SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Protesting ICE savagery
Further

Majestic Scorn: A City Aflame Fights Fire and ICE

Despite the specious swapping out of fascist ICE leaders seeking to quell public fury, the gutted, steadfast denizens of Minneapolis continue to show up in frigid weather to demand "ICE Out" and "Stop Killing Us." Honoring their righteous struggle, Friday sees the city nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by The Nation, which cites its "moral leadership" for those fighting fascism on "a troubled planet." Likewise moved, The Boss just wrote them a song. Minnesota, says one patriot, "taught us to be brave."

Writing to "the distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee," the editors of The Nation magazine nominated the city of Minneapolis and its people for the 2026 Nobel Peace "as longtime observers of struggles to establish peace and justice" and as the editors of a magazine that's proudly included "several Nobel laureates on our editorial board and masthead - including the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." With their "resistance to violent authoritarianism," they argue, "the people of Minneapolis have renewed the spirit of Dr. King’s call for the positive affirmation of peace.” No municipality has ever been recognized for the award, they acknowledge, but "in these unprecedented times," they believe Minneapolis "has met and exceeded the committee’s standard of promoting 'democracy and human rights, (and) creating (a) more peaceful world."

To the Committee, they offer a brief, harrowing history: The Trump regime deploying thousands of armed, masked federal goons targeting the city's immigrant communities in a campaign more about terrorizing people of color than safety; the abuses of harassment, detention, deportation, injury, and the murders of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti; the call by elected officials, labor leaders and clergy for nonviolent protest; the people answering that call by the tens of thousands in the streets in sub-zero conditions, with mutual support and care for vulnerable neighbors, "through countless acts of courage and solidarity." Quoting Renee Good’s widow - “They have guns; we have whistles" - they argue the whistles have both alerted residents to the presence ofICE and "awakened Americans to the threat of violence (from) governments (that) target their own people."

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., they note, served as The Nation’s civil rights correspondent from 1961 to 1966. When he received the Peace Prize in 1964, he declared it recognizes those "moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice." King believed it is vital to show nonviolence as "not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation...Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace (and) transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood...The foundation of such a method is love." "We believe that the people of Minneapolis have displayed that love," the editors conclude. "That is why we are proud to nominate them and their city for the Nobel Peace Prize."

They don't mention any possible response by a mad, vengeful, impossibly petty king. But they do reflect the respect and gratitude of countless Americans who have watched the people of Minnesota endure "in the face of immense and continuing tragedy," and maintain their courage, dignity and humanity. One of those Americans was Springsteen, who explains in a brief note that he wrote, recorded and released Streets of Minneapolis within days "in response to the state terror being visited on the city." He dedicates it to "the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good," and signs off, "Stay free, Bruce Springsteen." On Wednesday, in hours, it soared to the top of the iTunes chart ranking bestselling individual tracks in the country.

The song is both classic Springsteen - potent, lyrical, with "a sense of urgency and genuine fury" - but atypically direct. It names names, crimes, this specific moment in history: "A city aflame fought fire and ice/‘Neath an occupier’s boots/King Trump’s private army from the DHS/Guns belted to their coats/Came to Minneapolis to enforce the law/Or so their story goes." There is rage: "It's our blood and bones/And these whistles and phones/Against Miller's and Noem's dirty lies." Resolve: "Our city’s heart and soul persists / Through broken glass and bloody tears." Tragedy: "And there were bloody footprints/Where mercy should have stood/And two dead left to die on snow-filled streets/Alex Pretti and Renee Good." Thank you to The Nation, to The Boss, to all those ordinary, extraordinary Americans standing strong against the monsters among us.


Oh our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Singing through the bloody mist
We’ll take our stand for this land
And the stranger in our midst

Oh our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Crying through the bloody mist
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis

- YouTube www.youtube.com


Makeshift memorial for Alex Pretti, shot dead in the streets of Minneapolis Makeshift memorial for Alex Pretti, shot dead in the streets of Minneapolis (Photo by Roberto Schmidt / AFP via Getty Images)

SEE ALL
Activists Demand Climate Policies 10 Years On Since Paris Agreement
News

'The US Is Becoming a Pariah': Trump Officially Ditches Paris Agreement, Again

President Donald Trump faced a fresh flood of fury on Tuesday as he formally withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement a second time, part of the broader anti-climate agenda he's pursued since returning to power.

The US initially completed the one-year withdrawal process in November 2020, as ballots from the general election were still being counted. After winning the race, former President Joe Biden swiftly rejoined the climate treaty, but Trump reclaimed the White House four years later—with help from Big Oil—and moved to abandon the pact again on his first day back in the Oval Office.

"Thanks to President Trump, the US has officially escaped from the Paris Climate Agreement, which undermined American values and priorities, wasted hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and stifled economic growth," a White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said in a Tuesday statement celebrating the "America First victory."

Advocates for ambitious action on the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency struck a much different tone about the president exiting the 2015 deal, which aims to limit global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, relative to preindustrial levels. Oil Change International US campaign manager Allie Rosenbluth declared that "Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a betrayal of the communities at risk from climate disaster, especially those on the frontlines of the crisis in the Global South."

"Trump is entrenching petro imperialism and enriching his fossil fuel CEO donors, at the cost of a livable planet," she said. "The US is the largest historic emitter and the current planet-wrecker-in chief, responsible for a greater increase in oil and gas extraction than any other country since the Paris Agreement. Now, Trump is pulling out of the agreement that commits it to help solve a crisis it largely created—deepening global risk of climate-fueled hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and floods."

Rosenbluth argued that "under Trump, the US is becoming a pariah on the world stage and should be treated as such by the countries claiming to defend climate multilateralism and international cooperation. It is clinging to fossil fuel dependency as many other nations embrace the clean, affordable energy sources of the future. Trump is trying to drag the rest of the world backwards by launching conflicts for oil and bullying other countries into deepening their reliance on dirty, dangerous fossil fuels."

"Trump can withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, but can't change that millions of people will fight for climate justice, including leaders from the Global South and US states and localities," she added. "While Trump turns the US into a rogue state, we must redouble global efforts to end the fossil era and fight for safety and dignity for all."

In an interview with the Guardian, Basav Sen, climate justice project director at the Institute for Policy Studies, suggested that US disengagement has already encouraged others to take action.

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Brazil last November—which the Trump administration did not attend—Colombia, the Netherlands, and Pacific Island nations announced plans to host historic talks on phasing out fossil fuels. Sen said, "I have to believe that the reactionary position of the US acted as further impetus for those countries to step up."

Still, the Trump administration's position means "it will be that much harder for low-income countries, who are very dependent on fossil fuel production and exports, to be able to make their transitions with the US saying that we won't fund any of it," he said. Sen also stressed that "if the domestic market in the US continues to be dominated by fossil fuels through the fiat of an authoritarian government, that will continue to have an impact on the rest of the world."

In the lead-up to COP30, Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard urged other governments "to resist aligning with the Trump administration's denial of the accelerating climate crisis and instead demonstrate true climate leadership."

On Tuesday, Marta Schaaf, Amnesty's program director for climate, economic and social justice, and corporate accountability, said that "the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement sets a disturbing precedent that seeks to instigate a race to the bottom, and, along with its withdrawal from other major global climate pacts, aims to dismantle the global system of cooperation on climate action."

Despite "increasingly deadly and expensive" weather disasters, Trump has left not only the Paris Agreement but also dozens of other international treaties and organizations intended to coordinate on key issues, including human rights and the climate crisis.

"The US is one of several powerful anti-climate actors," Schaaf acknowledged, "but as an influential superpower, this decision, along with acts of coercion and bullying of other countries and powerful actors to double down on fossil fuels, causes particular harm and threatens to reverse more than a decade of global climate progress under the agreement."

"While the US may no longer be a party to the Paris Agreement, it still has legal obligations to protect humanity from the worsening impacts of climate change as confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its landmark 2025 advisory opinion," she emphasized. "US-based climate advocates and activists now find themselves on the frontlines of a fight with implications for current and future generations everywhere."

"Global solidarity and support to ensure accelerating momentum to address climate change has never been more urgent," Schaaf added. "Those who witness the harms caused by climate change and who can speak safely—must speak up. Other governments too must push back against all coercive efforts by the US. Ceding ground now risks losing it for years. Neither the planet nor the people living on the frontlines of proliferating unnatural disasters have that much time."

SEE ALL
JD Vance speaks in Ohio
News

Vance Compares US Economy Under Trump to... 'Checks Notes'... the Titanic

US Vice President JD Vance left observers scratching their heads Thursday after he touted the Trump administration's economic policies by comparing them to the doomed ocean liner Titanic.

Speaking at an event in Toledo in his home state of Ohio under a banner reading, "Lower Prices, Bigger Paychecks," Vance addressed the worsening affordability crisis by once again blaming former Democratic President Joe Biden—who left office a year ago—for the problem.

“The Democrats talk a lot about the affordability crisis in the United States of America. And yes, there is an affordability crisis—one created by Joe Biden’s policies,” Vance said. “You don’t turn the Titanic around overnight. It takes time to fix what was broken.”

Responding to Vance's remarks, writer and activist Jordan Uhl said on X, "The Titanic, a ship that famously turned around."

Other social media users piled on Vance, with one Bluesky account posting: "Let him talk. He's his own iceberg."

Podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen asked on X, "Does he know what happened to the Titanic?"

One popular X account said, "At least he's admitting what ship we're on."

In an allusion to the Titanic's demise and the Trump administration's deadly Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown, another Bluesky user quipped, "Ice was the villain of that story too."

Puns aside, statistics and public sentiment show that Trump has utterly failed to tackle the affordability crisis. The high price of groceries—a central theme of Trump's 2024 campaign—keeps getting higher. And despite Trump's claim to have defeated inflation, a congressional report published this week revealed that the average American family paid $1,625 in higher overall costs last year amid tariff turmoil, soaring healthcare costs, and overall policies that favor the rich and corporations over working people.

A New York Times/Siena College poll released Thursday found that 49% of respondents believe the country is generally worse off today than it was when Biden left office a year ago, while only 32% said the nation is better off and 19% said things are about the same. A majority of respondents also said they disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living (64%) and the economy (58%).

"You know, a thing about a phrase like 'lower prices, bigger paychecks' is that you can't actually fool people into thinking that you've delivered these things if they can look at their own bank account and see it's not true," Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson wrote on X.

"I know the Trump administration's standard strategy is to just make up an alternate reality and aggressively insist that anyone who doesn't believe in it is a domestic terrorist," Robinson added, "but personal finances are really an area where that doesn't work."

SEE ALL
'Corruption on a Breathtaking Level': Report Details Massive Foreign Investment in Trump Crypto Firm
News

'Corruption on a Breathtaking Level': Report Details Massive Foreign Investment in Trump Crypto Firm

A bombshell Saturday report from the Wall Street Journal revealed that a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family secretly backed a massive $500 million investment into the Trump family's cryptocurrency venture months before the Trump administration gave the United Arab Emirates access to highly sensitive artificial intelligence chip technology.

According to the Journal's sources, lieutenants of Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan signed a deal in early 2025 to buy a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial, the startup founded by members of the Trump family and the family of Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Documents reviewed by the Journal showed that the buyers in the deal agreed to "pay half up front, steering $187 million to Trump family entities," while "at least $31 million was also slated to flow to entities affiliated with" the Witkoff family.

Weeks after green lighting the investment into the Trump crypto venture, Tahnoon met directly with President Donald Trump and Witkoff in the White House, where he reportedly expressed interest in working with the US on AI-related technology.

Two months after this, the Journal noted, "the administration committed to give the tiny Gulf monarchy access to around 500,000 of the most advanced AI chips a year—enough to build one of the world’s biggest AI data center clusters."

Tahnoon in the past had tried to get US officials to give the UAE access to the chips, but was rebuffed on concerns that the cutting-edge technology could be passed along to top US geopolitical rival China, wrote the Journal.

Many observers expressed shock at the Journal's report, with some critics saying that it showed Trump and his associates were engaging in a criminal bribery scheme.

"This was a bribe," wrote Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, in a social media post. "UAE royals gave the Trump family $500 million, and Trump, in his presidential capacity, gave them access to tightly guarded American AI chips. The most powerful person on the planet, also happens to be the most shamelessly corrupt."

Jesse Eisinger, reporter and editor at ProPublica, argued that the Abu Dhabi investment into the Trump cypto firm "should rank among the greatest US scandals ever."

Democratic strategist David Axelrod also said that the scope of the Trump crypto investment scandal was historic in nature.

"In any other time or presidency, this story... would be an earthquake of a scandal," he wrote. "The size, scope and implications of it are unprecedented and mind-boggling."

Tommy Vietor, co-host of "Pod Save America," struggled to wrap his head around the scale of corruption on display.

"How do you add up the cost of corruption this massive?" he wondered. "It's not just that Trump is selling advanced AI tech to the highest bidder, national security be damned. Its that he's tapped that doofus Steve Witkoff as an international emissary so his son Zach Witkoff can mop up bribes."

Former Rep. Tom Malinkowski (D-NJ) warned the Trump and his associates that they could wind up paying a severe price for their deal with the UAE.

"If a future administration finds that such payments to the Trump family were acts of corruption," he wrote, "these people could be sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act, and the assets in the US could potentially be frozen."

SEE ALL
US-POLITICS-TRUMP
News

Five-Alarm Fire Warning After Trump Says 'Republicans Ought to Nationalize the Voting'

President Donald Trump on Monday declared that the Republican Party should "nationalize the voting" in the US and take away individual states' power to administer their elections.

While speaking with Dan Bongino, a former FBI deputy director and current podcaster, Trump rehashed the false allegations he's made in the past about Democrats only winning elections through the help of undocumented immigrants.

"These people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegally!" Trump falsely claimed. "Amazing that the Republicans aren't tougher on it. The Republicans should say... 'We should take over the voting in at least... 15 places.' The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting."

Trump then continued to rehash his lies about winning the 2020 election that he lost to former President Joe Biden.

"We have states that are so crooked, and they're counting votes, we have states that I won that show I didn't win!" he said. "Now, you're going to see something in Georgia, where they were able to get with a court order the ballots, you're going to see some interesting things come out. But, you know, the 2020 election, I won that election by so much. And everybody knows it!"

In fact, Trump lost the 2020 election to Biden at both the national level and in the state of Georgia, which has a Republican governor, a Republican secretary of state, and a Republican-run Legislature.

Last week, the FBI executed a search warrant at Georgia's Fulton County election hub and hauled out boxes of ballots as part of an investigation related to the 2020 election.

Some Trump critics reacted to his latest outburst about "nationalizing" the vote by noting how incredibly unlikely the president would be to succeed in such an endeavor.

"Neither Trump nor the GOP in Congress have this power, and the only way they do this is if we decline to stand up for our rights," wrote Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, in a social media post. "He's had a string of electoral defeats and rightfully fears the midterms. His outbursts are real threats, but they come from weakness. Tough shit, he's going down. No Kings."

MS NOW contributor Philip Bump also expressed skepticism about Trump's scheme, which conflicts with Article I of the US Constitution.

"Trump doesn't have the power to federalize elections, which obviously doesn't mean it's OK that he's saying things like this," he wrote. "The stuff about ginning up bullshit in Atlanta—we'll see."

Political strategist Murshed Zaheed likewise advised his social media followers to "take a deep breath" before panicking over Trump's plans.

"Trump cannot change election/voting rules with [executive orders]," he wrote. "Of course they are going to try crazy stuff—but this is desperate attempt to gin up fear."

Other critics, however, said that Trump's remarks needed to be taken as a direct threat to democratic governance.

"He’s saying the quiet part out loud," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "Trump and MAGA Republicans can’t win with their unpopular policies at the ballot box, so they want to steal the 2026 election."

Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan expressed even greater alarm.

"The last time he started talking like this, his allies minimized the risks and we ended up with January 6," he warned, referring to the deadly riots carried out by Trump supporters on the US Capitol that sent lawmakers running for their lives. "This time we must take him literally and seriously. These comments are a five-alarm fire for democracy. In a functioning republic, he would be impeached and removed from office today."

Trump's comments come as Republicans in Congress push a bill that would enable massive voter purges, impose photo ID requirements, and ban ranked-choice voting, universal mail-in ballots, and the acceptance of mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day.

SEE ALL
Iran newspapers focus on potential US military options
News

US Military Told Mideast Ally That Trump Attack on Iran is 'Imminent': Report

Senior officials in the US military have told a key Middle East ally that President Donald Trump may strike Iran as soon as this weekend, as part of an operation that may seek to decapitate the Islamic Republic's government, according to a report published Friday by Drop Site News.

While the Trump administration reportedly envisions attacks against nuclear, ballistic, and other military sites around Iran, a former senior US intelligence official who is acting as an informal advisor to Trump told the outlet: "This isn’t about the nukes or the missile program. This is about regime change."

As Iran has been roiled by the largest wave of protests since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Trump has repeatedly threatened to launch strikes, which he has claimed would be in retaliation for the nation's security forces killing demonstrators.

While counts vary widely, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported Friday that Iranian security forces have killed more than 6,000 protesters in a brutal crackdown that has largely quelled the unrest seen earlier this month.

According to the senior official, who has worked as a consultant for Arab governments, Trump's war planners hope that a strike on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would galvanize Iranians to return to the streets and eventually deliver a knockout blow to their government.

He said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long sought to push the US to engage in direct conflict with Iran, “is hoping for an attack,” and is “assuring Trump that Israel can help put in place a new government that is friendly with the West.”

In the Oval Office on Friday, Trump told reporters that the US has a “large armada, flotilla, call it whatever you want, heading towards Iran right now." He said that the armada was "larger than Venezuela," referring to the buildup of ships leading up to the US invasion of the Latin American country earlier this month to overthrow its president, Nicolás Maduro.

According to Drop Site, two senior intelligence officials from an unnamed Arab country said they received word that a US attack could come “imminently," potentially as soon as Sunday.

Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia, Iran’s military spokesperson, in an interview on Iranian TV on Thursday, said that a strike against Iran would likely play out very differently from the one launched in June against three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran's response was limited: an attack on a single US military base in Qatar, which it telegraphed beforehand.

“If such a miscalculation is made by the Americans, it will certainly not unfold the way Trump imagines—carrying out a quick operation and then, two hours later, tweeting that the operation is over,” Akraminia said.

“The scope of war will certainly extend across the entire region, he added. "From the Zionist regime to countries that host American military bases, all will be within range of our missiles and drones.”

Trump has said "time is running out" for Iran to come to the table to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with the United States, one with much more stringent restrictions than the one the president ripped up in 2018.

According to the New York Times:

US and European officials say that in talks, they have put three demands in front of the Iranians: a permanent end to all enrichment of uranium and disposal of its current stockpiles, limits on the range and number of their ballistic missiles, and an end to all support for proxy groups in the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis operating in Yemen.

As the Times pointed out, "Notably absent from those demands... was any reference to protecting the protesters."

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated on Friday that Tehran would “welcome negotiations that ensure Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear activity” and that it would not “negotiate anything related to our conventional arms, including missiles. This is something we cannot risk.”

He said Iran would not agree to any deal that halts uranium enrichment on its soil, which it has said it has the right to pursue under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). "We do not want to enter into any kind of negotiation that is doomed to failure and can then be used as another pretext for another war," he told Al-Monitor.

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump said Iran “wants to make a deal” but did not elaborate on what that meant. “We’ll see what happens. I can say this: They do want to make a deal."

Mohamed ElBaradei, former director general of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, has condemned Trump's threats.

"The continued unilateral threats of a military strike against Iran in the absence of any clear and present danger and in violation of international law, bring to mind the same grim scene before the illegal and immoral Iraq war with its lies and horrifying consequences," he wrote on social media. "Human life and regional destruction don’t seem to matter."

SEE ALL