UK fascists are trying to paint the upcoming Manchester by-election as a battle between Reform and Muslims, via Zack Polanski's Green Party. But far-right hate-monger and bigot Katie Hopkins has gone even further, sending out a dog whistle to anyone who hates Jewish and gay people too.

Zack Polanski rises above it

Green Party leader Zack Polanski rose above her bullshit. And he used the opportunity to highlight the media's role in Hopkins gaining such a prominent platform:

Whether it's the UK, or the US, The Apprentice has a lot to answer for… https://t.co/2WqEUj61D7

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) January 27, 2026

 

Hopkins had previously suggested the Greens were "the Muslim Party in camo gear", and essentially framed the Gorton and Denton by-election as a battle between 'Reform and Muslims'. You'll notice she conveniently failed to mention the Christian, Jewish, or other religious (and non-religious) support the Greens will likely attract in the election.

Hopkin's comments fit neatly into the far right's racist dog-whistle about Muslim people, whom fascists try to demonise despite evidence suggesting extreme violence is less likely from people with a "well-established religious identity".

Fascist Katie Hopkins calls the Green Party "the Muslim Party in camo gear" and essentially suggests that the Gorton and Denton by-election will be 'Reform vs Muslims' pic.twitter.com/biOY2VAyZE

— Ed Sykes (@OsoSabioUK) January 28, 2026

Corporate stooge, "Temu Enoch Powell", and Labour Friends of Israel vice-chair Mike Tapp, meanwhile, has suggested "dodgy" Polanski is trying to "hypnotise" people in Gorton and Denton. And Tommy Robinson has been whining about "the beginning of the end" that a "Green/Islamic alliance" could represent. Rattled, fascists?

Media helped Katie Hopkins spread her violence-inciting hatred

Hopkins is no peace lover herself, though. She once suggested a "final solution" was necessary, for example. And she dehumanised migrants as "cockroaches" while calling for "gunships" to deal with them.

She is also the 'woman of the people' who went to a private school, had "intelligence corps" sponsorship for her degree, and has openly shown consistent disrespect for:

• Working-class people
• Women
• Disabled people
• Fat people
• Full-time mums
• Ginger people
• People with tattoos

And the list goes on. The elitist hate and contempt for pretty much everyone who isn't a fascist just oozes out of her.

No wonder she has called herself the "female Farage".

But as Polanski pointed out, one of the most shameful things is that the mainstream media has given her such a big platform to spread her misanthropy. Because like millionaire Thatcherite and current Reform leader Nigel Farage, Hopkins has played the media machine effectively.

Via reality TV shows like the Apprentice, I'm a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!, and Celebrity Big Brother, Hopkins boosted her profile with an early version of today's 'rage-baiting' money machine.

The right fears unity

It's not just fascists who are trying to rally people with dogwhistles around the Gorton and Denton by-election. The right-wing Labour government is also bricking it. Because a Green victory could spell the end for the rubbish about needing to mimic Reform, and possibly the beginning of the end for Labour itself:

After Matt Goodwin pointed out the Green Party's incorrect spelling of Gorton and Denton, social media users were quick to point out that he had also previously spelt it wrong.

This you ? pic.twitter.com/TXBsROEcB1

— salforddave (@saIforddave) January 27, 2026

At the same time, more embarrassing details have emerged about Goodwin - Reform's latest candidate.

To start with, he doesn't even live in the constituency he's standing in. Reform has taken a leaf out of Labour's book and parachuted a candidate in from 176 miles away.

Reform candidate for Gorton and Denton by-election is Matt Goodwin… who lives 176 miles away in Hitchin.

— Taj Ali (@Taj_Ali1) January 27, 2026

Of course, 30p Lee then tried to convince the world that Goodwin was, in fact, a local candidate.

Lee Anderson today said @GoodwinMJ was a local candidate in the Gorton and Denton campaign.

He lives in London.

Goodwin grew up St Albans and lived in Salford for 3 years at Uni. That's the closest he's ever been to Gorton or Denton.

He then lived in Canada and did his PhD in…

— Reform Party UK Exposed

Pressure group Greens for Palestine is urging the Green Party to declare itself "an anti-Zionist party". The group has issued a statement in support of a motion which it calls "groundbreaking". The motion also supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and calls for the de-proscription of Palestine Action.

Greens for Palestine statement

Greens for Palestine are calling on The Green Party to take a strong and principled stance in support of Palestinian rights and against all forms of racism without any fear or favour. Motion A105: Zionism Is Racism is a key step toward building a framework that supports Palestinians in seeking justice, dignity and accountability. This groundbreaking motion has received overwhelming support and is gaining momentum, both in and out of the party, demonstrating strong backing among Green Party members and the Palestine solidarity movement.

An anti-Zionist party

The motion urges the Green Party to declare itself an anti-Zionist party, while rejecting attempts to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism or to create hierarchies of racism. We are clear that not all Jews are Zionist and not all Zionists are Jewish. Opposition to a political ideology and the policies of a state must not be misrepresented as hostility toward Jewish people, who hold diverse political views, including opposition to Zionism. This motion calls for the Rejection of the IHRA and JDA definitions of antisemitism which have been weaponised to silence legitimate criticisms of the
actions of the state of Israel.

In its dominant contemporary form, Zionism underpins a system of inequality, dispossession, and violence against Palestinians. It is increasingly associated with far-right politics in Israel and with policies that deny Palestinians equal rights, safety, and dignity. A movement committed to justice, equality, and international law must be willing to confront this. The motion also calls for the Green Party to support the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, equal rights for all, and the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants.

A Palestinian state does not refer to an ideological project but to a democratic state, founded upon the collective will and equal rights of all people who belong to Palestine. This vision rejects
any notion of exclusion or supremacy and instead asserts a civic identity rooted in justice, equality, and self-determination for all. A democratic Palestinian state would therefore guarantee full political, civil, and religious rights for people of all backgrounds, Palestinians of every faith and those of none, as these lands did before the manifestations of Zionism upon them.

Boycott, divestment and sanctions

The motion calls for the Green Party to heed the call from Palestine civil society to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era, and calls upon the United Kingdom Government to impose full embargoes and sanctions against Israel.

Acknowledging Zionism as inherently racist is both a moral and political issue. Recent history is showing us how accusations of antisemitism have been cynically weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of Israel and to undermine movements for Palestinian freedom. The left cannot continue to retreat in the face of bad-faith attacks. Clarity, solidarity, and courage are required.

The motion also calls for the de-proscription of Palestine Action and for the release of political prisoners targeted by the state for non-violent direct action in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Greens for Palestine affirms the long tradition of non-violent civil resistance as a legitimate and necessary tool in struggles against injustice. Greens for Palestine believes that opposing racism, apartheid, and mass violence is inseparable from supporting Palestinian liberation. We urge Green Party leaders and members to back this motion and reaffirm the party's commitment to universal human rights, anti-racism, and justice for all.

Featured image via Left Foot Forward

By The Canary

On 27 January, the Guardian reported that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is rewriting its disastrous single-sex space guidance.

The article characterised the new EHRC chair, Mary-Ann Stevenson, as being more "constructive" than her predecessor. The problem, however, isn't that Kishwer Falkner - the previous head of the equalities watchdog - was a transphobic zealot (though she was).

Rather, the idea that the state can simply ban trans people from public spaces aligned with their identity is fundamentally unworkable.

The EHRC and a disastrous attempt

Under Kishwer Falkner, the EHRC published interim anti-trans guidance that called for a complete ban on trans people using gendered spaces aligned with their identity.  Further, it stated that trans people could also be banned from spaces aligned with their assigned sex.

Falkner submitted her draft of the anti-trans guidance to the government back in September 2025. However, as of this date, women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson hasn't yet made it into law. The EHRC also took down its interim guidance in October, leaving trans people and service providers in the dark.

Then, in November, the guidance leaked to the press - and it was, predictably, an absolute shitshow. It suggested that service providers should guess who was trans based on "physical appearance or behavior". So, as I wrote at the time:

There's no way to tell whether or not someone is trans by official documentation. As such, a service provider is allowed to exclude someone from single-sex spaces purely according to how they look and act.

Therefore, someone doesn't have to be trans in order to be excluded under the new anti-trans guidance. So stating that "trans women could be questioned" etc. isn't actually true, is it? Anybody could be questioned, and anybody could be excluded, based purely on "concerns raised by others".

The redraft

As such, it's unsurprising that Phillipson hasn't yet made Falkner's unworkable attempt into law. Likewise, it's also understandable that she appears to have sought a redraft.

Labour MP Rachel Taylor, a member of the Commons women and equalities committee, said:

The EHRC's interim guidance was disproportionate, unfair and unworkable, so I would welcome efforts by the government to work with the new EHRC chair to ensure the final guidance upholds the rights of women and trans people and can reasonably be implemented by businesses.

Legally, the EHRC can't simply decide to amend a code after it's been submitted. Instead, ministers have to reject a previous draft and request changes. However, a spokesperson for the EHRC stated that the watchdog was:

convinced that our updated services code of practice is both legally accurate and as clear as it is possible to be.

The commission is now waiting to hear whether Phillipson will accept the redrafted code. Crucially, the guidance would need to be legally sound in order to avoid legal challenges. This, in turn, might be informed by the Good Law Project's ongoing challenge against the interim code.

However, in case anyone thought the government might lessen its transphobic bent for a moment, the Guardian reported that:

Any changes will not water down what the government says is a commitment to single-sex spaces, which was the central repercussion of the supreme court ruling. However, the hope is that a more pragmatic approach could limit the impact on trans people, and avoid excessive costs and confusion for businesses in terms of changes to toilets and changing rooms.

'Deliberate and strategic continuation'

The article characterised Stevenson, who took over as EHRC chair in December, as "more open to listening to concerns" than her predecessor, Kishwer Falkner. It also praised her "background in women's rights". This is typical of the Guardian's downplaying of trans issues.

In reality, staff members at the commission at the same time as Falkner branded her "transphobic," "anti-LGBT+" and an "enemy of human rights". The Lemkin Institute - an international organisation dedicated to opposing genocide - penned an open letter against her.

Likewise, whilst Stevenson is marginally less bombastic in her bigotry, she's still actively hostile towards trans people. She donated money to 'gender critical' lawyer Alison Bailey's case, met with trans-hostile feminist group FiLiA back in 2020, and signed a declaration opposing Gender Recognition Act reforms.

When Stevenson was appointed as the new chair, campaign group the Trans Advocacy and Complaint Collective stated that:

Trans communities and our allies condemn this appointment as a deliberate and strategic continuation of the EHRC's transformation into a tool of political control rather than human rights defence. As many organisations, including TACC, have made clear, this decision represents not neutrality, but complicity. It is another calculated move in the state-sanctioned campaign to exclude trans people from public life and to roll back the protections that once existed under UK equalities law.

Practical bigotry is still bigotry

So, sure - Stevenson is marginally more practical than Falkner in how she might plan to implement her bigotry. She's more concerned with little details like her code 'being legal' and 'actually possible to implement' than her predecessor. However, she's still fully aligned with the government's newfound hatred for trans people.

Unfortunately for her, the new EHRC chair faces an uphill struggle. Whilst Falkner's guidance was a ridiculous farce, it's also difficult to see how else the government could possibly implement a ban on trans people using facilities aligned with their gender.

Quite simply, there is no legal way to tell whether or not a person is trans. Any attempt to do so will, inevitably, also impact intersex people, butch lesbians, femme gays, and gender non-conformists of all types, leaving it open to legal challenge.

It's almost as if trying to implement a law which deliberately singles out a minority for public exclusion and ridicule is impossible in a society that wishes to pretend it has any concept of equality or basic human decency. Funny, that.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Rwanda wants £100m in compensation for the axed Tory-era deal to hold asylum seekers kicked out of the UK. British PM Keir Starmer cancelled the plans when he took office. Now, Rwanda has taken their case to an international arbitration.

The deal was signed in 2022 by then-PM Boris Johnson. The Rwanda 'off-shoring' plan was the centrepiece of the Tories openly racist immigration policy.

The BBC reported:

Rwanda has filed an international arbitration case, arguing the UK has breached the terms of the deal to send some asylum seekers to the east African nation.

Under the deal, which was signed by the previous Conservative government, the UK agreed to make payments to Rwanda to host asylum seekers who had arrived illegally in Britain

And the Tories pushed for the plan knowing Rwanda is implicated in the mistreatment of refugees.

Rwanda: torture and abuse

The Rwandan state has a history of abuse and torture, according to Human Rights Watch. Moreover, the Global Detention Project (GDP) has gathered evidence of serious failings in Rwanda's asylum practices.

Critics cited by GDP included the US State Department, which warned:

The government continued operating transit centers that advocacy groups and NGOs reported detained vulnerable persons and potential trafficking victims—including those in commercial sex, adults and children experiencing homelessness, members of the LGBTQI+ community, foreign nationals, and children in street vending and forced begging—and did not adequately screen for trafficking indicators among them.

The State Department added:

The government held many potential victims of trafficking in these centers, which functioned as de facto detention facilities, for up to six months.

The BBC said the previous UK government spent vast sums on the failed policy:

The previous Conservative government spent some £700m on the Rwanda policy, which was intended to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats.

In short, the Tories spent a large fortune on a scare tactic which then failed entirely - and now the UK is being sued for even more money.

Rwandan officials quoted by the BBC blamed British "intransigence". A Home Office spokesperson said:

The previous government's Rwanda policy wasted vast sums of taxpayer time and money.

We will robustly defend our position to protect British taxpayers.

The BBC reported:

The Rwandan government's statement said it was making three claims in relation to the Migration and Economic Development Partnership, which was signed in 2022 when Boris Johnson was prime minister.

The statement accuses the UK of breaching the deal by setting out the financial terms of the agreement publicly, failing to make payments totalling £100m, and "refusing to make arrangements to resettle vulnerable refugees from Rwanda".

Refusing to pay

As it stands Labour is going to resist paying up. But let's be clear. None of this is to say Labour's immigration policy is vastly better than the Conservative Party's was. The theoretically left-leaning party has pitched further and further to the right as Reform UK have made gains in the polls.

The party has openly bragged about how many people it has ejected, even while cooking the figures. On 23 January, Labour was criticised for posting images of people being deported via its grotesque new 'Secure Borders UK' TikTok account.

Green Party politicians Carla Denyer said:

It will encourage the division and hatred already tearing our communities apart - turning people who were born here against those who simply want to make this country their home.

Sile Reynolds from the NGO Freedom from Torture warned:

This government is clearly hooked on the cheap political points it can score by turning the brutality of enforcement raids into clickbait online entertainment.

Adding:

This style of political communication provokes the kind of anxiety and fear that fuelled the summer riots and the recent violence directed at asylum hotels.

Built on a false narrative of invasion, the Tory plan to 'offshore' some of the most vulnerable people on earth were an abomination based in cold indifference and abject racism. Labour dropped the Rwanda plan, but in virtually every other aspect Keir Starmer has prosecuted an identical war on refugees and migrants. It should be self-evident at this point that UK immigration policy needs nothing less than a complete overhaul.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Local shops have condemned the government's decision to limit additional rates support to pubs and music venues. A trade body called the decision short sighted and dismissive of the contribution of convenience stores to the economy.

The Association of Convenience Stores has called on the chancellor to go further than the support package announced for pubs and extend help to all local shops.

Labour - trying to get back into the pub

The government's apparent generosity towards pubs comes as over a thousand venues have reportedly banned Labour MPs. This is after successive budgets from chancellor Rachel Reeves went down badly with small retail businesses.

In her rotten 2024 Budget, Reeves laughably claimed to be cutting a "penny off a pint in the pub". As if landlords up and down the country would be replacing the nines on their chalkboards with eights. That claim fell flatter than a gone-off ale as critics said it was more likely that pints would go up by 30p or more due to other rising costs.

In the Budget at the end of 2025, the chancellor announced a new Retail, Hospitality and Leisure (RHL) multiplier for business rates that was 5p lower than the standard rate. This was despite the government legislating earlier in the year to be able to reduce the RHL multiplier by up to 20p.

At the same time, those retail, hospitality and leisure businesses have had to plan for the removal of the 40% Covid relief on their bills in April.

Tough times for local shops

As a result of the government's changes to business rates, thousands of convenience stores, particularly those independently owned and operating on petrol forecourts, will see significant increases in their rates bills in the coming months.

Transitional relief will spread the impact of this significant increase in rates bills over three years. But this will still see local shops facing rising bills for the foreseeable future while other costs rise. Meanwhile, trading conditions are at their toughest for many years.

The Association of Convenience Stores has called on the government to affirm its support for local shops and other essential community businesses by extending additional support to all retailers before bills rise in April.

Association of Convenience Stores chief executive James Lowman said:

Local shops will feel neglected and dismissed by this Government today as they are passed over for additional support. For those facing rates increases in April of thousands of pounds, difficult decisions will have to be made about investment, employment opportunities and the services that are provided to customers.

The Chancellor has a chance to make this right and extend business rates support in the Spring Statement to all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Without additional support, jobs will be lost, inflation will rise as retailers look to claw back margin, and investment will be put on hold.

Since the Budget, ACS has campaigned for further support for local shops on rates. It has written to ministers outlining the importance of the convenience sector to both local communities and the UK economy.

The ACS Community Barometer survey of UK consumers has shown consistently over the last decade that people see convenience stores, Post Offices and pharmacies as the three most essential services in their community.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

A new report has found that poverty is so bad, lifting the two-child cap won't actually make that much difference. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has predicted that overall poverty will only reduce by 1% by 2029.

Lifting two child cap will help some kids, but not enough

While it's great that 400,000 children will be taken out of poverty in April, many more will still suffer. The charity estimates that 4 million children will still be in poverty by the next general election.

The report projected that thanks to the cap, the poverty rate will fall in April. However, it probably won't fall any further for the next three years. The JRF said:

While a severe recent harm has been removed from the social security system in the form of scrapping the two-child limit, we still need to hear what the Government hopes to achieve on poverty over the rest of the parliament beyond this, in terms of driving levels further downwards, and what ministers intend to do to bring about that change.

So more is needed. This cannot be the only step. If it is, then progress will likely stall after April.

And even then, it'll only fall by just over 1% point in April. From 22.3% to 2.1%. Because, despite lifting the cap, the government have not pledged any other ways to support poor people.

Pretty shit for anyone not rich

Using a range of data from sources including the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the charity was able to predict how growth will impact poverty. From growth alone poverty, there's only 0.2% difference between best and worst case scenarios.

In the central scenario (neither best nor worst case), it still wasn't a very positive outcome. The number of working age adults will fall from 20.4% in April 2025 to 19.8% in April 2026. But after that they will have fallen by just 0.06% by 2029.

The child poverty rate is expected to fall by just 0.05% per year up til 2029, so 4 million children will still be in poverty. It will fall to 28.7% this April though, from 31.6% in April 2025.

Pensioners, though they'll benefit from the triple lock, will still only see a less than 1% drop in the poverty rate. From 16.7% this April to 15.9% in April 2029.

As the report points out, growth is typically felt most by middle and high income households, not low income ones. So to rely just on growth would mean more people are actually at risk of falling into poverty, not getting out of it.

Cannot rely on economic growth alone

JRF says this is because we cannot rely on the economy alone. The Labour government must also work to improve living standards and work to bring as many people out of poverty as possible. Which at the minute, it's not doing.

The charity also called out Keir Starmer, who has once again gone back on his promises:

These levels of poverty are incompatible with the Prime Minister's ambition that 'no child is held back by poverty' (Starmer, 2025), nor will improvements in the economic security of low- and middle-income households be widely felt. Such a scenario will also see little progress towards the manifesto commitment to end the mass dependence on food banks.

The JRF recommends that other measures must be taken to ensure more people are pulled out of poverty

• Introducing a protected minimum floor into Universal Credit (UC) to embed for the first time the principle of a safety net below which no one should fall and to better protect the link between circumstance and support that removing the two-child limit has started to restore

• Permanently re-link the local housing allowance to further strengthen the link between support and needs, and to give the child poverty strategy a better chance of tackling the scandalous number of children living in temporary accommodation.

The report points out that these are immediate fixes. However, long-term, the government must commit to tackling poverty. They say this must be done through strengthening social security and ensuring households do not go without. It must also ensure all types of worker are better protected when they are temporarily out of work.

What about people who can't work, though?

There's one group very obviously missing from this, though - disabled people. According to JRF's own research, disabled people face higher rates of poverty. 28% compared to 20%. The government is on course to cut disability benefits, which will push even more disabled people into poverty.

Under-22-year-olds won't be eligible for Universal Credit. While cutting the Work Capability Assessment from UC and moving it to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will make it harder to qualify for. Whilst PIP is still under review, going off cancelled plans we can make some assumptions. Making it harder to qualify for and potentially limiting what PIP can be spent on would put many at risk.

There's also the fact that the government scrapping specialist "high end" cars from Motability will mean many will face an extra bill. Or lose their independence completely.

Labour doesn't care about lifting people out of poverty

But expecting Labour to do something to actually help people is like waiting for pigs to fly. The two-child cap could've been lifted in 2024, but they all refused to vote for a Tory amendment. They also could've done much more to actually support poor people. instead they spend all their time demonising benefit claimants.

Let's be honest, Labour doesn't actually care about getting people out of poverty - or they would've already done it.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Keir Starmer's Labour government is doing very little to address the cost of living and low wage crisis. Analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows the number of people living in "very deep poverty" in the UK reached 6.8 million in 2023/24. That's the highest level, both absolutely and proportionately, since accounting began in 1994/95. "Very deep poverty" means they have an average income that is 59% below the poverty line.

Labour u-turn on child benefits

As ever, Labour did U-turn. The governing party plans to scrap the two child benefit cap, which is a step in the right direction. Although, it previously suspended seven MPs for voting against the cap and called keeping the Conservative policy a "matter of fairness".

It's clear that only pressure from the Green party resulted in the change of policy, not actual conviction that children shouldn't grow up in poverty. That conviction is particularly true when one considers that the UK harbours a neoliberal job market that's completely incapable of providing employment for all. That's because high levels of unemployment are seen as good for bosses who then have a lot of options, while a job guarantee only increases the value of labour.

Labour could at least be addressing greedflation through mandating higher wages and cheaper goods. But other than scrapping a Conservative policy, they are doing next to nothing.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation analysis

Apparently, neoliberal capitalism takes us in the right direction. Yet the number of people living in destitution (unable to stay warm, fed, dry and hygenic) more than doubled from 2017-2022, the analysis points out.

The number of people who are food insecure also increased by 60% from 2021/22 to 2023/24. That's another 2.8 million people who are struggling to afford food.

The organisation notes that a lack of an ambitious government industrial strategy is fueling poverty. Over a decade of weak growth, increasingly high housing rents and austerity have supercharged deep poverty levels.

While the number of people in deep poverty has increased, the percentage of UK citizens in poverty generally is similar to 2020 - at 21%. To break it down, two in every ten working age adults are in poverty, three in every ten children and three in every 20 pensioners.

The number of pensioners in poverty is a disgrace. But the disparity between children, adults and pensioners living in poverty demonstrates the lack of government strategy to invest in society. People no longer have the benefits the post-war settlement offered baby boomers. The nationalisation of essentials, affordable homes, and free university are all examples of what delivered prosperity for the older generation. Today, we have privatisation, excruciating rents, and high tuition fees.

We need a new settlement, fast. Nationalisation should go further - removing profiteering middlemen like supermarkets. Home ownership should be offered at cost price, challenging state landlordism as the only other option. Tuition fees should be binned, with an investment in education seen as a priority.

Re-imagining society is key.

Featured image via the Canary

By James Wright

Americans can't have guns, according to US president Donald Trump. No, you heard that right. The most right-wing president in history is attacking the sacred Second Amendment. For clarity, because Yanks are always waffling about their bleeding Constitution, that's the one that allows Americans to bear arms.

Trump's comment came after the 24 January street execution of nurse Alex Pretti on a Minneapolis road. Pretti was shot to death by federal officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He was legally carrying a sidearm.

And let's get the chronology correct. That weapon was removed from its holster by an immigration agent after a group of them attacked him, wrestling him to the ground. Pretti was then shot multiple times.

Federal officers have become an occupying army in the city's streets in recent weeks. They say they're enforcing immigration laws. But that narrative is falling apart fast. Remember they killed another innocent citizen, Renee Good, on 7 January.

In an X video posted on 27 January, Trump can be overheard saying people can't just walk around with guns:

Trump: You can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. It's a very unfortunate thing. pic.twitter.com/TkhHQopHA6

— Acyn (@Acyn) January 27, 2026

The problem with this should be obvious. In the US, including in Minnesota, where Pretti was killed, you can walk around with guns if you have the correct permit. Pretti had the correct permits. Another X post dated 27 January has Trump going even further:

He certainly shouldn't have been carrying a gun. I don't like that he had a gun

Trump escalates his attacks on the Second Amendment:

"He certainly shouldn't have been carrying a gun. I don't like that he had a gun. I don't like that he had two fully loaded magazines. That's a lot of bad stuff."
pic.twitter.com/MTuyMUPWGN

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 27, 2026

But there's more.

Trump has lost the NRA

America's National Rifle Association (NRA) are usually associated with far-right gun-nuts in the US. It's a powerful lobby group for gun ownership. In a weird twist, the NRA now finds itself opposed to Donald Trump.

Here's what the NRA said following Trump's comments:

The NRA unequivocally believes that all law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms anywhere they have a legal right to be.

— NRA (@NRA) January 28, 2026

They didn't specifically mention the Pretti killing. But it seems pretty clear they were talking about it.

The US government response to the Pretti killing was to try and blame him for his own death. They lied, inferring he had approached federal officers brandishing his firearm.

Republican bootlickers immediately backed the authorities:

If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.

Don't do it! https://t.co/DNpyew6PMh

— F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) January 24, 2026

Again, Pretti's legally owned and carried weapon stayed in his holster until it was removed by law enforcement themselves. Footage shows that he was then shot while lying prone in the ground.

The NRA chipped in on 24 January too - a day after Pretti was killed:

This sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong.

Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens. https://t.co/9fMz3CL29o

— NRA (@NRA) January 25, 2026

But this debate isn't without precedent. The US authorities have attacked the Second Amendment before. For example, in California in 1967 when Black Panthers started to legally open carry, the authorities and NRA started to panic. You can read a full historical case study here from Duke University…

Our timeline is indeed very strange. To have Donald Trump saying Americans can't have guns speaks to how unhinged US politics have become in recent times. It all becomes clearer when you realise that in the mind of far-right US citizens, cops, militias, and even presidents the Second Amendment should only be exercised by people who agree with them.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

This article contains discussion of sexual assault and paedophilia.

Israel-supporting Conor McGinn has become the latest Labour Zionist to be accused or convicted of sex crimes. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has announced that McGinn. 41, has been:

charged with one count of sexual assault in connection to an allegation of sexual assault made by a woman in July 2022.

Deputy chief crown prosecutor Jessica Walker said:

The Crown Prosecution Service has decided to charge Conor McGinn with one count of sexual assault following a police investigation into an alleged sexual assault in July 2022.

Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring this charge to court and that it is in the public interest to do so.

We have worked closely with the Metropolitan Police as they have carried out their investigation into the allegation.

The Crown Prosecution Service reminds everyone that criminal proceedings are active, and the defendant has the right to a fair trial.

Too many to shake a stick at?

Right-wing Israel fanatic and former councillor Liron Velleman pleaded guilty earlier this month to a series of sex offences against a 13-year-old girl, after being caught in a police 'sting'.

In January last year, former Blair minister Ivor Caplin was arrested in a sting operation as he allegedly attempted to meet a 15-year-old boy for sex. Local police went after local left-winger Greg Hadfield for exposing the explicit content Caplin posted on his X feed - Hadfield defeated the 'vexatious' charge in November 2025. However, no charges have yet been brought against Caplin and a court did not impose bail conditions after his initial bail expired. Despite the ongoing police investigation, Caplin was recently invited to speak on LBC about Keir Starmer's move to block Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham's bid to stand in a parliamentary election.

Hackney councillor Tom Dewey, an organiser in pro-Israel group 'Labour First', admitted possession of the most serious category of child rape images in 2023. The party knew of his arrest when it allowed him to stand for election. After his conviction, it blocked local women members from its systems to prevent them discussing the case.

In March 2025 Sam Gould, who worked for Starmer's health secretary Wes Streeting, quit as a Redbridge councillor after being convicted on two separate counts of indecent exposure to a 13-year-old girl. The following month Dan Norris MP was arrested over allegations of rape, child sex offences and child abduction. Avon and Somerset Police says its investigation is still ongoing.

And in August 2025, the US allowed Israeli cyberwar official Tom Alexandrovich to fly back to Israel after he was caught in a police paedophile sting.

Nor is the problem limited to Israel's supporters outside Israel.

Widespread?

The regime is currently ignoring well over 2,000 extradition requests for alleged and convicted paedophiles. In April 2025 Shoshana Strook, the daughter of Israel's far-right settlements minister fled to police and asked them to protect her, accusing both her parents and one of her brothers of raping her as a child, over a period of years, and filming the rapes.

A jury will decide on the evidence whether McGinn joins the list or is acquitted - assuming 'justice secretary' David Lammy doesn't abolish juries for such cases before then.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

On Tuesday evening 27 January, anti-genocide demonstrators protested at a dinner for arms dealers in London. The demo was organised by CAAT, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade. Police arrested several peaceful protesters.

Tonight! Join us from 6pm to protest the grotesque arms dealer dinner where arms dealers and military personnel will dine on expensive food and toast their deadly trade. We will not let those profiting from and enabling war to celebrate in peace pic.twitter.com/qHLJQPHfpK

— London CAAT (@londoncaat) January 27, 2026

Activist photographer 'BetterThanReal' was there and kindly provided images for Skwawkbox and the Canary. Their description of events at the demo follows the image set.

There was a lively demonstration outside the Marriott Hotel on Park Land, central London on Tues Jan 27. It was the annual 'Arms Dealer Dinner', a reminder that London continues to be a centre for the bloody global arms trade.

Demonstrators shouted their disapproval at the profiteers of genocide and global wars.

The police turned up in large numbers to hold their line across several street entrances to the hotel, with crowd surges and scuffles as dinner attendees showed their credentials and were hurried through behind lines of police and hotel security, while demonstrators shouted to shame them. As a stream of well-heeled diners showed their credentials and were smuggled into the venue, activists across the generations gave them a warm welcome - and they did seem ashamed as they averted their gazes from the demonstrators and hurried into the safety of the hotel.

After a 6pm start the demonstrators dispersed around 90 minutes later, leaving lines of police outside the venue to survey the now empty street. There were two arrests, we don't yet know the reasons and whether they are still being held.

Featured image via BetterThanReal

By Skwawkbox

As we reported, Reform have chosen long-time establishment insider Matt Goodwin to stand in Gorton & Denton. There was already a backlash to Goodwin when we published that piece; since then, Green Party leader Zack Polanski has made his feelings clear:

It tells you everything you need to know that Reform are parachuting in a rent-an-extremist - this isn't about representing the people of Gorton and Denton, it's about using this place as a platform for their careers.

Manchester will show him the door.

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) January 27, 2026

'Rent-an-extremist'

As we reported, Goodwin is an elite establishment insider. This is from his own website:

He is regularly in demand as a keynote speaker including after dinner and client-facing events. He has given evidence to various parliamentary committees including the Home Affairs, Education and Public Bill committees and has privately briefed some of the world's most well known political leaders including Prime Ministers and Presidents of major advanced Western democracies. He appears regularly in international and national media including BBC News, Financial Times, New York Times and Politico, among many others.

In other words, he's another dinner circuit dandy.

As Polanski noted, Goodwin is known for his extreme opinions; case in point:

If anyone is "insane," it's Matt Goodwin.

Yarwood posted "Head for the hotels housing them [asylum seekers] and burn them to the ground" and "violence and murder is the only way, start with migrant hotels, the MPs homes and take parliament by force".

It was a crystal clear case… https://t.co/eTsoTrkCos pic.twitter.com/WlCEdalPSI

— GET A GRIP (@docrussjackson) December 18, 2025

While you do have to take social media posts with a grain of salt, we should probably draw the line at calling out specific targets for assassination.

As much as we agree with the 'rent-an-extremist' point, we should clarify something else from Polanski's tweet. While Goodwin isn't a Gorton & Denton man, he does have ties to Greater Manchester, having studied at the University of Salford and completed a "Postdoctoral Fellowship" at the University of Manchester. If that sounds a bit elite to you, it is. We personally don't mind a bit of the old academia, but then again we're not running around screaming about 'elites' while literally being on the same gravy train as them all.

While some are claiming Goodwin was born and raised in Manchester, we've not actually seen that confirmed. He certainly isn't from Gorton & Denton anyway, and the experience of being a city centre academic is obviously very different to living in one of Manchester's outer boroughs.

Fighting all sides

Polanski isn't just taking it to Reform. Labour MP Mike Tapp suggested Polanski is telling porkies about the Green's chances in Gorton & Denton:

Our rally tonight is already sold out, Mike.

But thanks for the extra publicity.

Labour are done. https://t.co/pDXgLOeuO9

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) January 27, 2026

While some polls have predicted a Labour win, it is the case that others favour the Greens:

Just admit you're cooked and move on brother https://t.co/LDympAXkxp pic.twitter.com/R55fQPKEjE

— Hugo Papé

Lee Anderson. Love him or hate him, you know that the guy is thick as mince, and this latest fiasco has only added to the impression:

Lee, oh 30p Lee, Lee Anderson by-election campaigning in the wrong constituency

Once again, Kanye West has issued an apology. This time, West uses measured language. Reflective. For some, that will feel like progress and a sign of remorse after years of anti-semitic rhetoric, public meltdowns, and deliberate provocation. He wrote:

I lost touch with reality. Things got worse the longer I ignored the problem. I said and did things I deeply regret … I regret and am deeply mortified by my actions in that state, and am committed to accountability, treatment, and meaningful change. It does not excuse what I did though. I am not a Nazi or an antisemite. I love Jewish people.

However, apologies do not exist in a vacuum. Instead, power, money, timing, and audience shape them. When examined closely, this apology looks less like accountability and more like a carefully staged act of reputational repair.

The question is not whether Kanye feels regret. The question is what this apology is meant to achieve.

Kanye apology is aimed upward, not outward

West published his apology as a paid full-page placement in The Wall Street Journal. That choice matters because the paper does not serve community seeking repair. Investors, executives, advertisers and institutional decision-makers make up its core readership. Ultimately, these are the people who determine whether a public figure remains commercially viable.

Importantly, editors did not invite this piece, nor did they subject it to editorial challenge. Instead, West purchased the space. As a result, paid apologies bypass scrutiny, control the framing, and sidestep accountability. They are designed to speak, not listen.

In that context, West does not address Jewish communities harmed by his words. Instead, he directs it toward capital. As such, this apology does not pursue repair. It clears a path back in.

Consequences that matter

To understand why this apology appears strategic, it is important to trace the real consequences Kanye has already faced. Crucially, these consequences carried material weight.

In 2022, West lost his most lucrative partnership with Adidas, a deal that had helped making him a billionaire. Adidas publicly cited his anti-semitic remarks when terminating the partnership. Other major collaborators followed. Balenciaga cut ties. Gap ended its relationship. His talent agency, CAA, has dropped him.

West also faced restrictions on major social media platforms, temporarily limiting his access to the attention economy. In 2025, he reportedly had his Australian visa cancelled following further anti-semitic content, restricting even private travel. Taken together, these consequences amounted to a rare collapse of economic, professional, and institutional support.

For someone who repeatedly claimed to be untouchable, the fallout was unusually concrete.

Timing is not incidental

This apology does not arrive during a period of withdrawal or reflection. It arrives alongside reports of an imminent album release. That timing is significant.

The music industry often monetises controversy. Distribution, playlisting press coverage, brand partnerships and collaborators all depend on baseline perception of manageability. At this stage, apology becomes a prerequisite for participation.

Apologies that appear just before a release cycle function less as moral reckoning and more as reputational hygiene. They stabilise a brand ahead of renewed exposure. This does not require speculation about intent. It is a structural reality of how power operates.

Performance, not confession

This is not an argument against apology itself. Apologies can matter. They can be meaningful. However, accountability requires proximity to harm, openness to consequence, and a willingness to prioritise repair over reputation.

What we are witnessing instead is a performance of accountability. The language is contrite. West has controlled his presentation. The audience is elite. The risks are minimal.

Performance implies an audience. It implies rehearsal. In this case, the performance is not aimed at those he harmed but at those with the power to rehabilitate.

Affected voices remain sceptical

That scepticism is shared by Jewish Advocacy groups. The Anti-Defamation league described West's apology as:

Long overdue

noting that:

it doesn't automatically undo his long history of antisemitism.

The organisation emphasised that an authentic apology would be demonstrated through future behaviour, not statements. These responses are instructive. They show that words alone are not being received as sufficient by those directly affected.

The misuse of mental health narratives

Predictably, public discussion has again turned to West's health. This framing has become a familiar detour, one that shifts attention away from choice, power and repeated refusals of care. Of course, in his apology Kanye cited his bipolar disorder as a reason for his behaviour. And, he specified that he was diagnosed with bipolar type-1 triggered by his 2002 car accident.

Mental illness can contextualise behaviour. It does not account for anti-semitism. Nor does it absolve deliberate harm, particularly when the individual involved has immense resources and access to treatment. Kanye has publicly and repeatedly rejected help. His refusal matters.

West cannot claim incapacity while demonstrating strategic agency. Several Jewish commentators have warned that framing bigotry as an illness undermines both accountability and mental health advocacy. Compassion and consequence are not mutually exclusive.

West's apology also draws heavily on Christian language. Repentance, humility, and rebirth are familiar motifs. Repentance without restitution performs accountability rather than delivering it. In many cultural contexts, public repentance is treated as closure. Confession becomes resolution. When these frameworks are stripped of material responsibility, they offer instant absolution without repair.

Of course, Kanye's own public performance of Christianity is a classic part of the rehabilitation tour ahead of an album release.

Accountability without a comeback

True accountability does not guarantee rehabilitation. Nor does it promise restored platforms or renewed profit. It centres those harmed, and not those watching. It accepts that forgiveness may not come.

What we are being asked to accept instead is a familiar bargain. A display of remorse in exchange for re-admission. A performance of stability in exchange for commercial tolerance. None of the consequences faced have been undone by this apology. Yet it arrives precisely when access and legitimacy once again matter. That sequence is different to ignore.

The issue is not whether Kanye deserves forgiveness. The issue is that power has learned how to perform remorse convincingly. Too often, we mistake that performance for accountability.

In the end, his mental illness deserves compassion. At the same time, anti-semitism demands consequence. Taken together, apologies aimed at markets rather than communities should make us deeply uncomfortable.

Featured image via the Canary

By Vannessa Viljoen

According to reports in the Mirror, Reform UK's mayoral candidate Laila Cunningham is co-owner of a parasite-riddled and mould-plagued 'squat hotel'. Cunningham is running on a race-war platform.

Her 'New Dawn' hotel — which sounds more like a fascist European party than a hotel — has:

been swamped by negative reviews including complaints it has been the target of theft.

Cunningham defected from the Tories and owns an almost £4m flat, but guests have warned people not to stay there, saying it is unsafe and infested with bed bugs and mould. The property is owned by Plaza Continental Hotels Ltd. Companies House shows Cunningham owns 5% of the company's shares under her previous married name Laila Dupuy.

The hotel's website boasts that it prides itself "on going the extra mile to make your stay in London truly comfortable" — but has an average 2.7 star rating on Google with reviews like:

Rooms stink you cant open the door and not feel a really strong smell, not safe place for [women]… especially.

One female guest reported having to tie the room door shut with a hairdryer cable to try to feel safe:

I [was] staying there with my friend. And from the first time we walked in, we never felt safe. We literally had to tied up our door of the room [with a hairdryer cable] to be able to fall asleep but it was nearly impossible.

Another guest, who had to climb out of a window and move to another hotel after being locked in his room, said:

I think what had me even more concerned was the fact I could just be locked into the room so easily. If that was like another floor, or if there was a fire or something there'd literally be no way out.

Staff had to unscrew the door to let me back in. They refused to give me a new room, instead suggesting I wait for a cleaner and a locksmith (at 9 PM!)… No refund was offered after this disaster.

Others reported dirty toilets and even being disturbed by a prostitute knocking on the room door twice before hotel staff "ushered" the woman upstairs.

In an X post, Cunningham said her immigrant mother had bought the hotel and accused the paper of being a "far-left outlet". Trump fan Cunningham, who has had several companies struck off for alleged law-breaking, has begun her mayoral campaign with an attack on Muslims.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Uber Eats and Starship Technologies have partnered to launch automated food deliveries in the UK. Rolling out in Leeds as of December 2025, robots will deliver takeaways and groceries. The automation company, Starship Technologies, touts that the deliveries "work profitably at city scale". There's no doubt about that. When labour is removed from the equation, the only costs are maintenance and energy. All of a sudden, capital has become labour — there are no potential unions or people in the way of a profit and jobs are being lost.

Is automated delivery progress?

Now, that actually could be progress. No longer are people having to take up their time cycling or driving around cities to convenience those with more disposable income. But it's only a move forward if progressives step up and say: you've removed labour costs from your operation, so we want profit removed too. As such, a progressive administration should bring automated convenience services into public ownership through mandating government bonds to the companies at the market rate.

This is what Clement Attlee's post-war 1945 government did in order to nationalise 20% of the economy. They didn't want to seize private property and crash the markets. Rather, they used the democratic mandate from their manifesto in order to mandate prices for 'assets' they wanted to nationalise. Then, after a one-off payment to private companies, the government and the public received gains every year.

Younger generations take such convenience as a given and it's a no-brainer for the government to invest here, especially as the service becomes automated. Removing the middleman between businesses and people would stop delivery services milking profits from both the restaurant and the customer.

Anything that centralises businesses in one place, providing convenience to people, should be considered digital infrastructure and owned publicly.

Fourth industrial revolution

In the years to come, all production and services will be automated. This will leave so many people without a job that a new system must emerge based on collective ownership of robots or some form of citizens' dividend.

The thing is, China is miles ahead in the move towards the fourth industrial revolution through an active state that publicly invests, taking stakes in strategic high tech companies.

While the technology is increasingly there, it's actually ideology that's lagging behind. People may struggle to conceive of an automated system of luxury and are stuck in their ways.

Featured image via TechXplore

By James Wright

Water companies are encouraging the government to scrap Ofwat, the water regulator, sooner than planned.

Ofwat currently prevents water companies from increasing bills. It also has the power to fine companies if it decides they have breached their licence.

Ofwat replacement 'Real accountability'

A recent government white paper proposed a new regulator with the power to act more quickly against companies that fail to comply with regulations. This includes the ability to impose financial penalties.

However, the 52-page white paper mentions fines only once and provides no specifics.

Additionally, Ofwat already has the power to fine companies up to 10% of their annual turnover for license breaches.

So whilst the white paper claimed to be about "real accountability", it failed to provide any details.

As the Canary previously reported:

The document also fails to mention how the current privatised system is screwing over regular people. From massively increased bills to going weeks without water to not being able to swim at Britain's beaches, it appears there is not a single part of Britain's waterways that private firms have not fucked up.

And is there any real surprise that water companies want the current system, which may have its faults, but ultimately fines water companies and imposes bill caps, for one, with zero details ironed out?

It almost seems as if forcing a new system sooner than planned will allow water bosses to do whatever the fuck they want, at least for a while. That is, until the government can catch up.

Water UK, which represents the water companies, told the Financial Times that the government is moving too slowly to abolish a system that is "complex, too expensive and too slow."

Water UK also called on ministers to set up the new regulator in 'shadow' mode. This would allow it to start making decisions. I bet holding those same water companies to account and fining them would be at the top of its agenda? I think not.

A shit ton of debt

There are 16 private water companies in the UK. Between them, they have £82.7bn of debt. At the same time, many of them are taking hundreds of millions in profits each year. In total, nine of them are being monitored by Ofwat.

Additionally, Ofwat recently stopped more than £4m of potential bonuses for water bosses under new rules on performance-related executive pay. This included Thames Water's chief executive, Chris Weston, and Steve Buck, its chief financial officer.

Despite this, Chris Weston still received a base salary of £850,000 - which is absolutely disgusting given the state of the country's waterways. Overall, without a bonus, his remuneration package was £1.035m. And let's face it - a salary like that is hardly an incentive to make any significant changes.

So why would they not want Ofwat abolished?

Water companies know precisely what they are doing, and the government is complicit. As it stands, the system allows water companies to extort consumers while failing to provide decent service. All while making a shit load of cash every single year.

But nothing is going to change until the government takes water companies back into public ownership. Because as long as shareholders have more power than the average consumer and water companies are not held to account, the country will never have high-quality, clean water at a fair price.

Feature image via Imani/Unsplash

 

By HG

The Palestinian Ministry of Health has warned of a serious health crisis in the Gaza Strip. Thousands of patients are being prevented from travelling abroad for treatment, despite completing all official medical procedures. This directly threatens their lives and places unprecedented strain on the health system.

According to a press release seen by the Canary, around 20,000 patients with approved medical referrals remain on waiting lists. They are awaiting permission to travel for treatment that is unavailable inside the Strip.

Among them are 440 urgent, life-saving cases, where delays in referral pose an immediate threat to patients' lives.

The waiting lists also include more than 4,000 cancer patients who require specialised treatment unavailable in Gaza. This is due to severe shortages of medicines and medical supplies, as well as the declining operational capacity of health facilities under constant pressure.

Official data shows that around 4,500 patients awaiting referral are children. This highlights the profound humanitarian dimension of the crisis and raises serious concerns about long-term health consequences for the most vulnerable.

The Ministry warned that continued restrictions on patient travel could lead to unpredictable outcomes. These include rising mortality rates, worsening medical conditions, and longer waiting lists for external referrals, at a time when the health system can no longer absorb additional pressure.

The Ministry stressed that denying patients access to treatment is a direct violation of the right to health and life. It called on the international community and humanitarian organisations to meet their legal and moral obligations and take urgent action to ensure patients' freedom of movement and immediate access to life-saving care.

Featured image via UN News

By Alaa Shamali

Animal welfare advocates have hailed a 'historic moment' as the Norwegian chicken industry announces a total transition away from fast-growing chicken breeds by the end of 2027.

Norway raises 70 million chickens for meat every year. And it will become the first country in the world to transition to 100% higher welfare breeds. This could increase pressure on UK companies to address the widespread use of controversial breeds.

Fast-growing 'frankenchickens'

For decades, NGOs have raised concerns about the use of so-called 'frankenchickens' - known in Norway as 'turbochickens.' Chicken companies typically use fast-growing breeds which have been selectively bred to gain weight as quickly as possible.

The birds suffer from significant and commonplace welfare problems as a result. Countless exposés show the birds struggling to walk under their own weight. Research suggests that fast-growing chickens suffer hundreds of hours of pain during their short lives.

60% of the chickens in Norway are fast-growing breeds, specifically the Ross 308. And 90% of the UK chicken industry uses the Ross 308 breed. Over the past five years the Norwegian industry has gradually adopted higher welfare breeds known as the Rustic Gold and the Hubbard JA787.

Connor Jackson is CEO of the UK branch of global animal advocacy organisation Anima International. He said:

What's happening now in Norway is a historic moment. It's one of the greatest improvements to animal welfare in history, and it shows that the transition away from fast-growing breeds is possible.

But it also shows just how far behind we are on this issue in the UK, where companies have barely started to address this problem.

Anima International has been campaigning in Norway for five years to see a transition away from fast-growing breeds. In the UK, where it also operates, a number of NGOs have been calling for the same transition since 2017 with the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC).

Last year, Waitrose became the first major UK company to make a full transition to higher welfare breeds in all its products as part of the BCC. M&S, a fellow signatory to the BCC, has transitioned for all fresh chicken, with a plan to transition completely by the end of this year.

However, fast-growing breeds remain the norm in Britain. Other UK retailers have chosen to focus on giving their chickens more space in efforts to address welfare concerns. While advocates recognise this as a positive step, it does not address the fast-growing genetics of the birds.

Jackson added:

UK consumers care deeply about animal welfare, and they would be shocked to see the reality of an intensive chicken farm even with more space. Better management is positive, but it only scratches the surface of the problem.

To really improve these animals' lives, we need to follow in Norway's footsteps with a transition to higher welfare, slower growing breeds.

Retailers, along with high street brands like KFC, Greggs and Pret, need to step up and solve the biggest welfare problem for chickens: fast-growing genetics. Nothing is stopping companies from getting together with industry and finding a solution, just like Norway has.

Featured image via Anima International

By The Canary

Over the course of 2025, a record-breaking number of mainstream newspaper editorials spoke out to oppose climate action. The total, nearing 100 articles, demonstrates the complicity of the right-wing press in the destruction of our planet.

That's according to new analysis from climate-focused independent news site Carbon Brief. The researchers analysed editorials - articles setting out the newspaper's 'official' stance on an issue — stretching back as far as 2011.

Last year, 2025, was the only period in which opposition to climate action actually outweighed support. In fact, the opposition outnumbered the support by more than two to one.

Climate hostility driven by the right

Unsurprisingly, every one of the 98 editorials opposing climate action came from right-wing papers. These included the Times, Daily Express, Sun, Daily Mail, and Daily Telegraph. 

Meanwhile, lower-circulation left-or-center outlets like the Guardian and Financial Times penned all 46 editorials supporting climate action.

In total, 81% of the climate-focused editorials in right-wing papers voiced their opposition to action. This in itself is a contrast to just a few years ago, when even the right-wing rags saw a swell in support for climate action.

Notably, the 2025 editorials didn't position themselves as skeptical of the existence of climate change itself. Rather, they took a 'response-sceptic' approach, criticising the policies and efforts to stop about climate change.

Economic arguments

Often, this took the form of attacking 'net-zero' as a nebulous scapegoat for any climate policy they disliked. Meanwhile, these critical editorials rarely presented any alternative plans or proposals. As Carbon Brief explained:

Most editorials that rejected climate action did not even mention the word "climate", often using "net-zero" instead.

This supports recent analysis by Dr James Painter, a research associate at the University of Oxford, which concluded that UK newspaper coverage has been "decoupling net-zero from climate change".

This is significant, given strong and broad UK public support for many of the individual climate policies that underpin net-zero. Notably, there is also majority support for the "net-zero by 2050" target itself.

Often, the editors levelled arguments against net-zero as being too costly for the UK to implement. In fact, economic factors were the most commonly cited reason for opposition to net-zero policies, appearing in 87% of the hostile articles.

Likewise, Carbon Brief also analysed the papers' attitudes to renewable energy sources. Following the general timbre of climate-hostility, 2025 was the first year since 2014 when opposition to renewables outweighed support among the editorials.

Over 2025, 42 editorials criticised renewable energy sources and their use in the UK. And, as ever, right-wing papers featured the whole lot — with 86% of the articles again citing the costs of renewable power as the main reason for their rejection.

Shift in the right

Carbon Brief argued that the shift in the editorials' stance on climate action mirrored a shift in right-wing politics more broadly:

Taken together, the newspaper editorials mirror a significant shift on the UK political right in 2025, as the opposition Conservative party mimicked the hard-right populist Reform UK party by definitively rejecting the net-zero target that it had legislated for and the policies that it had previously championed.

The earlier trend of right-wing outlets embracing climate action mirrored Tory policies under May and Johnson, who first introduced the net-zero target in the UK. However, we're now seeing a sharp turn away from those 'green right' policies under Badenoch and Farage:

Over the past year, the Conservative party has rejected both the "net-zero by 2050" target that it legislated for in 2019 and the underpinning Climate Change Act that it had a major role in creating. Meanwhile, the Reform UK party has been rising in the polls, while pledging to "ditch net-zero"

Right-wing newspapers and politicians both influence and are influenced by one another. Both are now working to shift public opinion towards a denial that climate action can be cost-effective and have an impact on climate change - all of which works towards the agenda of their climate-wrecking donors. 

The harsh truth is that there is no economic cost of climate action that would outweigh the massive cost of inaction. The oil-hungry right of both the media and politics desperately want a public that believes electric cars and wind farms are too expensive to be worthwhile.

Meanwhile, the inaction they favour will, inevitably, cost no less than the earth itself.

Featured image via CarbonBrief

By Alex/Rose Cocker

After murdering hundreds of Palestinian journalists and their families in Gaza, Israel has exported its targeting of reporters to Lebanon. The occupation murdered Ali Nour Al-Din, a television journalist with Lebanese broadcaster Al-Manar, in a strike on the southern city of Tyre. Nour Al-Din was severely wounded in the strike yesterday, 26 January 2025, and died of his wounds today.

Israel is set on seizing territory in southern Lebanon that it has already begun to sell to illegal settlers. It has bombed Lebanon multiple times daily, despite a supposed 'ceasefire' that it has never honoured. The 'you cease, we'll fire' has been in place since Israel's double-wave of terrorist attacks using exploding pagers and radios. The attacks killed and maimed thousands across Lebanon, including children.

We note that Israel's war on journalists in Lebanon began on 13 October 2023, with a tank strike on a clearly marked gathering of reporters from multiple news agencies. The attack killed Reuters journalist — and friend of the Canary — Issam Abdallah, and wounded six others.

The targeting of journalists represents a dangerous escalation and a potential precursor to a renewed invasion by the terror state.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Outsourced cleaners will strike alongside a protest at Transport for London's (TfL) Board meeting on 4 February. This will increase pressure on mayor Sadiq Khan over outsourcing and democratic control of the capital's transport system.

Outsourcing cleaners

The protest, starting at 9.30am at City Hall, Kamal Chunchie Way, London E16 1ZE, comes amid ongoing strike action by outsourced cleaners on the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) employed by contractor Bidvest Noonan, who are in dispute over company sick pay.

The RMT says cleaners have been told that sick pay would only be considered in extremely limited circumstances, such as terminal illness, which the union branded an insult.

The union says the dispute is a direct consequence of TfL's outsourcing model. This allows private contractors to drive down terms and conditions while TfL and the Mayor distance themselves from responsibility.

At the same time, TfL has awarded a new five-year cleaning contract covering more than 2,000 workers to outsourcing giant Mitie, despite Khan previously stating his support for bringing cleaners back in-house.

The RMT says the decision demonstrates that the mayor of London is allowing TfL pursue private corporate interests, overriding both democratic accountability and the interests of workers and passengers.

RMT General Secretary Eddie Dempsey said:

The upcoming strike action by DLR cleaners' lays bare the cruel reality of outsourcing where frontline workers are treated with contempt by ruthless contractors.

The Mayor cannot wash his hands of responsibility in this matter. He must follow through on the commitments he made to our union that he would end outsourcing.

The protest on 4 February is about linking these disputes directly to the political decisions that are at the heart of this super exploitation of outsourced workers.

Democratic control must be wrestled back from TfL bosses and the Mayor needs to act on his mandate given to him by the electorate to run the transport system in the public interest.

The union is calling on the Mayor to terminate the Mitie contract and publish an urgent timetable for the early insourcing of all TfL cleaners.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Tory-aligned toilet paper The Spectator has published a column from long-time anti-Irish bigot Julie Burchill, in which she characterises the country as a backwater populated by the "simple-minded", Nazi sympathisers and antisemites.

The column's main thrust is a vacuous interest in celebrity attachment to Ireland. Burchill expresses amazement at the likes of Steve Coogan and Daniel Day-Lewis embracing their Irish heritage. Coogan points out that:

…if I get captured by ISIS, I'm less likely to get my head chopped off with an Irish passport than a British one.

An Irish passport does indeed make you safer in many parts of the world compared to a British one. This is because — unlike the British — the Irish didn't have an empire that went round conducting horrifying acts of mass murder and robbery across the world. Burchill doesn't seem inclined to reflect that, in a Britain veering towards colonial nostalgia, this might make Ireland a more attractive place to identify with.

Confusing anti-Zionism and antisemitism

As for Day-Lewis, Burchill is especially shocked, pondering why a man "of Jewish origin" would have any attachment to the still British-occupied island. While Burchill seems to be aware of the actor having a Jewish mother, she apparently doesn't know about his Irish father, which makes his time spent in Ireland less of a mystery.

In further 'help' Jewish people likely don't need or want, Burchill goes on to incorrectly characterise the word 'diaspora' as "traditionally Jewish" despite it being of Greek origin. She bemoans "every Tom, Dick and Paddy" now supposedly using the term. 'Paddy' is typically considered a slur when used to reference Irish people in general.

She compounds this by conflating antisemitism and anti-Zionism, quoting "great investigative reporter David Collier" who says:

The spread of anti-Semitism throughout the Irish mainstream is clearly worse than in almost any other Western nation.

Collier reveals his real concern, bemoaning an obsession with "attacking Israel and Zionism". No actual evidence of antisemitism is provided by Burchill.

She goes on to claim — again without supporting material — that:

The Irish establishment - including the artistic establishment like Kneecap - have always had a thing about the Jews.

Placing Hezbollah-flag-waving Kneecap among the genocide-backing Irish establishment is an interesting analysis, but not a very accurate one. The only recent case of antisemitism in the Irish ruling class is the endorsement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, though this is something the likes of Burchill have typically backed. Its problematic character lies in suggesting criticism of 'Israel' is antisemitic, thereby tying Jewish people in general to a genocidal land theft project.

Full-throated embrace of classic anti-Irish bigotry

Burchill really enters full-on racist mode shortly afterwards, characterising her targets as "simple-minded". Racist notions of Irish stupidity are the archetypal form of anti-Irish bigotry, perhaps alongside smears about fighting and drinking. The column doubles down on this by classing musician Ed Sheeran as "half half-wit and quarter cretin" for identifying "culturally as Irish".

Burchill has previous for this sort of shite, when in 2002 a social worker at the London Irish Centre reported her to police for incitement to racial hatred following a Guardian column. In that instance, the bile-filled writer again didn't seem capable of differentiating between Irish people in general and the nation's religious and political ruling class, as she railed against:

…compulsory child molestation by the national church, total discrimination against women who wish to be priests, aiding and abetting Herr Hitler in his hour of need, and outlawing abortion and divorce.

She went on to rant about the:

…Hitler-licking, altarboy-molesting, abortion-banning Irish tricolour

Going even further back, there's evidence that this is all motivated by sectarianism. In 1984, the vile witch declared:

I hate the Irish, I think they're appalling, I like the Northern Irish Protestants because they're so brave. I know they're ugly, but that's not their fault. I hate the IRA, they're morons their methods have much more in common with the death squads than with genuine liberation armies like the Basques.

If there's one thing the world doesn't need it's another Catholic country. Catholic countries are so stupid and ignorant.

The Spectator has done this before

The Spectator has a history of publishing grotesque columns, famously including one entitled "In praise of the Wehrmacht" on D-Day in 2018. The hateful hack haven has a long history of Islamophobia, especially from Rod Liddle. He has described Islam as "liberal, vindictive and frankly fascistic". As the Conservatives were being accused of harbouring anti-Islam attitudes, he said:

My own view is that there is not nearly enough Islamophobia within the Tory party.

That Burchill's column can be published in the Spectator in 2026 shows that, alongside Islamophobia, anti-Irish bigotry remains an acceptable form of prejudice in Britain. While a younger generation looks critically at the country's past and embraces the radical messaging coming from the likes of Kneecap, the slow demise of those who live forever in 1943 and long for old racial hierarchies prevents genuine national renewal.

Britain no longer has a fraction of its former power. Rather than a return to former 'glories', the continued embrace of old racist notions simply increases the chances of old colonial injustices being revisited upon the metropole.

Featured image via Twitter

By Robert Freeman

Reform UK has announced a new policy to 'defend our troops'. In reality, they want to play on the fears of elderly veterans, while attacking the rule of law. Using a tried-and-tested Tory trope, the far-right party said it will prevent past and future prosecutions of armed forces personnel if elected.

Reform's head of policy Zia Yusuf posted the plans on X on 26 January. He said a Reform government would grant immunity to all current and former personnel, create a bar on prosecutions and pardon veterans. Yusuf also promised to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Criminal Court (ICC):

Today, launching Veterans for Reform, @Nigel_Farage announces that a Reform government will:

1) grant immunity from prosecution for all our armed forces for actions during combat operations, they may only be prosecuted if the Defence Secretary expressly authorises it.

2) use a…

— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) January 26, 2026

An hour later he posted again to expand on the policy. In a short video he specified that veterans were under attack by "foreign courts" and a "treacherous political class". He said elderly veterans were being hounded while Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists "walk free":

Important policy announcement:

Reform will end the persecution of our brave warriors.

British soldiers past, present and future: Reform UK has your back.

Activists staged a sit-in at the London offices of Metals Exploration PLC on 26 January. This was in protest of human rights violations and environmental destruction linked to its subsidiary, Woggle Corporation, a British-owned mining company operating in the Philippines.

Interestingly, in September 2025, Metals Exploration PLC listed its largest single shareholder as Reform UK treasurer Nick Candy.

The protest condemns the escalating repression faced by farming and Indigenous communities in Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya, where residents are resisting Woggle Corporation's mining exploration.

Violence inflicted by mining company goons at Dupax Del Norte

Woggle Corporation has been linked to the violent arrest and repression of local farmers and indigenous peoples opposing its mining exploration. In June 2025, Woggle Corporation obtained an exploration permit covering 3,100 hectares, the equivalent to approximately 4,000 football fields.

ICHRP Britain is leading the British Mining Out of the Philippines campaign along with London-Philippine Solidarity and others in a growing campaign coalition.

Helen Brewer from ICHRP Britain says:

The situation in Dupax del Norte is emblematic of the Filipino people's long history of resisting foreign mining giants in the country. ICHRP Britain condemns these vicious attacks and stands in solidarity with the Filipino people's rightful defence of land, livelihood and community.

Sam Martin from LPS says:

We have staged this sit in to bring the struggle of the people of Dupax Del Norte against Woggle Corporation to its parent company Metals Exploration PLC, based right here in London. I met with Florentino and other land defenders in Dupax Del Norte in September when we visited the community.

When I was there, one thing was clear, the people of Dupax Del Norte - indigenous people, land defenders, farmers, women and young people alike - are steadfast in opposing mining on their lands. In the face of such overwhelming resistance, the only thing left to do for a British company like Woggle is to down tools and go home.

We want to show the people of Dupax Del Norte that we stand with them - while you fight Woggle there, we'll fight them here.

The Philippines is the fifth most mineral-rich country in the world and remains the deadliest country in Asia for land and environmental defenders. Foreign mining companies aggressively target the country, while local communities bear the brunt of environmental harm and destruction caused by extraction.

Mining operations in the Philippines have a long association with deforestation, watershed destruction, loss of livelihoods, and disasters worsened by climate change.

People's barricade and resistance

In September 2025, residents of Dupax del Norte established a physical barricade to prevent the entry of mining equipment into their communities and deforestation. On 23 January, representatives from Woggle Corporation and more than 300 members of the Philippines National Police (PNP) and SWAT units violently dispersed and arrested several land and environmental defenders.

Florentino Daynos, a resident and local anti-mining community leader arrested in the raid, said:

Why are we fighting against mining? Because it is a battle for the next generation to come. This battle is not only about our livelihoods, but about life. This battle is about our children, and our children's children.

Local government bodies and community organisations are calling for the revocation of Woggle Corporation's exploration permit and an immediate halt to mining operations in the area.

Featured image supplied

By The Canary

Folk legend Woody Guthrie was so angered by the dehumanizing language used to describe Mexican immigrants in 1948 that he wrote a song about it. Telling the story of dozens of Mexican workers killed during a deportation flight crash, Guthrie called the tune "Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)."

Artists from Pete Seeger to Bruce Springsteen to Dolly Parton have covered Guthrie's song, which has been hailed as a timeless ode to the humanity of society's most marginalized.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wasn't listening.

In a social media post on Wednesday, ICE honored the deportation officer killed in the January 28, 1948, crash while describing the unnamed passengers as "illegal Mexican aliens."

Whether intentionally or not, the post drew a backlash from commenters who pointed out the language used to describe plane crash victims on the 78th anniversary of their death. It's the latest social media imbroglio for ICE, or its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, which seems to court controversy with posts that echo the language of white nationalists.

The post about the crash anniversary may have been subtler. Still, it is a virtual repeat of the attitude toward immigrant laborers that so upset Guthrie decades ago, according to Tim Z. Hernandez, the author of two books about the famous plane crash.

"True to form of this administration, they are pulling from old rhetoric as a way to justify what they're doing today."

"True to form of this administration, they are pulling from old rhetoric as a way to justify what they're doing today," he said.

Words like "alien" and "illegal," Hernandez said, are "only meant to further strip the humanity of the people they're targeting, because then it's easier to justify when you're not talking about human beings."

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The flight that ended in a fiery crash took the life of Frank Chaffin, the deportation officer, along with 28 passengers being deported and three crew members. An Associated Press story at the time named Chaffin and the crew members but not the immigrant passengers.

Related Floaters: Our Reflection in the Rio Grande

The wire service reported that some of the people being deported had crossed the border illegally, while other had stayed past the duration of work contracts.

Guthrie responded to the omission of the deportees' names in the AP story with his song, in which he imagined some of their stories.

"Goodbye to my Juan, goodbye, Rosalita / Adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maria / You won't have your names when you ride the big airplane / All they will call you will be 'deportees,'" he wrote.

The immigrant victims languished in obscurity for decades until Hernandez unearthed their identities. Scouring old archives and cemetery records, he has been able to piece together much of the manifest.

In 2013, he helped unveil a memorial for the previously unnamed victims at a mass grave in a Catholic cemetery in Fresno, California. Two years ago, another marker was placed at the site of the crash.

Descendents of the victims and locals who witnessed the crash gather annually at the crash site on the anniversary to pay tribute, according to Hernandez.

A memorial marker with the names of the 32 people who died in a 1948 airplane crash at Los Gatos Canyon was unveiled on Sept. 28, 2024, near Coalinga, Calif. Photo: Juan Esparza Loera/The Fresno Bee/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Hernandez took special care to include the stories of Chaffin and the crew members in his book, believing that none of their stories should be erased. He said he was saddened but not surprised to see the ICE social media post.

"Even if we disagree on how to protect the border, or the whole immigration process, even if we disagree on the logistics, what we should be able to come to an agreement on is that each of us are human beings and worthy of dignity," he said. "When I see that dehumanization, that intentional kind of language, it makes me sad, because it's people who fail to see other people as humans."

The post Woody Guthrie Sang Against Dehumanizing the Immigrants Killed in a Plane Crash. ICE Is Doing It All Over Again. appeared first on The Intercept.

When Maher Tarabishi got a phone call from his family on January 23, he expected an update on his son's health. Tarabishi had been held for three months at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas, and his 30-year-old son Wael's health had been on the decline. Still, Tarabishi was hoping for a full recovery.

The news, though, was not good: Wael had passed away. Maher Tarabishi was in disbelief, breaking down on the phone, according to an account of the call from his daughter-in-law Shahd Arnaout.

"He wouldn't die without me," Tarabishi wailed. "There is no way he died without waiting for me."

"He wouldn't die without me. There is no way he died without waiting for me."

Destroyed, Tarabishi had one hope. His attorney, Ali Elhorr, had already been advocating for his release to take care of Wael, but shifted his efforts to securing a release for Wael's funeral, which was initially scheduled for Wednesday before being moved to Thursday.

At first, ICE officials seemed like they might give in: preliminary discussion included conditions for a temporary release, including scheduling and moving Tarabishi to a detention center that was closer to the funeral home.

"Initial steps in the process had already begun when I received a call from the ICE officer with whom I had been in contact," Elhorr said in a release. "The officer informed me that his director stepped in and told him that Maher would not be allowed to attend Wael's burial. This was the final decision."

ICE did not respond to inquiries from The Intercept, but told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "ICE has NOT received a formal request from anyone to attend funeral services."

Primary Caretaker

At the time Tarabishi was arrested by ICE, he had been the primary caregiver for Wael. As he was taken, Tarabishi's first thought was, "Who will take care of my son?" according to Arnaout's recollection of conversations with her father-in-law.

Wael was born in Arlington, Texas, in 1995, a year after his family immigrated to the U.S. from Jordan. When the boy was 4, he had been diagnosed with Pompe disease, a rare metabolic disease that causes rapid muscular deterioration, according to his family. At the time, the doctor told the family that he might not live past 5, Arnaout said.

"Maher kept him alive," Araout said. "Wael could not eat or drink by himself. He could not use his arms or legs. So Maher was all of that for him, his lungs, his legs, his arms, everything."

Tarabishi, meanwhile, had applied for asylum after coming from Jordan, but he was denied. Nonetheless, he went to his regular ICE check-ins once a year for more than a decade and a half. When reports of people being arrested at these check-ins became widespread last year, his family was concerned. Tarabishi, however, was not.

"He had too much faith in the system," Arnaout said. "He didn't have any criminal record. He thought they put an appointment for him because they saw he is doing everything right to stay in the country, following all the rules. He never missed a single appointment."

She said the officers at the local ICE office knew about Wael's condition and would frequently ask Tarabishi about his son.

On January 23, the day Wael died, Elhorr had filed a motion to reopen Tarabishi's case with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Elhorr had discovered that the purported attorney who filed Tarabishi's original asylum application "was fraudulently practicing law without a license," the family said in a press release.

In an earlier statement, ICE had said that Maher belonged to the "Palestine Liberation Organization" and was a "criminal alien." While the United States has designated the PLO as a terrorist organization in the past, it is not in the country's designated list of terrorist organizations currently. Nonetheless, the family denied that Tarabishi had any affiliation with the group.

"He has done no criminal activity," Arnaout said. "He is an electronic engineer who loves fixing people's laptops. He is a simple man."

Deteriorating Conditions

In the months since Tarabishi's arrest in October, Wael's condition quickly deteriorated.

He was admitted to a hospital for pneumonia and sepsis in November. Connected to catheters and tubes all over his body, Wael put out a video from the hospital bed.

"The last month has been hell for me," he says in the video. "My father was my hero, my safe place. He did everything for me 24 hours a day. And ICE took him."

Wael ended the video with a plea: "Please release him, I am not asking for much, please release him."

In December, Wael had to be hospitalized for a second time. Eight days before his demise, Wael went in for a surgery.

Read Our Complete Coverage

The War on Immigrants

"Don't worry, I will be back for my father," Wael had told his family, according to Arnaout.

Wael did not wake up for the next eight days and on the night of January 22, his condition worsened drastically. The next morning, the family signed a "do not resuscitate" letter for him. Wael passed away the next day at the Methodist Mansfield Medical Center.

Tarabishi got to speak to Wael a few times from detention. The son, according to Arnaout, made light of his medical woes.

"Don't worry," Wael told his father, Arnaout recalled. "I am not going die until I see you. I am not going anywhere, not until I see you."

The post ICE Arrested Father Who Cared for His Ill Son — Then Denied His Request to Attend Son's Funeral appeared first on The Intercept.

MINNEAPOLIS ­— On Greg Bovino's last day as a roving U.S. Border Patrol commander, protesters gathered outside the hotel where the 55-year-old was rumored to be staying. Night had fallen and the temperature was well below freezing. The demonstrators had convened to say goodbye in the loudest and least restful manner possible.

They banged on pots, pans, and drums in the falling snow; shouted into megaphones; and blew into their orange emergency whistles — a shrill call that's become synonymous with the Trump administration's assault in the Twin Cities.

From the building's fourth floor, a group of men looked down on the raucous crowd, drinks in hand. They appeared to be off-duty members of Bovino's locally despised detail. One of the men turned, set his can down, dropped his shorts, and shook his bare ass at the protesters before giving them the finger. Not long after, local police and state troopers wielding wooden clubs overtook the crowd. Several arrests were made.

"All that we know at this moment is that they're swapping out personnel. That doesn't tell us anything about policies."

The motivations for the send-off stemmed from masked federal agents running wild throughout Minnesota for the past two months, and from the trail of civil rights abuses, constitutional violations, and violent videos left in their wake.

The most recent insult was the killing of Alex Pretti. On Saturday, federal immigration agents shot the 37-year-old dead in the street while he attempted to help a woman whom they had shoved to the ground.

In the wake of the killing, Bovino claimed that Pretti, who worked as an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, "wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement," despite abundant and immediately available evidence to the contrary.

On Monday, amid a wave of national outrage that even had some Republicans questioning the heavy-handedness in Minnesota, Bovino was removed from his unusual "commander-at-large" position and booted back to California. He will reportedly retire soon.

The local relief at Bovino's departure is easy to understand. What is far less clear is how much of a change his replacement, Trump's border czar Tom Homan, will bring.

"There's been no changes in legal filings, no withdrawing claims, no admissions that people are being detained without cause," University of Minnesota law professor Emmanuel Mauleón told The Intercept. "All that we know at this moment is that they're swapping out personnel. That doesn't tell us anything about policies. That doesn't tell us anything about enforcement priorities. That doesn't tell us anything about tactics — and to the extent that we look at the court filings, there are no indications that those things have changed."

As one example among many, Mauleón noted that the Trump administration has provided no indication that it intends to rescind a recently disclosed internal memo that purports authorize immigration agents to enter homes without a judicial warrant, an assertion of authority legal scholars have decried as patently unconstitutional.

Related Trump's War on America

This is an election year, and so far, the ultra-nationalist, hyper-militarized crackdown ordered up by White House adviser Stephen Miller and manifested in the streets of Minneapolis is proving decidedly unpopular. Currently, the messaging from both the president and Minnesota's Democratic Gov. Tim Walz is that Homan's arrival may bring a less divisive, more professional brand of federal immigration policing to the state.

And yet, there's little evidence of ideological distinction between the new head of "Operation Metro Surge" and the rest of the Trump administration's immigration hawks. The most notable difference between Homan and Bovino in particular is that Homan has deported a lot more people, and he's done so at a national level.

"Certainly, swapping out Bovino for Homan might result in different policies," said Mauleón, For now, though, "it seems to be a matter of crisis management more than anything."

"A lot of this," he said, "I read more as political cover rather than any real meaningful signals about what's going to happen on the ground."

Homan's Record

Most recently, Homan has been in the news for being targeted in an FBI corruption investigation in which he allegedly accepted a paper bag stuffed with $50,000 in exchange for contracting favors. (The Trump Justice Department dismissed the case.)

Those with a somewhat longer memory will recall that Homan — along with Miller and others — was an architect of "zero tolerance," a policy that saw thousands of immigrant children separated from their parents and spawned nationwide protests, much like the country is seeing today.

Those with an even deeper knowledge of immigration history will remember that Homan was key to President Barack Obama earning the monicker "deporter-in-chief."

Like Bovino, Homan was once a Border Patrol agent, before transferring to the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service. After September 11, 2001, INS earned the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency to be disbanded over the terror attacks. (The agency approved visas for two 9/11 hijackers.)

Related A Legacy of Corruption and Abuse: The Post-9/11 Immigration Megabureaucracy

Under the colossal new Department of Homeland Security, Homan and his colleagues were folded into a novel agency called U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — ICE, which was divided into two wings, the deportation officers of Enforcement and Removal Operations, and the special agents of Homeland Security Investigations.

Homan moved to Washington in 2009 and quickly climbed the bureaucratic ladder, becoming head of ERO in 2013. Under Obama, he and his colleagues expanded a controversial program known as Secure Communities, which allowed ICE to work inside jails and prisons. The administration defined its enforcement priorities as people who presented a threat to "national security, public safety, and border security."

During Obama's second term, DHS ordered ICE to stop deporting people whose only offense was an immigration violation that occurred prior to January 2014. By the time he left the White House, Obama had more than 3 million deportations to his name.

Even amid the changing priorities, Homan distinguished himself as a high-functioning deporter, embracing the "worst first" mantra ICE used to refer the administration's goals. At ERO, he deported more than 920,000 people — 534,000 of them being what ICE called criminal aliens. For this achievement, Obama awarded him a Presidential Rank Award in 2015, the highest annual honor given to the government's senior service members.

Despite the recognition he received, Homan bristled at the Obama administration's enforcement priorities. As ICE's acting director during Trump's first term, his big talking point was that all undocumented people — criminal record or not — should live in fear that the government is coming for them.

Related Trump's Border Czar Faces Backlash in His Hometown for Locking Up a Local Family

Homan's agency ramped up arrests by more than 40 percent during Trump's first year. In New York City alone, the Immigrant Defense Project reported a 900 percent increase in ICE arrests or attempted arrests at local courthouses. Nationwide, the greatest increase in arrests was among immigrants with no criminal convictions. Under Homan's watch, ICE's "noncriminal" arrests more than doubled.

At a Border Security Expo in 2018, Homan railed against the institutions challenging ICE, especially lawmakers and the press.

"When they've seen what we've seen, then you can have an opinion," he told agents and industry vendors. "Until then we're going to enforce the law without apology."

Nothing in nearly a decade since Homan's leadership at ICE suggests his views have changed. What has changed, particularly in the past year, is the overtly militarized tactics of both Border Patrol and ICE; while it was personnel from Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol's parent agency, that killed Pretti, it was an ICE agent who shot Minneapolis mother Renee Good to death three weeks earlier.

Those operations have spawned a resistance the likes of which Homan never encountered during Trump's first term.

Under Trump 2.0, federal agents in Minnesota have run up against a network of tens of thousands of digitally connected rapid responders committed to preventing mass deportations in their neighborhoods and communities.

Homan has threatened those networks directly, warning that people who follow and film ICE operations will be arrested, prosecuted, and included in a "database."

"We're gonna make 'em famous," he told Fox News the week after Good was killed. "We're gonna put their face on TV."

DHS correspondence obtained by CNN indicates the building of such a database is well underway, with agents in Minneapolis directed to "capture all images, license plates, identifications, and general information on hotels, agitators, protestors, etc." Among those swept up in the department's data collection efforts, prior to his killing, was Alex Pretti.

Homan's interest in targeting Trump's political opponents echoes a national security memorandum the White House released last year, NSPM-7, which orders federal law enforcement to direct its investigative powers against what the president has called the "enemy within."

The post While Minnesotans Rejoice Over Greg Bovino's Ouster, His Replacement Is a Deportation Hard-Liner appeared first on The Intercept.

When federal Immigration agents gunned down 37-year-old Minneapolis resident Alex Pretti on Saturday, their identities were almost completely concealed. They were mostly wearing civilian clothes, and masks obscured their faces. With authorities refusing to disclose their names and records, the agents involved in the killing have so far remained anonymous.

But there is one distinguishing characteristic that could help identify the man who first opened fire: the patches on the back of his vest. One is the state flag of Texas. Another appears to read "U.S. Border Patrol."

A screenshot from a TikTok video shows a Texas flag patch on the back of the federal agent who opened fire on Alex Pretti, as well as a patch that appears to read: "U.S. Border Patrol." Screenshot: TikTok/@shitboxhyundai

Insignia like these have become a common sight as federal agents swarm U.S. cities to carry out the Trump administration's anti-immigrant policies. When Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, in Minneapolis this month, his tactical vest was adorned with "Police" and "Federal Agent" patches. When a mob of officers created a civil disturbance in Arizona, in which Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva was pepper-sprayed, many were wearing a distinctive red shoulder insignia, some with vest patches reading "HSI."

Patches like these are often the only means to identify a federal officer's agency or a particular unit within it. But amid mounting scrutiny of the Trump administration's brutal tactics, government agencies are attempting to keep information about their personnel, operations, and even their uniforms under wraps — right down to the patches that officers wear.

So The Intercept built a guide of the official shoulder patches that Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses for unit identification, as well as known insignias worn by U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel and unofficial patches conveying personal or political messages that federal agents have been spotted wearing. It's a step toward transparency that immigration authorities refuses to provide to the American people on its own.

The most common patches are the least helpful. Many ICE agents affix to their vests or plate carriers vague patches reading "Police," "Federal Agent," or "Federal Officer." CBP's Border Patrol agents often wear "Police" patches as well. Some common patches are also strictly fashion choices, such as earth-tone U.S. flags designed to blend into military camouflage.

But federal agents' outfits are sometimes adorned with lesser-known acronyms that offer additional information. "ERO" is short for ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations, a unit tasked with the standard immigration enforcement process: identifying, arresting, and deporting immigrants. "HSI" stands for ICE's Homeland Security Investigations unit, which formerly focused on transnational crimes, ranging from narcotics smuggling to cybercrime, but has been pressed into service as an anti-immigrant force.

Patches worn by immigration authorities in northwest Washington on Sept. 29, 2025, ranged from vague "Police Federal Officer" to the specific "ERO," indicating their role with ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations unit. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

Border Patrol agents generally wear "U.S. Border Patrol" patches on their vests. Others sport "U.S. Border Patrol" or "U.S. Customs and Border Protection" patches on their sleeves. Specialized components of agencies, like CBP's Air and Marine Operations unit, wear unique official patches. Others may wear unofficial morale patches designed to foster esprit de corps.

Last year, Cary López Alvarado, a U.S. citizen who was nine months pregnant, was harassed by a Border Patrol agent wearing a patch with the image of the Punisher war skull over a thin-green-line Border Patrol variant of the American flag. The iconic logo of the brutal Marvel Comics vigilante anti-hero from the 1970s, the Punisher, was inspired, in part, by the "totenkopf," a skull-and-bones logo worn by the Nazi SS during World War II. The Punisher's symbol has been embraced by members of the U.S. military and law enforcement personnel in the 21st century. CBP did not immediately return a request for comment about the patch.

Left, a badge and patch from CBP'ss Air and Marine Operations unit; right, the so-called "Eyes" patch of CBP's San Angelo Air Branch. Credit: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Agents with the Border Patrol Tactical Unit, which specializes in high-risk operations like counterterrorism missions, often wear vests or shoulder patches that read BORTAC. Some BORTAC agents have been spotted with a special patch on their plate carriers that features wings and a stylized starburst or compass over an American flag. (DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told NBC that the agents who killed Pretti included members of the Border Patrol Tactical Unit.)

Inside ICE, there are even lower-profile and less-documented, although official, insignia. Both ERO and HSI have Special Response Teams, tactical units devoted to higher-risk operations, like dealing with individuals with a history of violence or resisting arrest. There are 30 such HSI offices across the country, including Miami which also has a HSI Caribbean attaché office.

Emily Covington, until recently an assistant director in ICE's Office of Public Affairs, sent The Intercept images of 21 patches. "I gave you all the patches," she said.

This wasn't true, as a nameless ICE official later acknowledged. "[W]e are not going to spend time providing you with each and every patch," he emailed from an official "ICE media" account. Covington said that ICE officials feared that The Intercept would use the patches to "dox people," though she also dared The Intercept to pursue the story. "We hope that you go ahead and report," she said. "Go for it." 

The Intercept compiled this set of images released by the Department of Homeland Security and open-source photographs.

ICE and DHS failed to respond to numerous follow-up questions dealing with insignia and patches submitted scores of times over a period of months, as well as a request to speak with an expert on ICE uniforms and adornments. CBP acknowledged receipt of The Intercept's questions but did not respond to them prior to publication.

Some of the common patches worn by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol agents. Clockwise from upper left: Photo: Benjamin Applebaum/Released/DHS; Mikaela McGee/Released/DHS; Kevin Carter/Getty Images; Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images; Kevin Carter/Getty Images.

The Department of Homeland Security provided The Intercept with images of 21 HSI special activities unit patches. The designs and aesthetics vary. HSI Arizona features a malevolent-looking rattlesnake coiled around an assault rifle. HSI Los Angeles includes a California condor clutching an automatic weapon in its talons. And HSI San Juan Puerto Rico's image of SWAT officers appears to have been cribbed from sketches by the late artist Dick Kramer, the "father" of modern tactical artwork.

An array of patches from ICE's Homeland Security Investigations special activities units nationwide. Photos: Department of Homeland Security

One notable absence from the patch collection provided by Covington is a shoulder patch worn by personnel from the St. Paul Field Office, where Ross works. (Ross is reportedly an ERO team leader and an SRT member.) The St. Paul office's Special Response Team patch was spotted on the camouflage uniform of a masked ICE officer during a raid of a Minneapolis Mexican restaurant last year. The circular patch depicts a bearded Viking skull over an eight-prong wayfinder or magical stave — a Nordic image called a "Vegvisir." The symbol has sometimes been co-opted by far-right extremists. ICE and DHS failed to respond to repeated requests for comment about the St. Paul patch.

Another patch missing from the images supplied by ICE is the Phoenix Special Response Team patch that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was seen wearing on a tactical vest last year. The HSI Rapid Response Team patch was also missing from the official list.

The Intercept also inquired about various other patches found in online photos, including those posted on social media by the ERO Newark field office covering New Jersey; the ICE Washington, D.C., and Virginia field offices; and blurred-out patches published by the ICE ERO Harlingen Field Office in South Texas. Neither ICE nor DHS responded to repeated questions from The Intercept about these patches.

In addition to official insignia, some federal agents have been spotted wearing seemingly unofficial patches to express personal or political predilections that DHS will not explain.

An ICE officer in Minnesota was spotted, for example, wearing a patch reading "DEPLORABLE," a term some devotees of then-candidate Donald Trump adopted in 2016 after Hillary Clinton said half of his supporters belonged in a "basket of deplorables," since they were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, [and] Islamophobic."

In November, after local reporting drew attention to the deplorable patch, Tanya Roman, the acting ICE communications director, said she would "look into" it. After The Intercept repeatedly asked for details, Roman replied: "Please contact DHS." The Department of Homeland Security did not answer The Intercept's questions about the DEPLORABLE patch.

A masked U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent patrols the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in New York City wearing a Superman patch on Aug. 19, 2025. Photo: Michael Nigro/Sipa USA via AP

Over the summer, masked CBP and possibly ICE officers in Lower Manhattan were seen wearing Superman patches on their uniforms after actor Dean Cain, who portrayed the comic book character on television decades ago, announced his intention to join ICE. "We stand with Dean Cain," one agent told amNY. Another said: "It's just a patch."

ICE, DHS, and CBP did not return requests for comment on the patch or Cain's status with ICE.

For further information on insignia, Covington directed The Intercept to a memo outlining ICE's "approved HSI SRT uniform and authorized identifiers." It notes that the "above-described patches which are not listed as optional shall be worn on all operations," but the sections dealing with those patches are redacted. Covington did not reply to questions about the redacted information. The guidelines also state: "The use of military tabs/'rockers' or any other type of patch not listed herein, is prohibited," referencing specialized, mostly curved, patches common to both the military and motorcycle clubs.

In 2024, The Intercept shed light on a racist "Houthi Hunting Club" patch — photos of which were posted to and then disappeared from a Pentagon website — worn by members of the military.

Immigration authorities routinely cloak their secrecy in fears about the "dangerous doxxing" of their personnel and fight accountability and transparency at every turn. Over the summer, for example, Noem said that she was in communication with Attorney General Pam Bondi about prosecuting CNN for reporting on ICEBlock, a crowdsourced application that tracks ICE sightings. 

Related Courts Block Meta From Sharing Anti-ICE Activists' Instagram Account Info With Feds

Three women who put the home address of an ICE officer online were, for example, indicted in September in Los Angeles on conspiracy charges. "We will prosecute those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law." said Noem. "We won't allow it in America."

Covington lobbed similar accusations at The Intercept. "Quite frankly, people here think you're just doing it to dox people," said Covington when The Intercept complained about ICE's monthslong foot-dragging on supplying promised images of patches.

While revealing the names of federal employees such as ICE officials is not doxing, it's unclear how this reporting would accomplish that. When asked how publishing a picture of a patch could be used to reveal someone's identity — much less their phone number, address, Social Security number, names of their family members, or similar information — Covington failed to offer a coherent explanation. "I didn't think it was possible for what has happened to our officers to happen, but it has," she replied. "People are following our people home every single day." Covington also did not explain how publishing the image of a patch would facilitate people following ICE officers to their homes.

Related ICE Agents Deserve No Privacy

ICE's concerns about the public disclosure of patches are especially odd in light of all the unblurred photos and video footage of maskless officers available from an online database of agents and officials; publicly released mugshots of ICE personnel accused of crimes; images of agents from commercial photo agencies; and the many photographs of unmasked officers posted by the War Department, DHS, and ICE or photos of agents with conspicuous and unique tattoos found on ICE's own social media accounts.

On Sunday, before Border Patrol "commander-at-large" Greg Bovino was ordered out of Minneapolis by the Trump administration, a reporter asked if the agents who gunned down Pretti were on administrative leave.

"All agents that were involved in that scene are working, not in Minneapolis, but in other locations," Bovino said. "That's for their safety. There's this thing called doxing. And the safety of our employees is very important to us, so we're gonna keep those employees safe."

The post These Patches Are Clues to Identifying Immigration Agents appeared first on The Intercept.

Rifles for sale at Redstone Firearms in Burbank, Calif., on Sept. 16, 2022. Photo: Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images

When federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis last weekend, the reaction from many white gun-owning Americans was immediate disbelief. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and licensed gun owner, was killed during an interaction with Border Patrol officers amid a wave of federal enforcement operations in the city. Bystander videos show agents disarming Pretti moments before gunfire rang out. 

What made Pretti's death distinct, at least in the public imagination, was who he was supposed to represent. Pretti fit the cultural archetype of the "responsible" gun owner: white, licensed, gainfully employed. His killing unsettled a long-held assumption within mainstream gun culture that the Second Amendment is a time-tested shield for people who follow the rules. Suddenly, the distance between constitutional promise and state practice felt uncomfortably small.

But that realization — that rights only exist at the discretion of those who enforce them — is hardly new. For Black, Brown, and Indigenous Americans, the Second Amendment has long been filtered through policing, surveillance, and the routine threat of state force. Long before Pretti, communities of color learned that constitutional protections do not operate in abstraction; they operate through institutions with guns, authority, and the power to decide in real time whose rights are recognized and whose are ignored.

The Things We Carry

From the founding of America, gun laws were written in racially tinged ink. In the colonial South, militias and slave patrols were created to control Black people and suppress rebellion. As early as 1704, organized slave patrols roamed Southern colonies, arming white men and tasking them with the perpetual surveillance and disarmament of enslaved populations. By the mid-18th century, this system was codified into law: As legal historian Carl Bogus recounts, between 1755 and 1757, Georgia law required every plantation's armed militia to conduct monthly searches of "all Negro houses for offensive weapons and ammunition." 

Gun ownership in America did not initially materialize as a personal right to self-defense so much as an underpinning of white security. As slave revolts spread across the Atlantic world — culminating in the first successful Black revolution in Haiti — lawmakers moved to further codify these fears. Colonial statutes explicitly barred Black people from keeping or carrying weapons, embedding racial hierarchy directly into early American gun policy. As historian Carol Anderson told Democracy Now!, each slave revolt triggered "a series of statutes that the enslaved, that Black people, could not own weapons."

After the Revolutionary War, the newly formed United States was deeply suspicious of a standing federal army. But for the planter South, another fear loomed larger: maintaining the internal security of a slave society. As Anderson contends, the Second Amendment functioned as a political "bribe to the South to not scuttle the Constitution." George Mason warned placing militias under federal control would leave slaveholding states "defenseless," not from foreign invasion, but from enslaved people. The compromise was an assurance that slave patrols and local armed forces would remain intact and beyond the reaches of federal interference.

But for Black and Brown gun owners, the Second Amendment has never been a guarantee.

This same logic extended to the violent disarmament of Indigenous nations. In 1838, a state-backed militia forcibly stripped nearly 800 Potawatomi people of their weapons and drove them from Indiana to Kansas in what came to be known as the Potawatomi Trail of Death, a 660-mile forced removal that killed more than 40 people, most of whom were children or elderly people. That same year, U.S. troops systematically disarmed Cherokee communities to preempt resistance and expelled roughly 16,000 people from their land under the promise of federal protection; instead, nearly 4,000 died from disease, starvation, and exposure along the Trail of Tears. By 1890, Lakota Sioux at Wounded Knee were ordered to surrender their weapons before U.S. soldiers opened fire, massacring up to 300 men, women, and children. These tragic events forever calcified a lesson Indigenous communities had already learned through generations of bloodshed; in America, guns are not a universal right, but an instrument of upholding the racial order.

Who Owns the Second Amendment

Reconstruction and Emancipation unleashed a new wave of regime-backed gun control aimed at freed Black people. Southern laws known as Black Codes were explicit: In Mississippi, for example, no freedman "shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition" without police permission or outside of military service. As a 19th-century civil rights lawyer observed, when the Klan seized local power, "almost universally the first thing done was to disarm the negroes, and leave them defenseless." In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court warned that recognizing Black citizenship would allow African Americans "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." 

It's a legacy that lives on today. Counties that saw higher numbers of racial lynchings from 1877 to 1950 — many carried out with the complicity or direct assistance of local law enforcement — had higher rates of officer-involved killings of Black people, tying modern police violence to a longer continuum of racial terror rather than isolated incidents of brutality.  

By the 1960s, Black activists began openly, legally carrying firearms - most famously the Black Panther Party patrolling California neighborhoods for police brutality. White political leaders reacted by drafting new gun bans. In May 1967, Black Panthers arrived at the California state Capitol in Sacramento, open-carrying firearms to protest the Mulford Act, which aimed to disarm their patrols. The demonstration scared Gov. Ronald Reagan enough to make passing gun control an urgent concern, and Reagan signed the bill into law in July 1967, paving the way to make California one of the states with the nation's strongest gun laws. The very next year, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned the cheap import of "Saturday Night Special" pistols, required gun companies to begin serializing weapons, and created categories of prohibited buyers. Both laws passed with Republican support, along with backing from the National Rifle Association. As Stanford University historian Clayborne Carson told Al Jazeera, the NRA and GOP leaders "were definitely in favor of gun control when there was great concern among white Americans."

Related A Sick Country Filled With Guns

From the 1970s on, it was no longer politically viable to pursue broad gun bans rooted in overt white fear, and the modern gun movement was consolidated when new leadership took control of the NRA and transformed it from a conservative shooting club into a hard-line "no compromise" political lobbying organization committed to opposing gun control in nearly all forms.

As a result, gun regulation increasingly operated less through formal prohibition than selective enforcement by law enforcement on the street. As sociologist Jennifer Carlson argues in "Policing the Second Amendment," police both drive a significant share of gun deaths in Black and Brown communities and remain "central to how gun policy is executed on the ground," historically through discriminatory permitting systems and higher rates of gun prosecutions. The shift produced what she calls "gun populism," a framework in which police and policymakers distinguish between "good guys with guns," typically imagined as white and middle-class, and "bad guys with guns," who are disproportionately coded as Black, Brown, and poor.

The results are not abstract. They show up in bodies.

Related NRA Silent as Amir Locke Slain by Police for Having a Gun He Legally Owned

In 2014, police shot and killed John Crawford III inside an Ohio Walmart for carrying a BB rifle sold in the store. In 2016, Philando Castile informed an officer during a traffic stop that he had a legal firearm; he was fatally shot moments later. In 2018, Jemel Roberson, a security guard, stopped an active shooter in an Illinois bar — and was then shot dead by responding police in what the Illinois department called "a 'blue-on-blue,' a friendly-fire incident," despite witnesses screaming that he was security. That same year, Emantic "EJ" Bradford Jr., a Black Army reservist legally carrying a gun, was killed by police after attempting to help during a shooting in an Alabama mall. In 2020, Casey Goodson Jr. was killed on his own doorstep in Columbus, Ohio; a gun Goodson was licensed to carry was later found inside the home. In 2022, Amir Locke was killed during a no-knock warrant by Minneapolis police while holding a gun, which he legally owned, inside his own apartment.

In stark contrast, armed white men who kill protesters, occupy federal buildings, or aim rifles at police during standoffs are often treated as political actors, not existential threats. Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder charges after shooting and killing two protesters, and later bestowed with President Donald Trump's blessing. The Bundy family walked free after an armed standoff in 2016 with federal authorities and were praised as symbols of individual freedom for standing up to the government. 

This is the real modern enforcement mechanism of the Second Amendment. Not the Supreme Court. Not Congress. But the thin blue line that decides, in seconds, whose rights count and whose do not.

It's why Pretti's killing has landed differently. For many white Americans, their understanding of the Second Amendment shifted in a moment — when the fantasy of universal gun rights met the reality of state violence. Many realized, for the first time, that exercising their right to bear arms is now a life-and-death gamble. 

But for Black and Brown gun owners, the Second Amendment has never been a guarantee. Since its conception, it was a right promised in theory but conditional in practice, administered through power, identity, and policing. Pretti's killing is a bitter reminder that, in the eyes of the state, some people will never be allowed to be the good guy with a gun.

The post The Second Amendment Was Never Meant for Everyone appeared first on The Intercept.

Just hours after a U.S. Border Patrol officer gunned down Minneapolis resident Alex Pretti, Apple CEO Tim Cook, donned his tuxedo to attend an exclusive screening of a new documentary about First Lady Melania Trump. A growing number of Apple workers are now internally criticizing Cook and the company's silence in the face of an ongoing campaign of federal brutality.

The response within Apple to Cook's attendance of the "Melania" screening has been starkly negative, according to internal Slack logs reviewed by The Intercept. A link to an article from The Verge headlined "Here's Tim Cook hanging out with accused rapist Brett Ratner at the Melania screening" drew a chorus of reactions, including dozens of vomiting emojis. The article prompted waves of dissent about both Cook and the company's apparent unwillingness to condemn immigration-related violence across the United States. This level of internal anger is unusual at Apple, which has avoided the kind of political rancor that has swept rivals like Google and Microsoft.

"This isn't leadership. This is an absence of leadership."

Cook has openly embraced Trump, particularly in his second term, attending the president's inauguration, presenting him with an engraved golden trophy, and giving money to the White House to help construct the president's $300 million pet project ballroom.

The relative workplace calm may be over. "I hope we never find out, but I seriously started wondering what our leadership would do if an Apple employee was summarily executed by our government," wondered one employee.

Many workers claimed hypocrisy between Apple's longtime professed commitment to progressive values and causes and the extent to which its CEO has cozied up to the Trump administration. "But but but…. we changed the Apple website to MLK last Monday, so that cancels out." Another pointed sarcastically to the company's recent announcement of Black History Month Apple Watch bands. "Went to hang out with the guy who didn't even acknowledge MLK Day and took away park access on the day," commented one worker. "Sounds like an interesting documentary. Hopefully we'll hear more about it through a push notification in Apple Wallet," said another employee.

"Three retail locations in the Twin Cities and not a peep."

Many others expressed dismay at the fact that Apple had yet to issue any statement about violence perpetrated by Customs and Border Protection agents, as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, as it has in the past following similar national traumas. In 2020, following the police murder of George Floyd, Cook wrote an open letter condemning his killing: "We can have no society worth celebrating unless we can guarantee freedom from fear for every person who gives this country their love, labor, and life."

Late Tuesday, Cook issued a statement expressing that he was "heartbroken by the events in Minneapolis, and my prayers and deepest sympathies are with the families, with the communities, and with everyone that's been affected."

"This is a time for deescalation. I believe America is strongest when we live up to our highest ideals, when we treat everyone with dignity and respect no matter who they are or where they're from, and when we embrace our shared humanity," Cook wrote. "This is something Apple has always advocated for. I had a good conversation with the president this week where I shared my views, and I appreciate his openness to engaging on issues that matter to us all."

Prior to the release of Cook's public statement, some staff called the company's silence was unacceptable. "As a lifelong Minnesotan and an Apple badged employee for over half my life I feel pretty abandoned by the company that has told me it stands for humanity more times than I can count," wrote another worker. "Silence on ICE violence speaks volumes." Another pointed out the "Three retail locations in the Twin Cities and not a peep" from Cook. "This isn't leadership. This is an absence of leadership." To which a colleague quickly countered: "I disagree, this IS leadership. This is intentional, nobody travels to the white house by mistake."

Related Read the Report on Alex Pretti's Killing — and the Bizarre Q&A CBP Gave Congress First

An Apple employee who has spent decades at the company said they had noticed a marked cultural and political shift within Apple under Cook's tenure. "A lot of people are talking about how Steve Jobs would have never given a gold bar to a politician," referring to the 24-karat gold trophy Cook presented Trump at the White House in August.

"Typically, before the genocide in Gaza started, Tim would write an email about every major horrible event that would happen in support of workers at the company who might be related to those events," said the employee, who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity. This worker said that Apple employs a large number of immigrants, making violence at the hands of ICE and CBP as personal as anything the company has ever expressed sympathy over. "There has been a dramatic shift in the way Apple operates worldwide. Before they would focus on quality and design and doing the right thing, and now they're just getting things out quickly and pandering to fascists."

Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Internal debate differed on whether Cook should issue a statement internally, publicly, or both. "We aren't asking for Tim to make a private statement to employees," argued one worker. "We're asking him to take a stand for basic human rights and morals. Or at the very least to not be seen smiling and hobnobbing with the people treading on these values on a constant basis. Oh and not openly bribing them with tacky gold bars that very very clearly violate the Business Conduct Training that we are all required to repeat on an annual basis."

Some workers have argued that, while unpalatable, Cook's friendly relationship with the White House and silence on ICE or CBP is simply the job of the chief executive. The unpleasant reality of his fiduciary duty "means he needs to pander to criminals who want to destroy our democracy in order to ward off tariffs that would tank iPhone sales," suggested one employee. "From my perspective, he's choosing to take the hit to his reputation for the benefit of his employees, and for the customers that depend on our products and services," argued another Slack commenter. "He's truly in a tough position. An easy way out would have been to retire, but Tim doesn't strike me as someone that would take the easy way out. He's likely weighing the costs of every significant action."

Some pointed out that, from a purely self-interested public relations standpoint, the corporate silence was counterproductive. "Just imagine for a second if Apple was the first big tech company to actually stand up for people's rights against the admin," wrote one. "Can't think of a better PR move at this moment."

A second Apple employee, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, told The Intercept that the current dismay is without precedent. "I don't think I've ever seen our internal Slack so busy with so many worried discussions going on at the same time on similar topics," they said. "Apple leadership used to be an inspiration for many of us due to the importance given to ethical products, but these days it feels more and more that the folks that are supposed to represent Apple's values wouldn't even pass the internal business conduct training that most employees have to attend."

Update: January 28, 2026

This article has been updated to include a public statement from Apple CEO Tim Cook.

The post Apple Workers Are Livid That Tim Cook Saw "Melania" Movie Hours After CBP Killed Pretti appeared first on The Intercept.

Under pressure from members of Congress to produce a mandated report on the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday, United States Customs and Border Protection instead sent Congress its responses to a list of questions — which the agency had drafted itself. 

According to a congressional source who provided The Intercept with the communications on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, the immigration enforcement agency had not been responsive to questions from House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over DHS about Pretti's shooting. The agency is legally required to send an "in-custody" death notification to several committees and members from the victim's home state within 72 hours. The agency eventually sent the report, which  The Intercept is publishing, on Tuesday after the deadline. 

But first, it sent a self-Q&A, which can be read in full below. In it, the agency repeatedly declines to answer its own questions. 

Related We Asked for ICE Bodycam Footage. DHS Claims They Don't Have It.

One question drafted by CBP asks whether agents were wearing body cameras, to which the agency responds that "CBP defers to the investigating agencies." In another question, the agency asks itself if the immigrant being targeted had "a final order of removal." CBP responds that it has to defer to "DHS and investigating agencies for further detail of the operation." 

The agency also asks itself what training Border Patrol agents receive on de-escalation and use of force and offers a vague answer to its own question. "Authorized Officers/Agents shall employ de-escalation tactics and techniques, when safe and feasible, that do not compromise law enforcement priorities," CBP responds.

The full questionnaire:

• Are/were witnesses being detained, what is their status?

·        CBP defers to the investigating agencies on witnesses. Other agitators were detained on scene.

• Was the suspect's gun loaded? Was a round in the chamber? Was he concealed carrying? Did he have ID on him? Was he the only armed individual on the scene (other than LEOs)? Was he legally carrying? 

·        CBP can confirm that the subject's gun was loaded, 2 additional magazines on we found on the subject.  No identification was found on the subject at the time of the incident. (Pending additional details).

• What happens next? Are the involved Agents on leave? Where are these agents from (what sector)?

·        An agent involved in a deadly use of force incident are immediately placed on administrative leave with pay or regular days off for 3 consecutive days. CBP will follow up with more information on this case as it develops.

• What training does BP receive on deescalation? 

·        De-escalation is part of CBP's Use of Force Policy and agent are trained on it.  Below is from the CBP Use of Force Policy (https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/exhibit_09_-_cbp_use_of_force_policy_final_jan_2021.pdf)

D. De-Escalation

1. De-escalation tactics and techniques seek to minimize the likelihood of the need to use force, or minimize force used during an incident, to increase the probability of voluntary compliance.

2. Authorized Officers/Agents shall employ de-escalation tactics and techniques, when safe and feasible, that do not compromise law enforcement priorities.

OCA will work with the Office of Training and Development as well as USBP to provide you a brief in the coming weeks specific to de-escalation training.

• Were any BPAs wearing BWCs? were they on?

·        CBP defers to the investigating agencies. 

• Did the AI being targeted have a final order of removal?

·        CBP defers to DHS and the investigating agencies for further detail of the operation.

The required death-in-custody notice provides some additional details. It offers no evidence to support speculation from administration officials that Pretti's gun accidentally went off, triggering the shooting, or that Pretti had planned to massacre immigration officials. 

According to the report, the incident began after a Customs and Border Protection Officer (CBPO) was "confronted by two female civilians blowing whistles" who were ordered to move out of the roadway. The officer pushed the two women, according to the report, when one of the women went to Pretti for help. 

"The CBPO pushed them both away and one of the females ran to a male, later identified as 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a US citizen," reads the notice. "The CBPO attempted to move the woman and Pretti out of the roadway. The woman and Pretti did not move. The CBPO deployed his oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray towards both Pretti and the woman." 

According to the notice to Congress, CBP personnel attempted to take Pretti into custody, at which point "a struggle ensued." The report says that a Border Patrol agent (BPA) yelled "He's got a gun!" About five seconds later, according to the report, two agents began shooting at Pretti, and afterward, a separate agent told them he had Pretti's gun. 

The sequence of events described by CBP contradicts the statements put out by the Department of Homeland Security from over the weekend. On Saturday, DHS claimed that it "looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement." White House aide Stephen Miller wrote on X on Saturday that Pretti was a "would-be assassin," and a "domestic terrorist."

The full death-in-custody report on his killing:

The following statement pertains to an in-custody death that occurred on Saturday, January 24, 2026, in Minneapolis, MN. This information is based on a preliminary review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Investigative Operations Directorate (IOD) and may be updated and clarified as additional details become available. It is being provided to Committee staff concurrently with CBP senior leadership to ensure timely reporting.    

CBP OPR IOD established the following information and timeline based on a preliminary review of body worn camera footage and CBP documentation.    

On January 24, 2026, United States Border Patrol (USBP) Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) and Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs) supporting Operation Metro Surge were conducting enforcement actions near the intersection of Nicollet Ave. and 26th St. in Minneapolis, MN. Several civilians were in the area yelling and blowing whistles. BPAs and CBPOs made several verbal requests for the civilians to stay on the sidewalks and out of the roadway.

At approximately 9:00 a.m., a CBPO was confronted by two female civilians blowing whistles. The CBPO ordered the female civilians to move out of the roadway, and the female civilians did not move. The CBPO pushed them both away and one of the females ran to a male, later identified as 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a US citizen. The CBPO attempted to move the woman and Pretti out of the roadway. The woman and Pretti did not move. The CBPO deployed his oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray towards both Pretti and the woman.

CBP personnel attempted to take Pretti into custody. Pretti resisted CBP personnel's efforts and a struggle ensued. During the struggle, a BPA yelled, "He's got a gun!" multiple times.  Approximately five seconds later, a BPA discharged his CBP-issued Glock 19 and a CBPO also discharged his CBP-issued Glock 47 at Pretti. After the shooting, a BPA advised he had possession of Pretti's firearm. The BPA subsequently cleared and secured Pretti's firearm in his vehicle.

At approximately 9:02 a.m., CBP personnel cut Pretti's clothing and provided medical aid to him by placing chest seals on his wounds. At approximately 9:05 a.m., Minneapolis Fire Department Emergency Medical Services (MFD EMS) emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived and assumed primary medical care for Pretti.

At approximately 9:14 a.m., MFD EMTs placed Pretti in an MFD EMS ambulance and he was subsequently transported to Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC). At approximately 9:32 a.m., HCMC medical personnel pronounced Pretti deceased.

CBP OPR IOD was advised that an autopsy would be conducted by medical personnel from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office. CBP OPR IOD will request the official findings upon completion.

Homeland Security Investigations is investigating the incident and CBP OPR IOD is reviewing it. The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General was notified.

A spokesperson for CBP said that death-in-custody notices reflect standard lawful procedure. "They provide an initial outline of an event that took place and do not convey any definitive conclusion or investigative findings," the spokesperson wrote in a statement to The Intercept. "They are factual reports - not analytical judgments - and are provided to inform Congress and to promote transparency."

The report comes at a time when members of Congress, including Republicans, appear increasingly agitated with the lack of transparency from DHS. Both the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees have called for the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CBP to testify before their committees. 

While CBP is legally required to provide reports on use of force, ICE is not held to the same standard. Last January, President Donald Trump rescinded a Biden executive order on law enforcement data, releasing ICE from its obligation to provide Congress with information on use of force by their agents. The decision will likely stand in the way of the release of new information about ICE agent Jonathan Ross's fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis earlier this month. 

"If Congress fails to restrain DHS' campaign of intimidation now, the horror we are seeing unfold in Minneapolis will become the norm across the country."

"We've all seen a staggering number of videos showing federal agents assaulting peaceful protesters and law-abiding immigrants and that's because under Donald Trump, violence is a feature, not a bug, of DHS enforcement," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement to the Intercept. "The Trump administration is not documenting these abuses because they know the American people don't support the brutality and fear that ICE and CBP are inflicting on communities. But if Congress fails to restrain DHS' campaign of intimidation now, the horror we are seeing unfold in Minneapolis will become the norm across the country."

Earlier this month, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., and  Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., introduced legislation to limit the use of force by Department of Homeland Security agents and require DHS to track use of force and provide a notice within 24 hours if a DHS agent kills or hospitalizes a person. 

"The tragic killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good are just the latest examples of what can happen to any of us when Federal law enforcement isn't restrained and won't be held accountable," wrote Homeland Security Ranking Member Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss, in a statement to The Intercept. "Since DHS refuses to report on use of force incidents we have no other choice than to force them to with legislation to reign in their violent and deadly tactics and ensure there is transparency." 

Update: January 27, 2026, 8:53 p.m. ET

This story has been updated to include a statement a CBP spokesperson sent after publication.

The post Read the Report on Alex Pretti's Killing — and the Bizarre Q&A CBP Gave Congress First appeared first on The Intercept.

Family members of Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41 — two Trinidadian men killed in a U.S. boat strike on October 14, 2025 — are suing the U.S. government for wrongful death and extrajudicial killing. Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Seton Hall Law School professor Jonathan Hafetz called the entire campaign of attacks in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean "unprecedented and manifestly unlawful" in a complaint filed on Tuesday.

The suit will be brought in U.S. federal admiralty court under the Death on the High Seas Act, a congressional statute that covers wrongful maritime deaths. The plaintiffs are also bringing claims for extrajudicial killing under the Alien Tort Statute, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over violations of the law of nations, including extrajudicial killing. Another federal statute, the Suits in Admiralty Act, waives U.S. sovereign immunity — which ordinarily protects the federal government from being sued — over both claims.

"These were both homicides. Both men were killed without any due process."

"This allows the families of victims to bring a claim for wrongful or negligent death committed on the high seas. And in our case, this is murder," Steven Watt, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program, told The Intercept. "It was a murder. These were both homicides. Both men were killed without any due process."

A total of six civilians were reportedly killed in the October 14 strike on a boat in the Caribbean. "Under my Standing Authorities as Commander-in-Chief, this morning, the Secretary of War, ordered a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization," Trump announced on Truth Social that same day. "The strike was conducted in International Waters, and six male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike."

The Intercept spoke with Lenore Burnley, Joseph's mother, shortly after she learned her son had been killed. "I don't want to believe it. Not my child," she said. "Somebody called us. They said he was on the boat." Burnley said she had nothing to say to Trump. "I put it in God's hands," she told The Intercept at the time.

Joseph and Samaroo were returning from Venezuela to their homes in Las Cuevas, Trinidad, on October 14. Joseph, who had a wife and three children, often traveled to Venezuela to fish and do farmwork. Two days before he was killed, Joseph called his wife to let her know that he had found a boat ride home from Venezuela and would see her soon.

Samaroo was also working on a farm in Venezuela, caring for goats and cows and making cheese. On October 12, he told his sister, Sallycar Korasingh, that he was coming home to take care of his mother, who had fallen ill.

"Rishi used to call our family almost every day, and then one day he disappeared."

"Rishi used to call our family almost every day, and then one day he disappeared, and we never heard from him again," said Korasingh. "If the U.S. government believed Rishi had done anything wrong, it should have arrested, charged, and detained him, not murdered him. They must be held accountable."

Burnley hoped that the lawsuit would offer her family answers. "Chad was a loving and caring son who was always there for me, for his wife and children, and for our whole family. I miss him terribly. We all do," she said. "We know this lawsuit won't bring Chad back to us, but we're trusting God to carry us through this, and we hope that speaking out will help get us some truth and closure."

The U.S. military has carried out 36 known attacks, destroying 37 boats, in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since September, killing at least 126 civilians. The most recent attack occurred in the Pacific Ocean on January 23, killing two people and leaving one survivor. The Coast Guard was unsuccessful in locating the shipwrecked man and called off the search on January 25. He is now presumed dead. 

Experts in the laws of war and members of Congress, from both parties, say the strikes are illegal extrajudicial killings because the military is not permitted to deliberately target civilians — even suspected criminals — who do not pose an imminent threat of violence. The summary executions are a significant departure from standard practice in the long-running U.S. war on drugs, in which law enforcement agencies arrested suspected drug smugglers.

"Whatever that secret memorandum states, it cannot render the patently illegal killings lawful."

The administration insists the attacks are permitted because the U.S. is engaged in "non-international armed conflict" with "designated terrorist organizations," or DTOs. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has also produced a classified opinion that provides legal cover for the lethal strikes, with a secret list of the DTOs attached. "Whatever that secret memorandum states, it cannot render the patently illegal killings lawful," reads the complaint, which was shared with The Intercept prior to publication.

"Using military force to kill Chad and Rishi violates the most elementary principles of international law," said Hafetz, the Seton Hall Law School professor. "People may not simply be gunned down by the government, and the Trump administration's claims to the contrary risk making America a pariah state."

Related "Trump Has Appointed Himself Judge, Jury, and Executioner"

The Intercept was the first outlet to report that the U.S. military killed two survivors of the initial boat attack on September 2 in a follow-up strike. The two survivors clung to the wreckage of a vessel attacked by the U.S. military for roughly 45 minutes before Adm. Frank Bradley, then the head of Joint Special Operations Command, ordered a follow-up strike that killed the shipwrecked men.

U.S. Southern Command has been incapable of keeping an accurate count of the attacks on boats and the number of people killed in the strikes. The command is also unable to cope with civilian harm reports stemming from recent operations, prompting the Pentagon to begin accepting casualty claims directly.

Trinidadian Foreign Minister Sean Sobers told a local news outlet after the October 14 strike that "the government has no information linking Joseph or Samaroo to illegal activities."

The complaint notes that under the laws of war or international humanitarian law, there is no actual armed conflict that could justify the lethal attacks on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, including the October 14 strike. And, as a result, the campaign violates international laws prohibiting extrajudicial killings and federal law prohibiting murder.

The Justice Department did not immediately return a request for comment about the lawsuit.

"It's a fairly straightforward application of the Death and the High Seas Act and the Alien Tort Statute. Summary execution has long been recognized as a violation of the law of nations — customary international law — and the Alien Tort Statute Act recognizes a cause of action based on that because we've got the waiver of the U.S. government's sovereign immunity," the ACLU's Watt explained. "The U.S. government doesn't have any defenses on the merits of the case. There is no question it was a summary execution. There is a video and a confession by President Trump. He essentially says, 'We murdered these guys.'"

The post Families of Boat Strike Victims Sue U.S. for "Manifestly Unlawful" Killings appeared first on The Intercept.

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., questions Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government hearing on May 6, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images

With two U.S. citizens shot to death in the streets of Minneapolis in just over two weeks, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents abducting and detaining children as young as 2 years old, Americans might be forgiven for expecting a forceful response from the country's nominal opposition party. 

Unfortunately, in the United States, that party is the Democrats. Their refusal to react proportionally to the threat of President Donald Trump and his army of secret police with "absolute immunity" is only making things worse.

Even before Alex Pretti was shot dead on Saturday — in the back, seconds after his concealed and holstered gun was disarmed by federal agents — the brutality of ICE and Custom and Border Protection's occupation of Minneapolis demanded definitive action.

Related Even Democrats Who Crafted ICE Funding Compromise Are Questioning It

When they had the chance, that's not what Democrats delivered. At the federal level, seven House Democrats — including mainstream media darling Washington Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and outgoing Maine Rep. Jared Golden — voted with their GOP counterparts last week to pass a bill giving even more money to ICE. That vote came after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to whip his caucus into opposing the legislation, instead simply "recommending" a no vote. 

Senate Democrats reportedly plan to kill the bill — knowing it would force a government shutdown — but their commitment to holding the line must be treated with suspicion. One notable exception is Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., who introduced legislation to restrict ICE's use of force, a bill she's characterized as "the bare minimum." Even that bill is unlikely to pass through the GOP-controlled House.

On the ground in Minnesota, Democratic Gov. Tim Walz was unable to meet the moment as early as January 7, when Renee Good was killed. Rather than forcefully show up for his constituents, Walz prioritized preemptively scolding protesters, posting: "Trump wants a show. Don't give it to him." 

While Walz has been clear that he is angry over ICE's presence in the state and has asked that they leave, he's failed to provide any clear directives or policy proposals for expelling the agency from his state. Attorney General Keith Ellison has yet to bring any charges against Jonathan Ross, Good's killer, something Walz could order him to do under state law. 

Minnesotans are out in the streets calling for action, but beyond public statements, they're not getting much material support from their leaders.

What Walz did do on January 20, days before Pretti's killing, was to invite the president to "join me, and others in our community, to help restore calm and order and reaffirm that true public safety comes from shared purpose, trust, and respect."

Mere hours after Pretti's killing — and, importantly, drawing on the same playbook used with Good's killing — the administration made clear there was no "shared purpose, trust, and respect" to "reaffirm" with Minnesota. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino both held press conferences in which they blatantly lied about the events of Pretti's death, which was caught on video from multiple angles. Walz's demand that "the state must lead the investigation" into Pretti's death is falling on deaf ears, just as it did with Good's killing.

Related We Can Fight This: Minnesota's General Strike Shows How

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has been angrier, dropping "fuck" in his press conferences — something Democratic Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith has done as well. But this deployment of profanity only serves to remind the public that sound and fury often signifies nothing. Minnesotans are out in the streets calling for action, but beyond public statements, they're not getting much material support from their leaders, least of all Frey, who earlier this month wouldn't even entertain abolishing ICE, even after the agency killed one of his constituents. 

Meanwhile, the Democratic base has been demanding action on ICE for months. Eager to make political hay, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat with his sights set on the Senate seat held by Ed Markey, called ICE "cowards" and threatened to defund the agency and prosecute its officers. After publication on Monday night, Moulton went further in a statement shared with The Intercept. "ICE is beyond repair, so it must be abolished," he said. But most elected Democrats fall short of calling to abolish the institution outright — a position now held by a plurality of voters. 

Leaders like Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, chair and vice chair, respectively, of the Democratic Governors Association, vaguely called on Saturday for "transparency and accountability" after "what happened today in Minneapolis," without specifying what concrete steps might be taken to deliver either. Former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle issued a statement in the wake of Pretti's death that was heavy on the concern but light on substance. Former President Bill Clinton was more forceful, calling this a moment "where the decisions we make and the actions we take will shape our history for years to come" but declining to suggest what, exactly, people should do.

Setting aside the morality of suppressing anger over state killings of civilians, it's politically shortsighted on the part of Democrats and their allies. But the party is trapped in a world of its own creation, where committing to anything that might alienate mythical moderate conservative voters or, more importantly, donors, is anathema. 

The party is trapped in a world of its own creation, where committing to anything that might alienate mythical moderate conservative voters or, more importantly, donors, is anathema. 

One specific idea gaining traction is impeaching Noem, a plan all but guaranteed to fail. So are demands from border hawks like Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy that ICE agents stop wearing masks, end quotas, or give in to other "reforms." ICE and DHS have shown no willingness to bend to any constraints, and when the White House tells them they're shielded by "absolute immunity" for their actions, any efforts to reform a malignant agency are dead on arrival. 

A strong opposition party would take the initiative and, even if done cynically, attach itself to the growing public anger for political gain. Steering the popular upswell into some form of action would allow Democrats to gain power and perhaps even win elections. Instead, they appear to understand their role as tamping down the energy and enthusiasm for change and ensuring whatever comes out of the Pretti outrage is defanged and does not challenge entrenched power structures.

Related Kat Abughazaleh on the Right to Protest

Fear of making an actual stand is so widespread there's a cottage industry of advisers and think tanks devoted to encouraging elected Democrats to moderate at every turn. There's something amoral to the whole project, exemplified by how the popularists — a group of centrist think tankers who endorse triangulation on issues based on polling results, as long as those issues aren't Israel or Abolish ICE — have reacted to the occupation of Minneapolis. 

Even after Good's killing, Adam Jentleson, founder and president of the think tank Searchlight Institute, was smearing left organizing around "Abolish ICE" as a "political albatross" that's unrealistic and damaging to the movement; now he's seizing on Pretti's death as a moment to course-correct. Paul E. Williams, who's supposed to be the left-whisperer of the popularist cohort, said hours after Pretti's killing (and reams of other evidence of abuse and torture at the country's largest detention center) that he still didn't have a problem with Democrats like Gluesenkamp Perez voting to fund ICE, only that she was criticizing Frey and Walz for their reaction to the shooting. 

It shouldn't be this difficult to oppose funding the agency on moral grounds after it kidnapped two children, aged 5 and 2, in a week, let alone the killing of American civilians. Much like the politicians they flatter, these groups have nothing of substance to offer — only empty gestures and grating platitudes. 

But for the rest of us, they're what we have. You don't have to be a Democrat to understand that the party is an important part of organized opposition at the federal level. They need to wake up to the role we sorely need them to play and take action, before it's too late. 

Update: January 26, 2026, 9:20 p.m. ET
This story has been updated with a statement from Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass.

The post It's Time for Concrete Action on ICE. Sadly, We Have the Democrats. appeared first on The Intercept.

The Army general nominated to lead the National Security Agency was asked repeatedly this month about how he would use the agency's vast spying powers.

Lt. Gen. Joshua Rudd kept his answers vague.

He claimed to know little about a two-decade debate over "backdoor" searches on Americans. He dodged a question about whether the NSA should participate in President Donald Trump's crackdown on antifa. And when asked about whether he would illegally target Americans, he responded curtly that he would follow the law.

The backdoor searches are among one of the most controversial issues about NSA spying. Under current law, the federal government is allowed to search for information on U.S. citizens and residents in the vast troves of communications the NSA has collected while searching for foreign threats.

"Wyden strongly believes the government should get a warrant before searching for and viewing Americans' communications."

Privacy advocates have long argued that those backdoor searches are a huge privacy violation, pointing to the thousands of times the FBI has misused its backdoor search authority.

The government's authority to conduct such searches expires in April. Rudd said in a written questionnaire that he did not know much about the law that has long dominated headlines about the NSA.

"This is an issue I have limited familiarity within my current role with USINDOPACOM," he said, referring to his current role as deputy head of the Army's United States Indo-Pacific Command. "At this time, I defer to NSA leadership to fully characterize the existing efforts taking place under this authority. If confirmed, I fully commit to working with Congress on all matters related to this authority."

When he appears before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, he could face more direct questioning. Senators including Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have often used such hearings to probe appointees' positions on spying powers.

"Sen. Wyden strongly believes the government should get a warrant before searching for and viewing Americans' communications," said Keith Chu, a spokesperson for Wyden. "Government officials who are serious about protecting Constitutional rights should endorse that view."

Say Nothing

Rudd, a career Army officer, was tapped by Trump earlier this year to replace the previous NSA director, who was ousted after a campaign by conservative influencer Laura Loomer.

While Democrats would face long odds to derail Rudd's nomination, and have shown no appetite for doing so, his Senate confirmation hearings will likely provide the best insight into how he might lead the NSA.

Rudd largely managed to keep his views on hot-button issues closely held at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on January 15. He was so noncommittal that at one point the Republican chair of the committee, Sen. Roger Wicker, R- Miss., urged him to be more open about his views.

"It's OK to tell us and, actually, it would be helpful," Wicker said.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., did query Rudd about whether the NSA should spy on Americans.

Speaking more than a week before the killing of nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Slotkin said that officials such as White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and Vice President JD Vance were trying to label people in Minneapolis as domestic terrorists.

She noted that the federal government has long claimed for itself the authority to search through communications collected abroad — even if they involve Americans — under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"So can you answer for me: If the secretary of defense or the president of the United States asks you to put NSA or military intel, personnel, people, or tools, or assets targeted at American citizens who don't have a link to a foreign terrorist organization, will you reject that?" Slotkin asked.

Rudd's answer left room for interpretation. He said that "if confirmed, I will executive my responsibilities in accordance with the Constitution and all applicable laws."

He gave a near-identical answer to another question from Slotkin about whether the NSA under his leadership would participate in an interagency federal law enforcement team targeting "domestic terrorists."

Related Dan Goldman Supported Warrantless Spying on Americans. Now His Primary Opponent Is Hitting Him for It.

Privacy advocates say answers like that have given little insight into where Rudd stands, or reassurance that he will not turn the NSA's spying power against more Americans. They said they will be watching Tuesday as Rudd faces more questioning.

"Despite Rudd's assurances that he will uphold his constitutional duties as NSA Director, the agency has a long history of violating Americans' privacy and other constitutional rights through sweeping data collection practices," said Hajar Hammado, a senior policy adviser at the left-leaning group Demand Progress.

The post Army General Tapped to Lead NSA Said He Doesn't Know Much About the Biggest NSA Controversy appeared first on The Intercept.

The day After Border Patrol officers shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, his federal employer knew who to blame: Minnesota's local government.

"As President Trump has said, nobody wants to see chaos and death in American cities," wrote Doug Collins, the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, on X Sunday. "Such tragedies are unfortunately happening in Minnesota because of state and local officials' refusal to cooperate with the federal government to enforce the law and deport dangerous illegal criminals."

A Border Patrol agent with eight years of experience shot Pretti on Saturday, commander-at-large Gregory Bovino said over the weekend. According to a New York Times analysis, multiple agents wrestled Pretti to the ground, and two agents shot him at least 10 times in total. Department of Homeland Security officials claim the shooting was a defensive response after Pretti approached agents with a firearm, but videos from the scene suggest that agents had removed Pretti's gun from his hip before killing him.

Sworn eyewitness declarations from the scene also contradict DHS's narrative. Two witnesses swear that Pretti, a U.S. citizen, was filming agents with a cellphone when he was forced to the ground and shot multiple times. One declaration was submitted by a licensed pediatrician who said they attempted to render medical aid after agents initially blocked access to the victim.

When The Intercept reached out to the VA for a statement about Pretti's killing, press secretary Peter Kasperowicz directed inquiries to Collins's post, which offered condolences to Pretti's family before shifting blame to Minnesota officials. The secretary's post did not acknowledge that federal agents fired the shots.

The Intercept also asked whether the VA was providing counseling or support services to Pretti's co-workers or family, and whether the department had initiated any internal review following the violent death of a federal employee.

Related Trump's Cronies Threw the VA Into Chaos. Millions of Veterans' Lives Are on the Line Again.

Kasperowicz did not answer those questions, nor did he respond to follow-up questions asking whether the VA had contacted Pretti's family, notified staff at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, or taken steps to provide employee assistance services.

Pretti's death has prompted public expressions of grief from co-workers. In a social media post, Dr. Dimitri Drekonja, who identifies himself as a physician at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System, wrote that he had known Pretti since nursing school, before Pretti became an ICU nurse caring for critically ill veterans.

"We'd chat between patients about trying to get in a mountain bike ride together," Drekonja wrote. "Will never happen now."

The shooting has prompted multiple investigations and legal actions. Minnesota officials have accused federal agents of restricting access to the scene, detaining witnesses, and seizing cellphones before leaving the area.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, did not immediately respond to The Intercept's requests for comment.

Related Right-Wing YouTuber Behind Viral Minnesota Fraud Video Has Long Anti-Immigrant History

Walz, who earlier this month announced he would not seek reelection amid a statewide fraud scandal spurred by right-wing influencers, wrote on X Sunday that "Minnesota believes in law and order. We believe in peace. And we believe that Trump needs to pull his 3,000 untrained agents out of Minnesota before they kill another American in the street."

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the Hennepin County Attorney's Office have sought a temporary restraining order to preserve evidence related to the shooting.

The Department of Homeland Security has not publicly addressed the sworn declarations or released body-worn camera footage from the agents involved.

The post After CBP Killed Alex Pretti, His Federal VA Boss Blamed Minnesota Leaders appeared first on The Intercept.

Residents near the scene of a shooting by a federal law enforcement agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, 2026. Photo: Jaida Grey Eagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Border Patrol agents on Saturday shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident and U.S. citizen. Pretti was an ICU nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital and legally carrying a Sig Sauer pistol. Bystander video shows him filming agents with a phone before being tackled and pinned facedown on the pavement as more than six officers swarm him. According to video of the shooting, at least one officer can be heard shouting "he's got a gun," and an agent appears to take Pretti's weapon and begin to walk away before at least 10 shots ring out. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara said in a press conference that Pretti was "a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry." Federal officials initially defended the shooting as self-defense, insisting Pretti had resisted disarmament and threatened agents. But open-source analysis by Bellingcat concluded the gun had already been taken from Pretti by the time the shots were fired. 

Already, much has been made by the administration over the fact that Pretti was armed, a startling legal shift for officials who publicly espouse their love of the Second Amendment. 

The Trump Justice Department has now formally embraced the idea that a citizen carrying a legal firearm who approaches federal officers can be shot on sight. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli — a Trump appointee — put this new doctrine bluntly: "If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you." In effect, the president who demanded absolute loyalty from gun rights voters is sanctioning deadly force against those voters whenever they come near a line of federal officers. This pronouncement came just hours after Pretti's killing, turning a local tragedy into a national declaration of policy. The gap between Second Amendment rhetoric and the on-the-ground reality of federal law enforcement has never been more obvious.

Have a Gun? Expect a Bullet.

Essayli's declaration sent shockwaves through America's gun community, and leaders of pro-gun groups immediately distanced themselves from the White House line. (On Truth Social, Trump posted a photo of the gun, writing, "This is the gunman's gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!), and ready to go - What is that all about?" Less than 24 hours later, Trump had seemingly moved on, posting about construction on the White House ballroom.) Dana Loesch, a former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association and a conservative radio host, questioned the administration's contention that Pretti had two loaded magazines as evidence he intended to harm immigration agents: "What he has or didn't have isn't the issue. What he was doing, with or without it, is the issue."

By the end of the day, the NRA — historically among Trump's biggest backers — had finally issued a lukewarm call for calm and due process and called Essayli's remarks "dangerous and wrong," but only after its social media followers lambasted the group for inexplicably staying silent at first. Remember: the NRA funneled some $25 million into Trump's campaigns. For gun owners who gave Trump everything, the silence was deafening.

For gun owners who gave Trump everything, the silence was deafening.

The conservative advocacy group Gun Owners of America called for a "complete, transparent, and prompt investigation" and flatly rejected the idea that federal agents can justifiably shoot and kill legal gun owners. In a statement responding to Essayli, GOA warned "agents are not 'highly likely' to be 'legally justified' in 'shooting' concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm." 

On the ground in Minnesota, gun rights advocates were outraged. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus demanded evidence that Pretti posed any real threat, and insisted that every lawful citizen has the right to carry arms — even in a protest. Its general counsel, Rob Doar, told local news station KSTP that officers "have to have been in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm" to use deadly force and his read based on the video is "that at the time that the shots were fired he had been disarmed seconds before." Rick Hodsdon, an expert on permit to carry laws in the state, put an even finer point on the issue: The idea that any citizen approaching armed agents with a legal gun should be shot is "absurd." 

Other vocal critics rebuked Border Patrol statements implying that Pretti was armed to the teeth, and aiming, as official Greg Bovino claimed, to do "maximum damage and massacre law enforcement." Veteran gun rights commentator Stephen Gutowski reminded followers that carrying extra magazines is common for permit holders. Others pointed out that this new paradigm risks transforming routine encounters with public safety officials into moments of terror for lawful gun owners. Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education for the Second Amendment Foundation, told The Reload, "People should not fear interacting with police officers simply because they are lawfully carrying a firearm." 

For many Second Amendment stalwarts, the Trump administration's new stance is the ultimate betrayal. The man who vowed never to infringe on gun rights is now sanctioning lethal force against his own voters.

Thou Shalt Infringe

The Pretti killing and its official defense expose a wider hypocrisy in Trump's approach to gun rights, despite his rhetoric. While Trump once praised Kyle Rittenhouse — the armed teenager who killed two people at a protest in Wisconsin — as "really a nice young man" who never deserved to go to trial, he has, throughout his career, quietly supported more gun safety measures than he admits.

During his first term, he casually let it slip that he was fine with taking guns without due process before backtracking. During his first administration, he also famously signed a rule banning bump-fire stocks (devices that simulated fully automatic fire) after the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, a rule that was later struck down by the Supreme Court. Just last year, that same court — which is dominated by Trump appointees — upheld a sweeping new Joe Biden-era rule restricting untraceable "ghost guns," rejecting challenges by gun rights groups.

Meanwhile, Trump has increasingly deployed federal forces into jurisdictions with some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country, using federal authority to lean into those regulations — despite promising to protect gun owners from government overreach. In August 2025, federal agents embedded with local police in Washington, D.C., and seized 111 firearms as part of Trump's federal surge in the district to combat "crime." For gun rights advocates, the operation exposed the quiet inversion underway: Federal agents can now treat gun ownership as a novel way to target, harass, and enforce their authority in ways that have little to do with any actual crime. Luis Valdes, a spokesperson for Gun Owners of America, said at the time that these seizures amounted to low-hanging fruit. "Charging [citizens] only for possession of a firearm means they couldn't even establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause for any other crime," he said. "We're not against law enforcement going out there and going after real criminals. We're just against law enforcement resources being mis-utilized, and having those resources used to violate people's due process and Second Amendment rights."

From Chicago to Los Angeles, these federal "surges" have meant heavily armed federal agents roaming neighborhoods looking to scoop up American firearms along the way — hardly a symbol of Second Amendment liberation. At the same time, the Justice Department has quietly pursued policies that make life harder for gun owners, not easier. While Trump's February 2025 executive order on firearms directed the DOJ to review Biden-era regulations, many of his more expansive campaign promises remain outstanding, leaving little evidence that his administration has meaningfully expanded ordinary Americans' access to firearms.

Trump's so-called "Big Beautiful Bill," for instance, made it cheaper to purchase suppressors and short-barreled weapons but not easier — keeping buyers locked behind the same federal regulatory regime his campaign promised to dismantle. In response, major gun rights groups have moved to mount new legal challenges against Trump's ATF to eliminate outstanding red tape. And despite early promises to enact national concealed-carry reciprocity — a policy that would require every state to recognize gun permits issued by other states, much like driver's licenses — that reform has yet to materialize.

Under Trump, gun rights have increasingly been filtered through federal power, not individual freedom.

It is also worth noting who Trump is in this equation: a gun-violence survivor, raised in one of the most restrictive gun safety environments in the country, who publicly champions the gun industry but now governs a far more heavily armed nation from behind layers of federal security. In Trump's America, the question is no longer whether guns should exist, but whether the government still views the people who legally carry them as legitimate.

The bottom line is harder to ignore: Under Trump, gun rights have increasingly been filtered through federal power, not individual freedom. Now, after a second fatal shooting by federal immigration authorities in Minneapolis in as many weeks, his administration is crystallizing this shift as de facto policy: If an American simply owns a gun in front of feds, the use of "deadly force" is not just permitted but justified. And now that the feds are everywhere, the implications for an armed citizenry are chilling. 

All of this flies in the face of Trump's campaign promises of a Second Amendment utopia. The millions the NRA and pro-gun political action committees funneled into electing him have bought little more than cold comfort. Gun rights groups can protest and litigate but the precedent is now set: Under this administration, trained federal officers can, on executive authority alone, treat legally armed citizens — protesters or otherwise — as legitimate targets. The president who promised not to take away Americans' guns has effectively signed off on taking away any safety those guns once provided. If this shift endures, it points toward a country with more federal deployments, more armed encounters, and a Second Amendment that exists in theory but not in practice.

The post Trump Is Making an Enemy of the Gun Lobby appeared first on The Intercept.

 Photo illustration: The Intercept / Photo: Michael Tessier/CBS News via Getty Images

It's the 6:30 p.m. ET broadcasting block on Wednesday, and Tony Dokoupil, the shiny new host of "CBS Evening News," is explaining away the killing of three journalists in Gaza even as a ceasefire deal apparently remains in place.

That does not seem to matter much to Dokoupil, who before landing this plush gig at Bari Weiss's CBS News was best known for hassling the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates for his "extremist" belief that apartheid is morally wrong.

Dokoupil opens the news read already at a distance: "Turning to one of the deadliest days in Gaza since October's ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, an Israeli airstrike today killed three journalists." 

He continues by accepting, without skepticism, Israel's framing of what should be a clear violation of the terms of the ceasefire: "Israel said it was targeting a group operating a drone affiliated with Hamas," Dokoupil says. "One of those journalists, Abed Shaat, has worked for CBS as a photographer. His colleagues described the 30-year-old as a brave person doing dangerous work. He was married just two weeks ago."

An Israeli airstrike killed 11 people in Gaza on Wednesday, including three journalists, the territory's civil defense agency said. One of those killed, Abed Shaat, had worked for years as a photographer for CBS News and other outlets. https://t.co/8wPvo9RSf7 pic.twitter.com/USxQRscATg

— CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil (@CBSEveningNews) January 22, 2026

It's a blink-and-you-miss-it sleight of hand that tells you exactly where the priorities of the news regime at CBS lie. First, there's the tone, which exudes calmness about the fact that a co-worker has been killed doing his job. Dokoupil states that Shaat died in an Israeli airstrike targeting "a group operating a drone affiliated with Hamas," the implication being that Shaat was either working with Hamas or was a little too cozy with Hamas, a means of justifying his killing. Finally, Dokoupil uses the distancing language of "[Shaat's] colleagues" - making clear that the host of "CBS Evening News" is certainly not among them.

It was just the latest low for a host who has struggled to find his footing and his audience. Dokoupil's viewership numbers have been in the tank, with the number of eyeballs down 23 percent in his first five days on air, compared to a year ago with anchor Norah O'Donnell. Viewership was not much improved in Dokoupil's second week; "CBS Evening News" remained a distant third behind ABC and NBC's evening news shows. (Perhaps that's why Dylan Byers, every media boss's favorite stenographer, landed the unattributed scoop Thursday night that "Evening News" drew 6.4 million viewers on Monday, said to be its largest audience since 2021.) Dokoupil's first official broadcast was marred by gaffes, and his January 6 show featured a fawning package on Secretary of State Marco Rubio that featured the utterly surreal lines: "Marco Rubio, we salute you. You're the ultimate Florida Man." (The White House rapid response team approvingly shared the clip.)

WE LOVE @SecRubio! pic.twitter.com/ExpAMd8WaC

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 7, 2026

Higher up at the network, there have been multiple rounds of reporting that Weiss, CBS's new editor-in-chief, isn't so much a manager or a journalist as the person tasked with courting the capricious approval of President Donald Trump. Weiss, who answers directly to David Ellison, infamously caused a Streisand effect by pulling a "60 Minutes" story about Venezuelan men deported to a notoriously violent prison in El Salvador hours before it was set to air because there was no on-camera comment from the Trump administration. The story finally aired Sunday with no substantive changes — and without the all-important on-air administration voice. 

Coming to us from a Ford assembly line in Dearborn, Michigan, on January 13, Dokoupil landed a marquee interview with Trump himself. With the sound of loud machinery in the background, the president didn't bother to conceal his disdain. In response to a question about Iran, Trump seemed to imply that Dokoupil, a convert to Judaism, has dual loyalty to Israel.

"I don't know where you come from and what your thought process is, but you'll perhaps be very happy," Trump said.

His subtext doesn't appear lost on the host, who responded, "What do you mean by that?"

Later on, Trump disciplined Dokoupil again, this time in reference to his decision to greenlight David Ellison's acquisition of CBS-owner Paramount Global. "You wouldn't have a job right now," Trump tells the anchor. "If she [Kamala Harris] got in, you probably wouldn't have a job right now. Your boss, who's an amazing guy, might be bust, OK? … You wouldn't have this job, certainly whatever the hell they're paying you." At the interview's close, Dokoupil attempted to save face, saying, "For the record, I do think I'd have this job even if the other guys won." Without missing a beat, Trump responded, "But at a lesser salary."

For all this taking it on the chin, Dokoupil and Weiss's righteous reward was the White House threatening to sue over the interview.

"CBS Evening News" with Tony Dokoupil demonstrated its obsequiousness by publishing "five simple principles" ahead of the new host's debut. The "principles" are condescension for the Americans they claim to love all the way down. "We love America. And make no apologies for saying so," reads one. Another proclaims: "We work for you." (You quite literally do not.)

Principle number three is "We respect you." Its description reads in part: "We believe that our fellow Americans are smart and discerning. … We trust you to make up your own minds, and to make the decisions that are best for you, your families and your communities."

pic.twitter.com/fsswC8E9yW

— CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil (@CBSEveningNews) January 2, 2026

This babytalk for idiots is a common thread running through the new era of "Evening News." Dokoupil comes to us live from Real America — a stunt dubbed the "Live From America" tour — including the American Sign Museum in Cincinnati and a diner in the West Loop of Chicago. In Chicago, the broadcast includes a segment where the host takes the L train from the Loop to West Garfield Park to bring attention to the "death gap," or life expectancy disparities, between neighborhoods.

As the train rumbles along, Tony looks out the window, affecting introspection, while his voiceover rolls: "Even on a snowy day, we could see a change from the train window," he says, like a space alien seeing a city for the first time. At the end of the January 16 half-hour at a steel plant in Pittsburgh, which featured a "LESSON IN BIPARTISANSHIP" (in other words, a segment with Democratic Sen. John Fetterman and Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, both of Pennsylvania), Dokoupil all but waves a Made in USA American flag to show his love for the common man.

In concluding his second week on January 16, Dokoupil signs off by giving himself credit for a job well done. "What a privilege it's been to hear from so many of you, to hear what matters in your lives. … We put some of your big questions in front of this country's biggest leaders." To underline the point that he really is one of us, he then appears to go perhaps a bit off-script. "I'm gonna talk to these steel workers," he says. "You wanna trade jobs? This one's not as easy as it looks! I've been learning that." In an unintentionally comedic moment, multiple steelworkers respond "Yes." 

Three weeks into his new job, it's unclear who this incarnation of "CBS Evening News" is even for. Despite Weiss's best efforts, the answer is not the White House, as Dokoupil can't even succeed in flattering Trump. One possible answer is the old and the infirm: During every single commercial break I watched, multiple pharmaceutical ads ran, sometimes back to back, saying more about the state of America than Dokoupil ever could. 

All this capping about love of country, and the host's own posturing, speaks to an ambition of reconnecting with Americans who have lost faith in the media. Considering what we know about the Ellisons and their support for Trump, it's not hard to imagine that the show's new spin is an effort to reach MAGA America. But that's a miscalculation at best and a dangerous slide to the right at worst, one that risks alienating the liberal viewership that still believes in institutions like CBS.

MAGA adherents already have Fox News serving as de facto state TV news, and the disenfranchised among them have drifted so far outside any kind of consensus reality that they have embraced more fringe, far-right-wing outlets like One America News Network or the MyPillow guy. They are no longer "gettable" as an audience.

Weiss and Dokoupil would be much better served if they tried seriously to retain the viewers they had, rather than chase imagined, untold millions of disillusioned Trump voters looking to come in from the cold. It speaks to a real confusion about who "CBS Evening News" is really for, if the true goal, as stated, is to grow its audience. But if the actual goal is to remake an authority in news into a platform for nakedly broadcasting Weiss and Ellison's political views, it's already a roaring success.

The post "CBS Evening News" With Tony Dokoupil Is a Right-Wing Show for Absolutely No One appeared first on The Intercept.

Demonstrators participate in a rally and march during an "ICE Out" general strike and day of protest on Jan. 23, 2026, in Minneapolis. Photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

There is a possible future in which the events that unfolded in Minnesota on January 23, 2026, are forgotten. The fact of the largest general strike in the state in nearly a century may be only remembered, if at all, as a big day of protests and walkouts, and no more than that.

In that future, the possibility of mass, coordinated, and powerful action is wiped from the public imaginary — because, within 24 hours, federal agents had killed another civilian in cold blood.

Related Man Feds Killed in Minneapolis Was an Observer, Eyewitnesses Say

Donald Trump's paramilitary forces shot and killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Jeffrey Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday morning. Like in the killing of Renee Good, video footage taken by witnesses appears to show a brutal, close-range killing. Eyewitnesses told The Intercept that Pretti was on the scene acting as a civilian observer. Videos show a group of more than four masked agents wrestle him to the ground and beat him, before one shoots him multiple times.

The shooting — the third in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents since Trump's deportation machine descended on Minnesota with extreme brutality in December — is an unbearable follow-up to the most extraordinary day of mass resistance to Trumpian fascism to date.

It is also a searing reminder as to why Friday's mass strike in Minneapolis must not be swept from our minds. Rather, it must be treated as a powerful new phase of resistance against Trump's regime — a task that can only be achieved by building on and repeating it.

On Friday, tens of thousands of Minnesotans braved extreme cold to march en masse and shuttered a reported 700-plus businesses in a daylong general strike with the support of all major unions. They protested, transported, fed, and watched over each other, an outgrowth of weeks, months, and years of community care and abolitionist resistance. Their collective actions mark a breakthrough in the fight against the American authoritarianism of our time.

It is only a future with mass social strikes, or general strikes, involving large-scale disruption on the immediate horizon that has the chance of stopping Trump's forces. 

On January 23, the Twin Cities offered a small glimpse of the sorts of work stoppages, blockades, and shutdowns that aggregated practices of collective resistance make possible.

The task ahead of us, in the face of the government's unending violence and cruelty, is to take up, share, and spread the practices modeled by networks in Minnesota.

Saturday's slaughter does not disprove the power of Friday's strike; no one was under the impression that tides had somehow turned in a day. The point is that, thanks to Minnesota's resistance, we can see how to go on.

People in the Streets

On Friday afternoon, when people filled the downtown Minneapolis streets, it was the coldest day of the year so far: a reported minus 20 degrees, with a wind chill reaching minus 35.

"I'm seeing icicles form on people's eyelashes out here, on mustaches, on eyebrows, from just the condensation from their own breath freezing against their own face," a video journalist reported from the ground. 

Related Trump's War on America

The day began early with dozens of protesters barricading the road outside the Whipple Detention Center, the home base of Trump's deportation machine in Minneapolis, for over two hours.

Later that morning, over 1,000 people, including religious leaders in prayer, formed a picket outside the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. Since December, over 2,000 people in Minnesota have been taken by federal immigration authorities; many have been deported through the airport. Around 100 people were arrested at the airport protest.

Meanwhile, businesses refused to open their doors in numbers not seen in decades.

No, the government was not brought to its knees under the economic weight of a one-day strike called on short notice. Friday, however, was a crucial step, to be built upon and built upon, creating the specific sort of political strike that takes aim at the very nature of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in our cities and towns.

It is precisely this combined model of strike, targeted blockade, and mass demonstration, all undergirded by networks of mutual aid, that we need to repeat and expand. 

Read our complete coverage

Chilling Dissent "Hope Is a Discipline"

Community defense against ICE did not, of course, begin with Minneapolis — although the city has been the site of Trump's most lawless and thoroughgoing fascist, nakedly racist operation to date. Residents in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and beyond have blockaded ICE facilities, hid their immigrant neighbors, filled immigration courts, filed lawsuits, and confronted federal agents in the street. And these acts of resistance were not only learned to fight Trump's regime. They have been rehearsed many times over, in centuries of struggle. 

There are times in a broad and disarticulated political movement, however, when things come together. Momentum builds. And there are events that shift the ground, after which it makes sense to speak of a before and an after.

The day following the strike brought more horror where there had been an opening for hope. Hope, though, is not what is really needed now — not hope as a sentiment, at least. We prove our orientation toward a better world, whether we feel hope or not — and I do not — by continuing to act against this murderous state force, and for each other. This is what the abolitionist organizer Mariame Kaba meant in calling hope a "discipline."  

Related Three Cheers for Hilton Hotel Workers Who Banned ICE — Until Their Corporate Bosses Stomped Them Out

After January 23 in Minneapolis and St. Paul, we have grounds to talk and organize seriously around general strikes in other cities, states, even nationally — general strikes with the specific aim of making our cities and towns as difficult as possible for ICE and other federal forces to move through. Not by dint of social media calls, or columns like this, but by going on in the way of Minnesotans.

Minnesota organizers did not conjure the state's largest day of labor action in nearly a century by simply announcing "general strike" online. Labor unions, religious and community institutions, and front-line activists were all key; so, too, was the fury of everyday people, in a city where community support is normalized, and militant anti-racist protest boasts a proud history.

"The general strike is the name for when the riot, the strike, and the commune all happen at once,"

Minneapolis's extraordinary rapid-response networks, activated to keep watch on ICE and provide transport and care for immigrants, developed swiftly. Minneapolis-based organizers Jonathan Stegall and Anne Kosseff-Jones, however, have said, "Many of these systems sprung to life along the paths laid down by the 2020 uprising after the police-perpetrated killing of George Floyd."

As Sarah Jaffe noted in the New Republic, "The Twin Cities have had plenty of opportunities to build up these networks of resistance, networks that have only grown larger in the wake of Good's killing."

This constellation of factors meant in a matter of days, a strike action could be called involving hundreds of thousands of workers across sectors. This can and must be repeated elsewhere. This is not the first time Minneapolis has led the way. And it is for this reason, too, that Minneapolis will not be defeated by the deadly escalations of federal agents the following day.

21st-Century General Strike

General strikes in 2026 will not look the same as they did in the early 20th century. In an age of technocapital and decimated labor power, conditions look different. Even with a slowly rebuilding labor movement, effectively marshaling collective refusal is extraordinarily hard.

It remains the case, however, as Kieran Knutson, president of the Communications Workers of America Local 7250 in Minneapolis, told Democracy Now!, that "nothing runs without the working class in this country."

A general strike against Trump's authoritarianism requires a specific navigation of territory and time — addressing the ways ICE moves rapidly through our cities and neighborhoods — and how to fight against it. That means combining neighborhood patrols with confrontational shutdowns, and creating barriers for federal agents wherever they try to go — including the damn bathroom. 

Of Friday's strike Knutson said that "after weeks of living under the heavy weight of this racist campaign of terror by ICE agents… today we are going to show our power." This is part of the point, too: Showing power. We do not, after all, have the power to topple the regime in a day. But we cannot wait until the midterm elections, as if we could ever rely on Democratic leadership to rein in violent border rule. Trump's agents made that all too clear on Saturday morning.

Not every day can take the form of a general strike, but that is our horizon.

"The general strike is the name for when the riot, the strike, and the commune all happen at once," late theorist Joshua Clover said in a 2024 interview. Community care, militant disruption, working class refusal. "That's what the general strike really is. And that's the day, the week, or the year where there will be a role for everyone." There is a role for everyone, because that time must be now.

Within minutes of Saturday morning's shooting, rapid response network messages went out. Whistles started blaring. In response, hundreds of Minneapolis residents had filled the streets again.

The post We Can Fight This: Minnesota's General Strike Shows How appeared first on The Intercept.

When the official White House X account posted an image depicting activist Nekima Levy Armstrong in tears during her arrest, there were telltale signs that the image had been altered.

Less than an hour before, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had posted a photo of the exact same scene, but in Noem's version Levy Armstrong appeared composed, not crying in the least.

Seeking to determine if the White House version of the photo had been altered using artificial intelligence tools, we turned to Google's SynthID — a detection mechanism that Google claims is able to discern whether an image or video was generated using Google's own AI. We followed Google's instructions and used its AI chatbot, Gemini, to see if the image contained SynthID forensic markers.

The results were clear: The White House image had been manipulated with Google's AI. We published a story about it.

Related White House Doctored Photo With AI to Make It Look Like an Activist Was Sobbing During Perp Walk

After posting the article, however, subsequent attempts to use Gemini to authenticate the image with SynthID produced different outcomes.

In our second test, Gemini concluded that the image of Levy Armstrong crying was actually authentic. (The White House doesn't even dispute that the image was doctored. In response to questions about its X post, a spokesperson said, "The memes will continue.")

In our third test, SynthID determined that the image was not made with Google's AI, directly contradicting its first response.

At a time when AI-manipulated photos and videos are growing inescapable, these inconsistent responses raise serious questions about SynthID's reliability to tell fact from fiction.

A screenshot of the initial  response from Gemini, Google's AI chatbot, stating that the crying image contained forensic markers indicating the image had been manipulated with Google's generative AI tools, taken on Jan. 22, 2026. Screenshot: The Intercept Initial SynthID Results

Google describes SynthID as a digital watermarking system. It embeds invisible markers into AI-generated images, audio, text or video created using Google's tools, which it can then detect — proving whether a piece of online content is authentic.

"The watermarks are embedded across Google's generative AI consumer products, and are imperceptible to humans — but can be detected by SynthID's technology," says a page on the site for DeepMind, Google's AI division.

Google presents SynthID as having what in the realm of digital watermarking is known as "robustness" — it claims to be able to detect the watermarks even if an image undergoes modifications, such as cropping or compression. Therefore, an image manipulated with Google's AI should contain detectable watermarks even if it has been saved multiple times or posted on social media.

Google steers those who want to use SynthID toward its Gemini AI chatbot, which they can prompt with questions about the authenticity of digital content.

"Want to check if an image or video was generated, or edited, by Google AI? Ask Gemini," the SynthID landing page says.

We decided to do just that.

We saved the image file that the official White House account posted on X, bearing the filename G_R3H10WcAATYht.jfif, and uploaded it to Gemini. We asked whether SynthID detected the image had been generated with Google's AI.

To test SynthID's claims of robustness, we also uploaded a further cropped and re-encoded image, which we named imgtest2.jpg.

Finally, we uploaded a copy of the photo where Levy Armstrong was not crying, as previously posted by Noem. (In the above screenshot, Gemini refers to Noem's photo as signal-2026-01-22-122805_002.jpeg because we downloaded it from the Signal messaging app).

"I've analyzed the images you provided," wrote Gemini. "Based on the results from SynthID, all or part of the first two images were likely generated or modified with Google AI."

"Technical markers within the files imgtest2.jpg and G_R3H10WcAATYht.jfif indicate the use of Google's generative AI tools to alter the subject's appearance," the bot wrote. It also identified the version of the image posted by Noem as appearing to "be the original photograph."

With confirmation from Google that its SynthID system had detected hidden forensic watermarks in the image, we reported in our story that the White House had posted an image that had been doctored with Google's AI.

This wasn't the only evidence the White House image wasn't real; Levy Armstrong's attorney told us that he was at the scene during the arrest and that she was not at all crying. The White House also openly described the image as a meme.

A Striking Reversal

A few hours after our story published, Google told us that they "don't think we have an official comment to add." A few minutes after that, a spokesperson for the company got back to us and said they could not replicate the result we got. They asked us for the exact files we uploaded. We provided them.

The Google spokesperson then asked, "Were you able to replicate it again just now?"

We ran the analysis again, asking Gemini to see if SynthID detected the image had been manipulated with AI. This time, Gemini failed to reference SynthID at all — despite the fact we followed Google's instructions and explicitly asked the chatbot to use the detection tool by name. Gemini now claimed that the White House image was instead "an authentic photograph."

It was a striking reversal considering Gemini previously said that the image contained technical markers indicating the use of Google's generative AI. Gemini also said, "This version shows her looking stoic as she is being escorted by a federal agent" — despite our question addressing the version of the image depicting Levy Armstrong in tears.

A screenshot of Gemini's second response, this time stating that the same image it previously said SynthID detected as being doctored with AI, was in fact an authentic photograph, taken on Jan. 22, 2026. Screenshot: The Intercept

Less than an hour later, we ran the analysis one more time, prompting Gemini to yet again use SynthID to check whether the image had been manipulated with Google's AI. Unlike the second attempt, Gemini invoked SynthID as instructed. This time, however, it said, "Based on an analysis using SynthID, this image was not made with Google AI, though the tool cannot determine if other AI products were used."

A screenshot of Gemini's third response, this time stating that SynthID had determined that the image was not made with Google AI, after all, despite earlier saying SynthID found that it had been generated with Google's AI, taken on Jan. 22, 2026. Screenshot: The Intercept

Google did not answer repeated questions about this discrepancy. In response to inquiries, the spokesperson continued to ask us to share the specific phrasing of the prompt that resulted in Gemini recognizing a SynthID marker in the White House image.

We didn't store that language, but told Google it was a straightforward prompt asking Gemini to check whether SynthID detected the image as being generated with Google's AI. We provided Google with information about our prompt and the files we used so the company could check its records of our queries in its Gemini and SynthID logs.

"We're trying to understand the discrepancy," said Katelin Jabbari, a manager of corporate communications at Google. Jabbari repeatedly asked if we could replicate the initial results, as "none of us here have been able to."

After further back and forth following subsequent inquiries, Jabbari said, "Sorry, don't have anything for you."

Bullshit Detector?

Aside from Google's proprietary tool, there is no easy way for users to test whether an image contains a SynthID watermark. That makes it difficult in this case to determine whether Google's system initially detected the presence of a SynthID watermark in an image without one, or if subsequent tests missed a SynthID watermark in an image that actually contains one.

As AI become increasingly pervasive, the industry is trying to put behind its long history of being what researchers call a "bullshit generator."

Supporters of the technology argue tools that can detect if something is AI will play a critical role establishing the common truth amid the pending flood of media generated or manipulated by AI. They point to their successes, as with one recent example where SynthID debunked an arrest photo of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro flanked by federal agents as an AI-generated image. The Google tool said the photo was bullshit.

If AI-detection technology fails to produce consistent responses, though, there's reason to wonder who will call bullshit on the bullshit detector.

The post Google's AI Detection Tool Can't Decide if Its Own AI Made Doctored Photo of Crying Activist appeared first on The Intercept.

The man federal agents fatally shot in Minneapolis Saturday did not appear to be a target of immigration enforcement and was acting as a civilian observer, according to two eyewitnesses who spoke with The Intercept.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara said at a press conference Saturday that the victim was a 37-year-old resident of Minneapolis and is believed to be a U.S. citizen. The Minnesota Star Tribune identified him as Alex Jeffrey Pretti.

According to the paper and a public records database accessed by The Intercept, Pretti had a nursing license issued in 2021.

"He appeared to be an observer," said an eyewitness who spoke to The Intercept on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from the federal government. "Agents looked ready to leave and then they started pushing him and another observer across the street."

The witness said that before they were accosted, Pretti and one other observer "were yelling at agents."

Once the agents had Pretti on the ground, "he was out of my sight," the witness said. "But when they started pushing him, agents that appeared to be headed to their vehicles turned around and went toward that confrontation."

The shooting came just weeks after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed Renee Good, and a day after hundreds of thousands of people braved subzero temperatures to march in Minneapolis against weeks of rolling immigration enforcement raids by ICE, Border Patrol, and other federal agencies.

Related Federal Agents Keep Invoking Killing of Renee Good to Threaten Protesters in Minnesota

A video of the incident, which surfaced on Reddit just before 10 a.m. Central Time, shows a number of apparent federal agents in tactical gear wrestling with a person on the ground and striking them multiple times before a shot rings out. As many of the agents scatter from the person, at least nine more shots ring out, and the person slumps to the ground.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security confirmed the shooting and claimed that the man was carrying a handgun, attaching a photo of a Sig Sauer weapon. The Intercept has not been able to independently verify the department's claims.

Minnesota allows open carrying of firearms by people with valid permits. O'Hara said Saturday that the victim's only known law enforcement interactions were over traffic tickets, "and we believe he is a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry."

One eyewitness told The Intercept he headed to the area just before 9 a.m. Central Time to observe after hearing reports of federal agents staging in a parking lot next to Glam Doll Donuts near the intersection of Nicollet Avenue and East 26th Street. When he got there, the witness saw a handful of other responders and about 15 federal agents in tactical gear, but no apparent immigration enforcement targets.

"The people who were there were the people doing rapid response," said the witness, who spoke with The Intercept on condition of anonymity.

The witness said there was some verbal back and forth between observers and federal agents, but said he saw nothing that hinted at a violent confrontation. About three minutes after arriving on the scene, he was standing across the street from the sidewalk next to the donut shop when he heard a series of gunshots in rapid succession and ducked into a doorway for safety alongside another observer.

"I don't want to die," the witness said.

In the immediate wake of the shooting, the witness tried to call 911, but the calls would not go through. A journalist for Bring Me the News who was on the scene reported witnessing federal agents giving the person chest compressions and calling for help.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz confirmed the shooting Saturday morning and called for federal agents to leave the state.

"I just spoke with the White House after another horrific shooting by federal agents this morning. Minnesota has had it. This is sickening," Walz wrote on X. "The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now."

At the press conference with O'Hara, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said he had watched "a video of more than six masked federal agents pummeling one of our constituents, shooting him to death."

"How many more lives have to be lost before this administration realizes that a political and partisan narrative is not as important as American values?" Frey asked.

O'Hara called for calm and appealed to the federal government to act with professionalism.

"Our demand today is for those federal agencies that are operating in our city to do so with the same discipline, humanity, and integrity that effective law enforcement in this country demands," O'Hara said.

This developing story has been updated.

The post Man Feds Killed in Minneapolis Was an Observer, Eyewitnesses Say appeared first on The Intercept.

New documents unsealed Thursday as a part of litigation brought by The Intercept and other news outlets reveal a critical discrepancy in Secretary of State Marco Rubio's rationale for attempting to deport five international students and academics last year.

While Rubio and the Trump administration claimed in public that they wanted to deport students including Mahmoud Khalil and Yunseo Chung for supporting terrorism, internal Department of Homeland Security and State Department documents instead cite their advocacy for Palestinian rights in protests and writings — activities protected by the First Amendment.

Rubio and the administration have repeatedly conflated pro-Palestinian speech with support for Hamas, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization, but a DHS memo shows the government did not find any evidence that Chung or Khalil provided "material support" — meaning cash payment, property, or services — to any terror group. Even in their own communications, DHS and the State Department acknowledged they were in uncharted territory and likely to face backlash.

"DHS has not identified any alternative grounds of removability that would be applicable to Chung and Khalil, including the ground of removability for aliens who have provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization or terrorist activity," reads the March 8 memo. "We are not aware of any prior exercises of the Secretary's removal authority in [the Immigration and Nationality Act] section 237(a)(4)(c), and given their [lawful permanent resident] status, Chung and Khalil are likely to challenge their removal under this authority, and courts may scrutinize the basis for these determinations."

Yet the following day, Rubio claimed that Khalil and the other students were supporting terrorist organizations. "We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported," wrote Rubio on X on March 9, referencing Khalil's arrest.

The hundreds of pages of documents were evidence in a lawsuit brought against President Donald Trump, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and DHS by five students and academics — Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, Mohsen Mahdawi, Khalil, and Chung — who alleged that their deportation orders violated their freedom of expression. 

The students won their case last year, but until Thursday, the trove of documents remained under lock and key after the judge agreed to seal the records on the State Department's behalf. At the request of The Intercept, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and the Center for Investigative Reporting, Massachusetts District Judge William G. Young ultimately unsealed the records, revealing intimate details about the State Department's persecution of students speaking out in support of Palestine.

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

The documents include a series of memos sent from the Department of Homeland Security to the State Department recommending deportation orders for the five students. The correspondence overwhelmingly focuses on the students' participation in on campus protests and advocacy.

In the memos, commissioned by Rubio, the State Department and DHS argued that the students posed a threat to U.S. foreign policy because the protests they participated in fostered a "hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States" and undermined "U.S policy to combat anti-semitism around the world." DHS and the State Department repeatedly based accusations of antisemitism and supporting terrorism on the students' public speech, often noting that the First Amendment could make it difficult for the U.S. to win their deportation cases.

Read our complete coverage

Chilling Dissent

In Öztürk's case, a State Department document dated March 21, 2025, noted that her visa had been revoked because she "had been involved in associations that 'may undermine U.S. foreign policy by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students indicating support for a designated terrorist organization' including co-authoring an op-ed that found common cause with an organization that was later banned from campus."

A separate document from the State Department dated March 15, referencing an assessment from DHS, found that Suri was "actively supporting Hamas terrorism" and "actively spreads its propaganda," based on Facebook posts.

However, the State Department memo cautioned that Suri was likely to challenge his removal on First Amendment grounds. "Given the reliance on Suri's public statements as an academic, and the potential that a court may consider his actions inextricably tied to speech protected under the First Amendment, it is likely that courts will closely scrutinize the basis for this determination," officials wrote. 

Related Despite Court Ruling, ICE Can't Detain Mahmoud Khalil — For Now

While the students won their lawsuit against the government, an appeals court earlier this month reversed the decision that released Khalil from custody. He still has time to appeal the reversal before he can legally be detained, but the White House has said the government plans to rearrest him and deport him to Algeria.

The State Department did not respond to The Intercept's request for comment by the time of publication.

The post New Legal Documents Show Marco Rubio Targeted Students for Op-Eds and Protesting appeared first on The Intercept.

The people of Iran are in the midst of one of the country's biggest uprisings — and harshest government crackdowns — since the Iranian Revolution. 

It started with shopkeepers in bazaars closing their doors at the end of December in protest of the plummeting Iranian rial and economic distress. But demonstrations soon spread to universities and across the country to every single province. Working-class Iranians wanted relief — both from the inflation crisis and U.S sanctions.

This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Akela Lacy speaks with Hooman Majd, an Iranian American writer and journalist, who explains what sparked the protests and the government's brutal response. 

"I don't think in the history of Iran, even during the Islamic Revolution, have we seen this number of fatalities." says Majd. "The death toll is staggering. Really, because that death toll is staggering, what's happened is there are no more protests. And that's where we are right now. No more protest, heavy security on the streets. Massive security on the streets, on every corner. It isn't martial law. But it feels like martial law to people living there."

The path forward is unclear, Majd says. But a few things are certain. "The idea is no to shah, no to an ayatollah, no to theocracy. Let's just, finally, after 120 years of demonstrating — which is what the Iranians have been doing since 1906 — after 120 years of looking for democracy, can we just do that? Can we just get a democracy? That is probably the biggest sentiment in Iran: wanting a democratic rule, wanting the repression to end, wanting better relations with the rest of the world so these sanctions can be lifted."

Some people inside and outside Iran have called on President Donald Trump to intervene. The idea that the U.S. should — or could — impose regime change militarily is folly, Majd says. "Sure, we were able to impose a regime change in Iraq militarily. They can do that again in Iran, possibly with the help of Israel or even without the help of Israel. But then what do you have? Do you have another basically authoritarian, autocratic government? That's not what, I would argue, most people would want. And then there's a whole other group of people in Iran, I think, who would say, 'Anything is better than this.'" 

Meanwhile, Trump has threatened to intervene in another international arena. He has set his sights on taking over Greenland. 

Despite walking back his statements pledging to do so by force, Trump has now said he's forming a plan with the secretary general of NATO for Greenland's future. We're joined by independent investigative journalist Lois Parshley, who explains the financial interests behind Trump's obsession with the Arctic island, the billionaires and tech moguls plotting to exploit Greenland's natural resources, and how the people of Greenland have responded to the president's pledge to violate their sovereignty.

Shortly before Trump first expressed an interest in Greenland during his first term, his ambassador to Denmark and Greenland visited a major rare earth mining project on the island, Parshley reported last year.  

"More recently, The Guardian reported that it was Ronald Lauder, heir to the global cosmetics brand [Estée Lauder] who was also a longtime friend of Trump's, who first suggested buying Greenland. He has acquired commercial holdings there and is also part of a consortium who want to access Ukrainian minerals. I should also say here, it's probably important to note that blowing up NATO relationships and severing ties with longtime allies and fellow nuclear powers does not increase U.S. national security."

Fresh off the invasion of Venezuela, the idea that Trump wants to take over Greenland is even more alarming, Parshley says. 

"I'm not the first person to report on these kinds of major tech interests in things like crypto states or special economic zones. People have been pointing this stuff out for a long time, but it's not until President Trump started saying the quiet part out loud that people have really been registering some of these absurd concepts that seem to now be creeping toward reality."

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

Transcript

Akela Lacy: Welcome to The Intercept Briefing, I'm Akela Lacy. 

In late December, people in Iran took to the streets to protest the worsening economy as the country's currency plunged to a record low. As protests grew, the government opened fire on civilians and implemented an internet blackout. 

Leila: We tried to overcome the regime, but every night, when it got late, about midnight, they attacked with their guns and they wiped out the streets from the living people. They killed everybody, almost everybody. If you got injured and you tried to run, they kill you. 

AL: We have obtained an exclusive and rare firsthand eyewitness account from one of the protesters who took to the streets of Tehran over the past few weeks. She wishes to remain anonymous, so for her safety, we'll call her "Leila."

Leila:  I'm sorry that I'm alive. I feel guilty that I'm not dead. And the others are.

AL: It's been difficult to confirm the current death toll, and estimates range from the low thousands to over ten thousand. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has threatened to intervene, while Iran has blamed the U.S. and Israel for the protests.

To understand what's happening, I'm joined by Hooman Majd, an Iranian American writer, and the author of numerous books, including most recently, "Minister Without Portfolio." Majd has written for The Intercept, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and Foreign Affairs, among many others, and is a contributor to NBC News.

Welcome back to the show, Hooman Majd.

Hooman Majd: Thank you very much, Akela.

AL: To start, Hooman, can you give us a brief recap of what's happening in Iran? What sparked the protest, what's driving people to the streets, and how has the Iranian government responded?

HM: Yeah. The timeline is that the end of December, 28th or 29th, baazaris — people in the bazaar — in Tehran went basically on strike, closed their shops, and started protesting because of the incredible drop in the value of the national currency, the rial. The purchasing power of ordinary people has been decimated. And for baazaris who sell goods, often imported goods, it became an untenable situation with the currency fluctuation. So they were like, "Well, we can't afford to sell things today at this price, because tomorrow we're going to have to import them at a higher price." So that was the beginning of the protest. 

Other people then took up the protests, as it were, and went out and protested. Some of them were also protesting about the economy and the terrible situation, living standard, reduction in living standards. Others wanted the regime to go completely.

So it started out really as an economic protest, and other people joined in, especially young people joined in, and demanded an end to the regime altogether. And the reason they did that is because they just didn't buy it that the regime could, that the system — if you want to call it the government — could do anything about the collapse of the economy in the way that it has been collapsing.

And they also didn't think the government or the regime could protect them after the 12-day war in June, the decimation of — the obliteration, as Donald Trump calls it — of the nuclear program. And so they're like, "OK, what are you guys going to do to make things better?" No sanctions relief, no negotiations with the U.S. on the immediate horizon. So people were very angry. So apart from the actual economic protest, it's like OK, time for change. We want serious change. 

The government actually responded and said, "OK, you guys are right." Even the supreme leader responded on those initial couple of days. "You're right, people have a right to protest. They have a right to be upset. We have to fix this." The government said it was going to implement the equivalent of $7 [monthly] credit into everybody's account so they could buy goods like eggs and stuff like that — but that really isn't enough. Seven dollars in Iran basically will buy you the equivalent of a Happy Meal. They don't have McDonald's there, but that would be the equivalent. For a family, once a month? That's nothing. That's not really a solution. So the protests continued, and people weren't satisfied. They weren't going home. 

Related Would-Be Iran Monarch Reza Pahlavi Declares a Civil War in Iran

Then former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi in Washington — the shah's son — became the self-appointed leader of the opposition, leader of a transition to a new Iran, and told people in Iran to go out on the streets en masse — huge numbers — and chant slogans against the government, whatever. And they did.

And whether they did it because they are big fans of Pahlavi, or because it was just an opportunity to continue the protest in the name of someone — not everybody was chanting his name, but certainly huge numbers were, and that, I think, rattled the government. That night is when they cut off the internet, to stop people from being able to communicate and continue these protests.

That's when the government said that infiltrators came in and started shooting and killing people and killing security officials and killing police. Up until then, it had been mostly peaceful, and the police had actually not interfered in any big way. But videos emerged, even despite the internet shutdown, videos of people attacking, burning buildings, attacking policemen. There's one horrific video of a security officer — half-naked — being beaten almost to death. And then there are also videos of security officials firing into the crowd. 

There were riots, I should say. And it became a really, really scary situation for almost every Iranian, certainly the ones on the streets. But the terror that was happening on the streets, whether it was 100 percent on the side of the Iranian government shooting people and killing people, or whether it was some rioters killing some of the security people, setting fire to mosques, buses, cars, things like that.

And the crackdown continued and became even more severe. I don't think in the history of Iran, even during the Islamic Revolution, have we seen this number of fatalities — deaths. This is where we are now. The amount of people having been killed and the number of people injured with all the videos that have emerged out of Iran through Starlink, or at various times when the internet does actually switch on for five minutes and then switches back off, is staggering. The death toll is staggering, really.

Because that death toll is staggering, what's happened is there are no more protests. And that's where we are right now. No more protest, heavy security on the streets. Massive security on the streets, on every corner. It isn't martial law. But it feels like martial law to people living there.

I've been able to communicate with family briefly, very briefly, but I've been able to communicate video-wise. It certainly feels like martial law. People don't want to go out at night. If they do venture out at night, they are told to stay off the streets by the security forces. But there isn't really any shooting or protesting at this time.

The government is putting out that everything's over and we're going back to normal. I wouldn't say it's back to normal, go that far, but certainly there aren't any protests at this time.

AL: A couple things you mentioned that I just want to pick up on. One, we're talking about the death toll, and we actually were discussing this in a meeting with colleagues last week, and it was right when CBS had published the story that the death toll had risen over 12,000.

And we were discussing this along with my other colleagues, and we were like, that seems wrong. Because the numbers that had been coming out in the days prior to that were in the hundreds, or like some estimates in the low thousands, and then all of a sudden, it shot up.

But this is the result of there being an internet blackout, not being able to get accurate information out of Iran. And now it's apparent that the death toll is well above 10,000. And so I just wonder if you could talk a little bit about the effect that this is having on how the world is interpreting these events as far as what we're actually able to confirm.

HM: The government will eventually put out numbers — which will either be believed or not believed. And certainly, it's been admitted, even by the supreme leader, "thousands" — that's the word he used. He didn't say how many thousand, but thousands.

AL: Yeah.

HM: Now, let's remember these protests were not just in Tehran, and we're getting most of our videos out of Tehran or Mashhad, these two big cities. But there were protests in the entire country, in almost every town, small towns. And yes, the number is horrific, but it's not just in Tehran. They didn't mow down 12,000 - 20,000 people just on the streets of Tehran, but they did mow down people. There's no question there. People have been killed.

The internet shutdown is, the argument has been to prevent terrorists, as they say. The government says terrorists or infiltrators, Mossad agents, CIA agents, whatever you want to say, whatever you want to call them — and by the way, also the MEK, the other opposition group that actually is armed and does have people inside Iran — from communicating and stirring up trouble and taking over government buildings. 

You actually had Reza Pahlavi telling people to go out and take over government buildings. And then he also said to Norah O'Donnell on CBS News that this is war.

Norah O'Donnell: Is it responsible to be sending citizens in Iran to their deaths? Do you bear some responsibility?

Reza Pahlavi: As I said, as I said, as I said, this is a war, and war has casualties.

In fact, in order to preserve and protect and minimize the death toll, minimize innocent victims yet again be killed by this regime, action is needed.

HM: It also seems like people inside Iran who have communicated say, "We weren't starting a war. That wasn't our intention, to start a war." They certainly weren't starting a war because they were unarmed. Why would they start a war unarmed? 

But the internet shutdown is not just to stop people from communicating, which that's one, obviously, one obvious element of it. The other element is because they're turning it on and off right now and only in certain neighborhoods. Go from one neighborhood and it'll be on for an hour, full 5G internet on your phone. And then it will be off. And then it'll go to another neighborhood or another part of town, and it'll be on and then off again.

Related Hacked Documents: How Iran Can Track and Control Protesters' Phones

And this is my own suspicion, is that they are trying to identify — they're trying to monitor internet usage and find out where the organizers of any rioting and/or terrorist and/or Mossad agents are. And the way they can do that by having it come on so they communicate, because not everybody's communicating by Starlink. There aren't that many terminals in Iran. And they've been successfully jamming the Starlink communication. So occasionally it works, occasionally it doesn't.

AL: I just want to mention for our listeners, people have been smuggling Starlink terminals into Iran in order to prop up the internet. That's what we're referring to. So we're talking a little bit about Pahlavi, too. I want to play another clip from Leila, who we heard at the top, who is one of the protesters who is supportive of Pahlavi. Let's hear her again.

Leila: We are here, and 90 percent purely looking for a better future with our king. We chant for our beloved king, Mr. Reza Pahlavi. And we chanted for our hero. He is going to do something, I know. I believe in him. And we listened to him. We listened to every order he gave.

AL: So this is one perspective from a protester who supports the son of the shah, Reza Pahlavi, and we've heard him a lot in recent media as you've mentioned.

Can you describe the complexities involved in the types of people who have been protesting, who they support? Obviously, this is not a monolith. They don't all support Pahlavi. Can you expand on that?

HM: Yeah, I can. Well, I think I can, it's complicated because the opposition to the Islamic regime has been there from the day the Islamic regime was created.

The initial opposition was the MEK, the Mojahedin-e Khalq, under Massoud Rajavi, who was hoping that he'd become prime minister. Khomeini and the Islamic regime set him aside. The people who had supported him, this was the MEK, the Mojahedin who had been a terror group on the American terror list because they had killed American citizens during the shah's reign.

They fled after committing some terror acts against the Islamic regime, hoping to overthrow it and then take over. This is in 1980. They fled mostly to Iraq and then joined Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran. Which is why nowadays most Iranians, the vast majority of Iranians, do not consider them a viable opposition group, partly because they supported the enemy against their people and more than half a million Iranian boys basically died in that war.

Related Defectors Tell of Torture and Forced Sterilization in Militant Iranian Cult

And secondly, because they're considered to be somewhat cultish, if not an actual cult, the way that they operate. So that's one opposition group, and they're still very active, and they still do have people inside Iran. They commit assassinations from time to time, so on and so forth. 

Reza Pahlavi, who is the shah's son, initially, when his father died in 1980, declared himself king in exile. And then subsequent to that, for many years, has been relatively quiet. The time that he really came out and started taking on this mantle of being a leader of an opposition was during the "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement; a little bit during the Green Movement, but not really because the Green Movement wasn't against the regime, it was very much a civil rights movement. It was very much in favor of Mousavi who was actually part of the regime, who had, they claimed had lost the election to Ahmadinejad.

Related The Dark Odds Facing Iran's Brave Protesters

So this is going back a little bit into history in 2009, but in 2022 during the "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement, when Mahsa Amini was killed by the morality police, it was claimed that she was killed by the morality police, and there's video to show her dying in the hospital. There was a real genuine uprising in Iran against the system that produced this kind of result: that a woman with a "bad" hijab, as it were, not quite covering all her hair, could end up dead, a young woman at that. That uprising caused people in the diaspora to believe that the regime was very weak and could be potentially overthrown. Reza Pahlavi took on the mantle of being the leader of that. And then it fizzled again his attempts to become an opposition leader, who had a viable chance — a real chance — to go back to Iran and lead a transition to a new regime, if not actual monarchy.

And then he was promoted by Israel and went to Israel in 2023, met with Netanyahu and began a campaign against, once again, against the Islamic Republic and himself as the leader of an opposition. And during this period, from 2022 to 2025, now 2026, his visibility has grown. His reputation has grown. Some people do see him as a potential liberator as it were. And during these protests, he really took on a very, very public role. Coming out, issuing videos, issuing proclamations: Go out, take out government buildings, the revolution is nigh; I'll be there; I'm joining you soon. But he's still in Washington and then obviously hasn't made that move yet.

The second week of January, I believe, he was in another interview asking President Trump and/or Israel to strike, in his words, strike Iran, to finish off this regime. That has made him, among some people who are against the regime, not as popular as he could be. Siding with the enemy, Israel, which killed 1,000 Iranians in their bombing campaign in June, that's one aspect that makes some people uncomfortable with him. There's another aspect of just not wanting to bring back another authoritarian regime after this one.

Certainly, if not he himself, his supporters in the diaspora, at least in the West and especially in England and America, have shown themselves to be very undemocratic — attacking the Iranian Embassy in London, for example, and then injuring a bunch of policemen, attacking them physically, the police and having some of them ending up in hospital, and getting arrested. Giving speeches where, "we don't want to talk about democracy, only the shah." Some people saying, "Let's make SAVAK great again" — SAVAK was the shah's secret police that tortured people in jail.

So some of that just turns other people off. And the idea is like, no to shah, no to an ayatollah, no to a theocracy. Let's just finally, after 120 years of demonstrating — which is what the Iranians have been doing since 1906 — after 120 years of looking for democracy, can we just do that? Can we just get a democracy? 

"It's always been for democracy, but the result has never been democracy."

That is probably the biggest sentiment in Iran wanting a democratic rule, wanting the repression to end, wanting better relations with the rest of the world so these sanctions can be lifted. I think that's the greater goal. I think some people will use Reza Pahlavi to try to force that to happen in a way, if not being an actual supporter. And yes, there are people like Leila, who you've just mentioned or just played her tape who definitely are very much in favor of him as a leader and as even an autocrat.

A famous Iranian economist, Saeed Laylaz, who's been very critical of the regime — he lives in Iran — has said Iran's waiting for a Bonaparte. They want a Napoleon to come in and rescue everyone and fix the system — sort of like Reza Shah, the previous shah's father, who came in and dragged Iran into the 20th century in the 1920s, and declared himself king overthrowing, the previous very, very, very weak Qajar kings who had sold off parts of the Iranian economy to various interests — British tobacco, British petroleum, so on and so forth. And he brought that together.

And then they demonstrated again in 1953, as we know, democracy under Prime Minister Mossadegh. And then again in the revolution in 1979. It's always been for democracy, but the result has never been democracy. So some people would recognize that. Some protesters would recognize that, oh, if Reza Pahlavi comes here, either by being helicoptered in by Israel or the United States, it's possible. Sure. We were able to impose a regime change in Iraq militarily. The U.S. can do that again in Iran, possibly with the help of Israel or even without the help of Israel. But then what do you have? Do you have another basically authoritarian, autocratic government? That's not what, I would argue, most people would want.

Related Children Are Dying Because Companies Are Too Scared to Sell Medicine to Iran

And then there's a whole other group of people in Iran I think, who would say, "Anything is better than this. So if it means having Reza Pahlavi — great, fine. That's better. That's going to be better because at least the bars will be open. We're going to have sanctions relief because he's half American, basically. So the sanctions will be off, and the economy will improve. And who cares if he loves Israel?" So there'll be those people, too. 

AL: I just want to mention, there was a clip going around on social media of the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying, openly, that the goal of these sanctions is to push the Iranian people so far that they rise up and overthrow the regime.

MH: Yeah.

Scott Bessent: I said that I believe the Iranian currency was on the verge of collapse, that if I were an Iranian citizen, I would take my money out. President Trump ordered Treasury and our OFAC division — Office of Foreign Asset Control — to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it's worked. Because in December, their economy collapsed.

AL: I also want to talk about the geopolitics here, and then I want to go back to Pahlavi, but particularly these allegations by the Iranian government that Israel has been involved in fueling the protests. Israel has admitted to being part of this. Can you walk us through what happened there? The impact both inside and outside of Iran, and, you've alluded a little bit to this, but if at all how that might discredit Pahlavi in the eyes of some of his would-be supporters.

HM: He was discredited by going to Israel first, praying at the Western Wall, but not visiting a mosque, not going into the West Bank. So going to Israel, and especially with this particular government in Israel, I think did leave a bad taste in Iranian's mouths.

And then to top it all off, when Israel attacked Iran and didn't just attack the nuclear sites — was blowing up buildings, children were being killed in apartment buildings where they weren't the target, admittedly, but if you were targeting a general in the IRGC in a multistory building, you're killing a lot of innocent people. Or a scientist, I should say, for example. There's video, which was verified, of bombs falling on a square in north Tehran, and cars being thrown into the sky. When he then refused to even condemn the attack on his own people, that also lost him some support. 

Related Israel Is Cynically Capitalizing on the Iranian Protests for Its Own Ends

And when he said, "This is [our] Berlin Wall movement" as his message to the Iranian people to rise up, it was a miscalculation because Iranians weren't going to rise up as they were being attacked by a foreign country. They just weren't. They were actually, I wouldn't say they rallied around the flag, but they definitely rallied — not in support of the regime necessarily, but in support of the nation, as it were, that was being attacked by a foreign country. It doesn't matter what the foreign country is, Iraq or Israel. So he did lose support there.

Israelis aren't particularly interested in human rights in Iran; they don't care about the freedom of the Iranian people. If they don't care about the freedom of the Palestinian people, how are they going to care about the freedom of the Iranian people? It's a very cynical view. The goal of Israel, especially the Netanyahu government, is and the Likud party is to make Iran as weak as possible so that it's no longer a threat to them and no longer a challenge, not just as a threat, but a challenge to their hegemonic behavior in the neighborhood.

Right now, Israel has complete freedom to bomb any country in the neighborhood, and nobody can react. I think Iran is the only one that can react and has proven that it was able to react in the 12-Day War and actually got missiles through to Tel Aviv and other cities and killed innocent Israelis.

"Israel has complete freedom to bomb any country in the neighborhood, and nobody can react. I think Iran is the only one that can react."

AL: If Pahlavi isn't a realistic alternative, who or what do you think is the most appropriate or likely, rather, solution?

HM: The honest truth? It's impossible to predict. What we should remember is that in these protests, which were large and very pointedly anti-regime in many cases, not in all cases, but in many cases, the security forces — the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guards, the actual army itself, which are made up mostly of conscripts — none of them fractured. There were no defections. There was no sense that any of the security officials were going to not follow the orders and do the crackdown and bring about order. Not one that we know of, at least not one serious one. 

There may have been occasional cops or Basij or even IRGC members, younger ones, who wouldn't fire on anyone but would just patrol. But they didn't come out and say, we're defecting to the side of the opposition.

And the other thing to remember is that Pahlavi, back in 2025, after the 12-Day War in June, set up a system where people could defect anonymously through a web portal. And he claimed at one point, within a month, that he had 50,000 armed people from the armed forces in Iran, various armed forces, ready to defect at the right time. If there was a right time, this was the right time. Not only did not 50,000 defect to his side, but not even one came out, or at least publicly, and defect to his side. So that's not happening in terms of the regime crumbling, cracking in that way with the security services so far. That's not happened.

So in terms of what is in the future, I think in the immediate future, the regime survives. And people are terrified. They're shocked, they're in trauma. People in Iran, I'd say even people outside Iran who have family in Iran, are shocked and traumatized. Not being able to reach our families is tough.

Related The Other Giant Crisis Hanging Over the Islamic Republic of Iran

I think that for the immediate future — short of an interference or intervention by Donald Trump or Israel — I think the regime survives in the short term. In the long term, we have to remember that the supreme leader is going to be 87 years old this year, I think, and he's had cancer, probably not in the best of health. So far, people have remained loyal to him. Whether that continues over the longer term is questionable. Whether Trump decides to pull a Venezuela and then decide that he can work with, or the U.S. can work with, one of the Revolutionary Guards generals, or the president of Iran, or the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council is very powerful, Ali Larijani — who knows?

Who knows what options, because it was just announced, I think, this last week that options are being presented to Trump by the military, by the, I assume, the intelligence agency, as to what options he has vis-à-vis Iran, in terms of what kind of blow he can do on Iran, or what kind of attack/strike was it were he could make on Iran, or what kind of blow it could be to the regime.

It does seem that he wants to do something to Iran because he said he was going to. It'll be far, far too late to help the protesters, which he initially claimed he was doing.

AL: Right. 

MH: And now the argument is that [Trump says,] well, I saved 837 people from being executed. So that's how I helped the protesters. Which may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant. He hasn't refuted that he believes it's time for new leadership in Iran. Now what that leadership is, he certainly hasn't met with the shah's son, Reza Pahlavi, and hasn't indicated that he believes he's a viable option. So we don't know. 

Again, prediction is impossible, but there are various scenarios. It's not what I would want to happen. I'm living in America. I don't have a right to say what I would — I would like Iranians to be happy. I would like Iranians to have the government that they want. I would like Iranians to have democratic rule. I would like Iranians inside Iran to have an economy that works for them and have jobs and be able to spend money and have disposable income and travel. All the things that we take for granted in the West, I would want my fellow Iranians inside Iran to have. How they bring that about, it's not my place to make the prescription.

AL: You mentioned the 837 people, you're referring to the protesters that Iran has backed off from hanging now, as a result, ostensibly, of Trump's comments. 

HM: Yes. 

AL: I want to turn back to this question of a targeted strike from the United States. We have another clip from Leila.

Leila: We are hopeful that Mr. Trump can help us because as long as we are not armed, we are only a bunch of meat in front of the bullets.

AL: What do you make of this kind of sentiment, asking Trump for help? And the idea of a targeted strike, what would that actually do? Does anyone think that striking a government from afar will remove that government? What are you hearing?

HM: I mean, certainly people like Leila, who you just played the tape of, certainly she's not armed and I think most of the young people are not armed. But there have been armed people in Iran in these protests. We have verified videos of armed people, especially in Kurdish areas, in Baluchestan and in certain parts of the country, there have been armed clashes. 

It is hard to get guns in Iran. It's not a gun-friendly country. I think people are desperate, and I think a lot of the protesters who either witnessed some killings or mass killings probably feel that there has to be some kind of strike to stop the government from behaving the way it does and or to potentially bring about regime change.

Now, striking the leadership, for example, if President Trump decides to do that — it's very unlikely to bring about regime change because what's behind that strike? We saw that in Venezuela. He wasn't going to helicopter [María Corina] Machado into Caracas because he had no idea if the military would support her. You just don't have any idea, and you don't want a war.

Again, going back to 2003, George Bush did want a war. He was happy to have a war. But we know what that was. And as we know, Trump has, on his own personal level, always been against those kinds of foreign interventions. He likes the one-and-dones, as it were, one and done, I'm in and out. Same thing with Iran in June, when he in a space of a couple of hours, he, as he says, obliterated the Iranian nuclear program without killing anybody on the ground, without any American servicemen losing their lives. What appears to be his notion of doing something of striking Iran or some kind of strike on Iran would be to take out some of the top leaders but leave the regime in place and hope that someone powerful takes over, whether it's, as I pointed out, Ali Larijani or Mohammad Bagher, who's the speaker of Parliament. These are former IRGC generals who are in politics now. That's a possibility. I don't know if that's something that he's considering.

But regime change in a big way means what? The only way that can be accomplished by force is to land American troops. And go to war with basically the people who are going to fight to the death.

We have to remember that Iran isn't a situation where 99 percent of the people are against the regime. Even if the regime only has 10 to 20 million supporters out of 90 million people — I'm not going to count the children, obviously — but it has shown to have had more than 10 million supporters.

In the last presidential election where the reform president won, Pezeshkian won, 13 million people voted for Saeed Jalili, who's probably the most hard line of the hard-liners, who has zero relations with the West, an absolute hard line. His Ph.D. thesis was the foreign policy of the prophet. This is how deeply, Islamically theological he is. And he got 13 million votes. The fact that he lost but with 13 million votes should indicate something. Let's say even the 13 million was exaggerated, 10 million people, and they're the ones with guns and they're not going anywhere. And they have no escape to go anywhere. 

"There aren't a lot of places they can go, if there is a regime change. So they're going to fight."

Right now, people like Reza Pahlavi, or at least his people, not himself directly, are claiming that they will seek revenge for these people who have blood on their hands. And they're going to basically do what the Islamic regime did to the shah's closest allies and execute them the first day they take over. These people, they don't have an escape route. Most of them, the vast majority of them, don't have big bank accounts overseas that they can access. Most of them don't have family overseas or places they can escape to. If you thought at one point that if there's a revolution and these, the ones who are the diehard religious, diehard theocratic supporters, theocracy supporters would go to Damascus, that's no longer possible. If you thought they would go to Beirut, that's not possible. If you thought they'd go to Caracas, that's not possible anymore. There aren't a lot of places they can go, if there is a regime change. So they're going to fight. If there's a war, they're going to fight. They're going to fight. 

One of the potential problems with regime change attempts, at least by outsiders, is that we end up in a civil war like Syria. Because if there's a decapitation at the top of the leadership, then there are Kurdish armed groups who are separatists. You've got Azeri separatists, you've got Baloch separatists down in the Southeast, you've got the Arab separatist in the Southwest — many of them armed, separatist groups, I mean — who could break up the country. You could have a civil war going on.

The MEK is not going to stand by and allow Reza Pahlavi to take over. Reza Pahlavi supporters aren't going to allow the MEK to take over. So you're going to see those clashes. So it could be very, very messy. And I have to believe that the U.S. intelligence community is laying all this out for President Trump as he makes a decision. In fact, I'm sure they are. It would be crazy, and I'm sure the Mossad has been laying it out for Benjamin Netanyahu as well.

AL: I do want to ask one more question about the weakening of Iran's regional allies in recent months: Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. How has that affected the regime's power and stability?

HM: No question it's affected its power. It's power projection, for sure. In terms of stability, yes, it's one of the complaints of people who protest against the regime — that we spent all this money, all this effort to become this power in the region, and it's all gone in the space of two years. We spent all this money which we could have spent inside Iran on people. Billions and billions of dollars on Hezbollah decimated, if not, it's not gone completely, but still, the leadership is decimated. The power of Hezbollah has been weakened to the point where they're not a threat to anybody really anymore, or certainly not to Israel in any significant way. Hamas decimated, certainly not a threat anymore to Israel.

Caracas is problematic only because that was their springboard to this continent, the South American continent. And so that's no longer good. Syria, of course, not a threat to anyone. And the hundreds of billions of dollars spent keeping [Bashar al] Assad in power. So when you look at that and you look at Iranians saying, what about us? These are all countries that supposedly were going to end up being our protector in a way, so that if we were attacked, they would be on the forefront of attacking our attacker. And that didn't happen. What was all that money spent for? 

The one thing it does have are ballistic missiles and the capability to produce ballistic missiles accurately — accurate ballistic missiles, I should say. And it does have drone technology that even the U.S. is reverse-engineered and is starting to use suicide drones that Iranians invented and can produce in huge numbers, which they also then sold the technology to the Russians, who now make them domestically in Russia.

Related Iran and U.S. Wage a Shadow War Behind Gaza Conflict

But weakened? Yeah, it's been significantly. There was always this sense that Iran had surrounded itself with these, if you want to call them proxies, they weren't exactly proxies because they weren't doing everything that Iran wanted. At one point Hamas, they were actually against Hamas because Hamas was for the rebels in Syria, and Iran was killing the rebels in Syria. So they had Hamas, they had the Iraqi Shia groups in Iraq right across the border. They had, as you pointed out, they had Islamic Jihad, they had Hezbollah, they had Damascus. So all that power is now basically gone, and it's now down to just Iran really.

And the Houthis are still, yes, allies, if not proxies, and can cause some damage if Donald Trump decides to take out the supreme leader and kill him — the Houthis would react very negatively to that. The Shias in Yemen would react very negatively to that. And in fact, it's quite possible that Shias in other parts of the Middle East, such as in Iraq and in Bahrain and places like that, even in Saudi Arabia, there might be some unrest for taking out an ayatollah at the end of the day, whether you like him or dislike him. For a lot of Shia faithful, he's an ayatollah. It's like, do you take out a cardinal that you don't like in the Catholic church? I'm sure that the Pope would have an issue with that.

AL: Thank you so much, Hooman, for this conversation and for your insights. We're going to leave it there.

HM: My pleasure, Akela. Thank you.

[Break] 

AL: In other news, President Donald Trump is making good on his threats to — for some reason — try to take over Greenland. And his efforts reached new levels of absurdity when the self-proclaimed "president of peace" texted Norway's prime minister "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace." Setting aside the highly questionable "8 wars" claim — Trump went on to say, "The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland." 

So why is Trump so obsessed with Greenland? Joining us to explain what's behind Trump's attempted land grab is investigative journalist Lois Parshley. 

Welcome to the show, Lois.

Lois Parshley: Thank you for having me.

AL: So Trump has repeatedly claimed an interest in taking over Greenland, though on Wednesday he walked back his comments about doing so by force. He's been claiming that this is in the national security interest of the U.S., notwithstanding the blatant violations of sovereignty here fresh off the U.S. invasion of Venezuela. What is Trump actually interested in?

LP: That is a great question and one that I started to ask last year. As Trump took office, I thought it was really important to understand who is benefiting from his policy decisions.

So I started asking questions about the wealthy donors in his orbit and their personal financial interests. We still likely don't have the full picture, but last January I found that shortly before Trump first expressed an interest in Greenland during his first administration, so back in 2019, his ambassador to Denmark and Greenland visited a major rare earth mining project on the island.

Now, more recently, The Guardian reported that it was Ronald Lauder, heir to the global cosmetics brand [Estée Lauder], who was also a longtime friend of Trump's, who first suggested buying Greenland. He has acquired commercial holdings there and is also part of a consortium who want to access Ukrainian minerals. I should also say here, it's probably important to note that blowing up NATO relationships, and severing ties with longtime allies and fellow nuclear powers does not increase U.S. national security.

AL: As you mentioned, Trump started talking about this after Ronald Lauder first brought up the idea, and last year you wrote about the tech moguls who've also taken an interest in Greenland. Can you tell us more about the specific interests that they have in the island and the resources that are at stake?

"They are aiming to mine in western Greenland for minerals crucial to the artificial intelligence boom and used in data centers."

LP: Many of the tech moguls who are sitting in the front row of Trump's inauguration, people like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, are investors in a startup called KoBold Metals. They are aiming to mine in western Greenland for minerals crucial to the artificial intelligence boom and used in data centers. Opposition to some of this mining actually ushered a new party into power in Greenland in 2021. They slowed some of the rare earth minerals development that was currently in explorations phases and banned all future oil development. But just two weeks before Trump came into office - so in 2025 — KoBold medals raised $537 million in a funding round, bringing its valuation to almost $3 billion. So we're talking about a lot of money here.

AL: What does it say that these elite financial interests are so explicitly driving the U.S. to pursue this really anachronistic imperialism?

LP: That is a great question. How anachronistic that actually is, is another one? But I would say that overall —

AL: Fair enough.

Related AI's Imperial Agenda

LP: One of the things that just seems abundantly true here is that I'm not the first person to report on these kinds of major tech interests in things like crypto states or special economic zones. People have been pointing this stuff out for a long time, but it's not until President Trump started saying the quiet part out loud that people have really been registering some of these absurd concepts that seem to now be creeping toward reality.

AL: I want to talk a little bit about Marc Andreessen, who has also taken a particular interest in the island. What can you tell us about his investments targeting Greenland?

LP: So among the contributors to KoBold's funding is a leading venture capital firm, founded by Marc Andreessen, who has also helped shape the administration's technology policies. A general partner at his venture capital firm was also listed as a KoBold director at one point on a company SEC filing.

Andreessen has been funding startups hoping to build experimental enclaves around the world. These are sometimes called network states. And sometimes they're called crypto states, sometimes they're called special economic zones.

Related Honduras Ratchets Up Battle With Crypto-Libertarian Investors, Rejects World Bank Court

Often they involve the promise of freedom from the constraints of government. And proposals for these libertarian freeholds have sprung up in Honduras, Nigeria, the Marshall Islands, Panama — which by the way, Trump also proposed taking over by military force. 

AL: Lest we forget. 

LP: And while it looks a little different in each location, the sales pitch usually includes replacing taxes and regulations with things like cryptocurrency and blockchain to enable things like biomedical experiments on human subjects.

Related Trump Frees Ex-President of Honduras, Right-Wing "Narco-Dictator" Convicted of Drug Trafficking

Trump also recently issued a full and unconditional pardon for former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been serving a 45 year prison sentence in the U.S. for drug trafficking and weapons conspiracy charges. During his time in office, Hernández and his administration consistently backed the legal framework that enabled Honduras's special economic zone called Próspera, which was also funded by Andreessen, including submitting legislation to grant them tax exemptions and regulatory privileges. So this is not just an issue around Greenland.

AL: Greenland was ruled by Denmark from 1721 to 1979, but Denmark continued to control its foreign policy and defense after that. In 2008, Greenlanders voted for greater independence. You write, "The president's renewed intention to take over Greenland has reignited debates over its sovereignty, as the country grapples with the trade-offs between economic opportunity and independence from Denmark. As the country's glaciers recede, it's also facing sweeping climate-driven transformations, threatening traditional industries like fishing and hunting and exposing valuable mineral resources."

Can you tell us a little bit more about this tension? I'm really curious also about the movements that you alluded to earlier within Greenland to slow this development.

LP: The fight over Greenland's resources has extended for centuries. As you noted, Greenlanders voted for greater independence in 2008, taking control of their natural resources along with other state functions.

There are abundant oil reserves around Greenland, but producing oil in those conditions has been historically very difficult and expensive. There are high transportation costs and infrastructure limitations, and how much to develop its abundant natural resources has been a debate within Greenland. Some of their politicians have supported development, particularly as a means to fund greater autonomy from Denmark.

Siumut, a pro-independence political party who was in power in the early aughts, declared that mineral extraction could help the country transition away from Denmark because it would need to find new sources of income. However, many residents still rely on traditional ways of life, including fishing, hunting for food security, living closely on the land. And development would impact all of those things, which are also under pressure from rapidly changing climate conditions, including warming temperatures and extreme weather.

AL: In response to Trump's threats, Greenland has also seen some of its biggest protests in history. Can you tell us more about how the people of Greenland, the Greenlandic Inuit, have been responding to this tension and now the Trump administration's aggressive efforts?

LP: I certainly don't want to speak for any Greenland residents. I'm not a resident, but from the people I spoke to a year ago, the general vibe seemed to be more bemusement. Obviously, as tensions have escalated since then, it seems like far less of a joke today. 

All of this unwelcome attention has succeeded in delivering one change. Some of the residents I spoke to said the country is now more unified and wanting to find a path to independence from Denmark, although it is challenging to figure out a way to do so. He told me, "You can't put a name on land. Land belongs to the people." It's not something they feel like can be sold.

Frankly, I think a lot of the news conversation around "Can Donald Trump buy Greenland?" overlooks the fact that no one in Greenland is interested in selling. More bluntly, as a Danish politician said, at one European Parliament meeting last week, "Let me put this in words you might understand: Mr. President, fuck off."

But as you noted, at Davos President Trump reiterated that he wants to acquire Greenland, but said, "I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force." Certainly our allies hope that that is true.

AL: We're going to leave it there. Thank you so much, Lois, for joining us on The Intercept Briefing.

LP: Thank you for having me.

Related While Threatening Greenland, Trump Also Threatens Iceland

AL: On Wednesday at Davos as Trump rambled on about why he believes the U.S. is entitled to take Greenland, he repeatedly confused the isla

Screams echoed through the halls of Bedford Hills Correctional Facility as women begged for their solitude to end. The sound of desperate hands banging on cell doors rang out like a solemn chorus. Exhausted, an incarcerated woman named Cici Herrera reached for a book. "That's the only way I can keep myself from thinking too much," she said. "I'm going crazy." 

At Bedford Hills, a maximum-security women's prison in Westchester County, New York, a new superintendent and a recent policy change have sharply restricted the limited freedom incarcerated people in the general population once enjoyed. They could no longer count on regular showers — times were limited to tightly controlled shifts — and indoor recreation was eliminated even on the coldest days of the New York winter. The women found themselves locked inside of their single cells for the majority of the day, in conditions detention experts and survivors of solitary confinement compared to solitary confinement. 

"Nothing is consistent," said Herrera, one of three people incarcerated at Bedford who told The Intercept about the conditions. "We have to scream for everything." 

The conditions likely violate state law, according to multiple detention experts, all of whom have spoken with people incarcerated at Bedford. The new restrictions put the women in the middle of a political battle between activists who fought to place restrictions on the use of solitary and prison guards who have protested their implementation.

New York's Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act, or the HALT Act for short, limits the amount of time an incarcerated person can be forced to stay in their cell and when a prison guard can put a person in solitary, taking into account the punishment's severe harm to physical and mental health. Researchers have found that solitary confinement increases the risks of premature death both during and after incarceration, from deaths of despair like opioid overdoses and suicide. 

"We have to scream for everything."

"People should be receiving at least a minimum… seven hours out of cell time under the HALT Act," said Sumeet Sharma, director of policy and communications at the Correctional Association of New York. Most people at Bedford previously had some freedom of movement to access communal spaces, shower, and cook. But when his team conducted a two-day monitoring visit at Bedford in November, they found that "that's just not happening anymore," Sharma said. "Essentially, people are locked in." 

The New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision has denied these accusations. 

"The allegations regarding recent operational changes at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility are inaccurate and misleading," wrote Nicole March, a spokesperson for the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, in a statement to The Intercept. March said the changes were implemented to deal with "frequent fights and safety concerns" at Bedford Hills.  

March added that many facilities still lack adequate staffing due to an unauthorized prison guard strike in spring of 2025, but that "HALT programming is now fully operational in the overwhelming majority of facilities and, with respect to Bedford Hill, it has been for several months."   

That compliance appears to exist "on paper," said Sharma, whose team confirmed that people in the general population units had lost access to communal indoor recreation space and now had to sign up to leave their cells after speaking with prison guards, officials, and incarcerated people. A written copy of the policy reviewed by The Intercept also noted the restrictions on recreation.

"In practice," Sharma said, even when people sign up to leave their cells, "they're not getting the statutory amount out of cell time. That appears to be a violation of the HALT Act."

Corrections officers in New York have long been resistant to implementing HALT. Thousands of guards went on a wildcat strike last year after a group of corrections officers was charged with murder for brutally beating and killing an incarcerated man named Robert Brooks. In addition to protesting accountability for Brooks's killers, the guards demanded that HALT be repealed. They argue the law places an undue burden on them by making it harder to put people in solitary confinement, either as a punishment or a safety tool.

Although the guards didn't get their wish, advocates who helped get the law passed said New York corrections officers and prison officials are still refusing to implement the limits on solitary confinement and mandatory out-of-cell time throughout the system. 

"The legislation is not being adhered to" by administrators at Bedford, said Donna Hylton, an activist who was incarcerated at Bedford Hills for 27 years and campaigned to get the law passed.

Herrera said she's especially worried for the women who are too old or sick to use the outdoor recreation space in winter. 

"You put somebody, 24 hours, in one cell with four walls, it's a lot to take," she said. "Mentally, some people can't handle this kind of situation."

All three people incarcerated at Bedford who spoke to The Intercept characterized their treatment at the hands of the guards as vindictive, reflecting a conviction that incarcerated people deserve additional punishment beyond their imprisonment.

Herrera and two other people incarcerated at Bedford got in touch with The Intercept via the Fight 2 Live Relief Fund, a New York abolitionist organization that has been advocating for better conditions at Bedford. 

An incarcerated woman named Kit, who requested anonymity because she feared retaliation from prison officials and guards, said she'd heard guards call incarcerated women "entitled, needy, [having] 'princess syndrome.' It's that mentality that, oh, this isn't hard enough for these women." 

"That is where these policies are coming from — not from a desire to make the facility safer or to operate better," Kit said, "but this sick and twisted sense of entertainment and satisfaction out of the pain and the stress of incarcerated individuals who are affected by these policies." 

Related Sexual Assault Allegation Exposes Self-Policing Prison System

Thomas Gant, a formerly incarcerated activist and organizer with the Center for Community Alternatives who is in communication with people inside of Bedford, characterized the situation at the prison as the combined result of policy changes and retaliation from guards taking their anger out on incarcerated people. Many guards remain dissatisfied with the end result of the strike, after which Gov. Kathy Hochul fired thousands of officers in an already-understaffed system and increased surveillance.

"The relation is, we're just going to make you guys' lives as miserable as possible," he said. "[Their] way of getting at you back is to say, 'Hey, there's staff shortages, so you guys can't go to the yard, or, you know, you can't have this visit, or I got a longer time to get you down to the visit.' These are just all retaliatory tactics, all because correction officers now have a semblance of being held accountable." 

The New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Association, which represents the guards, declined to comment.

Chloe Aquart, director of the Restoring Promise Initiative at the Vera Institute of Justice, said the culture of "secondary punishment" among prison guards is widespread at U.S. prisons. 

"That's kind of how we operate in the United States," she said. "So prison isn't enough. The treatment in prison has to be an additional punishment, beyond taking you away from your family, taking you away from your community, stripping your rights." 

The "most concerning" change at Bedford, said Sharma, "was that you had women in general population units who weren't able to take a shower."

Instead, he said that women were given the option to use a bucket to bathe if they were unable to get a shower slot for the day. "So someone would have the same bucket … that they're using to store some things in, or if someone is menstruating, that bucket is used to dispose of bodily fluids and bodily material. So that same bucket is essentially being refilled before that and then given to people for getting them to wash themselves," he said. 

The limited showers have also affected people whose religious practices require bathing before worship. "As a Muslim," wrote Nur, an incarcerated transgender man who wanted to remain anonymous to prevent retaliation from prison officials, in a letter to The Intercept. "It is required to perform ablution (cleansing) before prayer." 

Even if you can get a shower slot, that doesn't mean staff will actually let you out at the intended time, Nur wrote. "They are not letting people out of their cells at their allotted time," wrote Nur. "Incarcerated individuals are losing patience, resulting in screaming and banging on the cell door to obtain the attention of the security staff. Sadly, we are ignored."

DOCCS denied the allegations of inadequate shower time and lack of religious accommodations, but confirmed that showers are limited to specific time slots.

"Shower access has not been eliminated or limited. Available daily time slots begin at 8:45am and end at 9:30pm," wrote March in an email. "Additionally, hot water is delivered to every incarcerated individual at around 6:00am. Individuals often use this hot water to wash their faces or take quick sponge baths." 

Herrera had spent the last four years of her life behind Bedford's iron gates, but she said things have gotten steadily worse since October, when a new deputy superintendent arrived named Michael Blot.

Sharma and two other advocates in New York also pointed to Blot's role in the changes.

The new policy on out-of-cell time "seems to be a decision that was made by a new Deputy Superintendent who came to the prison in the fall last year after a stint at Sing Sing," said Sharma, referring to a maximum-security men's prison further upstate. 

F2L began a letter-writing campaign to DOCCS in November asking for Blot to be fired and for regular shower access and indoor recreation time to be restored. Anisah Sabur, a lead organizer in the HALT Solitary Campaign, agreed that Blot "came in and made a bunch of changes." 

"This individual is saying that Bedford is a maximum-security facility, and these are the maximum-security regulations that they are following," Sabur said, "but most of them are just blatant violations of the HALT law."

DOCCS denied that Blot was solely responsible for the sweeping changes at Bedford. 

"Facility operations are based on established Department policies, not individual management preferences," wrote March, the DOCCS spokesperson, in December.

The chaos and tensions created by these changes from both guards and incarcerated people at Bedford Hills have also heightened incidents of violence, said Nur. Herrera also mentioned increased violence against incarcerated people at Bedford.

In mid-November, Nur said a woman tried to leave her cell with a robe on "to retrieve a water bucket," because she wasn't able to shower during her allotted time. According to Nur, a guard asked the incarcerated woman what she was doing. The woman explained that she was bathing and put her hands up and backed away. 

Next, Nur said that the officer "charged towards" the woman, punching her in the face and slamming her naked body onto the ground. "The response team [answered] with [further] abuse," wrote Nur, in a letter to The Intercept. "They dragged her off the unit, exposing her naked body in front of her peers and male security. It was traumatizing to witness." 

"I'm afraid that I could be next," he said.

DOCCS declined to comment on the allegation, saying they were unable to without a name or "case-specific details." 

Nur said he knows how to endure isolation, but the grief and fear throughout Bedford have been devastating to witness.

"To witness the madness that surrounds me is terrifying."

"To witness the madness that surrounds me is terrifying," he wrote. "I can handle confinement; it's just mentally draining to hear many of my peers cry in agony about not wanting to be alone for so many hours confined. It brings an emotion that I can not explain: I can only compare it to empathy. I know what it feels like to be abandoned and forgotten." 

"This new policy … is creating cabin fever and chaos," said Kit. "They're being held in their cells for hours and days with nothing to do to be proactive, unable to shower, unable to clean their cells, unable to cook and make their food. And the officers, and particularly the security in the garden, seem to be getting a very sick pleasure out of it."

The mental impact of isolation is something Kit understands all too well. 

Related Trump Administration Abolishes Rules Protecting Trans Prisoners

For nearly a decade, Kit, who is transgender, was held in solitary confinement in multiple men's prisons before being sent to Bedford. The federal Prison Rape Elimination Act technically prohibits placing trans inmates in solitary confinement for their protection without their consent, but in practice, the overwhelming majority of trans people incarcerated in the United States have spent time in solitary confinement.

"I almost lost my life on numerous occasions," said Kit. "These are women who have never experienced solitary confinement, who are used to regular programming … are being thrown into days and days with nothing to do, literally overnight."

Correction: January 23, 2026, 10:59 a.m. ET

This story has been updated to correct Chloe Aquart's professional title after previously noting an outdated role.

The post New York Women's Prison Forces People to Go Without Showers or Recreation appeared first on The Intercept.

The House of Representatives narrowly defeated a resolution aimed at blocking further attacks on Venezuela after House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., held the poll open for a lengthy period to secure a final vote against it.

The House voted 215-215 on the measure. Under House rules, a tied vote is a defeat.

Johnson's decision to keep the vote open for more than 20 minutes drew jeers from Democrats and an angry response from Rep. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., one of the measure's supporters.

"Close the vote! Come on! Seriously!" Ryan said. "Come on! This is serious! This is serious shit! Close the vote!"

Ryan's request was ignored and the vote was held open until Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, who had been campaigning for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, arrived in the chamber to cast the decisive vote against the measure.

The slow-moving vote in the House had threatened to spoil a signature achievement for Johnson, who minutes earlier had secured passage of an appropriations package that would prevent another government shutdown.

Democrats were unanimous in support, and a pair of Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Don Bacon, R-Neb., crossed the aisle to vote with them.

For a time, it appeared that supporters of the resolution might secure its passage, thanks to the absence of Hunt and other Republicans.

Related Trump Bullies Flip-Flopping Senators Into Defeating Vote to Block Venezuela War

That would have marked a significant defeat for Johnson in light of President Donald Trump's furious response to Republican defections during a vote two weeks ago in the Senate.

Five Republicans had cast ayes in a procedural vote to advance a war powers resolution similar to the one considered by the House on Thursday. Trump's bullying response convinced two GOP senators to flip their votes a week later and doom the measure there.

The post Congress Votes Against Blocking Venezuela War After Stalling for Tardy GOP Rep appeared first on The Intercept.

AI adoption is creating a clear divide among employees. Some see AI as a tool to increase their impact, while others see it as a threat to their role. So, where does the truth lie between these two mindsets? Let's explore. AI doesn't eliminate roles, it removes low-leverage work Over the past two years, we've seen a wave of layoffs often attributed to "AI replacing humans." Among widely discussed cases, IBM openly stated that over 7,000 back-office roles may no longer need to be hired because AI can absorb the work. Many other tech players, including Microsoft, Amazon, and HP,…

This story continues at The Next Web

The Next Web (TNW) is making a bold move: its flagship conference is relocating to London, placing TNW's main annual event at the centre of one of the world's most powerful technology and investment ecosystems. The move marks a significant moment for TNW and signals a broader evolution of the brand's global events strategy. A new concept: TNW Gathering Alongside the move to London, TNW is introducing a new global event concept: TNW Gathering. Designed as an intimate, invite-only format, TNW Gathering is created for members of the TNW Council and a carefully selected group of founders, operators, and investors.…

This story continues at The Next Web

The way people discover information online is quietly but fundamentally changing. Instead of scrolling through links and choosing which article to open, users are increasingly asking large language models to answer directly. Tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity don't send people browsing; they synthesise information from multiple sources and deliver a ready-made response inside the interface. For brands and publishers, this creates a new problem: what does visibility mean when nobody clicks anymore? The decline of the click-based era For years, search optimization revolved around a familiar feedback loop: publish content, earn rankings, drive clicks, measure performance. Traffic, impressions, and engagement…

This story continues at The Next Web

In a bold turn of phrase and deed, Paris has quietly told Silicon Valley "au revoir."  On January 26, 2026, France's Ministry of Finance announced that by 2027, all public servants will switch from U.S. video apps like Microsoft Teams and Zoom to a homegrown platform called Visio.  No more license renewals for Teams, Zoom, Webex, or Meet, just one unified, French-built solution.  In one stroke, a long-discussed slogan "digital sovereignty" has leapt off the podium and into practice. This is not a press release; it's a watershed moment: Europe's second-biggest economy is wagering that, when it comes to critical…

This story continues at The Next Web

Shortly after launch, TNW Council is already seeing clear, early signals from its concierge model, signals that underline a fundamental truth often overlooked in the startup ecosystem: founders operating at €1 to 10 million and leaders scaling companies between €10 to 100 million are solving entirely different problems. From the first concierge-led conversations, a consistent pattern emerged. Founders in the €1 to 10M range are primarily seeking: practical growth strategies clarity on positioning, channels, and prioritization hands-on experience that helps them avoid early-stage execution mistakes In contrast, leaders operating at €10 to 100M are no longer asking for growth playbooks.…

This story continues at The Next Web