SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
Lethal Petty Bigots 'R Us
As the country tumbles into fascism, we are consoled by tee vee host, sexual predator, inept alcoholic, definitely-not-gay serious person and Defense Secretary Whisky Pete Hegseth taking on the big issues of the day and hewing to his obsession with "warrior ethos" by ordering the Navy to strip the name of gay rights icon Harvey Milk from a U.S. Navy Ship - with a pointed, delectable twist of performative cruelty, during Pride Month yet. Whew: One less gay ship to worry about.
According to reports from Military.com and CBS, the scandal-plagued, staggeringly petty leader of the world's largest military force sent a memo to Navy Secretary John Phelan, the official with actual ship-naming power, ordering him to rename the oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk, a civilian-crewed ship typically used for transport and resupply vs. a military-crewed USS, United States Ship. In a statement, Phelan said Hegseth "is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos," never mind that five-time-deferred Private Bonespurs obviously knows zilch about the "warrior culture" except in his fever dreams. But sure: Go lethality!
It turns out Harvey Milk was far more a warrior than either TACO Man or Pete Kegsbreath. Part of a family with a history of naval service, Harvey served in the Korean War from 1951 to 1955 as a diving officer on a submarine rescue ship; he was forced to resign and accept an “other than honorable” discharge due to his homosexuality. He continued battling bigotry for the rest of his life: He became one of the country's first openly gay elected officials when he won a seat on San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in 1977, and had become an icon of the gay rights movement before he was assassinated at 48 after years of facing off against threats. "If a bullet should enter my brain," he once said, "let that bullet destroy every closet door.”
In 2009, President Obama posthumously awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 2016, after a group of LGBTQ veterans spent years lobbying for it, the USNS Harvey Milk was christened; Obama's Navy Secretary Ray Mabus called the action not just the honoring of a veteran and gay hero but "the righting of a wrong." Harvey's ship is part of a class of oilers recognizing the late "Conscience of Congress" John Lewis, whose name is on the first one; they all aim to honor "great people that represented the best ideals of our country," now threatened:- RFK, Earl Warren, Sojourner Truth. Recommended future ones: Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Tubman, Dolores Huerta, Lucy Stone, Cesar Chavez and Medgar Evers.
Any of these righteous warriors could be targeted next - despite naval tradition that renaming brings bad luck - by a white nationalist man-child intent on foisting MAGA's bigotry on us all by eliminating the evils of diversity, aka "that DEI woke shit," from pulling books about equality off military shelves to trashing/firing women officers to restoring Confederate names to military bases 'cause they were cancelled by libs but wait now he's cancelling gay icons, who are evidently worse. One critic calls Hegseth's "rampage" to eliminate anyone from U.S. history who is not a heterosexual White man "an affront to the LGBTQ community and decency itself...There have been gay members of the military since there was the first military, and to ignore or erase that is just bigoted and small-minded."
Stuart Milk, Harvey's nephew and chair of the Harvey Milk Foundation, decries the loss to members of the military of "a reminder that no barriers of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity (will) restrain their human spirit.” Nancy Pelosi calls the offense to "our Harvey" a "shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American dream...His spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the ‘warrior’ ethos...It is a surrender of a fundamental American value: to honor the legacy of those who worked to build a better country.” It's also childish, mean and impossibly dumb: Doesn't Mr. Combat Ready With the Make-Up Studio have anything more important to do than change the names of boats, like maybe stop all those $40 million planes from falling into the ocean?
On Reddit, people raged against Hegseth's hateful, homophobic, obsessive, manly-man, "bigoted punk" fascism: "What an asshole. What a snowflake. What a fucking thin-skinned loser. Ain't no hate quite like Christian love. Grandstanding and performative bullshit. History will not be kind to you." Projection is mulled: "At some point it's just gay to think about gay stuff all the time. Pete’s totally not gay." Questions abound: "Will Harvey turn other boats gay? Are ships manufactured gay out of the factory? Or do they choose to be gay after experimenting in ship college?" New names are offered: USS Jack Daniels, Tom of Finland, Stonewall Inn. Also: "Finally our long national nightmare is over" and, "What a fearless warfighter - he really showed that warship who's boss." And on our current, tawdry, spirit-draining timeline, "Too much, too stupid."
Jun 04, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Youth Sue Over Trump Executive Orders That 'Escalate' Climate Crisis
Nearly two dozen American children and young adults sued U.S. President Donald Trump, leaders in his administration, and various agencies in federal court on Thursday over a trio of executive orders they argue "escalate" the climate emergency that imperils their futures.
Lighthiser v. Trump, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, challenges executive orders (EOs) 14156, 14154, and 14261—which, respectively, declared a "national energy emergency," directed agencies to "unleash" American energy by accelerating fossil fuel development, and called for boosting the country's coal industry.
"Trump's fossil fuel orders are a death sentence for my generation," said named plaintiff Eva Lighthiser in a statement. "I'm not suing because I want to—I'm suing because I have to. My health, my future, and my right to speak the truth are all on the line. He's waging war on us with fossil fuels as his weapon, and we're fighting back with the Constitution."
Specifically, the complaint argues that "the EOs violate the Fifth Amendment substantive due process clause on their face by depriving plaintiffs of their fundamental rights to life and liberty." The filing also states that the orders are ultra vires—meaning they go beyond Trump's presidential authority "in assuming powers reserved to and exercised by Congress through Article I" of the U.S. Constitution.
"From day one of the current administration, President Trump has issued directives to increase fossil fuel use and production, and block an energy transition to wind, solar, battery storage, energy efficiency, and electric vehicles," the complaint reads. "President Trump's EOs falsely claim an energy emergency, while the true emergency is that fossil fuel pollution is destroying the foundation of plaintiffs' lives."
"These unconstitutional directives have the immediate effect of (a) slowing the buildout of U.S. energy infrastructure that eliminates planet-heating fossil fuel greenhouse gas pollution... and (b) increasing the use of fossil fuels that pollute the air, water, lands, and climate on which plaintiffs' lives depend," the filing stresses.
🚨 Youth from Montana and four other states are suing the Trump administration for violating their constitutional rights with executive orders that fast-track fossil fuel projects, worsen the climate crisis, and suppress climate science. PR: bit.ly/youthsuetrump-pr #YouthvGov
[image or embed]
— Our Children’s Trust (@youthvgov.bsky.social) May 29, 2025 at 10:11 AM
The youth are asking the district court to declare Trump's EOs and related executive actions "unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and invalid," and to issue a permanent injunction blocking the long list of defendants from implementing or enforcing them.
Lighthiser is a 19-year-old from Livingston, Montana. She and 24-year-old Rikki Held are among 10 of 22 plaintiffs in this case who were also part of Held v. State of Montana, in which a judge in 2023 agreed with young residents who argued that Montana violated their state constitutional rights by promoting fossil fuel extraction. The Montana Supreme Court upheld that decision last December.
Both groups of young plaintiffs are represented by Our Children's Trust, known for several youth climate lawsuits, including Juliana v. United States, the landmark constitutional case that the U.S. Supreme Court ended in March.
Lead attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust said Thursday that "these executive orders are an overt abuse of power. The president is knowingly putting young people's lives in danger to serve fossil fuel interests, while silencing scientists and defying laws passed by Congress."
"These young plaintiffs refuse to be collateral damage in a fossil fuel war on their future," Olson continued. "They are demanding accountability where it still matters—in a court of law. The executive branch is not above the Constitution, and these young people are here to prove it."
For Lighthiser v. Trump, Our Children's Trust has partnered with Gregory Law Group, McGarvey Law, and Public Justice.
"The government's actions irreparably harm our nation's most important asset: our children," said Dan Snyder, director of the Environmental Enforcement Project for Public Justice. "The science is irrefutable that humans and their pollution are causing climate change, and that a changing climate will result in a growing list of injuries that are uniquely felt by America's youngest population."
"Our children enjoy the same constitutional rights to life and liberty as adults, yet have been tasked with shouldering the impact of a destabilized climate system without ever having a say in the matter," he added. "President Trump's executive orders are unlawful and intolerable, and these youth plaintiffs shall put an end to it."
May 29, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Pentagon and Immigration Spending in GOP Bill Could Instead Protect Medicaid Coverage
With the House GOP's Medicaid-slashing reconciliation bill now headed to the Republican-controlled Senate, a trio of groups on Thursday highlighted that the tens of billions the reconciliation legislation allocates for the Pentagon and the Trump administration's immigration crackdown efforts could instead be used to protect and expand health insurance access for millions.
House Republicans' reconciliation bill includes $163 billion for the Pentagon and for mass deportation and border-related expenses that U.S. President Donald Trump has requested be allocated in fiscal year 2026. Those dollars could instead go toward providing 31 million adults with Medicaid, or providing 71 million people with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, according to a report titled Trading Life for Death: What the Reconciliation Bill Puts at Stake in Your State.
The report is a joint publication from the progressive watchdog Public Citizen, the progressive policy research organization the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), and the National Priorities Project (NPP), which is a federal budget research organization and a project of IPS.
In a statement on Thursday, Lindsay Koshgarian, program director at NPP and one of the authors of the report, framed the reconciliation package as a "direct redistribution of resources from struggling Americans to the Pentagon and militarization."
The reconciliation bill, which passed 215-214 in the House of Representatives on Thursday, includes tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy that would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt, a roll back in clean energy tax credits, sweeping cuts to Medicaid and SNAP to the tune of nearly $1 trillion, and an increase in the maximum payment available through the child tax credit until 2028—though the bill is designed so that it would block an estimated 4.5 million children from accessing the credit, according to the Center for Migration Studies.
Under the legislation, an estimated 8.6 million people would lose Medicaid coverage over the next 10 years, according to a May 11 analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 11 million people would be at risk of losing at least some of their food assistance under the changes to SNAP.
Millions more could lose their healthcare due to Obamacare decisions/provisions.
Per the report, the militarized spending increases for 2026 would more than enough to fund Medicaid for the millions who are at risk of losing their health insurance under the bill, and the millions at risk of losing their SNAP benefits.
In addition to highlighting that the bill includes a huge cash injection for the U.S. Department of Defense, the report argues the Pentagon does not need more money. "The United States is already the world's largest military spender, allocating more taxpayer dollars to the Pentagon than the next nine countries combined," according to the report, which also notes that the department has never passed an audit.
The three groups also quantify the tradeoffs between defense spending and healthcare at a more granular level.
For example, the bill includes a $25 billion initial investment in Trump's "Golden Dome" project, a multilayered defense system that Trump has said will be capable of "intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space," according to CBS News.
In just one congressional district, Tennessee's 2nd District, taxpayer funds going toward the investment in the Golden Dome could instead be used to put 12,310 people on Medicaid, according to the report. In Texas' 21st District, taxpayers' funds redirected to support the Golden Dome could provide Medicaid to 13,589 people.
"If implemented, this budget would rip the rug out from under everyday Americans relying on Medicaid and SNAP to survive, just to further enrich Pentagon contractors," said Savannah Wooten, People Over Pentagon advocate at Public Citizen and report co-author, in a statement on Thursday. "Stealing money away from life-sustaining programs to fund war, weapons, and death should be an immediate nonstarter for every member of Congress."
May 23, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Imperiling Lives Worldwide, White House Asks Congress to Claw Back Global Health Funding
The Trump White House on Tuesday formally asked Congress to rescind over $9 billion in approved spending, taking aim at lifesaving foreign aid programs as well as funding for U.S. public broadcasting outlets targeted by the president.
The $9.4 billion rescission request, expected to be the first of several, is laid out in a memo authored by Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, who wrote that the clawback "would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests, such as funding the World Health Organization, LGBTQI+ activities, 'equity' programs, radical Green New Deal-type policies, and color revolutions in hostile places around the world."
The White House request specifically urges Congress to rescind hundreds of millions of dollars from U.S. contributions to United Nations peacekeeping; $500 million from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) global health programs that fund "activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/AIDS, and infectious diseases"; $800 million from Migration and Refugee Assistance; and $125 million from the Clean Technology Fund.
The request would also eliminate U.S. contributions to the U.N. Children's Fund.
If enacted, the rescissions would compound the damage already done by the Trump administration's lawless assault on USAID, an attack that has had devastating impacts around the world.
Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, said Tuesday that "this attempt to claw back billions of dollars of federal funding already approved by Congress, including lifesaving foreign aid, is yet another deadly setback for communities now left without food, clean water, healthcare, and more."
"The global aid system is already overstretched as need continues to rise," said Maxman. "We are already seeing the life and death impacts of foreign assistance cuts—championed by a handful of the world’s richest people—on women, children, and communities already enduring poverty, hunger, conflict, and disaster."
"We call on Congress to vote 'no' on this reckless rescissions package and uphold longstanding bipartisan commitment to these programs that save untold lives and make the world a better place for us all," Maxman added.
The humanitarian alliance InterAction warned that "these cuts would condemn countless vulnerable women, children, and families to preventable suffering and death—and already have."
"The closing of clinics in South Sudan caused at least five children with cholera to die while trying to access treatment," the alliance said. "In the Democratic Republic of Congo, entire communities were cut off from water, food, and healthcare. Stories like these continue to emerge from across the globe."
"Trump's cuts will save no more than a rounding error, but cost America its credibility, and hundreds of thousands of people their very lives."
The White House package also demands that Congress rescind all $535 million appropriated for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which would cement President Donald Trump's broadside against NPR and PBS. Both outlets are suing the president over his attempt to cut off their federal funding.
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the new request "is just the beginning," warning that "next time, it might be funding for cancer research or to help working families afford their energy bills this summer."
"After linking arms with Elon Musk to take a chainsaw to key programs the American people count on, President Trump is now asking Republicans in Congress to rubberstamp his DOGE cuts and codify them into law," said Murray. "In asking Congress to rescind some of the funding he has been illegally blocking for months, Trump is conceding what we've known all along: that Congress—not the president—must approve the rescission or withholding of investments that were signed into law."
Because the rescission process is not subject to the 60-vote Senate filibuster, congressional Republicans can approve the White House's demands without any Democratic support. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pledged to "bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible."
Peter Maybarduk, Access to Medicines director at Public Citizen, said in a statement Tuesday that the White House proposal marks "a low moment for our country."
"This president, having unconstitutionally obliterated foreign aid, is now asking members of Congress to bless the power he illegally took from them and the destruction he has wrought with it," said Maybarduk. "Trump's cuts will save no more than a rounding error, but cost America its credibility, and hundreds of thousands of people their very lives."
Jun 04, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Trump Continues Far-Right 'Crusade Against Our Courts' With Judicial Slate
U.S. President Donald Trump worked to force the federal judiciary to the far right with 234 confirmed nominees during his previous term, and he continued that mission on Wednesday, when the first slate of his second-term selections attended a Senate hearing.
Trump has announced 11 nominees, but only Whitney Hermandorfer, his pick to serve on the Cincinnati, Ohio-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and four candidates to be district court judges in Missouri—Zachary Bluestone, Joshua Divine, Maria Lanahan, and Cristian Stevens—came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which considers them before a full floor vote.
Just hours before the hearing began, Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the advocacy group Demand Justice, wrote for Salon that "Trump's judicial nominees are key to the far right's crusade against our courts."
"If confirmed, these nominees would be expected to not only look the other way as the building blocks of America's democracy are gutted, but to pave the way for Trump's radical agenda—gutting reproductive freedoms and allowing the administration to take healthcare away from millions," she warned. "Many of them have histories of defending anti-choice legislation and other radical policies championed by Trump and his MAGA allies in Congress."
"Trump is picking up where he left off in his first term by using judicial nominees to advance an extreme agenda that undermines Americans' fundamental freedoms."
Buchanan wasn't alone in sounding the alarm about threats to healthcare. In anticipation of the hearing, the watchdog Accountable.US published a report detailing how "Trump's first judicial picks have a dangerous record of undermining fundamental freedoms, with a number of them who have a record of directly targeting reproductive rights."
Accountable.US cited Hermandorfer defending Tennessee's near-total ban on abortion as director of strategic litigation for the state attorney general's office, as well as Divine, Missouri's solicitor general, and his deputy, Lanahan, supporting extreme anti-choice efforts in their state.
"Trump is picking up where he left off in his first term by using judicial nominees to advance an extreme agenda that undermines Americans' fundamental freedoms," said Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone. "But this time, Trump is selecting nominees with personal allegiances to the president, who will go even further in using the bench to cut off Americans' rights. Senators should know a vote to confirm Trump's judicial nominees is a vote to radically undermine reproductive freedom."
Reproductive rights aren't the only topical concern. Buchanan noted that "some of the nominees in this first slate have also supported Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, which has been widely viewed as unconstitutional. And in true loyalist fashion, one worked to defend Trump by seeking to interfere in New York's attempt to hold Trump accountable for state crimes."
The nominee who got involved in the New York case is Divine, who is also under fire for targeting the Biden administration's attempt to provide student debt relief. Student Borrower Protection Center legal director Winston Berkman-Breen said Wednesday that the nominee "built his political brand off the suffering of tens of millions of student loan borrowers across this country, and now the Trump administration is rewarding him with a position that will let him enshrine his personal ideologies into law."
"Time and time again in his lawsuits challenging legal student loan payment and relief programs, Divine took extreme positions at odds with traditional judicial interpretations related to injury, standing, and venue," Berkman-Breen pointed out. "Because of Divine, millions of student loan borrowers remain buried in crushing debt."
"Divine's actions exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy and were a direct affront to judicial procedure," he added. "Americans deserve a judge who will review the facts of the case before them and apply the law under the Constitution and as passed by Congress—not an ideologue who will manipulate those laws to obtain the outcome he prefers."
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 240 national organizations, similarly asserted in a Tuesday letter that "at a time when so many of our fundamental civil rights are under attack, we need to trust that our judges will impartially and fairly rule on cases without bias or animus."
The coalition specifically took aim at Trump's 6th Circuit nominee, writing that "unfortunately, a careful review of Ms. Hermandorfer’s record shows a demonstrated hostility towards our civil and human rights that is disqualifying for a judicial nominee. We strongly urge the Senate to oppose her nomination."
Earthjustice Action legislative director of the Access to Justice Program Coby Dolan stressed in a Wednesday statement that "we need principled judges who will uphold the law and serve as a bulwark against this administration's brazen attacks on the rule of law and our environment."
"It is the Senate's constitutional obligation to rigorously scrutinize these nominees, asking tough questions to determine whether they are impartial, believe in the government's ability to tackle our most pressing issues, and understand the difference between facts and politics," Dolan added. "We need oversight, not rubber stamps."
The Senate is controlled by the GOP, but only narrowly. Buchanan argued that "given what we are seeing out of the administration, there is no acceptable reason for Senate Democrats to assist their Republican colleagues in pushing through Trump's judicial nominees."
'Some Senate Dems voiced regret for supporting Trump’s cabinet nominees who were seen as mainstream but went full MAGA once confirmed Senators should not set themselves up for the same feelings of shame in voting for Trump's nominees for lifetime appointments' mmmhmm www.salon.com/2025/06/04/t...
[image or embed]
— Barred and Boujee and NEWLYWED aka Madiba Dennie (@audrelawdamercy.bsky.social) June 4, 2025 at 1:19 PM
The committee's ranking member, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Wednesday pointed to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent decision to limit the American Bar Association's (ABA) access to information about judicial nominees as proof that "the Trump administration is clearly just trying to cover for unqualified and extreme nominees."
Timereported last week that Bondi's "move against the ABA came a day after Trump announced six new judicial nominees, which included top Justice Department official Emil Bove being put forward to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit."
The other five newly announced nominees—Ed Artau, Kyle Dudek, Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, John Guard, and Jordan E. Pratt—are on track to serve as district judges in Florida.
Jun 04, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Ominous Warning From Israel as Freedom Flotilla Approaches Gaza
Palestinian rights advocates aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla issued a distress signal Wednesday, saying drones "repeatedly" hovered over the ship as it carried humanitarian aid for starving people in Gaza.
The distress call from the Freedom Flotilla Coalition came as a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces suggested the IDF may confront the vessel, called the Madleen, as it approaches Gaza with food, baby formula, and medicines.
"For this case as well, we are prepared," said Brigadier General Effie Edfrin. "We have gained experience in recent years."
The ominous remark brought to mind the IDF's killing of nine Turkish people who were on a flotilla headed for Gaza in 2010, aiming to break Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid in the enclave.
Another boat, the Conscience, was struck by drones in early May.
The Madleen had traveled 381 nautical miles since leaving Sicily over the weekend, and has drawn international attention—including a threat from U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.)—partially because climate activist Greta Thunberg is aboard the vessel.
"No matter how dangerous this mission is, it is nowhere near as dangerous as the silence of the entire world."
"We are doing this because no matter what odds we are against, we have to keep trying, because the moment we stop trying is when we lose our humanity," Thunberg told reporters before departing. "No matter how dangerous this mission is, it is nowhere near as dangerous as the silence of the entire world."
Israel imposed a total blockade on humanitarian aid in March just before ending a temporary cease-fire; it began letting in a tiny amount of relief in May under international pressure—but only a fraction of the 500 aid trucks that entered the enclave on a daily basis have been permitted into Gaza in recent weeks.
In the past week, the IDF has also killed dozens of Palestinians and injured hundreds as they approached food distribution hubs set up by the Israel- and U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
The 80-day total blockade pushed the entire population of Gaza closer to famine, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification.
United Nations experts on Monday called on Israel not to interfere with the Madleen.
"Aid is desperately needed for the people of Gaza to forestall annihilation, and this initiative is a symbolic and powerful effort to deliver it. Israel should remember that the world is watching closely and refrain from any act of hostility against the Freedom Flotilla Coalition and its passengers," the experts said.
"The people of Gaza have the right to receive aid through their own territorial waters even under occupation, and the coalition ship has the right to free passage in international waters to reach the people of Gaza," they added. “Israel must not interfere with its freedom of navigation, long recognized under international law."
Jun 04, 2025
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
Professors Express Outrage Over UMich's Use of Investigators to Surveil Gaza Student Protestors
"My university has no business doing this," wrote one professor at the University of Michigan Law School.
Jun 06, 2025
Multiple professors expressed outrage on Friday in response to reporting from The Guardian, which found that the University of Michigan is making use of undercover investigators to keep tabs on pro-Palestinian groups on campus.
"My university has no business doing this. I love the University of Michigan, and this is not how we should operate," said University of Michigan Law School professor Sam Bagenstos, writing from his personal Bluesky account.
The Guardian spoke to several unnamed students who said that they have been followed, recorded, or eavesdropped on private investigators. Students who spoke to the outlet tracked dozens of investigators who have trailed them around campus.
Students say they have confronted the investigators, and one student captured on video multiple interactions with a man who the student says has been following him. In one video, the man falsely accuses the student of attempting to rob him, and in another the man appears to fake being disabled.
When contacted by the outlet, the University of Michigan did not deny the surveillance, which The Guardian reported appears to be largely an intimidation tactic. The school said it had not received any complaints about the investigators.
"Any security measures in place are solely focused on maintaining a safe and secure campus environment and are never directed at individuals or groups based on their beliefs or affiliations," a spokesperson for the school said in an email.
One student who says she's been regularly followed is Katrina Keating, a student who is a part of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, which is a local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. Keating told The Guardian that the surveillance has made her feel "on edge." Keating said she was first followed in November.
According to The Guardian, the investigators appear to work for the private security group City Shield. The university's governing body, the board of regents, paid at least $800,000 to City Shield's parent company from June 2023 to September 2024.
"Disgusting. University of Michigan pays around $800,000 to a private security firm to surveil pro-Palestinian students," wrote Marc Owen Jones, an associate professor at Northwestern University in Qatar.
Adil Haque, a professor at Rutgers Law School, wrote: "Outrageous. This is a public university."
Chris Geraldi, a journalist with New York Focus, wrote that "every paragraph of this story is bonkers."
In April, with the blessing of Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, law enforcement officers raided the homes of multiple student organizers connected to Palestine solidarity protests at the University of Michigan.
Students who spoke to The Guardian said the surveillance has increased in the wake of those raids.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite Trump-Musk Feud, CO2 Milestone Is the 'Important News of the Day'
Scientists said that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations peaked above 430 parts per million for the first time in perhaps 30 million years.
Jun 06, 2025
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere peaked above 430 parts per million in 2025—the highest it has been in millions of years—according to data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego on Thursday.
The news was overshadowed by the explosive feud between U.S. President Donald Trump and his erstwhile backer Elon Musk, but climate activist Bill McKibben argued that it was ultimately more consequential.
"In the long run, this is actually going to be the important news of the day—CO2 in the atmosphere passes another grim milestone," McKibben wrote on social media.
In the long run, this is actually going to be the important news of the day--co2 in the atmosphere passes another grim milestone
[image or embed]
— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben.bsky.social) June 5, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Carbon dioxide has been accumulating in the atmosphere due primarily to the human burning of fossil fuels, as well as by the clearing of forests and other natural carbon sinks. There, it acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat from the Earth, and is the primary gas responsible for the rise of global temperatures by approximately 1.1°C from the 1850 -1900 average. This warming has already had a host of dramatic impacts, from extreme weather events to sea-level rise to polar ice melt, and scientists warn these impacts will only accelerate under current energy policies, which put the world on track for around 3°C of warming by 2100.
The last time that atmospheric CO2 concentrations topped 430 ppm was most likely more than 30 million years ago, Ralph Keeling, who directs the Scripps CO2 Program, toldNBC News.
"It's changing so fast," he said. "If humans had evolved in such a high-CO2 world, there would probably be places where we wouldn't be living now. We probably could have adapted to such a world, but we built our society and a civilization around yesterday's climate."
"While largely symbolic, passing 430 ppm should be a wake-up call."
Scripps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both measure carbon dioxide levels from NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where Charles Keeling began taking measurements in 1958. As CO2 levels rise over time, they also follow a seasonal cycle—peaking in May before falling in the Northern Hemisphere summer and rising again in the fall.
This May, Scripps Oceanography calculated an average of 430.2 ppm for 2025, which is 3.5 ppm over the average for May 2024. NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory, meanwhile, calculated a monthly average of 430.5 ppm, a 3.6 ppm jump from the year before and the second-steepest yearly climb since 1958.
"Another year, another record," Keeling said in a statement. "It's sad."
The news comes two months after Mauna Loa daily measurements surpassed 430 ppm for the first time in March, which Plymouth Marine Laboratory professor Helen Findlay called "extremely disappointing and worrying."
"While largely symbolic, passing 430 ppm should be a wake-up call, especially given the accelerated response we are seeing of glaciers and ice sheets to current warming," Dr. James Kirkham, chief scientist of the Ambition on Melting Ice coalition of governments, said at the time.
"This upward trajectory is a direct result of continued fossil fuel use, likely exacerbated by emissions from extreme wildfires last year, methane leaks from fossil fuel extraction and possibly greater permafrost emissions, alongside decreased ability of very warm oceans to absorb CO2," Kirkham said.
The monthly record also comes a little more than a week after a United Nations report warned that there was a small chance global temperatures could surpass 2°C in at least 1 of the next 5 years, only a decade after world leaders pledged in the Paris agreement to keep global temperatures "well-below" that level.
"Carbon emissions are still rising, and the atmosphere is going to keep heating further until greenhouse gas concentrations stabilize," Matt Kean, who chairs Australia's Climate Change Authority, wrote in response to the Scripps and NOAA figures. "What sort of climate do we want to leave our children and those who come after them?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Trump Deportation Attempt, Migrants and ICE Agents Stranded in Shipping Container in Djibouti
"This is a situation the government both created and can remedy if it so chooses," said a lawyer for the migrants.
Jun 06, 2025
The Trump administration could have sent eight migrants with deportation orders and the immigration agents who were escorting them to a facility in the U.S. after a federal judge recently barred officials from deporting them to war-torn South Sudan, where they could face persecution or torture.
Instead the administration sent them to U.S. Naval Base Camp Lemonnier in the East African country of Djibouti, where a court filing on Thursday said they face illness, the threat of rocket fire from nearby Yemen, temperatures that soar past 100°F daily, and rancid smoke from nearby burn pits where human waste and trash are incinerated.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, blamed U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy for "stranding" the 13 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and eight detainees at the naval base, where they have been housed since late May in a metal shipping container converted into a conference room with just six bunk beds.
The administration has frequently attacked judges for issuing rulings that have interfered with President Donald Trump's ability to carry out his anti-immigration agenda.
But Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, pointed to court transcripts that showed the Trump administration had requested the migrants and agents be sent to Camp Lemonnier.
"No one asked them to do and no court order forces them to do it," said Reichlin-Melnick Thursday.
In a court transcript, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told Murphy that "bringing them back would be a much broader remedy than necessary" and suggested the detainees could have a "reasonable fear interview where they are" in Djibouti to determine if they had a credible fear of persecution or torture if they were deported. Murphy had instructed officials to arrange reasonable fear interviews when he ruled in May that they could not be sent to South Sudan.
"The judge did NOT require that anyone be 'stranded' anywhere," said Reichlin-Melnick. "In fact, it was the Trump administration that asked the judge for permission to hold the men in Djibouti! ICE could literally bring the men to any other U.S. base (or back to the U.S.) at any time!"
Murphy's ruling in May interrupted a deportation flight carrying the migrants—who have been convicted of crimes and are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Vietnam—to South Sudan.
The judge said the flight violated his previous order from April 18, which prohibited the administration from sending immigrants to third countries without providing them a chance to request humanitarian protections. That ruling was underpinned by the Convention Against Torture, which bars governments from deporting people to countries where they could be face torture.
"The judge gave the government a choice as to how to remedy the government's violation of the court's order—either return them and comply with the order in the United States or comply with the order overseas," Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the immigrants, toldThe Intercept. "The government opted to comply overseas after telling the court that they had the ability to do so. This is a situation the government both created and can remedy if it so chooses."
The court filing on Thursday by Mellissa Harper of the Office of Refugee Resettlement described how within 72 hours of arriving at the makeshift detention facility in Djibouti, the agents and migrants began to suffer from symptoms for bacterial respiratory infections, including "coughing, difficulty breathing, fever, and achy joints."
The filing explained that they are unable to get tested to determine what the illness is, and there is only a small supply of inhalers, Tylenol, eye drops, and nasal spray to treat the symptoms.
Based on what was described, Politico's Kyle Cheney asked: "Why is the Trump administration forcing them to stay there?"
"ICE's claims of difficulties here are ENTIRELY self-inflicted," said Reichlin-Melnick. "THEY asked the judge for permission to hold the men in Djibouti. The plaintiffs wanted the men brought back here. I have sympathy for the low-level officers stuck there, but it's ALL their bosses' fault."
The administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay Murphy's order requiring screenings for the migrants, claiming that ruling violated officials' authority to deport immigrants to third countries if their home countries won't take them back.
But in the case of at least one of the migrants, Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, the government of his home country of Mexico was not informed that he had been sent to Djibouti.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum suggested last month that Gutierrez could be repatriated if U.S. followed protocols to send him back to Mexico.
Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director for Detention Watch Network, toldNewsweek that the administration's insistence on detaining the migrants in a shipping container at Camp Lemonniere is "the latest move in Trump's shocking expansion of third country deportations."
"By expelling people out of sight and out of mind to remote prisons and war-torn, unstable countries," said Ghandehari, "the Trump regime is attempting to normalize the offshoring of immigration detention and third country deportations as a new and expanded model of incarceration and deportation."
Ghandehari added that "the use of shipping containers to detain people is heinous and enraging—and coupled with the extreme heat, disease, and threats of rocket attacks in Djibouti, can be deadly."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire