Category: the


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Read about this topic in Vietnamese

    In less than a year as general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, To Lam has made moves likened to the drastic cuts that U.S. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have implemented to U.S. federal agencies through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    To Lam has merged ministries and central government agencies, reduced the number of provinces and cities by half, and dismantled district-level administrative units.

    Why did To Lam move so fast with reforms, and what are the political, social, and economic impacts?

    Vietnam's General Secretary of the Communist Party To Lam in Hanoi, May 26, 2025.
    Vietnam’s General Secretary of the Communist Party To Lam in Hanoi, May 26, 2025.
    (Ludovic Marin/AFP)

    Zachary Abuza is a professor at the National War College in Washington and an adjunct at Georgetown University. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Defense, the National War College, Georgetown University, or Radio Free Asia.

    Below is a transcript of an interview with Zach Abuza by Truong Son from the RFA Vietnamese service:

    RFA: What are your thoughts on the administrative reform in Vietnam that Secretary General To Lam just carried out? How significant is the government reshuffle in terms of its social, economic, and political impact, because we know that this is a massive change in Vietnam?

    Zach Abuza: The changes in the government are really significant and they shouldn’t be underestimated. And we have to understand that they’re happening at multiple levels. There was the reform of central government ministries. Five were folded in, and some hundred thousand civil servants were either fired or retired.

    At the provincial level, they went from 63 provinces or provincial-level cities down to 34. So that’s almost a 50% reduction — a huge consolidation there. And then they eliminated an entire level of governance at the district level. So it used to go province, district, and then down to the commune level. And they got rid of that mid-level. So they’re hoping for more efficiency.

    Now, all three of those reforms at each level of government have important economic, social, and political implications. Let’s start with the government. Those reforms were done in part because the government is notoriously bureaucratic. It’s slow. And I think the general secretary really feels that Vietnam has to just be much more responsive, much more accountable, to respond to a rapidly changing international environment, in order to grow the economy, to attract foreign investment. Just had to get rid of red tape.

    Some of the ministries that were eliminated really were legacy issues. They reflected much more of the government structure at the time of Doi Moi, not all these years into it. You know, the Vietnamese economy is fundamentally different than it was before.

    And that’s why I think you really start to see some of the consolidation, especially in the economic ministries. I think now there are really three key ministries to pay attention to. The Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of National Defense, and the Ministry of Finance. These are kind of the three heavy hitters.

    At the provincial level, it’s important to understand that this consolidation will have economic effects. And I think one thing that maybe we need to think about is, with the exception of the provinces

    in the northwest which is landlocked, you know, bordering Lao and the Chinese frontier, almost every other province now has a piece of coastline.

    And this is important because it was always the coastal provinces that were more advanced because they had access to ports, harbors and it was easier to get products to international markets. And so the reorganization at that level, certainly makes it easier. No province now, other than those northwestern landlocked ones, has an excuse that they cannot get goods to market anymore.

    Now, I think the provincial reforms have very significant political implications. And let me explain this at several levels. The first is the Central Committee of the Communist Party in the era of Doi Moi has basically had about one third of their members coming from, you know, the provinces.

    So provincial party chiefs, all of a sudden that is going to change. And we might see at the next Party Congress expected in January 2026 that we see a smaller central committee overall. And that’s one thing that I am looking for.

    There are other political implications. And that is, you now have almost a 50% reduction in the number of governors in the number of party chiefs.

    And so the general secretary, through this consolidation actually got to choose winners and losers, right? Going into the next Party Congress, To Lam clearly has the support of those who have kept their jobs. They owe him, right? They could have lost everything.

    But, more importantly, the year before a party congress, normally nothing happens. And I mean, nothing happens. People are afraid to make decisions. People are afraid to make investments. Often, provinces or cities have funding allocated to them, but they’re afraid to use it because they just don’t know what’s going to happen at the Party Congress.

    They don’t know who’s going to emerge on top. They’re afraid of implementing policies that then get reversed. So there’s traditionally a lot of caution. To Lam has completely thrown that off. He has pushed through the most radical reforms I can think of.

    And he did it right ahead of a Party Congress. So that to me, says he is very confident that he has the full backing of the Central Committee and that he is very confident that he will be reelected to a full term at the 14th Party Congress.

    Let me just make one quick point about eliminating the district level of administration. I think this is going to have an interesting impact down the line.

    I don’t see it having a short term political impact, but for Communist Party cadres — they might have been in the cities working their way up, but, you know, all of a sudden you’ve eliminated a very important pathway to be selected and to be noticed, by the higher echelons of the party.

    And I think that there is going to be a lot of unhappiness that this real, important level, maybe not administratively, maybe it’s not the most important for the functioning of government and efficiency, but for people looking for their career pathway to senior party membership. That is an important stepping stone that has been eliminated.

    RFA: You just said that Secretary General To Lam is certainly very confident politically. That’s why he’s carried out this unprecedented reform, I must say, the year before the party Congress, and as you said, which traditionally has been a very quiet year.

    And not just that he did this in the year prior to the Congress, but also, if we look into the manner in which he carried out this reform, which was really quick. The finish line was achieved within a few months.

    So, if we look at the scale of the project and the pace it was done this begs the question: Why did he do it in such a manner? Why do you think he has to achieve this reform within such a short period of time?

    Zach Abuza: The Vietnamese government and Communist Party are not known for quick decision making. They tend to be very slow, deliberative, and cautious. But these reforms happened at lightning speed. And I think that pace took everyone by surprise.

    Part of the answer is it took everyone by surprise. He made the announcement. And for the government ministries, for example, they had less than three months to implement these major restructuring, government reshuffle, 100,000 civil servants, either being retired or found redundant.

    Part of the reason he moved quickly is before there could be real resistance to it. He wanted to make sure that no one had time to kind of dig in their heels and resist these reforms, because people, these reforms, create winners and losers, and that was clearly a concern of his.

    I think that To Lam — and while I certainly find the way he came to power, as the minister of Public Security who completely weaponized the anti-corruption campaign, eliminated all of his rivals on the Politburo in just absolute Machiavellian fashion — I actually think that he is maybe the right man for the job right now.

    I think he really does understand that Vietnam has this very narrow window of opportunity to push through major economic restructuring and reforms.

    Vietnam’s demographics have peaked. The country will start to see its population decline and fairly rapidly, especially with the rapid urbanization, the increased number of women in the workforce, higher education levels.

    All those three factors always lead to sharp declines in demographics. So Vietnam has the challenge of soon it’s going to start getting old before it gets rich. You know, it’s one thing for Japan to get old because it’s already rich.

    Thailand has had a little harder time, and I think Vietnamese policymakers do look to Thailand as a country that has gotten old before it got rich. The second thing is that To Lam is very fearful of being caught in the middle income trap, where Vietnam simply assembles. It does not produce; it doesn’t have those ecosystems there.

    In the current trade negotiations with the United States, the Americans always pointed to the fact that Vietnam’s trade deficit with China was very close to its trade surplus with the United States. Now, the United States’ thinking was that Vietnam was simply being used as a transshipment point for Chinese goods.

    To a degree, yes, but that doesn’t explain all of it. What explains it is the fact that things that are produced in Vietnam, whether it’s Samsung, mobile phones or VinFast cars, are made with components imported from China. So Vietnam hasn’t developed that ecosystem.

    To Lam is very interested in getting the higher value added foreign investment. We hear a lot about semiconductors and other high-end manufacturing.

    He needs a much more efficient government structure to attract foreign investment. One of the reasons we know foreign investors — there’s often a delta between pledged investment and actual shovel in the ground building something is because of bureaucratic red tape.

    I think To Lam is really concerned that foreign investors are going to get frustrated and move on to the next place because Vietnam’s labor costs are going up. It has shortages of electricity. You know, it’s been a darling of foreign investors, but that is not a given. That foreign investors can be very fickle. We have watched them leave Vietnam in the past.

    And let me just make one last point about why he did it so fast. I think this is To Lam really asserting himself politically. He has done what many of us probably would have said, “Impossible.”

    No way is he going to get through such momentous restructuring in a quick period of time. There will be too much, you know, resistance to it. He really showed that he has full control over the Central Committee. Now, he still has his former deputy minister, now the Minister of Public Security. He’s got another former deputy minister of Public Security in charge of the Central Inspection Commission.

    He has many levers of power that he can wield against people who are opposed to him. He can still investigate corruption and destroy careers, but I think he really has won over this Central Committee with his vision.

    One last point we should probably make about these reforms. There is going to be a major shift in power to the South.

    You have created a huge megacity now. Ho Chi Minh City, all the way out to Vũng Tàu around Bien Hoa.

    This is now a massive place. Under the former General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng there was a real attempt to crush any southern autonomy. I think we understand that the South is the driver of the economy. To Lam knows that he has to empower the South. He knows that legitimacy is coming from economic development.

    RFA: I guess he got what he wanted. He restructured the entire governance system not just at the central level, but also the local level as well.

    So the entire country now is basically governed under a new system that looks very different from when he took power in August 2024. But I’m curious because we understand that this kind of project has massive implications and consequences. And usually people do it with great caution because they need to study.

    They need to experiment to find the best model. But the way To Lam carried it out was that it was just too quick, too rapid. There was no opportunity for experimentation, for research at all. He just said, “This is what we are going to do,” and he achieved that within a few months.

    So what do you think would be the consequences and the challenges that he has to face, given that he has done this too quickly and gave no room for deliberation, for experiment, for research, for debate.

    Zach Abuza: No doubt there will be growing pains. And a lot of this was rushed. And I imagine in many cases, you are not going to only see some resistance to this and kind of pushback.

    But just complications and everything from accounting and getting bank accounts and tax collection and all these things are going to be very different. Now, from the central government’s position, this is hopefully easier. There are now almost 50% fewer provinces to basically negotiate with. And should make some coordination a little bit easier. But without a doubt this was pretty rushed.

    Now, I would go back to a point I made earlier, and that is the party chiefs that are in power today after the restructuring owe To Lam — they owe him their jobs and I imagine they will be very responsive, because they’re all interested in climbing up the ladder and those who do not perform well and have problems are going to find their political careers might not last much longer than January.

    So I think he’s using the clock very effectively, you know, like a good football coach uses the clock in a game. I think he is doing that. But yeah, there will be problems, and we just haven’t seen them yet.

    There are going to be issues with spending and infrastructure development. You now have these party chiefs that are going to think about which part of the province, these larger provinces to invest in.

    You know, there are going to be rural communes that are going to feel they’re being left behind because the emphasis will be on more development to the coast and where industry is. And so, yeah, without a doubt, we will see how this plays out.

    Edited by Charlie Dharapak


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Truong Son for RFA Vietnamese.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  •  

    Meet the Press: Kristen Welker interview Zohran Mamdani

    Zohran Mamdani to Kristen Welker (Meet the Press, 6/29/25): “Freedom and justice and safety are things that, to have meaning, have to be applied to all people, and that includes Israelis and Palestinians as well.”

    Meet the Press host Kristen Welker (6/29/25) showed courage by interviewing Zohran Mamdani, the winner of the Democratic mayoral primary for New York, after he’d been widely attacked by corporate media. But unfortunately, she fell into a trap that has been set repeatedly in recent months to smear Mamdani. She asked him to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” claiming—without offering evidence—that the term “intifada” refers to “violence against Jews.”

    I doubt Welker is an Arabic linguist. But as a Palestinian journalist who covered the Intifada and helped introduce the term to Western media, I am appalled by this misrepresentation. Not only is the translation wrong, it’s an insult to the thousands of New York Jews who voted for Mamdani.

    For the record, intifada translates to “shake off.” Palestinians used the term to describe their popular resistance against an Israeli occupation of their land that had no end in sight. It emerged amid a steady expansion of illegal settlements, which were systematically turning the occupied territories into a Swiss cheese–like landscape, precisely designed to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

    As someone who reported on the Intifada and explained its meaning to international audiences, I can say unequivocally: Intifada was used by Palestinian activists to describe a civil resistance movement rooted in dignity and national self-determination.

    Metaphor for liberation

    The US Holocaust Museum (photo: Phil Kalina)

    The Arabic-language version of the website of the US Holocaust Museum translated the Warsaw Ghetto “Uprising” as “Intifada”—until blogger Juan Cole (5/1/24) pointed this out. (Creative Commons photo: Phil Kalina.)

    Let’s begin with the word’s literal meaning. As noted, in Arabic, intifada simply means “shaking off.” Since many—including Jewish leaders, Christian Zionists and GOP officials—have distorted the peaceful intentions behind the word, I turned to a source that might resonate more clearly with people of faith: the Bible.

    In the Arabic version of the Old Testament, the word intifada appears three times, both as a noun and a verb. Looking at its English equivalents in the New International Version (though other translations are similar) offers enlightening context:

    • Judges 16:20: “Samson awoke from his sleep and thought, ‘I’ll go out as before and shake myself free.’”
    • Isaiah 52:2: “Shake off your dust; rise up, sit enthroned, Jerusalem. Free yourself from the chains on your neck, Daughter Zion, now a captive.”
    • Psalm 109:23: “I fade away like an evening shadow; I am shaken off like a locust.”

    Each of these examples uses the term intifada—shaking off oppression, captivity or anguish—as a metaphor for liberation, not violence.

    While Google Translate and other modern tools often render intifada as “popular uprising,” its literal meaning—“to shake off”—captures the spirit with which Palestinians adopted the term. When they launched the first Intifada in 1987—after 20 years under a foreign military occupation—it was an expression of a desire to wake up, rise and throw off the chains of subjugation. It is not inherently antisemitic, nor does it refer by default to terrorism or violence.

    While accompanying international journalists covering the protests, I often discussed this with them. In Jerusalem, I explained to LA Times bureau chief Dan Fisher, the  Washington Post’s Glenn Frankel and the New York Times’ John Kifner what Palestinians meant by the word. I told them that throughout Palestinian patriotic literature and slogans, two distinctions were always made: The Intifada was a protest against the Israeli occupation, not against Jews or the existence of Israel, and that the ultimate goal was to achieve an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

    Fisher, Frankel and Kifner included these clarifications in their reports, helping the Arabic term intifada enter the global lexicon with its intended meaning.

    ‘Bringing terror to the streets of America’

    Fox News; 'Intifada' means bringing terror to the streets of America, Douglas Murray says

    To define “intifada,” Fox News (5/23/25) brought on Douglas Murray, who calls Islam an “infection” and declares that “all immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop.”

    But today, as protests against Israel’s devastating war on Gaza mount, the word is being twisted. When Rep. Elise Stefanik grilled the presidents of UPenn, Harvard, and MIT in December 2023 about pro-Palestinian chants invoking “intifada,” she equated the term with “genocide of Jews.”

    The university presidents faltered. They should have said clearly: Genocide against Jews—or any people—is abhorrent. But intifada is not synonymous with genocide. To equate a call to end the Israeli military occupation with a call for genocide or violence against Jews is a gross distortion—a bizarre reversal that paints the victims as aggressors.

    And yet this distortion persists. [Gillibrand] Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo labeled Mamdani antisemitic. Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt—who likely doesn’t speak Arabic—claimed on X that intifada is “explicit incitement to violence.” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) added that the word is “well understood to refer to the violent terror attacks.” Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) told WNYC public radio (6/26/25), “The global intifada is a statement that means destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.”

    Media echoed the politicians’ misrepresentations of intifada. “Many Jews see it as a call to violence against Israeli civilians,” ABC (6/29/25) reported. “Many Jews consider it a call to violence, a nod to deadly attacks on civilians in Israel by Palestinians in uprisings in the 1980s and 2000s,” wrote the New York Times (6/25/25). Of course, “many Jews” do not hear the word that way—but the more important question is, what is the accurate understanding of the word as used by Palestinians?

    Fox News (5/23/25) didn’t mince words: “‘Intifada’ Means Bringing Terror to the Streets of America,” it said in a headline, citing notorious Islamophobe Douglas Murray. To the New York Times‘ Bret Stephens (7/1/25), “What Intifada Really Means” is “giving moral comfort to people who deliberately murder innocent Jews.”

    Even liberal podcast host Donny Deutsch repeated the same claim while speaking on MSNBC (Morning Joe, 6/30/25):

    I’m outraged that we have a candidate for mayor of New York, Mr. Mamdani, that cannot walk back or cannot condemn the words “globalize the intifada” and his nuance of, “Well, it means different things for different people.” Well, let me tell you what it means to a Jew—it means violence.

    Brutal suppression of protest

    The Intifada in the Gaza Strip, December 21, 1987 (photo: Efi Sharir)

    The First Intifada in the Gaza Strip, December 21, 1987 (photo: Efi Sharir).

    The first Intifada embraced principles of nonviolent resistance championed by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. My cousin, Mubarak Awad, who established the Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence, encouraged boycotts of Israeli products, labor strikes and grassroots economic development in preparation for statehood. He translated, printed and distributed Arabic translations of Gene Sharp’s writings on nonviolence throughout the occupied territories. Mubarak was deported on the eve of the Intifada by then–Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

    After Shamir came Yitzhak Rabin, who called publicly to “break the bones” of Palestinian stone throwers. During the first Intifada, Israeli soldiers and settlers responded to the nonfatal protests with extreme violence. In the first phase of the uprising—a little more than a year—332 Palestinians were killed, along with 12 Israelis (Middle East Monitor, 12/8/16).

    This brutality did not suppress the protests, but merely escalated the violence: At the end of six years, more than 1,500 Palestinians, including more than 300 children, and 400 Israelis—18 of whom were children—were dead, according to the Israeli human rights group B’tselem.

    The same pattern recurred in the second Intifada: Only after the initial protests were met with massively disproportionate force did Palestinians, led by Hamas, turn to suicide bombing as a desperation tactic (Al Jazeera, 9/28/20). To treat the response to the brutal suppression of protest as though it represented the essential nature of intifada is intellectually lazy and politically cynical.

    Zohran Mamdani never used the words “global intifada.” But he refused to denounce calls for the world to wake up and speak out against atrocities in Gaza. His victory in the Democratic primary—supported in part by Jewish New Yorkers—shows he is neither antisemitic nor willing to renounce an Arabic word that has been hijacked and misused by people who would rather Palestinians remain silent and submissive under occupation.


    Research assistance: Shirlynn Chan


    This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Daoud Kuttab.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    West Papuan independence advocate Octovianus Mote was in Aotearoa New Zealand late last year seeking support for independence for West Papua, which has been ruled by Indonesia for more than six decades.

    Mote is vice-president of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and was hosted in New Zealand by the Green Party, which Mote said had always been a “hero” for West Papua.

    He spoke at a West Papua seminar at the Māngere Mountain Education Centre and in this Talanoa TV segment he offers prayers for the West Papuan solidarity movement.

    In a “blessing for peace and justice”, Octo Mote spoke of his hopes for the West Papuan struggle for independence at lunch at the Mount Albert home of New Zealand activist Maire Leadbeater in September 2024.

    He gave a tribute to Leadbeater and the Whānau Community Centre and Hub’s Nik Naidu, saying:

    “We remember those who cannot eat like us, especially those who oppressed . . . The 80,000 people in Papua who have had to flee their homes because of the Indonesian military operations.”

    Video: Nik Naidu, Talanoa TV


    Blessings by Octo Mote.               Video: Talanoa TV

    On Saturday, 12 July 2025 Te Atatu MP Phil Twyford will open the week-long Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) exhibition at the Ellen Melville Centre Women’s Pioneer Hall at 3pm.

    https://www.facebook.com/events/1856900961820487/

    Poster for the Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995 exhibition
    Poster for the Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995 exhibition, July 13-18.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • 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 4, 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 Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Karenhao2

    As part of our July Fourth special broadcast, we continue our extended interview with Karen Hao, author of Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI. The book documents the rise of OpenAI and how the AI industry is leading to a new form of colonialism. “One of the things that you really have to understand about AI development today is that there are what I call quasi-religious movements that have developed within Silicon Valley,” says Hao. “The concept of artificial general intelligence is not one that’s scientifically grounded.”


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Douglas earljones

    We begin our July Fourth special broadcast with the words of Frederick Douglass. Born into slavery around 1818, Douglass became a key leader of the abolitionist movement. On July 5, 1852, in Rochester, New York, Douglass gave one of his most famous speeches, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” He was addressing the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society. The late actor James Earl Jones read the historic address during a performance of Voices of a People’s History of the United States, which was co-edited by Howard Zinn.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • In response to the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill” in the United States Senate, Greenpeace USA Deputy Climate Program Director, John Noël, said: “This is a vote that will live in infamy. This bill is what happens when a major political party, in the grips of a personality cult, teams up with oil company CEOs, hedge fund donors, and climate deniers. All you need to do is look at who benefits from actively undercutting the clean energy industry that is creating tens of thousands of jobs across political geographies.

    “The megabill isn’t about reform—it’s about rewarding the super rich and doling out fossil fuel industry handouts, all while dismantling the social safety nets on which millions depend for stability. It is a bet against the future.”


    This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The number of dead and wounded in Palestine is staggering. Many look away. Why bother, you may ask?  Because, unlike other conflicts, we can do something about it. It is the U.S., Canada and most of Europe that enable the genocide by supplying Israel with weapons. In Israel, there is mounting opposition. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, “What we are doing in Gaza is a war of extermination: indiscriminate, unrestrained, brutal, and criminal killing of civilians. We are committing war crimes.” Then he added, “Netanyahu and his government have done great damage to the moral integrity of Israel and the Israeli people.” Palestine is the moral issue of our time. Recorded at the New York Society for Ethical Culture.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Trump’s “Big Evil Bill” sped through Congress, to sell off public lands, gut healthcare, destroy rural hospitals, outlaw state AI regulation for a decade, make it harder to take out loans to go to college, and unleash an immigration enforcement regime bigger than anything we’ve ever seen. ICE will now have a budget bigger than the FBI, DEA, U.S. Bureau of Prisons combined. This is an oligarchy fever dream that will painfully backfire on everyone.

    Trump’s Big Evil Bill is the blueprint of Project 2025 in action: a theocratic, authoritarian takeover of our democracy. This bill will expand presidential powers, weaken the lower courts, and crush humanitarian protections and put our already militized police state on Russian Olympian super steroids. Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB Director and the architect of Project 2025, made sure the money was there to turn July 4th into a funeral for the American Revolution by installing a mad king. 

    But here’s the truth hiding in the despair: the more pain this bill causes, the more people it radicalizes. Just as past generations rose up during times of injustice, many Americans, especially those who embraced Trump’s con, like those manosphere-brain rotted Gen Z men, will be forced to wake up. They’ll see the betrayal. They’ll feel it. And some will finally fight back.

    The far-right had a 40-year plan. We need ours. One model: The Gay Revolution by historian Lillian Faderman. It’s the story of how love, courage, and relentless organizing by small groups of determined people, many forced to become activists because of state cruelty like the kind we’re now seeing, and won against impossible odds. The Gay Revolution is our roadmap of hope, and it pays tribute to the countless men and women, many who risked everything, many whose names we may never know, to cast out the darkness with love and defiance. 

    Go to the Gaslit Nation’s Action Guide and choose action. Choose empathy. Choose to be the liberation this moment demands.

    EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION:

    • NEW DATE! Thursday July 31 4pm ET – the Gaslit Nation Book Club discusses Antoine de Saint Exupéry’s The Little Prince written in the U.S. during America First. 

    • Minnesota Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon. 

    • Vermont Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon. 

    • Arizona-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to connect, available on Patreon. 

    • Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, available on Patreon. 

    • Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, available on Patreon. 

    • Have you taken Gaslit Nation’s HyperNormalization Survey Yet?

    • Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community

    Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!

     

    Show Notes:

    The song featured in this episode is First They Came for Queers by Mr. Madam Adam. Find more of their music here: https://music.apple.com/us/album/first-they-came-for-queers/1690696748?i=1690696753

    How to Protect Your Community from ICE: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ice-watch-programs-immigrants-how-to-start

    How Trump’s bill will supercharge mass deportations by funneling $170bn to Ice https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/02/immigration-trump-big-beautiful-bill

    Donald Trump’s weapons freeze on Ukraine could bring catastrophe https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/07/02/ukraine-russia-war-trump-weapons-freeze-missiles/

    Pardoned Jan. 6 Rioter Who Threatened Police Joins Justice Dept. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/us/politics/justice-department-rioter-weaponization.html

    House taking key vote on Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” after GOP holdouts threaten final passage https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-vote-big-beautiful-bill-rules-committee/


    This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Eagle River, Alaska.July 3, 2024. Hasan Akbas/Anadolu via Getty Images.

    Over the last two and a half centuries people in the US have used July 4 to make their stand against injustice, inequality, and oppression, and demand their rights. From an infamous speech by Frederick Douglass to women suffragists demanding the right to vote, civil rights protests, and a historic farm workers’ march, today we look at moments of July 4 resistance.

    This is episode 55 of Stories of Resistance—a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.

    If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. 

    And please consider signing up for the Stories of Resistance podcast feed, either in Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Spreaker, or wherever you listen.

    Please consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox’s reporting on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures, videos and interviews from these stories and follow Michael Fox’s work. 

    Written and produced by Michael Fox.

    Resources

    Most of these stories were taken from the Zinn Education Project. We highly recommend you check it out.

    Transcript

    July 4. Independence Day. A time for fireworks and BBQs, parades and celebrations. A time to remember the birth of a great nation. And a time to demand that it be as great as it can be.

    See, if July 4, 1776, was the culmination of years of resistance against oppressive British rule, over the last two and a half centuries people in the US have also used this day to also make their stand against injustice, inequality, and oppression and demand their rights in the United States.

    July 5, 1852, abolitionist Frederick Douglass gives his speech “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro.” 

    “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

    This is actor Danny Glover reading part of his speech, during an event in Los Angeles, on October 5, 2005. 

    “To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.

    “There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.”

    July 4, 1876. Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Women suffragists, including Susan B. Anthony, disrupt the 100th anniversary celebrations of the Declaration of Independence. They demand that women also be given the right to vote. They present a “Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States.”

    “We ask of our rulers, at this hour, no special favors, no special privileges, no special legislation.”

    This is a clip of their declaration, read by Betty Wolfanger in 2017. 

    ”We ask justice, we ask equality. We ask that all the civil and political rights that belong to citizens of the United States, be guaranteed to us and our daughters forever.”

    Women would have to wait another 50 years until they were finally given the right to vote. 

    July 4, 1963. Baltimore, Maryland. Hundreds of civil rights activists amass at Gwynn Oak Amusement Park. They’re there to protest the park’s policies of segregation. The park’s refusal to allow African Americans entrance. 300 people were arrested, including 20 faith leaders.

    The New York Times wrote that it was “the first time that so large a group of important clergymen of all three major faiths had participated together in a direct concerted protest against discrimination.”

    This protest came just a month before Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic 1963 march on Washington.

    July 4, 1966. Rio Grande City, Texas. The Independent Workers’ Association, made up of largely Mexican American farmworkers, begin a march that would take them 490 miles from Rio Grande City to the Texas state capital, Austin.

    “La Marcha,” as they called it, would take nearly two months and pass through Corpus Christi and San Antonio, through intense summer heat. They demanded a $1.25 minimum wage and an eight-hour work day. State officials denied their demands, but farmworkers would continue to protest into the following year. Their months-long journey across Texas would go down in history as the largest march in the state’s history.

    Hi folks, thanks for listening. I’m your host Michael Fox.

    As you may have noted, the story today was a little different. It looked back at many moments of July 4 resistance in US history. All of these tiny vignettes were taken from historian Howard Zinn’s incredible “People’s History of Fourth of July.” That is part of the Zinn Education Project, which is based on his People’s History of the United States. Their work looks to promote and support the teaching of people’s history in classrooms across the country. 

    If you don’t know these incredible resources yet, please check them out. There are even more stories of July 4 resistance that I didn’t have time to dive into today. I’ll add a link in the show notes.

    Folks, also, if you like what you hear and enjoy this podcast, please consider becoming a subscriber on my Patreon at Patreon.com/mfox. It’s only a few dollars a month. I have a ton of exclusive content there, only available to my supporters. And every supporter really makes a difference. 

    This is episode 55 of Stories of Resistance, a podcast series co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, I bring you stories of resistance and hope like this. Inspiration for dark times. If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment or leave a review.

    Thanks for listening. See you next time.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Independent photojournalist Ron Haviv was shot in the arm by a Los Angeles Police Department officer on June 14, 2025, while documenting a protest for The New Republic.

    Haviv, the co-founder of documentary producer VII Foundation, told the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker via email that he was in downtown Los Angeles to photograph a “No Kings” rally, one of more than 2,000 held across the country to protest the actions of President Donald Trump and his administration, and planned to coincide with a military parade held in Washington, D.C., and Trump’s birthday.

    The rally also followed days of protests in Los Angeles and nearby towns against recent federal raids, part of the Trump administration’s larger immigration crackdown.

    After the protest ended, Haviv said, he witnessed confrontations around City Hall and the Metropolitan Detention Center between protesters and law enforcement, which included LAPD and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department officers, with LAPD officers attempting to push protesters off the streets.

    Haviv was close to the police line, not near any protesters and “not much was happening on either side,” he said, when he was hit in the arm by a 40 mm crowd-control projectile shot by an LAPD officer — the first time, he said, that he’s been shot or shot at by U.S. law enforcement while working.

    Haviv was wearing press credentials, he said, but didn’t know if he had been targeted as a journalist. None of his equipment was damaged, but he had to seek medical help for the injury, which weeks after the incident was still bruised and in the process of healing.

    He said he is considering his legal options.

    Haviv noted that the protesters were mostly peaceful and that law enforcement’s response therefore seemed disproportionate. “The combination of horses, tear gas and rubber bullets seemed to be a higher amount than necessary for what was happening on the ground,” he said.


    This content originally appeared on U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database and was authored by U.S. Press Freedom Tracker: Incident Database.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • 1920 1080 maxp

    As we broadcast, the House was soon set to vote on the so-called big, beautiful bill before the July 4 deadline imposed by President Trump. Should the House pass the legislation, the bill would be sent to Trump’s desk to be signed into law. The bill massively increases funding for ICE, cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid over a decade and adds $3.3 trillion to the nation’s debt.

    “It makes people in the country who are in the bottom 30%, working hard to pay their bills, poorer, because it’s stripping away healthcare from them, stripping away food assistance from them. And it is all in the name of giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. … The top 20% in this country get 60% of the benefits,” says Democratic Congressmember Ro Khanna.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • New York July 2, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on Zimbabwean authorities to release newspaper editor Faith Zaba, who was arrested on July 1. She is facing charges of “undermining or insulting the authority of the president” in connection with a satirical column.

    “This case sends the message that Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his administration are so fragile that they are easily threatened by a critical column,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Muthoki Mumo. “It’s also a reminder of this government’s willingness to waste public resources by throwing journalists behind bars. Authorities in Zimbabwe must release Faith Zaba unconditionally and without delay.”

    Police summoned Zaba to appear at the central police station in the capital, Harare, on July 1, where they charged her over the June 27 satirical column about Mnangagwa’s government published in her newspaper, the business weekly Zimbabwe Independent, according to her lawyer, Chris Mhike. Mhike told CPJ that Zaba has been unwell and was “severely ill” at the time of her arrest.

    On July 2, Zaba appeared at the magistrate’s court in Harare, where her bail hearing was deferred to July 3 after the state requested more time to verify her medical history, according to multiple local news reports.

    The “Muckracker” column linked to Zaba’s arrest said that Zimbabwe was a “mafia state,” citing the administration’s alleged interference in the politics of neighboring countries, and said that the current government was “obsessed with keeping itself in power.” Under Zimbabwe’s  Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, Zaba could face a $300 fine or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, if convicted.

    CPJ has documented an ongoing crackdown on dissent in Zimbabwe, amid political tension. In February, authorities arrested Blessed Mhlanga, a journalist with Alpha Media Holdings, and held him for over 10 weeks on baseless charges of incitement in connection with his coverage of war veterans who demanded Mnangagwa’s resignation. The Zimbabwe Independent is a subsidiary of Alpha Media Holdings.

    A spokesperson for the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Paul Nyathi, did not answer CPJ’s calls and a query sent via messaging app requesting comment.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.