nonprofit-Killer Bill

    Were a nonprofit to lose its 501(c)(3) status, it would have to pay corporate income tax, and in some cases back taxes. It would also block an organization from receiving most types of federal and foundation grants. Donations to that group would no longer be tax-exempt, making it significantly more difficult to fundraise.

    A rumored executive order targeting climate organizations on Earth Day did not materialize. The White House told Politico this week “No such orders are being drafted or considered at this time.”

    However, Trump on Thursday urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate alleged unlawful foreign contributions on ActBlue, a fundraising platform widely used by Democratic campaigns. Many nonprofits, including The Intercept, use ActBlue Charities to process donations.

    This climate is causing hesitation among large donors, said English. “They’re being much more cautious,” she explained, “and I think it is the threat of either litigation or attacks on their 501(c)(3) status or attacks on their endowment that are causing some real delays in getting money on the ground.”

    “If they’re going to be attacking us, I want to show people why.”

    Kaniela Ing, national director of the Green New Deal Network, said that organizers focused on climate change have been warned to stay quiet to avoid attacks on their 501(c)(3) status, like those in the rumored executive order. “Some of the advice that I’ve been getting is to be silent on social media,” said Ing.

    But he rejects that logic.

    “If they’re going to be attacking us, I want to show people why. I don’t want to have to tell them after the fact,” Ing said. “I want to make it clear that this a fight of good and evil. And we’re the good guys.”

    While it’s still too early to get a full financial picture of how donors are responding across the nonprofit ecosystem, layoffs at large nonprofit organizations working on left-leaning issues like LGBTQ+ rights provide a clue. In February, Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization in the U.S., laid off 20 percent of its staff. Another major LGBTQ+ nonprofit, GLSEN, laid off 60 percent of its staff that same month.

    English said donors were much more willing to support causes in opposition to Trump in his first term, illustrating how much landscape has shifted in a second term focused in large part on revenge. “They are trying to figure out what position they can take under the administration,” she said. “Under Trump 1.0, the foundations came out very quickly to fund the pushback, and they came out with a lot of money to fund litigation and movement-building organizing. This time around, they are taking more time.”

    Part of the problem with hitting so many nonprofits at once with federal funding cuts and freezes is that all of these groups are fighting for the same pool of funding of nongovernmental funding. At least 30 percent of the estimated 1.8 million nonprofits in the U.S. receive federal grant funding. Larger organizations are more reliant on grants, with 55 percent of nonprofits with budgets over $5 million receiving at least one government grant. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the administration had canceled over 400 environmental justice grants, totaling $1.7 billion in losses across multiple organizations. In the foreign assistance sector, Trump slashed 90 percent of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s foreign aid contracts in February, totaling $60 billion, meaning the thousands of contractors relying on this funding now have to fight for the same pot of donor money. 

    So even if an individual donor isn’t fearful of attacks by the Trump administration and might have more leeway than a corporate donor or a large foundation, demand for their dollars is now at an all-time high.

    alicia sanchez gill, executive director of Emergent Fund, which provides rapid-response funding to BIPOC and LGBTQ+ organizations and also co-runs the Action for Transformation Fund along with the Transgender Law Center, said the groups they fund are seeing donors pull back at a critical moment.

    “What we’re seeing from the philanthropic ecosystem is that there is not [the] bump that we saw in 2016,” she said. “And in fact, we’re seeing a lot of funder retraction in this moment.”

    sanchez gill argues that funders are scared of associating with nonprofits that could be targets. “We are seeing our grantees actually be either denied funding in order to minimize funder risk,” she said. “Or just complete — for lack of a better term — ghosting by funders.”

    sanchez gill noted that many of the organizations Emergent Fund and the Action for Transformation Fund work with already struggled to get funding. Less than 1 percent of philanthropic dollars goes toward support trans-led organizations, according to the Equitable Giving Lab. 

    “Many of the groups that we fund, actually, at Emergent Fund and at the Action for Transformation Fund already are deeply divested from the federal government and from state institutions and from philanthropy itself,” she said. If their organization no longer existed, many of these organizations could go without the “rapid-response” funding they need to survive.

    The bitter irony is that this is the exact moment that marginalized communities need these resources the most. “We’ve really seen a surge in applications from groups that are facing state violence and surveillance,” said sanchez gill. Last year, sanchez gill said that her organization received roughly 70 to 100 proposals in a month. Last month, it received roughly 180 proposals, underscoring the increased need in the communities it serves.

    “There is no greater risk in this moment than defunding the communities who are doing the most mission-oriented and necessary work right now,” she said. 

    Federal cuts to nonprofit grant recipients have already had devastating consequences. Trump has frozen billions in federal grants to universities, states, and other nonprofit entities across the country.

    Last month, for instance, the Trump administration cut funding to programs that provide legal services to unaccompanied minors. Unlike in the criminal legal system, in the U.S., people do not have a right to counsel in immigration court, which means that every year, tens of thousands of children are forced to represent themselves against the government. In 2023, nearly half of all unaccompanied minors represented themselves in immigration court. But federal funding cuts from the Trump administration are threatening even the existing services in place for these children, and philanthropic dollars cannot fill the gap.

    A judge has blocked the implementation of these cuts for now, but the impacted nonprofits expect the Trump administration to continue its assault on the program, as well as other immigrant legal services.

    “We’re talking about 26,000 children across the country who will lose an attorney.”

    Abegail Baguio, development and communications director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said these cuts would directly impact minors in their legal services program. “We’re talking about 26,000 children across the country who will lose an attorney,” said Baguio.

    The threat to the organization runs deeper than just its program for unaccompanied minors. Baguio said that the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights receives roughly 70 percent of funding through federal contracts. Even with an outpouring of new philanthropic support, it won’t be able to make up the loss of federal funds if the Trump administration succeeds in fulling stripping them away. “There’s no way that private philanthropy can fill that gap,” she said.

    If the federal coffers fully close, “we’re going to see families separated, families separated. We’re going to see people being deported without having access to due process rights,” said Baguio.

    Organizations with federal funding, doing work from cancer research to feeding people, are being forced to lay off up to 40 percent of staff, said English, the nonprofit consultant. Next, she said it will be cuts to services. An analysis from the Urban Institute, after Trump temporarily froze nearly all federal grants nationwide, found that in every state, 60 to 80 percent of nonprofits that receive federal funding could fail to cover their expenses if government funding remained frozen or disappeared.

    Despite the risks to funders, donors, and nonprofits, sanchez gill said the worst mistake would be to concede defeat. “Now is really the time to double down on trust-based funding that resists authoritarian control,” she said. “Now is the time to push back. We can’t cede power in advance. We can’t cower in advance, or retreat in advance.”

    The post Trump Doesn’t Need an Executive Order to Kill Progressive Nonprofits appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Parts of the U.S. are an eco-disaster, a sacrifice zone. Take Newark, NJ. If you travel down a one-mile stretch of Doremus Avenue in Newark you pass a natural gas plant next to a sewage treatment facility next to an animal fat rendering plant next to a series of ominous-looking chemical storage containers behind acres of fencing. Airplanes pass overhead every two minutes, their engines rattling windows, while a putrid smell wafts from the open pools at the sewage treatment plant. Nationally, where are these polluters located? Overwhelmingly in poor communities of color like the Ironbound section of Newark where activists are organizing and fighting back to create a just, vibrant and sustainable community.


    This content originally appeared on AlternativeRadio and was authored by info@alternativeradio.org.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Parts of the U.S. are an eco-disaster, a sacrifice zone. Take Newark, NJ. If you travel down a one-mile stretch of Doremus Avenue in Newark you pass a natural gas plant next to a sewage treatment facility next to an animal fat rendering plant next to a series of ominous-looking chemical storage containers behind acres of fencing. Airplanes pass overhead every two minutes, their engines rattling windows, while a putrid smell wafts from the open pools at the sewage treatment plant. Nationally, where are these polluters located? Overwhelmingly in poor communities of color like the Ironbound section of Newark where activists are organizing and fighting back to create a just, vibrant and sustainable community.


    This content originally appeared on AlternativeRadio and was authored by info@alternativeradio.org.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    The Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network today condemned the Fiji government’s failure to stand up for international law and justice over the Israeli war on Gaza in their weekly Black Thursday protest.

    “For the past 18 months, we have made repeated requests to our government to do the bare minimum and enforce the basic tenets of international law on Israel,” said the protest group in an open letter.

    “We have been calling upon the Fiji government to uphold the principles of peace, justice, and human rights that our nation cherishes.

    “We campaigned, we lobbied, we engaged, and we explained.

    “We showed the evidence, pointed to the law, and asked our leaders to do the right thing. Our pleas fell on deaf ears. We’ve been met with nothing but indifference.”

    The open letter said:

    “Dear fellow Fijians,

    “As we gathered tonight in Suva at the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre compound, Israel has maintained an eight-week blockade on food, medicine and aid entering Gaza, while continuing to bomb homes and tent shelters.

    “At least 52,000 people in Gaza have been killed since October 2023, which includes more than 18,000 children. The death toll means that one out of every 50 people has been killed in Gaza. We all know that the real number of those killed is far higher.

    “Today, at least 13 people were killed in Israeli attacks. Among the dead were three children in a tent near Nuseirat in central Gaza, and a woman and four children in a home in Gaza City.

    “Also reportedly killed in a recent attack was local journalist Saeed Abu Hassanein, whose death adds to at least 232 reporters killed by Israel in Gaza in this genocide.

    “For the past 18 months, we have made repeated requests to our government to do the bare minimum and enforce the basic tenets of international law on Israel. We have been calling upon the Fiji Government to uphold the principles of peace, justice, and human rights that our nation cherishes.

    “We campaigned, we lobbied, we engaged, and we explained. We showed the evidence, pointed to the law, and asked our leaders to do the right thing. Our pleas fell on deaf ears. We’ve been met with nothing but indifference.

    “Instead our leaders met with Israeli Government representatives and declared support for a country accused of the most heinous crimes recognised in international law.

    “Fijian leaders and the Fiji Government must not be supporting Israel or planning to set up an Embassy in Israel while Israel continues to bomb refugee tents, kill journalists and medics, and block the delivery of aid to a population under relentless siege.

    “No politician in Fiji can claim ignorance of what is happening.

    “Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed.

    “Many more have been maimed, traumatised and displaced. Hospitals, clinics, refugee camps, schools, universities, residential neighbourhoods, water and food facilities have been destroyed.

    “We must loudly name what’s happening in Gaza – a GENOCIDE.

    “We should name the crime, underline our government’s complicity in it, and focus our efforts on elevating the voices of Palestinians.

    “We know that our actions cannot magically put an end to the GENOCIDE in occupied Palestine, but they can still make a difference. We can add to the global pressure on those who have the power to stop the genocide, which is so needed.

    “The way our government is responding to the genocide in Gaza will set a precedent for how they will deal with crises and emergencies in the future — at home and abroad.

    “It will determine whether our country will be a force that works to uphold human rights and international law, or one that tramples on them whenever convenient.

    “There are already ongoing restrictions against protests in solidarity with Palestine including arbitrary restrictions on marches and the use of Palestine flags.

    “We have had to hold gatherings in the premises of the FWCC office as the police have restricted solidarity marches for Palestine since November 2023, under the Public Order (Amendment) Act 2014.

    “Today, we must all fight for what is right, and show our government that indifference is not acceptable in the face of genocide, lest we ourselves become complicit.

    “History will judge how we respond as Fijians to this moment.

    “Our rich cultural heritage and shared values teach us the importance of always standing up for what is right, even when it is not popular or convenient.

    “We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people out of a shared belief in humanity, justice, and the inalienable human rights of every individual.”

    In Solidarity
    Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Part Two of Solidarity’s Vietnam War series: The folly of imperial war

    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

    Vietnam is a lesson we should have learnt — but never did — about the immorality, folly and counter-productivity of imperial war. Gaza, Yemen and Ukraine are happening today, in part, because of this cultural amnesia that facilitates repetition.

    It’s time to remember the Quiet Mutiny within the US army — and why it helped end the war by undermining military effectiveness, morale, and political support at home.

    There were many reasons that the US and its allies were defeated in Vietnam.  First and foremost they were beaten by an army that was superior in tactics, morale and political will.

    The Quiet Mutiny that came close to a full-scale insurrection within the US army in the early 1970s was an important part of the explanation as to why America’s vast over-match in resources, firepower and aerial domination was insufficient to the task.

    Beaten by an army that was superior in tactics, morale and political will
    Beaten by an army that was superior in tactics, morale and political will. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    ‘Our army is approaching collapse’
    Marine Colonel Robert D. Heinl Jr wrote:  “By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non-commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous.” — Armed Forces Journal 7 June, 1971.

    A paper prepared by the Gerald R Ford Presidential Library — “Veterans, Deserters and Draft Evaders”  (1974) — stated, “Hundreds of thousands of Vietnam-era veterans hold other-than-honorable discharges, many because of their anti-war activities.”

    Between 1965-73, according to the Ford papers, 495,689 servicemen (and women) on active duty deserted the armed forces! Ponder that.

    For good reason,  the defiance, insubordination and on many occasions soldier-on-officer violence was something that the mainstream media and the Western establishment have tried hard to expunge from our collective memory.

    Something that the mainstream media and the Western establishment have tried hard to expunge from our collective memory
    Something that the mainstream media and the Western establishment have tried hard to expunge from our collective memory. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    ‘The officer said “Keep going!”  He kinda got shot.’
    At 12 years old in 1972, I took out a subscription to Newsweek.  Among the horrors I learnt about at that tender age was the practice of fragging — the deliberate killing of US officers by their own men, often by flicking a  grenade —  a fragmentation device (hence fragging)   — into their tent at night, or simply shooting an officer during a combat mission.

    There were hundreds of such incidents.

    GI: “The officer said, ‘Keep on going’ but they were getting hit pretty bad so it didn’t happen. He kinda got shot.”

    GI: “The grunts don’t always do what the Captain says. He always says “Go there”.  He always stays back.  We just go and sit down somewhere. We don’t want to hit “Contact”.

    GI:  “We’ve decided to tell the company commander we won’t go into the bush anymore; at least we’ll go to jail where it’s safe.”

    Hundreds of GI antiwar organisations and underground newspapers challenged the official narratives about the war
    Hundreds of GI antiwar organisations and underground newspapers challenged the official narratives about the war. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    US Army — refusing to fight
    Soldiers in Revolt: G.I. Resistance During the Vietnam War,” by David Cortright, professor emeritus at the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame, himself a Vietnam veteran, documents the hundreds of GI antiwar organisations and underground newspapers that challenged the official narratives about the war.

    Cortright’s research indicated that by the early 1970s the US Army was close to a full mutiny. It meant that the US, despite having hundreds of thousands of troops in the country, couldn’t confidently put an army into combat.

    By the war’s end the US army was largely hunkered down in their bases.  Cortright says US military operations became “effectively crippled” as the crisis manifested itself “in drug abuse, political protest, combat refusals, black militancy, and fraggings.”

    Cortright cites over 900 fragging incidents between 1969–1971, including over 500 with explosive devices.

    “Word of the deaths of officers will bring cheers at troop movies or in bivouacs of certain units,” Colonel Heinl said in his 1971 article.

    At times entire companies refused to move forward, an offence punishable by death, but never enforced. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    At times entire companies refused to move forward, an offence punishable by death, but never enforced because of the calamitous knock-on effect this would have had both at home and within the army in the field.

    ‘The rebellion is everywhere’
    It was heroic journalists like John Pilger who refused to file the reassuring stories editors back in London, New York, Sydney and Auckland wanted. Pilger told uncomfortable truths — there was a rebellion underway.  The clean-cut, spit-and-polish boys of the 1960s Green Machine (US army) had morphed into a corps whose 80,000-strong frontline was full of defiant, insubordinate Grunts (infantry) who wore love beads, grew their hair long, smoked pot, and occasionally tossed a hand grenade into an officer’s tent.

    John Pilger’s first film Vietnam: The Quiet Mutiny, aired in 1970. “The war is ending,” Pilger said, “because the largest, wealthiest and most powerful organisation on earth, the American Army, is being challenged from within — by the most brutalised and certainly the bravest of its members.

    “The war is ending because the Grunt is taking no more bullshit.”

    That short piece to camera is one of the most incredible moments in documentary history yet it likely won’t be seen during the commemorations of the Fall of Saigon on April 30.

    At the time, Granada Television’s chairman was apoplectic that it went to air at all and described Pilger as “a threat to Western civilisation”.  So tight is the media control we live under now it is unlikely such a documentary would air at all on a major channel.

    “I don’t know why I’m shooting these people” a young grunt tells Pilger about having to fight the Vietnamese in their homeland.  Another asks: “I have nothing against these people. Why are we killing them?”

    Shooting the messenger
    Huge effort goes into attacking truth-tellers like Pilger, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, but as Phillip Knightley pointed out in his book The First Casualty, Pilger’s work was among the most important revelations to emerge from Vietnam, a war in which a depressingly large percentage of journalists contented themselves with life in Saigon and chanting the official Pentagon narrative.

    Thus it ever was.

    Pilger was like a fragmentation device dropped into the official narrative, blasting away the euphemisms, the evasions, the endless stream of official lies. He called the end of the war long before the White House and the Pentagon finally gave up the charade; his actions helped save lives; their actions condemned hundreds of thousands to unnecessary death, millions more to misery.

    African Americans were sent to the front in disproportionately large numbers – about a quarter of all frontline fighters. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    Race politics, anti-racism, peace activism
    Race politics was another important factor.  African Americans were sent to the front in disproportionately large numbers — about a quarter of all frontline fighters.  There was a strong feeling among black conscripts that “This is not our war”.

    Black militancy, epitomised in the slogan attributed to Muhammad Ali, “No Viet Cong ever called me nigger”, resonated with this group.

    In David Loeb Weiss’ No Vietnamese ever called me Nigger  we see a woman at an antiwar protest in Harlem, New York.  “My boy is over there fighting for his rights,” she says, “but he’s not getting them.” Then we hear the chant: “The enemy is whitey! Not the Viet Cong!”
    We should recall that at this time the civil rights movement was battling powerful white groups for a place in civil society.  The US army had only ended racial segregation in the Korean War and back home in 1968, there were still 16 States that had miscegenation laws banning sexual relations between whites and blacks.

    Martin Luther King was assassinated this same year. All this fed into the Quiet Mutiny.

    Truth-telling and the lessons of history
    Vietnam became a dark arena where the most sordid aspects of American imperialism played out: racism, genocidal violence, strategic incoherence, belief in brute force over sound policy.

    Sounds similar to Gaza and Yemen, doesn’t it?

    Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Despite calls from women’s groups urging the government to implement policies to address the underrepresentation of women in politics, the introduction of temporary special measures (TSM) to increase women’s political representation in Fiji remains a distant goal.

    This week, leader of the Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa), Cabinet Minister Aseri Radrodro, and opposition MP Ketal Lal expressed their objection to reserving 30 percent of parliamentary seats for women.

    Radrodro, who is also Education Minister, told The Fiji Times that Fijian women were “capable of holding their ground without needing a crutch like TSM to give them a leg up”.

    Lal called the special allocation of seats for women in Parliament “tokenistic” and beneficial to “a few selected individuals”, as part of submissions to the Fiji Law Reform Commission and the Electoral Commission of Fiji, which are undertaking a comprehensive review and reform of the Fiji’s electoral framework.

    Their sentiment is shared by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, who said at a Pacific Technical Cooperation Session of the Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in Suva earlier this month, that “putting in women for the sake of mere numbers” is “tokenistic”.

    Rabuka said it devalued “the dignity of women at the highest level of national governance.”

    “This specific issue makes me wonder at times. As the percentage of women in population is approximately the same as for men, why are women not securing the votes of women? Or more precisely, why aren’t women voting for women?” he said.

    Doubled down
    The Prime Minister doubled down on his position on the issue when The Fiji Times asked him if it was the right time for Fiji to legislate mandatory seats for women in Parliament as the issue was gaining traction.

    Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka says the 2013 Constitution was neither formulated nor adopted through a participatory democratic process. 11 March 2025
    Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka . . . “Why aren’t women voting for women?” Image: Fiji Parliament

    “There is no need to legislate it. We do not have a compulsory voting legislation, nor do we yet need a quota-based system.

    However, Rabuka’s Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Speaker Lenora Qereqeretabua holds a different view.

    Qereqeretabua, from the National Federation Party, said in January that Parliament needed to look like the people that it represented.

    “Women make up half of the world’s population, and yet we are still fighting to ensure that their voices and experiences are not only heard but valued in the spaces where decisions are made,” she told participants at the Exploring Temporary Special Measures for Inclusive Governance in Fiji forum.

    She said Fiji needed more women in positions of power.

    “Not because women are empirically better leaders, because leadership is not determined by gender, but because it is essential for democracy that our representatives reflect the communities that they serve.”

    Lenora Qereqeretabua on the floor of parliament. 12 March 2025
    Lenora Qereqeretabua on the floor of Parliament . . . “It is essential for democracy that our representatives reflect the communities that they serve.” Image: Fiji Parliament

    ‘Shameless’ lag
    Another member of Rabuka’s coalition government, one of the deputy prime ministers in and a former Sodelpa leader, Viliame Gavoka said in March 2022 that Fiji had “continued to shamelessly lag behind in protecting and promoting women’s rights and their peacebuilding expertise”.

    He pledged at the time that if Sodelpa was voted into government, it would “ensure to break barriers and accelerate progress, including setting specific targets and timelines to achieve gender balance in all branches of government and at all levels through temporary special measures such as quotas . . . ”

    However, since coming into power in December 2022, Gavoka has not made any advance on his promise, and his party leader Radrodro has made his views known on the issue.

    Artwork at the Fiji Women's Rights Movement's headquarters in Suva, Fiji
    Fiji women’s rights groups say temporary special measures may need to be implemented in the short-term to advance women’s equality. Image: RNZ Pacific/Sally Round

    Fijian women’s rights and advocacy groups say that introducing special measures for women is neither discriminatory nor a breach of the 2013 Constitution.

    In a joint statement in October last year, six non-government organisations called on the government to enforce provisions for temporary special measures for women in political party representation and ensure that reserved seats are secured for women in all town and city councils and its committees.

    “Nationally, it is unacceptable that after three national elections under new electoral laws, there has been a drastic decline in women’s representation from contesting national elections to being elected to parliament,” they said.

    “It is clear from our history that cultural, social, economic and political factors have often stood in the way of women’s political empowerment.”

    Short-term need
    They said temporary special measures may need to be implemented in the short-term to advance women’s equality.

    “The term ‘temporary special measures’ is used to describe affirmative action policies and strategies to promote equality and empower women.

    “If we are to move towards a society where half the population is reflected in all leadership spaces and opportunities, we must be gender responsive in the approaches we take to achieve gender equality.”

    The Fijian Parliament currently has only five (out of 55) women in the House — four in government and one in opposition. In the previous parliamentary term (2018-2022), there were 10 women directly elected to Parliament.

    According to the Fiji Country Gender Assessment report, 81 percent of Fijians believe that women are underrepresented in the government, and 72 percent of Fijians believe greater representation of women would be beneficial for the country.

    However, the report found that time and energy burden of familial, volunteer responsibilities, patriarchal norms, and power relations as key barriers to women’s participation in the workplace and public life.

    Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM) board member Akanisi Nabalarua believes that despite having strong laws and policies on paper, the implementation is lacking.

    Lip service
    Nabalarua said successive Fijian governments had often paid lip service to gender equality while failing to make intentional and meaningful progress in women’s representation in decision making spaces, reports fijivillage.com.

    Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry said Rabuka’s dismissal of the women’s rights groups’ plea was premature.

    Chaudhry, a former prime minister who was deposed in a coup in 2000, said Rabuka should have waited for the Law Reform Commission’s report “before deciding so conclusively on the matter”.

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

  • Asia Pacific Report

    The US District Court for the District of Columbia has granted a preliminary injunction in Widakuswara v Lake, affirming the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) was unlawfully shuttered by the Trump administration, Acting Director Victor Morales and Special Adviser Kari Lake.

    The decision enshrines that USAGM must fulfill its legally required functions and protects the editorial independence of Voice of America (VOA) journalists and other federal media professionals within the agency and newsrooms that receive grants from the agency, such as Radio Free Asia and others with implications for independent media in the Asia-Pacific region.

    Journalists, federal workers, and unions celebrate this important step in defending this critical agency, First Amendment rights, resisting unlawful political interference in public broadcasting, and ensuring USAGM workers can continue to fulfill their congressionally mandated function, reports the News Guild-CWA press union.

    “Today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law, for press freedom and journalistic integrity, and for democracy worldwide,” said the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) national president Everett Kelley.

    “The Trump administration’s illegal attempt to shutter Voice of America and other outlets under the US Agency for Global Media was a transparent effort to silence the voices of patriotic journalists and professionals who have dedicated their careers to spreading the truth and fighting propaganda from lawless authoritarian regimes.

    “This preliminary injunction will allow these employees to get back to work as we continue the fight to preserve their jobs and critical mission.”

    President Lee Saunders of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees AFSCME), the largest trade union of public employees in the United States, said: “Today’s ruling is a major win for AFSCME members and Voice of America workers who have dedicated their careers to reporting the truth and spreading freedom to millions across the world.

    Judge’s message clear
    “The judge’s message is clear — this administration has no right to unilaterally dismantle essential agencies simply because they do not agree with their purpose.

    “We celebrate this decision and will continue to work with our partners to ensure that the Voice of America is restored.”

    “Journalists hold power to account and that includes the Trump administration,” said NewsGuild-CWA president Jon Schleuss. “This injunction orders the administration to reverse course and restore the Congressionally-mandated news broadcasts of Radio Free Asia, Voice of America and other newsrooms broadcasting to people who hope for freedom in countries where that is denied.”

    “We are gratified by today’s ruling. This is another step in the process to restore VOA to full operation.” said government accountability project senior counsel David Seide.

    To President Trump, the USAGM [Voice of America] has become a promoter of "anti-American ideas" and agendas
    “VOA is more than just an iconic brand with deep roots in American and global history; it is a vital, living force that provides truth and hope to those living under oppressive regimes.” Image: Getty/The Conversation
    “Today’s ruling marks a significant victory for press freedom and for the dedicated women and men who bring it to life — our clients, the journalists, executives, and staff of Voice of America,” said Andrew G. Celli, Jr., founding partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP and counsel for the plaintiffs.

    “VOA is more than just an iconic brand with deep roots in American and global history; it is a vital, living force that provides truth and hope to those living under oppressive regimes.

    “We are thrilled that its voice — a voice for the voiceless — will once again be heard loud and clear around the world.

    Powerful affirmation of rule of law
    “This decision is a powerful affirmation of the rule of law and the vital role that independent journalism plays in our democracy. The court’s action protects independent journalism and federal media professionals at Voice of America as we continue this case, and reaffirms that no administration can silence the truth without accountability,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

    “We are proud to be with workers, unions and journalists in resisting political interference against independent journalism and will continue to fight for transparency and our democratic values.”

    “Today’s decision is another necessary step in restoring the rule of law and correcting the injustices faced by the workers, reporters, and listeners of Voice of America and US Agency for Global Media,” said former Ambassador Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund.

    “By granting this preliminary injunction, the court has reaffirmed the legal protections afforded to these civil servants and halted an attempt to undermine a free and independent press. We are proud to represent this resilient coalition and support the cause of a free and fair press.”

    “This decision is a powerful affirmation of the role that independent journalism plays in advancing democracy and countering disinformation. From Voice of America to Radio Free Asia and across the US Agency for Global Media, these networks are essential tools of American soft power — trusted sources of truth in places where it is often scarce,” said Tom Yazdgerdi, president of the American Foreign Service Association.

    “By upholding editorial independence, the court has protected the credibility of USAGM journalists and the global mission they serve.”

    A critical victory
    “We’re very pleased that Judge Lamberth has recognised that the Trump administration acted improperly in shuttering Voice of America,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders (RSF) USA.

    “The USAGM must act immediately to implement this ruling and put over 1300 VOA employees back to work to deliver reliable information to their audience of millions around the world.”

    While only the beginning of what may be a long, hard-fought battle, the court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction marks a critical victory — not just for VOA journalists, but also for federal workers and the unions that represent them.

    It affirms that the rule of law still protects those who speak truth to power.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Early in the morning last Monday, a group of third graders huddled in the garden of Mendota Elementary School in Madison, Wisconsin. Of the dozen students present, a handful were busy filling up buckets of compost, others were readying soil beds for spring planting, while a number carefully watered freshly planted radishes and peas. The students were all busy with their assorted tasks until a gleeful shout rang across the space. Everything ground to a halt when a beaming boy triumphantly raised his gloved hand, displaying a gaggle of worms. The group of riveted eight- and nine-year-olds dropped everything to cluster around him and the writhing mass of invertebrates. 

    “They’re mending the soil one week, and then the next week they’re going to start to see these little seedlings pop through the soil, because they’re healthy and they’re happy and they have sunshine, and they’ve watered them,” said Erica Krug, farm-to-school director at Rooted, a Wisconsin nonprofit community agricultural organization that helps oversee the garden. 

    Krug stopped by the school that day to join the class, which her team runs together with AmeriCorps. Outdoor programming like this, said Krug, positions students to learn how to grow food — and take care of the planet that bears it. 

    First established some 25 years ago, in a historically underserved area that has long struggled with access to healthy food, the small but thriving garden is now a mainstay in the Mendota curriculum. The produce grown there is routinely collected and taken to local food pantries. Later this spring, the third grade class plans to plant watermelon and pumpkin seeds. Come summer, the garden will open to the surrounding community to harvest crops like garlic, tomatoes, zucchini, collards, and squash, and take home what they need.

    Farm-to-school work, said Krug, isn’t limited to partnering with farmers to get locally grown foods into school meals, but also includes supporting schools in lower-income neighborhoods with working gardens, and providing students with agricultural and health education they won’t get otherwise. That can take the shape of after-school gardening clubs, field trips to local farms, and cooking classes. “We want kids to understand where their food comes from. We want them to be able to have that experience of growing their own food,” she said. “It’s really, really powerful.” 

    Back in January, the Rooted team applied for a $100,000 two-year grant through the Department of Agriculture’s Patrick Leahy Farm to School program, intended to provide public schools with locally produced fresh vegetables as well as food and agricultural education. Rooted had plans to “use a huge chunk of those funds” to continue supporting school garden activities and food programming at three local schools, including Mendota. 

    Then, late last month, the United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA, sent them an email announcing the cancellation of funding for grants through the program. The email, shared with Grist, noted that the cancellation is “in alignment with President Donald Trump’s executive order ‘Ending Radical and Wasteful Government and DEI Programs and Preferencing.’” 

    The loss of the funds is “so upsetting,” said Krug, and the reasoning provided, she continued, is “ridiculous.” 

    “When they talk about ‘Make America Healthy Again,’” Krug argued, “they don’t mean everybody. Because if they’re saying that they’re canceling this program because it’s ‘radical’ and ‘wasteful’ and ‘DEI,’ then that means that they don’t want non-white kids having access to fruits and vegetables.” 

    A group of kids tend to soil in a school garden
    A group of third grade students tend to the garden outside of Mendota Elementary School on April 14, 2025 in Madison, Wisconsin. Erica Krug / Rooted

    Scenarios like these are playing out across the nation as the USDA, working with the initiative known as the Department of Government Efficiency, continues to cancel funding for multiple food and farm programs. Five USDA programs have had their funding pulled since President Trump’s inauguration, while at least 21 others remain frozen

    Last month, the agency terminated some $1.13 billion slated to be distributed through the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program and Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program. The move has had a resounding impact on the livelihoods of thousands of people, as charitable organizations have shuttered food donations, regional food hubs cut staff, and small farmers have gone bankrupt. The cancellation of this year’s farm-to-school funding was announced roughly two weeks after the USDA ended the billion-dollar funding stream. 

    In prior years, Krug said, “we were being asked ‘What are you doing to address equity? To address diversity? How are you making sure your project is for everyone?’ And now we’re going to be penalized for talking about that.”

    The team at Rooted is now working overtime to find other funding sources to continue the work, including hosting a fundraising drive and benefit concert next month at their urban farm site. Krug hopes the proceeds will help offset some of the loss. “We’re not ready to say, without this funding, that we’re going to abandon this program, because we believe so strongly in it,” she said. 

    First established by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, passed in 2010, the Patrick Leahy Farm to School program was created by the Obama administration to address rising hunger and nutritional needs in public schools. The program has since awarded over $100 million in grants to schools that support millions of students in tribal, rural, and urban communities nationwide. 

    Nutrition advocates and legislators are calling the USDA’s decision to cancel the farm-to-school funding contradictory to the stated goals of the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again commission. Many see it as a sign that the government is dismantling local food systems — hurting people and the planet. The fallout, experts say, will be gradual, but no less devastating. 

    Advocates are also questioning whether it’s legal.  

    “This program is authorized. It’s a direction from Congress for USDA to carry it out. So carrying it out is not optional,” said Karen Spangler, policy director of the nonprofit National Farm to School Network, which advocated for the program. 

    From its inception, the program has had a $5 million baseline allocation every year that the legislation mandates, and lawmakers have the ability to add discretionary funds. A total of $10 million was allocated to it for this fiscal year. 

    To some policymakers, watching as the USDA revoked the funding came as a shock. A letter penned by federal lawmakers on April 4 urged Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to clarify why the administration “abruptly” cancelled the grants. The letter, spearheaded by longtime anti-hunger advocate Representative James McGovern of Massachusetts, and signed by 37 other House Democrats, also asked Rollins to explain the scope of the cancellation and to clarify “the authority” the agency is using to terminate funding, “given that Congress directed USDA to carry out this program.” 

    Though an April 11 deadline for response was given, McGovern told Grist that, as of the time of this story’s publication, they have not received an answer. 

    “The Trump Administration is slashing programs that help support our farmers and provide people in communities across the country with better access to local food. It’s pathetic,” said McGovern, who is also a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee. “Termination of these programs has caused tremendous uncertainty for schools, food banks and pantries, farmers, and hardworking families.” 

    Grist reviewed the official notice shared with grantees and applicants from the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, which stated that the agency will not review applications, nor will it award grants this year. The agency did, however, note that it was “making plans for an improved competition funding opportunity.”

    In an email, a USDA spokesperson told Grist that, in alignment with Trump’s executive order, the agency had “paused” this year’s Patrick Leahy Farm to School Program competition, and is now “revising the application” for the next fiscal year. 

    “Secretary Rollins and the Food and Nutrition Service are committed to creating new and greater opportunities to connect America’s farmers to nutrition assistance programs and Farm to School is a critical component of this work,” the spokesperson added. They also noted that the “updated” application will provide “opportunities to support bold innovations in farm to school that encourage more applicants and better impacts, which reflect the realities of the intent and tremendous progress in farm to school made by states and communities over the past 15 years.” 

    The USDA did not address Grist’s requests for clarification about the authority the agency is using to withhold the money, and did not clarify when or how it plans to award it. 

    Sophia Kruszewski, a lawyer and deputy policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, explained that the USDA may technically have the legal authority to cancel this year’s grants through the program. In both the underlying statute and the appropriations text, there is language indicating that the funding for this program is to be “available until expended,” which, in most cases, gives the agency the ability to roll over unobligated funding from year to year. 

    But Kruszewski isn’t convinced the move is in line with the spirit of the law. “It seems highly doubtful that Congress intended to give the agency carte blanche to simply choose not to spend any of the money directed toward the program,” said Kruszewski, “particularly when the call for proposals has already happened and applicants have spent significant time developing and submitting proposals.”

    All the while, Rollins has publicly championed the president’s national nutrition overhaul. Earlier this month, the agriculture secretary joined Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at an elementary school in Alexandria, Virginia. The two spoke to students, staff, and onlookers about the importance of advancing nutrition in public schools. The event took place a little more than a week after the cancellation of the farm-to-school funding. 

    “Secretary Kennedy and I have a unique once-in-a-generation opportunity to better align our vision on nutrition-related programs to ensure we are working together to advance President Trump’s vision to make our kids, our families, and our communities healthy again,” said Secretary Rollins in a press release. “Our farmers, ranchers, and producers dedicate their lives to growing the safest most abundant food supply in the world and we need to make sure our kids and families are consuming the healthiest food we produce. There is a chronic health problem in our country, and American agriculture is at the core of the solution.” 

    Kennedy, for his part, championed the end of ultra-processed foods in public schools and tightening nutrition program restrictions. During the visit, Rollins underscored how the USDA should be supporting “moving farm-fresh produce, as much as is possible, into the schools.”

    Katie Wilson, former Obama administration USDA Deputy Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, and executive director of the Urban School Food Alliance, argues that the event, and the USDA’s bigger MAHA campaign, are nothing more than a “facade” to distract from the agency’s subtler efforts to do the opposite. “Having these little kids around you — it’s a camera opp. So that’s the distraction, while I’m over here slicing and dicing the program, right?” Wilson said. “Just remember this funding was for unprocessed, local, fresh food, and so it’s about as healthy and as wonderful as it can get.” 

    As for Rollins’ stated goal to bring more local food into schools, Wilson only sees more contradictions. “We’ve been doing that, but you just took the rug completely out from under us,” she said. For larger school districts, planning for budgets, programs, and things like meals runs typically a year out. The loss of the farm-to-school grant and uncertainty about the future of the program means that schools across the country are now scrambling to find money, said Wilson. “Contracts don’t go away just because your funding got cut. Where does that money come from? Do you raise the price of school meals for kids? I mean, what do you do? Do you cut staff?”

    For decades, advocates and policymakers have looked to strengthen local food systems as a plausible solution to rising hunger rates. Localized food systems have also been championed as a climate solution.

    The climate footprint of transportation in the food supply chain, or the movement of crops, livestock, and machinery, contributes considerably to global agricultural emissions. Long-distance shipping of perishable fruit and vegetables in particular ramps up the amount of CO2 emissions generated. The same goes for emissions-intensive food waste: The longer the supply chain, the larger the proportion of food typically lost or thrown away. 

    According to Jenique Jones, executive director at global nonprofit WhyHunger, small and regional producers are not only much less of a strain on the planet, but they also address systemic issues caused by the “monopoly” that a handful of national producers have on America’s food supply. Localized food systems allow for small farmers to be paid fair wages, she said, and healthier, better quality food to be made accessible to their communities. 

    The gutting of grants through this program, along with other recent funding decisions by the USDA, signals to Jones that the administration is intentionally dismantling local food systems — which she believes will bring in big costs. The legislation that underwrote the Leahy program, for one, mandated that the agency prioritize geographic diversity and equitable distribution among tribal, rural, and urban communities. Between 2013 and 2024, roughly one in every 20 farm-to-school projects supported Native communities. 

    These cuts show the administration’s priority, she said, which is “definitely not local food systems, and more importantly than that, it’s not people.” 

    Among those that may feel some of the harshest burdens from the loss of farm-to-school funding are communities in lower-income, rural swaths of America. One such place is just outside of Bolivar County, in the heart of the Mississippi River Delta, where Sydney Bush has to travel 20 or so miles just to buy fresh vegetables. The closest grocery store is a 40-minute drive from her house. 

    Bush works in food justice with the nonprofit Mississippi Farm to School network. Early this year, in partnership with the Cleveland School District, the organization submitted an application for almost $50,000 in a farm-to-school grant. That money would have been used to launch a pilot project to establish procurement plans between regional farmers growing fresh food and the district’s 10 local schools. It would have supported more than 2,800 students. 

    The cancellation of the funding pot, a crucial lever in achieving truly local food sovereignty and remedying nutrition inequity across America’s resource-strapped rural communities, said Bush “isn’t just about this pilot not happening, it’s about what comes after.” Without it, groups like hers will have to work twice as hard to fill in the gaps. “Food is power,” she said. “There are folks in this country that don’t have the same access to nutrition as everyone else. It’s a systemic problem.”

    Now, because of the rescinded grant, that dream of a localized food chain, the culmination of work that started in 2020, appears to be over before it even began. 

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s latest USDA cuts undermine his plan to “Make America Healthy Again” on Apr 22, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist

    In recent weeks, Bougainville has taken the initiative, boldly stating that it expects to be independent by 1 September 2027.

    It also expects the PNG Parliament to quickly ratify the 2019 referendum, in which an overwhelming majority of Bougainvilleans supported independence.

    In a third move, it established a Constitution Commission and included it within the region’s autonomous Parliament.

    To learn more, RNZ Pacific spoke with Australian National University academic Dr Thiago Oppermann, who has spent many years in both Bougainville and PNG.

    James Marape, second left, and Ishmael Toroama, right, during the joint moderations talks in Port Moresby
    James Marape (second left) and Ishmael Toroama (right) during joint moderations talks in Port Moresby last month. Image: Autonomous Bougainville Government

    Don Wiseman: We’ve had five-and-a-half years since the Bougainville referendum, but very suddenly in the last couple of months, it would seem that Bougainville is picking up pace and trying to really make some progress with this march towards independence, as they see it.

    Are they overplaying their hand?

    Dr Thiago Oppermann: I do not believe that they are overplaying their hand. I think that the impression that is apparent of a sudden flurry of activity, arises partly because for the first two years after the referendum, there was a very slow pace.

    One of the shortcomings of the Bougainville Peace Agreement (BPA) was that it did not set out a very clear post-referendum path. That part of the process was not as well designed as the parts leading to the referendum, and that left a great deal of uncertainty as to how to structure negotiations, how things should be conducted, and quite substantial differences in the views of the Papua New Guinean government and the ABG (Autonomous Bougainville Government), as to how the referendum result would be processed further.

    For instance, how it would it need to be tabled in Parliament, what kind of vote would be required for it, would a negotiation between the parties lead to an agreement that then is presented to the Parliament, and how would that negotiation work? All these areas, they were not prescriptive in the BPA.

    That led to a period of a good two years in which there was very slow process and then attempts to get some some movement. I would say that in that period, the views of the Bougainvilleans and the Papua New Guineans became quite entrenched in quite different camps, and something I think would have to give eventually.

    Why the Bougainvilleans have moved towards this point now, I think that it bears pointing out that there has been a long process that has been unfolding, for more than two years now, of beginning the organic process of developing a Bougainvillean constitutional process with this constitutional development committees across the island doing a lot of work, and that has now borne fruit, is how I would describe it.

    It happens at a point where the process has been unblocked by the appointment of Sir Jerry Mataparae, which I think sets a new vigour into the process. It looks now like it’s heading towards some form of outcome. And that being the case, the Bougainvilleans have made their position quite clear.

    Sir Jerry Mateparae, middle.
    Sir Jerry Mateparae (middle) with representatives of the PNG and Bougainville governments at the second moderation in April 2025. Image: ABG

    DW: Well, Bougainville, in fact, is saying it will be independent by 1st September 2027. How likely do you think that is?

    TO: I think there’s a question that comes before that. When Bougainville says that they will be independent by such a date, what we need to first consider is that the process of mediation is still unfolding.

    I think that the first thing to consider is, what would that independence look like, and what scope is there within the mediation for finding some compromise that still suits Papua New Guinea. I think that there’s a much greater range of outcomes than people realise within this sort of umbrella of independence, the Bougainvilleans themselves, have moved to a position of understanding independence in much more nuanced terms than previously.

    You might imagine that in the aftermath of this fairly brutal and bitter civil conflict, the idea of independence at that time was quite a radical cut towards “full bruk loose” as they say.

    But the reality is that for many post colonial and new states since World War Two, there are many different kinds of independence and the degree to which there remains a kind of attachment with or relationship with the so called parent colonial country is variable, I should add.

    I do not want to digress too much, but this concept of the parent colonial country is something that I heard quite a lot of when I was studying the referendum itself. Many people would say that the relationship that they had to Papua New Guinea was not one of enmity or of like running away, it was more a question of there being a parent and Bougainville having now grown up to the point where the child, Bougainville, is ready to go off and set up its own house.

    Many people thought of it in those terms. Now I think that in concrete terms that can be articulated in many different ways when we think about international law and the status of different sovereign nations around the world.

    DW: If we can just look at some of the possibilities in terms of the way in which this independence might be interpreted. My understanding is, for Bougainville it’s vital that they have a degree of sovereignty that will allow them to join organisations like the United Nations, but they’re not necessarily looking to be fully independent of PNG.

    TO: Yes, I think that there would be like a process underway in Bougainville for understanding what that would look like.

    There are certainly people who would have a view that is still more firmly towards full independence. And there will be others who understand some type of free association arrangements or something that still retains a closer relationship with Papua New Guinea.

    I do not think many people have illusions that Bougainville could, for instance, suddenly break loose of the very deep economic connections it has with Papua New Guinea, not only those of government funding, but the commercial connections which are very, very deep. So suddenly making that disappear is not something people believe it’s possible.

    But there are many other options that are on the table. I think what Bougainville is doing by having the announcement of the Independence Day is setting for Papua New Guinea saying, like, “here is the terms of the debate that we are prepared to consider”. But within that there is still a great deal of giving and taking.

    DW: Now within the parliament in PNG, I think Bougainville has felt for some time that there hasn’t been a great deal of understanding of what Bougainville has been through, or what it is Bougainville is trying to achieve. There’s a very different lineup of MPs to what they were at the turn of the century when the Bougainville Peace Agreement was finalised. So what are they thinking, the MPs from other parts of the country? Are they going to be supportive, or are they just thinking about the impact on their own patch?

    TO: I am not entirely sure what the MPs think, and they are a very diverse bunch of people. The sort of concern I think that many have, certainly more senior ones, is that they do not want to be the people in charge when this large chunk of the country secedes.

    I think that is something that is important, and we do not want to be patronising the Papua New Guineans, who have a great deal of national pride, and it is not an event of celebration to see what is going on.

    For many, it is quite a tragic chain of events. I am not entirely sure what the bulk of MPs believes about this. We have conducted some research, which is non randomised, but it is quite large scale, probing attitudes towards Bougainvillean independence in 2022, around the time of the election.

    What we found, which is quite surprising, is that while, of course, Bougainville has the highest support for independence of any place in Papua New Guinea, there are substantial numbers of people outside Bougainville that are sympathetic to Bougainvillean independence or sympathetic towards implementing the referendum.

    I think that would be the wording, I would choose, quite large numbers of people. So, as well as, many people who are very much undecided on the issues. From a Papua New Guinean perspective, the views are much more subtle than you might think are the case. By comparison, if you did a survey in Madrid of how many people support Catalan independence, you would not see figures similar to the ones that we find for Papua New Guinea.

    DW: Bougainville is due to go to elections later this year. The ABG has stated that it wants this matter sorted, I think, at the time that the election writs are issued sometime in June. Will it be able to do this do you think?

    TO: It’s always difficult to predict anything, especially the future. That goes double in Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. I think the reality is that the nature of negotiations here and in Bougainville, there’s a great deal of personal connections and toing and froing that will be taking place.

    It is very hard to fit that onto a clear timeline. I would describe that as perhaps aspirational, but it would be, it would be good. Whether this is, you know, a question of electoral politics within Bougainville, I think there would be, like, a more or less unanimous view in Bougainville that this needs to move forward as soon as possible. But I don’t know that a timeline is realistic.

    The concerns that I would have about this, Don, would be not just about sort of questions of capacity and what happens in the negotiations in Bougainville, but we also need to think about what is happening in Papua New Guinea, and this goes for the entire process.

    But here, in this case, PNG has its hands full with many other issues as well. There is a set of like LLG [Local Level Government] elections about to happen, so there are a great deal of things for the government to attend to. I wonder how viable it is to come up with a solution in a short time, but they are certainly capable of surprising everybody.

    DW: The Prime Minister, James Marape, has said on a number of occasions that Bougainville is not economically ready or it hasn’t got the security situation under control. And my understanding is that when this was raised at the last meeting, there was quite a lot of giggling going on, because people were comparing what’s happened in Bougainville with what’s happening around the rest of the country, including in Southern Highlands, the province of Mr Marape.

    TO: I think you know for me when I think about this, because I have worked with Bougainvilleans for a long time, and have worked with Papua New Guineans for a long time as well. The sense that I have is really one of quite sadness and a great missed opportunity.

    Because if we wind the clock back to 1975, Bougainville declared independence, trying to pre-empt [the establishment of] Papua New Guinea. And that set in train a set of events that drastically reformed the Papua New Guinean political Constitution. Many of the sort of characteristic institutions we see now in Papua New Guinea, such as provinces, came about partly because of that.

    That crisis, that first independence crisis, the first secession crisis, was resolved through deep changes to Papua New Guinea and to Bougainville, in which the country was able to grow and move forward.

    What we see now, though, is this sort of view that Bougainville problems must all be solved in Bougainville, but in fact, many of the problems that are said to be Bougainville problems are Papua New Guinea problems, and that would include issues such as the economic difficulties that Bougainville finds itself in.

    I mean, there are many ironies with this kind of criticism that Bougainville is not economically viable. One of them being that when Papua New Guinea became independent, it was largely dependent on Bougainville at that time. So Bougainvilleans are aware of this, and don’t really welcome that kind of idea.

    But I think that more deeply there were some really important lessons I believe that could have been learned from the peace process that might have been very useful in other areas of Papua New Guinea, and because Bougainville has been kind of seen as this place apart, virtually as a foreign nation, those lessons have not, unfortunately, filtered back to Papua New Guinea in a way that might have been very helpful for everybody.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. The transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Joel Hodge, Australian Catholic University and Antonia Pizzey, Australian Catholic University

    Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with double pneumonia.

    Cardinal Kevin Farrell’s announcement began:

    “Dear brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.”

    There were many unusual aspects of Pope Francis’ papacy. He was the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas (and the southern hemisphere), the first to choose the name “Francis” and the first to give a TED talk.

    He was also the first pope in more than 600 years to be elected following the resignation, rather than death, of his predecessor.

    From the very start of his papacy, Francis seemed determined to do things differently and present the papacy in a new light. Even in thinking about his burial, he chose the unexpected: to be placed to rest not in the Vatican, but in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome – the first pope to be buried there in hundreds of years.

    Vatican News reported the late Pope Francis had requested his funeral rites be simplified.

    “The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Diego Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”

    Straddling a line between “progressive” and “conservative”, Francis experienced tension with both sides. In doing so, his papacy shone a spotlight on what it means to be Catholic today.


    The Pope’s Easter Blessing    Video: AP

    The day before his death, Pope Francis made a brief appearance on Easter Sunday to bless the crowds at St Peter’s Square.

    Between a rock and a hard place
    Francis was deemed not progressive enough by some, yet far too progressive by others.

    His apostolic exhortation (an official papal teaching on a particular issue or action) Amoris Laetitia, ignited great controversy for seemingly being (more) open to the question of whether people who have divorced and remarried may receive Eucharist.

    He also disappointed progressive Catholics, many of whom hoped he would make stronger changes on issues such as the roles of women, married clergy, and the broader inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.

    The reception of his exhortation Querida Amazonia was one such example. In this document, Francis did not endorse marriage for priests, despite bishops’ requests for this. He also did not allow the possibility of women being ordained as deacons to address a shortage of ordained ministers. His discerning spirit saw there was too much division and no clear consensus for change.

    Francis was also openly critical of Germany’s controversial “Synodal Way” – a series of conferences with bishops and lay people — that advocated for positions contrary to Church teachings. Francis expressed concern on multiple occasions that this project was a threat to the unity of the Church.

    At the same time, Francis was no stranger to controversy from the conservative side of the Church, receiving “dubia” or “theological doubts” over his teaching from some of his Cardinals. In 2023, he took the unusual step of responding to some of these doubts.

    Impact on the Catholic Church
    In many ways, the most striking thing about Francis was not his words or theology, but his style. He was a modest man, even foregoing the Apostolic Palace’s grand papal apartments to live in the Vatican’s simpler guest house.

    He may well be remembered most for his simplicity of dress and habits, his welcoming and pastoral style and his wise spirit of discernment.

    He is recognised as giving a clear witness to the life, love and joy of Jesus in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council – a point of major reform in modern Church history. This witness has translated into two major developments in Church teachings and life.

    Pope Francis on respecting and protecting the environment
    Pope Francis on respecting and protecting the environment. Image: Tandag Diocese

    Love for our common home
    The first of these relates to environmental teachings. In 2015, Francis released his ground-breaking encyclical, Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home. It expanded Catholic social teaching by giving a comprehensive account of how the environment reflects our God-given “common home”.

    Consistent with recent popes such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, Francis acknowledged climate change and its destructive impacts and causes. He summarised key scientific research to forcefully argue for an evidence-based approach to addressing humans’ impact on the environment.

    He also made a pivotal and innovative contribution to the climate change debate by identifying the ethical and spiritual causes of environmental destruction.

    Francis argued combating climate change relied on the “ecological conversion” of the human heart, so that people may recognise the God-given nature of our planet and the fundamental call to care for it. Without this conversion, pragmatic and political measures wouldn’t be able to counter the forces of consumerism, exploitation and selfishness.

    Francis argued a new ethic and spirituality was needed. Specifically, he said Jesus’ way of love – for other people and all creation – is the transformative force that could bring sustainable change for the environment and cultivate fraternity among people (and especially with the poor).

    Synodality: moving towards a Church that listens
    Francis’s second major contribution, and one of the most significant aspects of his papacy, was his commitment to “synodality”. While there’s still confusion over what synodality actually means, and its potential for political distortion, it is above all a way of listening and discerning through openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    It involves hierarchy and lay people transparently and honestly discerning together, in service of the mission of the church. Synodality is as much about the process as the goal. This makes sense as Pope Francis was a Jesuit, an order focused on spreading Catholicism through spiritual formation and discernment.

    Drawing on his rich Jesuit spirituality, Francis introduced a way of conversation centred on listening to the Holy Spirit and others, while seeking to cultivate friendship and wisdom.

    With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, it is too soon to assess its results. However, those who have been involved in synodal processes have reported back on their transformative potential.

    Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, explained how participating in the 2015 Synod “was an extraordinary experience [and] in some ways an awakening”.

    Catholicism in the modern age
    Francis’ papacy inspired both great joy and aspirations, as well as boiling anger and rejection. He laid bare the agonising fault lines within the Catholic community and struck at key issues of Catholic identity, triggering debate over what it means to be Catholic in the world today.

    He leaves behind a Church that seems more divided than ever, with arguments, uncertainty and many questions rolling in his wake. But he has also provided a way for the Church to become more converted to Jesus’ way of love, through synodality and dialogue.

    Francis showed us that holding labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” won’t enable the Church to live out Jesus’ mission of love – a mission he emphasised from the very beginning of his papacy.The Conversation

    Dr Joel Hodge is senior lecturer, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy, Australian Catholic University and Dr Antonia Pizzey is postdoctoral researcher, Research Centre for Studies of the Second Vatican Council, Australian Catholic University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has appealed to Foreign Minister Winston Peters askingto  New Zealand initiate a call for an internationally enforced “no-fly” zone over Gaza.

    PSNA co-chairs John Minto and Maher Nazzal said in a statement this would be a small but practicable step to “blunt Israel’s continuing genocidal attacks” on Palestinians.

    “Gaza is recognised under international law, and by the New Zealand government, as part of the illegally Occupied Palestinian Territory,” they said.

    “As such, Israel’s intrusion into Gaza airspace is illegal, and is elevated to a war crime when its aircraft attack Palestinian civilians there to further what the International Court of Justice has described as a ‘plausible genocide”.”

    Minto and Maher said the United Nations had repeatedly said there were no safe places in Gaza for Palestinian civilians, where even so-called “safe zones” were systematically attacked as Israel “terrorised the population to flee from the territory”.

    “Suggestions for a no-fly zone have been made in the past but there has never been a better time for a concerted international effort to enforce such a zone over Gaza,” said Minto.

    “In the week leading up to Anzac Day there is no better time for New Zealand to stand up and be counted.

    “New Zealanders from past conflicts, including in that very region in 1917 and 1918, have died in vain if today’s politicians refuse to speak out to end the death and destruction in Gaza.”


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Pope Francis, the spiritual leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Roman Catholics, has died aged 88 a day after he made his first prolonged public appearance since being discharged from hospital.

    And his final message was for an end to the suffering caused by Israel’s 18-month war on Gaza.

    On Easter Sunday, Pope Francis entered St Peter’s Square in an open-air popemobile shortly after midday, greeting cheering pilgrim crowds and blessing babies.

    The Pope, who had recently spent five weeks in hospital being treated for double pneumonia, also offered a special blessing for the first time since Christmas.

    At the address, an aide read out his “Urbi et Orbi” — Latin for “to the city and the world” — benediction, in which the Pope condemned the “deplorable humanitarian situation” in Gaza.

    “I express my closeness to the sufferings . . . of all the Israeli people and the Palestinian people,” said the message.

    “I appeal to the warring parties: call a ceasefire, release the hostages and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a future of peace.”

    On the same day, Francis — who has been Pope for 12 years — also held a private meeting with US Vice President JD Vance to exchange Easter greetings.

    Among responses from world leaders, Vance said his “heart goes out to the millions of Christians all over the world who loved him”, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said it was “deeply sad news, because a great man has left us,” and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Pope France would be remembered for his efforts to build “a more just, peaceful and compassionate world.”

    Most vocal leader on Gaza
    Reporting from Deir el-Balah, central Gaza, Al Jazeera’s Hind Khoudary said the Pope’s death was “another sad day for Gaza — especially for the Christian Catholic community’ in the besieged enclave.

    “He is seen as one of the most vocal leaders on Gaza. He was always condemning the war on Gaza, and always asking for a ceasefire and asking for the end of this conflict,” she said.

    “According to the Christian community in the Gaza Strip, he was in contact with them daily, asking them what they need and asking about what they are facing, especially as this community has been attacked several times during the course of this war.

    “At this stage, the Palestinians need someone to stand by them, to defend and support them.

    “And the Pope has been one of those leaders.”

    Choosing a successor
    Speculation has already begun about his possible successor.

    Traditionally, when the Pope dies or resigns, the Papal Conclave — cardinals under the age of 80 — vote for his successor.

    To prevent outside influence, the conclave locks itself in the Sistine Chapel and deliberates on potential successors.

    While the number of papal electors is typically capped at 120, there are currently 138 eligible voters. Its members cast their votes via secret ballots, a process overseen by nine randomly selected cardinals.

    A two-thirds majority is traditionally required to elect the new pope, and voting continues until this threshold is met.

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

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Pope Francis, the spiritual leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Roman Catholics, has died aged 88 a day after he made his first prolonged public appearance since being discharged from hospital.

    And his final message was for an end to the suffering caused by Israel’s 18-month war on Gaza.

    On Easter Sunday, Pope Francis entered St Peter’s Square in an open-air popemobile shortly after midday, greeting cheering pilgrim crowds and blessing babies.

    The Pope, who had recently spent five weeks in hospital being treated for double pneumonia, also offered a special blessing for the first time since Christmas.

    At the address, an aide read out his “Urbi et Orbi” — Latin for “to the city and the world” — benediction, in which the Pope condemned the “deplorable humanitarian situation” in Gaza.

    “I express my closeness to the sufferings . . . of all the Israeli people and the Palestinian people,” said the message.

    “I appeal to the warring parties: call a ceasefire, release the hostages and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a future of peace.”

    On the same day, Francis — who has been Pope for 12 years — also held a private meeting with US Vice President JD Vance to exchange Easter greetings.

    Among responses from world leaders, Vance said his “heart goes out to the millions of Christians all over the world who loved him”, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said it was “deeply sad news, because a great man has left us,” and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Pope France would be remembered for his efforts to build “a more just, peaceful and compassionate world.”

    Most vocal leader on Gaza
    Reporting from Deir el-Balah, central Gaza, Al Jazeera’s Hind Khoudary said the Pope’s death was “another sad day for Gaza — especially for the Christian Catholic community’ in the besieged enclave.

    “He is seen as one of the most vocal leaders on Gaza. He was always condemning the war on Gaza, and always asking for a ceasefire and asking for the end of this conflict,” she said.

    “According to the Christian community in the Gaza Strip, he was in contact with them daily, asking them what they need and asking about what they are facing, especially as this community has been attacked several times during the course of this war.

    “At this stage, the Palestinians need someone to stand by them, to defend and support them.

    “And the Pope has been one of those leaders.”

    Choosing a successor
    Speculation has already begun about his possible successor.

    Traditionally, when the Pope dies or resigns, the Papal Conclave — cardinals under the age of 80 — vote for his successor.

    To prevent outside influence, the conclave locks itself in the Sistine Chapel and deliberates on potential successors.

    While the number of papal electors is typically capped at 120, there are currently 138 eligible voters. Its members cast their votes via secret ballots, a process overseen by nine randomly selected cardinals.

    A two-thirds majority is traditionally required to elect the new pope, and voting continues until this threshold is met.

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

  • Part one of a two-part series: On the courage to remember

    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

    The first demonstration I ever went on was at the age of 12, against the Vietnam War.

    The first formal history lesson I received was a few months later when I commenced high school. That day the old history master, Mr Griffiths, chalked what I later learnt was a quote from Hegel:

    “The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn the lessons of history.” It’s about time we changed that.

    Painful though it is, let’s have the courage to remember what they desperately try to make us forget.

    Cultural amnesia and learning the lessons of history
    Memorialising events is a popular pastime with politicians, journalists and old soldiers.

    Nothing wrong with that. Honouring sacrifice, preserving collective memory and encouraging reconciliation are all valid. Recalling the liberation of Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) on 30 April 1975 is important.

    What is criminal, however, is that we failed to learn the vital lessons that the US defeat in Vietnam should have taught us all. Sadly much was forgotten and the succeeding half century has witnessed a carnival of slaughter perpetrated by the Western world on hapless South Americans, Africans, Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, and many more.

    Honouring sacrifice, preserving collective memory and encouraging reconciliation are all valid
    Honouring sacrifice, preserving collective memory and encouraging reconciliation are all valid. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    It’s time to remember.

    Memory shapes national identity
    As scholars say: Memory shapes national identity. If your cultural products — books, movies, songs, curricula and the like — fail to embed an appreciation of the war crimes, racism, and imperial culpability for events like the Vietnam War, then, as we have proven, it can all be done again. How many recognise today that Vietnam was an American imperial war in Asia, that “fighting communism” was a pretext that lost all credibility, partly thanks to television and especially thanks to heroic journalists like John Pilger and Seymour Hersh?

    Just as in Gaza today, the truth and the crimes could not be hidden anymore.

    How many recognise today that Vietnam was an American imperial war in Asia?
    How many recognise today that Vietnam was an American imperial war in Asia? Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    If a culture doesn’t face up to its past crimes — say the treatment of the Aborigines by settler Australia, of Māori by settler New Zealand, of Palestinians by the Zionist state since 1948, or the various genocides perpetrated by the US government on the indigenous peoples of what became the 50 states, then it leads ultimately to moral decay and repetition.

    Lest we forget. Forget what?
    Is there a collective memory in the West that the Americans and their allies raped thousands of Vietnamese women, killed hundreds of thousands of children, were involved in countless large scale war crimes, summary executions and other depravities in order to impose their will on a people in their own country?

    Why has there been no collective responsibility for the death of over two million Vietnamese? Why no reparations for America’s vast use of chemical weapons on Vietnam, some provided by New Zealand?

    Vietnam Veterans Against War released a report “50 years of struggle” in 2017 which included this commendable statement: “To VVAW and its supporters, the veterans had a continuing duty to report what they had witnessed”. This included the frequency of “beatings, rapes, cutting body parts, violent torture during interrogations and cutting off heads”.

    The US spends billions projecting itself as morally superior but people who followed events at the time, including brilliant journalists like Pilger, knew something beyond sordid was happening within the US military.

    The importance of remembering the My Lai Massacre
    While cultural memes like “Me Love You Long Time” played to an exoticised and sexualised image of Vietnamese women — popular in American-centric movies like Full Metal Jacket, Green Beret, Rambo, Apocalypse Now, as was the image of the Vietnamese as sadistic torturers, there has been a long-term attempt to expunge from memory the true story of American depravity.

    The most infamous such incident of the Vietnam War was the My Lai Massacre of 16 March 1968.
    The most infamous such incident of the Vietnam War was the My Lai Massacre of 16 March 1968. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    All, or virtually all, armies rape their victims. The US Army is no exception — despite rhetorically jockeying with the Israelis for the title of “the world’s most moral army”. The most famous such incident of the Vietnam War was the My Lai Massacre of 16 March 1968 in which about 500 civilians were subjected to hours of rapes, mutilation and eventual murder by soldiers of the US 20th Infantry Regiment.

    Rape victims ranged from girls of 10 years through to old women. The US soldiers even took a lunch break before recommencing their crimes.

    The official commission of inquiry, culminating in the Peers Report found that an extensive network of officers had taken part in a cover-up of what were large-scale war crimes. Only one soldier, Lieutenant Calley, was ever sentenced to jail but within days he was, on the orders of the US President, transferred to a casually-enforced three and half years of house arrest. By this act, the United States of America continued a pattern of providing impunity for grave war crimes. That pattern continues to this day.

    The failure of the US Army to fully pursue the criminals will be an eternal stain on the US Army whose soldiers went on to commit countless rapes, hundreds of thousands of murders and other crimes across the globe in the succeeding five decades. If you resile from these facts, you simply haven’t read enough official information.

    Thank goodness for journalists, particularly Seymour Hersh, who broke rank and exposed the truth of what happened at My Lai.

    Senator John McCain’s “sacrifice” and the crimes that went unpunished
    Thousands of Viet Cong died in US custody, many from torture, many by summary execution but the Western cultural image of Vietnam focuses on the cruelty of the North Vietnamese toward “victims” like terror-bomber John McCain.

    The future US presidential candidate was on his 23rd bombing mission, part of a campaign of “War by Tantrum” in the words of a New York Times writer, when he was shot down over Hanoi.

    The CIA’s Phoenix Programme was eventually shut down after public outrage and hearings by the US Congress into its misdeeds
    The CIA’s Phoenix Programme was eventually shut down after public outrage and hearings by the US Congress into its misdeeds. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    Also emblematic of this state-inflicted terrorism was the CIA’s Phoenix Programme, eventually shut down after public outrage and hearings by the US Congress into its misdeeds. According to US journalist Douglas Valentine, author of several books on the CIA, including The Phoenix Program:

    “Central to Phoenix is the fact that it targeted civilians, not soldiers”.

    Common practices, Valentine says, quoting US witnesses and official papers, included:

    “Rape, gang rape, rape using eels, snakes, or hard objects, and rape followed by murder; electrical shock (“the Bell Telephone Hour”) rendered by attaching wires to the genitals or other sensitive parts of the body, like the tongue; “the water treatment”; “the airplane,” in which a prisoner’s arms were tied behind the back and the rope looped over a hook on the ceiling, suspending the prisoner in midair.”

    No US serviceman, CIA agent or other official was held to account for these crimes.

    Tiger Force — part of the US 327th Infantry — gained a grisly reputation for indiscriminately mowing down civilians, mutilations (cutting off of ears which were retained as souvenirs was common practice, according to sworn statements by participants). All this was supposed to be kept secret but was leaked in 2003.

    “Their crimes were uncountable, their madness beyond imagination — so much so that for almost four decades, the story of Tiger Force was covered up under orders that stretched all the way to the White House,” journalists Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss reported.

    Their crimes, secretly documented by the US military, included beheading a baby to intimidate villagers into providing information — interesting given how much mileage the US and Israel made of fake stories about beheaded babies on 7 October 2023. The US went to great lengths to hide these ugly truths — and no one ever faced real consequences.

    The US went to great lengths to hide these ugly truths
    The US went to great lengths to hide these ugly truths. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    Helicopter gunships and soldiers at checkpoints gunned down thousands of Vietnamese civilians, including women and children, much as US forces did at checkpoints in Iraq, according to leaked US documents following the illegal invasion of that country.

    The worst cowards and criminals were not the rapists and murderers themselves but the high-ranking politicians and military leaders who tried desperately to cover up these and hundreds of other incidents. As Lieutenant Calley himself said of My Lai: “It’s not an isolated incident.”

    Here we are 50 years later in the midst of the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza, with the US fuelling war and bombing people across the globe. Isn’t it time we stopped supporting this madness?

    Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.

    • Next article: The fall of Saigon 1975: Part two: Quiet mutiny: the US army falls apart.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Peaceful protesters in Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest city Auckland held an Easter prayer vigil honouring Palestinian political prisoners and the sacrifice of thousands of innocent lives as relentless Israeli bombing of displaced Gazans in tents killed at least 92 people in two days.

    Organisers of the rally for the 80th week since the war began in October 2023 said they aimed for a shift in emphasis for quietness and meditation this spiritual weekend.

    “This is dedicated to the Palestine Prisoners’ Day and those who have died, innocent of any crime — women, children, journalists, patients, friends, healthcare workers, those buried under rubble, non-military civilians,” said Kathy Ross of Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

    “All those starving and needing our help,” she added.

    The organisers created a flowers and candles circle of peace with hibiscus blossoms in an area of Britomart that has become dubbed “Palestinian Corner”.

    Placards declared “Free all Palestinian prisoners — all 10,000 people” and “Release the Palestinian prisoners.”

    Palestinian fusion dancer and singer Rana Hamida, who last year sailed on the Freedom Flotilla boat Handala in an attempt to break the Israel siege of Gaza, spoke about how people could keep their spirits up in the face of such terrible atrocities, and sang a haunting hymn.

    Calmness and strength
    She also described how the air and wind could help protesters seek calmness and strength in spite of storms like Cyclone Tam that gusted across much of New Zealand yesterday on Good Friday causing havoc.

    She spread her arms like wings as Palestinian flags fluttered strongly, saying: “The wind is now blowing in exactly the right direction.”

    The Palestinian "circle of peace" at today's spiritual vigil on Easter Saturday
    The Palestinian “circle of peace” at today’s spiritual vigil on Easter Saturday in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Another PSNA organiser, Del Abcede, spoke about the incarceration of Palestinian paediatrician Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, the director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, who was kidnapped by the Israeli military last December 27 — two days after Christmas – and has been held in detention without charge and under torture ever since.

    “The reason why he was arrested is because he would not leave his hospital or his patients,” she said, adding that he had been held incommunicado for a long time.

    “I want to dedicate a special honour and prayer for him and I hope that he will be released soon.”

    Beaten in prison
    Dr Safiya is suffering from a serious eye injury as a result of being beaten in Israeli prison, his lawyer has revealed to media.

    According to lawyer Ghaid Qassem, Dr Abu Safiya has been classified by Israeli authorities as an “unlawful combatant” but has not yet been charged or received any court trials.

    Despite a global campaign calling for him to be released from prison, Israeli authorities have continued to interrogate and torture Dr Abu Safiya.

    Vigil organisers Kathy Ross (left) and Del Abcede speaking at the prayer vigil for Palestine today
    Vigil organisers Kathy Ross (left) and Del Abcede speaking at the prayer vigil for Palestine today . . . courageous Dr Hussam Abu Safiya is pictured on the placard. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Another speaker at the vigil, Dr David Robie, said he had been a journalist for 50 years and he found it “shameful” that the Western media — including Aotearoa New Zealand — failed to report the genocide and ethnic cleansing truthfully, and in fact was normalising the “horrendous crimes”.

    He called for silent prayer for the at least 232 Gazan journalists killed — many along with their entire families — who had been courageously reporting the truth to the rest of the world.

    Banners at the vigil referred to “Jesus [was] Palestinian – born in Bethlehem” and “Let Gaza live”. One placard declared “Jesus was an anti-imperialist Palestinian Jew who preached (and practised) radical love for all – not a violent bully bigot”.

    Other vigils and protests took place across New Zealand at Easter weekend, especially in Ōtautahi Christchurch.

    Journalist Dr David Robie speaking about how Western media has been "normalising" genocide
    Journalist Dr David Robie speaking about how Western media has been “normalising” genocide and calling for prayer for the killed Gazan journalists. Image: Bruce King

    ‘Violating’ religious status quo
    Meanwhile, in Jerusalem reports were emerging that Israelis were “taking pride in violating the status quo” with religious traditions at Easter.

    A protester carrying her placard proclaiming Jesus as an "anti-imperialist Palestinian Jew" who preached love for all
    A protester carrying her placard proclaiming Jesus as an “anti-imperialist Palestinian Jew” who preached love for all. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Xavier Abu Eid, a political scientist and former adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from occupied East Jerusalem, explained on Al Jazeera that Jerusalem, “has a very central place” in the history of Palestinian Christians.

    “We have to … understand what the Israeli occupation is doing to all Palestinians, because there is a concept. … It’s called the status quo. It’s understood and it’s under a very old agreement, centuries or older than the state of Israel,” he said.

    Under the status quo, “the status of Christian and Muslim holy sites, including Al-Aqsa Mosque, for example, and the Holy Sepulchre, would be respected,” Dr Eid explained.

    Despite this, he said, “Israeli government officials are taking pride in violating the status quo of Al-Aqsa Mosque compound by allowing Israeli settlers to pray in Al-Aqsa Mosque”.

    He said the Israeli authorities are also trying to “turn the Mount of Olives, a very important place for this [Easter] celebration, into an Israeli national park”.

    “So you’re talking about a community that feels under threat, not just from a national point of view with the Israeli government, pushing for ethnic cleansing and annexation, but also from the traditions that religiously we have kept here for generations,” he noted.

    The UN Palestine relief agency UNRWA reports that after 1.5 years of war in Gaza, at least 51,000 Palestinians have been killed, 1.9 million people have been forcibly displaced multiple times, and the Israel military has blocked humanitarian aid from entering the besieged enclave for seven weeks.

    A "Jesus was born in Bethlehem" banner at today's Britomart vigil for Palestine
    A “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” banner at today’s Britomart vigil for Palestine. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Ben Bohane

    This week Cambodia marks the 50th anniversary of the fall of Phnom Penh to the murderous Khmer Rouge, and Vietnam celebrates the fall of Saigon to North Vietnamese forces in April 1975.

    They are being commemorated very differently; after all, there’s nothing to celebrate in Cambodia. Its capital Phnom Penh was emptied, and its people had to then endure the “killing fields” and the darkest years of its modern existence under Khmer Rouge rule.

    Over the border in Vietnam, however, there will be modest celebrations for their victory against US (and Australian) forces at the end of this month.

    Yet, this week’s news of Indonesia considering a Russian request to base aircraft at the Biak airbase in West Papua throws in stark relief a troubling question I have long asked — did Australia back the wrong war 63 years ago? These different areas — and histories — of Southeast Asia may seem disconnected, but allow me to draw some links.

    Through the 1950s until the early 1960s, it was official Australian policy under the Menzies government to support The Netherlands as it prepared West Papua for independence, knowing its people were ethnically and religiously different from the rest of Indonesia.

    They are a Christian Melanesian people who look east to Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Pacific, not west to Muslim Asia. Australia at the time was administering and beginning to prepare PNG for self-rule.

    The Second World War had shown the importance of West Papua (then part of Dutch New Guinea) to Australian security, as it had been a base for Japanese air raids over northern Australia.

    Japanese beeline to Sorong
    Early in the war, Japanese forces made a beeline to Sorong on the Bird’s Head Peninsula of West Papua for its abundance of high-quality oil. Former Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam served in a RAAF unit briefly stationed in Merauke in West Papua.

    By 1962, the US wanted Indonesia to annex West Papua as a way of splitting Chinese and Russian influence in the region, as well as getting at the biggest gold deposit on earth at the Grasberg mine, something which US company Freeport continues to mine, controversially, today.

    Following the so-called Bunker Agreement signed in New York in 1962, The Netherlands reluctantly agreed to relinquish West Papua to Indonesia under US pressure. Australia, too, folded in line with US interests.

    That would also be the year when Australia sent its first group of 30 military advisers to Vietnam. Instead of backing West Papuan nationhood, Australia joined the US in suppressing Vietnam’s.

    As a result of US arm-twisting, Australia ceded its own strategic interests in allowing Indonesia to expand eastwards into Pacific territories by swallowing West Papua. Instead, Australians trooped off to fight the unwinnable wars of Indochina.

    To me, it remains one of the great what-ifs of Australian strategic history — if Australia had held the line with the Dutch against US moves, then West Papua today would be free, the East Timor invasion of 1975 was unlikely to have ever happened and Australia might not have been dragged into the Vietnam War.

    Instead, as Cambodia and Vietnam mark their anniversaries this month, Australia continues to be reminded of the potential threat Indonesian-controlled West Papua has posed to Australia and the Pacific since it gave way to US interests in 1962.

    Russian space agency plans
    Nor is this the first time Russia has deployed assets to West Papua. Last year, Russian media reported plans under way for the Russian space agency Roscosmos to help Indonesia build a space base on Biak island.

    In 2017, RAAF Tindal was scrambled just before Christmas to monitor Russian Tu95 nuclear “Bear” bombers doing their first-ever sorties in the South Pacific, flying between Australia and Papua New Guinea. I wrote not long afterwards how Australia was becoming “caught in a pincer” between Indonesian and Russian interests on Indonesia’s side and Chinese moves coming through the Pacific on the other.

    All because we have abandoned the West Papuans to endure their own “slow-motion genocide” under Indonesian rule. Church groups and NGOs estimate up to 500,000 Papuans have perished under 60 years of Indonesian military rule, while Jakarta refuses to allow international media and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit.

    Alex Sobel, an MP in the UK Parliament, last week called on Indonesia to allow the UN High Commissioner to visit but it is exceedingly rare to hear any Australian MPs ask questions about our neighbour West Papua in the Australian Parliament.

    Canberra continues to enhance security relations with Indonesia in a naive belief that the nation is our ally against an assertive China. This ignores Jakarta’s deepening relations with both Russia and China, and avoids any mention of ongoing atrocities in West Papua or the fact that jihadi groups are operating close to Australia’s border.

    Indonesia’s militarisation of West Papua, jihadi infiltration and now the potential for Russia to use airbases or space bases on Biak should all be “red lines” for Australia, yet successive governments remain desperate not to criticise Indonesia.

    Ignoring actual ‘hot war’
    Australia’s national security establishment remains focused on grand global strategy and acquiring over-priced gear, while ignoring the only actual “hot war” in our region.

    Our geography has not changed; the most important line of defence for Australia remains the islands of Melanesia to our north and the co-operation and friendship of its peoples.

    Strong independence movements in West Papua, Bougainville and New Caledonia all materially affect Australian security but Canberra can always be relied on to defer to Indonesian, American and French interests in these places, rather than what is ultimately in Australian — and Pacific Islander — interests.

    Australia needs to develop a defence policy centred on a “Melanesia First” strategy from Timor to Fiji, radiating outwards. Yet Australia keeps deferring to external interests, to our cost, as history continues to remind us.

    Ben Bohane is a Vanuatu-based photojournalist and policy analyst who has reported across Asia and the Pacific for the past 36 years. His website is benbohane.com  This article was first published by The Sydney Morning Herald and is republished with the author’s permission.

  • Two months before she was supposed to go on trial for killing her child, Michelle Taylor stood before a Florida judge and listened quietly as the prosecutor recited the allegations against her. Taylor, 41, had long insisted she was not what the state made her out to be: a mother who set fire to her home to collect insurance money, killing her 11-year-old son David in the process. Now there was proof she’d been telling the truth. The key arson evidence had been dismantled, with several top scientists saying that the forensics did not hold up.

    But prosecutors refused to drop the charges, instead giving Taylor’s lawyer a deadline. According to defense attorney John Rockwell, if she did not take a plea deal by her next court hearing, all future offers were off the table. After several sleepless nights, Taylor walked into the St. Johns County Courthouse on April 2 and entered a plea: no contest to manslaughter.

    “She was up there for maybe three minutes,” said Megan Wallace, Taylor’s fiercest advocate, who watched in the gallery alongside Taylor’s mother. Six-and-a-half years after the fire destroyed Taylor’s home and upended her life, the conviction happened in the blink of an eye.


    Related

    The Arson Evidence Doesn’t Hold Up. Florida Is About to Convict Her for Murder Anyway.


    I examined Taylor’s case in an in-depth story published by The Intercept last month. It described how she was accused of arson after escaping a nighttime fire that broke out in her St. Augustine home on October 23, 2018. Witnesses described her panic as she screamed that her son was inside, trying repeatedly to reenter the house. Taylor swore she had no idea how the fire started or why David did not make it out. The two had been watching TV in her bedroom that night, Taylor told investigators, when she heard smoke detectors go off and encountered thick black smoke outside her door. She and her 18-year-old daughter Bailey escaped through a window, Taylor said, but David turned to look for the family dog and never emerged.

    Authorities became suspicious after an accelerant-detecting canine alerted in different parts of the house, prompting investigators to collect five fire debris samples from the scene. The samples were sent to the State Fire Marshal’s Bureau of Forensic Services lab, which reported three of them positive for gasoline. Subsequent samples also revealed gasoline, according to the lab — proof positive of arson. Detectives also found red flags in Taylor’s financial history, pointing to a possible motive, including evidence that she and her husband were behind in their mortgage and that she had fraudulently solicited donations from area churches.

    But the gasoline was the only direct evidence of arson — and eventually that evidence began to fall apart. Veteran fire scientist John Lentini first raised alarm in January 2024, writing in a defense report that the gasoline findings were based on a misinterpretation of chromatographic data from a state lab that “routinely identified gasoline where it does not exist.” Lentini, who had filed a complaint against the lab nearly a decade earlier, leading to a temporary suspension of its professional accreditation, said it was the sixth case he had seen in which a person was falsely accused of arson based on the lab’s faulty gasoline analysis.

    It was the sixth case he had seen in which a person was falsely accused of arson based on the lab’s faulty gasoline analysis.

    Lentini’s report was shared with the state’s lead fire investigator, a special agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, who immediately emailed it to two ATF chemists. During depositions in April 2024, those experts agreed that the data shown in his report did not show evidence of gasoline. As the case approached trial, two more forensic chemists reexamined the evidence. One looked at the lab data; another, veteran chemist Laurel Mason of Analytical Forensic Associates, examined the carbon strips used to test the fire debris samples in 2018. Like Lentini, those experts concluded that there was no evidence of gasoline.

    Rockwell, a private defense attorney in Jacksonville who started representing Taylor last year, had just disclosed Mason’s analysis of the carbon strips in February when prosecutors revealed a new report of their own. The chemist who tested the fire debris samples in 2018 issued an amended lab report in the case, backtracking on her earlier findings. Of the three positive samples that first set the case into motion, only one actually contained gasoline, she wrote. In total, four fire debris samples she first said contained gasoline were changed to report no evidence of an accelerant.

    Rockwell, a former prosecutor, described the amended report as “mind-blowing.” As he wrote in a subsequent court filing, the state’s report “appears to have been suspiciously back-dated” to January, to make it look like it was submitted before Mason’s expert report — a hasty attempt to rehabilitate the state’s forensic evidence in the face of his experts’ findings. “I’ve never seen that in any case in my life,” he told me.

    But Rockwell also knew the danger Taylor faced if she went to trial. Although the discredited evidence severely undermined the case the state hoped to present to the jury, prosecutors did not actually have to prove how the fire started in order to win a conviction. They only had to convince jurors that Taylor had committed arson in order to collect insurance money, which they planned to do by relying on circumstantial evidence of fraud. In Florida, a guilty verdict on a first-degree felony murder charge means a mandatory life sentence. Rockwell pursued what he believed to be the least risky option for his client, negotiating the best deal possible, then convincing her to take it.

    “They’re still doing the exact same thing. Without any punishment or sanctions or anything. And that’s horrifying. Because that can affect somebody for the rest of their life.”

    On the morning of the hearing, Rockwell met Taylor, her mother, and Wallace at the courthouse in St. Augustine, where he went over the plea deal one more time. In exchange for the no-contest plea, the state had agreed to drop the arson charge at Taylor’s sentencing, which was scheduled for May 30. Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Judge Lee Smith would then have a range of sentencing options, from three to 13 years. With credit for the nearly three years Taylor spent in the local jail, Taylor could serve as little as a few months in prison.

    Michelle Taylor, right, after a hearing at the St. Johns County Courthouse in St. Augustine, Fla., on July 9, 2024.
    Liliana Segura

    “I think she made the right decision,” Rockwell told me, reemphasizing that Taylor maintains her innocence. Now he plans to present his experts’ opinions at the sentencing hearing, where he will address the flawed forensics, the amended report, and the disturbing history of the state fire marshal’s lab. “They’re still doing the exact same thing,” he said. “Without any punishment or sanctions or anything. And that’s horrifying. Because that can affect somebody for the rest of their life.”

    In an email, Bryan Shorstein, executive director of the Seventh Judicial Circuit state attorney’s office, declined to comment about the plea deal “since it is still an active case.”

    A spokesperson representing the fire marshal’s office declined to comment.

    A week after the court hearing, Wallace accompanied Taylor to the local Dollar Tree to buy Easter supplies for Taylor’s nieces and for Wallace’s daughter. In a text, Wallace sent a photo: a neat row of pastel baskets placed high on a closet shelf, with candy and bunny ears peeking over the side.

    The holidays have been painful for Taylor, who has been out on bond for almost a year. As the sentencing approaches, she worries about her mother and one of her sisters, both of whom have terminal cancer, according to Wallace. Even a short prison sentence could keep her away from them when they need her most. Meanwhile, on Facebook, a local news story about the plea deal put Taylor’s mugshot back in circulation, along with outraged comments calling her a murderer who is getting off easy.

    But for now Taylor can’t worry about what other people think, only about her sentencing, where she will finally speak for herself. She is trying to hold onto hope that the judge, who has presided over her case for years, sees the case clearly. “In her mind,” Wallace said, “she thinks that Judge Smith knows she’s innocent.”

    The post Facing Life in Prison Based on Shoddy Evidence, a Florida Mother Makes a Deal  appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The Trump administration is doubling down on depicting Kilmar Abrego Garcia as a dangerous gang member. The government’s proof for this claim appears to hinge on a Chicago Bulls cap and a hoodie.

    While Trump continues to flout court orders to facilitate the Maryland father’s release from a notorious El Salvador prison, it is pointing to flimsy evidence of alleged MS-13 ties — adding to a long-running pattern of dubious gang designations by law enforcement and immigration agents.

    Last month, immigration enforcement officials rounded up hundreds of migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, accusing them of being members of gangs the administration deemed terrorist organizations. Abrego Garcia, 29, a Salvadoran national, was among the men sent to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, prison. The government admitted in court filings that he was sent there due to an “administrative error,” in violation of a court order blocking his deportation due to threats to his safety in El Salvador.

    While many of the other detained men appear to be labeled as gang members mainly because of their tattoos, law enforcement officials seem to have singled Abrego Garcia out for his attire, additional documents released Wednesday by Attorney General Pam Bondi show.

    “Wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with MS-13.”

    The documents released detail a Prince George’s County Police Department encounter with Abrego Garcia in 2019. “Officers observed he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears, and mouth of the presidents,” they wrote. “Officers know such clothing to be indicative of the Hispanic gang culture.”

    The gang field interview sheet from the Prince George’s County Police Department notes that “wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with MS-13.”

    Officers also stated they reached out to a confidential informant who claimed that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13. In court, it was revealed that the source claimed Abrego Garcia was a member of the gang in New York — a place where he never lived. Abrego Garcia has never been charged with a crime, and his family maintains that he was never a member of any gang. 

    Ana Muñiz, a professor of criminology, law, and society at UC Irvine, said it’s not at all surprising that police and immigration officials put so much emphasis on his hat as a way to prove his gang ties.

    “A gang designation is something that police really use to maintain contact, mainly with men of color in low-income urban neighborhoods, when they can’t find enough to actually charge them with a crime,” said Muñiz, the author of “Borderland Circuitry: Immigration Surveillance in the United States and Beyond.” You have people with gang designations, people on gang databases who are designated on things like clothing [from] very popular sports brands.”


    Related

    How a Landlord and a Florida PR Firm Helped Trump Kick Off the Tren de Aragua Gang Panic


    Muñiz explained that law enforcement agencies generally use a 9 or 10-point system to determine gang affiliation based on factors as mundane and subjective as wearing sports apparel or “frequenting a gang area.” To be placed on a gang database, suspects often only need to meet two of the categories, she said.

    In an ethnography Muñiz conducted on gang designation in Los Angeles, she found that the Los Angeles Police Department “considered Dodgers gear to be indicative of gang membership, in certain contexts,” Muñiz said. “If you’ve ever been to LA, everyone is wearing Dodgers gear.”

    Though the Chicago Bulls aren’t local to Maryland, where Abrego Garcia lived, Bulls apparel has reportedly been the best-selling pro basketball apparel in the state.

    Gang designations can become sweep up wide swaths of the population; at one point, roughly half of all Black men in Los Angeles between the ages of 21 to 24 years old were listed on a gang database, according to a report published in the Asian Pacific American Law Journal.

    For people like Abrego Garcia, being listed as having a gang affiliation — no matter how thin the justification — can have serious immigration consequences. Yet in some cases, people might not even be aware that they’re on a gang database. “It’s really common for police when they can’t charge someone with a crime or find something to get them on to slap this very easy designation on them,” Muñiz said, “and then eventually, it will make its way up to ICE, and ICE will use that in court to argue for things like expedited deportation or compulsory detention.”


    Related

    For Immigrant Students on Long Island, Trump’s War on Gangs Means the Wrong T-Shirt Could Get You Deported


    Abrego Garcia is far from the first case of Chicago Bulls attire being weaponized in the immigration process. An investigation by The Intercept during the first Trump administration revealed that students at a Long Island high school were reported to ICE for among other things wearing Chicago Bulls jersey and posting the Salvadoran flag on Facebook.

    Many of the men shipped to the CECOT prison with Abrego Garcia appear to be detained under similarly flimsy gang affiliation claims. Federal law enforcement officials reportedly rated them on a 10-point scale, with a score of 8 or more designating them a member of Tren de Aragua, and thus immediately deportable since President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to alleged members of the gang. Certain tattoos were 4 points. Another 4 points could be added for “notations, drawing, or dress known to indicate were allegiance to TDA.”

    On Thursday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., met with Abrego Garcia after traveling to El Salvador to check on his constituent’s welfare and “discuss” his release.

    “My main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar. Tonight I had that chance,” Van Hollen wrote on X. “I have called his wife, Jennifer, to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return,”

    Muñiz said she predicted that the Trump administration would use gang affiliation as a tool to fuel the president’s mass deportation strategy and system of racialized state terror. “You don’t need probable cause. You don’t need to prove this in court,” she said. “It’s a label you can apply very easily, without criminal charges, without really any proof. And then, once that person is labeled, you can justify doing a lot of things with them, like detaining them, like deporting them.”

    The post The Evidence Linking Kilmar Abrego Garcia to MS-13: A Chicago Bulls Hat and a Hoodie appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • The Department of Homeland Security said this week in a Michigan court that the agency does not have the authority to terminate students’ immigration statuses by terminating their records in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System. Known as SEVIS, the database allows both universities and authorities to track information about international students on visas in U.S.

    Homeland Security’s changes to SEVIS, the Trump administration said, have no bearing on a student’s lawful nonimmigrant status. 

    “Terminating a record in SEVIS does not terminate an individual’s nonimmigrant status in the United States,” said Andre Watson, assistant director of the national security division for Homeland Security Investigations, in the filing. Watson added that existing laws and regulations “do not provide” the DHS-run Student Exchange and Visitor Program “the authority to terminate nonimmigrant status by terminating a SEVIS record.”

    This will be news to many hundreds of students who have had their SEVIS records terminated by DHS in recent weeks — and were then told by their schools or the government that they have thus lost their immigration status and must immediately leave the country.

    “Under pressure from ICE, schools have been advising students they are out of status after SEVIS record termination, and in many cases disenrolling them as a result,” said Nathan Yaffe, an attorney representing international students facing deportation in other cases. “Now ICE has submitted sworn declarations that SEVIS record termination has no legal effect on the student whatsoever.” 

    “Disenrolling students was already a blatant capitulation, and now it is a wholly inexcusable one.”

    Based on school officials checking their SEVIS records, hundreds of students have been led to believe that they had lost their student immigration status because a terminated record in the database is broadly taken to mean a student has fallen out of status. 

    The DHS’s latest claims to the contrary in court are sure to only sow further confusion, but they are strong grounds, Yaffe said, for schools to immediately stop disenrolling students believed to be out of status due to SEVIS record checks.

    “Any school that continues to disenroll (and refuses to re-enroll) students is voluntarily punishing students to align itself with the Trump administration’s agenda,” Yaffe said. “Disenrolling students was already a blatant capitulation, and now it is a wholly inexcusable one.”

    What Schools Told Students

    The DHS declaration was filed in response to a lawsuit brought by four Michigan students, who are suing the Trump administration over the reported loss of their F-1 student statuses. In response, the government argued that the case should be thrown out, since DHS did not remove the students’ statuses when it terminated their SEVIS records. 

    According to Inside Higher Ed, 16 lawsuits from at least 50 students have challenged the Trump administration over visa revocations and deportation threats. A number of the suits have challenged DHS’s authority to summarily change students’ statuses on SEVIS. It was only for the first time in the Michigan case, however, that the government said that its SEVIS interventions had no bearing on a student’s status. 

    The admission was an apparent effort by the government to dodge legal challenges. The students are suing to have their legal student immigration status restored, and the government is suggesting that their SEVIS terminations never changed the students’ statuses, so the agency cannot be sued for its actions. Communications from government agencies and school administrations, however, have up until this point taken a SEVIS termination to mean that a student’s status is terminated too. 

    In an email sent by a school official at the University of Michigan to one of the Michigan plaintiffs, for example, the student was told, “In our daily review of SEVIS, we learned that your SEVIS record was ‘terminated’ by a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official.” The school official continued: “We do not have any additional information, but this termination means you no longer hold valid F-1 status within the United States. You will need to cease any employment immediately. Since this termination does not carry a grace period, we must recommend you make plans to exit the United States immediately.”

    The government’s defense in court, however, claimed the direct opposite, noting in a filing: “There are no legal consequences to the termination of a SEVIS record.”

    The University of Michigan and Wayne State University — the two schools attended by plaintiffs in the Michigan lawsuit — did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment, nor did DHS, ICE, the State Department, and the Department of Justice, which represents the administration in court.

    A student plaintiff in another, similar case filed in California received an email directly from the State Department, informing them that their student visa had been revoked. The email fails to distinguish in any meaningful way between visa status and legal immigration status, which are not the same thing. In one paragraph, the State Department tells the student that their visa has been “revoked under Section 221(i) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.” 

    The email later notes, “Remaining in the United States without a lawful immigration status can result in fines, detention, and/or deportation” — without informing the student that they may very well still have lawful immigration status. 

    “Given the gravity of this situation, individuals whose visa was revoked may wish to demonstrate their intent to depart the United States using the CBP Home App,” the State Department email told the student. 


    Related

    Nobel Winner Joseph Stiglitz Denounces Columbia’s Apparent Capitulation to Trump


    Ranjani Srinivasan, a Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University fled to Canada in March after being targeted by ICE. After DHS terminated her SEVIS status, Srinivasan wrote in a statement that Columbia “arbitrarily de-enrolled” her, ending her “legal status, worker status, and housing.” She blamed “ICE threats and Columbia complicity” for her decision to flee.

    The Homeland Security website, which offers official guidance on international student rules and regulations, suggests that a terminated record indicates that the student’s legal status has been terminated too. The site notes that a terminated record in SEVIS means that a student “loses all on- and/or off-campus employment authorization,” “cannot re-enter the United States on the terminated SEVIS record,” and that ICE agents may investigate to “confirm the departure of the student.”

    DHS also says that a terminated record “could indicate that the nonimmigrant no longer maintains” their legal status, but that it is “designated school officials,” rather than ICE and other DHS agents who “mostly terminate” these records. 

    “That Clearly Is BS” 

    The State Department has been removing student visas en masse. Over 1,200 student visas have been revoked, almost entirely from nonwhite students, since President Donald Trump announced plans to target international students, particularly those who have expressed support for Palestinian freedom.

    The removal of a student visa, however, is not the same as, and does not entail, the removal of legal nonimmigrant status in the U.S. as a student. 

    A visa is required for an international student to legally enter the country to study here. After entering, however, the visa does not affect the student’s immigration status. A student with an expired or revoked visa can remain in legal nonimmigrant student status while not leaving the country; a university has no legal reason to disenroll that student or prevent their continued study in the U.S..

    The DHS declaration in Michigan went further in making the distinction between having a visa revoked and being eligible for deportation. 

    “Prudential visa revocation, absent other factors, does not make an individual amendable to removal,” wrote Watson, the HSI official.

    That is, the revocation of a student visa is not, in and of itself, necessarily grounds for a student to be deported. Yet schools have been reacting to SEVIS terminations, not visa revocations, when they have disenrolled students or advised students to immediately leave the country.

    This does not mean that the students currently targeted by Trump’s administration are safe. A student in legal immigration status with a revoked visa is at significant risk should ICE seek to pursue deportation proceedings against them. The agency would have to send the student a notice to appear before an immigration judge, and there would be a hearing about the student’s deportability, at which the student could challenge their visa revocation.


    Related

    Trump Appears to Be Targeting Muslim and “Non-White” Students for Deportation


    The process can be frightening for students, as the cases of detained legal permanent residents like Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi and visa holders like Rümeysa Öztürk make clear. The Trump administration has shown little compunction about taking the next step toward making individual students deportable, attempting to carry out the mass removal of students for minor legal violations, as well as for entirely legal political speech under spurious “foreign policy” grounds and bunk charges of antisemitism.

    In trying to stave off litigation, DHS has been clear in other cases that students who have had their visas revoked and SEVIS records terminated have not fallen out of legal status.

    “The issue Plaintiffs seek to avoid is the real issue before this court: the State Department revoked Plaintiffs’ visa,” the government argued in another case filed by students in Georgia, “but those actions are un reviewable here.”

    “Do you realize that this is Kafkaesque?”

    The government is claiming that the students have directed their legal challenge at the wrong government agency, but that they also cannot sue the State Department, because the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is deploying to summarily remove visas “expressly precludes visa revocations from judicial review.” According to the Trump administration the students could only challenge Rubio’s wide and reckless discretion to revoke their visas “in removal proceedings if the revocation is the sole basis for removal.”

    Federal judges hearing students’ cases around the country have so far not been impressed with the government’s arguments. At least five federal courts have issued temporary restraining orders on deportation orders linked to SEVIS terminations. On Wednesday, District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., specifically ordered DHS’s Watson to testify in court over the claims in his declaration, which was also submitted by the government in the case filed by students there. 

    “I’ve got two experienced immigration lawyers on behalf of a client who is months away from graduation, who has done nothing wrong, who has been terminated from a system that you all keep telling me has no effect on his immigration status, although that clearly is BS,” Reyes told the government. “And now, his two very experienced lawyers can’t even tell him whether or not he’s here legally, because the Court can’t tell him whether or not he’s here legally, because the government’s counsel can’t tell him if he’s here legally.”

    The judge said, “Do you realize that this is Kafkaesque?”

    The post Universities Told Students to Leave the Country. ICE Just Said They Didn’t Actually Have To. appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Five Just Stop Oil supporters found guilty for planning an action at Heathrow have launched appeals against their convictions after evidence emerged of serious misconduct by the jury.

    Just Stop Oil: appeals against sentence launched

    The five launching appeals were among eight Just Stop Oil supporters found guilty of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance by majority verdict at Isleworth Crown Court after a seven week trial before Judge Duncan.

    Raj Chada of Hodge, Jones, and Allen will be filing appeals on behalf of Rosa Hicks and Hannah Schafer, while Adam Beard, Sally Davidson and Sean O’Callaghan will be filing separate appeals.

    The grounds of the appeal include that the Attorney General has received evidence of juror misconduct during the trial which has been referred for police investigation. The misconduct arose from one juror making internet searches about the defendants and the Just Stop Oil campaign and sharing that within the jury room. In light of this evidence the appeal will say that the guilty verdicts are manifestly unsafe.

    Further grounds for appeal include that the judge was wrong to imply that the existence of a climate emergency is a matter of opinion as that contradicts the agreed facts in the case and that the police exhibited prejudicial conduct during the trial including in front of the jury. They wrongly arrested Sally Davidson, mid-trial, after confusion over her bail conditions and arrested a Just Stop Oil supporter who had been sitting in the public gallery at court and in sight of one of the jurors, who later described the incident to two further jurors.

    ‘Devastating’

    One of the appellants, Sally Davidson, 37, a hairdresser from Portland, Dorset said:

    The prospect of facing a retrial is personally devastating but in the interest of justice we have no other option but to appeal these convictions. Some of our group have now spent nine months in prison awaiting trial and now sentencing.

    Judge Duncan ruled early in our trial that the reality of climate breakdown while “concerning” was irrelevant to the jurors deliberations. She then intervened to stop us each and every time we tried to communicate the severity of climate collapse, and the threat it poses to the rule of law. In trials like ours, relating to acts of conscience, juries are being routinely told they must ignore reality, and focus on evidence without the relevant context.

    This trend by members of the Judiciary to attempt to decouple the law from morality is not how most people understand the British legal system to work. It is obvious that these trials are politically motivated, morally wrong and a huge waste of public money. Money that could be better spent supporting vulnerable people and those who are being made increasingly unsafe due to the deadly impacts of unchecked fossil fuel burning.

    Adam Beard, 55, a gardener from Stroud, who had represented himself at trial said:

    After seven months in prison on remand for resisting the genocidal burning of fossil fuels, and more than seven weeks in court, it now looks like our convictions followed misconduct by at least one member of the jury. This followed a trial where we were frequently stopped by the judge from telling the jury the truth.

    We will be sentenced on 16 May and I am likely to face further time in prison. For the sake of justice it is imperative that our convictions be quashed and my co-defendants who are still in prison be released.

    A ‘gruelling trial’ – and now this?

    Hannah Schafer, 61, a sailing instructor from Cardigan said:

    We have been through a long and gruelling seven week trial which must have cost the state a small fortune. Much of this time was spent arguing about why we shouldn’t be allowed to explain our actions to the jury. We are now undertaking an appeal due to issues around the behavior of that jury. Is it any wonder they used their initiative to find out more after being fobbed off and sent out of the room numerous times during the trial?

    This has led to a situation where our convictions could be deemed unsafe and we may have to go through the whole trial again. We have all spent time in prison, at yet more cost to taxpayers, and face long custodial sentences at our next appearance on 16 May.

    Is this a sensible way to police peaceful protest? Is it a sensible use of the overstretched and under funded justice system? Does it represent good value for money? Or would it be more sensible to address the issues we are trying to draw attention to – the need to take urgent action to halt the death and destruction being willfully wrought on the world by the fossil fuel industry.

    Tim Crosland, a former government lawyer and spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, said:

    There is compelling evidence that these convictions resulted from a juror conducting Google research and sharing partially false and highly prejudicial information with their fellow jurors. Given the concealment of evidence from juries in these cases, it’s not surprising that juries lose faith in the process, with unpredictable results.

    As it is, it should be obvious to everyone that that is a fatal flaw in the trial process and the convictions must now be quashed as a matter of urgency. For the moment the trial judge is left in the invidious position of having to pass sentence on people on 16 May, knowing that they have not properly been convicted of anything.

    Let’s hope some common sense and humanity prevails.

    Just Stop Oil: time will tell

    The Heathrow trial , which was due to start on 20 January, was delayed after Isleworth Crown Court experienced problems with its heating system and ran into the limit of its ‘sitting days’ allowed by the Ministry of Justice. Defendants were told that the trial would be postponed to September 2025 at the earliest and possibly would not be heard until February 2027. Four days later they were informed that the trial would begin on 27 January.

    The Heathrow eight are due to be sentenced on 16th May.

    Two of the eight, Luke Elson and Luke Watson have been in prison on remand since 24 July 2024. Will Goldring was remanded following the trial to await sentencing. Rory Wilson, who pleaded guilty in September, was recently granted bail after being on remand for eight months.

    If leave to appeal is granted the case may not be heard for many months. If the appeal were to be successful, and the convictions quashed, the most likely outcome is that the prosecution would seek a retrial.

    Featured image via Jamie Lowe

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement just signed a contract worth $73 million with a firm whose executives are accused of taking part in a scheme to manufacture evidence against a co-worker during their time working at the Department of Homeland Security.

    According to a contract document reviewed by The Intercept, federal contractor Universal Strategic Advisors will provide services pertaining to ICE’s “non-detained docket,” a master list of millions of noncitizens believed to be removable from the United States but not yet in the agency’s custody.

    The contract cites President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border, an overwhelming glut of potential deportees, and a shortage of officers to process them all as justification for hiring a private vendor to assist with the collection of biometric data, coordinating removals, and monitoring immigrant populations.

    The document says that with a fleet of new outsourced employees, ICE can reassign hundreds of officers to tasks that better align with Trump’s recent executive orders aimed at maximizing the agency’s detention and deportation operations. With the contractors onboard, the document says at least 675 ICE officers “will be able to take all appropriate actions to comply with the EO’s by prioritizing conducting at-large arrests, removals, and detention related activities.”

    A former ICE official, who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity, said they were concerned by this plan to further privatize the agency’s operations at the same time as the Trump administration has dramatically slashed its workforce and gutted important oversight bodies like the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, as well as the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. “I certainly take issue with them firing career feds and demolishing whole offices, just to hire contractors to do the same work, many of them who are former ICE employees now retired,” the official said.

    The responsibilities handed over to US Advisors are vast:

    “[Contractors] will manage field office alien check-ins, monitor immigration case statuses (and the outcome), assist with coordinating removals, update contact information to ensure that the alien can be located, respond to telephone calls, triage complaints and grievances, manage outreach mailboxes, enter data into ICE’s system of record, manage alien files, capture biometrics, organize and collect immigration related documents, field questions related to the immigration process, coordinate with ICE to assign aliens to an appropriate monitoring program, and notify ICE if someone is not complying with the terms of a conditional release or when someone is a risk to community safety.”

    “I don’t like, in general, to attach a profit motive to these inherently governmental services,” the former ICE official said, explaining that while the contract’s scope seems mostly administrative, the work in question has serious implications for millions living in the United States. “This is the backbone of decisions that are going to impact peoples’ lives; it’s a very high impact work stream.”


    Related

    The Unusual Nonprofit That Helps ICE Spy on Wire Transfers


    They also questioned the contract’s rationale of hiring private sector workers to handle administrative tasks in order to free up ICE officers to hit the streets. “If they’re just doing the arrests and they’re not following the case, not understanding the complexities, it gives the officers a much more limited view of the impact of their work. They’re not hearing when they’re talking about their kids, or why they might need to be released,” the ICE source explained.

    The procurement document notes that ICE is turning to US Advisors without conducting the typical competition for the business among other potential vendors, owing to, it says, the “emergency” conditions declared by Trump. “ICE would be unable to recruit, hire, vet, train, and deploy staff as quickly as a contractor can,” the notice reads. According to an April 9 filing, however, a rival vendor is protesting the contract with the Government Accountability Office, leaving the contract temporarily on hold.

    US Advisors has the right pedigree: The company has previously provided staffing support for ICE and is run by former Department of Homeland Security officials.

    But this executive team, while well-credentialed, has a checkered past: US Advisors CEO Brian DeMore and Chief Talent Officer David Marin are both named defendants in a lawsuit stemming from their time working at DHS. In 2019, former ICE officer Kui Myles filed suit alleging she was the victim of a scheme to manufacture criminal evidence against her after she complained of workplace harassment, resulting in her false arrest, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy.

    Myles, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in China, further alleges she was subject to discrimination based on her national origin, and says her co-workers fabricated a report that she was illegally “housing Chinese nationals” as part of their conspiracy to discredit her. Myles alleges she was then placed under DHS surveillance, which revealed she was not in fact housing undocumented Chinese immigrants. At this point, Myles alleges that campaign to essentially frame her for criminal wage theft was executed at the “direction and instigation” of ICE officials including DeMore, then an ICE assistant field office director, and Marin, at the time a deputy field office director. All told, Myles accuses Marin and DeMore of engaging in a conspiracy to violate both her constitutional and civil rights under federal law.

    Myles’s lawsuit is ongoing, but in 2022 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit determined the litigation could continue.

    Neither ICE nor US Advisors responded to a request for comment.

    Certain ICE tasks struck this source as particularly unfit for outsourcing: “Dealing with grievances — what if it’s a grievance against the contractor? They want to stay on ICE’s good side, so they probably want to minimize grievances,” they explained. “You’re really going to contract out community safety decisions?”

    Privatization is not a novelty among federal agencies generally or ICE specifically. Trump’s deportation fixation has signaled a feeding frenzy for corporations like the private prison firm GEO Group, up for a $350 million DHS contract renewal, and Deployed Resources, which operates migrant detention camps and just won a $3.8 billion ICE contract. The source said, “This is the game at ICE — they all work with their old buddies.”

    The post No-Bid ICE Contract Went to Former ICE Agents Being Sued for Fabricating Criminal Evidence on the Job appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement just signed a contract worth $73 million with a firm whose executives were accused of taking part in a scheme to manufacture evidence against a co-worker during their time working at the Department of Homeland Security.

    According to a contract document reviewed by The Intercept, federal contractor Universal Strategic Advisors will provide services pertaining to ICE’s “non-detained docket,” a master list of millions of noncitizens believed to be removable from the United States but not yet in the agency’s custody.

    The contract cites President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border, an overwhelming glut of potential deportees, and a shortage of officers to process them all as justification for hiring a private vendor to assist with the collection of biometric data, coordinating removals, and monitoring immigrant populations.

    The document says that with a fleet of new outsourced employees, ICE can reassign hundreds of officers to tasks that better align with Trump’s recent executive orders aimed at maximizing the agency’s detention and deportation operations. With the contractors onboard, the document says at least 675 ICE officers “will be able to take all appropriate actions to comply with the EO’s by prioritizing conducting at-large arrests, removals, and detention related activities.”

    A former ICE official, who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity, said they were concerned by this plan to further privatize the agency’s operations at the same time as the Trump administration has dramatically slashed its workforce and gutted important oversight bodies like the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, as well as the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. “I certainly take issue with them firing career feds and demolishing whole offices, just to hire contractors to do the same work, many of them who are former ICE employees now retired,” the official said.

    The responsibilities handed over to US Advisors are vast:

    “[Contractors] will manage field office alien check-ins, monitor immigration case statuses (and the outcome), assist with coordinating removals, update contact information to ensure that the alien can be located, respond to telephone calls, triage complaints and grievances, manage outreach mailboxes, enter data into ICE’s system of record, manage alien files, capture biometrics, organize and collect immigration related documents, field questions related to the immigration process, coordinate with ICE to assign aliens to an appropriate monitoring program, and notify ICE if someone is not complying with the terms of a conditional release or when someone is a risk to community safety.”

    “I don’t like, in general, to attach a profit motive to these inherently governmental services,” the former ICE official said, explaining that while the contract’s scope seems mostly administrative, the work in question has serious implications for millions living in the United States. “This is the backbone of decisions that are going to impact peoples’ lives; it’s a very high impact work stream.”

    Related

    The Unusual Nonprofit That Helps ICE Spy on Wire Transfers

    They also questioned the contract’s rationale of hiring private sector workers to handle administrative tasks in order to free up ICE officers to hit the streets. “If they’re just doing the arrests and they’re not following the case, not understanding the complexities, it gives the officers a much more limited view of the impact of their work. They’re not hearing when they’re talking about their kids, or why they might need to be released,” the ICE source explained.

    The procurement document notes that ICE is turning to US Advisors without conducting the typical competition for the business among other potential vendors, owing to, it says, the “emergency” conditions declared by Trump. “ICE would be unable to recruit, hire, vet, train, and deploy staff as quickly as a contractor can,” the notice reads. According to an April 9 filing, however, a rival vendor is protesting the contract with the Government Accountability Office, leaving the contract temporarily on hold.

     

    US Advisors has the right pedigree: The company has previously provided staffing support for ICE and is run by former Department of Homeland Security officials.

    But this executive team, while well-credentialed, has a checkered past: US Advisors CEO Brian DeMore and Chief Talent Officer David Marin were both named defendants in a lawsuit stemming from their time working at DHS. In 2019, former ICE officer Kui Myles filed suit alleging she was the victim of a scheme to manufacture criminal evidence against her after she complained of workplace harassment, resulting in her false arrest, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy.

    Myles, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in China, further alleged she was subject to discrimination based on her national origin, and said her co-workers fabricated a report that she was illegally “housing Chinese nationals” as part of their conspiracy to discredit her. Myles alleged she was then placed under DHS surveillance, which revealed she was not in fact housing undocumented Chinese immigrants. At this point, Myles alleged that a campaign to essentially frame her for criminal wage theft was executed at the “direction and instigation” of ICE officials including DeMore, then an ICE assistant field office director, and Marin, at the time a deputy field office director. All told, Myles accused Marin and DeMore of engaging in a conspiracy to violate both her constitutional and civil rights under federal law.

    Myles’s lawsuit is ongoing. In 2022 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit determined the litigation could continue, but a subsequent ruling dismissed the case against the individual defendants, including Marin and DeMore, on the grounds that they could not be sued in this context for their work as federal agents, while the larger case against the government continues.

    Neither ICE nor US Advisors responded to a request for comment.

    Certain ICE tasks struck this source as particularly unfit for outsourcing: “Dealing with grievances — what if it’s a grievance against the contractor? They want to stay on ICE’s good side, so they probably want to minimize grievances,” they explained. “You’re really going to contract out community safety decisions?”

    Privatization is not a novelty among federal agencies generally or ICE specifically. Trump’s deportation fixation has signaled a feeding frenzy for corporations like the private prison firm GEO Group, up for a $350 million DHS contract renewal, and Deployed Resources, which operates migrant detention camps and just won a $3.8 billion ICE contract. The source said, “This is the game at ICE — they all work with their old buddies.”

    Correction: April 26, 2025
    A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Marin and DeMore were still being sued, when in fact the suit against them as individual defendants was dismissed in 2023. The article has been updated to reflect that fact.

    The post No-Bid ICE Contract Went to Former ICE Agents Sued for Fabricating Criminal Evidence on the Job appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.