Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Further

Sanders Rips Colleagues for Attacking Student Protesters Instead of Netanyahu

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday night spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the student protests taking place on college campuses across the country, and the ongoing, horrific humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

Sanders’ remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be watched live here:


President, some of us have been out of school for awhile and we may have forgotten our American history. But I did want to take a moment to remind some of my colleagues about a document called the U.S. Constitution and, specifically, the First Amendment of that Constitution.

For those that may have forgotten, here is what the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Let me also take this opportunity to remember our late colleague, the former congressman John Lewis for his heroic role in the Civil Rights Movement.

I know it’s very easy to heap praise on Congressman Lewis and many others decades after they did what they did, but, I would remind my colleagues them that Mr. Lewis was arrested 45 times for participating in sit-ins, occupations, and protests – 45 times – for protesting segregation and racism.

I would also remind my colleagues that the Lunch Counter protest at Woolworths and elsewhere desegregating the South were in fact sit-ins and occupations where young Black and white Americans bravely took up space in private businesses, demanding an end to racism and segregation that existed at that time.

I find it incomprehensible that members of Congress are spending their time attacking the protestors rather than the Netanyahu government which brought about these protests and has created this horrific situation.

Further, as I hope everybody knows, we have also seen in recent decades protests — some of them massive protests — against sexism, homophobia, and the need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels in order to save this planet.

In other words, protesting injustice and expressing our opinions is part of our American tradition. And when you talk about America being a free country, whether you like it or not the right to protest is what American freedom is all about. That’s the U.S. constitution.

And, M. President, let me also remind you: exactly 60 years ago, student demonstrators occupied the exact same building on Columbia’s campus as is taking place right now – ironically, the same building.

Across the country, students and others, including myself, joined peaceful demonstrations in opposition to the war in Vietnam. Those demonstrators were demanding an end to that War.

And maybe – just maybe – tens of thousands of American lives and countless Vietnamese lives might have been saved if the Government had listened to those demonstrators.

And I might also add that the President at that time – a great president — Lyndon Johnson, chose not to run for re-election because of the opposition to him that occurred as a result of his support for that Vietnam War. And further, let us not forget those who demonstrated against the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe those protestors should have been listened to as well.

Shock of all shocks, government policy is not always right.

President, I noted recently that a number of my colleagues in both parties, as well as many news reporters, TV, newspapers, are very concerned about the protests and violence we are seeing on campuses across the country.

So let me be clear: I share those concerns about violence on campuses, or, for that matter, any place else, and I condemn those who threw a brick through a window at Columbia University. That kind of violence should not be taking place on college campuses.

I am also concerned and condemn about the group of individuals at UCLA in California who violently attacked the peaceful encampment of anti-war demonstrators on the campus of UCLA.

President, let me be clear: I condemn all forms of violence on campus whether they are committed by people who support Israel’s war efforts or those who oppose those policies.

And I hope we can also agree that in the United States all forms of bigotry must be condemned and eliminated. We are seeing a growth of antisemitism in this country which we must all condemn and work to stop.

To stand up for Palestinian rights and the dignity of the Palestinian people does not make one a supporter of terrorism.

We are also seeing a growth of Islamophobia in this country which we must all condemn and stop. And in that regard, I would mention that in my very own city of Burlington, Vermont, three wonderful young Palestinian students were shot at close range on November 25th of last year. They were visiting a family member to celebrate Thanksgiving, walking down the street, and they were shot.

President let make an additional point, I have noted that there is an increasing tendency in the media and on the part of some of my colleagues here in the Senate to use the phrase “Pro-Palestinian” to suggest that that means “Pro-Hamas.”

To my mind, that is unacceptable and factually inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of American people and protestors understand very well that Hamas is a terrorist organization that started this war by attacking Israel in an incredibly brutal and horrific way on October 7th.

To stand up for Palestinian rights and the dignity of the Palestinian people does not make one a supporter of terrorism.

And let me also mention something that I found rather extraordinary and outrageous.

And that is just a few days ago Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the right-wing extremist government in Israel, a government which contains out-and-out anti-Palestinian racists.

Netanyahu issued a statement in which he equated criticism of his government’s illegal and immoral war against the Palestinian people with antisemitism.

In other words, if you are protesting, or disagree, with what Netanyahu and his extremist government are doing in Gaza, you are an antisemite.

That is an outrageous statement from a leader who is clearly trying – and I have to tell you, he seems to be succeeding with the American media — trying to deflect attention away from the horrific policies that he is pursuing that created an unprecedented humanitarian disaster.

So, let me be as clear as I can be: It is not antisemitic or pro-Hamas to point out that in almost seven months Netanyahu’s extremist government has killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 77,000 – seventy percent of whom are women and children.

And to protest that or to point that out is not antisemitic. It is simply factual.

It is not antisemitic to point out that Netanyahu’s government’s bombing has completely destroyed more than 221,000 housing units in Gaza, leaving more than one million people homeless – almost half the population. No, Mr. Netanyahu it is not antisemitic to point out what you have done in terms of the destruction of housing in Gaza.

It is not antisemitic to realize that his government has annihilated Gaza’s health care system, knocking 26 hospitals out of service and killing more than 400 health care workers. At a time when 77,000 people have been wounded and desperately need medical care, Netanyahu has systematically destroyed the health care system in Gaza.

It is not antisemitic to condemn his government’s destruction of all of Gaza’s 12 universities and 56 of its schools, with hundreds more damaged, leaving 625,000 children in Gaza have no opportunity for an education. It is not antisemitic to make that point.

It is not antisemitic to note that Netanyahu’s government has obliterated Gaza’s civilian infrastructure – there is virtually no electricity in Gaza right now, virtually no clean water in Gaza right now, and sewage is seeping out onto the streets.

It is not antisemitic to make that point.

President, it is not antisemitic to agree with virtually every humanitarian organization that functions in the Gaza area in saying that his government, in violation of American law, has unreasonably blocked humanitarian aid coming into Gaza.

They have created the conditions under which hundreds of thousands of children face malnutrition and famine. It is not antisemitic to look at photographs of children who are starving to death because they have not been able to get the food that they need. It is not antisemitic to agree with American and UN officials that parts of Gaza could become famine districts in the not very distant future.

It is not antisemitic to agree with virtually every humanitarian organization that functions in the Gaza area in saying that his government, in violation of American law, has unreasonably blocked humanitarian aid coming into Gaza.

Antisemitism is a vile and disgusting form of bigotry that has done unspeakable harm to many millions of people for hundreds of years, including my own family. But it is outrageous and it is disgraceful to use that charge of antisemitism to distract us from the immoral and illegal war policies that Netanyahu’s extremist and racist government is pursuing.

Furthermore, it is really cheap politics for Netanyahu to use the charge of antisemitism to deflect attention from the criminal indictment he is facing in the Israeli courts.

Bottomline, M. President: it is not antisemitic to hold Netanyahu and his government for their actions. That is not antisemitic. It is precisely what we should be doing.

Because among other things we are the government that has supplied billions and billions of dollars in order for him to continue his horrific war against the Palestinian people.

President, I would also point out while there has been wall to wall coverage of student protests, I think that’s about all CNN does right now, I should mention that it is not just young people on college campuses that are extremely upset about our Government’s support and funding for this illegal and immoral war.

The people of the United States – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – do not want to be complicit in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of children.

And I would point out that just last week this Senate voted to give Netanyahu another unfettered $10 billion for his war.

Let me quote just a few polls:

April 14 – Politico/Morning Consult: 67% support the United States calling for a ceasefire. This is at a time when Netanyahu is threatening to expand the war into Rafah.

April 12th – CBS: 60% think the U.S. should not send weapons and supplies to Israel as opposed to 40% who think the U.S. should. And for my Democratic colleagues, those figures are disproportionately higher among Democratic voters.

April 10th – Economist/YouGov: 37% support decreasing military aid to Israel, just 18% support an increase. Overall 63% support a ceasefire, 15% oppose.

No, M. President. This is not just protestors on college campuses who are upset about U.S. policy with regards to Israel and Gaza. Increasingly the American people want an end to U.S. complicity in the humanitarian disaster which is taking place in Gaza right now.

The people of the United States – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – do not want to be complicit in the starvation of hundreds of thousands of children.

Maybe, and here’s a very radical idea, maybe it’s time for politicians to listen to the American people. Maybe it’s time to rethink the decision this body recently made to provide Netanyahu another $10 billion dollars in unfettered military aid.

Maybe it’s time to not simply worry about the violence we are seeing on American campuses, but focus on the unprecedented violence in Gaza which has killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 77,000 Palestinians – 70% percent of whom are women and children.

So, I suggest to CNN and some of my colleagues here, take your cameras off of Columbia and UCLA. Maybe go to Gaza and show us the emaciated children who are going to die of malnutrition because of Netanyahu’s policies. Show us the kids who have lost their arms and their legs. Show us the suffering.

President, let me conclude by saying, I must admit, I find it incomprehensible that members of Congress are spending their time attacking the protestors rather than the Netanyahu government which brought about these protests and has created this horrific situation.

Thank you and I yield.

SEE ALL
Plastics Treaty sculpture.
News

Lobbyist-Dominated Plastics Talks End Without Clear Path to Production Cuts

The fourth and second-to-last round of negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty concluded Tuesday with what campaigners called a "weak" and "disappointing" compromise, as countries did not agree to discuss curbing primary plastic production before the final session later this year.

The "underwhelming" result came at the close of talks in Ottawa, Canada, at which 196 fossil fuel or chemical industry lobbyists attended, a 37% increase from the third round of negotiations and more than the entire delegation of the European Union.

"People are being harmed by plastic production every day, but states are listening more closely to petrochemical lobbyists than health scientists," Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation to the negotiations and Greenpeace USA's global plastics campaign lead, said in a statement. "Any child can see that we cannot solve the plastic crisis unless we stop making so much plastic."

"The Global South countries who are fighting tooth and nail for a strong plastics treaty have been steamrolled by the will of wealthy nations."

Civil society and frontline groups called reducing plastics production a "nonnegotiable" component of the treaty heading into the fourth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee to advance a plastics treaty (INC-4), the continuation of a process launched at a United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi in 2022. However, when delegates agreed at the end of the latest negotiations to continue discussions of certain issues in "intersessional" work, this did not include a discussion of primary plastic polymers.

"From the beginning of negotiations, we have known that we need to cut plastic production to adopt a treaty that lives up to the promise envisioned at UNEA two years ago," said David Azoulay, the director of environmental health at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "In Ottawa, we saw many countries rightly assert that it is important for the treaty to address production of primary plastic polymers. But when the time came to go beyond issuing empty declarations and fight for work to support the development of an effective intersessional program, we saw the same developed member states who claim to be leading the world toward a world free from plastic pollution, abandon all pretense as soon as the biggest polluters look sideways at them."

The negotiations, which began April 23, were pulled between more ambitious countries—particularly Global South countries in Africa, Latin American, and the Pacific Islands—and the so-called "Like-Minded Group" of fossil fuel and polymer producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Kuwait, Qatar, and India. On the more ambitious side of the spectrum, Rwanda and Peru spearheaded a call for intersessional work on a plan to cut production of primary polymers by 40% of 2025 levels by 2040, which was backed by Malawi, the Philippines, and Fiji.

"While not high enough to avoid breaching the 1.5°C climate target, Rwanda and Peru's proposal is the first time a group of countries have put forward a specific target for plastic production cuts," environmental coalition GAIA said in a statement.

Another promising development was the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Primary Plastic Polymers, in which signatories promised to work toward maintaining a plastic production reduction commitment in line with the Paris agreement in the final treaty text, to be set in Busan, South Korea, at the end of 2024.

On the other hand, Break Free From Plastics said that some countries had obstructed the process by pressuring negotiators to agree to consensus, even though the procedure allows for voting when consensus cannot be reached. They also interfered with the drafting of the treaty itself.

"A small number of countries continued their obstructionist and low-ambition tactics—watering down, adding countless brackets, and shamelessly twisting the language across the different provisions in an attempt to narrow the scope and lower the ambitions of the treaty," the group said.

However, GAIA said that negotiations did make progress on a draft treaty text that included a reduction of plastic production, the banning of toxic chemical additives, a financial mechanism to help countries meet targets, and a commitment to a just transition. After this progress, the chair's proposal that intersession work would not consider polymers came as a surprise.

"Tonight's upsets show that historical injustices have made their way into the halls of the plastics treaty negotiations," Camila Aguilera, communications officer for GAIA Latin America and the Caribbean, said in a statement. "The Global South countries who are fighting tooth and nail for a strong plastics treaty have been steamrolled by the will of wealthy nations. The debate over intersessional work is a proxy for these geopolitical divides between the Global North and the Global South."

CIEL said that several countries in the self-described "High Ambition Coalition," (HAC) including the European Union, had not pushed back sufficiently on attempts to weaken the treaty and the process. It, along with many other environmental groups, also criticized the United States, which is not an HAC member, for failing to stand up for an ambitious treaty.

"Negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet."

"The United States needs to stop pretending to be a leader and own the failure it has created here," said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. "When the world's biggest exporter of oil and gas, and one of the biggest architects of the plastic expansion, says that it will ignore plastic production at the expense of the health, rights, and lives of its own people, the world listens. Even as the U.S. signaled to the G7 that it would commit to reduce plastic production, it intentionally blocked efforts to do that in the global talks most relevant to the issue. It's time to ask whether the U.S. delegation to the plastics treaty simply missed the memo on protecting health and human rights from the plastic threat, or whether the Biden administration forgot to send it."

Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney Julie Teel Simmonds said that "rather than showing leadership, the United States has remained disappointedly in the middle."

"The U.S. proposals lack binding targets and focus on cutting demand for plastic rather than production itself," Simmonds continued. "And they don't go beyond existing U.S. policy, which has failed to curb plastic production or protect frontline communities and the environment from harm."

Frankie Orona, the executive director of the Society of Native Nations, recounted that "negotiating with the U.S. and other oil states has felt like trying to negotiate with industry, always prioritizing profit over the well-being of people and the planet."

On the final day of negotiations, Break Free From Plastics published a statement calling out the U.S. for not committing to legally binding plastic production cut targets, underselling its own regulatory apparatus, and overemphasizing recycling.

"As the world's largest consumer and exporter of plastic waste, purporting to recognize the severity of the crisis, the U.S. must act decisively on these imperatives rather than negotiating an ineffective treaty that will sacrifice the public health and human rights of all to the interests of the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries," the group said.

It demanded that the U.S. delegation support a legally binding treaty that includes set global targets; production caps, phaseouts, and phasedowns for plastic polymers; the health-based control of toxic chemicals in production; a just transition for all communites impacted by the plastics lifecycle; and waste management that protects health and the environment and rejects false solutions.

Civil society groups also argued that negotiators should heed the demands of Indigenous peoples, and that they should be given more resources and support to participate. However, CIEL found that plastics lobbyists outnumbered the 28 representatives of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus by a rate of seven to one.

"We need intersessional work with the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples—who are rights holders with traditional knowledge and a deep understanding of sustainable resource management—as well as frontline and fenceline communities—who, for generations, have borne the brunt of environmental damage from fossil fuels and petrochemical production," Orona said. "By including these often-marginalized groups, we can move beyond 'business as usual' to achieve an ambitious treaty that protects our environment, respects human rights, and fosters a more equitable and sustainable future for all of us and Mother Earth."

Green groups also called for conflict-of-interest policies to reduce the role of industry lobbyists.

"Despite mounting proof of plastics' enormous harm to people and the planet, the petrochemical industry and the countries that put them first are ramping up efforts to water down this treaty," Teel Simmonds said. "We'll keep fighting their deception and obstruction because the world desperately needs a treaty that protects us from plastic production and pollution. And we'll keep pushing the United States to lead."

The next and last round of negotiations is set to begin on November 25. In the meantime, intersessional work will move forward on a financial mechanism, plastic products, chemicals of concern in plastic products, product design, reusability, and recyclability. Observers will be able to contribute to these sessions, while another group conducts a legal review of the treaty.

"The success of the International Plastics Treaty depends on the reduction of primary plastic polymers," said Yu Hyein from the Korea Federation for Environmental Movements and Friends of the Earth, South Korea. "There was not enough discussion on this at INC-4, and it is likely that this will continue at INC-5. As a host country and a member of the High Ambition Coalition, the Korean government should make an ambitious declaration on reducing primary plastic polymers."

Greenpeace's Forbes added, "The entire world is watching, and if countries, particularly in the so-called 'High Ambition Coalition,' don't act between now and INC-5 in Busan, the treaty they are likely to get is one that could have been written by ExxonMobil and their acolytes."

SEE ALL
U.S. President Joe Biden holds hands with his then-nominee for U.S. secretary of labor, Julie Su
News

Biden Labor Department Finalizes Pro-Worker Rules on Overtime, Retirement Savings

Roughly 4.3 million U.S. workers will now be eligible for overtime pay under a new rule finalized Tuesday by President Joe Biden's Labor Department—in stark contrast to his Republican predecessor's rules that severely limited the number of workers who were eligible for required compensation when they worked more than 40 hours per week.

Under the new rule, employers will be required to pay overtime premiums to salaried workers who work more than standard full-time hours if they earn less than $1,128 per week, or about $58,600 per year.

Former President Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, may now have to defend his 2020 rule that set the overtime pay threshold at just $35,500 per year, leaving out millions of workers.

U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) noted that the updated rule was "a major piece" of the Executive Action Agenda released by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which she chairs.

"This is a HUGE pro-worker initiative by President Biden," said Jayapal. "Democrats are delivering for working people!"

Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, who Biden has nominated to fill the role permanently, said it is "unacceptable" that lower-paid workers "are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay," while hourly workers are eligible for overtime pay.

"This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time," said Su. "The Biden-Harris administration is following through on our promise to raise the bar for workers who help lay the foundation for our economic prosperity."

The Labor Department posted a chart on social media showing how under Trump's policy, only workers who earn less than $688 per week are eligible for required overtime pay. The full rule is set to go into effect in January 2025.

The chart offers a "good split screen with the GOP," saidSlate reporter Mark Joseph Stern.

"It isn't just that Trump's Department of Labor fought overtime pay—it's also that Trump appointed anti-labor judges who are about to block Biden's new rule," he said.

The former Republican president's appointed judges could also block a new Federal Trade Commission rule introduced on Tuesday, which blocks companies from including noncompete clauses in workers' contracts.

"Both reforms happened because of Biden and in spite of Republicans," said HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson.

Along with the overtime rule, the Labor Department announced a new policy aimed at safeguarding people's retirement savings from their financial advisers' conflicts of interest.

The finalized retirement security rule requires "trusted investment advice providers to give prudent, loyal, honest advice free from overcharges," said the department. "These fiduciaries must adhere to high standards of care and loyalty when they recommend investments and avoid recommendations that favor the investment advice providers' interests—financial or otherwise—at the retirement savers' expense."

"Under the final rule and amended exemptions, financial institutions overseeing investment advice providers must have policies and procedures to manage conflicts of interest and ensure providers follow these guidelines," the agency said.

Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said the nation's largest labor federation has "been pushing for the fiduciary and overtime rules since the Obama administration."

"It's really this simple," said Shuler. "Every worker deserves their fair share of the wealth they help create and every worker deserves to make sure their hard-earned money is secure."

SEE ALL
Mark Meadows
News

Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme

A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.

Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.

"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."

The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.

The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.

"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."

Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."

"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.

Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."

"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."

The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."

"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.

Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."

"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."

"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.

SEE ALL
Marijuana Legalization
News

As Biden Plans to Reschedule Marijuana, Advocates Say 'Fully Legalize' It

U.S. marijuana legalization advocates greeted Tuesday's news that the Drug Enforcement Administration is proposing rescheduling cannabis to a less restrictive class by calling on President Joe Biden to fully deschedule the plant, which is approved for recreational or medicinal use in the vast majority of states.

The Associated Pressreported the DEA is proposing rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I—which includes heroin, MDMA, and LSD—to Schedule III, a far less restrictive class that includes ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone, and over-the-counter products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dose. According to the DEA, Schedule I drugs have "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

While it would not legalize cannabis for recreational use, the DEA proposal—which is subject to review by the White House Office of Management and Budget—would affirm medicinal marijuana and recognize that the plant has a lower potential for abuse than other widely used recreational drugs.

The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)—which works to end the failed 53-year War on Drugs—warned that "under this proposed shift, marijuana criminalization would continue at the federal level and most penalties, including those for simple possession, would continue as long as marijuana remains anywhere on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)."

While running for president in 2020, Biden repeatedly vowed to decriminalize marijuana and expunge the criminal records of people convicted of cannabis possession. In 2022 the president issued a "full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents" convicted of simple federal marijuana possession—a move that affected thousands of people but excluded those who are in the United States without authorization.

The following year, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra confirmed that his department would recommend rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Tuesday urged Congress to "follow the lead of states around the country and legalize cannabis for adult use and create a comprehensive taxation and regulatory scheme."

"Thousands of people remain in prisons around the country for marijuana-related crimes. Thousands of people continue to bear the devastating collateral consequences that come with a criminal record," the senator continued. "Legal marijuana businesses, especially those in communities hardest hit by the War on Drugs, still have to navigate a convoluted patchwork of state laws and regulatory schemes."

"I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially those who represent constituents benefiting from medical or adult-use programs, join me to pass federal legislation to fix these problems," Booker added.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that "it is great news that DEA is finally recognizing that restrictive and draconian cannabis laws need to change to catch up to what science and the majority of Americans have said loud and clear."

"While this rescheduling announcement is a historic step forward, I remain strongly committed to continuing to work on legislation like the SAFER Banking Act as well as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which federally deschedules cannabis by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act," he added.

Booker and Schumer were among the 21 senators who last week sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram noting that it's been 18 months since Biden ordered HHS October to review cannabis scheduling and eight months since the agency's rescheduling recommendation.

"While we understand that the DEA may be navigating internal disagreement on this matter, it is critical that the agency swiftly correct marijuana's misguided placement in Schedule I," the letter states.

Legalization advocates, meanwhile, pushed the Biden administration to go much further, as 24 states plus the District of Columbia have approved adult-use recreational marijuana and 38 states have legalized medicinal cannabis.

"Supporting federal marijuana decriminalization means supporting the removal of marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, not changing its scheduling," DPA director of drug markets and legal regulation Cat Packer said in a statement. "We all deserve a federal framework for marijuana that upholds the health, well-being, and safety of our communities—particularly Black communities who have borne the brunt of our country's racist enforcement of marijuana laws."

"Rescheduling marijuana is not a policy solution for federal marijuana criminalization or its harms, and it won't address the disproportionate impact that it has had on Black and Brown communities," Packer added.

Dasheeda Dawson, chair of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition and founder of Cannabis NYC, said: "The time for descheduling cannabis is not just a matter of policy; it's an imperative for justice and equity. Rescheduling would undermine the hard-fought progress made by cannabis equity and policy reform leaders like the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, jeopardizing the livelihoods and futures of those entrepreneurs and communities disproportionately affected by past criminalization."

"We cannot afford to backtrack on our commitment to repair the harm inflicted by outdated policies," Dawson added. "Descheduling is not just about legality; it's about rectifying historic injustices and ensuring a fair and inclusive future for all."

SEE ALL
Germany's ICJ team
News

ICJ Rejects Nicaragua's Request to Block German Arms Sales to Israel

The top United Nations court on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected Nicaragua's request for an emergency order directing Germany to halt arms sales to Israel as it wages what the tribunal previously called a "plausibly" genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) judges voted 15-1 against the Nicaraguan motion, finding an absence of legal conditions for issuing an order blocking Germany from selling arms to Israel.

"Based on the factual information and legal arguments presented by the parties, the court concludes that, at present, the circumstances are not such as to require the exercise of its power... to indicate provisional measures," ICJ President Nawaf Salam wrote in the ruling.

However, the court did not grant Germany's request for an outright dismissal and will hear arguments on the merits of the Nicaraguan case, a process expected to take months to complete.

Carlos José Argüello Gómez, the head of Nicaragua's legal team and its ambassador to the Netherlands, said after the ruling that the court's decision "doesn't mean that Germany hasn't violated... international law."

"Germany has—from our point of view—violated international law" by providing weapons for Israel, Argüello contended.

Nicaragua asserts that Germany—which provided nearly 30% of Israel's exported arms last year—is complicit in Israeli war crimes and is enabling genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinian and international officials say that more than 123,000 Palestinians have been killed, maimed, or left missing by Israel's relentless 207-day onslaught and siege, which has also displaced around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people and driven at least hundreds of thousands of people to the brink of starvation. The majority of those killed have been women and children.

"Germany is failing to honor its own obligation to prevent genocide or to ensure respect of international humanitarian law," Argüello argued during case hearings earlier this month.

According to the Lawyers' Collective—a Berlin-based group that is suing to stop German arms sales to Israel—Germany's government issued €326.5 million ($348.7 million) worth of weapons export licenses for Israel last year, the majority of which were approved after October 7, 2023. That's a tenfold increase from 2022. The group says these transfers violate Germany's obligations under the War Weapons Control Act, which requires arms exports to comply with international humanitarian law.

Germany counters that its weapons sales to Israel have decreased since the October 7 attack and emphasizes what it says are the defensive nature of recent arms transfers. Berlin also says it has robust internal mechanisms and processes to consider the human rights implications of German arms sales.

Top German diplomat Tania von Uslar-Gleichen, who is leading Germany's legal team at the ICJ, said during hearings that Nicaragua's allegations "have no basis in fact or law."

Reacting to the ICJ ruling, the German Foreign Office said that "Germany is not a party to the conflict in the Middle East. On the contrary, we are working day and night for a two-state solution."

"We are the largest donor of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians," the ministry added. "We are working to ensure that aid reaches the people in Gaza."

The German government has been intensely criticized for its stauch support for Israel and for violently cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests since October. Numerous observers contend that Germany's actions are driven by historical guilt over the Holocaust, with some critics claiming the German government is weaponizing that guilt in order to demonize Palestinians and their defenders.

Israel—which is not a party to the case—vehemently denies genocide charges, arguing it is defending itself in the wake of the Hamas-led attacks that left more than 1,100 people dead and around 240 others taken hostage. Israeli forces are believed to have killed numerous Israelis on October 7 and an unknown number of hostages since then during the bombardment and invasion of Gaza.

In addition to Nicaragua's motion, the ICJ is considering a case brought by South Africa and supported by over 30 nations asserting that Israel's Gaza assault is genocidal because it is "intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial, and ethnical group."

On January 26, the tribunal issued a provisional ruling that found Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza and ordered the country to prevent genocidal acts. Critics accuse Israel of ignoring the order by continuing to block humanitarian aid from reaching Gazans as children and other vulnerable people starve to death.

Citing "the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation," the ICJ last month issued another provisional order directing Israel to allow desperately needed aid into the embattled enclave and reiterating its earlier order to prevent genocidal acts.

Also last month, the U.N. Human Rights Council published a draft report that found "reasonable grounds to believe" that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

SEE ALL