Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
De Oliveira and Beggs help Ajay Haridasse finish the Boston Marathon
Further

You Got This: Amidst the Carnage, A Beautiful Moment

Needing a break, we honor the rare sweet sliver of comity during Monday's Boston Marathon when two runners, both on course to achieve their personal best, instead stopped to help Ajay Haridasse, collapsed on the ground and unable to stand back up, over the finish line just ahead - because, they explained, "This is what it's all about...Two is better than one." Hallelujah: For now, still human after all these years.

The "beautiful moment" of compassion and sportsmanship came almost at the end of the grueling, 26.2-mile marathon known as "the runner's Holy Grail" for its tough qualifying standards and steep terrain, including Newton's iconic "Heartbreak Hill." The world's oldest marathon was inspired by the inaugural 1896 Olympics and begun the next year; widely considered one of the most difficult races anywhere, it attracts 500,000 spectators and over 20,000 dogged participants from 96 countries. "It’s a slog. It’s a grind. It’s brilliant," said one aspirant. Another: "Nothing is like it. Runners train and train and train for this race."

So did Ajay Haridasse, a 21-year-old senior at Northeastern running his first Boston Marathon having grown up nearby and faithfully watched it for years. Haridasse had passed the 26-mile mark when, he later said, "the wheels kinda fell off." After running almost three hours and struggling against cramps, his legs abruptly gave out 1,000 feet from the finish line, when he wobbled and fell to the ground. As runners streamed by, he painfully tried to stand up again, fell, tried to stand up, fell. "You got this!" a woman yelled from the sidelines, as others joined in. "You were made for this! You can do it! You got it!"

"After falling down the fourth time, I was getting ready to crawl," Haridasse later recalled. That's when Aaron Beggs, a 40-year-old runner from Northern Ireland, suddenly appeared at his left. Beggs stopped, pulled Haridasse to his feet and tried to hold him upright; Haridasse began collapsing again, only to be caught from behind on his right by Robson De Oliveira, a 36-year-old runner from Brazil who swooped in. Beggs and De Oliveira quickly lifted Haridasse’s arms around their shoulders and put their arms around his waist; then the three men jogged and stumbled toward and over the finish line as the crowd roared.

"No marathon is easy - there's no fooling this distance," says one runner of a two, three, four hour challenge run on grit and blisters, and those who embrace it often cite the importance of "athletes taking care of each other." "It's not always about crossing the finish line first, but lifting others when they fall," said one. "We do it together." When Beggs, a member of North Down Athletic Club, paused to help Haridasse, sacrificing his own time and standing, he "embodied everything our club stands for - integrity, compassion and true sportsmanship," said Club chair Jamie Stevenson, who hailed him as "a superstar (who) couldn't pass an athlete in distress. What a gentleman!"

Beggs later said he saw Haridasse fall a couple of times out of the corner of his eye, and "my instinct was just to go over (and) do the right thing." He doesn't blame those who ran past: "It’s a once-in-a-lifetime achievement. You have to put yourself in front of others. This time, I just happened to put somebody else in front of me...It's one of those things in life - you've got an option at any moment in time. It could be me on my next marathon." As they crossed the finish line, a wheelchair "flew past." He thought it was for Haridasse, but it was for De Oliveira, who'd passed out: "He used everything in him to get Ajay across the line."

"It was a split-second decision," De Oliveira later wrote of stopping when he saw Haridasse collapse. “I knew I wouldn’t have the strength to help him on my own. In that moment, I thought, ‘God, if someone stops, I’ll stop too and help him. And God was so generous...because two are stronger than one." In the end, De Oliveira's time was 2hr 44min 26sec, followed by Haridasse at 2:44:32 and Beggs at 2:44:36. All three qualified for next year's race, and all plan to run again - "God willing," said De Oliveira. Haridasse later thanked his two rescuers; despite his own near-obliteration, he called the race "the greatest experience ever."

In a searing piece about the 2013 Boston Marathon terrorist bombing that killed five and wounded almost 300 - "All My Tears, All My Love" - Dave Zirin contrasted that tragedy with the historic joy of the Marathon. In 1967, Kathrine Switzer became the first woman to run it, registering as K.V. Switzer and dressing in loose sweats. Five miles in, when a rabid official noticed her and tried to force her out, male runners fought him off: "For them, Kathrine Switzer had every right to be there." The moment, Zirin wrote, "gave us all a glimpse of the possible...of the world we'd aspire to live in." This week, Beggs and De Oliveira gave us another.

"If you are losing faith in human nature, go out and watch a marathon." - Kathrine Switzer

SEE ALL
A female northern spotted owl catches a mouse on a stick held by a wildlife biologist
News

Mike Johnson to Unleash 'Catastrophic' Attack on Endangered Species Act

Conservationists warned Monday that "Earth Day could become Extinction Day" if Republican leaders in the US House of Representatives get their way.

Elected Republicans have long set their sights on the historic Endangered Species Act of 1973—and wildfire defenders sounded the alarm in December, when the Republican-led House Natural Resources Committee advanced Chair Bruce Westerman's (R-Ark.) ESA Amendments Act.

"If this bill passes, protections for species like the Florida manatee, monarch butterfly, and California spotted owl would immediately decrease," Earthjustice legislative director for lands, wildlife, and oceans Addie Haughey warned at the time.

Since then, President Donald Trump has continued his war on endangered species with his budget request for the 2027 fiscal year, and his administration's so-called "God Squad" unanimously approved an "unprecedented" exemption allowing fossil fuel operations in the Gulf of Mexico to ignore ESA protections.

Now, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) plans to take up Westerman's bill this week—potentially on Wednesday, Earth Day.

"At a time when wildlife is already under immense pressure from habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, and industrial development, Congress should be strengthening the Endangered Species Act, not tearing it apart," said Jewel Tomasula, policy director of the Endangered Species Coalition, which has hundreds of member organizations.

"If Rep. Bruce Westerman and Speaker Johnson have their way, Earth Day will become Extinction Day," Tomasula warned. "The urgency is real. This bill is catastrophic for threatened and endangered species."

Susan Holmes, the coalition's executive director, emphasized that "the Endangered Species Act works because it is rooted in science and because it recognizes a simple truth: Once a species is gone, it is gone forever."

"We should not allow politicians to dismantle protections that have saved bald eagles, gray whales, peregrine falcons, and so many other species from disappearing forever," she declared.

Holmes also noted that "the American people overwhelmingly support the Endangered Species Act" and "understand that protecting wildlife is not a partisan issue. It is about responsibility, stewardship, and ensuring that future generations inherit a world still rich with wild species and wild places."

Polling commissioned by IFAW and conducted online last year by Beekeeper Group found that over three-quarters of Americans say they are concerned about the environment, the welfare of animals, and conserving nature, and specifically support the goals of the ESA. That aligns with figures from surveys conducted over the past three decades, according to a 2025 analysis.

The U.S. House is scheduled to vote on the so-called "ESA Amendments Act" (H.R. 1897) on Earth Day, April 22. H.R. 1897 would drastically weaken the Endangered Species Act and decrease protections for threatened and endangered species.TAKE ACTION >>> wildernesswatch.substack.com/p/the-extinc...

[image or embed]
— Wilderness Watch (@wildernesswatch.bsky.social) April 20, 2026 at 3:23 PM

"Protecting the nation's wildlife and habitats has never been an issue of right or left—it is a shared value and a commitment to future generations," said Cassie Ferri, legislative analyst at Defenders of Wildlife, in a Monday statement. "Instead of honoring Earth Day, Congress is turning it into 'Destroy Earth Day' by attempting to dismantle one of our nation's most foundational conservation laws. We all depend on healthy ecosystems to thrive, and the vast majority of Americans want to preserve wildlife through a strong Endangered Species Act—yet time and again Congress blatantly disregards their voices."

The advocacy group director of legislative affairs, Mary Beth Beetham, said that "shameless attempts by some members of Congress to dismantle the Endangered Species Act demonstrate a profound disregard for how valuable this law is to wildlife conservation."

"The Endangered Species Act isn't just rhetoric—it's proven effective and has safeguarded imperiled species for more than 50 years," Beetham stressed. "This bill could be the driving force behind future extinctions and would set a dangerous precedent for wildlife legislation moving forward."

The U.S. House is expected to vote on H.R. 1897 next week—the most dangerous bill facing endangered species right now! It prioritizes profits over science-based safeguards and blocks judicial review. ACT NOW and tell your lawmakers #NOHR1897!ACT NOW at TeamWolf.Org!

[image or embed]
— Team Wolf (@team-wolf.bsky.social) April 17, 2026 at 4:01 PM

Defenders of Wildlife is among nearly 300 groups that have signed on to a Monday letter—shared with Common Dreams by another signatory, Humane World for Animals—urging US House members to "vote NO on HR 1897, which is a damaging bill that would dramatically weaken the ESA and make it harder, if not impossible, to achieve the progress we must make to address the alarming rate of extinction our planet now faces."

Westerman's bill, the letter says, "would significantly rewrite key portions of the ESA to prioritize politics over science and inappropriately shift responsibility for key implementation decisions from the federal government to the states, many of which do not have sufficient resources or legal mechanisms in place to take the lead in conserving listed species."

"It would place significant new administrative burdens on already overburdened agencies," the letter continues. "It would turn the current process for listing and recovering threatened and endangered species into a far lengthier process that precludes judicial review of key decisions."

While Republicans can pass legislation along party lines in the House, they usually need at least some Democratic support in the Senate—due to chamber rules, which can be changed—to send a bill to Trump's desk.

SEE ALL
Risk of 'Significant and Severe' Food Crisis If Strait of Hormuz Remains Shut, Says Top UN Official
News

Risk of 'Significant and Severe' Food Crisis If Strait of Hormuz Remains Shut, Says Top UN Official

A top United Nations official on Tuesday warned that there is a real risk of a global food crisis if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed to shipments of fertilizer.

Jorge Moreira da Silva, executive director of the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS), said in an interview with UN News that roughly one-third of global fertilizer shipments flow through the Strait of Hormuz, and its closure has caused "a massive disruption in the supply chain of fertilizers," and "clearly we are seeing a crisis emerging" in the agricultural industry.

The UN official also emphasized the need for a fast resolution to the crisis to prevent catastrophic food shortages as tensions continued to escalate in the strait in recent days, with both the US and Iran seizing vessels in the area.

"We can’t wait until everything is fixed to at least get something fixed in time for the planting season," he emphasized. "The planting season has already started, and in most countries in Africa it will end in May. So, if we don’t get some solution immediately, the crisis will be very significant and severe, particularly for the poorest countries and for the poorest citizens."

While poorer nations are most vulnerable to fertilizer supply shocks, wealthy nations like the US are taking a hit as well.

A survey released last week by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) found that 70% of US farmers say the price of fertilizer has grown so high that they will not be able to afford all they need for the 2026 planting season.

Analysis conducted by AFBF found that, since President Donald Trump illegally launched his war with Iran in late February without any congressional approval, "nitrogen fertilizer prices have risen more than 30%, while combined fuel and fertilizer costs have increased roughly 20% to 40%."

AFBF also found that the cost of widely used urea fertilizers "have increased by 47% since the end of February, marking the largest month-to-month percentage increase" ever.

Zippy Duvall, president of AFBF, warned that "without the necessary fertilizers, we’ll face lower yields and some farmers will reduce acres altogether, which will impact food and feed supplies."

An analysis published by Bloomberg's Tracy Alloway on Wednesday found that "all the signs are already pointing to higher prices" for food in the coming weeks thanks to Trump's Iran War.

"Bank of America’s Commodity Inflation Trendspotter for food and beverage companies shows March input costs up a whopping 373 basis points to 7.9% year-on-year," explained Alloway. "That jump was driven mostly by diesel and heating oil, meaning we haven’t even seen much impact from things like higher plastics prices or fertilizer just yet."

Alloway pointed to the skyrocketing price of urea as particularly worrisome for food prices, as once Midwestern farmers start paying more for the fertilizer, "you start seeing higher prices for everything from actual grains to beef, chicken, eggs, ethanol," and more.

The bottom line, Alloway wrote, is "rising fertilizer prices are now hitting farmers, and eventually those will translate into higher wholesale food prices which will (assuming higher costs are passed onto consumers) eventually land at grocery stores too."

"The inflationary impulse doesn’t arrive all at once," she added, "it builds."

SEE ALL
Washington, DC grocery shoppers
News

Outrage Grows Over GOP Plan to Take Food Aid From Millions of Women and Children

House Republicans faced mounting anger on Thursday after proposing hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to a program that provides food aid to millions of vulnerable women and children across the United States.

The cuts were proposed in an appropriations bill to fund the US Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies. The Republican legislation would cut $200 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in the coming fiscal year at a time when families nationwide are struggling to afford groceries.

The GOP bill would cut by $141 million a WIC benefit that helps provide fruit and vegetables to toddlers, preschoolers, and pregnant and postpartum women. Around 5.4 million people would lose fruit and vegetable benefits under the Republican bill, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

"There is no doubt that this appropriations bill would only deepen America’s hunger crisis," Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, said in a statement. "Families are already struggling in the face of rising grocery prices and would be forced to stretch tight budgets even further. In turn, they would be forced to make difficult choices such as paying for food, housing, or other basic needs."

Rep. Sanford Bishop Jr. (D-Ga.), the top Democrat on the House agriculture subcommittee, said Thursday that "it is hard to make America healthy again when this bill takes fruit and vegetables from over 5 million women, infants, and children and eliminates the Healthy Food Financing Initiative."

The damage from the Republican proposal wouldn't be limited to people in the United States. Eric Mitchell, president of the Alliance to End Hunger, noted that "globally, the bill would cut a drastic 25% from Food for Peace at a time when worldwide hunger emergencies are spiking, and the availability of emergency food is in doubt."

"Countless families in the United States and around the world are struggling to get the food they need for themselves and their families. Conflict abroad is spurring emergencies while raising costs for food and agriculture across the globe, and continued economic uncertainty is continuing to put a strain on the limited resources of those most in need of food assistance," said Mitchell. "Hungry people and families cannot afford to shoulder the burden of decreasing federal spending."

The House GOP's proposed cuts would compound the ongoing damage inflicted by the unprecedented $200 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump approved last summer.

CBPP noted in an analysis released Wednesday "that SNAP participation nationwide fell by 2.5 million people (6%) between the law’s July 2025 enactment and December of that year, the latest month of data from the US Department of Agriculture."

"The declines started before HR 1’s enactment, suggesting factors at play in addition to that law," the think tank observed. "But in many states they accelerated after HR 1, and we expect that trend to continue."

SEE ALL
US-POLITICS-NATURALIZATION
News

DOJ Denaturalization Referrals Spark Fear of 'Expansive' Effort to Strip Citizenship From Americans

The US Department of Justice has referred hundreds of citizens for denaturalization, beginning what some fear will be a massive effort to strip Americans of their citizenship.

Months ago, it was reported that the Trump administration would seek to enlist the DOJ in its effort to revoke the citizenship of hundreds of people each month.

On Thursday, The New York Times reported that the effort to carry out what DOJ spokesperson Matthew Tragesser called "the highest volume of denaturalization referrals in history” had begun.

The paper reported that the DOJ had identified 384 foreign-born Americans whose citizenship it wants to take away and had assigned the cases to prosecutors in dozens of US attorneys' offices across the country.

President Donald Trump is trying to dramatically expand a process that Sameera Hafiz, policy director at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, told the Houston Chronicle is typically reserved for "very rare extreme circumstances."

Federal law allows the government to ask courts to strip citizenship from those it can prove obtained it fraudulently. In some rare cases, people found to have committed egregious offenses like war crimes or the financing of terrorism have also been stripped of citizenship.

Between 2017 and the end of 2025, the federal government attempted to denaturalize just 120 citizens, less than a third of the number the Trump administration referred for denaturalization in just this first batch.

According to the Times, it is not clear why the 384 individuals referred to federal courts have been singled out. Tragesser said the administration was "laser focused on rooting out criminal aliens defrauding the naturalization process."

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that these cases "are not exactly easy for the government to win," because "they have to go to a bench trial in front of a federal judge and prove material fraud."

But the DOJ has indicated that the range of people targeted for denaturalization could be much broader than just those found guilty of fraud.

The Trump administration's plans to pursue mass denaturalization first came to light last June when Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate issued an internal memo calling on the DOJ's Civil Division to "prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence."

In addition to the fraudsters and human rights violators who have typically been subject to denaturalization, Shumate urged the department to go after those “who pose a potential danger to national security” and "any other cases... that the division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue," which suggested that much broader categories of people may be targeted.

"The way the memo suggests they're going to apply it is very broad and expansive, and it's shockingly dramatic because that's not the intention behind denaturalization," Hafiz said.

The Trump administration has frequently targeted protesters and activists, including those with legal status in the US, for deportation for expressing political opinions opposite those of the government.

Last year, hundreds of foreign-born students who participated in protests against US support for Israel had their visas stripped by the US State Department. Some—like Columbia student activist Mahmoud Khalil—were deemed a danger to "national security" based solely on their articulation of beliefs out of step with the Trump administration's foreign policy.

Trump and several members of the Republican Party have also called for the denaturalization of foreign-born political opponents, including the Somali-American Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and the Ugandan-American New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Earlier this week, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced legislation titled the "MAMDANI Act," which would deport and denaturalize any immigrant who "advocates for socialism, communism, Marxism, or Islamic fundamentalism.”

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who has also pushed for the deportation of Mamdani, who is Muslim, recently said that non-Christians should not be allowed in America.

"We're not a melting pot," he said. "If you're building temples or mosques and undermining Christianity, you're not assimilating."

Trump, meanwhile, has expressed a desire to go after certain ethnic groups, particularly Somali-Americans, whom he has said have "low IQs" and described as "garbage". Most people of Somali descent living in the US are citizens, but Trump has said "I don't want them in the country" and said they should "go back where they came from."

Many Somali-American citizens were detained, often brutally, during US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) massive operation in Minneapolis earlier this year.

Around the same time, the US Department of Homeland Security endorsed the idea of pursuing "100 million deportations," which would entail the removal of tens of millions of American citizens from the country, including many who were born in the United States. Ex-Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, who oversaw Trump's mass deportation crusade for months, recently said he had a "master plan" to make this sweeping purge a reality.

Hafiz said the Trump administration's conduct has raised the possibility that the denaturalization push will be carried out in a "very broad and expansive way."

"That's very concerning," she said. "And we've seen in so many of the tactics that the Trump administration is using, what a slippery slope it is, how they say, 'This policy is to target one set of individuals,' and how that set of individuals just becomes broader as it's applied."

SEE ALL
A protester in Madrid holds a sign showing the US with talons on Venezuela and the words "stop the war!"
News

From Boat Murders to Kidnapping Maduro, Trump Spending Billions on 'Donroe Doctrine' Militarism

As the basic needs of millions of Americans are sacrificed upon the altar of waning US global domination, an analysis unveiled Thursday revealss that the Trump administration has spent billions of dollars on illegal military aggression against Venezuela and civilian boats alleged without evidence to be smuggling drugs off the coast of Latin America.

The Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs published an analysis by a pair of researchers who "found that spending on Operation Southern Spear and Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela, the Caribbean, and the Eastern Pacific cost at least $4.7 billion from August 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026."

The researchers—Hanna Homestead of the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project and Jennifer Kavanagh of the think tank Defense Priorities—also found that "costs will continue to mount as some naval assets and aircraft remain in the region and strikes continue."

"This estimate is only partial due to lack of information, and does not include long-term budgetary costs such as veterans benefits," an introduction to the analysis states.

BREAKING: Since August 2025, the U.S. has spent at least $4.7 billion on operations in Latin America and the Caribbean, including the operation to oust Maduro. [THREAD, 1/11]

[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) April 23, 2026 at 8:41 AM

In addition to the financial burden, the analysis notes the human costs of enforcing the so-called "Donroe Doctrine."

"While not the topic of this paper, they are essential to note at the outset," the publication states. "The raid and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during Operation Absolute Resolve resulted in approximately 75 known fatalities. These include 32 Cuban personnel killed, at least 23 Venezuelan security officers killed, and at least two civilian deaths."

US strikes "against unarmed vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific between September 2, 2025 and March 31, 2026 have killed at least 163 people," the authors added. "In addition, at least one American service member died while deployed to the Caribbean in February 2026 when two US ships collided."

The toll from Trump's boat-bombing spree has since risen to more than 180 following additional reported strikes. Survivors of somemi bombings allege they were tortured by their US captors. The US military and Trump administration have provided no solid evidence to support their claims that the boats were transporting illicit narcotics.

Homestead and Kavanagh noted in their analysis that "to date, Congress has not authorized the use of force in the Caribbean or Eastern Pacific and the Pentagon has not provided information about costs of Venezuela-related operations, even as they continue to mount."

There have been more than 50 boat bombings since Trump launched his campaign last September. Relatives of people killed in or missing after the strikes insist their loved ones were fishers with no links to the drug trade, an assertion echoed by leaders in Venezuela, Colombia, and some Caribbean island nations.

Multiple war powers resolutions aimed at reining in Trump's ability to wage war on Venezuela or bomb boats on the high seas without congressional authorization have been rejected by the Republican-controlled Congress.

In addition to the bombing and invasion of Venezuela and the boat strikes, the Trump administration has deployed troops to Ecuador as part of a joint campaign against alleged drug gangs dubbed Operation Total Extermination. Trump has also ordered the military to plan an invasion to seize the Panama Canal, threatened to "take" Cuba, possibly attack Mexico and Colombia, invade and annex Greenland, and somehow make Canada the "51st state."

That's just in the Western Hemisphere. Overall, Trump has bombed seven countries around the world since returning to the White House and 10 nations over the course of his two terms—including Iran, where he launched an illegal war with Israel.

The Costs of War Project rose to prominence by tracking the human and financial price of the so-called US War on Terror, which since September 2001 has resulted in over 940,000 direct deaths, including at least 432,000 civilians, in five studied countries, at a monetary cost of around $8 trillion.

Homestead and Kavanagh wrote in their analysis that the $4.7 billion figure "is a conservative estimate, and the greatest costs may yet be to come," as "operations do not have a clear end date and are actively expanding."

"They carry significant human, financial, and strategic costs and risk," the researchers contended. "American taxpayers, who are increasingly unable to afford basic needs, have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent."

Homestead told The Intercept on Thursday that "across the country people are going bankrupt and dying prematurely because of lack of healthcare, but the US government has billions to spend on imperialist violence to enrich corporations—from Venezuela to Iran—without any regard for human rights, life, or rule of law."

“This situation illustrates why greater restraint on Pentagon spending—which primarily benefits private contractors—is so necessary," she added.

This, as Trump seeks a record $1.5 trillion allocation for military spending in the next federal budget—despite the national debt approaching a staggering $40 trillion—while proposing billions of dollars in cuts to vital social programs.

SEE ALL