That day, the U.S. attacked the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, killing more than 150 people, most of them children. In the weeks that followed, tens of thousands more would be killed or wounded in U.S.–Israeli strikes, according to World Health Organization estimates. Since a June ceasefire collapsed and the U.S. resumed attacks, Iran’s Health Ministry says U.S. strikes have killed or wounded more than 650 people.

Mohammad’s parents — Fatemeh Rostami, known to her family as Hannaneh, and Ali, her husband — brought him home to their apartment in eastern Tehran’s Pirouzi neighborhood. Despite the danger, Hannaneh’s mother, Tahereh Sarbaz, traveled almost 100 miles from the city of Qazvin to meet her newborn grandson, as Trump lobbed threats and missiles at Tehran. “Today Iran will be hit very hard! Under serious consideration for complete destruction and certain death, because of Iran’s bad behavior, are areas and groups of people that were not considered for targeting up until this moment in time,” he wrote on Truth Social on March 7. Sarbaz witnessed the destruction that week and felt a blast wave firsthand while driving through the capital. “I was in Tehran. I saw what happened there,” she recalled. “People were being bombed every night. Families everywhere were losing their children.”

Pirouzi, a crowded working- to middle-class residential area, with a major shopping mall, hospital, sports complex, and several transit hubs, is home to around 600,000 people. When the war erupted, it was hit hard. As U.S. and Israeli munitions laid waste to buildings there, people flooded into the streets — Hannaneh’s family among them — seeking safety. Ali was still going to work each day but suggested that Hannaneh and the children decamp for the relative safety of Qazvin, which was not attacked nearly as much as the capital. “My daughter refused,” Sarbaz recalled. “She told him, ‘I will not leave you here alone.’” 

Sarbaz eventually headed across town, to northern Tehran, where her son, Mehdi Rostami, lived with his wife and their three children, thinking it would be safer. After a short visit, she returned, alone, to Qazvin.

On March 17, Sarbaz checked in with Hannaneh by phone. “I called her and asked how she and the baby were doing,” Sarbaz said. “I asked whether the fighter jets were still coming. Whether she was afraid. Whether there was a lot of noise. And I told her to be careful.”

The next day, Rostami’s whole family traveled across Tehran to visit Hannaneh and her children. Not long after, Sarbaz received a call from another daughter-in-law. “She sounded extremely distressed. She was trying to prepare me for something,” Sarbaz recalled. “Finally, I asked her, ‘What happened? Why are you so worried?’” The daughter-in-law said: “Mother, the thing you were afraid of has happened.”

Sarbaz was initially so stunned that she couldn’t process the news. It wasn’t until other family members broke down in tears that she could comprehend the enormity of her loss. An airstrike hit Hannaneh’s apartment building while her brother’s family was visiting. The attack killed Rostami; his wife, Manzar al-Sadat Zarrabadi; and their three children: Ali, 13; Fatemeh, 9; and Zeynab, 7. Also slain were Hannaneh and her two children: Mohammad Hassan Kialha, 7, and Mohammad Ali Kialha, who was just 20 days old. Ali, Hannaneh’s husband, survived; he was out at the time of the attack.

“They told me that my family in Tehran had been killed,” Sarbaz said. “Inside, I was heartbroken.”

Dr. Nader Azadeh, a high-ranking official with the Tehran Fire Department, was coordinating emergency response and rescue operations in the capital following airstrikes and deployed to the Pirouzi neighborhood just after the attack on the family’s apartment building. Amid all the carnage he witnessed over weeks of war in Tehran, the toll on the Rostami family — eight dead — had a lasting impact on him. He said he could not forget the scale of their loss.

A rescue worker who participated in the response said that the entire building was demolished by the strike. He estimated that 30 people, in total, died. It took hours to unearth what was left of the family and other victims from the rubble. Most of the dead had been exhumed when neighbors explained that an infant was still somewhere under the debris, prompting the search to begin anew. Hours later, they finally located the tiny body, he recalled.

No one knows how many survivors in Iran are grieving over loved ones killed in Trump’s war. Global attention has focused on Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school — almost to the exclusion of the other schools, homes, hospitals, apartment buildings, and other civilian sites damaged or destroyed in other U.S.–Israeli strikes. The U.S. military has used this tunnel vision to its advantage, advancing the farcical claim that the elementary school strike is the only incident of civilian harm during the entire conflict. “There is one active civilian casualty investigation from the 13,629 munitions,” Adm. Brad Cooper, the chief of U.S. Central Command, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in May.

CENTCOM has continued these claims in response to queries from The Intercept. “We have no new updates at this time pertaining to current investigations or munitions that were expended during Operation Epic Fury,” a spokesperson said.

Related

Hegseth’s War Department Slashed Civilian Protection Staff, Brought in AI Assessments

Asked if CENTCOM was aware of any allegations of civilian harm in Iran on or about March 18, the command dodged the question. “The U.S. military takes all reports of civilian harm seriously,” a defense official told The Intercept. “All allegations of civilian harm reported to CENTCOM have been reviewed.”

While CENTCOM was tight-lipped, Sarbaz refused to stay silent. “I want people around the world to know that civilians died in this conflict. I want people around the world to know that the president of the United States, a man mired in corruption and scandal, came and took my children from me,” she told The Intercept. “What crime had my 20-day-old grandchild committed?”

It’s unclear if Hannaneh and Ali’s apartment building was the intended object of a U.S. or Israeli strike, a targeting error, or so-called collateral damage. The family says it knows of no regime officials who resided in the building or military uses of the site.

The Israel Defense Forces announced it killed “Mehdi Rostami Shamastam, one of the key commanders in Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence” in Tehran on the same day that Mehdi Rostami and his family lost their lives in Hannaneh’s apartment. Sarbaz said her son was an academic, not an intelligence official. “I deny this,” she said of the assertion. “My son was a university professor. But if what Israel claims were true, I would be very glad.”

Sarbaz said that if her son was, in fact, a top intelligence chief, killing him alongside his family, including a baby, would make it an even graver atrocity. “The presence of a 20-day-old infant among the victims, and the killing of eight members of one family, is such an enormous crime,” she said. “Why didn’t they target him in the street?”

Following the attack, the Iranian regime did not treat Mehdi Rostami as it often does senior commanders or influential figures killed in enemy strikes, making no public acknowledgment of his service to the state. Mehdi and Rostami are also common names. The Israeli military did not respond to multiple requests for clarification if the Mehdi Rostami Shamastam it referenced and Mehdi Rostami were the same person. CENTCOM did not respond to multiple requests for comment on whether it or Israeli forces had conducted airstrikes in Tehran’s Pirouzi neighborhood on March 18.

The strike that killed the Rostami family was part of an unrelenting blitz. The U.S. and Israel struck more than 17,000 separate targets in 40 days — a rate of strikes near unprecedented in modern conflict, according to the civilian harm monitoring group Airwars. In the first 24 hours of the war alone, the U.S. said it had struck more than 1,000 targets, and Israel 500. A May 18 report by Human Rights Activists in Iran counted 12,798 “unique attacks” by the U.S. or Israel, 77 percent of them involving civilian harm or damage to civilian infrastructure.

The U.S. bears some responsibility for all attacks as the chief of the coalition attacking Iran. “Only the United States of America could lead this,” self-styled War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on March 4. “But when you add the Israeli Defense Forces, a devastatingly capable force, the combination is sheer destruction for our radical Islamist Iranian adversaries. … Fighting shoulder to shoulder with such a capable ally is a true force multiplier and a breath of fresh air.”

After initially striking Iranian military assets in the opening rounds of the war, the U.S. shifted to targeting civilian infrastructure, Sina Toossi, a senior nonresident fellow at the Center for International Policy specializing in U.S.–Iran relations, told The Intercept. Targets included oil facilities; steel and pharmaceutical plants; universities; and even the headquarters of Iran’s space program. He noted that bridges were targeted, killing civilians as well as first responders.

This summer, as a second ceasefire imploded and Iran stepped up attacks on U.S. bases causing large numbers of casualties, Trump has increasingly unleashed unhinged rants, including threats to attack civilian infrastructure such as bridges and power plants, that would “affect 91 million people.”

Related

A Point-by-Point Breakdown of Trump’s Failed Iran War Objectives

In July, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., cajoled chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine into what seemed like a half-hearted pledge to “not target, even in retaliatory sense, infrastructure that is generally considered to be primarily for civilian survival.” The very next day, Trump announced that “any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz … the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran.”

Harrison Mann, a former U.S. Army officer and intelligence official and now the associate director for campaigns and policy at Win Without War, drew specific attention to the attacks on the bridges and water reservoirs. It is “quite dangerous to be conditioning the U.S. military to carry out orders that are clearly war crimes,” he warned.

The World Health Organization puts the Iranian casualty toll at an estimated 37,181, including 3,375 deaths. Iranian state and semi-official media reported similar figures, just under 3,500 killed. Mansoureh Mills, a regional researcher with Amnesty International, noted that earlier government figures put the civilian toll at roughly 45 percent of the total, including 383 children. 

The total number of U.S.–Israeli strikes on apartment buildings is unknown, but certainly significant. Reports of civilian harm were recorded every day from the beginning of the war on February 28 to the first ceasefire on April 8, according to Airwars. This includes six strikes on March 18, the day that the Rostami family was killed. Airwars found that civilians were frequently slain in attacks on residential areas, with such strikes accounting for 147 out of the 297 — almost 50 percent — of the civilian harm incidents it tracked. Eighty-seven of these took place in Tehran province. A Washington Post investigation, relying on data from the Institute for the Study of War, counted 285 attacks across Tehran with strikes “blanket[ing] almost a third of all neighborhoods, some with upward of 11 strikes.”

Azadeh, the fire department official, recalled chaotic and emotionally overwhelming nights of bombardment that killed untold numbers of civilians. In one attack on an apartment building in central Tehran, on the first day of the war, he recalled the death of a mother, her daughter, and the child’s grandmother. In another strike on a 10-unit apartment building in the Pirouzi neighborhood, he recounted the slaying of most of its residents, including seven children and teenagers. “When our rescue teams arrived, the force of the explosion had thrown many of the bodies into the street,” Azadeh said.

Azadeh drew specific attention to the death of Saeed Shamghadri, an academic killed with his son and daughter in an attack on their home in northern Tehran in March. “To kill one person, they bombed a 14-story residential building and killed somewhere between 50 and 200 people living there,” Azadeh said. “To eliminate one person, many civilians were attacked.”

When asked how many civilians have been killed in U.S. strikes and, if the military did not know the answer, to explain why, CENTCOM told The Intercept: “The U.S. military does not deliberately target civilians.” After being told that response didn’t address the question, Maj. Emma Thompson, the command’s media operations chief, said CENTCOM had “nothing additional to add.”

The WHO estimates that 229 healthcare centers, 49 hospitals, and 78 pharmaceutical facilities, laboratories, and warehouses were damaged in U.S.–Israeli strikes. “While I was on my way to my son’s house, Gandhi Hospital came under attack,” said Sarbaz of the medical facility in northern Tehran that saw its entire front facing torn off in a March 1 strike. Sarbaz said that the massive shockwave from the explosion rocked the car she was in. “The media are lying when they say ordinary people were not targeted. Gandhi Hospital, where pregnant women were present, was also attacked.” Videos of the private hospital, known for fertility treatments, show it sustained significant damage, and government sources noted it had to evacuate patients, including babies in incubators.

Related

“Liberate Their Bodies From Their Souls”: The Lies That Sell the Iran War

These attacks came after Hegseth’s Pentagon spent a year slashing measures to prevent civilian casualties, including firing the military’s top lawyers, who advise leaders on international laws of armed conflict. “U.S. strikes on civilian infrastructure in Iran, including the elementary school in Minab, have been absolutely devastating and completely inexcusable,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., told The Intercept. “I continue to have deep concerns about how the school in particular was targeted, especially as the strike was deliberately planned for the first day of the conflict and did not occur amid the fog of war. Secretary Hegseth’s catastrophic cuts to civilian harm mitigation efforts at the Department of Defense and his disdain for the rules of engagement will only continue to put innocent men, women, and children in danger.”

A group of Democratic lawmakers told Hegseth in a July letter that his “gutting civilian harm mitigation and response (CHMR) efforts” has left the Pentagon unable to “comply with the law and its congressionally-mandated CHMR responsibilities.” They added: “The Trump administration — potentially in violation of federal law — has defunded and impeded civilian protection efforts.”

That letter, sent by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Gillibrand, and eight other lawmakers, echoed concerns raised by a War Department inspector general report that described civilian protection efforts as largely “inactive.” The May report by the Pentagon’s top watchdog says cuts to civilian harm mitigation and response efforts have been so severe under Hegseth that the United States cannot adequately protect civilians in conflict zones or track harm when it occurs.

These criticisms were echoed in an as-yet-unreleased official report revealed by The Intercept that found Hegseth’s Pentagon gutted its premier center devoted to preventing civilian casualties in war zones. The War Department’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence reduced its staff from 40 personnel in January 2025 to just nine by the end of the year, according to the report. And cuts have been even more catastrophic at the tip of the spear.

When questioned by lawmakers about U.S. attacks on civilian targets in Iran, Caine dismissed the concerns. “We have a robust process which considers a target. It goes through a system that looks at a variety of considerations, to include what you’re alluding to around both purely civilian or dual-use targets,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff chair said. “I have trust and confidence in CENTCOM that they’re looking at the range of those things on a daily basis.”

There are good reasons not to trust that system. The 10-person civilian harm mitigation team at CENTCOM has been reduced to just one individual, according to Cooper, the CENTCOM commander. Another recent yet-to-be-released Pentagon report on civilian casualties noted that 15 attacks in Yemen from early 2025 are still under review by CENTCOM. “How will they get through hundreds of cases for Iran if their one civilian harm person still hasn’t finished Yemen?” a U.S. official lamented to The Intercept. Both current and former government officials told The Intercept that the massive cuts have left the Pentagon unable to protect civilians in war zones like Iran.

Asked if anyone would be held accountable for the February strike on the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school, Trump replied in June: “No. If it was a fault — and as you know that’s under investigation. It’s such a strange question to be asked at this date. You’re talking about a long time ago.”

The Rostami family was large and close-knit. Sarbaz said that 16 children and grandchildren made a pilgrimage from Tehran to Qazvin every Friday. “We would spread a large tablecloth and eat together,” she said. After the bodies of her children and grandchildren were pulled from the rubble, the eight deceased made a last trip to their ancestral home for a funeral procession and burial.

A large crowd gathered outside Sarbaz’s home on March 23. “They were crying,” she recalled. “People came from everywhere. They were chanting ‘Death to America’ and mourning my children.” Azadeh, who accompanied the bodies back to Qazvin, recalls being deeply affected as Sarbaz received the corpses. “When we returned the bodies, I saw the mother arrive carrying an Iranian flag. She was the only surviving immediate family member there,” he said of Sarbaz. “She said the reason she was crying was because she herself had not been martyred alongside them.” 

Footage from Iranian state television of the martyrs’ procession shows a huge crowd with women pushing children in strollers, men waving Iranian flags, and others carrying poster-sized photos of the dead, behind decorated funeral trucks bearing the bodies of the victims. Photos from the Iranian Students’ News Agency show crowds carrying coffins wrapped in the green, red, and white of the Iranian flag and a cleric clad in a black robe and turban holding the body of a white-shrouded baby aloft.

The funeral was attended by thousands of people, Sarbaz remembered.

In June, just after agreeing to a ceasefire that quickly collapsed, Trump returned to threatening to kill Iranians. “If they ​don’t behave,” he said, “we’ll go right back to dropping bombs ​right smack in the middle of their head.” Attacks followed. “We can knock down their bridges in one hour. We can knock out their energy supply,” he said in July. “We can knock out their electricity and power generating plants. … Every plant will be gone.” Later that month, Trump posted: “Every time Iran kills an American Soldier, they will pay for that killing many times over!”

Sarbaz now lives with the fallout of Trump’s war of choice and his disregard for civilian lives. “After three sons, God gave me this daughter, and she was all my hope. We had named her Fatemeh, but because her father loved the name Hannaneh, we used to call her that,” she explained. “But today, I no longer say Hannaneh or Fatemeh.”

As his war in Iran has imploded, Trump has increasingly lashed out, calling for cataclysm, slaughter, and even genocide. “We’re knocking the hell out of it,” he said of Iran earlier this month. “I do not want to kill people. But at some point we’re gonna.” But Trump has already killed many thousands of Iranians — including school children, hospital patients, the elderly, and, in Tehran’s Pirouzi neighborhood on March 18, most of a family, including its youngest member. “Knocking the hell out of them,” said Trump as he continued to rant about his attacks on Iranians last week. Mohammad Ali Kialha was one of those people; perhaps the youngest killed by Trump’s war.

And Sarbaz wants an answer from Trump about why he had to die: “What sin had my 20-day-old grandchild committed that he had to be martyred?”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.

The post The Short Life of a Newborn During the Iran War appeared first on The Intercept.

In the process, immigration officials indicate they complied with an Iranian request to repatriate three specific people who were living in the United States.

Hundreds of emails spanning from May to November of last year show ICE officials, operating under the orders of then-Acting Director Todd Lyons, scrambling to put together plans for three controversial charter flights to Iran in the clearest picture yet of the Trump administration’s behind-the-scenes planning for the trips.

The flights delivered more than 100 people to an uncertain fate in Tehran just months or weeks before the U.S. and Israel launched their current devastating war, which has to date killed thousands of Iranians. While Israel and the United States bombed Iran during the Twelve-Day War last year, the flight planning remained ongoing. The coordination marked a reversal in decades of immigration policy toward Iranians, who were typically allowed to remain in the United States, even with a final removal order, due to fear of persecution from a regime U.S. leaders have accused of wantonly murdering its own citizens. 

The emails, which were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, and provided exclusively to The Intercept, show heavy pressure from high-ranking Trump administration officials to make the flights happen; discussion of coordination between ICE and Iranian officials, often through Qatari intermediaries but at times directly; and even an apparent mix-up in which ICE officials accidentally put the wrong person on a deportation flight bound for Iran.

Iranians were already under increased targeting by ICE, according to data obtained by NIAC. The timing of the about-face from long-standing policy was particularly cruel, said Jamal Abdi, the group’s president.

“It seemed clear that Iranians were under the microscope all of a sudden,” Abdi told The Intercept. “And we now know that it was actually in the middle of the [Twelve-Day] war where the White House was directing ICE to start removing Iranians.”

Each flight arrived in Tehran carrying at least a dozen deportees, including political activists and ethnic and religious minorities who had good reason to fear persecution upon arrival. Many of the people flown to Tehran were transported against their will, including one man who later told the New York Times that he attempted suicide before the flight and ICE agents physically forced him onto the plane.

The bulk of the emails released to NIAC illustrate the planning and execution of the first mass deportation to Iran on September 29, 2025.

Most of the correspondents have their identities and contact information redacted, with the exception of officials such as then-acting director Lyons, head of removal operations Marcos Charles, then-deputy director Madison Sheahan, and Joshua Coster, whose email signature identifies him as the ERO — Enforcement and Removal Operations — attaché at the agency’s U.S. Embassy branch office in Tel Aviv. In the run-up to the flight, Coster appears to have acted as the primary liaison with the Qatari government in back-and-forths over landing permits, passenger manifests, and details of the transfer in Doha to the final leg of the journey on a Qatar Airways charter. His level of involvement, Abdi said, “reveals how integral the ICE office in Tel Aviv has been to this transnational network of ICE officers removing people from America.”

In one of the most confounding episodes that took place during the first flight, Coster informed his colleagues that an Iranian national not included on the final list of deportees somehow wound up on the plane to Doha.

“An Iranian national not included on the final manifest we sent to Qatari MOI was boarded on the flight,” Coster wrote to colleagues on September 30, 2025. “This is unfortunate.”

“I have no idea how the case/person got through to the plane,” one of Coster’s colleagues responded. 

After the stopover in Doha, the accidental passenger was sent to Iran anyway.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of ICE, declined to comment on the apparent mix-up.

Formal diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran have been severed since 1979, and communications between the two nations have typically taken place either through intermediaries or through Iranian representatives operating out of the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C. That made the issuance of travel documents necessary for deportation nearly impossible, and Iranians were often allowed to remain in the country indefinitely.

Yet the move to begin deporting Iranians took place at a time in which relations between the U.S. and Iran were at a particularly low point.

The so-called Twelve-Day War was in full swing when, on June 19, 2025, the orders came down to ICE officers to begin putting plans into motion.

In an email sent from his BlackBerry to Charles and Sheahan that day, Lyons directed his underlings to “launch target cases as a priority.” Less than an hour later, Charles forwarded Lyons’s missive to several ICE officials and included marching orders of his own.

“Please begin working on a plan to remove all removable FO [final order] Iranians in custody,” Charles wrote. “We need a plan forward ASAP.”

In a series of emails among ICE officials, all of whose names were redacted, the pressure to develop a plan was clear. One staffer, whose email signature listed them as an assistant director of the ERO’s removal division, appeared pessimistic about the timing.

“Unfortunately I do not have great news,” wrote the staffer. “I’ve learned from the team that Iran is currently uncooperative and does not issue [travel documents] in a timely manner.”

As a result, the staffer told Charles, “removal will prove difficult.” To make matters worse, “due to the current conflict, the airspace in Iran is closed to all ( not just U.S.) until further notice,” wrote the official. “Neighboring land borders are also a challenge.”

Still, in other emails, the assistant director urged colleagues to press ahead with the orders.

“Please initiate conversations with [the Department of] State first this [sic] tomorrow,” the official wrote in an email forwarding the commands to his colleagues. “They need to help us identify a solution for this WH [White House] priority.”

Just 24 hours later, however, an ICE official wrote with good news.

“The team has come together and developed a few viable options for removals to Iran,” the official wrote. All of the plans were redacted.

Lyons, Charles, and Sheahan did not respond to requests for comment. When The Intercept contacted Coster at his official ICE email address, the reporter received an automatic out-of-office reply indicating that Coster’s area of focus had shifted to North Africa. 

For years, Iranians facing deportation from the U.S. have been protected by two realities: the lack of diplomatic relations between the two nations and the threat of retribution at home.

But the Trump administration has dispensed with both roadblocks in its quest for mass deportations, in which Trump has dismantled the asylum system for refugees from almost any country — with the notable exception of white Afrikaners. 

Related

The Incredible Disappearing Human Rights Reports

“It seems that this administration will stop at nothing to make sure that these physical deportations actually happen, no matter what the cost, and they’ll just turn people over to despotic regimes,” said Hassan Ahmad, an immigration attorney who has represented a number of high-profile people targeted for deportation in recent years. “I’ve been an immigration lawyer a long time, but with this administration, every day it’s a new low.”

It has become virtually impossible for ethnic minorities and political dissidents fleeing persecution in Iran to find safety in the United States, despite Trump’s strident criticism of the Iranian government’s human-rights record.

“Iran commits grievous human rights abuses and arbitrarily detains foreigners, including United States citizens, on spurious charges without due process of law, subjecting them to abuse,” Trump wrote in a February 2025 national security policy memo announcing his administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign. The following January, during a deadly crackdown on protests against the Iranian government, Trump issued messages of support for the people of Iran opposed to the regime — even as ICE agents were set to deport a dozen more people to Tehran later that month.

Amid all its bluster against Iran, his administration was doing everything it could to send Iranians back to that government. In June 2025, according to figures tallied up in an email from Charles, there were 522 Iranian nationals in ICE detention, including 244 who were under a final order of removal, and another 278 who were in removal proceedings. Charles wrote that the agency’s internal portal showed more than 5,000 other cases of Iranians in deportation proceedings who were not in ICE custody.

Related

This Imam Refused to Be an FBI Informant. Now ICE Wants to Deport Him.

Around that time, ICE embarked on a dramatic scaling up of detentions of Iranian nationals not already in custody, arresting between 290 and 300 people between June and July of that year, according to NIAC’s data. 

“At the same time the U.S. and Israel were plotting a new phase of war with Iran, ICE’s attaché in Israel was coordinating to send asylees back to a government that threatens their lives,” Abdi said. “The people of Iran are wronged at every turn: by their authoritarian government and by the U.S. that speaks as if it is their ally, only to pursue policies that block them from the American dream, impoverish them, and drop thousands of bombs on their country.”

The first war with Iran under the second Trump administration ended on June 24, 2025, and efforts to organize the first flight to Tehran continued apace. Throughout August, ICE agents at field offices around the country made repeated mention of a charter flight scheduled for later that month. But by August 22, that charter appears to have fallen apart.

“It looks like there is some finger pointing going on,” wrote Coster, the ERO attaché then based in Tel Aviv, “because the Qataris, [Ministry of the Interior] and [Ministry of Foreign Affairs], are saying the Iranians did not approve in time.”

A few days later, his colleague was passing on an ask from Iranian officials. “Iran has requested that I amend the previous manifest an expedite the removal process,” an ERO officer wrote on August 29, with further specifics redacted. Within a month, the plan was a go.

On September 29, a plane operated by the private contractor Omni Air and brokered by CSI Aviation, neither of which responded to The Intercept’s requests for comment, took off from the Alexandria Staging Facility in Louisiana and flew to Puerto Rico for a brief refuel before traveling on to Cairo, according email records and to data provided to The Intercept by ICE Flight Monitor at Human Rights First.

After a stop in Cairo, the plane continued on to Qatar, with 54 Iranians onboard, who were transferred to a charter flight operated by the state-owned Qatar Airways. On October 1, at about 11:00 a.m. local time, the Qatar Airways flight arrived at its final destination, at Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran. 

For reasons that are not made clear in the emails, the Iranian deportees numbered fewer than half the 120 Iranian nationals that Qatar and Iran were expecting. The Qataris were not happy. 

“We would like clarification on why the number of passengers has been reduced from 120 to 54, as this directly affects our internal operations,” wrote a representative of the Qatari Ministry of the Interior in an email to ICE officials. “Last-minute changes are not welcome, especially since we are an intermediary with the Iranians.”

If U.S. officials gave an explanation to Qatar, it does not appear in the correspondence. The emails do reveal the inclusion of an Iranian not slated for the flight — as well as further specific requests from Iran, in which officials appear to ask that certain individuals be sent back to the country.

“The lran Embassy just issued passports or travel documents for the three listed below. They requested they be added to the flight leaving out on the 29th,” an official wrote on September 26, 2025.

The description of coordination between representatives of the two hostile nations, and the requests from Iran that individuals be included in the flight appears to bolster claims made in a lawsuit filed last month in federal court by the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund, which accused ICE of handing over sensitive information to the Iranian government. In court filings, ICE has dismissed those claims as “hearsay.”

In response to a detailed list of questions, a spokesperson for DHS again denied sharing sensitive information with the Iranian government.

“These allegations that ICE shared asylum application records with the Iranian government are FALSE,” the spokesperson wrote. “ICE is committed to ensuring that illegal aliens are informed of their right to communicate with their consular representatives. Consistent with established protocols, ICE provides illegal aliens the opportunity to contact their consular post and facilitates consular access to detained individuals, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and agency policy.”

The emails end on November 25, when the U.S. was planning a second flight that transited deportees to Iran through Kuwait on December 7. A third flight took place on January 25, again through Kuwait, and a fourth one was scheduled for late March.

According to filings in the lawsuit, it was derailed when, in late February, the U.S. and Israel again began bombing Iran.

The post ICE Worked With Iranian Regime to Set Up Deportation Flights as Trump Laid Plans for War appeared first on The Intercept.

This year, however, he’s facing a challenger attempting to flip that strategy on its head. A Democratic Socialists of America member, Oliver Larkin, is trying to win a primary against Moskowitz by running far to his left on both foreign and domestic policies.

The pair presents a striking contrast: Moskowitz has drawn heavy support from donors associated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and an artificial intelligence super PAC, while Larkin, a 34-year-old union organizer, calls himself an anti-Zionist and leans on small-dollar funders.

Polls of the race have produced vastly different results, with one commissioned by Larkin putting him within striking distance, while another from Moskowitz’s campaign showing the incumbent far ahead.

Susan McManus, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of South Florida, said in an email that the race will be a significant tell of the mood in the Democratic electorate.

“Of all the Florida congressional districts, this one will be the biggest test of how deep is the generational and ideological divide in the Florida Democratic Party, and to what extent the socialism label may splinter the Latino vote,” she said.

Theory of Change

That label is one that Larkin wears proudly, describing himself on his website as an active member of the Broward County Democratic Socialists of America. He supports Medicare for All while opposing the embargo on Cuba and weapons transfers to Israel.

In an interview with The Intercept ahead of Tuesday’s primary, Larkin said he rejected the Florida Democratic Party’s tendency to lean right to win Republican and independent votes. That strategy has not worked, Larkin said, pointing to Republican-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist’s big loss to Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2024.

Instead, Larkin argues that an openly leftist candidate can energize the Democratic base while winning over disaffected independents.

“I think another false choice that corporate Democrats make is that non-party affiliated or independent voters want to see candidates split the difference right down the middle. I don’t think that’s true,” he said. “They see the status quo politics as completely broken.”

Related

Abdul El-Sayed on The Intercept Briefing

Moskowitz’s campaign did not respond to an interview request. On his campaign website, however, he leans heavily on his bipartisan bona fides, noting that he served in DeSantis’s cabinet as emergency management director until his election to Congress in 2022.

That credential could help win over voters in a redrawn district spanning much of the coast near Fort Lauderdale that would have voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election. Moskowitz already represents about half of the new district’s voters in his current 23rd Congressional District.

The new 25th District also has one of the nation’s largest Jewish populations, making Moskowitz’s outspoken support for Israel particularly salient. Last week, pro-Israel activists in south Florida pressured multiple venues to cancel a joint rally that Larkin was to hold with Rep. Rashida Tlaib, one of the Democratic Party’s most outspoken critics of Israel.

Related

How Florida’s Cuban Diaspora and the Israeli Lobby Came Together — and Are Coming Apart

Moskowitz has also accused Larkin — without offering any evidence — of running against him based on his religion, in a letter to the Sun Sentinel where he declined to participate in a joint interview with Larkin.

The South Florida newspaper called that charge “demonstrably untrue” and dinged Moskowitz for dodging opportunities to face off against his opponent.

“The Sun Sentinel has endorsed Moskowitz in all of his previous races. But in this case, his continued avoidance of Larkin shows a lack of respect for voters and can be viewed as an unwillingness to defend his own record,” the paper’s editorial board said.

Dollar Deficit

Larkin was born in Florida, but after his stint as a volunteer and staffer for Sen. Bernie Sanders, he worked for a consulting firm aligned with the Democratic Party in Washington, D.C. He returned to the Sunshine State in 2022. During his run for office this cycle, he has posted respectable fundraising numbers for a first-time candidate taking on an incumbent. In an August 13 press release, his campaign said he had raised over $1 million.

Still, that puts him far behind Moskowitz, who reported receipts of nearly $3 million during this election cycle in his most recent campaign finance report, with $1.8 million remaining on hand.

Related

AIPAC, AI, Crypto, and Gambling Are Hiding Their Big Election Spends

While some pro-Israel candidates have sought to avoid association with AIPAC this year, given the group’s increasingly toxic brand, Moskowitz has defended its donations to his campaign. His fundraising reports show that he has raised $953,000 from donors associated with AIPAC, according to the transparency website Open Secrets.

An artificial intelligence super PAC is also spending heavily on Moskowitz. The super PAC, Leading the Future, has spent more than $300,000 thus far.

Larkin believes he can make up the divide in spending on advertising with old-fashioned door-knocking. His campaign boasts of having made more than 200,000 voter contacts — and he says there has been little evidence that Moskowitz’s campaign is attempting to match their ground game.

“He’s got ads on TV. He’s got mail. He has no ground game to speak of. I don’t believe he is even attempting to knock on doors,” Larkin said. “He doesn’t have a volunteer base, because nobody wants to volunteer for him.”

The post A Democratic Socialist Aims to Oust a Top AIPAC Beneficiary in Florida appeared first on The Intercept.

Somewhere in a sweltering desert, cockroaches scurry around the cell of Carlitos Ricardo Parias. He holds up a plastic bottle, gazing at the worm-like creatures swimming in his drinking water. His other arm is turning purple from a gunshot wound for which he says he hasn’t received proper medical care.

His gulag isn’t in a distant Soviet or banana republic. It’s about an hour and a half from Disneyland, in a small California town called Adelanto.

After Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers shot and detained Parias last October, the Los Angeles-based journalist will cross 300 days in ICE detention on Monday. His horrifying conditions aren’t unique among immigrant detainees, but Parias’s case is extraordinary. Perhaps no journalist has endured such a sustained sequence of violence, prosecution, and imprisonment at the hands of the U.S. government.

Several American journalists have spent months in jail to protect their sources: New York Times reporter Judith Miller (85 days in 2005), writer Vanessa Leggett (168 days ending 2002), and freelancer Josh Wolf (226 days ending in 2007). Last year, Emmy-winning journalist Mario Guevara spent more than 100 days in immigration detention before being deported, prompting national outrage.

Parias long ago surpassed Wolf’s record for the longest known time a journalist had spent in U.S. custody.

He was already prolific on social media when the immigration enforcement surge began last summer. He worked independently as Richard Noticias LA, with over 100,000 followers on TikTok. He built that audience by chasing crime stories across California neighborhoods often overlooked by larger outlets. This time last year, the Los Angeles City Council presented him with a proclamation honoring his efforts.

Federal authorities say Parias is an undocumented immigrant who had previously evaded arrest. But their account does not explain a growing mountain of evidence.

On June 13, 2025, Parias arrived at an immigration raid in South LA ready to film as usual. According to witnesses, a federal agent ran into him with a vehicle. Parias was then handcuffed and left on a sidewalk while the agents continued their work. Videos show him crying out in pain and grasping at his injured leg. Agents never provided medical attention. Eventually, a Good Samaritan pulled up in a private vehicle and took Parias to the hospital. An agent briefly stopped them but let Parias leave — handcuffs still on.

Four months later, Parias was driving along a quiet block near downtown LA. Multiple unmarked vehicles pulled up around him, carrying masked men who turned out to be federal agents. Immediately and without warning, they smashed his window, as bodycam footage later showed. Panicked, Parias stepped on the accelerator — a meaningless move in a small car physically pinned by multiple large SUVs. Tires spun, the vehicles didn’t budge, and Parias quickly took his foot off the gas.

One agent struggled to open the passenger door. He fumbled with his gun, as his own bodycam showed, juggling it back and forth between his hands before shooting Parias in the elbow. A U.S. marshal was also hit and was expected to recover.

As federal immigration agents’ violence once again sent Parias to the hospital, the agents scurried into the security office of a nearby strip mall to check for surveillance footage. They downloaded it onto a thumb drive and deleted it from the mall’s system.

Prosecutors charged Parias with assault on a federal officer, offering a version of events that omitted critical context. U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli fired off a social media post suggesting Parias had been trying to avoid deportation agents for months:

“This morning, Parias rammed his car into agents’ vehicles after they boxed him in and ordered him to submit to arrest. Parias, who had previously avoided capture by immigration authorities, refused to comply with agents’ orders and escalated what could have been a simple arrest into a life-threatening situation.”

Essayli’s post included a single screenshot from their lone copy of the mall’s footage. The full video would have painted a very different picture. He didn’t release it.

Evidence wasn’t the only thing withheld from Parias, who was discharged from the hospital days later while still on morphine. Taken directly into a federal criminal detention center in downtown Los Angeles, he was supposed to receive high doses of ibuprofen. Once in court for his initial criminal hearing, the judge learned he wasn’t being given the prescribed treatment for his gunshot wound. The pain caused Parias to twist in his chair. Flummoxed, the judge implored a U.S. marshal to expedite his return to a facility where he could be given medication. The marshal refused.

Moments later, Parias’s lawyer asked the judge if his client’s teenage son — who had not been allowed to communicate with his father since the shooting — could give him a hug. Citing security protocol, the marshal also vetoed this small act of humanity. As Parias was whisked away, his son shouted across the courtroom in Spanish, “te amo” (“I love you”).

Related

ICE Tried to Deport an Asylum-Seeker. Now He’s Being Denied Care for a Growing Tumor in a Private Prison.

Parias was eventually granted bond in his criminal case. But accepting it would have meant marshals turning him over to immigration authorities, who could immediately transfer him to their own distant facility with potentially worse care. He didn’t take the offer.

The government transferred him anyway. Adelanto is difficult to visit, hours from his lawyers and family in Los Angeles, not to mention the court itself. Prosecutors still hadn’t turned over the mall footage. But bystander videos began to undermine the government’s account. The judge ultimately threw out all criminal charges with prejudice, finding that the government had violated Parias’s constitutional rights.

The proceedings to deport Parias continue. For now, he’s stuck in Adelanto.

Even in detention, Parias remains a journalist. The government gave him a new beat. He began reporting on the horrid conditions that he and other detainees endure. Through video recorded by his visitors and accounts relayed to other reporters, Parias exposed the worm-like creatures in drinking water and cockroaches in cells.

His gunshot wound was being treated with vitamin D and Bengay. “What I saw looked like an arm that was on the verge of being amputated,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, D-Calif., who visited Parias at Adelanto in May. His situation inspired her to propose legislation addressing medical neglect in immigration facilities.

The government recently said it plans to ship him even farther away, to a facility in San Diego where he can receive medical care. The move will make it even harder for his family and lawyers to visit — and end his reporting on Adelanto’s rancid conditions.

Parias — and his reporting behind bars — is getting more media attention, but that coverage doesn’t always recognize how this all started because he was doing his job as a journalist.

America has imprisoned journalists before. It has even killed them. But what has happened to Parias is something different: A journalist was injured while documenting government power, shot during an attempt to arrest him, prosecuted, repeatedly denied medical care — and then left in immigration detention, where he has continued documenting the conditions around him.

The government’s powers to enforce immigration laws and prosecute crimes do not erase the First Amendment. Journalists don’t surrender their rights because they lack immigration status. And the government can’t make a journalist disappear simply by locking him in a cell.

At some point, the question stops being what else will happen to Parias. It becomes what America is willing to let happen to a journalist.

The post ICE Shot a Journalist and Threw Him in Detention. He’s Approaching 300 Days Behind Bars With a Festering Wound. appeared first on The Intercept.

The Sunrise Movement has long preached nonviolence even as it pursues aggressive tactics, such as making a racket outside of the hotels where ICE agents sleep.

But the group’s public commitment to peaceful protest did not spare it from a months-long, aggressive campaign of government snooping that included ICE agents attending its meetings and protests undercover, subpoenas of its financial records, and at least one apparent attempt to entice an organizer into backing more confrontational tactics.

Sunrise Movement Executive Director Aru Shiney-Ajay said in an interview Thursday that the government’s tactics are a sign that the Trump administration is losing the battle for public opinion.

“What this is meant to do is scare protesters and scare people away from joining protest groups,” she said. “It is very essential that we remember that actually what we are doing is incredibly normal, it is incredibly popular, and we cannot let ourselves be scared out of organizing.”

Operation Puppet Master

The revelations about the tactics ICE used against Sunrise, along with a wide variety of labor unions and protest groups, came in a court filing from a defense attorney for one of 15 Minnesota activists charged in June for trying to stop the federal government’s immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities.

Related

Trump’s Spaghetti-Against-the-Wall Indictment Against ICE Protesters — and How to Fight It

Shortly after federal agents killed Alex Pretti on January 24, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations opened two investigations it called “Operation Puppet Master” and “Project Whipple Shield,” the latter a reference to the federal building that was the site of many ICE protests.

Supposedly, those probes would focus on a network supporting “violent opportunists and agitators.” In reality, the investigative reports that the federal government has turned over to defense attorneys show that undercover ICE agents secretly recorded at churches, libraries, and schools even when organizers stressed the importance of nonviolence.

In the case of Sunrise, undercover agents were already targeting the group before the killings of Pretti and Renee Good.

Sunrise is a national organization with a Twin Cities chapter. Long known for its aggressive climate advocacy, the youth-led group pivoted just before the start of the federal government’s crackdown on immigrants in Minnesota to fighting the Trump administration’s authoritarianism.

One of the group’s most famous early acts was occupying then-Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office in support of the Green New Deal. It brought that same energy to the protests in Minneapolis, playing a key role in the nighttime noise protests targeting hotels in the Twin Cities that were allegedly hosting ICE agents. But it has always counseled its supporters to remain peaceful, Shiney-Ajay said.

“We are a strictly nonviolent movement. We make that very clear in almost every training we run, in all the meetings we run,” she said.

Yet almost as soon as Operation Metro Surge started, ICE agents were attending Sunrise trainings on the sly.

Related

The FBI Paid a Violent Felon to Infiltrate Denver’s Racial Justice Movement

Undercover agents attended a “How to stop ICE” training that Sunrise hosted at a church on December 13. By December 22, an undercover agent had been added to the Signal group for planning one of Sunrise’s hotel protests. On January 9, two undercover agents attended a noise demonstration outside a Hilton Hotel, noting that a member of the crowd set off fireworks at one point.

The killing of Pretti — and the ensuing nationwide backlash against ICE — appears to have done nothing to slow the investigation. One week after Pretti’s slaying, two undercover agents attended a Sunrise Movement Twin Cities training on “resistance skills” hosted at a public library.

The meeting included primers on deescalation at protests, and the ICE agent noted that it was “made clear that the Sunrise Movement organization focused on ‘peaceful’ protests.”

That did not stop the undercover agent from making a private approach to one of the organizers, according to a report the agent produced. The agent told the organizer that he worked in construction and “could build items that might assist other groups with more ‘direct-action’ protests.” When the undercover agent declared that “going to jail did not bother him,” the organizer “acknowledged” the agent’s comments and took down his phone number, according to the report.

Kevin Riach, the attorney representing one of the defendants in the indictment targeting Minneapolis activists, said in a court filing this week that that report was one of several showing that ICE’s undercover agents “actively participated in organizing and directing the groups they were surveilling, at times working to entice people into discussing or committing crimes.”

By the start of March, the federal government had scaled down its immigration crackdown in Minneapolis — but it was continuing to investigate groups such as Sunrise.

Related

Big Finance Might Be Dooming the SPLC — Even Before Its Day in Court

On March 9, ICE sent a subpoena to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the nonprofit’s wire transactions dating back to January 1, 2023, long before Trump was even elected to his second term. That same date, ICE also sent a subpoena to the Clearing House, a private wire transfer company, for years of financial records from Sunrise and several labor unions.

The Sunrise Movement was never given notice of those subpoenas or an opportunity to contest them, Shiney-Ajay said.

Training for This Moment

None of the activists who were eventually charged in a June 16 indictment were members of the Sunrise Movement, Shiney-Ajay said.

ICE declined to offer an explanation for why it investigated Sunrise and the other groups.

“HSI investigates individuals and organizations when there is just and legal cause to do so and within the scope of its legal authorities. To preserve the integrity of our work and protect law enforcement sensitivities, we do not comment on ongoing investigations, investigative tactics, or procedures,” an agency spokesperson said.

While it had never been confirmed that ICE was closely studying the Sunrise Movement before this week, Shiney-Ajay said it had long been treated as a possibility. The group was specifically concerned that federal agents might act as provocateurs at protests.

“We put a lot of work into training de-escalation and safety leads at all of our protests,” she said. “I certainly think that that was a worthwhile investment, reading these things now.”

She said it was “telling” that the investigation was led by the Department of Homeland Security rather than the FBI, which might be constrained by more “rules and regulations.”

The revelation of the widespread ICE probe has already sparked another backlash.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which has received funding from conservative and libertarian donors, said it found the investigation disturbing.

“Some activists have violated federal law, and the government is entirely justified in investigating and prosecuting them. But criminal conduct by some members of a movement does not justify government surveillance and investigation of anyone who shares their broader political goals. That type of aggressive scrutiny chills protected speech and association. It will likely make many Americans think twice before joining a protest, attending a meeting, donating to an advocacy organization, or speaking out at all,” said Aaron Terr, the group’s director of public advocacy.

On Thursday, a coalition of dozens of Minnesota groups promised that that they would not be cowed.

“We know the truth, and we will not be intimidated,” the groups said. “When self-serving politicians are losing, they lie and attempt political repression, trying to silence the voices of those who bravely stand up to them. Minnesotans will not be intimidated or divided by sham accusations or investigations of some of the countless groups and community members who organized, acted, and stood up together to protect their neighbors during Operation Metro Surge.”

The post Secret ICE Agent Tried to “Entice” Minneapolis Activists Into Confrontational Tactics appeared first on The Intercept.

The stunning momentum of the insurgent left hit a roadblock this week when democratic socialist Francesca Hong narrowly lost her primary race for Wisconsin governor to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a moderate who garnered significant support from establishment Democrats.  

“The collective power of that Democratic establishment in a state, where there is a Democratic governor and there is a real Democratic Party establishment machine, all of that power was required to eke out a 0.4 percent victory in the party’s own primary against a previously unknown candidate running as a Democratic socialist,” The Lever’s David Sirota tells The Intercept Briefing. 

This week on the podcast, host Jessica Washington speaks with Sirota, founder and editor-in-chief of The Lever, about the primaries and how the left is building power within the Democratic Party. 

There were bright spots for progressives on Tuesday night. In Minnesota, progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan defeated AIPAC-backed Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., in the Senate primary race. Craig had previously voted for the Laken Riley Act, which requires the federal government to detain people for certain crimes, including shoplifting and burglary. Flanagan, by contrast, told supporters on election night: “We need to rip ICE apart and stop them from terrorizing our communities.”  

“What you’re seeing now is, and I don’t want to call it a Democratic Tea Party, but it is certainly organizing and pressuring to take back power in an adversarial way from a set of forces to the left of the Democratic establishment,” says Sirota. “That is what’s new, and that is what’s driving the political dynamic now.” 

Washington and Sirota also discuss the intensifying democracy crisis unfolding in the United States. According to Sirota, it “stands on two pillars: concentrated executive power and the supremacy of money.”

Sirota explores this theme and more, in the new season of his show, Master Plan: The Kingmakers. The podcast is all about how a once-fringe legal theory moved into the mainstream and transformed the power of the American presidency. 

For more, listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you listen.

Transcript

Jessica Washington: Welcome to The Intercept Briefing, I’m Jessica Washington, politics reporter at The Intercept. 

On Tuesday night, democratic socialist Francesca Hong narrowly lost her primary race for Wisconsin Governor to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley.

Hong lost by less than a percentage point. But her defeat was a blow to the anti-data center movement, which she had championed throughout her campaign, even as her detractors tried to make the race about her opinions on Thanksgiving and other major holidays. 

Related

Francesca Hong’s Loss in Wisconsin Is a Win for AI Data Centers — for Now

But the night was not a total loss for progressives. In Minnesota, Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan defeated AIPAC-backed Congresswoman Angie Craig for Senate. 

Peggy Flanagan: And now let’s talk about Donald Trump’s out of control ICE force [crowd boos]. We need to rip ICE apart and stop them from terrorizing our communities. 

JW: Last year, Craig voted in favor of the Laken Riley Act, which requires the federal government to detain people for a host of crimes, including nonviolent ones like shoplifting, and it allows states to sue over immigration enforcement, giving power to state attorneys general to shape immigration enforcement policy regardless of which party holds the White House. That vote appears to have cost her in a state that largely rose up in defiance of the Trump administration’s brutal immigration crackdown, after federal immigration agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens. 

For more of our reporting on the primaries and the anti-data center movement, visit TheIntercept.com.  

This week on The Intercept Briefing, I speak to David Sirota, founder and editor-in-chief of The Lever, about the primaries and how the left is building power within the Democratic Party. 

David also talks about the parallels between how the left and the right have consolidated power, and we get into the second season of his amazing series Master Plan, resuming this week. 

This new season is called The Kingmakers and is all about how a once-fringe legal theory moved into the mainstream and transformed the power of the American presidency. 

It traces the people and institutions behind that campaign — from Richard Nixon’s downfall and Dick Cheney’s post-9/11 power grab to pivotal Supreme Court decisions and Project 2025.

David, welcome back to The Intercept Briefing.

David Sirota: Thank you. Thanks for having me. 

JW: So Tuesday night, Francesca Hong narrowly lost her primary race for Wisconsin governor to the more moderate candidate, David Crowley. But it wasn’t a total loss for the left. In Minnesota, Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan defeated AIPAC-backed Angie Craig. Hong’s race was plagued by, honestly, the dumbest issues, like whether she supports Thanksgiving or how she views her “proximity to whiteness.”

David, what did you make of Tuesday night’s results? Does this, as The New York Times called it, show the “limits of the left,” or is something else at play here?

DS: I think this is a good test of the power dynamic in American politics right now, specifically inside the Democratic Party. I’m going to state a few empirical facts about what happened. People can use these facts to try to confirm their priors. But here are the facts that we know. Fact one is that the entire establishment of the Democratic Party came together towards the end of this race, really consolidated to try to shut down Francesca Hong’s campaign and defeat her.

The collective power of that Democratic establishment in a state, where there is a Democratic governor and there is a real Democratic Party establishment machine, all of that power was required to eke out a 0.4 percent victory in the party’s own primary against a previously unknown candidate running as a Democratic socialist who was wildly under-resourced, did not air any television advertisements through her own campaign. So the point being that all of the power of the old Democratic machine was required to eke out the narrowest of victories against the longest of long-shot candidates. 

A candidate who, by the way, had been effectively abandoned by other national left-of-center icons and politicians, democratic socialists. Bernie Sanders did not endorse Francesca Hong. AOC did not endorse Francesca Hong. The candidates who have been winning as democratic socialists did not come to Wisconsin to campaign with Francesca Hong. We can discuss why that is and the mistakes or stumbles that Hong made as a candidate. But the point is that the machine with all of the power and advantages it had against a candidate with no advantages at all, that ran to say the least, an imperfect campaign, still needed all of its power to barely win a race in Wisconsin. 

So to me, what that says is that the Democratic establishment that has gotten very used to being able to easily control primary outcomes is now having to marshal all of its collective power and have everything break right for it in order to eke out these primary wins. That, I think, is a fundamental difference of the political topography of the Democratic Party.

JW: I’m thinking about the fact that we didn’t see Bernie Sanders supporting her. Obviously, AOC had come out and said that it was because she wanted to focus on Congress. So we can have that conversation.

But we also didn’t see that support for Cori Bush either. And she lost.

Related

Wesley Bell Again Defeats Cori Bush — With Plenty of Help From AIPAC

Do you think that progressives are making a smart play here by trying to decide who’s more electable in a general election? Or, is that just more of the same silly stuff we’ve seen from the Democratic Party in terms of electability and making those decisions before voters do?

DS: Yeah, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. My take on so-called electability is that nobody really knows who is electable or not electable. I’m old enough to remember when the same media machine and Democratic Party apparatus insisted with certainty that Barack Obama could never possibly win a general election. I remember when that same machine laughed at the idea that Donald Trump could be elected president. 

I tend to believe that this whole discussion about electability is silly, but also a Jedi mind trick that the establishment of the Democratic Party uses to try to manipulate voters into not voting for candidates and not seeing elections as forums for voting for good policies.

They’re trying to turn primaries into — and they’ve been successful at it in the past — trying to turn primaries into this idea that, “Don’t vote for the candidate who may be offering you policies that you actually support. Vote for our view of who is actually ‘electable’ in a general election. Forget the fact that we told you that Barack Obama wasn’t electable or Donald Trump wasn’t electable. Forget all that.” So my basic take is that the whole electability discussion is this moving target and a real sort of engine of manipulation. 

I think that in every race, candidates are looked at for their viability, for how well they are running, and their basic competence as a candidate. It’s not wrong for folks and political organizations and activists on the left or really any political faction to try to evaluate the competence of candidates that they are going to spend resources on or organize for or endorse. That’s part of the political process in America, and that’s not a perfect process. But sometimes you can make mistakes. That happens all the time. 

Did Francesca Hong not get endorsements because she was evaluated to be a less competent candidate? Same thing for Cori Bush. Were those candidates seen as not competent? Competent meaning as candidates, not as people, as candidates running a campaign. Were they seen as not competent versus was Abdul El-Sayed seen as a highly competent candidate?

Related

Abdul El-Sayed on The Intercept Briefing

My guess is that those calculations were at play here. I’ve worked on a lot of campaigns in my life at this point. A candidate’s competency is this intangible that’s really important.

So my guess is though all of those questions were on the table in the way that these decisions were made to endorse certain candidates and not go all in for other candidates.

JW: That makes a lot of sense. We’re also talking about having to run these candidates against the right, against the massive money machine that the right has.

So I want to talk a little bit more about Republicans and their power. Recently on your podcast, Lever Time, you spoke to Reed Galen, co-founder of the anti-Trump political action committee, The Lincoln Project. Galen talked about leaving the Republican Party and his warning that Democrats are making the same mistakes Republicans made, mapping the transition of the GOP to the Tea Party movement takeover.

Can you talk about that conversation and what Galen sees as the kind of dangerous mistakes the Democratic Party is making, and what’s your view?

DS: Yeah, I agree with his story of history, which is that to understand the current Republican Party, you have to really rewind history and look at what created it. You can go all the way back to Barry Goldwater and tell the story from there. 

But in modern times, what you can see is that in 2008, Barack Obama won the presidency. A lot of the center-left foment gets driven into the Democratic Party and into Obama as a personality, and a lot of the center-right and hard-right unhappiness with our political system was driven first into the Tea Party, which ultimately became MAGA, which ultimately became the Trump presidency.

The Tea Party was operating outside of the Republican Party, although in conjunction with it, to transform that party. Ultimately, Donald Trump’s presidency, first the MAGA movement and then Trump’s presidency, becomes the culmination of all of that foment outside of the party.

Obviously the party has been transformed. It is a much different party than it was even 10, 15 years ago. I think a similar dynamic is happening right now vis-a-vis the Democratic Party and the American left. Obviously on totally different issues. They don’t share ideologies, they don’t share policy agendas. 

But politically speaking, just the raw politics of it, I think this is delayed, I think it’s been belated. Whereas in 2008, there was a moment in the middle of the financial crisis where center-left discontent could have been channeled into something like a center-left Tea Party. I reported on this for a long time.

There was Occupy Wall Street and the like. But certainly it wasn’t as big a movement as the Tea Party on the right because a lot of that energy was, again, channeled into Obama and the Obama presidency. We’re now here 18 years later, many of the grievances of that moment back in 2008 in the middle of the financial crisis, really the supercharging of oligarchy, they’re still here.

But the difference is here — in the here and now — if you look at polls of people on the left, center-left, before in 2008 they were fairly confident in Democratic leaders to channel their grievances. Today, they have lost faith in the Democratic leadership. They are angry at the Democratic Party for what they perceive to be capitulations and unnecessary compromises with corporate power and with Trump and MAGA.

What you’re seeing now is, and I don’t want to call it a Democratic Tea Party, but it is certainly organizing and pressuring to take back power in an adversarial way from a set of forces to the left of the Democratic establishment. That is something I think we have not really experienced in our lifetimes. That is what’s new, and that is what’s driving the political dynamic now. 

Whether it’s in any of these races happening across the country or in Congress itself, which I expect the next session of Congress, if Democrats take it back, to be a lot of push and pull inside the Democratic caucus, which of course will overlay the 2028 presidential campaign. 

I very much expect candidates in the Democratic primary to be competing for that positioning. You might want to call it the Bernie Sanders lane, but it’s really the lane to say, “I am the outsider that is going to take back the White House for a particular faction,” or representing a particular faction of the Democratic Party. A faction that is most certainly not the corporate old-school establishment that has been running the party into the ground for the last 30 years.

I see the whole push and pull right now as something very healthy. I don’t think it is healthy for democracy, for an establishment of one of the major parties in this country to have clung onto power for so long, offering so little change through so many electoral defeats and through the rise of Donald Trump and authoritarianism. 

For that establishment to still be able to hold on to power without much change at all really is the democracy crisis in practice. So the effort to change that party through democratic means, is entirely long overdue, is entirely necessary. People listening to this may agree or disagree with specific different parts of the policy platform being pushed by those outside the establishment, but the process itself is the democracy working.

A lot of liberals think about the democracy crisis. The democracy crisis is a set of elite power brokers being able to cling on to a political party’s power regardless of what is happening in the world and in a way that sells out voters. That’s what’s been going on in the Democratic Party for a long time, and the effort to significantly change it and revitalize the party through democratic means is a healthy expression of democracy.

[Break]

JW: We have multiple crises of democracy happening. We obviously have Trump, but we also have the establishment [Democrats] and the fact that they’ve allowed Republicans to gain control of the government from the House to the Senate to presidency, and I would argue, also the Supreme Court. 

Last week, the president’s personal attorney, Todd Blanche, was confirmed as attorney general with, to me, what seems like a clear mandate to target the president’s enemies. Then on Tuesday, it was reported that the DOJ issued a sweeping memo giving broad authority to the president to conceal his communications with so-called private advisers in what seems like just a clear effort to undercut Democrats’ ability to investigate the president if they retake Congress. That doesn’t even touch on the fact that we’re over 100 days into war with Iran without congressional approval. 

I want to talk about how we got here, and you explore that in the new season of your show, Master Plan: Kingmakers, which is out this week, by the way. It tracks how a once fringe legal theory has transformed the American presidency into a pseudo-monarchy with term limits.

I listened to the first episode and loved it, by the way. It also feels incredibly relevant right now. David, how did we get here?

DS: To my mind, it is the second part of a two-part story to understand the real democracy crisis. The democracy crisis I think, stands on two pillars: concentrated executive power and the supremacy of money.

They’re obviously interrelated. Season one of Master Plan traces the secret 50-year plot to effectively legalize corruption, deregulate the campaign finance system and make bribery essentially a permissible act in the United States. We all understand, implicitly, that we’re now living in that reality when we’ve turned elections into auctions. We’ve equated money with free speech, we’ve equated corporations with people, giving them human rights.

So we are living through that project of the American right to effectively legalize corruption, to turn the democracy from a “one person, one vote” democracy into a “one dollar, one vote” oligarchy. I think we all see the evidence of that. That came about through, among other things, the infamous Powell Memo.

That’s the sort of origin story where a lot of it started, which was a call to arms for corporations in the early 1970s when corporations and oligarchs felt under attack from the New Deal policies of the mid-20th century. The Powell Memo was a call to essentially make monetary investments in buying democracy.

The democracy was functioning too well. It was becoming too responsive to what people actually wanted, and the idea was we have to legalize corruption to be able to rig the system so that we can buy outcomes, we the oligarchy. So that was season one of Master Plan. 

The other pillar of the democracy crisis is then to concentrate as much power in the executive branch in the hands of really one person so that the small-D democratic institutions of government have much less power, so that power is less diffuse. It’s all in the hands of one person, because if that’s your guy — you the oligarchy — then you’ve essentially ended democracy. This story starts in Watergate. Watergate was the moment that was seen as a so-called imperial presidency, a presidency that had gotten out of control and stepped over the boundaries and thresholds that had been established for the executive branch.

Congress passes a series of laws that are designed to take power away from the executive branch. So the story really starts there at a kind of small-D democratic moment of triumph, but it also hatches a backlash, and that’s what the new season of Master Plan is about, The Kingmakers.

It hatches a backlash among conservatives starting in the Ford administration with Dick Cheney, who was chief of staff to make legal arguments and start creating legal doctrines that are designed to grab back the power that was taken in the post-Watergate era, put it back in the White House, and then significantly expand it.

That’s what happens soon after Ronald Reagan gets elected president. We all have heard of Project 2025. Back in the late 1970s into 1980, the original Project 2025 was The Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership, a policy bible whose through line was how to use executive authority to do what the conservative movement wanted regardless of what Congress or any other institution wanted, and how to grab as much of that power as possible under a new legal rubric called the unitary executive theory.

I’m guessing some people have heard that. This is cooked up inside of the Reagan Justice Department in its battles with a Democratic Congress. A legal doctrine that is then tested in the courts in strategic ways to try to get it enshrined into the law.

From the Reagan era into obviously the Bush era, the Bush’s war on terror, Dick Cheney, the guy who had been spearheading parts of this when he was in the Ford administration and when he was in Congress, the Bush administration sees a huge consolidation of power under the veneer of the so-called war on terror. 

Then in probably our most controversial episode of this season, we go into how the Obama administration ended up consolidating power in truly unprecedented ways. The Obama administration didn’t champion the unitary executive theory, but it did make a set of precedential legal arguments about the executive branch’s alleged power to execute and target for assassination American citizens without charging them even with a crime.

I’m talking about the drone war here. Some may say that the drone war was necessary, others may say it wasn’t, but the legal architecture and the outlining of the powers asserted by the executive branch were unprecedented and were effectively validated during the Obama presidency. Powers that are now, fast-forward to today, all of these powers, from the unitary executive theories that were forged in the Reagan administration to the drone war national security powers that were fortified by Obama after the Bush era, all of this is now resting in the Trump White House.

So the point of this is that what we’re living through today didn’t just happen because Donald Trump showed up to the White House. Donald Trump, when he got to the White House, had a series of levers, if you will, an entire control panel of executive powers, unprecedented executive powers, that were created for him.

So when we see him use those powers, it’s not to say we shouldn’t be terrified by it or outraged by it, but it is to say, let’s understand where those powers came from, because they didn’t just happen. They weren’t just seized randomly, and they weren’t just created by Donald Trump himself.

Related

“Terrorist”: How ICE Weaponized 9/11’s Scarlet Letter

JW: As you just mentioned, efforts to bring the unitary executive theory to reality have been decades in the making. We saw President George W. Bush’s administration push in that direction, and now it’s reached just a whole other level under Trump. First, just to make it clear, can you briefly explain just how powerful is the American presidency under Trump, and what is the unitary executive theory?

DS: The unitary executive theory is this idea that the president singularly is the controller, the master, the decider of every single thing that the executive branch does. The executive branch, that’s one term for it. Another term for the executive branch is the federal government, right?

At one level they are one and the same, but I bring that up so that people can understand how radical the unitary executive theory actually is. When I use the federal government, maybe you’re thinking of the military. Maybe you’re thinking of the Agriculture Department, the scientists working on food safety in the Agriculture Department. 

We’re talking about everything, the sort of basic functions, the on-the-ground functions of the government. Technically all of those agencies are operating in what we understand in terms of separation of powers. We understand them to be the executive branch. There’s Congress that makes the laws. There’s the president that executes the laws. There’s the courts that adjudicate battles between Congress and the president, adjudicate what the law is actually saying, et cetera, et cetera. 

The unitary executive theory is saying that the president as the head of the executive branch has complete and total power to effectively do whatever the president wants inside of the executive branch. 

So the unitary executive theory undergirds something like DOGE, the rampage that we all experienced right when Donald Trump came into his second term. He said, for instance, I’m shutting off all previously approved congressional grants across the entire United States. I’m asserting my executive authority to do that. 

Now, Congress had passed laws saying that the money must be spent, but Trump and his administration were essentially arguing the president makes the decision on whether to execute those laws. So I give that example as a way for people to understand how radical an idea this is.

By the way, this came up recently with independent federal agencies. There are a set of agencies that Congress had set up and that presidents had signed laws, signed them into law in the past, saying that, the FTC or the Securities and Exchange Commission that these agencies are quasi-independent because the commissioners have set terms.

It’s much harder to fire them. Donald Trump went into court saying, I’m the unitary executive. These independent agencies structurally are unconstitutional. I should be allowed to hire and fire whoever I want at any time for any reason. And the Supreme Court largely agreed with him.

So this is about an unprecedented consolidation of power in the hands of one person to say that at any level of the federal government, any granular level, there’s some EPA scientist who is issuing a report about climate change that the president doesn’t like, the theory would hold that the president has a right, regardless of what Congress has passed, regardless of what the courts have adjudicated, the president has the right to reach into the EPA, target that one person, and fire them himself. 

So you can see the dangers of this, because here’s the thing: Part of the way modern civilization has modernized from the old era of medieval royal courts, is that we have professionalized a lot of the functions of government. Like line scientists doing food safety reviews or environmental reviews or making all sorts of technical technical determinations, et cetera, et cetera. We had previously said this is going to be insulated at some level from the political whims of just one all-powerful king, whichever party it is. There’s a civil service, there’s a sort of a professionalized bureaucracy, if you will, and the unitary executive theory is trying to dismantle all of that.

Now, I want to add one thing very quickly here. I do think there’s an argument that, when a bureaucracy, a professionalized government bureaucracy, is so insulated from what voters are voting for, there can be an undemocratic disconnect there. If voters are voting for certain kinds of change and a kind of permanent bureaucratic government, because of job protections and the like over many years, is not responding to what people want, I do think there is a nugget of an argument there that there has to be ways that elections happen and policy changes then flow from those election changes. 

But I think the unitary executive theory is a radical overcorrection for that kind of alleged problem. The solution to that theoretical problem is not to turn the president into an all-powerful king who can wake up at any day or any moment, ignore all of the laws on the books, and do whatever he wants.

JW: It sounds like there’s a lot that’s going to be happening in your podcast, and I’m, for one, really looking forward to listening to the rest of the new season of Master Plan: The Kingmakers. David, where can people listen to it?

DS: They can find it on our website at levernews.com. You can also go on your podcast app and just type in Master Plan. And you can go to our YouTube page. We have video versions of the episodes. That’s youtube.com/@levernews. The URL, the easiest way to find it, masterplanpodcast.com.

JW: David, thank you so much for joining us on The Intercept Briefing.

DS: Thank you. Thanks so much for having me.

JW: We want to hear from you. Tell us what you’re following or want to see more coverage of. Email us at podcasts@theintercept.com or leave us a voicemail at 530-POD-CAST, that’s 530-763-2278

That does it for this episode. 

This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Maia Hibbett is our Managing Editor. 

Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Nara Shin is our copy editor. William Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by David Bralow.

Slip Stream provided our theme music.

This show and our reporting at The Intercept do not exist without you. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Keep our investigations free and fearless at theintercept.com/join. 

And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. Do leave us a rating or a review, it helps other listeners to find us.

Until next time, I’m Jessica Washington. 

The post Has the Left Really Met Its Limit?  appeared first on The Intercept.

The Ivy League university had previously told Momodou Taal and Amandla Thomas-Johnson that they could finish their degrees with funding abroad, according to both Taal and Cornell’s graduate student union. After the Trump administration began to pursue both students in March 2025, Taal and Thomas-Johnson fled to Cairo and planned to complete their studies there. Taal’s attorney said the students are not sure if there’s a deportation order against them, but Homeland Security Investigations, the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement intelligence division, has launched inquiries concerning both of them, and Taal was ordered to appear at an ICE office last year. The students believe they would likely be detained by immigration authorities upon return to the U.S.

Now, the school says the two students must teach on campus in Ithaca, New York, this fall or lose their funding.

“Either they knew I can’t come back, which is probably most likely, or they actually want me to come back and get arrested on arrival,” Taal told The Intercept in an interview. “Because of my Palestine activism, I’ve been treated even differently than people who are in similar circumstances.” 

The school has previously worked with other students experiencing visa issues to continue their studies abroad with funding, noted Taal and Ewa Nizalowska, president of the Cornell graduate student union.

Cornell declined to comment on Taal and Thomas-Johnson’s cases, but in a written statement to The Intercept, a spokesperson called the idea that the university was targeting students for protest activity “untrue and unfounded.” The spokesperson added that “Cornell University remains deeply committed to helping international students continue making academic progress when they encounter visa or travel-related challenges.”

The Cornell funding is the sole source of financial support for Taal and Thomas-Johnson, they told The Intercept. Losing it would hurt their ability to pay for housing, food, healthcare, and other living expenses.

“I have no money. … I’m where I am because the cost of living is cheaper,” Thomas-Johnson said. “I go through day-to-day anxiety — how can I be expected to finish a Ph.D.?”

“If I don’t get funding, I’m going to be homeless,” Taal said. “I’m not going to be able to make rent.”

The Cornell spokesperson added that the students outside the U.S. can apply for fellowships for funding, but those opportunities for the coming semester were closed months ago, Taal said.

“Cornell knows full well that Momodou would be immediately detained and sent to one of the places where more people are dying than ever before, facing all sorts of abuse, simply for his speech,” said Eric Lee, a civil rights attorney representing Taal. “For the university to claim that they’re offering something fair is a level of cynicism which can only be deliberate by an institution with the experience of Cornell.”

In March 2025, Taal, a British and Gambian dual citizen, and Thomas-Johnson, also a British citizen, fled the country amid a rash of deportation cases in which the Trump administration was targeting international student activists who had been involved in campus protests against Israel’s genocide and apartheid of Palestinians. They were trying to avoid the treatment given to high-profile figures like Columbia University students Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Madhawi. 

Taal and Thomas-Johsnon had taken part in a September 2024 protest that shut down a Cornell job fair where weapons manufacturers Boeing and L3Harris, which supply weapons to Israel, had booths. The pair of students were suspended for the incident and banned from campus with threat of possible expulsion, which would have exposed them to deportation.

Related

Google Fulfilled ICE Subpoena Demanding Student Journalist’s Bank and Credit Card Numbers

After Trump took office in early 2025, Taal sued the administration over its executive order targeting pro-Palestine international students, arguing it denied activists’ First Amendment rights. Days later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ordered Taal to surrender to authorities, and agents appeared at his student housing apartment. After a federal judge declined to block Taal’s deportation, Taal decided to leave the U.S. on his own to avoid ICE detention facilities known for their brutal living conditions. Thomas-Johnson followed suit, fleeing to Canada, then Switzerland, Senegal, and Ghana, before eventually joining Taal in Cairo. 

The Intercept’s reporting later revealed that leading up to their departures from the U.S., Google had secretly handed ICE agents the students’ Gmail account information and complied with a federal subpoena demanding their bank and credit card numbers.

“Given Cornell’s very positive relationship with the Trump administration, and its willingness to make all sorts of concessions to the attack on educational institutions, the question should be posed to them, whether such an agreement has been made about Momodou,” Lee said, referring to Taal’s funding options.

Last November, Cornell inked a deal with the administration to give the government $60 million and capitulate to the government’s inquiries into diversity initiatives and antisemitism in exchange for restoration of federal funding to the school.

More recently, the Cornell chapter of a pro-Israel alumni group called Alums for Campus Fairness began circulating a mailer praising university President Michael Kotlikoff for taking “action to support Jewish students” and “meaningful action to address campus disruptions.” The mailer, reviewed by The Intercept, did not name Taal or Thomas-Johnson, but indirectly applauded “banning a leading agitator from returning to campus.” The Intercept found last year that a similar pro-Israel alumni group at Columbia had coordinated to arrest and deport pro-Palestine student protesters.

Related

The Columbia Network Pushing Behind the Scenes to Deport and Arrest Student Protesters

On June 10, Cornell’s graduate school administration sent Taal a letter about his funding options for the upcoming school year. According to the letter, reviewed by The Intercept, Taal could either return to campus and accept a teaching assistant position, apply to be in absentia and seek external funding like a fellowship, forfeit funding and pay tuition on his own, or take a leave of absence.

“Our department funding sources are limited to teaching assistantships,” the letter reads. “This requires you to be on campus in Ithaca, NY to assist with classes. The College of Arts and Sciences restricts classes to being taught in person and on campus. Online courses are not permitted.”

Taal said he was planning to finish his dissertation by spring 2027. He received his most recent stipend from the school in May, and under normal funding circumstances, he would have gotten another stipend this month. 

Taal’s 2022 acceptance letter to Cornell, reviewed by The Intercept, shows annual funding of $67,000 would be guaranteed for the first five years of his program. Taal is in the fifth year of his program in the Africana Studies department. Emails with his department from March, also reviewed by The Intercept, showed discussions about committing to “future funding.” 

Cornell extended a similar offer to Thomas-Johnson, who is in his sixth year of the program: He could continue to receive funding by teaching several courses in his department of Literatures in English, also on campus. He said he had previously taught a freshman writing seminar via Zoom earlier during his program due to unrelated visa issues, and both students questioned why the university could not accommodate the same. Even after he further explained his immigration situation and danger of returning to the U.S., he said the university doubled down on the in-person requirement.

Thomas-Johnson and Taal both said their departments and faculty have been accommodating and supportive about their situations and suggested the funding decision likely came from the university administration.  

The graduate student union filed grievances alleging the offers breach their collective bargaining agreement with the university. At a meeting, Cornell administrators told the union the university did not have the obligation to fund international students who are facing visa issues, Nizalowska said. 

The policy was a “clear reversal,” Nizalowska told The Intercept. Last year, she said a Cornell administrator told the union that individual arrangements were being made to ensure that graduate students with visa issues or difficulty returning to the U.S. could complete their degrees remotely with continued funding from the school. 

“We know that it’s no coincidence that Momodou and Amandla are the first two grads to be impacted by this policy change, as two grads who dared to speak out against Cornell’s complicity in the genocide in Palestine, as further exemplified by Cornell’s deal with Trump,” she said. “But we know that many more grads will be impacted by Cornell’s refusal to fund grads who are stuck abroad, whether or not they have been involved in protests against the genocide in Palestine.”

The Cornell spokesperson denied that it was in violation of any policy or had engaged in political targeting. “Cornell’s approach to graduate student funding is longstanding, and there has been no change in, or deviation from, university policy,” the spokesperson wrote. “Graduate funding decisions are unrelated to [protest] activity or to the November 2025 agreement between Cornell and the federal government.”

Taal has considered returning to Gambia, where he has family, but he said unstable internet and electricity access would make his research difficult. He and Thomas-Johnson have their reservations about relocating to Britain, where both have relatives, because of that government’s similar targeting of pro-Palestine activists. 

Earlier this year, Taal reported being detained by British authorities for six hours upon landing at London’s Heathrow airport. While he was in custody, officers confiscated his phone and laptop, took his DNA, and questioned him about “the mosque I attended growing up, the Islamic teachers I followed,” and about whether he had read Karl Marx.

The detention came days after United Nations Special Rapporteurs appointed by the UN’s Human Rights Council wrote a letter to Cornell President Kotlikoff, warning him of “serious concern over the reported human rights violations against Mr. Taal and Mr. Thomas-Johnson” over the school’s handling of their disciplinary cases related to the 2024 protest. 

“They’re trying to continue making an example out of me and Momodou for our political choices,” Thomas-Johnson said. “It’s easy for them to sideline us for what we stand for and who we are.”

Correction: August 14, 2026, 11:17 a.m. ET
This story has been updated to clarify which student taught a Zoom class from abroad due to previous visa issues; it was Thomas-Johnson, not Taal.

The post Cornell to Pro-Palestine Students Targeted by ICE: Come Back to the U.S. or Lose Funding appeared first on The Intercept.

In July 2020, Aluf Benn, the editor of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, interviewed a 92-year-old retired Hebrew University professor named Yehezkel Dror. Benn described him as the “doyen of public policy experts in Israel.” For his part, Dror fashioned himself after Herman Kahn, the American defense intellectual who made his name by “thinking the unthinkable” — how to fight a thermonuclear war. In 2005, Dror’s work on policy planning and strategic thinking won him the coveted Israel Prize.

Dror responded to Benn’s questions as a futurologist with knowledge of what is to come, gained by thinking rationally and ruthlessly about a world too complex for all but an elite class of geniuses. Complimenting Israeli leaders for expelling as many Palestinians from the country as they did in 1948, Dror insisted on the correctness of his plan for an Israeli attack on Iran and praised President Donald Trump’s 2020 Israeli-Palestinian peace plan — the so-called Deal of the Century. He also called for a world government run by modern philosopher kings, and in his 2020 book, “Steering Human Evolution,” he advocated settling a thousand fertile couples on Mars to ensure the human race would not become extinct.

Dror explained the tension in his thinking between rationalist universalism and a tribalist commitment to his own group, the Jews. Citing Zionism as the “core meaning of his life,” Dror emphasized the contribution he had made to “a total revolution in the history of the Jewish people, on the path from Holocaust to resurgence.” The primacy of this latter commitment is clearly apparent in his book “Crazy States: A Counterconventional Strategic Problem,” published in 1971.

The topic of “craziness” as a descriptor of states was a familiar one in the 1960s when discussing nuclear deterrence. Academics Thomas Schelling and Herman Kahn both explored how a state with a reputation for craziness could increase the credibility of otherwise unconvincing threats.

The thrust of Dror’s book was different. Dror imagined how states with powerful modern weapons might act in ways radically contrary to accepted norms or expected calculations. Normal states would need to act differently toward adversaries deemed “crazy” by shifting strategies from deterrence and self-defense to destruction and preemptive attack. The not-so-hidden subtext of the argument was to brand all of Israel’s adversaries as “crazy,” thereby establishing justification for using any and all means, including subversion, preventive war, and even annihilation, against them.

Dror went on to lay out the criterion for labeling states — Israel’s enemies — as “crazy.” Fifty years later, however, Dror’s account of craziness and the warning signs he suggested looking for apply more readily to Israel than to its Arab enemies.

“Crazy” Characteristics

Dror never defined precisely what he meant by “crazy,” preferring to list behaviors, practices, and beliefs associated with his image of craziness. His prototypical case, used repeatedly for illustration of his argument, was Nazi Germany. Dror began his book by offering the Third Reich to skeptical readers “as a striking and radical demonstration of the possibility of crazy states and their implications for the international order and the security of various countries.” The case study also made the point that nonstate movements or organizations, such as Hitler’s National Socialist Party, could be treated as crazy as well as states. This justified Dror’s inclusion of various Palestinian movements and groups affiliated with the Palestine Liberation Organization as “crazy” even though they weren’t states.

At the end of 1973, an Israeli military publishing house issued a Hebrew edition of Dror’s book with a new chapter, “The Question of ‘Crazy’ States and the State of Israel.” Written against the backdrop of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War, known in Israel as the Yom Kippur War, Dror described virtually all Arab states and movements, whether Muslim or Palestinian, as either crazy, partially crazy, or liable to become crazy. According to Dror, the purpose of this chapter — which never appeared in English — was to shape Israeli military doctrine and strategies to deal with the craziness and potential for “extreme craziness” of Israel’s adversaries.

Dror emphasized that the kind of craziness he had in mind — so dangerous to the world community that no measures to disrupt or destroy it should be ruled out — requires an ability to think clearly, plan systematically, and act effectively. In doing so, he was carefully distinguishing irrationality from craziness. To be classified as crazy, a state or movement must not only have the means to project its power with devastating effect; it must also demonstrate a capacity for calculated action so that it can learn from mistakes and devise better and more successful techniques for achieving its (crazy) purposes.

A useful list of the features Dror set forth to identify a crazy state appeared in a positive review of his book: aggressive pursuit of far-reaching goals harmful to others; radical and intense commitments to achieve those goals; and adoption of a morally superior posture even while grossly contradicting international norms, both ethical and legal.

Using these measures — goals, means, and public posture — we can ask whether Israel itself is crazy. If it is, then for Israel’s Lobby to be successful, U.S. policies toward Israel and the Middle East must themselves be crazy and therefore dangerous to American interests and to the world.

Hard-Right Turn

Israeli politics revolve around its party system. That system has undergone two fundamental transformations: from one-party dominance to an even rivalry between two parties and then a return to dominance by the former opposition party. For almost three decades, the social democratic Labor Party dominated Israeli elections, with the right-wing parties in opposition. While never securing a majority of seats, in the 1960s and 1970s, Labor’s parliamentary dominance was enough to relegate Menachem Begin’s right-wing Herut (Freedom) Party to the political wilderness.

As David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first and until Netanyahu longest-serving prime minister, frequently declared, Labor would accept any party as a coalition partner except those occupying the extremes of the political spectrum: the communists and Herut. Begin, he once wrote, was “a Hitlerist type: a racist, willing to destroy all the Arabs for the sake of Greater Israel.”

After the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war, known as the Six Day War, the Labor Party favored withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories in return for peace, though it avoided specifying what territories could be relinquished or under what circumstances. The party that Begin led in 1967 was Gahal, a combination of Herut and the Liberal Party. In 1973, it became the cornerstone of the Likud. Like Herut, Gahal and then Likud opposed territorial withdrawal from any part of the West Bank and Gaza. The right wingers rejected the principle of trading land for peace, favored settlement of Jews throughout the territories, and looked forward to their permanent absorption into the State of Israel.

The “earthquake,” Likud’s victory in the 1977 elections, temporarily ended single-party dominance in Israel. Subsequently, two rival blocs — one led by the Likud and the other by one or another version of the Labor Party — battled each other in seesaw fashion. But since the 2013 elections, the right-wing bloc, with the Likud forming the core of governing coalitions, has dominated Israeli politics.

The sharpness of Israel’s shift to the right is evident in the changing ideological complexion of members of its 120-seat parliament, the Knesset. Israeli parties have always differed on a variety of social and economic questions. But by far the two most important markers of a party’s location on the spectrum of Israeli politics are its position on Israel’s borders and the intensity of its commitment to an exclusivist Jewish mission for the state.

Border Wars

Before the 1967 war, the issue of the country’s borders was not particularly salient in Israeli politics. Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip reopened the question of expanding the state’s boundaries, polarizing the political system, and triggering a sharp rise in both hawkish and dovish positions on these questions. After the Six-Day War, average left-wing representation in the Knesset increased by approximately two-thirds compared to what it was before 1967. Right-wing representation in the Knesset, however, tripled.

In the 2000s, the right-wing bloc’s representation has grown rapidly, while the left-wing bloc has shrunk drastically. Since the 2003 election, the first following the second Palestinian uprising, or Intifada, average representation of right-wing views has been twice that associated with the left. In the most recent elections, actual majorities of Knesset members have been affiliated with political programs advanced before 1967 only by a small and extreme minority. Meanwhile, the number of Knesset members espousing concessions capable of attracting even minimal Palestinian interest has dwindled.

Following the 2022 election, 63 members of the Knesset identified with what were originally seen as extreme far-right views on the nation’s borders, while only 14 supported a two-state solution. Of the latter, 10 were Arabs and only four were Jews.

Israeli public opinion has also shifted strongly toward the extreme right. Intensive polling done between 2022 and 2024 showed that four to five times as many Jewish Israelis identified themselves as “right-wing” than as “left-wing.” The rightward shift is more extreme than it seems from this data because what it means to be yemini, or right wing, has itself changed. Much more than in the past, it is associated with commitments to overt discrimination against Palestinian citizens, annexation measures that would exclude Palestinians from citizenship, use of extrajudicial punishment against Arabs, and preference for military action over negotiation for advancing Israeli interests in the region.

Along with the rightward extremization of the Jewish public has been an escalating propensity for Israeli leaders to aggressively pursue expansive goals. This hawkishness manifested as military actions, assassinations, and spectacular acts of sabotage — from the West Bank and Gaza to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Qatar, and Iran — that have stunned the world.

Rise of a Madman

In the 1990s, Benjamin Netanyahu began his rise to power, not as a right-wing firebrand but as a silver-tongued defender of Israel against international criticism. He coupled strong right-wing views with opportunism and an aversion to making risky decisions. Having climbed the greasy pole to take control of the Likud Party in 1996, Netanyahu went on to become Israel’s longest-serving prime minister.

Following Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, however, Netanyahu’s modus operandi changed. Two of his most crucial judgments — that the Gaza Strip could be kept indefinitely in a state of economic immiseration and that Hamas would not mount a large-scale attack — pushed Israelis into one of the most severe shocks they ever experienced.

Fearing investigation of his failure to protect the country, Netanyahu transformed himself into the epitome of Israeli craziness.

Related

On a West Bank Eviction Tour, Israeli Settlers Advertise “No Arabs Here”

The levels of violence he authorized against Palestinians in Gaza shocked the world. Netanyahu’s endorsement of transferring the entire population of Gaza out of Palestine; the bloody attacks he unleashed against Hezbollah and civilian neighborhoods in Lebanon; the wars he launched against Iran; and his attempt to assassinate Hamas negotiators in Qatar all reflect much more far-reaching goals for Israel than those of recognition, peace, and security, as one nation among others in a stable Middle East.

In this way, Netanyahu is not just following in the footsteps of predecessors, who were prepared to take risks for ambitious gains; instead, he has made the craziness that has occasionally marked Israeli policies into a dominant trait.

A 21st Century Sparta

Efraim Inbar is among Israel’s most influential national security analysts. The founder and director of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, Inbar has reliably indexed the policy preferences of Likud governments, in general, and those led by Netanyahu in particular.

From year to year, problem to problem, threat to threat, Inbar’s recommendation has almost always been the same: reject available compromises, accept international isolation, and use preemptive war to inflict more pain and damage on adversaries than they are willing to tolerate.

“Fortunately,” he wrote in response to questions about Israel’s long-term goals, “Jewish history presents the Zionist movement another alternative: the Davidic option of building a Jewish commonwealth in the midst of an idolatrous world. The House of David ruled the Land of Israel for over four hundred years, playing a balance of power politics in our region.”

As if channeling Inbar’s thinking, Netanyahu gave a speech in September 2025 calling for Israel to expect and accept international isolation, adapt its economy toward autarchy, and see itself as a 21st century Sparta.

Israelis are familiar with the Jerusalem syndrome, a tendency for susceptible people visiting the country to experience delusional psychoses with religious or apocalyptic themes. It is also true that spectacular visions — of an unfolding, divinely guided, and Israel-centric redemption process; of the settlement in the West Bank as a crucial step in the bringing of the Messiah; and of Jewish rule over virtually the entire Fertile Crescent — have long animated the private thinking of the architects behind the vast settlement project in the occupied territories.

The Israeli Mainstream

What is striking is that such thinking has moved from the private worlds of dedicated activists, from the margins of respectable political discourse toward the center of Israeli politics. Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich both advocate for the rebuilding of the ancient Jewish Temple in the Old City of Jerusalem. Daniella Weiss, Ben-Gvir, and many others have called for the entire Gaza Strip to be emptied of Palestinians and resettled by Jews. What were, in the 1960s and 1970s, the outlandish ambitions of some marginal intellectuals, extreme rabbis, and retired generals are now the goals pursued by leading government ministers, senior security service officials, and settlement leaders.

Such grandiose ideas provide no guidelines for practical strategic thinking about Israel’s future or rationales for creative diplomacy. The result is that Israeli leaders focus on imminent security threats and diplomatic challenges, but neither entertain nor pursue longterm goals. That is to say: Those who govern Israel imagine no stable future that is both satisfying and possible enough to shape policy decisions and actions. The goal of Israel’s foreign and security policies therefore becomes simple if outlandish: to establish itself as the regional hegemon, possessing the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, equipped with sufficient conventional military power to operate throughout the region at minimal risk, and poised to crush any combination of opponents.

Related

Stop Calling It a Ceasefire

This region-shaping ambition was evident in Israel’s June 2025 attack on Iran. An Israeli military poster, in Farsi, of what Israel dubbed “Operation Rising Lion” featured a majestic lion on his hind legs next to a brightly shining sun, symbols of ancient Persia.

The idea of transforming the Islamic Republic of Iran, a Muslim-majority country of 93 million, into an ally and returning it to a non-Islamic imperial past was advanced in an Instagram post two weeks into the war by Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister’s influential wife. It depicted two lions leaning against each other and gazing into the future, one wrapped in the flag of Israel, the other in the flag of the Pahlavis, the last shahs of Iran.

Amid Israel’s bombardment of Iran in July 2025, before the U.S. joined the war, the grand scale of such ambitions — consistent with the unattainability of the goals crazy states set for themselves — became apparent during remarks Netanyahu made to an Israeli interviewer. “We are changing — and I said this on the second day of the [Gaza] war — I said that we’re changing the face of the Middle East,” Netanyahu said calmly. “And now I say to you and also to our viewers: We’re changing the face of the world. I have determined that we will achieve all our goals.”

Adapted from “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power” by Eli Clifton and Ian Lustick. Copyright 2026 by Eli Clifton and Ian Lustick. Reprinted by permission of One Signal Publishers, a division of Simon & Schuster, LLC.

The post Israel Justified Its Wars by Calling Enemies “Crazy.” Now, the Warning Signs All Apply to Israel. appeared first on The Intercept.

Black spent more than three decades on death row before he was killed by lethal injection on August 5, 2025, at Tennessee’s Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. He’d been convicted in 1989 for killing his girlfriend, Angela Clay, along with her two young daughters. Black insisted he did not commit the horrific murders, but he was swiftly found guilty and sentenced to die.

Over the decades that followed, Black’s lawyers argued that his intellectual disability should have barred him from facing the death penalty. The district attorney’s office that convicted him even conceded that they were right, but the courts disagreed. By the time Tennessee prepared to kill him, Black had been diagnosed with dementia, kidney disease, and congestive heart failure.

Defense attorneys argued that Black’s poor health put him at serious risk of a torturous execution, raising specific concerns over his implanted heart defibrillator and pacemaker. Experts warned that the device could deliver painful shocks before he died. To their dismay, Black did suffer on the gurney — although not for the reasons they most feared. Prison staff struggled to insert an IV in Black’s arm, spilling blood on the floor. The drug that was supposed to kill him — a massive dose of the fast-acting barbiturate pentobarbital — did not work as intended. Media witnesses said they could hear Black moaning in pain.

Childs was not at the prison on the morning his father was killed. He was at home in Nashville after a sleepless night. “You know, I’m putting myself in his shoes,” he said. “How would I feel knowing that this is my last day on earth?” It wasn’t until he watched a local news segment that Childs learned things had not gone well. “It messed me up, I ain’t gonna lie,” he said. “I can’t imagine being there, viewing this, seeing this happen.”

Black’s execution reignited controversy over capital punishment in Tennessee, where advocates had warned against executing him with a new protocol that had not been subjected to legal review. The one-drug pentobarbital method had been introduced by the state following complications with its previous, three-drug formula, which was itself adopted despite ample warnings that it violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Nevertheless, Tennessee pressed forward — with disturbingly predictable results.

On May 21, just nine months after Black’s painful death, Tennessee attempted to kill 57-year-old Tony Carruthers, convicted in 1996 of a triple murder he swore he did not commit. As in Black’s case, prison staff tried clumsily to place the IV lines for lethal injection. But this time they never finished. Carruthers spent 40 minutes being poked and prodded, only for a physician to enter the chamber and attempt to place what is known as a central line in his chest. The descriptions of what followed were harrowing. As Carruthers’s attorney, Maria DeLiberato would later write, “I saw the process unraveling with my own eyes.”

Related

False Testimony Sent Tony Carruthers to Death Row. Tennessee Wants to Kill Him Anyway.

“The executioners draped Mr. Carruthers in a blue surgical cloth with a hole for his face,” she wrote. “When the doctor prodded Mr. Carruthers’s chest with a scalpel or large needle, Mr. Carruthers cried out in pain. But the doctor continued to push into his chest. Mr. Carruthers started groaning. … I told him that I was sorry. Mostly, I tried to hold his gaze and reassure him that we were still fighting for him.”

The ordeal ended only after the governor himself finally intervened, issuing an executive order putting off Carruthers’s execution for a year.

The temporary reprieve raised hopes that Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee might put all executions on hold. Instead, the state soon announced it intended to proceed with the next one. Before long, officials at the Department of Correction were preparing to kill 66-year-old Anthony Darrell Hines. He is set to die on Thursday at 10 a.m. — one of three people scheduled to be put to death in the U.S. on the same day.

It was Hines’s looming execution date that prompted Childs to speak publicly again about his own father’s death. This past weekend, he joined anti-death penalty activists for a protest known as the “March 4 Mercy.” On the Sunday before every execution, activists walk nine miles from the prison on the city’s west side to the Tennessee State Capitol downtown. With temperatures in the 90s and the air thick with humidity, the marchers were drenched in sweat as they made their way across town. Walking at a steady pace, Childs held up a sign for passing cars that read “Justice Requires Mercy” and “Blessed Are the Merciful.”

Childs could not begin to comprehend what had happened to Carruthers. But he also couldn’t shake the mental torture of a looming execution over everybody involved. It must impact everyone, he said, including the people witnessing and carrying it out. “Some of those people probably never want to do that again.”

Tennessee’s persistence in carrying out lethal injection is part of a recent spike in executions in the U.S. In Oklahoma, at the same time as Hines is set to be put to death, executioners plan to kill 70-year-old Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez inside the state’s death chamber in McAlester. Then, at 6 p.m., Alabama intends to execute 41-year-old Jeremy Williams at Holman Penitentiary in Atmore.

Related

“My Client Was Tortured Today” — The Painful Execution of Byron Black

The last time the country saw three executions scheduled for the same day was in 2018, when Alabama, Texas, and Florida were supposed to kill three different men. Only one execution moved forward that day; in Texas, the governor granted a rare clemency request. In Alabama, which intended to execute Doyle Hamm, a terminally ill man in his 60s, the lethal injection was suddenly stopped because of problems setting IV lines. It was the first in a series of botched executions that would make Alabama infamous for torturing people condemned to die.

Although Tennessee has made the most recent headlines following its disastrous attempt to kill Tony Carruthers, both Oklahoma and Alabama have long been known for their own ugly track records. It was Oklahoma, after all, where a medical examiner first invented the three-drug protocol that originally comprised lethal injection, later griping that he never intended for it to be managed so incompetently. After the state made international headlines for the harrowing 2014 execution of Clayton Lockett, famed death row prisoner Richard Glossip was nearly executed using the same method the following year — only to be spared at the last minute after officials realized they had procured the wrong drug. Glossip, who has insisted on his innocence for three decades, was released on bail earlier this year to await a new trial.

In Alabama, after officials were forced to call off Hamm’s execution, the state took three hours to place IV lines in the body of a man named Joe James, whose execution is believed to be the longest in U.S. history. The state’s ongoing inability to carry out lethal injection ultimately led to a cruel new invention for executions: death by nitrogen hypoxia. Earlier this year, a judge declared the method unconstitutional, prompting the state to revert back to lethal injection.

In many ways, the controversy looming over Hines’s scheduled execution is a variation on a very old story. Lethal injection may be cloaked in the veneer of a surgical procedure — the doctor who tried to help the state kill Carruthers referred to him as a “patient” — but, in reality, it has always been a crude human experiment, using the tools of medicine in order to kill. In Tennessee, concerns over potential pain and suffering during lethal injection have prompted some people facing execution to instead choose the electric chair.

But lethal injection remains the prevailing method — and lawyers have little recourse when it comes to fighting against it. Years of U.S. Supreme Court rulings have inoculated lethal injection against legal challenges, no matter how much evidence reveals it to be torture. As Justice Samuel Alito reasoned more than a decade ago in upholding Oklahoma’s three-drug protocol, preserving the death penalty is ultimately more important than devising a humane way to kill the condemned. “Because capital punishment is constitutional,” he wrote in 2015, “there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out.”

There is one way in which Tennessee’s current lethal injection controversy is different from what came before. Despite the state’s attempts to keep the identities of executioners secret, the doctor who tried to assist in the killing of Tony Carruthers was revealed earlier this year as Dr. Mark Fowler, whose medical background includes working in an emergency room as well as, more recently, according to a profile in the Guardian, “weight loss and aesthetic clinics.” Fowler also writes opinion columns “for his local newspaper, the Union City Daily Messenger, that are reproduced by the conservative blog the Patriot Post.”

Most alarming for those facing execution, Fowler also lacks the qualifications to do what the job entails, according to attorneys for Hines. Last year he admitted under oath that he had not placed a central line in 13 years and lacked the privilege to do so at a hospital. Yet the Department of Correction has refused to assure attorneys that they will not rely on him. The department “knows that Dr. Fowler can’t do the job the protocol requires him to do,” Hines’s lawyer said in press statement this week, “and we’ve seen what that means in practice: a torturous, failed procedure that leaves staff, witnesses, and the prisoner traumatized.”

Fowler has declined to speak with reporters, and it remains unclear whether he will participate in Hines’s execution. Whether he does or not, Hines’s age and poor health puts him at heightened risk of pain and suffering as his execution approaches. In December he had the first of two strokes, according to his attorneys. “The prison initially called for an ambulance to transport him to an outside hospital for care,” the lawyers wrote in legal filings, but the corrections department’s medical contractor “inexplicably turned the ambulance away, determining that an in-house CT scan would suffice.”

Despite a scan eventually confirming the stroke, Hines was denied proper care, his lawyers said, and he “suffered another stroke in mid-January and collapsed, hitting his head. Since that time, he has been confined to the prison infirmary, where he remains paralyzed on the left side, has partial left-sided blindness, and has suffered severe muscle atrophy.”

Today, according to advocates who regularly visit people on death row, Hines remains isolated from the rest of the condemned population. As with Byron Black, whose shower chair had to be moved along with him to the “death watch” cell where he would spend his final hours last summer, prison staff recently had to devise ways to accommodate Hines’s hospital bed in the area near the execution chamber. When the time comes, he will be lifted from the bed and strapped to the gurney — a “grotesque spectacle,” in the words of his attorneys. 

Related

Trump Has Already Launched More Death Penalty Prosecutions Than in His Entire First Term

Nevertheless, the governor, who is just months away from leaving office, remains unmoved. On Monday, he announced that he would not intervene to stop Hines’s execution.

Whatever happens in the death chamber, there are some signs that some of Tennessee’s staunch conservatives are starting to worry that the state is starting to look bad. In June, nine senate Republicans wrote to Lee, asking him to spare Hines, who they describe as “profoundly disabled,” and questioning whether the state is currently equipped to carry out executions. “Repeated failures of this kind do not advance justice,” they warned. “They obstruct it, prolong the suffering of victims’ families, and hand the opponents of capital punishment their most effective argument against a penalty Tennesseans have chosen to keер.”

Update: August 14, 2026, 12:34 p.m. ET
Anthony Darrell Hines, 66, was executed on Thursday, August 13, for the 1985 murder of Catherine Jean Jenkins. He died by lethal injection at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. Asked if he had a last statement, Hines replied, “Not right now, thank you.” According to media witnesses, he then said, “Tell my son I love him.” After the drugs were administered, according to media witnesses, “Hines grunted then took three choking breaths. That was followed by multiple quieter, labored breaths.” His time of death was 10:43 a.m.

Members of Jenkins’s family were at the prison for the execution. Her adult daughter Melissa said, “This doesn’t bring closure, nor does it bring my mother back. But it does bring justice.”

In a statement, Hines’s attorney Katherine Dix said, “What we witnessed here today is not normal, and I urge us all to not become numb or indifferent to the cruelty,” the statement continued. “The leaders of this state repeatedly invoke the sanctity of life, but today the State put to death a man who was blind and paralyzed on his left side, could not walk, and was in constant pain. They lifted his body onto a gurney and wheeled him to the death chamber. May God have mercy on us all.”

The post Tennessee Plans Another Execution Despite Its Brutal Recent Mistakes appeared first on The Intercept.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley beat the odds to eke out a victory by less than 1 percentage point on election night, a surprise upset after Crowley, who would be Wisconsin’s first Black governor if he wins in November, dropped out of the race and then reentered with the support of outgoing Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers. 

The race became dominated in the final days by inane issues like whether Hong believed that Thanksgiving should exist, based on old tweets criticizing the holiday, echoing and accelerating the annual Fox News “War on Christmas” panic. The sudden fury over old tweets was a distraction from a concrete issue that Hong had made a key focus of her public talking points and likely drove her surge in popularity: data centers.

Related

Francesca Hong’s “Thanksgiving-Gate” Shows Her Detractors Are Totally Out of Ideas

Hong’s campaign repeatedly emphasized that she was the only candidate in the race to support a data center moratorium, which would pause construction of any new data centers, giving the state time to create regulations and study their environmental and energy impact. The moratorium would not extend to data center projects already underway in the state.

“It’s time to press control+alt+delete to put a stop to this AI data center crisis, a full moratorium until we have the new regulations we need to protect our energy costs, our economy, our environment,” Hong said in a campaign video.

By all indications, it’s a popular position: A Gallup poll in May found that seven in 10 Americans oppose the construction of data centers in their area, and politicians from Maine to Texas have had to grapple with the public’s calls to bar the resource-hungry projects from their backyards.  

Hong’s narrow defeat is a loss for the data center moratorium movement, particularly in Wisconsin, which already has dozens of centers littering the state. Crowley, now the Democratic nominee, has called for more regulation of data centers, but has explicitly denounced a data center moratorium, calling it a “short-term” solution. “I don’t think he’s going to make [data centers] a front and center issue,” said Michael Ceraso, a democratic strategist and founder and director of Winning Margins. “It might pop up peripherally.” 

But Hong’s loss is far from a death knell for the anti-data center movement. While most voters would be hard-pressed to tell you what a data center was a few years ago, it has slowly become a major political issue that has helped to fuel the rise of insurgent progressives across the country. In this year’s midterm primaries, anti-data center candidates from Colorado to Kansas have been running and winning on the issue. 

The data center issue has distilled multiple grievances with establishment politicians into a simple message: The people who represent you are selling you and your community out to the highest bidder.

“It turns out that if you’re not taking money from Silicon Valley, you can fight hard for a federal moratorium on data centers,” said William Lawrence, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, in a victory speech last week after he won his House primary race in Michigan’s 7th Congressional District. 

Related

Philly Cops Admit That They’re Tracking “First Amendment Activity” Critical of AI

In his Michigan Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed won after vehemently opposing the construction of new data centers. At a rally in front of a massive new OpenAI and Oracle data center campus in Saline Township, Michigan, El-Sayed denounced the proliferation of data centers. “I stand with local and state elected officials saying that we cannot approve any more of these until we have federal-level guardrails,” El-Sayed told the crowd.

In Kansas, Democratic state Sen. Cindy Holscher won her Democratic gubernatorial race after calling for a moratorium on data centers. Holscher had previously voted for a bill that would have expanded the centers. And in Colorado, Melat Kiros unseated a 15-term incumbent, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., while running on a data center moratorium platform. 

Amanda Litman, co-founder and president of the political recruitment group Run for Something, told The Intercept that Hong’s formidable campaign underscored how motivating data center opposition is for voters.

“Francesca Hong went from unknown state legislator to within a half point of winning the Democratic nomination in large part because she clearly spoke to the frustration and fear people have about what’s happening in the economy, especially around data centers,” Litman said.

Related

Secret ICE Agent Tried to “Entice” Minneapolis Activists Into Confrontational Tactics

The Sunrise Movement, which has backed anti-data center candidates, including El-Sayed, Lawrence, Kiros, and Tennessee state Rep. Justin J. Pearson, who won his House race last week, said that Democrats need to be at the forefront of this issue. 

“The fight against unchecked data center expansion is quickly becoming a defining political issue,” said Denae Ávila-Dickson, a spokesperson for the Sunrise Movement. “Democrats must be the party that stands up for people over the corporations profiting from data center expansion in our backyards, and progressive candidates are leading the way in that fight.”

The post Francesca Hong’s Loss in Wisconsin Is a Win for AI Data Centers — for Now appeared first on The Intercept.

The lawsuit is in response to a scheme announced last month by the parent company of Trump’s Truth Social platform to charge as much as $100,000 per month for early access to the president’s posts. 

By offering preferred access to presidential missives, the monetization plan, dubbed “Truth API,” would violate the First Amendment rights of journalists and other members of the public to equal access to official information, the lawsuit argues, while allowing Trump to trade his public statements for cold hard cash.

“Trump is trying to enrich himself by privatizing government information that he has no right to sell,” said Ben Muessig, editor-in-chief of The Intercept. “We won’t let it stand.”

The complaint filed in the Southern District of New York also asserts that the monetization scheme, which it described as an “out-and-out plan of extortion,” would violate the Fifth Amendment by charging “unreasonable sums” for equal access to government information and by undermining the right to equal protection under the law.

“This lawsuit seeks to vindicate the principle that the president of the United States cannot profit from the official government statements of the president,” said Nikhel Sus, Chief Counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which provided legal support for the lawsuit. “Every American is entitled to equal access to the president’s public statements. Individuals who pay $100,000 to the president’s personal company do not have any greater entitlement to those public statements.”

Truth API is part of a broader effort to bring Trump Media & Technology Group into the black. Despite a steep up-front cost ranging from $60,000 to $100,000 per month, the company’s interim CEO Kevin McGurn has been explicit about the potential dividends awaiting customers willing to pay — and the potential gain for Trump and other shareholders.

“Truth API delivers a direct, licensed, real-time feed of the platform’s most market-moving Truths while advancing our strategy to monetize proprietary assets through a high-margin, recurring revenue stream,” McGurn said in a July 16 press release. “As adoption grows, we expect Truth API to become a meaningful, ongoing source of revenue for the company, creating lasting value for shareholders.”

No shareholder stands to benefit more than Trump, who holds the largest single stake in the company through a trust established when he retook the White House in January 2025. At the time, his 52.1 percent stake in the company was valued at $4 billion. The company’s stock has plunged in value since entering the market, causing the value of Trump’s stake to fall to around $1 billion, according to the complaint. 

In addition to the president, the lawsuit names as defendants Trump’s executive assistant Natalie Harp, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Daniel Scavino, the Executive Office of the President, and the White House Office. Representatives for the defendants and for Trump Media did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Truth Social has its roots in the interregnum between the two Trump administrations, when Trump, an early adopter of X who used the platform extensively in his first term as president, was banned from his beloved app and other social media platforms in 2021 in the wake of the attempted insurrection on January 6. 

Weeks after the ban, he formed Trump Media & Technology Group and announced plans for a proprietary social media platform to be known as Truth Social. The platform, essentially a right-wing clone of X, launched in 2022, and Trump Media went public in 2024 via a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, a process of entering the stock market that is typically subject to less scrutiny than a traditional initial public offering.

Shortly after acquiring Twitter and renaming it X, Elon Musk allowed Trump back onto the platform, and other social-media companies later followed suit. But Trump has continued to use Truth Social as his first and primary means of communication with the public. 

Still, despite enjoying the benefits of Trump’s universal name recognition and the potential for access-granting fringe benefits of investing in the company, Trump Media & Technology Group has been something of a financial loser. Just days after announcing Truth API, McGurn revealed in an earnings call on Monday that second-quarter losses had totaled $238 million.

Despite such dismal numbers, the potential return on investment for parties sinking money into the company goes beyond earnings by acting as a potential side-door for influence peddling and buying access, according to critics. Although his relationship with the administration has recently soured, few cases illustrate this more clearly than that of Justin Sun, a billionaire crypto kingpin who swiftly resolved an inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission after investing $30 million in the Trump family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial. Other major investors with a clear interest in gaining Trump’s favor have included an Emirati powerbroker and a failed businessman under investigation for money laundering.

“If you look back through the American presidency, there’s really no comparison for this kind of self-enrichment,” said Molly White, a researcher who has written critically of Trump’s crypto ventures and their various backers. “People have made quite a stink in the past about presidents selling books or family members of presidents peddling off of their connections, and that’s certainly true. But I mean, the scale here is just unprecedented.”

Critics of the president have raised similar concerns about Truth API. In a letter to the SEC last month, Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., pointed to numerous instances in which Trump had used Truth Social to hype individual stocks, including CitiGroup, Palantir, and Intel.

“The Trump Administration is the most corrupt in the nation’s history, and questions about inappropriate insider access to information about its policies and actions have raised questions on multiple occasions,” the senators wrote. “But even amid these clouds of corruption, Trump Media’s plan to disseminate market-moving information through the President’s own company, while charging insiders for access ahead of the public for the benefit of his company — and to the detriment of the investing public — represents a shocking abuse of the office of the President and the trust of the American public for his personal gain.”

The post The Intercept Sues Trump for Selling Premium Access to Truth Social Announcements appeared first on The Intercept.

Democrats have a lot to be embarrassed about when it comes to their actions during 2020. Like when Democratic members of Congress, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and then-Sen. Kamala Harris, clad in kente cloth stoles, took a knee on Capitol Hill after introducing the 2020 Justice in Policing Act.

That bill, which contained pretty fangless policing reforms, stalled in the Senate along party lines and never became law. The legislative story was predictable. Law-and-order Democrats genuflecting in kente stoles was laughable and lambasted at the time. Or, remember when Pelosi thanked George Floyd for “sacrificing” his life “for justice”? Shameful. 

You could fairly call such gestures “crazy” if we are relitigating Democrats’ political priorities around that time. These were the scrambling acts of Democratic leaders failing to robustly respond to the largest protests in U.S. history — powerful uprisings against a system of policing and prisons that treats Black people’s lives as disposable. 

But when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., quipped on Sunday, in an apparent nod to New York City Council Member Chi Ossé, that “woke 1 was crazy,” she wasn’t mocking the empty gestures of her colleagues. She wasn’t criticizing the recuperative tendencies of a liberal establishment that treats racism and sexism as a problem of individual performances and representation. 

She was responding to a question about whether Democrats, herself included, who have in the past called to defund the police, still stood by those positions, or whether they went “too far.” She giggled, dismissed the idea of defunding police as a part of  “crazy” “woke 1,” but noted, at least, that “during Covid, there was a huge opening of the Overton Window” on policy considerations, and that “the discussions that were had in that time were quite fruitful.” She also said they changed how we talk about crime.

Ocasio-Cortez did not even mention the George Floyd uprisings. 

There can be little doubt that certain “woke” tendencies hurt the project of building a powerful multiracial, working-class left. Movement collectives and organizations became mired in in-fighting. Too often, anti-racist performances by institutions took precedence over building strategies to fight the structures of racial capitalism. 

Centuries of accumulated material advantages and disadvantages, forged along colonialism’s racial lines, were not undone by social-media shamings, diversity trainings, or pro forma land acknowledgments. 

Related

How ICE Arrests Went Quiet — and Got Even More Deadly

But there was nothing “crazy” about more than 20 million people taking to the streets in righteous, militant protests against a racist, necropolitical order. And it was not crazy that politicians on the left saw good sense in the reasonable demand that the armed forces maintaining this racist order be abolished, or at least that tax dollars go instead to housing, healthcare, and education. 

If Ocasio-Cortez is running for president, or even just the Senate, treating the serious and significant intervention and event that was the 2020 uprisings as “crazy,” like it was an overreaching social-media furor, would be an appalling campaign orientation and an unacceptable erasure of historic Black struggle. 

The number of people killed by police in the U.S. every year has risen most years since 2020, and a disproportionate number of those killed are still Black. The facts about U.S. policing and prisons have not changed since the heady years of so-called “woke 1.” It remains the case that police do not stop or prevent crime. The mythic alignment of policing with public safety is nonetheless still treated as unquestionable common sense, despite ample evidence to the contrary. 

The George Floyd uprisings represented a brief rupture in that flawed common sense. One 2020 poll, for example, found a majority of Americans, 54 percent, believed that burning down a Minneapolis police precinct building following George Floyd’s murder was justified. 

The massive uprisings, in the words of writer Tobi Haslett, “came hurtling into view and exploded against the surface of daily life in the U.S.” They were, however, met with extraordinary repression from police forces nationwide, in both blue and red states and cities. 

Republicans under President Donald Trump’s first term prosecuted a successful campaign of law-and-order fearmongering. This white supremacist backlash was aided by liberal cowardice, which softened and then erased the abolitionist calls at the heart of the rebellions. The fractured left also bears its own responsibilities for failing on multiple fronts to take up and continue the uprisings’ militant challenge to racial capitalism. 

Under Trump’s second term, certain Democrats might be willing to call for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) but are silent when it comes to challenging the system of racist policing of which ICE is an extension. This is not because “woke 1 was crazy”; it is because the far-right backlash was successful, and centrist Democrats were all too happy to shrink away or fall fecklessly in line with law-and-order talking points. 

“The least we can do is remember ,” wrote Haslett, reflecting on the rebellions one year later. “[T]o try, after the riots, after the speeches, after the backlash and elections, and after this latest (livestreamed) liturgy of American ‘criminal justice,’ to recall what really happened, extracting and reconstructing the whole flabbergasting sequence.” AOC is failing at this basic requirement of faithful remembrance.

This may seem minor, but it performs something akin to what W.E.B. Du Bois called the post-Reconstruction “propaganda of history” — the erasure of the historical record of Black struggle and power to establish white supremacist rule as some transhistorical, unchallenged norm. 

Ocasio-Cortez is well aware of the discursive reality she must navigate should she run for higher office. Republicans will indeed dismiss any gesture toward progressive criminal legal system reform — let alone moving funding from police coffers to public goods — as radical, “crazy” acts. They will fearmonger and scapegoat. And, as has been the case with border policies and trans rights, Democrats bending rightwards only offers legitimacy, and often votes, to the right.

I do not expect AOC to run on an abolitionist line; I have no such delusions about the office of president, or, for that matter, Ocasio-Cortez, a politician who is yet to apologize for her intolerable defense of the Biden administration’s role in the Gaza genocide. Nor do I expect any left-wing Democratic candidate to overturn the myths about policing and safety, deeply inculcated in all too much of American society, in any single campaign. “Defund” could very well be a losing electoral position at this juncture. 

A talented and principled politician should, however, be able to present a democratic socialist platform that insists on marshaling funds where they in fact belong: housing, healthcare, education, and other social welfare programs. A politician on the left, who lived through the powerful and vast George Floyd uprisings, should not be able to dismiss and erase them so easily. 

The post No, AOC: “Woke” Wasn’t “Crazy” the Way You Say It Was appeared first on The Intercept.

The other official deemed the report, which covers allegations of civilian harm stemming from military attacks in Iran, Somalia, Yemen, and the campaign of boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, a “total whitewash.” It’s the latest in a series of recent Pentagon reports that have called attention to U.S. failures to prevent, mitigate, or adequately track civilian harm after self-styled War Secretary Pete Hegseth gutted civilian harm mitigation and response or CHMR programs.

Shockingly, the Pentagon’s review of its 2025 attacks found that no civilians were killed in the Trump administration’s campaign of boat strikes, according to the officials, despite the fact that the U.S. killed more than 120 civilians last year in attacks that experts call extrajudicial killings or outright murder. The Trump administration has asserted repeatedly and without evidence that the boat strike victims, who now number more than 220, were “narcoterrorists.” In a classified briefing last fall, a high-ranking officer on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff said that some of the people killed in the initial September 2, 2025, attack may have been the victims of human trafficking, according to an Intercept investigation.

“They have absolutely no credibility,” the second official told The Intercept about the boat strike claims, adding that the report was “sickening.”

Related

Top Pentagon Official Admits Boat Strike May Have Killed Victims of Human Trafficking

Known as the 1057 report, this year’s accounting of civilian casualties reflects a backlog of incidents from the Trump administration’s strikes against Yemen’s Houthi government in the spring of 2025. The report found that U.S. attacks killed 153 civilians and wounded almost 250 during the campaign of air and naval strikes, codenamed Operation Rough Rider. The second official called these “lowball numbers.” At least 238 civilians were killed and 467 injured, according to the Yemen Data Project.

One attack killed 68 people, the second official said. That attack on an immigrant detention center in Yemen killed and injured dozens of Ethiopian civilians and no combatants and was detailed in a report by Amnesty International shared with The Intercept last year. At the time, U.S. Central Command said it was still “assessing all reports of civilian harm resulting from operations during that time period.”

The 1057 report determined that three incidents “likely” harmed civilians, according to the second official. Another 15 attacks are still under review, he said.

“The idea CENTCOM still has fifteen cases on Yemen to adjudicate doesn’t bode well for the war in Iran,” said the first official. Both officials spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the report.

Under Section 1057 of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, the Pentagon is required to provide Congress and the public with data on civilian harm, mitigation steps, and assessments. The officials said the Pentagon had sent the report to members of the Armed Services Committees.

The report does not cover Trump’s ongoing failed war on Iran, which the United States and Israel launched in February, because it includes only military attacks from 2025. The second government official said that the number of incidents of civilian harm to investigate from the current war with Iran will dwarf the number in Yemen. Reports of civilian harm were recorded every day from the beginning of the war on February 28 to the first ceasefire on April 8, according to the U.K.-based air strike monitoring group, Airwars. The World Health organization put the death toll in Iran at 3,375 people — before the ceasefire fell apart last month. 

The second official said the backlog would likely carry over several years, referencing the fact that the 10-person civilian harm mitigation team at CENTCOM has been reduced to just one individual. The first official echoed the same concerns. “How will they get through hundreds of cases for Iran if their one civilian harm person still hasn’t finished Yemen?” they asked.

Currently, CENTCOM is clinging to the fiction that the U.S. attack on the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, Iran, that killed more than 150 people, most of them children, is the lone civilian harm incident of the current war. “There is one active civilian casualty investigation from the 13,629 munitions,” Admiral Brad Cooper, the CENTCOM chief, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in May.

The Annual Report on Civilian Casualties in Connection with U.S. Military Operations in 2025 comes after Hegseth’s Pentagon has spent more than a year slashing measures to prevent civilian casualties, including firing the military’s top lawyers, who advise leaders on international laws of armed conflict.

Related

Hegseth’s War Department Slashed Civilian Protection Staff, Brought in AI Assessments

A group of Democratic lawmakers told Hegseth in a July letter that his “gutting civilian harm mitigation and response (CHMR) efforts” has left the Pentagon unable to “comply with the law and its congressionally-mandated CHMR responsibilities.” They added: “The Trump administration — potentially in violation of federal law — has defunded and impeded civilian protection efforts.”

That letter, sent by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and nine other lawmakers, echoed concerns raised by a War Department inspector general report that described civilian protection efforts as largely “inactive.” The May report by the Pentagon’s top watchdog says cuts to civilian harm mitigation and response efforts have been so severe under Hegseth that the United States cannot adequately protect civilians in conflict zones or track harm when it occurs. 

These criticisms were echoed in an another-yet-unreleased official report revealed by The Intercept that found Hegseth’s Pentagon gutted its premier center devoted to preventing civilian casualties in war zones. The War Department’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence slashed its staff from 40 personnel in January 2025 to just nine by the end of the year, according to the report.

“In the coming months, the Department will submit its annual report regarding casualties resulting from United States military operations during the 2025 calendar year,” a Pentagon official told The Intercept when asked about the U.S. officials’ comments. “We have nothing to preview or announce at the moment.”

The post “Total Whitewash”: New Pentagon Report Claims U.S. Killed No Civilians in Boat Strikes appeared first on The Intercept.

Francesca Hong, who looks set to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for the governor of Wisconsin, is not going to abolish Thanksgiving. This really should not require clarification, as no one seriously believes otherwise, but the fact that it does tells us what a beleaguered state the Democratic establishment finds itself in as it seeks to defeat Hong.

A 37-year-old democratic socialist, state lawmaker, and former chef, Hong has emerged as the frontrunner despite increasingly frantic efforts from her moderate opponents in the primary, who have belatedly rallied around Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Even with the backing of outgoing Gov. Tony Evers, Crowley looks unlikely to derail Hong’s momentum, which may explain why the last days of the campaign — the primary is today — have reeked of desperation. It’s also why the vast majority of media coverage surrounding the race is now oriented not around Hong’s policy platform but her supposedly nefarious designs against the holidays.

“Cancel Thanksgiving,” Hong wrote in a now-deleted tweet from 2020. “Should have done this in 1621. If it takes a worldwide pandemic for us to realize we should stop celebrating colonialism and the original superspreader event that killed Indigenous folx and women so be it.”

Related

The Left Just Keeps Winning. It’s Time for Democrats to Bend the Knee.

In the midst of Covid-19, the suggestion that getting everyone around the dinner table might be inadvisable should not, in any sane world, have been remotely controversial; neither should the suggestion that the truth behind Thanksgiving — that a bunch of settler-colonialist religious fanatics managed to survive their first winter in the New World, and having done so, promptly set about the work of genocide and land theft — is not a national origin story worth celebrating. Evidently, others felt much differently: Hong had impugned the sacred day of families coming together and burning down the backyard while failing to deep-fry a turkey. Obviously, this was more worthy of discussion than anything so prosaic as issues of actual relevance to Wisconsinites, such as the need for free childcare, a moratorium on data centers, or restoring the state’s Limburger industry to its former glory.

“A Democratic Socialist Disparaged Thanksgiving,” a New York Times headline ominously intoned on Wednesday. “Can Voters Forgive Her?” (The Times’ on-the-ground reporting managed to dig up precisely one Wisconsinite who would not.) In the New York Post, opinion columnist Kirsten Fleming darkly imagined Hong presiding over a dystopian socialist future with “no football and no precious family gatherings.” After the candidate’s antagonists unearthed a 2021 interview in which she said she wrestles with her “proximity to whiteness” (Hong has a biracial son), Center for American Progress President and CEO Neera Tanden challenged Hong on X: “In the kitchens you’re in, do people hate Thanksgiving? Because that all feels pretty faculty lounge to me.”

In light of the manufactured furor, an outside observer could be forgiven for thinking Hong posed some existential danger to Thanksgiving, or that her opinion of the holiday is a matter of great salience to Wisconsin’s voters. In the United States, however, governors are not empowered to dissolve national holidays, and if elected, Hong’s ability to imperil Turkey Day would be roughly equivalent to her chances of blowing up the moon. Regrettably, Hong does not represent a credible threat to Americans’ inalienable right to combine yams with marshmallows.

But the amount of media attention Thanksgiving-gate has accrued is unsurprising, as it allows the centrist commentariat yet another opportunity to pursue their favorite hobby of telling the Left it must disavow any hint of radical thought and prostrate themselves to placate “normal” people (or whatever version of them exist in pundits’ fevered imaginations). This is critically important for their grift to persist. For all their jubilant schadenfreude over the supposed “vibe shift” since Trump’s re-election, the specter of Woke can never be declared truly destroyed, as this would severely inconvenience all those commentators who have fashioned careers railing against it. In one representative example, Slate’s Luke Winkie — after admitting that he lacked the “hoity-toity intellectual hardware” to know if colonialism and the genocide of the Native Americans are good or not — advised Hong, “If they ask if you still believe in the tiresome, unpopular, and ultimately peripheral positions you took in the white heat of 2020, you can just say no.”

Hong has pretty much said exactly that, now claiming that Thanksgiving is her favorite holiday that she in no way wants to cancel (a concession that is not likely to satisfy her critics, but who knows — being forced to pretend you like Thanksgiving may actually make Hong more relatable to voters who have an uncle they hate). The notion that the historically literate might have a problem with Thanksgiving was around long before Peak Woke — it was, in fact, a plot point in a 27-year-old episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Native Americans, if you cared to ask, have been rather vocal on the subject of why many of them aren’t exactly enthused about a holiday that serves to either obscure or celebrate centuries of atrocity. Even allowing for the fact that the attacks on Hong follow a well-established right-wing tradition—let us never forget those who laid down their lives in the War on Christmas—why has such a ridiculous controversy come to dominate efforts to quash her campaign?

Related

There’s a New Democratic Machine. It’s Unabashedly Socialist.

The answer is simple: Nothing else has worked, and that failure indicates a worrying pattern for the Democratic establishment terrified of an insurgent Left. As the numerous recent victories for DSA-backed or progressive Democratic candidates have demonstrated, attacking the Left on policy is not the winning strategy it once was. Many voters no longer recoil at the mere mention of universal healthcare, rent controls, or the dreaded “socialism.” Even centrist stalwart Jonathan Chait had to grudgingly acknowledge, after Abdul El-Sayed’s primary win in Michigan, that AIPAC spending and unconditional support for aid to Israel are now albatrosses around the necks of any Democratic candidate. Among Democrats who despair over the DSA’s rise, there is a distinct lack of enthusiasm for detail-oriented debates over why cheap groceries are a bad thing, whether there is any circumstance under which they would not throw trans people under the bus, and why abolishing the murderous, paramilitary apparatus of ICE is unthinkable.

In lieu of anything substantive or policy-based to sink their teeth into, Hong’s enemies have turned to increasingly bizarre tactics, none of which have produced their desired results. Attacks on her previous mental health challenges were widely read as the grubby, ham-fisted ratfucking that they were, and the fruitless, never-ending search continues for a plurality of Democratic primary voters who share the party establishment’s inveighing against Hasan Piker as a kind of demonic imp who must be exorcised. “Cancel Thanksgiving” was the only bullet left in the gun, which does not render it any less pathetic.

There is perhaps some deeper meaning to read into this confected controversy. Historically, painting those on the Left as un-American has been of entirely too much political utility for centrists and conservatives to abandon it now, despite its diminishing returns. If you can force a candidate to refrain from questioning America’s foundational myths, from recognizing the historical truths of colonialism and genocide rather than a fairy tale about pilgrims fleeing persecution, you place limits on how far they can go in criticizing the United States that exists today as a result of that history.

Instead, you demand devotion not to the American people—many of whom have views on the day-to-day realities of America that are less than rosy—but to a nebulous idea of America defined less by what it is than what it is not. This America is not the result of colonialism and genocide; it is not predicated upon systemic racism and economic inequality; it is not, and never will be, socialist. All must swear fealty to this fantasy, or else people might cease to believe in it. That’s a possibility that petrifies Hong’s enemies far more than the thought of losing their day to eat dry turkey.

The post Francesca Hong’s “Thanksgiving-Gate” Shows Her Detractors Are Totally Out of Ideas appeared first on The Intercept.

The Real Cost of the Military’s Pacific Buildup

President Donald Trump and self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth are pushing for a post-World War II record $1.6 trillion Pentagon budget for next year, a sum so obscenely high that it is almost impossible to comprehend. The proposed $600 billion increase alone is almost twice the total annual military budget of America’s closest rival, China.

That supposed rivalry, despite the big spending gap, makes China central to justifying the Pentagon’s bloated budget. And Hawaiʻi is, in turn, central to the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific military strategy which assumes that deterring China requires a forward, offensive strike posture anchored by the archipelago. This not only puts a target on Hawaiʻi — as was the case during World War II, when Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan — but it also deepens long-standing economic hardships and environmental degradation produced by more than a century of U.S. military occupation, according to “The True Cost of the U.S. Military in Hawaiʻi,” a new report by the Institute for Policy Studies.

The report finds that as the Pentagon has shoved Hawaiʻi toward the front lines of a potential nuclear conflict, it has also poisoned the islands’ land and waters, lied about its economic benefits, tied Hawaiʻi’s financial well-being to an inefficient use of tax dollars, and failed to pay more than $130 billion in back rent. And now the Trump administration is extending its buildup in Hawaiʻi — which has long “been central to the architecture of U.S. imperial power” to expand facilities, build new bases, and secure access to air and naval bases from Guam to the Pacific island chain to the Philippines to Australia. And these moves in the Pacific are just one part of that multifaceted $600 billion boost being sought for the Pentagon.

The China Syndrome

In addition to greed, grift and pork-barrel politics — practices that have reached an astonishing level due to the unapologetic corruption and feverish insider dealings of the Trump family and its hangers-on — the biggest driver of the Pentagon’s enormous budget is America’s quest for unrivaled global military dominance. At the center of that effort are preparations to “win” a war with China, a mission that is likely impossible and would be extremely dangerous to undertake.

Related

Tech Official Pushing TikTok Ban Could Reap Windfall From U.S.–China Cold War

The probable outcome of a war with Beijing — which is, after all, a sophisticated technological power armed with nuclear weapons — would be unprecedented devastation for all concerned, especially the people of Taiwan, the independent island nation of the coast of the mainland that China considers a breakaway province. Hawai‘i, Guam, and the other launching pads for a U.S. military operation against China would undoubtedly be targets, with dire consequences for the residents of those islands.

Well before recentering China as national security adversary No. 1, America’s quest for military supremacy was not going well, to put it mildly.

As the Costs of War Project at Brown University has shown, America’s post-9/11 wars have been an unmitigated disaster, costing or causing long-term obligations of an astonishing $8 trillion, as well as the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the displacement of tens of millions more, Meanwhile, these wars failed miserably in meeting their stated objectives, leaving in power a sectarian regime in Iraq that opened the door to the rise of ISIS and a Taliban-led government in Afghanistan, a status quo ante bellum after more than 20 years of war.

It’s hard to envision a more complete mismatch between stated war aims and real-world results than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, until we take a hard look at the illegal, immoral, and ill-conceived conflict with Iran which is fast becoming a new forever war.

Despite this dismal record, the Trump regime — and the Biden administration before it — has chosen to double down on a military-first foreign policy, with the demonization of China fueling the fire.

The Pentagon refers to China as the “pacing challenge,” even as military spending far outpaces Beijing’s defense budget. And in its most recent assessment, the Pentagon outlined a strategy to cow China into submission by “being so strong that aggression is not even considered.”

China hasn’t been involved in a major shooting war since the much smaller nation of Vietnam fought it to a virtual standstill in 1979, nearly five decades ago. China’s forces “severely underperformed” in the one-month conflict; according to one account, “PLA soldiers were so undertrained that there were reports of infantrymen tying themselves to tanks with ropes to avoid falling off, sealing their fate when they were ambushed.”

Presumably Chinese forces are much better trained now, but China is not a serial aggressor, and although it has engaged in border skirmishes with India, it has not been embroiled in virtually nonstop conflicts over the past half century, as the United States has, nor has it fought regime-change wars. So the question arises: Who is setting the pace in the U.S.–China arms race, Washington or Beijing?

Two Systems, Two Countries

In the real world, China’s military is not 10 feet tall, and throwing more money at the Pentagon is the worst possible way to address the greatest challenges posed by Beijing, which are actually not military in nature.

China’s vast global influence leans heavily on its economic clout, which is built on aid and trade, including the Belt and Road Initiative, a globe-spanning collection of interconnected infrastructure projects. (To be clear, the Belt and Road has too often involved dubious deals with unaccountable leaders who give Beijing long-term leases on their nation’s critical natural resources in exchange for roads, railways, port facilities, or other infrastructure projects — not exactly a model of free trade in action.) China is also the top trading partner to 120 nations worldwide, including key countries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America, alongside a brisk trade with Europe. This is the lynchpin of China’s global clout.

Related

Anthropic Says We Must Stop Authoritarian AI. But What About Its Authoritarian Investors?

But U.S. power projection in Hawai‘i and beyond, the entire Pacific strategy, is based on a different type of projection — the belief that China aspires to usurp the U.S. as the global hegemon through military might. Exaggerating the threat posed by China is a foolproof marketing scheme for the weapons contractors, Pentagon bureaucrats, K-Street lobbyists, and venture capital firms that profit handsomely from preparations for war with Beijing.

As military budget analyst Stephen Semler has documented, more than half the Pentagon budget goes to private companies, for everything from long-range bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles to F-35 combat aircraft that are virtually useless in modern warfare, to the unproven, overhyped products of the Silicon Valley military tech moguls, like the at least 686 artificial intelligence projects currently being funded by the Pentagon.

On the military front, China’s ability to challenge the U.S. is grounded in its nuclear forces, which are much smaller than America’s but are on the rise in an effort to keep Washington from having a large-enough edge to wipe out Beijing’s ability to respond to a first strike.

The U.S. may not be able to threaten China’s nuclear deterrent any time soon, but in the face of the U.S. military build-up in the Pacific, Beijing appears to be preparing for a worst-case scenario. Chinese President Xi Jinping seems to value nuclear weapons more than his predecessors, who were content to keep a few hundred nuclear warheads that could reach U.S. soil versus Washington’s much larger nuclear arsenal. China is also leveraging is technological base, including its faster pace at training scientists and engineers. This positions China to challenge Washington in an AI arms race.

And yet war is not inevitable, despite what many China hawks constantly suggest. Returning to a common understanding on Taiwan — one in which the U.S. agrees to limit its political recognition of the island or support for independence in exchange for a Chinese pledge not to seek reunification through military means — is the best way to avoid a catastrophic conflict. It would also clear the way for cooperation on urgent issues like addressing the climate crisis, preventing pandemics, and promoting equitable global arrangements to reduce poverty and inequality. At the same time, it would make things safer for hundreds of millions of people from Japan and South Korea to Guam and Hawai‘i.

Paying the Price

America’s military-first approach to China and the world at large comes at a high price, even when the guns are silent. History demonstrates that merely preparing for war costs lives, as the fate of victims of Cold War-era nuclear testing from New Mexico and Utah to the Marshall Islands attests. But as Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear engineer and the president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, has pointed out, the toll of nuclear weapons research, development, and production is global in scope, creating “a worldwide archipelago of radioactive wastelands” that have cost millions of lives since the dawn of the nuclear age. The military’s impact on lives and health is also exacerbated by the proliferation of non-nuclear toxins and unexploded ordnance created by generations of war.

In short, military buildups mean far more than moving money around, although that too poses serious risks when it comes at the expense of investments in public health, nutrition, education, and anti-poverty efforts. 

Military expansions involve constructing and maintaining new weapons factories and existing military bases, deploying new weaponry, engaging in costly training exercises, and, all too often, prosecuting senseless, devastating wars like the current conflict with Iran, the forever war in Somalia, and a new conflict percolating in Ecuador.

The Institute for Policy Studies report, prepared by both mainland and Hawai‘i-based analysts and advocates, offers a lesson in the perils of military expansion. Hosting facilities geared toward a future war against China come at a human and environmental cost that far outstrips the (routinely overstated) economic benefits that U.S. military bases and weapons deployments generate, according to the IPS analysis.

Related

As Taiwan Tensions Build, Concerned Okinawans Push for U.S. Military Base Closure

The report reveals that decades of military use of PFAS (known as “forever chemicals”) have contaminated soil, groundwater, and nearshore waters far beyond the footprint of military bases. Remediation at just three installations is estimated to cost almost $500 million. A leak at the Navy’s Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility — which stored roughly 250 million gallons of jet fuel — in Oʻahu also contaminated the drinking water supply of 93,000 people. Due to these and other environmental disasters, residents of Hawai‘i have suffered unnecessary health risks and mortality and could suffer the effects of further accidents as preparations for war with China ramp up.

Trading short-term jobs for long-term environmental devastation and generational health risks is a terrible bargain that would never have been struck without Hawai‘i’s history as a colonial outpost and a pawn in a superpower competition over which the people of the islands have had far too little control. While military bases in the mainland U.S. have also caused enormous health damage, the sheer extent of Hawai‘i’s territory occupied by military facilities heightens the impact.

Meanwhile, the archipelago’s longtime status as a floating military base and the foundation for U.S. power projection in the Pacific makes it a primary target in any U.S.–China conflict, either in a first strike designed to hobble a looming U.S. attack or in retaliation once a U.S. intervention begins.

The IPS analysis also found that the Pentagon has overstated the military’s supposed $10 billion annual economic benefit to Hawai‘i by nearly 30 percent. On top of this, Hawai‘i is getting little bang for the buck. Military spending creates approximately 5.3 jobs per $1 million invested, compared to 12.3 jobs from the same investment in education, food production, healthcare, or housing. The researchers also found that the federal government owes Hawai‘i up to $133.7 billion in back rent on top of the massive environmental cleanup costs.

A non-militarized plan for Hawai‘i’s economy would supply more jobs and be far more sustainable than the current approach, according to IPS. And there is a unique opportunity to change, as two military leases of huge swaths of Hawaiian territory are set to expire.

Washington needs to thoroughly rethink its narrow, self-defeating approach to Beijing. A less aggressive, more cooperative posture toward China would help free Hawaiians politically and economically, and it would open the path to a safer, more peaceful, more prosperous future. It would also allow for a rollback of the extensive U.S. military buildups in Guam and the Pacific islands, activities that mirror and are at times even worse in their environmental damage and security risks than the situation in Hawai‘i itself.

A less aggressive foreign policy toward China requires the demilitarization of Hawai‘i and a rollback of America’s costly and ill-conceived buildup in the Pacific. The IPS report clarifies what is at stake and provides a starting point for what should be a thorough debate on Hawai‘i’s role in U.S. security strategy. It is, as one of the authors, Jonathan Kay Kamakawiwoʻole Osorio of the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, put it: “a blueprint for reclaiming our nation here, in hope and faith in one another.”

The post The Pentagon’s Obsession With China Puts Hawai‘i at Risk appeared first on The Intercept.

In the ever-shifting theater of America’s culture wars, conservative media has found its newest gladiatorial conscript: Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham.

It’s an unlikely promotion—and from backers who, until recently, probably couldn’t have named five WNBA players.

The reason for her esteem probably has little to do with her faultless three point precision. In an interview with ESPN, Cunningham declared she opposed transgender women—whom she referred to as “biological men”—competing in women’s sports, arguing the issue was about “protecting young girls.” Later, she cheekily doubled down on the statement, posting an outfit photo on Instagram with the caption: “I said what I said” with a saluting emoji.

That was enough.

Almost overnight, Cunningham became more than a WNBA player. She became one of conservatism’s newest culture-war combatants: blonde, white, conventionally attractive, and playing in a league overwhelmingly composed of players of color, and with one of the largest openly LGBTQ+ player populations in professional sports.

Within days of Cunningham’s remarks, conservative media had found its new protagonist. 

Fox News host Riley Gaines, who herself rose to prominence as an anti-trans NCAA swimmer, called Cunningham “the first current high-level female athlete” willing to publicly oppose transgender participation in women’s sports, and praised her for speaking out from inside what Gaines called “the most woke league of all time.” The Daily Wire cast the now-famous finger-pointer—and on-court defender of Caitlyn Clark, another white player whose first season with the WNBA sparked racialized conversations that cast her Black opponents as too “aggressive”—as someone “now fighting for us.” Trump’s Department of Education joined in, posting a Grok AI-generated image of Cunningham wearing a crown with the caption: “Common sense prevails.”

Cunningham’s ascent into the right’s zeitgeist is by design. For generations, conservative movements have sought to anoint and weaponize cisgender white women as public-facing enforcers of social and racial hierarchy. 

While the specific rallying cry has changed throughout history, their use and ideological framing to the conservative movement has remained largely intact: They serve narratively as bulwarks against some grave impending demographic or social upset, which if allowed to come to fruition would be an assault on the current status quo of women at large. 

Ride of the Valkyries

American political history is thick with appeals to white womanhood as something endangered and therefore requiring protection, particularly against the encroaching civil rights gains of Black, brown, and LGBTQ+ communities. Since the Academy Award-winning Birth of a Nation, the idea that straight white women are in peril simply by living in proximity to minority groups has been repeatedly used to justify racial exclusion and stir up moral panic.

In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, southern governments launched what’s now known as the “Massive Resistance,” a series of laws to prevent integration. The campaign mobilized a movement of white women to organize through schools, newspapers and civic groups in an effort they sold as defending white children, neighborhoods, and public education. It was largely these communities that performed the on-the-ground enforcement of segregation, going so far as to pluck out children suspected of being mixed-race from white schools. This changed the packaging of the politics of segregation: Rather than snarling racism, the message could be framed more politely as a threat to the sanctity of motherhood and child welfare.

Related

An Anti-Trans Bathroom Bill With a Cruel New Twist

By the 1970s, overt defenses of racial segregation had become politically untenable on the national stage. The conservative movement’s next great cultural fight shifted toward gender. As the sexual revolution, second-wave feminism, and the promise of the Equal Rights Amendment changed family structures and challenged traditional gender roles, conservatives increasingly looked to white women to make the case against the nation’s expanding vision of female equality.

In the impeccably dressed mother-of-six Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative movement found its most formidable duelist against progressive feminism. Through her “STOP ERA” campaign, Schlafly argued the Equal Rights Amendment wouldn’t liberate women—it would endanger them by exposing women to the military draft, undermining mothers’ custody rights, and destabilizing the American family. 

Her message was overwhelmingly effective; the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified. As prominent legal scholar and feminist theorist Joan Williams put it, “the ERA was defeated when Schlafly turned it into a war among women over gender roles.” 

For decades, conservative politics has repeatedly tapped into this vein, transforming cultural anxieties—over motherhood, children’s safety, crime, sexuality, and gender roles—into mass movements by placing cisgender white women front and center. 

At the turn of the late 70s, conservatives promoted Anita Bryant, a wholesome pop singer who warned that gay rights threatened America’s children. During the rise of evangelical moralism of the 1980s, the religious right elevated Patricia Pulling, the suburban Virginia mother whose campaign against Dungeons & Dragons helped ignite the Satanic Panic. From matronly children’s book authors to buxom blue jean models, the conservative avatar is exceedingly familiar: a woman whom white men are encouraged to protect and one whom other white women are encouraged to empathize with and emulate. 

The Girls We Don’t Protect 

In her research on anti-feminist women, sociologist Rebecca Klatch found “most…are white, middle-aged, housewives, married or widowed, new to politics, and oriented toward single issues.”

But by screaming to “remember straight white women,” the right aims to make us forget anyone who sits at the edges of that definition, those long underserved by America’s promise of a truly free and equitable land. It dehumanizes women of color even further in a league where all athletes still earn a fraction of the paychecks their male counterparts take home. It shuts down any future good-faith conversations on how to allow trans athletes to compete and the sheer danger to a trans community increasingly excluded from social participation. It also serves to drown out the voices of women who support trans athletes, and often becomes a political Rorschach test to attack civil rights far beyond who makes a starting line up. 

I don’t know if that’s what Cunningham signed up to represent, and quite frankly, I don’t know if she did either. She most recently told the press that she wants to “get back to basketball.” 

In a free-speaking democratic society, Cunningham, and every athlete, is entitled to be human: to hold opinions, and feelings, and have a political voice. She is not the first, nor will be the last, fair maiden to be cast as a sword-bearing champion for a conservative culture war. 

But if a movement’s cause is about truly protecting women, then perhaps the more revealing question to interrogate is which women it has deemed worthy of protection in the first place. Whose womanhood is treated as universal, whose safety becomes a national rallying cry, and whose voices—including those of Black women, queer women, and transgender women—are left at the margins. That hierarchy often tells us more about the movement behind it than the woman standing under the net.

The post Sophie Cunningham Is the Anti-Trans Right’s New White Woman Mascot appeared first on The Intercept.

More than three weeks later, however, it’s not clear how Rubio and the State Department intend to use the policy. Their silence since the announcement has left some advocates wondering if the policy is really just a public-relations push by the Trump administration.

Existing law already allows the State Department to block terrorists from visiting the U.S. But tucked inside the policy is language about “economic sabotage” that advocates worry could empower a broad crackdown against people associated with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and campaigns to divest from fossil fuels.

“The message is to the public at large and particularly to anybody who would disagree with the government’s policies that they should tread carefully, lest they be considered a member or aligned with what the government considers to be a far-left terrorist group,” said Carrie DeCell, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute.
“I think the vagueness is the point. It’s intended to send a broad chilling effect through the public and discourage dissent.”

Rubio’s Right-Wing Fever Dream

Rubio announced the policy at a July 16 gathering of foreign diplomats where he played up the threat of what he called “far-left terrorism,” which he said had been overlooked after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

“For far too long, however, our counterterrorism doctrine has had a blind spot — a blind spot when it comes to extremist violence from the political left. Even today, the very idea that far-left terrorism could be a serious threat is treated as a right-wing fever dream, or worse, as a dangerous fascist conspiracy,” Rubio said.

In a press release, Rubio said that State Department officials had been instructed to deny visas to “members of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups who have supported or incited acts of terrorism; supported violent criminal activity; participated in economic sabotage; financed, recruited, or provided logistical support for violent or criminal actions committed by Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned groups; and/or facilitated the convergence of Far-Left Terrorist and other aligned networks for the purposes of violent action.”

The State Department has not elaborated further on how it decides whether a foreign national is a member of a “far-left” terror group or “aligned” groups. The department did not answer questions from The Intercept about its definitions for those terms.

The policy raised major concerns, however, for Peter Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University.

Nothing in the policy appears to restrict it to foreign nationals residing abroad, Margulies said. He is concerned that the State Department could attempt to apply it to students living in the U.S. or to other people with legal status who are applying for different visas or renewals.

“The worry is that this will be used who are already in this country, for example, foreign students,” he said. “This gives the administration a hammer to go after these people, that I think is problematic under the First Amendment, and also exceeds the authority that Secretary Rubio has.”

Related

Judge Finds Rubio and Noem Intentionally Targeted Pro-Palestine Activists to Chill Speech

Other parts of federal immigration law already give the government wide discretion to block people accused of links to terrorism, making it something of a puzzle why the government would need a new policy to block people accused more specifically of “far-left” terrorism.

Yet one provision of the policy appears to mark a shift from existing policy, Margulies said: a section singling out people accused of “economic sabotage.” That kind of language could be used to target people who have supported Palestinian calls for the boycott of Israel, or environmental activists protesting fossil fuel companies, he said.

“That’s a term broad enough to get a tank through, and so that would really be problematic under the First Amendment, because of course people in this country have a right to criticize corporations as well as government,” he said.

The Vagueness Is the Point

When Rubio announced a new policy last May targeting misinformation researchers for visa denials, the State Department followed up seven months later by announcing that it would block or deport five foreign nationals.

So far the State Department has not announced any visa denials under the latest policy. For an example of the type of people that Rubio considers to be supporters of far-left terrorism, DeCell pointed to a State Department report about Cuba’s influence network issued last month. That report named streamer Hasan Piker, Amazon Labor Union founder Christian Smalls, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Baher Azmy, the legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said it was possible that the new visa restriction policy is simply another part of the multipronged effort to build up the threat of the left ahead of the midterms.

“This is coming at the same time they’re starting this once moribund terrorist court, they’re calling Amy Goodman a far-left enemy of the state,” he said. “It might be a midterm strategy, because it does seem to be coming all at once.”

DeCell’s group recently won an injunction blocking the State Department from implementing its visa restriction policy against misinformation researchers. She expects the State Department to eventually get around to announcing visa denials, as it did with them. “The justifications for their targeting likely would be made on X, if it follows the same path,” she said.

When it does, the latest restrictions could also be vulnerable to legal challenge. While the State Department has broad discretion to deny visas to foreigners, Margulies said, it is not unlimited, particularly for those living in the United States.

“Watch this space. They may have particular people in mind. Then we may see some developments very quickly how they intend to apply this,” he said.

The post Rubio Is Trying to Keep Leftists Out of U.S. by Banning Supporters of “Economic Sabotage” appeared first on The Intercept.

Among the partners for the State Department’s new “Freedom Tech Excellence Program” is Palantir, the AI and data integration firm started by right-wing powerbroker Peter Thiel. Under the program, company employees will go on temporary assignments to advise the government on “digital freedom and freedom of expression,” including counter-surveillance and dealing with First Amendment issues.

“FTEP brings private sector talent to the Department for limited-term assignments to advance diplomatic efforts on key issues including online freedom of expression, privacy-enhancing technologies, countering digital surveillance, and responsible AI governance,” according to the State Department’s website.

Palantir is best known for building large-scale data analysis platforms. In addition to corporate contracts, the company’s massive government tenders include database, surveillance, and tracking tools for police and federal authorities. Among its government clients are the military, the State Department itself, and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Palantir and its key personnel have also been involved in multiple lawsuits against journalistic outlets.

The firm’s history has raised criticisms of its role in the new State Department initiative, especially given the Trump administration own’s dubious track record on First Amendment issues.

“To some extent, this announcement and this program sound like doublespeak,” said Carrie DeCell, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “Certainly neither this State Department, nor the partners they have announced so far, are trustworthy leaders in what they identify as online freedom of expression or countering digital surveillance.”

The new initiative is planned to run through the beginning of 2029, according to the State Department’s press office. While participants could be placed anywhere in the agency and may require security clearances, the Freedom Tech Excellent Program “is not geared towards bolstering the Department’s internal application or operational use of AI technologies,” the department said in a statement to The Intercept.

Anduril, a military tech firm with links to Palantir and Thiel, was also listed as a partner in the State Department initiative. Anduril’s executive chair Trae Stephens is a partner at Thiel’s Founders Fund, which has invested about $2.6 billion in Anduril. Besides a mutual appreciation of “The Lord of the Rings,” Thiel shares similar politics with Anduril co-founder Palmer Luckey and has backed Luckey’s new bank, Erebor.

Neither Anduril nor Palantir responded to requests for comment.

Palantir and the Feds

Palantir’s work has brought it notoriety across the globe, though at times defining what it does can be complex. It has repeatedly eschewed its label as a surveillance firm. Palantir CEO Alex Karp denied on a podcast last year that the company engages in unconstitutional surveillance work.

And, in an unsigned blog post last year, Palantir wrote, “Contrary to some media reports, we are not a surveillance company.”

Palantir, though, enabled U.S. mass surveillance by bolstering the National Security Agency’s global data collection efforts, according to documents provided to The Intercept by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. Palantir helped the NSA expand a program that became notorious for its ability to hoover up Americans’ communications along with those from abroad.

More recently, the firm has become a focal point for protests in the U.K. over its massive contract with the National Health Service and its ties to the Israeli military. Just this week, the NHS apologized after admitting it had falsely stated that Palantir did not have access to identifiable patient data.

Related

Palantir Is Helping Trump’s IRS Conduct “Massive-Scale” Data Mining

Stateside, the company had a contract with New York City public hospitals that gave it access to patient information. The contract was allowed to expire after it came under scrutiny in an Intercept report. The Intercept also reported this year that Palantir has access to sensitive federal databases for its contract to aid in Internal Revenue Service investigations.

Palantir’s IRS work led to a letter last year from 10 members of Congress to Karp requesting information about the “mega-database” built off IRS data. In response, the firm again denied that it was engaging in widespread surveillance of Americans and that it was building any such database.

Palantir also has a 15-year relationship with ICE. The Intercept found that its contracts with the agency have aided immigration raids, including ones that led to family separations. And Palantir built bespoke software for ICE that helps track self-deportations and visa overstays.

In April, Reps. Dan Goldman and Nydia Velázquez, both Democrats from New York, sent a list of questions directed to ICE and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, demanding information about how they were leveraging Palantir’s technology to create “a mass surveillance ecosystem.”

Attacks on Free Press

Along with eccentric far-right views and donations to MAGA Republicans, one of Thiel’s most well-known acts was his involvement in the lawsuit that drove the news outlet Gawker into bankruptcy.

Thiel had become upset with Gawker over the media company’s reporting about his personal life. He went on to spend $10 million secretly bankrolling lawsuits against the company, finally scoring with a major judgment in favor of the wrestler Hulk Hogan that caused Gawker to close and sell off its assets.

Journalism advocacy group Reporters Without Borders said that Thiel constituted a “serious threat” to the group’s principles of “freedom of press and independence of media,” particularly in light of the secrecy around his role in the case. His actions were, RSF said, “nothing different to governments using legal or economic leverage to shut down a media that happens to displease them.”

Related

Kash Patel Is Using MAGA’s Favorite Tool to Muzzle the Free Press

Palantir also recently filed a suit against Swiss online news magazine Republik for reporting on how Palantir repeatedly failed to land contracts with the Swiss government. Palantir claimed that Republik had an obligation to run a list of rebuttals from the firm.

A Swiss court, however, handed Palantir a defeat by siding with the outlet on all but one of the 23 charges and forcing Palantir to pay most of Republik’s legal fees. (In a since-deleted post on Medium responding to the Republik lawsuit, Palantir once again denied that it is a surveillance company.)

David Greene, senior counsel for anti-surveillance nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that positioning Palantir as a bulwark for civil rights undermined the government’s own free speech initiative.

“There’s a big problem right now with the U.S. government and the people outside government who exercise power, in terms of trying to claim free speech as a value when they clearly don’t sincerely hold that value,” Greene said. “It really lowers the esteem of the U.S. in terms of having any moral authority on freedom of expression grounds.”

The post State Department Wants Palantir’s Advice on Free Speech and “Countering Digital Surveillance” appeared first on The Intercept.

The Combating Organized Retail Crime Act, or CORCA, was introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, last year with wide bipartisan support. The bill is aimed at limiting coordinated retail theft and shoplifting, which lawmakers allege is happening at “unprecedented levels” as organized criminal gangs steal merchandise from stores and resell the goods online. According to the legislation, the perpetrators “are often polycriminal organizations, using profit from the reselling of stolen goods to support crimes involving drugs and weapons trafficking” while facilitating “human smuggling,” all of which is “funding nefarious groups and activities and threatening the integrity of the international economy.”

The bill would give Immigration and Customs Enforcement authority to coordinate federal efforts against large-scale shoplifting. ICE would establish a so-called “Organized Retail and Supply Chain Crime Coordination Center” that would bring under one roof analysts and agents from myriad agencies, including the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Secret Service. The goal is to centralize investigative data and establish “a secure system for sharing information regarding organized retail and supply chain crime threats by leveraging existing information systems at the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.”

It’s unclear if ICE agents themselves would have the authority to confront alleged suspects. DHS and ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Civil libertarian groups are disturbed by legislation they say constitutes a major expansion of domestic surveillance and policing by DHS, which was founded largely to tackle matters of counterterrorism, civil defense, and other matters of national safety, and ICE, whose purview is immigration enforcement and transnational crime.

Jina John, senior policy counsel for AI, privacy, and technology at the ACLU, told The Intercept the bill could grant DHS increased surveillance powers. “This would formalize a mechanism for retailers to share data about consumers with DHS as well as state and local authorities relating vaguely to ‘threats,’” she said. “The risk here is that when retailers share information, it’s not a specific clip of footage related to a specific theft, in practice, they are sharing continuous footage. That means access to FLOCK license plate readers in retail parking lots and surveillance cameras at stores and malls.”

The Center itself would be staffed in part by ICE agents and helmed by a director handpicked by the head of ICE. The bill allows the Center to share information deemed confidential under federal law, which includes the “identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association.” Such disclosure would require the sign-off of the Center’s director.

“Given that this director will be named by ICE, an agency that has acted without any regard for the law, this is probably not the best person to make such important judgments,” ACLU senior counsel Nina Patel told The Intercept.

Related

“Terrorist”: How ICE Weaponized 9/11’s Scarlet Letter

Despite sustained opposition to DHS and ICE under Trump’s second term by congressional democrats, CORCA was co-sponsored by 13 Democratic members of the Senate, including Amy Klobuchar, Mark Warner, and Democratic Whip Dick Durbin.

In a July letter opposing the bill, rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law cautioned about the establishment of “essentially a new fusion center, nominally for the purpose of addressing retail theft.” Like DHS itself, fusion centers are a post-9/11 creation intended to thwart acts of international terrorism. Over the past two decades, their mission has widened and now encompasses, for example, the surveillance of political protests.

The premise that organized retail theft is a rampant crime phenomenon, rather than a new name for the timeless petty offense of shoplifting, is disputed and controversial. In 2023, the National Retail Federation, a trade group that supports the bill and whose warnings are cited in its text, retracted a report claiming organized retail crime was responsible for 50 percent of the nearly $100 billion worth of merchandise that went missing in 2021. The true number was found to be closer to 5 percent of that sum.

The companies on whose behalf the NRF lobbies are inclined to support legislation dedicated to safeguarding merchandise and profits. Should it pass, CORCA would deepen collaboration between corporate America and DHS and expand the country’s public-private surveillance apparatus. “Companies determined by the Executive Associate Director to have significant interests” in retail theft could be granted information-sharing agreements with the government about threats, investigations and loss prevention activities, according to the bill’s text.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups insist ICE is so lawless it can’t be trusted with new powers. “As a result, ICE would have more access to information and more sway over local law enforcement — which means more opportunities for ICE to misuse data and target people in violation of their rights,” Patel said. “ICE cannot be trusted.”

Related

Federal Agents Are Intimidating Legal Observers at Their Homes: “They Know Where You Live”

In May, the House passed CORCA and referred it to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley and Durbin are now hoping to turn it into law as an amendment to the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, the Pentagon’s annual funding bill that historically passes easily with bipartisan support. Despite the fact that CORCA is intended to protect store shelves from thieves, and not the United States from foreign militaries, both senators are urging the acceptance of the amendment on the grounds that it will “reduce violent crime.”

A press release from Grassley’s office last month included exhortations to include the amendment in the NDAA from executives of Amazon, Home Depot, and the International Council of Shopping Centers, among others.

The post Congress Might Give ICE the Power to Go After Shoplifters appeared first on The Intercept.

On Saturday, two Defense Department accounts on X posted images overlaid with the words “SEND ME.” The agency’s Rapid Response account published the phrase on a picture of a service member watching a helicopter above an aircraft carrier. Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell quoted Isaiah 6:8 in a post and included the all-caps phrase on an image of a soldier silhouetted in the dark. The Department of War’s official account amplified both posts.

Isaiah 6:8 is a verse that appears in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament in which the prophet Isaiah answers a divine call. When God asks, “Whom shall I send?” Isaiah replies, “Here am I. Send me.” The passage is widely used in many Christian traditions as an expression of accepting God’s call to a divine mission. The verses that follow describe God sending Isaiah to proclaim a message of judgment that culminates in cities “without inhabitant,” houses emptied of people, and the land left “utterly desolate” before eventual restoration.

Jemar Tisby, a historian of religion, said Isaiah 6:8 functions in American evangelical culture “almost entirely as a standalone missions text,” commonly invoked at missions conferences, ordinations, and altar calls as a declaration of willingness to serve. “The most important context of Isaiah 6, the part most people miss, is that the devastation falls on God’s covenant people,” Tisby said. “The nation doing the sending, not a foreign enemy, is in view here.”

It’s unclear what, exactly, the biblical quotation was intended to convey. The Pentagon declined to answer The Intercept’s questions about whether the posts reflected an expression of faith or proselytizing, a message about the war with Iran, or a coordinated communications strategy. “Nothing to offer you on this,” a Pentagon spokesperson said.

The posts followed months of controversy over the role of religion in the Defense Department under Secretary Pete Hegseth.

In March, The Intercept reported that the appointment of Christian activist Erika Kirk, wife of Charlie Kirk, to the Air Force Academy’s Board of Visitors alarmed former military leaders and constitutional advocates, who warned it could push the academy toward an overtly ideological vision of military leadership.

That same month, reporting later entered into the congressional record detailed complaints from more than 100 service members who alleged commanders described the war with Iran as “part of God’s divine plan” and encouraged troops to view the conflict through a biblical lens. Saturday’s posts placed similar biblical language on the Defense Department’s own official social media accounts.

Tisby said he viewed the Pentagon’s recent messaging as part of a broader pattern.

“Given Hegseth’s religious influences, tied to Douglas Wilson, and taken with the fact that Hegseth instituted worship services at the Pentagon, this reads as part of a larger effort to incorporate a narrow vision of Christianity into the military and the federal government writ large,” Tisby said.

Tisby compared the Pentagon’s recent messaging to a controversy during the George W. Bush administration, when the Pentagon used the exact same biblical passage, Isaiah 6:8, on intelligence briefings prepared for then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during the Iraq War. The use of the verse became public in 2009 and prompted criticism from religious scholars, who argued it had been removed from its broader biblical context. “In the Rumsfeld era, there was a public outcry about the misattribution of Bible verses in military contexts, and the administration pulled back,” he said. “Now, this administration is leaning into the framing.”

The messages marked a notable institutional shift. Previous controversies centered on statements by individual commanders or political appointees. This time, multiple official Defense Department accounts amplified the same biblical passage, and the Pentagon declined to explain why.

Related

Military Leaders See Iran War as “God’s Divine Plan” — a Chilling Turn for Trump’s Fascism

That does not necessarily mean the Pentagon’s post violated the Constitution. The First Amendment generally prohibits the government from promoting or favoring a religion through its official actions. At the same time, courts have long allowed some traditional references to religion, including the national motto, “In God We Trust.”

Nelson Tebbe, the Jane M.G. Foster Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, whose scholarship focuses on constitutional law and religion, said the Pentagon’s post was different from those long-standing examples because it relied on a specific biblical passage rather than a general religious phrase and therefore could have a more direct impact on members of the military.

“Minor endorsements of religion by the government are common,” Tebbe said, pointing to phrases such as “God save this honorable Court,” commonly invoked in the Supreme Court. “This particular example involving the Pentagon spokesperson is less minor or incidental.”

Even so, Tebbe said recent Supreme Court decisions have made it unlikely that a court would strike down the Pentagon’s post.

“Recently, the Supreme Court has weakened the Establishment Clause, particularly the doctrine that used to prohibit government endorsements of religion in its own speech,” he said. “I would say that the chance of the Supreme Court invalidating this kind of practice is vanishingly small.”

Legal scholars say that constitutional question is separate from the practical consequences of the Pentagon’s messaging during an active conflict.

Related

Trump’s Holy War Abroad and at Home

“More problematic, if also predictable, to me is the conflation of divine and military calling and service,” said Jonathan Ebel, a professor of religion at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who studies religion and the American military.

“Besides delegitimizing the U.S. military through such overtly Christian rhetoric and alienating non-Christian service members, such blatant Bible thumping in this context implies a religious war against Iran, foolishly confirming Iranian propaganda that the ‘Great Satan’ wants to wage war on Islam,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force judge advocate and military law professor.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s leaders have referred to the United States as the “Great Satan,” portraying Washington as both a geopolitical rival and a religious enemy. Iranian officials have repeatedly framed conflicts with the United States and Israel as part of a struggle against Islam, making official biblical messaging from the Pentagon particularly vulnerable to exploitation as propaganda, VanLandingham said.

VanLandingham said the Pentagon’s messaging risked replacing military professionalism with religious symbolism at a moment when the armed forces should remain grounded in constitutional principles, rather than religious conviction.

“Religious war is a slippery slope to total war,” she said. “The U.S. military fights based on honor and fidelity to the law, not to Old Testament biblical passages.”

Update: August 6, 2026, 10:18 a.m. ET
This article was updated to include comment from Jemar Tisby, a historian of religion, and Jonathan Ebel, a professor of religion.

The post The Pentagon Is Posting Cryptic Biblical Messages on Social Media appeared first on The Intercept.