SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
'The real story,' explains Aaron, is the 'dozens of public interest groups, new civil rights leaders and netroots organizers coordinating actions online and off, inside and outside Washington' who made this victory possible. (Image: via Facebook)
This is what democracy looks like.
That's not something I thought I'd ever say about the bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission.
After years of cronyism, corruption and cowardice, Thursday's vote for strong Net Neutrality rules at the FCC is unexpected if not unprecedented.
The FCC is reversing a decade of failed policies, rejecting a massive misinformation campaign from the cable and phone industries, and restoring the agency's authority to protect Internet users.
This is the biggest win for the public interest in the agency's history.
Yet even five months ago, this kind of victory looked impossible.
How We Got Here
Credit FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler for listening to his critics and changing his mind about how to best protect the open Internet. Praise President Obama for using his bully pulpit. Thank John Oliver for coining the memorable phrase "cable company fuckery."
But know that none of this happens without a relentless push from the grassroots. The real story here was dozens of public interest groups, new civil rights leaders and netroots organizers coordinating actions online and off, inside and outside Washington.
Artists, musicians, faith leaders and legal scholars bolstered their efforts. And about a dozen mostly unsung advocates in D.C. pushed back daily against the phone and cable lobby. This diverse coalition broke the FCC's website, jammed switchboards on Capitol Hill, and forged new alliances that are transforming how telecom and technology policy is made.
The long but probably still incomplete list of key groups that share in the credit for this victory includes 18 Million Rising, Access, the ACLU, the Center for Media Justice, ColorOfChange.org, Common Cause, Consumers Union, CREDO Action, DailyKos, D.C. Action Lab, Demand Progress, Democracy for America, EFF, Engine Advocacy, Fight for the Future, Free Press, the Future of Music Coalition, the Internet Freedom Business Alliance, the Media Action Grassroots Network, the Media Democracy Fund, the Media Literacy Project, the Media Mobilizing Project, MoveOn, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Open Media, the Open Technology Institute, PCCC, Popular Resistance, Presente.org, Public Knowledge, Revolutions Per Minute and SumOfUs.
These groups worked alongside online companies (notably upstarts like Etsy, Kickstarter, reddit and Tumblr), investors and an abundance of startups and small businesses that didn't want to get stuck in an Internet slow lane. Some of these innovators stepped in at key moments to lobby policymakers. But no matter what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, the activists spurred the companies -- not the other way around.
The highlights of the past year included rallies outside the FCC and across the country, people camped out on the FCC's doorstep, enormous video billboards erected in D.C., jam-packed public hearings, and street theater. More than 40,000 websites joined the historic Internet slowdown in September.
All told, more than 4 million people filed official comments with the FCC -- more than on any other issue in the agency's history -- with the vast majority of them calling on the chairman to scrap his earlier terrible plan and make strong rules under Title II of the Communications Act.
And for once, the FCC listened.
Why Title II Is So Important
Back in January 2014, when a federal court tossed out the FCC's previous attempt at open Internet rules, no one knew that the wonky shorthand for a key section of the Communications Act would become an activist rallying cry. But that's what happened with Title II.
In the hundreds of pages of rules the FCC votes on Thursday, the part that matters most is the agency's decision to recognize that broadband access is a telecommunications service. This is so important because it's the law, and it's the only way to restore the agency's the power to make rules against blocking, discrimination or slow lanes.
The rules are only as good as the authority they rest on and the FCC's willingness to enforce them. So we'll have to remain vigilant. But with the key sections of Title II intact, Internet users will be able to file complaints and actually stop corporate abuse -- including future nefarious schemes Comcast and Verizon haven't even dreamed up yet.
Almost everything the FCC does leads to a lawsuit -- and these new rules will be no exception. But the beauty of the Title II approach is that it will actually stand up in court. The phone and cable companies know that Title II gives the agency the strongest legal standing -- which is why they've been fighting so hard against it.
Lies, Damn Lies and Ajit Pai
Aware they've lost both the FCC vote and the public's support, our opponents in Washington have resorted to lies and deception. The crazy talk has reached a fever pitch with claims that these lightest-touch rules will raise taxes, re-impose the Fairness Doctrine, encourage dictators, unleash trial lawyers and smother puppies.
But trying to track all of the truthiness is a constant game of whack-a-mole, with the same lies popping up over and over. Taking the lead in this misinformation campaign has been Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who is unscrupulous but very media-savvy. Of course, his outlandish claims can't withstand any actual analysis or scrutiny.
What the FCC is proposing has nothing to do with Internet content or censorship: Net Neutrality rules don't regulate what's on the Internet any more than the FCC dictates what people say on phone calls.
Nothing the FCC is doing will raise your taxes. The Washington Postawarded the Progressive Policy Institute "three Pinocchios" for telling this lie. And Sen. Ron Wyden, author of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, summed up the cable-funded think tank's claims in a single word: "Baloney."
Title II's alleged harms to broadband investment also have been repeatedly debunked -- not just by Free Press, but by top executives at Verizon, Charter, Comcast, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile, Time Warner Cable and Verizon (at least when they're talking to Wall Street instead of Washington).
The industry is shelling out millions to deceive people, but they aren't buying it. Support for real Net Neutrality is strong across the political spectrum, and more than 80 percent of self-identified conservatives support protections like the ones the FCC is putting forward.
The Next Fight
With this victory, and the ones like SOPA that came before it, a new political force has awakened. But we've only just scratched the surface of what a well-organized Internet constituency can accomplish. Now we must figure out how to turn this exciting moment into a lasting political movement.
Comcast and Verizon are used to getting their way in Washington and won't take this defeat lying down. Soon we'll see legislation designed to undermine the FCC's new rules, attempts to defund the agency, and a new wave of Astroturf groups unleashed on the Hill and the airwaves.
So while we can celebrate today, we need to start defending Net Neutrality again tomorrow. That starts by showing Congress what we just showed the FCC: Messing with the Internet is a big mistake.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
This is what democracy looks like.
That's not something I thought I'd ever say about the bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission.
After years of cronyism, corruption and cowardice, Thursday's vote for strong Net Neutrality rules at the FCC is unexpected if not unprecedented.
The FCC is reversing a decade of failed policies, rejecting a massive misinformation campaign from the cable and phone industries, and restoring the agency's authority to protect Internet users.
This is the biggest win for the public interest in the agency's history.
Yet even five months ago, this kind of victory looked impossible.
How We Got Here
Credit FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler for listening to his critics and changing his mind about how to best protect the open Internet. Praise President Obama for using his bully pulpit. Thank John Oliver for coining the memorable phrase "cable company fuckery."
But know that none of this happens without a relentless push from the grassroots. The real story here was dozens of public interest groups, new civil rights leaders and netroots organizers coordinating actions online and off, inside and outside Washington.
Artists, musicians, faith leaders and legal scholars bolstered their efforts. And about a dozen mostly unsung advocates in D.C. pushed back daily against the phone and cable lobby. This diverse coalition broke the FCC's website, jammed switchboards on Capitol Hill, and forged new alliances that are transforming how telecom and technology policy is made.
The long but probably still incomplete list of key groups that share in the credit for this victory includes 18 Million Rising, Access, the ACLU, the Center for Media Justice, ColorOfChange.org, Common Cause, Consumers Union, CREDO Action, DailyKos, D.C. Action Lab, Demand Progress, Democracy for America, EFF, Engine Advocacy, Fight for the Future, Free Press, the Future of Music Coalition, the Internet Freedom Business Alliance, the Media Action Grassroots Network, the Media Democracy Fund, the Media Literacy Project, the Media Mobilizing Project, MoveOn, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Open Media, the Open Technology Institute, PCCC, Popular Resistance, Presente.org, Public Knowledge, Revolutions Per Minute and SumOfUs.
These groups worked alongside online companies (notably upstarts like Etsy, Kickstarter, reddit and Tumblr), investors and an abundance of startups and small businesses that didn't want to get stuck in an Internet slow lane. Some of these innovators stepped in at key moments to lobby policymakers. But no matter what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, the activists spurred the companies -- not the other way around.
The highlights of the past year included rallies outside the FCC and across the country, people camped out on the FCC's doorstep, enormous video billboards erected in D.C., jam-packed public hearings, and street theater. More than 40,000 websites joined the historic Internet slowdown in September.
All told, more than 4 million people filed official comments with the FCC -- more than on any other issue in the agency's history -- with the vast majority of them calling on the chairman to scrap his earlier terrible plan and make strong rules under Title II of the Communications Act.
And for once, the FCC listened.
Why Title II Is So Important
Back in January 2014, when a federal court tossed out the FCC's previous attempt at open Internet rules, no one knew that the wonky shorthand for a key section of the Communications Act would become an activist rallying cry. But that's what happened with Title II.
In the hundreds of pages of rules the FCC votes on Thursday, the part that matters most is the agency's decision to recognize that broadband access is a telecommunications service. This is so important because it's the law, and it's the only way to restore the agency's the power to make rules against blocking, discrimination or slow lanes.
The rules are only as good as the authority they rest on and the FCC's willingness to enforce them. So we'll have to remain vigilant. But with the key sections of Title II intact, Internet users will be able to file complaints and actually stop corporate abuse -- including future nefarious schemes Comcast and Verizon haven't even dreamed up yet.
Almost everything the FCC does leads to a lawsuit -- and these new rules will be no exception. But the beauty of the Title II approach is that it will actually stand up in court. The phone and cable companies know that Title II gives the agency the strongest legal standing -- which is why they've been fighting so hard against it.
Lies, Damn Lies and Ajit Pai
Aware they've lost both the FCC vote and the public's support, our opponents in Washington have resorted to lies and deception. The crazy talk has reached a fever pitch with claims that these lightest-touch rules will raise taxes, re-impose the Fairness Doctrine, encourage dictators, unleash trial lawyers and smother puppies.
But trying to track all of the truthiness is a constant game of whack-a-mole, with the same lies popping up over and over. Taking the lead in this misinformation campaign has been Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who is unscrupulous but very media-savvy. Of course, his outlandish claims can't withstand any actual analysis or scrutiny.
What the FCC is proposing has nothing to do with Internet content or censorship: Net Neutrality rules don't regulate what's on the Internet any more than the FCC dictates what people say on phone calls.
Nothing the FCC is doing will raise your taxes. The Washington Postawarded the Progressive Policy Institute "three Pinocchios" for telling this lie. And Sen. Ron Wyden, author of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, summed up the cable-funded think tank's claims in a single word: "Baloney."
Title II's alleged harms to broadband investment also have been repeatedly debunked -- not just by Free Press, but by top executives at Verizon, Charter, Comcast, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile, Time Warner Cable and Verizon (at least when they're talking to Wall Street instead of Washington).
The industry is shelling out millions to deceive people, but they aren't buying it. Support for real Net Neutrality is strong across the political spectrum, and more than 80 percent of self-identified conservatives support protections like the ones the FCC is putting forward.
The Next Fight
With this victory, and the ones like SOPA that came before it, a new political force has awakened. But we've only just scratched the surface of what a well-organized Internet constituency can accomplish. Now we must figure out how to turn this exciting moment into a lasting political movement.
Comcast and Verizon are used to getting their way in Washington and won't take this defeat lying down. Soon we'll see legislation designed to undermine the FCC's new rules, attempts to defund the agency, and a new wave of Astroturf groups unleashed on the Hill and the airwaves.
So while we can celebrate today, we need to start defending Net Neutrality again tomorrow. That starts by showing Congress what we just showed the FCC: Messing with the Internet is a big mistake.
This is what democracy looks like.
That's not something I thought I'd ever say about the bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission.
After years of cronyism, corruption and cowardice, Thursday's vote for strong Net Neutrality rules at the FCC is unexpected if not unprecedented.
The FCC is reversing a decade of failed policies, rejecting a massive misinformation campaign from the cable and phone industries, and restoring the agency's authority to protect Internet users.
This is the biggest win for the public interest in the agency's history.
Yet even five months ago, this kind of victory looked impossible.
How We Got Here
Credit FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler for listening to his critics and changing his mind about how to best protect the open Internet. Praise President Obama for using his bully pulpit. Thank John Oliver for coining the memorable phrase "cable company fuckery."
But know that none of this happens without a relentless push from the grassroots. The real story here was dozens of public interest groups, new civil rights leaders and netroots organizers coordinating actions online and off, inside and outside Washington.
Artists, musicians, faith leaders and legal scholars bolstered their efforts. And about a dozen mostly unsung advocates in D.C. pushed back daily against the phone and cable lobby. This diverse coalition broke the FCC's website, jammed switchboards on Capitol Hill, and forged new alliances that are transforming how telecom and technology policy is made.
The long but probably still incomplete list of key groups that share in the credit for this victory includes 18 Million Rising, Access, the ACLU, the Center for Media Justice, ColorOfChange.org, Common Cause, Consumers Union, CREDO Action, DailyKos, D.C. Action Lab, Demand Progress, Democracy for America, EFF, Engine Advocacy, Fight for the Future, Free Press, the Future of Music Coalition, the Internet Freedom Business Alliance, the Media Action Grassroots Network, the Media Democracy Fund, the Media Literacy Project, the Media Mobilizing Project, MoveOn, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Open Media, the Open Technology Institute, PCCC, Popular Resistance, Presente.org, Public Knowledge, Revolutions Per Minute and SumOfUs.
These groups worked alongside online companies (notably upstarts like Etsy, Kickstarter, reddit and Tumblr), investors and an abundance of startups and small businesses that didn't want to get stuck in an Internet slow lane. Some of these innovators stepped in at key moments to lobby policymakers. But no matter what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, the activists spurred the companies -- not the other way around.
The highlights of the past year included rallies outside the FCC and across the country, people camped out on the FCC's doorstep, enormous video billboards erected in D.C., jam-packed public hearings, and street theater. More than 40,000 websites joined the historic Internet slowdown in September.
All told, more than 4 million people filed official comments with the FCC -- more than on any other issue in the agency's history -- with the vast majority of them calling on the chairman to scrap his earlier terrible plan and make strong rules under Title II of the Communications Act.
And for once, the FCC listened.
Why Title II Is So Important
Back in January 2014, when a federal court tossed out the FCC's previous attempt at open Internet rules, no one knew that the wonky shorthand for a key section of the Communications Act would become an activist rallying cry. But that's what happened with Title II.
In the hundreds of pages of rules the FCC votes on Thursday, the part that matters most is the agency's decision to recognize that broadband access is a telecommunications service. This is so important because it's the law, and it's the only way to restore the agency's the power to make rules against blocking, discrimination or slow lanes.
The rules are only as good as the authority they rest on and the FCC's willingness to enforce them. So we'll have to remain vigilant. But with the key sections of Title II intact, Internet users will be able to file complaints and actually stop corporate abuse -- including future nefarious schemes Comcast and Verizon haven't even dreamed up yet.
Almost everything the FCC does leads to a lawsuit -- and these new rules will be no exception. But the beauty of the Title II approach is that it will actually stand up in court. The phone and cable companies know that Title II gives the agency the strongest legal standing -- which is why they've been fighting so hard against it.
Lies, Damn Lies and Ajit Pai
Aware they've lost both the FCC vote and the public's support, our opponents in Washington have resorted to lies and deception. The crazy talk has reached a fever pitch with claims that these lightest-touch rules will raise taxes, re-impose the Fairness Doctrine, encourage dictators, unleash trial lawyers and smother puppies.
But trying to track all of the truthiness is a constant game of whack-a-mole, with the same lies popping up over and over. Taking the lead in this misinformation campaign has been Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who is unscrupulous but very media-savvy. Of course, his outlandish claims can't withstand any actual analysis or scrutiny.
What the FCC is proposing has nothing to do with Internet content or censorship: Net Neutrality rules don't regulate what's on the Internet any more than the FCC dictates what people say on phone calls.
Nothing the FCC is doing will raise your taxes. The Washington Postawarded the Progressive Policy Institute "three Pinocchios" for telling this lie. And Sen. Ron Wyden, author of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, summed up the cable-funded think tank's claims in a single word: "Baloney."
Title II's alleged harms to broadband investment also have been repeatedly debunked -- not just by Free Press, but by top executives at Verizon, Charter, Comcast, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile, Time Warner Cable and Verizon (at least when they're talking to Wall Street instead of Washington).
The industry is shelling out millions to deceive people, but they aren't buying it. Support for real Net Neutrality is strong across the political spectrum, and more than 80 percent of self-identified conservatives support protections like the ones the FCC is putting forward.
The Next Fight
With this victory, and the ones like SOPA that came before it, a new political force has awakened. But we've only just scratched the surface of what a well-organized Internet constituency can accomplish. Now we must figure out how to turn this exciting moment into a lasting political movement.
Comcast and Verizon are used to getting their way in Washington and won't take this defeat lying down. Soon we'll see legislation designed to undermine the FCC's new rules, attempts to defund the agency, and a new wave of Astroturf groups unleashed on the Hill and the airwaves.
So while we can celebrate today, we need to start defending Net Neutrality again tomorrow. That starts by showing Congress what we just showed the FCC: Messing with the Internet is a big mistake.
"U.S. officials are escalating deadly attacks on one of the poorest and most devastated nations in the Middle East, while recklessly pushing the U.S. toward a wider regional war with Iran," said one peace group.
This is a developing news story... Please check back for possible updates.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced Saturday that he had ordered the military to "launch decisive and powerful" action against the Houthis in war-torn Yemen, a glaring contradiction of what critics have called the Republican's "anti-war charade."
The U.S. bombing follows Trump redesignating the Houthis—also known as Ansar Allah—as a terrorist organization shortly after returning to office in January and comes just days after the group renewed a blockade on Israeli ships.
Shuaib Almosawa reported earlier this week for Drop Site News that "the military spokesperson for the Houthi-led government in Yemen on Tuesday announced the resumption of the naval blockade targeting Israeli ships traversing Yemen's waterways, following the expiration of its deadline for Israel to allow aid into the besieged Gaza Strip."
"In a televised statement broadcast by Almasirah TV channel, Houthi spokesperson, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, said that the blockade on Israeli ships now covers Yemen's waterways in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait," according to Almosawa, a freelance journalist based in the Yemeni capital Sanaa.
Trump's lengthy Saturday post on his Truth Social platform did not explicitly mention Israel or Gaza. He said in part that "funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at U.S. aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies. These relentless assaults have cost the U.S. and World Economy many BILLIONS of Dollars while, at the same time, putting innocent lives at risk."
Almosawa reported Saturday that at least nine civilians have been killed in Trump's new bombing campaign.
According to The Associated Press:
The Houthi media office said the U.S. strikes hit "a residential neighborhood" in Sanaa's northern district of Shouab. Sanaa residents said at least four airstrikes rocked the Eastern Geraf neighborhood in Shouab district, terrifying women and children in the area.
"The explosions were very strong," said Abdallah al-Alffi. "It was like an earthquake."
The United States, Israel, and Britain have previously hit Houthi-held areas in Yemen. Israel's military declined to comment.
Trump noted the bombings under former U.S. President Joe Biden, saying Saturday that his predecessor's "response was pathetically weak, so the unrestrained Houthis just kept going."
The U.S.-based peace group CodePink called out another part of Trump's post, saying that he "claimed that the Houthis have waged an 'unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism' against America and other ships, aircraft, and drones. However, he conveniently ignores critical context behind these actions. The Houthis' attacks on foreign cargo ships began in response to the ongoing genocide in Gaza, aimed at deterring the continuation of Israel's ongoing plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine."
"This campaign ceased when a cease-fire was finally put in place, only to resume due to Israel's ongoing violations of the cease-fire agreement," CodePink continued, noting Israeli strikes that just reportedly killed aid workers and journalists in Gaza. "Instead of confronting the root causes of this violence, U.S. officials are escalating deadly attacks on one of the poorest and most devastated nations in the Middle East, while recklessly pushing the U.S. toward a wider regional war with Iran."
"CodePink and its allies demand an immediate halt to U.S. military intervention in Yemen and across the Middle East," the group concluded. "We call on the government to prioritize peace and justice by immediately ending all military aid and funds to Israel and holding Israel accountable for breaking the cease-fire."
Members of Congress across the political spectrum have a history of criticizing U.S. bombings of Yemen throughout its decadelong civil war as illegal. Justin Amash, a libertarian former Michigan congressman, slammed the Saturday strikes on social media.
"I'll say it again. It is unconstitutional for President Trump to engage in acts of war in Yemen," Amash explained. "It doesn't matter how appropriate you think it is for the U.S. to take on Houthis or terrorists or anyone. Congress has not authorized war in Yemen. Engaging in war there is unlawful."
"It underscores that his critiques of white supremacy in the Age of Trump are perceived as threatening for one simple reason: He's right."
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has faced a flood of condemnation since announcing on social media Friday that "South Africa's ambassador to the United States is no longer welcome in our great country."
"Ebrahim Rasool is a race-baiting politician who hates America and hates President Donald Trump," the secretary claimed. "We have nothing to discuss with him and so he is considered PERSONA NON GRATA."
In the post on X—the social media site owned by Elon Musk, Trump's South Africa-born billionaire adviser—Rubio linked to an article by the right-wing news site Breitbart about Rasool saying during a Friday webinar that the U.S. president is leading global a white supremacist movement.
As examples of Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement exporting its "supremacist assault," Rasool pointed to Musk elevating Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right Reform U.K. party, and Vice President JD Vance meeting with the leader of the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany party.
Responding to Rubio on X, North Carolina State University assistant teaching professor Nathan Lean said: "Ebrahim Rasool is a man of genuine decency, moral courage, and is a friend. This makes me absolutely embarrassed to be an American. And it underscores that his critiques of white supremacy in the Age of Trump are perceived as threatening for one simple reason: He's right."
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) similarly responded: "Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool is a principled leader who fought alongside Nelson Mandela against apartheid and has dedicated his career to democracy, interfaith cooperation, and justice. Baseless attacks like this only serve to divide. We stand by him and his lifelong commitment to building a more just and inclusive world."
Laila Al-Arian, executive producer of Al Jazeera's "Fault Lines," declared that "this administration is virulently and unabashedly Islamophobic, not even trying to hide how unhinged they are as they go after people for speech."
Rasool previously served as ambassador during the Obama administration and returned to the role shortly before Trump began his second term. Earlier this week, Semafor reported on his difficulties dealing with the current administration:
He has failed to secure routine meetings with State Department officials and key Republican figures since Trump took office in January, Washington and South African government insiders told Semafor, drawing frustration in Pretoria.
Rasool is likely to have been frozen out for his prior vocal criticism of Israel, a South African diplomat, based in Washington, told Semafor. "A man named Ebrahim, who is Muslim, with a history of pro-Palestine politics, is not likely to do well in that job right now," said one of them. While South Africa brought a case against Israel to the International Court of Justice in December 2023, accusing it of genocide in Gaza, Rasool is nevertheless widely considered to be among the government's most ardent pro-Palestine voices.
South African political analyst Sandile Swana told Al Jazeera on Friday that the "core of the dispute" with the diplomatic was the genocide case against U.S.-armed Israel. In the fight against apartheid, the U.S. "supported the apartheid regime," said Swana. "Rasool continues to point out the behaviour of the United States, even now is to support apartheid and genocide."
Other critics also pointed to the ongoing court battle over Israel's utter destruction of Gaza and mass slaughter of Palestinians.
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) national executive director Nihad Awad told Rubio: "Your declaration of Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool as persona non grata is a racist, Islamophobic, transparent act of retaliation for South Africa's opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza."
Imraan Siddiqi, a former congressional candidate in Washington who now leads the state's branch of CAIR, said that "he stood up firmly against apartheid, so it's no coincidence you're punishing him in favor of an openly apartheid state."
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's office said in a statement Saturday that "the presidency has noted the regrettable expulsion of South Africa's ambassador to the United States of America, Mr. Ebrahim Rasool.
"The presidency urges all relevant and impacted stakeholders to maintain the established diplomatic decorum in their engagement with the matter," the office added. "South Africa remains committed to building a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States of America."
The diplomat's expulsion follows Trump signing an executive order last month that frames South Africa's land law as "blatant discrimination" against the country's white minority. Writing about the order for Foreign Policy in Focus, Zeb Larson and William Minter noted that "his actions echo a long history of right-wing support in the United States for racism in Southern Africa, including mobilization of support for white Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as well as the apartheid regime in South Africa."
##
"It's increasingly clear that we're entering a modern McCarthy moment," said the head of the ACLU.
U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign-like speech at the Department of Justice on Friday sparked a fresh wave of alarm over the Republican's attacks on his critics, disrespect for the rule of law, and plans for his second term.
Trump—who was convicted of 34 felonies in New York before returning to the White House—slammed his perceived opponents as "scum" and "thugs," called efforts to hold him accountable for alleged criminal activity "bullshit," and declared: "We will expel the rogue actors and corrupt forces from our government. We will expose... their egregious crimes and severe misconduct."
Trump's appearance with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and props promoting drug enforcement displayed his intent to remake the federal judiciary and fueled speculation that he will appoint Florida-based District Judge Aileen Cannon, who dismissed the classified documents case against him, to the nation's Supreme Court.
"Some of the most hallowed halls of justice in America were disgraced by the president of the United States, who has inappropriately installed his personal lawyers and other loyalists into leadership roles at the Department of Justice," said Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program and an adviser at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
"This reinforces what we knew: The independence of the department has been compromised. During his remarks, the president sought to undermine faith in our judicial system, attacked lawyers who support due process and the rule of law, and made it clear that he expects the attorney general and other leaders to use the full force and resources of the Justice Department to roll back our civil and human rights, target his enemies, and operationalize a worldview that perpetuates white supremacy," she said. "The anti-immigrant rhetoric that both he and the attorney general used was reprehensible and unacceptable."
Zwarensteyn stressed that "in our democracy, Justice Department lawyers—including the attorney general—are the people's lawyers, not the president's lawyers, and they have a sacred duty to enforce our nation's laws without prejudice and with an eye toward justice. The DOJ must be seen by the public—every member, from every community—as fair and independent arbiters of our legal system. Today's appearance at the DOJ by the president, during which he thanked and called out his appointees and personal lawyers, will further tarnish the public's trust of the department and undermine our democracy."
"This cannot be the way that the DOJ—the nation's signature agency for the enforcement of our federal civil rights laws—functions moving forward. We need a DOJ that is working for the people, not the president, and we demand better of our federal government and its leaders," she concluded, calling on the Senate to reject his nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to a key department post.
One of Trump's targets during the speech was Norm Eisen, who was involved with the president's first impeachment and previously served as White House special counsel for ethics and government reform, U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic, and board chair of the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Eisen responded with a video on social media, highlighting his work with State Democracy Defenders Action, which he co-founded.
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in a statement that "Ambassador Norman Eisen is a great American patriot, with an extraordinary career in public service. He has served the American people for decades inside and outside of government. He has worked to defend democracy at home and abroad."
"It is a sad day when the president of the United States personally attacks an individual of such character," Romero continued. "When charitable organizations like CREW, the ACLU, and others sue the federal government to uphold the law, we are playing a vital role in upholding American values."
The ACLU leader also warned that "it's increasingly clear that we’re entering a modern McCarthy moment. When the government is targeting a former ambassador, a legal permanent resident, law firms, and even universities and treating them like enemies of the state, it is a dark day for American democracy."
Since Trump returned to power in January, his administration has not only empowered billionaire Elon Musk to dismantle the federal government but also targeted news outlets, student protesters, and education institutions while signaling a willingness to ignore court orders—fueling calls for Congress to hit him with a historic third impeachment.