SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
propaganda
'Smear Campaign' Detected as DHS Claims About Pair Shot by Border Patrol Unravel in Court
"You don’t see evidence of gang association," said one legal expert. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
Feb 03, 2026
After a US Border Patrol Agent shot two Venezuelan immigrants in Portland, Oregon in January, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that the two victims were "vicious Tren de Aragua gang members" who "weaponized their vehicle" against federal agents, who had no choice but to open fire in self-defense.
However, court records obtained by the Guardian reveal that a Department of Justice prosecutor subsequently told a judge the government was "not suggesting" that one of the victims, Luis Niño-Moncada, was a gang member.
The Guardian also obtained an FBI affidavit contradicting DHS claims about the second victim, Yorlenys Zambrano-Contreras, being "involved" in a shooting in Portland last year, when in reality she was a "reported victim of sexual assault and robbery."
Attorneys representing Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras, who both survived the shooting and were subsequently hospitalized, told the Guardian that neither of them have any prior criminal convictions.
Legal experts who spoke with the Guardian about the shooting said it appeared that DHS was waging a "smear campaign" against the victims.
Sergio Perez, a civil rights lawyer and former US prosecutor, noted in an interview that prosecutors filed criminal charges against Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras just two days after they were shot, even before it had obtained crucial video evidence of the incident.
"This government needs to go back to the practice of slow and thorough investigations," he told the Guardian, "rather than what we consistently see in immigration enforcement activities—which is a rush to smear individuals."
Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that the court records obtained by the paper don't show DOJ presenting any of the usual evidence that prosecutors use to establish defendants' alleged gang membership.
"What’s interesting about the filings is that you don’t see evidence of gang association," said Palmer. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
DHS in recent months has made a number of claims about people who have been shot or killed by federal immigration officers that have not held up to scrutiny.
Most recently, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was a "domestic terrorist" intent on inflicting "maximum damage" on federal agents, when video clearly showed that Pretti was swarmed by multiple federal agents and was disarmed before two agents opened fire and killed him.
Noem also openly lied about the circumstances and actions that resulted in the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good by a federal agent weeks earlier.
In November, federal prosecutors abruptly dropped charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent in October in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood.
In the indictment filed against Martinez, prosecutors said that the Border Patrol agent who shot her had been acting in self-defense, and that he had only opened fire after Martinez’s car collided with his vehicle.
However, uncovered text messages showed the Border Patrol agent apparently bragging about shooting Martinez, as he boasted that he “fired five rounds and she had seven holes” in a message sent to fellow agents.
An attorney representing Martinez also claimed that he had seen body camera footage that directly undermined DHS claims about how the shooting unfolded.
No explanation was provided for why charges against Martinez were dropped.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Dragging World Toward a New Nuclear Arms Race
We only have one planet on which to live and time is of the essence.
Feb 03, 2026
Among the critical issues facing our country today, nuclear arms control is seldom top of mind for most people, understandably, given our myriad political, social and economic crises. Recent books and films such as Annie Jacobsen’s 2004 non-fiction tome Nuclear War: A Scenario and last fall’s A House of Dynamite, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, garnered needed attention for the still-existential threat of nuclear weapons, yet the problem remains mostly absent from our political discourse.
Part of the fault for that lies with President Donald Trump, who while constantly touting his ability to “make deals,” is missing in action on a simple agreement that would make the US and the world safer. New START, the arms control treaty negotiated by President Barack Obama and extended by President Joe Biden, will expire on February 5. However, Russia offered last September a one year, or longer, extension of the treaty’s key limits of 1550 deployed, strategic nuclear warheads and 700 launch systems each.
Trump simply needs to say “Da” (yes) to the Russian proposal, which would cost very little politically at this time. While both countries, along with the seven other nuclear weapons states, are in the midst of dangerous and exorbitant nuclear weapons “modernization” programs, neither are in a position to rapidly exceed the current New START limits, nor should they, for global security and financial reasons. While both countries tout their in-development bombs and missiles that could end most if not all life on Earth, at the cost of more life-affirming investments in human needs and protecting our planet, the reality is these systems, such as the new Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), are boondoggles that mostly benefit the financial interests of the large weapons contractors rather than the Common Good.
Should Trump blow this chance, his global approval, already dismal, will doubtless decline further.
Then there is Trump’s fantasy of building a “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. Such a chimera is more properly seen as part of a potential offensive nuclear war fighting scheme rather than mere defense; that is if it works, which it is extremely unlikely to do. So it could be a lose-lose-lose scenario, whereby it spurs other countries to deploy more missiles and counter-measures to overcome such a missile “defense;” and it likely would not work to shoot down all incoming missiles (and would be useless against other forms of attack); and it could be used to argue arms control and disarmament treaties are unnecessary, because the shield will protect us, providing a dangerously false sense of security.
One does not need to engage in all the arguments against Golden Dome, or for investing in other, more economically productive pursuits, or think a nuclear weapons-free world is achievable any time soon, to agree that ditching the benefits of New START is a stunningly bad idea at this time.
The US and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have had a series of treaties limiting and reducing nuclear weapons since 1972. If New START limits go away, we will enter a very dangerous brave new world.
Trump’s famously insatiable ego could be slaked by not only agreeing to the Russian proposal, but by challenging Moscow to initiate new talks to go lower. At the end of the Obama Administration and in its aftermath, there were conflicting claims by the US and Russia on which side whiffed at a chance to go lower, to 1,000 deployed strategic warheads each. So Trump could propose something his nemesis Obama failed to do. Such an agreement might take a sustained period of negotiation, or Trump could do as President George H. W. Bush did in 1991 in announcing a unilateral nuclear weapons cut, which was coordinated with and matched by Russia, with mutually agreed verification procedures.
Trust between Moscow and Washington is low for various reasons, but neither country can afford, politically or economically, to engage in a futile, costly new arms race, and global public reprobation would be deservedly harsh for both countries. And it would further erode any credibility for the US to insist China engage in arms reduction talks regarding its arsenal, which is still much smaller than those of Russia and the US. Even at the height of the Cold War, with the Soviet Union and United States competing for global dominance and engaging in deadly “proxy wars” and armed interventions around the globe, the two sides saw the wisdom of not blowing up the planet, and collaborated on a series of treaties that dramatically reduced their nuclear arsenals, which made the world safer.
Should Trump blow this chance, his global approval, already dismal, will doubtless decline further. Upcoming international review conferences of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) this spring and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) this fall, both at the United Nations in New York, will likely lay the blame for a renewed arms race at his feet.
It is not (yet) too late. A coalition of US peace and disarmament organizations is mobilizing public action to press Congress and the White House to accept the Kremlin’s offer, if not by Thursday’s deadline, then as soon as possible. For more information on how to raise your voice on this critical issue, concerned individuals can consult Peace Action’s FaceBook page.
Time is of the essence. We only have one planet.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Sigh of Relief' as Judge Blocks Trump Attack on Protected Status of Haitian Refugees
"For Haitian TPS holders and their families, this decision provides immediate relief from the fear of family separation, job loss, and forced return to life-threatening conditions in Haiti."
Feb 03, 2026
Haitian refugees living in the United States with temporary protected status were given a reprieve Monday night when a federal judge blocked an order by the Trump administration to strip them of their TPS—an effort that many feared would lead to an immediate intensification of efforts to target such communities with the same heavy-handed tactics seen by federal agents in Minnesota, Maine, and elsewhere.
US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington granted a request to pause the TPS termination for Haitians while a lawsuit challenging the order issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem in November proceeds.
The termination of TPS for Haitian nationals was set for Tuesday, but Reyes's 83-page order stated that it "shall be null, void, and of no legal effect."
Rose-Thamar Joseph, the operations director of the Haitian Support Center in Springfield, Ohio—which has a large Haitian community that has been the target of racist and xenophobic attacks from President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and their allies—said the judge's ruling means "we can breathe for a little bit."
The residents of Springfield and surrounding areas have been anxious that their community would be the next target for Trump's aggressive deportation tactics. The legal challenge to the termination of TPS for Haitians alleges that the secretary acted with "animus," as evidenced by repeated public remarks from Noem and other administration officials.
Reyes, in her ruling, determined that the suit stands a good chance of winning on the merits, writing: “The mismatch between what the secretary said in the termination and what the evidence shows confirms that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was not the product of reasoned decision-making, but of a preordained outcome justified by pretextual reasons."
Jerome Bazard, a member of the First Haitian Evangelical Church of Springfield, told NPR that life in Haiti remains too dangerous for many in his community to return.
"They can't go to Haiti because it's not safe," Bazard said. "Without the TPS, they can't work. And if they can't work, they can't eat, they can't pay bills. You're killing the people."
The sense of relief was felt beyond Ohio, as people from Haiti living with TPS status live in communities across the US.
Tessa Petit, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition and a native of Haiti, said the ruling is a welcome development for the approximately 330,000-350,000 people living in the country with TPS, which allows them to work and pay taxes. In her ruling, Reyes noted that Haitians with TPS generate $5.2 billion annually in tax revenue.
"For Haitian TPS holders and their families, this decision provides immediate relief from the fear of family separation, job loss, and forced return to life-threatening conditions in Haiti," said Petit, "where political instability, gang violence, and humanitarian collapse remain acute. No one should be deported into crisis, and today’s ruling affirms that the law cannot be twisted to justify cruelty.”
“Today’s ruling is a victory for the roughly 350,000 Haitian TPS holders whose status was set to expire tomorrow,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass). “By providing a safe haven to those who cannot return home safely, TPS embodies the American promise as a land of freedom and refuge. Haitian TPS holders are deeply rooted in our Massachusetts communities—from Mattapan to Brockton. They are our friends, our family members, our neighbors, our colleagues. I will keep fighting to protect the Haitian community.”
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that even though Monday's ruling is sure to be appealed by the Trump administration, it arrives as a "huge" win.
With the order, he said, "350,000 people can breathe a sigh of relief and go to work or school tomorrow without suddenly having been rendered 'illegal' and forced to either go back into danger or risk being rounded up by ICE agents on the street."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Restrictions at Rafah Crossing Could Kill Thousands Awaiting Medical Evacuation
“We know that patients have died basically waiting for evacuation," a WHO spokesperson said, "and that’s something which is horrible when you know just a few miles or kilometers outside that border help is available."
Feb 03, 2026
With only five Palestinians in need of medical evacuation from Gaza permitted to leave through the Rafah crossing after it reopened on Monday, health authorities in the exclave warned that the restrictions Israel is continuing to impose at the crossing could ultimately kill thousands of Palestinians who have been waiting for years for treatment as Israeli attacks have decimated Gaza's health system.
Zaher al-Wahidi, a spokesperson for the Gaza Health Ministry, told Al Jazeera Tuesday that although the crossing has reopened—a step that has been hailed as progress under the "ceasefire" agreement reached in October—the intense screening process Palestinians are subjected to by Israeli authorities at the entry point is "too complex."
About 20,000 patients in Gaza are awaiting medical evacuation, including about 440 people whose cases are critical and need immediate treatment.
Egyptian officials had said before the crossing reopened that 50 people were expected to cross from Gaza into Egypt per day, but al-Wahidi said that if the rate of crossing on Monday continues, "we would need years to evacuate all of these patients, by which time all of them could lose their lives while waiting for an opportunity to leave."
Al Jazeera reported that people hoping to leave Gaza must register their names with Egyptian authorities, who send the names to Israel's Shin Bet for approval. Palestinians then enter a checkpoint run by the Palestinian Authority and European Union representatives before Israeli officers use facial recognition software to identify those who are leaving.
Reporting for the outlet, Nour Odeh said the crossing process has been "humiliating" for Palestinians and exemplifies the "absolute control" Israel demands over the lives of people in Gaza.
"There were strip searches and interrogations, but now there are even more extreme elements. We’re hearing about people being blindfolded, having their hands tied, and being interrogated," said Odeh. "When we talk about security screening, and a person needing urgent medical care, that person is basically being denied medical attention."
Ambulances waited for hours on Monday on the Egyptian side of the border, ready to take patients to 150 hospitals across Egypt that have agreed to treat patients from Gaza, before five people were finally able to cross after sunset.
The process, said al-Wahidi, "will not allow us to evacuate patients and provide medical services to them to give them a chance at life."
About 30,000 Palestinians have also requested to return to Gaza, having fled the exclave after Israel began bombarding civilian infrastructure and imposing a total blockade on humanitarian aid in October 2023—retaliating against Gaza's population of more than 2 million people, about half of whom are children, for a Hamas-led attack on southern Israel.
But only about a dozen people were permitted to reenter Gaza on Monday, falling far short of the daily target of 50.
The Associated Press reported that Palestinians arrived at the border crossing with luggage that they were told they could not bring into Gaza.
“They didn’t let us cross with anything,” Rotana Al-Regeb told the AP after returning to Khan Younis. “They emptied everything before letting us through. We were only allowed to take the clothes on our backs and one bag per person.”
Another woman told Tareq Abu Azzoum of Al Jazeera that she was "blindfolded and interrogated by the Israeli military on her way back to Gaza," and other said "they were intercepted by Israeli-backed militias" who demanded information about armed groups in Gaza.
For people who have waited months or years to return to Gaza, Abu Azzoum said, "the Rafah crossing has been a humiliating process instead of a day marking a beautiful reunion with family."
Palestinian political analyst Muhammad Shehada of the European Council on Foreign Relations said the process "means in practice that Israel has made the Rafah border crossing a one-way ticket. If you decide to go to Gaza, they tell you, 'Okay, you will be caged there permanently. Forget about being able to leave ever again.' If you decide to leave you will have to settle with the concept of being banished and exiled again, permanently, because the queue is so formidably long."
Palestinian analyst @muhammadshehad2 explains the restrictions that Israel has imposed at Rafah Crossing are so harsh that it would take approximately 10 years for all 150,000 Palestinians in Egypt to return to Gaza, and similarly long for the tens of thousands of patients and… https://t.co/FBy1TCAW3L pic.twitter.com/WwBA7rs4xC
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) February 2, 2026
On Tuesday, a World Health Organization (WHO) team arrived at a Palestinian Red Crescent hospital in Khan Younis to take about 16 patients with chronic conditions or injuries sustained in Israeli attacks to the Rafah crossing. The Red Crescent had previously been told 45 people would be able to cross on Tuesday.
Al Jazeera reported that health authorities in Gaza are being forced to choose which sick and wounded patients will be permitted to get treatment first.
“We know that patients have died basically waiting for evacuation," WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier said, "and that’s something which is horrible when you know just a few miles or kilometers outside that border help is available."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular