A Twilight Zone Between War and Peace

Abdullah Abu Zubaida’s family spent the first anniversary of the Gaza ceasefire last month in a shelter they built from the debris of their own home. Ne’man Abu Jarad and his five daughters spent it in tents, still displaced and with no clear way back. These families and millions of other Palestinians find themselves in a twilight state between war and peace: a zombie conflict in which a ceasefire has been announced while Israeli military control and attacks continue. The agreement risks making that condition permanent by leaving Palestinian governance and Israeli withdrawal dependent on decisions made largely by outside powers.

For these families, whose circumstances were reported by the Associated Press, and others in their position, the ceasefire that was supposed to end the war has brought little control over what happens next. Whether they can return home, rebuild, or resume anything resembling ordinary life remains subject to decisions made by outside authorities, whose hold on Gaza’s future may be further entrenched by the agreement itself.

Related

Congress Might Sneakily Use Lame Duck to Deeply Intertwine the U.S. and Israeli Militaries

While violations of the ceasefire warrant the attention they receive (and more), the agreement’s own terms demand scrutiny too, since arrangements negotiated to end wars also decide who holds power once the fighting stops. Christine Bell, a legal scholar specializing in peace accords, has shown how such agreements can perform constitutional functions. They determine who governs, over what territory, and subject to whose approval.

In Gaza, the conditions for Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian self-government give outside actors considerable power to determine when, and whether, the transition ends. The framework therefore threatens to turn the temporary administration of a devastated territory into a durable system of external control with no enforceable end, legitimized by the very agreement meant to bring peace.

A Long History of Outside Control

Gaza’s current predicament has a long history of displacement and outside control. In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a plan to partition Palestine (then under British rule) into Arab and Jewish states. While Jewish leadership accepted the plan, Arab leadership rejected it. During the war surrounding Israel’s establishment in 1948, approximately 750,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes. Many sought refuge in Gaza. The mass displacement and dispossession of the Nakba — Arabic for “catastrophe” — never ended.

Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 1967. In 2005, it removed its settlements and withdrew its army from inside Gaza while retaining control over its airspace and maritime access and substantial authority over its borders and the movement of people and goods. In 2024, the International Court of Justice concluded that because Israel continued to exercise authority over Gaza’s borders and the movement of people and goods, the withdrawal had not entirely released it from its obligations under the law of occupation.

The current institution of Palestinian self-governance also began as a temporary arrangement intended to last no more than five years. The Oslo process of the 1990s provided for an interim Palestinian government in Gaza and the West Bank until a permanent settlement could be reached. That institution, the Palestinian Authority, remains central to proposals for Gaza’s future.

Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and took control of Gaza in 2007 after armed conflict with Fatah, the rival Palestinian faction. Israel, citing security concerns, tightened its border restrictions into a blockade by land, sea, and air, restricting the movement of people into and out of Gaza and the entry of food, construction materials, and other necessities. Egypt restricted passage through its own border crossing. Years before the current war, the U.N.’s humanitarian office documented the effects: restrictions on movement and trade had undermined Gaza’s economy, increased its dependence on aid, and obstructed access to healthcare and education.

Related

What American Doctors Saw in Gaza

On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led groups attacked Israel, deliberately killing civilians and taking hostages; Human Rights Watch has documented these acts as crimes against humanity and war crimes. Israel’s subsequent military response devastated Gaza. By Oct. 21 of this year, Gaza’s Health Ministry reported 74,494 Palestinians killed and 175,604 injured. In an October 2026 report, the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israeli authorities and forces continued committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza after the ceasefire, with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part. By September of this year, Israeli military control had expanded beyond the approximately 53 percent of Gaza envisioned under the ceasefire agreement to at least 60 percent.

By the ceasefire’s first anniversary, nearly two-thirds of housing units had been destroyed, many of the remaining buildings were unsafe, and large-scale reconstruction had yet to begin. With winter approaching, displaced families need immediate decisions about shelter. The Israeli authorities who control access to their homes and to building materials can postpone those decisions. Such delays favor whoever controls access, and waiting itself becomes a source of political leverage.

From Resolution 2735 to Resolution 2803

In June 2024, the U.N. Security Council endorsed a three-phase framework in Resolution 2735. An initial ceasefire and exchanges of hostages and prisoners were to lead, upon agreement, to a permanent end to hostilities and full Israeli withdrawal, followed by major reconstruction. The initial ceasefire was to continue for as long as negotiations over the second phase went on.

Related

The Performative Ceasefire in Gaza

In November 2025, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, endorsing U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to end the Gaza conflict and authorizing international arrangements for its implementation. The framework retains the language of transition while placing Gaza’s administration and redevelopment under the oversight of a Board of Peace chaired by Trump. Palestinian Authority control would depend on completing a reform program and demonstrating the capacity to govern securely and effectively. The resolution refers to earlier proposals, including a Saudi and French initiative calling for reforms to governance, transparency, public finances, and service provision. Israeli withdrawal is tied to demilitarization milestones to be agreed among the Israeli military, an International Stabilization Force, the guarantor states, and the United States. The force’s mandate includes demilitarization and civilian protection. An Israeli military presence along Gaza’s perimeter could remain until the territory is judged secure against a renewed terrorist threat.

The plan endorsed by the resolution states that Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza, that no one will be forced to leave, and that full humanitarian aid will enter immediately. Continued attacks and restrictions on assistance must therefore be assessed against those obligations, but compliance with these provisions would still not resolve the deeper problem. The framework grants outside institutions concrete powers over Gaza while making the restoration of Palestinian political authority dependent on future conditions. It establishes who governs during the transition far more clearly than it establishes how the transition ends.

The resolution authorizes the international arrangements until Dec. 31, 2027, subject to further Security Council action, but it sets no deadline for full Israeli military withdrawal or the transfer of political authority to Palestinians.

Who Decides When Gaza Is Secure?

Israeli withdrawal depends on milestones agreed with Israel and other actors, but the criteria for determining when those milestones have been satisfied, and the consequences of disagreement, remain ill defined. Whoever can set the benchmarks, withhold agreement, or dispute compliance has considerable power over how long Gaza remains under outside supervision. This effectively means that the decision will be made in large part by Israel and institutions overseeing the transition, including Trump’s Board of Peace, which counts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a member.

The demand for protection against another attack is understandable. Hamas’s weapons, and its coercive power over Palestinians, are serious problems. But if the security conditions for withdrawal can be revised indefinitely, Palestinians cannot know when the promised transfer of authority will occur. The obligations of one armed faction should not determine whether an entire population has a political future.

Israel Policy Forum, a U.S. policy organization supporting a two-state solution, analyzed and supported the basic approach of the July 2026 road map. The proposal linked phased Hamas disarmament to incremental Israeli withdrawal and the creation of a new Palestinian civilian administration. The organization’s analysis described Israel’s refusal to accept that bargain, conflicting explanations of when withdrawal could proceed, and unresolved definitions and verification arrangements.

No security arrangement can eliminate every future threat; clear benchmarks and a truly independent arbiter are essential if the ceasefire is to ever become a lasting peace. Otherwise, the conditions for withdrawal could be extended indefinitely. If Hamas disarms and the promised withdrawal never comes, the disarmament stands while Israel’s commitment remains open to renegotiation. A single attack by a faction opposed to the agreement could then be invoked to suspend the political future of an entire population, allowing armed spoilers to trigger further delays in Palestinian self-government and giving Israel and the United States grounds to prolong those delays.

Related

No One Will Be Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the Oslo Accords

Palestinians have seen an interim arrangement outlast its deadline before. The 1993 Oslo agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization established a framework for interim Palestinian self-government and negotiations toward a permanent settlement. It envisioned a transitional period of no more than five years, with negotiations on permanent status to address the sovereignty and governance of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees since 1948, Israeli settlements, and state borders. More than three decades later, there is still no comprehensive settlement. The new plan follows the same design: concrete authority now, political rights later.

The Cost of Delay

In an Oct. 2 report, the UN’s humanitarian office identified 217 displacement sites at medium to high risk of flooding, hosting approximately 235,000 people. Nearly 44,000 people were sheltering in unsafe buildings that required full or partial demolition, the report said. Restrictions on land access and on the entry of supplies continued to hamper preparations for winter.

No later breakthrough can give back a lost winter, a child’s interrupted schooling, or a patient’s postponed treatment. The longer a household has to survive elsewhere, the harder it may become to rebuild the life it was forced to leave, and an agreement can keep promising recovery while the conditions for recovery disappear.

Palestinians are also asked to prove they can govern before they are allowed to do so, and governing requires revenue. In the October report, the U.N. described how Israel’s withholding of approximately $6 billion in tax revenues it collected on the Palestinian Authority’s behalf was undermining that government body’s ability to provide services and pay salaries. The crisis extends beyond Gaza and exposes a circular test of readiness. An administration deprived of its own revenue struggles to deliver services, and those failures can then be invoked to justify continued outside supervision.

Blame works the same way: If a Palestinian administration is responsible for public services while other actors control access, security, and funding, residents may blame its officials for failures it could not prevent. The resulting loss of public trust would make representative government harder to build, and that weakness could in turn be cited as a reason for continued outside supervision.

Nathan J. Brown, a scholar of Palestinian politics, has argued that Gaza diplomacy is separating administrative functions from national political representation. A committee of technocrats can run clinics and restore water service, but deciding the political future of the people it serves requires authority grounded in their consent. An administration accountable primarily to a foreign board chaired by Trump lacks that democratic mandate.

The Role of Outside Powers

The United States helped broker the Gaza ceasefire, holds a central position in the system meant to implement it, and underwrites Israeli military power. According to the Congressional Research Service, the 2016 memorandum covering fiscal years 2019 through 2028 pledged $38 billion in military assistance, subject to congressional appropriation. Without credible American consequences for obstructing withdrawal, the material advantages of continued control may outweigh any incentive to implement the agreement.

Donors providing humanitarian aid may end up paying to keep civilians alive while decisive political control remains elsewhere. Each emergency would then produce another funding appeal, while the authority to lift the restrictions causing the emergency would remain in place. Humanitarian funding could consequently help sustain that arrangement. The proposed International Stabilization Force, tasked with demilitarization and civilian protection, would need the authority and backing to restrain abuses by all parties, including Israel.

Ceasefires Without Endings

Lebanon offers a warning. After the April truce in the Iran war, Pakistan’s prime minister said the ceasefire included Lebanon. U.S. Vice President JD Vance said Washington had agreed to no such thing. Israeli attacks in Lebanon continued while the parties disputed what the agreement covered. Lebanese civilians were exposed to violence while governments argued over whether their country was protected at all. Whoever defines a ceasefire’s scope decides whose security it guarantees.

Gaza already displays the features of a zombie conflict, with an announced ceasefire, recurring military operations, and unresolved struggles over territory and power. The danger is that this condition becomes entrenched. Diplomats go on describing a transition, while people live under a system of control that survives one round of negotiations after another.

These conditions, though, are sustained by identifiable governments and institutions, through decisions they could make differently.

In a July 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice stated that the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination could not be made conditional by the occupying power, and it concluded that Israel must end its unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory as rapidly as possible. The Security Council’s Resolution 2803 places Palestinian statehood after reform and redevelopment, saying that the conditions for a credible pathway “may finally be in place” at that time. The political framework thus makes progress toward exercising an existing right dependent on conditions assessed by outside actors, while establishing their immediate authority much more clearly.

Every grant of outside authority under the ceasefire needs an expiration date: thresholds that can actually be met, independent assessors to judge them, and consequences for any party that blocks the next step. Without them, Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian self-government in Gaza will remain promises that outside actors renew indefinitely and never keep. For the families still displaced, another anniversary will mean another year in a tent or a ruined home, waiting for decisions they cannot make. Their ability to return, rebuild, and determine their own future remains subject to a political framework in which authority rests largely elsewhere. The Gaza ceasefire risks giving the structures of control that preceded the war a new institutional form, backed by the U.N. Security Council and administered indefinitely in the name of peace.

The post The Ceaseless Ceasefire appeared first on The Intercept.

After President Biden’s unrelenting support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza helped pave the way for President Trump’s reelection in 2024, Trump’s own foolish decision to launch an Israel-backed war against Iran played a large role in putting Democrats back in control of both chambers of Congress — a fact Vice President JD Vance diagnosed in no uncertain terms.

Now Democrats and Republicans alike have the opportunity to demonstrate they’ve finally learned the lesson voters have tried to deliver to both parties over the last three years: The American people do not want to be entangled and complicit in Israel’s aggression and atrocities. Their first opportunity to heed that call is arriving sooner than one might expect.

Right now, the House Armed Services Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee are engaged in an informal but highly consequential conference to finalize the text of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets policy for the Pentagon. A disturbing provision in current versions of the texts passed by the House and Senate committees would integrate Israeli weapons companies into the Pentagon procurement process at an unprecedented level — opening a back door to almost untraceably send billions of taxpayer dollars to Israeli weapons makers without congressional oversight. The House bill would create a new “executive agent” position within the Pentagon to steer this integration—a level of amalgamation that exceeds collaboration with nations in NATO.

Related

Israel Used a U.S.-Made Missile to Kill Six at Gaza’s Nasser Hospital

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are opposing this provision. On Tuesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen and nine other Democratic senators, plus independent Bernie Sanders, demanded it be removed. In the House, Democrat Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie have made clear they will also try to strip the NDAA of this measure. In doing so, they are representing what the vast majority of Americans want—and their colleagues should take note.

In our August polling with Data for Progress, 75 percent of Democratic voters oppose this provision, as do 58 percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans. In addition, polling shows a majority of Americans now want to see taxpayer funding to Israel reduced or ended. Passing the NDAA with this measure would mean that even if Congress zeroed out annual weapons funding to Israel, currently at $3.3 billion per year, in the State Department budget — earlier this year, 103 Democratic representatives joined Massie in a move to do just that — there could still be a major increase in actual dollars flowing to Israeli companies that the American people never hear about.

The negative repercussions extend beyond funding Israeli weapons makers (some of which are government-owned) with our tax dollars. This sort of integration could allow for Israeli weapons and surveillance technology that have been tested on Palestinians to be used in the U.S. to advance the Trump administration’s cruel mass deportation program. Israeli weapons maker Elbit Systems’s U.S. subsidiary is expected to install more than 300 surveillance towers along the U.S.-Mexico border, developed from its technology deployed along portions of Israel’s apartheid wall in the West Bank.

Melding Israel into our government procurement process should also set off alarm bells in the U.S. national security world. The Washington Post reported earlier this year that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vetoed Biden’s decision to send U.S.-Israeli co-produced missile systems to Ukraine three years ago for Ukraine’s war against Russia, even though the missiles were paid for by American taxpayers. The integration measure proposed in the NDAA would massively expand the scope of weapons over which the Israeli government could exercise a unilateral veto.

Congress should be unwinding intelligence cooperation with Israel, not only on the moral grounds that no part of the U.S. national security apparatus should assist in genocide, but also because Pentagon officials raised the threat of Israeli spying to its highest possible level earlier this year. But instead of diminishing our intelligence sharing with Israel, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s FY27 Intelligence Authorization Act, which is typically incorporated into the final NDAA version, includes a provision (Sec. 618) actually mandating the president engage in even more intelligence cooperation.

Related

Trump Subpoenas Teachers Union for Info on Pro-Palestine Students

This should give us pause because of the faulty nature of Israeli intelligence and the way Israel used this intelligence to build a case for dragging the United States into war. It was reportedly Israeli intelligence that claimed the Iranian government could be overthrown within weeks, if not days, of Trump launching the war. Instead, Trump and Netanyahu are now stuck in a quagmire, and the war has imposed a terrible cost on the American people, U.S. servicemembers, and people across Iran and the region. Energy prices around the world have skyrocketed, the cost of the war has already exceeded $2,000 per U.S. household on average, and the U.S. is running low on interceptor missiles that will take years to replenish.

None of this seems to concern the main backers of U.S.-Israel military and intelligence integration, like Foundation for Defense of Democracies President Mark Dubowitz. In a column published in Israel Hayom, the right-wing newspaper owned by the Israeli-American GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson, Dubowitz said: “Israel and the United States should deepen their military, technological, intelligence, and economic integration to such an extent that inflicting financial harm on Israel would also carry a significant cost for Washington.”

In an interview, Dubowitz added that the U.S. and Israel should be so intertwined that any accountability measure against Israel, such as sanctions being enacted by American allies in Europe, would “impose costs on the U.S. itself.” In no uncertain terms, advocates for the integration envisioned in the NDAA want to try to make it impossible for the U.S. to disentangle itself from a regime that is increasingly perceived by many as a rogue actor. 

The NDAA is usually considered a “must pass” bill in Congress — in fact, Congress has passed annual defense authorizations for 65 consecutive years. But Congress is under no statutory obligation to pass it this year, and doing so without stripping these provisions to become even more entrenched with supporting Israel would be an immediate betrayal of the will of voters. At a time when even Republicans are openly admitting the midterm election was a referendum on U.S. support for Israel, it would be an unforgivable choice for Congress to pass an NDAA with these integration provisions. If Republicans use their committee majorities to force their inclusion in the bill’s final text, Democrats have every bit of leverage to filibuster and block the bill’s passage in the Senate, which requires 60 votes.

Saying no to bringing the U.S. into a closer relationship with Israel in just about the most expensive, opaque, and dangerous way imaginable should be the easiest political decision Congress makes during its current lame-duck session.

The post Congress Might Sneakily Use Lame Duck to Deeply Intertwine the U.S. and Israeli Militaries appeared first on The Intercept.

Democrats rolled into Washington this week fresh off a generational sweep election on the promise of affordability for Americans and accountability for the Trump administration. 

But on Tuesday night, Democrats in the House failed the first test of their incoming majority. An impeachment resolution introduced Monday by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., targeting Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, one of the main architects of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, provided Republicans with a chance to score an early victory. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the chamber’s Democratic leadership failed to take advantage, as 11 Democrats missed a critical vote that would have kept the resolution alive. The attempt failed by a slim margin, 211 to 204; Massie told The Intercept on Wednesday that even if the missing Democrats showed up he was sure House Speaker Mike Johnson could have rallied his members and made up the difference anyway. Until the new term begins, the chamber is still controlled by the GOP.

Related

Debunking Pete Hegseth’s Bullshit Impeachment Defense

Nonetheless, the vote was a chance to send a message to the White House. One was sent: that of a disorganized, dysfunctional caucus. Other Democrats sought to take advantage of the misstep, noting that they were unwilling to miss the vote—Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas said she rerouted around traffic, and Rep. Pat Ryan of New York made it the day after back surgery.

“No matter what, I wasn’t going to allow traffic to keep me from that vote,” Crockett told MS NOW. “It was just that important to me.”

When asked about the absences, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was present for the vote, offered only “someone may have had a health issue” as an explanation.

House members who missed the vote blamed a number of factors for their absence, including traffic. On Wednesday, all of those same House Democrats save Rep. Haley Stevens (Mich.) began to offer explanations. Rep. Jonathan Jackson (Ill.) told TMZ DC that his “traffic jam”-related absence was “inexcusable.” He wasn’t the only one to blame traffic — Reps. Marilyn Strickland (Wa.) and Laura Gillen (N.Y.) also cited D.C. gridlock as the reason they missed the vote; Rep. Julia Brownley (Calif.) said she was “rushing” to the vote but missed it. Reps. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.),  Lou Corea (Calif.), and Frederica Wilson (Fla.) were all out of town. 

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (N.M.) offered a front-facing video apology to constituents. Rep. Steven Horsford (Nev.) took “full responsibility” in a floor speech. And Rep. Brittany Pettersen (Colo.) acknowledged that she was at a super PAC event and said there was “no excuse” for missing the vote. 

Expressing regret is a good start. It shows these lawmakers are aware that their actions are antithetical to where their voters are at this moment and are adjusting accordingly. It’s not enough. 

Leadership was asleep at the wheel. As whip, Rep. Katherine Clark should have kept the caucus in line. (It’s worth noting that Clark officially launched a bid for majority leader last week.) A number of reps who blamed traffic were previously at an event hosted by the group Elect Democratic Women, which receives some of its funding from AIPAC. The event overlapped with the impeachment resolution vote; Clark is a cofounder of the group. 

“Republicans just blocked the House from impeaching Pete Hegseth,” Clark posted on X after the vote—failing to take responsibility for her party’s own lack of discipline.

Democrats missing a vote to hold one of the main figures in the war on Iran accountable so they could attend a fundraiser is so tailor-made for progressive complaints over the state of party leadership, it’s hard to believe. 

Jeffries tried to spin the vote as only a temporary reprieve for Hegseth, but he didn’t telegraph much willingness about holding his caucus to account. 

“I haven’t had a conversation with anyone on the floor team about what may or may not have happened in terms of the Hegseth resolution, but this is not the end of it. It’s just the beginning,” he told Politico. Most critically, he accepted no responsibility for the stunningly bad optics of having members of his caucus no-show, even if it likely wouldn’t have moved the needle.

This never should have happened in the first place. It was the result of a series of decisions by Jeffries and Clark about the vote that made clear it wasn’t important. 

Related

Pentagon, Inc.

Momentum lost can’t be regained. If Jeffries doesn’t understand that, he’s not the man for the job purely on tactical grounds, and he should lay no claim to being a party standard-bearer to steer us through the next two years of Trump’s America. 

Jeffries and his party seem doomed to repeat the past. In 2009, when President Barack Obama came into the White House on the back of a change election that gave Democrats huge majorities in Congress, including a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, the party hobbled itself out of the gate by preemptively declining to pursue justice for the many crimes of eight straight years of George W. Bush. 

“We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards,” Obama told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos in January 2009, effectively ending any hope of accountability for the outgoing administration’s torture program and myriad other misdeeds. The ramifications of that decision arguably led to the war on Iran, a bipartisan immigration-deportation regime, and the end of Roe. 

Now, with a Republican president who is hated even more than W—something that would have seemed impossible to imagine almost 18 years ago—the Democratic Party’s establishment wing appears ready to repeat those failures. Taking on Trump and his corrupt, violent administration was one of the main messages that flipped House and Senate seats across the country but the party’s current leaders are allergic to action. 

Entrenched Democrats also don’t seem interested in any sort of accountability. Stevens, the Michigan Democrat who broke ranks with her party and endorsed Republican Mike Rogers for Senate rather than back Abdul El-Sayed, was under pressure in the days before and after the election, with even establishment kingmaker Rep. Jim Clyburn signaling openness to expelling her from the caucus. By Tuesday morning, Pelosi — always in touch with party leadership — seemed to throw cold water on the idea: “I’m not supporting kicking her out…. Let’s focus on the very positive.”

Related

Haley Stevens Destroyed Her Political Career for Absolutely Nothing

This is such a complete misunderstanding of the mood of the electorate, one wonders if it’s intentionally obtuse. Democratic voters don’t want the party to rest on its laurels, they want blood. Anyone who’s been to a liberal rally since the start of the second Trump term can tell you that the signage is calling for, at minimum, accountability, not immediate compromise.

If Democrats rubber-stamp Jeffries as speaker and fail to adopt a more aggressive legislative and investigative approach, frustrations within the caucus and among the base will only continue to mount. 

Jeffries is downplaying dissent, but this is more than just a battle between two wings of the Democratic Party. Democrats in New York have been looking to unseat the leader for years, frustrated with his closeness to AIPAC and financial institutions. He’s the kind of Democrat the base is fed up with, and that exasperation is widespread; polling shows just how deeply unpopular he is. 

Now, multiple incoming and incumbent Democratic reps have told reporters that constituents and activist groups are demanding they not vote for Jeffries as speaker. 

There is an alternative gaining steam: Rep. Ayanna Pressley, the Massachusetts progressive and member of the original “Squad” who were first elected in 2018. Pressley has an uphill battle and has not yet announced that she’s interested in the job. The left is interested. 

Voters gave Democrats a clear mandate on Election Day for what they want to see in Washington. Holding this administration accountable should be one of the top priorities. If the party fails to do all it can to advance that goal, it will once again earn its reputation for preferring failure to action. We should all push the next Congress to act as the exception to that rule—and they can start by picking a new speaker to meet the moment.

The post The Hegseth Vote Was Jeffries’s First Big Test. He Failed. appeared first on The Intercept.

A Sprawling CIA Plot

Forty years ago, on the evening of October 5, 1986, I sat conferring with members of my local Nicaragua solidarity organization. We were trying to understand the implications of the day’s events in San Carlos, a small town in southern Nicaragua. A young Sandinista soldier had fired a shoulder-launched missile, bringing down a plane in a wreck survived by one Eugene H. Hasenfus. The plane contained U.S.-supplied weapons destined for the Contras, the counter-revolutionary force illegally supported by the CIA to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.

Hasenfus was captured, tried, and convicted of terrorism, and then, in a clever PR move by the Sandinista government, pardoned and released in time to spend Christmas at home with his family in Wisconsin.

Hasenfus’s capture — along with his planeload of AK-47s, 50,000 rifle cartridges, some shoulder-mounted missiles, and grenades — provided concrete evidence of something we’d known for a while: The Reagan administration was actively defying Congress by illegally funding and supplying the Contras. In those years, the Boland amendments (addenda to laws funding U.S. intelligence agencies) prohibited the CIA from using appropriated monies to support the Contras. Hasenfus’s capture not only demonstrated that those amendments were being violated, but also eventually led to the unraveling of a much bigger plot, known today as the Iran–Contra affair.

Oliver North, Iran, and “The Enterprise”

The trail from Hasenfus led to a military aide at the National Security Council, Oliver North, who was running a project to fund the Contras — with money from congressionally outlawed missile sales to Iran. Iran needed the military hardware for a brutal war of attrition with neighboring Iraq. The Reagan administration wanted to free U.S. hostages held in Iran and by Iran’s ally Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. So the arms-for-hostages deal was cooked up. Ollie North saw a way to use that one illegal deal to enable a second one. He would funnel unappropriated funds for the Contras by charging Iran a steep markup on the weapons and stashing the difference in Swiss bank accounts, outside U.S. government control.

At the suggestion of CIA Director William Casey, North had recruited Richard V. Secord, a retired Air Force major general, to establish what they called “the Enterprise.” North would later describe the Enterprise as an “off-the-shelf, self-sustaining, stand-alone entity that could perform certain activities,” i.e., covert overseas operations. The congressional committee that eventually investigated the Iran–Contra affair reported:

The Enterprise, functioning largely at North’s direction, had its own airplanes, pilots, airfield, operatives, ship, secure communications devices, and secret Swiss bank accounts. For 16 months, it served as the secret arm of the N.S.C. staff, carrying out with private and non-appropriated money, and without the accountability or restrictions imposed by law on the CIA, a covert Contra aid program that Congress thought it had prohibited.

Related

Oliver North Worked With Cocaine Traffickers to Arm Terrorists. Now He’ll Be President of the NRA.

North became something of a comic figure in U.S. history, especially after the escapade in which he choked a government office shredder during a late-night document “shredding party.” He and the coterie of implicated officials both above and below him all received pardons from incoming President George H. W. Bush, who’d served as Reagan’s vice president.

There is no way of knowing just how large North’s Enterprise might have grown had Hasenfus’s plane not been shot down, or what other sorts of dirty money-making businesses it might have spawned. Perhaps today we’d be living in a country with a largely self-funding, and therefore (even more) unaccountable, national security apparatus.

Big, “Dirty” Business in Venezuela

I thought about the Iran–Contra affair and North’s Enterprise for the first time in years when I read that Pete Hegseth’s Defense Department is getting into the oil business in Venezuela. Under the new arrangement, the Department of Defense would receive “penny warrants” for an ownership stake in at least one company developing Venezuelan oil fields. These warrants, according to the New York Times, “would give the Pentagon the option to take up to a 35 percent stake in the parent company” of North American Blue Energy Partners.

The company, which is legally registered in Barbados, is run by Alejandro Betancourt López, a Nicolás Maduro crony, around whom corruption rumors have swirled for at least a decade. The deal would also provide the Defense Department with the right to purchase up to 20 percent of the company’s oil output “at production cost” and first refusal on the remaining 80 percent, presumably at market rates.

There are a number of issues to consider here: The U.S. invasion’s legality, the logistical difficulties of extracting and using Venezuela’s “dirty” crude, and, of course, the human folly of pouring even more oil on the climate fire. But what especially caught my attention in the Times story is that the Pentagon taking an equity stake in a private oil company looks a lot like a new edition of North’s off-the-shelf operation from the 1980s.

Related

The Dawn of a New Cold War

The Pentagon isn’t alone among federal agencies acquiring ownership stakes in a variety of companies. Perhaps most notable is the Commerce Department’s purchase of an almost 10 percent interest in the chip manufacturer Intel for $8.9 billion, a stake that’s now reportedly worth $42 billion. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported in February, “the Trump administration is acquiring a strategic portfolio of investments in companies directly related to national security, spanning minerals, nuclear energy, and semiconductors, among other sectors.”

The CSIS report lists several smaller — though still enormous — Defense Department equity investments, among them:

• Vulcan Elements, a manufacturer of rare earth magnets: warrants to purchase equity at an undisclosed fixed price; $620 million loan against a $50 million equity stake
• MP Materials, a rare earth magnet manufacturer: 15 percent stake for $400 million
• Korea Zinc, a joint venture with Commerce and private investors in a Tennessee smelting installation; Defense Department to take 40 percent ownership, total cost $1.9 billion
• ReElement Technologies, a rare earth magnet recycler: warrants for future stock purchase; $80 million from Defense “matched by private capital”
• Trilogy Metals, a Canada-based company with Alaskan mining rights: 10 percent stake purchased for $35.6 million, with warrants to purchase another 7.5 percent

Since that report was published, DoD has continued to expand its portfolio with other equity purchases, which seem to be aimed at least in part on restocking American weapons reserves depleted by the Iran war:

• L3Harris Missile Solutions: $1 billion direct equity investment for solid rocket motor and missile production
• The Elmet Group: $450 million preferred equity investment in the only U.S.-based tungsten producer. Tungsten is crucial in the production of Patriot missiles, an essential defense against incoming missiles and drones, and a much-depleted armament in U.S. stores because of the Iran war.
• Hertha Metals: an apparent $65 million investment — for an undisclosed number of shares — in a steel manufacturer. The libertarian Cato Institute, which generally opposes federal ownership stakes in corporations, called the investment with Hertha an “apparent” deal, as only the company, not the DoD, has announced it publicly.

Beyond taking direct ownership shares in corporations, DoD continues to diversify its loan portfolio beyond traditional military materials. For example, President Donald Trump recently promised a $100 million Pentagon investment to rebuild a pharmaceutical factory in Winchester, Kentucky — but only if Republicans won the midterms in that state.

How Does Government Ownership of Corporations Work?

The federal government has taken temporary partial ownership of U.S. corporations before Trump’s current string of acquisitions. What makes this round of purchases different is that it seems the Pentagon intends to make them permanent. In the past, when the federal government acquired warrants or corporate shares, the move was part of a program to shore up failing institutions in the midst of a more general financial disaster.

Related

As the SEC Cracks Down on Shady SPACs, CIA Officials Get In on the Action

This was the case with the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which formed part of the Obama administration’s response to the 2008 fiscal crisis, and more recently when airlines faced bankruptcy during the 2020-21 Covid pandemic. In neither case did the government retain permanent ownership of the entities it bailed out.

The evidence is that this time around, the Trump administration envisions permanent ownership stakes in companies it deems essential to military preparedness and national security. In the case of the Pentagon, two related offices are responsible for overseeing DoD’s equity investments.

The Office of Strategic Capital was established in 2022 during Joe Biden’s administration and funded under the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024. The OSC’s initial purpose was to facilitate Pentagon loans to industries it deems crucial to national security. Other parts of DoD use grants or purchases to get money to defense industries. Only OSC can lend those corporations money. Still, neither the NDAA for 2024 nor subsequent NDAAs permits the OSC to buy shares in companies.

The OSC received a huge funding boost under Trump’s 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act. While simultaneously meting out drastic cuts to programs that support Americans’ actual everyday security — such as Medicaid, nutritional assistance, housing, and student loans — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act awarded OSC $1.5 billion in additional funds.

The other entity tasked with overseeing Defense equity investments is the Economic Defense Unit. Established this year through an internal DoD memo, the EDU offers a hint that the Pentagon isn’t ready to give up on capital. Like the Office of Strategic Capital, the EDU is overseen by Defense Department Undersecretary Stephen Feinberg, a billionaire, major Trump donor, and co-founder of the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management.

Related

Bankrolling American Empire in the Philippines

EDU’s ostensible purpose is to coordinate U.S. economic competition with adversaries such as China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea. But reporting suggests another reason Feinberg established the unit. Quoting a knowledgeable inside source, The American Prospect says that the EDU “operates as a ‘venture capital firm-type entity that looks at deals, what the government’s going to do and evaluates them,’” determining what the government’s ownership stake should be.

The Cato Institute says of the EDU:

Available information points to an investment apparatus being created within the Pentagon, staffed by financiers connected to the same private-equity world that stands to benefit from it. 

It sounds like another attempt by the administration to construct a pseudo-sovereign wealth fund controlled by the executive branch.

In other words, the Economic Defense Unit looks like the beginning of a Defense Department investment bank.

As of today, no law explicitly permits the Pentagon to own pieces of corporations or to develop its own pseudo-investment bank, but the 2027 NDAA may change that.

In the meantime, what happens to any revenue derived from DoD’s investments? Such income could include interest on loans, share dividends, or proceeds from the sale of equities. Legally, any such income should be deposited to the U.S. Treasury within three days, according to the U.S. legal code section § 3302(b), perhaps in the Pentagon’s Industrial Base Fund at Treasury.

History tells us North sent the Iran–Contra money to Swiss banks, not the U.S. Treasury. Can we trust Hegseth — who just this week survived an impeachment vote — and his boss not to do something similar with the Pentagon’s earnings today? How would we even know if that trust were violated?

Just Like Egypt and Iran?

The prospect of a metastasizing U.S. Defense Department may seem far-fetched, but it’s already happened in a number of other countries. In Egypt, popular demonstrations brought down President Hosni Mubarak, the country’s effective dictator, during the 2011 Arab Spring. After a brief period under an increasingly unpopular elected president, the Egyptian military staged a coup and has ruled the country directly ever since.

But Egypt’s army is more than a military force. It’s the most powerful economic entity in the country as well. As the Carnegie Middle East Center describes the situation, the Egyptian military has its tentacles in every aspect of Egypt’s economy. Members of the military:

… deliver massive infrastructure projects, produce consumer goods ranging from food to household appliances, manufacture industrial chemicals and transport equipment, and import basic commodities for civilian markets. They have expanded into new sectors as diverse as steel production, pharmaceuticals, gold prospecting, and managing religious endowments and pilgrimage.

At the same time, “thousands of retired senior officers have benefited from the powerful political influence of the military to occupy senior positions throughout the state’s civilian apparatus and public sector companies, securing extra postretirement incomes for themselves while complementing the formal military economy in return.”

Related

The CIA Just Invested in Woolly Mammoth Resurrection Technology

(This sounds a lot like the egregious post-service opportunities promised to the investment bankers being recruited to work in the Pentagon’s EDU. After serving on the Pentagon’s new 30-person investment team, where they would have “unmatched access to top-level government officials and privileged information flow,” the recruitment pitch goes, “if you ever want to raise your own fund, you will gain access to fund-raising channels that include royal families and foreign sovereign contacts,” according to the New York Times.)

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has emerged as Iran’s most powerful economic force, plays a similar role, according to CSIS:

The IRGC now owns businesses in the oil and gas sectors, as well as land, marine, and air transportation. The IRGC-owned company, Khatam al-Anbiya, established as the IRGC’s arm in the construction sector, currently controls 812 officially registered Iranian companies which have a total of some 1,700 governmental contracts. Another IRGC-owned company has also recently bought a 51 percent stake in the Iranian Telecommunications company that was privatized at a value of $5 billion.

Can It Happen Here?

Could the Pentagon really emerge as an economic power in its own right, one that operates in tandem with, but parallel to, the federal government? Not tomorrow, certainly, but now is the time to step on the brakes to prevent that scenario.

The prospect of an economically independent U.S. military would be frightening under any circumstances. But it becomes both more frightening and more likely with a Pentagon that Hegseth is reshaping in his own white Christian nationalist and misogynist image. He’s already removed many of the potential human guardrails by purging long-serving top military leadership. As long as DoD doesn’t threaten any of the enterprises of the Trump family and friends — including those of Don Jr. and Eric Trump, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff — we can expect little resistance from the demented relic in the White House.

Fortunately, Hegseth is not the sharpest bayonet in the armory. As with many aspects of this nightmare administration, we may yet be saved from a metastasizing Pentagon by the ineptitude of its leader. Let us work to make it so.

The post Pentagon, Inc. appeared first on The Intercept.

To say that Americans were pissed off is an understatement.

On Tuesday, Democrats didn’t just seize control of both houses of Congress. They redrew the American political map, capturing offices that had remained reliably Republican for generations, from the Deep South to Kansas and Texas. The Lone Star State alone, with its 40 Electoral College votes, now raises the possibility of a seismic shift in the calculus of future presidential elections.

The sheer scale of the historic Democratic surge⁠ delivered an unmistakable rebuke to America’s supposedly populist president. The message was clear and simple: We do not like you.

Much of Americans’ rapid disillusionment with the Trump administration can be traced to a single word — Iran — and the cascading economic hardships Americans have endured as the war has dragged on.

For the GOP, the threat is existential. The war has gone from a Republican loyalty test to a political albatross for many of its former supporters, one that many Republicans are now jettisoning themselves away from to salvage their own political futures. 

By Wednesday, it had become the chief explanation for the party’s sweeping electoral defeat, with Vice President JD Vance declaring unequivocally on X that “the reason we lost is the war.”

“If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest,” he wrote. “But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.” Coming from Trump’s own vice president, it was a striking about-face.

Related

Is There a Left Candidate for President?

The tirade also raised an awkward question ahead of the 2028 presidential race: How does a potential successor to the MAGA mantle campaign against a war waged by his own administration?

Trump, however, has not gone nearly as far as his VP. Although the president acknowledged the war hurt Republicans, he still defended it on its merits. Speaking with reporters Wednesday after expounding at length about his White House ballroom, Trump said, “The Iran thing we had to do, and we continue to do it.”

Where Did All the Warmongers Go?

But on the campaign trail, Republicans were not completely oblivious to Americans’ collective frustration with the Iran war. 

In September, ABC News identified 17 Republican lawmakers and candidates who had called for ending the war through public statements or votes. Much of the pressure came in competitive midterms races, as the conflict’s effects on oil, diesel, and fertilizer prices reached American households.

In Iowa, Republican Senate candidate Ashley Hinson called for a “successful and immediate end” to the war in September, warning that voters were paying the price at gas pumps and grocery stores. Yet she voted six times against House measures directing Trump to halt the attacks. During an October 25 ABC interview, Hinson said she would not rule out a post-election U.S. offensive and said she trusted Trump and the military to choose the right timetable. Despite the president praising her weight loss at a recent rally, tepidly breaking with Trump wasn’t enough to get Hinson over the line, and she lost to Democrat Josh Turek by 4.5 percentage points.

Related

Abdul El-Sayed Won His Senate Seat With a Mandate on Palestine. Can He Deliver?

Michigan also had its share of Iran backtrackers. Republican Senate hopeful Mike Rogers described Iran as an “imminent threat” when the bombing began on February 28. In May, he called the conflict a potential “win-win-win.” But with the midterms fast approaching, Rogers released a campaign ad declaring “the war with Iran needs to end” quickly and warned Michigan families could no longer afford the economic fallout.

Rep. John James, the Republican candidate for Michigan governor, likewise praised Trump’s use of force early in the war, saying the president “had the balls” to “assure the survival and success of liberty.” He voted against six House war-powers resolutions, including as recently as September. Days after that vote, he said the war needed to wrap up “quickly.” He went on to declare in an interview, “the position has always been, I hate war.”

Both Rogers and James lost their races.

Related

When Anti-War Candidates Become War-Monger Presidents

Even Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a possible contender in the Republican Party’s next presidential contest who could reportedly be up for Pete Hegseth’s job, warned Monday that the war was a “big, big drag” on his party. Trump, DeSantis pointed out, campaigned against another Middle Eastern war. Now voters are dealing with higher fuel costs, and Republicans who refuse to acknowledge the connection are “gaslighting” them. But back in spring, DeSantis defended the strikes on Iranian leadership, describing its government as “a fanatical, apocalyptic, militant Islamist regime.”

The polling helps explain the Republican panic. An Associated Press poll found roughly 6 in 10 voters believed the U.S. made a “wrong decision” in attacking Iran. And it’s not as though Republicans weren’t warned. A handful within their own ranks, including Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, opposed the war from its earliest days and backed efforts to rein it in. But those criticisms seemed to fall on deaf ears.

A Hasty Retreat 

With plenty of blame to go around, the criticism has gone beyond candidates and into the conservative media ecosystem. 

Related

Trump Celebrates Achieving Absolutely Nothing in Iran

During the network’s primetime Election Night coverage, Fox News host Sean Hannity told his colleague Bret Baier that the results would have been different without the Iran war. Conservative commentator Matt Walsh called the war a betrayal of America First principles, demanded new Republican leadership, and labeled the conflict a “catastrophically stupid decision.”

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called Trump breaking his promise not to start another foreign war his “biggest betrayal” and said “Americans are fed up with it.”

Other commentators placed the responsibility squarely on Trump himself for sucking his own party into a political quagmire. In The Federalist, senior editor John Daniel Davidson blamed the party’s collapse on Trump’s undermining of a GOP coalition built upon rejecting the interventionist politics of the George W. Bush era.

Some prominent Republican operatives are sure to be thrown under the bus by their own party in the retreat. The first to get the boot may be none other than Hegseth, America’s chief “warfighter,” who has been one of the war’s most enthusiastic, and public, cheerleaders. The defense secretary responded to the criticisms in a nearly six-minute-long video posted online on Thursday, in which he seemed to make the case for keeping his job, touting his elimination of the “Marxist ideology” of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and tarring transgender troops as having a “mental illness.” 

“Regardless of how people care about the war, which I believe is a courageous and historic effort that will ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon, we need to continue, as President Trump did in his first term, to rebuild our military,” he said. “This is not about me, but of course, the other side, in case you noticed, they’re obsessed.”

Related

Pentagon Officials Float Names of Hegseth’s Replacement

Already facing growing Republican dissatisfaction and a ballooning roster of disgruntled and ousted senior military officials, Hegseth now faces the prospect of investigations by a Democratic-controlled Congress and an impeachment effort led by Massie. And while Trump has so far publicly defended his defense secretary, he has also reportedly consulted allies about whether to hit the ejector seat on Pete.

But while Republicans and Democrats read polls and calculate the political currency of war and economic hardship, the human cost cannot be measured in votes. At least 3,636 people had been killed in Iran as of early April, including 1,701 civilians and 254 children, according to human rights monitors. More fighting has followed and likely driven that number far higher. 

Related

The Short Life of a Newborn During the Iran War

At least 23 American service members have died in operations connected to the war, with almost 900 wounded by enemy fire. But these are estimates, and the Trump administration has worked to actively obfuscate the true casualty rates of the war. These are not electoral statistics. They are lives lost, families shattered, and consequences that will endure long after administrations swap office spaces.

For Republicans now scrambling to distance themselves from a deeply unpopular war, the political consequences may be harder to escape than their own voting records. Tuesday’s results show voters are increasingly willing to hold politicians accountable for needless wars, and the suffering inherited from them.

The post Republicans Are Desperate to Pretend They Never Supported the War With Iran appeared first on The Intercept.

The World at a Crossroads

Three years on from the onset of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, we are at a crucial hinge point. The world today, when it comes to Palestine, stands at the crossroads: meaningful support for liberation and decolonization, or the normalization of colonial expansion and erasure.

Since the 2021 “Manifesto of Dignity and Hope” and the unified call of Palestinians to confront Zionism, the Israeli political sphere has only continued to sustain and entrench its fascist trajectory and its racist laws. After 2023, Israeli settler colonialism and domination escalated into all-out destruction and elimination. Palestinians who had been enduring suffocating apartheid and siege for far too long were now subjected to genocidal assault. Though the context on the ground shifted, the urgent need for a better understanding and challenge to Zionism on political, legal, structural, and ideological grounds remained.

Related

Abdul El-Sayed Won His Senate Seat With a Mandate on Palestine. Can He Deliver?

It was a new generation of Palestinian activists who produced the Manifesto of Dignity and Hope, but their text was shaped by the legacy and spirit of Palestinian revolutionaries and anti-colonial thinkers from earlier periods. Common language echoes through the generations. A quarter-century ago, Palestinian intellectual Edward Said wrote the core of the issue of Palestine “is intellectual truth and the need to combat any sort of apartheid. We should concentrate our resistance on … fully confronting the apartheid provisions inherent in Zionism.” And as diplomat Fayez Sayegh captured it in 1965: Racism is not an acquired or incidental or passing feature of the Israeli state; it is “inherent in the very ideology of Zionism.” Today, we can draw inspiration from these intergenerational reverberations across Palestinian theory and activism, in their consonant commitments to confronting Zionism.

Part of our own task as anti-colonial legal scholars is to expand our analysis of the limitations of narrow liberal legal readings of apartheid and inequality, and to highlight how a radical critique of Israeli apartheid is essential to dismantling Israel’s apartheid regime. This requires scrutiny not only of Zionism and Israeli settler colonialism, but also of the concept of apartheid itself. Apartheid was previously understood in the context of the African anti-apartheid struggle, in a formulation originally coined by the South African Communist Party, as “colonialism of a special type.” By the late 1990s, however, apartheid had been stripped in mainstream understandings of its global character and colonial essence, and effectively reframed as “racial discrimination of a special type.”

One factor in this analytical shift was the domestication of racism in international law, which has obscured its relationship to global capitalism and transformed racism into a problem for individual countries to resolve through juridical reform or diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Racism is not merely abhorrent because people’s feelings are hurt or one feels unseen, however, but because it is entangled with power and economic structures, and because materially, the continuum of racist violence culminates in genocide, which is squarely understood as a global phenomenon. Martin Luther King Jr. pointed to this in 1967 when he said: “In the final analysis, racism is evil because its ultimate logic is genocide. … If one says that I am not good enough to eat at a lunch counter, or to have a good, decent job, or to go to school with him merely because of my race, he is saying consciously or unconsciously that I do not deserve to exist.”

International law attempts to capture this continuum. Three of the specific acts conducted to maintain apartheid are identical to the acts conducted to commit genocide under their respective legal definitions. In the former, they are done with the intent to dominate; in the latter, with the intent to destroy. These are not mutually exclusive, but rather interact with each other: Colonialism, apartheid, and genocide combine under the Zionist project in Palestine to produce a system of oppression based on conquest, structural racism, dispossession, and elimination.

Related

Israel’s Ruthless Propaganda Campaign to Dehumanize Palestinians

Palestinian opposition to Zionism and the imperatives of decolonization — for political emancipation, material survival, and cultural flourishing — are the central thrust of our work. The colonial origins and early legal mechanics of Zionist settler colonialism and Israel’s apartheid regime reveal how Zionism functioned both as a colonial initiative and a racializing project. This manifested in colonial institutions even before the state was established in 1948, after which they were enshrined in racist legal regimes. A broad structural analysis of the institutional and economic processes of land and capital accumulation that have occurred under settler colonialism in Palestine is necessary to understand the machinery of conquest and dispossession — and the role that racism has played in driving it forward. Drawing on the anti-colonial Palestinian intellectual tradition, we can see that an antiracist analysis has been organic to the Palestinian liberation struggle and is precisely what shaped U.N. initiatives in the 1960s and 1970s that condemned Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination alongside apartheid and colonialism.

Despite all the analysis of Israeli state racism and colonial violence since 1948 and all of the mass popular mobilizations and legal advocacy against Israeli apartheid, nothing substantive was done at an international, political, or institutional level to address or redress it. This inaction and the impunity afforded to Israel inevitably culminated in the situation that the world found itself in after October 2023: unsanctioned apartheid accelerating into unadulterated genocide — and given the green light by those who had the power to stop it. There was a decade of increasingly flagged warning signs leading up to this. But Palestinian scholars and international lawyers who had warned of a “prelude to genocide” or “slow-motion” genocide over the years were largely ignored, and in some cases castigated. The consequences have been catastrophic. The United States actively funded, armed, and cheer-led the butchery in Gaza. European Union leaders chose to “stand with Israel” as it announced its starvation policy and war of annihilation.

We would not have ended up in this present moment if the critiques of Zionism as colonialism and racism and the reality of Israel as an apartheid regime had been taken seriously. In 1975, the U.N., led by a Third World majority, declared “international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neocolonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination.” Against this, the Western world, led by the United States, has worked to normalize Israeli apartheid.

We see part of our task now as one of continuing to build on the recent “mainstreaming” of condemnations of Israeli apartheid and genocide, but in a way that decisively resists the drift toward narrower, liberal articulations and insists on the importance of radical, anti-colonial, and anti-imperial analysis and praxis. In our work as critical legal scholars, we situate apartheid and the shape it has taken as a category in international law, and we explore the limits and potential of legal tactics, arguments, and institutions to dismantle Israeli apartheid and end the genocide in Gaza. We argue that while legal actions should be pursued in the service of political and social movements, legal logic is insufficient in itself — and can risk narrowing or distorting the horizon of Palestinian liberation. In our view, the proliferating condemnations of Israel by major human rights organizations and mainstream figures in recent years have belatedly reflected the popular consensus and a political reality that Palestinian activism had made undeniable. They also fit, to varying degrees, within a wider pattern of containment.

As one example, take the case of European officials and states finally beginning to acknowledge the heinousness of Israel’s obliteration of Gaza in mid-2025, but doing so primarily in the form of calling for a Palestinian state. They did so only after almost two full years of enabling untold destruction, and refusing to impose any serious sanctions to stem the genocide. Their moves to recognize Palestinian statehood were not about any genuine support for Palestinian self-determination, but rather a way to stabilize the apartheid status quo and try to slow down the Israeli–U.S. drive to continue the erasure of Gaza and full annexation of the West Bank.

Related

Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month

With all of that in mind, it is important to situate the political moment we are in — the increasing focus on Israeli apartheid in recent years and subsequently on the genocide in Gaza — alongside the urgency of thinking about Palestine’s future and our collective responsibilities. In doing so, we have several core aims: to offer a deeper understanding of the nature and extent of Israel’s colonial rule over Palestinian lands and lives; to think through the relationship between the practices of Israeli settler colonialism, apartheid, and genocide on the one hand, and the institutions and ideology of Zionism on the other; to situate Palestinian liberation and its global solidarity alliances as an antiracist struggle and an anti-colonial movement; and to insist on the need for systemic anti-imperial understandings and critiques of Zionism. To properly confront Zionism and avoid the pitfalls of neo-apartheid, we must be attentive to the necessities and practicalities of decolonization.

The decolonization of Palestine today continues a legacy of other liberation struggles — against European colonization globally, against domestic regimes of fascism, against apartheid in southern Africa, and against white supremacy in the United States and elsewhere. These are political orders that Third World, antiracist, partisan, and socialist movements have fought against throughout the past century and more. We must continue that tradition in the service of decolonization by fleshing out the political, legal, historical, and moral reasoning of anti-colonial and anti-Zionist thinking and movements. In our own writing, we feel we are merely providing footnotes to the political education and organizing that has fanned out from Palestine around the world, and that has shaped what millions of activists and people of conscience have viscerally felt: that Zionist colonial rule should and can be dismantled, and that Palestinians must be supported in their struggle to do so.

The stakes of confronting Zionist settler colonialism are high for the entire world: first and foremost for Palestinians’ own liberation, but also because their struggle is at the epicenter of wider global struggles against structures of domination and exploitation. Zionism is a colonial project in Palestine, but also a vehicle of imperialism in the region — agitating for U.S. war and intervention, acting as an antagonist of imperial aggression against Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Yemen and beyond, and actively collaborating with reactionary geopolitical forces globally. Zionism has been further mobilized by ethnonationalists and imperial projects as a proposition on how to organize a society on a basis of racial hierarchy that leaves its excluded groups to perish. Palestinian revolutionary intellectual Ghassan Kanafani always insisted on the importance of understanding the Palestinian struggle in the context of “the alliance between Zionism and imperialism.” And in positioning Kanafani’s analysis in the context of global movements against imperialism today, educator and organizer Layan Sima Fuleihan reiterates the Palestinian cause is “a banner for all of humanity.”

Naji al-Ali, the Palestinian political cartoonist famous for his iconic Hanzala (or “Handala”) character who symbolizes Palestinian resolve and future return, was himself displaced from northern Palestine as a boy during the Nakba and grew up in refugee camps in Lebanon. Kanafani came across Al-Ali and his artwork in Ein al-Hilweh camp and began to publish his drawings in the early 1960s. Al-Ali went on to produce tens of thousands of cartoons over the next 25 years, and through his art was renowned as a voice of Palestinian and Arab political consciousness. In 1984, just a couple of years before he would be assassinated, Al-Ali reflected on what Hanzala and Palestine represented:

I feel that I can recall and sense every bush, every stone, every house and every tree I passed when I was a child in Palestine. The character of Hanzala was a sort of icon that protected my soul from falling whenever I felt sluggish or I was ignoring my duty. That child was like a splash of fresh water on my forehead, bringing me to attention and keeping me from error and loss. He was the arrow of the compass, pointing steadily towards Palestine. Not just Palestine in geographical terms, but Palestine in its humanitarian sense — the symbol of a just cause, whether it is located in Egypt, Vietnam or South Africa.

In the decades since then, the idea of Palestine as the compass has resonated in struggles for justice around the world. Most recently, in 2025, the Palestinian Youth Movement and a coalition of solidarity groups brought thousands of activists together for the People’s Conference for Palestine, under the banner “Gaza is the compass.”

Related

Mahmoud Khalil: “We Can’t Afford to Stay Silent”

A wide array of voices, from community activists to trade union organizers to political representatives, emphasized how central Palestine is to all of the social struggles they are engaged in.

Palestinian doctor Mohammad Mustafa articulated the perspective of the many involved in movements for justice across the globe: “Gaza is the measure of our humanity. It is the litmus test that reveals who we are; as individuals, as a nation, as a world. … The compass points in one direction no matter who you are or where you are. In this way it provides a mandate and direction towards freedom for everyone.”

Lawyer and organizer Huwaida Arraf echoed these ideas: “Gaza is our compass because it points us to the truth. … When we’re fighting for Gaza, we’re fighting for a world where no people live in cages or under siege, under the boot of militarism or of fascism.”

Monadel Herzallah from Gaza, who lost five family members in the genocide, insisted the same: “To fight for a free Palestine is to fight for a free Haiti, a free Congo, a free Sudan — a free and just world which will be molded by all of us.”

Palestine is the compass because of what it represents as a banner for all humanity, and because of the horizons it opens up everywhere in imagining and building a new world.

Excerpt adapted from “Confronting Zionism: Decolonizing Palestine and Building the World Anew,” coming from Haymarket Books on November 10, 2026.

The post Defeating Zionism to Free Palestine appeared first on The Intercept.

Abdul El-Sayed handily defeated Republican Mike Rogers for Senate in Michigan early Wednesday morning, retaining Democratic control of the seat and solidifying the party’s Senate majority. To become the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Senate, the former public health official overcame rampant, bipartisan Islamophobia and bigotry. For the country, and the Democrats, to move forward, we must cast it out of public life forever. 

The Michigan Democrat’s victory felt almost like an afterthought compared to the upset Senate victories won by Democrats in South Carolina and Texas. The 2026 midterms were a referendum on President Donald Trump and his control of the GOP, and voters delivered their verdict, turning control of both houses of Congress over to the opposition party. 

Related

Abdul El-Sayed Wins Senate Seat With Pro-Palestine Campaign

But we should neither forget nor forgive how we got here. El-Sayed faced an uphill battle from the beginning, which included a protracted, venomous primary, and the call was often coming from inside the house. 

No detractor was as vicious as his former primary opponent Rep. Haley Stevens, whose eleventh-hour betrayal of her party’s nominee — she formally switched her endorsement to Rogers on Sunday — was a transparent attempt to turn the seat red.

Backlash was swift and harsh and came from all corners of the party. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the powerful leader of the Senate who has made little secret of his disagreements with El-Sayed on Israel, called Stevens’s actions “a despicable betrayal.” Michigan Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who finished third in the primary, went as far as to express personal concern for Stevens. 

And Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., just days after implying El-Sayed and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani were antisemites for opposing ethno-supremacy in Israel, said Stevens chose “to dangerously betray Michigan families’ healthcare, freedoms, and future with her horrific endorsement of Mike Rogers.”

In the 48 hours-plus since she threw in with Rogers — which increasingly seems like it was motivated primarily out of spite when she was boxed out of a Sunday campaign event with Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., in Detroit — Stevens embarked on a media tour of justification that got weirder and weirder.

A 15-minute, rambling interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN Sunday night didn’t provide insight into her motivations, or much else; on Monday evening, Stevens followed up with a long statement posted on X owning the decision to destroy her political career with the Democratic Party. She also denied that her fiancé, political donor Jason Turkish, played any role in the endorsement: “I made this decision, and I am proud of it. Do not question my independence simply because you disagree with my conclusion.”

Related

Radical Centrists Like Haley Stevens Are the Real Extremists in the Democratic Party

Congressional staffers to Stevens resigned en masse on Sunday, and former campaign aides told the Washington Post that they had to run defense to keep Turkish — who had endorsed Rogers before Stevens did — out of the spotlight and marginalize his influence. 

“Any campaign staff being directly quoted in this article, I was made miserable by working with them,” Stevens told the Post in response, adding, “I have nothing else to say about the campaign at this time.”

But a singular explanation of Stevens’s decision lets Democrats off the hook far too easily for the anti-El-Sayed campaign waged by leaders in the House and Senate. For the party to move forward after the midterms, the Democrats need to take a hard look in the mirror and purge institutionalized Islamophobia from their ranks. 

They can start with their friends in the media. The Atlantic’s Jonathan Chait, in a screed published Sunday, whined that “during the same period of time that El-Sayed has been winking at a political movement inflected with anti-Semitism, he has been targeted by a political message that is not merely inflected with racism but saturated with it.” 

Political commentator Van Jones noted on X ahead of Election Day that “the Republicans are conducting a campaign of blatant anti-Muslim fear mongering.” But in the same post, he also argued El-Sayed’s “refusal to outright denounce” a little-seen ad produced by an outside PAC — an ad which El-Sayed distanced himself and his campaign from — tying the rise of grocery costs to U.S. support for Israel was comparable.

“Something is going horribly wrong in the Senate race in Michigan,” Jones added huffily. “And I am going to keep calling it out.”

Related

Lesson From Lansing: To Win in Swing Districts, Fight Data Centers

After last night’s massive blue wave, it should be undeniable that the left was a major factor in flipping the House and Senate. That means the party’s progressive wing can now credibly claim a seat at the governing table without compromising on domestic or foreign policy. We should get ready for a long overdue, but almost certainly painful, intraparty debate on how Democrats policed dissent in their own ranks in this election, and how to disentangle leadership from unconditional support for Israel.

There’s always the possibility that the party’s centrist wing comes together with the left and repairs the damage. A good first step would be for leadership to make clear that Stevens, and anyone else who indulged in anti-Muslim arguments to score political points, has torched any possible future in the Democratic Party. Any advocacy or lobbying group that offer Stevens or her ilk safe political harbor should also be blacklisted. 

Related

Democrats, Don’t Mess This Up

Party discipline applied to the treacherous center doesn’t appear to be the top priority for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the presumptive next speaker, who devoted his first remarks after the election to downplaying partisanship in this “patriotic moment.” 

But without backup from party leadership, El-Sayed will continue to be met with hostility. On Wednesday morning, CNN asked fellow incoming Texas Sen. James Talarico if he would “stand up” to El-Sayed and other, unnamed left-wing members of his caucus. To his credit, Talarico demurred from directly challenging his fellow future senator. Still, it’s a sign of a long battle to come. 

The question for “unity”-caping Democrats remains: Who will they rally around — and who will be left out in the cold?

The post Haley Stevens Destroyed Her Political Career for Absolutely Nothing appeared first on The Intercept.

Imperial ambitions are ever-shifting under President Donald Trump. Greenland, Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba are oftentimes spoken about as one continuous train of complete victories and soon-to-be-complete-victories. With the midterms fast approaching, and the date for an apparent telegraphed return to the Iran war on its heels, talk of easily overthrowing regimes has returned, if it ever truly left.

At a rally in Florida last Friday, Trump laid out his grand vision, which he promised would come to pass once the Islamic Republic is neutralized as a threat to the world: “We’re going to come back from Iran. Those beautiful ships will pass Cuba. We’ll have one of them stop about 50 yards off the coast. They’ll raise up their hands, and then we’re going to send Marco Rubio in to finish up the deal.”

Related

Rubio’s Paranoid Cuba Report Designed to “Justify a Military Attack on Cuba,” Says Democratic Rep.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the descendant of Cuban immigrants who left under President Fulgencio Batista (though Rubio later tried to claim his parents fled Castro, who came to power three years later), has long put overthrowing the Communist government in Havana at the top of his agenda, with the hope of replicating the relative ease of kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. Rubio turned some heads last Friday when he publicly posted on X that those seeking “to create positive change in Cuba” could “seize this opportunity to create the change you desire through a discrete [sic] partnership with the CIA.”

The post was widely met with bewilderment (Bloomberg’s White House correspondent wrote: “Checked like four times that this was real”), but U.S. officials and members of Congress also shared the post, elevating the public call for collaboration. Recruiting in public might come across as strange and out of character to a public that imagines the CIA recruiting secret agents and informants through clandestine channels or hidden websites, as the agency had done to try and recruit agents inside Iran under Bush and Obama.

But public appeals of this kind are not wholly new. Under the Biden administration, the CIA recruited collaborators inside Russia via a public Telegram channel, as well as publishing videos on social media hoping to recruit Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean assets.

This kind of overt recruitment stems from the difficulties Western intelligence agencies face against adversaries who have built sophisticated surveillance networks of their own. A CIA official told ABC News in May 2025, “in today’s world of [universal technical surveillance], we can’t recruit sources the same way that we did 20 years ago, probably the same way you did 10 years ago.” This has not only affected intelligence operations targeting Beijing, but also Tehran and Havana, where both the U.S. and Israel’s lack of on-the-ground connections and limited official presence has led the CIA and the Mossad to try to recruit willing informants online.

While these limitations may govern the particulars of this strategy, those in power in their respective countries may not see it as evidence of constraints, but instead as evidence of the power of their new strategy: boasting about their national power, rather than keeping it behind closed doors where it supposedly remains useless. After all, what is the use of a deterrent if nobody knows it was you?

The scale of these public appeals, despite having started under Biden, has exploded under the second Trump term, but these moves were arguably preceded by Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to bring the Mossad’s operations much more into the public sphere. The Israeli prime minister’s bragging about numerous cyberattacks targeting Iran’s nuclear program in the late 2010s began to precipitate a shift in public discussion of the Mossad’s work, with many Netanyahu allies, like then-Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, praising the fact that Iran could now “know it is exposed and that Israel can reach anywhere in the Islamic Republic.” A former deputy director of the Mossad said after the unveiling of Iran’s stolen nuclear archive that Netanyahu’s move “goes against our nature,” and that “the prime minister insisted on publicizing this.”

Netanyahu’s pick in 2021 for the director of the Mossad, David Barnea, has been credited with institutionalizing that change, shifting the secretive intelligence agency’s operations toward appealing to larger masses, and reportedly concerning Mossad veterans who were shocked by the publicizing of agents inside Iran. Casting Israel as a superpower capable of exerting its power anywhere has become a popular refrain under Netanyahu. In an interview with “60 Minutes,” one Mossad officer said of the 2024 pager attacks in Lebanon, which injured more than 2,000 people, that “they are walking proof of our superiority all around the Middle East,” with another officer saying the operation’s complexity and success demonstrated “the world is our stage.”

Related

The Mossad Suffers a Crushing Defeat Entirely of Its Own Making

The U.S. has also gotten in the habit of flexing its superpower status under Trump, declaring the nation’s intent to conquer places like Greenland and Canada, to steal the natural resources of Venezuela and Iran to fill American coffers, and to openly and unabashedly place the Western Hemisphere under a Washingtonian protectorate known as the “Donroe Doctrine.” Rubio declared in Greece in early October, speaking in terms of civilizational battle against the backdrop of the Acropolis, that “we choose the unapologetic pursuit of national power.”

Openly siccing the CIA on foreign adversaries and ICE on domestic ones has been part of that strategy of embracing imperial fervor at home and abroad. Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater and a private security contractor who remains influential in Trump world, said he was “jealous” of the pager attacks and publicly urged the CIA to take a lesson from the Mossad, saying “we should be getting those kinds of results.”

While both countries have openly sought deep intelligence penetration in adversarial nations, there are limitations to the power of clandestine and overt operations, even by superpowers and wannabes. While the CIA asserted its power in May by openly having its director meet with Cuban officials in Havana to demand “fundamental changes” in return for relief from economic strangulation, the agency’s history of attempts to overthrow the Communist Cuban government are as storied as they are unsuccessful. Earlier hopes for Iran to be as quick and as clean as taking control of Venezuela’s government were dashed early on in the conflict, with the war that was supposed to only take a few weeks now all but certain to extend past the midterm elections for another devastating round.

Even if the war with Iran ends so easily that American ships are able to go through Cuba on the way back ready for more, both outside analysts and even internal U.S. intelligence assessments do not see as easy a way to overthrow the Communist state. The New York Times reported in August that American intelligence sources indicate it could be a situation closer to Iran, where even if Raúl Castro (who has held no official position in the country since 2021) were captured, “few pragmatic officials” are likely to take power in his stead.

While Cuba’s military lacks the kind of advanced equipment Iran has, and shows of readiness (like with Venezuela) are no indication of a country’s actual willingness to fight a protracted campaign, Cuba’s military structure is similar to Iran’s in that it is based on decentralization and redundancies in leadership. In addition, Cuba has a political power structure that, also similar to Iran, is not actually based around a single individual, despite popular claims to the contrary.

Related

The Incredible Shrinking Superpower

Despite Trump’s constant bluster about the miracle of being able to take out Maduro without a single American death, the brazenness of that operation, and the openness with which the negotiations with Iran have been deceptive, appear to have had lessons for the Cuban leadership. President Miguel Díaz-Canel said in June: “All these elements create a lot of distrust in the Cuban people when it comes to conducting any type of negotiation. We continue to express our willingness for dialogue, but it has to be a dialogue between equals, without pressure and with respect for our sovereignty.” American officials have yet to internalize that sentiment. Discussing Cuba in March, Trump joyfully mused: “Whether I free it, take it, I think, I could do anything I want with it.” At the time, he was saying similar things about Iran.

The post The CIA Is Resorting to an Open Casting Call for Would-Be Cuban Assets appeared first on The Intercept.

“Why do you wanna have a pep rally when people are hurting?”

That was the question Rev. Frederick Douglass Haynes III posed at a September food drive in South Dallas, where volunteers were collecting groceries for struggling families. Across town, Republicans were holding a midterm convention. Haynes, a longtime Baptist pastor and Democratic congressional nominee, was introducing James Talarico, the party’s candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas.

A month later, speaking at a Dallas megachurch, Talarico offered his own interpretation of Christian duty.

“I try to love my neighbor through public policy,” the Presbyterian seminarian told the congregation. “I’m trying to make my neighbor’s life easier, better, less stressful.”

Both men are making a deceptively simple argument in some of the staunchly staunch red-as-hell, Republican territory in America, one that might transcend the conventional wisdom about national campaigns and the millions poured into competing campaign war chests: When far-right policy translates into actual pain, at what point does intervening become a spiritual obligation?

Amid the big-ticket ad buys, fundraising appeals, and armies of political consultants, Talarico and Haynes are tapping into a political tradition that has long sustained communities across the South: showing up.

At Haynes’s Friendship-West Baptist Church, the ministry extends to legal services, immigration advocacy, counseling, economic justice, and food policy. It is an example of how churches often form the connective tissue of communities suffering under economic and political strain.

That strain is measurable. Texas is home to four of the nation’s 10 most financially distressed major cities, including Houston, which ranks second nationwide, according to a 2026 analysis. Feeding America estimates that nearly 1 in 5 Texans experienced food insecurity in 2024. Meanwhile, federal analysts project that changes to Medicaid eligibility enacted last year will increase the number of uninsured Americans by 7.5 million by 2034. 

While Democratic Party leaders publicly debate how to punish Donald Trump politically, allege corruption, or navigate the ideological divide between moderates and democratic socialists, a different argument is emerging from Southern pulpits.

The Underground Church

From Quaker abolitionists to the Social Gospel’s challenge to industrial exploitation, progressive religious institutions have helped drive some of America’s most consequential political transformations. Christian farmworker ministries supported migrant laborers before joining the United Farm Workers’ California grape boycotts in the 1960s. And while Black churches overwhelmingly led, sustained, and suffered the brunt of violence in the fight for equal civil rights in this country, a handful of white denominations joined them. 

Of course, churches also defended slavery, segregation, and exploitation. The blunt reality is that throughout American history, Christianity has always been political and has been used to justify a wide variety of competing political ends.

Related

Pete Hegseth’s Unholy War

But Republicans have deftly exploited the perception that they alone speak for American Christians. The Trump administration has readily embraced religious iconography, from evangelical leaders praying over the president in the Oval Office to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s frequent invocations of the medieval Crusades.

There is no way around the fact that Republicans have built a formidable religious coalition, particularly among white evangelicals. Last year, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI, found a majority of Republicans qualified as either Christian nationalist adherents or sympathizers in 2025, compared with 17 percent of Democrats.

But Republicans don’t have a monopoly on Christian voters. Pew Research Center polling this month found 73 percent of white evangelical Protestant registered voters preferred Republican House candidates, while 74 percent of Black Protestants and 59 percent of Hispanic Catholics preferred Democrats. None of that is particularly surprising on the surface.

Nor is this some newly discovered religious awakening. According to PRRI’s Census of American Religion, which was published in April, 57 percent of Democrats identified as Christian in 2025, a significant drop from 70 percent in 2013. The white Christian left isn’t necessarily growing, but it’s far from insignificant. Much of it has simply been politically overlooked.

It’s a perception the GOP has routinely capitalized on, often spending a great deal of their election campaigns attacking opponents on religious ground. 

On Sunday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott cravenly tarred his Democratic gubernatorial challenger, state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, as supporting “Sharia law,” citing an endorsement from a Muslim advocacy group’s political affiliate.

Perhaps ironically, Hinojosa is, and has been on the record, a Catholic — same as Abbott.

“My faith is my moral compass,” Hinojosa told the National Catholic Register in September. “It grounds me in purpose and gives me the courage to do what is right regardless of obstacles or consequences.”

Faith Without Works Is a Dead End

For those who have spent years watching their faith become synonymous with a politics they don’t recognize, frustration may finally be giving way to something else: a determination to be heard.

There are signs that this long-overlooked religious tradition is finding a more public voice. An August study by PRRI documented progressive Christians organizing against Christian nationalism in eight states, including Texas and Louisiana, channeling local meetings, religious discussions, and community networks into political action. Elsewhere, hundreds of members of the clergy have joined protests against immigration enforcement, and some have been trained in direct action and civil resistance. While the movement may not be growing in numbers, its willingness to challenge political power is increasingly visible.

Related

Apocalypse Now: Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor Investigate the End-Timers Alliance

As retired Texas Rev. Kathleene Card, who has thrown her support behind Talarico, told the Houston Chronicle, “faith should influence how people respond to poverty, human rights, the environment, and the well-being of their community.”

Whether any of this will translate into winning on Tuesday is still an open question. An October Fox News poll put Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton at 49 percent apiece among likely voters, but newer polls show Talarico with a small lead. Abbott led Hinojosa by 5 percentage points in that Fox poll, and most polls in the race show the governor with a slim lead. 

No matter the result, the Texas campaigns offer a different, more nuanced way of understanding political persuasion. They also challenge a long-standing assumption among national Democrats: that their voters are a monolith, moved by the same issues, values, and appeals. 

Across rural America and the South, voters may be growing weary of manufactured arguments and hypothetical doomsday prophecies, with research showing that political advertising, as it stands, has little effect on changing minds at all.

There is something to be said for people willing to put boots on the ground, to do the work instead of endlessly debating how to begin and whether it matters, in the name of service. 

It’s a moral code not too dissimilar to a Western: When confronted with injustice, you stand for what’s right, even if you stand alone and are ridiculed for what you believe. It’s a mode of Christianity that harkens back to Abraham Lincoln (and maybe even John Brown.)

That might be a more enduring political proposition than many Democrats’ feigned, helpless aggrievance to the latest Republican spectacle. Campaigns come and go; so do their promises, if they existed in the first place. But the obligation to one’s neighbors remains.

The post The Rise of the Christian Left in Texas appeared first on The Intercept.

The Limits of American Might

The failure of Tel Aviv and Washington to achieve their war aims in Iran has resulted in the most dramatic American retreat from a region since the U.S. flight from Vietnam in 1975. This startling American defeat — after a generation of forever war failures and stalemates — has been thrown into broad relief by the resumption of another regional conflict that has received far less attention than the Trump administration’s sputtering war with Tehran. This fall, the forces that most Americans know as “the Houthis” have conducted a blitzkrieg in their native Yemen and have been pummeling Saudi Arabia’s aviation and energy infrastructure with missiles and drones. In doing so, they have put a spotlight on the limits of American power, and the shrinking U.S. military footprint, in the Middle East. 

The long-standing conflict between Saudi Arabia and northern Yemen’s Ansarullah, or “Helpers of God,” led by the Houthi clan, heated up again in July 2026, when Saudi Arabia struck Sanaa International Airport to prevent a Houthi delegation from landing on its return from the funeral in Iran for slain Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Ansarullah government launched its own attacks and, in October, managed briefly to close Saudi Arabia’s own airport. The renewed war has now expanded into a regional conflict, with Pakistan, Türkiye, and, recently, Egypt pledging to defend the kingdom from attack, though none of these regional powers appear eager to conduct operations in Yemen itself. Notably absent from the current conflict is Saudi Arabia’s most powerful ally, the United States, since President Donald Trump has repeatedly declined to intervene on behalf of his Saudi allies.

The typical U.S. press framing of Ansarullah as an “Iran-backed militia” is inaccurate, since the movement has local, Arab nationalist reasons for its actions and is a full-scale government that rules some 80 percent of Yemen’s population. Still, it does receive surreptitious technical and military support from Iran, though nothing like the hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of high-tech armaments — from kits turning 2,000-pound “dumb” bombs into precision munitions to advanced air-to-air missiles — that the U.S. provides the Saudis. Ironically, Trump’s war on Iran, fought in conjunction with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, weakened the Saudis and exposed their vulnerabilities to military attack by Iranian drones and missiles, impelling them to seek a symbolic win over a less formidable enemy in neighboring Yemen. But the weaknesses exposed by Iran’s drones helped encourage a vigorous Ansarullah rejoinder.

The Incredible Shrinking Superpower

The American refusal to join Saudi Arabia’s war signals a profound degradation in U.S. capabilities and standing in the Middle East. The U.S. military had, for decades, dominated the region from a network of about 20 major bases. The U.S. Navy operated out of the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet in Manama, Bahrain. The U.S. Air Force flew missions from the massive al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which housed 10,000 U.S. personnel. Thousands of ground troops were barracked in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan. The Pentagon admitted that “Iranian strikes damaged and destroyed hundreds of buildings and structures at U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, and Jordan during the conflict. In addition, dozens of U.S. aircraft were destroyed or damaged during OEF.”

The naval base at Manama, one of America’s most important naval facilities and headquarters of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, was destroyed by Iranian strikes. (Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao admitted last month that Iran “blew the hell out of Bahrain.”) The loss of Manama led to supply shortages and poor morale aboard the USS Lincoln and other ships patrolling the Strait of Hormuz, bedeviling Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

The CIA offices at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh were annihilated. Iran struck al-Udeid’s evacuated Combined Air Operations Center in Qatar, from which the Pentagon had directed its strikes on enemies as diverse as the Taliban and ISIL over recent decades, and rendered this facility inoperable. All U.S. troops were also withdrawn from Iraq, a process accelerated by the inability of U.S. missile interceptors to protect them from attacks by Iran and allied Shiite militias there.

Related

Iran War Has the U.S. Military on the Brink of a “Breakdown”

Iran’s deployment of swarms of Shahed drones caused the United States and Israel to use up much of their stock of interceptors, which are time-consuming and expensive to replace. A basic Shahed costs as little as $20,000, though new hardened versions are more expensive — whereas a Patriot interceptor costs $4 million. One reason the Trump administration may be reluctant to intervene in Yemen is that if the U.S. cannot fly missions from al-Udeid, and cannot be sure any new fighter-jet fleets stationed in the region will be safe from Iran, given the paucity of interceptors, the Pentagon will have a limited ability to rescue any U.S. pilots shot down over Yemen.

America’s Profound Weakness in the Middle East 

Saudi Arabia launched a war against the ascendant Ansarullah in 2015 when the latter staged a coup in the capital of Sanaa. The Ansarullah movement is rooted in Yemen’s Zaidi Shiism, though it is more radical than traditional Zaidism. (Zaidi Shiism differs substantially from Iranian Shiism, having no ayatollahs and having relatively good relations with Sunnis.)

About a third of Yemenis are Zaidis, who predominate in the north of the country, and many have long resented the dominance of their politics and culture by neighboring, oil-rich, Sunni Saudi Arabia, whose official ideology is hard-line Wahhabism, a puritanical form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Quran. Wahhabi proselytizing among the Shia enraged the Houthi clan and their followers began rebelling against the government of military dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh in 2004. But when he was deposed by popular demonstrations during the Arab Spring in 2012, Saleh gradually allied with the Houthis, and by 2015 about half the Yemeni military rallied to their side, along with some major Sunni tribes.

Related

The Real Outrage About the Yemen Signal Group Is That It Called for Attack on Civilian Home

In response to the Houthis’ rise, a Saudi-led coalition that included the United Arab Emirates began bombing Yemen in 2015. Until 2022, the U.S, then militarily dominant in the region, provided the Saudis with strategic advice, weaponry, and in-air refueling for their fighter jets in the Yemen war, though Riyadh’s tendency to bomb civilian infrastructure rather than confining themselves to military targets caused tension between the two allies. While the Saudis and their coalition pushed the Houthis out of much of the south of the country, including Aden, they were unable to dislodge them from the north. The Saudis implicitly acknowledged their failure with a United Nations-brokered truce in April 2022, which largely held until this past summer.

The Forever Wars Effect

America’s forever wars against Middle Eastern countries that decline to accept the Israel project or American corporate neocolonialism helped reignite the Saudi–Yemeni conflict. Iran is the last major state in the region that rejects Israel and is off-limits to U.S. corporate investment, a stance that inspires much of Washington’s animus. Netanyahu was therefore easily able to persuade Trump, as a privileged visitor to the White House Situation Room, to attack Iran in February.

The glib expectation of Netanyahu and of his Mossad chief at that time, David Barnea, that the Islamic Republic would crumble if Israel murdered Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and around 50 other high-ranking regime figures proved wishful thinking. The notion that Iran was vulnerable to a tightened petroleum blockade was turned on its head by the hard-liners who ascended to power after Khamenei’s death. Largely veterans of the grueling eight-year Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, the country’s new leaders pursued a policy of “de-basing” toward the United States, taking out its main regional military facilities.

In addition, Iran launched precision strikes at the energy facilities of their Arab Gulf neighbors who had hosted those American bases. They struck Kuwait’s national petroleum company and its fields and refineries. They took out 17 percent of the production of Qatar’s Ras Laffan natural gas facility, even though Doha had good relations with Tehran and had mediated for Iran. Tehran also struck ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, using missiles and drones, scaring the major shipping insurers into withdrawing their contracts. Few shipping magnates would risk cargoes worth billions of dollars without insurance.

Related

Pentagon Fears Drone Attacks on U.S. and Foreign Bases

Iran threw the world into an energy crisis reminiscent of the 1970s, which would have been even more devastating had China not released oil from its vast private and public petroleum reserves and cut its oil imports from 11.5 million barrels a day to under 9 million barrels a day, a move partially enabled by its turn to electric vehicles, which saved it 1.5 million barrels a day. High gasoline and diesel prices hurt Asia more than the United States, but prices rose globally. A third of the world’s helium, essential for cooling computer chips in the production process, comes from the Gulf, and that supply was also interrupted, increasing the price of electronics.

By successfully striking Saudi Arabia, Iran demonstrated that the kingdom’s ability to protect itself is imperfect and its infrastructure is vulnerable. By blockading the Strait of Hormuz in a way that the United States had difficulty undoing, Iran demonstrated the vulnerability of key world maritime arteries, something Ansarullah had already highlighted by striking at shipping in the Red Sea to protest the Gaza genocide. 

Blockade for Blockade

When the Saudis bombed Sanaa’s airport in July 2026, Ansarullah’s leadership appears to have decided that Riyadh posed an ongoing existential danger to their state and sought to strangle the Yemeni economy, just as Israel had done to Gaza. Moreover, they sensed that the kingdom could be rolled back in the wake of the failure of the Israeli–U.S. war on Iran. Just as Iran had weakened the Gulf Arab states with its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Houthis believed they could seriously degrade the Saudi economy by blocking Riyadh’s shipping through the Bab al-Mandab, “the Strait of Tears,” between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Saudi exports through the Strait of Hormuz had fallen substantially. The kingdom did, however, have an escape valve: its East-West pipeline to Yanbu on the Red Sea. Ships loading at Yanbu then headed for Saudi Arabia’s major Asian markets through the Bab al-Mandab. If Ansarullah could make the tanker captains fearful of this transit, they could reduce Saudi Arabia’s income even further. The Houthi spokesperson, Muhammad Abd al-Salam, warned that the prohibition of Saudi shipping was only the first step in a tit-for-tat strategy of “blockade for blockade.” The idea wasn’t original. The Saudis and the U.S. had often attempted to blockade petroleum imports to northern Yemen during the seven-year Saudi–Yemeni War.

Related

Yemenis Unable to Reach Hospital Are Part of the Iran War Death Toll

In the subsequent three months, Ansarullah deployed missiles and drones constructed from Iranian models by military engineers trained by the old nationalist government of Ali Abdullah Saleh, many of whom had joined the Ansarullah military, in what has been called a Yemeni “military industrial complex.”

Just as the kingdom’s interceptors had proven unable to prevent Iranian strikes on targets such as the CIA section of the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, they sometimes failed to halt the barrage of Yemeni missiles and drones. Refineries and oil installations, even the headquarters of the state oil giant, Saudi Aramco, in Dhahran, were hit. In October, Ansarullah closed Riyadh’s International Airport, just as the Saudis had attempted to close that of Sanaa in July. Ansarullah also surged out of their mountain strongholds and made a major push to Yemen’s southwest coast, taking the strategic port of Mocha overlooking the Bab al-Mandab. They also moved on Taiz, an inland industrial city of nearly 1 million inhabitants, one of the last major population centers not already under their control, in a campaign that tested the ability of the small Saudi-backed government of Rashad al-Alimi in Aden to resist it.

Highlanders and Oil Sheikhs

Just as the Vietnam War was one conflict among many fought in the Third World during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so the Saudi–Yemeni War of 2026 is part of the larger struggle between the U.S. and Israel and Iran. Still, just as Vietnam was more about Vietnamese anticolonialism, nationalism, and sovereignty than about Communism and the ownership of the means of production, so the Saudi–Yemeni War is about Yemeni autonomy more than it is about the loose Houthi alliance with Iran. The conflict is not primarily between Zaidism and Wahhabism, though religious tensions are part of the story, but is far more rooted in a struggle between desperately poor Yemeni highlanders and fabulously wealthy Saudi sheikhs.

The plutocratic Saudi ruling elite is closely tied to Washington and has secret dealings with the Israelis, with whom it shares a distrust of the poverty-stricken Palestinian resistance, and views Ansarullah as cat’s paws of Iran in the Arabian Peninsula and as radical republicans trying to overthrow the region’s oil monarchies in favor of populism. For its part, Ansarullah are Arab nationalists, anti-American, and seek to use oil resources for populist purposes. And they have been willing to attack Israel to defend the Palestinians of Gaza from genocide.

Last week, Ansarullah battered targets across Saudi Arabia, prompting a further pullback from the region by Washington. The Yemeni forces attacked King Fahd International Airport in Dammam. An Ansarullah spokesperson said the group also targeted the Saudi defense ministry in the capital, Riyadh, along with an Aramco site in Yanbu, and an airport in the southern city of Abha. Reports also emerged of an attack on another Aramco oil field.

“Houthis have increasingly engaged in hostilities against Saudi Arabia, including attacks on civilian airports and other critical infrastructure,” wrote State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott in an October 21 post on X, after the wave of attacks, ordering “non-emergency U.S. government employees and their family members” out of Saudi Arabia.

It’s just the latest evidence of the most significant regional retreat by the U.S. in half a century and evidence of profound American military decline. The outcome of their war with the Saudis will not determine the issue of the U.S.–Israeli contest with Iran, but the very ability of Ansarullah to prosecute it points to the profound weakening of the American posture in the Middle East.

The post The Incredible Shrinking Superpower appeared first on The Intercept.

Bankrolling Empire

During the Cold War, the Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines was a key enabler of U.S. military operations in the Pacific and beyond. It served as a critical support facility for the U.S. war in Vietnam and a transit point for U.S. weapons destined for American military personnel in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. That all changed in June of that year, when the Philippine Congress, under pressure from a grassroots anti-bases movement, refused to renew the lease for Subic Bay and other U.S. outposts in that nation.

After the closing of U.S. bases, military relations between the U.S. and the Philippines were conducted indirectly through arms transfers, joint training exercises, and deployments of Special Operations forces to aid Philippine counterinsurgency efforts, rather than by the permanent presence of tens of thousands of troops. The relationship was codified in 1999, when Washington and Manila entered into a Visiting Forces Agreement, which eased the movement of U.S. troops and equipment in and out of the Philippines and put U.S. personnel in the country under the jurisdiction of U.S. rather than Philippine authorities.

But now Subic Bay is back in play as part of a new expansion of the U.S. military presence in the Philippines. And this time around, private capital is financing these empire games.

Military Might Versus Human Rights

The long-standing U.S. military ties with the Philippines have come at a high price for the residents of that nation. Washington’s military and economic interests there have prompted it to look the other way as repressive leaders like Ferdinand Marcos and Rodrigo Duterte engaged in systematic human rights abuses against their own people.

Related

“Trump Has Appointed Himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner”

To its credit, the Reagan administration eventually cut ties with Marcos — who was overthrown through peaceful protests known as the “People Power” revolt in 1986 — throwing its support behind his democratically elected opponent, Corazon Aquino. But there was no such shift with respect to Duterte, whose regime ruled the Philippines from 2016 to 2022, and engaged in extrajudicial killings of thousands of Filipinos, including journalists and land reform activists, all under the guise of a “war on drugs.” Duterte is now under indictment by the International Criminal Court, which has cited him for “the crimes against humanity of murder and attempted murder.”

While Marcos and his family fled the Philippines in the 1980s, his son — Ferdinand Marcos Jr. — returned and, in 2022, won the presidency in a landslide, in part by promising to continue some of the strongman policies introduced by Duterte. According to Human Rights Watch, since the younger Marcos took office:

Serious human rights violations have continued in the country largely unabated, including arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances by security forces. The murderous ‘war on drugs’ has continued, though with fewer killings. Leftist civil society activists, journalists, environmentalists, Indigenous leaders, trade unionists, and left-wing politicians remain under serious, at times deadly, threat.

During the Biden presidency, the U.S. expanded a 2014 pact — the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement — which gave the U.S. military access to five major sites in the Philippines. In 2023, the number of bases was expanded to nine. The State Department has described the scope of the EDCA as authorizing “U.S. forces access to agreed locations in the Philippines on a rotational basis, for security cooperation exercises, joint and combined military training activities, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief activities.” That official summary fails to admit the real reason for the signing of the EDCA: to give the U.S. access to territory that can be used in a future war with China.

The Privatization of Subic Bay

Building on his predecessor’s enhanced cooperation with the Philippines, President Donald Trump, who had been a staunch Duterte supporter, has pursued even tighter ties with Marcos’s government. This has been driven, in significant part, by the desire to use the Philippines as a platform for potential U.S. military interventions in the Pacific region and further economic penetration of Asia.

Related

The Philippine Missile Crisis: U.S. Deployed Arms to the Philippines and No One Noticed But China

As part of the accelerating security partnership between the U.S. and the Philippines, military activities at Subic Bay have resumed. But this time, formal access has been secured by a private investment firm, Cerberus Capital Management, which controls the area through a 50-year lease granted through collaboration with a Philippine company, Agila.

A report by the New York Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines, a member of the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines, summarized current activities at Subic Bay:

In mid-2025, the U.S. Congress approved a plan to build a forward operating base and ammunition production facility in Subic Bay. It is projected to be the world’s largest weapons hub. … The shipyard [is home to] HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, deep sea fiber optic data cables manufacturer Sub Com, defense contractor V2X and the Philippine Navy, which operates a portion of the facility.

Cerberus has strong ties to the Trump administration, first and foremost through its founder, Stephen Feinberg, who is deputy secretary of the Department of War, second in command at the Pentagon behind Pete Hegseth. In that role, Feinberg oversees the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital, which makes loans to military tech companies.

Feinberg “earned” his position the old-fashioned way — by giving millions to Rebuilding America Now, a super PAC devoted to supporting Trump, and hosting a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser, the proceeds of which also went to support candidate Trump in 2016.

Related

Major Trump Donor Owned Security Firm That Trained Khashoggi Killers

Bloomberg News has identified four other former Cerberus executives now in key positions at the Pentagon: David Lorch, director of the OSC; George Kollitides, a special government employee who is simultaneously a director of D. Boral Acquisition, a company that brokers mergers and acquisitions in the weapons sector; and senior Pentagon advisers John Gallagher and Tom Rakusan.

On the other side of the revolving door, Cerberus has hired major Republican figures like former Treasury Secretary John Snow and former Vice President Dan Quayle, who serves as chair of the company’s global investment unit. Given these connections, the Pentagon is all-in behind Cerberus’s activities in the Philippines. But this has prompted a backlash. Activists in the Philippines and beyond are speaking out against the role of Cerberus, calling for public pension funds to withdraw their investments in the company for underwriting the militarization of the Philippines.

Another important avenue of increased cooperation between the U.S. and the Marcos government is the Philippines’ participation in Pax Silica, a U.S.-initiated cartel that the State Department describes as its “flagship effort on AI and supply chain security, advancing new economic security consensus among allies and trusted partners.” And by “supply chain security,” the declaration primarily means “reducing dependence on China” for critical minerals needed to feed and sustain the computing power now central to the Pentagon and the U.S. arms industry.

Related

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

In addition to the Philippines, there are 24 other participants in Pax Silica, including two other key Asian partners, India and Japan, as well as Taiwan, which is an associate member of the cartel. Jacob Helberg, a former adviser to military tech giant Palantir who now serves as the State Department’s point person on Pax Silica, has stressed that the initiative goes well beyond just securing the supply of specific critical resources. “If the 20th century ran on oil and steel, the 21st century runs on [computing power] and the minerals that feed it,” he said. “This declaration [announcing Pax Silica] hails a new economic security consensus ensuring aligned partners build the AI ecosystem of tomorrow — from energy and critical minerals to high-end manufacturing models.”

The China Syndrome

Although it supplies many other benefits to U.S. corporations and America’s national security state, the enhanced effort to bring the Philippines more securely into the U.S. military, political and economic orbit is all rationalized as moves toward reining in China’s economic and military power and garnering Manila’s support in a possible war between China and the U.S.

Related

The Pentagon’s Obsession With China Puts Hawai‘i at Risk

The policy of economic warfare and aggressively preparing for a military conflict with China could not be more misguided. The oft-cited “need” to posture U.S. forces to do battle with China over Taiwan ignores the fact that there are diplomatic means of preventing such a conflict.

What is needed is a joint understanding on the status of Taiwan. For over 40 years, peace in the Taiwan Strait has been maintained through the U.S.–China agreement that Washington will not take steps toward recognizing Taiwan as an independent state and China would agree not to resolve the issue of Taiwan by force — the so-called “One China” policy. That agreement has been weakened by actions taken during both the Biden and Trump administrations. The simplest and best way for Washington and Beijing to avoid a war over Taiwan would be to revert to the “One China” policy.

China does not pose a direct military threat to the United States. Its last major war was its invasion of Vietnam in 1979, a conflict in which its troops were badly beaten by battle-hardened Vietnamese forces. The U.S. also spends almost three times as much on its military as China does, and is far ahead of Beijing in numbers of advanced combat aircraft, naval firepower, and nuclear weapons.

In areas where China might be a peer competitor with the U.S. military, like AI-driven weapons, there need to be some rules of the road on how such systems can be used. Using trade wars and military buildups as the primary U.S. tool for influencing China simply will not work. The likely result of persisting in such an approach will be a dangerous arms race and an increased risk of outright war.

A more productive approach to U.S.–China relations would be to seriously explore cooperation on central issues like arms control, addressing the climate crisis, and stabilizing the global economy. There would still be a U.S. military strategy for the Asia–Pacific region, but it should be genuinely defensive in nature, a posture that could save hundreds of billions of dollars in the years to come.

Pursuing a more balanced policy toward China would open the way to developing more equal, less exploitative relations with the Philippines and other nations in the Pacific, and it would allow Washington to finally take a genuine interest in promoting human rights and opposing repression as central pillars of U.S. international relations.

At a time when armed conflict and threats of war are the bedrock of U.S. policy, from the Western Hemisphere to the Middle East, a shift toward diplomacy seems daunting. But it is the only way forward if we want to move toward a more peaceful world where no one nation or group of nations dominates, and where corporations aren’t bending foreign and domestic policies to their will.

Correction: November 3, 2026

An earlier version of this story overstated the quantity of military tech companies under the oversight of Steven Feinberg that are current or former Cerberus clients.

The post Bankrolling American Empire in the Philippines appeared first on The Intercept.

The PUMA spirit is back. The 2008 Democratic Party protest movement, inflamed by what Hillary Clinton supporters viewed as Barack Obama stealing the nomination from their primary candidate, scorned his general election campaign and embraced the mantra “Party Unity, My Ass.” 

This time, that energy is aimed at the candidates preferred by the Democratic Socialists of America.  

DSA-aligned progressives have won a number of party primaries and are set to help Democrats take the majority in Congress. But once in power, they’re likely to make demands — the kinds of demands that could upend decades of carefully crafted donor-friendly policymaking. 

For moderate Democrats, “party unity” is only a goal worth pursuing to bully the left wing of the party to fall in line with their preferred candidate. When it’s on them to step up and vote for someone who might have different goals, that’s another story completely, and some centrists are even hoping for Republicans to win the House this November if the alternative is an empowered DSA Democratic wing. 

James Carville, the fossilized Cajun strategist who was part of exactly one successful national political campaign, Bill Clinton’s 1992 White House victory, said on The Bulwark podcast last Sunday that he’d prefer a tight GOP hold on Congress over a narrow Democratic majority. 

“I would be disappointed if it comes in at 225 House seats,” Carville told host Bill Kristol. “I would rather the Republicans keep the House by five than the Democrats to win by five, because, if that happens, they’re hostage to the DSA.”

To his credit, Kristol — who, in a sign of how people can change when they know which way the wind is blowing, spent the PUMA moment promoting Sarah Palin but is now a self-proclaimed Democrat — pushed back, saying he’d rather win. 

Carville is the first of his cohort to explicitly call for a GOP victory rather than the left flank of the party getting more power, but he’s not the only centrist deprioritizing his party’s prospects in November.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills has yet to endorse the Democratic Party’s Senate nominee, Troy Jackson, after she lost to now-disgraced Graham Platner. (Mills and Jackson have a long and bitter history from state government, which may be playing a role here.) 

Perhaps most consequentially, in Michigan, Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has faced an uphill battle since winning his party’s grueling primary. He’s now focused on winning in the general election and becoming the first Muslim U.S. senator, but resistance to his candidacy remains a concern.

Related

Centrists Are Soft-Launching the Idea That We Have a Little Too Much Democracy

Much of the difficulty has come from members of his own party and other liberals. Their antipathy toward a candidate whose positions aren’t so out of step with other members of the caucus has raised questions about what exactly is so objectionable about him. El-Sayed may skew to the progressive side of the party, but he’s not a socialist and not a member of the DSA; his positions on domestic policy should place him companionably among the likes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wing. 

Until recently, most of the anger after El-Sayed’s primary in early August was confined to X and occasional cable news hits. 

That changed on October 16, when two Michigan Democratic Party power players, David Kramer and Lon Johnson, urged voters in a Detroit News op-ed to leave El-Sayed’s place on the ballot blank — effectively handing the Senate seat over to Republican Mike Rogers, an election denier and a lockstep Trump ally. 

The piece tied El-Sayed to extreme elements of Islam and suggested his opposition to Israel’s genocide, war crimes, and occupation was based in hatred for the Jewish diaspora.

“Our gravest concerns involve El-Sayed’s associations with figures who have excused or minimized terrorism, his reluctance to unequivocally condemn dangerous rhetoric, and his support of extreme policies,” Kramer and Johnson wrote. “At a time of rising antisemitism, Democrats deserve leadership that unequivocally rejects rhetoric threatening Jewish communities.”

Comedian Mike Drucker accurately described on Tuesday the centrist rejection of El-Sayed as less “blue no matter who” and more “blue unless brown.”

But Democratic leaders like Carville, Kramer, Johnson, and others are panicked beyond their obvious Islamophobia — they can see the writing on the wall goes well past Michigan. It’s a full-on existential crisis.

Former Intercept writer Jon Schwarz once opined on what he termed the iron law of institutions: “The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself.” 

What we’re seeing now is the iron law’s white blood cells fighting a threat they don’t believe can be easily assimilated into the existing power structure. It’s a danger to their status and power.

Their attacks on the left are going to backfire, leaving the Democrats’ centrist wing even less empowered than before. 

That outcome is ideal for the party, the base, and the country. For centrists, it’s a disaster — but if the way to stop their coming irrelevance is to vote for a progressive American Muslim who opposes genocide, they’re incapable of taking that step. 

Related

Mike Rogers Spent $100K on Private Jets and Luxury Travel Last Quarter

Ultimately, all their griping may not matter. El-Sayed is regularly polling slightly ahead of Rogers, and 95 percent of Michigan Democrats said they intend to vote for him. Much like Jackson in Maine, should he win, El-Sayed will be even less beholden to the elements of the party power structure who are so desperately trying to prove he needs them, rather than the other way around.

The post The Spirit of “Party Unity, My Ass” Is Back and Coming for the DSA (and El-Sayed) appeared first on The Intercept.

The October 8 shooting of Oscar Belgal by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in front of his 5-year-old son in Manhattan forced into the open a question that had been on many New Yorkers’ minds: What would the New York Police Department do when ICE broke the “rule of law” in the city, and how would Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the person who has the power to hire and fire the NYPD commissioner, respond? 

Shortly after the shooting, Mamdani addressed the incident with an appropriate amount of outrage, declaring ICE “rotten to its core,” and calling for the department to be abolished. His frustration was visible, but he was much less expressive when it came to his appraisal of the city’s response to the situation. He had nothing substantive to discuss with respect to his police department’s involvement, despite NYPD officers arriving on the scene only to find unidentified ICE agents holding guns, wearing plain clothes and disguises and masks, in apparent violation of federal laws requiring identification. (A recently passed New York state law prohibiting federal agents from wearing masks and other face coverings was temporarily blocked by a judge.) NYPD officers applied first aid and transported Belgal to NewYork-Presbyterian Allen hospital.

According to many eyewitness accounts and widely circulated video, members of the NYPD appeared to assist ICE agents by forcefully helping with crowd control — at one point, an NYPD officer shoved congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier, whom Mamdani personally stumped for, to the ground. Later, NYPD cleared a path for federal agents to whisk Belgal away from the hospital to a federal detention facility downtown. 

Related

ICE Shooting in NYC Inflames Mamdani’s Policing Problem

After the shooting, the Democratic Socialists of America, several legislators, and Avila Chevalier all called on Mamdani to fire NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch and demanded the mayor uphold his campaign pledge to disband the NYPD’s infamous Strategic Response Group. Mamdani repeatedly refused to fire Tisch but said he was reviewing the 24-hour period around the shooting. When asked directly about Avila Chevalier being thrown to the ground, the mayor called it unacceptable, saying, “That is not something I will look to justify.” He reminded New Yorkers to be patient with efforts to reform the NYPD, ordered a review of the department’s use-of-force policies, and added funding for the inspector general’s office. But once again, he stood by his commissioner, citing “her record of uprooting corruption from the upper echelons of the NYPD while lowering crime across our city.”

Noticeably absent from any of Mamdani’s public remarks about the NYPD or Tisch was any public acknowledgment of the NYPD officers in relation to ICE agents during the Belgal incident.

Federal and city law enforcement occupy similar spaces but never really interact with each other. Mamdani made no mention of the ways in which the actions of federal agents put pressure on the NYPD as mediators — the primary function of police — to liaise in moments of conflict.

The NYPD typically relishes this role, which is why the department consumes so much of New York’s budget and shuns any attempts to redirect funds to other services that might reduce the need for police mediation to begin with. ICE forces local police to make choices in policy and in practice about how to deal with violent (often illegal) immigration operations.

If the NYPD believes itself to be the thin blue line, on which side of order and chaos do New York’s force and Mamdani believe these federal outside agitators to be?

This omission — or evasion, depending on how you look at it — of this predicament is strange considering Mamdani’s willingness to speak with moral clarity about even the most contentious issues and confront them head-on. It’s also bizarre considering his penchant for weaving shared experiences together and for putting the lived experiences of New Yorkers front and center.

On the campaign trail, one of Mamdani’s most alluring traits was his ability to speak to the actual problems of everyday residents. It wasn’t just because he possessed once-in-a-generation oratory skills; candidate Zohran achieved this because, as a proud democratic socialist, there was an analysis — an explanation of the material conditions of life — baked into his politics. His rhetoric seemed in line with, or at least not alienated from (see: establishment Democrats), how fast reality was moving and how it was impacting the lives of everyday New Yorkers.

When it comes to ICE, however, Mayor Mamdani’s rhetoric and policies haven’t always aligned, which has opened him up to questions about the kind of mayor he really is. On one hand, he has shown that he will speak out against Trump’s fascist and inhumane immigration efforts. On the other hand, Mamdani hasn’t moved with the same level of force as his words. Many have pointed out that Mamdani seems to be engaging in realpolitik in an effort to get his extensive progressive agenda passed. It’s certainly not easy to bring the machine of the New York government up to speed while also being transparent about the ways in which he is moving the needle. But that’s exactly what he was elected to do.

Had Mamdani got into office and done nothing different than previous mayors — or even been exceptionally corrupt, pro-cop, and willing to help the Trump administration like predecessor Eric Adams — he might have been able to avoid his current moment of reckoning. But his administration’s genuine efforts on immigration set into motion a future where the NYPD and ICE would come into conflict.

One of Mamdani’s first moves as mayor was to take stock of how the city’s many agencies were upholding existing sanctuary city laws. In February 2026, he signed Executive Order 13, his first major order pertaining to immigration, to create the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs and establish baseline guidance, such as explicitly prohibiting ICE and other non-local law enforcement agencies from using city-owned garages and vacant lots. Crucially, EO 13 also required an audit of several agencies, including NYPD, to review their immigration-related policies.

Related

Local Cops Flout Sanctuary Law to Help ICE Deport Immigrants

NYPD already has a problematic history dealing with immigration enforcement. During the Adams administration, there were documented cases where the NYPD assisted or collaborated with immigration enforcement, sometimes in accordance with NYPD policies. A December 2025 report by Jocelyn Strauber, then-commissioner of the New York City Department of Investigation, found at least one incident in which “an officer violated local law by providing assistance to federal authorities in connection with enforcement of the federal civil immigration law,” as well as evidence that NYPD did “not fully comply with documentation and reporting requirements concerning requests for assistance with federal civil immigration enforcement.” The report also found that there were numerous examples of NYPD policies and practices that elevated the “risk of improper information sharing or assistance to federal authorities for purposes of civil immigration enforcement.”

The resulting audit, which was released on May 22 by Mamdani’s deputy mayor, built on those findings and recommended NYPD (and other city agencies) update its reporting requirements. But the audit also left a lot of open questions, which numerous legal advocates attested to, about areas in which NYPD protocols and policies keep avenues open to potentially collaborate with ICE. The NYPD was “not being held to a high standard of accountability or scrutiny for collusion,” the audit found, and there were significant “gaps” in documenting potential violations of department policies. The question of what the city and its mayor could do to ensure compliance also remained unanswered.

Sanctuary laws prohibit using city resources for immigration enforcement, and a January 2025 NYPD internal memo specifically barring officers from facilitating street closures to enable immigration enforcement seemed to solidify that directive. But several high-profile incidents involving the NYPD have tested the department’s compliance with sanctuary laws. In October 2025, before Mamdani was elected, during an immigration raid in Chinatown, eyewitnesses and viral videos showed NYPD officers establishing perimeters to create a path for federal law enforcement agents. In another instance in May 2026, ICE reportedly “dragged” a Nigerian immigrant out of a Brooklyn hospital after agents used force in his arrest; NYPD officers brutalized and arrested numerous protesters and cleared debris from the road to enable ICE to escape the crowds and abscond with their target.

Both of these incidents happened under the watch of Tisch, who has insisted again and again that the department follows all sanctuary laws. When asked about the Brooklyn incident, Mamdani insisted NYPD was responding to 911 calls about the protest, not helping ICE. “Our laws leave nothing, no room for interpretation about the fact that our NYPD will not participate in civil immigration enforcement,” he said. NYPD told the Guardian US: “Upon arrival, officers observed numerous individuals acting in a disorderly manner, obstructing vehicular traffic, and blocking emergency entrances and exits at Wyckoff Heights medical center.” 

Related

LAPD Won’t Do Immigration Enforcement — But Will Shoot You With Rubber Bullets for Protesting ICE

When the NYPD arrives at an ICE raid or at a protest against an immigration abduction, what are officers supposed to do? On this point, NYPD and Mamdani have offered little clarity. But October 8 doesn’t pass the smell test for anyone who lives in overpoliced neighborhoods or closely observes the activity of police and their behavior.

NYPD officers were responding to an unrelated call nearby when they heard the report of shots fired. When they arrived, they encountered several men in various forms of attire, including some in construction-style vests, face masks, and at least one carrying a long gun, which officer body camera footage released by the Department confirms. The official account of the NYPD’s interaction offers no mention of ICE. There are no additional insights or explanations of department protocol that might shed light on how officers are supposed to act given the circumstances. Curiously, what those officers thought when they encountered several masked men with guns, and the conversations that took place between the ICE agents and the police, is a mystery, too. All we know is that officers agreed at some point that the NYPD would place Belgal in a vehicle, apply aid, and take him to the hospital. 

Since that evening, Mayor Mamdani has stood firm in his condemnation of ICE and their operations. “We will not normalize ICE’s viciousness,” he said, calling for the agency to be abolished. That’s the least he could say to reassure New Yorkers he understands the stakes they feel in their bones already. The shooting of Oscar Belgal and his subsequent inhumane treatment — his lawyers say Belgal is still in solitary confinement with a bullet in his neck — is a reminder of how normalizing ICE operations in New York City is already well underway. 

Related

Bill de Blasio Promised to Change the NYPD. His Courage Failed Him, and Us.

There have been more lower-profile ICE sightings and kidnappings, which echoes what has been the case in other parts of the country. What Mamdani will do to bring the city’s response into alignment with the needs of New Yorkers in this moment still remains an open question, including clarifying the NYPD’s role in the city’s ongoing fight against the Trump administration’s gestapo tactics.

If this month’s incident offered a lesson for Mamdani, it is that clearly articulating what is right is a full-time job that requires an unwavering willingness to confront reality. It’s not enough to say the thing on one issue — calling a genocide by its name, publicly dragging FIFA for pandering to wealthy elites, or deriding the inhumane practices of slumlords — but not stand on business when it comes to the reality that New Yorkers are seeing on their own streets. 

Sometimes, an actual seismic event can reveal what needs to be done and that there are alternatives that may not have been fully realized before. Hope isn’t lost. There is still time for Mamdani to update his analysis. But in this moment, the mayor must make a choice: renew his commitment to the truth, or be defined by its absence. 

The post Mamdani’s High-Wire Balancing Act Between ICE and NYPD Can’t Last appeared first on The Intercept.

Agents from the Department of Homeland Security on Monday raided the Washington, D.C., home of Rep. Ilhan Omar ostensibly in connection with a criminal investigation into her childhood immigration to the United States. The raid was signed off on by a federal judge, apparently after a “back-and-forth” with federal law enforcement, and has been condemned by civil rights groups as highly suspect.

Related

ICE Raid on Ilhan Omar Shows How Dangerous Two Years of Flailing Trump Could Get

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump’s targeting of Omar escalated even further as federal agents issued subpoenas to many of her relatives, including her sister Sahra Noor, and the Wall Street Journal reported the Trump administration’s ultimate goal is to strip Omar of her citizenship and deport her. This obscene abuse of power comes after years of Trump targeting Omar with threats, racist smears, intimidation, and calls for her deportation. 

But with rare exception, the response from the mainstream media’s pundit class has been largely muted, with the vast bulk of the coverage coming in the form of he said/she said, down-the-middle reporting. This is in stark contrast with how elite opinion-shapers responded with uniform outrage in the days after Trump’s also dubious raid on John Bolton, his former national security adviser and a neoconservative commentator, in August 2025. Both are part of a consistent pattern of Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice to attack his perceived enemies, yet only the latter solicited widespread media condemnation.

The very day of the Bolton raid, we saw scathing editorials from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. Over the next week, each of these newspapers also published separate pieces from their opinion staff opposing the raid, casting doubt on its legitimacy, and otherwise leveling outrage at the obvious power grab. The raid was explicitly condemned in Politico, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic, which published four different indignant columns.

The raid on Omar’s home has thus far received zero of the above media interventions. No editorials, no opinion columns in the Times, Post, or Journal; no preening in The New Yorker or Politico or Atlantic about the erosion of “rule of law.” The Atlantic did run an article on the Omar raid but it was equivocal and Both Sides in its tone. (A similar Both Sides column The Atlantic published about the Bolton raid was not included in our list of opinion pieces expressing outrage over the Bolton raid.) 

This is in stark contrast to the breathless tone of outrage leveled at Trump when his DOJ targeted Bolton last year. “It is clear that Mr. Trump and his appointees,” the Times wrote in August 2025, “are perverting the justice system to serve their political interests and intimidate their critics.” “FBI raid targeting Bolton crosses a line in the Trump revenge campaign,” proclaimed the Trump ally–owned Washington Post. Even the right-wing WSJ editorial board, typically a staunch backer of Trump, got in on the fervor under the headline “Trump’s Vendetta Campaign Targets John Bolton,” which made clear “that second-term success for the President includes retribution.”

The Journal not only didn’t publish an editorial or column opposing the Omar raid as they did with Bolton, they published a column by assistant editorial page editor James Freeman endorsing it and using tabloid innuendo to cast aspersions on Omar.

This isn’t to say the mainstream press hasn’t reported on the Omar raid. The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal all ran articles, and analysis, on the raid, but — unlike with the Bolton case — they have published no opinions expressing outrage and demanding recourse for the obvious authoritarian power grab.

The reasons for this glaring discrepancy are likely many: Omar is Black and Muslim, Bolton is white and not. Omar is a woman, Bolton is a man. Omar is considered “far left,” Bolton is squarely in the center-right of elite Washington consensus. Omar is a harsh critic of Israel, and Bolton is among its most overtly and bloodthirsty champions. The reality is it’s almost certainly a combination of all these factors. Writ large, Bolton is a member of The Club, and Omar isn’t.

Related

How Democrats Paved the Way for Kevin McCarthy’s Attack on Ilhan Omar

A similar dynamic of asymmetric In-Group vs. Out-Group outrage could be seen during the early months of Trump’s first term when the media spilled oceans of ink lamenting Trump’s determination to intimidate the press and lock up reporters. Yet this same press almost entirely ignored his DOJ’s absurd prosecution of two independent reporters, Aaron Cantu and Alexei Wood, for covering the January 20 unrest during his 2017 inauguration — a case that was found to have no merit. Ultimately, the city of Washington, D.C., was, despite the lack of any sustained media attention, forced to settle with a payout to the persecuted reporters. 

As a rule for U.S. media, the consistent application of principle — as high-minded and lofty as they may appear — takes a back seat to class solidarity. Bolton is a corporate media figure, a national security elite, a hawk, and a committed institutionalist. He is, in other words, one of them. Omar is none of these things. As a direct result, her outrageous persecution by Trump is noted and perhaps critiqued around the margins but is not a source of widespread, sustained outrage and condemnation. This distinction is reserved, very clearly, for those in The Club.

The post Trump Is Targeting Ilhan Omar. Where’s the Elite Media Outrage? appeared first on The Intercept.

Two wealthy lawfare warriors recently failed in their attempts to bury reporting on government-released documents. Both lawsuits — one in state court in California, the other in federal court in Arkansas — were frivolous strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPPs. Supreme Court precedent couldn’t be clearer that it’s not the journalists’ problem if the government accidentally shares information it’s not supposed to disclose. 

But only the California SLAPP victim had any real recourse against the censorial bully who wanted to shut him up — not because that case was any more frivolous than the Arkansas one, but because of the court in which it was filed.

Let’s start with the Arkansas case. Jessica Kivell — a mom, healthcare worker, and concerned citizen — sought to find out who was paying for a data center project in West Memphis. She filed public records requests with the Arkansas Public Service Commission and received documents indicating Google would cover only one-third of the cost of a new solar plant to power the facility, contradicting its promises that ratepayers would not be on the hook. Kivell shared the documents with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, which reported on them.

Entergy Arkansas, the utility set to build the solar facility, sued Kivell, the Democrat-Gazette, its reporter, and the Arkansas Times, which said it never even had the records. It claimed the commission erred by releasing the records to Kivell, that they contained trade secrets (sidenote: baselessly invoking the need to protect trade secrets to duck public records laws is also a serious problem), that she and the press should be restrained from discussing them, and the Democrat-Gazette should have to take down what it had already reported. Entergy also disputed the Democrat-Gazette’s characterization Google would share the costs.

There are at least four Supreme Court cases that should have put Entergy’s lawyers on notice that they had no legal leg to stand on. Even in scenarios involving information far more sensitive than a utility’s purported business secrets — and far less newsworthy than the public being misled about what a data center would cost them — the court has rejected “prior restraints” that would claw back records that the government released inadvertently. 

One such case, Florida Star v. BJF, involved a newspaper that published the name of a rape victim in violation of state law. The court held the law was unconstitutional to the extent it barred news outlets from publishing information released by the government, regardless of whether the government intended to release it. The red-line rule against holding the press liable for the government’s failure to protect confidences makes sense given that the court has called prior restraints against the press the “most serious” of all First Amendment violations.

Ultimately, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Rudofsky rightly denied Entergy’s request for an emergency gag order. Entergy subsequently dropped the case. But it forced the defendants to lose money, time, and sleep. (Kivell, who rushed to court in her work scrubs for the hearing on Entergy’s motion, reportedly broke down sobbing in the courthouse hallway.) The defendants should have been able to at least recover their legal costs but, because they were in federal court, they could not.  

Arkansas, like 39 other states and the District of Columbia, has an anti-SLAPP law allowing those hit with frivolous anti-speech lawsuits to recover their attorneys’ fees. But there is no federal anti-SLAPP statute, and district courts in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Arkansas, have declined to apply the state’s anti-SLAPP law. Federal courts in some states, like Florida, apply state anti-SLAPP laws, but many others decline to do so, viewing them as in conflict with federal pleading standards.

That means that other than their own legal fees — likely a drop in a bucket for them — there is no economic disincentive stopping Entergy from SLAPPing again the next time a news report interferes with its business in hopes that an incompetent judge grants it unconstitutional relief (it wouldn’t be the first time, unfortunately), or a scared defendant backs down without a fight. 

Now let’s head to California. In 2023, independent journalist Jack Poulson published a story in his news outlet, All-Source Intelligence, about the 2021 domestic violence arrest of Maury Blackman, then CEO of Premise Data, a surveillance tech company that holds U.S. government contracts. Poulson reported on and linked to a police report that Blackman claimed the government never should have released because it was sealed. (Under California law, the records could be sealed because charges were not filed.)

Blackman sued Poulson; Substack, which hosted the article; and others in an attempt to not only punish them for their journalism, but also scrub the articles and police report from the internet. For the same reasons Entergy’s case failed, a judge threw out Blackman’s SLAPP. That decision was affirmed by an appeals court last week. 

Related

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

Leading its opinion with a quote from the Florida Star case, the appellate court also upheld the lower court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the defendants under California’s robust anti-SLAPP law. That means Blackman will need to reimburse his SLAPP target’s legal fees, and that other wannabe SLAPPsters in California might think twice knowing there are consequences for weaponizing the courts against their critics.

While Poulson’s victory was more satisfying than the Arkansas defendants’ win, in both cases, the plaintiffs achieved the exact opposite of what they wanted. The stories they tried to bury became national news as their lawsuits got far more coverage than the records they sought to suppress. It’s a phenomenon Techdirt editor Mike Masnick dubbed the Streisand effect, after a privacy lawsuit by the singer backfired and drove exponentially more publicity than it prevented.

Blackman, whose suit was only one component of a multifaceted censorship and intimidation campaign, went from his sealed arrest report appearing on a single, relatively niche blog to being detailed in an opinion from the California Court of Appeals, not to mention reported on by everyone from the San Francisco Chronicle to Courthouse News. Blackman only made things worse when he or his apparent representatives tried to manipulate Google to keep the articles about his arrest and SLAPP suits out of searches, generating even further bad press.

Oddly enough, he now runs a reputation management company. Go figure. 

But public shaming is of little use to people like Kivell, whose lives are interrupted by legal nonsense from companies or governments trying to censor them. That’s why Congress needs to pass a federal anti-SLAPP law that would apply even if states decline to enforce their local versions. That would give defendants in federal court, like Kivell, what Poulson had in California: a quick way to get meritless speech suits dismissed, with plaintiffs paying the price. 

Nobody’s ability to request public records or publish news should depend on which courthouse a corporation picks.

Correction: October 13, 2026

A previous version of this story reported that Entergy disputed the Democrat-Gazette’s math of how Google would share the costs of the data center. Instead, the newspaper reported on a figure cited in the documents it obtained.

The post An Arkansas Mom Obtained Public Records About a New Data Center. Then She Got Sued. appeared first on The Intercept.

Do the Old Ways Still Work?

Have you been recently scolded by an older peacenik about the good old days of street protests? I have!

Has an older beloved activist — a mentor, even — bemoaned “kids these days” and criticized their lack of political engagement? Have you heard the dreaded preamble: “In my day, we…” — fill in the blank — marched, struck, organized?

Related

Armed Border Agents Arrest Protesters, Bulldoze 200-Year-Old Tree to Build Border Wall

I have been on the receiving end of some of these rebukes recently, even though I am not much of a kid anymore. These aging activists aren’t seeing the outrage. They aren’t seeing the opposition. They aren’t seeing the resistance. But it might just mean they aren’t looking in the right place. Because there is plenty of resistance if you know where to look.

But more on that later.

The war against Iran is hugely unpopular. And it is not just a faraway, abstract wrong. It is having a demonstrable impact on the daily lives of Americans. Gas and heating fuel are and will continue to be more expensive. The Iran War Energy Cost Tracker, a project of Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab, estimates a nearly $1,000 war tax paid by each U.S. household. That is on top of the actual and massive price tag of military operations so far: nearly $40 billion and rising at a rate of $2 to 3 billion a month, with the projected final price tag in the trillions.

At the end of February, Trump’s war opened in typical Trumpian fashion with a massive bombardment that not only targeted Iranian leaders but also the smallest and most innocent Iranians: Operation Epic Fury had an elementary school in its sights, and the result was obliteration. Raytheon-manufactured Tomahawk missiles slammed into the school in Minab, Iran, killing 156 civilians, most of them children. A U.N. panel now asserts that the U.S. attack was a war crime.

Related

When Anti-War Candidates Become War-Monger Presidents

As the war ground on, the resistance continued. In March, Green Party candidate for Senate in North Carolina, former Marine, and member of Veterans for Peace, Brian McGinnis, disrupted a Senate hearing, shouting: “Americans do not want to fight this war for Israel.” (He suffered a broken arm at the hands of Capitol Police.) That same month, a top counterterrorism official, Joe Kent, resigned from the Trump administration, citing his opposition to the Iran war. More than 65 veterans and military family members were arrested inside a congressional building in April, protesting the illegal use of military force against Iran. The list goes on and on and on.

But we have not seen a reprise of the massive protests that marked the lead-up to the Iraq War 23 years ago. Maybe it’s understandable. And maybe it’s OK.

March Where? To Stop What?

I love a good protest march. I love the signs, the energy, the chanting, the music, coordinated outfits, mass-printed placards, and creative, handmade signs, a veritable rainbow of puns and alliteration and outrage glittered to cardboard and foamcore. I love the collection of newsletters and radical tracts and stickers and flyers for the next get-together that fill my backpack by the end. I love the chance encounters with friends. (“OMG, I didn’t know you’d be here.”) For a time, long ago, I served on the United for Peace and Justice steering committee and played a very small role in organizing such big and beautiful anti-war marches.

Related

Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin on Disrupting the U.S. War Machine

But I have a friend in her 70s who recently announced: I will not march in an empty city on a weekend ever again. And I agree. Her point was that big protest marches are often planned to be convenient for working people, so they are scheduled on weekends. But the leaders we want to confront with our people power don’t work on the weekends. In Connecticut, where I live, that means we end up marching in circles around a deserted downtown Hartford, our chants lost in the caverns of empty office buildings.

That happens in Washington, D.C., too. The weekend that 200,000 people reportedly marched at a “No Kings” rally in the capital last fall, Trump was holding a $1 million-per-plate fundraiser at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. That is not disrupting business as usual. It is not creating some alternative. So it ends up feeling performative and like a numbers game. We show up to be counted. And now, the counting is itself a battleground. In D.C., the U.S. Park Police used to count crowds at protests. But they stopped in the 1990s, after the Million Man March challenged their count as a low-ball figure.

Personally, I would march on a Monday, down the middle of the highway, stop traffic, and sit in to demand that the world stop business as usual until there is justice for the children of the Minab school, or an end to Israeli settler violence in the West Bank, or an end to the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

But I agree with my friend. I am not going to a performative protest that’s easy to ignore. What is the political utility of marching one day and then returning to business as usual the next?

Our History Is Inspiration, Not Fodder for Scolds

I am white-haired and I can no longer say it is premature. When people assume I am a grandma, I am learning to accept it gracefully. At 52, I could be a grandmother. But I am too young to have lived through the so-called heyday of protest marches that required months or years of organizing work and political finesse. These marches — like the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, or the huge November 1969 Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, or the April 1971 protest made famous by Vietnam veterans throwing their medals — demonstrated the movements’ organization, economic, and cultural power.

The March on Washington was the culmination of decades of vision, years of work, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. It brought upward of 250,000 mostly Black Americans to the nation’s capital to demand a civil rights act, desegregation, jobs, the right to vote, and more. The march is credited with helping pass both the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights acts.

During my lifetime, there have been major mass mobilizations of varying utility. The June 12, 1982, March and Rally for Nuclear Disarmament in New York City was the largest single protest in U.S. history (so far), with more than 1 million people calling for an end to the nuclear weapons threat. There were so many people lined up in the streets that tens of thousands of marchers never even arrived at the rally in Central Park!

Organized to coincide with the United Nations meetings on nuclear disarmament, the event was the culmination of 18 months of work. Coordinator Leslie Cagan, who eventually helped found UFPJ, recalled that the march was “a tremendous success.” Historians like Vincent Intondi credit it as a cultural turning point that created the conditions for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons nearly four decades later. Intersectional, joyful, and woman-led, the rally also encouraged participants to bring the spirit of the march home with them, seeding countless anti-nuclear community efforts around the nation.

Related

The Gaza Protests Can Save Lives — Maybe Even Your Own

In February 2003, the world said no to the impending U.S. war on Iraq with rallies and marches in almost 800 cities around the globe, demonstrating both the power of the people and the limitations of this form of resistance. All over the world, as many as 30 million people participated in an unprecedented coordinated series of actions, with marches from Athens, Greece, to Zagreb, Croatia. The pages of the New York Times called the global movement against the Bush war the “Other Superpower,” but the muscle flexed in the streets did not translate into the political, economic, or cultural might needed to stave off a war built on a web of lies.

Historian Jeremy Varon writes vividly about the impact of the marches and rallies in his recent study of the movement against the war on terror, “Our Grief is Not a Cry for War,” concluding that while they didn’t keep the Iraq war from happening, they bolstered and built a peace movement that is still active in creative resistance today. Our past is inspiring. We need to learn this history and apply the lessons that make strategic sense for this context.

We shouldn’t look at the past and beat ourselves up by saying, “Wow, they got a million people to turn out for nuclear disarmament in 1982, and I can’t even get 10 people to come to a street corner protest.” The saying goes, “We learn our history so we don’t repeat it,” and I think that goes for movement history, too. We don’t want to repeat history to keep it precious and amber-encased. We want to learn from it and apply what is useful to our own very different moment right here in 2026, where we are flooded with social media’s steady stream of bad news, fake news, infotainment, and rage-bait.

Related

Ed Sheeran’s Craven “Neutrality” Is a Watershed Moment for Mainstreaming Palestine Solidarity

Today, people are exhausted, stretched thin, worried about their own bottom lines. Or maybe I should just speak for myself. I am exhausted. Stretched thin. Supremely worried. It is easy to despair. Everything in modern life seems geared toward our individual hopelessness and isolation. We are better consumers when we feel alone and powerless.

Like many, I was inspired by political scientist Erica Chenoweth’s 2010s research on nonviolent civil resistance and regime change, which established the 3.5 percent rule. It states that no government can withstand a challenge where 3.5 percent of its population is mobilized for a “peak event” like a mass protest. It seemed simple and achievable. That is, until I did the math. Three and a half percent of the U.S. population is approximately 12 million people. Only 10 million people bought tickets to Taylor Swift’s entire Eras Tour — 149 sold-out shows in 51 cities and 21 countries. If we got all those Swifties out in the streets here in the U.S., we’d still come up short for a regime-changing General Strike.

Mobilizing, Not Marching

Everything feels existential. Everything feels like an emergency. Trump floods the zone with rage-bait every single day. Do I have to stay mad to be a good leftist? That does not seem healthy to me. So, what can we do instead?

Related

Apocalypse Now: Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor Investigate the End-Timers Alliance

Activists today are marching less and instead mobilizing for community power over the long haul. This means relationship building, visible and decentralized resistance, and crisis response that transforms into solidarity after the acute crisis subsides. For example, you may have seen visibility brigades, the grassroots activist groups that display large signs and wave to drivers from highway overpasses and pedestrian bridges. Then there are the rapid-response networks that turn out trained community witnesses and protection squads whenever ICE is active in a neighborhood or town, or the calls to show up and support people being held at detention facilities like Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey.

The past teaches us that the tactics must keep changing. Most of what worked in 1963 in Washington wasn’t applicable to organizers in 1982 and was outdated by 2003. And that is OK; we don’t still use mimeographs or fax machines, either. There might not be millions of people in the street to oppose the war on Iran but that doesn’t mean people are not resisting. It just looks different. It is also landing differently, and more heavily, on the people arrested for resistance. Those who protest and are arrested are looking at serious charges, hostile court environments, and a Justice Department high on its own supply of anti-terrorist, anti-antifa fearmongering.

People are struggling and afraid, and I can’t blame them for that. Dissent is once again being labeled as terrorism. Critique is labeled as terrorism. Questions are labeled as terrorism. Anything that is not lockstep, grinning compliance is terrorism.

Still, people are stepping up. Not the way their parents or grandparents did. Not in a way that gets front-page news. Not in a way that penetrates the white noise of the corporate media. Here is a Harper’s Index entry from June 2026: “Estimated number of protests that took place in the United States in the first year of Trump’s first term: 10,873. In the first year of his second term: 39,154.” That is you and me and everyone we love. We need to keep doing it, smart, hopeful, inviting, and full of righteous rage.

Related

Anti-Nuclear Pacifists Get Federal Prison Terms for Nonviolent Protest

I’ll admit that I am still struggling with how to make my opposition to the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran evident and public. I had a “No War on Iran” sign in my weedy front yard. It lasted a few weeks before it disappeared. I have talked to friends about a regular peace vigil downtown or at the nearby plant of weapons-making giant General Dynamics. But I have a time conundrum. The best time to be most visible is 2 or 3 p.m., right when my kids are coming home from school and most people are still at work. The most convenient time for more people to gather is 6 p.m., but by then our downtown is a ghost town and the mosquitos are fierce. So should we be strategic or inclusive? The debate continues.

In the meantime, I just put up a new sign in my yard yesterday. I painted the message: The U.S. War on Iran Kills Civilians, Wastes Money, Destroys the Environment. Let’s Stop It!

We’ll see how long it lasts.

The post Where Are the Iran War Protests? appeared first on The Intercept.

For more than 70 days, dozens of activists and an ancient cottonwood tree on the Arizona–Mexico border have successfully disrupted the construction of President Donald Trump’s ruinous $50 billion border wall. 

Since July, one protester at a time has occupied the cottonwood, or the grandmother tree, as it is locally known. After three other cottonwoods in the area were torn down by government contractors, the remaining grandmother on the U.S. side of the border became the site of a growing protest camp in the remote town of Lochiel, Arizona, and neighboring Sonora, Mexico, where organizers gathered for more than a year to oppose the border wall’s construction.

On Monday, heavily armed federal agents moved in with force. Activists on the ground estimate that 150 Border Patrol officers — many of whom masked their faces — raided the encampment during the protesters’ morning prayer ceremony. At least 10 demonstrators were arrested, and the 200-year-old cottonwood was bulldozed. 

Related

A New Tree-Sit Movement to Block Trump’s Border Wall

As Arizona-based journalist John Washington reported, “agents began cutting the tree while a person was still sitting in its branches. Agents removed that person with a cherry picker and then felled the tree. Screams could be heard as ‘grandmother’ fell around 8:30 a.m.”

In the 48 hours since the early morning raid, land defenders have refused to leave and remain in an ongoing standoff with federal agents. Numerous participants told The Intercept that around 50 people are holding the line against further construction, with dozens more en route following urgent calls to support the encampment and defend the imperiled borderland ecology.

On Tuesday, another tree sitter climbed the last remaining cottonwood standing in the path of the border wall construction, this one on the Mexico side. The tree was briefly occupied by demonstrators in mid-August and, according to a press release from the land defenders, “is once again halting construction.”

The protesters’ aim to stop the construction of two parallel, 30-foot-high border walls ripping through the remote San Rafael Valley. Miles of the double wall structure have already been built in the area. The region is sparsely populated and hardly ever used as a border-crossing site by humans but is renowned as a unique wildlife migration corridor. The cottonwood felled on Monday was the last of four ancient grandmother trees on the Arizona side of the border, which stood in the path of planned wall construction.

Until this week, federal forces had left the encampment and tree sit in relative peace, largely, activists said, because the camp is located on private land. That fact had not changed on Monday. 

“Border Patrol has been coming onto private property since yesterday morning. No warrants are shown,” Rachel, a land defender who withheld her last night out of concern for being targeted by law enforcement, said on a call with reporters on Tuesday. “There’s no legal ground for them to come onto private property. And the feeling is that they’re pushing through the construction process as quickly as possible, and they’ll deal with the consequences of the law later. They just want to push the wall through, regardless of the harm they have to cause to us and to the land in the process.”

According to Rachel and other activists on the ground who spoke to The Intercept, construction workers have moved quickly since the raid, digging a deep trench that threatens the roots of the newly occupied cottonwood on the Mexico side. 

A statement on Monday from Belicia Lynch, a member of the De La Ossa family who owns one of the tracts of private property along the border, confirmed the protesters were welcome on her property. “I just want to thank you guys for being out there to not only protect the grandmother tree, but the land itself that many animals and bugs inhabit,” Lynch told the land defenders in the statement. 

Related

Border Patrol Raided Arizona Medical Aid Site With No Warrant, Showing Growing “Impunity”

Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security have not yet responded to questions from The Intercept.

The federal attacks on the Lochiel encampment came on the heels of a legal victory for anti-border activists in Big Bend, Texas. On Friday, a U.S. district judge granted an injunction to stop all border wall construction in the Big Bend area, including in national and state parks, while the court hears a lawsuit brought by local environmental and community groups. In the order, the judge wrote that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on at least one of their claims’ merits. 

But with practically unlimited funding for his border regime, Trump’s administration can continue fueling money into his violent and destructive border wall. What activists in Lochiel, Sonora, Big Bend, and beyond make clear, however, is that the government’s victory cannot be assumed. Disruptions and interventions are not just possible but also an absolute necessity, and pressure can be applied in an array of directions.

As one Arizona-based Mexican American tree sit participant told The Intercept in August, “The border is everywhere, which means that there are subcontractors and there are power players maybe in your backyard, maybe in your city, maybe an hour drive from where you’re living.”

Rachel, the land defender, made the stakes of the fight clear.

“We have to stop this wall here because the trajectory they’re going on, there is no safety in the U.S. for anyone,” she said on Monday. The call was cut short as news spread through the encampment that federal agents would attempt to remove the tree sitter on the Mexico side. At the time of writing, the grandmother tree in Sonora remains occupied; the fight against Trump’s border wall, and all it represents, has not been lost. 

In a social media post on Wednesday, encampment participants announced a “call to presence” to celebrate the life of the felled cottonwood and continue the anti-border struggle. “If you have been waiting to come to Lochiel, this is the time,” they said. “Let your heavy heart lead you to action!”

The post Armed Border Agents Arrest Protesters, Bulldoze 200-Year-Old Tree to Build Border Wall appeared first on The Intercept.

Donald Trump received Chinese President Xi Jinping and the visiting Chinese press pool last week as reporters from news outlets he had banished stood outside the White House gates. At one point, Trump joked that China, the world’s leading jailer of journalists, “has the friendliest press corps.” Now, his acolytes in Alabama are taking up Trump’s cause, emulating the Chinese Communist Party’s mastery of information control at the local level by decreeing what supposedly independent public radio reporters are allowed to say. 

The Alabama legislature passed a bill in late March requiring all state and local entities to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” in line with one of the many executive orders Trump signed on his first day in office. The legislation does not set forth penalties for noncompliance, but its sponsor, state Rep. David Standridge, called it “an opportunity to make a patriotic statement” on the House floor in January. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Trump ally, signed the bill into law.

Birmingham public radio station WBHM told its listeners in a letter from Will Dahlberg, the station’s executive director and general manager, that due to the law, which took effect October 1, the University of Alabama at Birmingham is forcing it to use the legislature’s preferred language in its reporting. The move puts it at odds with NPR, of which it is a member station; The Associated Press, which publishes the style guide used by newsrooms across the country; and other journalistic institutions. The station is licensed to the university, making its employees both state and UAB employees. Still, WBHM’s Journalism Code of Integrity emphasizes the newsroom’s independence and states that the university “should not — and cannot — expect to exert influence on WBHM’s journalists and its independent editorial process.”

Dahlberg wrote that not implementing the new language “may result in disciplinary action or termination of employees and affect WBHM’s relationship and support from UAB.” But nothing in the law requires the university to discipline or fire anyone. In other words, the university took a toothless stunt of a law, gave it teeth, and used them to take a bite out of press freedom.

Dahlberg also announced in the letter that he is stepping down from his position and leaving the station. His resignation was supposed to be effective October 16, but he posted an update that the university told him on Monday morning that he should pack his bags immediately. We cannot say for sure whether the university hastened Dahlberg’s departure due to his message to listeners and the criticism it generated, but the timing is certainly suspicious.

So why did the University of Alabama at Birmingham choose to embarrass itself rather than stand up for journalists and the First Amendment? As ridiculous as Alabama’s Gulf of America law is, its text did not tie the university’s hands. The university would not even have needed to bring a legal challenge to contest the law — it could have just let WBHM ignore it and supported its employees. 

The law only refers to “state and local entities” and makes no mention of media. It contains no penalties for noncompliance and limits its mandate to “when practicable,” giving a pass when complying would “impose an operational or financial burden.” Compelled speech is never practicable because it’s unconstitutional, but the operational and financial burdens of compliance are also significant. WBHM picks up national content from NPR and The Associated Press, for example. Are they expected to reject stories that say “Gulf of Mexico,” and fill that time with original reporting they haven’t budgeted or hired for? Or should they somehow intercept and edit those stories, likely in violation of their contractual obligations? 

There is also ample Supreme Court precedent for the proposition that the government cannot put words in reporters’ mouths. In a landmark 1943 case on whether the state could force students to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the court wrote that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” That means neither Standridge, Ivey, nor Trump is entitled to impose their definitions of patriotism on anyone —least of all the news media.

Related

Columbia Bent Over Backward to Appease Right-Wing, Pro-Israel Attacks — And Trump Still Cut Federal Funding

More recently, some conservatives celebrated 2024’s NRA v. Vullo decision, which found that public officials could not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” There is no exception for radio stations that receive public funding. In 1984, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on editorializing by public broadcasters that received federal money, holding that funding a station doesn’t entitle the government to control its journalism — a principle affirmed in March when a federal judge rejected Trump’s executive order to defund NPR and PBS.

The university could have taken the position that, for one, public radio stations are not state entities, and two, the government choosing which words reporters must say is impracticable and burdensome. Last but not least, the university should have taken the stand that the First Amendment still exists to protect us all, despite Trump’s best efforts to cast it aside.

Just as law firms, news outlets, colleges, and others that have settled with Trump to stay in his good graces chose to cave when they could have easily fought back (as others successfully have), the University of Alabama at Birmingham made the cowardly choice to comply in advance.

Related

Mahmoud Khalil: “We Can’t Afford to Stay Silent”

If anything, its capitulation is worse, because there’s no indication that the state intended to, or could, put up a fight. Is the Alabama legislature really so committed to Standridge’s silly law that it would waste taxpayer money litigating likely unwinnable constitutional battles? Maybe, but the university could have at least waited to see how, or if, the state would respond.

It is worth noting that Ivey is an ex officio member of the University of Alabama System Board of Trustees. That same board published an annual freedom of speech report in August. It consists of a single identical paragraph, copy-pasted each year with the only change being the date and the number of “events” held on its campuses that year, concluding that “the requirements of the [free speech] Policies have been repeatedly satisfied without a single alleged violation, which further speaks to their effectiveness in appropriately achieving the Board’s objectives.”

One is left to wonder if, despite pressuring WBHM to echo Trump talking points, the university will once again copy-paste that conclusion next year.

The post Public Radio Station Forced to Call Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” appeared first on The Intercept.

How much does it cost to get more information about a cop who punched someone in the face?

If you guessed anything lower than $2.5 million, you’d be wrong — at least according to the city of Eugene, Oregon.

In August, the local news outlet Double Sided Media filed a public records request for records about police officer Justin Peckels, which focused on potential misconduct between 2018 and 2026. Peckels has been the subject of community complaints, including for punching a resident in the face during a traffic stop, making the records vital for oversight and their release clearly in the public interest.

The city’s response is beyond belief. In its response to the request on Monday, the Eugene Police Department claimed searching for records and processing the request would take at least 44,816 hours of staff time and cost approximately $2,484,599.04. (A separate request by the outlet for similar records concerning a former police officer, Eric Klinko, was met with a comparatively modest estimate of $195,869.52, for a grand total of nearly $2.7 million for both requests.)

“Once the City receives payment of $2,484,599.04 staff will continue processing your request,” the letter from the department’s public records division read. “If the actual cost of processing your request exceeds the amount you have paid the City, you will be required to pay the difference before the City will provide the records you have requested.”

Peckels’s file is either the largest in the world, or city officials have intentionally maintained their databases in such a way as to ensure fulfilling public records requests is prohibitively expensive. The city’s response points, at a minimum, to the latter. It justified the multimillion-dollar price tag by claiming it couldn’t narrow the custodians whose records it would need to search, despite the targeted nature of the request, and maintained it must search all records of all city employees, past and present.

By that logic, if someone ever worked in Eugene’s parks and recreation department, their records could contain responsive information about police misconduct, and must be manually pulled and reviewed, one by one.

This goes far beyond incompetence. It’s an intentional effort to make a response artificially voluminous — and cost prohibitive — to intimidate the journalist into dropping it entirely. 

Normally, agencies are required to search the specific custodians most likely to possess responsive records, not every groundskeeper or clerk on the city payroll. If the city were acting in good faith, officials would have asked Double Sided Media to help them identify the most likely record-holders, not take it upon themselves to cast a citywide dragnet as its first step.

What makes Eugene’s money-grab particularly galling is its technology double standard. While it apparently can’t invest in efficient search software, the police department recently signed a two-year $342,000 contract for nearly 60 AI-powered Flock automated license plate readers. This project was so secretive that the ACLU of Oregon had to sue the city for records about how the cameras were being used and demonstrates, among other inclinations, the city’s eagerness to employ sophisticated software to deploy against residents. 

Yet that technological sophistication disappears as soon as a journalist requests public records about the department’s internal accountability process, and simple keyword searches are suddenly cumbersome. 

Troublingly, Eugene’s $2.5 million bill is not an anomaly.

In 2015, the Department of Defense told a Freedom of Information Act requester, who was asking for records on tools used to preserve data on seized devices, that fulfilling their request would take 15 million hours and cost $660 million.

The same year, the Drug Enforcement Administration told a requester it would cost $1.46 million for records about the DEA’s role in the search and capture of the Mexican cartel boss Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

In 2019, the Army tried to charge $300,000 to release military base water test results for the presence of toxic chemicals. The Army agreed to waive the exorbitant fee after facing intense backlash. 

The list goes on and on.

Luckily, records requesters seeking federal documents have a defense against these capricious invoices. Recent FOIA amendments aim to ensure if an agency misses its response deadlines, it can’t charge most fees. 

At the local level, however, these protections disintegrate. While Oregon grants agencies the discretion to reduce fees when the disclosure would benefit the public, agencies routinely ignore these provisions.

Related

The Intercept Sues Texas City Over Refusal to Release Police Records on Prairieland Protest

For small newsrooms like Double Sided Media, a $2.5 million invoice is effectively a gag order that was never actually about covering costs, but bullying the requester to drop their inquiry (all while Eugene Police Department launches its own “press” initiative to document its policing). It also sets the precedent for using this chilling tactic on any journalist or watchdog as it sees fit. 

Double Sided Media is rightly appealing the fee estimate, and it should prevail. But cities like Eugene will continue these efforts unless lawmakers across the country force agencies to adopt fee caps, mandate public-interest fee waivers for journalists, and require agencies to procure software that allows them to respond to records requests in an efficient and timely manner.

Until then, police departments will likely continue to issue multimillion-dollar ransoms for their records — weaponizing the public’s right to know into another avenue for police to operate with impunity.

The post Oregon Police Are Charging a Local News Outlet $2.5M for Records About One Cop appeared first on The Intercept.

Our Government’s Real Priorities

News reports that next year’s U.S. military budget will top out at $1.5 trillion if President Donald Trump gets his way are misleading at best. The true total, if Trump’s proposal passes, could be at least $1 trillion higher.

Long before Trump took office, U.S. taxpayers have spent far more on the Pentagon — and its wars — than most know. For decades, Congress, the White House, and the Pentagon have hidden the military’s true cost through little-known bureaucratic practices and budgeting tricks. Journalists, academics, and think tank experts have, with rare exceptions, perpetuated the problem by repeating “official” numbers that don’t come close to telling the full story.

Data shows that the budget was already between $1.5 trillion and $1.8 trillion in the last full fiscal year, 2025, as detailed by a recent Project on Government Oversight, or POGO, report I co-authored. Trump’s requests would add another $781 billion, bringing the potential total to at least $2.581 trillion in 2027.

Related

After Afghanistan Disaster, the Pentagon Is on Track to Get Even More Money

The troubling revelation that the government is misleading the public and effectively hiding hundreds of billions in military spending reflects the out-of-control nature of the Pentagon budget. It’s also the only sector of government spending that seems largely insulated from public scrutiny: Imagine the outrage if news broke that the government was hiding hundreds of billions in spending for public housing, Medicaid, or hunger prevention programs.

People have a right to know how much tax money goes to military spending. This is critical to debating the proper size of the military budget both on its own and compared to other spending priorities, particularly any program related to education or the social safety net. Understanding the military’s true cost means understanding where and how the government has been hiding the money.

Spending Hidden in Other Budgets

It’s difficult to untangle how much the country actually spends on the military in part because Congress pays for the armed forces and wars from many budgets rather than one. Beyond the agency controlling the military branches that Trump calls the “Department of War” (the official name is still the Department of Defense), hundreds of billions of dollars are effectively hidden in the budgets of at least 17 other government agencies and entities. In total, each of these additional sums are larger than what Congress appropriates for every non-military agency.

For years, TomDispatch and a small but mostly ignored group of budget experts have warned that total military spending is far higher than reported. Our new POGO report consolidates this prior work and five different methodologies for calculating the true military budget. The report shows a consensus that military spending was at least $1.5 trillion, with three of five methods reaching similar estimates of $1.7 trillion to $1.8 trillion.

The newest of the five methodologies provides the easiest way for anyone to see the hidden spending. The methodology uses data from a government website, USAspending.gov, the product of a 2006 law requiring the government “to give the American public access to information on how their tax dollars are being spent.” The site includes the closest thing to actual spending receipts, making it easier to identify military spending beyond the Department of War’s budget.

Let’s take a look at where the money’s hiding.

Hidden Nuclear Weapons Costs: $33.8 Billion

The most obvious place where Congress and the executive branch hide military spending is in the Department of Energy’s budget. That’s where taxpayers can find the bill for the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, which cost around $33.5 billion in 2025.

Related

AI Almost Started a U.S.–China War — and No One Seems to Care

The Department of War controls and deploys these weapons, and their costs should properly be part of its budget, not rolled into the Department of Energy. While the Energy Department plays a role in overseeing the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, putting nuclear weapons spending in the DOE’s budget is like a city putting the costs of its police department’s bullets in its transportation department budget rather than in the police budget.

Another $300 million in nuclear weapons spending hides in the budgets of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and the Army Corps of Engineers, bringing the total to nearly $34 billion.

Hidden Military Personnel (Veterans) Costs: $393.3 Billion

Taxpayers spend huge sums on the military in the Department of Veterans Affairs and related budgets. The existence of a separate veterans’ agency is a sleight of hand that leads the public to believe this is not military spending. It is. The only difference is the appropriation of money to still another agency.

Related

Trump’s War on Iran Could Cost Trillions

To recruit and maintain armed forces, any government needs to pay its troops and offer sufficient long-term benefits (such as pensions, medical care in retirement, and survivor benefits) to encourage people to join and stay in a dangerous job that involves the risk of killing and being killed. These forms of long-term compensation are personnel costs, just as much as basic pay, and they should be counted as military spending. If a military fails to spend money to support vets, it’s unlikely to function for long. The Bureau of Pensions for veterans was originally part of the War Department (which was the name until 1947, long before Trump’s rebranding) and its budget until 1849 when Congress transferred the bureau to the Department of the Interior.

Funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs adds another $389.8 billion to the USAspending.gov methodology total. Almost $4 billion more in long-term spending on personnel hides in the budgets of the departments of Labor, Justice, and several others. All told, these sums reach a staggering $393.3 billion.

Coast Guard and Other “Homeland Security” Costs: $16.8 billion

Spending for an entire branch of the military, the Coast Guard, is concealed in the budget of the Department of Homeland Security rather than the Department of War. While DHS controls the Coast Guard during peacetime and the branch plays some non-military functions, the Coast Guard is one of the armed forces and is controlled by the Pentagon in wartime.

Related

The Questionable Case of Kristi Noem’s $50 Million Luxury Jet

Excluding non-military activities (such as improving boat safety and cleaning up oil spills), Coast Guard spending adds nearly $14 billion to the total military budget. Additional DHS expenses for programs to counter weapons of mass destruction, radiological preparedness, cybersecurity, and other military spending add just under $3 billion, bringing this total to $16.8 billion.

The True Cost of the Department of War: $1.3 Trillion

The bulk of military expenditures still appear in the Department of War’s budget, which pays for the armed forces and the rest of the Pentagon’s sprawling bureaucracy, including all the weapons, salaries, some benefits, military construction, fuel, maintenance, operational expenses, and much more. USAspending.gov receipts show the Department of War alone spent $1.273 trillion in 2025. The Pentagon controlled another $480 million in spending that hid in the budgets of the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Department of Transportation.

Combined with the $444.8 billion tallied previously, total military spending hits $1.718 trillion. That’s more than double the military budget usually reported for 2025: the $850 billion Congress appropriated to the Department of War.

Total Military Spending by Agency (FY2025)

*No FY2025 spending. However, there was a $1 billion budget appropriation to the Executive Office of the President for “Submarine Security Activities, National Security Council.” The government also funded account line items in the Department of Agriculture budget to support the Air Force and Army.

Still Other Costs

The $1.7 trillion estimate for last year is conservative and still may be too low. While the War Department budget contains classified funding for the CIA, National Security Agency, and other intelligence agencies, the government may hide more intelligence spending elsewhere. NASA space research involves considerable military work, which could add another $10.5 billion, according to USAspending.gov data. Some would also count $1.9 billion in FBI salaries and expenses found in the Department of Justice budget.

Other experts consider much larger expenditures in the DHS budget to be military spending, given that department’s role in protecting the “homeland” and the increasingly militarized nature of Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Border Patrol. This would add at least $216.9 billion after excluding DHS’s Federal Emergency Management Agency spending. Alternate methodologies also include $211.9 billion in interest payments on the more than $40 trillion in national debt stemming from past military spending and wars.

You can add and subtract forms of spending that you think belong or don’t belong in the true total, thanks to the transparency of the POGO report’s methodologies. In total, these excluded sums could add another $441.2 billion to the USAspending.gov method’s prior total of $1.718 trillion for 2025. 

Growing Opposition to Unchecked Pentagon Spending

POGO report’s conservative estimates of the FY2025 budget being $1.5 trillion to $1.8 trillion reveal that the true military budget for 2027 could hit $2.6 trillion if Congress gives Trump what he wants. This includes requested increases totaling $781 billion for just the Department of War ($500 billion), the Iran war ($70 billion), veterans ($144.9 billion), nuclear weapons ($53.9 billion), and the Coast Guard ($12.5 billion), let alone other smaller forms of hidden Pentagon spending.

When mind-numbing numbers like these reach the trillions, it can be tempting to think, What does it matter if it’s $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion or $2.6 trillion?

Related

What the U.S. Could Have Bought After 9/11 Instead of a “War on Terror”

It helps me to remember that every single dollar spent on the Pentagon is a dollar not spent on our children, on healthcare, on affordable housing, on efforts to slow catastrophic climate change, and much more.

If Congress passes Trump’s full budget proposal, military spending will eat up around 75 percent of the discretionary budget Congress controls. Every dollar spent on the Pentagon is also a dollar more for Trump to continue waging his illegal, disastrous war on Iran and the funds to make good on his threats to attack Cuba and other countries.

Advocates for increased military spending will likely insist that more money is always needed, no matter today’s true total. That these Pentagon boosters have cited incorrect figures and helped mislead the public for decades raises serious questions about their credibility and the basis for their seemingly endless demands for more money.

Thankfully, there’s growing resistance to Trump’s proposals. Nearly 6 in 10 people nationwide believe even the official $1.5 trillion request is “too high,” according to a recent poll conducted by ReThink Media and the Costs of War Project at Brown University, a nonpartisan research group (where I’m a contributor). And Democrats appear to be listening: They’ve voted against Trump’s budget in unprecedented numbers as it winds through Congress. Some Republicans have also expressed concerns about supporting Trump’s proposal given fears about the rising national debt.

There are growing calls to cut the Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars without touching salaries and benefits for troops and veterans. This would still leave the country with the world’s largest military budget by far and allow Congress to reallocate the savings to programs that improve the lives of everyday Americans.

The public needs a full, accurate accounting of the military. Congress could provide an annual True Total Military Budget that tallies all of the Pentagon’s spending in one place and stop hiding funding in other agencies’ budgets. Until this happens, journalists and analysts can help by explaining the full scale of spending and no longer repeating incomplete totals.

As Trump asks for the highest military budget in the history of the world and people continue to suffer the effects of his war with Iran — which has killed and injured thousands, increased the price of gas and groceries, and risks even greater catastrophic harm globally — it’s time to have an informed debate about how much the country really needs to spend on its military.

The post The Pentagon’s Secret Budget appeared first on The Intercept.