Category: Politics

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

    The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – July 25, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A couple of days after Trinamool Congress’s annual July 21 Martyrs’ Day rally in Kolkata, Bengal BJP’s official X handle shared a video claiming that West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee had said that the poor should remain poor.

    The clip, around 8 seconds in length, shows Banerjee saying. “Ami chai apnara gorib thakun – maaney ja ache ghore, sheta kheye beche thakun” (Translation: I want you to remain poor, that is, be satisfied with whatever you have).

    The tweet by the official X handle of BJP’s Bengal unit (@BJP4Bengal) said, “Mamata Banerjee wants to keep the people of Bengal trapped in poverty. She has no vision left for the state’s future. The time has come to uproot the Bangla-Birodhi TMC government.” (Archive)

    Several BJP-supporting X handles like Befitting Facts (@BefittingFacts), Keya Ghosh (@keyakahe), @vinushareddyb, @SouleFacts amplified the claim. (Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4)

    Screenshots below:

    Click to view slideshow.

    Fact Check

    To begin with, we compared the video to photos of this year’s July 21 event taken from Mamata Banerjee’s official Facebook page, and found that the video was not from this year’s Shaheed Diwas programme. The difference in the saree worn by the CM confirms this. Besides, this year, there was no rain during the meeting, while the video shows Banerjee speaking amidst steady rain.

    Thereafter, we broke down the viral video into keyframes. A reverse image search on one of them led us to the original video on Trinamool Congress’s YouTube channel, which is from last year’s rally.

    At the 2:57:54-hour mark in the video, Banerjee issues a warning to her party leaders and workers against engaging in corrupt means to amass wealth. She says: “Ami all municipality, Panchayat, MLA, MP der shokolke bolbo, ekhon theke kono obhijog jeno karur biruddhe dol na paay. Jodi kono obhijog karur biruddhe paay, amra kintu upojukto action nebo. Eta mathay rakhben. Ami chai apnara gorib thakun. – maaney ja ache ghore, sheta kheye beche thakun.”(Translation: I am saying this to all municipality (members), Panchayat (members), MLAs, and MPs, that the party should not receive any complaints against any of you. If there is a complaint, we will take necessary actions. Keep this in mind. If you are poor, remain poor, that is, be content with whatever you have).

    The lines in bold have been left out of the viral video to distort the context of what the Bengal CM said.

    To sum up, it is evident that Mamata Banerjee had made the “remain poor” remarks in a different context. At last year’s Martyrs’ Day rally, she had warning her party members against indulging in corruption, which prompted her to say that they should remain content with whatever little they had. The 8-second video shared by Bengal BJP is clipped and it distorts the contest of the statement made by the chief minister.

    The post ‘Poor should remain poor’: Bengal BJP shares clipped video distorting context of Mamata’s 2024 Martyrs’ Day remarks appeared first on Alt News.


    This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Prantik Ali.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Pro-Israel groups are considering backing two potential primary challengers against progressive Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa.

    A survey sent earlier this month to people living in Pittsburgh and its suburbs asked for respondents’ opinion on two possible candidates to challenge Lee. The survey included a question on people’s opinions about the candidates being backed by “a right-wing organization that supports Trump and is funded by MAGA millionaires and billionaires.”

    The survey question appears set up to test whether voters would oppose one of the candidates because of backing from groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — which is funded by billionaire donors to Donald Trump and, in 2020, endorsed more than 100 Republican members of Congress who voted to overturn the results of that year’s presidential election.

    Related

    How Does AIPAC Shape Washington? We Tracked Every Dollar.

    The wording was identical to another survey sent in May to constituents in the district of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., The Intercept reported. That survey was the first this year to indicate that AIPAC was considering a primary challenge against Omar.

    With the latest poll, it appears that AIPAC and possibly other pro-Israel groups are setting their sights on another challenge against Lee.

    “As usual, AIPAC sees the Democratic electorate begging for more progressive leadership that takes on the corporate elite, and they are desperate to force corporate shills down our throats instead,” said Usamah Andrabi, the communications director for Justice Democrats, a group backing Lee. (AIPAC did not respond to a request for comment.)

    The survey in Lee’s district also said both potential candidates, Pittsburgh City Controller Rachael Heisler and former Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale, were backed by “pro-Israel groups that lobby Congress to provide billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in aid and weapons to Israel each year.”

    Lee and Omar are two of a handful of progressive members of Congress who have drawn the ire of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups for calling to end U.S. military funding to Israel and criticizing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. AIPAC spent more than $100 million on primaries last cycle, including more than $25 million to unseat Reps. Cori Bush, D-Mo., and Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.

    Lee, Omar, and other progressives have also been vocal critics of AIPAC. Lee introduced a bill earlier this year to ban super PACs like AIPAC’s United Democracy Project, which spent millions of dollars against her when she first ran for Congress in 2022.

    Lee won reelection last year against another Republican-backed pro-Israel primary challenger. In that race, The Intercept reported. AIPAC tried and failed to recruit two candidates to run against her.

    “Every cycle, corporate lobbies, special interest groups and Trump megadonors look to buy this Congressional seat,” Lee said in a statement. “My constituents want leaders who fight for their interests against the wealthy & well-connected, not politicians that can be bought with a corporate PAC check.”

    The survey asked a series of questions about positions taken by candidates that aligned more closely with Republicans than liberal Democrats.

    “It’s no mistake that they’re polling the viability of candidates that evidently oppose the Affordable Care Act, Medicare for All, same-sex marriage, the Green New Deal, abortion rights, Medicare, and Social Security,” said Andrabi. “AIPAC’s favorite type of Democrat is one you can most easily mistake for a Republican and most easily.”

    Testing Candidates’ Positions

    The survey in Pittsburgh asked people to rate their level of concern in response to pro-Israel groups supporting both Heisler and DePasquale, and whether they would support either candidate in a Democratic primary election against Lee.

    “Rachael Heisler is supported by pro-Israel groups that lobby Congress to provide billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in aid and weapons to Israel each year,” the survey said. “Please indicate whether it raises very serious concerns, serious concerns, minor concerns, or no real concerns for you about Rachael Heisler.” The survey posed the same question about DePasquale.

    The poll also asked respondents to rate their level of concern about potential criticisms of Lee, DePasquale, and Heisler. Criticisms of Lee included her vote against former President Joe Biden’s debt deal, her support for the Uncommitted movement in 2024, and the claim that “Lee is more interested in dividing Democrats” than fighting Trump’s agenda.

    “Summer Lee is too extreme,” read another prompt. “She has long associated herself with the Democratic Socialists of America which supports defunding the police, eliminating prisons and releasing all criminals, opening our borders, getting rid of individually-owned cars, abolishing U-S-A-I-D, and withdrawing from NATO. Summer Lee’s radical positions do not reflect our community.” (Lee is no longer a member of DSA.)

    Respondents were asked to rate their concerns about the statement.

    In a section asking about possible criticism of DePasquale, the survey asked respondents how they felt about him taking corporate PAC money and opposing progressive policy efforts like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

    “While progressive Democrats have called for getting corporate money out of politics, Eugene DePasquale has taken tens of thousands of dollars from corporate PACs, including from major corporations like AT&T, Comcast, Pfizer and PNC Bank,” the survey said.

    It added that DePasquale “calls himself a progressive” but opposed Medicare for All, rejected the Green New Deal, opposed same sex marriage, praised parts of Trump’s agenda, and supported expanding the state’s natural gas industry. (DePasquale did not respond to a request for comment.)

    DePasquale has supported gay marriage publicly since at least 2012. In 2020, He said he did not support the Green New Deal or Medicare for All, and favored a public option and improvements to the Affordable Care Act. On the environment, DePasquale has a mixed record. During a race for Pennsylvania attorney general and as state auditor, he came down on the side with energy interests and climate activists, respectively.

    Posing potential criticisms of Heisler, the survey asked respondents how concerned they were about the claim that Heisler had “a record of standing with the wealthy and powerful” and worked with groups advancing policies to benefit billionaires, including gutting Social Security and Medicare.

    The survey also asked respondents how they felt about Heisler donating to the 2018 campaign of anti-abortion Democrat Dan Lipinski in Illinois. It also asked them to rate their concerns about Heisler working for former Rep. Jason Altmire, a Pennsylvania Democrat who voted against the ACA in 2010. (Heisler did not respond to a request for comment.)

    Israel in Pennsylvania

    Respondents were also asked to rate their opinion of other officials and groups including Altmire; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Democratic Socialists of America; Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato; Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro; and Sen. John Fetterman.

    Both Heisler and DePasquale have expressed support for Israel and efforts by pro-Israel groups to influence policy in Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania. DePasquale was endorsed last year by two groups that also backed Lee’s primary challenger, Bhavini Patel.

    Earlier this year, Heisler fought a referendum petition organized by anti-genocide activists to push Pittsburgh to divest from governments engaged in genocide — namely Israel. (Not On Our Dime did not respond to a request for comment.)

    Last year, Heisler went on a $15,000 trip paid for by AIPAC’s educational arm, which it uses to send politicians to Israel, a typical step in the group’s efforts to recruit a candidate. George Latimer, the AIPAC-funded candidate who unseated Bowman, the New York representative, took a trip to Israel shortly before he announced his primary challenge.

    “My constituents want leaders who fight for their interests against the wealthy and well-connected, not politicians that can be bought with a corporate PAC check,” Lee said. “They can keep polling and we’re going to keep fighting back against the Trump administration to protect and deliver for our constituents.”

    The post Is AIPAC Testing the Waters to Primary Rep. Summer Lee? appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Volker Türk says the Home Office proscription restricts right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly

    The UK government’s ban on Palestine Action limits the rights and freedoms of people in the UK and is at odds with international law, the UN human rights chief has said.

    Volker Türk, the UN human rights commissioner, said ministers’ decision to designate the group a terrorist organisation was “disproportionate and unnecessary” and called on them to rescind it.

    Continue reading…

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

  • The motley crew of scientists, conservationists, and agricultural producers set out to begin in earnest. Spring was well underway in Hood Canal, Washington when the team assembled on the shores of Baywater Shellfish Farm, armed with buckets. Before them, floating mats of seaweed were strewn about, bright green clumps suffocating clams, geoducks, and other intertidal creatures while swallowing the gear laid out to harvest them. 

    Excess seaweed is a seasonal nuisance along the bays and inlets that twine throughout Puget Sound. But the issue has magnified as excess nutrient runoff has fueled sprawling blooms. It has become a bona fide threat to the business of Washington shellfish farmers like Joth Davis.

    In the past, Davis has attempted to harvest the seaweed by hand to reduce the surging number of macroalgae menacing his catch. Alas, there is the “age-old problem of scale,” he said. “It is difficult work, and time available during low tides to tackle the problem is limited, with everything else we need to accomplish when the tide is out.” 

    A couple years before the team got to work last May, researchers at the University of Washington approached Davis to see if he’d be interested in partnering with them to develop a new supply chain. The plan was simple: Harvest the seaweed from Davis’s farm, give it to small and mid-sized crop farmers in the area as a soil-building replacement for chemical fertilizer, and along the way study the effects — reduced emissions from a shortened supply chain, steady yields from shellfish and terrestrial farms, changes in soil chemistry, and possibly a way to sequester the carbon stored in the seaweed itself. They were also aiming to investigate the impacts of seaweed removal on shellfish survival and growth. 

    A Department of Agriculture program established by the Biden administration, and funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, offered exactly the federal support they needed to make the vision happen. In February of 2022, the USDA launched the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative, or PCSC, which former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said at the time would “provide targeted funding to meet national and global demand and expand market opportunities for climate-smart commodities to increase the competitive advantage of American producers.”

    Davis, who has a background in marine science, seized the chance. 

    The aptly named “Blue Carbon, Green Fields,” project was selected by the USDA in 2023 to receive roughly $5 million of the climate-smart commodities money in a five-year agreement. In addition to Davis’s team at Baywater and the scientists from UW, the partnership consisted of researchers from Washington State University and Washington Sea Grant, conservationists from the nonprofit Puget Sound Restoration Fund, and the local farm incubator Viva Farms. In their first year in the field, the team harvested a little over 15,000 pounds of wet seaweed, which was stockpiled and distributed to four crop farms throughout the region. By laying the groundwork for the agricultural supply chain, the team was on track for the unthinkable — a quadruple win of sorts, where everyone involved benefitted, including the planet. 

    Instead, not even halfway through a federal contract, their drying racks and other seaweed harvesting equipment are at risk of just gathering cobwebs on Davis’s farm; each unused tool a daily reminder of the progress they lost at the behest of President Donald Trump’s cultural politics. The supply chain, fragile in its novelty, is splintering apart.

    Excess seaweed overtaking shellfish gear on Baywater Shellfish Farm in Hood Canal, Washington. Sarah Collier

    Almost a year after the team began their field work harvesting seaweed in Puget Sound, the USDA announced that it would cancel the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative. In a press release issued on April 14, the agency called the $3.1 billion funding pot a “climate slush fund” and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins decried it as “largely built to advance the green new scam at the benefit of NGOs, not American farmers.” The USDA said that it axed the initiative due to the “sky-high administration fees which in many instances provided less than half of the federal funding directly to farmers.” 

    Robert Bonnie, the former Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation at the USDA under the Biden administration, rejects this claim. He contends that the reason some projects reported higher administrative fees than others is because roughly half the awards were intended to boost markets for smaller projects. “You would expect those projects to have higher administrative costs because those farmers are harder to reach,” he argued. “Take the Iowa Soybean Association, or Archer Daniels Midland, where they’ve got established relationships with farmers, where they’ve got high demand amongst many of their farmers, you’re going to expect those projects to have lower administrative costs as a percentage because they’ve already got an extensive network. So we wanted to provide flexibility across projects to make sure that the door was open to everyone,” added Bonnie. 

    In any case, USDA’s use of the term “cancel” was something of a misnomer. In the same announcement, the agency shared its plan to review existing projects under a new set of scoring criteria, to ensure that they align with the new administration’s priorities. The release noted that the program would be “reformed and overhauled” into a Trump-era effort to redistribute the pool of IRA money. So as the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program sunsetted, the Advancing Markets for Producers initiative was born. 

    The Trump program’s criteria required grant awardees to ensure that a minimum of 65 percent of their funds go directly to farmers, that they enrolled at least one farmer in their program by December 31, 2024, and that they have made a payment to at least one farmer by that same date. According to a former senior USDA official, who spoke to Grist on the condition of anonymity, the USDA grouped the 135 PCSC grantees into three buckets: Fifteen projects were told they could keep going, as they met the new thresholds; five recipients were told they could continue on the condition that they modified their projects to meet the new priorities; and 115 were informed that their projects were terminated as they did not meet the new policy priorities and were invited to resubmit. A few weeks later, the official said that projects that initially received cancellation letters were told something different – that the termination would be rescinded and they could just modify their proposals to meet administration priorities.

    The group behind Blue Carbon, Green Fields was among the 115. 

    In the USDA’s official termination notice to the University of Washington, shared with Grist, the team was told that their project “failed to meet the first of three Farmer First policy priorities identified by USDA” — that at least 65 percent of the funds must go to producers. A second notice stated that because of that, “the award is inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates, Department priorities.”

    Sarah Collier, the UW assistant professor leading the initiative, remembers how the news of the termination hit her. When she got the letter, “everything had to come to a screeching halt.” She jumped into crisis-mode, notifying the 25 or so people working on the project, including students whom Collier said saw their “dissertation research derailed.” She then reached out to notify the farmers who had been receiving the seaweed fertilizer. The timing couldn’t have been worse: the team had just completed a round of farmer recruitment, and were in the middle of signing contracts with five more small and mid-sized farmers.  

    “I have days where I am like, I can’t,” said Collier. “I can’t handle one more conversation where all I can say is, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t know what to do about this, because this isn’t the way that things are supposed to go. This isn’t the way that federal grants are supposed to work.’” 

    In May, the USDA sent a letter to grantees who had received cancellation notices informing them of how to submit revised applications. According to the letter, which was also shared with Grist, grantees would need to arrange one-on-one meetings with Natural Resources Conservation Service representatives and submit a new budget narrative and statement of work incorporating Trump’s policy priorities. They had until June 20th. 

    When they first learned that their funding had been culled, Collier’s UW team, as the main grantee, wasn’t sure they were going to resubmit — or whether they even could. At the time, nothing further had been disclosed about what it would entail, so Collier decided to wait to talk with the NRCS to find out more. After that meeting, they moved forward with resubmission, in a bid to salvage what funding they were able to. That required Collier to create “a very revised” narrative and restructure the budget, in addition to regular meetings with the NRCS. 

    The former USDA official noted that specific details of the resubmission process have since largely been kept quiet, since the vast majority of former PCSC grantees are fearful of speaking out about their experiences in case of retaliation by the administration. The closed-door nature of it all, with a lack of clear communication from the Trump administration and changes in guidance leading up to the submission deadline, the official said, has sown confusion and distress among former grantees. 

    Although no official verdict timeline has been communicated — Collier has heard everything from 60 days to sometime in September — she expects to be waiting on the final funding decision for at least two more months. Hannah Smith-Brubaker, executive director at the nonprofit Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture, or Pasa, has been told something similar about her pending resubmission. Another PCSC grantee, Pasa also reapplied to the new USDA program after being informed they didn’t meet one of the Trump administration’s priorities. Doing so required a total revamp of what their old project had been structured to do. 

    “In the end, we decided to completely rewrite our proposal rather than just alter our original proposal. We had already said goodbye to the old program and knew it wouldn’t be able to fit the new reality,” said Smith-Brubaker. She says she “lies awake at night” concerned over the outcome, including whether the USDA may choose to deny their resubmission because of Pasa’s involvement in a federal lawsuit filed earlier this year challenging the Trump administration’s funding freeze. 

    “It’s hard to say right now which decisions and actions might unintentionally result in things going awry,” said Smith-Brubaker. “Even though we still feel it was not in farmer’s best interest to have this degree of disruption, and fear for what a new reality could mean where every change in administration could involve a complete dismantling of stability and promises, we are extremely grateful for the opportunity to still leverage these funds for what our farmers need most.”

    In a series of separate recent actions, the USDA provided a peek into how leaders at the nation’s highest food and farming agency have taken strides to comply with the president’s executive orders targeting climate action, environmental justice, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. In mid-June, the agency announced the termination of more than 145 awards totaling $148.6 million of “Woke DEI Funding.” Then, on July 10, the USDA posted a final rule in the Federal Register revoking a longstanding provision that ensured “disadvantaged” producers have equitable access to federal support, by allowing for carve-outs designed specifically for groups, such as Black and Indigenous farmers, that have historically faced discrimination. Shortly thereafter, the agency also revoked guidelines implemented during the Biden administration that mandated schools administering federal meal programs to ban discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. 

    Some observers say that in the USDA’s rushed campaign to gut federal funding while erasing footprints of the Biden administration, the termination of the climate-smart project happened much too fast, and much too soon. For one, Bonnie, who helped design and implement the PCSC initiative, believes that the USDA’s invitation for grantees to resubmit their applications signals the administration’s initial lack of understanding about the bipartisan backlash to the decision. 

    “The Trump administration was surprised at the amount of support for not only this program, but for climate-smart agriculture more broadly,” said Bonnie. Leadership at USDA were, he added, “under pressure to satisfy the far-right, to be anti-climate and anti-woke.”

    “They try to paint with a broad brush about this being the Green New Deal,” Bonnie continued. “Most people that knew this program, knew that they were blowing smoke.” 

    While the Blue Carbon, Green Fields team is hopeful that, in time, an iteration of the project may continue, work on the ground has stalled. If they do receive a new round of funding from the USDA, Collier said, one change to their budget proposal will have considerable impacts on how the project will be carried out. To satisfy the requirements for resubmission, nearly two-thirds of the funds for the award will have to go directly to participating producers — rather than to the partners like the UW team, which is how it was originally structured.

    “That does mean that, pending what we learn as we engage with USDA on this, that if we’re able to go forward, participants will have to seek out their own services to support the practices that they’re implementing, rather than having those services provided by the project partners, as part of the grant,” said Collier. “Instead, they will receive funds to seek out the services that they need, like technical assistance, or like harvesting and transporting seaweed.”

    That modification, though seemingly minor, is rather significant, particularly for small farmers who already struggle with limited time and resources to allocate to anything beyond their day-to-day operations, some of whom say it presents an unjust burden. According to fellow PCSC grantee Smith-Brubaker, such a structural change will make things harder for them. “It’s really too bad to have to make it even more complicated for farmers to get the services they want and need,” she said.

    Ellen Scheffer, who co-operates a 20-acre organic vegetable and grain farm in Fall City, Washington, is a small farmer involved with the Blue Carbon, Green Fields project. The funds “being yanked away” makes Scheffer “feel really defeated about the future.” A downside of USDA’s resubmission process, she noted, is that “any positive benefit that might help the future of our environment is going to have to be a side benefit, rather than the direct goal of the research. It feels very, very frustrating, especially as someone who is living every day trying to grow food in a way that is good for our planet.” 

    Others, like project partner Viva Farms, the nonprofit farm incubator that connected producers in their network with the seaweed researchers, feels as if the group’s chapter together has already come to a close. “It did feel like the momentum was really a sheer drop-off,” said Viva Farms’ Elma Burnham. “We were about to prepare to onboard all sorts of new farms, to have seaweed drying here, to sort of get them more action of the program, instead of more of this, like, planning. And, yeah, it was challenging to see it sort of come to a halt,” she said. 

    The likelihood of revival, according to Burnham, feels low. “Of course, we would love to see more organic, small-scale farmers pursue this research, we would love to see more innovation and collaboration happening in the Puget Sound region. But it feels over,” said Burnham. “This particular project feels over.” 

    Davis, the shellfish grower, says he struggled to come to terms with the time and workload that would be demanded of him in the revised program — and what the restructuring of the proposal to align with the Trump administration’s policy priorities altogether represents. “I just thought it was kind of backwards, to be honest. It just didn’t seem like the right way to do it,” he said. For instance, directing most of the grant money to the farmers rather than project leads, he added, “didn’t make sense.”   

    Instead, he’s going his own way. Davis has begun planning out an even shorter seaweed supply chain in tandem with his daughter Hannah and Emily Buckner, one of her colleagues at the Puget Sound Restoration Fund, just two of the six original partners. They’ve been busy identifying producers in the Chimacum Valley to collaborate with, all within a twenty mile radius of his farm. By narrowing the geographic range and foregoing much of the soil chemistry research, the scope of Davis’s new venture is limited compared to Blue Carbon, Green Fields, but, he said, “At the end of the day, I was, and I am, too invested in the parts that [the USDA] didn’t want.”

    Still, not all the equipment that the USDA funds bought is laying idle around the farm, at risk of catching cobwebs: Davis is currently testing out a raft-based suction system to vacuum up the excess seaweed clustered around sensitive geoducks.

    “We’ve got the equipment, and we’re going to harvest it and dry some and see where this can go,” he said. “We want to move forward with that, just to see if it works.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Seaweed brought fishers, farmers, and scientists together. Trump tore them apart. on Jul 25, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • The massive budget bill that President Trump signed into law earlier this month took aim at a robust system of tax credits that have aided the explosion of U.S. wind and solar energy in recent years. While the move was primarily intended to help enable the law’s extension of tax breaks for high-earning Americans, some Republicans felt the law did not go far enough in discouraging the growth of wind and solar power. Those holdouts, however, voted for the bill after saying they’d received assurances from President Trump that he’d use his executive authority to further stymie the energy sources. 

    “We believe we’re going to get 90-plus percent of all future projects terminated,” U.S. Representative Chip Roy of Texas told Politico after the bill passed. “And we talked to lawyers in the administration.”

    Last week, Trump’s Department of the Interior announced what appeared to be a fulfillment of the president’s promise to his party’s right wing. The department’s new guidelines for wind and solar developers now require all federal approvals for clean energy projects to undergo “elevated review” by Interior Secretary Doug Bergum, who was appointed by President Trump in January.

    The new guidelines include a granular outline of steps that will now require personal approval from Bergum’s office, rather than being delegated to department bureaucrats as had previously been customary. Experts who spoke to Grist say that this could create an unmanageable slowdown for developers and allow the administration to quietly kill wind and solar projects on public land. Some are even worried that the effect of the updated regulations will spill over into private projects, which sometimes have to consult with the Interior Department when their work bleeds into federal lands or a habitat for endangered species.

    Since only 4 percent of existing renewable energy projects are on public land, clean industry insiders who have interpreted the new policy narrowly are not yet panicking. But those with a broader interpretation of the text — or those who suspect that the administration will take a broad interpretation — wonder if the new rules will amount to a de facto gag order on the industry. For now, only time will tell just how many of their fears come to pass.  

    Much of the memo’s power to wreak havoc for renewables depends on how strictly it’s enforced. The Interior Department maintains a website called Information for Planning and Consultation, or IPaC, which developers often use to plan large-scale projects. You type in the name of a locale, draw a border around the general area of your proposed project, and IPaC will tell you what kind of federal permitting you might need to move forward. (For example, it would flag if there are any protected wetlands or endangered species that would be affected by your development.) As of last week, the website now displays a pop-up warning users that “solar and wind projects are currently not eligible to utilize the Information for Planning and Consultation website.” This kind of opacity could make it especially hard for developers to plan for an endless bureaucratic battle with Interior. 

    “It’s one thing to take away our [tax] credits, but it’s another to basically just put impediments so projects can’t get built,” a source who works for a renewables developer told E&E News. (He was granted anonymity due to his ongoing professional engagement with the federal government.) “The level of review here is so ridiculous.”

    Others say that, while the outlook for wind and solar has become much dimmer, the new Interior rules aren’t necessarily a kill shot. “I was personally very worried when I saw it come out,” said Jason Kaminsky, CEO of kWh Analytics, a solar risk management firm. “But after doing more reading, it does seem like it affects, hopefully, a minority of assets.” 

    An internal report from the investment bank and research firm Roth Capital Partners, which was obtained by Grist, estimated that only 5 percent of projects on private land — specifically, those that require an easement or need to cross public land to connect a transmission line to the main electrical grid — would be affected by the new regulations. 

    “If [projects are on] a private piece of land, that’s a totally different story that would not be impacted by this,” said Doug Vine, director of energy analysis at the nonprofit Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “There’s plenty of projects that are going to go ahead.” 

    Others warn that it will be hard to know anything for certain until the dust clears and the permitting process begins to play out. “Just how broad and wide-scoped the activities listed in the memo were, points towards an attempt to quash [private] projects, not just the ones on federal land,” said Dan O’Brien, a senior modeling analyst at the clean energy think tank Energy Innovations, noting that developers often end up consulting the Interior Department on issues like wildlife protection.

    Regardless of the scope of the memo, any move with the potential to slow the deployment of renewables is almost certainly bad news for American energy, since most other sources of new electricity simply aren’t being built: 93 percent of new energy that came online in 2024 was renewable. But upon taking office, President Trump warned that the United States was reliant on a “precariously inadequate and intermittent energy supply” and immediately set about revoking previously approved federal funding from green energy projects, trying to cancel offshore wind leases, and rescinding clean energy tax credits that had been expanded by his predecessor. How this will lead the nation toward the current administration’s promise of “energy dominance” is unclear. 

    “You don’t have enough [electricity] supply to meet new demand,” said O’Brien. “Instead of new capacity coming online — cheap renewables — you have existing gas plants running longer, and so gas demand goes up and prices go up, both for power plants and for household consumers. … All signs point toward this being a bad, bad scenario.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Will new Interior Department rules shackle wind and solar? Insiders are divided. on Jul 25, 2025.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Mick Hall

    A leaked document has revealed secretive plans to revise terror laws in New Zealand so that people can be charged over statements deemed to constitute material support for a proscribed organisation.

    It shows the government also wants to widen the criteria for proscribing organisations to include groups that are judged to “facilitate” or “promote and encourage” terrorist acts.

    The changes would see the South Pacific nation falling in line with increasingly repressive Western countries like the UK, where scores of independent journalists and anti-genocide protesters have been arrested and charged under terrorism laws in recent months.

    The consultation document, handed over to the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties (NZCCL), reveals the government has been in contact with a small number of unnamed groups this year over plans to legally redefine what material support involves, so that public statements or gestures involving insignia like flags can lead to charges if construed as support for proscribed groups.

    As part of a proposal to revise the Terrorism Suppression Act, the document suggests the process for designating organisations as terror groups should be changed by “expanding the threshold to enable more modern types of entities to be designated, such as those that ‘facilitate’ or ‘promote and encourage’ terrorist acts”.

    The Ministry of Justice has been contacted in an attempt to ascertain which groups it has been consulting with and why it believed the changes were necessary.

    NZCCL chairman Thomas Beagle told Mick Hall In Context his group was concerned the proposed changes were a further attempt to limit the rights of New Zealanders to engage in political protest.

    ‘What’s going on?’
    “When you look at the proposal to expand the Terrorism Suppression Act, alongside the Police and IPCA conspiring to propose a law change to ban political protest without government permission, you really have to wonder what’s going on,” he said.

    A report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) in February proposed to give police the right to ban protests if they believed there was a high chance of public disorder and threats to public safety.

    That would potentially mean bans on Palestinian solidarity protests if far right counter protestErs posed a threat of violent confrontation.

    The stand-alone legislation would put New Zealand in line with other Five Eyes and NATO-aligned security jurisdictions such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

    Beagle points out proposed changes to terror laws would suppress freedom of speech and further undermine freedom of assembly and the right to protest.

    “We’ve seen what’s happening with the state’s abuse of terrorism suppression laws in the UK and are horrified that they have sunk so far and so quickly,” he said.

    More than 100 people were arrested across the UK on suspicion of supporting Palestine Action, a non-violent protest group proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the British government earlier this month.

    Arrests in social media clips
    Social media clips showed pensioners aggressively arrested while attending rallies in Liverpool, London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol and Truro over the weekend.

    Independent journalists and academics have also faced state repression under the UK’s Terrorism Act.

    Among those targeted was Electronic Intifada journalist Asa Winstanley, who had his home raided and devices seized in October last year as part of the opaque counter-terror drive “Operation Incessantness”.

    A man holds up and speaks into a microphone sitting between two people
    Independent journalist Asa Winstanley . . . his home was raided and devices seized in October last year as part of “Operation Incessantness”. Image: R Witts Photography/mickhall.substack.com

    In May, the country’s Central Criminal Court ruled the raid was unlawful.

    Journalist Richard Medhurst has had a terror investigation hanging over his head since being detained at Heathrow Airport in August last year and charged under section 8 of the Terrorism Act. Activist and independent journalist Sarah Wilkinson had her house raided in the same month.

    Others have faced similar intimidation and threats of jail. In November 2024, Jewish academic Haim Bresheeth was charged after police alleged he had expressed support for a “proscribed organisation” during a speech outside the London residence of the Israeli ambassador to the UK.

    Meanwhile, dozens of members of Palestine Action are in jail facing terror charges. The vast majority are being held on remand where they may wait two years before going to trial — a common state tactic to take activists off the street and incarcerate them, knowing the chances of conviction are slim when they eventually go to court.

    ‘Targeted amendments’
    The document says the New Zealand government wants to progress “targeted amendments” to the Act, creating or amending offences “to capture contemporary behaviours and activities of concern” like “public expressions of support for a terrorist act or designated entities, for example by showing insignia or distributing propaganda or instructional material.”

    Image
    Protesters highlight the proscription of Palestine Action outside the British Embassy at The Hague on July 20. No arrests were made following 80 arrests by Dutch police the week before. Image: Defend Our Juries/mickhall.substack.com

    It proposes to improve “the timeliness of the process, by considering changes to who the decision-maker is” and extending the renewal period from three to five years.

    The document suggests consulting the Attorney-General over designation-related decisions to ensure legal requirements are met may not be required and questions whether the designation process requiring the Prime Minister to review decisions twice is necessary. It asks whether others, like the Foreign Minister, should be involved in the decision-making process.

    Beagle believes the secretive proposals pose a threat to New Zealand’s liberal democracy.

    “Political protest is an important part of New Zealand’s history,” he said.

    “Whether it’s the environment, worker’s rights, feminism, Māori issues, homosexual law reform or any number of other issues, political protest has had a big part in forming what Aotearoa New Zealand is today.

    Protected under Bill of Rights
    “It’s a right protected by New Zealand’s Bill of Rights and is a critical part of being a functioning democracy.”

    The terror laws revision forms part of a wider trend of legislating to close down dissent over New Zealand’s foreign policy, now closely aligned with NATO and US interests.

    The government is also widening the definition of foreign interference in a way that could see people who “should have known” that they were being used by a foreign state to undermine New Zealand’s interests prosecuted.

    The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, which passed its first reading in Parliament on November 19, would criminalise the act of foreign interference, while also increasing powers of unwarranted searches by authorities.

    The Bill is effectively a reintroduction of the country’s old colonial sedition laws inherited from Britain, the broadness of the law having allowed it to be used against communists, trade unionists and indigenous rights activists.

    Republished from Mick Hall in Context on Substack with permisson.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Ezra Toara in Port Vila

    Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, has welcomed the historic International Court of Justice (ICJ) climate ruling, calling it a “milestone in the fight for climate justice”.

    The ICJ has delivered a landmark advisory opinion on states’ obligations under international law to act on climate change.

    The ruling marks a major shift in the global push for climate justice.

    Vanuatu — one of the nations behind the campaign — has pledged to take the decision back to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to seek a resolution supporting its full implementation.

    Climate Change Minister Regenvanu said in a statement: “We now have a common foundation based on the rule of law, releasing us from the limitations of individual nations’ political interests that have dominated climate action.

    “This moment will drive stronger action and accountability to protect our planet and peoples.”

    The ICJ confirmed that state responsibilities extend beyond voluntary commitments under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement.

    It ruled that customary international law also requires states to prevent environmental and transboundary harm, protect human rights, and cooperate to address climate change impacts.

    Duties apply to all states
    These duties apply to all states, whether or not they have ratified specific climate treaties.

    Violations of these obligations carry legal consequences. The ICJ clarified that climate damage can be scientifically traced to specific polluter states whose actions or inaction cause harm.

    As a result, those states could be required to stop harmful activities, regulate private sector emissions, end fossil fuel subsidies, and provide reparations to affected states and individuals.

    “The implementation of this decision will set a new status quo and the structural change required to give our current and future generations hope for a healthy planet and sustainable future,” Minister Regenvanu added.

    He said high-emitting nations, especially those with a history of emissions, must be held accountable.

    Despite continued fossil fuel expansion and weakening global ambition — compounded by the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement — Regenvanu said the ICJ ruling was a powerful tool for campaigners, lawyers, and governments.

    “Vanuatu is proud and honoured to have spearheaded this initiative,” he said.

    ‘Powerful testament’
    “The number of states and civil society actors that have joined this cause is a powerful testament to the leadership of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and youth activists.”

    The court’s decision follows a resolution adopted by consensus at the UNGA on 29 March 2023. That campaign was initiated by the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change and backed by the Vanuatu government, calling for greater accountability from high-emitting countries.

    The ruling will now be taken to the UNGA in September and is expected to be a central topic at COP30 in Brazil this November.

    Vanuatu has committed to working with other nations to turn this legal outcome into coordinated action through diplomacy, policy, litigation, and international cooperation.<

    “This is just the beginning,” Regenvanu said. “Success will depend on what happens next. We look forward to working with global partners to ensure this becomes a true turning point for climate justice.”

    Republished from the Vanuatu Daily Post with permission.

    Vanuatu's Climate The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its historic climate ruling
    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its historic climate ruling in The Hague on Tuesday. Image: VDP

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The failure of diplomatic attempts to reach peace agreements in Ukraine amid increased military support from the USA and the EU has led to a major reshuffle in the government. The large-scale reshuffle is taking place against the background of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine with vague prospects for its cessation. Volodymyr Zelensky, fearing failure in future presidential and parliamentary elections, is making active efforts to clean up the political field and discredit possible rivals for the post of the Ukrainian president.

    Thus, on July 16, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky nominated Economy Minister Yulia Sviridenko as the new prime minister with a simultaneous reshuffling of the majority of cabinet members1

    As a result of the mass reshuffle, Ukraine’s military industry will be placed under the leadership of the Defense Ministry, which will be headed by former Prime Minister Denys Shmygal, who has held this position since March 4, 2020. Under pressure from Zelenskyy and the head of the Ukrainian president’s office, Andriy Yermak, Denys Shmygal was forced to tender his resignation on July 15, 2025. The Ukrainian parliament voted for the resignation of Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmygal on 16 July 2025.

    Topnews in UA

    The decision to dismiss Shmygal, 49, was supported by 261 MPs, while the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine was also dissolved during the government reshuffle.

    resignation letter of Prime Minister

    In mid-July, Zelenskyy also said that he was considering acting Defense Minister Rustem Umerov as Ukraine’s ambassador to the USA. Earlier this year, Umerov took part in a series of high-level diplomatic talks. Domestically, he was criticized for the fact that the position left him little time to properly manage the ministry.

    Yuliya Sviridenko, nominated by Zelensky for the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine, was born on December 25, 1985 in the city of Chernihiv. Until 2019, she worked in various positions in the administration of Chernihiv region, in 2019 she was appointed Deputy Minister of Economy of Ukraine, since 2020 she was deputy head of the office of the President of Ukraine, headed by Andriy Yermak. She is a member of the pro-presidential Servant of the People party.

    Yuliya Sviridenko

    According to Zelenskyy, the appointment of Yuliya Sviridenko as the new prime minister is based on her extensive experience in supporting Ukrainian industry and the urgent need to attract foreign funding for Ukraine’s military needs. Sviridenko gained influence thanks to the support of the head of the president’s office, Yermak, and her work with the USA, where she played a key role in signing an agreement with the USA on rare earth minerals in May 2025.

    Ukraine's parliament

    Next year, Ukraine will face the difficult task of financing its growing budget deficit amid cuts in foreign aid. The Ukrainian Finance Ministry estimates that the country’s financing needs from the US and the EU for 2026 amount to 40bn dollars.

    According to Sergiy Marchenko – Minister of Finance of Ukraine, now the government does not know where to find these funds in case of a decrease in funding from the European Union and international funds. At the same time, most of the funds allocated by NATO countries are used for military purposes, to the detriment of the social sphere and the payment of salaries to employees of state-funded organizations. In mid-July, the Ukrainian parliament supported a bill on amending the 2025 budget, which envisages an increase in defense spending by 412 billion hryvnyas ($10 billion) this year.

    Meanwhile, Russia has started signaling its desire for a third round of talks with Ukraine after US President Donald Trump said that the USA would supply Ukraine with more long-range weapons through NATO members. Trump also warned that if Russia did not agree to a ceasefire within 50 days, Washington would impose 500% duties on the country’s goods.

    These circumstances against the background of widespread corruption, forced mobilization, deterioration of the social status of Ukrainian citizens, illegitimacy of the country’s leadership and disregard for the norms of national and international law contribute to the intensification of the internal political struggle for the future posts of the President and members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

    Minister of Finance of Ukraine

    Strange as it may seem, the first place in this internal political struggle is occupied by Andriy Yermak, the head of the Ukrainian president’s office and the shadow leader of Ukraine. Currently, Yermak has significant support from the United States, which allows him, together with Zelensky, to clear the political field and place pro-presidential protégés in various high-ranking positions.

    Presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine were to be held in March and July 2024. However, due to another extension of martial law in May this year, these procedures have not been carried out.

    Zelenskyy’s powers as president ended on May 21, 2024. At the same time, the decision of the Parliament of Ukraine – the Verkhovna Rada – to extend his powers in accordance with the national law No. 389-VIII dd. 12.05.2015 “On the legal regime of martial law” is also illegitimate, as Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine does not provide for the possibility of extending presidential powers. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the presidential term is 5 years and the President of Ukraine even under martial law has no right to extend his powers. Only the Parliament has the right to extend the powers. Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine also stipulates that the next presidential election is held on the last Sunday of the fifth year of the president’s term of office. In the event of early termination of the powers of the President of Ukraine, elections are held within ninety days from the date of termination of his powers

    According to the Ukrainian constitution, the prime minister’s candidacy should be proposed to the president by the parliamentary majority faction (currently, it is the pro-presidential Servant of the People party). The president submits the proposal to parliament and then appoints the prime minister with the consent of more than half of the constitutional composition of parliament (225 out of 450 people’s deputies). Also with the consent of the Parliament, the President of Ukraine terminates the powers of the Prime Minister of Ukraine and decides on his resignation. Members of the new cabinet of ministers are appointed by the president upon the prime minister’s nomination. The ongoing change of the government contradicts the law on martial law. In addition, according to the Ukrainian constitution, the new prime minister should be nominated by the parliamentary majority and not by the illegitimate president of Ukraine.

    Zelenskyy

    Many Ukrainian and international lawyers note that under national laws and international law, any agreements and legal acts signed and introduced by Zelenskyy into parliament after May 20, 2024 are effectively illegitimate, contradict Ukrainian legislation and can be canceled or easily legally challenged. In this regard, Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to appoint Yuliya Sviridenko as prime minister also contradicts the current Ukrainian legislation and norms of international law.

    As for the parliamentary elections in Ukraine, they were held on July 21, 2019, the deputies were elected for a term of 5 years and their powers ended in July 2024. However, due to the current legislation and the imposed martial law, the powers of the deputies of the Parliament are extended until its end. According to Article 20 of the Electoral Code of Ukraine No. 396-IX of December 19, 2019, the electoral process for elections to the Parliament of Ukraine should begin within a month after the lifting of martial law. Therefore, in fact, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, Ruslan Stefanchuk, the Speaker of Parliament, has been the legal head of Ukraine since May 21, 2024.

    For this reason, Zelensky’s decisions to extend martial law, appoint a new prime minister, Yuriy Sviridenko, reshuffle other members of the Ukrainian government, sign an agreement with the United States on rare earth minerals and transfer the port of Odessa to American companies are legally unauthorized and can be easily overturned both in Ukrainian legal proceedings and in international arbitration courts.

    Realizing this legal precedent-casus, the leadership of the United States of America and a number of EU countries, primarily Great Britain, France and Germany, in cooperation with the Ukrainian side, are currently trying to develop a legal mechanism to give legitimacy to the legal acts already adopted by Mr. Zelensky, as well as to the future presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine, since the elections held after the end of martial law in Ukraine do not fall under any provision of the current constitution.

    To this end, at the end of June 2025, the Chairman of the Parliament Ruslan Stefanchuk announced the preparation of a law on post-war elections, which is scheduled to be considered at the next sessions of the Ukrainian Parliament. Although Ruslan Stefanchuk himself notes that the said law will also be illegitimate if martial law is lifted in the country.

    Against this background, the internal political struggle between various parties and candidates for the post of the future president of Ukraine is intensifying. The main direction of this interaction is the development of a normatively grounded strategy for future presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine. Allies of Volodymyr Zelensky from Great Britain and the USA announcing continuation of his support and new deliveries of weapons paid for by them realize that without interference in pre-election processes and vote counting procedure it is difficult to predict the results of future elections. That is why Volodymyr Zelensky has now started an active reshuffle of the government and clearing the political field of possible competitors in the upcoming elections.

    The Economist previously wrote about the fact that the USA and EU countries are negotiating with Ukraine to start election processes after the ceasefire at the end of 2025 7 . However, in order to hold elections in Ukraine, martial law, which the authorities imposed on February 24, 2022 and extend every three months, must cease to be in force. The sixteenth extension for 90 days will come into force on August 7, 2025.

    The Ukrainian mass media name Valeriy Zaluzhnyy, a former commander-in- chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who is currently ambassador to the UK, as Zelenskyy’s main rival.

    From November 2024 to the end of June 2025 a number of sociological centers (KIIS – Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, SOCIS – Ukrainian Center for Sociological Studies) and the EU (Statista – German Statistical Data Center from February 5-11, 2025, June 6-11, 2025, Survation – English Polling and Marketing Research Agency from February 25-27, 2025) conducted opinion polls on the topic of presidential elections in Ukraine in order to determine the trust rating of Ukrainian citizens. According to the results of opinion polls as of the end of June 2025, more than 65.3% of respondents support holding presidential elections at the end of 2025.

    According to the results of the conducted research, as of the end of June 2025, out of 14 possible candidates for the post of the future president of Ukraine, the highest results were shown by: V.Zelensky, V.Zaluzhny, P.Poroshenko, Y.Tymoshenko. If V.Zaluzhny and V.Zelensky make it to the second round of voting and there are no violations at the elections, the population of Ukraine will give preference to V.Zaluzhny. The candidacy of Andriy Yermak, the head of the Ukrainian president’s office, is also being considered as a gray cardinal and a dark horse. A number of experts do not rule out that if the USA agrees to support his candidacy as the future president of Ukraine, Yermak is capable of making efforts to physically remove Zelenskyy, for example, due to a sharp deterioration of his health, as was the case with the poisoning of the wife of Kyrylo Budanov, head of the main intelligence department of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry.

    Against this background, many Ukrainian experts expect a large number of violations, scandals and kompromat at the future presidential election in Ukraine, as well as possible influence on the pre-election processes by the US, UK, Germany and France.

    While the Ukrainian people are eagerly awaiting the resolution of the conflict, members of the Ukrainian parliament continue to scuffle. Thus, on July 16, 2025, on the eve of the vote on the appointment of the new Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yuriy Sviridenko, MPs Oleksiy Honcharenko and Danylo Hetmantsev had another scuffle on the rostrum during the regular session.

    The post The Struggle for Power in Ukraine Has Begun first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Sixteen activists completed the 2025 Human Rights Defender Advocacy Programme in Geneva to strengthen their advocacy skills. During the programme, they called for reforms to the UN human rights system, and helped secure the renewal of the expert mandate on sexual orientation and gender identity.

    After two months of intensive online training, sixteen dedicated human rights defenders from across the globe came together to Geneva for the on-site part of ISHR’s 2025 Human Rights Defender Advocacy Programme (HRDAP25). Through learning, dialogue, and direct engagement with UN mechanisms, they strengthened their advocacy skills and built lasting connections with peers, UN experts, diplomats, and civil society allies. [see https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/11/27/ishrs-training-for-human-rights-defenders-2025/]

    Held from 9 to 20 June 2025, the on-site part of HRDAP25 took place during the 59th session of the UN Human Rights Council. The programme blended online learning with face-to-face sessions in Geneva. Defenders explored UN human rights mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council, Special Procedures, Universal Periodic Review, and Treaty Bodies. They practiced advocacy techniques, developed strategic roadmaps, and engaged directly with mechanisms to push for real change at home.

    It was intensive but very good. The platform is so user friendly, everyone can learn and take time to revisit, consult, see examples, and ask questions. The possibility to have online sessions and work in groups was very useful for me. Elena Petrovska, LGBTI Equal Rights Association for Western Balkans and Turkey, North Macedonia

    Participants came from a wide range of regions and contexts, including Colombia, Guatemala, Nigeria, Indonesia, Tunisia, Lebanon, Nepal, India, Uganda, Cameroon, Syria, North Macedonia, Tibet and Sierra Leone. Their work focuses on LGBTIQ+ rights, environmental justice, transitional justice, gender equality, protection of migrants, business and human rights, and the protection of communities at risk.

    Each day was filled with learning opportunities, advocacy and reflection. In April and May, the group enjoyed online training and coaching sessions which were then built upon with a packed in-person programme that gave participants the background preparation needed to engage with the various mechanisms and relevant stakeholders while in Geneva. They applied and practiced the knowledge and skills gained in a few different ways, which included: an NGO breakfast with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, where participants could ask very detailed and pertinent questions about the current situation; a brown bag lunch with experts from the Committee on Civil and Political Rights, where the group received first person tips on how to submit information and engage with Treaty Bodies; and meetings with UN Special Procedures (Business and human rights, Climate Change, Enforced Disappearances, Extreme Poverty) and their staff, were participants could start personal relationships with those experts and share their advocacy journey and plans. 

    Photo: ISHR

    Defenders also participated in a powerful public side event about the reform of the UN human rights system. They shared lived experiences and challenges with over 30 States, calling for deeper access, stronger accountability, and genuine inclusion in the ongoing UN80 reform process. Laura Restrepo from Colombia reflected: ‘The UN must look inward and acknowledge its own colonial legacies — in who speaks, who decides, and whose knowledge counts. It must shift power toward grassroots and frontline communities.’

    Throughout the programme, defenders stood up for key causes. Several participants joined the global campaign to #RenewIESOGI, advocating for the continuation of the UN mandate on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Their voices contributed to a successful outcome: the Human Rights Council renewed the mandate for three more years, reaffirming its importance as a tool to combat discrimination and protect LGBTIQ+ communities. 

    Photo: ISHR

    The sense of care and community ran deep. HRDAP helped participants’ work grounded in the values of solidarity and justice, and built their confidence to keep advocating at all levels. HRDAP25 not only provided skills and relevant exposure but also created a space for collaboration and resilience. Speaking during the public side event on UN reform, Pooja Patel, ISHR’s Deputy Executive Director, reminded States: ‘Human rights defenders are not only on the front lines of crises, they are on the front lines of solutions.’

    https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/16-defenders-participated-in-ishrs-flagship-training-to-advocate-influence-and-build-power-at-the-un

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • No-one will have missed the recent media hype surrounding the opposite candidacies of US President Trump and UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. This blog with its focus on human rights defenders and their awards would be amiss in not taking note, even if the Nobel Prize is foremost a peace prize not necessarly a human rights award. [see also my piece of 2012 https://global.comminit.com/content/nobel-prize-peace-not-necessarily-human-rights]

    So, it is not excluded that the ‘making peace at any cost’ considerations will prevail, but my bet is that the Peace Prize Committee will be careful in ignoring the massive support from the world’s human rights community who have massively come out against the Trump administration’s sanctions against Albanese. Human rights should trump ‘peace’ on this occasion.

    Nominations for a Nobel Peace Prize for Francesca Albanese are gathering steam. See the links below:

    https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/statement-report/united-states-america-sanctions-united-nations-special-rapporteur-assault-human

    https://www.scmp.com/news/us/diplomacy/article/3318822/trump-says-he-deserves-nobel-peace-prize-not-everyone-agrees

    https://english.pnn.ps/news/47558

    https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/un-experts-condemn-us-sanctions-on-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese-amid-report-on-corporate-complicity-in-israels-occupation-genocide/

    https://www.thearabweekly.com/eu-gingerly-criticises-washingtons-unprecedented-sanctions-un-rapporteur

    https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bku2skjbgl

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/07/10/us-imposes-sanctions-on-un-special-rapporteur

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.

    One day in late May 2024, lawyer Zina Bash spent 6 1/2 hours working on a case against Facebook parent company Meta on behalf of the state of Texas. She reviewed draft legal filings. She participated in a court-ordered mediation session and then discussed the outcome with state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

    In her previous job as senior counsel on Paxton’s leadership team, that labor would have cost Texas taxpayers $641.

    But Bash had moved to private practice. Paxton hired her firm to work on the Meta case, allowing her to bill $3,780 an hour, so that day of work will cost taxpayers $24,570.

    In the past five years, Paxton has grown increasingly reliant on pricey private lawyers to argue cases on behalf of the state, rather than the hundreds of attorneys who work within his office, an investigation by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica found. These are often attorneys, like Bash, with whom Paxton has personal or political ties.

    In addition to Bash, one such contract went to Tony Buzbee, the trial lawyer who successfully defended Paxton during his 2023 impeachment trial on corruption charges. Three other contracts went to firms whose senior attorneys have donated to Paxton’s political campaigns. Despite these connections and what experts say are potential conflicts of interest, Paxton does not appear to have recused himself from the selection process. Although he is not required to by law, this raises a concern about appearing improper, experts who study attorneys general said.

    Paxton appears to have also outsourced cases more frequently than his predecessors, available records show. And he’s inked the kind of contingent-fee contracts, in which firms receive a share of a settlement if they win, far more often than the attorneys general in other large states, including California, New York and Pennsylvania. Since 2015, the New York and California attorneys general have awarded zero contingent-fee contracts; Pennsylvania’s has signed one. During that period, Paxton’s office approved 13.

    One of those was with Bash’s firm, Chicago-based Keller Postman, at the time known as Keller Lenkner, which she joined as partner in February 2021 after resigning from her job at the attorney general’s office. Paxton had signed a contract with the company two months earlier to investigate Google for deceptive business practices and violations of antitrust law. A little more than a year later, Bash’s firm won a state contract to work on the Meta litigation, alleging its facial recognition software violated Texans’ privacy. This time, Bash was the co-lead counsel.

    Meta, which called the lawsuit meritless, settled the case for $1.4 billion in the summer of 2024. It was a windfall for Keller Postman. The firm billed $97 million, the largest fee charged by outside counsel under Paxton’s tenure. Bash’s work alone accounted for $3.6 million of that total.

    A letter from Zina Bash to the Texas attorney general’s office informs the office that the state owes her firm, Keller Postman, almost $97 million for its work on the state’s case against Meta. (Obtained by The Texas Tribune. Highlighted by ProPublica.)

    Bash, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk, said in a statement she is honored the attorney general’s office partnered with Keller Postman based on the firm’s “first-rate attorneys and extensive experience.”

    “We have a record of taking on the most significant litigation in the country against the most powerful defendants in the world,” Bash said.

    Keller Postman did not respond to a request for comment.

    There is little to stop Paxton, or any other occupant of his office, from handing these contracts out. The attorney general can award them without seeking bids from other law firms or asking anyone’s permission.

    Asked to provide competitive-bid documents for the contingent-fee contracts it has awarded, the attorney general’s office said it had none because state law “exempts the OAG from having to do all of the solicitation steps when hiring outside counsel.”

    Given the high-profile nature of representing an attorney general and the potential for a big payday, many qualified firms would be eager to compete for this work, said Paul Nolette, a professor of political science at Marquette University who studies attorneys general.

    “I’d be curious to know what the justification is for this not going on the open market,” Nolette said.

    Paxton declined interview requests for this story. He has publicly defended the practice of hiring outside law firms, arguing that his office lacks the resources in-house to take on massive corporations like tech companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

    “These parties have practically unlimited resources that would swamp most legal teams and delay effective enforcement,” Paxton told the Senate finance committee during a budget hearing in January.

    A spokesperson for Paxton said in a statement that the outside lawyers hired by the office are some of the best in the nation. With the contingent-fee settlements to date, more than $2 billion, the state “could not have gotten a better return on its investment,” the statement said.

    Chris Toth, former executive director of the National Association of Attorneys General, questioned why so much extra help is needed. Outside counsel is appropriate for small states, he said, that “only have so many lawyers with so many levels of expertise.”

    The Texas attorney general’s office, one of the largest in the country, has more than 700 attorneys.

    “Large states typically don’t hire outside counsel,” Toth said. “They should have the people in-house that should be able to go toe-to-toe with the best attorneys that are out there.”

    A Troubled History

    When a Texas attorney general previously made a practice of giving lucrative contracts to private counsel, it didn’t end well.

    Dan Morales was the last Democrat to hold the office. He became embroiled in scandal after he used outside firms to help secure a $17 billion settlement in Big Tobacco litigation in 1998.

    Republicans, including then-Gov. George W. Bush, blasted the $3.2 billion payout to the outside lawyers as exorbitant. Their attacks grew more intense when Morales sought to steer $500 million of that sum to a lawyer, a personal friend, who did very little work on the case. Morales pleaded guilty in 2003 to related federal corruption charges. He served 3 1/2 years behind bars.

    John Cornyn, the Republican who succeeded Morales in 1999, criticized his predecessor’s handling of the tobacco case during his campaign for the office. In an interview for this story, Cornyn said he never hired outside counsel as attorney general because he focused on recruiting talented in-house lawyers that he felt could handle all the office’s cases.

    Paxton is challenging Cornyn, now a four-term U.S. senator, in next year’s Republican primary.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, the Republican who led the office after Cornyn, appears to have rarely used private lawyers. The attorney general’s office was able to produce records for only part of Abbott’s 12-year term because state law allows the files to be deleted after so many years. The office signed nine outside counsel contracts between 2010 and 2014, all pro bono or for hourly rates rather than contingency. Abbott did not respond to an interview request.

    Paxton also seldom outsourced cases during his first five years in office. Through 2019, he awarded only nine outside counsel contracts, all pro bono or hourly rate. The most expensive contract capped fees at $500,000 — far less than $143 million the state paid to the two firms, including Bash’s, that handled the Meta case.

    He changed course in 2020.

    That summer, the attorney general’s office was gearing up to file its first case against Google. It related to allegations that the company monopolized the online advertising market, raising costs for advertisers, who increased the price of their products for average consumers as a result. Paxton initially had no plans to hire outside counsel for the litigation, three former deputy attorneys general told the Tribune and ProPublica.

    But before the case was filed, the attorney general’s office was thrown into upheaval. At the end of September, seven of Paxton’s senior advisers reported him to the FBI, concerned his relationship with an Austin real estate investor had crossed the line into bribery and corruption. State House members would later impeach Paxton on counts related to the accusations; state senators eventually acquitted him. The federal criminal investigation into Paxton did not result in any criminal charges.

    Over fall 2020, each of the lawyers in his office who had accused Paxton of wrongdoing quit or was fired. That included Darren McCarty, the head of civil litigation who was supposed to lead the Google litigation before he reported his boss to the FBI. He resigned on Oct. 26.

    Less than two months later, on Dec. 16, Paxton signed contracts with The Lanier Law Firm and Keller Postman to investigate Google. They filed the lawsuit against the tech giant in federal court the same day.

    Paxton replaced the lawyers who complained to the authorities. The staffing of the antitrust and consumer protection divisions, which would have handled these cases, remained constant at more than 80 employees in the following years. Yet Paxton continued to outsource lawsuits against large corporations to private lawyers.

    Under Keller Postman’s contract, the firm would be paid only if it secured a settlement or won at trial. These contingent-fee cases have the potential to be far more profitable for the outside firms than those in which they bill at a regular hourly rate. In a successful case, the contracts say that firms are paid either a percentage of a settlement or the sum of hours billed by the firm times four, whichever is less.

    In the Meta case, Keller Postman was entitled to 11% of the state’s settlement, a share that totaled $154 million. But because the firm’s fees and expenses totaled $97 million, it billed that sum.

    In multiple legislative sessions, Paxton has testified that outsourcing was the only way his office could stand toe-to-toe with corporate titans.

    If Paxton has a shortage of qualified in-house attorneys, Cornyn told the newsrooms, that’s because of the damage the whistleblower scandal did to the reputation of the attorney general’s office as a home for ambitious young lawyers.

    “He’s a victim of his own malfeasance and mismanagement because people did not want to work for him anymore,” Cornyn said. “And if you run off your best lawyers because you engage in questionable ethical conduct, then you’re left with very few options. But this shouldn’t be a way to reward bad behavior.”

    Former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said he was surprised Paxton began hiring contingent-fee outside lawyers only after the scandal, since those contracts, with their potential for high profits, are tougher to ethically defend.

    “I would have thought it would have been the other way around — that he got more careful after he got the whistle blown on him,” said Goddard, a Democrat. “But it looked like he got more reckless.”

    Attorney General Ken Paxton, right, sits with lawyer Tony Buzbee on the ninth day of Paxton’s’s impeachment trial at the Texas Capitol in Austin on Sept. 15, 2023. (Julius Shieh/The Texas Tribune) Connections to Contract Recipients

    Paxton’s style of procurement also benefited Buzbee, the man who successfully defended him during his impeachment trial, which stemmed from allegations the whistleblowers raised.

    The attorney general chose to skip most of the proceedings, so for the 10 days of trial in the Texas Senate, his most vociferous advocate was the loquacious Buzbee. The pair sat side by side when the attorney general did attend.

    A little more than a year later, Paxton hired The Buzbee Law Firm to pursue an antitrust suit against the investment firms BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard that accuses the companies of manipulating the coal market in a way that allegedly increased electricity prices for Texans. The firms deny wrongdoing.

    Buzbee is a successful litigator and one of Houston’s most famous plaintiffs’ attorneys. Among other victories, he won settlements for victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and $73 million for Gulf of Mexico oil drillers in a 2001 antitrust case. But he’s known primarily for personal injury work, not antitrust litigation.

    His firm, one of two hired for this latest attorney general’s office contingent-fee case, could collect 10% of any judgment or settlement. The case is in its early stages, though the Trump administration in May filed a brief in the case in support of Texas.

    Buzbee downplayed the potential for a big payday in an email to the newsrooms and argued there is no buddy system at play, noting he believed other law firms also interviewed with Paxton’s office for the job. (The attorney general’s office did not confirm this.) He said his firm has to pay for significant expenses up front, without any guarantee of payment.

    “The current arrangement may be a good deal for other lawyers, but in all candor, it’s not for me,” Buzbee said, adding that his normal hourly rate is $2,250. “Frankly, the only reason I’m even doing it is that I am proud to represent the state in such a landmark case.”

    A page from an outside counsel contract, signed by both Buzbee and Paxton, shows The Buzbee Law Firm was hired to represent the state in litigation against BlackRock Inc., State Street Corp. and The Vanguard Group Inc. (Obtained by The Texas Tribune)

    The connections between Paxton and the lawyers he has hired also extend to other firms. The attorney general’s office hired the firm Norton Rose Fulbright, one of the largest in the country with more than 3,000 lawyers on staff, to work on separate Google cases for the state, focusing on consumer protection allegations.

    The attorney general’s office has awarded three contracts to the firm since 2022 for cases against the tech giant. Three times during that period, Joseph Graham, the firm’s lead counsel on the Google litigation, contributed $5,000 to Paxton’s campaign for attorney general. Twice, the donations came within 16 days of Graham signing one of the firm’s contracts with the attorney general.

    The firm and its attorneys have contributed $39,500 to Paxton’s campaign since he took office. Neither Graham nor Norton Rose Fulbright responded to requests for comment.

    Mark Lanier, founder of The Lanier Law Firm, which the state hired to work on a separate Google case, is a large donor to Texas elected officials. He has contributed $31,000 to Paxton’s campaigns since 2015. The largest contribution, for $25,000, came six months after Lanier signed his firm’s Google contract.

    The Lanier contract is slightly different from the others the attorney general’s office awarded, in that the firm’s payment is partially based on a basic hourly rate but it could also be paid more if it wins the case, as in the contingent-fee model. Lanier noted in an emailed statement to the newsrooms that he took a reduced fee on this case and maintained that the attorney general’s office needed the kind of firepower his team can bring against an opponent like Google.

    “The Texas AG office and its lawyers are good, but specialists are needed in a war like this. And it is a war,” Lanier wrote. “It would be irresponsible to pursue Google on behalf of Texans without bring[ing] the fullest resources you can.”

    A competitive, open process for awarding contracts can be a strong defense against accusations of favoritism, Goddard said.

    Unlike some other states, Texas does not require these contracts be put out to competitive bid.

    Florida, for example, has one of the most robust laws in the country for procuring outside counsel, requiring the attorney general to explain in writing why a contingent-fee contract is necessary. It also mandates most contracts be put out to competitive bid and caps contingent-fee payouts at $50 million.

    Texas has no such cap.

    It also has virtually no method for state lawmakers to truly supervise this kind of practice. State law mandates only that the attorney general notify the Legislature when his office awards a contingent-fee contract, and certify that no in-house lawyers or private attorneys at an hourly rate can handle the task. Paxton has done so in boilerplate two-page letters that all say outside attorneys are needed because of the “scope and enormity” of the cases.

    If lawmakers are concerned about these contracts, there is no mechanism for them to challenge Paxton’s determination that private counsel is needed.

    Having lawyers bid for work would eliminate the appearance of impropriety that hangs over Paxton’s hires, Goddard said.

    “A couple look like paybacks, which is extraordinarily improper, in other words to award a contract to someone who’s a major contributor or has recently left your office,” he said. “All of those would not be allowed in our state.”

    Officials in other states have said they can still secure big wins for their constituents without relying on private firms.

    California, for example, reached a $93 million settlement with Google in 2023 over claims that the company was clandestinely tracking users’ locations. A year earlier, in a case with similar allegations, Oregon and Nebraska led a 40-state coalition that won a $392 million settlement against the company. Texas was not part of this suit.

    The latter agreement required Google to make new privacy disclosures to consumers, restricted its ability to share users’ location information with advertisers and required the company to prepare an annual report detailing how it was complying with the settlement terms.

    Doug Peterson, the Republican attorney general of Nebraska at the time, said negotiating the financial penalty — Nebraska’s share was $11.9 million — was a secondary goal of the settlement.

    “The most important thing we’re trying to do is to stop the bad behavior,” Peterson said.

    McCarty, one of the attorney general employees who blew the whistle on Paxton, said private lawyers can be talented, but they have an incentive to fixate on the financial portion of settlements — which is tied to their compensation — rather than enforcement provisions that may best protect a state’s residents.

    “Government enforcers, especially in the antitrust context, can focus on more effective solutions,” McCarty said.

    Norton Rose Fulbright has yet to send its final billing records to the attorney general’s office but is likely to be rewarded handsomely. The firm helped the state secure a $1.38 billion settlement with Google in May. Google spokesperson José Castañeda said the Texas settlement, which has not been finalized, will contain no new restrictions on the company’s practices.

    Under the terms of its contracts, the firm’s fees could exceed $350 million.

    This post was originally published on ProPublica.

  • In the first six months of the second Trump administration, some 60,000 federal workers have been targeted for layoffs, even more have taken buyouts, and up to trillions of dollars in funding has been frozen or halted. Many more people could still be facing cuts under additional planned reductions.

    President Donald Trump has explicitly targeted climate- and justice-related programs and funding, but the resulting cuts have gone deep into services communities rely on to survive, like food aid in rural areas or improvements to failing wastewater infrastructure. Farmers have lost grants and support that help keep them going through increasingly volatile weather. Even your favorite YouTube creators may be affected.

    We asked those who have lost their federal jobs or funding to tell us about what’s being lost: What was their work providing to communities, and what happens now?

    Their stories, reflecting just a small sample of the many people who’ve been affected, illuminate  how deep these cuts go, not only into programs explicitly working to reduce emissions, but also into those keeping us safe, healthy, fed, and informed.


    Have you been impacted, or know someone who has? We want to hear about it. Message us on Signal at 206-876-3147 or share your story using this form. (Learn more about how to reach us and how we will use your information.)


    • Disaster recovery

      “It offered housing, your food was paid for. I didn’t really have to worry about how I would survive.”

      Rachel Suber, former FEMA Corps member | Pennsylvania


      Since January, Rachel Suber had been a member of FEMA Corps, a specialized program of AmeriCorps, the federal national service program, which deploys volunteers to disaster zones to aid in recovery. She’d been assigned to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to help those affected by Hurricane Debby, a tropical cyclone that flooded parts of the Northeast last summer.

      As a corps volunteer with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Suber would go into the field to survey damage and help people access federal assistance funding. Back at the office, she would log data about what had been done at site inspections, where the worst damage was, and who had yet to receive assistance.

      In April, Suber got the news that her program — and all of AmeriCorps — was being terminated. “We will be demobilized immediately,” she remembers her boss saying. “I’m going to miss you all.” One hundred and thirty FEMA Corps members and some 32,000 AmeriCorps volunteers were out of work.

      Suber and her cohort were aware of the changes Trump was making to FEMA and other federal agencies, but the funding for her program was allocated for the year. No one had thought the new administration could take it away.

      So far, FEMA’s work in the region continues. But without help from the corps members, Suber said, more work will be put on program managers, slowing the process of getting aid to those who need it.

      For Suber, it’s also the end of her path to a career and a way out of rural Pennsylvania, where jobs are scarce. “It offered housing, your food was paid for. I didn’t really have to worry about how I would survive.” With the cancellation of the program, less than four months into what should have been a 10-month assignment, Suber’s dreams of working for FEMA have faded.

      — Zoya Teirstein

    • Health and safety

      “People felt like their concerns were real and that they deserved better.”

      Caroline Frischmon, graduate research assistant | Mississippi


      Caroline Frischmon had been selected to receive a $1.25 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to study air pollution in two Louisiana towns and Cherokee Forest, a subdivision in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The neighborhood, which is near a Chevron refinery, a Superfund site, and a liquefied natural gas terminal, has more than three times the amount of cancer risk the EPA deems acceptable.

      The funding was part of EPA’s Science to Achieve Results, or STAR, an initiative that has awarded more than 4,100 grants nationwide since 1995 to support high-quality environmental and public health research. In April, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin ordered the termination of STAR and other research grants, including some $124 million in funds that had already been promised. Frischmon’s funding evaporated overnight.

      As a graduate student at the University of Colorado, Frischmon had set up low-cost air monitors in Cherokee Forest and identified a recurring pattern of short-lived, intense pollution episodes that correlated with resident complaints of burning eyes, sore throats, vomiting, and nausea. The state air quality monitors were capturing average pollution levels but missed short-term spikes that were just as consequential to human health.

      “The validation has really led to an activation in the community,” said Frischmon. “People felt like their concerns were real and that they deserved better.”

      The $1.25 million EPA grant would have funded a multiyear air quality study and Frischmon’s postdoctoral position at the university. She is now job hunting and searching for smaller grants, but she isn’t optimistic she will find funding on the scale of the EPA grant. For the community, she said, it feels like an abrupt end to tangible progress toward solving their health crisis. “So there’s a lot of sadness over losing that momentum.”

      — Naveena Sadasivam

    • Food access

      “Agricultural producers are already living on the fringes of income.”

      Matthew O’Malley, agricultural engineer with the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service | Colorado


      As an agricultural engineer with the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, Matthew O’Malley’s job was helping farmers and ranchers in northeastern Colorado implement more efficient infrastructure to deal with growing water scarcity. On any given day, that could involve anything from building an irrigation system that cuts down on the amount of water released to feed thirsty crops to designing a retention basin to store excess water produced during rainy periods for use during drier ones.

      In February, O’Malley was abruptly fired from his position in a wave of mass layoffs by the Trump administration. By the end of the following month, he’d be invited back to work, temporarily, after a federal court ruled the thousands of laid-off government workers must be reinstated. O’Malley instead elected to take the deferred resignation he was subsequently offered, wary of the volatility. Until September 30, he will remain a federal employee on paper.

      Before the mass government firings hit the NRCS offices in northeast Colorado, there were a total of four staffers, O’Malley included, serving as agricultural engineers in the region. Half took the deferred resignation.

      “The planning stopped for the projects I was designing overnight,” said O’Malley. “I’m more concerned for the smaller agricultural producers, rather than myself, for the agency. They’re the ones that rely on USDA programs to help them make it through years when there’s crop failure.”

      Because of the economic landscape, escalating extreme weather risk, and intensifying water scarcity, farmers’ need for support in the region is at a level O’Malley has never before seen. “Agricultural producers are already living on the fringes of income,” he said. “Helping these producers protect the resources that they have, and allowing them to better utilize them, ultimately helps everyone. We all need to eat.”

      — Ayurella Horn-Muller

      Photo credit: Courtesy Matthew O’Malley

    • Health and safety

      “The funding just stopped. I’m stuck with this valuable data that not a lot of people have.”

      Edgar Villaseñor, advocacy campaign manager for the Rio Grande International Study Center | Texas


      Residents of Laredo, Texas, like people in cities all over the world, endure a phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect, whereby roads, sidewalks, and buildings trap heat. For Laredo, this phenomenon only exacerbates already ferocious heat, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods that tend to have fewer trees and green spaces.

      Last summer, to better understand how heat affects Laredo’s 260,000 residents, the nonprofit Rio Grande International Study Center partnered with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and enlisted more than 100 volunteers to drive around the city taking temperature readings. Edgar Villaseñor, the center’s advocacy campaign manager, then worked with a company called CAPA Strategies to create a map of heat throughout the city.

      Villaseñor wanted more detailed data and an enhanced, interactive map that would not only be easier for residents to navigate, but also help the city council plan interventions, like installing more shade for people waiting at bus stops. He applied for a $10,000 grant through NOAA’s Center for Heat Resilient Communities, which was funded through the Inflation Reduction Act.

      The center had planned to work with a range of communities for a year to craft targeted heat action plans, and then to create guides that would help cities around the U.S. build their own heat strategies.

      The research center was ready to announce in May that Villaseñor’s nonprofit, along with 14 city governments, had been selected. But the day before the announcement, NOAA instead sent notices that it was defunding the center. “The funding just stopped,” Villaseñor said. “I’m stuck with this valuable data that not a lot of people have.”

      Villaseñor said his work won’t stop, even though that $10,000 grant would have gone a long way. “I’m still trying to see what I can do without funding.”

      Read more: Funding to protect American cities from extreme heat just evaporated

      — Matt Simon

    • Historical preservation

      “You have to make sure you’re not destroying any wetlands, not affecting air pollution … not harming any historical or cultural material.”

      Name withheld, National Park Service archaeologist | East Coast


      Archaeology might not be the first profession that comes to mind when you think of the National Park Service. But the federal agency, housed under the Interior Department, needs a whole lot of them — to examine historical artifacts, to oversee excavations, to ensure that on-site construction projects comply with preservation laws.

      One federal archaeologist, who asked that their name be withheld for security, worked at a historic East Coast park, combing through a “very long backlog” of 19th-century farm equipment and deciding which samples should be preserved. Storage space is a “very serious problem in archaeology,” they said, and the park service generally lacks the funding to make more room.

      The other part of their job was about compliance, ensuring that proposed developments — whether a new water line or a building renovation — adhered to federal laws on environmental and historical impacts. “You have to make sure you’re not destroying any wetlands, not affecting air pollution … not harming any historical or cultural material,” they said.

      This worker had been at their post, which was supported by funding via the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, for national parks, just over a year when Trump froze IRA spending. They found out in February that their funding was no longer available, but held on a few more weeks, thanks to extra funds cobbled together by their supervisor. By the time a federal judge ordered the IRA money unfrozen, they had already accepted another archaeology job. With all the funding uncertainty — compounded by layoffs and buyouts that have reduced park service staff by 24 percent since the beginning of the year — they said the vacancy they left is unlikely to be filled.

      Without archaeologists, the worker said, simple maintenance projects could be stalled or improperly managed. “They will either not be able to do that or they will do the projects without compliance and destroy very important sites to our shared history.”

      — Joseph Winters

    • Public information

      “The team was part of a nationwide push to build trust with communities so that we could better understand what they needed so that the government could serve communities better.”

      Amelia Hertzberg, environmental protection specialist at the EPA | Virginia


      When EPA employees engage with communities affected by an environmental disaster, they often face angry and distrustful crowds. These communities are often the ones that have been historically neglected by the federal government, and residents may be dealing with serious health problems. Amelia Hertzberg was training staff to stay calm and engage productively in those situations.

      Hertzberg began working at the EPA in 2022, first as a research fellow and then as a full-time employee in the community engagement department within the environmental justice office. She initially helped communicate the risk that ethylene oxide, a toxic chemical used in sterilization, poses to communities. Then, as the EPA ramped up its efforts to work with historically disadvantaged communities during the Biden administration, she began conducting trainings to help staff understand how to work directly with communities facing trauma.

      “Again and again, I heard, ‘I don’t know how to deal with people’s emotions,’” recalled Hertzberg. “‘There’s things that I can’t help them with that make me upset, and I don’t know what to do with my feelings of stress or theirs.’ And so I was trying to meet that need.”

      In April, the Trump administration announced that it would lay off 280 employees from the EPA’s environmental justice office and reassign an additional 175 people, effectively ending the office altogether. The announcement came after a February notice that placed 170 staff members, including Hertzberg, on administrative leave. Just two of the 11 people on Hertzberg’s community engagement team stayed on, and most of their programs have been canceled. Hertzberg is still on administrative leave.

      “The environmental justice office is the EPA’s triage unit,” Hertzberg said. “The team was part of a nationwide push to build trust with communities so that we could better understand what they needed so that the government could serve communities better.”

      — Naveena Sadasivam

    • Disaster recovery

      “We were in constant contact with survivors who were very upset.”

      Julian Nava-Cortez, former California Emergency Response Corps member | California


      After devastating fires tore through Los Angeles in January, Julian Nava-Cortez traveled from northern California to assist survivors at a disaster recovery center near Altadena, where the Eaton Fire had nearly destroyed the entire neighborhood. People arrived in tears, overwhelmed and angry, he said.

      “We were the first faces that they’d see,” said Nava-Cortez, at the time a member of the California Emergency Response Corps, one of two AmeriCorps programs that sent workers to assist in fire recovery. He guided people to the resources they needed to secure emergency housing, navigate insurance claims, and go through the process of debris removal. He sometimes worked 11-hour, emotionally draining shifts, listening to stories of what survivors had lost. “We were in constant contact with survivors who were very upset,” he said. What kept him going, he said, was how grateful people were for his help.

      Volunteers like Nava-Cortez have helped 47,000 households affected by the fires, according to California Volunteers, the state service commission under the governor’s office. But in late April, Nava-Cortez and his team at the California Emergency Response Corps were suddenly placed on leave. Another program helping with the recovery in L.A., the California AmeriCorps Disaster Team, also abruptly shut down as a result of cuts to AmeriCorps.

      At the end of April, two dozen states, including California, sued the Trump administration over the cuts to AmeriCorps, alleging that DOGE illegally gutted an agency that Congress created and funded. In June, a federal judge temporarily blocked the cuts in those jurisdictions.

      The nonprofit that sponsored Nava-Cortez and his fellow AmeriCorps members offered them temporary jobs 30 days after they were put on leave, though many had already found other work. Nava-Cortez took the offer and worked for another month before the money ran out, but was unable to finish his term, which was supposed to go through the end of July. Since then, he’s been on unemployment, unable to find work ahead of moving to San Jose for school this fall.

      Read more: After disasters, AmeriCorps was everywhere. What happens when it’s gone?

      – Kate Yoder

    • Public information

      “There might just be one day you log onto YouTube and none of your favorite creators are there anymore.”

      Emily Graslie, creator of The Brain Scoop YouTube channel | Illinois


      Emily Graslie creates YouTube videos explaining all kinds of scientific research in fun, easy-to-understand ways. On her channel, The Brain Scoop, she’s covered topics ranging from fossils to rats, often partnering with libraries or museums to tell the story of their work.

      Her next project was going to be with the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, creating videos for The Brain Scoop explaining some of the organization’s groundbreaking medical research. She’d spent a year developing the series with her NIH partners and was supposed to be on campus at the NIH in January of this year to begin shooting. Instead, she received an email telling her that the project was on hold until further notice.

      The acting Health and Human Services secretary had issued a memo within the first days of the Trump administration halting nearly all external communications. “Because I’m considered a member of the media, I was unable to communicate with these people I had been partnering with for over a year,” she said.

      Through an informal meeting with one of her collaborators, she learned that the project was effectively canceled — and with it, money Graslie had been counting on for her livelihood, a slate of planned videos, and what she saw as important work educating viewers about lifesaving science.

      Many people may not realize, Graslie said, that the federal funding that supports scientific research and programming at museums also often covered contracts with independent creators like herself, to help communicate the work to the public.

      “One of the most significant things that The Brain Scoop did is just share the different kinds of work that happens at nature centers and museums across the country,” she said. The loss is “just a limiting of people’s understandings of what they’re capable of, who they want to be when they grow up, how they see the world around them.”

      Read more: Even your favorite YouTube creators are feeling the effects of federal cuts

      — Claire Elise Thompson

      Photo credit: Julie Florio

    • Education

      “It’s a huge loss for the 1,000 students that we work with.”

      Sky Hawk Bressette, former restoration educator for the city of Bellingham’s Parks and Recreation Department | Washington


      For three years, Sky Hawk Bressette served as a restoration educator in the parks department in Bellingham, Washington. With a fellow member of the Washington Service Corps, he worked with the school district to teach nearly every fifth grader in the city about native plants.

      Their free lessons — aligned with state science standards — showed kids how to identify plants, spot invasive species, and understand the role of native flora in the local ecosystem. They also hosted “mini-work parties,” where students got their hands dirty pulling weeds and planting native trees and shrubs, learning how to care for the land around them. “All of our teachers that we work with absolutely love what we do,” Bressette said.

      But that work is now on hold — possibly for good — after federal cuts to AmeriCorps funding. In late April, Bressette received notice that he was being put on unpaid leave, effective immediately. “It’s weird, it’s sad, it’s scary,” he said. “I really do love what I do.” After a judge struck down the cuts in June, he briefly returned to work until his term ended in July. By then, he had already missed the end of the school year, the busiest time for working with students.

      Outside the classroom, Bressette helped organize volunteer work parties that planted thousands of trees and hauled dump trucks’ worth of invasive species out of local parks in Bellingham. But with no guarantee for future funding, the city is eliminating Bressette and his colleague’s positions. That means that the environmental education lessons are likely shut down for at least the next year, Bressette said, while the city weighs whether to bring them back.

      “It’s a huge loss for the 1,000 students that we work with in our city alone,” he said.

      — Kate Yoder

      Photo credit: Allison Greener Grant

    • Disaster recovery

      “I lost my job from the fire and here again from this political climate.”

      Ryanda Sarraude, former office administrator at Roots Reborn | Hawai‘i


      In the summer of 2023, Ryanda Sarraude was working as an account manager at a human resources company serving local businesses in West Maui. When massive wildfires shut down tourism and contaminated the water in her neighborhood, Sarraude was forced to move out of her house and her company laid her off because so many local businesses had shut down.

      Months later, a job opened up at Roots Reborn, a nonprofit organization serving recent immigrants on Maui, and Sarraude was hired as an office administrator. The role was funded by a federal program aimed at helping disaster survivors get back on their feet.

      Lāhainā is home to many immigrant communities from the Philippines, Latin America, and the Pacific islands. Many families who didn’t have bank accounts had hidden cash in their homes that burned down, so the nonprofit launched a financial education workshop. Health issues like depression and asthma shot up in the wake of the fires, so Roots Reborn partnered with Kaiser to help people enroll in health insurance by providing guidance and Spanish interpreters.

      “I wanted to help people,” Sarraude said. “It was very rewarding.” Then in February, Sarraude found out the federal funding for her position had evaporated amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on government spending. Sarraude was among 131 Maui workers who lost their jobs almost overnight across 27 different organizations, even though the nonprofit overseeing their program had expected the federal funding to be renewed for several more months. Around 5 p.m. on a Sunday, Sarraude was told not to show up to work the next day.

      “I lost my job from the fire and here again from this political climate,” Sarraude said. She scrambled to apply to other gigs and a few weeks later landed a lower-paying role as a web administrator for a local business. She likes her new job, but is relying on Medicaid and food stamps and is nervous about what Republicans’ decision to cut funding for those programs will mean for her access to food and health care.

      — Anita Hofschneider

    • Food access

      “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.”

      Erica Krug, farm-to-school director at Rooted | Wisconsin


      First established some 25 years ago in a historically underserved neighborhood in Madison, Wisconsin, that has long struggled with access to healthy food, Mendota Elementary’s garden is now a part of the school’s curriculum — students plant produce, which is shared with local food pantries. Come summer, the garden opens to the surrounding community to harvest crops like garlic, tomatoes, zucchini, collards, and squash.

      “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,” said Erica Krug, farm-to-school director at Rooted, a nonprofit that helps oversee the garden.

      In January, the Rooted team applied for a $100,000 two-year grant through the USDA’s Patrick Leahy Farm to School program, intended to provide public schools with locally produced fresh vegetables as well as food and agricultural education, a grant they’d received in past cycles. The program was created in 2010, and Congress allocated $10 million for it this fiscal year.

      In March, Rooted received an email announcing the cancellation of this year’s grant program “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.” 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. “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.

      Read more: Trump’s latest USDA cuts undermine his plan to ‘Make America Healthy Again’

      — Ayurella Horn-Muller

    • Public information

      “It’s our duty to help protect people and have them understand the risks and understand the tools they can use.”

      Tom Di Liberto, former public affairs specialist at NOAA | Washington, D.C.


      For Tom Di Liberto, a climate scientist-turned communications specialist, working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fulfilled a dream he had held since elementary school. It was also, he believed, fulfilling an essential function for the American people.

      “I was incredibly proud of being able to work with different communities to help them understand the resources that NOAA has, so they can properly use them in the decisions that they make,” he said. That included working with doctors to help them make better use of the agency’s climate and weather data to understand the shifting probabilities of various medical diagnoses, and reaching out to faith communities to discuss how they could use their gathering spaces to help residents weather extreme heat and other impacts.

      “Those sorts of activities are all done now,” Di Liberto said.

      He lost his job at NOAA on February 27, along with hundreds of his colleagues targeted by the Department of Government Efficiency. By court order, he was rehired in March, but then fired once again in April, he said, when the judge let that order expire. Di Liberto is now working as a media director for the nonprofit Climate Central.

      These workforce reductions have hampered the agency’s research capacity, as well as its ability to share that critical research with the public, Di Liberto said.

      “I think people don’t know that NOAA is beyond just your weather forecast — that NOAA works directly with communities to help build resilience plans for extremes,” he said, adding that, under the new Trump administration, the bulk of that community work “is either threatened or come to a screeching halt.”

      One of the communication projects he was proudest of was launching NOAA’s first animated series — a creative tool to teach climate and weather science to kids. “I have all the episodes downloaded personally on my computer — so if they ever take it down, they’ll go right back up,” he said.

      — Claire Elise Thompson

    • Food access

      “This was for important work, representing small- and medium-sized farms, and also trying to leverage the food economy to go faster and further.”

      Anthony Myint, cofounder of Zero Foodprint | Oregon


      Anthony Myint’s nonprofit, Zero Foodprint, works across the public and private sectors, sourcing and awarding grants that incentivize the adoption of better farming practices. His goal is to support farmers who are working to build healthier soil, which increases the food system’s resilience to supply chain shocks, improves water quality, and stores carbon.

      A chef-turned-entrepeneur, Myint founded the nonprofit after seeing firsthand how important farming practices are to ensuring a more sustainable planet.

      In April, Myint learned that a $35 million USDA grant his team was a subawardee on had been suddenly canceled. The nonprofit had been awarded roughly $7 million in 2023 as part of a five-year program to help hundreds of farmers and agricultural projects across the country implement production techniques to improve soil quality and crop resilience.

      Myint’s team had been helping award and distribute the funding to roughly 400 projects, like a group of almond producers in California’s Central Valley working to establish composting and nutrient management practices. By the time the project was terminated, only about $800,000 had been awarded to around 50 projects. “We were ramping up to the bulk of work this spring,” said Myint.

      The loss of the funding left “a really big gap.” “We’re using reserves and philanthropy and other things to maintain and sort of shift our growth onto that new available capacity instead of hiring,” said Myint. “We’re essentially frozen.”

      Myint saw the USDA funds as a vital — and successful — incentive to move farms and companies to more sustainable practices. “This was for important work, representing small- and medium-sized farms, and also trying to leverage the food economy to go faster and further … and every single project was negatively impacted.”

      — Ayurella Horn-Muller

    • Data and research

      “It’s just about having the info that policymakers need to make decisions. Without it, we’re flying blind.”

      Shane Coffield, former science and technology policy fellow at AAAS | Washington, D.C.


      Every year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS, places roughly 150 fellows at various federal agencies. Established in 1973, the Science and Technology Policy Fellowships program provides a pipeline for scientists to enter public service.

      Shane Coffield was one of six fellows placed at the EPA last September. As a researcher with a doctorate in Earth system science, Coffield specializes in various remote sensing techniques and was tasked with working on the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, an annual accounting of the country’s emissions, which provides a baseline for climate policy and has been published since the early 1990s. The U.S. is also obligated to provide the emissions data every year to a United Nations body that oversees international climate negotiations.

      In April, the agency missed a deadline to release the data, even though Coffield and others at the EPA had finished the report. That month, the agency also terminated its agreement with AAAS that allowed Coffield and five other fellows to work there, four months before their positions were due to end. This year’s report was never officially released, although the information was made public through a FOIA request. It’s unclear if the agency will produce the inventory in 2026.

      The greenhouse gas inventory is “policy agnostic,” said Coffield. “It’s just about having the info that policymakers need to make decisions. Without it, we’re flying blind.”

      During his time at the agency, Coffield also helped other countries such as El Salvador and South Africa build their own greenhouse gas inventories. When the Trump administration instructed staff to drop all foreign aid work in late January, Coffield could not engage with his international counterparts anymore.

      — Naveena Sadasivam

      Photo credit: Courtesy Shane Coffield

    • Education

      “There’s a huge need to increase climate literacy, even here in NYC, and now there will be fewer opportunities for it.”

      Rafi Santo, principal researcher at Telos Learning | New York


      Last year, Rafi Santo helped launch an education project that aimed to connect young people from climate-impacted communities with scientists and artists to co-create interactive public exhibits. The program — a collaboration between Pratt Institute, Beam Center, and Santo’s organization, Telos Learning — was funded by a National Science Foundation grant focused on bringing STEM learning to new settings and audiences.

      “We have an incredible need to both have the general public understand the mechanisms behind climate change, but also understand what they can do about it,” Santo said. The pop-up exhibits would aim to build climate literacy and awareness of local adaptation efforts in New York.

      Santo, who studies educational frameworks, also wanted to research the significance of giving young people a seat at the table — “helping to better understand how those most affected by the crisis can be meaningfully contributing to its response.”

      The group received around 400 applications. But on April 25, the day they planned to send acceptance letters, they instead found out that their grant had been terminated. The National Science Foundation had announced that it was terminating awards “that are not aligned with program goals or agency priorities.” Hundreds of research grants were canceled.

      Santo’s program was specifically focused on young people in communities of color, which “probably made an easy keyword search for them,” he said.

      It was devastating to see so much passion and so many stories that now won’t get to be shared, Santo said, as well as the loss to the public of the opportunity to engage with climate topics in new ways. For him personally, this would also have been his first climate research initiative — something he had wanted to pursue professionally ever since he experienced a devastating heat wave in 2021. “It feels especially heartbreaking,” he said. “I now don’t know how I might contribute or what kind of projects I might do that can contribute to this work.”

      — Claire Elise Thompson

    • Waste and recycling

      “Composting, for me, is a lot about community.”

      Ella Kilpatrick Kotner, compost program director at Groundwork RI | Rhode Island


      “Composting, for me, is a lot about community,” said Ella Kilpatrick Kotner, who leads a composting program at Groundwork RI, a nonprofit in Providence, Rhode Island, “and treating this thing that many people think of as a waste as a resource to be cherished and handled with care and turned into something beautiful that we can then reuse to grow more food.”

      Every day, her team of three bikes through the city, collecting food scraps from hundreds of households. Back at a community garden, they mix it all with dry leaves and wood shavings, while sifting out pieces of plastic and even the occasional fork, transforming the waste into a nitrogen-rich conditioner for the soil. That compost is available to those enrolled in Groundwork RI’s subscription service to use in home gardens, yards, or urban farms.

      In December, Groundwork RI was one of nine organizations included in an $18.7 million grant awarded to the Rhode Island Food Policy Council through the Community Change Grants Program, a congressionally authorized program to support community-based organizations addressing environmental justice challenges.

      A portion of the three-year funding was intended to help Groundwork RI expand its collection service to neighboring cities, build a bigger compost hub, renovate its greenhouse and pay-what-you-can farm stand, and add composting bin systems to more local community gardens. It also would have made it possible for Kilpatrick Kotner’s team to launch a free food-scrap collection pilot with the city.

      During Trump’s first term, his administration committed to ambitious food waste reduction goals. This time, after months of uncertainty, the partners involved in the Rhode Island food-waste project learned in May that their grant was terminated. The EPA’s official notice, shared with Grist, informed the grantees that their project was “no longer consistent” with the federal agency’s funding priorities and therefore nullified “effective immediately.”

      Read more: An $18M grant would have drastically reduced food waste. Then the EPA cut it.

      – Ayurella Horn-Muller

      Photo credit: Charlotte Canner / Groundwork RI

    • Health and safety

      “We have wastewater infrastructure that is old. It’s critical that we do the work to replace this.”

      Sheryl Sealy, assistant city manager for Thomasville | Georgia


      Thomasville, Georgia, has a water problem. Its treatment system is far out of date, posing serious health and environmental risks — not just the risk of sewage overflowing into homes and waterways, but resulting respiratory issues as well.

      “We have wastewater infrastructure that is old,” said Sheryl Sealy, the assistant city manager for this city of 18,881 near the Florida border. “It’s critical that we do the work to replace this.”

      Earlier this year, Thomasville and its partners were awarded a nearly $20 million Community Change grant from the EPA to make the long-overdue wastewater improvements, build a resilience hub and health clinic, and upgrade homes in several historic neighborhoods.

      “The grant itself was really a godsend for us,” Sealy said.

      Thomasville has a history of heavy industry that has led to high risks from toxic air pollution, and the city qualified for the Biden administration’s Justice40 initiative, which prioritized funding for disadvantaged communities.

      In early April, as the EPA canceled grants for similar projects across the country, federal officials assured Thomasville that its funding was on track. Then, on May 1, the city received a termination notice. “We felt, you know, a little taken off guard when the bottom did let out for us,” said Sealy.

      Under the Trump administration, the EPA has canceled or interrupted hundreds of grants aimed at improving health and severe weather preparedness because the agency “determined that the grant applications no longer support administration priorities,” according to an emailed statement to Grist.

      Thomasville, along with other cities that have had grants terminated, is appealing the decision.

      Read more: Trump cuts hundreds of EPA grants, leaving cities on the hook for climate resiliency

      — Emily Jones

    • Disaster recovery

      “I come home and I’m exhausted and I’ve got cat poop all over me, but it was just such a rewarding feeling.”

      Susan Caballero, former humanitarian at the Maui Humane Society | Hawai‘i


      Susan Caballero wasn’t living in Lāhainā the day that the West Maui town burned down on August 8, 2023. But the devastating wildfire brought the island’s tourism industry to a screeching halt. A day later, Caballero was laid off from her job as a salesperson at a boutique handicrafts store 45 minutes away.

      Within months, federal funding to help wildfire survivors poured in and the Biden administration released a federal grant specifically to help displaced workers. It was through that funding that Caballero got hired at the Maui Humane Society. Her job was caring for cats: feeding them, giving them medicine, persuading families to adopt them.

      There are 40,000 stray cats on Maui that need homes, about one cat for every four people living on the island. Residents often abandon their cats because there’s so little pet-friendly housing. It’s a massive challenge with terrible environmental consequences: Parasites in feral cat poop contaminate the ocean, killing endangered monk seals. Caballero felt proud using her sales skills to persuade families to take the creatures home, once successfully adopting out a 20-year-old feline.

      “It’s just an amazing feeling, I come home and I’m exhausted and I’ve got cat poop all over me, but it was just such a rewarding feeling,” Caballero said.

      In February, Caballero was hospitalized after a moped accident. She was lying in her hospital bed when she learned that she was out of a job. The state of Hawaiʻi had expected the federal grant supporting her position and 130 others to be renewed at least through September, but in February the state learned that, at best, the new administration would only offer half of what had been requested. Confronted with uncertain funding, the state shut down the program.

      “I was only making $23 an hour. I’m 58 years old,” she said. “I have to laugh because that’s all I can do and that hurts.”

      Five months later, she’s still physically recovering and isn’t sure what’s next. Her rent just went up to $1,582 per month, and her disability check will no longer cover it.

      — Anita Hofschneider

    • Food access

      “This is a blow to our entire food system.”

      Robbi Mixon, executive director of the Alaska Food Policy Council | Alaska


      Three years ago, the Alaska Food Policy Council, or AFPC, partnered with a handful of other food and farming groups to apply for the Regional Food Business Center program — a new initiative launched by the Biden administration to expand and build localized food supply chains. In May 2023, it was selected by the USDA as a sub-awardee to help create one of 12 national centers established through the initiative, leading the Alaska arm of the Islands and Remote Areas Regional Food Business Center.

      Ever since, Robbi Mixon, the AFPC’s executive director, and her team have devoted countless hours to developing the center, an online hub to help farm and food ventures connect with local and regional markets. Her team had planned to give out $1.6 million in grant awards — representing a direct investment in over 50 businesses over the next three years — and use another $1.4 million for training over 1,000 individuals statewide.

      In January, their funding was frozen by the new administration, and for the last six months, their funding pot has continued to remain inaccessible. On July 15, the USDA finally announced it was shuttering the program.

      “This is a blow to our entire food system,” said Mixon. The center “was a catalytic opportunity” to build capacity for small businesses across the state, she said. “Its loss disrupts food security planning, economic development, and supply chain resilience.”

      Mixon’s team had been planning to use their funding to support the creation of fresh produce markets in rural Alaska, training to help remote communities learn how to start home-based food businesses, and grant-sourcing for those in fishing and aquaculture industries, among other initiatives.

      “Food security is national security,” she said. “Just because this funding goes away, the need certainly does not.”

      — Ayurella Horn-Muller

    • Energy costs

      “I’ll find the money, if I have to. I’ll win the lottery and spend the money on cheaper power.”

      John Christensen, Port Heiden tribal president | Alaska


      In Port Heiden, Alaska, home to a small fishing community of Alutiiq peoples, the diesel fuel they need to power their lifestyle costs almost four times the national average.

      “Electricity goes up, diesel goes up, every year. And wages don’t,” said John Christensen, Port Heiden’s tribal president. “We live on the edge of the world. And it’s just tough.” Christensen and his son are among those who will spend the summer hauling in thousands of pounds of fish each day to sell to seafood processing companies.

      In 2015, the community built its own fish processing plant, a way to keep more fishing income in the village. But the building has never been operational — they simply can’t afford to power it.

      The tribe planned to use a $300,000 grant to pay for studies to design two hydropower plants, which Christensen sees as a path to cheaper and cleaner energy. In theory, the plants could power the entirety of Port Heiden.

      The money was coming from Climate United, a national investment fund selected to participate in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a project of the Inflation Reduction Act. Now, the fund has become a particular target in the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate climate programs. The EPA froze all grants, calling the fund “criminal” and leaving $20 billion in limbo.

      As it awaits the outcome of its lawsuit filed against the EPA and Trump, Climate United is exploring other options, including issuing the money as a loan rather than a grant. For his part, Christensen said he has lost what little faith he had in federal funding and has begun brainstorming other ways to get his community off diesel.

      “We’ll figure it out,” he said. “I’ll find the money, if I have to. I’ll win the lottery, and spend the money on cheaper power.”

      Read more: This Alaska Native fishing village was trying to power their town. Then came Trump’s funding cuts.

      — Ayurella Horn-Muller

      Photo credit: Courtesy John Christensen

    • Food access

      “Our people are hurting, and our people are hungry.”

      Sylvia Crum, director of development at Appalachian Sustainable Development | Virginia


      In March, Appalachian Sustainable Development, a nonprofit food hub, was forced to shutter its food-box program. The program provided fresh produce to Appalachia residents in need, and income to 40 farmers who supplied that produce.

      A $1.5 million USDA grant that was supporting the program was being delayed, and the team learned they may end up being reimbursed only a portion of the money. Then, another of the local food system programs they were counting on for future funding was suddenly terminated by the USDA.

      For director of development Sylvia Crum, the situation was “heartbreaking.” But there was no other choice. “We don’t have the money,” said Crum. It costs roughly $30,000 to fill the 2,000 or so boxes that, up until March 7, the organization distributed every week.

      For decades, the USDA has funded several programs that are meant to address the country’s rising food-insecurity crisis. A network of nonprofit food banks, pantries, and hubs around the country, like Appalachian Sustainable Development, rely extensively on government funding, particularly through the USDA. Most of these programs continue to face funding freezes or have been cut altogether.

      Food insecurity has long been a widespread problem across Appalachia. Residents in parts of Kentucky, for example, grapple with rates of food insecurity that are more than double the national average. In the last year alone, a barrage of devastating disasters has magnified the issue, said Crum, causing local demand for the nonprofit’s donation program to reach new highs. Just in February, the region was hit hard by torrential rain and flash floods.

      “[This region] has really dealt with so much, with the recent hurricanes and mudslides and tornadoes. And our farmers are hurting, and our people are hurting, and our people are hungry,” Crum said. “It’s an emotional roller coaster for everybody.”

      Read more: ‘Our people are hungry’: What federal food aid cuts mean in a warming world

      — Ayurella Horn-Muller and Naveena Sadasivam

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline They lost their jobs and funding under Trump. What did communities lose? on Jul 24, 2025.


    This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Grist staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • This is Democracy Now!. I’m Amy Goodman.

    More than 100 humanitarian groups are demanding action to end Israel’s siege of Gaza, warning mass starvation is spreading across the Palestinian territory.

    The NGOs, including Amnesty International, Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, warn, “illnesses like acute watery diarrhea are spreading, markets are empty, waste is piling up, and adults are collapsing on the streets from hunger and dehydration.”

    Their warning came as the Palestinian Ministry of Health said the number of starvation-related deaths has climbed to at least 111 people.

    This is Ghada al-Fayoumi, a displaced Palestinian mother of seven in Gaza City.

    GHADA AL-FAYOUMI: “[translated] My children wake up sick every day. What do I do? I get saline solution for them. What can I do?

    “There’s no food, no bread, no drinks, no rice, no sugar, no cooking oil, no bulgur, nothing. There is no kind of any food available to us at all.”

    AMY GOODMAN: Thousands of antiwar protesters marched on Tuesday in Tel Aviv outside Israel’s military headquarters, demanding an end to Israel’s assault and a lifting of the Gaza siege. This is Israeli peace activist Alon-Lee Green with the group Standing Together.

    ALON-LEE GREEN: “We are marching now in Tel Aviv, holding bags of flour and the pictures of these children that have been starved to death by our government and our army.

    “We demand to stop the starvation in Gaza. We demand to stop the annihilation of Gaza. We demand to stop the daily killing of children and innocent people in Gaza.

    “This cannot go on. We are Israelis, and this does not serve us. This only serves the Messianic people that lead us.”

    AMY GOODMAN: This comes as the World Health Organisation has released a video showing the Israeli military attacking WHO facilities in central Gaza’s Deir al-Balah. A WHO spokesperson condemned the attack, called for the immediate release of a staff member abducted by Israeli forces.

    TARIK JAŠAREVIĆ: “Male staff and family members were handcuffed, stripped, interrogated on the spot and screened at gunpoint.

    “Two WHO staff and two family members were detained.”

    AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, health officials in Gaza say Israeli attacks over the past day killed more than 70 people, including five more people seeking food at militarised aid sites. Amid growing outrage worldwide, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said on Tuesday the situation in Gaza right now is a “horror show”.

    UN SECRETARY-GENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: “We need look no further than the horror show in Gaza, with a level of death and destruction without parallel in recent times.

    “Malnourishment is soaring. Starvation is knocking on every door.”

    AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Michael Fakhri, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. He is a professor of law at University of Oregon, where he leads the Food Resiliency Project.


    Israel waging ‘fastest starvation campaign’ in modern history    Video: Democracy Now!

    Dr Michael Fakhri, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you can respond to what’s happening right now, the images of dying infants starving to death, the numbers now at over 100, people dropping in the streets, reporters saying they can’t go on?

    Agence France-Presse’s union talked about they have had reporters killed in conflict, they have had reporters disappeared, injured, but they have not had this situation before with their reporters starving to death.

    DR MICHAEL FAKHRI: Amy, the word “horror” — I mean, we’re running out of words of what to say. And the reason it’s horrific is it was preventable. We saw this coming. We’ve seen this coming for 20 months.

    Israel announced its starvation campaign back in October 2023. And then again, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced on March 1 that nothing was to enter Gaza. And that’s what happened for 78 days. No food, no water, no fuel, no medicine entered Gaza.

    And then they built these militarised aid sites that are used to humiliate, weaken and kill the Palestinians. So, what makes this horrific is it has been preventable, it was predictable. And again, this is the fastest famine we’ve seen, the fastest starvation campaign we’ve seen in modern history.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about what needs to be done at this point and the responsibility of the occupying power? Israel is occupying Gaza right now. What it means to have to protect the population it occupies?

    DR FAKHRI: The International Court of Justice outlined Israel’s duties in its decisions over the last year. So, what Israel has an obligation to do is, first, end its illegal occupation immediately. This came from the court itself.

    Second, it must allow humanitarian relief to enter with no restrictions. And this hasn’t been happening. So, usually, we would turn to the Security Council to authorise peacekeepers or something similar to assist.

    But predictably, again, the United States keeps vetoing anything to do with a ceasefire. When the Security Council is in a deadlock because of a veto, the General Assembly, the UN General Assembly, has the authority to call for peacekeepers to accompany humanitarian convoys to enter into Gaza and to end Israel’s starvation campaign against the Palestinian people.

    AMY GOODMAN: People actually protested outside the house of UN Secretary-General António Guterres yesterday. People protested all over the world yesterday against the Palestinians being starved and bombed to death. Those in front of the UN Secretary-General’s house said they don’t dispute that he has raised this issue almost every day, but they say he can do more.

    Finally, Michael Fakhri, what does the UN need to do — the US, Israel, the world?

    DR FAKHRI: So, as I mentioned, first and foremost, they can authorise peacekeepers to enter to stop the starvation. But, second, they need to create consequences.

    The world has a duty to prevent this starvation. The world has a duty to prevent and end this genocide. And as a result, then, what the world can do is impose sanctions.

    And again, this is supported by the International Court of Justice. The world needs to impose wide-scale sanctions against the state of Israel to force it to end the starvation and genocide of civilians, of Palestinian civilians in Gaza today.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you so much for being with us, Michael Fakhri, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, speaking to us from Eugene, Oregon.

    Republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Jamie Tahana in The Hague for RNZ Pacific

    The United Nations’ highest court has found that countries can be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions, in a ruling highly anticipated by Pacific countries long frustrated with the pace of global action to address climate change.

    In a landmark opinion delivered yesterday in The Hague, the president of the International Court of Justice, Yuji Iwasawa, said climate change was an “urgent and existential threat” that was “unequivocally” caused by human activity with consequences and effects that crossed borders.

    The court’s opinion was the culmination of six years of advocacy and diplomatic manoeuvring which started with a group of Pacific university students in 2019.

    They were frustrated at what they saw was a lack of action to address the climate crisis, and saw current mechanisms to address it as woefully inadequate.

    Their idea was backed by the government of Vanuatu, which convinced the UN General Assembly to seek the court’s advisory opinion on what countries’ obligations are under international law.

    The court’s 15 judges were asked to provide an opinion on two questions: What are countries obliged to do under existing international law to protect the climate and environment, and, second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts — or lack of action — have significantly harmed the climate and environment?

    The International Court of Justice in The Hague
    The International Court of Justice in The Hague yesterday . . . landmark non-binding rulings on the climate crisis. Image: X/@CIJ_ICJ

    Overnight, reading a summary that took nearly two hours to deliver, Iwasawa said states had clear obligations under international law, and that countries — and, by extension, individuals and companies within those countries — were required to curb emissions.

    Iwasawa said the environment and human rights obligations set out in international law did indeed apply to climate change.

    ‘Precondition for human rights’
    “The protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights,” he said, adding that sea-level rise, desertification, drought and natural disasters “may significantly impair certain human rights, including the right to life”.

    To reach its conclusion, judges waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments in what the court said was the ICJ’s largest-ever case, with more than 100 countries and international organisations providing testimony.

    They also examined the entire corpus of international law — including human rights conventions, the law of the sea, the Paris climate agreement and many others — to determine whether countries have a human rights obligation to address climate change.

    The president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Yuji Iwasawa,
    The president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Yuji Iwasawa, delivering the landmark rulings on climate change. Image: X/@CIJ_ICJ

    Major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, had argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, were sufficient to address climate change.

    But the court found that states’ obligations extended beyond climate treaties, instead to many other areas of international law, such as human rights law, environmental law, and laws around restricting cross-border harm.

    Significantly for many Pacific countries, the court also provided an opinion on what would happen if sea levels rose to such a level that some states were lost altogether.

    “Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.”

    Significant legal weight
    The ICJ’s opinion is legally non-binding. But even so, advocates say it carries significant legal and political weight that cannot be ignored, potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation and claims for compensation or reparations for climate-related loss and damage.

    Individuals and groups could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the court’s opinion, and states could also return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account.

    The opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries greater weight in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms.

    Outside the court, several dozen climate activists, from both the Netherlands and abroad, had gathered on a square as cyclists and trams rumbled by on the summer afternoon. Among them was Siaosi Vaikune, a Tongan who was among those original students to hatch the idea for the challenge.

    “Everyone has been waiting for this moment,” he said. “It’s been six years of campaigning.

    “Frontline communities have demanded justice again and again,” Vaikune said. “And this is another step towards that justice.”

    Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (centre) speaks to the media
    Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (cenbtre) speaks to the media after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings on climate change in The Hague yesterday. Image: X/CIJ_ICJ

    ‘It gives hope’
    Vanuatu’s Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu said the ruling was better than he expected and he was emotional about the result.

    “The most pleasing aspect is [the ruling] was so strong in the current context where climate action and policy seems to be going backwards,” Regenvanu told RNZ Pacific.

    “It gives such hope to the youth, because they were the ones who pushed this.

    “I think it will regenerate an entire new generation of youth activists to push their governments for a better future for themselves.”

    Regenvanu said the result showed the power of multilateralism.

    “There was a point in time where everyone could compromise to agree to have this case heard here, and then here again, we see the court with the judges from all different countries of the world all unanimously agreeing on such a strong opinion, it gives you hope for multilateralism.”

    He said the Pacific now has more leverage in climate negotiations.

    “Communities on the ground, who are suffering from sea level rise, losing territory and so on, they know what they want, and we have to provide that,” Regenvanu said.

    “Now we know that we can rely on international cooperation because of the obligations that have been declared here to assist them.”

    The director of climate change at the Pacific Community (SPC), Coral Pasisi, also said the decision was a strong outcome for Pacific Island nations.

    “The acknowledgement that the science is very clear, there is a direct clause between greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and the harm that is causing, particularly the most vulnerable countries.”

    She said the health of the environment is closely linked to the health of people, which was acknowledged by the court.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • In 2024, as Donald Trump’s reelection campaign gathered steam, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 had its eye on staffing a new Republican administration. The initiative, which was designed around crafting an agenda for an incoming Trump White House, put out a call for aspiring administration officials.

    The application, including multiple-choice questions and open-ended queries, sought to place would-be Trump apparatchiks on the political spectrum and suss out their political priorities.

    One of the people who filled the form out entered a name that would echo through the first six months of Trump’s new term: Paul Ingrassia.

    Ingrassia is set to land a powerful job as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Counsel.

    Now, pending a Senate hearing this week, Ingrassia is set to land a powerful job as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Counsel. Among other responsibilities related to the federal workforce, the office is supposed to protect whistleblowers and keep partisan politics out of the civil service.

    For Ingrassia’s critics, he would be just the wrong person to lead OSC.

    The Project 2025 questionnaire answers given under Ingrassia’s name would appear to bolster the case that the applicant’s primary concern is loyalty to Trump and sharp-elbowed partisan politics. The responses include allusions to severely cutting down federal agencies because of their “toxic ideologies”; halting immigration; and imposing a new test for voting. (Ingrassia did not respond to a request for comment.)

    A leaked dataset of the Project 2025 application questionnaires was released in June by the group Distributed Denial of Secrets, or DDoSecrets. An analysis of the leaked data showed that more than 13,000 people had filled out the applications. (Heritage did not respond to a request for comment.)

    DDoSecrets redacted the full entries for applicants but provided The Intercept with an unredacted version. The contact information and other personal data included in the Project 2025 file matched Paul Ingrassia’s information.

    On July 24, Ingrassia will face a confirmation hearing in the Senate — and good government groups are opposing his bid.

    “As head of OSC, the special counsel should be someone who respects federal workers, who will treat them fairly and without bias,” a group of 24 civil society groups led by the Project on Government Oversight wrote in an open letter to Senators opposing Ingrassia’s nomination. “The special counsel must be a person who will exercise their duties in a nonpartisan manner, a person of honesty and integrity who has the necessary experience to fulfill such an important role.”

    “Paul Ingrassia is none of these.”

    Ingrassia has advocated for the arrest of the president’s political enemies, said that Democrats are a threat to democracy, and labeled Republicans who disagree with him as RINOs — a derisive acronym meaning “Republicans in Name Only.”

    The Questionnaire

    In the Project 2025 questionnaire filled out under the name Paul Ingrassia, the respondent agreed that “the President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hinderance from unelected federal officials.”

    A response to a prompt about which political issue he was most passionate about and why included a long list of pet projects. 

    “I’m passionate about restructuring the administrative state, condensing the size and scope of the various bureaucratic agencies, defunding many of them, given how destructive they and their toxic ideologies have been on the American way of life; reform and shut down many of the intelligence agencies; fully upend the justice department; reform the courts; redesign Washington, D.C., and build an even better city in its wake,” the Project 2025 applicant wrote.

    The questionnaire also asked respondents to “name one living public policy figure whom you greatly admire and why.” The response — Trump and Pat Buchanan — lacked an explanation. When asked to “name one person, past or present, who has most influenced the development of your political philosophy,” the data under Paul Ingrassia’s name said “Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Donald Trump.”

    The answer to the question about what issues the applicant was passionate about said:

    I’m also very passionate about immigration — specifically, ending birthright citizenship, deporting all illegals and thinking about economic, other ways, to incentivize them to self-deport, building the wall and militarizing it with state of the art technology, personnel; instating a moratorium on all immigration, and revising the tests for citizenship, voting, other basic privileges of American life.

    Trump Loyalist

    Long before his stint in government, Ingrassia was a right-wing firebrand. A 30-year-old lawyer and right-wing commentator, he has referred to himself as “Trump’s favorite Substacker” and spent years writing articles praising Trump.

    He has ties to far-right figures and those with fringe beliefs. Last summer, Ingrassia appeared at a rally organized by far-right provocateur Nick Fuentes, whom Ingrassia has advocated for in the past. He also has a relationship with Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a January 6 rioter who the Justice Department called a “Nazi sympathizer.”

    Ingrassia’s social media has included 9/11 conspiracy theories and support for Alex Jones, who gained notoriety for denying children were murdered at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012.

    He graduated from Cornell Law in 2022. In 2023, Ingrassia worked for McBride Law, a firm that represented far-right influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate when they were facing allegations of rape and human trafficking in Romania and the United Kingdom. The firm filed a defamation lawsuit against one of their accusers that summer. (The Tate brothers have consistently denied these allegations. Proceedings are ongoing in both countries.)

    Ingrassia was not legally allowed to practice or market himself as a lawyer at the time; the firm referred to him as an Ivy League-educated associate attorney working on the case. He sat for the bar in July 2023 and was admitted to practice in New York on July 30, 2024.

    Related

    Trump Appointee Prosecuting LA Protesters Defended Jan. 6 Suspects

    After McBride, he worked as a communications director for the conservative nonprofit National Constitutional Law Union and occasionally wrote articles for the right-wing site Gateway Pundit. He left both positions after taking a job in January as a presidential liaison to the Department of Justice in January.

    After a few months, however, he was reassigned from the Justice Department to another agency amid reports of administration infighting.

    Reporting from ABC suggested his advocacy for the department to hire John Pierce, his old boss at the National Constitutional Law Union, played a role. Pierce represented many January 6 rioters.

    During his time as a criminal defense attorney, Pierce failed to show up to court, sent in a co-counsel who wasn’t authorized to practice law, forgot how many clients he had, and was fired by multiple defendants. According to ABC, Ingrassia wanted Pierce to run the pardon office at the Justice Department.

    Now, with his elevation to the Office of Special Counsel, Ingrassia could be back at the Justice Department.

    The post Project 2025 Data Leak Shows a Paul Ingrassia Calling for Test for Voting and Halting Immigration appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • By Julian Isaac

    The Indonesian Military (TNI) is committed to supporting the completion of the Trans-Papua Highway during President Prabowo Subianto’s term in office.

    While the military is not involved in construction, it plays a critical role in securing the project from threats posed by pro-independence Papuan resistance groups in “high-risk” regions.

    Spanning a total length of 4330 km, the Trans-Papua road project has been under development since 2014.

    However, only 3446 km of the national road network has been connected after more than a decade of construction.

    “Don’t compare Papua with Jakarta, where there are no armed groups. Papua is five times the size of Java, and not all areas are secure,” TNI spokesman Major-General Kristomei Sianturi told a media conference at the Ministry of Public Works on Monday.

    One of the currently active segments is the Jayapura–Wamena route — specifically the Mamberamo–Elim section, which stretches 50 km.

    The project is being carried out through a public-private partnership and was awarded to PT Hutama Karya, with an investment of Rp3.3 trillion (about US$202 million) and a 15-year concession. The segment is expected to be completed within two years, targeting finalisation next year.

    Security an obstacle
    General Kristomei said that one of the main obstacles was security in the vicinity of construction sites.

    Out of 50 regencies/cities in Papua, at least seven are considered high-risk zones. Since its inception, the Trans-Papua road project has claimed 17 lives, due to clashes in the region.

    In addition to security challenges, the delivery of construction materials remains difficult due to limited infrastructure.

    “Transporting goods from one point to another in Papua is extremely difficult because there are no connecting roads. We’re essentially building from scratch,” General Kristomei said.

    In May 2024, President Joko Widodo convened a limited cabinet meeting at the Merdeka Palace to discuss accelerating development in Papua. The government agreed on the urgent need to improve education, healthcare, and security in the region.

    The Minister of National Development Planning, Suharso Monoarfa, announced that the government would ramp up social welfare programmes in Papua in coordination with then Vice-President Ma’ruf Amin, who chairs the Agency for the Acceleration of Special Autonomy in Papua (BP3OKP).

    ‘Welfare based approaches’
    “We are gradually implementing welfare-based approaches, including improvements in education and health, with budgets already allocated to the relevant ministries and agencies,” Suharso said in May last year.

    As of March 2023, the Indonesian government has disbursed Rp 1,036 trillion for Papua’s development.

    This funding has supported major infrastructure initiatives such as the 3462 km Trans-Papua Highway, 1098 km of border roads, the construction of the 1.3 km Youtefa Bridge in Jayapura, and the renovation of Domine Eduard Osok Airport in Sorong.

    Republished from the Indonesia Business Post.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Speaking on Fox News last week, a top official from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the agency was expanding its dragnet for arrests. 

    “I think we all know that criminals tend to hang out with criminals,” ICE Deputy Director Madison Sheahan said. “And so when we start to build a case, we’re going to be going after everyone that’s around them. Because these criminals tend to hang out with like-minded people who also happen to be criminals.”

    The pledge to broaden arrests came as an immigration sweep that sowed fear across the Los Angeles area has been met by a growing protest movement to stop the raids and arrests.

    “This appears to be a targeted, political attack on resistance to a military incursion on our communities.”

    In addition to arresting hundreds of immigrants across Southern California, the government is targeting a mounting number of people who are responding to the raids or helping protests. Some of those targeted have provided supplies to protesters or tried to identify ICE agents conducting raids in masks and plain clothes.

    Related

    Documenting ICE Agents’ Brutal Use of Force in LA Immigration Raids

    The remarks from Sheahan, the ICE official, came three days after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to stop indiscriminate ICE raids in LA. In the order, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong condemned the administration’s use of a person’s characteristics — like their appearance, accent, or occupation — as a basis for arrest.

    “Roving patrols” operating without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers violated the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments, the judge wrote. “What the federal government would have this Court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening.”

    Now, those accused of helping the anti-ICE movement are facing prosecution or investigation. Earlier this month, a federal grand jury indicted a man after he handed out face shields to people protesting ICE in Los Angeles two days after President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard.

    Alejandro Orellana, 29, pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to aid and abet civil disorders. According to a grand jury indictment, the face shields were “advertised as designed to protect from chemical splashes and flying debris.”

    “Alejandro Orellana’s arrest for distributing supplies is an outrageous violation of civil rights and should be a wakeup call to people everywhere,” said California attorney Thomas Harvey.

    “This appears to be a targeted, political attack on resistance to a military incursion on our communities,” Harvey said. “Distributing supplies to protesters is not a crime. It’s a critical role to help keep people safe — especially in the face of some of the most violent police repression I’ve seen since the Ferguson uprising.”

    In Orellana’s case, an agent from the FBI made a claim similar to the one the ICE deputy would later make to Fox News — that it was assigning criminality to people based on assumptions, not on evidence.

    The agent claimed in an affidavit that wearing such gear like the face shields, designed to protect against law enforcement using pepper spray or tear gas, “is not common amongst non-violent, peaceful protesters.” Instead, he argued, the face shield was “the kind of item used by violent agitators to enable them to resist law enforcement and to engage in violence and/or vandalism during a civil disorder.”

    Identifying Masked ICE Agents

    As part of expanding its definitions of criminal activity to include forms of protest responding to ICE, the government ramped up its efforts to investigate people suspected of providing identifying information about ICE agents.

    On July 11, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem released a statement condemning “anarchists and rioters” in Portland who posted flyers with identifying information about ICE agents and said the department would prosecute “those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law.”

    Last month, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., introduced a bill that would make identifying ICE officers a federal crime.

    In another case in May, ICE agents raided the home of a family in Irvine, California, on a criminal search warrant. They were investigating the source of flyers that had been posted around LA earlier this year with identifying information about ICE officers. The government suspected the family’s son was responsible.

    Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif., issued a statement after the May raid saying he was “deeply concerned” with news of the raid and had asked federal law enforcement for more information. Min’s office did not respond to questions about whether they had yet received any such information.

    Several of the efforts to further criminalize protest flyers or mutual aid have also been used against pro-Palestine student protesters, Cop City activists in Georgia, and people providing water to migrants.

    Police charged protesters opposing the construction of the so-called Cop City police training facility with felonies for posting flyers in 2023, The Intercept reported. The activists had posted flyers in a neighborhood where a police officer lived, naming him and alleging that he was connected to the killing earlier that year of Manuel “Tortuguita” Terán. Police shot Tortuguita 57 times, killing the activist during a multiagency raid on the Atlanta Forest protest encampment.

    Related

    Atlanta Cop City Protesters Charged With Domestic Terror for Having Mud on Their Shoes

    In 2023, prosecutors brought charges under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law against 61 activists for their participation in organizing bail funds for Cop City protesters. Prosecutors dropped charges against three of the activists last year, and others are still awaiting trial.

    In a slew of other high-profile cases, elected officials have been arrested for aiding migrants being pursued for arrest by ICE agents. Earlier this year, the FBI arrested a judge accused of helping a man use an alternate exit from a courtroom when ICE agents were waiting outside the main door.

    “It should be terrifying to every person that the U.S.”

    In Arizona in 2018, prosecutors famously slapped humanitarian volunteers offering food, shelter, and water to migrants in the desert with federal criminal charges. Border Patrol targeted their faith-based group as a criminal organization. In 2005, activists with the same group faced criminal charges for transporting migrants to receive medical care; the charges were later dismissed.

    “It should be terrifying to every person that the U.S., which has long held political prisoners, is ramping up its oppressive tactics,” said Harvey, the California attorney. “And now, with the new funding, ICE will have more money than any policing force in U.S. history to build a gulag system filled with localized versions of ‘Alligator Alcatrazes’ to cage immigrants and political dissidents.”

    The post Feds Criminalize Aiding Protests Against ICE appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Speaking on Fox News last week, a top official from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the agency was expanding its dragnet for arrests. 

    “I think we all know that criminals tend to hang out with criminals,” ICE Deputy Director Madison Sheahan said. “And so when we start to build a case, we’re going to be going after everyone that’s around them. Because these criminals tend to hang out with like-minded people who also happen to be criminals.”

    The pledge to broaden arrests came as an immigration sweep that sowed fear across the Los Angeles area has been met by a growing protest movement to stop the raids and arrests.

    “This appears to be a targeted, political attack on resistance to a military incursion on our communities.”

    In addition to arresting hundreds of immigrants across Southern California, the government is targeting a mounting number of people who are responding to the raids or helping protests. Some of those targeted have provided supplies to protesters or tried to identify ICE agents conducting raids in masks and plain clothes.

    Related

    Documenting ICE Agents’ Brutal Use of Force in LA Immigration Raids

    The remarks from Sheahan, the ICE official, came three days after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to stop indiscriminate ICE raids in LA. In the order, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong condemned the administration’s use of a person’s characteristics — like their appearance, accent, or occupation — as a basis for arrest.

    “Roving patrols” operating without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers violated the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments, the judge wrote. “What the federal government would have this Court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening.”

    Now, those accused of helping the anti-ICE movement are facing prosecution or investigation. Earlier this month, a federal grand jury indicted a man after he handed out face shields to people protesting ICE in Los Angeles two days after President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard.

    Alejandro Orellana, 29, pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to aid and abet civil disorders. According to a grand jury indictment, the face shields were “advertised as designed to protect from chemical splashes and flying debris.”

    “Alejandro Orellana’s arrest for distributing supplies is an outrageous violation of civil rights and should be a wakeup call to people everywhere,” said California attorney Thomas Harvey.

    “This appears to be a targeted, political attack on resistance to a military incursion on our communities,” Harvey said. “Distributing supplies to protesters is not a crime. It’s a critical role to help keep people safe — especially in the face of some of the most violent police repression I’ve seen since the Ferguson uprising.”

    In Orellana’s case, an agent from the FBI made a claim similar to the one the ICE deputy would later make to Fox News — that it was assigning criminality to people based on assumptions, not on evidence.

    The agent claimed in an affidavit that wearing such gear like the face shields, designed to protect against law enforcement using pepper spray or tear gas, “is not common amongst non-violent, peaceful protesters.” Instead, he argued, the face shield was “the kind of item used by violent agitators to enable them to resist law enforcement and to engage in violence and/or vandalism during a civil disorder.”

    Identifying Masked ICE Agents

    As part of expanding its definitions of criminal activity to include forms of protest responding to ICE, the government ramped up its efforts to investigate people suspected of providing identifying information about ICE agents.

    On July 11, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem released a statement condemning “anarchists and rioters” in Portland who posted flyers with identifying information about ICE agents and said the department would prosecute “those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law.”

    Last month, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., introduced a bill that would make identifying ICE officers a federal crime.

    In another case in May, ICE agents raided the home of a family in Irvine, California, on a criminal search warrant. They were investigating the source of flyers that had been posted around LA earlier this year with identifying information about ICE officers. The government suspected the family’s son was responsible.

    Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif., issued a statement after the May raid saying he was “deeply concerned” with news of the raid and had asked federal law enforcement for more information. Min’s office did not respond to questions about whether they had yet received any such information.

    Several of the efforts to further criminalize protest flyers or mutual aid have also been used against pro-Palestine student protesters, Cop City activists in Georgia, and people providing water to migrants.

    Police charged protesters opposing the construction of the so-called Cop City police training facility with felonies for posting flyers in 2023, The Intercept reported. The activists had posted flyers in a neighborhood where a police officer lived, naming him and alleging that he was connected to the killing earlier that year of Manuel “Tortuguita” Terán. Police shot Tortuguita 57 times, killing the activist during a multiagency raid on the Atlanta Forest protest encampment.

    Related

    Atlanta Cop City Protesters Charged With Domestic Terror for Having Mud on Their Shoes

    In 2023, prosecutors brought charges under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law against 61 activists for their participation in organizing bail funds for Cop City protesters. Prosecutors dropped charges against three of the activists last year, and others are still awaiting trial.

    In a slew of other high-profile cases, elected officials have been arrested for aiding migrants being pursued for arrest by ICE agents. Earlier this year, the FBI arrested a judge accused of helping a man use an alternate exit from a courtroom when ICE agents were waiting outside the main door.

    “It should be terrifying to every person that the U.S.”

    In Arizona in 2018, prosecutors famously slapped humanitarian volunteers offering food, shelter, and water to migrants in the desert with federal criminal charges. Border Patrol targeted their faith-based group as a criminal organization. In 2005, activists with the same group faced criminal charges for transporting migrants to receive medical care; the charges were later dismissed.

    “It should be terrifying to every person that the U.S., which has long held political prisoners, is ramping up its oppressive tactics,” said Harvey, the California attorney. “And now, with the new funding, ICE will have more money than any policing force in U.S. history to build a gulag system filled with localized versions of ‘Alligator Alcatrazes’ to cage immigrants and political dissidents.”

    The post Feds Make It a Crime to Give PPE to ICE Protesters appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • By Jamie Tahana in The Hague for RNZ Pacific

    In 2019, a group of law students at the University of the South Pacific, frustrated at the slow pace with which the world’s governments were moving to address the climate crisis, had an idea — they would take the world’s governments to court.

    They arranged a meeting with government ministers in Vanuatu and convinced them to take a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ top court, where they would seek an opinion to clarify countries’ legal obligations under international law.

    Six years after that idea was hatched in a classroom in Port Vila, the court will today (early Thursday morning NZT) deliver its verdict in the Dutch city of The Hague.

    The International Court of Justice hearings which began earlier this month.
    More than 100 countries – including New Zealand, Australia and all the countries of the Pacific – have testified before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alongside civil society and intergovernmental organisations. Image: UN Web TV/screengrab

    If successful — and those involved are quietly confident they will be — it could have major ramifications for international law, how climate change disputes are litigated, and it could give small Pacific countries greater leverage in arguments around loss and damage.

    Most significantly, the claimants argue, it could establish legal consequences for countries that have driven climate change and what they owe to people harmed.

    “Six long years of campaigning have led us to this moment,” said Vishal Prasad, the president of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, the organisation formed out of those original students.

    “For too long, international responses have fallen short. We expect a clear and authoritative declaration,” he said.

    “[That] climate inaction is not just a failure of policy, but a breach of international law.”

    More than 100 countries — including New Zealand, Australia and all the countries of the Pacific — have testified before the court, alongside civil society and intergovernmental organisations.

    And now today they will gather in the brick palace that sits in ornate gardens in this canal-ringed city to hear if the judges of the world’s top court agree.

    What is the case?
    The ICJ adjudicates disputes between nations and issues advisory opinions on big international legal issues.

    In this case, Vanuatu asked the UN General Assembly to request the judges to weigh what exactly international law requires states to do about climate change, and what the consequences should be for states that harm the climate through actions or omissions.

    Over its deliberations, the court has heard from more than 100 countries and international organisations hoping to influence its opinion, the highest level of participation in the court’s history.

    That has included the governments of low-lying islands and atolls in the Pacific, which say they are paying the steepest price for a crisis they had little role in creating.

    These nations have long been frustrated with the current mechanisms for addressing climate change, like the UN COP conferences, and are hoping that, ultimately, the court will provide a yardstick by which to measure other countries’ actions.

    Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu speaks at the annual meeting of the International Seabed Authority assembly in Kingston, Jamaica, pictured on July 29, 2024.
    Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu . . . “This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity.” Image: IISD-ENB

    “I choose my words carefully when I say that this may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,” Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu said in his statement to the court last year.

    “Let us not allow future generations to look back and wonder why the cause of their doom was condoned.”

    But major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, have argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, are sufficient to address climate change.

    “We expect this landmark climate ruling, grounded in binding international law, to reflect the critical legal flashpoints raised during the proceedings,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the US-based Centre for International Environmental Law (which has been involved with the case).

    “Among them: whether States’ climate obligations are anchored in multiple legal sources, extending far beyond the Paris Agreement; whether there is a right to remedy for climate harm; and how human rights and the precautionary principle define States’ climate obligations.”

    Pacific youth climate activist at a demonstration at COP27. 13 November 2022
    Pacific youth climate activist at a demonstration at COP27 in November 2022 . . . “We are not drowning. We are fighting.” Image: Facebook/Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change

    What could this mean?
    Rulings from the ICJ are non-binding, and there are myriad cases of international law being flouted by countries the world over.

    Still, the court’s opinion — if it falls in Vanuatu’s favour — could still have major ramifications, bolstering the case for linking human rights and climate change in legal proceedings — both international and domestic — and potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation, where individuals, groups, Indigenous Peoples, and even countries, sue governments or private companies for climate harm.

    An advisory opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries a powerful cudgel in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms.

    “This would empower vulnerable nations and communities to demand accountability, strengthen legal arguments and negotiations and litigation and push for policies that prioritise prevention and redress over delay and denial,” Prasad said.

    In essence, those who have taken the case have asked the court to issue an opinion on whether governments have “legal obligations” to protect people from climate hazards, but also whether a failure to meet those obligations could bring “legal consequences”.

    At the Peace Palace today, they will find out from the court’s 15 judges.

    “[The advisory opinion] is not just a legal milestone, it is a defining moment in the global climate justice movement and a beacon of hope for present and future generations,” said Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat in a statement ahead of the decision.

    “I am hopeful for a powerful opinion from the ICJ. It could set the world on a meaningful path to accountability and action.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • OPEN QUESTION: By Bryan Bruce

    Dear Rt Hon Winston Peters,

    There was a time when New Zealanders stood up for what was morally right. There are memorials around our country for those who died fighting fascism, we wrote parts of the UN Charter of Human Rights, we took an anti-nuclear stance in 1984, and three years prior to that, many of us stood against apartheid in South Africa by boycotting South African products and actively protesting against the 1981 Springbok Rugby Tour.

    To call out the Israeli government for genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not to be antisemitic. Nor is it to be pro- Hamas. It is to simply to be pro-human.

    While acknowledging the peace and humanitarian initiatives on the Foreign Affairs website, I note there is no calling out of the genocide and ethnic cleansing that cannot be denied is happening in Gaza.

    The Israeli government is systematically demolishing whole towns and cities — including churches, mosques, even removing trees and vegetation — to deprive the Palestinian people the opportunity to return to their homeland; and there have been constant blocks to humanitarian aid as part of a policy forced starvation.

    There is no doubt crimes against international law have been committed, which is why the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defence minister, for alleged crimes against humanity.

    So, my question to you is: why are you not pictured standing in this photograph (below) alongside the representatives from 33 nations at the July 16 2025 Gaza emergency conference in Bogotá?

    The nations that took part in the Gaza emergency summit in were:

    Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Colombia, South Africa, Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay and Venezuela.

    representatives from 33 nations at the July 16 2025 Gaza emergency conference in Bogotá
    Representatives from 33 nations at the July 16 2025 Gaza emergency conference in Bogotá. Image: bryanbruce.substack.com

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist

    A longtime Bougainville politician, Joe Lera, wants to see widespread changes in the way the Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG) is run.

    The Papua New Guinea region, which is seeking independence from Port Moresby, is holding elections in the first week of September.

    Seven candidates are running for president, including Lera.

    He held the regional seat in the PNG national Parliament for 10 years before resigning to contest the presidency in the 2020 election.

    This time around, Lera is campaigning on what he sees as faults in the approach of the Ishmael Toroama administration and told RNZ Pacific he is offering a different tack.

    JOE LERA: This time, people have seen that the current government is the most corrupt. They have addressed only one side of independence, which is the political side, the other two sides, They have not done it very well.

    DON WISEMAN: What do we mean by that? We can’t bandy around words like corruption. What do you mean by corruption?

    JL: What they have done is huge. They are putting public funds into personal members’ accounts, like the constituency grant – 360,000 kina a year.

    DW: As someone who has operated in the national parliament, you know that that is done there as well. So it’s not corrupt necessarily, is it?

    JL:Well, when they go into their personal account, they use it for their own family goods, and that development, it should be development funds. The people are not seeing the tangible outcomes in the number two side, which is the development side.

    All the roads are bad. The hospitals are now running out of drugs. Doctors are checking the patients, sending them to pharmaceutical shops to buy the medicine, because the hospitals have run out.

    DW: These are problems that are affecting the entire country, aren’t they, and there’s a shortage of money. So how would you solve it? What would you do differently?

    JL: We will try to make big changes in addressing sustainable development, in agriculture, fishing, forestry, so we can create jobs for the small people.

    Instead of talking about big, billion dollar mining projects, which will take a long time, we should start with what we already have, and develop and create opportunities for the people to be engaged in nation building through sustainable development first, then we progress into the higher billion dollar projects.

    Now we are going talking about mining when the people don’t have opportunity and they are getting poorer and poorer. That’s one area, the other area, to create change we will try to fix the government structure, from ABG to community governments to village assemblies, down to the chiefs.

    At the moment, the policies they have have fragmented the conduit of getting the services from the top government down to to the village people.

    DW: In the past, you’ve spoken out against the push for independence, suggesting I think, that Bougainville is not ready yet, and it should take its time. Where do you stand at the moment on the independence question?

    JL: The independence question? We are all for it. I’m not against it, but I’m against the process. How they are going about it. I think the answer has been already given in the Bougainville Peace Agreement, which is a joint creation between the PNG and ABG government, and the process is very clear.

    Now, what the current government is doing is they are going outside of the Peace Agreement, and they are trying to shortcut based on the [referendum] result.

    But the Peace Agreement doe not say independence will be given to us based on the result. What it says is, after we know the result, the two governments must continue to dialogue, consult each other and find ways of how to improve the economy, the law and order issues, the development issues.

    When we fix those, the nation building pillars, we can then apply for the ratification to take place.

    DW: So you’re talking about something that would be quite a way further down the line than what this current government is talking about?

    JL: The issue is timing. They are putting deadlines themselves, and they are trying to push the PNG government to swallow it. The PNG government is a sovereign nation already.

    We should respect and honestly, in a family room situation, negotiate, talk with them, as the Peace Agreement says, and reach understanding on the timing and other related issues, but not to even take a confrontational approach, which is what they are doing now, but take a family room approach, where we sit and negotiate in the spirit of the Peace Agreement.

    This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity. Don Wiseman is a senior journalist with RNZ Pacific. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • President Donald Trump appears to be quietly reviving a plan from his first term that would kick families of mixed immigration status out of public housing and prohibit them from receiving most forms of rental assistance, escalating his administration’s attacks on access to public services for immigrant communities. 

    Last Wednesday, the Trump administration posted a proposed rule for the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA. While details were scant on the website, the language mirrors an abandoned 2019 proposal that would have increased documentation requirements for federal housing assistance — and likely forced tens of thousands of mixed-status families to choose between homelessness, financial ruin, or family separation. 

    Undocumented people are currently ineligible for most federally funded rental assistance programs, but in families where some people have legal status, members who qualify can receive pro-rated housing assistance, allowing the whole family to live together in public housing. Under the proposed 2019 rule, those families would become ineligible for most federally funded housing assistance programs if at least one member of the family is disqualified by their immigration status.

    Housing and immigration experts told The Intercept that the new proposal looks like a revival of that attempted rule. 

    “The choice that families will be faced with,” said Anna Bailey, a senior analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “is going to be staying together but losing the assistance that makes housing affordable — putting them at risk of eviction and instability and homelessness — or splitting up … that’s a really agonizing decision.” 

    The Washington Post reported in April that the Trump administration was drafting a rule to exclude mixed-status families from public housing, which they’d previously attempted to implement in 2019. 

    Now, experts believe the administration may have taken the first step in enacting that policy by posting the proposed rule to OIRA — a subset of the Office of Management and Budget that has to review the rule before it can go to HUD. 

    HUD did not return The Intercept’s requests for comment by the time of publication. 

    “[The 2019 rule] was met with overwhelming opposition,” explained Marie Claire Tran-Leung, evictions initiative project director and a senior staff attorney at the National Housing Law Project. “There were 30,000 comments, which was the record at the time.” 

    The first Trump administration ran out of time to finalize the rule, Tran-Leung said, and the Biden administration withdrew it. 

    Though undocumented people can’t access housing assistance programs themselves, the current rules allow them to benefit from limited financial assistance and increased housing stability for their families. A family with one undocumented parent and two U.S. citizen children, for example, would receive pro-rated assistance based on the two children. A family with one undocumented parent, one U.S. citizen parent, and two U.S. citizen children would receive assistance based on the three citizens in the family. 

    Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities based on the 2019 version of the rule found that the primary victims of this policy would be children, who made up over half of the population in public housing living in mixed-status households. According to their findings, roughly 58,200 children could lose housing as a result of the policy change — an estimated 56,000 of those children are U.S. citizens. 

    Latino families would also be disproportionately impacted by the rule change. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report, roughly 85 percent of mixed-status families living in public housing were Latino. The analysis found that, on average, these families typically earned around $13,000 a year

    “These are families who also very much need this to stay stably housed,” said Sonya Acosta, a senior policy analyst with the housing and income security team for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Losing this will automatically destabilize them.” 

    Esther Reyes, a campaign strategist for the Protecting Immigrant Families coalition, said this change would have a “profound” impact on children in mixed-status families. 

    “The impact is going to be not just widespread, but very profound. Stable housing is a really important determinant of a child’s well-being,” she said. “It’s one of the foundational sources of stability that children need to be able to meet their other needs and milestones.”

    Research has consistently shown links between housing instability and a host of adverse outcomes for children — including mental health effects like depression and anxiety, and dangers to physical health, including increased emergency room visits. 

    Acosta and Bailey noted that this time around, they expect a similar rule change could affect fewer families — because the Trump administration has effectively scared many mixed-status families out of accessing public benefits. 

    In addition to prohibiting mixed-status families from living in public housing, the original rule also included new documentation requirements to check citizenship status. Experts predict the change would not only be difficult for many low-income families to obtain, but could also scare immigrants from applying for assistance in the first place. 

    “Already, a lot of families with immigrants are afraid of applying for assistance that they actually are eligible for,” said Bailey. The change could intensify that fear, she said, so “even folks who are absolutely eligible for assistance may not apply and seek help that they need to have housing stability.” 

    Experts also expressed concern that the spread of fear and misinformation around the potential rule change could drive families out of their homes prematurely. 

    “The danger is that families make the calculus that they have to leave the housing that they currently have,” said Tran-Leung at the National Housing Law Project. “We are trying to really prevent that, because until this final rule is passed, the law hasn’t changed, and they have the right to stay there.”

    For now, the rule change is only in its initial stages. The administration still needs to post the proposed rule to HUD’s website, along with a detailed policy proposal, and allow for public comment. Until that happens, its exact details will remain unclear. 

    “It doesn’t matter if you’re an immigrant or how long you’ve been in this country; everybody needs a safe, stable place to live.”

    Acosta said she expects the rule to be “essentially the same,” as the 2019 version, especially in its goals of excluding mixed-status families from subsidized housing. “But at this point, it’s pretty unclear.” 

    No matter how the details turn out, the rule is another attempt to scapegoat immigrants for a housing crisis entirely within the U.S. government’s power to solve, Acosta said. 

    “In a country as wealthy and as powerful as ours is, we actually could make sure that everyone has a safe place to live,” Acosta said. “It doesn’t matter if you’re an immigrant or how long you’ve been in this country; everybody needs a safe, stable place to live. So part of what this kind of policy proposal is trying to do is pit the needs of some people against other.”

    The post Trump Admin Prepares to Kick Mixed Immigration Status Families Out of Public Housing appeared first on The Intercept.

    This post was originally published on The Intercept.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Groups that have declined to join the government-sponsored “harmony accord” signed yesterday by some Muslim and Jewish groups, say that the proposed new council is “misaligned” with its aims.

    The signed accord was presented at Government House in Auckland.

    About 70 people attended, including representatives of the New Zealand Jewish Council, His Highness the Aga Khan Council for Australia and New Zealand and the Jewish Community Security Group, reports RNZ News.

    The initiative originated with government recognition that the consequences of Israel’s actions in Gaza are impacting on Jewish and Muslim communities in Aotearoa, as well as the wider community.

    While agreeing with that statement of purpose, other Muslim and Jewish groups have chosen to decline the invitation, said some of the disagreeing groups in a joint statement.

    They believe that the council, as formulated, is misaligned with its aims.

    “Gaza is not a religious issue, and this has never been a conflict between our faiths,” Dr Abdul Monem, a co-founder of ICONZ said.

    ‘Horrifying humanitarian consequences’
    “In Gaza we see a massive violation of international law with horrifying humanitarian consequences.

    “We place Israel’s annihilating campaign against Gaza, the complicity of states and economies at the centre of our understanding — not religion.

    “The first action to address the suffering in Gaza and ameliorate its effects here in Aotearoa must be government action. Our government needs to comply with international courts and act on this humanitarian calamity.

    “That does not require a new council.”

    The impetus for this initiative clearly linked international events with their local impacts, but the document does not mention Gaza among the council’s priorities, said the statement.

    “Signatories are not required to acknowledge universal human rights, nor the courts which have ruled so decisively and created obligations for the New Zealand government. Social distress is disconnected from its immediate cause.”

    The council was open to parties which did not recognise the role of international humanitarian law in Palestine, nor the full human and political rights of their fellow New Zealanders.

    ‘Overlooks humanitarian law’
    Marilyn Garson, co-founder of Alternative Jewish Voices said: “It has broad implications to overlook our rights and international humanitarian law.

    “As currently formulated, the council includes no direct Palestinian representation. That’s not good enough.

    “How can there be credible discussion of Aotearoa’s ethnic safety — let alone advocacy for international action — without Palestinians?

    “Law, human rights and the dignity of every person’s life are not opinions. They are human entitlements and global agreements to which Aotearoa has bound itself.

    “No person in Aotearoa should have to enter a room — especially a council created under government auspices — knowing that their fundamental rights will not be upheld. No one should have to begin by asking for that which is theirs.”

    The groups outside this new council said they wished to live in a harmonious society, but for them it was unclear why a new council of Jews and Muslims should represent the path to harmony.

    “Advocacy that comes from faith can be a powerful force. We already work with numerous interfaith community initiatives, some formed at government initiative and waiting to really find their purpose,” said Dr Muhammad Sajjad Naqvi, president of ICONZ.

    Addressing local threats
    “Those existing channels include more of the parties needed to address local threats, including Christian nationalism like that of Destiny Church.

    “Perhaps government should resource those rather than starting something new.”

    The groups who declined to join the council said they had “warm and enduring relationships” with FIANZ and Dayenu, which would take seats at this council table.

    “All of the groups share common goals, but not this path,” the statement said.

    ICONZ is a national umbrella organisation for New Zealand Shia Muslims for a unified voice. It was established by Muslims who have been born in New Zealand or born to migrants who chose New Zealand to be their home.

    Alternative Jewish Voices is a collective of Aotearoa Jews working for Jewish pluralism and anti-racism. It supports the work of Palestinians who seek liberation grounded in law and our equal human rights.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • In a joint statement, more than two dozen Western countries, including New Zealand, have called for an immediate end to the war on Gaza. But the statement is merely empty rhetoric that declines to take any concrete action against Israel, and which Israel will duly ignore. 

    AGAINST THE CURRENT: By Steven Cowan

    The New Zealand government has joined 27 other countries calling for an “immediate end” to the war in Gaza. The joint statement says  “the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths”.

    It goes on to say that the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.

    But many of the countries that have signed this statement stand condemned for actively enabling Israel to pursue its genocidal assault on Gaza. Countries like Britain, Canada and Australia, continue to supply Israel with arms, have continued to trade with Israel, and have turned a blind eye to the atrocities and war crimes Israel continues to commit in Gaza.

    It’s more than ironic that while Western countries like Britain and New Zealand are calling for an end to the war in Gaza, they continue to be hostile toward the anti-war protest movements in their own countries.

    The British government recently classified the protest group Palestine Action as a “terrorist” group.

    In New Zealand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, has denounced pro-Palestine protesters as “left wing fascists” and “communist, fascist and anti-democratic losers”. He has pushed back against the growing demands that the New Zealand government take direct action against Israel, including the cutting of all diplomatic ties.

    The New Zealand government, which contains a number of Zionists within its cabinet, including Act leader David Seymour and co-leader Brooke van Velden, will be more than comfortable with a statement that proposes to do nothing.

    ‘Statement lacks leadership’
    Its call for an end to the war is empty rhetoric, and which Israel will duly ignore — as it has ignored other calls for its genocidal war to end.  As Amnesty International has said, ‘the statement lacks any resolve, leadership, or action to help end the genocide in Gaza.’

    "This is cruelty - this is not a war," says this young girl's placard
    “This is cruelty – this is not a war,” says this young girl’s placard quoting the late Pope Francis in an Auckland march last Saturday . . . this featured in an earlier report. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    New Zealand has declined to join The Hague Group alliance of countries that recently met in Colombia.

    It announced six immediate steps it would be taking against Israel. But since The Hague Group has already been attacked by the United States, it’s never been likely that New Zealand would join it.

    The National-led coalition government has surrendered New Zealand’s independent foreign policy in favour of supporting the interests of a declining American Empire.

    Republished from Steven Cowan’s blog Against The Current with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ News

    New Zealand has joined 24 other countries in calling for an end to the war in Gaza, and criticising what they call the inhumane killing of Palestinians.

    The countries — including Britain, France, Canada and Australia plus the European Union — also condemed the Israeli government’s aid delivery model in Gaza as “dangerous”.

    “We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.”

    They said it was “horrifying” that more than 800 civilians had been killed while seeking aid, the majority at food distribution sites run by a US- and Israeli-backed foundation.

    “We call on the Israeli government to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life saving work safely and effectively,” it said.

    Winston Peters
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters . . . “The tipping point was some time ago . . . it’s gotten to the stage where we’ve just lost our patience.” Image: RN/Mark Papalii

    “Proposals to remove the Palestinian population into a ‘humanitarian city’ are completely unacceptable. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law.”

    The statement said the countries were “prepared to take further action” to support an immediate ceasefire.

    Reuters reported Israel’s foreign ministry said the statement was “disconnected from reality” and it would send the wrong message to Hamas.

    “The statement fails to focus the pressure on Hamas and fails to recognise Hamas’s role and responsibility for the situation,” the Israeli statement said.

    Having NZ voice heard
    Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters told RNZ Morning Report, New Zealand had chosen to be part of the statement as a way to have its voice heard on the “dire” humanitarian situation in Gaza.

    “The tipping point was some time ago . . .  it’s gotten to the stage where we’ve just lost our patience . . . ”

    Peters said he wanted to see what the response to the condemnation was.

    “The conflict in the Middle East goes on and on . . .  It’s gone from a situation where it was excusable, due to the October 7 conflict, to inexcusable as innocent people are being swept into it,” he said.

    “I do think there has to be change. It must happen now.”

    The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

    Israel’s subsequent air and ground war in Gaza has killed more than 59,000 Palestinians — including at least 17,400 children, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry, while displacing almost the entire population of more than 2 million and spreading a hunger crisis.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Anan Zaki, RNZ News business reporter

    Sky TV has agreed to fully acquire TV3 owner Discovery New Zealand for $1.

    Discovery NZ is a part of US media giant Warner Bros Discovery, and operates channel Three and online streaming platform ThreeNow.

    NZX-listed Sky said the deal would be completed on a cash-free, debt-free basis, with completion expected on August 1.

    Sky expected the deal to deliver revenue diversification and uplift of around $95 million a year.

    Sky expected Discovery NZ’s operations to deliver sustainable underlying earnings growth of at least $10 million from the 2028 financial year.

    Sky chief executive Sophie Moloney said it was a compelling opportunity for the company, with net integration costs of about $6.5 million.

    “This is a compelling opportunity for Sky that directly supports our ambition to be Aotearoa New Zealand’s most engaging and essential media company,” she said.

    Confidential advance notice
    Sky said it gave the Commerce Commission confidential advance notice of the transaction, and the commission did not intend to consider the acquisition further.

    Warner Bros Discovery Australia and NZ managing director Michael Brooks said it was a “fantastic outcome” for both companies.

    “The continued challenges faced by the New Zealand media industry are well documented, and over the past 12 months, the Discovery NZ team has worked to deliver a new, more sustainable business model following a significant restructure in 2024,” Brooks said.

    “While this business is not commercially viable as a standalone asset in WBD’s New Zealand portfolio, we see the value Three and ThreeNow can bring to Sky’s existing offering of complementary assets.”

    Sky said on completion, Discovery NZ’s balance sheet would be clear of some long-term obligations, including property leases and content commitments, and would include assets such as the ThreeNow platform.

    Sky said irrespective of the transaction, the company was confident of achieving its 30 cents a share dividend target for 2026.

    ‘Massive change’ for NZ media – ThreeNews to continue
    Founder of The Spinoff and media commentator Duncan Greive said the deal would give Sky more reach and was a “massive change” in New Zealand’s media landscape.

    He noted Sky’s existing free-to-air presence via Sky Open (formerly Prime), but said acquiring Three gave it the second-most popular audience outlet on TV.

    “Because of the inertia of how people use television, Three is just a much more accessible channel and one that’s been around longer,” Greive said.

    “To have basically the second-most popular channel in the country as part of their stable just means they’ve got a lot more ad inventory, much bigger audiences.”

    It also gave Sky another outlet for their content, and would allow it to compete further against TVNZ, both linear and online, Greive said.

    He said there may be a question mark around the long-term future of Three’s news service, which was produced by Stuff.

    No reference to ThreeNews
    Sky made no reference to ThreeNews in its announcement. However, Stuff confirmed ThreeNews would continue for now.

    “Stuff’s delivery of ThreeNews is part of the deal but there are also now lots of new opportunities ahead that we are excited to explore together,” Stuff owner Sinead Boucher said in a statement.

    On the deal itself, Boucher said she was “delighted” to see Three back in New Zealand ownership under Sky.

    “And who doesn’t love a $1 deal!” Boucher said, referring to her own $1 deal to buy Stuff from Australia’s Nine Entertainment in 2020.

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


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.