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.
In another class move from perennially envious 12-year-old Fuhrer-elect Trump, he announced MAGA actors Jon Voight, Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone will be "Special Ambassadors" to Hollywood, though it's not a foreign country, to "be my eyes and ears" and "bring Hollywood BACK...BIGGER, BETTER" - but without Jews - just like 'Murica. His decision to go all Leni Riefenstahl with a touch of Joseph McCarthy was exuberantly greeted as "most predictable popularity crutch attempt ever" and "meaningless bullshit."
With wildfires still raging in California and other things conceivably on residents' minds, Trump took to his crappy platform Thursday night to say it was "my Honor" to announce his shiny new "Special Envoys" to "a great but very troubled place," Hollywood, California” for "the purpose of bringing Hollywood, which has lost much business over the last four years to Foreign Countries, BACK." With the stink of blacklisting hovering in the air, he added, “These three very talented people will be my eyes and ears, and I will get done what they suggest. It will again be, like The United States of America itself, The Golden Age of Hollywood!.” (With no more Jews, of course, or other brown, black, queer or weird undesirables.)
Voight has been a longtime fan of Trump, who in 2019 awarded him a National Medal of Arts for being a longtime fan. Gibson has been shunned for years in Hollywood after spewing anti-Semitic slurs, and surfaced recently to spew globalist conspiracies about the California fires after his house burned down. Stallone is the newest entry to MAGA, endorsing Trump late in the 2024 campaign; he made up for lost time and servility at a recent America First Policy gala where he called Trump "the second George Washington” and “a really mythical character." (Hmm). Their new gigs were widely celebrated as an "impressive achievement": "Wow! He managed to get three of the biggest names (in) 1985! "
Despite the celebrity-obsessed Trump having already named 18 Fox News bobbleheads to his "government," the news still struck many as a clown too far. "We're just making shit up now," said one, comparing the move to The Office's Michael Scott yelling, “I declare bankruptcy.” Another, "Idiocracy was too timid in its predictions." Others suggested, "Trump is still butt hurt because he was never invited to the cool kids' party," "Joe McCarthy is smirking in his grave," they'll make "right-wing, uber-religious movies that only right-wing, uber-religious people (will) see," or, reflecting the dystopian times, they'll make new versions of old ones: "Mr Shit Goes to Washington, "The Lady Vanishes,” "Night of the Hunter's Laptop."
There were questions about the new move in the war on woke: "Will they get diplomatic immunity?" "Is this what I deserve for thinking The Expendables 2 was sort of cool?" Was Randy Quaid asking, 'So, is this a ‘stand back and stand by’ type assignment for me or...?'” And, most vitally, "Are egg prices lower yet?" Still, there was one widespread, hard-earned, bone-weary consensus: "Trump really is not a serious person." Shockingly, the "ambassador" announcement seemed a spur-of-the-moment move; Gibson only heard of it on social media, but nobly said, "Nevertheless, I heed the call." Happily, the others echoed him. They all said they'll do it "so long as they don’t have to make one of those new fangled talkies."
As devastating wildfires continue to burn in the Los Angeles region on Wednesday—placing tens of thousand of Californians under evacuation orders and causing over $250 billion in economic damages by one estimate—a pair of new reports highlight how fossil fuel companies have dodged responsibility for their role in the destruction and hampered the state's ability to fight back by depriving it of funds.
Two new reports highlight how fossil fuel companies hampered the state's ability to fight back by depriving it of funds.
California's fossil fuel industry deployed lobbying muscle to kill legislation that would compel polluters to pay into a fund that would help prevent disasters and aid cleanup efforts, and has taken advantage of a tax loophole to deprives the state of corporate tax revenue, thereby "putting climate and social programs in peril." In the case of the former, California's biggest fossil fuel trade group, the Western States Petroleum Association, recently launched a digital campaign that appears aimed at throwing cold water on any such legislative efforts.
According to The Guardian, the Polluters Pay Climate Cost Recovery Act of 2024 appeared on 76% of the 74 lobby filings submitted in 2024 by the oil company Chevron and the Western States Petroleum Association.
The legislation—which didn't make it out of the state senate in 2024—would, if enacted, create a recovery program forcing fossil fuel polluters to pay their "fair share of the damage caused by the sale of their products" during the period of 2000 to 2020, according to the nonprofit newsroom CalMatters.
According to The Guardian, the filings from those two firms that included this specific bill totaled over $30 million—though lobbying laws do not require a breakdown that would make clear how much was spent specifically on the "polluter pay" law.
With Los Angeles burning, there's renewed interest in passing the bill, The Guardian reports, citing supporters of the legislation. But Western States Petroleum Association isn't sitting idly by. On January 8, the group launched ads that suggest measures like the "polluter pay" bill would force them to increase oil prices. The ads, which appear to have been taken down, do "not specifically mention the polluter pay bill, it echoes the 2024 campaign that did," wrote The Guardian.
"Accountability is an existential threat to their business model, and their business model is an existential threat to all of us, and that’s the bottom line," said Meghan Sahli-Wells, the former mayor of Culver City who currently works for the environmental advocacy group Elected Officials To Protect America, told the paper.
Meanwhile, another report from The Climate Center—a think tank and "do-tank" focused on curbing pollution—has thrust a tax loophole long used by multinational oil and gas companies, into the spotlight.
The report released last week details how "years of litigation and lobbying by oil and gas majors like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell Oil" are responsible for a large corporate tax avoidance policy that is known as the "Water's Edge election" that became law in 1986.
The law allows multinational corporations to "elect" avoid taxes on earnings they designate as beyond the "water's edge" of the borders of states in which they operate, according to The Climate Center.
"Closing the loophole as it applies to the oil and gas industry could put anywhere between $75 to $146 million per year back into the state’s budget," the report states.
For context, California closed a $46 billion budget shortfall last year, including by enacting cuts to climate and clean air programs.
"The water's edge tax loophole allows multinational fossil fuel corporations to dodge paying their fair share of taxes that can help fund vital environmental projects, which could include wildfire preparedness," California Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-12) told the progressive outlet The Lever, the first outlet to report on the findings.
California lawmakers last year passed a bill that took aim at some aspects of the loophole, but an advocacy group whose board of directors includes representative from the oil and gas industry has filed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the reform, according to the The Climate Center.
Sweden is set to start a controversial wolf hunt on Thursday that could see its declining wolf population fall by another 8%.
The country has authorized the killing of 30 of the nation's 375 wolves—or five entire families—in a move that conservationists say is illegal under European Union law. Ultimately, the Swedish government wants to nearly halve the minimum number of wolves for "favorable conservation status" from 300 to 170.
'Imagine... the outcry if this were Sri Lanka killing leopards, or Botswana lions, both much trickier animals to live with," U.K. environmentalist Ben Goldsmith wrote on social media. "Shame, shame on Sweden."
"If Sweden, one of the richest countries in the world with a population of 10.5 million people, can't accept a population of 375 wolves, what hope is there for the planet's biodiversity?"
Under the Council of Europe's Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, or Bern Convention, countries must preserve the populations of protected species so that they remain above a sustainable level. However, Magnus Orrebrant, the chair of the Swedish Carnivore Association, toldThe Guardian that E.U. law has not meant much for Sweden's wolves.
"The Swedish government since 2010 has been blatantly disregarding the wolf's special protection status, allowing a yearly licensed quota hunt and thereby breaking E.U. law," Orrebrant said. "We filed a formal complaint to the E.U. commission, leading to an infringement procedure against Sweden, as yet to no avail."
Excessive wolf hunting has been a problem in Sweden for decades, and was part of the reason that the country had no breeding population at all between 1966 and 1983. In addition, increased hunting slashed the population by nearly 20% between 2022 and 2023.
Beyond licensed hunts, Sweden's wolf population also faces pressure from poachers, according to conservation group Revolution Rov, with DNA evidence suggesting that up to 80 wolves are killed illegally each year.
"In many license hunting decisions on wolves in recent years, it has been argued that if legal hunting is allowed, illegal hunting will disappear, but that has not happened at all... Instead, even more wolves have had to die," the group wrote in a petition against 2024's hunt.
The group also wrote that Sweden's wolf population is genetically vulnerable, with many mating pairs being closely related. For the population to remain healthy, it needs an influx of new genes from wolves migrating from Finland or Russia, but these wolves are often killed before they can pair off.
Wildlife advocates outside of Sweden also criticized the 2025 hunt.
"I believe that one of the hallmarks of human progress is learning to coexist with other species that our ancestors once feared," wrote Wildlife Trusts CEO Craig Bennett on social media. "And sadly, it often feels like we still live in the Dark Ages."
Ecologist and conservationist Alan Watson Featherstone wrote: "I really do despair about humanity—we are such a selfish species. If Sweden, one of the richest countries in the world with a population of 10.5 million people, can't accept a population of 375 wolves, what hope is there for the planet's biodiversity?"
However, Sweden is not alone in Europe in its hostility to wolves. The Bern Convention in December accepted an E.U. proposal to lower the wolf's status from "strictly protected" to "protected." The decision followed complaints from farmers that the continent's rebounding wolf population was harming livestock, but conservationists say that allowing the killing of wolves will threaten the species in a vulnerable moment and is not the solution to livestock killings.
"The wolf is still endangered in many parts of Europe, and weakening its protection will only lead to further conflict and threaten its recovery," Ilaria Di Silvestre, regional director of policy at the International Fund for Animal Welfare, toldThe Associated Press in December.
The Bern Convention's decision, which will go into effect on March 7, will clear the way for the European Commission to alter its habitats directive for wolves to reflect their higher numbers in the mountains and forests of Scandinavia and Western Europe, which will then make it easier to approve more wolf killings.
"We are very critical to the path that the E.U. is now taking, downgrading the protection status of the wolf," Orrebrant told The Guardian. "If the E.U. follows up the latest Bern Convention decision by changing the wolf's protection status in the habitat directive, the result will be very negative not only for the wolves, but for all wildlife in Europe."
New reporting published Wednesday details the impotence and insincerity of President Joe Biden's "multiple threats, warnings, and admonishments" to Israel as it annihilated the Gaza Strip, killing tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians while receiving tens of billions of dollars in U.S. arms and unwavering diplomatic support.
Writing for ProPublica, Brett Murphy showed how multiple "red lines" issued by Biden administration officials were ignored by Israel with impunity. Murphy highlighted Secretary of State Antony Blinken's October 2024 demand that Israel take "urgent and sustained actions" to improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza—mainly by allowing far more aid into the embattled strip—within 30 days or face a military aid cutoff.
"Netanyahu's conclusion was that Biden doesn't have enough oomph to make him pay a price."
Thirty days came and went without significant improvement or letup in Israel's onslaught. Yet the Biden administration insisted it found no indication that Israel was using U.S.-supplied weapons illegally. The arms flow continued.
As Murphy reported:
That choice was immediately called into question. On November 14, a U.N. committee said that Israel's methods in Gaza, including its use of starvation as a weapon, was "consistent with genocide." Amnesty International went further and concluded a genocide was underway. The International Criminal Court also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister for the war crime of deliberately starving civilians, among other allegations.
"Government officials worry Biden's record of empty threats have given the Israelis a sense of impunity," wrote Murphy.
This reporting is so utterly damning. www.propublica.org/article/bide...
[image or embed]
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes.bsky.social) January 15, 2025 at 1:55 PM
Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, told Murphy that "Netanyahu's conclusion was that Biden doesn't have enough oomph to make him pay a price, so he was willing to ignore him."
"Part of it is that Netanyahu learned there is no cost to saying 'no' to the current president," al-Omari added.
Conversely, Murphy noted: "On Wednesday, after months of negotiations, Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire deal. While it will become clear over the next days and months exactly what the contours of the agreement are, why it happened now, and who deserves the most credit, it's plausible that [U.S. President-elect Donald] Trump's imminent ascension to the White House was its own form of a red line."
"Early reports suggest the deal looks similar to what has been on the table for months," he added, "raising the possibility that if the Biden administration had followed through on its tough words, a deal could have been reached earlier, saving lives."
As Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard Kennedy School, told Murphy, "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that [Biden's] red lines have all just been a smokescreen."
"The Biden administration decided to be all-in and merely pretended that it was trying to do something," Walt added, as Israel kept killing Palestinians with U.S.-supplied weapons and continued a "complete siege" blamed for widespread starvation and sickness in the Gaza Strip.
Murphy wrote that Trump "will inherit a demoralized State Department" in which many officials who haven't already resignedhave "become disenchanted with the lofty ideas they thought they represented."
As one senior department official told Murphy, Gaza "is the human rights atrocity of our time."
"I work for the department that's responsible for this policy. I signed up for this," the official added. "I don't deserve sympathy for it."
Critics are sounding the alarm on a fresh wave of attacks on public schools by Republican state lawmakers, calling their efforts part of a broader agenda to privatize public education.
Indiana's H.B. 1136—introduced by Reps. Jake Teshka (R-7), Jeffrey Thompson (R-28), and Timothy O'Brien (R-78)—would dissolve public school districts in which more than 50% of students attend private or charter schools based on fall 2024 averages. All remaining public schools in affected districts would be converted to charter schools, which are privately owned and operated but taxpayer-funded.
According toCapital B Gary, "The bill's provisions are estimated to dissolve five school corporations statewide, including Indianapolis Public Schools, Tri-Township Consolidated School Corporation in LaPorte County, Union School Corporation southeast of Muncie, and Cannelton City Schools near the Kentucky border in Perry County."
Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) condemned the proposal,
saying it "strongly opposes House Bill 1136 or any bill this legislative session that threatens local authority and community control of public schools."
Anyone who believes that the Right only wants to bring "choice" and is not about destroying public schools, read this. (and please don't tell me that a charter school is a public school) www.chalkbeat.org/indiana/2025...
[image or embed]
— CarolCorbettBurris (@carolburris.bsky.social) January 8, 2025 at 5:16 AM
"H.B. 1136 proposes dissolving five school corporations, including IPS, by converting schools to charter status and eliminating local school boards," the district continued. "This harmful legislation would strip communities of their voice, destabilize our financial foundations, and further jeopardize the education of approximately 42,000 students."
IPS asserted: "H.B. 1136 threatens to cause massive disruption to our public school system, diverting attention and resources away from the vital education and support our students need to succeed. This legislation is not student-focused and fails to reflect the community's input on how they envision their public schools thriving."
"Instead of fostering growth and innovation, H.B. 1136 risks dismantling the very foundation that supports student success and community collaboration," the district added.
"H.B. 1136 threatens to cause massive disruption to our public school system."
The Indiana Democratic Party
said on social media in response to the bill: "The GOP supermajority is continuing their attacks on local public schools. This time, they're threatening to dissolve dozens of schools across the state into charters, leaving around a million Hoosiers without a traditional public school option."
"For years, many public schools have struggled with funds being diverted to charter schools with no accountability," the party added in a separate post. "Our public schools are the backbone of communities across the state, and we must protect them. More charter schools means less oversight for taxpayers."
Indiana state Sen. Andrea Hunley (D-46), a former IPS teacher and principal, told Capital B Gary: "My children have been attending IPS schools for 11 years. And I am so concerned about the fact that in this place where the majority likes to say that they want choice for families, that they would be threatening to take away choice from a family like mine right here in the middle of our city."
"We've got to make sure that we stop this before it goes any further," she added.
Indiana state Sen. Fady Qaddoura (D-30), who also represents Indianapolis, toldWXIN last week, "I think this bill has a racial component by advancing discriminatory policies that are targeting the two largest minority communities in the state of Indiana."
"In my view," he added, "this piece of legislation had nothing to do with choice and has everything to do to continue to dismantle public education as we know it today in Indiana."
It's not just Indiana. Attacks on public education are afoot in states across the nation, including neighboring Ohio and Kentucky.
At the national level, progressives are warning that the imminent Republican trifecta—with GOP control of both chambers of Congress and, later this month, the White House—likely portends a massive attack on public education that could include ending the Department of Education, as advised in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
While welcoming government mediators' Wednesday announcement that Hamas and Israel agreed to release captives and cease fighting in the Gaza Strip, human rights advocates, humanitarian groups, and United Nations leaders also renewed calls for accountability and an influx of aid to the besieged Palestinian enclave.
The three-phase agreement—negotiated by Egypt, Qatar, and the outgoing Biden and incoming Trump administrations—comes after a 15-month, U.S.-backed Israeli assault that has killed at least 46,707 people in Gaza and injured 110,265. Experts warn the true death toll since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack is likely far higher.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, said that the final details are still being sorted out, but several organizations and leaders around the world framed the "long overdue" deal—set to take effect Sunday—as progress and issued clear calls about what should come next.
"Our most urgent call is for immediate and unhindered access to humanitarian aid and support, ensuring that vital resources and medical assistance can reach those in dire need."
"After so much devastation and death, we celebrate this cease-fire deal even as it comes far too late," said the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), which has supported humanitarian efforts in Gaza since 1948. "We urge those in power to abide by the terms of the deal and their obligations under international law."
Noting that "in Lebanon, Israel has violated the cease-fire terms approximately a hundred times without consequence," AFSC stressed that "continued pressure is needed to ensure the terms of the deal are followed and push for a long-term political solution that brings an end to forced displacement, occupation, and apartheid in Palestine."
"As a U.S.-based Quaker organization we want in particular to hold our own government accountable," AFSC added. "We need an embargo on U.S. arms sales to Israel in order to deter future atrocities. Genocide on this scale would not have been possible without billions of dollars in U.S. military funding, and the Biden administration could have forced a cease-fire at any time over the past 15 months."
Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians, decimating Gaza's civilian infrastructure, and significantly limiting the flow of necessities including food into the enclave. AFSC said that "it is imperative that the cease-fire brings a measure of relief and a surge of lifesaving humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza."
Many other groups also demanded a flood of aid, including the International Rescue Committee, which has had teams on the ground in Gaza. Calling the cease-fire "essential and overdue," IRC president and CEO David Miliband said that "we are determined to expand our scale and impact as conditions allow. The scars of this war will be long-lasting, but a surge of aid is desperately needed to provide immediate relief to civilians. This will take flexible funding and the free flow of aid and aid workers."
Refugees International explained that "the deal, while a start, does not go far enough in outlining the explicit protections Israel and Hamas are obligated to provide Palestinian civilians. We are particularly concerned that the agreement ties the delivery of humanitarian aid and civilian protections—which are obligations under international law—to both sides' compliance with prisoner exchanges."
"Every cease-fire attempt between Israel and Hamas has ended in violations, and this should not be permitted to again imperil humanitarian action," the group said. "Humanitarian aid is a right under international law, not a bargaining tool. Humanitarian access must be ensured under any scenario, and the Israeli government must allow unimpeded humanitarian aid and access into all parts of Gaza, through all functional border crossings."
Sally Abi Khalil, Oxfam's regional director in the Middle East and North Africa, similarly said that during the initial phase, "our most urgent call is for immediate and unhindered access to humanitarian aid and support, ensuring that vital resources and medical assistance can reach those in dire need. The opening of all crossings for aid deliveries is vital. Israel must allow the unhindered flow of aid and restore commercial activity to reach every corner of the besieged enclave to avert famine."
"Israel has waged terrible collective punishment upon Palestinians in Gaza including crimes against humanity—using food and water as weapons of war, forcibly displacing virtually the entire population, besieging North Gaza, and rendering Gaza virtually unlivable," the Oxfam leader added. "Thousands of Palestinians have been unlawfully detained and tortured without due process. These actions must not go unanswered—international law and norms must be applied universally, including to Israel, who must be held to account for its war crimes, to ensure justice for victims and deter future violations."
Dr. Zaher Sahloul, president and co-founder of MedGlobal, which has provided medical care in Gaza, pointed out that detainees in Israeli custody include doctors who attempted to care for war victims as Israel laid to waste the strip's healthcare system.
"This cease-fire is cause for celebration, even as we know that it was needed many months ago, and that far too many have been killed, maimed, and rendered homeless or bereft of their family," said Sahloul. "We cannot forget that many Palestinian healthcare workers, including Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya and six other MedGlobal colleagues, remain unjustly detained and imprisoned by Israel. These medical personnel must be immediately released, and the safety and neutrality of healthcare providers and facilities must be guaranteed—as required by international humanitarian law."
"To promote true peace, prevent further suffering, and to help the people of Gaza recover from their terrible ordeal, all phases of this cease-fire must be fully carried out to bring a definitive and lasting end to the war," the doctor added. "The United States and the entire international community must commit to a massive program of aid and rebuilding in Gaza."
Welcoming the agreement and commending the mediators, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said that "the United Nations stands ready to support the implementation of this deal and scale up the delivery of sustained humanitarian relief to the countless Palestinians who continue to suffer. It is imperative that this cease-fire removes the significant security and political obstacles to delivering aid across Gaza."
"I urge the parties and all relevant partners to seize this opportunity to establish a credible political path to a better future for Palestinians, Israelis, and the broader region," Guterres continued. "Ending the occupation and achieving a negotiated two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security, in line with international law, relevant U.N. resolutions, and previous agreements, remain an urgent priority."
Other U.N. leaders echoed his remarks, including United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Executive Director Catherine Russell, who noted that "the war has exacted a horrific toll on Gaza's children—reportedly leaving at least 14,500 dead, thousands more injured, an estimated 17,000 unaccompanied or separated from their parents, and nearly 1 million displaced from their homes."
"The cease-fire must, finally, afford humanitarian actors the opportunity to safely roll out the massive response inside the Gaza Strip that is so desperately needed," she said. "This includes unimpeded access to reach all children and families with essential food and nutrition, healthcare and psychosocial support, clean water, and sanitation, education, and learning, as well as cash assistance and the resumption of commercial trucking operations."
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also emphasized that "food, water, medicine, shelter, and protection are the top priorities. We have no time to lose."
"Those responsible for the heinous acts of October 7, the subsequent unlawful killings of civilians across Gaza, and for all other crimes under international law must be held to account," Türk added. "The right of victims to full reparations must be upheld. There is no true way forward without honest truth-telling and accountability on all sides."
Some organizations, like AFSC, called out their governments for enabling the devastating Israeli assault. As the United Kingdom's prime minister, Keir Starmer, addressed the deal in a lengthy statement, Tim Bierley, Gaza campaign manager at Global Justice Now, said that "far from using its position to help end the bloodshed, the U.K. has provided Israel with weapons and diplomatic cover throughout its attacks, even seeking to deepen trade ties with the country amid daily massacres."
"While the U.K.'s role in this atrocity cannot be reversed, Keir Starmer's government must now work with other countries to prevent further violence, seek justice for Palestinians, and address the root cause of the conflict: Israel's occupation of Palestinian land," he argued. "This means pulling every lever necessary to end the occupation, including suspending the U.K.'s cozy trade relationship with Israel which serves to prop up the illegal occupation, supporting international measures to hold Israel's leaders to account, and suspending all remaining arms sales to Israel."
U.S. campaigners also urged their government to cut off weapons to Israel. Jewish Voice for Peace said that "as Americans, we understand that the Israeli genocide has been carried out with U.S. bombs, U.S. funds, and U.S.-facilitated impunity—we continue to demand a full weapons embargo now. We also demand an end to the complicity of corporations that profit from genocide."
"Left in the hands of the U.S. and Israeli governments, weapons manufacturers, and warmongering institutions, this fragile respite will not mean an end to Israeli genocide, or to the violent status quo of Israeli apartheid," the group warned. "Every day of the last 467 days, millions of people around the world have come together to demand an end to the genocide and Palestinian freedom. Together, we must ensure this agreement becomes a step on the path toward Palestinian liberation—the only way to achieve a just peace for all."
Some critics specifically took aim at outgoing President Joe Biden, who proposed a very similar cease-fire agreement back in May. The Democrat is set to leave office on Monday and, because Vice President Kamala Harris lost the November election, he will be replaced by Republican President-elect Donald Trump—who has been pushing for a Gaza cease-fire, or at least the appearance of one, before he returns to the White House for a second term.
"A recent YouGov poll found that 29% of nonvoters who supported Biden in 2020 cited ending Israel's violence in Gaza as the primary reason they chose not to vote for Kamala Harris," Uncommitted National Movement co-chairs Layla Elabed and Lexis Zeidan highlighted. "This underscores the Biden-Harris administration's failure to exert meaningful pressure on the Israeli government at critical moments when decisive action could have saved countless lives."
"We are also alarmed by reports that the Netanyahu government has allegedly struck deals with the Trump administration—promising settlement expansion, the curtailment of humanitarian aid, and an eventual return to Gaza military operations—in exchange for boosting Trump's image ahead of his inauguration," the pair added.
Center for International Policy president and CEO Nancy Okail said, "The fact that Netanyahu is finally accepting the deal mere days before his favored candidate in the recent U.S. presidential election will return to the Oval Office is confirmation of what Israeli, Arab, and even some U.S. officials involved in negotiations have been saying for months—that Netanyahu obstructed and delayed a cease-fire and hostage release to further his own personal political interests."
"Netanyahu's acquiescence to Donald Trump's insistence that a cease-fire be in place when he takes office next week ironically shows how effective actual pressure can be in changing Israeli government behavior," she continued.
"It will forever be part of the legacy of President Biden and his top foreign policy advisers that they not only provided diplomatic cover for and enabled Netanyahu's prolonging of this horrific war, but continued to arm Israeli atrocities against civilians in Gaza in clear violation of international and U.S. law," Okail added. "Thanks largely to his role in sustaining the carnage in Gaza, Biden hands over to Trump a foreign policy landscape in which international norms and U.S. credibility have been further eroded rather than strengthened."
Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian pledged that "as details emerge over the exact contours of the interim cease-fire agreement, we will continue to pressure Congress and the incoming administration to support a permanent, comprehensive end to this conflict—one that addresses its root causes, secures the release of all hostages, and paves the way towards a durable two-state solution that respects the rights, security, and dignity of all parties."
"Additionally, it is imperative to immediately begin the unimpeded delivery of critical humanitarian aid to Gaza and the restoration of full funding to UNRWA," Kharrazian said, referring to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. "We also continue to oppose the proposed
$8 billion arms sale to Israel and, while we support related efforts to negotiate for regional stability and peace, we strongly reject any plans for a defense treaty with Saudi Arabia."
"Academics will make careers out of writing about past atrocities while ignoring the ones happening in real time," said one critic.
In what one observer decried as an "absolutely shameful" rebuff of American Historical Association members' overwhelming approval of a resolution condemning Israel's annihilation of education infrastructure in Gaza, the elected council of the nation's oldest learned society on Thursday vetoed the measure over a claimed technicality.
AHA members voted 428-88 earlier this month in favor of a resolution opposing Israeli scholasticide—defined by United Nations experts as the "systemic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention, or killing of teachers, students, and staff, and the destruction of educational infrastructure"—during the 15-month assault on the Gaza Strip.
However, the AHA's 16-member elected council voted 11-4 with one abstention to reject the measure, according toInside Higher Ed, which noted that the panel "could have accepted the resolution or sent it to the organization's roughly 10,450 members for a vote."
While the council said in a statement that it "deplores any intentional destruction of Palestinian educational institutions, libraries, universities, and archives in Gaza," it determined that the resolution does not comply with the AHA's constitution and bylaws "because it lies outside the scope of the association's mission and purpose."
Council member and University of Oklahoma history professor Anne Hyde told Inside Higher Ed that she voted to veto the resolution "to protect the AHA's reputation as an unbiased historical actor," adding that the Gaza war "is not settled history, so we're not clear what happened or who to blame or when it began even, so it isn't something that a professional organization should be commenting on yet."
However, Van Gosse, a co-chair and founder of Historians for Peace and Democracy—the resolution's author—told the outlet that "we are extremely shocked by this decision," which "overturns the democratic decision" of members' "landslide vote."
Lake Forest College history professor Rudi Batzell said on social media: "Shame on the AHA leadership for vetoing the scholasticide in Gaza resolution. Members voted overwhelmingly to support, and the resolution was written so narrowly and so carefully to meet exactly this kind of procedural objection. Craven."
The AHA council's veto follows last week's move by the Modern Language Association executive council, as Common Dreamsreported, to block members of the preeminent U.S. professional group for scholars of language and literature from voting on a resolution supporting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement for Palestinian rights.
The policy, reinstated by every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, has led to "more unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and more deaths."
With President-elect Donald Trump expected to make curtailing global abortion access a "day one priority" after he takes office next week, as he did during his first term, more than 100 international rights organizations on Friday called for urgent action to end the global gag rule.
The rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy, has been imposed by every Republican president since Ronald Reagan and prohibits foreign non-governmental organizations from performing or "promoting" abortion care using funds from any source, if they receive U.S. family planning funding.
In 2017, one of the Trump's first acts as president was reinstating the ban and expanding it to apply to nearly all global healthcare funding, including the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), malaria prevention, nutrition aid, and other programs.
With the global gag rule "leaving the health and lives of millions of people vulnerable to political whims" over the past four decades, said the groups, "lifesaving health services have been dismantled in communities around the world"—and Trump's expected reinstatement of the policy would continue the "destructive cycle of widespread fear and confusion."
In a video posted to social media, Samira Damavandi, senior policy associate for federal issues at the Guttmacher Institute, explained that "if you're a U.S. taxpayer, you should know about the global gag rule."
The policy "uses U.S. foreign aid—your taxpayer dollars—to undermine abortion rights and reproductive health around the world," said Damavandi.
The global gag rule is imposed even in countries where abortion care is legal, noted Damavandi, effectively silencing "all discussions about abortion," with groups that receive U.S. healthcare funding barred from providing abortions, informing patients about abortion care as an option, or lobby to change abortion laws.
"Clinics have been forced to close, outreach efforts to underserved populations have been eliminated, and people have lost access to contraception and many other essential health services, resulting in more unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and more deaths," said the groups in the statement, including Amnesty International, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Physicians for Human Rights.
The International Women's Health Coalition has tracked the effects of the global gag rule on civil society groups and health service providers in four countries—Kenya, Nepal, South Africa, and Nigeria—and has found that although the countries have divergent abortion laws, their communities have been impacted by the policy in similar ways.
Organizations in the countries reported that they stopped providing information to clients about abortion care during Trump's first term; in Kenya, two clients of one group died after seeking unsafe methods to end their pregnancies.
"Even when presidents lift the global gag rule immediately upon taking office, high-quality health partners face long delays in resuming participation in U.S. global health programs," said the groups on Friday. "Permanent repeal of the policy is urgently needed to promote sustainable progress in global health and to build and maintain long-term partnerships between the U.S. government, local organizations, and the communities that they serve."
Rights groups have previously called on Congress to pass the Global Health, Empowerment, and Rights (Global HER) Act, which would prevent presidents from unilaterally reinstating the global gag rule.
The Guttmacher Institute said it expects the Trump administration to reinstate the rule based on Trump's previous position and policies promoted within Project 2025, the right-wing agenda coauthored by at least 144 people who worked in the White House under the Republican leader.
Project 2025 also advocates for "blocking U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund and other organizations that promote sexual and reproductive health and rights" and redirecting international family planning funds to "faith-based organizations or organizations with limited experience in reproductive healthcare."
Guttmacher provided guidance on the likely reinstatement of the rule to international health NGOs, noting that:
"Ending the global gag rule for good would lift the threat of reinstatement and allow U.S.-funded programs to reach their full potential," said the groups on Friday, "thus ensuring that the needs and rights of people around the world are fulfilled."
There are only a few days left for Biden to heed calls for clemency coming from a diverse array of rights groups.
Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden announced commutations on Friday for approximately 2,500 people who have been convicted of non-violence drug crimes—a move that was cheered by rights groups and brings his total number of pardons and commutations to the highest of any president.
But Biden has so far stopped short of granting clemency to a number of high profile individuals whose cases—while all very different—have generated significant public interest and sympathy. They include: the former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, the environmental lawyer Steven Donziger, Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier, and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
The cases have prompted a flurry of calls from various groups for Biden to take action on the cases before he hands over the White House to President-elect Donald Trump on January 20.
Littlejohn was sentenced in January 2024 to the five years in prison for unauthorized disclosure of tax information to the media. In 2020, The New York Times published a story based on information leaked byLittlejohn revealing that Trump paid only $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency and in 2017. Later, journalists at ProPublicaused documents made available by Littlejohn to report on how the wealthiest 25 individuals in America were able to get away with paying very little in income tax between 2014 and 2018.
Given the nature of his case, Kenny Stancil of the Revolving Door Project and Bob Lord of the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in December that Littlejohn "very well could be on Trump's enemies list" and urged Biden to commute his sentence.
"The longer Littlejohn languishes in jail, the more he is at risk of retribution from Trump," wrote Stancil and Lord, who also highlight that Littlejohn was given the statutory maximum sentence for his crime.
On Thursday, millionaire Abigail Disney penned a defense of Littlejohn, writing that Biden should commute his sentence because he "did the nation a great service by spotlighting the urgent need for tax reform in a country being ripped apart by extreme and rising inequality."
Indigenous leaders and the human rights organization Amnesty International are calling for clemency for another man who is currently behind bars: the Indigenous rights activist Leonard Peltier, who was convicted in 1977 of having murdered two FBI agents and has spent the majority of his life in prison, despite concerns about the fairness of his trial and conviction.
Peltier had his request for parole and compassionate release denied last year, meaning clemency is "likely his only chance for freedom," according to Amnesty International.
"All of us see a little bit of ourselves in Leonard Peltier, and that's why we fight so hard for him," said Nick Tilsen, the founder and CEO of NDN Collective, an Indigenous rights group. "This is about paving a path forward that gives us the opportunity to have justice and begin to heal the relationship between the United States government and Indian people. And so, this decision is massive."
Meanwhile, 50 human rights and environmental groups sent a letter in early January to President Biden, urging him to pardon U.S. human rights lawyer Steven Donziger, who secured a multibillion settlement for Indigenous plaintiffs against Texaco (later acquired by Chevron) in an Ecuadoran court over the company's destructive oil pollution in the Amazon, but was later charged with criminal contempt of court in the U.S. for withholding evidence in a countersuit brought by Chevron. Donziger was disbarred in 2018, and then spent time in both prison and under house arrest.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who has called for Donziger's pardon, recently toldDemocracy Now! that "Chevron has spent countless millions and millions of dollars going after Steven Donziger and not helping a single person in Ecuador deal with what they left behind. We have to stand up to corporate excesses in this country."
"If President Biden would pardon him, I think that would be a signal that maybe things are beginning to change," he added.
Also this week, press freedom and civil liberties organizations demanded that Biden pardon WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange, who last year—as a way to avoid extradition to the U.S. after languishing for years in a British prison—pleaded guilty to a felony charge under the U.S. Espionage Act of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified national military documents. Per the terms of the plea deal, he was allowed to return to his native Australia and is no longer incarcerated.
Freedom of the Press Foundation director of advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement Thursday that Assange's case "normalized the criminalization of work national security journalists do every day—talking to sources, obtaining documents from them, and publishing those documents."
"A pardon won't undo the harm the case has done to the free press or the chilling effect on journalists who now know their work can land them behind bars at the whim of the Department of Justice. But it will help reduce the damage," he said.