Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro called himself a “prisoner of war” while pleading not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in a US court in New York City on Monday, after the Trump administration abducted him and his wife in an overnight raid that killed dozens of people.

“I am the president of Venezuela, and I consider myself a prisoner of war. They captured me in my house in Caracas,” Maduro said in Spanish at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan US Courthouse. “I am not guilty. I am a decent man. I remain the president of my country.”

After being seized by US forces before dawn on Saturday, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were moved to a Brooklyn jail, over the objections of New York City’s recently inaugurated mayor, Zohran Mamdani, who called President Donald Trump after the military operation.

The Associated Press reported on the couple’s transfer to the Manhattan courthouse early Monday:

A motorcade carrying Maduro left jail around 7:15 am and made its way to a nearby athletic field, where Maduro slowly made his way to a waiting helicopter. The chopper flew across New York Harbor and landed at a Manhattan heliport, where Maduro, limping, was loaded into an armored vehicle.

A few minutes later, the law enforcement caravan was inside a garage at the courthouse complex, just around the corner from the one where Donald Trump was convicted in 2024 of falsifying business records. Across the street from the courthouse, the police separated a small but growing group of protesters from about a dozen pro-intervention demonstrators, including one man who pulled a Venezuelan flag away from those protesting the US action.

The 25-page US indictment released Saturday claims that Maduro, who previously served in Venezuela’s National Assembly and as the South American country’s minister of foreign affairs, “has partnered with his co-conspirators to use his illegally obtained authority and the institutions he corroded to transport thousands of tons of cocaine to the United States.”

Maduro “now sits atop a corrupt, illegitimate government that, for decades, has leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking,” the document continues. “That drug trafficking has enriched and entrenched Venezuela’s political and military elite.”

Like her husband, Flores pleaded “not guilty, completely innocent,” during the Monday arraignment. According to CNN, reporters observed bandages on Flores’ head and her attorney, Mark Donnelly, told the presiding judge that she sustained “significant injuries during her abduction,” including possibly bruised or fractured ribs.

The presiding judge is Alvin Hellerstein, a 92-year-old appointed to the Southern District of New York by former President Bill Clinton. Al Jazeera noted that he “has overseen numerous high-profile cases in his career, including relating to the 9/11 attacks and the Sudanese genocide.”

“It’s my job to assure this is a fair trial,” said Hellerstein, who scheduled the next hearing for March 17.

The weekend abduction has sparked global protests, comparisons to the US invasion of Iraq, demands for Trump’s impeachment, concerns about the involvement of American oil companies, and fears of the White House’s threats of more military action elsewhere.

Developers behind two of the five offshore wind projects recently targeted by the Trump administration took action in federal court this week, seeking preliminary injunctions that would enable construction to continue while the legal battles play out.

Empire Offshore Wind LLC filed a civil lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday, challenging the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) December 22 stop-work order, which the company argued is “unlawful and threatens the progress of ongoing work with significant implications for the project” off the coast of New York.

“Empire Wind is more than 60% complete and represents a significant investment in U.S. energy infrastructure, jobs, and supply chains,” the company highlighted. “The project’s construction phase alone has put nearly 4,000 people to work, both within the lease area and through the revitalization of the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal.”

The filing came just a day after a similar one in the same court on Thursday from the joint venture between Skyborn Renewables and the Danish company Ørsted, which is developing Revolution Wind off Rhode Island and Connecticut. That project is approximately 87% complete and was expected to begin generating power as soon as this month.

“Sunrise Wind LLC, a separate project and wholly owned subsidiary of Ørsted that also received a lease suspension order on December 22, continues to evaluate all options to resolve the matter, including engagement with relevant agencies and stakeholders and considering legal proceedings,” the Danish firm said. That project is also off New York.

As the New York Times noted Friday: “At stake overall is about $25 billion of investment in the five wind farms. The projects were expected to create 10,000 jobs and to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses.”

The other two projects targeted by the Trump administration over alleged national security concerns are Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind. The developer of the latter, Dominion Energy, launched a legal challenge in federal court in Virginia the day after the DOI’s lease suspension order, and a hearing is scheduled for this month.

“Delaying the project will lead to increased costs for customers and threaten long-term grid reliability,” Dominion spokesperson Jeremy Slayton told NC Newsline on Tuesday. “Given the project’s critical importance, we have a responsibility to pursue every available avenue to deliver the project as quickly and at the lowest cost possible on behalf of our customers and the stability of the overall grid.”

President Donald Trump’s public opposition to offshore wind energy dates back to before his first term as president, when he unsuccessfully fought against the Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm near his golf course in Scotland. Since entering US politics, the Republican has taken money from and served the interests of fossil fuel giants while waging war on renewable power projects and lying about the climate emergency.

As the Times detailed:

Mr. Trump has falsely claimed that wind farms kill whales (scientists have said there is no evidence to support that) and that turbines “litter” the country and are like “garbage in a field”...

This week President Trump posted on social media a photo of a bird beneath a windmill and suggested it was a bald eagle killed in the United States by a wind turbine. “Windmills are killing all of our beautiful Bald Eagles,” the president wrote. It was also posted by the White House and the Department of Energy.

The post turned out to be a 2017 image from Israel, and the animal was likely a kestrel. On Friday Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social again, this time an image of birds flying around a wind turbine, that read, “Killing birds by the millions!”

While the DOI did not respond to the newspaper’s request for comment, and the department referred the Hill to its December statement citing radar interference concerns, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told NC Newsline earlier this week that Trump has made clear that he believes wind energy is “the scam of the century.”

“For years, Americans have been forced to pay billions more for the least reliable source of energy,” Rogers said. “The Trump administration has paused the construction of all large-scale offshore wind projects because our number one priority is to put America First and protect the national security of the American people.”

Meanwhile, climate campaigners and elected Democrats have blasted the Trump administration’s attacks on the five offshore projects, warning of the economic and planetary consequences. Democratic senators have also halted permitting reform talks over the president’s “reckless and vindictive assault” on wind power.

Additionally, as Common Dreams reported Monday, the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility warned congressional committees that the DOI orders are “not legally defensible” and raise “significant” questions about conflicts of interest involving a top department official’s investments in fossil gas.

Led by Big Tech billionaires including Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, and Elon Musk, the world’s 500 richest people added a record $2.2 trillion to their collective wealth in 2025, Bloomberg reported as the year ended on Wednesday.

“Obscene greed! While billions of people live in poverty,” human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell responded on X—a social media platform now controlled by Musk, the richest person on Earth. “It’s why we need a global wealth tax.”

Musk—who could become the world’s first trillionaire thanks to his new controversial pay package as CEO of Tesla—is one of just eight ultrawealthy individuals who got around a quarter of all the gains recorded by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The others are Amazon founder Bezos and Oracle chairman Ellison, as well as Michael Dell, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Jensen Huang of Nvidia, and Meta‘s Mark Zuckerberg. The previous year, Bloomberg noted, “the same eight billionaires made up 43% of the total gains.”

According to Bloomberg, the gains that brought the combined net worth of all 500 people to $11.9 trillion “were turbocharged” by the 2024 election victory of President Donald Trump. The Republican and his relatives were among the “biggest winners” of 2025, gaining at least $282 million, for a net worth of $6.8 billion.

The “winners” also include Musk, who gained $190.3 billion for a net worth of $622.7 billion; Ellison, who gained $57.7 billion for a net worth of $249.8 billion; and Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart, who gained $12.6 billion for a net worth of $37.7 billion.

After Trump’s electoral win, several Big Tech billionaires buddied up to him, with Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai all attending his inauguration. Musk then spent several months spearheading the administration’s attack on federal workforce as the de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Sharing the Guardian‘s coverage of the findings on the social media network Bluesky, British climate scientist Bill McGuire warned that “if the monstrous political-economic system that is tearing our planet, the climate, and its people apart isn’t brought to its knees—then humanity will be.”

The Guardian pointed to Oxfam International’s November statement that $2.2 trillion “would have been more than enough to lift 3.8 billion people out of poverty,” which the humanitarian group highlighted ahead of the Group of 20 Summit hosted by South Africa, whose government used its G20 presidency to push for solutions to global inequality.

“Inequality is a deliberate policy choice. Despite record wealth at the top, public wealth is stagnating, even declining, and debt distress is growing,” Oxfam executive director Amitabh Behar said at the time. “Inequality rips away life opportunities and rights from the majority of citizens, sparking poverty, hunger, resentment, distrust, and instability.”

A June 2024 report from French economist and EU Tax Observatory director Gabriel Zucman—prepared for the G20’s Brazilian presidency—estimated that a global 2% minimum tax on the wealth of 3,000 billionaires could generate about $250 billion.

As seven Nobel laureates, including Joseph Stiglitz, noted in a July op-ed published by the French newspaper Le Monde, “By extending this minimum rate to individuals with wealth over $100 million, these sums would increase significantly.”

Led by Big Tech billionaires including Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, and Elon Musk, the world’s 500 richest people added a record $2.2 trillion to their collective wealth in 2025, Bloomberg reported as the year ended on Wednesday.

“Obscene greed! While billions of people live in poverty,” human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell responded on X—a social media platform now controlled by Musk, the richest person on Earth. “It’s why we need a global wealth tax.”

Musk—who could become the world’s first trillionaire thanks to his new controversial pay package as CEO of Tesla—is one of just eight ultrawealthy individuals who got around a quarter of all the gains recorded by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The others are Amazon founder Bezos and Oracle chairman Ellison, as well as Michael Dell, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Jensen Huang of Nvidia, and Meta‘s Mark Zuckerberg. The previous year, Bloomberg noted, “the same eight billionaires made up 43% of the total gains.”

According to Bloomberg, the gains that brought the combined net worth of all 500 people to $11.9 trillion “were turbocharged” by the 2024 election victory of President Donald Trump. The Republican and his relatives were among the “biggest winners” of 2025, gaining at least $282 million, for a net worth of $6.8 billion.

The “winners” also include Musk, who gained $190.3 billion for a net worth of $622.7 billion; Ellison, who gained $57.7 billion for a net worth of $249.8 billion; and Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart, who gained $12.6 billion for a net worth of $37.7 billion.

After Trump’s electoral win, several Big Tech billionaires buddied up to him, with Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai all attending his inauguration. Musk then spent several months spearheading the administration’s attack on federal workforce as the de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Sharing the Guardian‘s coverage of the findings on the social media network Bluesky, British climate scientist Bill McGuire warned that “if the monstrous political-economic system that is tearing our planet, the climate, and its people apart isn’t brought to its knees—then humanity will be.”

The Guardian pointed to Oxfam International’s November statement that $2.2 trillion “would have been more than enough to lift 3.8 billion people out of poverty,” which the humanitarian group highlighted ahead of the Group of 20 Summit hosted by South Africa, whose government used its G20 presidency to push for solutions to global inequality.

“Inequality is a deliberate policy choice. Despite record wealth at the top, public wealth is stagnating, even declining, and debt distress is growing,” Oxfam executive director Amitabh Behar said at the time. “Inequality rips away life opportunities and rights from the majority of citizens, sparking poverty, hunger, resentment, distrust, and instability.”

A June 2024 report from French economist and EU Tax Observatory director Gabriel Zucman—prepared for the G20’s Brazilian presidency—estimated that a global 2% minimum tax on the wealth of 3,000 billionaires could generate about $250 billion.

As seven Nobel laureates, including Joseph Stiglitz, noted in a July op-ed published by the French newspaper Le Monde, “By extending this minimum rate to individuals with wealth over $100 million, these sums would increase significantly.”

This story was published in partnership with Common Dreams. Read the original here.

With millions of Americans facing health insurance premium hikes and Affordable Care Act tax credits expiring at midnight, critics, including congressional Democrats, called out Republicans on Capitol Hill for kicking off 2026 with a nationwide healthcare crisis.

“When the clock strikes midnight, the fallout of the GOP’s premium hikes will ripple throughout the nation,” Protect Our Care chair Leslie Dach said in a Wednesday statement. “This new year brings a healthcare catastrophe unlike anything this nation has ever seen. Hardworking Americans will be sent into crippling medical debt, emptying out their savings just to see a doctor. Others will be forced to live without the life-saving coverage they need. Untold tens of thousands will die from preventable causes.”

“And hundreds of hospitals, nursing homes, and maternity wards will shutter or be at risk of disappearing out of thin air,” Dach warned. “When the American people go to the ballot box in November, they won’t forget who’s responsible for all of this chaos and carnage. They won’t forget who’s responsible for their skimpier coverage, sky-high premiums, and vanishing hospitals.”

Republican lawmakers declined to extend ACA subsidies in their so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which is also expected to slash an estimated $1 trillion in Medicaid spending over the next decade, leading to health clinic closures, while giving more tax breaks to the ultrawealthy. Even the longest federal government shutdown in history—which a handful of moderate Senate Democrats ultimately ended without any real concessions—couldn’t convince the GOP to extend the expiring tax credits.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has faced calls to step down over his handling of both shutdowns this year, stressed in a Wednesday statement that the healthcare crisis beginning Thursday “was entirely preventable—caused by Republican obstruction and total inaction.”

“Millions of Americans will lose their healthcare, and millions more will see their costs spike by thousands of dollars,” he continued. “Millions of hardworking families, small business owners and employees, older Americans, and farmers and ranchers will face impossible choices.”

Specifically, about 22 million people who receive subsidies face higher premiums next year, and experts warn nearly 5 million people could become uninsured if the tax credits aren’t extended. That’s on top of the at least 10 million people expected to lose Medicaid coverage over the next decade, thanks to the OBBBA that President Donald Trump signed into law this summer.

Noting that the expiring subsidies are set to leave millions of Americans without health insurance, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) declared on social media Wednesday, “Republicans don’t give a damn.”

The Chicago Tribune on Wednesday shared the story of Eleanor Walsh, of St. John, Indiana. She and her husband, who are both self-employed, paid around $9,100 for health insurance this year. In 2026, it will increase to $23,400. To save money, they are going with another plan, which has a $10,130 deductible for each of them, she told the newspaper.

“We’re going through every expense we have,” said Walsh, whose family has over $10,000 in medical debt from her husband’s recent open-heart surgery. “It’s going to be a rough year.”

In Alta, Wyoming, Stacy Newton and her husband similarly run small businesses and buy health insurance through the ACA marketplace. She was diagnosed with chronic leukemia last year. The cheapest option to cover the couple and their teenage kids next year includes a $3,573 monthly premium, or nearly $43,000 for the year, with a $21,200 deductible.

“It’s terrifying... We’re not rich, we’re not poor. We’re a standard, middle-class family, and somehow now I can’t afford health insurance,” Newton told the Washington Post. “If my leukemia acts up, I’m up a creek... I just don’t have a solution yet.”

“I just officially canceled my ACA marketplace insurance for 2026,” she told the paper earlier this week. “How on Earth is this going to unfold for millions of people in America?”

While Americans are forced to make coverage decisions before open enrollment ends in mid-January, without any promise of the subsidies returning, Schumer signaled that Democrats are still fighting for a fix in Washington, DC.

“Senate Republicans had multiple chances to work with Democrats to stop premiums from skyrocketing—and every time, they blocked action,” he said. “While Republicans chose to do nothing and ignore the pain families will feel starting tomorrow, Senate Democrats are fighting to lower costs, protect coverage, and make life more affordable—not harder—for American families.”

Four Republicans in the House of Representatives have signed on to a discharge petition to force a January vote on Democratic legislation to extend the credits for three years. Roll Call reported Tuesday that “with the knowledge that a procedural vote on a similar bill was rejected in the Senate, a bipartisan group of senators is working on a compromise to extend the credits.”

However, as the outlet also pointed out, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has called Democrats’ three-year extension of the tax credits a “waste of money.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)—one of the lawmakers who has used the current healthcare debate to renew demands for Medicare for All—took aim at Thune on social media Monday.

Other lawmakers have kept up the battle for universal healthcare this week. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said Tuesday that “everyone in America—no matter what their ZIP code is—should have access to the quality healthcare they need, when they need it. That’s why I’m fighting to put us on the path to Medicare for All.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who reintroduced the Medicare for All Act in April with Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (Mich.)—highlighted Sunday that “millions of Americans remain at jobs they hate for one reason: the health insurance they receive.”

“That’s absurd,” he said. “Universal healthcare will give Americans the freedom to choose the work they want without worrying about healthcare coverage. Another reason for Medicare for All.”

Absent any real progress on the ACA, let alone Medicare for All, in DC, “at least a dozen states are working to shield people from soaring health insurance costs following Congress’ failure to extend Obamacare subsidies for tens of millions of Americans,” Politico reported Monday.

Elected officials are taking action in states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Mexico, the last of which is the only one so far to cover all expiring subsidies, according to the outlet.

“We can carry the cost for a little bit, but at some point, we will need Congress to act,” said the speaker of New Mexico House of Representatives, Javier Martínez (D-11). “No state can withstand to plug in every single budget hole that the Trump administration leaves behind.”

This story was published in partnership with Common Dreams. Read the original here.

Two Democratic leaders in the US Senate revealed Tuesday that they’re demanding answers from the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, about her access to federal files on deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and whether she’s involved in their “bungled and potentially illegal partial release.”

President Donald Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein—at least until a reported falling out in 2004. Although the president ultimately signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, it came after he faced intense criticism for his administration not willingly releasing the records, and congressional Republicans delayed passage of the bill, which requires the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to publish materials related to the late financier’s sex trafficking case.

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), ranking member for the Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, began their letter to Wiles by pointing to a two-part Vanity Fair series featuring interviews with Trump’s top advisers, including Wiles.

As Chris Whipple reported:

Wiles told me she’d read what she calls “the Epstein file.” And, she said, “[Trump] is in the file. And we know he’s in the file. And he’s not in the file doing anything awful.” Wiles said that Trump “was on [Epstein’s] plane… he’s on the manifest. They were, you know, sort of young, single, whatever—I know it’s a passé word but sort of young, single playboys together.”

Noting those remarks, the senators wrote to Wiles, “Please be kind enough to explain when and where and under what authority you gained access to this material.”

They also sent Wiles the list of questions below and requested her response by January 5:

1. What were the materials in “the Epstein file” you referred to in your Vanity Fair interview?
2. Had material in the file you reviewed been presented to a grand jury?
3. When did you first gain access to “the Epstein file” and what was the schedule of your review of it?
4. For what purpose did you gain access to this information?
5. Did you share with President Trump any information contained in the file you reviewed?
6. Please describe your role in any process related to the review, redaction, withholding, or release of material in the “Epstein file,” including any processes involving the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The letter is dated December 22, just three days after the deadline set by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The DOJ has missed the deadline, released files in batches, and faced scrutiny for redactions.

Press freedom advocates on Thursday welcomed The New York Times’ lawsuit over the US Department of Defense’s “flatly unconstitutional” press policy, filed on the heels of the first briefing for what critics call the “Pentagon Propaganda Corps.”

The newspaper and Times reporter Julian E. Barnes, one of several journalists who refused to sign the policy earlier this year, are suing the DOD—which President Donald Trump has dubbed the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, in the US District Court in Washington, D.C.

The plaintiffs are asking Judge Paul L. Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, to strike down provisions of the Pentagon policy that violate their First and Fifth Amendment rights, and warn that “if allowed to stand, that policy will upend the longstanding and ‘healthy adversarial tension between the government, which may seek to keep its secrets’ and ‘the press, which may endeavor to’ report them... and will deprive the public of vital information about the United States military and its leadership.”

The filing notably comes not only as the DOD celebrates that dozens of “independent journalists, bloggers, and social media influencers” who “are not associated with legacy media outlets, including print media such as newspapers and magazines, and broadcast media, such as cable television news,” have joined the new Pentagon Press Corps in exchange for signing the controversial agreement, but also as Trump and Hegseth face mounting outrage over boat bombings that experts argue are “war crimes, murder, or both.”

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the newspaper, said in a statement that “the Times stands with fellow news organizations across digital, print, and broadcast media, including many conservative outlets, in strongly opposing this unprecedented policy.”

The paper has hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn. The Washington Post reported that “lawyers representing the Times said they discussed litigation with other news organizations but ultimately decided to proceed on their own. They said they would welcome other outlets filing their own lawsuits or amicus briefs in the Times’ case.”

While Parnell said in a statement that “we are aware of the New York Times lawsuit and look forward to addressing these arguments in court,” journalists and media advocacy groups are already signaling support for the newspaper—which is also battling a $15 billion defamation suit refiled by the president in October.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press vice president of policy Gabe Rottman said Thursday that “the Pentagon’s press access policy is unlawful because it gives government officials unchecked power over who gets a credential and who doesn’t, something the First Amendment prohibits.”

“The public needs independent journalism and the reporters who deliver it back in the Pentagon at a time of heightened scrutiny of the department’s actions,” he asserted. “We look forward to lending our voice in support of this suit.”

The Pentagon Press Association said it was “encouraged by the New York Times’ effort to step up and defend press freedom,” while White House Correspondents’ Association president Weijia Jiang declared that the WHCA “stands firmly” with the newspaper and described the suit as “a necessary and vital step to ensure journalists can do their jobs.”

Clayton Weimers, executive director for Reporters Without Borders USA, said that “it’s great to see the New York Times continue to proactively defend press freedom in the courts as well as on their pages. We all know by now that capitulation to Donald Trump’s authoritarian impulses never works out, but fighting back will.”

“This is the logical next step after the mass refusal of journalists to sign Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s loyalty pledge,” Weimers added. “Journalists must be able to cover the government critically and freely.”

Pointing to television companies’ recent settlements with the president, Freedom of the Press Foundation executive director Trevor Timm said that “in an era where news networks seem to be caving to Trump’s censorious tactics left and right, it’s refreshing to see the New York Times leading by example and sticking up for the First Amendment in court.”

“An attack on any journalist’s rights is an attack on all. And the only way to put an end to the Trump administration’s multipronged assault on press freedom is for every news outlet to fight back at every opportunity,” Timm continued. “We urge other news outlets to follow the Times’ lead.”

“These days, the government has countless platforms of its own to tell the public what it wants it to know. A free and independent press isn’t needed for that,” he noted. “The Constitution guarantees one anyway precisely because the public needs the information the government does not want it to know. The Pentagon’s absurd access pledge has been an affront to the First Amendment since the first day they proposed it. And we look forward to a federal judge throwing it out with the trash, where it belongs.”

The libertarian Cato Institute this week further undermined the Trump administration’s claims that it is targeting “the worst of the worst” with its violent immigration operations in communities across the United States by publishing data about the criminal histories—or lack thereof—of immigrants who have been arrested and booked into detention.

David J. Bier, the institute’s director of immigration studies, previously reported in June that 65% of people taken by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had no convictions, and 93% had no violent convictions.

Monday evening, Bier shared a new nonpublic dataset leaked to Cato. Of the 44,882 people booked into ICE custody from when the fiscal year began on October 1 through November 15, 73% had no criminal convictions. For that share, around two-thirds also had no pending charges.

The data also show that most of those recently booked into ICE detention with criminal convictions had faced immigration, traffic, or vice charges. Just 5% had a violent conviction, and 3% had a property conviction.

“Other data sources support the conclusions from the number of ICE book-ins,” Bier wrote, citing information on agency arrests from January to late July—or the first six months of President Donald Trump’s second term—that the Deportation Data Project acquired via a public records request.

The data show that as of January 1, just before former President Joe Biden left office, 149 immigrants without charges or convictions were arrested by ICE. That number surged by 1,500% under Trump: It peaked at 4,072 in June and ultimately was 2,386 by the end of July—when 67% of all arrestees had no criminal convictions, and 39% had neither convictions nor charges.

Bier also pointed to publicly available data about current detainees on ICE’s website, emphasizing that “the number of people in detention who were convicted of a crime and had no pending charges increased a staggering 2,370% since January from fewer than 1,000 to over 21,000.”

In addition to publishing an article on Cato’s site, Bier detailed the findings on the social media platform X, where various critics of the administration’s immigration crackdown weighed in. Among them was Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), who said: “These are the facts. I’ve spoken to dozens of people held inside ICE detention centers in Arizona and this tracks.”

US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) declared: “This is the scandal. Trump isn’t targeting dangerous people. He’s targeting peaceful immigrants. Almost exclusively.”

The US Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, also jumped in, as did DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin. Responding to Murphy, McLaughlin said in part: “This is so dumb it hurts my soul. This is a made-up pie chart with no legitimate data behind it—just propaganda to undermine the brave work of DHS law enforcement and fool Americans.”

Bier and others then took aim at McLaughlin, with the Cato director offering the raw data and challenging her to “just admit you don’t care whether the people you’re arresting are threats to others or not.”

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that “DHS’s spokeswoman lies AGAIN,” calling out her post as “either a knowing lie or an egregious mistake.”

“The data David J. Bier published was distributed to multiple congressional staffers and is just a more detailed breakdown of data, which is publicly available on ICE’s own website,” he stressed.

Journalist Jose Olivares noted that this is “not the first time Tricia McLaughlin has said that ICE’s own data is ‘propaganda.’ Months ago, she slammed me and my colleague at the Guardian on PBS... even though we used ICE’s own data for our reporting.”

Two Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Monday added their names to a discharge petition that will now force a vote on legislation to restore the collective bargaining rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers targeted by GOP President Donald Trump.

US Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) responded to Trump’s legally contentious executive order by introducing the Protect America’s Workforce Act in April. They began collecting petition signatures in June. At least 218 members had to sign it to override House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and force a vote on the bill.

Two New York Republicans, Reps. Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler, signed the petition on Monday. It was previously signed by the sponsors, House Democrats, and GOP Reps. Rob Bresnahan (Pa.) and Don Bacon (Neb.). Their move came on the heels of an end to the longest government shutdown in US history, which left some federal workers furloughed and others working without pay.

“Every American deserves the right to have a voice in the workplace, including those who serve their country every single day. Supporting workers and ensuring good government are not opposing ideas,” Lawler said in a statement. “They go hand in hand. Restoring collective bargaining rights strengthens our federal workforce and helps deliver more effective, accountable service to the American people.”

“Speaker Johnson has run out of excuses to delay a vote on this legislation to restore federal workers’ rights.”

Golden, a former Blue Dog Coalition co-chair who recently announced his plans to retire from Congress after this term, thanked the newest signatories for joining the fight for his bill.

“America never voted to eliminate workers’ union rights, and the strong bipartisan support for my bill shows that Congress will not stand idly by while President Trump nullifies federal workers’ collective bargaining agreements and rolls back generations of labor law,” Golden said. “I’m grateful to Reps. LaLota and Lawler for bringing this discharge petition over the finish line, and I’m calling on Speaker Mike Johnson to schedule a clean, up-or-down vote on this bill.”

Liz Shuler, president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the country’s largest federation of unions, similarly welcomed the latest signatures and set her sights on the House speaker.

“The labor movement fought back against the largest act of union-busting in American history by doing what we do best: organizing,” Shuler said in a Monday statement. “Working people built a bipartisan coalition to restore union rights to federal workers in the face of unprecedented attacks on our freedoms. We commend every Democrat and Republican who signed the discharge petition to bring the Protect America’s Workforce Act to a vote, but the fight isn’t over.”

“Speaker Johnson has run out of excuses to delay a vote on this legislation to restore federal workers’ rights,” she continued. “It’s time to bring the Protect America’s Workforce Act to a vote and restore federal workers’ right to collectively bargain and have a voice on the job.”

Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—which is the largest federal workers union, representing 820,000 people in the federal and District of Columbia governments—also applauded the development on Monday.

“An independent, apolitical civil service is one of the bedrocks of American democracy,” Kelley said in a statement. “Today, lawmakers stood up together to defend that principle and to affirm that federal workers must retain their right to collective bargaining. This is what leadership looks like.”

“Federal workers do their jobs every day without regard to politics. Today’s action honors that commitment,” Kelley asserted.

“AFGE will continue fighting until these essential rights are fully restored, including by fighting to retain Section 1110 of the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act,” he vowed, referring to an amendment to the NDAA that restores bargaining rights to hundreds of thousands of civilians working in the US Department of Defense.

While discharge petitions are rarely successful, this one secured the necessary 218 signatures following a similar victory last week, when the newest member of Congress, Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), signed her name to an effort to force a vote on releasing files related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Although President Donald Trump didn’t actually confess that his global trade war is driving up the cost of groceries for Americans, he did finally drop his dubiously named “reciprocal” tariffs on key imports on Friday.

According to a White House fact sheet, Trump’s new executive order ends his tariffs on beef; cocoa and spices; coffee and tea; bananas, oranges, and tomatoes; other tropical fruits and fruit juices; and fertilizers.

The New York Times had reported Thursday that “the Trump administration is preparing broad exemptions to certain tariffs in an effort to ease elevated food prices that have provoked anxiety for American consumers.”

The reporting drew critiques of the administration’s economic policies, including from members of Congress such as Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who said that “Trump just admitted it: Americans are footing the bill for his disastrous tariffs.”

“While this move may alleviate some of the cost increases Trump caused, it will not stop the larger problems of rising inflation, business uncertainty, and economic damage done by Trump’s crazy tariff scheme.”

Also responding to the Times reporting, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Friday: “After months of increasing grocery prices, Donald Trump is finally admitting he was wrong. Americans are literally paying the price for Trump’s mistakes.”

More lawmakers and other critics piled on after Trump issued the order. CNN‘s Jim Sciutto said: “Trump administration now acknowledging what economists and business leaders have told us from the beginning: that tariffs are driving up prices.”

MeidasTouch and its editor in chief, Ron Filipkowski, also called out the president on social media, with the outlet sarcastically noting, “But Trump said his tariffs don’t raise prices.”

Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va), who serves on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, said in a Friday statement that “President Trump is finally admitting what we always knew: His tariffs are raising prices for the American people.”

“After getting drubbed in recent elections because of voters’ fury that Trump has broken his promises to fix inflation, the White House is trying to cast this tariff retreat as a ‘pivot to affordability,'” Beyer said, referencing Democrats who won key races last week, from more moderate Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger, the incoming governors of New Jersey and Virginia, to democratic socialist Mayors-elect Zohran Mamdani of New York City and Katie Wilson of Seattle.

In addition to those electoral victories for Democrats, last week featured a debate over Trump’s trade war at the US Supreme Court. According to Beyer: “The simple truth is that Republicans want credit for something they think the Supreme Court will force them to do anyway, after oral arguments before the court on Trump’s illegal abuses of trade authorities went badly for the administration. Trump is still keeping the vast majority of his tariffs in place, and his administration is also planning new tariffs in anticipation of a Supreme Court loss.”

“The same logic—that Trump’s tariffs are driving up prices on coffee, fruit, and other comestibles—is equally true for the thousands of other goods on which his tariffs remain,” he continued. “While this move may alleviate some of the cost increases Trump caused, it will not stop the larger problems of rising inflation, business uncertainty, and economic damage done by Trump’s crazy tariff scheme.”

“Only Congress can do that, by reclaiming its legal responsibility under the Constitution to regulate trade, and permanently ending Trump’s trade war chaos,” he stressed. “All but a handful of Republicans in Congress are still refusing to stand up to Trump, stop his tariffs, and lower costs for the American people, and unless they find a backbone, our economy will continue to suffer.”

As the Associated Press noted Friday, “The president signed the executive order after announcing that the U.S. had reached framework agreements with Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Argentina designed to ease import levies on agricultural products produced in those countries.”

Trump’s order also came just a day after Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report showing that US families are paying roughly $700 more each month for basic items since Trump returned to office in January—with households in some states, such as Alaska and California, facing an average of over $1,000 monthly.

The president has floated sending Americans a $2,000 check, purportedly funded by revenue collected from his tariffs, but as Common Dreams reported Wednesday, economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research crunched the numbers and found that the proposed “dividend” doesn’t add up.

As the US House of Representatives prepared for a vote to reopen the federal government, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday called out members of her own Democratic Party in the Senate, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who capitulated to Republicans in the shutdown fight, for which they received “nothing” in return.

Shortly before the government shut down over Republicans’ refusal to address a looming healthcare crisis, Axios reported that the New York congresswoman was preparing to run for president or Senate in 2028. In the lead-up to Wednesday’s vote, she was asked at least twice on camera about how Schumer, also a New Yorker, handled the shutdown.

“I think it’s important that we understand that this is not just about Sen. Schumer, but that this is about the Democratic Party,” she told CNN‘s Manu Raju. “Sen. Schumer—there’s no one vote that ended this shutdown. We are talking about a coordinated effort of eight senators, with the knowledge of Leader Schumer, voting to break with the entire Democratic Party in exchange for nothing.”

Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, along with Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, joined Republicans for both the procedural and final votes.

Unlike the upper chamber, Republicans have enough members in the House to advance legislation without Democratic support. The GOP’s continuing resolution neither reverses Medicaid cuts from the budget package that President Donald Trump signed in July nor extends expiring tax credits for people who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

“And now people’s healthcare costs are going to be skyrocketing, and we want to make sure that we have a path to ending this moment, and finding relief for them right now,” Ocasio-Cortez told CNN. “But I think that when we talk about this debate about the Democratic Party, that it is indeed about the party writ large, and our ability to fight or not.”

While no senators in the caucus have demanded that Schumer step aside yet, The Hill on Wednesday compiled comments from the growing list of House Democrats who have called for new leadership: Reps. Glenn Ivey (Md.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Mike Levin (Calif.), Seth Moulton (Mass.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Shri Thanedar (Mich.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).

In a video circulated by C-SPAN on Wednesday, a reporter directly asked Ocasio-Cortez whether Schumer should stay in his leadership role. The progressive congresswoman’s response was similar to her remarks to CNN.

“I think what is so important for folks to understand is that this problem is bigger than one person, and it actually is bigger than the minority leader in the Senate,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “You had eight Senate Democrats who coordinated... their own votes on this.”

She also noted that two are retiring—Durbin and Shaheen—and the rest aren’t up for reelection next year, thanks to the Senate’s revolving cycles. Cortez Masto, Hassan, and Fetterman have until 2028, while Kaine, King, and Rosen have until 2030. She suggested that those who run for another term are hoping that “people are going to forget this moment.”

“I think what’s important is that we understand that... a leader is a reflection of the party. And Senate Democrats have selected their leadership to represent them,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And so, the question needs to be bigger than just one person. We have several Senate primaries this cycle.”

“I know I’m being asked about New York. That is years from now. I have to remind my own constituents,” she continued, directing attention to the 2026 races. “We actually do have Senate elections this year, and my hope is that people across this country actually participate in their primary elections in selecting their leadership.”

Elon Musk is the world’s richest person, with an estimated net worth of nearly $500 billion, but the Tesla CEO could become the world’s first trillionaire, thanks to a controversial pay package approved Thursday by the electric vehicle company’s shareholders.

Ahead of the vote, a coalition of labor unions and progressive advocacy groups launched the “Take Back Tesla” campaign, urging shareholders to reject the package for its CEO, who spent much of this year spearheading President Donald Trump’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which prompted nationwide protests targeting the company.

Musk’s nearly $1 trillion package would be the biggest corporate compensation plan in history if he gets the full amount by boosting share value “eightfold over the next decade” and staying at Tesla for at least that long. It was approved at the company’s annual meeting after the billionaire’s previous payout, worth $56 billion, was invalidated by a judge.

The approval vote sparked another wave of intense criticism from progressive groups and politicians who opposed it—including on Musk’s own social media platform, X.

“Musk, who spent $270 million to get Trump elected, is now in line to become a trillionaire,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on X. “Meanwhile, 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. Americans understand we’re living in a rigged economy. Together, we can and must change that.”

The vote came during the longest-ever federal government shutdown, which has sparked court battles over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. A judge on Thursday ordered the full funding of 42 million low-income Americans’ November SNAP benefits, but it is not yet clear whether the Trump administration will comply.

The Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate group, noted the uncertainty over federal food aid in response to the Tesla vote, saying: “Meanwhile, millions of kids are losing SNAP benefits and healthcare because of Musk’s allies in DC. In a country rich enough to have trillionaires, there’s no excuse for letting kids go hungry.”

Robert Reich, a former labor secretary who’s now a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said: “Remember: Wealth cannot be separated from power. We’ve seen how the extreme concentration of wealth is distorting our politics, rigging our markets, and granting unprecedented power to a handful of billionaires. Be warned.”

In remarks to the Washington Post, another professor warned that other companies could soon follow suit. Rohan Williamson, professor of finance at Georgetown University, said Musk’s argument for commanding such a vast paycheck is largely unique to Tesla—though similar deals may become more prevalent in an age of founder-led startups.

“No matter how you slice it, it’s a lot,” Williamson said. But the deal seeks to emphasize Musk’s central—even singular—role in the company’s rise, and its fate going forward.

“I drove this to where it is and without me it’s going to fail,” Williamson said, summarizing Musk’s argument.“No CEO is ‘worth’ $1 trillion. Full stop,” the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires argued Wednesday, ahead of the vote. “We need legislative solutions like the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, which would raise taxes on corporations that pay their executives more than 50 times the wages of their workers.”

As Americans face tariff-related price hikes, surging health insurance premiums, and fallout from the government shutdown, from missed paychecks to no food assistance, the Federal Reserve on Wednesday announced its second interest rate cut of the year.

“Job gains have slowed this year, and the unemployment rate has edged up but remained low through August,” the US central bank said in a statement about the Federal Open Market Committee cutting the benchmark interest rate by a quarter of a percentage point to 3.75-4%, its lowest level in three years. “Inflation has moved up since earlier in the year and remains somewhat elevated.”

When the Fed slashed the federal funds rate last month, economist Alex Jacquez warned that it would “do little to address” the “economic turmoil” created by President Donald Trump. On Wednesday, the former Obama administration official, who is now chief of policy and advocacy at the think tank Groundwork Collaborative, again took aim at the US leader.

“The Fed’s decision only confirms what Americans already know—the economy is slowing, job growth has stalled, prices keep climbing, and consumers are pulling back because they’re out of options,” Jacquez said in a statement. “Trump’s reckless economic agenda is pushing our economy to the brink, and working families are paying the price.”

US House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) similarly said in a Wednesday statement that “today’s rate cut is yet another warning sign about the sorry state of Donald Trump’s economy.”

“Nearly half of all states are now in or near recession, inflation is climbing, and the labor market is losing strength,” Boyle noted. “This is all a direct result of Trump’s reckless tariff taxes and his chaotic economic agenda.”

“At the same time, working families are facing the largest spike in health insurance premiums in our nation’s history,” he stressed. “I’ll keep fighting to lower costs, protect affordable healthcare, and make sure every American has access to a good-paying job.”

Rohit Chopra, who directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Biden administration, before Trump gutted the agency, was also critical of the Republican president on Wednesday.

“While he is not in the room to vote on Fed interest rates, President Trump’s shadow looms large over the Federal Reserve and many members seem eager to please him,” Chopra said. “While Gov. Lisa Cook is fighting back, markets seem to understand that the Fed’s decision-making will be heavily shaped by the whims of the White House.”

Trump is trying to oust Cook from the Fed’s Board of Governors, which her lawyers call “unprecedented and illegal.” The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in her case in January; in the meantime, earlier this month, the justices allowed her to remain in her post.

Outrage over Spotify running advertisements for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ramped up on Tuesday, with the progressive advocacy group Indivisible urging users to cancel their subscriptions until the ICE ads are removed, engage in peaceful protests outside the streaming giant’s offices and events, and call on artists to boycott the platform.

Aiming to deliver on President Donald Trump’s campaign promise of mass deportations, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) this summer launched an ICE recruitment campaign, with incentives including a $50,000 signing bonus, student loan repayment and forgiveness options, enhanced retirement benefits, and more.

With 276 million subscribers and 696 million monthly active users last quarter, Spotify is the world’s largest streaming service. Earlier this month, a Spotify spokesperson told The Independent that the ads encouraging listeners to “join the mission to protect America” and “fulfill your mission” by applying to become an ICE agent do not violate the company’s advertising policies.

The spokesperson added that the ads are “part of a broad campaign the US government is running across television, streaming, and online channels.”

The British outlet noted that “they mirror similar advertising that has been seen on cable television, X, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Meta,” and subscribers to ESPN, HBO Max, Hulu, and Pandora have also complained of encountering ICE ads.

As Trump’s anti-migrant rampage continued in Chicago and other cities across the country on Tuesday, Indivisible sent out an email with the subject line: “Don’t stream fascism. Cancel Spotify.”

“Spotify is running ads recruiting agents for ICE,” the email says. “Let that sink in. A platform built to connect creators and listeners is helping an authoritarian regime build up its secret police force. They’re choosing complicity over the artists, podcasters, and fans who make Spotify what it is—and when users and musicians called them out, Spotify’s first act was doubling down.”

“But we’re not going to idly accept that. We’re going to make them listen,” the email continues, pointing to the boycott of Disney in September, after the Trump administration’s bullying briefly got Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show yanked off of ABC.

Indivisible also published a video tutorial for canceling a Spotify premium account and a webpage with its demands for the company’s founder and chief executive, Daniel Ek, as well as incoming co-CEOs Gustav Söderström and Alex Norström:

• Immediately terminate all ICE and DHS advertising contracts with Spotify;
• Spotify must update its advertising policy to prohibit government propaganda and hate-based recruitment campaigns; and
• Spotify must commit to defending civil rights and standing up for communities under threat from authoritarian actions.

As for Spotify users who cancel their accounts and peaceful protesters, Indivisible is calling on them to promote their actions on social media with the hashtags #CancelSpotify, #DontStreamFascism, and #StopICEAds.