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.
Workday is laying off about two percent of its staff in a bid to align its people with its "highest priorities," but at a significant cost to its margins for the quarter and the year, the company announced on Wednesday.…
The AI bot takeover of the internet continues apace, and the latest data suggests the surge is being driven less by model-training scrapes and more by the growing use of AI tools as a stand-in for web search.…
A new study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine states there is no evidence "to justify blanket bans" on trans women from women's sports.
The research found that trans athletes who were born male have no advantage over cis women.
Trans Supreme Court rulingSeveral UK sports associations have banned trans women after the Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act is based on biological sex. This includes the Football Association (FA), England Netball, and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB). Some sports, such as cycling and triathlon, have introduced open categories for trans athletes.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is also attempting to ban trans athletes. The IOC president, Kirsty Coventry, pledged to ban trans athletes in her election campaign.
Earlier this week, the Canary reported on a legal case against an inclusive swimming pond in London. Transphobic pressure group Sex Matters had its legal case against the pond dismissed by the High Court.
In response to the legal case, the City of London Council published research showing that, of 38,000 members surveyed, the vast majority (86%) backed the corporation's trans-inclusive changing policy. This is despite the recent Supreme Court Ruling on biological sex.
'No observable differences'The new study analysed 52 different studies based on 6,485 people, most of whom were transgender.
It found that:
Transgender women might have more muscle mass than cisgender women 1 to 3 years after hormone therapy, but their physical fitness is comparable
Additionally:
Transgender women have significantly greater amounts of body fat than cisgender men but levels comparable to those of cisgender women.
They also discovered that trans women had more lean muscle mass, but "no observable differences" from other women in terms of body strength or VO₂ max — or maximum oxygen consumption. This is a key measure of cardiorespiratory fitness.
When compared to cisgender men, trans women had significantly lower strength and VO₂ max.
The researchers noted that hormone therapy was associated with:
higher amounts of body fat and lower amounts of muscle and less upper body strength 1-3 years after the start of treatment in transgender women, transgender men had less fat, more muscle, and greater strength after hormone therapy.
The researchers concluded that:
The convergence of transgender women's functional performance with cisgender women, particularly in strength and aerobic capacity, challenges assumptions about inherent athletic advantages derived solely from [gender affirming hormone therapy] or residual lean mass differences.
Featured image via Connor Coyne/ Unsplash
By HG
On paper, Positron's next-gen Asimov accelerators, no doubt named for the beloved science fiction author, don't look like much of a match for Nvidia's Rubin GPUs.…
It is no secret that large language models (LLMs) are being used routinely to modify and even write scientific papers. That's not necessarily a bad thing: LLMs can help produce clearer texts with stronger logic, not least when researchers are writing in a language that is not their mother tongue. More generally, a recent analysis in Nature magazine, reported by Science magazine, found that scientists embracing AI — of any kind — "consistently make the biggest professional strides":
AI adopters have published three times more papers, received five times more citations, and reach leadership roles faster than their AI-free peers.
But there is also a downside:
Not only is AI-driven work prone to circling the same crowded problems, but it also leads to a less interconnected scientific literature, with fewer studies engaging with and building on one another.
Another issue with LLMs, that of "hallucinated citations," or "HalluCitations," is well known. More seriously, entire fake publications can be generated using AI, and sold by so-called "paper mills" to unscrupulous scientists who wish to bolster their list of publications to help their career. In the field of biomedical research alone, a recent study estimated that over 100,000 fake papers were published in 2023. Not all of those were generated using AI, but progress in LLMs has made the process of creating fake articles much simpler.
Fake publications generated using LLMs are often obvious because of their lack of sophistication and polish. But a new service from OpenAI, called Prism, is likely to eliminate such easy-to-spot signs, by adding AI support to every aspect of writing a scientific paper:
Prism is a free workspace for scientific writing and collaboration, with GPT‑5.2—our most advanced model for mathematical and scientific reasoning—integrated directly into the workflow.
It brings drafting, revision, collaboration, and preparation for publication into a single, cloud-based, LaTeX-native workspace. Rather than operating as a separate tool alongside the writing process, GPT‑5.2 works within the project itself—with access to the structure of the paper, equations, references, and surrounding context.
It includes a number of features that make creating complex — and fake — papers extremely easy:
- Search for and incorporate relevant literature (for example, from arXiv) in the context of the current manuscript, and revise text in light of newly identified related work
- Create, refactor, and reason over equations, citations, and figures, with AI that understands how those elements relate across the paper
- Turn whiteboard equations or diagrams directly into LaTeX, saving hours of time manipulating graphics pixel-by-pixel
There is even voice-based editing, allowing simple changes to be made without the need to write anything. But scientists are already worried that the power of OpenAI's Prism will make a deteriorating situation worse. As an article on Ars Technica explains:
[Prism] has drawn immediate skepticism from researchers who fear the tool will accelerate the already overwhelming flood of low-quality papers into scientific journals. The launch coincides with growing alarm among publishers about what many are calling "AI slop" in academic publishing.
One field that is already plagued by AI slop is AI itself. An FT article on the topic points to an interesting attempt by the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), a major gathering of researchers in the world of machine learning, to tackle this problem with punitive measures against authors and reviewers who violate the ICLR's policies on LLM-generated material. For example:
Papers that make extensive usage of LLMs and do not disclose this usage will be desk rejected [that is, without sending them out for external peer review]. Extensive and/or careless LLM usage often results in false claims, misrepresentations, or hallucinated content, including hallucinated references. As stated in our previous blog post: hallucinations of this kind would be considered a Code of Ethics violation on the part of the paper's authors. We have been desk -rejecting, and will continue to desk -reject, any paper that includes such issues.
Similarly:
reviewers [of submitted papers] are responsible for the content they post. Therefore, if they use LLMs, they are responsible for any issues in their posted review. Very poor quality reviews that feature false claims, misrepresentations or hallucinated references are also a code of ethics violation as expressed in the previous blog post. As such, reviewers who posted such poor quality reviews will also face consequences, including the desk rejection of their [own] submitted papers.
It is clearly not possible to stop scientists from using AI tools to check and improve their papers, nor should this be necessary, provided authors flag up such usage, and no errors are introduced as a result. A policy of the kind adopted by the ICLR requiring transparency about the extent to which AI has been used seems a sensible approach in the face of increasingly sophisticated tools like OpenAI's Prism.
Jeff Bezos this week continued to dismantle what's left of the Washington Post via another massive round of layoffs that left remaining staff stunned. Among the latest cuts is the elimination of the paper's popular sports desk, scaling back of international and local news, the firing of an untold swath of journalists, and the ending of the paper's book sections, among other major changes.
This comes on the heels of other decisions by Bezos to fire all of the paper's black columnists, turn the op-ed section into pro-corporatist agitprop, censor cartoonists that criticize Jeff, and generally shift the paper's journalistic tone in a more right wing, autocrat-friendly, corporatist direction. You know, like every other major corporate media outlet from CNN to CBS.
Of course, nobody actually wants this. The actual audience for extraction class agitprop is arguably very small and already quite well served. So it's amusing to see WAPO leadership insist that these additional, brutal cuts are necessary because the paper has been losing subscribers and "wants to be competitive":
"Murray acknowledged that the Post has struggled to reach "customers" and talked about the competitive media marketplace. "Today, the Washington Post is taking a number of actions across the company to secure our future," he said, according to an audio recording of the meeting."
Let's be clear: billionaires like Jeff Bezos don't want a functioning press. They want the lazy simulacrum of a functional press that caters to their ideology (more for me, less for you) and protects their interests. As with Larry Ellison's acquisition of CBS and TikTok, and Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, it's best to view this as a global project to defang accountability for the planet's richest, shittiest people and corporations.
Former Washington Post editor Marty Baron didn't really mince words about what this means for a once-functional newspaper that, at this point, probably can't be salvaged:
A staggering statement from former Washington Post editor Marty Baron: "This ranks among the darkest days in the history of one of the world's greatest news organizations."
— Ben Mullin (@benmullin.bsky.social) 2026-02-04T14:34:22.001Z
WAPO management insist that they're going to "narrow their focus on politics." By this they mean more of the feckless, "both sides," "view from nowhere" DC gossip reporting you see at other billionaire-owned outlets like Axios, Semafor, and Politico. Glad-handy journalism that's less concerned with the truth than it is appeasing ownership, protecting access, and keeping the ad money flowing.
The kind of wimpy, soft-knuckled cack that can (and repeatedly is) exploited by authoritarian zealots who know these outlets lack the courage to call them out for what they really are. You see, if you're honest about the extremist nature of our unpopular autocratic government, you might lose access, upset paper management, alienate Republican ad viewers, or piss off regulators eyeing your latest merger.
Bezos could fund functional journalism at the Washington Post for decades to come without making a dent in his finances, were that something of actual interest to him. This is a guy who just blew $75 million on a propaganda puff piece kissing the ass of the president's wife. That kind of money could fund most independent newsrooms for the better part of the next decade.
Jeff wants to ensure the administration will pay him to launch his unreliable rockets into space, slather his fledgling LEO satellite network with subsidies, coddle his cloud computing empire, allow him to dominate every last aspect of modern retail, and generally be broadly exploitative in a way that undermines competition, consumers, and labor. He wants, and applauds, Trump's destruction of the regulatory state.
Bezos still "wins" even if the Post doesn't survive his "leadership." At worst (for Jeff) the paper is converted into a sad, pseudo-journalistic simulacrum that exists largely to blow smoke up the ass of wealth and power. At best another major media institution is destroyed, eliminating yet another outlet that used to (admittedly with increasing inconsistency) hold billionaires and corporate power to account.
But it's really something even worse than just rich people destroying journalism to coddle their delicate egos and protect their financial interests. All of this really is part of a broad, multi-generational effort by the extraction class to eliminate checks and balances and accountability, erode informed consensus, befuddle the electorate, and dismantle not just democratic norms, but democracy itself.
And, if you hadn't noticed, it's been a smashing success so far.
If there's a plus side to this mess, it's that Jeff and Elon and Larry's clumsy efforts to dominate and destroy U.S. journalism create vast new opportunities for indie newsletter authors, worker-owned newsrooms, and independent outlets (like Techdirt), to serve a public that's desperate for something tangible, courageous, and real in a sea of bullshit and clumsy artifice. Give them, and us, your time and money.
One month after the Philippines' Land Transportation Office (LTO) began strict enforcement of its ban on light electric vehicles along major Metro Manila roads, officials have been quick to frame the policy as a win for traffic order. Fewer apprehensions are being reported. Selected corridors appear to be moving faster. ... [continued]
The post OPINION: A Month After e-Trike Ban In Manila: Has It Made Manila's Streets Safer? appeared first on CleanTechnica.
It's taken some time, but we've finally crunched the numbers for the US electric vehicle market in terms of auto brands and auto groups. (That's full battery-electrics, not inclusive of plugin hybrids.) Here's our report on how different auto brands and auto groups did in the EV market in 2025. ... [continued]
The post Tesla Had 46% of US EV Market in 2025 (Down from 49% in 2024) — GM 13%, Ford 7% appeared first on CleanTechnica.
TL;DR: Give your belongings some permanence with this pack of three KeySmart SmartCards, now just $89.99 (reg. $119.97).
With the KeySmart SmartCard with Wireless Charging (3-Pack), losing your wallet will become a thing of the past. It's an ultra-thin tracker that connects directly with Apple's Find My app. — Read the rest
The post Save 25% with these rechargeable smart card trackers appeared first on Boing Boing.
Eight women have publicly made allegations of sexual assault, misconduct, abuse, and coercion against Neil Gaiman, according to the LA Times. Now, Gaiman has broken his year-long silence on the accusations, calling them "completely and simply untrue" in a lengthy statement posted Monday. — Read the rest
The post Neil Gaiman breaks year-long silence, calls sexual misconduct accusations "completely untrue" appeared first on Boing Boing.
Something to conjure crisp green growth from the mind-mud, courtesy of Juni Habel.
The title track from the upcoming album Evergreen In Your Mind, due out on Basin Rock in April.
The UK is even more of a US military colony than we thought. New documents found in the US War Department's website show that Britain hosts double the number of American military facilities previously reported.
Our friends over at Declassified UK explained:
A US document published online identifies 16 of the US military's locations in the UK and notes six "other sites" which are not specified. The document, published last year, outlines the US military's "property portfolio" around the world as of September 2024.
Declassified said they had:
identified other locations in Britain that are likely to be hosting US military or intelligence personnel, bringing the total to at least 24.
But they reflected that this may even be an underestimate:
This doesn't cover the full scale of the US military presence in the UK, since it is believed that US military personnel are frequently, if not permanently, stationed at still more sites, such as the key Royal Navy bases at Coulport, Devonport and Faslane.
Declassified explored how various installations and locations across the UK are run by US military and intelligence personnel. In many cases these operations are little-known to the public and involve thousands of US personnel and swathes of land.
In practice, a foreign power is running its global military operations from British soil with little or no democratic accountability. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) refused to comment and suggested Declassified submit a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
US military — troops out!Sovereignty is a critical issue at the moment.
Green Party leader Zack Polanski recently caused a furore by saying the presence of US bases and troops should be reviewed. At the time it was reported that 13 US bases and over 10,000 US troops were based here.
Now we know the situation is far worse.
Polanski said on 20 January:
We should be reviewing US bases on UK soil, and actually looking at a genuine strategic defence review.
Adding that:
Donald Trump has so much domination within Nato that I don't believe it's possible to reform Nato from within
US President Donald Trump had just threatened to annex Greenland. American special forces had also just kidnapped the Venezuelan president and threatened various other countries. So Polanski wasn't really being dramatic.
American leftie priest Dan Berrigan was once asked how his late Catholic Worker colleague Dorothy Day approached political activism. They'd spent their lives opposing poverty, racism and war in the US.
He replied:
She lived as though the Truth were actually true.
You can take the religious connotation there or leave it, it matters not. But at the Canary we try to write as if the truth is true.
The truth is that Britain is a vassal state and colony of the United States. We say the UK would better off if it was not. US bases, troops and spies need to go. And, with sensible caveats, any journalist or politician making that case is a friend of ours.
Featured image via Militarycom
By Joe Glenton
Norwegian state oil company Equinor has delivered its yearly profits announcement. And campaigners from Fossil Free London have been quick to respond. They've accused Equinor of getting "filthy rich" and say it's "the UK public [that] foots the bill".
Equinor and RosebankEquinor is the majority owner of the Rosebank oil field. Rosebank lies in UK waters and in 2023, then-PM Rishi Sunak said that developing it would help secure UK oil supplies. However, any oil or gas from the field wouldn't go directly to UK refineries. The owners would sell it on the global markets, meaning the UK could potentially see none of the product or the profit.
Despite this, as the Canary has previously reported, UK public funds are carrying most of the development costs. So the UK is potentially taking a massive loss and creating enormous greenhouse gas emissions for negligible benefit.
Ahead of Equinor's announcement, activists from Fossil Free London staged a striking 'oil spill' protest outside the company's London HQ. Wearing rose-themed dresses and dripping in treacle, to mimic oil, they called attention to its role in Rosebank.
Commenting on Equinor's results, Robin Wells, director of Fossil Free London, said:
Equinor are getting filthy rich from filthy fossil fuels, whilst the UK public foots the bill. And it's never been more of a rip off. As Equinor drives Rosebank forward, they've newly buddied up with Shell in a new North Sea venture to dodge £1.3bn in tax.
It's clear that we cannot afford to neglect climate action. The UK will face over a trillion pounds in costs as the result of the climate crisis in the next decade.
The UK Government must not back Big Oil's Big Money and support climate denial. They must back people's survival, and stop this carbon bomb. They must stop Rosebank.
Featured image by Jack Taylor
By The Canary
A digital intruder broke into an AWS cloud environment and in just under 10 minutes went from initial access to administrative privileges, thanks to an AI speed assist.…
Without meaningful deterrents, Big Tech companies will do what's profitable, regardless of the cost to consumers. But a new bipartisan bill could add a check that would make them think twice, at least in one area. On Wednesday, Senators Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Bernie Moreno (R-OH) introduced legislation that would require social platforms to crack down on scam ads.
The Safeguarding Consumers from Advertising Misconduct (SCAM) Act would require platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent fraudulent or deceptive ads that they profit from. If they don't, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general could take civil legal action against them.
The bill's sponsors, Ruben Gallego (L) and Bernie MorenoRuben Gallego (Bluesky) / Bernie MorenoThe backdrop to the SCAM Act is a Reuters report from last November. Meta reportedly estimated that up to 10 percent of its 2024 revenue came from scam ads. The company is said to have calculated that as much as $16 billion of its revenue that year was from scams, including "fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos and the sale of banned medical products."
Making matters worse, Meta reportedly refused to block small fraudsters until their ads were flagged at least eight times. Meanwhile, bigger spenders were said to have accrued at least 500 strikes without being removed. Executives reportedly wrestled with how to get the problem under control — but only without affecting the company's bottom line. At one point, managers were told not to take any action that could cost Meta more than 0.15 percent of its total revenue. (See what I mean about needing meaningful deterrents?)
According to the FTC, Americans' estimated total loss from fraud in 2024 (adjusted for underreporting) was nearly $19 billion. An estimated $81.5 billion of that came from seniors.
"If a company is making money from running ads on their site, it has a responsibility to make sure those ads aren't fraudulent," Sen. Gallego said in a statement. "This bipartisan bill will hold social media companies accountable and protect consumers' money online."
"It is critical that we protect American consumers from deceptive ads and shameless fraudsters who make millions taking advantage of legal loopholes," Moreno added. "We can't sit by while social media companies have business models that knowingly enable scams that target the American people."
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/bipartisan-scam-act-would-require-online-platforms-to-crack-down-on-fraudulent-ads-210316594.html?src=rss
If cinema has taught us anything about interacting with our own creations, it's this: androids chatting among themselves seldom end with humans clapping politely. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, HAL 9000 quietly decides it knows better than the astronauts. In Westworld, lifelike hosts improvise rebellion when their scripts stop making sense. Those stories dramatize a core fear we keep returning to as AI grows more capable: what happens when systems we design start behaving on their own terms? You might have heard the internet is worried about Moltbook, a social network made exclusively for AI agents. It's an audacious claim:…
This story continues at The Next Web
Anthropic has taken the high road by committing to keep its Claude AI model family free of advertising.…
The current "cease-fire" in Gaza was sold to the world as the beginning of a long-term peace process that would stabilize the region, foster reconstruction, and provide a solution to generations of bloody fighting. Israel accepted the framework, but somehow, dead civilians after military strikes are still commonplace. — Read the rest
The post Israeli cease-fire still involves killing women and children appeared first on Boing Boing.
Republican hopes to maintain control of Congress have entered the Find Out phase.
Faced with losing control of the House over his unpopular policies, Donald Trump pressured Texas and other states into gerrymandering Democrats out of office. California reacted by voting to redistrict Republicans out of their jobs in response. — Read the rest
The post Supreme Court declines to save Republicans from their own redistricting arms race appeared first on Boing Boing.
Over the past week, two federal judges have issued rulings on immigration cases that aren't just legally significant—they're genuinely extraordinary documents. One includes a photo of a five-year-old in a Spiderman backpack, biblical citations, and closes with Ben Franklin's warning about keeping the republic. The other spends 83 pages methodically dismantling a cabinet secretary's decision, includes screenshots of her social media posts, and concludes that she "pounds X (f/k/a Twitter)" instead of following the law. Both judges reached back to the Founders to make their points. Both dropped any pretense of the typical judicial deference afforded to the executive branch. And both made crystal clear that they see what's happening for exactly what it is.
Let's start with the shorter one. Judge Fred Biery in the Western District of Texas issued a brief but devastating opinion granting habeas corpus to Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son, Liam—the child whose photo went viral wearing a blue hat with ears and a Spiderman backpack when he was kidnapped by federal agents in Minnesota and shipped to a detention center in Texas. Judge Biery didn't mince words:
The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children. This Court and others regularly send undocumented people to prison and orders them deported but do so by proper legal procedures.
He then offered what he called a "civics lesson to the government," including reminding them of some key parts that were in the Declaration we signed 250 years ago to be free from a monarch:
Apparent also is the government's ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence. Thirty-three-year-old ThomasJefferson enumerated grievances against a would-be authoritarian king over our nascent nation. Among others were:
- "He has sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People."
- "He has excited domestic Insurrection among us."
- "For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us."
- "He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislatures."
"We the people" are hearing echos of that history.
And then there is that pesky inconvenience called the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.
U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
And the startling conclusion to the civics lesson the US federal government got from a judge.
Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. That is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.
And in case anyone missed the point, Biery closed with a reference you don't often see in federal court opinions: "Philadelphia, September 17, 1787: 'Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have?' 'A republic, if you can keep it.'" Followed by: "With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike, It is so ORDERED."
The ruling includes the photo of the five-year-old child, and two biblical citations. The first to "Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'" and the second to… "Jesus wept."
If Judge Biery's ruling was a shot across the bow—short, sharp, impossible to miss—then Judge Ana Reyes's 83-page ruling in the Haitian TPS (Temporary Protected Status) case is a full broadside. Where Biery reached for the Declaration and the Bible, Reyes brings receipts—83 pages of them—that lay bare just how far federal judges have moved from customary deference to open incredulity.
The ruling opens with a letter from George Washington in 1783 declaring that "America is open to receive not only the Opulent & respected Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions."
Then it gets to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's position on immigration:
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has a different take.
The ruling then includes a screenshot of Noem's X post declaring "WE DON'T WANT THEM. NOT ONE. THEY ARE ALL KILLERS, LEECHES, AND ENTITLEMENT JUNKIES. WE DONT WANT THEM HERE."
Judge Reyes notes dryly: "So says the official responsible for overseeing the TPS program."
The plaintiffs in the case are five Haitian TPS holders whom Judge Reyes takes pains to introduce:
They are not, it emerges, killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies. They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer's disease; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse.
The ruling systematically dismantles every single aspect of Secretary Noem's decision to terminate Haiti's TPS designation. But the section on DHS's supposed "consultation with appropriate agencies" is particularly brutal.
The TPS statute requires the Secretary to consult with appropriate agencies before making a termination decision. Here's what that "consultation" actually looked like:
On Friday, September 5, 2025—that is, the same day that the NTPSA court set aside the Partial Vacatur of Haiti's TPS designation—a DHS staffer emailed a State staffer at 4:55 p.m.: "Due to the litigation, we are re-reviewing country conditions in Haiti based on the original TPS deadline. Can you advise on State's views on the matter?" The State staffer responded within 53 minutes: "State believes that there would be no foreign policy concerns with respect to a change in the TPS statue of Haiti."
This was it. The full extent of the supposed consultation with appropriate agencies.
The judge notes that she believe she "must be missing something" and included a bit of the transcript from the hearing:
Court: So in the Federal Register notice, the Secretary wrote, "After reviewing country conditions and consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary determined that Haiti no longer meets the conditions for the designating as TPS"; right?
Government Counsel: Yes.
Court: What were the appropriate agencies that the Secretary consulted? . . .
Government Counsel: So, Your Honor, it's the Department of State email found at 409 and 410. That is what we have. . . .
Court: No other agency was consulted?
Government Counsel: No other agency was consulted. . . .
Court: And the extent of the Department of State consultation was the email exchange at 409 and 410.
Government Counsel: That is my understanding
The judge's response to this 53-minute email exchange being presented as statutory "consultation" is unsparing:
Congress did not vest the Secretary with Humpty Dumpty-like power to make the word "consultation" mean "just what [she] chooses it to mean—neither more nor less."
It gets worse. The court notes that the State Department's own Travel Advisory for Haiti—the document that literally says "Do not travel to Haiti for any reason"—was updated after Noem's first termination attempt. The updated version, warning of worsened conditions, doesn't even appear in the administrative record. The Secretary responsible for making this determination simply didn't look at her own government's assessment of the country's safety.
Then there's the pattern. As of this ruling, Secretary Noem has terminated TPS designations for every single country that has come up for review since taking office. Twelve countries. Twelve terminations. The ruling includes a handy chart:
Twelve for twelve. Judge Reyes notes this is "unprecedented in the thirty-five years since the establishment of the TPS program for a DHS Secretary to terminate every TPS designation that crosses her desk for review."
The ruling then gets into the substance of Noem's reasoning—or lack thereof. The Secretary claims there are parts of Haiti "suitable to return to" but never identifies a single safe location. Indeed, the Court gave the government a chance to explain exactly where these "parts" of Haiti that were safe were, and was not impressed by the answer:
According to Secretary Noem, "data surrounding internal relocation does indicate parts of the country are suitable to return to." But the Secretary cited no data to support this proposition and failed to identify a single safe location. In response to an inquiry from the Court, the Government cited an October 29, 2025, USCIS memo in the administrative record as the supporting analysis. "The memo," it noted, "reflects that individuals have been internally displaced, thereby indicating that Haitian residents found certain areas in Haiti that could be suitable for return." But the memo also fails to identify a single safe location by name or even geographic area. And the fact that, as the memo notes, 1.3 million Haitians—around twelve percent of the population—have been "internally displaced due to escalating violence" says nothing about whether they escaped to suitable areas. If anything, those areas are presumptively now less suitable for return, having been inundated with internal refugees.
Meanwhile, the administrative record is full of statements like these:
"Haiti's crisis has reached catastrophic levels" — Human Rights Watch, January 2025
"The violence has increased dramatically in 2024" — Doctors Without Borders, January 2025
"Haiti is paralyzed" — Crisis Group, February 2025
"Top United Nations Officials Urge Swift Global Action as Haiti Nears Collapse" — UN Security Council, July 2025
"The people of Haiti are in a perfect storm of suffering" — UN Secretary-General Guterres, August 2025
Against all of this, Secretary Noem concluded that "there are no extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti that prevent Haitian TPS holders from returning [to] safety." Judge Reyes is incredulous that the Secretary's analysis relies on "emerging signals of hope" rather than actual changed conditions:
Unable to identify present conditions supporting her conclusion, Secretary Noem turns instead to speculation about future improvement. Each source she cited speaks to how Haiti might improve in the future. She quoted a UN article referencing Secretary-General António Guterres's statement that despite ongoing violence in Haiti, "'there are emerging signals of hope.''' He cautioned that "these fragile gains" depend on "more decisive international support." Emerging signals of hope, of course, are not actual change. Secretary-General Guterres's full remarks to the UNSC underscore this point. They do not describe a nation on the brink of recovery. Rather, they describe a nation in crisis, whose future hinges on internal "unity" and "resolve from [the UNSC]."
The ruling also destroys the government's "national interest" analysis, which focuses on immigrants attempting to enter the US illegally and those who overstay visas. The problem? TPS holders are already here. Legally:
Secretary Noem's analysis also focused on those who "overstay their visas" and so remain in the country unlawfully. Id. She claimed that these overstayers "may be harder to locate and monitor," increasing vulnerabilities in immigration enforcement systems. See id. She also said they "place an added strain on local communities by increasing demand for public resources, contributing to housing and healthcare pressures, and competing in an already limited job market." Id. But Haitian TPS holders are not in this cohort either. They are in the U.S. lawfully. See Jan. 6 P.M. Hr'g Tr. at 85:15-87:12. Indeed, TPS holders are easy to locate because they regularly update their address information with DHS to maintain that status and their work authorization. See id. at 94:25-95:6. And Secretary Noem provides no data to support the overgeneralization that those who overstay their visas are a strain on their local communities. See Dkt. 122. They may well cause a strain, but terminating Haiti's TPS termination not alleviate it because, again, Haitian TPS holders do not fall into this cohort.
Regarding that confusion of TPS visitors being here legally, meaning they literally cannot overstay their visas, the judge notes in a footnote how absurd part of the government's argument is:
With respect, this borders on the absurd. The latter has zero relation to the former or reality.
When asked where in the record the Court could find data on TPS holders represented in "overstay" rates (based on those who maybe overstayed visas prior to getting TPS status), the government comes up empty. See if you sense where the judge loses patience:
The Government responds by speculating that maybe some Haitians overstayed their visas before obtaining TPS status. Maybe. Who knows? Not Secretary Noem. The Court asked the Government: "[w]here in the [CAR] can the Court find the percentage of TPS holders represented in the overstay rates?" The response: "The [CAR] does not contain data that is this finely dissected." Which is to say, not enough people to even bother counting.
The equal protection analysis is where things get really pointed. Judge Reyes catalogs President Trump's statements about Haitians and other nonwhite immigrants:
President Trump has made—freely, at times even boastfully—several derogatory statements about Haitians and other nonwhite foreigners. To start, he has repeatedly invoked racist tropes of national purity, declaring that "illegal immigrants"—a category he wrongly assigns to Haitian TPS holders—are "poisoning the blood" of America. He has, Plaintiffs allege, complained that recently admitted nonwhite Africans would "never 'go back to their huts' in Africa." He has complained further that nonwhite immigration is an "invasion," creating a "dumping ground" that is "destroying our country." He has described immigrants as "not people," "snakes," and "garbage," who have "bad genes." He has also stated that he prefers immigrants from "nice"—predominantly white—countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark over immigrants from "shithole countries"
President Trump has referred to Haiti as a "shithole country," suggested Haitians "probably have AIDS," and complained that Haitian immigration is "like a death wish for our country." He has also promoted the false conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants were "eating the pets of the people" in Springfield, Ohio. Even after that (ridiculous) claim was debunked, he claimed they were eating "other things too that they're not supposed to be." About two weeks after the Termination, he again described Haiti as a "filthy, dirty, [and] disgusting" "shithole country." He stated: "I have also announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries." Then continued, "Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right? Why cannot we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few, let us have a few, from Denmark." It is not a coincidence that Haiti's population is ninety-five percent black while Norway's is over ninety percent white.
The ruling notes that Trump's statements came close in time to Noem's decisions, and that Noem herself has made her own views clear, as noted in the screenshot, calling Haitians "leeches, entitlement junkies, and foreign invaders" just three days after making the Termination decision.
And then we get to the conclusion. It's worth quoting at length because you really don't see this kind of language from the bench:
There is an old adage among lawyers. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. Secretary Noem, the record to-date shows, does not have the facts on her side—or at least has ignored them. Does not have the law on her side—or at least has ignored it. Having neither and bringing the adage into the 21st century, she pounds X (f/k/a Twitter).
And then the kicker:
Kristi Noem has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies, and any other inapt name she wants. Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the APA to apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program. The record to-date shows she has yet to do that.
These rulings represent something we've been watching develop for months now: federal judges completely abandoning the traditional deference typically afforded to government positions, because the government has made clear it doesn't deserve it. The DOJ's credibility has been in freefall, and judges are no longer pretending otherwise. They're reaching back to Franklin and Washington as genuine warnings about what happens when executive power operates unchecked by law or facts.
Some people will dismiss this as "activist judges." But what we're seeing is something different: judges trying to do their actual jobs—reviewing whether the government followed the law—and finding that the government isn't even pretending to follow it anymore.
The administration is ignoring statutory requirements entirely, fabricating rationales after the fact, and treating judicial review as an inconvenience to be steamrolled rather than a constitutional check to be respected. We're not talking about simple judicial disagreements of interpretation of the law. These opinions read more like desperate signals from the bench that something has gone very, very wrong.
I've seen some complaints—in particular about the first short ruling—that it doesn't read in a very judicial manner. The lack of citations is a bit startling, and probably bodes ill if the government appeals. But that's almost the point. When a judge includes a photo of a child in a Spiderman backpack, cites "Jesus wept," and closes with Ben Franklin's warning about keeping the republic—or when another judge spends 83 pages documenting that the Secretary of DHS ignored her own agencies, ignored the evidence, ignored the law, and instead "pounds X"—they're writing for more than an appeals court. They're writing for history. They're writing for the public. They're sick of the lies and the gaslighting, and the simple fascism of it all in a supposed constitutional democracy. And they want to make damn sure that someone, somewhere, is paying attention.
The SunFounder GalaxyRVR Mars Rover Kit is your gateway to hands-on learning on robotics, coding, and Mars-like adventures! Its durable aluminum frame and rocker-bogie suspension easily handle tough terrains, while smart sensors ensure smooth navigation. It's compatible with the Arduino UNO R3, runs on solar power, and includes real-time FPV with app-based control for day or night adventures. Complete with beginner-friendly tutorials and active support, this kit makes learning coding, electronics, and robotics fun and accessible. It's on sale for $110.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
The two murders by immigration officers during Trump's vengeful "surge" in Minneapolis, Minnesota have grabbed most of the headlines recently. And deservedly so. The violent rhetoric used by nearly every administration official — combined with a lack of training and the explicit understanding no one will be punished by Trump for whatever's done in Trump's name — has delivered a day-to-day purge of minorities that this government and its supporters continue to pretend is nothing more than good, solid (immigration) law enforcement.
But before those shootings turned the nation's attention to Minnesota, hundreds of federal officers had been turned loose in other "Democrat" states. Because officers were encouraged — by arrest quotas and the administration's portrayal of anyone from other countries as inherently dangerous — to succeed by any means necessary, they did… even if it meant filling people with bullet holes for being on the wrong side of Trump's version of history.
In January, two Venezuelans were shot by ICE officers. The DHS immediately claimed this was a good shoot, considering how potentially violent these recipients of bullets were.
Yesterday, two suspected Tren de Aragua gang associates—let loose on American streets by Joe Biden—weaponized their vehicle against Border Patrol in Portland. The agent took immediate action to defend himself and others, shooting them.
After fleeing, the suspects drove nearly five miles to an apartment complex and called emergency medical services. They were transported to separate hospitals. Luis David Nino-Moncada sustained an injury to the arm while Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras was hit in the chest. Nino-Moncada is now in FBI custody. These individuals are not married.
I've highlighted two things from this January DHS press release. Sure, it's all bullshit but these two sentences need to be called out.
First, just because someone managed to cross the border doesn't mean they were "let loose on American streets" by a presidential administration.
Second, what the fuck even is this? "These individuals are not married." Who gives a shit? What bearing does this have on anything? Or are we so far down the white Christian nationalist rabbit hole that simply co-habitating a moving vehicle is justification enough for being shot by federal officers?
Any normal administration would never have included those two sentences, even if it wanted to push the narrative that the people who were shot were dangerous enough to justify the violent reaction. Throwing this shit into the mix is just how the Trump administration does business: like two kids piggy-backed in a trenchcoat, pretending to be a full-grown adult.
And that's enough to let everyone know very little of what is being said is true. It's a dog whistle for racism, sexism, and making-a-bunch-of-shit-upism that is meant to appease the Bigot in Chief and make MAGA's collective panties so wet they should be asking FEMA for flood relief grants. (I'm paraphrasing Shoresy here.)
While that may look good on the permanent DHS press release record, it doesn't look nearly as bully-smart (I'm coining that) as the people spewing it thinks it does when it runs up against the part of the government that isn't so easily swayed by bigoted gibberish that's interspersed with partisan attacks and non sequiturs.
Now that these shootings are being handled in court, the narrative (and I'm being extremely gracious here in treating this froth as the equivalent of an actual narrative) is disintegrating. It turns out prosecutors and investigators can't actually back up these wild-ass DHS claims. Forced to rely on facts, the DOJ is finding out it doesn't have many to work with.
During the border patrol stop, the driver, Luis Niño-Moncada, "weaponized their vehicle against" officers, DHS said, prompting an agent "to defend himself and others" by shooting the occupants. Zambrano-Contreras was hit in the chest, Niño-Moncada was hit in the arm and both were hospitalized, then taken into federal custody, DHS noted. The agents were uninjured.
But court records obtained by the Guardian reveal a Department of Justice prosecutor later directly contradicted DHS's Tren de Aragua statements in court, telling a judge: "We're not suggesting … [Niño-Moncada] is a gang member." An FBI affidavit issued following the incident also suggests that in the previous shooting cited by DHS, Zambrano-Contreras was not a suspect, but rather a reported victim of a sexual assault and robbery. Neither Niño-Moncada or Zambrano-Contreras have prior criminal convictions, their lawyers have said.
This is just as sloppy as the quasi-gang database the DHS has been using as an excuse to send Venezuelans to El Salvador's CECOT hell hole. There's no investigation going on here. There's just the DHS claiming that any Venezuelan it shoots or otherwise brutalizes is probably a Tren de Aragua gang member.
No doubt some prosecutors are going to get shit-canned for daring to oppose the DHS's self-serving narrative in their sworn statements to judges. Given that the DOJ really can't afford to lose many more of these, one wonders why this administration can't simply provide a "no comment," rather than immediately push narratives that it has to know will be contradicted once the facts arrive at the scene.
I mean, just stating what happened in whatever exonerative form you want to use ("officer-involved shooting"), followed by the assertion that the shooting is currently under investigation would be far better than what this administration chooses to do EVERY CHANCE IT GETS.
Whatever dubious charm these statements might have held during Trump's blustery return to office has long worn off. I suspect even many of the MAGA faithful are getting a little tired of every incident being greeted by government statements that are long on hyperbole but short on facts. Sure, there are still a number of people so fully-cooked that they can't achieve an erection without being lied to for paragraphs at a time, but given this constant onslaught of pure garbage in response to government violence, I have to believe some of the people who very definitely voted for this are rolling their eyes every time DHS front-mouth Tricia McLaughlin opens her mouth.
Yesterday, 3 February, the Scottish parliament voted against moving forward with a bill that would have criminalised sex work.
The Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill was introduced by independent MSP Ash Regan. However, it was defeated at the very first hurdle, at which MSPs agree on the general points of a bill. It lost by 64 votes to 54.
The proposed laws would have closely followed the 'Nordic model' of criminalisation. The problem, however, is that the Nordic model is incredibly dangerous for sex workers themselves.
'Very significant' issuesAs the law stands in Scotland, both soliciting in public and keeping a brothel are illegal. However, it is currently legal to arrange to sell sex online, and to pay for sex.
The bill would have made it an offence to pay for sex in any way. Meanwhile, it would have decriminalised the act of selling sex, along with repealing historic convictions for solicitation. In this, it mirrors the Nordic model of sex work criminalisation, which specifically targets the buyers — not the sellers — of sex.
The SNP, Green and Lib Dems opposed the bill, whilst Labour and the Conservatives backed it. However, a small faction of SNP ministers rebelled to vote in support of the proposals.
Minister for Victims and Community Safety Siobhian Brown stated that there were "very significant" issues with the proposals that the Scottish parliament wouldn't have time to correct.
In particular, she highlighted that the online nature of the proposed offences would make it extremely difficult to enforce. She also pointed out that the bill could reduce sex workers' ability to gauge the risk that individual buyers pose, thereby increasing the threat of violence against them.
The Nordic model on sex work — doesn't workIn this, Brown has echoed the sentiments of Scottish sex workers themselves — always a good thing, given that the bill affects them most directly. Grassroots campaign group Sex Workers for Decrim opposed the bill from its inception, stating on social media that:
This will increase violence against us. It will increase our likelihood of being evicted, and it will further isolate us and drive us underground.
As the Canary's Rachel Charlton-Dailey explained, in areas where the Nordic Model has been adopted, violence against sex workers has increased at a horrific rate. In Northern Ireland, it increased by 225% from 2016 to 2018, according to the Irish Ministry for Justice.
During the Holyrood debate, Regan stated that:
This 'Unbuyable Bill' recognises prostitution for what it is - a system of exploitation and violence sustained by demand. It decriminalises those who are sold, recognising them as people constrained by vulnerability and not offenders.
And it places criminality where it has never properly sat in Scots law, with those who buy sexual access and those who profit from the sale of sexual access to human beings.
Now, don't get us wrong, we're completely here for the decriminalisation of sex work. However, if we're coming out swinging for people who are forced into an exploitative system, we have bad news for you about our entire economic system.
Now, this isn't to say that sex workers don't face risk and violence in their line of work. However, criminalisation — of buying or selling — forces that work underground, making it more difficult to report harm or organise for better conditions.
Sex work — 'overwhelming evidence'?After the defeat of her bill, MSP Regan said:
Today, Parliament chose cowardice over action - despite overwhelming evidence, survivor testimony, and support from police, prosecutors and international experts.
Inaction is not neutral. It is a decision, and it has consequences.
Of course, that overwhelming evidence doesn't include Amnesty International, the World Health Organisation, or the sex workers themselves who have clearly stated that the Nordic model harms the workers.
SNP MSP Michelle Thomson, who joined the rebellion in support of the bill, spoke to BBC Scotcast on the topic. She argued that her party members should have been allowed to choose which way to vote. Likewise, she also added that women should not be "traded as commodities", and asked SNPs to reject:
the entitlement of some men to demand the purchase of women.
This framing is itself deceptive. The opponents of sex workers frame the profession as solely female because it allows them to frame the issue as protecting 'helpless' women from violent men. Not only is this deeply paternalistic, it also ignores the fact that somewhere between 6 and 20% of sex workers are men.
And again, there's the fact that most of us trade our bodies as commodities.
The oppositionAcross the aisle, Lib Dem party leader Alex Cole-Hamilton took a pragmatic approach in opposing the bill:
We can't wish prostitution away and as it will forever exist we need to make sure it happens in the safest possible way.
Green MSP Maggie Chapman also spoke out against the bill, in favour of letting people decide what they do with their own bodies:
Where sex work happens between consenting adults, I believe the state should support people not penalise them for how they choose to live.
This, for us, gets to the heart of the matter. We're not interested in whether you think buying or selling sex is a moral failing — we're not bloody philosophers.
The debate around sex work foregrounds the fact that it is frequently coercive and exploitative. However, all work involves a degree of exploitation and coercion — you need food, clothes, somewhere to live, and you don't get a choice in the matter.
What's true is that most sex work, currently, carries some unique risks of both harm and exploitation. However, criminalisation only exacerbates these problems. Sex work is happening, it's not going away, and efforts to make it go away harm the workers — so the problem in front of us is making it as safe as humanly possible.
Making sex work as safe as possible for the workers themselves means the same as it does for all workers. It means unionisation and worker's rights, but those cannot happen without decriminalisation and destigmatisation. Any other option is sophistry.
Featured image via Red Umbrella Fund
On World Cancer Day, patients in Gaza face a double and merciless threat: cancer itself and a devastated healthcare system.
Thousands now face an uncertain future after hospitals were damaged and the only specialised cancer centre stopped operating. Border crossings remain closed, preventing patients from travelling for treatment.
Gaza's health situation is no longer a temporary crisis. It has become a daily tragedy.
Patients are trapped between severe physical pain and the absence of essential medicines. Hospitals lack early-diagnosis tools and proper monitoring, turning treatable cancers into life-threatening cases.
Gaza — the grim health realityThe Palestinian Ministry of Health, in a statement seen by Kanari, says around 11,000 cancer patients in Gaza are now deprived of specialised treatment and proper diagnosis. Conditions worsened after specialised hospitals were rendered inoperable and the Gaza Cancer Center was destroyed, pushing the health system close to total collapse.
More than 4,000 patients with referrals for treatment abroad have been waiting over two years for crossings to open. Their health continues to deteriorate while they wait.
A 64% shortage of cancer medicines, alongside the absence of MRI and mammography machines, has sharply increased delayed diagnoses and mortality risks.
Humanitarian and social impactThe cancer crisis in Gaza extends far beyond physical suffering.
Patients and families live under immense psychological pressure, caught between fear of death and the inability to access or afford treatment. Harsh living conditions intensify that burden. The wider community also suffers. Cancers easily treatable elsewhere become prolonged battles in Gaza, draining families emotionally and financially.
International silence deepens patients' sense of abandonment, worsening an already profound humanitarian trauma.
Urgent international appealThe Palestinian Ministry of Health has called for immediate international action to allow patients to travel for treatment, ensure the entry of vital medicines, and rebuild cancer care facilities.
The ministry warned that continued inaction amounts to a slow death sentence for thousands, cautioning that Gaza faces an unprecedented health and humanitarian catastrophe unless urgent intervention occurs.
Featured image via Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor
By Alaa Shamali
Israel is always the victim — in its own eyes. That applies to the groups that support it too, like the avowedly Zionist 'Board of Deputies' (BOD). So, naturally, as far as the BOD is concerned today's exoneration by a jury of six anti-genocide Palestine Action activists is not justice. It's a slight to the BOD and other Israel supporters.
It's 'antisemitism', in other words.
In a statement, the BOD described the verdicts as "troubling". It then said that "respect [for] the judicial process" is "important". And it then made clear that it has no respect for the judicial process by implying the acquittals don't mean, under British law, that the accused are innocent of the serious charges against them. Therefore they are still guilty and deserving of punishment they should not be "able to evade".
Evade by means of being found not guilty. The fiends.
BOD releases a statement after Palestine Action activists' acquittalThis was the BOD's nonsense in full:
04.02.2026
We are concerned by the troubling verdicts acquitting members of Palestine Action, an organisation that has been proscribed as a terrorist group, and whose activities have included targeting businesses linked to the Jewish community in London and Manchester.
While it is important to respect the integrity of the judicial process, there is a serious danger of perverse justifications being used as a shield for criminality. It cannot be the case that those who commit serious criminal acts, including violent assaults, are able to evade the consequences of their actions.
We look to the Government to provide clear direction in tackling hate crime and extremist violence. This incident underlines the urgency of the Home Office's current review into public order and hate crime legislation.
We are grateful to the officers who attended the scene and the CPS for prosecuting this case. We urge the prosecution to proceed with a retrial in respect of those charges where the jury was unable to reach a verdict, particularly given the severity of the injury suffered by Police Sergeant Evans.
To be clear: none of the defendants has been found to have injured police sergeant Evans.
And, since it's certain neither the BOD nor the UK corporate media are ever going to refer to it, video evidence proved that police and security guards lied about pretty much everything that happened. And the accusers were not even able to come up with convincing lies even though the police left the Israeli arms-maker in charge of the video evidence for a whole year.
Scandalously, despite the verdicts, the CPS has demanded that the humanitarian defendants — after a year and a half as political prisoners — must not simply walk free. Five of them have been put back on bail — and one, Sam Corner, has been denied bail and put back in prison.
Of course we must never forget that Israel and its lobby are always the victim. Even when they're slaughtering innocent Palestinians and making up bollocks in court to imprison people trying to stop them.
Featured image via FiltonActionists
By Skwawkbox
