Fresh from the conflict with Venezuela last month, the USS Gerald R. Ford — America's newest and largest aircraft carrier — is speeding through the Mediterranean and toward a potential war with Iran. Another aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln is already deployed to the Middle East. The military pressure campaign, which could allow the U.S. to begin sustained attacks in a matter of days, is part of the Trump administration's multipronged effort to pressure Iran to cease a nuclear program whose key sites, according to President Donald Trump, were "completely and fully obliterated" in U.S. attacks last year.

America's latest gunboat diplomacy gambit comes as Trump's two main envoys, his friend Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, have engaged in indirect talks with Iranian diplomats in Geneva. The talks are taking place even though Trump previously said no agreement with Iran was necessary. "I don't care if I have an agreement or not," he announced last June. "I could get a statement that they're not going to go nuclear." Trump added: "They're not going to be doing it anyway."

Trump reversed himself late last month imploring Iran to "quickly 'Come to the Table'" or face more strikes. On Thursday, at a gathering of his self-styled Board of Peace in Washington, Trump reiterated his call for a deal. "Now is the time for Iran to join us on a path that will complete what we're doing," he said. "If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. But bad things will happen if it doesn't."

"A massive Armada is heading to Iran," Trump announced on Truth Social.

The United States has, in fact, spent weeks moving military assets into place for a potential resumption of the war on Iran. The Ford alone can carry more than 75 aircraft, including F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters and F/A-18 Super Hornets, as well as EA-18 Growler radar-jamming jets. The Lincoln is accompanied by three warships that are equipped with Tomahawk missiles, which were used to strike two of Iran's nuclear facilities last June. In addition to destroyers, cruisers, and submarines at sea, the U.S. has moved additional air assets needed for sustained conflict across the Atlantic including a U-2 Dragon Lady spy plane, dozens of refueling tankers, scores of additional fighter jets, and critical E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System jets, which can provide advanced radar, communications, and sensors to track and thwart planes, drones, and cruise missiles.

The massive accumulation of military forces in preparation for a potential war with Iran dwarfs even the monthslong build-up that proceeded the U.S. coup in Venezuela that saw its leader Nicolás Maduro deposed and power transferred to a U.S.-backed puppet regime.

Related Would-Be Iran Monarch Reza Pahlavi Declares a Civil War in Iran

Three U.S. officials with long experience in the Middle East told The Intercept that they do not believe Trump has made a final decision to launch a new attack on Iran but the chances of it are high. All said that the U.S. attacks could possibly destabilize the Iranian regime, spur a grave humanitarian crisis, and have major impacts across the region. None thought the Trump administration had anything but vague plans to deal with such blowback.

All three officials believed that sufficient U.S. military assets were in place for a sustained military campaign. One said that Tehran may see the second major U.S. attack in a year as an existential crisis and respond by launching a more formidable counterattack than its ineffectual strikes on America's Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar in 2025.

Over the past month, the U.S. military has moved critical air defense equipment — including Patriot missile batteries and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems, also known as THAAD — to the region to protect U.S. troops and allies from Iranian ballistic missiles.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said he believes reports that Trump administration officials think there's a 90 percent chance the president will order strikes on Iran. He said that such a war would be "catastrophic" and lead to counterattacks that put U.S. troops in the region at risk.

Iran has repeatedly warned of retaliatory strikes on U.S. troops and allies in response to any American attack. Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz earlier this week to conduct military exercises. 

Khanna announced on Thursday that he and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., would attempt to force a vote on a war powers resolution regarding Iran next week. "I am confident we can win this vote and assemble a bipartisan coalition," Khanna told The Intercept. Khanna believes they can force the vote before Trump attacks Iran, but one of the government officials expressed concern that strikes could come as early as Sunday or Monday. Another speculated that Trump might be convinced not to conduct an attack during Ramadan — the Muslim holy month that began Wednesday — or at least wait for a "decent interval" in deference to other U.S. allies in the Middle East.

Trump is also delivering his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday with a reported focus on messaging around domestic issues ahead of fall midterm elections, which may impact his decision. The conclusion of the Winter Olympics on Sunday might also play a role in the timing of the attacks as the notion of an Olympic truce, or "Ekecheiria," dates back millennia.

The White House did not reply to a request for comment.

For a president who ran for office promising to keep the United States out of wars, came into office claiming to be a "peacemaker, and has consistently campaigned for a Nobel Peace Prize, Trump has proven to be a warmonger. During his second term Trump has already launched attacks on Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The Trump administration also claims to be at war with at least 24 cartels and criminal gangs it will not name and has also threatened Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Iceland, and Mexico.

The post Trump Menaces Iran With Massive Armada Capable of Prolonged War appeared first on The Intercept.

The Trump administration is increasing the U.S. military's presence in Nigeria, where decades of American military assistance has coincided with increased violence and instability.

About 100 U.S. military personnel have already arrived in the West African country. The deployment, which is expected to more than double in the near future, follows a Christmas Day U.S. air strike and billions of U.S. tax dollars spent on fruitless military and intelligence support.

"At the request of Nigeria and as part of our longstanding relationship and defense partnership, U.S. military forces are arriving in Nigeria to provide training, advising, and technical capabilities in support of Nigerian-led counterterror operations," a U.S. Africa Command spokesperson told The Intercept.

What AFRICOM doesn't want to address is the billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars already spent on military training, arms and equipment in a rapidly deteriorating security situation. It's part of a larger pattern of spiking terrorist violence in areas of Africa that have seen the longest and most concerted U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Between 2000 and 2022, the U.S. provided, facilitated, or approved more than $2 billion in security assistance to Nigeria, according to a report by Brown University's Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Studies. In that same period, Nigerian airstrikes killed thousands of citizens. A 2017 attack on a displaced persons camp in Rann, Nigeria, killed more than 160 civilians, including children. A subsequent Intercept investigation revealed that the attack was referred to as an instance of "U.S.-Nigerian operations" in a formerly secret U.S. military document.

Related War on Christmas: Trump Announces Wave of Airstrikes Targeting ISIS Militants in Nigeria

Nigeria has been beset by violence from militants, terrorists, so-called criminal bandits, and its own security forces for decades. Africa's most populous country recorded no fewer than 169,000 violent deaths between 2006 and 2021, with the highest percentages attributed to crime and insurgency, according to a 2025 Lancet study. Recently, these two nominally separate threats have merged. "The emergence of violent extremist groups in northwest Nigeria implies the long-feared convergence of militant Islamist groups with organized criminal networks — infusing financial incentives with ideological zeal and terrorist violence," according to a December report by the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, a Pentagon research institution. "Nigeria has simultaneously been staving off this convergence in the northeast, where Boko Haram and the Islamic State of West Africa have been active for the past 15 years."

This convergence of crime and terrorism has supercharged lethal violence in significant pockets of the country. "Nigeria experienced an 18-percent increase in fatalities tied to militant Islamist groups over the past year," according to another Africa Center analysis. "Borno State in Nigeria's North East Zone remains the epicenter of this violence and Nigeria accounts for 74 percent of all fatalities in the region."

Asked to explain why insecurity and instability have increased in Nigeria during its "longstanding relationship and defense partnership" with the United States, AFRICOM's director of public affairs, Col. Rebecca Heyse, referred The Intercept to the Department of War and the State Department. Neither provided answers prior to publication.

Nigeria's population of 230 million is roughly split between Christians and Muslims. People of both faiths have been targeted by extremists, but most of Boko Haram's victims are Muslims, and violent deaths in northern Nigeria are generally caused by Muslim-on-Muslim violence. But in a Truth Social post last November, President Donald Trump threatened to go into Nigeria with "guns-a-blazing" to protect "our CHERISHED Christians." The U.S. then conducted missile strikes in Nigeria on Christmas Day, targeting what Trump called "Terrorist Scum" that were killing Christians. He later explained that he delayed the strike until the holiday to "give a Christmas present."

AFRICOM claimed to have struck targets in "Soboto state," an apparent reference to Sokoto state, on December 25. Another 2025 Africa Center report noted that "militant Islamist cells" have moved into Sokoto state in recent years. AFRICOM did not respond to questions about how it could be sure who it attacked when it was unclear about where it attacked.

While Trump called the Christmas attacks "perfect strikes," at least four of the 16 Tomahawk missiles failed to explode, according to a Washington Post analysis. There is no evidence militants were killed in the attacks, according to a Nigerian security analyst with ties to that country's military who spoke on the condition of anonymity with The Intercept to offer an unvarnished opinion.

Trump's Christmas Day attack is another in a long string of failed and futile U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Africa documented by The Intercept over the last decade, including blowback from U.S. operations and failed secret wars, civilians killed in drone strikes, coups by U.S. trained officers, increases in the reach of terror groups, surging fatalities from militant violence, human rights abuses by allies, massacres of civilians by partner forces, and a catalogue of other fiascos.

Last year, there were 22,307 fatalities from militant Islamist violence in Africa. This represents an almost 97,000 percent increase since the early 2000s, with the areas of greatest U.S. involvement — Somalia and the West African Sahel — suffering the worst outcomes.

The post More U.S. Troops Are Headed to Nigeria appeared first on The Intercept.

For a month, Michael Rectenwald had been trying to get Nick Fuentes to notice him. Rectenwald had a new political action committee devoted to anti-Zionism, and he hoped the far-right influencer would promote it to his legions of perpetually online, often antisemitic fans. But Rectenwald, a former New York University professor and one-time presidential hopeful, had struggled to stand out to the ascendant Fuentes, who has come to symbolize the formerly fringe extremes of the online right. So in October, Rectenwald posted something sure to catch Fuentes's eye: "Nick has sold out to the cabal."

It worked. "Fuck you," Fuentes wrote back. 

This was Rectenwald's shot. He apologized, calling Fuentes "a brilliant guy." He reposted an uncannily gorgeous, computer-generated woman in a cross necklace and blazer encouraging the two men to "drop the beef." She sat in front of an American flag and six light-up letters spelling "AZAPAC," the acronym for Rectenwald's new group. If Fuentes would just endorse it, Rectenwald promised, he'd "take it all back."

Rectenwald launched the Anti-Zionist America Political Action Committee in August, vowing to fight to end U.S. financial and military aid to Israel and root out pro-Israel influence in Congress. AZAPAC aims to raise money to unseat pro-Israel legislators in the coming midterm elections, targeting some of the main recipients of cash from influential groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel.

It's a goal that might sound appealing for the electoral left, whose members have long struggled to make meaningful progress on Palestinian rights in Washington, D.C., largely because of the strong grip the pro-Israel lobby holds on U.S. politicians. And as Israel's genocide in Gaza stretches into a third year, AZAPAC's policy goals may tap into a political energy currently unaddressed by either major party: growing anti-Israel sentiment on the right.

Though the Republican party loudly backs Israel and its war effort, far-right online spaces are growing increasingly critical of Israel. While accusations of antisemitism from the pro-Israel mainstream often dog Israel's critics on the left, they appear as little cause for concern to far-right figures and their followers. As the nonpartisan AZAPAC works to sway the 2026 midterms, Rectenwald's group will test whether candidates across the political spectrum will be similarly pressed on the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

Related Israeli Military Found Gaza Health Ministry Death Toll Was Accurate. Will These Deniers Admit It?

The AZAPAC founder has attempted to connect with openly antisemitic figures like Fuentes, a Holocaust denier who famously praised Hitler. Rectenwald is a regular on The Stew Peters Show, which streams on the Peter Thiel and JD Vance-funded YouTube alternative Rumble, where the host has used slurs to describe Jewish and Black people — to no objection from Rectenwald. He's courted support from popular manosphere influencer Dan Bilzerian, an antisemitic conspiracy theorist who has falsely claimed Jewish people are behind DEI policies, transgender identity, and "open borders." AZAPAC is helping fund at least one candidate who is a Hitler apologist and another who has participated in white nationalist demonstrations.    

In a conversation with The Intercept, Rectenwald made clear he's aware such affiliations could be detrimental to his cause. He said he is no longer seeking the support of Fuentes, though he remains interested in his fan base — they're "more sincere than him on some things" — and that he was unaware of "the depth of" Bilzerian's antisemitic views, which are well-documented online.   

Asked about Peters's language, Rectenwald told The Intercept he would no longer appear on his show, then reversed and said he didn't want to "throw him under the bus." Peters, Rectenwald added, has "helped us quite a bit."

Affiliating with such figures perpetuates harmful and often violent rhetoric toward Jewish people, antisemitism and hate speech experts told The Intercept, and in the most extreme cases, conspiracy theories can motivate violence, as occurred when a white nationalist shooter massacred worshippers at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue in 2018.  

These antisemitic allyships also risk undermining legitimate criticism of the state of Israel — a heightened liability at a time when the federal government and its pro-Israel allies have launched largely spurious claims of antisemitism against advocates on the left who support Palestine and oppose Israel's genocide. 

"If we give any quarter to antisemitism anywhere near our movements, we are opening ourselves up to the charges from Israel's defenders," said Ben Lorber, an author and researcher of antisemitism and white Christian nationalism. "It stands to really harm the movement."

"If we give any quarter to antisemitism anywhere near our movements, we are opening ourselves up to the charges from Israel's defenders."

Rectenwald appears to understand what he's risking. After The Intercept reached out to AZAPAC-endorsed candidates for this story, two rejected the group's backing and were scrubbed from the site, and a third threatened to do the same. Rectenwald accused The Intercept of trying to sink his PAC.

Rectenwald himself has used language commonly associated with antisemitic conspiracy theories of global Jewish control, and he argues that other Israel critics embrace similar language. Online, he regularly refers to "the Jewish mafia" and "Jewish elites," and last April, he self-published a novel called "The Cabal Question." He originally wanted to call it "The Jewish Question," as he said on a podcast, but Amazon barred him from using the title. 

"We don't use the same language and talk about the same things with the same terms," Rectenwald told The Intercept, referring to Peters. And yet, he said, "I do believe he's doing pretty good work in terms of exposing the Zionist network and what it's up to." He said a significant portion of AZAPAC's early donations arrived after his appearances on Peters's show, which also runs commercials for the group.

Rectenwald self-published a novel called "The Cabal Question." He originally wanted to call it "The Jewish Question," but Amazon barred him from using the title. 

During a September episode while introducing Rectenwald, Peters referred to Jewish people using a common antisemitic slur. A month earlier, he used an anti-Black slur to describe Department of Justice attorney Leo Terrell in another episode with Rectenwald. In that episode, Peters said the U.S. is "occupied" by "anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-American Jews who are not just working on behalf of Israel, but on behalf of a more broad, satanic, Talmudic agenda that's taken shape over thousands of years." 

Rectenwald promised Peters in his August appearance that AZAPAC does not have "infiltrators," "dual allegiances," or "sneaky Jews coming in and running the show." He closed out the episode by offering Peters an invite — which he told The Intercept has since been rescinded — to be a member of AZAPAC's board.

The 2026 Slate

An AZAPAC ad launched in November and produced by the far-right company Dissident Media shows Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu shaking hands, Palestinian children killed by Israel, re-enactments of the American Revolution — and the red, clawed hands of a puppet master manipulating strings overlaying a mashup of the American and Israeli flags. 

Rectenwald told The Intercept that he was not aware "puppet master" was a well-known antisemitic trope and that the strings represented the pro-Israeli donor class's influence on the Trump administration. Plus, the trailer was a success: Donations poured in as it drew attention online, Rectenwald said.  

AZAPAC had raised $111,556 by the end of December, according to recent FEC filings.  

Of AZAPAC's 10 publicly endorsed candidates, six are running as Republicans with three Democrats and a Libertarian on its slate. The group is more focused on Republicans, Rectenwald said, because he aims to put a dent in the GOP's pro-Israel base. AZAPAC is backing Aaron Baker, for example, an America First conservative who is running to unseat Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., a vocal supporter of Israel and Netanyahu.

Related AIPAC Is Retreating From Endorsements and Election Spending. It Won't Give Up Its Influence.

At least one AZAPAC candidate drew national headlines five years ago. Tyler Dykes, a Republican candidate running for Rep. Nancy Mace's congressional seat in South Carolina, was famously accused of performing a Nazi salute, which he denies, while storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and later pleaded guilty to assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers with a stolen riot shield. (Trump pardoned Dykes on his first day in office.) Dykes also received a felony conviction for his participation in the 2017 white supremacist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where organizers protested the removal of a monument to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and yelled, "Jews will not replace us."

Reached by The Intercept, Dykes said in an emailed statement he denounces "violence and extremism in all its forms." He added that "Robert E. Lee was a hero, and deserves to be honored as such."

Rectenwald told The Intercept that AZAPAC's board had vetted Dykes and other candidates. He said he was willing to tolerate certain disagreements with the candidates and their views. The endorsements, Rectenwald said, are "a pragmatism of sorts." 

"We don't agree with all of these candidates," Rectenwald said. "We're trying to put together a coalition of sometimes very unlikely bedfellows, if you will."

AZAPAC's endorsement process is primarily based on a 19-part questionnaire, which Rectenwald shared with The Intercept. It asks things like whether a candidate would pledge not to receive campaign donations from prominent pro-Israel groups or "any other foreign lobby/PAC"; what they think of laws restricting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement or imposing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism; and whether they would vote to end military aid to Israel.

"We're trying to put together a coalition of sometimes very unlikely bedfellows, if you will."

The group's contradictions are perhaps best captured by two brief recent endorsements: two former American soldiers, Anthony Aguilar and Greg Stoker, running for Congress as progressive Green Party candidates. As a contractor working with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, Aguilar, who is running in North Carolina, became a whistleblower alleging that GHF employees were firing into crowds of starving civilians at aid sites. Stoker, running in Texas, took part in last year's Global Sumud Flotilla, a humanitarian mission meant to break Israel's blockade of Gaza.

Their AZAPAC endorsements were short-lived. 

After receiving questions from The Intercept about Rectenwald's language and AZAPAC's associations with far-right figures, both Aguilar and Stoker rejected the group's backing. Mentions of them had been erased from AZAPAC's online presence by Tuesday.

In explaining his withdrawal, Aguilar's campaign acknowledged that anti-genocide and anti-Zionist activists "are falsely accused on antisemitism on a regular basis" to discredit their work. "For that reason, we want to avoid being associated with any group whose statements or actions raise credible concerns of actual antisemitism," Aguilar's campaign manager said in a statement.

Stoker told The Intercept that "I have always used my platform to fight against racial superiority," adding that AZAPAC's narrow focus on "old conspiracy theories" and eradicating the pro-Zionist lobby "is not going to fix any of the larger systemic issues facing working class Americans."

Christine Reyna, a professor at De Paul University who studies the psychology of extremism, questioned why AZAPAC would endorse candidates like Dykes and Casey Putsch, a racecar driver and AZAPAC-backed Republican candidate for Ohio governor. In August, Putsch posted a video asking Grok to list "all the good things Adolf Hitler did or was responsible for creating in his life" and railed against the Jewish right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro, whom he called "an annoying little rodent." While there's a growing number of other candidates who oppose sending military aid to Israel or have sworn off AIPAC donations, backing candidates like Putsch and Dykes could serve as a dog whistle, Reyna said, to some of the most extreme corners of the far right.

"When you package these really frightening and terrible and dangerous ideologies and you hide them behind this front-facing organization that gives them legitimacy," Reyna said, "That can be extremely dangerous."

Aligning with such America First nationalists, who tend to ignore the issue of America's own ambitions of control and profit, can harm other communities, antisemitism researcher Lorber warned, because of their anti-Blackness, xenophobia, or anti-LGBTQ views. In the case of Israel, these far-right alliances can also injure the movement for Palestinian liberation, he said.

"If we get distracted chasing fantasies of Jewish cabals, it harms our analysis, it makes our work less informed and less effective," Lorber said, "and it also divides our movements."

"There is a big umbrella for a movement against unconditional support for Israel. But neo-Nazis and far-right antisemites will never be welcome in that."  

Palestinian-American advocate and analyst Tariq Kenney-Shawa, whose family is from Gaza, is acutely aware of the ways pro-Israel institutions have attacked anti-Zionist work for being antisemitic. He said those bad-faith attacks were why he was concerned about AZAPAC's affiliations with the far right, which has long rooted its criticism of Israel in "actually racist and antisemitic" beliefs. 

"There is a big umbrella for a movement against unconditional support for Israel," Kenney-Shawa said. "But neo Nazis and far-right antisemites will never be welcome in that."  

The day after federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Putsch, who did not respond to outreach from The Intercept, doubled down on his support for ICE's mass deportation campaign. On social media, Putsch, who is Christian, often attacks his opponent Vivek Ramaswamy's Hindu faith and Indian ancestry. On his campaign site, his platform includes anti-immigrant calls to "accelerate deportations" and limit the number of H-1B visas offered to immigrant workers.

His platform makes no mention of Israel or foreign policy.

The Founder's Journey

"Maybe one time I failed to say Zionist," Rectenwald told The Intercept, acknowledging that on occasion, he has used the words "Jew" or "Jewish" instead. A search of his X account turned up at least 43 references to the "Jewish mafia," and he's repeatedly invoked the "Jewish elite" on his Substack. He claimed to have borrowed the latter term from Norm Finkelstein, a pro-Palestinian author and activist who, unlike Rectenwald, is Jewish himself. 

"It's not just an 'israeli lobby.' LOL. It's a Talmudic Jewish mafia that runs the U.S. and the world," Rectenwald wrote in one post in March. The same day, he claimed that "the Jewish mafia did 9/11."

"Maybe one time I failed to say Zionist."

When The Intercept asked about Rectenwald's use of the term "Zionist Occupation Government," which has a history of popularity among white supremacists, he brought up AZAPAC-backed candidates like Bernard Taylor, a firefighter and Democrat hoping to unseat Florida Republican Rep. Brian Mast, a former IDF volunteer. Rectenwald cited Taylor, who is Black, as proof that "we are not like bigots," adding that AZAPAC planned to endorse other people of color.

Taylor, who accepted an endorsement from AZAPAC in December, said he also was not aware of Rectenwald's rhetoric until approached by The Intercept for this story.

"I'm not gonna sit here and say it's not concerning to me," Taylor told The Intercept in a phone call, referring to Rectenwald's language. In an emailed statement, he said his campaign rejects antisemitism, racism, and white supremacy, but would keep the AZAPAC endorsement based on policy. Taylor said that if he feels AZAPAC is "crossing the line" into overt antisemitism, he will reject its endorsement and refund donations from the group.

"If I made, you know, some slips here and there, it isn't intentional — I'm not trying to dog whistle to anybody," Rectenwald said. "I'm just trying to be precise, and sometimes, you know, precision is difficult." 

In "The Cabal Question," Rectenwald's self-published novel, a former professor finds his worldview transformed when a friend "thrusts him into the JQ," or Jewish question, as the book's Amazon summary puts it, working with "a steadfast ex-occultist turned Christian nationalist to trace the strands of the cabal's reach." The story mirrors his own evolution of getting "J-pilled," or "Jew-pilled," Rectenwald has said, though he insists the novel is not about promoting antisemitism but rather "a Christian redemption story."

Related StopAntisemitism Takes Credit for Getting Hundreds Fired. A Music Teacher Is Suing.

Rectenwald once identified as a leftist. He taught liberal studies as a Marxist at New York University — until a fallout that began in 2016, when it was revealed that he was behind the since-deleted Twitter account @AntiPCNYUProf with the screen name "Deplorable NYU Professor." Rectenwald used the account to act "in the guise of an alt-righter," as a way to argue against politically correct use of pronouns, trigger warnings, and safe spaces.  

He took a paid leave from NYU and claimed he was a victim of liberal censorship in a splashy op-ed and a sit-down on Fox & Friends. When he came back, Rectenwald invited far-right activist Milo Yiannopoulos to speak to his class and later sued NYU for defamation. Court records indicate the case was dropped with prejudice, and Rectenwald said he settled out of court for a cash payment in exchange for his departure from the school in 2019.

NYU did not respond to The Intercept's request for comment. 

The experience prompted Rectenwald to denounce the left and his several decades of Marxist scholarship, and in 2024, he launched a failed bid for president as a Libertarian, representing the conservative Mises Caucus.

It's unclear when his fixation on Israel and antisemitic conspiracy theories took hold. But on the right-wing podcast The Backlash in May, Rectenwald used the protagonist of "The Cabal Question" to describe how his views developed. 

In the book, Rectenwald said, the main character flees persecution and surveillance from the government controlled by "the Jewish mafia." The character ends up finding refuge with "radical right wingers," who help him escape the country. The more closely he affiliates with the right-wing network, however, the more he risks damaging his own reputation. 

"Art imitates life, right?" said the host. Rectenwald agreed.

The post A New PAC Wants to Counter Israel's Influence. It Also Welcomes Hitler Apologists. appeared first on The Intercept.

Sharif Street is something of an anomaly. A Democratic state senator running for Congress, he's angling to replace retiring Rep. Dwight Evans in a deep-blue Philadelphia seat. He's Black, Muslim, and relatively moderate. He would not necessarily be a vocal critic of Israel in the House.

Street is walking a fine line on Israel policy, articulating views that range from moderate to evasive. That has rankled some of Philadelphia's progressive Muslim organizers, but it may well reflect an effort to appease the city's diverse voting blocs. Philadelphia's large Muslim and Jewish populations don't fall neatly on either side of issues related to Israel and Gaza, and Street's supporters and detractors alike argue that they don't want identity politics to overshadow substantive policy debates.

Many Muslim Philadelphians "may like Street personally," said Yusuf Abdul Hameed, a member of the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, "but they're upset because of his lack of courage to really condemn Israel for what clearly was a genocide." Hameed counted himself among those who like Street, but he said he's backing his opponent, Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb, a progressive who has carved out a lane on the left by being openly critical of Israel's genocide in Gaza. 

Their competition now stands to turn Philadelphia into a testing ground, where voters have a chance to signal how much Israel and Palestine still matter to them as the Trump administration's barrage of constant scandals, crackdowns, and excesses dominates the midterms cycle.

Street doesn't have Israel policies on his campaign website. His stance on the issue has largely come to light through public statements he made in his former role as chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party after the October 7, 2023, attacks and over the course of the campaign. His current vagueness has raised questions about whether he would accept campaign funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or other factions of the pro-Israel lobby.

"I recognize that there won't be peace for the state of Israel without peace for the Palestinian people, but there won't be peace for the Palestinian people unless there's peace for the state of Israel at some point," Street told the Philadelphia Inquirer last month.

Related She Lost Her Job for Speaking Out About Gaza. Can It Power Her to Congress?

Street supporter Salima Suswell, an organizer in Philadelphia's Black Muslim community, said Street had been a leader for Muslims in the city and in the district and also spoke out on Gaza. She said Street and other Black Muslim officials can face a greater pressure to choose sides between Israel and Gaza but that she was confident in Street's ability to listen to and act on the needs of residents in the district. 

"That said, the Black Muslim community stands in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in Gaza. I fully trust that Senator Street will be a force for good in Congress, and he will fight for our communities both domestically and abroad," she said. 

Home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the country, Philadelphia has a sizable community of Black residents who converted to Islam in the 1960s, during the rise of Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. The city is also home to many Jewish voters, including younger ones who are more likely to be critical of Israel than the older generation, as well as moderate, pro-Israel Jewish Democrats who make up a large portion of the voting bloc.  

The political complexities of Philadelphia's religious electorate could make things difficult for AIPAC, which has been searching for ways to shape midterm races this cycle without drawing too much negative attention to itself. 

AIPAC has not publicly endorsed in the 3rd Congressional District race. But Street was the beneficiary of a short-lived, secret fundraising page hosted by a little-known pro-Israel group — one that AIPAC has used to direct donors to at least one other candidate this cycle. 

The fundraising page, hosted by the Pro-Israel Network, urged donors to contribute to Street's campaign. The page was live until late last year, when it came to the attention of Philadelphia's progressive circles and suddenly vanished. The Pro-Israel Network is not officially affiliated with AIPAC. But as AIPAC has adopted a quieter role in elections this cycle, the Pro-Israel Network is one of several proxies the more prominent group has used to highlight preferred candidates for its donors. 

Street's campaign said in a statement to The Intercept that they weren't aware of the page until it was brought to their attention and that they didn't seek the group's endorsement or receive any campaign contributions through the page. 

"Sharif is not seeking AIPAC's endorsement, and we weren't aware of the Pro-Israel Network page until folks showed it to us. We didn't coordinate with that group and haven't received any funding from it," Street's campaign spokesperson Anthony Campisi said. 

Beth Miller, the political director for Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said she hopes the Street campaign will keep it that way.

"Pro-genocide groups like AIPAC are directly at odds with what Democratic voters want. The overwhelming majority of Democratic voters have made it clear that they want the U.S. to stop funding Israel's atrocities against Palestinians," Miller said. "No Democratic candidate should be taking a dollar — or any other kind of support — from groups that are so at odds with the party's own base."

According to Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu, the executive director of CAIR-Philadelphia, many in the Philadelphia community view the issue of Israel and Palestine as a window into broader debates, and they see reason to be wary of politicians who waver from moral stances. 

"The Israel-Palestine issue is not only important as a foreign policy matter, but also as an issue that intersects with rights, with freedoms, with how we stand up for oppressed people in our own communities in the U.S.," Tekelioglu said. He said Philadelphians "are now asking for more, and are coming closer to an accountability politics point of view."

As a nonprofit, CAIR-Philadelphia cannot endorse a candidate, but Tekelioglu said he's volunteering for Rabb in his personal capacity. The national political arm, CAIR Action, plans to endorse in the race but has not yet announced its pick.

Hameed, who has been a member of the Nation of Islam since the 1980s, said it would be nice to have a Muslim representative in Congress, but sharing race or religion with a candidate wasn't enough to earn his vote. He criticized attempts to make excuses for Black Democrats who have taken support from AIPAC, like Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Ritchie Torres of New York and Glenn Ivey of Maryland. 

"These people support Israel, and they're getting money from AIPAC, and they're complicit with genocide," Hameed said. "They would turn on them in a dime."

During a candidate forum in December, Street was asked whether he would support legislation to block arms sales to Israel. He said peace and security relied on getting humanitarian aid into Gaza and rebuilding, but that his allotted response time wasn't enough to answer the question or address such a complicated issue. 

"If we're gonna do this topic justice, talking about peace in the Middle East is not really a one-minute answer," Street said. "Catchy soundbites sound good, but they don't save lives." 

"Talking about peace in the Middle East is not really a one-minute answer."

While several candidates criticized Israel's destruction in Gaza, Rabb was the only one of the five candidates present to state specifically that he would support such legislation. During another forum in January, Rabb was also clear on his stance on the leading pro-Israel lobbying group, saying, "Fuck AIPAC." 

Street and Rabb are running in a crowded field of more than 10 candidates vying to replace Evans in the May 19 primary. Among them are state Rep. Morgan Cephas, Dr. David Oxman, Dr. Ala Stanford, climate adviser under former President Joe Biden Pablo McConnie-Saad, and real estate developer and nonprofit leader Isaiah Martin. Street is leading the pack in fundraising, with more than $700,000 raised so far. Oxman has raised $497,000 — including $175,000 he gave to his own campaign. Stanford has raised $467,000, and Rabb has raised $384,000, ahead of Cephas, who's raised $241,000. 

Muslims United PAC, a national political action committee that has endorsed candidates including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Summer Lee, endorsed Rabb over Street, mainly because of Rabb's explicit criticism of the genocide in Gaza. The group declined to comment on the race.

In a statement to The Intercept, Rabb said he couldn't speculate on who was backing his opponents but that he would never take money from AIPAC. "I have not nor would I even consider meeting with AIPAC because I view them as a racist, extremist organization," Rabb said. 

"Israel and Gaza — and Palestine, more broadly — deserve the opportunity to engage in peaceful self-determination without U.S. military domination preempting that fundamental right. I support a permanent and immediate ceasefire including release of hostages, recognition that a genocide has occurred in Gaza, and oppose export or use of U.S. weapons in ways that violate U.S. or international law," he said. Rabb is also running on rejecting corporate PAC money, fighting the influence of billionaires in politics, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Related AIPAC Is Retreating From Endorsements and Election Spending. It Won't Give Up Its Influence.

The Pro-Israel network funding page, a sign that the lobby has its eyes on the race, is a point of contention among critics who say AIPAC shouldn't be getting involved in races at all, let alone one in a district which Democrats are largely to the group's left on policy toward Israel and Gaza. 

"AIPAC is a red line," said Saleem Holbrook, executive director of Philadelphia's Abolitionist Law Center, a public interest law firm that advocates for criminal justice reform that has worked with Street on state reform efforts in Pennsylvania. 

"There's no way that our organization or many progressive organizations are going to back any candidate that takes AIPAC support," Holbrook said. "Because when you look at AIPAC's track record, all AIPAC has done has taken out Black progressive politicians or candidates that had the interest of the Black community in their heart."

Suswell, the Street supporter, agreed that the race should be about policies that support the community, pointing to affordable housing, quality education, and public safety. "This should not be about identity politics," she said. "This is about track record. Senator Street has an impeccable track record in his district and across the Muslim community."

Progressive groups have been slowly endorsing Rabb, and two sources with knowledge of the race said it's only a matter of time before they consolidate behind him. Rabb has been endorsed by Philadelphia's chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, Sunrise Movement's national and Philadelphia chapters, One PA, and Mt. Airy Democrats.

Both Street and Rabb are actively seeking the endorsement from the Working Families Party, which is planning to announce its pick in the next few weeks. So are CAIR Action and A New Policy.

While Street may not have the backing of leading progressive groups in Pennsylvania, he does have good relationships with their members. That dynamic is one reason progressive groups have taken their time to make endorsements in a race pitting their allies against one another, according to one source close to the race.

Street is endorsed by the Philadelphia Democratic Party, the Muslim League of Voters of the Delaware Valley, and several of Philadelphia's powerful labor unions including Philadelphia's powerful Building and Construction Trades Council, which encompasses several local shops. He's also backed by former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal, advocates for gun violence prevention and several prominent leaders for LGBTQ rights.

Street's campaign pointed to his work advancing religious rights for Muslims in the district, helping to expand healthcare for Pennsylvanians, leading the fight to legalize recreational cannabis and reform the criminal justice system, and protect voting rights. "He's going to bring that same drive to Washington, where he will be relentlessly focused on lowering costs, expanding health care access, reforming our criminal justice system, and holding Trump accountable," said Campisi, his spokesperson. 

The post Philadelphia Could Elect Its First Muslim Congressman. He's Not Sure Where He Stands on Israel. appeared first on The Intercept.

A warehouse that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to convert into a detention center for immigrants in Roxbury, N.J., on Feb. 16, 2026. Photo: Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images)

The scale of the Trump administration's plans to warehouse human beings is hard to fathom. Here's one way to put it in perspective: On a given day, New York City's notorious Rikers Island jail complex holds approximately 7,000 detainees. President Donald Trump's regime, which is currently holding a record 70,000 people in immigration detention, now plans to develop a network of Rikers-sized concentration camps for immigrants nationwide.

The Department of Homeland Security is racing to buy up and convert two-dozen-plus warehouses into mass detention centers for immigrants, some capable of holding up to 10,000 people. According to documents released last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement expects to spend $38.3 billion acquiring warehouses across the country and retrofitting them to collectively hold nearly 100,000 beds.

"If these mega-camps are utilized to the full capacity ICE intends, they'll be the largest prisons in the country, with little real oversight," noted Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The federal government hasn't operated a prison camp inside the United States that large since Japanese Internment."

When Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, last week announced that ICE's "surge" in Minnesota would wind down, it marked a significant victory for the thousands of Minnesotans who have fought back against the federal forces terrorizing their state; resistance forced the Trump regime to change its plans. But nothing is ramping down when it comes to the deportation machine at large. When billions of dollars are spent to turn industrial spaces into detention camps, authoritarian desires meet market logic: The warehouses must be filled.

Local communities are nonetheless pushing back, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable federal forces with unlimited funding, abetted by powerful private interests who stand to gain from this carceral build-out.

As The Appeal reported last week, investors on a recent quarterly earnings call for private prison giant CoreCivic were worried that ICE's unprecedented detention numbers were still not high enough. "I think people thought we'd be at that 100,000 level," one caller reportedly said of the number of people currently held by ICE. "We're at a little over 70,000."

The Trump administration has made clear that it can afford anything when it comes to the rounding up and brutalizing of immigrants and antifascist protesters.

The company's CEO stressed the major financial gains made though Trump's anti-immigrant campaign and assured callers that the drawdown in Minnesota did not, in his view, portend "meaningful changes in enforcement style or approach." That is to say, the racial profiling, cruelty, and mass roundups will continue, and private prison corporations like CoreCivic and Geo Group, alongside giants of surveillance infrastructure like Palantir, will collectively make billions from DHS spending. What author John Ganz has called "ICE's function as an employment program for the Trumpenproletarian mob" — now with 22,000 officers — will also continue to be handsomely funded.

None of this is a surprise: When Congress passed Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act allocating ICE nearly $80 billion in multiyear funding, the administration made clear that money would be no object in enacting its project of ethnic cleansing and the expansion of the carceral system for targeted groups of immigrants and opponents. The warehouse purchases and related government contracts have, as The Lever reported, been a boon for Trump-connected real estate brokers and a bailout for "commercial real estate owners, who have struggled to sell their properties over the past year under the weight of macroeconomic headwinds and Trump's tariff war."

Economic stimulus based in ethnic cleansing would, of course, be despicable. But the Trump regime can't even pretend this dizzyingly expensive project serves its own base. Only a small number of interested businesses and parties stand to gain. Meanwhile, as public resistance in both Republican- and Democratic-majority locales has already made clear, everyone else stands to lose. And hundreds of thousands of our immigrant neighbors stand to lose the most.

Trump's mass deportation plan is estimated by the libertarian Cato Institute to have a fiscal cost of up to $1 trillion over a decade. And the losses? Due to the loss of workers across U.S. industries, the American Immigration Council found that mass deportation would reduce the U.S. gross domestic product by 4.2 to 6.8 percent. It's money that could be spent improving our collective lives. The $45 billion total budgeted for ICE detention centers is nearly four times the $12.8 billion the U.S. spent on new affordable housing in 2023. The huge budget for ICE mega warehouses reflects the most Trumpian mix: cronyist dealmaking in service of white nationalism.

The historian Adam Tooze has at various points recalled the words of economist John Maynard Keynes, who said in 1942 that "anything we can actually do we can afford." Keynes was arguing that sovereign governments have extraordinary capacity to mobilize finances; the constraints lie elsewhere. Tooze has stressed that the limits of what a government can "actually do" are political, technical, material, and logistical — and extremely complicated as such. But, he points out, they are not budgetary. The Trump administration has made clear that it can afford anything when it comes to the rounding up and brutalizing of immigrants and antifascist protesters. That, however, does not mean the government can actually do everything it wants.

A number of warehouse owners, facing local backlash and pressure, have already backed out of lucrative sales to ICE. According to Bloomberg, Canadian billionaire Jim Pattison's company announced that a transaction to sell a 550,000-square-foot warehouse in Ashland, Virginia, "will not be proceeding." The company made clear that the move was political, saying, "We understand that the conversation around immigration policy and enforcement is particularly heated, and has become much more so over the past few weeks. We respect that this issue is deeply important to many people."

For ICE, money is no object. But constant and relentless public protest, blockades, boycotts, and local government pressure significantly lessen the appeal for warehouse owners and potential contractors to do this fascist work.

Deals for warehouses near Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, and Byhalia, Missouri, have also fallen through. In each case, warehouse owners faced protests and mounting pressure. In some jurisdictions, backlash to ICE warehouses have come in the worst sort of NIMBY variety — including complaints from Republicans who do not want immigrant detainees brought to their town en masse. Concerns about water and sewage systems and economic strains in remote areas also abound. But if local self-interest becomes a barrier to the expansion of Trump's deportation regime, that's no bad thing, given the urgent need to hold back Trump's deeply unpopular but otherwise unrestrained forces.

We need every possible limit on what Trump and his loyalists can actually do.

The post Can Trump's Plan for Warehouse Immigrant Detention Camps Be Stopped? appeared first on The Intercept.

Gold medalists Alysa Liu and Amber Glenn of Team USA pose for a photo after the medal ceremony for the team figure skating event on Feb. 8, 2026, in Milan, Italy. Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images

At the Milan Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, competing under the American banner has put some athletes at odds with their own government, transforming them — in a handful of candid remarks — from cereal-box patriots into political liabilities swiftly pilloried by the conservative establishment.

When reporters asked American freestyle skier Hunter Hess how it felt to wear the U.S. flag in front of the world in this moment, he said it "brings up mixed emotions." Hess drew a clear line between the country he competes for and the policies coming out of Washington, saying, "Just because I'm wearing the flag doesn't mean I represent everything that's going on in the U.S."

Hess's plain, honest answer triggered one of the most striking political crosscurrents of these Games: President Donald Trump logged on to Truth Social to call Hess "a real loser" who shouldn't have tried out for the Olympic team at all. 

Hess wasn't alone in speaking out. Curler Rich Ruohonen, an attorney and Minnesota native, criticized recent federal law enforcement actions in the state, saying the operations were "wrong" and violated Americans' constitutional rights. Snowboarder Chloe Kim, whose parents immigrated to the United States from South Korea, defended her fellow teammates, saying Trump's immigration policies "hit pretty close to home" and that athletes are "allowed to voice" their opinions.  

The response from conservative media was instant: shame, dismissal, and, at times, openly cheering against the very athletes carrying the American flag.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters that Olympians are "not there to pop off about politics" and said they should expect "pushback" if they do. Florida Rep. Byron Donalds went further on social media, telling U.S. athletes that if they don't want to represent the flag, "GO HOME." 

Sports in America are advertised, sold, and draped in red, white, and blue so completely that they become impossible to separate from nationalism.

Conservative commentators also charged in on behalf of the administration. After U.S. figure skater Amber Glenn, who won gold in the team event, voiced support for her LGBTQ community, conservative podcaster and former Fox News host Megyn Kelly branded her "another turncoat to root against" to her 3.6 million followers. The outrage snowballed, and Glenn said she received a "scary amount of hate/threats," prompting her to take a break from social media altogether. (She later returned to TikTok with a carousel of images of her and teammate Alysa Liu wearing their team gold medals and addressing her critics: "They hate to see two woke bitches winning.")

The intensity of the backlash illustrates how symbolic these Games have become — not just for who wins medals, but for who gets to define what national representation means on the international stage. While the Olympic Committee and the U.S. government prefer to present the Games as a neutral display of discipline, athletic poise, and national pride, the truth is less tidy. The Olympics have always served as a global window into the political and social conditions athletes come from — and when that window opens, protest has rarely been far behind.

Seen, Not Heard  

Although the modern Olympic Charter's Rule 50 aims to ban political, religious, or racial "propaganda" from competition, the idea that the Games have ever been apolitical ignores more than a century of history. Long before the International Olympic Committee tried to censor athletic competition, athletes and states recognized there was no separating sports from politics. At the 1906 Athens Games, Irish track and field star Peter O'Connor protested being listed as a British competitor by climbing a 20-foot flagpole and unfurling a green flag bearing the words "Erin Go Bragh" — Ireland forever — and went on to win gold. 

As the Olympics entered the broadcast era and the audience stretched far beyond the stadium, political leaders were acutely aware they could use the Games' reach to bolster their legitimacy. By the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Adolf Hitler and his propagandists transformed the Games into a showcase for the Nazi regime's image and ideology. The widely publicized spectacle of a nation unified under Nazism was engineered to sanitize the Third Reich at home and abroad, cementing the modern Olympics as a global platform for state propaganda — and, inevitably, for those willing to resist it. Jewish organizations, labor leaders, and civil rights groups in the United States and Europe tried to organize a boycott of the event, warning that participation would validate Hitler's regime and its persecution of Jews, but the effort ultimately failed. Athletes responded with the most direct act of resistance available to them: by winning, in open defiance. Jesse Owens — an African American runner — shattered Hitler's carefully staged narrative of "Aryan" superiority by winning four gold medals, turning his victories into a de facto rebuke of the regime's racial ideology. 

Decades later, the 1968 Mexico City Games delivered one of the clearest political statements in Olympic history: sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising black-gloved fists on the medal stand in protest of racial injustice in the United States — an enduring image that turned the podium into a site of public dissent in front of the world.

American athletes, gold medalist Tommie Smith (center) and bronze medalist John Carlos (right) each raise a clenched fist and bow their heads on the podium during their medal ceremony at the 1968 Summer Games. Photo: Photo by Rolls Press/Popperfoto via Getty Images

The backlash was swift. Olympic officials expelled them from the Games, much of the press cast them as radicals, and both men faced threats and professional fallout for years afterward. Their protest remains one of the most controversial moments in Olympic history — and, as Smith later put it, entirely necessary: "We had to be seen because we couldn't be heard."

At the 2024 Paris opening ceremony, Palestinian boxer Waseem Abu Sal wore a shirt depicting the bombing of children in Gaza and told AFP it was meant to represent "the children who are martyred and die under the rubble," bringing the war's human toll visibly into the Olympic spotlight.

Across decades and continents, athletes and nations alike have used both participating in and abstaining from the Olympics to make statements about war, occupation, racial oppression, and human rights. This long history underscores a simple truth: When the whole world is watching, both governments and their critics understand the Games are too powerful a platform to leave unused.

More Than a Podium

It's important that dissent shows up at the Olympics for more than just symbolic reasons: The conditions that shape who gets to compete are deeply connected to the social and political structures in the athletes' home countries. Sports in America are advertised, sold, and draped in red, white, and blue so completely that they become impossible to separate from nationalism, transforming competition into a ritual where athletic achievement is inseparable from the story the nation tells about itself.

American Olympic success is not a vacuum. An analysis by researchers at George Mason University found that roughly 3 percent of athletes on Team USA at the 2026 Winter Games were born abroad and another 13.5 percent are children of immigrant parents — meaning nearly 17 percent of the delegation has direct ties to immigrant communities. That reality reflects how the United States develops and recruits athletic talent across communities, including immigrant families and underrepresented groups whose contributions have long powered American sports on the world stage.  

For athletes whose families or personal histories intersect with immigration pathways, this shift is not an abstraction. It's about who has secure status in the United States and who faces potential removal or legal uncertainty. The ways in which these forces shape an athlete don't stop when they step on the snow or ice, no matter what flag is on their back.

The Games are built on spectacle, but beneath the pageantry is a hard truth: Athletes do not compete only for themselves, they compete as symbols of the nation they represent. When Americans step onto that global stage, they are presented as proof of what the United States claims to stand for — freedom, dignity, equality — even as the country itself struggles to live up to those ideals. That contradiction carries a real moral weight. Competing under the flag is not just an honor; it's a responsibility to confront the distance between national image and national reality.

The post It's Correct and Moral to Use the Olympics to Speak Out About Politics appeared first on The Intercept.

The conditions were treacherous in the Pacific Ocean, hundreds of miles off the Mexico-Guatemala border. There were gale-force winds and 9-foot seas. It would be dangerous if you were on a boat, nevermind if yours was blown out of the water.

Eight men leapt into those rough seas on December 30 when the U.S. rained down a barrage of munitions, sinking three vessels. They required immediate rescue; chances were slim that they could survive even an hour. In announcing its strike, U.S. Southern Command or SOUTHCOM, said it "immediately notified" the Coast Guard to launch search and rescue protocols to save the men.

But it took the United States Coast Guard almost 45 hours to begin searching the attack zone for survivors, new reporting by Airwars and The Intercept reveals.

Help did not arrive in time. A total of 11 civilians died due to the U.S. attack on December 30 — including the eight who jumped overboard, according to information provided exclusively to The Intercept by SOUTHCOM, which is responsible for U.S. military operations in and around Latin America and the Caribbean. This represents one of the largest single-day death tolls since the U.S. military began targeting alleged drug smuggling boats last September.

"SOUTHCOM doesn't want these people alive."

Using open-source flight tracking data, Airwars and The Intercept learned that a Coast Guard plane did not head toward the site of the attack for almost two days. A timeline provided by the Coast Guard confirmed that it was roughly 45 hours before a flight arrived at the search area.

The slow response and lack of rescue craft in the area suggests there was scant interest on the part of the U.S. in saving anyone. It's part of a pattern of what appear to be imitation rescue missions that since mid-October have not saved a single survivor.

Related The U.S. Has Killed More than 100 People in Boat Strikes. We're Tracking Them All.

On December 30, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told the Coast Guard's parent agency — the Department of Homeland Security — that SOUTHCOM stood ready to provide them with "specialized maritime capabilities" in support of their missions. But just hours later, it was SOUTHCOM that called on the Coast Guard to conduct the search and rescue mission for the eight men.

The Coast Guard told The Intercept that it received the initial report of people in distress from SOUTHCOM at 1:40 p.m. Pacific time on December 30. (The exact timing of the U.S. strike is not known, but when SOUTHCOM posted about the attack on X the following day it wrote that it had "immediately notified" the Coast Guard).

The survivors jumped into the Pacific approximately 400 nautical miles southwest of Ocos, Guatemala. They faced extreme conditions: 9-foot seas and 40-knot winds, according to Kenneth Wiese, a spokesperson for the Coast Guard Southwest District.

The Coast Guard said it soon began contacting Maritime Rescue Coordination Centers in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Costa Rica; the Central American Air Navigation Services Corporation, which provides regional air traffic control and search and rescue coordination; and eight commercial vessels within 200 nautical miles of the last known position of the survivors. A lone container vessel, the Maersk Eureka, responded to the call. On December 31 at 6:44 a.m. Pacific time, the ship arrived at the last known position of the survivors and found nothing.

That morning at 9:19 a.m. Pacific time, a Coast Guard C-130 search and rescue plane took off from Sacramento, California, and headed to Liberia, Costa Rica, "for refueling and crew rest." A day later, on January 1 at 7:33 a.m. Pacific time, the aircraft left Costa Rica and headed toward the "search area," according to the Coast Guard. It finally arrived "on scene" at 10:18 a.m. Pacific time on New Year's Day.

The Coast Guard said that it suspended its search on January 2, reporting "no sightings of survivors or debris." A U.S. government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press, said the men were presumed dead when the search was ended.

"Suspending a search is never easy, and given the exhaustive search effort, lack of positive indications, and declining probability of survival, we have suspended active search efforts pending further developments," said Coast Guard Capt. Patrick Dill, chief of incident management, Southwest District, at the time.

A second government official who spoke with The Intercept said the Coast Guard response didn't look like "foot dragging," but questioned why, after months of attacks in the region, search and rescue assets weren't pre-positioned closer to the Eastern Pacific.

"SOUTHCOM doesn't want these people alive," that official said.

Asked for comment on the allegation, Southern Command spokesperson Steven McLoud said: "SOUTHCOM does not comment on speculative or unfounded reporting."

The Coast Guard confirmed the C-130 sent from Sacramento was its only aircraft in the area. "There were no other Coast Guard assets in the area to assist with the search," said spokesperson Lt. Cmdr. Lauren Giancola.

The Coast Guard would not explain why it hadn't pre-positioned assets in the region. "Any questions regarding military operations including recent strikes should be referred directly to the Department of War," Giancola told The Intercept.

Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson did not return a request for comment.

The search and rescue operation for the boat strike survivors differs starkly from the U.S. response when a U.S. Marine involved in the military campaign in the Caribbean fell overboard from the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima in the SOUTHCOM area of operations this month. It sparked a "nonstop search and rescue operation" that included hundreds of flight hours and extensive aviation support, according to a statement from the Marines' II Marine Expeditionary Force. Five Navy ships, a rigid-hull inflatable boat, surface rescue swimmers from the Iwo Jima, and 10 aircraft from the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force joined the search efforts. (Lance Cpl. Chukwuemeka E. Oforah, 21, was declared deceased on Feb. 10, 2026.)

The slow pace of the U.S. search for boat strike survivors suggests the goal wasn't to save lives, said Brian Finucane, a former state department lawyer who is a specialist in counterterrorism issues and the laws of war.

"It does not appear as if they were eager to rescue additional survivors and then be faced with the question of 'what do we do with them?'" he told The Intercept. "We're going to hand off responsibility to the Coast Guard, which is going to arrive in a few days from California and look around and not find anything. So you can draw your own conclusions from that sequence."

The U.S. military has carried out more than three dozen known attacks, destroying 40 boats, in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since September, killing at least 134 civilians.  The most recent attack on Friday - the first known strike in the Caribbean Sea since early November - killed three people.

From the first strike, crewmembers have periodically survived initial attacks, leading the U.S. to employ a hodgepodge of strategies to deal with them, ranging from execution to repatriation. 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.

Related U.S. Attacked Boat Near Venezuela Multiple Times to Kill Survivors

Following an October 16 attack on a semi-submersible in the Caribbean Sea that killed two civilians, two other men were rescued by the U.S. and quickly repatriated to Colombia and Ecuador, respectively. President Donald Trump called them "terrorists" in a Truth Social post and said they would face "detention and prosecution." But both men were released without charges in their home countries. Since this attack, the U.S. appears to have settled on a strategy of calling for what increasingly resemble imitation rescue missions.

Following three attacks on October 27 that killed 15 people aboard four separate boats, a survivor of a strike was spotted clinging to wreckage, and the U.S. alerted Mexican authorities. The man was not found, and he is presumed dead.

Last month, SOUTHCOM again called on the Coast Guard. "On Friday, January 23rd, the U.S. Coast Guard was notified by the Department of War's Southern Command of a person in distress in the Pacific Ocean," Coast Guard spokesperson Roberto Nieves told The Intercept. A timeline provided by the Coast Guard shows that it took about 17 hours for a Coast Guard C-130 to arrive at the survivor's last known position, but that aircraft only conducted an hourlong search before "diverting to El Salvador for fuel and crew rest." It returned to the last known position of the survivor on January 25, about 51 hours after the initial distress call. The search was suspended that night just before 8 p.m. Pacific time, and that person is now also presumed dead.

"The expected result is essentially the same as putting a gun to their head."

Following a strike last week — the third since Marine Gen. Francis L. Donovan became SOUTHCOM's new commander earlier this month — the command announced that it had once again notified the Coast Guard "to activate the Search and Rescue system for the survivor." The Coast Guard, in turn, told The Intercept that Ecuador's Maritime Rescue Coordination Center "assumed coordination of search and rescue operations, with technical support provided by the U.S. Coast Guard." The Coast Guard then walked it back and said the U.S. had only "offered" assistance. Ecuador's rescue authorities did not return multiple requests for an update on the search.

The second government official, who spoke with The Intercept on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment about the boat strikes, said that survivors created "complications and questions" for the U.S. military and intelligence community. Rather than risk exposing intelligence sources and methods by bringing these men to court, the official said it was simpler to leave them to drown. Finucane echoed this assessment. "After rescuing the men in October, it was apparent there would be a strong incentive not to have additional survivors on their hands," he said.

William Baumgartner, a retired U.S. Coast Guard rear admiral and former chief counsel of that service branch, said the December 30 attack was tantamount to a death sentence. "Once the people jump in the water and you blow up the only thing that could possibly save their lives, that's essentially killing them," Baumgartner told The Intercept last month. "The expected result is essentially the same as putting a gun to their head."

Experts say the survivors of the December 30 attacks likely died within minutes. Accomplished swimmers, clinging to wreckage or flotation devices in warmer waters, could survive longer, some said. None considered that likely in this case.

"The combination of the wind and the waves would force feed water into the victim. If the waves don't drown you, the hypothermia will kill you," said Tom Griffiths, the founder of the Aquatic Safety Research Group, who previously served as the director of aquatics and safety officer for athletics at Penn State University. "Drowning often takes as little as four to six minutes for a non-swimmer but can be as quick as 90 seconds. I would think under these conditions it could be almost as quick."

John Fletemeyer, an aquatics expert and co-author of "The Science of Drowning," said that people have survived in the water for up to two days. But such cases, he said, are "outliers."

"It can be almost instantaneous, where it can happen in just a couple minutes if someone cannot swim and they go underwater," Fletemeyer said. A frequent expert in murder-homicide cases, he explained in detail the pain and suffering involved in drowning. There is also the potential for shark attack, he said, due to blood in the water from those killed in the initial strike.

"If we know somebody is in the water dying," he said, "I think we have a human responsibility to try to save them."

The post U.S. Sent a Rescue Plane for Boat Strike Survivors. It Took 45 Hours to Arrive. appeared first on The Intercept.

They call them "box cutters," but everyone on the flightline knows what the term really means. The blades slide out at the push of a button, revealing high-end knives made and marketed for active combat. They cost the federal government hundreds of dollars each — and come free to maintenance workers in the Air Force who order them through the supply system and hand them out as favors.

For nearly a decade, Air Force maintenance units spent more than $1.79 million in taxpayer funds buying 5,166 high-end knives and other luxury items, including switchblades and combat-style tactical knives with no legitimate maintenance use, The Intercept has found. It's a drop in the bucket of a U.S. military budget creeping ever closer to a trillion dollars, about $300 billion of which belongs to the Air Force. But with a military budget so bloated, the knife-ordering frenzy illustrates how obviously frivolous spending can go unchecked.

"Everyone knew we didn't need them," said a former noncommissioned officer recently honorably discharged from Hill Air Force Base. "There was literally zero justification in any maintenance field."

"There was literally zero justification in any maintenance field."

The Benchmade Infidel and Mini Infidel, the most popular choices, are sleek and black, with automatic blades that slide straight out the front. Their presence on the flightline, where maintainers work to repair and tune up airplanes between flights, is difficult to justify — and often outright banned. Procurement records obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests show that Air Force maintenance units have been buying the knives as far back as at least 2017 and as recently as June 2025, spanning multiple major commands.

Accounting for roughly a quarter of troops in the Air Force, maintainers are the technicians and mechanics responsible for upkeep of approximately 5,000 planes. They're chronically understaffed and overworked, as The Intercept previously reported, and maintainers spanning nine bases and major commands said that some of the crucial supplies they need for maintenance — like safety wire, specialized hydraulic fluids, and calibrated test equipment — are difficult to obtain. Maintainers said that while essential tools and materials were often delayed or unavailable, nonessential items like high-end knives moved easily through the supply system, likely due to an apparent misclassification, as a procurement expert explained to The Intercept.

Related Newly Released Data Reveals Air Force Suicide Crisis After Years of Concealment

"It always felt like we were just putting duct tape on these jets to keep them flying," said an active-duty senior airman who previously served in the 57th Maintenance Wing at Nellis Air Force Base. "Jets would come back with the same broken parts or worse, just so we could meet flight numbers. We never had money for proper tools, but there would be brand-new computers, unit flags, or other items to make the unit look better."

For some maintainers, the option to order a shiny combat knife for free is something of a silver lining. "This is one of the only good things that maintainers get," said a former maintainer from Edwards Air Force Base.

In other cases, the knives were markers of inclusion. "Tech sergeants would come in for a short time and get a knife as a welcome present," said the former maintainer from Hill.

Nine current and former Air Force maintainers who spoke to The Intercept for this story were granted anonymity because they feared retaliation. As is common in the military, maintainers who raise concerns about excessive spending can face ostracization or professional consequences.

 "It wasn't like higher-ups would be mad if they caught you," said the source from Hill. "They had knives too."

"Supply Could Hook Them Up"

"We were told that if you wanted one, all you had to do was be friends with people attached to the supply line," said a source who worked in the backshop at Nellis. "I knew plenty of people who would do favors for supply troops to get their hands on a knife."

Six people stationed at Nellis between 2017 and 2024 confirmed that misuse of the supply system was common. One source said they still have six Benchmade knives, gifted by a noncommissioned officer in the 57th Wing. The source said they were never told how those knives were obtained.

More than 59 active-duty Air Force bases in the United States and numerous overseas installations operate under the same supply system. The Intercept submitted requests for procurement data to 28 Air Force bases and received responsive records from 12 installations. Every base that returned records showed similar knife-ordering patterns across its flightline maintenance units.

"Most things were done with handshakes, winks and nods. Definitely a good ol' boys club," said Micah Templin, a former weapons troop in the 57th Maintenance Wing at Nellis. "There were quid pro quos and IOUs. If you did someone a favor one day, maybe your chief or leadership would feel comfortable looking the other way on another."

"This is one of the only good things that maintainers get."

Sources from U.S. Air Force units in the continental United States, South Korea, and Germany said personnel routinely used the term "box cutters" as a euphemism for the knives. This made them sound simple and practical, several maintainers said, while the knives themselves were prized largely for their appearance, retail price, and the status of owning one rather than any maintenance-related use. Maintainers interviewed by The Intercept said the knives were popular largely because they "look cool."

While Defense Logistics Agency records show how many knives were purchased overall, FOIA responses from individual bases offer only a partial picture of where those orders originated. But every installation that did provide records showed recognizable, suggesting the practice was not limited to a single base or command.

Several maintainers said they believed leadership used unit funds to purchase high-end items that were later diverted for personal use, describing a culture in which "nothing was given out without a take." Maintainers said those who resisted or questioned practices could find themselves scrutinized or under extra pressure, which discouraged reporting and allowed misuse of the supply system to continue unchecked.

"I feel like maintainer leadership will legally do everything they can to keep someone from speaking out and do anything to protect their careers. That's the trend within senior leadership in maintenance," the backshop source said.

Seven sources from domestic and overseas units said this often means senior enlisted personnel direct junior troops to place orders, move items, or handle deliveries on their behalf. For those with access, it's easy to order items with minimal oversight. The practice, sources said, allowed leadership to benefit from questionable purchases while shielding themselves from scrutiny and leaving lower-ranking airmen exposed to potential disciplinary or legal consequences.

"A tech sergeant ordered a ton of Yeti coolers and then told me to load them directly into his private vehicle."

Knives were the most common example of the misspending, but maintainers described similar practices involving other high-end items. Five airmen who served in the 64th Aggressor Squadron's maintenance units at Nellis Air Force Base between 2018 and 2020 said senior noncommissioned officers in the squadron's Combat Oriented Supply Organization routinely ordered new flat-screen televisions for maintenance spaces, then placed the fully functional replaced sets into unit storage areas. According to the airmen, senior noncommissioned officers later removed some of the televisions from unit spaces for personal use.

"I remember a time when a tech sergeant ordered a ton of Yeti coolers and then told me to load them directly into his private vehicle," said an active-duty avionics troop stationed in Europe, granted anonymity for fear of retaliation. "It was always ordered in ones and twos. Anything else would raise too much suspicion."

According to Dallas Sharrah, a former staff sergeant who served at Nellis Air Force Base: "People were mainly ordering switchblades or Oakley sunglasses for their buddies. Supply could hook them up a bit before they got yelled at."

Costly Debris

Outside of toolkits, knives are never allowed on the flightline. They're considered Foreign Object Debris, according to former maintenance officers, meaning they're at risk of being sucked into an aircraft intake and damaging the engine.

The Air Force Materiel Management Handbook says that all orders must be justified for official use, but classification issues in the procurement catalog blurred the lines that define what qualifies. The knives are broadly available through standard supply channels, making repeated or bulk orders easy to place. At Nellis, purchases often averaged 20 knives per order, with some as high as 47.

"In the aggregate, someone had to be doing an audit somewhere and said to themselves, 'Why did we order so many knives? Why are those requisitions restricted to certain bases and certain units? What is going on here?' Clearly, no one was looking," said Steve Leonard, a retired senior military strategist, procurement expert, and professor at the University of Kansas.

The procurement catalog is divided into subsections, Leonard explained, and knives were listed as Class IX, a category shared with maintenance-related items. But in his view, the knives should have been considered Class II items, which are intended for individual issue and subject to stricter justification, approval, and accountability requirements.

"Clearly, no one was looking."

Items classified as Class II are typically restricted from purchase with unit funds if they primarily benefit individuals, while Class IX repair parts move through maintenance supply channels with far less scrutiny. "Most people aren't interested in stealing hydraulic valves," he said.

Defense Logistics Agency procurement records show the knives carry a "J" security code, meaning they are treated as security-related items rather than maintenance equipment, a designation that undermines their classification as routine repair parts.

When asked about the findings, an Air Force spokesperson did not address specific allegations or installations. The Intercept provided the Department of the Air Force with FOIA records, national stock numbers, and other evidence of more than $1 million in suspect knife purchases across six installations.

"The Department of the Air Force takes all allegations of fraud seriously and has processes and procedures in place to investigate them," the spokesperson wrote in response. "If service members or citizens have concerns or evidence of specific wrongdoing, they are encouraged to report the information to local law enforcement or their Office of Special Investigation."

Benchmade, the manufacturer of the Infidel and Mini Infidel knives most named in procurement records and troop testimonies, declined to comment.

Limited Oversight

It remains unclear how many knives airmen have obtained in recent months. On June 9, 2025, The Intercept submitted FOIA requests to 28 Air Force bases. Twelve installations provided responsive procurement records, while the remaining bases delayed, obstructed, or did not meaningfully respond.

At Hill Air Force Base, officials falsely claimed records from another installation were their own. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base admitted it had gone months with no staff to process FOIA requests. Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph reported spending only 30 minutes searching eight years of procurement records before declaring no knife purchases existed. At Luke Air Force Base, an officer sent conflicting messages about whether a request had been received, then attempted to delete an earlier acknowledgment email.

Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek said she had not previously been aware of the purchases or inconsistencies in the bases' FOIA replies. "I am literally trying to understand what to look for and who to ask," she wrote in an email.

The Defense Department's inspector general system, responsible for oversight of potential fraud and other misconduct, declined to comment on the knife purchases. An inspector general spokesperson said the office does not comment on active investigations and would not say whether any investigation related to the purchases was underway. The IG system is undergoing a major overhaul, with many positions open under the second Trump administration.

At the same time, Air Force inspector general complaint records obtained by The Intercept through FOIA requests show that from January 2016 through December 2022, maintenance and munitions units at Nellis Air Force Base generated at least 274 complaints. The allegations included abuse of authority, reprisal, potential contracting fraud, and hostile work environments.

Related Ousted Air Force Special Ops Command Chief Faces Child Sexual Abuse Material Charges

Many of the complaints were recorded as "assisted" or closed within days, averaging roughly three complaints per month over six years from the same units later tied to irregular knife purchases documented in this reporting.

Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog, said the pattern reflects broader concerns about misuse of government funds and poor oversight. "While every instance might not be fraudulent, I'll expect many of the knives purchased are for personal use with taxpayers picking up the tab," he said. "Wasted money and unauthorized use is a bad mix, and only the tip of the iceberg."

At Moody Air Force Base in Georgia, FOIA-obtained records describe a "recurring problem with physical location and quantity consistency" of supply items and note that "thievery is not out of question." As a corrective step, the documents say leadership submitted an unfunded request for surveillance cameras through the procurement system.

The post Air Force Maintenance Staff Can't Stop Buying Fancy Knives With Tax Dollars appeared first on The Intercept.

The library is seen through a window at the Rensselaer County Jail in Troy, N.Y., Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011. Photo: Lori Van Buren/Albany Times Union via Getty Images

American prisons have never been much for the First Amendment, and now, the Trump administration is exporting prison-style censorship to the general population. In tactics that are easily recognizable to incarcerated people like me, they're doing it in the name of "security."

This includes claiming antiestablishment ideologies and literature must be punished because they pose nebulous risks to those with government-approved political views. It also includes the logical next step: criminalizing efforts to keep authorities from finding out that one holds those ideologies or reads that literature.

Daniel "Des" Sanchez Estrada is set to be tried starting Tuesday on charges of corruptly concealing a document or record and conspiracy to conceal documents. He's been in custody since July and in federal prison since October (save for a brief accidental release before Thanksgiving, during which he spoke to The Intercept). He and his codefendants were recently transferred to county jail to await trial. Supporters report that they've been placed in solitary confinement and are dealing with other horrid conditions.

In plain language, Sanchez Estrada is facing up to 20 years behind bars for allegedly moving a box of anarchist zines from his parents' house to another residence in his hometown of Dallas. His indictment came on the heels of Trump's signing an executive order to classify "Antifa" as a "domestic terrorist organization" and issuing National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence. 

Sanchez Estrada's case originated with a July 4, 2025 anti-ICE protest his wife, Maricela Rueda, attended outside the Prairieland ICE detention center in Alvarado, Texas, where an officer was shot. (Prosecutors do not allege that Sanchez Estrada or Rueda were involved in the shooting.) The home-spun zines at issue contain no plans for any shooting, and under normal circumstances, they would clearly be deemed constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment. But the government's concealment theory only makes sense if it views merely having the literature as criminal. 

While this form of censorship might seem brazenly anti-constitutional to most Americans, it has been the reality faced by incarcerated individuals for decades.

Once possessing literature is considered criminal, it opens the door to corollary charges, like transporting literature to conceal evidence or the "offense" of possessing it. That's what happened to Sanchez Estrada. What other crime could the magazines have incriminated Rueda of? 

Last month, activist Lucy Fowlkes became the 19th person indicted in connection with the same Texas protest. Fowlkes's alleged crime is using Signal, the encrypted messaging app made famous by Pete Hegseth, telling people how to delete messages, and removing people from group chats, which government lawyers argue amounts to "hinder[ing] prosecution of terrorism," a first-degree felony. 

The founders placed a great premium on ensuring Americans had the right to possess and read anything that attracted their interest, even if it challenged the government. 

But while this form of censorship might seem brazenly anti-constitutional to most Americans, it has been the reality faced by incarcerated individuals for decades. In the name of "security," prison officials have punished and even killed people for possessing literature they deemed suspect.

One such case involved Johnson Greybuffalo, a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe who dedicated himself to studying Native American history while in custody at the Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin. His studies included learning about the American Indian Movement, or AIM, a civil rights organization in the U.S. and Canada that works for equal rights for American Indians. He found information on AIM in the prison's library and took notes throughout his studies.

A prison volunteer also gave him a copy of a document titled "Warrior Society" that included a code of ethics that required Native Americans to serve the people, be honorable, kind, and not steal or be stingy. A prison guard searched his cell one day in 2005, and confiscated the AIM notes, along with the "Warrior Society" document. Both were classified as "written contraband." Greybuffalo was written a disciplinary case and sentenced to 180 days in solitary confinement. The disciplinary charge was upheld in part by a federal district court in 2010.

"Reading, writing, or sharing zines is not a crime."

In another case, Kenneth Oliver left an article about human rights activist, philosopher, and scholar George Jackson on his bunk while he went to his California prison's dining hall in 2007. An officer searched his cell and discovered two books authored by Jackson, "Blood in My Eye" and "Soledad Brother." As Oliver detailed on "Ear Hustle," the award-winning podcast created and produced from San Quentin State Prison, he came back to officers swarming his cell, which they had yellow-taped off like a real crime scene. Oliver was handcuffed and held in solitary confinement for the next eight years in California. His only offense was "possessing illegal contraband," which also made him ineligible for new sentence under a 2012 California law easing life sentences on nonviolent "three strikes" convictions. (Oliver was finally freed in 2019 after serving 23 years.)

"The guards said, 'We've been told to get rid of you,'" Oliver said on the podcast. "They want you to go to the SHU [solitary confinement] forever."

Historically, the U.S. government has always used disenfranchised populations as a test case to develop both strategy and legal precedent for infringing on constitutional rights before exporting them to society as a whole. Before incarcerated people faced retaliation for possessing books, African slaves were frequently punished for reading the Old Testament out of fear that the Exodus story might inspire them to dream of freedom. In some places, proponents of slavery reconciled their desire to convert slaves to Christianity with their fear or rebellion by creating a heavily redacted "Slave Bible." 

Land confiscated from Native populations eventually became eminent domain. Former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's surveillance of Black leaders during the civil rights movement gave justification for George W. Bush's invasive Patriot Act and mass surveillance of civilians. Now, the Trump administration is taking a page directly out of oppressive prison authorities' playbook. 

The system that gives those in charge broad power to decide what literature is a dangerous threat to "national security" interests and who they can target, detain, prosecute, and punish criminally for merely possessing it. They may be starting with anarchist magazines, but anyone on the mailing list of Trump's political enemies, whether in possession of an issue of the New York Times or an op-ed written by Marjorie Taylor Green, could find themselves on the wrong end of the administration's overreach. 

It's all so circular. When the administration declares a political viewpoint "terrorism," hiding literature espousing that viewpoint from the government is a perfectly logical response. So is using secure communications technology to communicate with others who share similar politics. But when your thoughts and reading list are deemed illegal, preventing the government from finding out what you think and read becomes a crime in and of itself — obstruction of the thought police. 

"Daniel has broken no laws," Sanchez Estrada's family said in a statement to The Intercept. "He should not be in jail, should not be threatened to lose his permanent resident status as a part of this case."

Criminalizing possession of literature is a miscarriage of justice, whether in prison or at a protester's husband's parents' house. If the Trump administration is allowed to send Sanchez Estrada to prison for the crime of possessing literature, members of society at large can be subjected to the same pernicious rules as the incarcerated. 

In a letter to his attorney published in "Soledad Brother," one of the books that landed Oliver in solitary, George Jackson wrote that if prison officials are able to trample upon the rights of incarcerated people unchecked, "There will be no means of detecting when the last right is gone. You'll only know when they start shooting you."

Sanchez Estrada, for his part, "has done nothing wrong," his family said. "Reading, writing, or sharing zines is not a crime."

The post Prison-Style Free Speech Censorship Is Coming for the Rest of Us appeared first on The Intercept.

New York City's public hospital system is paying millions to Palantir, the controversial ICE and military contractor, according to documents obtained by The Intercept.

Since 2023, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation has paid Palantir nearly $4 million to improve its ability to track down payment for the services provided at its hospitals and medical clinics. Palantir, a data analysis firm that's now a Wall Street giant thanks to its lucrative work with the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community, deploys its software to make more efficient the billing of Medicaid and other public benefits. That includes automated scanning of patient health notes to "Increase charges captured from missed opportunities," contract materials reviewed by The Intercept show.

Palantir's administrative involvement in the business of healing people stands in contrast to its longtime role helping facilitate warfare, mass deportations, and dragnet surveillance.

In 2016, The Intercept revealed Palantir's role behind XKEYSCORE, a secret NSA bulk surveillance program revealed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden that allowed the U.S. and its allies to search the unfathomably large volumes of data they collect. The company has also attracted global scrutiny and criticism for its "strategic partnership" with the Israeli military while it was leveling Gaza.

But it's Palantir's work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that is drawing the most protest today. The company provides a variety of services to help the federal government find and deport immigrants. ICE's Palantir-furnished case management software, for example, "plays a critical role in supporting the daily operations of ICE, ensuring critical mission success," according to federal contracting documents.

"It's unacceptable that the same company that is targeting our neighbors for deportation and providing tools to the Israeli military is also providing software for our hospitals," said Kenny Morris, an organizer with the American Friend Service Committee, which shared the contract documents with The Intercept.

Established by the state legislature, New York City Health and Hospitals is the nation's biggest municipal healthcare system, administering over 70 facilities throughout New York City, including Bellevue Hospital, and providing care for over a million New Yorkers annually.

New York City Health and Hospitals spokesperson Adam Shrier did not respond to multiple requests to discuss the contract's details. Palantir spokesperson Drew Messing said the company does not use or share hospital data outside the bounds of its contract.

Palantir's contract with New York's public healthcare system allows the company to work with patients' protected health information, or PHI. With permission from New York City Health and Hospitals, Palantir can "de-identify PHI and utilize de-identified PHI for purposes other than research," the contract states. De-identification generally involves the stripping of certain revealing information, such as names, Social Security numbers, and birthday. Such provisions are common in contracts involving health data.

Activists who oppose Palantir's involvement in New York point to a large body of research that indicates re-identifying personal data, including in medial contexts, is often trivial.

"Palantir is targeting the exact patients that NYCHH is looking to serve."

"Any contract that shares any of New Yorkers' highly personal data from NYC Health & Hospital's with Palantir, a key player in the Trump administration's mass deportation effort, is reckless and puts countless lives at risk," said Beth Haroules of the New York Civil Liberties Union."Every New Yorker, without exception, has a right to quality healthcare and city services. New Yorkers must be able to seek healthcare without fear that their intimate medical information, or immigration status, will be delivered to the federal government on a silver platter."

Palantir has long provided similar services to the UK's National Health Service, a business relationship that today has an increasing number of detractors. Palantir "has absolutely no place in the NHS, looking after patients' personal data," Green Party politician Zack Polanski recently stated in a letter to the UK's health secretary.

Some New York-based groups feel similarly out of distrust for what the firm could do with troves of sensitive personal data.

"Palantir is targeting the exact patients that NYCHH is looking to serve," said Jonathan Westin of the Brooklyn-based organization Climate Organizing Hub. "They should immediately sever their contract with Palantir and stand with the millions of immigrant New Yorkers that are being targeted by ICE in this moment."

"The chaos Palantir is inflicting through its technology is not just limited to the kidnapping of our immigrant neighbors and the murder of heroes like our fellow nurse, Alex Pretti," said Hannah Drummond, an Asheville, North Carolina-based nurse and organizer with National Nurses United, a nursing union. "As a nurse and patient advocate, I don't want anything having to do with Palantir in my hospital—and neither should any elected leader who claims to represent nurses."

Palantir's vocally right-wing CEO Alex Karp has been a frequent critic of New York City's newly inaugurated democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Health and Hospitals operates as a public benefit corporation, but the mayor can exert considerable influence over the network, for instance through the appointment of its board of directors. Its president Dr. Mitchell Katz was renominated by Mamdani, then the Mayor-elect, late last year.

The mayor's office did not respond in time for publication when asked about its stance on the contract.

The post Palantir Gets Millions of Dollars From New York City's Public Hospitals appeared first on The Intercept.

Rümeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, arrives at Boston Logan International Airport following her release from federal custody on May 10, 2025. Photo: Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

The video was shocking, and devoid of context, it appeared Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk was abducted off the street by masked men and hauled to a waiting van. In what turned out to be an immigration operation, the Trump administration arrested Öztürk in March 2025, jailed her in horrific conditions for 45 days, and sought to expel her from the country, claiming she supported terrorism, Hamas, antisemitism, or whatever jumbled combination of the three they lazily regurgitate whenever they target pro-Palestine speech. 

We now know that the sole basis for Öztürk's ordeal was an op-ed she co-authored in the Tufts Daily where she and three colleagues echoed opinions shared by millions of Americans about Israel's war on Gaza. It didn't mention Hamas, terrorism, or Jewish people. But it landed Öztürk, who was enrolled on an F-1 student visa, on the website of Canary Mission, a site that maintains a blacklist of activists, writers, and ordinary people who have voiced pro-Palestine views. The government has used the site to find people to deport for their constitutionally protected speech, according to court transcripts. 

This week, a judge finally dismissed the deportation case against Öztürk (although the government can still challenge that decision if it has the nerve to do so). This happened not because the legal system worked but because of the actions of courageous whistleblowers, whose disclosures discredited the administration's preposterous claims.

In April 2025, the Washington Post reported on leaked State Department memos from days before Öztürk's arrest. According to the Post, the first memo stated the administration "had not produced any evidence" linking Öztürk to terrorist organizations or antisemitic activities. A second memo recommended revoking her visa anyway on the grounds that she "engaged in anti-Israel activism in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israelis on October 7, 2023" by co-bylining the op-ed. These memos made clear that the administration deliberately decided to send masked ICE agents to abduct Öztürk near her Somerville, Massachusetts, apartment despite knowing full well it had no legitimate basis for its actions.

These were the early days of masked government goons kidnapping people off American streets, so the arrest got significant media attention. In the face of intense scrutiny, the administration continued to knowingly mislead the public, with the Department of Homeland Security claiming Öztürk "engaged in activities in support of Hamas" — without stating what those actions were. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also led the smear campaign against Öztürk, suggesting without evidence that she had been involved in activities "like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus" on campus, which he claimed would have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest." 

The government can't rely on operational security to cover up its own transgressions, and if revealing illegality impedes illegality, it's all the better.

Freedom of the Press Foundation, where I work, filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests with the State Department for the memos. The agency ignored us, forcing us to file a lawsuit. The agency continues to waste taxpayer dollars to stonewall us, even after a separate lawsuit won the release of one of the documents we requested. 

The State Department claims transparency would violate unspecified "privacy interests," presumably of the same person they quite publicly abducted, crammed into a very not-private jail cell, and slandered as a supporter of terrorism to the national media. The government has also claimed releasing the records would reveal law enforcement and investigative techniques and procedures. This reasoning is totally bunk: For one, the government publicly brags about its anti-speech immigration enforcement techniques — if you can call plucking people listed on a disreputable doxxing website a technique. And two, we're talking about procedures that result in completely innocent people being incarcerated over op-eds, which renders them ineffectual, unconstitutional, and illegal. The government can't rely on operational security to cover up its own transgressions, and if revealing illegality impedes illegality, it's all the better.    

Transparency doesn't just hinder the unconstitutional targeting of immigrants — it makes it harder for the government to trample on the rest of our rights. This administration doesn't value the First Amendment rights of citizens any more than those of noncitizens; immigrants are just the low-hanging fruit. 

When the government ignores and abuses laws designed to ensure transparency, it's no wonder that people of conscience decide to leak news to the press and public. This is why, at the same time it's persecuting the press and looking to expand ICE abuses, the government is demonizing whistleblowers. The Trump administration is certainly not the first to claim leaks are uniquely dangerous, but the escalation has been dramatic. Administration officials from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi, to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have all called leakers national security threats. Their position — which they've also adopted in their attack on the right to film law enforcement — is that they're taking away our right to know for our own good.  

It's been proven false every time, including when Bondi reversed a Biden-era policy protecting journalist-source confidentiality, blamed leakers for the change, and said whistleblowers "undermine President Trump's policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people." Bondi also called leaks "illegal and wrong." 

She focused her feigned outrage on the New York Times and the Washington Post reporting an intelligence community memo that completely undercut the Trump administration's legal rationale for invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans — reporting that another one of our FOIAs corroborated. The policy change came the same month the Post reported on the leaked Öztürk memos. 

The leaks didn't stop last April, despite Bondi's efforts. As FPF's Caitlin Vogus noted, in recent months, leaks about immigration enforcement have revealed everything from ICE's alarming instruction that officers can enter homes without a warrant signed by a judge to its taking a page out of Canary Mission's book to label people exercising their well-established right to protest the administration's immigration enforcement as "domestic terrorists." 

None of these revelations hurt legitimate national security or law enforcement operations. Instead, they reveal the operations' illegitimacy and embarrass the administration. The way for the press to win the administration's war against leaks is to publish more of them, and connect the dots when they're proven correct, like in Öztürk's case. That way, the administration's alarmist narratives about leaks don't get more press than when its narratives inevitably collapse.

The post Leakers Helped Destroy the Deportation Case Against Tufts Student appeared first on The Intercept.

MINNEAPOLIS ­— The struggle that killed Alex Pretti began with a shove. It ended with gunshots.

In the final moments before he was shot and killed by federal authorities in Minneapolis, Pretti attempted to intervene in a confrontation where several­ federal agents were shoving two women. In videos from the scene, Pretti crosses the street and places himself between the officers and the women before being pepper-sprayed, separated from the group, beaten, and shot multiple times.

"I could tell the second that I laid eyes on him that he was horrifically injured."

One of the women involved in the confrontation, who was the closest civilian to Pretti when he was killed, said that in the immediate aftermath of the shooting she identified herself as an emergency medical technician and moved to perform CPR. Federal agents restrained her, said the woman, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution by the government.

The woman, a registered EMT whose credentials were confirmed by The Intercept, said in an exclusive interview that it was apparent Pretti had suffered serious injuries and needed medical help.

"I could tell the second that I laid eyes on him that he was horrifically injured," the EMT recalled. "I immediately said, 'I'm an EMT! He has a brain injury! He has a serious brain injury! I need to help him right now.'"

In videos of the shooting, the EMT repeatedly exclaims that Pretti is "decorticate posturing" — a medical term for the curling and movements of the limbs after suffering severe brain trauma. Then, Pretti's body went completely limp. Videos show the EMT frantically pleading with one of the officers as other agents begin to surround Pretti's body.

"I was literally begging the agent who was holding me back to let me do CPR," she recalled. "Because I knew that if he wasn't pulseless at that point already, he was going to become pulseless very, very soon."

Immediately following the shooting, the EMT, who was carrying trauma supplies at the scene, attempted to reach Pretti before being intercepted and held back by a masked officer. The medic's identity and place at the scene were corroborated by an attorney with the Minnesota branch of the National Lawyers Guild. The EMT's account of events is supported by publicly available video evidence and court documents.

Government agencies have an obligation to give basic health care to people that they have arrested or detained, according to to Xavier de Janon, the director of mass defense at the National Lawyers Guild.

"If government agencies fail to keep someone alive and there is proof that it their fault, they could be liable for their actions."

"The responsibility of the government is to make sure that the person in their custody is cared for and alive," de Janon said. "If government agencies fail to keep someone alive and there is proof that it's their fault, they could be liable for their actions."

Neither the Border Patrol nor its parent agency, Customs and Border Protection, the two agencies reportedly responsible for killing Pretti, responded to requests for comment.

The EMT said that while Pretti's injuries were so severe it was unlikely he could be saved, critical minutes passed between the shooting and the time when another bystander first rendered aid — a period when the EMT was trying to get access to Pretti.

"They were hellbent on not allowing anybody to help him until he was dead," she said. "I was right there, and they — all of them — made the decision to deny me access to give him the best possible chance of survival."

Before the Shooting

For more than two months, the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have been besieged by agents from CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agents arrived as part of a sweeping nationwide assault on liberal cities carried out in the form of a massive immigration crackdown.

In Minneapolis, federal authorities have shot at least three people and injured scores more as their operations unfolded. Weeks earlier, federal agents shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old artist, while she was unarmed and inside of her vehicle.

It was against this backdrop of state violence that the EMT went in her capacity as a medic to the intersection of 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis, where Pretti would later be killed. She was responding to a call for help sent out over one of the many rapid response channels that Minneapolis residents use to track and warn residents about federal immigration agents.

Related "Uptick in Abductions": ICE Ramps Up Targeting of Minneapolis Legal Observers

"There's medics dispersed in pretty much all of the rapid response networks," she said. "People try to be available to dispatch across the city because the rate of them harming people — it's just so high at this point."

On the day of Pretti's death, immigration agents were gathered outside of a donut shop in the Whittier neighborhood of South Minneapolis. Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino claimed in a statement that officers arrived on the scene in pursuit of a "violent criminal illegal alien." A subsequent review by Minnesota officials found that the man border patrol agents claimed to be pursuing had no violent criminal convictions on record in the state.

Observer footage filmed on the day of the shooting captured the EMT and another woman standing in the street before an agent approaches them and begins shoving them across the road.  

"He was really kind of sending me flying backwards," the EMT recalled. "I was having to kind of run and stumble backwards to not fall."

As the women are pushed to the other side of the roadway, Pretti can be seen farther down the street, attempting to wave a car through the scene. Suddenly, he appears to notice the agents closing in on the civilians and changes course to intercept the officers.

In a statement following the shooting, DHS officials claimed that Pretti "wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement." The EMT said that was not true.

"He very clearly came over to assist me and the other woman as we were being hurt," she recalled. "My first recognition that he was present was feeling his arm around my waist and me looking at him and feeling very grateful that he prevented me from falling onto the sidewalk."

Read our complete coverage

Chilling Dissent

Video footage captured by another bystander shows that just as Pretti managed to stabilize the EMT, agents shoved the other woman to the ground. As Pretti and the EMT attempt to help her stand up, multiple agents surround the group and begin to spray them with cans of chemical irritant. Some of the agents continue pursuing the women, while others separate Pretti from the group and begin beating him.

"I was saying to the agents, "We're leaving! We're leaving. We're leaving!' — just trying desperately to like get them to stop," the EMT said.

She realized later, watching the video, that the same agent who grabbed her was one of the officers who shot Pretti.

Bull From Bovino

In a press conference on the day of the shooting, Greg Bovino claimed that the agents had fired "defensive shots" after "fearing for their lives."

Videos taken on the scene, however, show that, in the moments just prior to the shooting, the agent who fired the first shot at Pretti was preoccupied with attempting to pepper spray the other woman nearby. He only turns and fires multiple shots into Pretti's body after another agent exclaimed that the slain nurse had a gun.  

In the wake of the killing, President Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan claimed that Customs and Border Protection officers had attempted to render aid immediately. That did not jibe with the account of a pediatrician who witnessed the killing from a nearby apartment complex and arrived on the scene minutes later. An affidavit from the pediatrician filed in federal court closely matches the EMT's account.

The doctor claimed that, when she arrived, agents initially prevented her from treating Pretti, had not administered CPR, and were not sure whether he had a pulse. She testified that the agents standing around Pretti's body "appeared to be counting his bullet wounds," rather than administering lifesaving care. After some time, the physician was allowed to approach Pretti.

It is unclear why agents neglected to perform CPR on Pretti following the shooting. Immediately commencing CPR on cardiac arrest is standard medical practice, and neglecting or delaying the process can significantly increase a patient's chance of death. The EMT only wishes, she said, that she could have attempted to treat Pretti.

"The trauma of that is significant," she said. "He didn't get the final act of kindness of someone trying to render him aid."

"All he did was try and help two people who were being hurt by ICE agents."

Pretti was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital shortly after being transported there. Following the shooting, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem characterized him as a "domestic terrorist."

The EMT, however, thinks Pretti's actions that day may have prevented other civilians from being attacked by federal agents in the same manner.

"I think he easily could have saved me and the other woman's life," she said. "All he did was try and help two people who were being hurt by ICE agents."

The post The Woman Alex Pretti Was Killed Trying to Defend Is an EMT. Federal Agents Stopped Her From Giving First Aid. appeared first on The Intercept.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat running for Senate in Texas, wants people to know she isn't taking corporate PAC money — in her Senate campaign. 

"In this Senate race I have not taken any corporate PAC money," Crockett told the Texas journalist Tashara Parker last month. "People don't know that because my report hasn't come out yet. But they will."

But according to her most recent campaign filings, Crockett has a loophole that lets her use corporate PAC money to help fuel her Senate run — by transferring it from her House campaign. 

Crockett's latest filings with the Federal Election Commission show that she transferred at least $26,500 in donations from corporate PACs — including those representing CVS, Home Depot, AT&T, and Wells Fargo — from her House campaign to her Senate campaign on December 19.

"It relies on technicality that you can say 'I'm not accepting contributions to my Senate campaign from corporate PACs,'" said Brendan Glavin, director of insights at the government transparency group OpenSecrets. "But they can't say that there's no corporate money flowing through her Senate campaign, because it's obviously not true." 

Throughout her time in office, Crockett's stance on corporate PAC money has shifted. She was the beneficiary of millions of dollars in spending by cryptocurrency PACs in her 2022 congressional campaign, and she's taken more than $315,000 from corporate PACs affiliated with the crypto, defense, insurance, pharmaceutical, and banking industries since 2023. She's sworn off that cash while running against state Rep. James Talarico in Texas's Democratic Senate primary, now less than three weeks away, in a cycle that's being largely defined by battles over outside spending. Early voting in the race begins on Tuesday.

"As I understand it, it looks like Rep. Crockett didn't have a hard and fast personal policy about rejecting corporate PAC money for her House campaigns. Now, as she runs for Senate, she's drawing a different line," said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a nonprofit that works on campaign finance reform.

"Even if they've benefited from dark money or corporate PAC money in the past, lawmakers who stand up to a broken campaign finance system should be cheered," Beckel said. "That said, if politicians say they are taking steps to fight the broken campaign finance system, voters want them to walk the walk."

Crockett's campaign did not provide a comment by time of publication.

Speaking to Parker, Crockett suggested that questions about her corporate PAC support that have been raised since she launched her Senate campaign were a distraction from the party's goal to elect a Democratic senator from Texas. Crockett also criticized her opponent, Talarico, who has also said he's rejecting corporate PAC money but whose last campaign was largely funded by a casino PAC bankrolled by Republican megadonor Miriam Adelson.

"If politicians say they are taking steps to fight the broken campaign finance system, voters want them to walk the walk."

"At the end of the day, taking money on behalf of a corporation is taking money on behalf of a corporation, no matter whose name is on it," Crockett said.

Both Crockett and Talarico also have super PACs working on their behalf.

Crockett's House campaign received the corporate PAC contributions in question between March and November and cashed several of the checks months after they were received, four of them after she launched her Senate campaign on December 8. (FEC rules require committees to cash any checks within ten days of their receipt.) Crockett then transferred all of the corporate PAC contributions in question to her Senate campaign on December 19. 

A spokesperson for the FEC said the agency could not comment on the activities of specific candidates.

It's not unusual for some time to pass between when a campaign donor mails a check or makes an electronic transfer and when a committee marks that money as received, Glavin said. "But when we're talking about months, that's different." 

According to Beckel, "There are frequently disparities between when a corporate PAC reports issuing a check and when a candidate reports cashing it, but lengthy disparities raise questions." He pointed to recent reporting indicating that Crockett has not named a campaign manager, and said "the delayed deposits of campaign contributions raise questions about who she has hired to do her campaign finance compliance." 

When she first ran for the Texas State House in 2020, Crockett campaigned hard against corporate PAC money. In a Twitter post four days before her Democratic primary that July, Crockett hit her opponent for being funded by corporate PACs and special interests, noting that she had taken zero dollars from either. 

That was no longer true by the following month. Crockett's state campaign started accepting corporate PAC money after she won her primary and advanced to the general election, where she ran unopposed. She took $11,500 from corporate PACs and companies throughout that campaign, including PACs for AT&T, Atmos Energy, Centene, and Comcast. 

By the time she ran for Congress in 2022, Crockett was the beneficiary of the second largest amount spent by special interest groups on House candidates that cycle, Axios reported. The bulk of the funding came in the form of more than $2.7 million from two crypto PACs, including Sam Bankman-Fried's now-defunct Protect Our Future PAC. Another Bankman-Fried-funded super PAC aligned with Democrats spent a little over $7,800 supporting Crockett. She also received just over $93,400 in support from PACs for the progressive groups Texas Organizing Project and the Working Families Party. 

Since Crockett entered Congress in 2023, she's taken more than $315,000 from corporate PACs. Among them are PACs for Comcast, Blackrock, DoorDash, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Cigna, and Home Depot. 

Crockett has said she wants people working at large corporations, many of which have offices in her district, like Goldman Sachs, to feel like they can support her campaign. Last year, she raised concerns that new House maps in Texas might cut large companies out of her district. "This means that I don't have Southwest Airlines, or JSX Airlines, or Dallas Love Airport or Downtown or AT&T or Goldman Sachs," she said, "and the list goes on, of amazing companies and corporations that I'm typically bringing in to make sure that we can talk about economic opportunities for the people that live in my district."

She's also said her receipt of corporate PAC money has never affected her vote on policy issues. 

"No one's ever questioned whether or not my record was tied to any money," Crockett told Parker. "At the end of the day, I've always had relationships. Especially with me representing downtown, because I've got to look out for people and make sure they got jobs, make sure that I'm pushing them to the limit when I'm looking at their diversity or lack thereof." 

Several of the companies whose PACs have supported Crockett have been linked to Trump, including several which rolled back diversity policies under his administration, like Home Depot, Walmart, and Target. One of the crypto firms that contributed to Crockett's congressional campaign gave $1 million to Trump's 2025 inauguration committee. 

In 2023, as Crockett sought a seat on the Financial Services Committee, her colleagues in the House raised concerns about having members on the committee who'd received support from the crypto industry. She's also taken votes that benefit the companies in the crypto, banking, and defense industries after taking money from their PACs. 

After taking money from crypto PACs and several executives at crypto firms, Crockett voted for both the GENIUS Act and the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, both of which the majority of her party — including most of her fellow Texas Democrats — opposed. The crypto industry supported both bills, and President Donald Trump widely praised the GENIUS Act. 

Crockett was joined by four other Texas Democrats, including Reps. Henry Cuellar and Marc Veasey, in voting to pass the GENIUS Act last year. Seven Texas Democrats voted against the measure, which also split the broader party, with 110 Democrats voting against it and 102 voting for it. (More than 200 Republicans voted in favor.) Critics have said that the measure would help Trump further enrich himself. 

Related NY Democratic House Candidate Works for Palantir Partners Pushing AI Border Surveillance

The year prior, Crockett broke with 133 Democrats to support the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, joining the minority of 71 Democrats who voted for the measure along with 208 Republicans. She was again one of five Texas Democrats to support the bill, while seven opposed it. 

Crockett has also taken votes that benefit her campaign supporters in the defense industry. 

In January, she voted with the majority of Democrats for a national security appropriations bill that would send additional weapons to Israel. Fifty-seven Democrats voted against the measure. 

Crockett has received more than $20,000 in contributions from corporate PACs representing weapons manufacturers supplying Israel with weapons it's using to carry out the genocide in Gaza, including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Raytheon. 

Crockett's campaign did not respond to questions about how she would approach policies related to cryptocurrency regulation or U.S. military support for Israel if elected to the Senate.

The post Jasmine Crockett Swears Off Corporate Cash — But Transferred Thousands From Her House Campaign appeared first on The Intercept.

A commercial for crypto during the Super Bowl LX broadcast on televisions at a bar in Los Angeles, Calif., on Sunday, Feb. 8, 2026. Photo: Jill Connelly/Bloomberg via Getty Images

During the Super Bowl, Anthropic ran a dystopian AI ad about dystopian AI ads featuring an AI android physical trainer hawking insoles to a user who only asked for an ab workout. Not to be outdone, Amazon ran a commercial for its AI assistant Alexa+ in which Chris Hemsworth fretted over all the different ways AI might kill him, including severing his head and drowning him in his pool. Equally bleak, the telehealth company Hims & Hers ran an ad titled "RICH PEOPLE LIVE LONGER" in which oligarchs access such healthcare luxuries as facelifts, bespoke IVs, and "preventative care" to live longer than the rest of us. It was an anti-billionaire ad by a multibillion-dollar healthcare company. 

Turn on the TV today, and you will drown in a sea of ads in which capitalists denounce capitalism. Think of the PNC Bank ads where parents sell their children's naming rights a la sports stadiums for the money to raise them or the Robinhood ads where a white-haired older man, perhaps meant to evoke Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, curses the "men of means with their silver spoons eating up the financial favors of the one percent" from the deck of a yacht.  

After years of ingesting the mainstream discourse around surveillance capitalism, Occupy Wall Street, and democratic socialism, corporations are regurgitating and even surpassing the rhetoric of the modern left. Naturally, it's all a winking sleight of hand meant to corral us back into engaging with the same capitalism they portray as a hellscape — but with new and improved privatized solutions. In another widely reviled Super Bowl ad, the video doorbell company Ring tells us that every year, 10 million family pets go missing, and by opting into a web of mass surveillance, the company has reunited "more than a dog a day" with their families.

Modern advertisers descend from those ad men of the 1960s who first perfected the art of channeling our angst with society writ large into buying more junk. As historian Thomas Frank wrote in his book "The Conquest of Cool," midcentury advertisers constructed "a cultural perpetual motion machine in which disgust with the … everyday oppressions of consumer society could be enlisted to drive the ever-accelerating wheels of consumption."

The machine has hummed on ever since, retrofitting capitalism's reprimands into its rationales. It churns out commercials reframing the precariat's pain not as the product of plutocracy but as the product of buying the wrong products. Advertisements pitch that the good life is to be secured by procuring high quality goods, by curating the right combination of AI assistants, locally crafted beer, paraben-free dryer sheets, Jimmy Dean breakfast biscuits, Capital One Venture X points, BetMGM spreads, Coinbase crypto wallets, on and on.

It's lunacy. Buying Levi's won't give you deep pockets. Brand promises, like all promises, are made to be broken. As AI anxiety fueled fears of mass layoffs, Coca-Cola soothed American workers' worries about "AI coming for everything" with a glossy 2025 Super Bowl ad, featuring Lauren London, where the gleaming actress flexed her dimples and told us everything would be all right. Ten months later, Coke automated its advertising with generative videos, replacing the actors they'd paid to soothe our worries about being replaced by AI with AI itself.

This cynicism undergirds all modern advertising. Commercials clinically diagnose the painful side effects of living under a despotic capitalist regime, only to prescribe meaningless placebos of Doritos and Pepto-Bismol. And should those cheap calories and antacids fail to placate us, should we find homelessness and hunger so revolting that we crave revolution, then conglomerates will sell rebellion, too. As Frank wrote almost 30 years ago, "commercial fantasies of rebellion, liberation, and outright 'revolution' against the stultifying demands of mass society are commonplace almost to the point of invisibility in advertising, movies, and television programming." As economic angst threatens to boil over, production only ramps up. Corporate creatives feverishly manufacture transgression to keep up with populist-fueled demands for prepackaged dissent.

No matter how disingenuous or cynical, there is a secret wish expressed in these ads and the ways they resonate with consumers.

Day by day, Hulu and Netflix roll out new swashbuckling tales of scrappy revolutionary insurgencies to enrich their IP regimes. In 2026, trailers for Rachel McAdams's "Send Help" fulfill employees' dark fantasies of murdering their boss on a deserted island, as Carnival ads show weary lumber workers hammering their phone in a fit of fury. Promotions for smash rooms, axe-throwing alleys, and gun ranges generate billions, as big business charges pent-up proletariats to "unleash" in rage rooms and "throw, hit, punch, and swing at inanimate objects as a means to release your pent up frustrations and anger." It might seem cringe to invoke "1984" and its "Two Minutes Hate," where subjects of the totalitarian regime yell for two minutes, if businesses weren't doing it for us. 

Yet, no matter how thin, one can see cracks in this hulking machine. No matter how disingenuous or cynical, there is a secret wish expressed in these ads and the ways they resonate with consumers. Rituals are funny like that. Repeat them enough, and they sprout roots. In America, sedition is now a mantra. Mutiny, a popular sentiment. Populism is winning the war for hearts and minds. Billionaires who once spurned talk of class war now finance fiction about eating the rich. Just as advertisers who once fashioned consumerism as orgasmic fantasies now portray shopping in a dreaded wasteland. What are we to make of this capitalism forced to confess its contradictions? 

​At its core, today's advertising offers a repressed radicalism, a strange plea to revolt against the indignities corporations impress upon us.

After all, aren't Heineken's reminders to "drink responsibly" just bids for public transportation? Aren't E*Trade ads with octogenarian wage slaves a rallying cry for a robust social safety net? Coinbase is right, on some level, that the financial system is broken. But what if instead of more speculative crypto scams, they were boosting public banking? And Isn't Uber partially right, too? We should be our own bosses. But instead of shackling drivers as gig serfs, what if Uber's sharing economy gave drivers their share of the company's profits? What if we didn't have to shop at places we didn't get to own and didn't have to work at places where we couldn't afford the shop? What if we weren't so beat up and knocked down that E*Trade ads had to remind us that "THERE ARE DOGS WITH BETTER LIVES THAN YOU"? 

Advertisers always stop one step short, never allowing themselves to say the quiet part aloud, always walking us right up to the edge of a radical insight, yet remaining too afraid to incite working people to rise up.

There are, of course, other places one could find truly revolutionary art. There are the Adbusters McDonald's spoofs reading "EAT FAST, DIE YOUNG." There are the Black Workers Congress vintage 1971 labor posters with Haiti's Toussaint Louverture rallying Black autoworkers in Detroit to strike at Dodge. There are the Paul Beatty satires where characters wore "Nike Cortez sneakers so fucking new that if they had taken one shoe off and placed it to their ear like a conch shell, they'd hear the roar of an ocean of sweatshop labor." Yet these auteurs all feel niche compared to the pop art of Super Bowl and NCAA tournament ads. No matter how ridiculous it may seem, I've long yearned for America's prime-time advertisements, already dripping with populist contempt, to finally fulfill their revolutionary promise.

I've only seen it happen once, kind of. In the early 2020s, I was zoning out to hours of NFL when one of those inspirational Marine recruitment promos popped on — the one where jackbooted Gen Zers with square jaws punched through digital emoji clouds to transform into real men. After the ad flipped off, it was immediately followed by a nightmarish PSA where glassy-eyed, sweat-drenched veterans lurched, sobbing in empty parking lots and extended stay hotels, struggling to stave off PTSD-induced suicide. I was floored. The jump cut felt like something approaching truth, felt like ads finally reckoning with how imperialist wars for blood and oil squandered youth's promise down into a pit of stubbled, middle-aged mania.

Perhaps America can never tell the whole truth within ads, but perhaps we could tell the truth between them. Call it The Honesty in Advertising Act. From now on, every military recruitment ad could be attached to a PSA about homeless veterans. Every Kool-Aid ad could be melded with dialysis ads. Every Taco Bell ad would have to be followed by ads for Pepto-Bismol and funeral homes. Smash them all together, and they'd work like the disclaimers on cigarette cartons and liquor bottles. Surgeon General's Warning: Capitalism causes poverty, desperation, alienation, and concentration of global wealth in the top 0.0001%. Quitting now greatly reduces risks of premature death, medical debt, eviction, and environmental catastrophe.

The post The Only Solution Capitalism Has Is to Sell Us More Useless Junk appeared first on The Intercept.

Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, defending the Justice Department's widely criticized rollout of the Epstein files against accusations that her department is shielding powerful men, including President Donald Trump, at the expense of survivors. 

Democrats, who reviewed the unredacted files for the first time this week, revealed that the names of "wealthy, powerful men" were improperly redacted, while the names of victims were left exposed. 

This week on The Intercept Briefing, co-hosts Jessica Washington and Akela Lacy gave their rundown of the politics stories they're watching right now. Washington also spoke with Spencer Kuvin, an attorney representing nine of Epstein's victims, about the failures of the Department of Justice to protect survivors. 

"From the beginning of this case, the government, both from a state and federal level, have been trying to bury this, cover it up, and avoid any full exposure of the extent of the operation that was involved here," Kuvin said, "and they're doing it … because of all the both political, wealthy, and powerful individuals who were involved with Epstein and knew what was going on with these young women." 

Kuvin also spoke about the DOJ's failure to redact the names of victims in the files, including two of his clients who were victimized as children. "The current Department of Justice has a focus on something different than victims and helping victims and prosecuting bad people that victimize these young girls," he said. "Their focus instead appears to be on the important people — powerful people that are contained within these files and protecting them instead of protecting who needs the protection, the young victims in this case."

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

Transcript 

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

Akela Lacy: And I'm Akela Lacy, senior politics reporter at The Intercept.

JW: We're going to be doing something a little bit different this week and start off the show by discussing the topics that are on our mind as political reporters. Akela, what do you have your eye on this week?

AL: The midterms are here. There has been an onslaught of news this week from New York to Illinois to New Jersey — where after days of tearing my hair out, waiting for them to finalize the election results in the special election in New Jersey, 11 — it appears that the pro-Israel lobby strategy backfired and helped elect a progressive critic of Israel. So we've been writing about that. 

We also had done some reporting on AIPAC donors backing the Lieutenant Governor Tahesha Way in that race. And it appears that she is now potentially thinking about running against the winner Analilia Mejia in the next primary, which unfortunately is not that far away because there will be another race for the full term for this seat.

On Thursday, we published a story about a new endorsement in Illinois, where over the last week there's been several ads, millions of dollars spent in four races, where AIPAC is making one of its biggest investments this cycle. Our story is about a candidate in the ninth district, Kat Abughazaleh, who is now running with the endorsement of Justice Democrats and a new pro-Palestine political action committee that launched on Wednesday and is endorsing several candidates in the upcoming midterms.

Related Kat Abughazaleh on the Right to Protest

JW: Can you tell me a little bit about AIPAC strategy and how they're viewing the midterms?

AL: Yeah, so we've done a lot of reporting on this. Basically the 2024 midterms, AIPAC was extremely loud and vocal about its endorsements, its investments in these races, and there has been sort of a groundswell in criticism of AIPAC. Lots of groups popping up. I think we've seen a big shift in the number of people in the general public who are paying really close attention to how this lobby is operating in these midterms.

And in response to that, AIPAC has retreated to the way that it operated before it started spending directly on elections and launching the Super Pac and the regular PAC that many people are familiar with now, distancing itself from candidates, directing donors to fundraise for candidates that it hasn't publicly endorsed. On the other hand, you have candidates who are fundraising with AIPAC or aware that they're receiving tens of thousands of dollars from big AIPAC donors are saying that they're not seeking the endorsement of this group that they're not involved, that they're happy to take support from whoever wants to support their campaigns. And so this has made reporting on this a little bit more difficult in some ways because we're looking at donors where they overlap between these two groups.

We're trying to read between the lines of statements that officials and the group are making about whether or not they're involved in this race. And, in Illinois in particular, as I was interviewing Kat Abughazaleh on Wednesday evening, she said, AIPAC knows how toxic it is and that's why it's trying so hard to make it appear that it's not involved in this race when it very clearly is. And that I think is an evergreen statement about how it's operating in lots of races that are coming up. 

Jessie, I know you're also focusing on the midterms. What do you have your eye on right now?

JW: Yeah. First I have my eye on all of your reporting because it's been excellent.

AL: [Laughs.] Thank you.

JW: You have been writing a lot and really interestingly on AIPAC, so I've definitely been following your coverage. 

I think for me, ICE is really something I'm watching going into the midterms. In my conversations with campaigns candidates and their teams are bringing up ICE over and over again.

They recognize that part of what this election is going to be about is what kind of country we want to live in, and people are really rejecting the violence that they're seeing really publicly. Obviously, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security has been acting in ways that are violent towards communities in much quieter ways for years. But this violence that people are seeing, they're really rejecting. So I'm seeing a lot of traction with that, with campaigns.

And I think it's also an interesting juxtaposition with everything that's gone on with the Epstein files. This week and last week, you're really seeing this idea of conservatives as protectors of the innocent protectors of the weak, the ways that they've been trying to champion themselves to voters fall apart, both with the ways in which voters can see that they're not protecting the survivors connected to the Epstein files, and also the ways in which they're seeing that the authoritarianism that they have justified on the backs of, "hey, we have to protect the weak and vulnerable" is fake. So that's something I'm really watching, for campaigns to touch on.

AL: And I just think it's important to note here that Analilia Mejia, who you know, was elected in New Jersey as we were talking about, made that a cornerstone of her campaign. And like I know her campaign was really pushing that information out to reporters, that something that was so successful was that they were doing these ICE trainings at her campaign events — she was a critic of Israel. She was a supporter of all these progressive policies. But that specifically — the ICE issue — was what was resonating with voters in this district that was represented by a Republican before Mikie Sherrill was elected in 2019. So in terms of this everlasting quest to unite people across the ideological spectrum, it seems like that is being really effective.

JW: Yeah, it's definitely a message that we're seeing campaigns latch onto and we're seeing the public latch onto. And what you just said about the trainings, I've found to be so interesting, just the ways in which people have — despite being really afraid; I think it's rational to be afraid when we're seeing the kinds of violence publicly on video — but instead of just staying inside of their house, we're seeing people really resonate with this moment, go out, do these trainings, get into the streets, and that energy is something a lot of campaigns are trying to harness.

Now, whether or not they turn on that same energy, the ways in which we saw the George Floyd energy, which had been harnessed by Democrats and they really lost that momentum. It'll be curious to see if Democrats can hold onto the momentum from activists on the streets who are angry about ICE or whether we're going to see that exact same kind of turn we saw on organizers and activists who are connected to the George Floyd protests.

AL: Also this week I'm sure people were paying attention to the electric Pam Bondi hearing and the Epstein files. Jessie, you spoke to Spencer Kuvin, an attorney representing nine of Epstein's survivors.

JW: Yeah, I did. It was a really great conversation. Spencer drove home the ways in which the Trump justice apartment has been protecting the powerful at the expense of the victims in this case.

AL: Let's hear that conversation.

JW: Spencer, welcome to The Intercept Briefing.

Spencer Kuvin: Thank you so much for having me today.

JW: I want to start off by asking how the women that you represent are reacting to this latest batch of documents.

SK: Well, and thank you for asking about the victims, which really is the focus or should be the focus of everything that has been going on for the last 20 years.

Unfortunately, I had to make a very difficult call after the documents had been released. One of my clients, actually two of my clients were unfortunately unredacted and disclosed in those documents that included the first victim that came forward to police— the 14-year-old that I represented back in 2007, who the federal government was well aware of.

And another young victim who was 16 at the time that she was brought to Epstein's home in Palm Beach, they were both disclosed in these documents, unredacted. So I had to make that awful call to let them know that they had been disclosed and that I had notified the Department of Justice of what had happened.

And then thankfully within a day the redactions took place. But it's just unbelievable the failures of this Department of Justice.

JW: Yeah. Why do you think we saw such sloppy redactions in these files?

SK: I think you saw the sloppiness because of the lack of focus on what was important, and that was the victims.

I think unfortunately, the current Department of Justice has a focus on something different than victims and helping victims and prosecuting bad people that victimize these young girls. Their focus instead appears to be on the important people — powerful people — that are contained within these files and protecting them instead of protecting, who needs the protection, the young victims in this case.

JW: You're talking about someone who was abused at 14 years old, and I guess my question for you is just what does that re-traumatization look like when you're publicly outed in this way?

SK: It's awful. It's absolutely devastating. This is a young lady, for example, that chose to remain anonymous and wanted to move on with her life. And because of the drip of information over the last 20 years with respect to Epstein, she hasn't been able to move on with her life. She is now someone who is in her thirties and has a family of her own. And really does not want to have to look back at this dramatic and awful period of her life. And remaining anonymous allowed her to do that. And unfortunately the federal government is re-traumatizing these victims by making them have to go back through this awful period.

JW: Spencer, you've been working on this case for roughly 20 years. Can you give us some of the background, particularly on the sweetheart deal that Epstein got originally?

SK: Yeah, so I started working on these cases when victim number one, the first victim to go to the police in Palm Beach, walked into my office and needed help because she had, along with her parents, reported what had happened to her at Epstein's home. And that really started the snowball of this entire investigation for all of the future victims that came forward in the FBI investigation.

But what it started as was a local investigation by the town of Palm Beach, and Joe Recarey was the lead officer that I met with during that initial investigation. It was only after the state attorneys in Palm Beach refused to prosecute this case that it ended up at the FBI and the Southern District of Florida.

Then the FBI took over this case and started the prosecution and had an indictment that we now see that they've revealed unsealed that had almost 50 counts against Epstein and other potential co-conspirators that they shelved. And they shelved it because they entered into an awful, awful sweetheart deal with Epstein at the time.

That Epstein sweetheart deal was never provided to the victims. As an attorney on behalf of one of the victims, I had to fight in court just to see the crappy deal that they had entered into with Epstein and the immunity that they had given others. And that fight lasted a year in the litigation before I was able to even see it. And then once I saw it, I realized why they didn't want anyone to see it because it was such an awful deal.

JW: There are some truly horrifying allegations inside of these files, but so far there haven't been any high-profile arrests or charges brought. I think you're uniquely qualified to speak on this. What does justice look like here for the victims, and is it going to have to come from outside of the legal system?

SK: That's a good question and a very difficult one. In handling these types of cases, specifically the Epstein cases over the last 20 years, I get a lot of calls that are just not credible.

And unfortunately there is a mental health crisis in the United States and unfortunately, some of the people that have some issues will call in and make allegations that just factually don't hold water. Having said that, there are a lot of very valid tips that deal with individuals. So the FBI just seemed to categorize all of the tips that came in as not credible without even investigating them. And that's a problem.

In addition to that, Epstein entered into the sweetheart deal with the federal government as a result of the initial prosecution here in West Palm Beach in South Florida. And when they did that there were four co-conspirators that were clearly named in that agreement.

Four people that the federal government knew had assisted in the sex trafficking that Epstein was involved in. And by the way, one of those four was not Ghislaine Maxwell. She was not even named in the sweetheart deal at all. Most people don't realize that there were four other people, four other women, that were part of this conspiracy that have never been prosecuted to the state.

So the victims want them prosecuted. That's number one. There is enough information to prosecute those people and bring them to justice. Number two, they want this information out in the public so that the public can then see the full extent of this heinous operation that was going on for years. And then judge who they want to be running these important companies, corporations, in politics and whatnot, and have the public judge them for what they did, or what they didn't do, and then have them be held publicly accountable.

JW: I want to talk about these redactions again and the ways in which powerful people have been shielded as you've been just discussing now. Members of Congress were able to view the unredacted files this week. Before we get into some of the shocking revelations, I just wanted to ask you about the use of redactions to protect powerful people within the files and what you make of that, and what the women that you represent make of that.

"How do we hold the Department of Justice accountable for breaking federal law? … [W]ithout a penalty clause in the law, the only way to do that is contempt of Congress."

SK: It breaks the law. It violates federal law. The Department of Justice broke the law, and they are continuing to break the law. Make no question about this. The Epstein Transparency Act is very clear. You can read it. It is only about two pages long, and it states that no redactions shall be made for the purpose of merely embarrassment or protecting important or powerful people. In addition, it gives a deadline for the full disclosure of records. Both of those things have been violated by the Department of Justice. 

The question really is just accountability at this point. How do we hold the Department of Justice accountable for breaking federal law? That's a quandary that unfortunately, or fortunately, our country has not had to deal with yet. But right now we have to figure out a way to be able to hold the Department of Justice accountable. And I think legally speaking right now without a penalty clause in the law, the only way to do that is contempt of Congress.

JW: So on Tuesday, representative Ro Khanna revealed the names of these six, powerful, wealthy men, whose names had previously been redacted in the files. Those names included billionaire, former Victoria's Secret owner Les Wexner and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. What did those new names add to our understanding of Epstein and his world?

SK: I can tell you Les Wexner name was connected with Jeffrey Epstein, even back during the original prosecution of these cases I was involved in 2007. We were well aware of Epstein's connections with Wexner, and he was on our witness list as somebody, as a person of interest, that needed to be talked to or subpoenaed for a deposition.

Now the case is resolved before we got to that point. But the connection was clear even back then, and I think there were stories that came out in the news dating back into the late 2000s that identifies that connection.

The other wealthy, important and powerful people who were out outed in some of these records that shows the world the breadth —the true worldwide breadth —of Epstein's conspiracy and sex trafficking. And I think that there was a lot of rumor that had circulated for years, and people would call other individuals who would talk about those rumors as conspiracy theorists and crazy. And, you're making up crazy stories.

What we're seeing with these documents is that that is the reality that wealthy and powerful men around the world were trading young girls like trading cards.

JW: I should note here that Wexner's legal representative issued a statement saying "The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Mr. Wexner's legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect. Mr. Wexner cooperated fully by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again." 

I just want to get into the conspiracy element of this because I think it's important. There's been so much talk about how these files have validated conspiracy theories, like QAnon, but in my opinion, there's been far less discussion about the ways in which these files have validated the accounts of women who were abused by Epstein as children and have been speaking about it, frankly, for years.

What would it have meant to listen to these women when they spoke out instead of waiting for a trove of government documents?

SK: Huge. It's huge from an emotional standpoint a victim goes through a huge emotional trauma just reporting what she has been through or he has been through. Latest government statistics show that one out of every three women, literally, if you are in the room with three women, one of them was likely subjected to some kind of sexual trauma in their life, and one out of every five men, by the way, also according to government statistics.

"A victim goes through a huge emotional trauma just reporting what she has been through or he has been through."

And what happens is that these young women, for example, in this case, that report this, when they're met with denials, accusations, attacks, all it does is drive them deeper into a depression because they know the truth. I think what it teaches us as a society is that we have to believe victims and what they're telling us because it takes a huge amount of bravery to even come forward and report these types of things. 

I think that if that had occurred, if people had believed victims, then they would've been able to work through the healing process. Part of what I do as an advocate for victims in the civil arena is I listen to victims and I believe them.

I then fight for them based upon that belief. And just that alone can help a victim knowing that there is someone out there that's fighting for them, believing in them, and wanting to get them justice. So being a part of the system and finding an advocate for them that is a very significant thing.

Look at, for example, Virginia Giuffre. She, for years, for years had been called a liar. And we are now seeing the absolute proof that everything she was telling us was true. She may not have unfortunately committed suicide had she been able to be believed and supported as a true victim.

[Break]

JW: I want to turn towards Donald Trump because obviously he casts a large shadow over the story. On Tuesday, Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin claimed that Donald Trump appears in the Epstein files more than a million times. He also said that Trump never asked Jeffrey Epstein to leave Mar-a-Lago as he previously claimed. What is your response to these revelations?

SK: I think it's important to look at these documents within the context of what they are and the timeframe within which they were gathered. These documents were gathered after the FBI began their operation, which was around 2007. We know historically that Epstein and Trump were friends. He's admitted that, and they were friends for years. But that friendship predated a lot of this investigation.

So a lot of the information we're seeing in these files is after the 2007 period when the investigation began. What we're not seeing is the extent of that relationship and what Trump may or may not have done with Jeffrey Epstein before 2007. We know because we've seen videos of them at parties and socializing together. He admitted that he knew that he liked young girls. And Trump now is trying to obviously distance himself as far as he can from Jeffrey Epstein.

But the reality is that there was a close connection, there was a good friendship. They did go to parties together. And this is something that the FBI never fully investigated. And unfortunately, given the fact that Trump is now the President and it seems as though he has a tight grip on the Department of Justice, I don't know that there will be a full and complete investigation of his activities.

JW: I think Donald Trump complicates this story in so many ways because at its core, this is a story about the violent sexual exploitation of children, and we have to hold space for that. But it's also a political story because of Donald Trump's involvement. So I guess, how do you think about holding space for what these women have gone through as children, while also acknowledging the politics involved here?

SK: Yeah, I agree with you. I think that politics definitely complicates the issue, but we have to remember that Donald Trump is the one that actually brought this to the forefront. We have to thank him to a certain extent because during his campaign he made this a major issue as part of his campaign that he was going to release this information.

It was only after he was elected and realized what was actually in those documents, that he then started backpedaling on the release of information to the general public. Politics always complicates truth because politicians seem to have a very difficult time just being truthful with the general public.

We have to always remember that the Department of Justice is supposed to be neutral. They are not supposed to be a political arm of any political party, whether it be Democrats or Republicans. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has turned our Department of Justice into a political animal, and as we saw, for example, through the testimony of Pam Bondi the other day in front of Congress. The Department of Justice no longer has any credibility as a nonpolitical or apolitical organization. They are political, without a doubt. It is now controlled by the president and the executive branch, and that's a shame because now victims cannot trust even our own Department of Justice to investigate crimes and do the right thing.

JW: As you've just mentioned, Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. What jumped out to you from that testimony? I wanted to get your thoughts on that.

SK: Everything jumped out, including the Attorney General. It was an absolute embarrassment to our country that the highest ranking law enforcement officer in our country acted like a child.

That is exactly what the Attorney General was doing. She was acting like a child and she was clearly exhibiting pro-political leanings toward the current administration with absolutely no respect for the rule of law or her job, which is to remain neutral, and not favor either political party in any investigation or potential investigation.

And frankly, it was sad to me as a member of one of the branches of government to see a person like our own U.S. attorney general acting in that manner. It was sad and it was an embarrassment.

JW: Can justice be achieved with Pam Bondi as the attorney general? Is there a path towards that?

SK: No, I'm convinced that based upon the performance that she put on the other day, I don't believe that there's any way that justice can be accomplished. When we talk about an organization that is now a political arm of the executive branch, I don't see there's any possibility that justice can fully be accomplished while she's in office. I think that if Congress frankly had any integrity whatsoever they would do one of two things, either begin impeachment proceedings against the attorney general, or alternatively hold her in contempt of Congress.

JW: As you pointed out, Pam Bondi, Donald Trump, they all came into office using Epstein's survivors using the threat of violence against young women to really push a lot of their more authoritarian impulses.

This is historically true, for the Republicans and for conservatives, but particularly true in this moment. Did the Epstein files and the high profile men in Trump world mentioned in the files, plus what we've seen from the attorney general, reveal those concerns about violence against young women to be a farce?

SK: I think that what it revealed is the true nature of what politicians do. What politicians do is they find key issues that can separate society or inflame fears or tension within a society in order to trump up votes. I use that analogy and word specifically in this case because that's exactly what the president did, right?

"What politicians do is they find key issues that can separate society or inflame fears or tension within a society in order to trump up votes."

It's exactly what other Congress people did, is that they utilized an inflaming type of language and situation to be able to get votes. And then once they're in office, they completely retract what they said they were going to do. We see this in all types of enforcement actions when a government wants to move toward a more authoritarian type system where they justify actions through fear.

Be afraid of the illegals. Be afraid of the immigrants. Be afraid of the pedophiles that are in society. We are here to protect you, so you need more police and more military and more authoritarian governments to protect you from all of these bad people, when in reality that's not what they want. What they want is control.

That's how they get it is through fear. And I think that the way to combat that is really through truth and not being afraid, but instead standing up to power and questioning them and making them be held accountable in the public eye. And thankfully in a democratic society, we can vote people out of office if they fail to be held up to the standards that we expect of them.

JW: Do you think the American public is waking up to that reality? Because I see people in the streets, particularly in Minneapolis, but in LA throughout the country, really standing up against authoritarian power. And we also see people calling out what's been now dubbed the Epstein class. These group of people — powerful people — who abuse women, but also, and children, and more broadly abuse our society. Do you think there's been a wake up in our culture?

SK: I do think that certain people are now coming around to realize that these are not all just conspiracy theories, that there is a lot of truth behind what people have been saying for years about the elite billionaire class and their ploy to control society and the way that they think about the ordinary citizens in the world throughout the world, including the United States. But I also think that there is a certain group of society that looked at, for example, the testimony of Pam Bondi and cheered her on and said, "Wow, she did awesome, she did a great job." And there are still people that look at what Trump is doing and defend his every action and defend everything he's saying. So it won't be until we get to those people that things will really change, right? You need to be able to get on a level where you are communicating with people you disagree with, but you're discussing facts, not just bullet points, and not just points that are given to them by talking heads on television. You have to have a conversation with people you disagree with in a way that it can be fruitful to both sides to understand where they're coming from and understand why they think the way they do. 

And only then I think, will there be true change. Because otherwise you're going to continue to have a society that is fractured along a very definitive line. There used to be gray, there used to be a middle, and now there is just team A and team B, and that's the problem.

JW: A lot of people have called this a coverup, down from the federal government all the way to the local level. Do you see it as a coverup?

SK: 100 percent. From the beginning of this case, the government, both from a state and federal level, have been trying to bury this, cover it up, and avoid any full exposure of the extent of the operation that was involved here, and they're doing it for many obvious reasons because of all the both political, wealthy, and powerful individuals who were involved with Epstein and knew what was going on with these young women.

"It is a billionaire crowd trying to protect their own."

So as a result, you've got institutions that are controlled by wealthy, powerful politicians and individuals who are trying to cover up potential crimes of other wealthy, powerful politicians and powerful people. So it is a billionaire crowd trying to protect their own.

JW: That's a really good point and a good point to end on. But just first I wanted to give you a chance if you had any final thoughts that you wanted to share.

SK: I think the most important thing that I want people to remember is that victims need to be heard and victims need to be believed. And as a society, we need to trust what victims are saying first, until evidence shows otherwise, and not immediately accuse people of lying or exaggerating because by trusting them you can at least hear them out. And at least give them the space to talk about what they're going through. And even if it doesn't prove to be true, which is frankly only about less than 5 percent of the allegations that come out, according to statistics, but even if it doesn't, they believe it. And they're saying it for a reason that they truly believe. Whether they have some kind of issue going on in their life or not, it doesn't matter. Whether they remember an exact date, it doesn't matter.

They are going through something emotionally, so we should listen to what they have to say and allow them the space to say it without any judgment or accusation and then get them the help they need.

JW: Thank you, Spencer. That was a really important conversation and I really appreciate you taking the time to share both your point of view and then also the points of view from your clients who deserve to be heard.

SK: Thank you.

JW: Thank you for joining me on The Intercept Briefing.

SK: Thank you so much for having me today.

JW: That does it for this episode. 

This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Sumi Aggarwal is our executive producer. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Maia Hibbett is our Managing Editor. Chelsey B. Coombs is our social and video producer. Desiree Adib is our booking producer. Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Will Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by David Bralow.

Slip Stream provided our theme music.

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

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

If you want to send us a message, email us at podcasts@theintercept.com.

Until next time, I'm Jessica Washington.

The post Attorney for Epstein Survivors Warns That Justice Is Impossible With Bondi as AG  appeared first on The Intercept.

Three months after it began, the story of President Donald Trump's siege of Minnesota has been one told with violent imagery. Masked men smashing windows and dragging women from their cars. A smiling mother behind the wheel of her SUV, a rattling of gunshots, a dashboard sprayed with blood. Outraged Americans shouting at government agents amid clouds of choking gas. An ICU nurse prone on the pavement.

The images told the story of the streets, but even as the administration moves to wind down its historic immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities, announcing a drawdown of operations this week, another story unfolds behind locked doors and drawn curtains. It is the story of tens of thousands of families living in terror, too afraid to venture into their communities for life's most basic necessity: food.

In response to unprecedented conditions, an underground army coalesced to bring sustenance to families in hiding.

On the ground in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and communities across the state, this is the reality that has kept people up at night.

In response to unprecedented conditions, an underground army coalesced to bring sustenance to families in hiding. The Intercept was recently invited inside a nondescript Minneapolis warehouse to observe their operations in action.

It was delivery day, which meant volunteers stuffing boxes with oatmeal and spaghetti, flour and chicken, rice, tomato sauce, vegetable oil, and more. Six hundred boxes were prepared the day before. Hundreds more would be added by day's end. Inside, volunteers left notes telling recipients they were missed, and that they hoped to see them again soon.

The packages were loaded into a fleet of station wagons and SUVs. Alongside the food was baby formula, medication, and other essentials. Many of the vehicles were driven by teachers taking supplies to the families of students who haven't been to class for weeks. They would proceed carefully on their mission, one eye on the rear-view mirror as they ferried their precious cargo.

As the latest in a series of dragnets targeting Democratic-led cities and states, Minnesota's "Operation Metro Surge" saw 3,000 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol personnel deployed in early December. Across the state, immigrant families went into hiding.

Joe Walker, director of nutritional services at the Sanneh Foundation, a local charity that operates a mobile food shelf in the Twin Cities, saw the impact immediately.

Related "Uptick in Abductions": ICE Ramps Up Targeting of Minneapolis Legal Observers

Not only were families no longer appearing to receive food, Walker told The Intercept, delivery vehicles were being followed, and distribution sites were being staked out by suspected federal agents. To volunteers on the ground, it felt as though the government was weaponizing hunger to root out a foreign enemy.

"We have to play by all the rules," Walker said. "They don't."

Building an Aid Operation

Guiding operations at the warehouse visited by The Intercept was a 24-year-old soccer coach named Mu Thoo. Thoo spent his first eight years in Thailand and the rest of his life in the Twin Cities. He went to work for Walker's mobile food shelf in 2022. 

As part of the immigrant community, Thoo acknowledged that Metro Surge upended life for countless families.

"It's scary," Thoo told The Intercept, but, he added, "I don't believe in living in fear. People are going to need food, and that's something every human should have a right to. And we're gonna come out and give food to people."

"People are going to need food, and that's something every human should have a right to."

A veteran of the battle against hunger in Minnesota, Walker helped craft the state's regulations surrounding food shelves and served on the governor's hunger task force, counseling emergency management teams during the pandemic and the uprising that followed the murder of Minneapolis resident George Floyd.

The 46-year-old was immensely proud of the system his team had built. At its core were weekly, in-person distribution events in parks across the city. Held year-round, they were designed to provide a farmer's market-style experience, where families could pick and choose from the food on offer. Naturalists came to put on demonstrations for the kids. Families from South America would visit with volunteers. Bonds of community were forged between residents who otherwise may never have met.

Watching the Trump administration's immigration blitzes in Chicago and Los Angeles, Walker braced for a similar assault in Minnesota. His team began noticing a steady drop off in people of color showing up to receive food in late summer and early fall. After Metro Surge was announced, participation plummeted, from a high of nearly 700 people receiving food during a busy week last year to just over 60 once the operation began.

Read our complete coverage

Chilling Dissent

It was clear a major strategy shift was in order. At first, Walker experimented with using delivering trucks to provision clients no longer showing up in person. Soon, however, it became evident the risks were too high. In January, a food shelf delivery volunteer was taken by federal agents in the parking lot of a community center. A coalition of roughly 100 hunger relief organizations signed a letter describing the apprehension as part of a broader patter of federal agents exploiting food delivery to jack up arrests.

With one of his own drivers followed by a suspected ICE vehicle, Walker recognized that such surveillance could tip off federal agents to dozens of families in a single day. To safely get food to people would require a low profile, under-the-radar approach. To get there, Walker and his team embraced a decentralized, word-of-mouth method of operations, working with community members who were already known and trusted by their neighbors in hiding.

The pivot took off. In December, the mobile food shelf made deliveries to 735 families. In January, they delivered 1,640, an increase of 123 percent.

Food aid makes its way to immigrants in hiding on Feb. 6, 2026, in Minneapolis. Photo: Ryan Devereaux Lasting Damage

On Thursday, Trump's border czar and former ICE Acting Director Tom Homan announced a drawdown of Operation Metro Surge, effective immediately. It will likely take years to unpack the full cost of the campaign. Already, the early indicators are staggering.

While the true number of households that have received aid is impossible to know, estimates in mid-January from just one network of schools and churches hovered around 30,000 — likely a considerable undercount considering the vast number of smaller scale operations and neighbor-to-neighbor relationships facilitating care.

The mass fear engendered by the government has cost the local economy upwards of $20 million a week. Immigrant businesses have suffered tremendously, with revenue losses as high as 100 percent. Local healthcare providers estimate a 25 percent drop in emergency room and clinic visits. Isolated from their classmates and friends, immigrant kids have reverted to Covid-style online learning, as parent pick-up and drop-off sites having become hunting grounds for federal agents. 

In his address this week, Homan stressed that "mass deportations" remain the administration's chief immigration objective in Minnesota and around the country, suggesting the fear that has kept people inside these past several months is unlikely to abate anytime soon.

Although Minnesotans in the field of hunger relief take pride in their state's progressive policies, efforts to feed people in need were already strained before Metro Surge began. Trump's signature 2025 legislation, the Big Beautiful Bill, which pumped an unprecedented $75 billion into ICE, making it the most well-funded law enforcement agency in history, also cut a record $186 billion in funding for the federal government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, significantly heightening the risk of food insecurity for tens of millions of people nationwide.

Schools with high immigrant student populations, where high attendance rates are linked to the availability of free breakfasts and lunches, have seen more than 60 percent of their kids stop coming to class. When those students join their parents in hiding, the 10 meals they would have received each week fall to their parents to provide; parents whose ability to move in the outside world, let alone earn money, is threatened by continuing deportation operations. Those burdens are exacerbated in families with multiple children and cases where the head of the household is disappeared by the state.

It's not just undocumented families being impacted, Walker explained.

"There's a lot of Black and brown people that are just scared to be out and about," he said, regardless of their immigration status. "It's like covid hit a certain population of the Twin Cities."

"When do we call it's all clear? I have no idea."

Even as ICE prepares to draw down its presence, Walker and his team recognize that picking up the pieces after an operation that left two Americans dead and funneled thousands of residents into the deportation pipeline will take months, if not years.

"Families are being ruined financially, businesses are being ruined. It's a huge economic hit," he said. "And that is not even the hardest part. When it's all done, then there's the count of the missing. Where are they? Are they going to come home? These are our neighbors."

"There's no vaccine for this one," Walker continued. "When do we call it's all clear? I have no idea."

"The Fear Never Leaves"

Walker's team continues to provide in-person food availability at local parks. At one drop-off location, The Intercept saw a girl of perhaps 12 years of age and what looked to be her younger brother wheel a pair of empty strollers into a recreation center. The girl loaded her reusable grocery bags with oranges, chicken and milk. It was her second time visiting the site, she said.

Before leaving, the children spoke briefly with Sanneh employee Alberto Hernández.

"With a lot of the first-gen kids being born here, they do come for their parents," Hernández told The Intercept, after the children went on their way.

The 25-year-old Hernández could relate. He was a first-gen kid himself, the son of Mexican immigrants, born and raised in the Twin Cities area. He enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps after high school and joined Sanneh in September, just months before Metro Surge took off.

"I carry everything. I carry my veteran ID. I carry my passport."

Hernández is a big guy, clean cut with a friendly face. He'd served his country and was now spending his days giving back to the community that raised him. Even he was scared.

"I carry everything," he said. "I carry my veteran ID. I carry my passport."

It was Hernández who'd been followed by suspected ICE agents while making runs for the food shelf. His experience was just one of many. One of his closest friends hadn't left home since late December. Another, a legal resident, was surrounded by eight ICE agents while shopping at a Home Depot. According to Hernández, the barrel of an AR-15 was pressed to his skull and agents threw him to the ground before permitting him to go.

"The thing is," Hernández said, "the fear never leaves."

Despite being a military veteran with a white girlfriend, Hernández still felt uncomfortable going out to eat.

"We can't even sit and just chill," he said. "People need to know that. That's how it is here. Always looking over your shoulder."

At the same time, life in Minnesota wasn't all paranoia and dread. To Hernández, who lived in downtown Minneapolis and witnessed a 50,000-person march last month demanding ICE's retreat from the city, it was a moment of neighborly solidarity the likes of which he'd never seen. It was a reminder, to him, that he was not alone.

"As someone who's a child of immigrants, it's really nice," he said. "It's very, very, very beautiful to see. The people of Minneapolis, and the people of Minnesota, stand up for the community and their neighbors."

The post Trump Attacked Immigrant Food Aid in Minnesota. Locals Fought Back. appeared first on The Intercept.

Attorney General Pam Bondi for the first time acknowledged the existence of a secret list of domestic terrorist organizations during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. 

"I know Antifa is part of that," Bondi said under questioning about the list from Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitution and Limited Government. Bondi refused to offer any further details about the "domestic terrorist organization" database being compiled under President Donald Trump's National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, or NSPM-7.

"The goal was to get her - even by denying that she would produce it - to acknowledge that it existed and then raise the alarm," Scanlon told The Intercept.

The Justice Department had previously refused to acknowledge the list to The Intercept, despite being asked scores of questions about it over a period of months.

NSPM-7, which conflates constitutionally protected speech and political activism with "domestic terrorism" — a term that has no basis in U.S. law - specifically targets those that espouse what the administration defines as anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, anti-fascism, and radical gender ideologies, as well as those with "hostility toward those who hold traditional American views."

An implementation memo Bondi issued in December directed the FBI to "compile a list of groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism."  The initial report was to be submitted to Bondi on January 3 with regular updates issued every 30 days.

Related FBI Counterterrorism Agents Spent Weeks Seeking a Climate Activist — Then Showed Up at His Door

A November FBI internal report obtained by The Guardian revealed that there were multiple active FBI investigations related to NSPM-7 in 27 locations.  The Intercept revealed on Thursday that the FBI appears to be investigating Extinction Rebellion NYC, a climate activism group that could potentially be related to NSPM-7.

Bondi's revelation that she has a working domestic terrorist list came during four hours of back-and-forth with lawmakers that mostly focused on the recently released Justice Department files related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. When repeatedly asked if she would commit to providing the House Judiciary Committee with the NSPM-7 list, Bondi snapped at Scanlon: "I'm not going to commit to anything to you because you won't let me answer questions."

After Scanlon clarified that this meant Bondi now had a "secret list of people or groups that you are accusing of domestic terrorism, but you won't share it with Congress," Scanlon noted that such secrecy precluded Americans from challenging their inclusion on the list. Bondi refused to address the issue and instead insulted Scanlon.

Asked about the NSPM-7 list, the FBI told The Intercept that it had "no comment."  Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre failed to respond to questions about the size of the list or the persons or groups on it.

For months, the White House and Justice Department have continually failed to answer a troubling question from The Intercept regarding NSPM-7: Are Americans that the federal government deems to be members of domestic terrorist organizations subject to extrajudicial killings like those it claims are members of designated terrorist organizations who are targeted in boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean?

Scanlon entered one of the Intercept's stories on this issue into the record during the Wednesday hearing.

Related Trump Calls His Enemies Terrorists. Does That Mean He Can Just Kill Them?

Bondi's December memo, "Implementing National Security Presidential Memorandum-7: Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence," defines "domestic terrorism" in the broadest possible terms, including "conspiracies to impede … law enforcement."

Federal immigration agents have said they consider observing, following, and filming their operations a crime under the statute that prohibits assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer. This is also the foremost statute in a directory of prioritized crimes listed in NSPM-7.

Federal officers frequently confront and threaten those observing, following, and filming them for "impeding" their efforts. In numerous instances, they have unholstered or pointed weapons at the people who filmed or followed them. Both Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed by federal agents in Minneapolis while observing immigration agents.

When asked if Good or Pretti were on any domestic terrorism list, watchlist, or under surveillance by federal authorities, a bureau spokesperson said: "The FBI has no comment."

"The administration is keeping lists of Americans who the White House says are engaged in domestic terrorism. Those lists could include Americans who have not committed any acts of terrorism but simply disagree with this administration, people like Renee Good and Alex Pretti," Scanlon noted during the Wednesday hearing.

When questioned about the NSPM-7 list, Bondi stated that "on February 5, 2025, an Antifa member was arrested in Minneapolis." Baldassarre did not reply to a request for clarification, but Bondi was likely referring to a Minneapolis man who allegedly described himself as an "Antifa member" who was arrested on February 5 of this year, not 2025.

"This man allegedly doxxed and called for the murder of law enforcement officers, encouraged bloodshed in the streets, and proudly claimed affiliation with the terrorist organization Antifa before going on the run," said Bondi, last week, of Kyle Wagner, 37, who was arrested on federal charges of cyberstalking and making threatening communications.

Bondi's Justice Department memo claims that "certain Antifa-aligned extremists" profess "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment" and "a willingness to use violence against law-abiding citizenry to serve those beliefs." Over the last decade, Republicans have frequently blamed antifa for violence and used it as an omnibus term for left-wing activists, as if it were an organization with members and a command structure.

In September, Trump signed an executive order designating antifa as a "domestic terror organization," despite the fact that it is essentially a decentralized, leftist ideology — a collection of related ideas and political concepts much like feminism or environmentalism.

In addition to the Epstein files and NSPM-7, Bondi fielded questions about her department's unsuccessful effort a day earlier to prosecute six Democratic lawmakers who posted a video on social media in which they reminded military personnel that they are required to disobey illegal orders. The November video led to a Trump tirade that made the White House's failure to dismiss the possibility of summary executions of Americans even more worrisome.

"This is really bad," the president wrote on Truth Social, "and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???" A follow-up post read: "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" Trump also reposted a comment that said: "HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!"

Scanlon told The Intercept that while it was clear that Bondi was not going to provide substantive answers, the hearing did allow her and her colleagues to raise the alarm on a number of issues, including NSPM-7. 

"Every day, we're seeing this administration weaponize government to go after people who disagree with it. Whether it's shooting citizens who protest or trying to indict members of Congress who suggest that it's giving illegal military orders or trying to go after attorneys general around the country. It's not one isolated thing," Scanlon said. "It's connected to a whole bunch of areas where the government isn't doing its job and instead, is just pursuing the president's political enemies. It's truly frightening."

The post Pam Bondi Admits DOJ Has a Secret Domestic Terrorist List appeared first on The Intercept.

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, at least one of whom works on counterterrorism, went to the home of a former member of a climate activism group for questioning last week, potentially signaling a new escalation in the Trump administration's promise to criminalize nonprofits and activist groups as domestic terrorists. 

Two FBI agents, one from New York's Joint Terrorism Task Force, told a former member of Extinction Rebellion NYC they wanted to ask him about the group at his home upstate on Friday, an attorney for the group told The Intercept. The visit followed a prior attempt to reach him at his old address.

The FBI's apparent probe of Extinction Rebellion NYC comes as the Justice Department ramps up its surveillance of activists protesting immigration enforcement and the Trump administration creates secret lists of domestic enemies under Trump's National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, or NSPM-7.

"I believe this to be a significant escalation of the criminal legal system against XR and find it very troubling," said Ron Kuby, the Extinction Rebellion attorney. "This is usually the way we find out an actual investigation is underway and is often followed by other visits and other actions." 

The former Extinction Rebellion member, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear for his safety, said that the visit came after a phone call in January from a special agent that he assumed was a scam.

"I was skeptical the phone call was really from the FBI, but after I declined to speak with the agent, she said that she was standing outside my door," he said. She was actually at the activist's former address, which he said made him additionally dubious. But last week, when the agents showed up at his current address, he said he saw the agent's business card through his door.

Kuby confirmed that the agent's business card information corresponded to a current member of the FBI's New York Joint Terrorism Task Force. A text message from the agent, reviewed by The Intercept, shows she identified herself and stated that she was at the former member's house to question him about Extinction Rebellion. Her name, title, and phone number match a known special agent on the task force, according to court records.

Reached by The Intercept, a public affairs officer for the New York FBI field office said, "Per longstanding DOJ policy, we cannot confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of any investigation."

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Extinction Rebellion NYC is a chapter of a loose international climate justice movement that does highly public direct actions, like an April Earth Day spray-painting over the presidential seal inside Trump Tower in Manhattan. Kuby said none of the group's actions are violent or rise above the level of misdemeanors, and would not typically be of interest to federal counterterrorism investigators.

The former member said he had not been involved in any Extinction Rebellion actions in two years and hadn't participated in anything that he thought would send the FBI to his door. 

"They repeatedly pursued this member and traveled hundreds of miles - this suggests a real investigative effort."

"All of our actions are incredibly public," he said. He recalled that the agent said she had some questions about Extinction Rebellion NYC, and that he wasn't in any trouble, before the activist declined to speak and closed his door.

Why the FBI's counterterrorism task force would investigate Extinction Rebellion is unknown, Kuby said.

"Often, the FBI starts with former members of a group, or less central people, to begin investigations," Kuby said. "The fact that they repeatedly pursued this member, and traveled hundreds of miles from his old address in NYC - this suggests a real investigative effort."

Trump's September presidential memorandum, dubbed NSPM-7, called for the National Joint Terrorism Task Force and its local offices to investigate a broad spectrum of progressive groups and donors for "anti-fascism" beliefs. 

Related Longtime Paid FBI Informant Was Instrumental in Terror Case Against "Turtle Island Liberation Front"

A November FBI internal report obtained by The Guardian revealed that there were multiple active FBI investigations related to NSPM-7 in 27 locations, including New York, where the agent investigating Extinction Rebellion works. Trump's directive instructed Joint Terrorism Task Forces to proactively investigate groups and activists with vague language that civil liberty watchdogs say could easily criminalize protected speech and protest.

FBI agents also visited several activists affiliated with Extinction Rebellion and other climate groups in the Boston area last March, according to a local news report. The reasons for those visits remain unclear, and the activists involved said nothing came of them. The FBI's Boston Division declined to comment to the press at the time.

After Extinction Rebellion NYC members protested New York Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi's town hall at a Long Island synagogue last month, objecting to his vote to increase ICE funding, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon posted on X that she would be investigating the protest to see "whether federal law has been broken."

None of the activists involved in the Suozzi protest have been contacted by federal investigators, representatives for the group told The Intercept. Suozzi did not reply to messages. 

In 2023, then-Florida Senator and current Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote a letter to then-FBI Director Christopher Wray and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas asking them to bar members of Extinction Rebellion in the U.K. from the U.S. in response to a report that the group planned to protest at federal properties.

"Among other things, the group will allegedly block highways and disrupt federal properties, but violence and terrorist acts cannot be discounted given the group's past threats," Rubio wrote in the 2023 letter. He also used similar language in proposed legislation against "antifa" protests in 2022.

Nate Smith, an Extinction Rebellion activist who took part in the Suozzi protest, objected to characterizations of the group's activism as terrorism.

"Is petitioning an elected official at a public event what makes America great, or a federal offense?" Smith said. "I get if you don't like it. That's half the point, but 'terrorism'?" 

There have also been scattered reports of FBI agents visiting anti-ICE protesters around the country. While the FBI's interest in Extinction Rebellion remains unclear, the group pointed to Trump's NSPM-7 directive. 

"We did not anticipate that we would be among the first groups of those who speak inconveniently to be targeted," Extinction Rebellion NYC said in a public statement. "We did not anticipate the level of capitulation from our country's hallowed institutions and political opposition." 

The post FBI Counterterrorism Agents Spent Weeks Seeking a Climate Activist — Then Showed Up at His Door appeared first on The Intercept.

At first, Steven Saari said, federal immigration agents seemed to think he was one of them.

Saari, a Marine Corps combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, went to the scene of Alex Pretti's killing in Minneapolis less than an hour after federal agents fired the fatal shots. He was wearing his Marine camouflage and carrying a lawfully owned 9mm Glock handgun on his right hip, as he does every day, he told The Intercept. Agents on the scene "thought I was undercover," Saari said. "They kept asking what agency I was with."

When Saari told them he was not with any agency, their demeanor shifted. Federal immigration agents soon aimed M4-style rifles at his head, footage reviewed by The Intercept shows, their fingers on the trigger less than a minute's walk away from where Pretti was killed.

"More and more Border Patrol and ICE agents gathered around me," Saari said. "Then they moved in with rifles and handguns drawn."

The encounter raises questions about how federal agents assessed threats, used force, and made arrest decisions in the immediate aftermath of Pretti's killing. In Saari's case, he and his attorney told The Intercept, federal agents took scans and samples of his biometric data and made a copy of his phone — without obtaining a warrant.

Related "Uptick in Abductions": ICE Ramps Up Targeting of Minneapolis Legal Observers

Before the agents apprehended him, Saari said he was standing on the sidewalk observing events — not recording, protesting, or engaging with federal agents until they approached him. When they did, Saari said agents issued conflicting commands and attempted to handcuff him without first securing his firearm. He said officers briefly positioned his right hand on his handgun while pulling his arms behind his back, leaving him unsure how they expected him to comply.

Standard law enforcement firearms training typically emphasizes securing a weapon before attempting to restrain an armed person.

Saari said he feared agents might shoot him when his hand brushed the gun, even though he said officers, not his own movements, placed it there.

Agents arrested Saari and brought him to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, where he was detained for at least six hours before being released without charges.

Reached for comment, ICE referred The Intercept to Customs and Border Protection. Neither CBP nor the Department of Homeland Security responded to requests for comment.

Inside the federal building, Saari said agents shackled his hands and feet, photographed him, scanned his face, and forced him to provide a DNA sample by depressing his tongue and swabbing the inside of his mouth. He said agents denied him access to an attorney, even though they were present elsewhere in the building and in contact with civilians and federal officials that day.

"I asked for an attorney probably a hundred times and was never given one," Saari said. "I was never told why I was being arrested."

Then, Saari said, "They took my cell phone and cloned it. They actually told me they did that."

Saari said agents did not ask him to unlock the device, nor did they provide a warrant, paperwork, or explanation authorizing the search.

"They took my cell phone and cloned it. They actually told me they did that."

"Every step of this process raises red flags," said Shauna Kieffer, the vice president of the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who is now representing Saari. "You don't get to detain someone without cause, deny them access to counsel, seize their phone, and then search or copy it without a warrant."

Law enforcement may seize a phone during an arrest, but officers generally cannot access or duplicate its data without judicial authorization, said Nathan Wessler, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. He said the only exception involves narrow emergency circumstances, which typically do not apply once both a person and their phone are already in custody.

"Once the phone is secured and the person is secured, it's very hard to imagine what kind of emergency would justify searching or copying it without a warrant," Wessler said.

Failure to get a warrant raises serious concerns of violating the Fourth Amendment, Wessler added, pointing to the 2014 Supreme Court case Riley v. California, in which the court found police are generally not allowed to search an arrested person's cell phone without a specific warrant.

"The government needs a warrant to search or copy the contents of a phone, just as it would need a warrant to look through it," Wessler said. And that warrant "has to be particularized to the evidence the government actually has probable cause to seek," he added. "You don't get a blank check to rummage through someone's digital life."

"You don't get a blank check to rummage through someone's digital life."

About seven hours after his arrest, Saari was released into sub-zero temperatures without transportation, unsure of where he was. He said he didn't know if he remained under investigation, nor whether the government would retain copies of his phone data or DNA sample.

"Finding out that someone who served our country was being denied access to counsel was heartbreaking," said Kieffer, who was connected with Saari two days after his detention through a colleague. "He should never have been invisible to us."

While he was in detention, Saari said, agents provided minimal food and water, and detainees with visible injuries did not receive timely medical care.

"I asked for water about a dozen times," he told The Intercept. "At one point they brought three bottles of water for seven people."

Saari said detainees had to use their drinking water to clean blood off of their injured peers, which is consistent with accounts from another civilian arrested that day and previously reported by The Intercept.

Related He Witnessed an Earlier Shooting. Feds Arrested Him at the Scene of Alex Pretti's Killing.

"There was a man with a golf-ball-sized contusion on his head who didn't get medical attention," Saari said. "There was a 70-year-old Marine Corps veteran with a deep gash on his elbow who was bleeding."

Saari said the treatment he received stood in sharp contrast to how he handled detainees during his own military service, including during combat operations in Iraq.

During one raid in Fallujah, Saari said his unit detained men who surrendered without resistance. After the operation, he said, they reviewed video footage showing the detainees had recently planted an improvised explosive device targeting a U.S. convoy.

Despite the brutality of some operations in Fallujah, where U.S. forces repeatedly killed Iraqi civilians, Saari said his unit restrained, searched, and turned over the detainees without abuse or humiliation.

"We still treated them as humans," Saari said. "To be treated worse here, at home, than people who had attacked our unit in a war zone, it's been hard to understand."

The post Marine Detained in Minneapolis Says Feds Copied His Phone Without a Warrant appeared first on The Intercept.

As the pro-Israel lobby seeks to shape a set of congressional races in Illinois, national progressive groups are pushing to elect a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights outside of Chicago. 

The national progressive outfit Justice Democrats and the Peace, Accountability, and Leadership PAC, a new group that launched Wednesday to support candidates advocating for Palestine in the upcoming midterms, are endorsing activist Kat Abughazaleh for Congress in Illinois's 9th District. 

The endorsement comes as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has made its biggest investment so far this cycle in electing pro-Israel Democrats in and around deep-blue Chicago, which is home to one of the nation's largest populations of Palestinian residents. 

Abughazaleh is one of over a dozen candidates running in the Democratic primary to replace retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Also running are state Sen. Laura Fine, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, local school board member and activist Bushra Amiwala, former hostage negotiator and agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Phil Andrew, and state Rep. Hoan Huynh. 

Related AIPAC Strategy Backfires as Progressive Underdog Wins Key House Race in New Jersey

Schakowsky was a longtime recipient of support from J-Street, a moderate pro-Israel group, and AIPAC appears to view the race as an opportunity to replace her with a more hardline supporter of Israel. The pro-Israel lobby has already taken one opportunity to go after a centrist who strayed from its party line, when it ran attack ads against former New Jersey Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski — a strategy that appeared to backfire and ultimately help get the progressive in the race elected.

Now, pro-Palestine groups see an opening in Chicago amid mounting public criticism of the pro-Israel lobby.

Both groups said the endorsement was a reflection of a historic level of public support for Palestinian human rights and cutting U.S. funding to Israel. Abughazaleh is the 12th candidate Justice Democrats has endorsed this cycle as it looks to more aggressively counter the pro-Israel lobby and come back from major losses in 2024.

Abughazaleh told The Intercept she's running to hold Democrats to a higher standard. 

"There's been this idea of 'vote blue no matter who' for a long time that has gotten us to the moment that we're in, because we haven't held our Party accountable," she said. She added that she was the first candidate to launch her campaign in the race before Schakowsky announced her retirement. 

"I didn't wait in line or ask for permission," Abughazaleh said. "I think a big part of that is because I felt a sense of urgency that many establishment politicians just don't because they're not facing the consequences that we are."

"Kat has spent her career doing what so many voters are desperate to see the Democratic Party do right now: fight back against Republican extremism and fight for everyday people," Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi said in a statement to The Intercept. "At a time when so many career politicians in the Party have to be convinced to condemn genocide, we are proud to support a first-time candidate with the moral clarity to oppose bottomless budgets for Israel's ethnic cleansing, abolish ICE and fight for every person to afford the life they deserve."

While AIPAC hasn't officially endorsed in the race, its donors have made their pick clear. AIPAC donors have flooded Fine's campaign and sent fundraising emails on her behalf. AIPAC is also reportedly behind just under half a million dollars in ads launched last week for Fine by the Super PAC Elect Chicago Women. Fine has distanced herself from AIPAC and said she isn't seeking its support — despite fundraising with AIPAC's board president.

Related AIPAC Head Hosts Fundraiser for House Candidate Who Swears AIPAC Isn't Backing Her

Abughazaleh, a Palestinian American activist, has made her criticism of the genocide in Gaza and U.S. military support for Israel a central piece of her campaign. She's also facing a federal indictment on felony conspiracy charges stemming from protest actions against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She turned her congressional office into a mutual aid hub and is running on Medicare for All, fixing the affordable housing crisis, and fighting authoritarianism. 

"AIPAC is so toxic that they have been doing everything they can to pretend that they are not in our race when they very clearly are," Abughazaleh said. She said voters "understand the stakes, and they're sick of their tax dollars being used to commit crimes against humanity."

Abughazaleh said she's the only one of the top three Democratic candidates — counting herself, Fine, and Biss — who's never met with AIPAC. Biss previously met with local AIPAC representatives, but he said he did not share the group's "hardline views" and had never sought their support. 

Both Abughazaleh and Biss have been vocal in criticizing AIPAC's efforts to boost their opponent, Fine. During a candidate forum last week, Biss directly criticized Fine's support from AIPAC donors and said voters should be troubled by her support for unconditional U.S. military aid.

"That is deeply problematic," Biss said. "That is a right-wing policy that is bad for Palestinians, Jews, Israelis, America, and the world."

Meanwhile, United Democracy Project and AIPAC are spreading their resources around the state. UDP is also reportedly backing ads from a PAC that calls itself Affordable Chicago Now!, which is teaming up with Elect Chicago Women to back Fine, Melissa Bean in the 8th District, and Donna Miller in the 2nd District.

UDP is also planning to spend close to $3 million backing Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin in the 7th District and bought its first $500,000 in ads for her on Tuesday. The move by the pro-Israel lobby has raised talk about what AIPAC donors who originally backed another candidate, real estate mogul Jason Friedman, will do now. 

The post AIPAC Is Flooding Illinois With Cash. Pro-Palestine Groups Are Backing Kat Abughazaleh appeared first on The Intercept.

Two U.S. government officials and a member of Congress pushed back on Wednesday on Trump administration claims about the reasons for the sudden closure of airspace over El Paso, Texas.

After the Federal Aviation Administration quickly rescinded an order to ground flights for 10 days, Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, and other Trump administration officials claimed that a Mexican drug cartel drone incursion prompted the shutdown. "The threat has been neutralized," Duffy said. "Mexican cartel drones breached U.S. airspace. The Department of War took action to disable the drones," another Trump administration official told The Intercept.

But two government officials with knowledge of the reasons for the shutdown say the closure was connected to the Department of War's new counter-drone laser technology and a misunderstanding by — or miscommunication with — FAA headquarters of the risks it might pose to air traffic in and around El Paso.   

The government officials told The Intercept that the counter-drone laser system near Fort Bliss was tested this week. One official said a cartel drone may have been damaged or disabled by the new system. Another said that a Mylar party balloon was destroyed. The incidents appeared to be different events.

Cartel drone activity isn't unusual along the border, the sources said. The situation, as they described it, never constituted a threat.

"There was not a threat, which is why the FAA lifted this restriction so quickly."

Asked if the closure stemmed from testing of counter-drone technology near Fort Bliss, a Department of War spokesperson said: "We have nothing further to provide."

During a call with reporters on Wednesday morning, Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar, who represents Texas' 16th Congressional District in El Paso, also said that drone activity is frequent in the area and in this case did not pose a danger.

"There was not a threat, which is why the FAA lifted this restriction so quickly," Escobar said. "There was nothing extraordinary about any drone incursion into the U.S. that I'm aware of."

Escobar emphasized that she had been in communication with Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. — the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee — who she said had received the same information. Escobar added: "If there were any incursion that would have posed a threat, the Armed Services Committee would have been made aware, and that would have been shared with me in my conversation with the ranking member this morning."

Smith's office did not return a request for comment prior to publication.

Late Tuesday night, the FAA announced it would halt all flights for 10 days due to "special security reasons," surprising Escobar and other state and local officials. The shutdown went into effect at 11:30 p.m. local time on Tuesday and was lifted a little before 7 a.m. on Wednesday. "The temporary closure of airspace over El Paso has been lifted. There is no threat to commercial aviation," the FAA announced on X on Wednesday morning. "All flights will resume as normal." 

Escobar made the point that the closure order came from Washington, not local authorities or reigonal air traffic control. "I want to emphasize that this was an FAA decision," she said. "It was their decision. There was no information provided to me or my office, no information or advance notice provided to the airport or to the city of El Paso, which is the municipality that operates the airport."

The post Officials Dispute Trump Explanation of El Paso Airspace Closure. "There Was Not a Threat." appeared first on The Intercept.

A group of activists gathered outside the Prairieland Detention Center near Dallas last July 4 with fireworks and plans to mount more than a polite protest.

They were there for less than an hour before things took a turn: A police officer was wounded by a gunshot.

Only one member of the group is accused of pulling a trigger, but 19 people went to jail on state and federal charges. Attorney General Pam Bondi labeled the defendants terrorists, and FBI Director Kash Patel bragged that it was the first time alleged antifa activists had been hit with terror charges.

Months later, the Trump administration recycled the label to smear Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Minneapolis residents who were shot and killed by federal immigration agents. They were supposedly dangerous left-wing agitators, in Pretti's case legally carrying what the government said was a "dangerous gun." The videos of Good and Pretti's killings disproved the administration's lies.

Unlike the Minneapolis shootings, the full events at Prairieland were not caught on video. Instead, a jury in federal court will hear evidence against nine defendants at a trial starting next week, which will serve as the first major courtroom test of the Trump administration's push to label left-wing activists as domestic terrorists.

"I wonder how they are going to make it stick when their attempts at framing Alex Pretti didn't work."

Court hearings in the case have taken place under heavy security, with police caravans whisking defendants to and from an Art Deco courthouse in downtown Fort Worth, Texas. Inside the courtroom, straight-backed officers maintain a perimeter.

The odds once looked long for the Prairieland group given the conservative jury pool and the seven defendants who pleaded guilty before trial, including several who are cooperating with the prosecution. The protests, crackdowns, and killings in Minneapolis, however, may have shifted perceptions of what happened seven months earlier in Texas.

"When they were crafting this indictment, they came up with that there is such a thing as a 'north Texas antifa cell,'" said Xavier de Janon, a lawyer representing one defendant in state court. "I wonder how they are going to make it stick when their attempts at framing Alex Pretti didn't work, fell flat on its face."

Jurors in the Prairieland case will be faced with key questions about protest in the Trump era. Are guns at protests a precaution or a provocation? Can the government succeed in using First Amendment-protected literature, such as anarchist zines, to win convictions? And how far can activists go when they believe their country is sliding into fascism?

Making Noise

Federal investigators and a support committee for the defendants offered starkly different takes on the purpose of the late-night gathering at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas.

For the feds, it was a planned ambush of law enforcement staged with guns, black garb, and bad intentions. Prosecutors described the defendants as "nine North Texas Antifa Cell operatives." Supporters of the defendants say the protest was an attempt to conduct a noise demonstration, of the sort that have since become common outside U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement buildings in places like Chicago and Minneapolis.

Related "Antifa" Protesters Charged With Terrorism for Constitutionally Protected Activity

The Prairieland facility, which was built to hold 700 people, housed over 1,000 by the spring of 2025. The privately operated detention center was in the news again this week, when the family of a Palestinian woman detained there since last year on alleged visa violations said she had been hospitalized after weeks of deteriorating health.

On July 4 last year, a larger group of protesters had staged a traditional demonstration of the conditions inside the lockup. That night, a group of people who had conferred on an encrypted chat app arrived outside the detention center.

Around 10:37 p.m., the fireworks started flying, according to the testimony of an FBI agent at a pretrial hearing. Some of the group of a dozen or so slashed tires on cars in the parking lot near the detention center and sprayed "ICE Pig" on one car.

Guards called 911. Local police showed up. Within minutes, an Alvarado police officer who answered the call had been shot in the neck.

The U.S. attorney's office alleges that the shooter was Benjamin Song, a former Marine Corps reservist who was a fixture in local left-wing organizations such as the Socialist Rifle Association and Food Not Bombs.

At a preliminary hearing in September, prosecutors painted a dramatic picture of the shooting: Minutes after police arrived, Song allegedly shouted "get to the rifles" and let loose with an AR-15 that had a modified, binary trigger designed to fire at a fast rate.

At the same hearing, however, defense attorneys poked holes in the government's narrative that the shooting had been planned.

Prosecutors' case that the group wanted to commit violence depends heavily on messages that members of the group allegedly sent through the encrypted messaging app, Signal, or at an in-person "gear check" before the action.

"I'm not getting arrested," Song allegedly said at one point.

Defense attorneys objected to the idea that such ominous-sounding statements were proof that the group planned an attack.

Read our complete coverage

Chilling Dissent

Under questioning from a defense attorney, an FBI agent acknowledged that no one had talked about killing police that night in the Signal group. Meanwhile, in addition to guns and black clothes, the protesters brought bullhorns.

One defense attorney asked an FBI agent on the case whether the group's members might have thought they needed guns for self-defense from police.

"A person peacefully protesting, I would say there's no risk to be killed by law enforcement," said the agent, Clark Wiethorn.

When asked whether he would acknowledge that at least some of the protesters had no plans to commit violence, the agent pushed back.

"I would say every person out there had the knowledge of the risk of violence," Wiethorn said.

While the government has portrayed the group as a disciplined team of antifa attackers, the messages show members of the group squabbling.

"All this stuff was kind of ad hoc," said Patrick McLain, the attorney for defendant Zachary Evetts. "When I'm reading these texts, they were just all over the place, and they're getting into stupid arguments with each other."

Casting a Wide Dragnet

Song, the former Marine accused of shooting the officer, managed to escape a massive police response that night. According to testimony at a pretrial hearing, they hid in brush for 24 hours before supporters whisked them away.

Shawn Smith, an assistant U.S. attorney, said at the hearing that the fact that so many people were willing to help Song "speaks to the kind of personality of Mr. Song and what he can motivate." At another point, he likened Song to a cult leader.

In the weeks that followed, investigators arrested and charged people with far looser connections to the action at Prairieland.

One of them was Dario Sanchez, a soft-spoken teacher who lives in a Dallas suburb. He was at home on the morning of July 15 when officers ripped open his door and tossed flashbangs to gain entrance.

In an interview with the Intercept, Sanchez said he was taken away in handcuffs. Law enforcement attempted to question him in a car, warning him that he faced decades in prison if he did not cooperate. Sanchez said he told his interrogators that he knew nothing about the July 4 protest - but that did not stop them from arresting him.

The allegations, Sanchez would later learn, centered on the claim that he purposefully booted a defendant accused of helping Song out of a Discord group chat operated by the Socialist Rifle Association.

Sanchez was arrested twice more, once when he was rearrested on a new charge, and another time on an alleged probation violation.

He faces only state charges in Johnson County, Texas, and he plans to take his case to a trial that has been set for April, after the federal proceeding is over.

Law enforcement has delved deep into messages among the protesters that night that appear to show allegiance to antifascism.

To boost their case against the defendants, the government has secured the services of a witness who works at a right-wing think tank, the Center for Security Policy, that was founded by Islamophobic conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney.

Related The Feds Want to Make It Illegal to Even Possess an Anarchist Zine

Prosecutors also highlighted the pamphlets and zines that two of the defendants were publishing from a garage printing press, and the membership of some defendants in a local leftist reading group, the Emma Goldman Book Club.

The titles the government spotlighted at the September hearing include "Safer in the Front," "Our Enemies in Yellow," and "Why Anarchy."

One defendant faces charges solely for ferrying such materials from one residence to another at the request of his wife, which advocates say essentially criminalizes the possession of materials protected by free speech.

"I think what they're going to be poring through in those things is any writings in there that advocate violence or harm, and somehow they are going to try to stretch that out," McLain said. "They are really stretching."

Judging by the Signal messages obtained by the government, many of the Prairieland defendants self-consciously distanced themselves from more mainstream protesters. Still, the case could have implications beyond the Dallas-Fort Worth anarchist and socialist scenes - even though at the September court hearing, a prosecutor appeared to express surprise at schisms on the left.

"They actually don't like these liberal protesters who are out there just holding signs?" Shawn Smith, the prosecutor, asked the FBI agent, who agreed with him.

"These people can't imagine that someone would care about someone else."

The Trump administration cited Prairieland as part of a supposed wave of antifascist terrorism backed or encouraged by nonprofits and Democrats. In his National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, issued in September, Trump cited both the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Prairieland action as proof of a wave of organized political violence from the left.

"A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required," Trump said.

Although many of the Prairieland defendants had already been arrested by the time of NSPM-7 was issued, it was only in October that the government obtained its first indictment charging some of them with material support of terrorism.

Sanchez believes prosecutors have pursued the case so aggressively because of a "weird antifa delusion."

"These people can't imagine that someone would care about someone else, really," Sanchez said. "Why the hell would a bunch of people show up to protest outside an ICE detention center? Why would anyone care about these people? They can't fathom that people would have that amount of empathy, and so in their minds, they have to cook up the idea that this has to be some kind of weird conspiracy."

The post Texas "Antifa Cell" Terror Trial Takes on Tough Questions About Guns at Protests Against ICE appeared first on The Intercept.

This photograph shows undated pictures provided by the U.S. Department of Justice on Jan. 30, 2026 as part of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Photo: Photo by Martin Bureau/AFP via Getty Images

With each successive trove of documents from the Epstein files the Department of Justice releases, we're treated to rare insight into how our ruling class behaves in private, and how connected many of them were to the late sex trafficker. 

The list of elites who maintained close relationships with Epstein is long and includes prominent politicians, media figures, academics, and business leaders. In contrast, the list of people who have faced any meaningful consequences, at least in the United States, is so far quite short. Recently, Brad Karp, a top Democratic Party fundraising "bundler," was removed as chair of the white-shoe law firm Paul Weiss after his extensive ties to Epstein were revealed. Peter Attia, the celebrity doctor and a new hire at Bari Weiss' CBS News, resigned from a protein bar company after emails showed him making dirty jokes with Epstein. The economist Larry Summers was deemed toxic after a previous DOJ disclosure, and despite his intention to continue teaching, was put on leave by Harvard and unceremoniously dropped by numerous institutions. So far, that's about the extent of it.

To be very explicit, this lack of serious consequences is a choice that powerful people in the United States are making. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, Prince Andrew is prince no more, reduced to merely Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor after King Charles removed all of his remaining royal titles; the former CEO of Barclays has been barred from the finance industry; the British ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, has been forced out; Morgan McSweeney, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's chief of staff and a Mandelson protege, was forced to resign under pressure; and Starmer risks losing his post over the Mandelson appointment. In Slovakia, the national security adviser to the prime minister has resigned. Accountability, if you care to enforce it, is in fact possible.

But on this side of the pond, elites have moved to protect powerful people with Epstein connections (themselves included). Donald Trump is the most obvious example; for any other president, the relationship between the two men would have been a fast track to impeachment. The documents also reveal how many powerful people maintained relationships with Epstein years after he was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008: Among them are former presidential adviser and current podcast bro Steve Bannon, Trump's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Tesla et al. CEO and "MechaHitler" progenitor Elon Musk, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. Extensive redactions to the documents by the Justice Department have slow-walked matters even further, but on Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna took aim by reading off the names of "six wealthy, powerful men that the DOJ hid for no apparent reason" on the floor of Congress.

If there's to be any measure of accountability, the powerful people who palled around with Epstein, asked his advice, or otherwise provided cover for him need to be cast out of polite society forever.

To make matters worse, many figures who appear in the files have reacted to the ongoing Epstein disclosures in ways that merit aggressive eyebrow raising. After the threat of being held in contempt of Congress, former President Bill Clinton, who for years had a close relationship with Epstein, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have finally, under pressure, agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee. The Clintons resisted subpoenas, even calling them "invalid and legally unenforceable," until a bipartisan majority of the House Oversight Committee voted to move the measure to hold them in contempt to the full House. Before that inflection point, they apparently expected Democrats to close ranks around them, as they always have in the past. Republican maneuvering aside, the presumption that noncompliance with a legitimate subpoena from Congress is somehow permissible, or even noble, reflects the air of impunity that ruling elites have toward basic functions of the rule of law.

But make no mistake: If there's to be any measure of real accountability, the powerful people who palled around with Epstein, asked his advice, or otherwise provided cover for him need to be cast out of polite society forever.

Beyond being packed with salacious gossip and more than enough material for months more of investigative journalism, the newly released documents are striking in how they reveal elites' widespread casual disdain for us commoners. Perhaps more than anything, the Epstein files are jarring for how transparently they communicate that members of our elite believe that norms, consequences, and even laws don't apply to them. There seems to be no end to the number of emails from powerful people seeking out Epstein's advice for how to handle controversies ranging from sexual assault allegations to formal human resources investigations to media scrutiny. (Former Arizona State University professor Lawrence Krauss is probably the clearest example; as Grace Panetta wrote for The 19th, "Krauss turned to Epstein for public relations advice and strategy, sent him possible cross-examination questions for his accusers, forwarded an article on the dos and don'ts for apologizing, and fielded Epstein's edits and feedback on draft statements.") 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it should absolutely be disqualifying to seek image management tips from someone like Epstein, particularly years after they pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from a minor. If you're running to a convicted child sex trafficker to plan your PR strategy, if you're chummily asking for his insights and making social plans, or if you are seeking advice on how to use professional leverage to induce a subordinate to have sex with you, then you are probably someone we should never hear from again.

It is worth being quite clear here: This does not mean everyone who makes any appearance at all in the files needs to be excised from public life. For instance, the political commentators Megan McArdle, Josh Barro, Ben Dreyfuss, and Ross Douthat recently recorded a podcast episode titled "We're All in the Epstein Files," which notes that they all are there because of tweets that a third party shared with Epstein, mostly via a newsletter sent out by Gregory Brown. That sort of thing is not the point. In order to actually clean house, we need to be clear where the dirt is. 

But there are many cases where influential figures were cavorting with Epstein for years, maintaining close relationships with a prominent sex trafficker, and often being creepy in the correspondence itself. In many more, the emails became damning in context. 

For example, the MIT Media Lab, an initiative heavily backed by billionaire Hoffman, accepted Epstein's donations for years after his conviction, including soliciting donations in 2016. Importantly, MIT Media Lab staff internally flagged Epstein's criminal history in 2013 — even sending a helpful link to his Wikipedia page — when Media Lab director Joichi Ito raised him as a prospective funder, according to a report commissioned by the university. Ito ignored those concerns, accepted Epstein's money, and remained in touch until well into 2019, including exchanging text messages in May, just three months before Epstein's death.

The new documents also show Ito attempted to arrange a meeting with himself, Hoffman, and Epstein during a 2016 conference, while promising to "drag interesting [p]eople over" from the conference to a nearby house. That awkwardness is compounded by the fact that the MIT Media Lab gave Epstein an appreciation gift even later in 2017. Ito, for his part, did resign from MIT, as well as from the boards of multiple foundations in 2019.

Or take prominent evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, who continued to solicit funding from Epstein until at least 2017, based on a check from January and a thank you note from August of that year. Trivers, along with Ito, shows how Epstein was still influential in shaping our public discourse long after he became a publicly known sex offender. In a February 2017 email, Trivers even passed along a "small joke" about his association with Epstein being described as a "folly" and he a "fool" for continuing the relationship (an allusion to Trivers' book The Folly of Fools). Trivers also credited Epstein with coming up with the idea to branch out in order to land speaking gigs, which resulted in a speaking engagement in London.

The Epstein saga has been unfolding against the backdrop of eroding trust in institutions and elites. What it has taught the public so far is that elites were undeserving of our implicit trust in the first place and, more broadly, that their shared interests are only with one another. If we want to move back toward a healthy public sphere where people are able to believe in the system and their ability to shape it, we need to reform it to be worthy of that trust. That will require never again letting people lacking any concept of basic human decency set the terms of our public discourse, dictate our moral frameworks, wield the powers of our government, or serve as our leaders. We need to cast out the creeps — permanently.

The post Americans Want Accountability With the Epstein Files. Elites Couldn't Care Less appeared first on The Intercept.

Google provided Immigration and Customs Enforcement with a wide array of personal data on a student activist and journalist, including his credit card and bank account numbers, according to a copy of an ICE subpoena obtained by The Intercept.

Amandla Thomas-Johnson had attended a protest targeting companies that supplied weapons to Israel at a Cornell University job fair in 2024 for all of five minutes, but the action got him banned from campus. When President Donald Trump assumed office and issued a series of executive orders targeting students who protested in support of Palestinians, Thomas-Johnson and his friend Momodou Taal went into hiding.

Google informed Thomas-Johnson via a brief email in April that it had already shared his metadata with the Department of Homeland Security, as The Intercept previously reported. But the full extent of the information the tech giant provided — including usernames, addresses, itemized list of services, including any IP masking services, telephone or instrument numbers, subscriber numbers or identities, and credit card and bank account numbers — was not previously known.

"I'd already seen the subpoena request that Google and Meta had sent to Momodou [Taal], and I knew that he had gotten in touch with a lawyer and the lawyer successfully challenged that," Thomas-Johnson said. "I was quite surprised to see that I didn't have that opportunity."

The subpoena provides no justification for why ICE is asking for this information, except that it's required "in connection with an investigation or inquiry relating to the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws." In the subpoena, ICE requests that Google not "disclose the existence of this summons for indefinite period of time."

Thomas-Johnson, who is British, believes that ICE requested that information to track and eventually detain him — but he had already fled to Geneva, Switzerland, and is now in Dakar, Senegal. 

Related Google Secretly Handed ICE Data About Pro-Palestine Student Activist

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing Thomas-Johnson, and the ACLU of Northern California sent a letter to Google, Amazon, Apple, Discord, Meta, Microsoft, and Reddit last week calling on tech companies to resist similar subpoenas in the future from DHS without court intervention. The letter asks the companies to provide users with as much notice as possible before complying with a subpoena to give them the opportunity to fight it, and to resist gag orders that would prevent the tech companies from informing targets that a subpoena was issued.

"Your promises to protect the privacy of users are being tested right now. As part of the federal government's unprecedented campaign to target critics of its conduct and policies, agencies like DHS have repeatedly demanded access to the identities and information of people on your services," the letter reads. "Based on our own contact with targeted users, we are deeply concerned your companies are failing to challenge unlawful surveillance and defend user privacy and speech."

In addition to Thomas-Johnson's case, the letter refers to other instances in which technology companies provided user data to DHS, including a subpoena sent to Meta to "unmask" the identities of users who documented immigration raids in California. Unlike Thomas-Johnson, users in that case were given the chance to fight the subpoena because they were made aware of it before Meta complied.

Lindsay Nash, a professor at Cardozo Law and a former staff attorney with ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said that by not giving prior notice, Google deprived Thomas-Johnson of his ability to protect his information.

"Your promises to protect the privacy of users are being tested right now."

"The problem is that it doesn't allow the person whose personal information is on the line and whose privacy may be being invaded to raise challenges to the disclosure of that potentially private information," Nash said. "And I think that's important to protect rights that they may have to their own information."

Google did not respond to a request for comment.

Tech companies' data sharing practices are primarily governed by two federal laws, the Stored Communications Act, which protects the privacy of digital communications, including emails, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices.

"Under both federal law and the law of every state, you cannot deceive consumers," said Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University St. Louis who specializes in privacy, the internet, and civil liberties. "And if you make a material misrepresentation about your data practices, that's a deceptive trade practice."

Whether or not corporations are clear enough with consumers about how they collect and share their data has been litigated for decades, Richards said, referencing the infamous Cambridge Analytica lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission, alleging that the company misled Facebook users about data collection and sharing.

Google's public privacy policy acknowledges that it will share personal information in response to an "enforceable governmental request," adding that its legal team will "frequently push back when a request appears to be overly broad or doesn't follow the correct process."

According to Google, the company overwhelmingly complied with the millions of requests made by the government for user information over the last decade. Its data also shows that those requests have spiked over the last five years. It's unclear how many of those users were given notice of those requests ahead of time or after.

Richards said that cases like these emphasize the need for legal reforms around data privacy and urged Congress to amend the Stored Communications Act to require a higher standard before the government can access our digital data. He also said the federal government needs to regulate Big Tech and place "substantive restrictions on their ability to share information with the government."

It's hard to know exactly how tech companies are handling our personal data in relation to the government, but there seems to have been a shift in optics, Richards said. "What we have seen in the 12 months since the leaders of Big Tech were there on the podium at the inauguration," Richards said, "is much more friendliness of Big Tech towards the government and towards state power."

From Dakar, Thomas-Johnson said that understanding the extent of the subpoena was terrifying but had not changed his commitment to his work.

"As a journalist, what's weird is that you're so used to seeing things from the outside," said Thomas-Johnson, whose work has appeared in outlets including Al Jazeera and The Guardian. "We need to think very hard about what resistance looks like under these conditions… where government and Big Tech know so much about us, can track us, can imprison, can destroy us in a variety of ways."

The post Google Handed ICE Student Journalist's Bank and Credit Card Numbers appeared first on The Intercept.

A progressive organizer beat the odds against millions in outside spending to win the special primary election for a congressional seat in New Jersey, offering a promising sign to left insurgents in the coming midterms and revealing a severe miscalculation on the part of the pro-Israel lobby. 

Former Rep. Tom Malinowski conceded the race in New Jersey's 11th Congressional District on Tuesday to Analilia Mejia, former political director for Sen. Bernie Sanders's 2020 presidential campaign, after initial results showed a slim margin between the two candidates for several days.

Mejia won "despite being outspent essentially ten-to-one by not just AIPAC and outside groups but also the New Jersey political machine," said Antoinette Miles, state director for the New Jersey Working Families Party. Mejia previously led the group, which backed her campaign and helped organize her field operation. 

Related AIPAC Donors Fail to Elect Last-Minute New Jersey House Pick

"No one would really categorize this district as being a left district," Miles said, pointing to the race as a sign progressive candidates can connect with voters in more moderate districts. A Republican represented the district until 2019, when former Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen retired and former Rep. Mikie Sherrill was elected. 

With the deck stacked against Mejia and little public polling in the three months since Sherrill vacated the seat to take office as New Jersey governor, there was no clear front-runner in the race. Internal polling in the final weeks of the race showed Malinowski and Mejia pulling ahead and almost equally matched, with New Jersey Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way further behind in third place, according to a source with knowledge of the data. 

Rather than targeting Mejia, the pro-Israel lobby spent more than $2 million against Malinowski, likely splitting moderate voters, while known pro-Israel donors directed funding in Way's favor. United Democracy Project, the super PAC for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, spent on ads attacking Malinowski, and AIPAC donors flooded Way's campaign with more than $50,000 in the final weeks of the race. The strategy, which UDP said was meant to help them elect the more pro-Israel candidate because Malinowski had previously questioned the provision of unconditional aid to Israel, appeared to backfire, as some observers predicted. 

"This election is a clear rejection of AIPAC by Democratic voters — AIPAC's spending and support for candidates is becoming a kiss of death in Democratic primaries because of the work our movement has done to expose them," said Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi. The group did not endorse in the race but said Mejia's win was a positive sign for the left as midterms progress. 

"This is a clear sign that the Democratic electorate is desperate to elect new leaders — like the dozen of working-class champions we're supporting in primaries this cycle — that aren't bought by AIPAC, crypto, AI, or any other corporate lobby that has created the intentionally weak and ineffective Democratic Party failing us in Congress right now," Andrabi added.

In a statement released on Tuesday, Malinowski pointed to AIPAC's influence in the race.

"Analilia deserves unequivocal praise and credit for running a positive campaign and for inspiring so many voters on Election Day," Malinowski wrote. "But the outcome of this race cannot be understood without also taking into account the massive flood of dark money that AIPAC spent on dishonest ads during the last three weeks. I wish I could say today that this effort, which was meant to intimidate Democrats across the country, failed in NJ-11."

On Friday, United Democracy Project issued a statement signaling it's still paying close attention to the race ahead of the general election in April. 

"The outcome in NJ-11 was an anticipated possibility, and our focus remains on who will serve the next full term in Congress. UDP will be closely monitoring dozens of primary races, including the June NJ-11 primary, to help ensure pro-Israel candidates are elected to Congress," UDP said in a statement posted on X. 

Some corners of the Democratic establishment are also reeling from the results of the race. After spending close to $2 million to back Way, the Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association has not made any public statements since results started rolling in on Thursday evening. DLGA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

In an email to supporters on Thursday night, the Democratic National Committee prematurely congratulated Malinowski on winning the race. The release was later removed from the DNC website.

The Democratic establishment hasn't recently had to run in competitive primaries in the district, Miles pointed out, while progressives had been preparing for this moment. 

"That says something about the shift that is happening in New Jersey right now," Miles said. "This is the first race — at least at the congressional level — in which there is an open primary, the possibility for better candidates to run, the possibility for new ideas, and the machine is being tested."

The post AIPAC Just Helped Put a Bernie Sanders Alum in Congress appeared first on The Intercept.

When U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi declared that she would seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione — the first capital prosecution announced during Donald Trump's second term — legal experts immediately raised the alarm. The decision was more propaganda than judicial process, with Bondi broadcasting the news in a press release and Instagram post before Mangione was even indicted.

"One of my biggest questions is whether the Department of Justice followed its own policies in making this decision," Robin Maher, head of the Death Penalty Information Center, told The Intercept at the time. The answer was no. "I've been handling capital cases for over 20 years, and I've never seen anything like it," a defense attorney in the Southern District of New York, told Vanity Fair. "There's a very detailed process that is supposed to be followed that is spelled out in the [DOJ] Justice Manual, and for the attorney general to just preempt that process is unheard of, as far as I know."

It was perhaps foreseeable, then, that the capital case against the alleged murderer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson might wither under scrutiny. The presiding judge tossed the death-eligible charge against Mangione last month — another high-profile setback for an administration whose mounting authoritarianism has driven out scores of DOJ prosecutors and overwhelmed the federal courts.

Yet while Mangione received frenzied attention from the start, Bondi has continued her heedless push for new death sentences mostly under the radar. To date, according to data collected by the Federal Capital Trial Project, Bondi has authorized federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty against at least 30 defendants in 24 cases.

This doesn't include cases in which Bondi has promised to seek death but has not yet filed an official notification, known as a "Notice of Intent." After Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal allegedly gunned down two National Guard officers in Washington, D.C., Bondi vowed to "do everything in our power to seek the death penalty against that monster who should not have been in our country." But prosecutors told a federal judge last week that none of the charges they have filed allow them to seek the death penalty.

Trump had always vowed to ramp up the death penalty when he returned to the White House. After carrying out 13 executions in his first term, he started his second term furious over President Joe Biden's decision to spare the lives of 37 people on federal death row. Under Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland paused federal executions and halted new capital prosecutions almost entirely.

Trump's response was a bloodthirsty executive order on Inauguration Day calling on prosecutors to seek the death penalty as often as possible. Before long, Bondi was fast-tracking capital prosecutions, running roughshod over procedural guardrails and upending the process that is supposed to govern such decisions at the Justice Department.

"What we're seeing with the death penalty is exactly what we're seeing with the extrajudicial use of violence."

This ham-fisted approach has largely backfired. Federal judges have taken the death penalty off the table in at least nine of Bondi's 30 individual authorizations so far — an emblem of the DOJ's recklessness. "Prosecutors are supposed to have a firm basis to seek the death penalty before they decide to authorize it," said Robert Dunham, director of the Death Penalty Project. "When you see a string of cases being deauthorized because they're not legitimate death penalty cases, that tells you that prosecutors are overreaching."

For its part, Trump's DOJ has argued that prosecutors have no obligation to its own protocols — and judges have no authority to enforce them. The rules and procedures that govern capital prosecutions are a mix of law and policy that Bondi is happy to dismantle, sowing chaos and curtailing defendants' rights.

Trump's death penalty agenda is inextricable from the violence he has unleashed in Minneapolis and beyond. The cases pursued by Bondi reflect Trump's wish to punish immigrants, people of color, and perceived political enemies — regardless of their alleged crimes. More than two-thirds of Bondi's death penalty authorizations have been filed against defendants who are Black, Latino, Asian, or Native American, with Black people comprising the largest share. And two-thirds target jurisdictions that, like D.C., don't have the death penalty — states like Vermont and Maryland, as well as territories like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

But perhaps most revealing are the authorizations driven by Trump's spiteful fixation on undoing the work of his predecessor. Of the 30 defendants Bondi has sought to punish with a death sentence, 15 are people whose cases were previously handled by Biden's DOJ, in which Garland decided against seeking death. Such decisions, known as "no-seeks," are filed in the vast majority of death-eligible cases. Yet Trump's DOJ has systematically sought to reverse Biden's no-seeks - an unprecedented move that has disrupted countless federal prosecutions.

The push has not gone very well so far. At least eight of the 15 authorizations in which Bondi reversed a no-seek have been thrown out by the presiding judge, with more likely to follow. Most of these cases have proceeded as non-capital trials. But one is pending before a circuit court, with DOJ lawyers insisting the judge did not have the authority to rule as he did.

"What we're seeing with the death penalty is exactly what we're seeing with the extrajudicial use of violence," said Dunham. "There's a belief that because the Trump administration wants to, they can do it — and the law be damned."

The extraordinary push to reverse Biden's no-seeks was spelled out in a memo sent to DOJ employees on February 5, 2025, the day after Bondi was confirmed. Written as a rebuke of Biden, Bondi vowed to restore the death penalty to its rightful place. "This shameful era ends today," she wrote.

The memo included a sweeping order to the DOJ's Capital Review Committee — the set of federal prosecutors who make death penalty recommendations to the attorney general. Within 120 days, the committee was to review every pending case in which Biden's DOJ had declined to pursue the death penalty. "This group shall reevaluate no-seek decisions and whether additional capital charges are appropriate," she wrote.

Related Despite Declining Support for the Death Penalty, Executions Nearly Doubled in 2025, Report Says

Attorneys general have routinely reviewed cases inherited from prior administrations. In pending capital cases, a new AG has the discretion to take death off the table. Garland withdrew dozens of death penalty authorizations brought by his predecessors, while continuing prosecution of people like Robert Bowers, who was sentenced to death in 2023 for slaughtering 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue.

Reversing a no-seek, however, is virtually unheard of. While the 1994 Federal Death Penalty Act requires prosecutors to provide a reason to withdraw a Notice of Intent, the law did not account for a scenario in which they would decide against seeking death only to later change their minds. While prosecutors can amend charges against defendants in "superseding indictments"—making it possible that a prosecution could become a capital case — the law holds that they must give notice that they will seek the death "a reasonable time before the trial."

It wasn't immediately clear how many cases fit the scope of Bondi's ordered review. But one anonymous DOJ official gave the Associated Press an estimate of 459. The order to "reevaluate" hundreds of cases in just a few months was far-fetched — and seemingly rigged against certain people from the start. Bondi's memo instructed the Capital Review Committee to pay "particular attention" to specific types of defendants: undocumented immigrants, people affiliated with "cartels or transnational criminal organizations," and those whose alleged crimes occurred "in Indian Country or within the federal special maritime and territorial jurisdictions."

These marching orders fit neatly into Trump's broader agenda. But from a practical standpoint, reversing no-seeks would make a mess of prosecutions headed for a trial or plea deal. For lawyers, judges, and families on both sides, the result would be chaos and delay. For defendants, it would be an assault on their right to due process.

Capital cases and non-capital cases proceed along distinctly different tracks from the start. People facing the death penalty are entitled to specific legal protections, including the appointment of an experienced capital defense attorney known as "learned counsel," who must immediately investigate their client's life to uncover mitigating evidence - factors like mental illness, generational trauma, poverty, and childhood neglect or abuse. In death penalty cases, this evidence often decides whether a defendant lives or dies.

Mitigating evidence is not reserved for sentencing, however. Under well-established DOJ protocols, prosecutors weighing the death penalty must solicit such evidence from defense lawyers. The process generally begins with the local U.S. Attorney's Office and — should prosecutors recommend the capital case move forward — culminates in a presentation before the Capital Review Committee in Washington, D.C.

Most federal cases never make it this far. But the DOJ's Justice Manual makes clear that the meeting is a fundamental part of the process. "No final decision to seek the death penalty may be made if defense counsel has not been afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument in mitigation," it reads.

The whole undertaking is time-consuming for defense attorneys and costly for the courts, which must budget for the significant resources a capital case demands: the appointment of learned counsel, as well as a mitigation specialist, psychological experts, and investigators. In part for this reason, prosecutors are expected to give notice early if they plan to pursue a death sentence, by a deadline set by the presiding judge. Once the government gives word that it will not seek death, a defendant is no longer entitled to the additional resources.

In the cases subjected to Bondi's memo, defense lawyers had been preparing for ordinary trials, without the legal and investigative tools afforded to capital defendants. They had not been doing what capital defense attorneys are obligated to do: prioritize the penalty phase of the trial, to prevent a client from being sentenced to die. "If you're in a no-death case and it suddenly becomes a death case, the entire life history of the defendant becomes relevant when it wasn't relevant before," Dunham explained.

A proper mitigation investigation can take years. "In cases involving foreign nationals — who are being disproportionately targeted by the Trump administration — it not only takes years, it takes investigations in foreign countries," Dunham points out.

Nonetheless, within days of the Bondi memo, defense teams began hearing from the Justice Department that they should prepare for a meeting with the Capital Review Committee.

It would not take long for judges to push back.

In May 2025, a federal judge in Nevada rejected the government's first attempt to undo a no-seek. The Biden DOJ had notified defense lawyers that they would not seek the death penalty, only for prosecutors to reverse course 12 days before the trial was set to begin. Although Bondi's memo had suggested that no-seek reversals would be based on "additional capital charges," prosecutors offered nothing to justify their move. There was no new evidence or major developments, U.S. District Judge Miranda Du wrote in a scathing order. "The government may not now unilaterally derail the course of proceedings with regard to this matter of clear procedural and constitutional weight."

Soon afterwards, a Trump-appointed judge in Maryland tossed Bondi's authorizations against three men accused of committing crimes as part of MS-13. "The government assured the Defendants and this Court, in writing, that it would not seek the death penalty," wrote U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher. "This Court will not cast aside decades of law, professional standards, and norms to accommodate the government's pursuit of its agenda."

The judges highlighted a glaring problem with the DOJ's attempts to justify its actions. "Taken to its logical conclusion," Du wrote, "the government's position would mean that defense counsel and the Court would have to continue to treat every single capital-eligible case as a death case … lest the government attempt to reverse its decision at the last minute."

This would be untenable for obvious reasons. It could also bankrupt the judiciary. If a no-seek could be revoked at any moment, judges could never safely withdraw the additional resources defendants were required to receive. All death-eligible defendants would be entitled to enhanced funding and resources until trial. According to the National Association of Federal Defenders, the resulting cost would be "incalculable," with the average number of cases requiring such resources ballooning from an estimated seven per year to "roughly 150 additional cases annually."

"Jurors may be understandably hostile to a federal government that doesn't respect local views and decisions."

These warnings came at an auspicious time. As Bondi ramped up prosecutions over the summer, the program that pays private court-appointed attorneys to represent indigent clients in federal cases ran out of money, leaving lawyers working without pay. Then came the federal shutdown. Those most heavily impacted were the very same legal teams facing the wave of new death penalty cases. "Federal capital defense lawyers are under tremendous pressure to secure the time, resources, and funding they need to adequately defend these cases," said Maher, the director of the Death Penalty Information Center.

The situation was especially senseless given how few capital prosecutions actually culminate in a death sentence — let alone an execution. Public opinion has largely turned against capital punishment, with juries increasingly refusing to send people to death row. "Securing federal death sentences will be a very difficult task given the low level of public support for the death penalty and rising concerns about federal overreach and abuse," Maher said. It will be harder still in places that have rejected capital punishment. "Jurors may be understandably hostile to a federal government that doesn't respect local views and decisions."

All of this made the Trump DOJ's targeting of U.S. territories especially vexing. In Puerto Rico, whose Constitution banned capital punishment more than 70 years ago, U.S. prosecutors have failed to win a single death sentence despite some 19 authorizations over three decades. Yet Bondi, who has authorized at least one new death case in Puerto Rico, is determined to expand such efforts to a jurisdiction that has never seen a death penalty case: the U.S. Virgin Islands.

One year before the Bondi memo, federal prosecutors filed a no-seek in the case of Richardson Dangleben Jr., charged with killing a St. Croix police detective on the Fourth of July. Garland's DOJ "intends to proceed with either a non-capital trial or plea agreement in this matter and will not seek the death penalty," the local U.S. Attorney wrote in February 2024. This confirmed what prosecutors had told Dangleben's defense attorney, Federal Public Defender Matthew Campbell, more than six months earlier. At the time, this was to be expected. The U.S. Virgin Islands, Campbell would later point out in an affidavit, "had no history of authorizing or carrying out capital sentences."

In February 2025, however, Campbell got word that federal prosecutors might seek the death penalty after all. The presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Robert Molloy, swiftly appointed learned counsel, who warned that Dangleben's defense had already been severely compromised. "If this were a capital case from its inception, we would have hired a mitigation specialist and we would have been preparing a mitigation packet for the Department of Justice from day one," she said in a phone conference. Instead - more than a year and a half after prosecutors said that they would not seek the death penalty - the lawyers were scrambling to present before the Capital Review Committee in a matter of weeks.

In May, the DOJ filed a Notice of Intent to seek the death penalty.

The authorizations in the Virgin Islands didn't stop there. Over the next few months, the government filed Notices of Intent against two more men, co-defendants Enock Cole and Jiovoni Smith. As in Dangleben's case, prosecutors had previously said that they would not seek death only to reverse course after Trump returned to office. Even more shocking was an authorization in a third Virgin Islands case, that of Rosniel Diaz-Bautista. In his case, the DOJ had apparently decided to seek a death sentence "without granting the defense any opportunity to submit mitigating evidence, make a mitigation presentation, or otherwise participate in the capital-authorization process," as Campbell wrote in a court filing. This was "wholly unprecedented in the thirty-plus year history of the modern federal death penalty."

Judges struck down all four authorizations. Ruling in Dangleben's case, Molloy — a Trump appointee — echoed the federal judges who had previously refused to allow the DOJ to reverse its no-seeks. Prosecutors had said "unequivocally" that they would "proceed with either a non-capital trial or plea agreement in this matter," he wrote. The trial "will proceed as a non-death penalty case."

But prosecutors appealed Molloy's ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which took the case. Just days before Dangleben's trial was set to start, Molloy abruptly canceled it.

Luigi Mangione appears in Manhattan Criminal Court for an evidence hearing, Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025, in New York.  Photo: William Farrington/New York Post via AP, Pool

In December, lawyers on both sides of Dangleben's case appeared before a panel of Third Circuit judges in St. Croix for oral argument. It was the first time an order rejecting one of Bondi's no-seek reversals was being tested before an appellate court. The judges have yet to rule. But if the DOJ prevails, it would potentially turn decades of case law on its head.

The National Association of Federal Defenders filed an amicus brief in support of Dangleben, warning that the government was trying to erode the authority of district courts with arguments that were "novel and extreme." DOJ lawyers were increasingly claiming that judges lacked the power to enforce the deadlines prosecutors were supposed to follow when deciding whether to seek death — or to hold them to those decisions.

The panel seemed perplexed by the whole situation. "Do you have any cases where a no-seek notice was filed, whether formal or informal, and then the case proceeded to trial as a death case?" a judge asked William Glasser, one of two lawyers representing the Trump administration.

"Your Honor, I'm not aware of any off the top of my head," Glasser replied.

"So this would be the first," the judge said. He could see why some prosecutors might wish to change their minds after filing a no-seek, say, upon uncovering new evidence. But that didn't happen in this case.

Glasser pushed back. The government "reevaluated" the evidence, he said, and decided it merited death after all. "Was it really a reevaluation?" another judge asked. "Or was it more a policy change?"

Glasser insisted that the DOJ's actions were not as disruptive as they appeared. The panel seemed skeptical. "District court judges have not only the right but the duty to set up an orderly process," one judge said. In Dangleben's case, prosecutors filed their Notice of Intent just four months before the trial date.

"Four and a half months, your Honor," Glasser clarified. But in any given case, he maintained, a trial date could simply be pushed back.

"There's a level of game theory and gamesmanship here that seems to be inimical to what we want in trials generally and especially homicide trials," one judge remarked. Perhaps more concerning, there was no "limiting principle" to the government's position: The DOJ was essentially saying it could change its mind on a whim and everyone else would have to adapt.

Glasser suggested that courts could just appeal to the government's willingness to be reasonable. "I've seen district judges saying to the government, 'Look, tell me if you're going to [bring a superseding indictment]. I need to know that for planning purposes.' And that's perfectly legitimate."

Can judges really count on the government to honor such a claim?

Yes, Glasser said.

The judge asked the obvious question: Then why can't they count on the government when it says, "We're not seeking the death penalty?"

Glasser gave a lengthy response. But the real answer was obvious to anyone who has watched Trump's assault on the courts. The real answer is that the DOJ can't be trusted at all.

The post Pam Bondi Is Pushing Death Sentences for People Spared By Her Predecessor appeared first on The Intercept.

On Friday, legal observers on an encrypted group call in Minneapolis received a desperate plea. A fellow observer was following federal agents who'd just loaded her friend into an unmarked vehicle. Now, she herself was boxed in.

"Please help," the woman said, again and again, her voice rising to a scream.

Then, her pleas stopped.

By the time support arrived, the observer was gone. All that remained was an empty SUV, engine running, abandoned in the middle of the city's snow-lined streets.

Referred to locally as abductions, it was at least the fourth such disappearance of the day — the third in a span of less than 30 minutes.

The observers call themselves commuters. They are locals who have organized to resist "Operation Metro Surge," a massive U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol campaign targeting Minnesota's undocumented population, by monitoring federal operations in the Twin Cities. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees both agencies, has called the incursion the largest immigration enforcement operation in history.

"She was so scared. The terror in her voice was really, really horrible."

Three days before the commuters were taken, the new head of Metro Surge, Trump administration border czar Tom Homan, announced a "drawdown" of 700 federal officers and agents. The president had tapped Homan to head the mission a week earlier, appointing the former ICE acting director to take over from Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, whose heavy-handed tactics culminated in three shootings in three weeks, including the killings of U.S. citizens Renée Good and Alex Pretti.

Homan has vowed to take a more "targeted" line of attack in Minnesota. His announced drawdown has fueled speculation that the civil rights abuses and unlawful arrests documented in viral videos and court filings during Bovino's tenure may be coming to an end. On the ground, the feeling is quite different.

In a message circulated among commuters Friday, the community group Defrost MN, which uses crowdsourced data to track federal immigration operations, warned residents of an "uptick in abductions" — which refer to arrests of both immigrant community members and legal observers — following Homan's takeover and an increase in the number of government personnel and vehicles involved in those operations.

"National attention on Minnesota has waned with the departure of Bovino and rhetoric by Homan that things are de-escalating," the group noted, but recent data and reports from commuters in the field did not support those conclusions. Despite orders to the contrary, the group continued, "Agents continue to draw their weapons and deploy chemical agents against observers."

Meanwhile, the deportation pipeline out of Minnesota continues to flow, with 66 shackled passengers loaded onto a plane the night of Homan's address — the highest total in nearly two weeks — according to evidence collected at the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport.

Friday's mid-afternoon disappearance of multiple commuters in quick succession provided visceral evidence that, despite the change in leadership, the struggle between President Donald Trump's federal agents and residents continues.

Commuter Kaegan Recher was among those who hurried to the scene of the observer who disappeared while on call.

"She was so scared," Recher told The Intercept. "The terror in her voice was really, really horrible."

Response to a Siege

In Minneapolis and St. Paul, as well as the surrounding suburbs, tens of thousands of immigrant families are relying on churches and mutual aid for food and financial support. People have not left their homes for weeks. Local schools have reverted to Covid-era online measures to support immigrant students too terrified to come to class. Those students who still attend in person are transported by U.S.-born neighbors and family friends. Campuses at all grade levels are patrolled by volunteers in fluorescent vests, an effort aimed at deterring federal agents' practice of targeting parent pick-up and drop-off sites.

Read our complete coverage

Chilling Dissent

Conservative estimates from local healthcare providers suggest emergency room and clinic visits in the Minneapolis area are down by 25 percent. City leaders report local businesses are losing upwards of $20 million a week. Immigrant-owned businesses have been devasted, with revenue losses hovering between 80 to 100 percent and many closing their doors for good.

These are the conditions commuters respond to. Their focus is two-fold: to document and alert. Some participate on foot, others by bicycle, many by car. They patrol neighborhoods, reporting suspicious vehicles, the license plates of which are run through a crow-sourced database of known or suspected Department of Homeland Security vehicles. When confirmations are made, commuters follow, honking their horns while observers on foot blow whistles at the passing vehicles. The Intercept has observed several such interactions in recent weeks.

Typically, federal agents try to lose the tail. If they are traveling in a caravan, one vehicle may drive slowly ahead of a commuter, allowing others to speed away. If commuters outnumber the agents, the maneuver can be difficult. Unable to shake their noisy entourage, agents will often head for the highway and, if the pursuit continues, retreat to federal headquarters.

Most commuters are careful to keep a distance between their vehicles and those of the agents. Sometimes, the authorities will pull over and stop. The commuters will stop behind them. Both vehicles will sit idling, waiting for the other to move, then carry on.

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

Occasionally, agents, heavily armed and frequently masked, will exit their vehicles and warn commuters to cease their pursuit. Some commuters do; others don't. Sometimes, commuters come upon agents at a home, a business, or an apartment complex. Given the heated state of affairs — two Americans dead, immigrants living in terror, children unable to attend school, and sweeping social and economic impacts — the encounters are often raw with emotion. Nearly everything is recorded, by agents and commuters alike.

As these interactions have become a familiar, legal experts have noted that following and filming law enforcement is protected under the Constitution. With the federal government asserting sweeping and highly contested immigration authorities, they say those efforts are more important than ever.

The Trump administration has taken a different view. Officials argue Minnesota is infested with "agitators" impeding law enforcement. Mounting evidence suggests they are mobilizing resources to put their resistance down.

Homan's Takeover

Much of the recent media attention surrounding Metro Surge has focused on Homan's reduction in forces, a move the border czar has linked to Minnesota expanding ICE's access to jails, thus reducing the number of federal personnel needed to meet the administration's immigration arrest quotas.

With some 2,000 officers and agents still on the ground, the current federal contingent is still 13 times larger than the agencies' normal footprint, outnumbering the Minneapolis Police Department three to one.

Related While Minnesotans Rejoice Over Greg Bovino's Ouster, His Replacement Is a Deportation Hard-Liner

While reducing the number of federal agents dominated headlines, it isn't the only talking point Homan has driven home since taking over.

Homan spent much of a press conference last week describing how ICE's full withdrawal hinges on the public acquiescing to the agency's mission, which, he stressed, is to achieve the president's promise of "mass deportations." The immediate goal in Minnesota is a complete federal drawdown, Homan explained, "but that is largely contingent on the end of the illegal and threatening activities against ICE and its federal partners that we're seeing in the community."  

In the past month, Homan told reporters, 158 people have been arrested for interfering with federal law enforcement, a crime for which penalties range from one to 20 years in prison. Of those cases, he claimed, 85 have been accepted for prosecution. The rest are still pending.

In most cases, people arrested for interfering with ICE are taken to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, a seven-story edifice that is part of Fort Snelling, the historic site of government-run concentration camp during the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.

Typically, commuters and other legal observers are held for around eight hours before being released. During that time, U.S. officials collect a range of identifying information. With ample evidence that the Department of Homeland Security is amassing a growing catalogue of the president's critics, and with Homan himself advertising his desire to include people who follow ICE's activities in a government "database," community concern is running high over what, exactly, the Trump administration is doing with its information on U.S. citizens.

In his address last week, Homan described an evolving effort by federal officials, including creation of a "multi-agency surge task force" and a new "unified joint operations center" that will allow the agency to "leverage joint intelligence capabilities to effectively target threats." He emphasized that there would be no reduction in security elements — often militarized tactical teams — assigned to guard deportation operations against "hostile incidents, until we see a change in what's happening with the lawlessness in impeding and interfering and assaulting of ICE and Border Patrol officers."

Homan reminded the press that he's long warned that the "hateful extreme rhetoric" of the president's opponents would lead to bloodshed. Now, he said, "there has been." Without acknowledging whose blood had been spilled, or by whom, Homan implored local leaders to urge calmness and "end the resistance."

"One Warning"

Recher, the commuter who responded to Friday's observer disappearances, has been in the streets monitoring ICE's operations since early January. His busiest week was after Homan took over. He's since noticed that agents have been less prone to immediately jump out of their cars with guns drawn — a welcome change — but that a similarly unsettling directive appears to have gone out regarding ICE's engagement with the public.

A video he shot Friday appeared to confirm as much, with a deportation officer telling Recher that he and his colleagues have been ordered to give commuters a single warning before taking them into custody.

"You just got one warning, that's it," the officer said. "What we're told, that's all you need."

"I hear more and more about abductions of observers."

Recher heeded the officer's warning. He received the panicked and disturbing call for help from the vanished commuter soon after.

"I hear less and less about successful abductions, which I'm glad," he said. "But I hear more and more about abductions of observers."

For Recher, like so many others following ICE's operations in Minnesota, the point of commuting is the thousands of immigrant families living in hiding across the Twin Cities. It is an effort to push back against the pervasive fear at the heart of the Trump administration's occupation.

"How do you justify terrorizing an entire community?" he asked. "It is the most un-American thing I've ever experienced in my entire life."

The post "Uptick In Abductions": ICE Ramps Up Targeting of Minneapolis Legal Observers appeared first on The Intercept.

A Democrat running to pick up one of the party's top target House seats recently worked for two defense contractors looking to help the federal government use artificial intelligence for border surveillance and military projects. 

Cait Conley, a Special Operations combat veteran and former national security adviser under former President Joe Biden, is running in the crowded Democratic primary to challenge incumbent Republican Rep. Mike Lawler in New York's 17th Congressional District. Her candidate financial disclosures show that she earned more than $80,000 between January 2024 and July 2025 from two companies, Primer AI and Hidden Level.

Both companies partner with far-right billionaire Peter Thiel's surveillance tech firm Palantir to help government agencies use AI. Both are military contractors; Hidden Level holds an active contract with the Department of War, and Primer's most recent one was paid out last year. Primer has also praised President Donald Trump's AI policy and advertises on its website that it "helps" the Department of Homeland security with data and intelligence work and that "Primer AI platforms support DHS missions," but it does not appear to have an active deal with the department in a federal contracting database. 

"Cait believes AI can be both an opportunity and a risk to the middle class and is determined to shape AI policy so that it grows and strengthens middle-class New Yorkers, rather than being used to further enrich billionaires," said Conley campaign manager Emily Goldson in a statement to The Intercept. "She'll be a leader in Congress, ensuring working Americans are included in the growth created and aren't left behind." 

Running in a swing district north of New York City, Conley has walked a fine line on matters of immigration and the national security apparatus, blasting Trump for deploying the military to U.S. cities and criticizing immigration agents for killing protesters. On her campaign website, she pledges to "stand strong on our national security priorities," including "defending the homeland, fighting crime, and fixing our broken immigration system."

Conley's close ties to companies at the intersection of AI and national security policy aren't a surprise given her military background. But her connections to the firms raise questions about how she might approach those policy sectors in Congress, said Albert Fox Cahn, a civil rights attorney who previously led the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project and is a lifelong resident of New York's 17th District. 

"At a time when we see so many Silicon Valley companies having their technology weaponized against immigrant communities, these sorts of consulting roles raise questions about what exactly she did and what lines were drawn," Cahn told The Intercept. 

It's unclear what exactly Conley did at the companies, according to her candidate disclosure filed with the House Clerk. She started consulting for Primer at some point after January 2024, when she left her previous job as an adviser for the Department of Homeland Security under Biden. In the period ending in July 2025, she earned $12,500 for her consulting work.  

Related Lawmakers Pave the Way to Billions in Handouts for Weapons Makers That the Pentagon Itself Opposed

Touting the candidate's military service, Goldson said that Conley "has worked with a range of private and public sector entities, either through her work at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) or as a consultant, to help keep American families and American infrastructure, like stadiums and other public spaces and our energy grid, safe from terrorist attacks." The campaign did not comment on The Intercept's questions about whether Conely was still employed by either firm.

Between January 2024 and July 2025, Conley earned $68,000 from Hidden Level, which works in radio-frequency sensing and airspace security, including monitoring unauthorized drone activity. Hidden Level's data is used in Palantir's Maven platform, which Trump's Pentagon awarded a $480 million contract in May. When Trump announced his plan to build a "golden dome" missile defense system  — described by one critic as "more of a political marketing scheme than a carefully thought-out defense program" — Hidden Level released a statement applauding his plan and saying it "stands ready to support this mission today." Of a White House directive to cut waste in commercial technology in April, the company said the "policy shift doesn't just validate the model Hidden Level was built on, it demands it."

"I get nervous when people are quick to invoke the language of national security and counter-terrorism. It raises more questions than it answers."

Both companies have received lucrative contracts from the federal government under previous administrations. Primer has won at least $7.2 million in contracts from the Department of Defense since 2021, according to federal spending records. Hidden Level earned just under $3 million in Pentagon contracts to monitor airspace and bolster the federal system that manages drone traffic between 2022 and 2024 under former President Joe Biden.

"We've seen just how brazenly people can manipulate the label 'national security and counterterrorism' and the ways it can mask government efforts aimed at people who never pose a threat to our country. As a civil rights lawyer and activist, I get very nervous when people are quick to invoke the language of national security and counter-terrorism," said Cahn, the civil rights lawyer. "It raises more questions than it answers."

The seat in suburban New York, which includes north Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, and Dutchess Counties, is a top priority for Democrats. It was one of four New York House seats the party lost to Republicans amid a slew of upsets in the 2022 midterms. The winner of the June Democratic primary will take on Lawler, a Republican who flipped the seat that cycle after a combination of redistricting and Democratic infighting helped him beat former Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney. 

Conley is one of six candidates running for the Democratic nomination. Other contenders include local official and tech founder Peter Chatzky, who has funded his own campaign with more than $10 million; Rockland County Legislator Beth Davidson; lawyer and former television reporter Mike Sacks; nonprofit executive Effie Phillips-Staley; and Air Force veteran John Cappello. 

Conley has campaigned on her military experience and highlighted the fact that the Russian government banned her from the country because of her work on Biden's National Security Council. She said she hopes voters in the swing district will see her lack of traditional political experience as a positive. "We need people who take public service seriously, who are not politicians, who are actual leaders and problem solvers," Conley told the New York Times in March.

Her campaign originally focused primarily on issues of affordability and improving Hudson Valley infrastructure, including criticizing Trump's economic policies. As the campaign progressed, Conley has become more aggressive in criticizing Trump's intensifying attacks on cities around the country and his nationwide crackdown on immigrants. 

Goldson said that Conley believed in holding ICE accountable, investigating the officials responsible for the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. "Congress must pass legislation ensuring ICE operates lawfully like local law enforcement, including banning masks and requiring judicial warrants for arrest, and sending CBP back to the border where it belongs," she added. 

Lawler, meanwhile, has urged immigration agents to "reassess their current tactics," while refraining from criticizing Trump.

Conley has faced criticism throughout the campaign — much of it from Republicans — for not voting in recent midterm elections and registering as a Democrat just before she launched her campaign. Critics attacked her for moving to the district in January from Virginia, though she grew up in the Hudson Valley. 

Her detractors have pointed out that many of her donors come from outside the district, several of them from the defense and tech industries.

Conley has received $10,000 in contributions from Matt and Kimberly Grimm, the former of whom is the co-founder of Anduril Industries. Anduril, which was heavily backed by Thiel, builds autonomous drones, systems to surveil the border, andsurveillance towers powered by AI.

"There's a lot of questions to answer, and I think that this is true for candidates across the country who have worked for these companies in the past or who you know are receiving large donations from their employees," Cahn said. "There's a growing recognition that many of these tech firms are carrying out a mission that is fundamentally at odds with the values that Democrats hold and most Americans hold."

Conley's donors also include a vice president and other employees at the top Washington lobbying firm BGR group, which has represented the Saudi government - until it cut ties with the country in 2018 - and companies like defense giant Raytheon and the energy behemoth Chevron, as well as big pharmaceutical firms. BGR vice president Joel Bailey gave Conley's campaign $500 in July, while BGR principals Syd Terry and Fred Turner each also gave Conley's campaign $250. BGR senior director Hai Peng has given Conley's campaign $5,500 to Conley's campaign since May. None of the BGR donors listed residences in New York. 

In a statement to The Intercept, Peng said he met Conley at Oklahoma's Fort Sill close to two decades ago and made the contribution in his personal capacity. "I genuinely believe she is the kind of leader our country needs right now," Peng said. 

Conley has been endorsed by several political action committees including MD PAC, previously known as Majority Democrats PAC, which has given $90,900, VoteVets, Equality PAC, and Giffords PAC. She's also endorsed by several local officials and political leaders, as well as Rep. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y. 

Cahn said he wasn't sure who, if anyone, he would vote for in the primary. But he sees the race as an example of the opportunity voters have to hold Democrats to a higher standard of accountability than in the past, particularly when it comes to policy issues like technology, surveillance and artificial intelligence. 

"We're at a new moment of accountability within the tech sector more broadly, as we start to recognize that so many tech companies are part of the apparatus that is powering ICE's attacks," Cahn said. "This is especially notable for someone who's running based off of their time in military defense roles."

The post NY Democratic House Candidate Worked for Palantir Partners Pushing AI Border Surveillance appeared first on The Intercept.

This story was supported by the Pulitzer Center.

KAMPALA, UGANDA — Ever since President Donald Trump was elected a year ago, sex workers in Kampala have suffered. The sex has suddenly become too painful.

For years, sex workers and public health workers in Uganda say condoms and sexual lubricant were plentiful. Usually paid for by American foreign aid programs such as USAID and PEPFAR, they were distributed "in bars, in hospitals, in hotels, anywhere people gathered," said Turinawe Samson, founder of Universal Love Alliance Clinic in Kampala. In a country where about 5 percent of the population has HIV — the tenth highest prevalence rate in the world — easy access was key to slowing the spread of the disease and saving lives.

But immediately after Trump's election in November 2024 — months before the Trump administration cut funding to USAID and PEPFAR — things began to change in Uganda.

Lube became stigmatized as "an immoral product used by sex workers and homosexuals," according to Samson. Uganda's Ministry of Health doesn't group it among "essential health commodities," meaning its import isn't subsidized. Few health facilities in Uganda are able to procure it. Where it can be commercially purchased, the product is either prohibitively expensive due to diminishing supply, being dangerously sold past its expiration date, or both. 

This lack of lube and the broader shaming of sex in Uganda may well result in more vaginal and urinary tract infections, and more sexually transmitted infections — including HIV. 

"We need to not be judged."

People have started using "cooking oil, unhygienic products" or "nothing at all," said Babu Ramahdan, an LGBTQ+ and human rights activist who is on his way to becoming an unlikely Ugandan lube manufacturer. "I've got all the ingredients," he says with pride, and he's already made some samples (including in different flavors). He even met with university researchers eager to help him produce it domestically. But for Ramahdan, getting his product through clinical trials may prove as difficult as finding funding: In Uganda, as in large swaths of the United States, gaining institutional approval to research anything seemingly related to LGBTQ+ health has become almost impossible.

Condoms, too, are harder to find. They are not being given away freely with the same frequency, so those who need them increasingly must buy them. But they are economically out of reach for those who need them most in a country where the average income is less than $100 a month. Interviews with 10 patients and practitioners at a clinic run for and by sex workers revealed the stark economics: Sex with a condom goes for as little as 2,000 shillings (less than 50 U.S. cents) and up to about 6,000 ($1.50). But a condom costs a sex worker 3,000 to 4,000 shillings (between 75 cents and $1) — meaning they might lose money having safe sex. Sex without a condom pays much more: up to 10,000 shillings (about $2.50).

The newfound scarcity of lube and condoms illustrates just one example of how Trump's policies have disincentivized safe sex and encouraged the transmission of disease in Uganda — not just among sex workers and their clients, but also among men who have sex with men, transgender people, those who use injection drugs, and poor people. In Uganda, these people are euphemistically called "key populations," or KPs, most at risk for HIV (terms that acknowledge or even hint at queerness have been long avoided, and since Trump was elected, that's the case even for euphemisms like "minority"). 

"We need to not be judged," one sex worker said, describing her health care needs. "We need to be asked by a doctor, 'What are your needs?' We need to feel safe answering about the kinds of sex we have. We need to be listened to, honestly."

Related Trump Gutted AIDS Health Care at the Worst Possible Time

But since the stop work order came on January 20, 2025, for projects funded by the United States, the kinds of clinics where KPs like her will not be judged have either closed with little or no notice or become overburdened by a lack of resources, an influx of clients, or both. This has pushed KPs toward Uganda's public hospital system, where seeking care means putting themselves at risk of persecution from a homophobic government.

The sex worker who wished to not be judged is one of several who told The Intercept that women in Uganda who test positive for syphilis test three times at a public hospital are denied medication, accused of being a sex worker, or even turned over to the police. (The latter means she could be arrested, extorted, or raped.) People living with HIV report that if they seek antiretroviral medication at a public hospital, their privacy may not be respected and their HIV status may be exposed to their neighbors. Queer men, fearful of potentially being referred to the police for "aggravated homosexuality" and prosecuted under Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act, often skip seeking health care at public hospitals altogether. 

These fears are not confined to so-called KPs: They are making patients who may be suffering from anal fissures, vaginal infections, or rectal cancer refrain from seeking care because they are too afraid. In a country where abortion is illegal and more than 1 million people are living with HIV, this campaign of anti-queerness will result in more people forced to have children they do not want, more people becoming infected with HIV, and without medication, more people eventually dying of AIDS.

In November 2025, almost a year after Trump's global stop work order, it was nearly impossible to drive anywhere in Kampala and avoid the profile of a mustached man in a white shirt and Panama hat against a stark yellow background. 

It was the height of Uganda's election season, and President Yoweri Museveni was running for a seventh term as Uganda's president. His face — sometimes rendered several stories in height — was inescapable. At age 81 and already president for four decades, Museveni would soon secure another term after an election in which he shut down the internet and his opposition candidate claimed to have been abducted. Museveni will serve at least 45 years as president of Uganda, if he doesn't die in office.

Accompanying his 50-foot-high face was the phrase "Protecting the Gains — as we make a qualitative leap into high middle income status."

Seeing this propaganda spelled out over Uganda's unpaved roads (and even a UNICEF school made out a fraying tent) led Ugandans who spoke with The Intercept to ask: What gains? 

Uganda is not without any resources. It is known as the "pearl of Africa," a term perhaps first coined by Winston Churchill while on a safari to describe Uganda's beautiful plants and animals. Today it applies to American, European, and Chinese interest in Uganda's bounty of rare earth minerals. Uganda is also the birthplace of the River Nile, which not only feeds Northern Africa with fresh water but also the foundations of Western religion — like the story of Moses in the reeds in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 

A motorist passes President Yoweri Museveni's campaign billboard in Kampala, Uganda, on Jan. 7, 2026. Photo: Hajarah Nalwadda/AP

But Uganda has been subjected to what Guyanese historian Walter Rodney has called the deliberate European underdevelopment of Africa. Largely falling historically into five Bantu kingdoms, modern Uganda was colonized in the 19th century, with the Imperial British East Africa Company claiming control of the region in the 1880s. (Anti-queerness was part of the colonial playbook: Despite local ways of living that today might be described as queer or trans, when the British Empire named Uganda a colony in 1894, it criminalized queer sexuality by way of Penal Code Section 377, which punished "whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.")

Amid a wave of anti-colonial resistance in Africa, Uganda shook Britain off in 1962. But over the course of six decades of independence, Uganda's presidency has been defined mostly by two men. 

Idi Amin, Uganda's third president, often cast as a brutal dictator in the West, is remembered, among other things, for expelling all British and 80,000 members of Uganda's Indian community. Locally, he is remembered as "Big Daddy." (Among those calling for recasting Amin as a more sympathetic anti-colonial figure is one of those Ugandans whom Amin expelled: Mahmood Mamdani, author of "Slow Poison: Idi Amin, Yoweri Museveni, and the Making of the Ugandan State" and father of the newly elected Uganda American New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani).

"Why have we been relying on the United States for 20 years? Why hasn't my government made this a priority for us?"

Museveni, Uganda's ninth president, has ruled since 1985, coinciding with the AIDS era. He quickly became a major face of Uganda's "ABC" approach to HIV: Abstain before marriage, be faithful in marriage and — if you fail at those two — use a condom. Ugandan HIV prevention workers who did not wish to be named for fear of persecution describe Museveni as indifferent to the crisis and having outsourced all responsibility to foreign funding. 

For instance, as one medical doctor put it, when PEPFAR began funding HIV medication in the early 2000s, "it was supposed to be an emergency plan. It's right there in the name," the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. "Why have we been relying on the United States for 20 years? Why hasn't my government made this a priority for us?"

As he managed to retain power for decades, Museveni increasingly turned a tactic of social control favored by political leaders from Vladimir Putin in Russia to Keir Starmer in England to Trump in the United States alike: Whipping up a moral panic about LGBTQ+ people. 

All of this history made it so that when public health workers in Uganda encountered what they called the "three disasters" of their recent history, it was hard to recover.

The first occurred on March 21, 2020, when the first Covid-19 case was reported in Uganda, which led to strict lockdowns that made HIV care very difficult to provide.

Related Progressives Use Pentagon Budget to Protest Outrageous Anti-LGBTQ+ Law

The second struck in the spring of 2023, with the passage of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act. It made "aggravated homosexuality" punishable by death and "promoting homosexuality" — which could include gatherings of LGBTQ+ people, discussions to plan HIV prevention, and every meeting attended by The Intercept in reporting this story — punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The standard penalty for consensual same-gender sexual acts is life imprisonment.

The Anti-Homosexuality Act passed after evangelical missionaries from the United States spent years, and tens of millions of dollars, spreading homophobia in Africa in general and in Uganda specifically. Of the $54 million spent by more than 20 U.S. evangelical groups in Africa's 54 nations from 2007 to 2020 "to influence laws, policies, and public opinion against sexual and reproductive rights," about a third went to Uganda, according to OpenDemocracy.

And the third disaster came on November 5, 2024, when Trump was reelected. Not only did PEPFAR and USAID funds quickly disappear, but strict restrictions were also placed on the little aid that survived. For example, PrEP — pre-exposure prophylaxis, which prevents HIV infection — could no longer officially be given to those most at risk, such as sex workers or gay men, but only to pregnant and nursing mothers. 

And yet, despite the "three disasters," dedicated queer and trans Ugandans — many who could flee to exile to secure their own personal safety — refuse to give up trying to protect the health of their community, even as they're being crushed.

Things are so bad under Trump, some Ugandan health care providers are pining for George W. Bush. 

"George Bush Jr., is my best friend," Dr. Edith Namulema, chief of the HIV/AIDS Counseling and Home Care Department at Mengo Hospital in Uganda, told The Intercept. 

Over the sound of chirping tropical birds, Dr. Namulema spoke in a large, breezy part of her ward that is mostly used to treat patients with tuberculosis, who slept on the other side of thin blue curtains. Just outside was an adjacent clinic room with a roof but no walls for treating people with HIV, where patients were having their blood drawn by smiling young phlebotomists in dark blue scrubs.

Namulema never met Bush. But despite his global trail of destruction spurred by his war on terror — and his generally homophobic domestic agenda — such effusive praise for "Bush Jr." is common among African AIDS researchers and doctors.

Namulema has worked with HIV since the 1990s, before there were medications that prevented an HIV diagnosis from becoming a guaranteed AIDS death sentence. For years, she buried one patient after another. 

But when Bush made antiretroviral medication available circa 2001 via PEPFAR, she saw the deaths begin to slow within a week.

A nurse at Universal Love Alliance described a startling shift in the first year of Trump's second term. "I have seen people die with HIV before," she said. "But I rarely saw someone die because they could not adhere to their medications." Over the last decade, the nurse witnessed maybe one death per year due to a patient failing to take their medication. In 2025, she saw this happen 10 times.

Every nurse and HIV peer educator in a community clinic who spoke to The Intercept said they have seen an uptick in HIV-diagnoses and related deaths. Official statistics do not show this trend — sources say it's because they are not able to record "KP data." The Trump cuts have, predictably, caused a chaotic data scenario. The Uganda Ministry of Health predicts four Ugandans are becoming infected with HIV every hour. Meanwhile, the Uganda AIDS Commission reported a "sharp fall" in AIDS-related deaths of 64 percent to the Parliament in October. 

One doctor interviewed by The Intercept at a large hospital said they have not seen an increase in HIV positivity, but attributed it to the fact that "KPs are in hiding" and the hospital lost all funding to hire people to go where KPs dare to live. 

A client waits to be seen by a doctor during an HIV clinic day at TASO Mulago service center on Feb. 17, 2025, in Kampala, Uganda. Half of TASO's funding was provided through USAID. Photo: Hajarah Nalwadda/Getty Images

En route to a "KP clinic" in Kampala, The Intercept rode in a four-wheel-drive Toyota. The passengers included Samson, who fled his rural village town for Kampala when he realized the other boys were trying to burn him with acid because he was gay, and Kukunda Sharon, a former school instructor who goes by "Teacher" and "had to escape" her village when her lesbianism was met with an attempt to coerce her into a forced marriage; she is now associate director of Universal Love Alliance.

Even in Kampala's center near the U.S. Embassy — an intimidating imperial outpost that takes 10 minutes to drive around — the roads are not great, but at least they are paved. But as the SUV sloped downhill, it traveled onto rough red clay roads lined by open gutters of untreated sewage. The buildings grew lower, then came single-story metal roofed shacks, where people live largely without electricity or plumbing.

Nearly 7 million people live in Kampala, and yet the city has no functional train or bus system. Kampalans move about in "taxis" (minivans that seat 14, which LGBTQ+ people consider too dangerous), or on the back of "boda boda" motorbikes. Such movement is difficult for people who are sick and, given the high price of petrol, it is economically prohibitive; gas is roughly the same price as in the United States, even though the average income in Uganda is just about 1 percent of America's average income. People walk long distances on roads without sidewalks to get where they need to go — nearly impossible for sick people. 

Thus when it comes to treating HIV effectively, it is necessary to have many clinics spread throughout the city's poorest areas so that people living with HIV can come for their medical care, or have their medicine delivered. A year ago, the Ugandan Health Ministry announced it would be shutting all HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis clinics in the country. According to Sky News, one official said the closure of HIV clinics was a necessary response because of the loss of funding from USAID. Also shuttered were standalone pharmacies supplying antiretroviral drugs. Millions in Uganda, especially the more than 1 million people living with the virus, depend on these facilities to provide HIV treatments and preventative therapies. According to an International Planned Parenthood Federation survey published in December 2025, some 1,175 affiliated IPPF health sites closed across Africa, affecting 396 staff positions and 5.9 million clients due to the funding changes. Thousands of health workers in Uganda — including doctors, nurses, and community experts — have lost their jobs.

The Intercept visited one of the few "KP clinics" still operating, despite a government raid and threats of arrest for its staff. It sits in a compound behind a wall, just off of a busy street. It is extremely hot, without air conditioners or fans in any of the simple examination and testing rooms. 

Staff members from three of the remaining KP clinics gathered here to speak with The Intercept in a room that usually hosts group therapy, whenever a trustworthy volunteer therapist can be found.

At first, the conversation was taciturn. The meeting is technically illegal, the gathered medical workers weren't all familiar with each other there, and there are always worries in such get-togethers that someone might be a spy. But after sitting on the floor and eating samosas, "the boys" — as these young men refer to themselves and each other — begin to open up.

They talk about the cuts. At one clinic, salaries were reduced by 50 percent. At another, the staff was trimmed from 15 to just four — a medic there says he's wracked with survivor's guilt. He tells a common story: He was a preacher's son who knew he was different. It wasn't until he went to the clinic looking for sexual health information that he could even talk to anyone like himself. He fell into a global pattern in queer health — largely destroyed by Trump — in which someone goes to a clinic for services, then becomes a volunteer, then starts working there and helping others.

"It was the only place I could just be … me," he said, with a heavy sigh, indicating he did not have to hide appearing gay. He loved working with "the boys" and was gutted that 11 co-workers lost their jobs. Most of them, he said, still show up at the clinic and work unpaid for three reasons: "They have nothing else to do," "There is nowhere else to go for them to be themselves with other people," and "for food" available at the facility.

When people with little or no money have to choose between food and HIV medications, they will always choose food.

Two suddenly gregarious medical assistants (also both preachers' kids) talk with candor about their shared situation: Being gay meant both had to leave their families and their churches. One said he's still happy to go to work despite seeing his wages cut in half, but is dismayed that the cuts mean he simply cannot offer the care that clients need. The number of people they treat has plummeted. This is in part because USAID cuts took away money for the clinic's staff to make outreach tours to sex work and gay "hot spots." It's also because the clinic used to feed clients who came in for the treatment. The free food helped mitigate the cost to patients for traveling to the clinic and is necessary because HIV medications don't work for people who aren't consistently eating enough. (When people with little or no money have to choose between food and HIV medications, they will always choose food.)

"We used to give away bags of food two times a week," he said. "Now, we have only given it out two times this whole year, which is basically nothing."

The Trump-era cuts have pushed KPs out of other medical settings, he said, which makes them wary of trusting any medical care. When USAID money was flowing, he said, patients told him that they were tolerated when they sought care at a public hospital because the workers there knew they would be compensated. But since the cuts, "some of our patients tell us they've been told, 'There's no money in you now. Go away.'"

Referring people to get viral load tests — an important step in managing HIV care — has also become nearly impossible in Kampala. It's not just that the U.S.-financed health care workers who did the tests were laid off; some of them took the equipment with them when they left. 

Then, there's the issue of medication. The U.S. still pays for some antiretrovirals. But while The Intercept saw ample supplies of emtricitabine and tenofovir, the most common antiretrovirals, at most clinics visited, not everyone can take that treatment. When people fall out of treatment, they may grow resistant to specific medications and need a different combination should they survive long enough to restart medication in the future. But since the cuts, little aside from the common combo is available to treat HIV; doctors say it is almost impossible to get anything else. 

"When someone comes looking for something they need" and a clinic doesn't have it — whether it's food, medicine, or just a kind ear to listen to them — "they usually won't come back," one of the medical assistants said.

Then, they'll become infectious and HIV will move throughout their networks. 

The boys were already seeing bad trends. They used to see a positive HIV diagnosis every two or three months. Now they said they are seeing one a week.

Asked by The Intercept if they, or their patients, are able to use geolocation hookup apps like Grindr, the boys laugh.

"Yes," they answer.

"How?" 

"VPNs. People have needs."

"But how do you know someone isn't a cop?"

"You don't!"

"What can you rely on to lessen the chances he's a cop?"

"Luck!"

"Sometimes," another health worker chimes in, "a guy will meet another guy on Grindr, have sex with him, and then arrest him." In theory, this kind of undercover sting could lead to prosecution for "aggravated homosexuality," but mostly, cops do this for extortion, which is rampant. By the end of 2025, Uganda's Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum had "handled a total of 956 cases involving actions specifically targeting LGBTQ+ persons," which have affected 1,276 individuals, since the implementation of the Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2023.

And that fear of prosecution and harassment keeps people who may have HIV or even signs of cancer from seeking medical treatment. 

Dilapidated signage outside the offices of Uganda Young Positives on Feb. 12, 2025, in Kampala. The organization's executive director said USAID cuts impacted 95 percent of his organization's programs and staff.  Photo: Hajarah Nalwadda/Getty Images

"Here, we do not tolerate trans people," said Gabbie, who is trans. "It is as simple as that." 

Ramahdan, the LGBTQ+ activist, along with Samson and Sharon of Universal Love Alliance, have set up a meeting with a dozen trans and gender-nonconforming people in a conference room at a hotel near the Gaddafi Mosque. It is not a "gay hotel" — no such thing exists in Kampala. It was chosen because it is trusted by the community to be friendly enough and discreet. Security is a huge concern for everyone. The trans Ugandans span late teens to mid-50s, and their body language reveals nervousness: Any time a waiter comes into the room through a swinging door, everyone falls silent until they leave. 

Their fear is understandable. A show of hands reveals everyone has been arrested at least once. At the municipal jail, they said they have been tortured (forced to strip and humiliated in front of all the other detainees), sexually assaulted (sometimes under the pretense of checking their gender, sometimes not), and even raped. A Muslim trans woman (who wears both a hijab and also a mask to protect against Covid) was arrested on her first-ever date with a man. (People in the room chuckles knowingly when she shares that the date did not intervene when the police took her away, and she never saw him again.)

When arrested, trans women are often put into men's holding area, at least initially; they are terrified of becoming infected with HIV from rape. Most everyone has been kicked out of their families of origin or lost jobs (usually when a relative has outed them).

Fear of being subjected to the "queer tax" — when a landlord charges more or an employer pays less under threat of outing — was universal in the group. One young trans man, not yet 20, cried when describing his fear to even leave his house. His landlord figured out he is trans and was trying to evict him, but he cannot move until he pays off the extortion money. (The group took a collection to pay off his debt.)

The extortion threat has only grown with the collapse of USAID. At a follow-up meeting at a Kentucky Fried Chicken a few days later, Gabbie arrived after an expensive two-hour journey on a trans-friendly boda boda. "You cannot afford for random drivers to know where you live," she said. (Another trans person The Intercept interviewed in a homeless shelter said they would take three boda bodas from home to work, switching rides like a spy to keep anyone from being able to trace her.) 

Gabbie has been pushed from her family to a queer church shelter, which was raided and evicted, to another group situation, that was also raided and evicted. She now shares a studio apartment with four trans women at the outskirts of Kampala. Their water and electricity are periodically turned off for non-payment, and they open the windows when they cook on a coal stove to avoid breathing carbon monoxide.

Gabbie dropped out of college when her family saw a video of her preaching in a queer-affirming church, cut her off, and told her never to come back. Six months later they invited her back, then locked the gate behind her; she was trapped in an exorcism and had to escape over the wall.

It was never easy to be trans in Uganda. Surgeries — even those performed abroad — are almost unheard of, and long before Trump it was difficult to source hormones. Since Trump's reelection, Gabbie has found that it's theoretically possible, if prohibitively expensive, to source hormones on the black market. There is the physical danger: Injecting hormones with unsterilized syringes from unverified sources without a doctor's supervision exposes trans people to HIV, hepatitis, and the possibility of dangerous, even lethal, side effects. But part of why Gabbie has stopped taking hormones and is now passing as a man in public is because sourcing hormones on the black market "opens you up to extortion" by anyone along the supply chain. She can't afford that. (While in the West, most trans people use the terms "passing" to refer to being accepted as their true gender, in much of Africa, many trans people use it to refer to "passing" for the gender assigned to them at birth.)

The cuts hit Gabbie's job at a trans-affirming nonprofit, where the staff was reduced from five people to just one: Gabbie. The office was abandoned, and she only works part-time, out of the studio she shares with four people. 

"It was very painful, returning to this body, this body I do not want." 

Gabbie is also a model, and hopes to feel free presenting as her true feminine self at least while at home with her roommates. But they've been raided doing that, too. On her phone, she showed The Intercept a series of photos. In the first few, she and her girlfriends are happy, decked out in high glam in their apartment. But in the last photo, in an image reminiscent of the 1969 Stonewall Riot arrest photos, she is crying in the back seat of a police car. Their house had been raided, presumably on a complaint from a neighbor. After six weeks in jail, she was released without charges. But the damage was done: She made the difficult decision to stop her transition — to "go stealth," as she put it, in public as a man.

"It was very painful," she said, "returning to this body, this body I do not want." 

She hopes one day to transition again. "You can't not be yourself 24 hours a day," she said, sniffling slightly, her eyes darting around the KFC, hoping no one would notice her tears or hear us. 

Two weeks later after the meeting at the Kampala KFC, Gabbie texts pictures of herself in a graduation robe. Without her family's help, it took her a few more years than she wanted. But she had graduated from university, with a degree in accounting — which she wants to use to secure more resources for LGBTQ+ work in Uganda.

Near a sex "hot spot," there is a clinic for sex workers. Inside the open garage door of a modest house, a half dozen sex workers were waiting for treatment. A medic draws a patient's blood. One patient bounced an infant gently to soothe its cries. Another laid her newborn gingerly on the floor on a blanket; he smiled up at all the faces smiling down at him.

Up until the Trump stop work order, this clinic was run by a team of 17, including medics, peer educators, and community health navigators. They went out and recruited patients, educated them on STIs, and followed up with people to keep them adherent on antiretrovirals. Ten people lost their jobs, and the number of medics dropped from 12 to five. Those who remain have seen steep pay cuts: Average earnings fell from 800,000 Uganda shillings a month (about $222 USD) to just 250,000 (about $70). 

As a "stud lesbian," one sex worker tells The Intercept, this kind of clinic is the only place "where I can ask a doctor about my needs." Most doctors assume she has sex with men, and until she sought out this clinic, she had no idea what was safe, or not, in her ways of having sex.

The situation for lesbian women in Uganda is dire. "You are forced into a marriage you do not want. You are forced into getting pregnant with a baby you do not want. In a body you don't want. And you cannot get an abortion, and so you are forced into having a baby and raising a child you do not want," said one queer sex worker. 

It has become harder to insist their customers use condoms — if they can even afford them.

Sex work has grown more difficult since the cuts. Beyond health expenditures, USAID paid for construction projects and conferences. "When people are in town for a conference, they have money to spend on entertainment: on restaurants, on hotels, on us," one sex worker put it. But USAID stopped most of that.

With laid-off people turning to sex work, more Ugandans are trying to sell sex to fewer customers. This is economically deleterious, making it harder for the workers to dictate the terms of their encounters. The result is that they have less power in the kinds of sex they are willing to have. It has become harder to insist their customers use condoms — if they can even afford them.

The clinic is struggling to keep up with their clients' urgent needs. There's a sudden lack of STI medication. HIV self-testing kits have become almost impossible to source, condoms are scarce, and lubricants "disappeared entirely," said the clinic's project manager.

"When you use too many men, you get dry," the project manner noted, "and you can't avoid the condom breaking." 

Related Trump Would Rather Let Birth Control Expire Than Give It to Africans as Aid

PrEP and birth control pills could theoretically help prevent HIV and pregnancy. Uganda adopted oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in 2016 and by the end of December 2023, over 550,000 clients had initiated the treatment. But since the cuts, PrEP is not officially available to most sex workers — only to pregnant women and nursing mothers. Birth control pills were paid for by USAID; now they are prohibitively expensive. 

Trump isn't alone in his policy of foreign austerity. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands, along with some private funders, have followed Trump's lead in cutting off any money to Uganda that might help trans people. (We document this funding crisis in our short film "A Visit to the Homeless Shelter for Trans Ugandans.")

There is some hope on the horizon for more foreign aid, but questions remain about how much of it will reach the country's so-called KPs. 

On December 10, the U.S. and Uganda signed "a five-year, nearly $2.3 billion bilateral health cooperation agreement that signifies the importance of the relationship between the two countries," in which "the United States plans to invest up to $1.7 billion to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), malaria and other infectious diseases across Uganda while helping strengthen Uganda's health system."

No one who spoke with The Intercept spoke expected this money could undo the lost trust, unemployment, and damage of the last year — nor did they expect such efforts to make their way to KPs. One public health activist, who did not want to be named for fear of persecution, claimed that "that money is not for health, it was given a month before the elections. That money was for elections." 

Dr. Peter Kyambadde, the senior program officer at the Ministry of Health, said, "Key populations still remain among the prioritized populations for epidemic control" but admitted that "how much of those resources will be committed to key populations" remains an open question. 

"They consider us criminals." 

Samson, of the Universal Love Alliance, did not believe any government resources will flow their way. "What you see Trump doing in the United States aligns with Uganda's goals. They consider us criminals." 

The potential return of U.S. health funding comes as an injectable form of PrEP that lasts for six months called was just approved for use in Uganda. The medication is considered a breakthrough in HIV prevention that, if distributed widely enough, has the potential to eradicate the virus.

But only 1,000 doses of the shot have been delivered to Africa, and none to Uganda. 

It costs $28,000 a year. A $40 generic version won't be ready until at least 2027. And the distribution channels in Uganda — namely the clinics where patients trust they could access such a drug without risk — have largely been undermined or destroyed. 

This essay is part of the series Global Stop Work Order, featuring reporting about how the Trump administration's cuts are affecting LGBTQ+ health and HIV/AIDS around the world. The series is supported by a Pulitzer Center Global Reporting Grant and the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

The post By Slashing Foreign Aid, Trump Is Fueling the Spread of HIV in Uganda appeared first on The Intercept.

The Washington Post headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 27, 2026.  Photo: Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Billionaire Jeff Bezos'S Washington Post on Wednesday cut one-third of its staff, including around 300 members of the newsroom, a journalistic bloodbath that marks a shift from the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" era back into darkness.

Defenders of the executive team's decisions have cited declining subscriptions and revenue as the reasons why the company needs to tighten its belt. But for Bezos, who could leverage his net worth, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 billion, to run the paper at a loss for generations to come, these cuts to a trusted news organization are an ideological, rather than commercial, choice — and the Amazon founder is more responsible than anyone for the change in the Washington Post's fortunes. 

After promising Post employees that he'd take a hands-off approach to the newsroom and let journalists do their jobs when he bought the Post in 2013, Bezos dramatically changed course in late October 2024 when he killed the paper's planned endorsement of Kamala Harris for president over Donald Trump. That made Bezos, and the Washington Post itself, enemies of the liberal audience the newsroom had been cultivating for a decade and beyond. More than 200,000 people canceled their subscriptions in the wake of Bezos's intervention, a massive loss of revenue for an already struggling business. 

Reporters at the paper could see what was coming and appealed to readers not to punish the newsroom. "Please don't cancel your subscriptions," wrote Amanda Morris, a disability reporter who resigned from the paper last May, in a prescient post. "It won't impact Bezos — it hurts journalists and makes another round of layoffs more likely."

Morris was right. Unsubscribing has had no effect on Bezos's appeasing of Trump, and he has continued to go out of his way to flatter the 47th president. Amazon donated $1 million to Trump's 2025 presidential inaugural committee, and Bezos attended the ceremony, one of a murderer's row of tech billionaires who stood near the president on the dais in the Capitol rotunda, flanked by other Silicon Valley titans like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai. 

There's always more than enough money to go around, except if you're a working journalist.

One month later, in February 2025, Bezos restructured the opinion section along explicitly ideological grounds, writing in a memo to staff: "We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets." 

It's paying off. On Monday, two days before the layoffs, the billionaire welcomed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to his Blue Origin spaceport in Florida for a mutual backslapping affair — highlighting yet another Bezos business that's benefiting from public money in the form of a Space Force contract worth more than $2 billion, which was announced last April. Hegseth posted on X that the company was "building The Arsenal of Freedom."

Bezos replied that it was a "huge honor" to have Trump's war chief to visit. "The whole team here was energized by your visit, and we're excited to be doing our part to bring high-tech manufacturing back to America. Thank you!" he said.

Related Apple Workers Are Livid That Tim Cook Saw "Melania" Movie Hours After CBP Killed Pretti

There's always more than enough money to go around, except if you're a working journalist. Amazon's "Melania" debuted on January 30, just days before the layoffs; the documentary reportedly paid the first lady around $28 million of its $40 million budget, leading former executive Ted Hope, who helped start Amazon's film division, to wonder: "How can it not be equated with currying favor or an outright bribe?"

The Washington Post isn't the only newsroom to see the right-wing politics of its owner lead to backlash and a loss of revenue followed closely by cuts. At the Los Angeles Times, a similar dynamic played out after billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong declined to allow the paper to endorse Kamala Harris on October 22, 2024, just three days before Bezos did the same. 

Subscriptions dropped by the thousands, though not to the extent they did at the Post; in October 2025, as ownership sought a $500 million investment, they reported $50 million in losses attributed primarily to the time period after the non-endorsement. The LA Times has been hit with extensive layoffs in the newsroom, another example of employees paying the price for ownership playing at right-wing politics. 

Related Bari Weiss Is Doing Exactly What She Was Installed at CBS to Do

This rightward turn, with job cuts framed as a necessary evil to tighten up a floundering business, was also on display at CBS News, where Trump ally David Ellison appointed conservative ideologue Bari Weiss to run the show after his media company Skydance bought the network last fall. One of the first orders of business was cutting staff, which came a month after the purchase.

In each case, the driving forces appear to be the political priorities of billionaires and their desire to avoid Trump's wrath and curry his favor — while massively benefiting their bottom line with media mergers and lucrative government contracts. Soon-Shiong's multibillion-dollar fortune is built on the health care industry, particularly on drugs he's developed like Anktiva, which rely on FDA approval. Ellison is shamelessly ingratiating himself to Trump for more media merger approval, a strategy that's working for the whole family: Patriarch Larry just led a bid to take over American operations of TikTok with the president's blessing.

Bezos in particular has an interest in keeping Trump happy. The president won't hesitate to punish enemies or the disloyal by yanking federal contracts, and AWS, Amazon's web services division, relies on the government for billions of its annual revenue. The relationship between the White House and Amazon has already sparked outrage, especially over AWS's contracting with ICE for more than $140 million, but money in the bank speaks louder than protests against one of the world's largest and most ubiquitous companies. 

A rigorous, adversarial news media is not in the best interest of the ultra-wealthy.

Amazon continues to rake in hundreds of millions annually — at least — in federal dollars through its cloud contracts, not only for ICE, but also in agencies and departments across the government. While there's no solid number for the average annual value all these contracts amount to, it's enough that AWS was able to promise $1 billion in savings to the federal government in 2025 through a cloud updating and consolidation deal through the end of 2028. 

Those staggering profits add insult to injury for Bezos' now-former employees at the Post, who could have kept their jobs in perpetuity if the billionaire valued the Fourth Estate as much as he's claimed. Former editor David Maraniss told the New Yorker that Bezos "bought the Post thinking that it would give him some gravitas and grace that he couldn't get just from billions of dollars, and then the world changed. Now I don't think … he gives a flying fuck."

The newsroom lost, effectively, its entire sports section on Wednesday, its photo desk, as well as most of its arts coverage. Promises to "restructure" the Metro desk with major cuts will leave Washington, one of the most important cities in the world, with a greatly diminished ability to report on the capital.

International coverage also sustained major losses. Despite immense public interest in covering conflicts in the regions, the Post's Cairo bureau chief tweeted that she was laid off, along with "the entire roster" of Middle East editors and correspondents, and the Ukraine bureau was also reportedly axed. In one particularly stark example, reporter Lizzie Johnson was reporting from the front lines of the Ukraine war in Kyiv — with no dependable heat, power, or running water — when she was laid off. "I have no words," Johnson posted to X. "I'm devastated."

This is a crushing blow for the journalists who have lost their jobs. It's also a real loss for the public at large. But despite his lofty blustering, the good of the public doesn't matter to Bezos, nor to his ally in the White House. A rigorous, adversarial news media is not in the best interest of the ultra-wealthy and could perhaps even act as a check, however small, on their unending ambitions. Bezos has already reaped the material awards of this administration and will continue to — a few hundred livelihoods be damned.

Billionaires are only benevolent until they're not, and they certainly can't be trusted to "save" the news when their self-interest is at stake. The Washington Post layoffs only reinforces the need for a media that isn't controlled by the capricious whims of the superrich, but one that serves the good of the public. Otherwise, we're on our own.

The post The Bloodbath at Washington Post Is All Jeff Bezos's Fault appeared first on The Intercept.

The bosses at a Maine shipyard are offering overtime to workers there if they attend a speech by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, according to workers at the facility.

Hegseth is reportedly set to tour Bath Iron Works on Monday and give a speech on the recently announced "Trump" class battleship, according to the Bangor Daily News.

When the bosses reached out to workers for volunteers to attend the speech, however, few hands went up, according to one worker, who spoke with The Intercept on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. The speech is slated for Monday afternoon, shortly before a shift change, which means that workers who attend would need to stay past their normal work hours — and anyone who shows up would be required to stay until the event is over.

"They issued a polling sheet this morning to see who would attend and, at least from my crew, there were no takers," said the worker, "and not even a mention of overtime."

Related Trump and Hegseth Gathered U.S. Military Leaders for an "Embarrassing" Rant

Hegseth has made his speeches a high priority during his tenure as secretary of the War Department, including one address in which he railed against "fat" generals. He later ordered the entire U.S. military to watch the speech.

Devin Ragnar, a spokesperson for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 6, which represents workers at the yard, confirmed that anyone attending the speech past shift change would receive overtime pay, but declined to discuss in detail how the arrangement was reached.

After the initial lack of enthusiasm on Friday morning, a later survey went out around noon that explicitly said workers would receive overtime if they stayed past the end of their shift, according to the worker.

"This company doesn't pay out for anything they don't explicitly have to."

"I don't know if that was always going to be the case — a change to bribe folks to get a larger attendance ­— or if union leadership grieved it by saying they can't mandate us stay past our shift and not pay us," said the worker, whose hunch was that management was looking to entice people to attend. "This company doesn't pay out for anything they don't explicitly have to."

Another worker who spoke with The Intercept expressed dread about the impending headache of Hegseth's visit, echoing how unusual the offer of overtime pay was.

"I'm sure it'll both interrupt the workday — which is very ironic since we're always being hounded about productivity and efficiency — and create a lot of discourse that I don't want to have to listen to all day," said second worker, who also requested anonymity for fear of retaliation. "I was also a little angry because, again, there are lots of other things that we get denied paid time off for — snowstorms, events during work hours that aren't work-related, etc. But they're offering OT for this?"

Representatives of Bath Iron Works did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and a Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment.

"We haven't announced any trip for the Secretary and have nothing to add at this time," said Joel Valdez, the spokesperson.

Located in Bath, Maine, at the mouth of the Kennebec River, the shipyard is one of the largest employers in the state and has long been one of the most reliable sources for steady, well-paying union jobs in the Midcoast region. A subsidiary of the defense giant General Dynamics, BIW plays a key role in building and maintaining U.S. Navy ships and has been the recipient of billions of dollars in government contracts.

Charles Krugh, the president of Bath Iron Works, has signaled to President Donald Trump that his facility is ready to take part in the construction of the "Trump" battleships.

"America's warfighters deserve the most advanced, lethal and survivable combat ships we can deliver to protect our country and our families," Krugh said in December, echoing Hegseth's fondness for the term "warfighter."

When news emerged this week that Hegseth was coming to the yard, however, reactions among the staff were muted, the BIW worker told The Intercept. They said many colleagues greeted news of Hegseth's visit with feelings ranging from "apathy to disgust,"

"I hate Pete Hegseth to my core," the first worker said. "He has no business discussing warships, or anything involved with what we do here. I find it insulting that he is given any authority or respect."

The worker acknowledged that not everyone at BIW would share the same view of Hegseth.

"We have plenty of die-hard Trump supporters, and I don't know how much of that fanaticism spreads to Hegseth," the worker said. "I think if anything he's an afterthought by most people."

The post Shipyard Bosses Forced to Pay Overtime to Get People to Stay for Pete Hegseth Speech appeared first on The Intercept.

The word "terrorist" wasn't coined on September 11, 2001, but the defining event of the early 21st century ushered it in as the United States' go-to term for demonizing outsiders and dissenters alike. The so-called "war on terror" transformed the way the U.S. wields power at home and abroad, enabling mass surveillance and a crackdown on the right to free speech. It became reflexive for the U.S. to disparage immigrants and protesters as supporters of terrorism.

Related Trump Calls His Enemies Terrorists. Does That Mean He Can Just Kill Them?

President Donald Trump has embraced this model and manipulated it for his own ends, as author Spencer Ackerman points out. The Trump administration often peddles spurious accusations of terrorism against the targets of its immigration raids.

"There's nothing about any of their action that's remotely anything at all like terrorism," Ackerman says. "But that is the fire in which ICE, CBP, and the Department of Homeland Security was forged. You are going to find this in its DNA."

This week on the Intercept Briefing, host Jordan Uhl speaks with Ackerman, a leading expert on the concept of terrorism and its weaponization by the state. Ackerman's 2021 book, "Reign of Terror, How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump," traces the legal and cultural evolution of the last 25 years, and how the boomerang has come back home.

"Before 9/11, not only was there no ICE, there wasn't really much in the way of a robust internal mechanism for finding and deporting people who were in the country illegally. When it did exist, it was for people who were serious criminals, traffickers, and so on," says Ackerman. Now, he says, the contemporary terrorism paradigm has transformed immigration enforcement into something "operating like a death squad."

"What we are seeing on the streets of Minneapolis is what ICE has done to the undocumented for a very long time," he says. "And now we're seeing this happen to white people on the streets of Minneapolis for little more than filming ICE." With the recent killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, "I worry that a tremendous amount of our political system is geared toward either, on the Republican side, rationalizing it, justifying it, or on the Democratic side, pretending as if this is some kind of abuse that can be exceptionalized, rather than something that has to do with this 25-year history of coalescing immigration enforcement in the context of counterterrorism."

As Democrats in Congress struggle to leverage DHS funding for changes to ICE policy — like a ban on face masks for ICE agents, an idea on which they've already softened — Ackerman says the parallels with the early 2000s are clear.

"We can't move in reformist directions when the thing talked about being reformed laughs at killing Americans," advises Ackerman. "Reformist politics under two Democratic administrations got us to where we are now. These are accommodationist politics, and the thing being accommodated wants to kill you."

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

Transcript 

Jordan Uhl: Welcome to The Intercept Briefing. I'm Jordan Uhl. 

If you didn't recognize the voices, 2026 might not sound so different from the years following 2001. 

George W. Bush: We are on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront, and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory.

Donald Trump: These are paid terrorists, OK? These are paid agitators. 

Dick Cheney: Terrorists remain determined and dangerous.

Kristi Noem: It was an act of domestic terrorism.

JD Vance: We're not going to give in to terrorism on this. And that's exactly what's happening.

John Ashcroft: America has grown stronger and safer in the face of terrorism.

JU: In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the so-called war on terror transformed the way the United States enforced its laws and its priorities, both at home and abroad. The label "terrorist" became a catchall for a wide range of actors, and dissent against the Bush administration was often disparaged as support for terrorism. The USA PATRIOT Act codified a reduction in civil liberties in the name of protecting freedom.

Bush: As of today, we're changing the laws governing information sharing. And as importantly, we're changing the culture of our various agencies that fight terrorism. Countering and investigating terrorist activity is the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

JU: The day he put his signature on the Patriot Act, President George W. Bush laid out how those new priorities would include a focus on immigrants. 

Bush: The government will have wider latitude in deporting known terrorists and their supporters.

JU: It was largely an era of political consensus. Both major parties lined up to support the Patriot Act and other legislation giving greater legal latitude to the government, from local police all the way up to the president. But even then, there were plenty of warnings that these powers would be abused and stretched far beyond their intended goals.

Supporters argued that there were backstops, like congressional oversight and international law, basic human decency and strategic restraint. But President Trump ignored and shattered so many of those long-standing norms. A glaring example is on display in the streets of U.S. cities right now.

ICE was a post-9/11 creation as part of the new Department of Homeland Security. In his book "Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump," author Spencer Ackerman traces the legal and cultural evolution of the last 25 years and how the boomerang has come back home.

Ackerman has reported from Iraq, Afghanistan, and many U.S. bases. He's won a Pulitzer Prize and National Magazine Award, and currently writes for Zeteo and his own website, Forever Wars. Spencer, welcome to the Intercept Briefing. 

Spencer Ackerman: Thanks for having me back, Jordan. 

JU: So we're talking 25 years now since 9/11. Many of our listeners — as well as working journalists, and even many people working on Capitol Hill right now — don't have any living memory of that time. So can you start off by bringing us back to the days and weeks after September 11? President George W. Bush essentially had carte blanche to pass laws and change policy based on the notion that he was making Americans safer; that we had to clamp down and, in some cases, give up some of our freedoms to ensure security. With hindsight, what were the most significant aspects of the newly born war on terror that have a clear through line to today?

SA: Well, one that we saw just this week really take prominence is the Patriot Act, which among other things, enabled law enforcement to more seamlessly get "third-party records," as they're called — basically, customer accounts of records kept by some kind of service provider, financial records, internet records, and so on — without a judge's signature or a finding of probable cause. It occurs instead through something called an administrative subpoena that the Patriot Act supercharged.

And we're seeing just this week, there was a very good piece in the Washington Post laying out the exponential growth in administrative subpoenas being used by DHS in order to get records that would otherwise require a court order to collect.

Related Google Secretly Handed ICE Data About Pro-Palestine Student Activist

Now, when the Patriot Act passed, the idea was that this would be the FBI surreptitiously collecting information that would prevent terrorism and uncover active links to terror networks and so forth. There's not really much of a record of it having done that — certainly not a public one. But it definitely didn't envision what DHS is doing, which is harassing critics of ICE. 

Now, a ton of critics at the time, when the war on terror was coalescing, recognized and stated that this was going to be where the war on terror led. That it was going to become a war on dissent, that it was going to criminalize a tremendous amount of both politics in general but also resistance to itself — that we're really seeing coalesce. 

For the purposes of what we're tracking, what we also saw after 9/11, is a complete sea change in how America conducted its immigration affairs. Something that I think people probably don't remember is that before 9/11, not only was there no ICE, there wasn't really much in the way of a robust internal mechanism for finding and deporting people who were in the country illegally. When it did exist, it was for people who were like serious criminals, traffickers, and so on.

The Department of Homeland Security gets created after Bush's attorney general, John Ashcroft, pretty much takes over immigration enforcement because ICE's predecessor, Immigration and Naturalization Services, is under his purview. And what he starts doing is using it to round up immigrants — not just Muslim immigrants, although there was an immediate outcry for a clamp-down on Muslim immigration, certainly. But it was a way of shoe-horning a gestating border hysteria on the far right that 9/11 gave a kind of new security context and accordingly opportunity to pursue.

Related How Post-9/11 Visions of an Imperiled Homeland Supercharged U.S. Immigration Enforcement

Even then, the Bush administration did not wish to create a kind of agglutination agency that would kind of stick together all sorts of domestic security functions. That took the active intervention of moderate Democrats and some moderate Republicans, who were able to basically checkmate Bush over his concerns about such an agency being kind of too large for, you know, extent conservative perceptions of government using his own logic of counterterrorism. And there is really no way for Bush to argue himself out of that. So instead he accommodated himself to it.

But even then, ICE, when it starts, has only 2,700 agents. By 2008, that becomes 5,000. ICE's budget until in something like 2016 was $6 billion. For a while in the intervening decade, it's hovered around $10 billion. Trump has now made it $85 billion. 

This is an enterprise that operated fundamentally — well, I shouldn't say fundamentally different. I don't want to suggest that the INS was a benign agency, or that immigrant Americans didn't fear INS, much as they would come to fear ICE. Just that there were constraints, both legal, budgetary, and from a political perspective, cultural, that constrained interior immigration enforcement. That doesn't exist anymore. We have seen instead — to finish answering your question in a very long-winded way — a counterterrorism context transforms, in ways both direct and structural, the apparatus of American immigration to something that today is coalescing into something that I think we can see fairly clearly is on its way, if it's not there already, into operating like a death squad.

JU: One thing we saw right away post-9/11 was the demonization of Arabs, Muslims, South Asians, or anyone remotely resembling any of those categories. What kind of connection can we make between the rhetoric and actions of that era with how otherization and fear is being wielded these days against immigrants and other populations?

SA: I see it as a rather straight line. The early years of the war on terror proved something that politicians, particularly in the Republican Party, but also in the Democratic Party, have been sort of chasing ever since to recover its potency — like chasing a high. And that's that the politics of counterterrorism in the early 2000s — really persistent throughout, but especially in the early 2000s — completely deterred opposition, silenced dissent, and intimidated resistance. And it worked. It worked for a really long time. Eventually, it ceased working as well. But the fact that it worked can't be overstated. Because politicians afterward, particularly when there has been no criminal liability or even significant political liability for the atrocities that result, accordingly seek to do what works. And this works extremely well.

"The politics of counterterrorism in the early 2000s … completely deterred opposition, silenced dissent, and intimidated resistance. And it worked."

In a broad sense, one of the things that the war on terror did in particular to Muslims in this country was redefine terrorism away from being something that people throughout history have done across cultures, into "terrorism" is something that a certain kind of people are, and usually only them. That when people who do not look or worship like Muslims utilize violence for political purposes — that becomes defined as "counterterrorism."

So there is a really, really firm connection in how we have seen not only the targets of ICE's raids, since the Trump administration returned to power, be described as terrorists. But now people like Marimar Martinez in Chicago, Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, when they're shot — and in the case of Good and Pretti, killed — by ICE, ICE and the broader political structure calls them terrorists.

They have the first-mover communication choice of basically daring journalists, politicians, whomever to prove that they weren't in fact terrorists. There's nothing about any of their action that's remotely anything at all like terrorism. But that is the fire in which ICE, CBP, and the Department of Homeland Security was forged. You are going to find this in its DNA.

Related Violent Far-Right Extremists Are Rarely Prosecuted as Terrorists

JU: As you wrote in your book, "Trump had learned the foremost lesson of 9/11: The terrorists were whomever you say they were." And I'm curious about this seemingly expansive scope of this label. You've written about how the "terrorist" label has predominantly been used against people of color, while white people like Timothy McVeigh get different treatment, both linguistically and legally.

Do you think what we're seeing in the Twin Cities is a significant development — the government calling white activists "terrorists" —and these are white people who present as average middle class, not so-called anarchists or "antifa." Is this, in your mind, a significant shift in how the term "terrorist" is wielded and will be wielded? 

SA: Yes, absolutely. Minnesota is kind of the next stanza in the [Martin] Niemöller poem. The poem about, "First they came for…"

ICE and CBP have a very long history of acting lawlessly. The conditions of ICE prisons, many of which are operated as for-profit enterprises with detainees being paid a dollar a day, have often been shown to be both violent and deeply neglectful. I have a friend who contracted Covid at the ICE detention center in Batavia, New York, for instance.

Related Federal Agents at Protests Renew Calls to Dismantle Homeland Security

So what we are seeing on the streets of Minneapolis is what ICE has done to the undocumented for a very long time. What we saw in places like Portland in 2020, where, certainly in Portland, CBP tactical units, known as BORTAC, opened fire with less-lethal rounds on protesters outside the Hatfield building. That was what they were willing to do — similarly, lawlessly stuffing people into unmarked vans for detention and so forth — to people deemed enemies of the Trump administration.

And now we're seeing this happen to white people on the streets of Minneapolis for little more than filming ICE. In Renee Good's case, for possibly, slightly inconveniencing ICE vehicularly. And then, trying to comply with a contradictory order to get out of the way and then stay put, get outta the car, you know? And then with Alex Pretti — helping a woman up.

What we're seeing is something we can't turn away from, and I worry that a tremendous amount of our political system is geared toward either, on the Republican side, rationalizing it, justifying it, or on the Democratic side, pretending as if this is some kind of abuse that can be exceptionalized, rather than something that has to do with this 25-year history of coalescing immigration enforcement in the context of counterterrorism.

[Break]

JU: In some cities, we see different relationships between local law enforcement and federal agencies, and that's been a contentious issue going back to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces enlisted during the height of the so-called war on terror. Now we hear more about the 287(g) agreements that are focused on giving immigration enforcement powers to local officers. Collaboration by city and county law enforcement agencies often depends on who's in charge and sometimes local community influence. How has this idea transformed local law enforcement over the past 25 years — situating local police and sheriffs as partners in fighting a war, essentially? 

SA: First, in the literal sense, it deputizes local police into an immigration function. And the implications of that are both profound and subtle. Being undocumented in this country is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. And it's a misdemeanor, it's not a felony. So being undocumented in this country now all of a sudden becomes "law enforcement-related." It becomes a matter that is quickly understood in a kind of everyday person's sense of association as something that is being done by cops.

And so cops are going after criminals. They're not going after someone who overstayed a work visa. The person who overstayed a work visa is presumed to have done so because they're criminal. That is a profound shift that nativists 30 years ago could only have as the apple of their eye. That's now normal in this country. 

Beyond that, beyond the kind of mimetic and cultural functions there, what the Department of Homeland Security's relationship with local police over the vast majority of DHS's existence was a patron-client relationship. There's always been a lot of focus, and not inappropriately, on the [1033] Pentagon program that takes decommissioned military equipment and gives them to law enforcement. Appropriately so. 

" There is not very much terrorism in the United States of America of the sort that DHS was created to redress."

DHS's grant programs to local law enforcement have always dwarfed them, in terms of budgetary capability. There is not very much terrorism in the United States of America of the sort that DHS was created to redress. However, DHS had a budget to give out to local law enforcement, you know, cop shops, that applied for grant money that it would have to disperse.

Related Texas Deployed SWAT, Bomb Robot, Small Army of Cops to Arrest a Woman and Her Dog

The overall point is not only was DHS for such a long time a supplier of equipment that cops did not need for terrorism, but could find a whole lot of value out of when using against their existing tasks — which means, in a lot of cases, against the people it polices. But also, it accustomed police shops to look at DHS as a source of support that didn't have to go through existing and potentially contentious budgetary processes locally that municipal, small-d democratic functions have power to effect. It's not the most potent power. I'm telling you this from New York City where the NYPD has for a very long time been considered pretty much untouchable. But nevertheless, this is a more friction-free funding path than troublesome city councils. 

JU: And to continue this line of thought on weaponry, it's one thing to have a heavily armed Border Patrol if they legitimately believe they may encounter a "violent drug cartel." But the images we're seeing of immigration agents in residential U.S. neighborhoods with body armor and advanced weaponry brings to mind the militarization of local police and federal agencies that's taken place since 9/11.

You talked about the equipment, you've talked about the vehicles. There are local police departments with MRAPs. Across the board, top-down from federal agencies down to local, it feels like a war that's literally everywhere. What's been the arc of that evolution? 

SA: Markets for advanced military technology get spurred on by overseas war. Eventually, those wars draw down beyond the funding capabilities of those different technological production lines. Those different technological production lines will seek out derivative markets that they can use to keep making money. That has been local law enforcement, but before that, it's been DHS.

Starting around the first Obama administration, DHS, particularly for the border, starts buying up a drone fleet. Then it starts buying up really powerful military-grade camera suites that had previously been developed for protecting U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. DHS buys this stuff. It provides funding for — as we were just talking about — local police agencies to eventually start buying other stuff that DHS has.

There's no Gray Eagle-sized drone in police custody in the country yet. But we'll talk in 10 more years, and we'll see about that. DHS provides funding to get similar technologies, related technologies, and then it pushes what it currently has beyond the border into the interior of the country.

We should also mention that the border after 9/11 changes in important ways, where DHS — this is for the last 15 years at least been policy at CBP — the border is anywhere within 100 miles of a port of entry or exit. So if you've wondered, why is the Border Patrol in, you know, Charlotte, North Carolina, or Chicago or Minneapolis — that's why. Because your sense of the border intuitively is not the U.S. government's definition of the border.

Eventually we see this stuff move into the interior of the United States. The roundups, which had been there since at least 2005, become more ambitious, and they become, with the 287(g) program, involving local law enforcement as well as the Department of Homeland Security — and now increasingly toward critics of DHS itself.

I want to say one more thing about this. When we look at what ICE and CBP deploy with, in all of the cities that we've seen them invest since the second Trump administration — a common denominator has been they're all wearing plate carriers. The stuff that says like police, ICE, and so forth, you know, the ballistic chest protection that they wear around them.

Marimar Martinez legally had a gun. She didn't draw it; she kept it holstered in her car. They called her a domestic terrorist. Her hands were on the steering wheel when ICE shot her.

"ICE and CBP are posturing as if they are the ones under the threat, not that they are the threat themselves."

Alex Pretti famously had a gun, not that he drew it on CBP. When they shot him, six of them shot this man who is completely not in any position to be threatening them. ICE and CBP are posturing as if they are the ones under the threat, not that they are the threat themselves.

All of this social media footage-ready imagery that they've been collecting and disseminating is what we should understand as a psy-op on the American people to make it think that these are a valorous Praetorian Guard that puts itself in danger constantly. Instead, they are the ones inflicting the danger on Americans, undocumented or citizens.

JU: Now we talked about this evolution — part of that is an expansive or unchecked legal infrastructure and framework that allows this. Over the past two decades-plus, were there moments when that infrastructure could have been dialed back or unraveled? Times when Trump wasn't president? Did that happen to any extent? And if not, why not?

SA: There are many reasons to be deeply upset at the way the Obama and Biden administrations treated the institutions of the war on terror that they inherited. But really chief among them is the way that they embraced the existing structures of homeland security for use against immigrants.

Obama — famously the deporter in chief, always under pressure from his right to deport more. Obama famously makes the massive miscalculation that if he can just, you know, bolster resources for border protection, then he can buy goodwill on the right. This was just an epic political miscalculation that really everyone could have seen coming, and many did.

Related As Biden Continues Trump's War on Asylum, Danger Mounts in the Deadly Sonoran Desert

Biden — 4.4 million deportations on his watch; Trump left office the first time at 1.5 million. After everything that we saw the Trump administration do the first time around, in particular with child separation, with raising the number of people in ICE custody to something like 50,000 a day — I don't know if they've gotten back to that, if they've exceeded that by now or not. But I remember reporting on it at the time that it was in 2020, it had gotten up to, maybe a little before the pandemic, something like 50,000 a day. It was really astonishing.

But Biden famously tells his donors ahead of the election that they're not gonna seek fundamental change. And I think that by the time the Biden administration takes office, the Democratic Party had successfully marginalized the voices that were calling, not just for pursuing once again, comprehensive immigration reform — which of course is stifled by the Republicans again and again and again — but to abolish ICE.

I think right now we are at, you know, years before a Democrat could theoretically take power. But we're starting to see Democratic politicians go down the same very dangerous road along the politics of security that they've played not just during the Biden administration or the first Trump administration, but throughout the war on terror.

"Unless the nativist concept of the need for an interior deportation force is confronted root and branch, we are going to continue to see exactly what we are seeing."

And they're doing it with ICE now, which is we're starting to hear people say things like, "This is not immigration enforcement." It's true. This is not what I think many people think of as immigration enforcement. But immigration enforcement is how we got to this point. And unless the nativist concept of the need for an interior deportation force is confronted root and branch, we are going to continue to see exactly what we are seeing. Not as a form of stasis, but as a form of ICE and CBP completing their transformation into a death squad.

And I use a very scary term because this is a very scary moment. But we also need to be really clear about what we are seeing ICE do and behave as. You mentioned it's unwillingness to follow the law. In Minnesota, a judge found just before January of 2026 expired, around 100 violations of court orders about immigration and how ICE needed to behave, in just that month. How many gleeful videos do we have to see on our phone of ICE people telling Minnesotans to "fuck around and find out"? Beyond even just the actual murders and shootings — but the way that the CBP officers applauded after shooting Alex Pretti? The way Jonathan Ross, who murdered Renee Good, called her a "fucking bitch" after doing so? This is not something that can be reformed. The best time to abolish ICE was 2003. The second best time is today.

Related Senate Dems Who Pushed Meatier ICE Reform Shy Away From Criticizing Schumer's Softer Package

Every single moment that we refrain from doing this, that Democratic politicians as well as Republican ones try and push it back to the margins of political discourse, is another day closer to the time that they're going to shoot you, that they're going to deport someone you love, and on and on and on.

"This is not something that can be reformed."

JU: There's a sinister delight that we see time and time again from federal agents beyond the comments or behavior after both of those Minnesotans were killed. But we've seen many other videos of them wielding those incidents to other observers as threats. And to your point, that's not something that you can fix with a sensitivity training. That is something ingrained in the culture. And I'm curious what could be done? It doesn't seem like there's a critical mass of Democrats willing to do that. Maybe there is and or maybe we might get to one, but that's down the road. And you of course have the challenge of the current Supreme Court composition not wanting to challenge anything that Trump is doing meaningfully. So realistically, what can people hope for or work towards in terms of turning this imperial boomerang around? 

SA: First, the answer to how you stop the war on terror is not easy, but it is simple. And that's organize. Force your politicians in an abolitionist direction; oust them when they won't go in that direction. Organize so you can build power amongst like-minded people in your area, in order to produce that function. It's awful that that's where we kind of have to start from, but our leaders will not do this on their own.

Outside of that I would look to efforts that the Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is building toward, in which he's been talking about, however long it takes, prosecuting ICE and CBP agents for violating relevant local laws. And one of the main lessons of the war on terror is that without legal consequence for one era's atrocity, the next is foreordained.

So until ICE killers and CBP kidnappers alike go to prison, we can expect them to continue their behavior. This is why JD Vance and Stephen Miller have started deceitfully talking about absolute immunity for ICE after they killed Renee Good.

"Until ICE killers and CBP kidnappers alike go to prison, we can expect them to continue their behavior."

Krasner has been hinting that there is a kind of impromptu coalition of like-minded district attorneys and perhaps state attorneys general that are seeking to go in this direction. That will either act as a deterrent, or it won't. Here in New York, the attorney general, Letitia James, announced that she's going to start sending observers from her office out on ICE-related operations in and around the state. That carries with it a suggestion of prosecutorial intervention. I think that's going to be a crucial step. But it's a step that is going to have to come in supplement, with people finding political outlets for an explosion in popularity — justifiably so, in my opinion — for abolishing ICE. 

We can't move in reformist directions when the thing talked about being reformed laughs at killing Americans. This is something that has to be uprooted and replaced, or just simply not replaced at all, if we don't think certain functions that they perform are legitimate functions, which I think is a very, you know, reasonable conclusion. Reformist politics under two Democratic administrations got us to where we are now. These are accommodationist politics, and the thing being accommodated wants to kill you.

JU: My final question for you, Spencer, is where does this go over the next three years if nothing happens? If there is no restraint, if there is no change, if there is no reform. That is certainly an uphill fight. Nothing could potentially happen until at least after midterms, but we've seen Trump's priorities laid out in places like Project 2025, and I can't imagine this is their end game. So if left untouched, where does this go over the next three years? 

SA: We've been seeing reporting from Ken Klippenstein and others about how ICE is accessing existing, widely revealing, databases of Americans' information, building others. We saw in the beginning of the Trump administration, the massive data-snatching grabs involving DOGE that have also accumulated a tremendous amount of revealing information on Americans. This is also, I would suggest, the predictable course of the surveillance state after 9/11. These massive and revealing data sets will go into ICE custody, probably through tools purchased from Palantir, to get an ever more refined picture of terrorism in the United States. Except by terrorism, they mean you and me. They will mean people that they can consider internal dissenters, critics, obstacles to the continued operations of ICE, and like-minded allied federal agencies.

"It might not be long before we see a drone strike in an American city. And I can't stop thinking about that."

This, I think, is probably coming sooner than three years. Not to sound alarmist, but the current trajectory of this is really, really ominous. And that is an extremely realistic possibility. Your friend and mine, Derek Davison of the American Prestige podcast a couple months ago, was predicting that it might not be long before we see a drone strike in an American city. And I can't stop thinking about that. And I wish I could say I found that an outlandish possibility. But the crucial framework for that was laid when the Obama administration decided that they could execute an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, without any kind of criminal process, let alone a conviction, because it would be too inconvenient to send a team of CIA operatives to kidnap him.

It won't be long, I think — as long as that Chekov's president remains blessed by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice — before we start seeing that applied on American soil. And those are some places that I think are realistic possibilities for what we might see unless this apparatus is aggressively dismantled.

JU: That is absolutely chilling. And in some way, I'm at a loss for words, just something that I never thought we might encounter. But that is a situation we seem to be finding ourselves in. Spencer, as always, I appreciate your insight, your analysis, and thank you so much for joining me on The Intercept Briefing.

SA: Thank you, Jordan.

JU: That does it for this episode. 

This episode was produced by Andrew Stelzer. Laura Flynn is our supervising producer. Sumi Aggarwal is our executive producer. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Maia Hibbett is our Managing Editor. Chelsey B. Coombs is our social and video producer. Desiree Adib is our booking producer. Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Nara Shin is our copy editor. Will Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by David Bralow.

Slip Stream provided our theme music.

If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. If you haven't already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. And leave us a rating or a review, it helps other listeners to find us.

If you want to send us a message, email us at podcasts@theintercept.com.

Until next time, I'm Jordan Uhl. 

The post "Terrorist": How ICE Weaponized 9/11's Scarlet Letter appeared first on The Intercept.

The Department of Defense has quietly signed a $210 million deal to buy advanced cluster shells from one of Israel's state-owned arms companies, marking unusually large new commitments to a class of weapons and an Israeli defense establishment both widely condemned for their indiscriminate killing of civilians.

The deal, signed in September and not previously reported, is the department's largest contract to purchase weapons from an Israeli company in available records, according to an online federal database that covers the last 18 years. In a reversal of the more commonly seen direction for weapons transfers between the countries — in which the U.S. sends its weapons to Israel — the U.S. will pay the Israeli weapons firm Tomer over a period of three years to produce a new 155mm munition. The shells are designed to replace decades-old and often defective cluster shells that left live explosives scattered across Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, and other nations.

The terror of cluster weapons persists long after the guns that fired them have quieted, as civilians return to fields, forests, and settlements laced with bomblets that can explode years later without warning.

"The footprint of the injuries of these weapons is so horrifying," said Alma Taslidžan, advocacy manager for the aid organization Humanity & Inclusion, which pushes to ban cluster munitions. She recalled speaking with a 17-year-old boy who found an unexploded cluster bomblet in his neighbor's garden in the aftermath of the Bosnian War.

"He said he played with it for quite a while. Suddenly it exploded. It blew up both of his hands; it blew away part of his face as well," she said.

Known as the XM1208 munition, America's new cluster shells are designed to have a dud rate — or risk of failure to explode — of less than 1 percent. They rely on more complex fuses and self-destruct features to reduce long-term danger to civilians, according to army procurement documents and weapons experts. But researchers say those low failure rates in testing do not reflect real-world performance, and advocates argue that cluster weapons' battlefield effectiveness cannot justify their humanitarian costs.

"They are inherently indiscriminate," said Brian Castner, an Amnesty International weapons investigator and former U.S. Air Force explosive ordnance disposal officer. "There's not a way to use them responsibly, in that you can't control where they land, and with this high dud rate you can't control the effect on the civilian population afterwards."

Related The Indiscriminate Rain of Cluster Bombs

The Cluster Munition Monitor has documented more than 24,800 cluster munition injuries and deaths since the 1960s, three-quarters from unexploded remnants. In 2024, cluster munitions killed at least 314 civilians, the majority of them in Ukraine.

Both the XM1208 and the deal to buy them are atypical. The DOD awarded the contract without public competition under a "public interest" exception to federal contracting law, using recent amendments that loosened rules for awarding no-bid defense contracts involving Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel.

"I found this to be rather unusual," said Julia Gledhill, a military contracting researcher for the Stimson Center, a Washington-based foreign policy think tank. "I have not seen something like this before — a sole source contract to a foreign military contractor for $200 million."

"I have not seen something like this before — a sole source contract to a foreign military contractor for $200 million." 

Federal agencies are legally required to create a "determination and findings" document justifying the award of a no-bid contract, which can be requested from the agencies under public records law. The Army has not yet responded to a Freedom of Information Act request for that documentation.

Tomer did not respond to a request for comment. Asked about the new munition's failure rate, U.S. Army public affairs officer Shahin Uddin wrote it has "has undergone all required testing to ensure it meets all performance requirements, including compliance with the DoD Cluster Munition Policy."

A Weapon for the Next War

The Pentagon's efforts to field the XM1208 comes against the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine war, where both sides have blanketed battlefields with older cluster munitions — including some given to Ukraine by the Biden administration. Some Eastern European countries have considered withdrawing from the Convention on Cluster Munitions amid fears of conflict with Russia, and in 2014, Lithuania became the first country to abandon the treaty.

As a result, Castner said, "Both the cluster munitions convention and the anti-personnel land mine convention are under threat." 

Related With Ukraine's Cluster Bombs Killing Its Own Citizens, Biden Readies Order to Send More

But major military powers — like Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and the United States — have never signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans its 112 member states from using or producing those weapons. Rather than sign the 2008 pact, the U.S. enacted a policy that year to stop using its old, failure-prone cluster munitions by 2019 and develop new weapons with a dud rate of less than 1 percent. 

Progress was slow, and in 2017, the U.S. weakened its policy to allow continued use of older cluster bombs until it had sufficient stockpiles of safer models. That year, the U.S. military began testing the M999 cluster munition: a new shell developed by another state-owned Israeli arms company, IMI Systems.

"The U.S. wants all options," said William Hartung, an arms industry researcher with the Quincy Center for Responsible Statecraft. "One of their arguments was it's good if you're in a close-packed artillery situation — a ground war. It clears more of an area."

During its 2006 war in Lebanon, Israel drew international criticism for using cluster bombs, and IMI promised a new weapon that would lower collateral damage — both to civilians and Israel's flagging global reputation. In 2018, IMI Systems was acquired by Elbit Systems, a privately owned Israeli defense contractor which has faced recent boycotts for arming Israel's forces in Gaza and the West Bank.

After backlash from investors in countries that had signed the convention, Elbit canceled production of the M999 and pledged not to build any cluster weapons.

But the M999 program did not stay dead. The Israeli government established a new state-owned arms company, Tomer, in 2018, with no limitations on cluster weapon production. The U.S. Army then adopted the M999 as its new cluster shell for artillery, renaming it the XM1208. According to a 2024 army munitions publication, the XM1208 is designed to release nine bomblets which then detonate in the air, each containing 1,200 pieces of tungsten shrapnel.

That same document lists Elbit as a production partner for the XM1208, despite the company's pledge to abide by the cluster convention. Elbit did not immediately return a request for comment, and the Army did not respond to an inquiry about whether Elbit was working on the munition.

Related As Israel Bombed Gaza, Amazon Did Business With Its Bomb-Makers

Business at Tomer has been booming, due to both the genocide in Gaza and foreign arms sales, according to the Israeli tech news site Calcalist. It recorded $173 million in sales last year, making the DOD's $210 million contract a massive windfall compared to its historical revenue. Tomer pays the Israeli government a 50 percent dividend on its profit, Calcalist reported.

The XM1208 is designed with multiple fail-safe fuses to reduce dud rates, according to U.S. Army documents published online. But little is known about how it actually performs in the field. Last year, The Guardian published photos showing an expended M999 shell in Lebanon, suggesting Israel had used the weapon in its recent attacks on Hezbollah. But there is currently no public data on its real-world failure rate, said N.R. Jenzen-Jones, director of the munitions analysis firm Armament Research Services.

Real-world dud rates are generally much higher than those found in controlled testing, which does not account for battlefield conditions like soft soil or older, degraded fuses, said Taslidžan, of Humanity & Inclusion. The manufacturer of Israel's M85 cluster munition, which includes a self-destruct feature to reduce long-term risk to civilians, touted a "hazardous dud" rate of less than 0.1 percent. But researchers with Norwegian People's Aid who analyzed the aftermath of M85 strikes from the 2006 war in Lebanon found that about 10 percent failed to explode.

And even if the XM1208 meets its 1 percent failure rate target, it would still be inhumane, said Taslidžan, leaving large numbers of lethal duds behind.

"That's why the Convention on Cluster Munitions bans these weapons as a class," she said. "The area effects and residual contamination are fundamentally incompatible with protecting civilians."

The post Pentagon Inks Massive $200 Million Deal to Buy Controversial Cluster Weapons From Israel appeared first on The Intercept.

Democratic leaders in Congress requested Department of Homeland Security reforms on Wednesday that would leave the agency's budget untouched — and were immediately rebuffed by the GOP.

The requests, in a joint letter from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both New York Democrats, do not attempt to claw back funding for Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency of the Border Patrol, or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — the two agencies at the heart of the political firestorm over their violent deployments to American cities.

Instead of cutting funding, Democrats focused on measures such as prohibiting ICE agents from wearing masks or entering homes without a warrant. Sen. Brian Schatz, D- Hawaii, the Democratic deputy whip, on Wednesday described the requests as "reasonable reforms that are 70-30 propositions with the public."

"The urgency of the moment is about stopping the violence."

That did not win them any points with congressional Republicans, who dismissed the reforms out of hand.

Progressives in the Senate, meanwhile, had not only become more strident in their rhetoric about ICE, they also called for clawing back increased ICE spending passed as part of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. Though some of these Democrats are sticking by their more robust demands, they nonetheless avoided criticizing their party leadership over the request for more limited reforms.

"The urgency of the moment is about stopping the violence," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told The Intercept. "If it were up to me, we would be rewriting the whole immigration laws and policies. But right now, we've got to get some constraints in place so that roving bands of ICE agents stop terrorizing American communities. That is our first priority."

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., the ranking member on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, took a similar line, setting aside his stronger demands of ICE.

"I have a much longer list of things that I want to change in the Department of Homeland Security," he said, "but we are trying to put a targeted list of reforms that will end the abuse on the table so that we can get something done."

10 Demands

Schumer and Jeffries's demand list has significant overlap with previous calls from progressive members of Congress such as Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The progressives made their demands soon after the January 24 killing of nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, which derailed a full-year funding bill for DHS and led to a brief shutdown of several government departments. The House voted to end the shutdown Tuesday by approving full-year appropriations for other departments while temporarily funding DHS through a new February 13 deadline.

The Democratic leaders unveiled their official list of demands ahead of the deadline on Wednesday, calling for ending indiscriminate arrests, prohibiting masking, requiring ICE and CBP officer identification, protecting sensitive locations such as churches and schools, halting racial profiling, upholding use of force standards, preserving the ability of states and cities to prosecute DHS misconduct, and requiring the use of body cameras when interacting with the public. (Schumer and Jeffries immediately began watering down one of their clearest demands, suggesting in public comments that they might allow agents to wear masks in some circumstances.)

The biggest split between what Schumer and Jeffries proposed and what more progressive Democrats requested was a reduction of spending on ICE and CBP.

Those agencies received $75 billion and $64 billion, respectively, in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act to be spent through 2029. That money came on top of the amounts already available to the agencies through their annual appropriations.

Related It's Time for Concrete Action on ICE. Sadly, We Have the Democrats.

Clawing that money back has been a top priority for advocates, who note that it has been used to supercharge hiring and spending on surveillance technology.

"These demands MUST include cuts in funding," Heidi Altman, the vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, said in an email last week. "The money pays for the violence. It has to stop."

Last month, Sanders proposed an amendment to the DHS appropriations bill that would have redirected the additional ICE funding to Medicaid, which he estimated would prevent 700,000 Americans from losing their health care.

Sanders's amendment drew the support of every Senate Democrat and two Republicans, but it failed on a 49-51 vote.

"Passing new laws is no assurance to me whatsoever that they are not going to continue this lawlessness."

In negotiations with the White House, Schumer is likely to be able to offer the potential support of only a fraction of his caucus for a full-year appropriations bill for DHS.

Some Democrats in Congress have already ruled out the idea that they will vote for any more funding.

"When you have a reckless and out of control agency that is unwilling to follow the law, passing new laws is no assurance to me whatsoever that they are not going to continue this lawlessness," Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., told The Intercept.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., have shown no willingness to negotiate on key Democratic requests, Booker said.

"There's a lot of things I know my caucus would support, but clearly the speaker and the leader are not even interested in having those kinds of conversations," he said, "even though most of their base thinks what's happening with this agency is unacceptable."

DOA With GOP

Democratic leadership figures like Schatz have described the latest demands as an attempt at reaching consensus.

"They are not a Democratic wish list. We are simply asking that ICE not be held to a different standard than every other law enforcement organization in the country — state, county, and federal," he told reporters Wednesday.

The requests fell with a thud with Republican leaders, however. Johnson has already ruled out banning masks and requiring warrants.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., the lead GOP negotiator, called the demands "a ridiculous Christmas list of demands for the press."

Republicans have already floated the idea of another short-term extension of DHS funding to allow further negotiations.

The post Senate Dems Who Pushed Meatier ICE Reform Shy Away From Criticizing Schumer's Softer Package appeared first on The Intercept.

Members of Congress are demanding answers from Meta after it ran advertisements by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that they say included imagery and music intended to appeal to white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

In a letter sent to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Reps. Becca Balint, D-Vt., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., questioned how the social media company approved an ad campaign from the Department of Homeland Security featuring the song "We'll Have Our Home Again," which is popular in neo-Nazi spaces. The lawmakers urged Meta to cease running the ad campaign on its social media platforms and asked whether the company would commit to ending its digital advertising partnership with DHS.

The Intercept was among the first to report ICE's use of the song in a paid post recruiting for the agency, which published shortly after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis.

Related DHS Used Neo-Nazi Anthem for Recruitment After Fatal Minneapolis ICE Shooting

The lawmakers also questioned imagery contained in the ads that extremism researchers said echoes far-right "reclamation" narratives long associated with racist violence and accelerationist ideology.

"Businesses are not on the sideline at this moment and it is important they also know how they are contributing to what is happening in Minnesota and across the country," said Balint. "A lack of change is not neutrality but complicity."

Meta did not respond to a request for comment. The Department of Homeland Security, which has not responded to the congressional letter, defended its recruitment messaging in a statement to The Intercept.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin rejected comparisons between the ads and extremist propaganda, arguing that criticism of the campaign amounted to an attack on patriotic expression.

"By Reps. Becca Balint and Pramila Jayapal's standards, every American who posts patriotic imagery on the Fourth of July should be cancelled and labeled a Nazi," McLaughlin said. "Not everything you dislike is 'Nazi propaganda.' DHS will continue to use all tools to communicate with the American people and keep them informed on our historic effort to Make America Safe Again."

McLaughlin also accused critics of "manufacturing outrage" and said the controversy had contributed to a rise in assaults against ICE personnel. "It's because of garbage like this we're seeing a 1,300% increase in assaults against our brave men and women of ICE," she said.

Related Judge Censored an ICE Agent's Face Over "Threats." His Info Was a Google Search Away.

McLaughlin did not provide evidence to support the claim. Similar assertions by the Trump administration about sharp increases in assaults against immigration agents are not reflected in publicly available data.

The most controversial ad in the campaign was a paid DHS recruitment post that published less than two days after the fatal shooting in Minneapolis. It paired immigration enforcement footage with the song "We'll Have Our Home Again" by Pine Tree Riots. Popular in neo-Nazi online spaces, the song includes lyrics about reclaiming "our home" by "blood or sweat." In the ad, it played as a cowboy rode a horse with a B-2 Spirit bomber flying overhead.

The ad featured a scene of a B2 bomber flying over a man on horseback. Screenshot: @DHSgov/X.com

After publicly rebuking allegations that the song had neo-Nazi ties, DHS later removed the recruitment post from its official Instagram account, according to a review of the page and reporting by other outlets. The department did not announce the deletion or respond to questions about why it was taken down. DHS did not address the song's documented circulation in white nationalist spaces or its appearance in the manifesto of a 2023 mass shooter.

The Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch project has separately documented the song's origins and circulation within organized white nationalist networks. The song was written and performed by Pine Tree Riots, a group affiliated with the Männerbund, which the SPLC has previously identified as a white nationalist organization. Hatewatch also found that the song has circulated widely in extremist online spaces and appeared in recruitment efforts by far-right groups.

Balint and Jayapal framed the controversy as bigger than a single post. They accuse Meta of profiting from a large-scale digital recruitment campaign relying on themes that would stand out to white nationalists. They questioned what safeguards existed to prevent extremist-linked content from appearing in government advertising, and whether recent changes to Meta's hate-speech policies allowed the company to run the ads.

The letter details the scale of the recruitment push. According to the lawmakers, DHS spent more than $2.8 million on recruitment ads across Facebook and Instagram between March and December of last year, and paid Meta an additional $500,000 beginning in August. During the first three weeks of last fall's government shutdown, ICE spent $4.5 million on paid media campaigns, the lawmakers write. The letter also cites reporting showing DHS spent more than $1 million over a 90-day period on "self-deportation" ads targeted at users interested in Latin music, Spanish as a second language, and Mexican cuisine.

Balint and Jayapal argue that such spending has been made possible by an influx of funding for ICE. A decade ago, ICE's annual budget totaled less than $6 billion. Under new federal appropriations enacted last year, the agency has roughly $85 billion at its disposal, making it the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the United States. According to analysts cited by lawmakers, its budget is bigger than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined.

The lawmakers pointed to what they described as a deterioration in internal oversight and hiring standards, including waived age limits, large signing bonuses, and reports of recruits being rushed into the field without adequate training. They argued that the combination of rapid expansion, aggressive recruitment, and weak platform safeguards poses risks to public safety.

"It is important that we scrutinize how that funding is being used, particularly if it is being used to attract certain demographics for hiring while pushing others to the periphery, or out of our society," Balint said.

The letter asks Meta to disclose the scope and duration of its advertising agreement with DHS, provide any communications related to the recruitment ads, and explain what restrictions apply to paid government content under its policies.

Meta's Community Standards prohibit content that promotes dehumanizing speech, harmful stereotypes, or calls for exclusion or segregation targeting people based on protected characteristics, including race, ethnicity, national origin, and immigration status.

The policies also state that Meta removes content historically linked to intimidation or offline violence and applies heightened scrutiny during periods of increased tension or recent violence involving targeted groups. The members of Congress questioned whether those standards were enforced consistently for paid government advertising tied to DHS recruitment.

"There are a whole host of safeguards that should be considered," Balint said. "But at a minimum, they need to abide by their own community guidelines."

Related Deportation, Inc.

Balint said the inquiry is ongoing and could expand beyond the recruitment campaign itself. "I am certainly going to continue looking into how private groups are profiting off of or contributing to the untenable dynamic with ICE that is putting our communities at risk," she said.

Since the recruitment campaign became the subject of public scrutiny, DHS and ICE have not made additional posts using the same song, imagery, or music across their official social media accounts.

The post Lawmakers Call on Meta to Stop Running ICE Ad Featuring Neo-Nazi Anthem appeared first on The Intercept.

Some of the largest banks in the nation for years have eschewed the business of private prison giants like GEO Group and CoreCivic, the two firms that operate more than half the private carceral facilities in the country, including many U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers.

The moves to "debank" the companies, which have been dogged by reports of rights abuses, came after the banks' reviews of their environmental, social, and governance policies, which included site visits and meeting with civil rights leaders. According to a nonprofit report, the moves by banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, cost the prison companies billions in potential financing.

"Private prisons profit purely from locking people up, but the market is not immune to public accountability."

Now, the private prison firms are fighting back, spending millions on lobbying Congress to pass a law to require that the banks can't deny their business.

The two prison giants spent millions lobbying for legislation known as the Fair Access to Banking Act, a pending bill that seeks to prevent banks from denying access to institutions or people including those involved in "politically unpopular businesses but that are lawful under Federal law." A press release marking the bill's introduction last year said, "The legislation requires that lending and services decisions must be based on impartial, risk-based analysis, not political or reputational favoritism."

Civil liberties advocates have criticized the legislation.

"Private prisons profit purely from locking people up, but the market is not immune to public accountability," said Eunice H. Cho, a senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project who has represented immigration detainees housed in privately operated ICE facilities. "Consumer advocacy is a very important part of the democratic process, including economic boycott and protest against corporations. Banks are sensitive to understanding the risks of doing business with harmful industries."

"We value the relationships we have with our financial partners," Ryan Gustin, a spokesperson for CoreCivic, said in a statement. "We also believe all lawful businesses should be treated fairly under the banking system."

GEO Group did not respond to a request for comment.

Millions in Lobbying

Last year, GEO Group spent $3.3 million in lobbying various departments and agencies of the federal government, of which $1.37 million was spent in lobbying the House and the Senate on issues that included the Fair Access to Banking Act, according to federal lobbying disclosures.

Meanwhile, in 2025, CoreCivic spent $3.5 million total on lobbying, of which $2 million went toward pushing for the legislation, according to the disclosures.

Despite hiring high-profile D.C. firms for their lobbying activities, both prison companies utilized their in-house government relations experts when it came to advocating for the banking legislation, which is moving through the Senate and the House.

In its fourth-quarter lobbying report, GEO Group mentions "S. 401 and H.R. 987, Fair Access to Banking Act; Issues related to the availability of banking services for federal contractors" as one of its lobbying issues. CoreCivic's lobbying issues in the same quarter also mentioned "Issues pertaining to financial industry practices; H.R. 987/S. 401 - Fair Access to Banking Act."

Related Private Prison CEO on ICE Contracts: We're a Better Deal Than El Salvador's CECOT

GEO Group and CoreCivic have long faced criticisms and lawsuits from rights groups for poor prison conditions, undermining medical needs of detainees, and not doing enough to prevent deaths in their facilities.

In December and January alone, for instance, five of the 11 people who died in ICE custody were housed in detention centers owned and operated by one of the firms, ICE's press statements show. At least four people died while detained in a GEO Group facility, and one other individual died while detained in a CoreCivic center.

In 2019, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, SunTrust, BNP Paribas, Fifth Third Bancorp, PNC Bank, and Bank of America said that they would no longer provide any new financing to the private prison industry. At the time, the banks reportedly constituted more than 70 percent of the total financing available to the two companies, with many of them having loaned money to either one or both firms.

Many of these Wall Street banks took similar action against gun manufacturers, oil and gas companies, and porn sites, among other industries, in what came to be known as debanking.

The impact was considerable. CoreCivic reportedly had to scramble for finances abroad.

If the new legislation passes, however, the two companies will have access to fresh lines of credit that could help them build new facilities at a faster pace and cash in on a higher demand for ICE detention facilities.

Related Deportation, Inc.

Last July, the federal government approved funding of $45 billion to build new immigration detention centers as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

In its third-quarter earnings report, GEO Group said it had secured four ICE contracts for four new ICE detention facilities totaling about 6,000 beds. CoreCivic also reported receiving contracts for four facilities with over 7,000 beds. Financial statements suggest that the new contracts have boosted the revenue figures of both the companies, who rely heavily on federal contracts to support their bottom lines.

An Ally in Trump

The concerted effort put into lobbying by GEO and CoreCivic has already reaped some success.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order last August that empowered federal banking regulators, such as the Small Business Administration, to monitor financial institutions that denied services to clients based on "politicized or unlawful debanking action." Last month, Trump announced he would sue JPMorgan Chase for debanking him over the January 6 riots.

In December, the Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published a report that scrutinized nine banks and listed private prisons as being among the sectors affected by debanking. The bureau said that it intends to "hold these banks accountable for any unlawful debanking activities, including by making referrals to the Attorney General."

In June, even before Trump's order, Bank of America, which had cut ties with private prisons, reinstated CoreCivic as its client, according to Semafor. A JPMorgan Chase spokesperson said the bank hasn't changed its policy of freezing out private prisons. Meanwhile, most other banks have been quiet about whether they will change course on financing private prisons. (None of the banks responded to The Intercept's requests for comment.)

If the Fair Access to Banking Act passes Congress, the banks may not have a choice.

"It has been the worst year for immigration detainees in decades," said Cho, the ACLU lawyer. "Private prisons have an astronomical amount of funds available to them, and it's unsurprising they are also looking to protect ways to expand those funds with extra lines of credits available. But for detainees, this can have serious implications."

The post ICE's Private Prison Contractors Spent Millions Lobbying to Force Banks to Give Them Loans appeared first on The Intercept.

Former Lieutenant Governor Tahesha Way is not the clear front-runner in New Jersey's special congressional election on Thursday. She's seventh in fundraising out of 10 candidates as of last week's Federal Election Commission deadline, and public polling has been sparse. But as the race drew close to the finish line, the Israel lobby made her the beneficiary of a last-minute push. 

In the final weeks before the election, an Intercept analysis has found, 30 donors to groups including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, its super PAC, and Democratic Majority for Israel have poured more than $50,000 into Way's campaign. On Friday, amid the fundraising push and less than a week before the election, DMFI officially endorsed her. 

The lobby is known for spending against progressives and the most vocal critics of the state of Israel, but in New Jersey, it appears to be backing one moderate to pick off another. Yet more pro-Israel money in the race comes at the expense of Tom Malinowski, who is no progressive on Israel policy but nevertheless has become the subject of AIPAC ire — marking a reversal for the group, which supported him in 2022.

AIPAC's super PAC, United Democracy Project, has spent more $2.3 million on ads against Malinowski. The ads do not mention Israel but attack Malinowski on immigration, saying he helped fund "Trump's deportation force" because he voted in favor of a 2019 bipartisan appropriations bill that funded the Department of Homeland Security. The majority of Democrats, including many supported by AIPAC, voted for the bill.

In a statement to The Intercept, UDP spokesperson Patrick Dorton made no mention of Malinowski's DHS funding vote. He said Malinowski had fallen afoul of the group's policy priorities by discussing the possibility of conditioning aid to Israel.

"It's our goal to build the largest bipartisan pro-Israel majority in Congress. There are several candidates in this race far more pro-Israel than Tom Malinowski," Dorton said.

Related AIPAC Is Retreating From Endorsements and Election Spending. It Won't Give Up Its Influence.

Way and Malinowski are competing in a crowded race in New Jersey's 11th Congressional District to replace former Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who vacated the seat after she was elected governor. 

Way and Malinowski's campaigns did not respond to The Intercept's requests for comment.

Also running are Analilia Mejia, the former political director for Sen. Bernie Sanders's 2020 presidential campaign; veteran Zach Beecher; Passaic County commissioner and election lawyer John Bartlett; former Morris Township Mayor Jeff Grayzel; and Essex County Commissioner Brendan Gill. 

Way already had substantial support from the Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association, which endorsed her and has spent more than $1.7 million backing her campaign, almost half of what it spent in total last cycle. But even with close to $4 million in outside spending on her side, she has lagged behind her opponents in fundraising. She's raised just over $400,000 — compared to Malinowski's over $1.1 million, more than $800,000 for Gill, and over half a million for Beecher. Bartlett has raised more than $460,000, Grayzel has raised $428,000, and Mejia has raised just over $420,000. 

Now, pro-Israel donors who have given to AIPAC to boost other pro-Israel candidates are trying to help Way close the gap. They include retired investor Peter Langerman, who has given $75,000 to AIPAC's United Democracy Project since 2023 and $12,000 to AIPAC since 2022. Another Way donor, Florida loan executive Joel Edelstein, has given $25,000 to UDP since 2023 and $$3,500 to AIPAC since 2022.

Among Way's other donors are Bennett Greenspan, founder of the genealogy company Family Tree DNA, who has given $40,000 to United Democracy Project, $4,000 to DMFI PAC, and $1,250 to AIPAC PAC since 2022. Way donor and New Jersey real estate developer Michael Gottlieb gave $25,000 to UDP in 2023. Another Way donor, founder and former president of Microsoft partner HSO, Jack Ades, has given $10,750 to AIPAC since 2024. Gottlieb and Ades have given to Republican candidates including Reps. Mike Lawler and Elise Stefanik in New York; Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La.; Nikki Haley's presidential campaign; and the Republican group WinRed. 

More than half of these contributions all landed on January 14.

More than half of the contributions to Way — $33,000 of the $53,000 in total — all landed on January 14, a common sign that outside groups have sent out a fundraising push to their network.

Another donor to Way's campaign is Joseph Korn, a New Jersey real estate developer who served on the New Jersey board of the Jewish National Fund, a controversial national organization that has funded settler groups in the West Bank. 

Way is campaigning on a relatively centrist platform that primarily includes fighting against President Donald Trump's agenda. She's also running on strengthening the Affordable Care Act, ensuring access to reproductive care, protecting democracy and voting rights, and lowering costs without raising taxes, including raising the cap on state and local tax deductions, or SALT. Her website does not mention foreign policy or Israel. 

Way is also endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus PAC; the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State; IVYPAC, which backs candidates who are members of the historically Black Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority; and several other New Jersey organizations. 

The Israel lobby's support for Way may not ultimately help its policy priorities. As a recent column in the Forward points out, by pitting Way and Malinowski against each other, AIPAC donors might help a more progressive candidate get elected.

The post AIPAC Donors Flood Last-Minute New Jersey House Pick With Cash appeared first on The Intercept.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a news conference about fentanyl seizures and border security on Feb. 2, 2026, in San Diego. Photo: K.C. Alfred/The San Diego Union-Tribune via Getty Images

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is widely viewed as a strong contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, particularly by Gavin Newsom. But his record is a real problem, just not in the way pundits think it is. 

Take, for example, his determination to thwart the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act, which would impose a one-time 5 percent levy on residents of the state worth $1 billion or more. This is hardly Bolshevism, as keen mathematicians will note that 5 percent still leaves 95 percent, meaning those affected would wake up the next morning in the same economic bracket that calls to mind a camel and the eye of a needle. Regardless, Newsom remains firmly in the plutocrats' corner.

There was also his appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, late last month — always a popular destination for those angling for high office — amid President Donald Trump's lunge toward Greenland. Just as European leaders were discovering that, having tolerated U.S. imperialism in Venezuela, it was now threatening their own backyard, Newsom kindly offered some unsolicited advice, scolding them that "Trump is a T. rex — you mate with him or he devours you, one way or the other, and you need to stand up to it." (The revelation that T. rexes can be defeated by standing up to them will come as a surprise to anyone who's seen "Jurassic Park.") Trump, for his part, merely shrugged in response: "I used to get along so great with Gavin."

Last week and with much publicity, Newsom launched a review of TikTok's moderation practices, accusing the platform of suppressing Trump-critical content after a deal was finalized to transfer Chinese ownership of the app to a consortium of pro-Israel, Trump-loving billionaires, including Larry Ellison and Michael Dell. It is unsurprising that social media is an issue of concern for Newsom, as he is apparently the last person on Earth under the impression the Trump administration can be tweeted into submission, a strategy which will surely pay dividends any day now.

Finally, students of shameless self-promotion may already be familiar with "This Is Gavin Newsom," the podcast launched in early 2025 in which the governor has sought to bridge the political divide by sitting down for chummy dialogue with far-right celebrities like Ben Shapiro and the late Charlie Kirk. What this looks like in practice is Shapiro goading Newsom into denying Israel's genocidal conduct in Gaza, while Kirk earned Newsom's fulsome agreement about the nefarious menace of trans women playing sports. 

Yet there are those in the political media unbothered by all this — if anything, it is the kind of thing they would like to see more of. Instead, their concern comes from a different direction, if not an alternate universe, altogether.

Writing in The Atlantic late last month, Marc Novicoff and Jonathan Chait argued "Gavin Newsom's Record Is a Problem." While acknowledging he has "sensed what Democrats want … and is delivering it with a roguish charisma" (your mileage may vary), they nevertheless worry he may be perceived as too progressive. This will, one assumes, be followed by essays on why Chuck Schumer is too courageous and JD Vance is too likable.

Novicoff and Chait posit that Newsom's tenure as governor has seen California "fall hard for faddish progressive policies on immigration, education, and crime that either didn't work, violated the intuitions of most Americans, or both." As proof, they offer the state providing Medicaid to undocumented immigrants and gender-affirming health care for prisoners, both of which they present as catastrophic missteps that will come back to haunt him in 2028.

Such is the modern centrist credo: to overcome a perception rooted in fantasy, it may be necessary to make the reality of people's lives worse.

Such is the modern centrist credo: to overcome a perception rooted in fantasy, it may be necessary to make the reality of people's lives worse. In fact, it would seem their preferred litmus test for a candidate is that they not only refuse to recognize the rights and basic humanity of immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and the incarcerated, but that they also must never offer even the most superficial indication to the contrary.

This is all par for the course from Chait, who maintains Kamala Harris's 2024 defeat had little to do with her support for Israel during a genocide, her proud past as California's "top cop," or her unwillingness to distance herself from Joe Biden's legacy. Instead, Chait blames those few instances during her Hindenburg-like 2019 stab at the Democratic nomination where she briefly and unconvincingly pivoted left before returning to the comfort of political moderation.

Related Jon Chait Thinks Kamala Harris Went Too Far Left. He's Just Falling for Trump's Demagoguery.

In the real world however, the arch-centrist Chait got everything he could hope for in Harris, who promptly blew it; now, with Newsom as the alleged front-runner for 2028, the fact that Chait is already preemptively recycling the same excuses for failure does not inspire confidence.

"Just about everything people don't like about the Democratic Party has come true in Newsom's California," Chait and Novicoff write, inadvertently stumbling onto a point. Many Americans despise the Democrats for their craven coddling of billionaires and corporate interests, their fealty to zombified Third Way snake oil, and their twitchy, terrified suspicion of any mass movement too radical for their own beige, milquetoast taste — and sure enough, in the California governor's mansion sits a man who personifies all these grim qualities.

If Newsom — who treats billionaires as a treasured natural resource, who mobilized thousands of National Guard troops to quash Black Lives Matter protests, who made a photo op of breaking down a homeless encampment with his own hands — is not impeccably centrist enough for the likes of Chait, who the hell is? A John Fetterman who's on the ball and not acting like a Republican? A Kyrsten Sinema whose personal life isn't straight out of a daytime soap opera? A reanimated WelcomeFest speaker stitched together in Matt Yglesias's laboratory?

It does ring true that Newsom will be painted as a deranged radical out of some Californian hippie dystopia, because under Trump, what was once McCarthyism is now standard practice. So why would anyone still believe the forces he represents can be met halfway, given they will inevitably smear as commies anyone to the left of "The Turner Diaries"?

Watching Newsom's refusal to accept this reality has not been edifying. Following the murder of Renee Good by ICE last month, Newsom's press office released a post on X which simply read "STATE. SPONSORED. TERRORISM," a position which held for a little over a week until Ben Shapiro badgered him into walking it back. For all his tough-guy posturing, one wonders how tough a politician can really be if Ben goddamn Shapiro — whose greatest enemies are socialism, wokeness, and things on high shelves — can get you to fold like a cheap lawn chair. But this is Newsom's style: blustering proclamations that might, to the casual observer, be mistaken for principle or policy, closely followed by the reticence and cowardice that defines mainstream Democratic politics.

Related It's Time for Concrete Action on ICE. Sadly, We Have the Democrats.

It should go without saying that Newsom's palling around with right-wing pseudo-intellectuals like Kirk and Shapiro — along with his assurances that he does not favor abolishing the death squads currently occupying Minnesota — do not appear to have won him any converts, respect, or sympathy from the American right. And why should it? In Trump, they have found a president that will indulge their darkest desires, liberate their deepest prejudices and deliver the violence they yearn to see inflicted on all those they judge as deserving — in short, everything they could ever want. Meanwhile, there are still those who believe the key to defeating American fascism is making sure the left gets none of what it wants. Go figure.

Unsurprisingly, there has been little indication the American progressive left perceives Newsom as deserving anything but disdain. Recent weeks have only bolstered the sense that committing to the abolition of ICE is a prerequisite for any remotely moral candidate in 2028. If Newsom fails to become that candidate, it will not be because he appeared too left-wing, but because he lacked the guts or the inclination to be anything except what he manifestly is: a preening political operator, beholden to a status quo that no longer exists.

The post Gavin Newsom's Biggest Problem Is Gavin Newsom appeared first on The Intercept.

National progressives see a chance in Texas to install a new member of the Squad in the place of departing Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett — by electing her pastor.

With Crockett vacating her House seat to run in a competitive — and increasingly ugly — Senate primary, pastor Frederick Haynes III is running to fill her seat. The progressive outfit Justice Democrats endorsed Haynes's campaign on Wednesday, becoming the first national group to wade into the primary for the Democrat-friendly 30th Congressional District.

The primary in Texas is just a month away, and Justice Democrats views Haynes as one of its first real chances to notch a win for the electoral left this cycle, the group's spokesperson Usamah Andrabi told The Intercept. The 65-year-old Dallas pastor has already attracted some national attention for his outspoken criticism of Israel's genocide in Gaza, putting him at odds with many of his peers in Texas and the Deep South, where an open affinity between right-wing Christianity and pro-Israel Zionism is common.

That stance also marks an apparent difference between him and Crockett. While Haynes is running on ending U.S. military support for Israel and the genocide in Gaza, Crockett has drawn criticism for voting to send U.S. military aid to Israel and taking a trip there as a first-term member of Congress in August 2023 with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Israel Defense Forces. She has similarly faced criticism for accepting campaign support from the crypto industry, while Haynes has called for new regulations on cryptocurrency.

Crockett, who has brushed off some criticism of her record as "intellectually lazy," says she's in favor of Haynes's campaign and endorsed him last month.

"Every leader approaches things differently, and I greatly respect Congresswoman Crockett's work and approach," Haynes told The Intercept. "My worldview and my positions are deeply rooted in my community, and the struggles I see those around me experiencing on a daily basis. Our community is justice minded here in Dallas."

Also running in the March 3 Democratic primary for Crockett's seat are former Texas state Rep. Barbara Mallory Caraway and pastor Rodney LaBruce. To win a primary in Texas, candidates have to receive a majority of votes or compete in a runoff in May.

A pastor for 40 years and a fixture in Dallas, Haynes is the 11th candidate Justice Democrats has endorsed this cycle. The group is backing more new candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections than it has in any other year since its inaugural 2018 cycle, which ushered in now well-known Squad members like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. After major losses last cycle, Justice Democrats says it's deploying a more aggressive strategy this time, seeking to capitalize on voter frustration with the party establishment.

Related National Progressives Side With Mamdani in House Race Splitting NYC Left

"We try to be as selective and intentional about the races and candidates we pick and really evaluate their path to victory," Andrabi said. "We're hoping we can really, as a movement — but if not, as Justice Democrats — to start this cycle off with some wins."

In Haynes's view, "Dems have let us down," he told The Intercept. "The wolves of hunger, fascism, and injustice are at our door, and what does the Democratic establishment have to offer in response — strongly worded letters? Our community deserves better than this: they deserve leadership that will fight for them with the courage and commitment that this moment requires."

"The wolves of hunger, fascism, and injustice are at our door, and what does the Democratic establishment have to offer in response — strongly worded letters?"

As the pastor at Crockett's church, Haynes has been an activist on issues from predatory lending to voting rights. His church holds a legal clinic, hosts a toolkit for congregation members to contact their legislators, and runs programming on food security, economic and environmental justice, and civic engagement. The church website hosts a link to a petition calling for a ceasefire in Gaza led by former Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo.

That activism has also made him a target of the right. In a story last week, Jewish Insider wrote that Haynes delivered "an anti-Israel polemic from the pulpit" the day after the October 7 attacks. In his remarks, Haynes denounced Israeli apartheid.

"The Palestinians don't have the financial backing from the United States that Israel has, and so they throw their rocks and shoot their arrows," Haynes said on October 8, 2023, "and Israel is able to bomb them and kill them."

"You see a much tighter grip on evangelical Christians and churches in the south, particularly ones that represent Republican constituencies, from the Israel lobby and AIPAC," Andrabi said. But Haynes "sees it as his moral imperative to call out Israeli apartheid and genocide, particularly because so many other Christian leaders have used it for their own benefit and used it to advance their own interests and the interests of right-wing politicians."

In addition to ending U.S. military support for Israel and regulating the crypto industry, Haynes is running on abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, providing Medicare for All, getting dark money out of elections, and banning congressional stock trading. He's also rejecting corporate PAC money.

"Every time we choose imperialism abroad, or tax cuts for the wealthy, we are telling working people in our communities that we value their lives less," Haynes said, citing the notion that a budget is a moral document, often attributed to Martin Luther King, Jr. "Every bomb dropped in Palestine is money for an underfunded school, an unpaved road, a mother who has to decide between groceries and insulin. Our tax dollars must go to supporting life in our families at home, not death in other families abroad."

"It doesn't do us much good to replace old corporate shills with young corporate shills."

At age 65, Haynes contradicts the narrative that the battle over the future over the Democratic Party is purely about pitting younger candidates against older incumbents. The gerontocracy in Congress is its own issue, Andrabi said; being represented by corporate interests and right-wing lobbies is another. 

"It is a new generation. But that generation is not necessarily just defined or limited by an age group," Andrabi said. "It doesn't do us much good to replace old corporate shills with young corporate shills. The problem is that they're corporate shills, not just that they are aging." 

The post He's Running to Fill Jasmine Crockett's House Seat From Her Left. He's Also Her Pastor. appeared first on The Intercept.

A man who sued his college after being suspended over a rape allegation was hired into a powerful position at the federal agency tasked with defending workers against workplace discrimination, including sex discrimination.

Benjamin North, who maintained his innocence during the lawsuit, went on to become an attorney who took public stances against what he characterized as the excesses of Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education.

Less than eight years after his case was closed following an agreement with the university, North has quietly become the new assistant general counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to a screenshot of the agency's employee directory and an agency employee who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation.

"You need people in that office who understand that their job is to uphold the law and to apply the law faithfully."

North now reports directly to Acting General Counsel Catherine Eschbach, according to the employee.

"The general counsel's office is an incredibly important part of the EEOC," said Jenny Yang, a partner at the law firm Outten & Golden and a former EEOC chair. The general counsel holds the power to decide which employers to sue and over which issues, and oversees litigation brought in the agency's 15 regional offices, and assistant general counsels help coordinate litigation "for the entire agency," Yang said. They often review cases and their evidence to evaluate the merits and help determine whether the agency should invest its limited resources into pursuing a suit, she said.

"You need people in that office who understand that their job is to uphold the law and to apply the law faithfully," she said. (Neither North nor the EEOC responded to requests for comment.)

North's role could have even more heft than usual, the EEOC employee said, given how many attorneys have left the agency and the office of the general counsel under the second Trump administration. The office is typically filled with "experienced litigators," the employee said, noting that North was still a college student 10 years ago and now has been hired into "a very senior position" in which he will "have a huge impact on the cases that the EEOC chooses to bring."

College Allegation Case

North sued Catholic University after he was accused of rape by a fellow student, investigated, and suspended for two years. In his legal complaint, he claimed he and his accuser met at a party, then in an upstairs bathroom "engaged in consensual sex." According to the judge's ruling in the case, North sought to refute the accuser's allegation that she had taken three shots of vodka and became distraught. The university found that she had been incapable of giving consent due to intoxication and suspended North.

North alleged in his suit that the university had violated its own policies as well as Title IX, which prohibits gender discrimination at federally funded institutions. The Title IX claim rested on North's allegation that the university had been biased against him and gave his accuser "preferential treatment," thereby "discriminating against [him] based on his gender." He sought $1 million in damages as well as injunctive relief.

In 2019, the case was closed when North and his legal team stipulated to dismissal, indicating an agreement between the plaintiff and defense, usually a settlement. (Catholic University declined to comment.)

North also dealt with Title IX claims as an attorney after completing law school. Before taking his role in the government, North most recently worked at Binnall Law Group. The firm published an article on its website in 2018 saying that universities use Title IX to "abuse the Constitutional rights of students accused of sexual misconduct."

At Binnall, North served as a Title IX adviser who helped students in such proceedings. (Binnall did not respond to a request for comment.)

North wrote an op-ed for The Federalist in 2021 about Title IX arguing that a Biden administration nominee had "led the charge against students' civil rights and due process" and that men's rights are often violated in university proceedings after they're accused of sexual assault.

Now, North could help guide litigation at the EEOC.

"It sends a concerning signal to have hired somebody with his background."

"Given that we are the agency tasked with enforcing protections against sexual violence in the workplace, it sends a concerning signal to have hired somebody with his background," the EEOC employee said.

That signal will be sent both internally to staff, the employee said, about what the agency wants to focus on and to workers who have experienced sexual harassment or assault at work about whether the agency will take their claims seriously.

Reshaping the EEOC

North is not the first EEOC hire who has raised eyebrows during the second Trump administration. Last April, EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas appointed Shannon Royce, a longtime Christian conservative activist, as her chief of staff. Royce had been serving as president of the Christian Employers Alliance, which sued the EEOC in 2021 over its defense of the rights of trans people at work. Her group also sued the EEOC over its inclusion of abortion care in the protections offered by the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

On January 12, the Christian Employers Alliance announced that it had notched an agreement with the EEOC in which the agency agreed not to enforce abortion and gender identity requirements against its members while the EEOC "considers revising its policies."

Lucas also hired Connor Clegg, a former Fox News producer, in the agency's communications department. In 2018, Clegg was impeached as student body president at Texas State University over uncovered social media posts in which he mocked Asian tourists with hashtags that included "#pearlharborwasbad" and "#kimjongil." He was later found not guilty by the Student Government Supreme Court.

More recently, Clegg posted a long rant to social media about an interaction with a traffic enforcement officer who "barely spoke a lick of English" and reposted a tweet from late Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk that said, "There is an undeniable War on White People in The West."

North's hire comes after Lucas has asserted new priorities at the agency.

Related How Trump Twisted DEI to Only Benefit White Christians

In a post to X in December, she directly solicited complaints from white men who allege they've been discriminated at work based on their race or sex. She has also instructed agency officials to focus on cases that line up with her own personal priorities, which include "defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights," "rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination," and "religious bias and harassment, including antisemitism."

Meanwhile, under her leadership, the general counsel's office dropped the litigation it had already brought on behalf of transgender workers and in a disparate impact racial discrimination case.

The post EEOC Quietly Hired Lawyer Who Crusaded for Cases of Discrimination Against Men — Including His Own appeared first on The Intercept.

The cars sat abandoned at the side of the road. Their engines idling, with hazard lights flashing, according to a witness who captured video of the incident on his phone. The occupants of the vehicles had been taken away by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers late last month in what a local immigrant rights group calls "fake traffic stops." During these encounters, ICE vehicles reportedly employ red and blue flashing lights to mimic those of local law enforcement agencies, duping people into pulling over.

When family members arrived on the scene in Eagle County, Colorado, their loved ones had already been disappeared by federal agents. But what they found inside the vehicles was disturbing: a customized ace of spades playing card — popularly known as a "death card" — that read "ICE Denver Field Office."

"We are disgusted by ICE's actions in Eagle County," Alex Sánchez, president and CEO of that immigrant rights group, Voces Unidas, told The Intercept. "Leaving a racist death card behind after targeting Latino workers is an act of intimidation. This is not about public safety. It is about fear and control. It's rooted in a very long history of racial violence."

During the Vietnam War, U.S. troops regularly adorned Vietnamese corpses with "death cards" — either an ace of spades or a custom-printed business card claiming credit for their kills. A 1966 entry in the Congressional Record noted that due to supposed Vietnamese superstitions regarding the ace of spades, "the U.S. Playing Card Co. had been furnishing thousands of these cards free to U.S. servicemen in Vietnam who requested them."

Official U.S. military film footage, for example, shows ace of spades "death cards" being placed in the mouths of dead Vietnamese people in South Vietnam's Quảng Ngãi province by members of the 25th Infantry Division. Similarly, Company A, 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry of the 198th Light Infantry Brigade left their victims with a customized ace of spades sporting the unit's nickname "Gunfighters," a skull and crossbones, and the phrase "dealers of death." Helicopter pilots also occasionally dropped custom calling cards from their gunships. One particular card read: "Congratulations. You have been killed through courtesy of the 361st. Yours truly, Pink Panther." The other side proclaimed, "The Lord giveth and the 20mm [cannon] taketh away. Killing is our business and business is good."

A customized playing card left behind after an immigration raid in January in Eagle County, Colo., includes the address of an ICE field office. Photo: Voces Unidas

The cards found in Eagle County harken back to this brutal heritage. The black and white 4×6-inch cards look like an ace of spades with an "A" over a spade in the top left and bottom right corners. A larger ornate black and white spade dominates the center of the card. Above it reads "ICE Denver Field Office." Below it is the address and phone number of the ICE detention facility in nearby Aurora. 

Sánchez said his organization took possession of identical cards found in two separate vehicles by two different families. "These were not from a doctored deck of cards. These were designed with this legacy in mind. They were printed on some sort of stock paper and cut in the dimensions of a card," he explained. Basic templates for ace of spaces playing cards are readily available as clip art for purchase online.

A DHS spokesperson told local NBC affiliate 9News that ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility will "conduct a thorough investigation and will take appropriate and swift action." ICE's Denver Field Office did not respond to questions posed by The Intercept about the office's use of the cards, the meaning behind them, and its agents' tactics.

"You realize — of course — that in Spades, the ace of spades is the trump card," said a federal official of the Bridge-like card game, alluding to the possibility that the death card is also an homage to President Donald Trump. That official, who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak to the press continued: "These guys are not too subtle, to be honest."

Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., recently took to the Senate floor to denounce the use of the malicious ICE calling cards. "They found 'death cards' [left in] the cars of their family members who were taken away by ICE agents," he said. "These cards … have a history of being used by white supremacist groups to intimidate people of color. 'Death cards' is what they call them."

Related He Witnessed an Earlier Shooting. Feds Arrested Him at the Scene of Alex Pretti's Killing.

Sánchez expressed worry that similar acts of intimidation are happening elsewhere but may not be reported, noting that while Voces Unidas became aware of the death cards in the course of their work, investigating such incidents is not a core focus of his organization, which provides legal assistance to immigrants.

"When people call us, they call us to get an attorney out to them at a detention center," Sánchez explained. "In the process, we sometimes hear about these details. But it isn't a priority. Our job is not to investigate cards. Our job is to provide legal aid." He noted that the community served by Voces Unidas in the western slope of rural Colorado does not trust local law enforcement officers, elected officials, or mainstream human rights groups. "They're calling organizations that they trust. And unless those trusted organizations are doing civil rights reporting or are going in-depth in providing emergency assistance, it's very difficult to find out the details of such incidents," he explained. "So I would be surprised if we're the only community where this has happened. We just might not know it."

Neither ICE nor its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, returned a request for comment about the use of the death cards in Colorado or elsewhere in the U.S.

This isn't the first time that immigration agents have used similar imagery during the Trump administration's ongoing deportation campaign. This summer, for example, a Border Patrol agent taking part in immigration raids in Chicago wore the image of a skull with a spade on its forehead affixed to his helmet below another unidentified but apparently unofficial patch. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to a request for comment.

Related Judge Censored an ICE Agent's Face Over "Threats." His Info Was a Google Search Away.

Recently, The Intercept published a guide to official and unofficial patches worn by immigration agents. These included a shoulder patch worn by personnel from the St. Paul, Minnesota Field Office, where Jonathan Ross — the ICE agent who shot Renee Good — works. 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.

Another ICE officer in Minnesota was spotted 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."

ICE and DHS failed to respond to repeated requests for comment about these patches.

The ace card has a long and macabre history. A British tax on playing cards, which specifically required purchasing aces of spades from the stamp office, resulted in the hanging of a serial forger of the "death card" in 1805. Legend has it that "Wild Bill" Hickok held the Dead Man's Hand — aces and eights, including the ace of spades — when he was gunned down in Deadwood in Dakota Territory in 1876. In 1931, murdered Mafia boss Giuseppe Masseria was photographed with the ace of spades clutched in his hand. By that time, it was firmly entrenched in culture as the "death card."

The U.S. use of death cards in Vietnam was immortalized in the 1979 film "Apocalypse Now" in a scene in which Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, played by Robert Duvall, places unit-branded playing cards, reading "DEATH FROM ABOVE," on the bodies of dead Vietnamese people. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency developed a set of playing cards to help troops identify the most-wanted members of the Iraqi government. President Saddam Hussein, who was eventually captured and executed, was the ace of spades.

Last year, the official Instagram account of Border Patrol's San Diego Sector used the 1980 Motörhead song "The Ace of Spades" as the soundtrack of a video of its canines practicing attacks on people. "Our Patrol-K9s are trained to take down violent threats," reads the accompanying caption.

The post Federal Agents Left Behind "Death Cards" After Capturing Immigrants appeared first on The Intercept.

Federal law enforcement agents stand guard as they are confronted by community members for reportedly shooting a woman in the Brighton Park neighborhood on Oct. 4, 2025, in Broadview, Ill. Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images

Days before the federal government falsely claimed cellphone-brandishing nurse Alex Pretti was a terrorist plotting a "massacre," a jury in Chicago acquitted Juan Espinoza Martinez on bogus charges of a murder-for-hire plot against then-Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino. A recently unsealed court transcript shows the government used that case to bolster its claims about the dangers of "doxing" Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. That pretext was used to convince a judge to obscure an ICE agent's face during a public court proceeding when his name, face, employment, and location were publicly listed on his LinkedIn page.  

As with its baseless claims about Pretti, the government presented no evidence supporting its proclamations that Martinez, a union carpenter, was a higher-up in the Latin Kings gang with the ability or intent to put out hits on Bovino or other immigration agents. The case against him hinged on ambiguous Snapchat messages that Martinez's attorney called "neighborhood gossip." But the Department of Homeland Security brought its allegations to the public long before it could be tested in court, repeating claims of bounties up to $50,000. 

The transcript from a federal court in Chicago, which was recently released pursuant to a motion filed by law firm Mandell PC on behalf of local media outlets, shows how far the hysteria has gone. During an October 20, 2025, hearing in a case challenging immigration enforcement tactics, government lawyers asked for a private conference with Judge Sara Ellis to request the courtroom sketch artist not draw ICE Deputy Field Office Director Shawn Byers.

Government attorneys claimed that, in light of the alleged "bounties" on the heads of ICE agents, Byers had taken extensive precautions to disconnect his identity from his image online to protect himself. When the judge asked for details on the bounties, Department of Justice attorney Samuel Holt responded, "I don't have all the details. My understanding is that I — I think it was a gang bounty."

The judge cleared the courtroom and called Byers in to provide the details about the "threat." Byers first claimed there was a $50,000 "bounty issued by the cartels on me," along with $10,000 "for all my family members." He also said the "credible threat" was out against "all senior ICE officials here in Chicago," where Byers said he was the most senior ICE agent on the ground. Asked when he learned about the bounty, Byer said "It's been about a week or so I believe." Martinez's arrest was announced two weeks earlier, on October 6; no other bounties were publicly reported in the interim. When the judge asked whether these threats were "directed specifically" at him, Byers seemed to walk his claims back, replying, "Well, all senior ICE officials. So it's not just me."

Byers also said he'd taken action to "limit social media exposure" and "reduce the footprint" to avoid his face being connected with his name and that even his appearance in court required "additional precautions."

"You know, my name is out there. I've been doxed as — as recently as over the weekend," Byers told the judge, according to the court transcript. "So my name is out there, but my name has not been connected to my face yet, so that's what I'm trying to prevent from happening."

Despite objections from opposing counsel that court proceedings (and courtroom sketches) should be public, the judge ordered the sketch artist to blur Byers's facial features, concealing his identity. Ellis's compromise, while likely intended as a good-faith effort to balance safety and transparency, nonetheless validated the notion that immigration agents operate under extreme risk, justifying extraordinary protective measures by our legal system. It also effectively brought the masks immigration agents wear on the street into the courtroom.

The judge's compromise validated the notion that immigration agents operate under extreme risk, justifying extraordinary protective measures by our legal system.

Then, while Byers and other witnesses testified, someone apparently Googled his name and informed the judge that a simple search turned up his LinkedIn profile, complete with his photo, his exact job title, and his location in Chicago. 

The judge called the parties back into closed session (it's unclear why, given that the false reason for the earlier private sidebar had been exposed). 

"I got to say, you know, I feel slightly foolish in trying to protect Mr. Byers when, you know, a simple Google search pulls up his name and his picture," she said, according to the transcript. She also encouraged the attorney to advise the ICE deputy director that his name and photograph were readily available online. "If I could find his picture in two seconds with his name, it just looks a little silly to be asking the courtroom sketch artist to blur his features." Being recognized is "the cost of being a public servant," she continued. 

The judge also said moving forward, she would "just be more hesitant to kind of obscure somebody's identity," but did not say she'd be entering any actual sanctions for the half-baked rationale used to convince her to censor the public record. 

After some back and forth with the DOJ attorneys about whether Byers's LinkedIn profile contained his actual picture, Ellis confirmed the profile for "Shawn B." did when viewed by someone logged into LinkedIn. (A LinkedIn search for "Shawn Byers ICE" brings up just one profile for a Shawn B., who is listed as currently working as Deputy Field Office Director for ICE in Chicago. It also notes he is a 22-year veteran of the department and contains reposts about ICE removals in Chicago and a hiring notice for GEO Group, the for-profit prison conglomerate contracted with ICE, but no longer contains any profile picture.)

Related Trump Calls His Enemies Terrorists. Does That Mean He Can Just Kill Them?

Since Byers's manufactured emergency obviously wasn't based on real concerns for his safety, what was the point of the whole sideshow? It was likely intended to feed the narrative that immigration agents face such grave threats that identifying them — in addition to filming their operations, following them to do so, tracking and communicating about their locations and other clearly constitutionally protected conduct — needs to be restrained. It's the same fiction that primes segments of the American public to be receptive to claims that people like Pretti and Renee Good were threatening officers' lives to justify their killings.

In January, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem scolded CBS News' "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan for naming Jonathan Ross, the immigration agent who shot and killed Good in Minneapolis. She accused Brennan of "continu[ing] to dox law enforcement," despite acknowledging that Ross's name was already very public, citing unspecified attacks against his family. It's far from the first time Noem and others have claimed that naming or videotaping law enforcement officers is improper, illegal, or even intended to foment violence.

A masked federal law enforcement agent seen on Oct. 4, 2025, as part of Operation Midway Blitz, an operation designed to apprehend and deport undocumented immigrants, in Broadview, Ill. Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images

These efforts to chill the work of reporters and ICE watchers have spread beyond immigration enforcement, as we saw from last month's subpoena by the House Oversight Committee of journalist Seth Harp, which was accompanied by a criminal referral to the Department of Justice by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida. Harp was also accused of "doxing" for naming a Delta Force commander involved in the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, an allegation backed up by unsubstantiated claims that the commander's life was at risk.

The Byers ordeal is an unusually clear example of the current playbook being used to shield administration officials and their foot soldiers from accountability under the guise of protecting public officials' safety. 

The notion that naming public officials at the center of major news stories, who very often conceal their identities while carrying out unprecedented law enforcement operations on the streets of our cities, or that simply drawing their faces for the court record is "doxing" or otherwise improper, is a complete Trump administration fabrication. Still, the government is repeating it often enough that it's warping the public's perception of journalism. The Byers ordeal is an unusually clear example of the current playbook being used to shield administration officials and their foot soldiers from accountability under the guise of protecting public officials' safety. 

Read Our Complete Coverage

Unmasking ICE

The next time this happens in court, the judge needs to demand specifics, with evidence, about whatever nebulous alleged plots or threats the government is pushing to justify secrecy. With comprehensive studies demonstrating their constant misrepresentations, nothing government lawyers say can be taken at face value. And when it happens outside the courthouse, the media needs to be similarly skeptical and not take the "threats" narrative at face value from an administration with a long, proven track record of misleading the public for its own political ends. 

Judges also need to impose significant sanctions on lawyers and witnesses who mislead them, make them pawns in the administration's anti-transparency objectives, and waste their time. Gently reprimanding them in private doesn't cut it, especially when these false, alarmist narratives used in court are then being used to justify ICE killings to the public.

The post Judge Censored an ICE Agent's Face Over "Threats." His Info Was a Google Search Away. appeared first on The Intercept.

A new gender neutral bathroom at Shawnee Mission East High School, on June 16, 2023, in Prairie Village, Kan.  Photo: Charlie Riedel/AP

With masked paramilitary forces grabbing nonwhite people from the streets and shooting civilians with impunity, it can be difficult to keep focus on all the other ways Republicans are entrenching a fascist status quo nationwide. For trans people, however, the legislative and policy assaults, which have been escalating red states for nearly a decade, are only getting worse — and, as ever, drawing all too little concern from Democratic leaders.

Just last week, the Kansas legislature passed some of the most far-reaching measures to push trans and gender-nonconforming people out of public life to date. Bathroom bans that bar trans people from restrooms aligned with their gender identity have become grimly common; over 20 states have such a law on the books. But Kansas's new anti-trans bathroom bill adds a dangerous twist: a bounty hunter provision.

The law would permit private citizens to sue and seek monetary reward based on claiming to encounter a trans person in the bathroom. That's on top of some of the harshest punishments of any existing bathroom bans, such as criminal charges, steep fines and even jail time.

As journalist and trans rights advocate Erin Reed first reported, the bill's vague language means that its reach could extend beyond public buildings — the remit of most bathroom bans around the country.

"As written, it would not only be the first bathroom bounty law to target transgender people directly, but also the first to extend a bathroom ban into private spaces," noted Reed, "effectively creating the nation's first private bathroom ban if enacted by empowering bounty hunters to search for trans people in bathrooms."

The language of the bill, while vague, says that any person who alleges to be "aggrieved" by the presence of a trans person they encounter in a restroom facility can file a civil suit against that individual for "damages" of at least $1,000.

Kansas Republicans rushed through the bathroom ban, skirting public comment by essentially sneaking the bill into another piece of legislation aimed at denying trans people correct government IDs. The ID legislation is in and of itself extreme: it would invalidate driver's licenses, government IDs, and even birth certificates that don't list a person's sex as assigned at birth.

The bill would require trans people to surrender their correctly identifying driver's license or risk a misdemeanor offense for driving with a invalid license. Trans Kansans would thus have to choose between carrying identification with their assigned sex at birth — inviting potentially further harassment and violence in public — or forgoing aspects of public life entirely. It's a policy in line with the Trump administration's move to stop issuing accurate passports to trans Americans.

The aim is to produce a climate of distrust and terror.

The bathroom bounty hunter ban was then layered on top of the ID law in a so-called "gut and go" maneuver.

The twin bills passed both the state House and Senate with over two-thirds of the vote, given the significant Republican majority — enough to override a veto from Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.

"Transgender people are already vulnerable to violence, especially in restrooms, and this bill layers prospective physical violence on top of the existing privacy violation of forced changes to identification documents," said Logan DeMond, director of policy and research at the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, in a statement.

Related The First "Wrongful Death" Case for Helping a Friend Get an Abortion

The fondness of Trumpian Republicans for bounty hunter laws comes as no surprise, recalling the dark legacies of Fugitive Slave Act laws and Jim Crow civilian surveillance. Now, whether criminalizing abortions, rounding up immigrants, or policing gender expression, far-right leaders and think tanks embrace vigilante violence as a key mechanism of enforcement. The aim is to produce a climate of distrust and terror.

Anti-trans zealots have been harassing people they believe to be trans — including multiple incidents involving cis women — even without the promise of financial payoff. The Kansas legislation only "turbocharges," as Reed put it, the violent policing of access to public life.

"I have sat here for five and a half hours and listened to this entire room debate my humanity and my ability to participate in the most basic functions of society," said Kansas Democratic state Rep. Abi Boatman, who is the only trans lawmaker in the state, when the new legislation was debated. "I hope none of you have to ever sit through something like that."

It should not need repeating that it is trans people who overwhelmingly face harassment and violence in bathroom facilities; the framing of bathroom bills as a question of cis women's safety has always been a bunk excuse to enforce gender conformism. It should also be obvious that any laws encouraging the surveillance and control of our bodies, particularly with women's bodies as the site of paranoiac anti-trans obsession, make all women less safe. And as with any such laws, it is always Black trans and cis women who face the worst scrutiny.

We should not forget that just one decade ago, the Christian far-right groups that pushed the first round of model bathroom bills into statehouses largely failed. Politicians faced huge public backlash; the state of North Carolina faced massive boycotts in response to its 2016 bathroom bill. But conservative think tanks got to work, refocused manipulative messaging around children and women's sports, and astroturfed the issue to activate the right-wing base. In the following years, anti-trans legislation swept through statehouses.

All the while, far too many Democratic leaders, like the serpentine California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have been willing to throw trans people under the bus. While bathroom bills have been the preserve of Republican-led states, Democrats with national standing have roundly failed in supporting the sort of pressure campaigns that gave state lawmakers pause for thought 10 years ago. Bathroom bans now abound, and ​27 states have enacted laws or policies restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for trans youth.

Within such a context, there's little wonder that legislation is only becoming harsher and crueler. And while the attack on trans existence is part of a longer history of Christian right pro-natalism and attacks on bodily autonomy, it is not so long ago that public pressure made attacks on trans rights a political liability.

Related How to Keep Providing Gender-Affirming Care Despite Anti-Trans Attacks

It is our responsibility to make it so again — particularly for Democrats claiming to represent a united anti-fascist front. And, above all, to ensure we support community-based networks working in solidarity with trans adults and children around the country so that they can have health care, work, learn, socialize, and share in public life without scrutiny or challenge. These are the minimal conditions for freedom — apparently too much to ask for some Democrats.

The post An Anti-Trans Bathroom Bill With a Cruel New Twist appeared first on The Intercept.

"Terrorist" is the word that the Trump administration employs to describe the victims of its most egregious acts of state violence.

President Donald Trump has used the word "terrorist" to justify the extrajudicial killings of civilians in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. And his deputies used it to explain away the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis by federal agents.

"Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narco terrorists," Trump wrote following the initial boat strike on September 2, 2025. He said the attack "occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters."

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said that Good and Pretti were guilty of "domestic terrorism." And top White House adviser Stephen Miller used similar language to describe both.

These killings were conducted thousands of miles apart by different agencies in very different contexts. But the connection between them could be more than semantic.

Under National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, or NSPM-7, Trump's Justice Department is now assembling a secret "domestic terrorist organization" database. It also maintains a secret list of "designated terrorist organizations" with whom the U.S. claims to be at war.

For months, the White House and Justice Department have failed to answer a question that becomes more relevant with every person branded a domestic terrorist, shot by federal agents, or both: Are Americans who the federal government deems to be domestic terrorists under NSPM-7 subject to extrajudicial killings like those it claims are members of designated terrorist organizations on boats at sea?

"If we're going to say it's OK to kill so-called terrorists in the Caribbean, for actions that have traditionally been dealt with as a criminal matter, using due process — what's to say you can't do the same in an American city?" asked Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Constitution and Limited Government. "That is the very scary but logical end of all these things the Trump administration is doing."

Trump's de facto declaration of war on dissent, NSPM-7, conflates constitutionally protected speech and political activism with "domestic terrorism" — a term that has no basis in U.S. law. That memorandum, which was issued in September, and an implementation memo released in December by Attorney General Pam Bondi, specifically targets those that espouse what the administration defines as anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, anti-fascism, and radical gender ideologies, as well as those with "hostility toward those who hold traditional American views." At a minimum, the memorandum raises serious First Amendment, due process, and civil liberties concerns.

Related Trump's War on America

Bondi's December memo, "Implementing National Security Presidential Memorandum-7: Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence," which the Justice Department shared with The Intercept, defines "domestic terrorism" in the broadest possible terms, including "doxing" and "conspiracies to impede … law enforcement."

Federal immigration agents consider observing, following, and filming their operations a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 111: assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer. This is also the foremost statute in a directory of prioritized crimes listed in NSPM-7.

Federal officers frequently confront and threaten those observing, following, and filming them for "impeding" their efforts. In numerous instances, they have unholstered or pointed weapons at the people who filmed or followed them.

A recent report by the CATO Institute notes that it is "crucial to understand that ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consider people who follow DHS and ICE agents to observe, record, or protest their operations as engaging in 'impeding.'" It goes on to note that DHS "has a systematic policy of threatening people who follow ICE or DHS agents to record their activities with detentions, arrests, and violence, and agents have already chased, detained, arrested, charged, struck, and shot at people who follow them."

Before their killings, both Pretti and Good had been observing agents' activities. In the wake of Good's death, the Justice Department opened an investigation of Good's widow for allegedly "interfering" with an ICE operation — apparently for filming the shooting.

NSPM-7 alleges vast "organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, [and] funding sources" support leftist "criminal and terroristic conspiracies." It adds, "These campaigns are coordinated and perpetrated by actors who have developed a comprehensive strategy to achieve specific policy goals through radicalization and violent intimidation."

The Trump administration has framed the Minneapolis protests and a larger movement in Minnesota and beyond in the same terms as NSPM-7, painting it as a "Radical Left Movement of Violence and Hate" coordinated by a vast network of "highly paid professional agitators and anarchists," as well as "insurrectionists" supported by corrupt Democratic lawmakers and officials or "sanctuary politicians" who are inciting violence against federal officers.

Trump endorsed Vice President JD Vance's baseless claim that Good was part of a "broader left-wing network" that sometimes uses "domestic terror techniques" to "attack, to dox, to assault and to make it impossible for our ICE officers to do their job." Miller suggested Pretti was one of an unknown number of militants operating in Minneapolis. "A would-be assassin tried to murder federal law enforcement and the official Democrat account sides with the terrorists," he wrote on X on Saturday, referring to comments by a Democratic party account calling for ICE to withdraw from Minneapolis.

Trump initially described Pretti as a "gunman," although the ICU nurse never drew his licensed handgun before being executed at point blank range by federal agents. After briefly softening his tone on Pretti, Trump called him an "Agitator and, perhaps, insurrectionist" in a Friday Truth Social post.

Related Trump's Cult of Power Cancels Free Speech

Miller bills NSPM-7 as the first "all-of-government effort to dismantle left-wing terrorism," which he calls a sophisticated, well-funded network supported by an "entire system of feeder organizations that provide money, resources, weapons." Bondi's implementation memo also offers a fictitious apocalyptic vision of urban America which the Trump administration has employed to justify its domestic military occupations, including "mass rioting and destruction in our cities" and "violent efforts to shut down immigration enforcement."

"Every accusation is a confession with this administration."

"This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically," Scanlon told The Intercept, quoting from a section of NSPM-7 that details a supposed coordinated effort by antifascists and other administration enemies. But Scanlon framed it in terms of the Trump administration's own authoritarian campaign. "The paragraph describing how political violence takes root and becomes more widespread basically describes the Trump era. Every accusation is a confession with this administration. You talk about targeted intimidation and radicalization and threats and violence designed to silence opposing speech — it's all there, and we're seeing it unfold."

Federal immigration officers have shot at least 13 people since September, killing at least five, including Pretti and Good, according to data compiled by The Trace.

"What the Trump Administration is doing in Minnesota is a testing ground for a paramilitary police state across the country," said Rep. April McClain Delaney, D-Md., on January 25. "Masked DHS agents are now operating in Minnesota neighborhoods with impunity — terrorizing families and neighborhoods, slandering the victims with lies, silencing dissent, seizing and detaining protesters, eroding basic civil liberties and killing American citizens."

Donald Trump holds an executive order he signed in the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 30, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Evan Vucci/AP

At the same time shootings by immigration agents have ramped up at home, the Trump administration has been killing civilians in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The U.S. military has carried out 36 known attacks, destroying 37 boats, since September, killing at least 126 civilians. The most recent attack occurred in the Pacific Ocean on January 23, killing three people. The administration insists the attacks are permitted because the U.S. is engaged in "non-international armed conflict" with "designated terrorist organizations" it refuses to name. Experts, current and former government officials, and lawmakers say these killings are outright murders.

"This administration has asserted the prerogative to kill people outside the law, solely on the basis of the president labeling them terrorists. And there are no obvious limits to this license to kill," said Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer who is a specialist in counterterrorism issues and the laws of war. "The president has wielded that authority in the Caribbean and the Pacific and could wield it domestically. Indeed, the fact that they invoked domestic terrorism to justify the killings of Rene Good and Alex Pretti suggests they already might have."

Related White House Refuses to Rule Out Summary Executions of People on Its Secret Domestic Terrorist List

Since October, The Intercept has been asking if the White House would rule out conducting summary executions of members of the list "of any such groups or entities" designated as "domestic terrorist organization[s]" under NSPM-7, without a response. Return receipts also show that Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre has repeatedly read The Intercept's questions on this subject over months but has failed to offer an answer.

Faiza Patel, the senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice's liberty and national security program, told The Intercept that while it wasn't possible to directly link NSPM-7 to the killings of Good and Pretti, the memorandum's rhetoric about what constitutes domestic terrorism "is reflected in senior officials' statements and it seems that DHS agents on the ground view any opposition to their actions as warranting extreme and even lethal force."

Federal agents from ICE and Homeland Security Investigations assigned to Minneapolis received a memo earlier in January asking them to collect identifying information on "agitators, protestors, etc.," CNN reported Tuesday. Last week, a masked immigration agent warned a woman filming their activities in Portland, Maine, that her information would be entered into a "nice little database" that would label her a "domestic terrorist." Tom Homan, Trump's border czar and Border Patrol commander-at-large Gregory Bovino's replacement, also mentioned the database the same month on Fox News. "We're going to create a database," he said, noting that it would include those "arrested for interference, impeding and assault." Journalist Ken Klippenstein recently reported on more than a dozen "secret and obscure watchlists" being used to track protesters and supposed "domestic terrorists."

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin says her department does not administer the secret database. "There is NO database of 'domestic terrorists' run by DHS," she told The Intercept by email. "We do of course monitor and investigate and refer all threats, assaults and obstruction of our officers to the appropriate law enforcement." DHS's Office of Intelligence and Analysis does admit that it "nominated over 4,600 people to the terrorist watchlist" in the last year and says ICE arrested more than 1,400 "known or suspected terrorists."

Related How Many Members Does Antifa Have? Where Is Its Headquarters? The FBI Has No Answers.

NSPM-7 directs Bondi to compile a list "of any such groups or entities" to be designated as "domestic terrorist organization[s]," and Bondi has ordered the FBI to "compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism," according to the December 4 memo. Last fall, FBI Director Kash Patel told senators that there were "1,700 domestic terrorism investigations" and that it represented "a 300% increase in cases opened this year alone versus the same time last year." 

When asked if Good or Pretti were on any domestic terrorism list, watchlist, or under surveillance by federal authorities, a bureau spokesperson said: "The FBI has no comment."

Neither NSPM-7 nor the December 4 memo mentions summary executions, and both speak explicitly in terms of "prosecution" and "arrest" of members of domestic terrorist organizations. Attacks on members of designated terrorist organizations are justified by another document: a classified opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel with a secret list of cartels and gangs attached to it.

The Justice Department memo notes that under Section 3 of NSPM-7, "the FBI, in coordination with its partners on the [Joint Terrorism Task Forces], and consistent with applicable law, shall compile a list of groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism" and "provide that list to the Deputy Attorney General."

The FBI's national press office directed The Intercept to contact the Department of Justice concerning questions about the NSPM-7 list. Baldassarre also failed to respond to those queries.

"To the extent that the White House somehow has a secret enemies list and people don't know who's on it — that goes beyond McCarthyism," Scanlon told The Intercept. "It's absolutely horrific."

"To the extent that the White House somehow has a secret enemies list and people don't know who's on it — that goes beyond McCarthyism."

Recent reported statements by Trump suggest that the president may see little difference between those the administration brands foreign and domestic terrorists nor in efforts to combat them. Last month, the U.S. attacked Venezuela and abducted its president, Nicolás Maduro, killing scores of people, including civilians. Maduro — whom Trump branded a terrorist — was brought to the U.S. and charged with numerous offenses, foremost among them, according to the State Department, "narco-terrorism."

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said last week that Trump compared his federal immigration crackdown in his state to the attack in Venezuela that ousted Maduro. "He told me how well that went," Walz told MS NOW. "Which really was strange to me was he saw an operation in Venezuela against a foreign nation in the same context he saw an operation against a U.S. state and a U.S. city."

The White House did not return a request for comment.

The post Trump Calls His Enemies Terrorists. Does That Mean He Can Just Kill Them? appeared first on The Intercept.

A panic pervades the internet: terrified talk of troops in American cities, federal shock troops brutalizing citizens and neighbors, the targeting of gun owners, mass surveillance, the deployment of militarized artificial intelligence, and the suspension of the Constitution. The year is 2015, and the far right is incensed.

This was a period of intense American paranoia and anger, largely spurred by the right-wing meltdown over the consecutive victories of President Barack Obama. It was also a time of post-Snowden horror, as a nation realized it lived inside an unfathomably immense government surveillance dragnet endorsed and expanded by both political parties. It was in this moment that, for a certain segment of conservatives, Jade Helm 15 became an American crisis.

A decade later, this imaginary emergency reveals much about the hucksters who pushed it and the tolerance of many Americans for state oppression — so long as they are not the intended targets. The cauldron of race hatred, federal violence, and surveillance brewed by the paranoiacs who pounced on Jade Helm has spilled over today not in the form of right-wing phobia, but right-wing policy.

In July 2015, Alex Jones, at that point still little more than a punchline, issued a dire warning on his website InfoWars: "This is an emergency broadcast," Jones began, warning of an impending campaign to "militarize police and to put standing armies on the streets to suppress the population and to carry out political operations."

Jones was referring to publicly released Pentagon planning documents detailing Jade Helm 15, a military training exercise throughout sparsely populated swaths of the American South, from Florida to Texas. As is often the case when the dishonest have primary documents and a vast megaphone, Jones misstated nearly every detail of the materials. A map from what was essentially a large-scale military roleplaying game labeling Texas as "hostile," colored in red, was irrefutable evidence to Jones that the Obama administration was preparing to let loose the national security state on the conservative heartland.

"We're not becoming a police state. We're already here."

All of this was simple pretext, he claimed. The White House was leveraging the national security state to build the infrastructure for the federal paramilitary occupation of the country to choke out political dissent by force. Unwanted portions of the populations would be herded into Department of Homeland Security-administered camps, warned Jones and other stalwarts of right-wing paranoia. "We're not becoming a police state," he told viewers. "We're already here."

Though there was never any factual reason to suspect Jade Helm disguised a federal takeover, the broader paranoia was anchored in some fact. Jones claimed that the training exercise was connected to the broader militarization of American police agencies, a real trend he misconstrued as a leftist scheme against his audience. "You have massive military gear being cached — armored vehicles, machine guns, helicopters, night vision, Humvees — with the police departments around the country," Jones explained. "It's about suppressing the patriot population."

Jones was not alone. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott quickly endorsed InfoWars' ravings, deploying the state guard to "monitor" Jade Helm so that "Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed," as he put it in an April 2015 letter ordering their mobilization. Former Texas congressman Louie Gohmert suggested the White House was hoping to provoke an armed confrontation between the military and the administration's critics. "It is no surprise that those who have experienced or noticed such persecution are legitimately suspicious," he said. "I understand the reason for concern and uncertainty," agreed Sen. Ted Cruz.

Some Americans heeded the warning. The New York Times interviewed a Texas doctor stockpiling ammunition. Locals organized Jade Helm volunteer groups that monitored and recorded military movement. The Oath Keepers, a prominent American anti-government militia, described Jade Helm on its website as a "Portentous government plan, a pre-fabricated and pre-constructed umbrella under which a black op by the Deep State's compartmentalized agencies could possibly 'Go Live' in a fantastic sort of Shock and Awe False Flag psycho-coup to jar the public mind of America through fear into acceptance of some nefarious policy the government desired, such as the establishment of Martial Law and the complete loss of individual liberty and our Constitution."

Related The Sinister Reason Trump Is Itching to Invoke the Insurrection Act

These days, Jade Helm isn't talked about much because nothing happened. But in the decade since, there has been a near-total inversion of the panic that Jade Helm sparked. Largely unconcerned and frequently unconstrained by law, Trump has found in his Department of Homeland Security what Jones warned was coming a decade ago: a paramilitary force to terrorize political opponents and demographic undesirables. Eleven years past schedule, Trump and a docile American right wing have finally delivered the Jade Helm presidency.

Federal agents ride in an armored vehicle during operations on Jan. 16, 2026, in St. Paul, Minn. Photo: Adam Gray/AP

Armored personnel carriers today carry masked, heavily armed, pointlessly camouflaged federal commandos through American cities that voted against the president, backed by a sophisticated national surveillance apparatus. Trump and his lieutenants, beneficiaries of an American right-wing reshaped by the likes of Jones and his audience, make real and explicit the quiet fantasizing attributed to Obama's during Jade Helm, speaking openly of American communities as hives of the enemy. In September, Trump announced impending deportation operations in Chicago with a doctored image depicting the city under attack by napalm, captioned "Chicago about to find out why it's called the Department of WAR."

The notion of ideological foes not as electoral enemies but legitimate targets of violence is no longer the stuff of conspiracy podcasts, but the political mainstream. Trump referred to a need to stamp out the "enemy within" the United States in September speech at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, suggesting the unconstitutional use of the military to "handle" them, and mused about using American cities as "training grounds" for the Pentagon. Gun-toting agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Custom and Border Protection are the foot soldiers of a government that describes its people as terrorists. They have been joined at times by actual soldiers, Marines and National Guard members, deployed illegally in cities like Los Angeles where the president's policies are unpopular.

Related Trump's War on America

Since Trump's speech, DHS agents have shot 12 people, killing four of them. Minneapolis residents describe the experience of ICE and CBP's surge as something akin to a military occupation. Where Obama's Jade Helm fell short in the collective imaginations of the InfoWars right, Trump's second term has succeeded in wielding DHS as an ideological cudgel. After Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti were gunned down by DHS agents, the department's justification for dispensing the death penalty on the sidewalk — that they were both domestic terrorists bent on killing federal personnel — quickly disintegrated in the face of video evidence. All that was left was a rationale more foreboding than anything Jade Helm truthers attributed to the Obama administration, a shrug that boils down to this brutal view: That's what they get for wanting this to stop. 

"Was he simply walking by and just happened to walk into a law enforcement situation and try to direct traffic and stand in the middle of the road, and then assault, delay, and obstruct law enforcement?" CBP's Greg Bovino wondered of Pretti at a press conference. "Or was he there for a reason?" (Pretti's reason for being there that day was clear, having been filmed from multiple angles: to legally observe and record the agents who then killed him.)

The idea that merely opposing the president's immigration policy is reason enough to warrant summary execution is, if not stated outright, now on the lips of many right-wing commentators. It's an implicit threat that the next person to record a masked cop on their block could receive the same.

Immigration authorities have brought to life the id of Jade Helm not just through overt displays of force, but also through the vast intelligence and surveillance apparatus within DHS.

In May 2015, InfoWars correspondent David Knight warned that Jade Helm would involve the collection and exploitation of enormous reams of personal information. "They analyze the data, and then because you stick out in some way, now you're treated as if you've already had due process, as if you've already been found guilty of a crime," resulting in the government kicking down the doors of innocent people. "If you understand the technology that's involved, then you'll see that Jade Helm is more of an intelligence operation using geospatial intelligence mapping," claimed InfoWars correspondent Lee Ann McAdoo. "And as information from low-level surveillance technologies such as stingrays and predictive policing programs are all getting siphoned up into NSA data centers, a detailed global map will continue to grow with near-endless stats on all individuals."

This much was true — in broad strokes, if not the specifics — back in 2015 and even more so today. DHS has steadily amassed for itself a security state within the security state, one now plump with record funding under a Trump second term clinched with the promise of a ruthless immigration crackdown. "With a budget for 2025 that is 10 times the size of the agency's total surveillance spending over the last 13 years," the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote last month, "ICE is going on a shopping spree, creating one of the largest, most comprehensive domestic surveillance machines in history."

Thanks to the unregulated market in commercial surveillance technology, DHS has little need for a spy agency like the NSA.

Thanks to the unregulated market in commercial surveillance technology, DHS has little need for a spy agency like the NSA. Last fall, ICE reactivated its contract with spyware-maker Paragon, which makes software that can remotely break into a smartphone. DHS also makes ample use of phone-cracking tools like Cellebrite, and has been purchasing warrantless access to cellphone location data since at least 2017, providing a turn-key means of tracking virtually anyone, anywhere, while bypassing the Fourth Amendment entirely. A 2023 DHS inspector general's report found that both ICE and CBP consistently used this data illegally. Smartphone-based face recognition makes suspects out of anyone DHS agents might encounter on the street, immigrant and citizen alike.

Some in the InfoWars orbit speculated the word Jade itself "may or may not be an acronym for a military-developed artificial intelligence," columnist Mark Saal observed in 2015. Like other facets of the Jade Helm freakout, this fear managed to be prescient despite its own baselessness. What's unimpeachably true today is that DHS uses a litany of sophisticated artificial intelligence tools, including those provided by Palantir, a longtime military and intelligence contractor that has previously aided the NSA and continues to provide analytic and database services to ICE.

The role of Palantir alone within DHS is the stuff of InfoWars reverie: The company is building a tool "that populates a map with potential deportation targets, brings up a dossier on each person, and provides a 'confidence score' on the person's current address," according to a recent report by 404 Media. In contract documents renewing ICE's use of Palantir case management software reviewed by The Intercept, the agency notes that the company has a "critical role in supporting the daily operations of ICE." The case management system alone ingests data from across the federal government, including the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services, Department of Justice databases, the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, and the Office of Biometric Identity Management, among others.

Omnipresent data collection in the name of Homeland Security has allowed for novel means of taunting and intimidating the president's critics. In a video clip that began circulating on X last week, a masked DHS agent is seen recording a car's license plate with his phone.

"Why are you taking my information down?" the woman asks. "Because we have a nice little database," the agent replies. "And now you're considered a domestic terrorist."

It's unclear what "little database" the agent was referring to, or on what grounds recording a video on a public street would be considered an act of terrorism. Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told The Intercept there is "no such database." McLaughlin would not answer when asked repeatedly whether DHS endorsed its personnel threatening to place people on a domestic terrorism database it now claims does not exist.

Related Are You on Trump's List of Domestic Terrorists? There's No Way to Know.

A national security presidential memorandum issued by Trump in September, known as NSPM-7, explicitly labels certain political and ideological stances — including "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity" along with unspecified views on race and gender — as forms of domestic terrorism.

The Jade Helm presidency hasn't matched the scope and scale of what Jones et al. hallucinated a decade ago. But Trump's DHS — a department already plagued by bipartisan abuse, brutalization, and overreach since its founding — represents in spirit and practice exactly what far-right and right-libertarians once warned was a genuine emergency.

Though it made no effort to attach itself to facts, Jade Helm fearmongering touched, glancingly, on some uncomfortable truths: The federal government is willing to use force, surveillance, and extraconstitutional power to suppress dissent. But the greater truth revealed in the intervening decade is that for many Americans, these abuses aren't a problem so long as it's someone else's back pushed onto the concrete, someone else's car windows smashed, and someone else dealing with the pain of a chemical irritant.

Far-right commentators and elected officials are making clear that their opposition was never to authoritarian violence or state terror, but instead to being subjected to that violence and terror themselves. The contingent of the country that swore to avenge Ruby Ridge and Waco now seem mostly content to cheer on more of the same beneath X videos.  

The far right is making clear that their opposition was never to authoritarian violence or state terror, but instead to being subjected to that violence and terror themselves.

When the administration blamed Alex Pretti's death on his wholly legal gun ownership, having failed to slander him as an "assassin," even the National Rifle Association, which once derided federal police as "jackbooted government thugs," felt obliged to claim he was "antagonizing" ICE, even while defending his right to bear arms.

"We now know that Alex Pretti was a violent agitator who repeatedly went out armed to deliberately instigate physical confrontations with law enforcement," conservative commentator Matt Walsh posted on X. "He is not a victim. He was not a mere 'protester.' And he got what was coming to him. Simple as that."

InfoWars' Jade Helm coverage is now seemingly scrubbed from the site. With a friendly president in the White House, the publication has shifted from condemning the Pentagon as the harbinger of American apocalypse to joining its official press corps. But the spirit of the old anti-state paranoia of InfoWars remains — just inverted entirely in the state's service.

Headlines like "Could the Minneapolis Rioters Be Using Automatic License Plate Recognition Systems?" are what the Jade Helm-believers now wonder about dragnet surveillance. "Watch Two Brave ICE Officers Fight Off A Violent Leftist Mob That Invaded Their Hotel!" is the formerly paranoid right's assessment of DHS. The notion of camouflaged agents in the streets is cause for celebration, not an "emergency broadcast" of 2015. "A War Has Erupted On The Streets Of America, And It Is Going To End With Martial Law In Major U.S. Cities," InfoWars warns today, paired with an AI-generated image of federal officers defending themselves from an antifa onslaught.

Eleven years after Jade Helm, this is forecast with at least a little excitement.

The post Welcome to the Jade Helm Presidency appeared first on The Intercept.

Melania Trump attends the premiere of Amazon MGM Studios' "Melania" at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 29, 2026. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

It's darkly fitting that "Melania," the new $75 million snoozefest from Amazon about America's first lady, was released in theaters the same day her husband's Justice Department dropped 3 million pages of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. As we now know, Epstein and Donald Trump were bosom buddies for years, and the grim specter of that relationship hangs over "Melania."

The movie's director is Brett Ratner, who six women accused of sexual assault or harassment in 2017, including one alleged victim who was 19 at the time. Ratner has been biding his time in Israel, where he has reportedly become friendly with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In what one would hope is enough to undo Amazon's $35 million "Melania" marketing budget, Ratner is also in the new batch of Epstein files: There are photos of him and Epstein embracing two women whose identities are redacted. An earlier Epstein document dump included a photo where Ratner hugs the shirtless torso of Jean-Luc Brunel, the French modeling agent and Epstein associate who died in prison facing multiple charges of rape and sexual assault, including of a minor under the age of 15.

It's hard not to watch "Melania" with all that context top of mind. It's a big, nasty club, and we're not in it, thankfully.

This film opens by putting too fine a point on all of it. The camera pans expansively over the ocean and the beach before arriving at Mar-a-Lago and Melania Trump's red-bottomed heels. She boards a motorcade to travel to New York City, and the chorus of the Rolling Stones' "Gimme Shelter" plays: "Rape, murder, it's just a shot away." (That song was famously used to great effect in Martin Scorsese's "Casino" and "Goodfellas," films in which criminal psychopaths meet their demise after stealing and assaulting everyone in sight in service of personal enrichment and their depraved sense of morality.)

What follows is an hour and 44-minute-long lifestyle infomercial about a public figure with all the charisma and intrigue of eggshell-white paint drying. (We are reminded multiple times throughout the movie, as a tie-in with its marketing campaign, that the first lady loves the colors black and white, which are also the colors of Regal Cinemas' novelty popcorn bucket for its release.)

Melania is seen trying on a multitude of outfits ahead of her husband's second inauguration, with festivities that include no fewer than three different balls, along with a ghoul-studded candlelight dinner. At that fete, the president's table is a who's who of his donors and scions of industry: There are three separate shots of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his wife Lauren Sanchez. Bezos sits next to Miriam Adelson, the arch-conservative megadonor, and Trump cheerleader Elon Musk is there, too, caught on video as a brunette swoops in to sit on his lap. (For his part, Musk is also in the latest tranche of Epstein emails, asking the sex trafficker in November 2012, "What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?") Mark Zuckerberg, whose company, Meta, donated $1 million to the president's inauguration fund, doesn't appear until the inauguration luncheon, but he still shows up.

Related Apple Workers Are Livid That Tim Cook Saw "Melania" Movie Hours After CBP Killed Pretti

Melania glides over it all, her unlined face impassive and unaffected, which creates a genuinely disquieting effect. Rather than an intimate portrait of a misunderstood woman — tellingly, the tagline for the movie is simply "A new film," which is about as much as you can truthfully say about it — we're treated to platitude after platitude in voiceover narration by the first lady.

Melania admits she's a fan of AI; The audiobook of her memoir, also called "Melania," is read by an AI replica of her voice. Most of her lukewarm observations feel like they could be AI-generated as well. Among them are statements so generic they achieve utter meaninglessness: "I felt the weight of history," "Freedom is not free," and "I honor the importance of the White House." Describing the coat she wore for the inauguration, she states: "I want to feel like it's a coat." "Melania" is a stunning document, if only for its ability to say so little despite what we're informed is unprecedented access.

"Melania" is a stunning document, if only for its ability to say so little despite what we're informed is unprecedented access.

"Everyone wants to know" what it's like becoming first lady again, Melania says early on in the movie. But if early ticket sales are any indication against its massively bloated budget, she has a generous definition of "everyone." I saw the movie on opening night at Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn, admittedly far from MAGA America, with a mere nine strangers. Other than a few "ooohs" from my seatmate when Melania tried on a new dress, only the appearance of her husband got any reaction from the assembled faithful, who laughed easily whenever Trump said anything. The biggest laugh came from shots of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris waiting out of public view before the inauguration, where Harris's face is furrowed in disbelief, and of the mad dash to move out anything the Bidens might have touched before the Trumps arrive back at the White House.

The first time Melania and Trump are onscreen together, he greets her as she disembarks from a private jet emblazoned with TRUMP in all-capital letters. It appears that they're going to shake hands before ultimately pivoting to an embrace. Their warmth is captured elsewhere, like when Trump calls his wife to tell her the final Electoral College totals that usher him into the White House once again. "That's a good one," Melania says without mirth. "Bye, congrats."

All other efforts to humanize Melania fall similarly flat. You can practically see the boxes being checked off as they're fulfilled on screen. She is a mother who bizarrely praises Barron Trump's "composure" and calls him "very confident" as the song "It's a Man's Man's Man's World" plays. (On the campaign trail in 2016, Donald Trump memorably referred to Barron as "her son.") 

"Being hand in hand with my husband in this moment is very emotional," she tells us in voiceover. "Nobody has endured what he has over the past few years. People tried to murder him, incarcerate him, slander him, and here he is. I'm so very proud."

The lack of self-awareness is positively nauseating, and this feeling is only moderated slightly by the sheer tediousness of approving table designs, invitations, and other window-dressing.

Melania also cares deeply about "the children." (It is perhaps worth noting that she began her modeling career at 16.) On a video call with French first lady Brigitte Macron where she talks about her "Be Best" anti-bullying initiative, she makes the note "no phones till 11," a Macron recommendation, on a "Be Best"-branded notepad (Bezos for some reason is also seen on screen as part of the call, which goes unremarked upon.) While watching news coverage of the Los Angeles wildfires, a vaguely misty-eyed Melania says in voiceover, "I think about the families, the children who have lost everything." Crucially, this sympathy does not seem to extend to children killed by her husband's bombs in Gaza.

Melania at one point meets with an Israeli woman, Aviva Siegel, who was captured on October 7 and held hostage by Hamas. She was initially freed but forced to leave her husband, Keith, behind. (He was released on February 1, 2025, as part of the ceasefire deal.) "I would pray that he doesn't suffer," Melania tells her, with all the sympathy of a woman eyeing a damaged piece of produce. "I will always use my influence and power to fight for those in need," she sums up the experience in voiceover.

But Ratner goes to great lengths to convince us that Melania is also fun, even a little goofy. This does not work in the slightest. At a victory event with Trump supporters at the D.C. Capital One Arena, Melania is seen dancing ever-so-slightly to the Trump campaign mainstay "YMCA," but only as she leaves the stage; Trump does not join in. From behind sunglasses in a black SUV, Melania tells us, somewhat concerningly, that Michael Jackson is her favorite musician, and that she and Donald met him in New York. "Billie Jean" plays on the car's sound system, and Melania lightly sings along, including to the line, "Be careful of who you love," but any deeper meaning is lost on all parties involved.

Moments like these have led some to fall for the gag, and even to suggest that Ratner is making a slyly anti-Trump movie, which couldn't be further from the truth. He's a sycophant to his core, after Melania and Trump finally return to the White House after a great many parties, Ratner coos from off-camera: "Sweet dreams, Mr. President."

(As a reward for his obsequiousness, Ratner is slated to direct "Rush Hour 4," the buddy-cop series that's reportedly being revived after Trump personally leaned on Larry Ellison, a Trump supporter and media mogul who now owns Paramount, which is set to distribute the film.)

Related The Whiff of Corruption: Trump's New Perfume Has Strong Notes of Graft

As the movie mercifully draws to a close, Melania once again returns to the children, who are our future. "With the celebrations behind us, the first day of my husband's second term has arrived. There is much to accomplish in the next four years," she says like a threat. "Children will always remain my priority. … I will move forward with purpose and, of course, with style."

Moving forward, of course, means a regime of mass deportation and the trampling of our civil rights, all right in front of our faces. Her husband has ushered in an era where the unencumbered American id rules, one in which avarice, flagrant corruption, and clear bribery are the animating forces of a nation and a people. In that sense, the vacuousness of "Melania" perfectly captures the meaner, more selfish world we live in now. After all, it's always been about Trump — not us, and certainly not Melania — despite any $75 million effort to convince us otherwise.

The post "Melania" Is as Vacuous as Its Subject appeared first on The Intercept.

When the cops arrived at a party in Cantón la Estancia, a tiny hamlet in the shadow of the San Miguel volcano, Walter Josué Huete Alvarado didn't think he had any reason to worry. He had a minor infraction on his criminal record — a DUI when he was a teenager — but that shouldn't matter in El Salvador. It happened in the United States, where he is a citizen. Yet Alvarado's U.S. passport didn't deter Salvadoran police from dragging him away, pointing to the tattoos on his hands and claiming he was a member of MS-13.

It was May 2023, the third year of Joe Biden's presidency. Alvarado, his relatives and legal counsel told The Intercept, is still incarcerated in El Salvador.

Two years before the second Trump administration targeted Kilmar Ábrego García over his tattoos and sent him to a notorious Salvadoran prison, the Biden State Department was made aware of Alvarado's detention — and, for reasons of diplomacy and optics, did nothing. Today, the world has seen the viral images of men lined up at El Salvador's Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT — heads shaved, crammed front-to-back and forced to straddle each other — as a result of Donald Trump's brutal deportation regime. But according to lawyer Jorge Palacios, the total number of U.S. citizens and residents detained in El Salvador's less prominent prisons and jails is unknown.

Palacios, who brought Alvarado's case before the United Nations, said that members of his group, Socorro Jurídico Humanitario, "have had people come to them saying their detained relatives are U.S. citizens who were visiting," as was the case with Alvarado. Families often lose touch with their loved ones after their arrests, so "exact details are limited."

In Alvarado's case, a Salvadoran police report, testimony from two of his closest relatives, and insight from legal experts offer a relatively clear picture of what happened. At the police station in Moncagua, officers disregarded his American citizenship and stomped on his passport, telling him it was worthless. Alvarado had a tattoo of the letters "L.A." — the city of his birth — but officers insisted it represented the city where MS-13 was formed. A "W" — his first initial — was actually an inverted "M," they said, and a dollar sign was an obscured "S."

The police report says Alvarado's tattoos were "ambiguous, and there is no documentary or evidentiary support indicating that Mr. Huete Alvarado belongs to any gang, organization, or structure involved in the commission of criminal acts." It was determined that "the police procedure may have been dysfunctional due to the lack of certainty regarding the individual's belonging to or links with gangs." 

Related CECOT Is What the Bukele Regime Wants You to See

Alvarado has been shuffled between a handful of prisons and penal institutions in the nearly three years since then, never receiving a trial. His situation is in many ways exceptional, given his nationality, but it reflects the broader crisis facing countless families in El Salvador struggling to understand their loved ones' perpetual, often inexplicable detentions. As similar models of criminalization are being rolled out across Latin America, Alvarado's case may offer a preview of things to come. 

When Alvarado was detained, the country of his birth was led by a Biden presidency that had, from the beginning, pitched its commitment to "upholding universal rights" as the "grounding wire of our global policy, our global power." But since the Biden administration neglected to intervene in Alvarado's detention, the authority with the best shot at saving him now is the second Trump administration, ideologically aligned with El Salvador's reactionary leadership and its sweeping gang crackdown. Now, the Salvadoran regime that has effectively disappeared thousands into an opaque network of prisons without trials is more emboldened than ever. 

Alvarado's family was initially supportive of Nayib Bukele, the bearded, grinning, bitcoin-boosting millennial and self-described dictator who rose to power the first time Trump was in office and has held onto it, despite a Salvadoran constitutional prohibition, into a second consecutive term. Murder was declining when Bukele became president in 2019, but many Salvadorans still felt trapped by widespread gang violence and drug trafficking. Bukele, like his predecessors, at first brokered a clandestine truce with gang leaders — providing "financial incentive" to artificially reduce the number of homicides. 

The pact fell apart in early 2022, and murders hit a 30-year high in a single day. Bukele enacted his "state of exception," which allowed his government to suspend constitutional rights for 30 days, paving the way for an unfettered war on organized crime. Bukele and his governing Nuevas Ideas party have renewed the suspension 39 times. 

Related She Exposed Government Abuse. Now She's Locked Up in an El Salvador Prison. 

El Salvador now has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Bukele's government has arrested more than 90,000 Salvadorans, close to 2 percent of the population, including thousands of minors. Human rights experts and lawyers estimate that as many as half of everyone detained under the state of exception have no known gang connections. Prisons are overflowing, with the cumulative system operating at over 300 percent capacity.

By some standards, El Salvador is now considered one of the safest countries in Latin America. Bukele touts record lows in homicide and last year claimed 861 consecutive days without a murder — though, as the Washington Office on Latin America noted, the tally did not include the more than 427 people who have died in custody since the state of exception was decreed. Voters, in turn, have expressed overwhelming support: Bukele had an 85 percent approval rating as of June 2025. 

Others, like Alvarado's family — with members in both El Salvador and the U.S. — soured on the regime once their relatives disappeared under the state of exception.

The Biden administration soured on Bukele, too. Initial optimism that the young right-wing leader would bring much-needed reform soon turned to criticism of El Salvador's "democratic backsliding." In May 2021, then-Vice President Kamala Harris denounced Bukele's illegal removal of the country's attorney general and the dismissal of five of its Supreme Court judges who had tried to stop him from overriding the constitution. The State Department sanctioned several members of Bukele's inner circle for bribery and undermining democratic processes, and the Treasury Department sanctioned two more for their role in the secret gang truce. 

Bukele came into conflict with the interim U.S. ambassador to El Salvador, Jean Manes, claiming on social media that Manes had tried to pressure him into freeing a politician charged with corruption. In November 2021, Manes temporarily suspended diplomatic relations with El Salvador.

Yet Alvarado's case didn't get the treatment of a high-profile American detained by an authoritarian pariah state, like Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, imprisoned in Russia just two months before Alvarado traveled to El Salvador. By May 2023, the Biden State Department had decided that Bukele's mercurial nature and tendency to lash out warranted a softer touch. No longer would they scold out in the open. Instead, according to a former State Department official familiar with the matter, the National Security Council emphasized back-channeling over public condemnation.

State Department apparatchiks hoped that smoothing relations with Bukele would help them maintain El Salvador's cooperation on immigration enforcement and counternarcotics, an official who worked under the Biden administration explained to The Intercept, and that an impending loan from the International Monetary Fund would trigger more transparency. The Bukele administration maintained that the state of exception would at some vague point be wound down, and Manes's replacement, William H. Duncan, insisted on handling any concerns about the country's punitive turn behind closed doors. 

Duncan, per two former State Department employees who asked not to be named for fear of professional consequences, "was very difficult to work with." He insisted on being the only point of contact to Bukele. Efforts by members of the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, or WHA, to bring attention to Alvarado's case proved ineffective. Duncan's embassy was aware of the case, but he wasn't enthusiastic about efforts to push for more visits from embassy legal counselors for Alvarado. Duncan shut down anyone who tried to push for any other lateral communication, "especially any criticism," one of the State Department sources said.

These tactics would culminate in an almost subservient brand of appeasement. In June 2024, after Bukele had successfully run for a consecutive (and constitutionally prohibited) term as president, a robust delegation of Biden officials led by Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas — and flanked by Duncan and the WHA's Assistant Secretary Brian Nichols — attended the Salvadoran strongman's second inauguration. (Duncan and Nichols did not respond to The Intercept's requests for comment.)

"During the visit, Secretary Mayorkas met with President Bukele to discuss the many cultural, and economic ties our two countries share and reaffirmed the mutual commitment to address our common challenges," a DHS press briefing reads. 

Alvarado had spent just over a year behind bars.

Alvarado's absence has been especially difficult for his daughters. His stepdaughter "feels guilty," said a relative, who requested anonymity for fear of targeting by the U.S. government. "At first it was really, really hard, because she was like, 'I feel like it's my fault.'" After getting support at school, she showed signs of improvement, the relative said, but "when she turned 15, she was like, 'I don't want to have anything, because Walter's not here.'" 

His youngest daughter was just 2 when her father was arrested. She has started asking if Alvarado has passed away. 

Bukele's army of internet trolls has mocked the family, expressing loyalty to a president they see as an effective leader against gang violence. When they posted about Alvarado's detention, the family told The Intercept, they would be greeted by accusations that he was, in fact, a gangster who deserved to be punished.

Related El Salvador's Embrace of Bitcoin Didn't Bring Prosperity — It Rode in With Waves of Repression

The Salvadoran president's popularity can be explained, in part, by previous administrations' inability to reckon with the country's post-war contradictions. El Salvador's reconciliation process in the early 1990s, overseen by the United States and the ultra-conservative Alianza Republicana Nacionalista, or ARENA, party, paved the way for the selling of the country's telecommunications, banking, and energy infrastructure off to the highest bidder and exported the country's natural commodities through the use of cheap labor. 

The austerity regime made prime breeding ground for an intricate network of organized crime in the country. The U.S. expelled Salvadoran refugees who had gotten caught up in Los Angeles drug trafficking scene, allowing La Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, to blossom in El Salvador's urban centers. Successive governments implemented tough-on-crime policies dubbed mano dura, Spanish for "iron fist," to no avail, and populist, left-wing politicians found it difficult to unravel this Gordian knot through redistributive politics alone. 

"It was tough, but replacing gang violence with state violence is not the answer."

"It's perfectly understandable that people support Bukele because he resolved an issue that was really hurting people," Vicki Gass, the executive director of the Latin America Working Group, told The Intercept. "You're not making a lot of money. You get remittances from your dad living in the United States. It gets extorted. A friend of mine had his whole workshop and tools stolen. You know, his livelihood, right? It was tough, but replacing gang violence with state violence is not the answer."

Boosting the image of state violence has become a useful propaganda tool of the Bukele government. The strategy is most clearly captured by CECOT, the state-of-the-art supermax prison where Ábrego García was sent last year. But it is only one of 24 prisons in the country.

Alvarado was first sent to the Centro Penal de Izalco, an older prison where detainees are fed a spartan diet and beating and medical neglect are common. These carceral facilities, where a majority of the individuals caught up in the state of exception have been sent, have been the site of hundreds of deaths from violence and lack of medical care. In 2024, Socorro Jurídico Humanitario reported that of the 235 deaths they had recorded in prisons like Izalco, 94 percent of those who died were not affiliated with any gangs. 

According to the director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch, "torture, ill-treatment, incommunicado detention, severe violations of due process and inhumane conditions" were rampant in Izalco. 

Alvarado smuggled messages to his family through the U.S. embassy in El Salvador, saying he cried every night and that he could not stomach the food. He told his infant daughter to behave herself, and mentioned he was forced to sleep on the concrete floor in only his boxers. His family would send him food to supplement his nutrition, but he would report often not receiving the goods — reflecting a common practice in Salvadoran prisons, according to the Salvadoran human rights group Cristosal, which found that goods sent to the country's detention centers are often diverted by prison staff.

Related ICE Said They Were Being Flown to Louisiana. Their Flight Landed in Africa.

After the Biden era cool-off period, Democrats are again incensed by "the world's coolest dictator." Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen made a personal trip to El Salvador to lay eyes on Ábrego García, who was a Maryland resident, and the party has lambasted the cruelty of so-called "third-country" deportations under Trump. Some have been pursuing their efforts since Biden was in power: In November 2023, a group of Democratic congress members petitioned the State Department to determine how many Americans had been detained under El Salvador's state of exception. It remains unclear if they received a response.

Bukele, meanwhile, again renewed the decree in August that allows his government to detain those captured under the state of exception without trial. The tentative date for those hearings was pushed back to 2027. 

Just four months into his incarceration, Alvarado became so ill that he was transferred to the Granja Penitenciaria de Rehabilitación de Zacatecoluca, a lower security facility just a 15-minute drive from CECOT. Since then, he's been moved multiple times, most recently to the Centro Industrial de Cumplimiento de Penas y Rehabilitación, where the state holds many political and foreign prisoners. Primarily, the facility is a work camp for detainees who are considered free of any gang associations.

The post An American Citizen Has Been Stuck in El Salvador's Prison System Since the Biden Administration appeared first on The Intercept.

Less than 40 minutes after federal immigration agents shot and killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti on Nicollet Avenue in south Minneapolis, Clayton Kelly was thrown face-first onto the sidewalk, tasting snow and street grime as a federal agent's knee drove into his back.

The incident, a video of which The Intercept reviewed and corroborated with an independent eyewitness, occurred not long after Kelly and his wife arrived in the area where Pretti was killed. With protesters amassing and agents from Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement flooding the area, the couple told The Intercept, they just wanted to observe the scene. 

"All of a sudden," Kelly said, a federal agent "started running toward me, pointing and yelling, 'That's him. Get him.'" 

Ten days earlier, Kelly had watched as an immigration agent shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg during a federal enforcement action in north Minneapolis. As Kelly told the local outlet Sahan Journal, an SUV with police lights chased another vehicle, and then, "They went into a house. … I heard two shots before the area was just being swarmed by ICE immediately." Sosa-Celis was injured — and Kelly's account contradicted the official narrative released by the Department of Homeland Security.

At the scene of Pretti's killing, Kelly told agents they would find themselves "on the wrong side of history," he recalled. After the exchange, he and his wife, Alana Ericson, began walking toward another section of Nicollet Avenue where people were congregating, and as soon as Kelly turned his back, that was when agents began shouting and running toward him.

"I had my hands up. I kept saying, 'I'm leaving. I'm leaving,'" Kelly said.

Kelly is far from the only civilian to be brutalized by federal agents in Minneapolis this month. But his detailed account of his beating and detention offers a clear example of how the agents, ostensibly deployed to carry out immigration enforcement, have instead shifted their purpose to encompass a crackdown on dissent. In Kelly's case, it raises the question of whether he was facing retaliation for acting as a witness.

In December 2025, a group of Minnesota residents and the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a federal class-action lawsuit, Tincher v. Noem, alleging that federal agents participating in Operation Metro Surge used excessive force, intimidation, and arrests to deter civilians from observing, recording, or protesting immigration enforcement. 

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

The complaint alleges retaliation against people engaging in constitutionally protected conduct, including arrests of observers who were not interfering with federal operations. In January, a federal judge issued a limited injunction barring agents from retaliating against peaceful protesters and observers.

While federal agents pinned Kelly down, given Pretti's recent shooting, Ericson feared they could kill her husband.

"I kept telling them he's a U.S. citizen. They said, 'We don't give a f—,'" she said.

Kelly had previously undergone fusion surgery in his thoracic spine, a procedure that permanently joins vertebrae to stabilize the back. "Several agents piled on top of me," Kelly said, and one put his knee on the site of his surgical wounds. "They were sitting directly on my spine."

"I was screaming that I couldn't breathe, but I had almost no air left," Kelly said. "An agent pushed the pepper spray nozzle right into my left eye and sprayed. I turned my head so I wouldn't get it in both eyes, but my left eye was completely burned."

Pinned beneath multiple agents, Kelly said panic quickly gave way to fear that he might not survive. He said he was unable to catch his breath and felt his limbs go limp beneath the weight on his body.

"An agent pushed the pepper spray nozzle right into my left eye and sprayed."

Kelly was then forced to his feet and handcuffed, leaving deep indentations on both wrists that were still visible in photographs taken three days later and shared with The Intercept. At some point, his phone fell out of his pocket. He was dragged to a vehicle and placed in the back seat, where he said agents told him he was being taken to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis for detention.

After being pepper-sprayed, Ericson said she was unable to drive. A bystander offered her a ride home, where she and her mother-in-law spent the day calling attorneys and trying to determine where Kelly had been taken and whether he was alive.

An independent eyewitness who said they did not know Kelly or his wife said they were standing nearby when agents rushed Kelly, tackled him to the ground, and deployed pepper spray, corroborating Kelly's account of the arrest. After Kelly and Ericson were gone, the witness remained near Nicollet Avenue as federal agents continued clearing the area.

Moments later, the witness said they were grabbed from behind, thrown to the pavement, and sprayed in the face. Medical records from Hennepin County Medical Center reviewed by The Intercept show the witness sustained a fractured shoulder. According to the documentation, the injury will require surgery and months of physical therapy.

The Intercept reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and ICE with detailed questions about the use of force by federal agents in Minneapolis, the detention and processing of civilians, the seizure of phones and other personal property, and policies governing crowd control. DHS, CBP, and ICE did not provide responses by publication time.

Kelly was transported to the federal building in downtown Minneapolis, a facility commonly used by immigration authorities for detention and processing.

Several of the people detained alongside him, Kelly said, had directly witnessed or recorded the fatal shooting of Pretti earlier that morning.

Kelly said detainees were never told why they were being held and were not informed of any charges. He said federal officials discussed possible criminal violations but ultimately filed none.

Shauna Kieffer, an attorney with the National Lawyers Guild who is now representing Kelly, said her client was never read his Miranda rights. They're required only when law enforcement seeks to obtain a statement, she said, so a person may be detained without being advised of those rights if officers are not questioning them and no statement is taken. At one point, Kelly said, ICE agents asked whether detainees would be willing to give interviews. All declined and invoked their right to remain silent.

According to Kelly, no medical care was provided upon arrival, even though multiple detainees had visible injuries and repeatedly asked for assistance. One older man, Kelly said, was bleeding from his elbow when brought into custody. Kelly said detainees used their drinking water to clean blood from the man's arm while the staff ignored their requests for assistance, and that the man didn't receive treatment until after a shift change.

Related Even the Top Prosecutor in Minneapolis Doesn't Know the Identity of the Agents Who Killed Alex Pretti

Kelly and his family have been unable to recover his phone. At the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, Kelly said agents later showed him the phone, asked whether it belonged to him, and told him he would not be getting it back. According to Kelly, no one listed the device on his property inventory, and agents told him they would seek a warrant to access its contents. 

A copy of the property inventory receipt reviewed by The Intercept does not list a cellphone among Kelly's belongings. Additional photographs show his belongings placed in an ICE-labeled property bag bearing his name and a U.S. citizen designation.

In an affidavit he signed with his attorney, Kelly said the confiscated phone contained photos he took of the January 14 shooting of Sosa-Celis that he witnessed, a detail he says underscores its evidentiary value and why he wanted it returned.

Attorneys representing several detainees said federal officials told them they were considering charges of assaulting, interfering with, or resisting federal officers, according to Kieffer and another detainee's attorney. Kieffer said the statute is often interpreted broadly, but verbal objections, mere presence at a scene, or passive conduct alone do not meet its standard.

In Kelly's case, "any movements of his body are simply because a bunch of grown men are pummeling him," Kieffer said, referring to the video of his arrest.

Kelly estimated he was detained for roughly eight hours before being abruptly released. After a brief stop at home, he sought medical treatment at Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park. Discharge paperwork from that visit, reviewed by The Intercept, documents his injuries as assault-related.

Kelly said he continues to fear retaliation following his detention.

Read Our Complete Coverage

Unmasking ICE

The following morning, he said, several federal vehicles drove slowly down the residential street where he and his wife live, an occurrence he described as highly unusual for their area.

Kieffer said her client's fears are not unfounded.

She described instances in Minneapolis in which attorneys and civilian observers reported being followed by federal vehicles after monitoring immigration enforcement activity, and in some cases later saw federal agents parked outside their homes. One attorney shared video of ICE agents following him and parking outside his house with The Intercept.

In Kieffer's view, the sheer number of people taken into custody while observing or documenting federal activity has made Minneapolis stand out.

The emotional toll of the arrest, Kelly and his wife said, has not ended with his release.

"I've been having nightmares. This doesn't feel like real life. It feels like a really bad dream that I can't wake up from," Ericson said. "After he spoke publicly about that shooting, I felt like he was already on their radar."

The post He Witnessed an Earlier Shooting. Feds Arrested Him at the Scene of Alex Pretti's Killing appeared first on The Intercept.

Journalist Georgia Fort, right, and Minnesota State Senate candidate Jamael Lundy hold leave the Federal Courthouse in Minneapolis, Minn., on Friday, January 30, 2026.  Photo: Renee Jones Schneider/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images

The FACE Act was written with a very specific purpose: to protect those seeking abortions without restricting First Amendment-protected speech. Passed in 1994 under President Bill Clinton, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act arose after a horrific string of attacks on reproductive care facilities and providers across the United States.

Two decades later, the Trump administration is twisting this law to chill dissent by prosecuting journalists for the crime of reporting.

Two journalists, former CNN host Don Lemon and independent journalist Georgia Fort, were arrested Friday after covering a recent protest at a Minneapolis church. According to the Department of Justice, Lemon's crime was a start-to-finish livestream reporting on the protest, beginning with an organizing meeting and concluding with the protest itself at the at the Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. As for Fort, the only allegation proffered by federal prosecutors is that she and Lemon approached the pastor - who has a day job running the local Immigration and Customs Authority field office — in "close proximity" and tried to oppress and intimidate him by "peppering him with questions."

Covering a protest - even one inside a church - isn't a crime.

Such actions, prosecutors allege, are violations of the FACE Act, which includes a provision focused on houses of worship.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi brought these charges despite the fact that the FACE Act protects "expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) from the jeopardy of prosecution." That language clearly did not confuse a federal magistrate and an appellate court when they refused to issue a warrant. So the Justice Department convinced a grand jury to indict them.

Courts have found the right to report and record events of public concern almost universally to be "expressive conduct."

The FACE Act itself provides specific instructions on the kind of behavior that constitutes a violation. It notes that one cannot interfere, intimidate, or obstruct ingress or egress to a reproductive health services clinic or to or from a place of worship, "rendering passage to or from such a place of worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous."

It's this language about a place of worship that the Trump administration is leaning on. But it's clear that this language ensures that the law applies only to actions involving restriction on physical freedom of movement, interference in access to property, or actions causing a person to experience reasonable fear of harm.

In this case, the term "interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of movement. "Intimidate" means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to themselves or to others. And "physical obstruction" means making it unreasonably difficult or dangerous to enter or leave a facility that provides reproductive health services or a place of worship.

Looking at video of the protest, it's clear that these journalists weren't interfering, obstructing, or intimidating in ways that would violate the FACE Act. Covering a protest — even one inside a church — isn't a crime. And asking questions — including difficult ones — isn't a violation of religious freedom.

These are things all journalists do, which is precisely what makes this prosecution so chilling.

Courts have warned about the danger of the FACE Act being abused by overzealous prosecutors for years.

Related Even the Top Prosecutor in Minneapolis Doesn't Know the Identity of the Agents Who Killed Alex Pretti

In the case New York v. Operation Rescue, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted in 2001 that courts must prevent abuse of the FACE Act because an erroneous application "threatens to impinge legitimate First Amendment activity." The courts have made a distinction between actions that make going to a place of worship "unpleasant or even emotionally difficult, including yelling," and conduct that is prohibited by the FACE Act. Since the Act does not criminalize protesting or even unpleasant yelling, it certainly does not criminalize two reporters doing their job by covering a community crisis - even if that community crisis is at a house of worship.

This, of course, isn't the first attempt by the Trump administration to stifle the press. Just this month, for instance, federal agents raided the home of a Washington Post reporter and seized her devices in a leak investigation.

As the Trump administration's attacks on press freedom continue to mount, it's critical that journalists who find themselves under fire find support. As the director of the Press Freedom Defense Fund, I'm working to make sure that Fort has the resources she'll need to mount a strong defense.

Weaponizing the FACE Act against journalists is a dangerous escalation from the White House. What's critical is that the media cover this attack, look at the administration's motivations, and pay attention to who is being prosecuted — whether it's a Washington Post reporter with a deep rolodex of government sources or two Black journalists covering anti-ICE activism in Minnesota.

The news industry must also continue to chronicle the litany of abuses carried out by the Trump administration's immigration enforcement apparatus on the streets of Minneapolis and other cities across the U.S. This is not simply a shambolic legal gambit, but also an obvious attempt to divert attention away from the horrifying assault that has resulted in true violations of First Amendment rights of protestors and journalists, and the brutal killings of Nicole Good and Alex Pretti.

The post The Farcical Case Against Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for Protest Reporting appeared first on The Intercept.

After more than two years of denying the number of Palestinians it is killing during its campaign in Gaza, the Israeli military decided the death toll estimate kept by the Health Ministry in the Gaza Strip was an accurate count of those killed in the besieged territory.

The military, which routinely dismissed health ministry figures as Hamas propaganda, is analyzing the data to distinguish how many are combatants and how many are civilians, according to Haaretz. The report confirms past stories from the Israeli website Local Call as well as Vice.

The ministry is part of a Hamas-controlled government in Gaza, but human rights advocates, a prestigious medical journal, and the United Nations have said for years that its tallies of the dead have been found to be accurate. The ministry also periodically releases names and other identifying information about those killed in Gaza.

The doubts sewn over the loss of Palestinian life laid the groundwork for shielding Israel from accountability.

Despite human rights advocates' reliance on the figures, the White House, members of Congress, pro-Israel pundits, and legacy media institutions have all cast doubt on the running death toll kept by the Palestinian health ministry.

The doubts sewn over the loss of Palestinian life laid the groundwork for persistent genocide denial that has helped to shield Israel from accountability.

Related Israel's War on Gaza Is the Deadliest Conflict on Record for Journalists

"The Biden administration, Congress, and the U.S. media played along with Israel's lies and deception about the horrific death toll in Gaza — over 80 percent civilians; over half, women and children — so that they could gaslight Americans into continued support for Israel," said Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director of human rights group DAWN. She said that, along with other debunked Israeli claims about the war, the denials of the death toll helped "ensure Israel can continue its crimes and the U.S. can continue to arm it."

Hani Almadhoun, co-founder of the Gaza Soup Kitchen, whose brother Mahmoud was killed by an Israeli drone in November 2024, said it was difficult to defend against officials and media outlets dismissing the death tolls as "Hamas numbers."

"To every government spokesperson, every news anchor, and every celebrity who repeated that denial — I hope you never know what it feels like to lose your family and then be told your loss is 'disputed,'" Almadhoun told The Intercept.

With media and NGO workers barred by Israel from entering the Strip, the Palestinian health ministry's count has been the only reliable source of the death toll during the genocide.

The latest health ministry figure estimates at least 71,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, a number that is still growing while Israel continues to strike the besieged territory at a near-daily rate in violation of the so-called ceasefire.

Here is a brief accounting of the people and institutions who have denied the Palestinian death tolls in Gaza throughout Israel's genocide.

Biden Administration

About two weeks after October 7, 2023, then-President Joe Biden told reporters that he had "no confidence" in the death tolls kept by the Gaza Health Ministry.

"I have no confidence in the number that Palestinians are using," Biden said. At the time, the Gaza Health Ministry death tolls estimated 6,000 Palestinians, including 2,700 children, killed by the Israeli military. Biden's National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby doubled down and said nothing from the health ministry, which he called "a front for Hamas," could be taken "at face value."

While the Biden administration later shifted toward confidence in the health ministry figures, their initial comments, which were widely reported, left lasting damage on the credibility of the Palestinian death tolls.

Congress

In June 2024, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Reps. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla.; Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J.; Joe Wilson, R-S.C.; Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.; and Carol Miller, R-W.Va., helped pass an amendment to a State Department spending bill that blocked the department from citing the Gaza Health Ministry data in its reports.

Related Congress Keeps Trying to Hide the True Gaza Death Toll

Later that year, Congress passed a defense spending bill that similarly barred the Pentagon from publicly citing the Gaza Health Ministry estimates as "authoritative."

"Will Congress now overturn its own ban on citing the [Gaza Health Ministry] data," Whitson said, "now that even the Israeli government has conceded it's accurate?"

Rep. Ritchie Torres

Days before the Senate vote on the defense spending bill, Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., a staunch Israel supporter, circulated a report from a neoconservative U.K.-based think tank, the Henry Jackson Society, that accused the Gaza Health Ministry of inflating its death toll.

"Validating the public health arm of Hamas is like validating the public health arms of Al Qaeda and ISIS or the public health arms of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan," Torres said. "It is morally and intellectually corrupt."

Steny Hoyer

Along with Torres and a host of other lawmakers, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., accused the Gaza Health Ministry of inflating the death tolls.

"We must treat their claims with the same skepticism we would those made by al Qaeda or ISIS."

"They inflate casualty numbers and make false accusations to smear Israel's reputation," Hoyer said in October 2023. "We must treat their claims with the same skepticism we would those made by al Qaeda or ISIS."

Since its military accepted the Gaza Health Ministry numbers, neither Torres nor Hoyer have accused Israel of doing something similar to validating the Islamic State or Nazi Germany.

Anti-Defamation League

The Anti-Defamation League was one of a host of influential pro-Israel figures and organizations that sought to discredit the Gaza Health Ministry's death toll.

Related MIT Student Condemned Genocide — So ADL Chief Said She Helped Cause Boulder Attack

The group released a list of news outlets that did not mention Hamas when reporting on the health ministry death estimates and called on outlets to "properly caveat data and information cited from the Gaza Health Ministry with clear mention that it is controlled by Hamas and that it has shared false and misleading information in the past."

AIPAC

Another powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee called the Palestinian death tolls a "myth" that "cannot be trusted" because it is controlled by Hamas.

Elliott Abrams

Figures at major think tanks also joined the denialism. From his perch at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, Elliott Abrams, a longtime Washington neoconservative, was among them. Abrams — who pleaded guilty in 1991 to counts related to the cover-up of the Iran-Contra affair — called the Gaza Health Ministry data "not credible" and "Hamas propaganda," citing a United Nations death toll revision that listed fewer women and children killed in Gaza. The shifting number was due to achange in the U.N.'s methodology — to an MO that now relies solely on the Gaza Health Ministry for data.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Another think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an organization formed with the support of AIPAC and its donors, also used the U.N. revision as evidence of apparent misinformation, citing the shift as evidence that the figures "have lost any claim to validity."

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies said the Gaza Health Ministry is "is scrambling to prevent exposure of its shoddy work" after the ministry acknowledged in a report that it was still working to identify about 11,000 of what at the time was a toll of more than 30,000 Palestinians killed. The foundation suggested the report was a "deliberate effort to downplay the number of terrorists" killed by Israel.

Alan Dershowitz

Former Harvard Law professor, celebrity attorney, and pugnacious pundit Alan Dershowitz has also called the civilian death toll in Gaza "among the lowest in the history of comparable warfare." He dismissed the health ministry death tolls as "way, way exaggerated — the number of actually purely innocent civilians that have been killed are a tiny fraction."

Eylon Levy

Among the pundits who went after the Gaza Health Ministry death tolls was former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy. As recently as this month, Levy expended his energies refuting early reports on the Israeli government's acceptance of the health ministry estimates, calling such reporting "dead in the water."

Related Israel's Ruthless Propaganda Campaign to Dehumanize Palestinians

"This myth exists for one reason: to launder Hamas data to support its war effort," Levy said.

Levy has not made any statements on social media since the report that the Israeli military found Gaza Health Ministry data to be accurate.  

Abraham Wyner

A scholar of statistics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, Abraham Wyner, took to the pages of the right-leaning pro-Israel site Tablet to denounce the health ministry death toll as "fake" and "not real." His evidence? A graph showing the steady increase in the day-to-day numbers of people killed by Israel.

"This regularity is almost surely not real," he said. "One would expect quite a bit of variation day to day."

Related They Went to Get Flour With Their Mother in Gaza. "She Came Back in a White Shroud."

In a statement to The Intercept, Wyner said the ministry death toll totals "were never wildly wrong," but said Palestinian officials in Gaza had produced "false" numbers. He claimed he only disputed the proportion of the numbers that the Gaza health ministry had claimed were women and children.

"You must make a clear distinction between [what] was produced early (when the information war was fought) and today (when it has been lost)," Wyner wrote in an email.

Wyner was the only death-toll denier in this story to offer comment.

Update: January 30, 2026, 3:56 p.m. ET
This story was updated with a quote from Hani Almadhoun.

The post Israeli Military Found Gaza Health Ministry Death Toll Was Accurate. Will These Deniers Admit It? appeared first on The Intercept.