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
michigan
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
Facing 'Dangerous Attacks on Care' From GOP, At Least 20 Planned Parenthood Clinics Close
"We have been fighting to hold together an unsustainable infrastructure as the landscape shifts around us and an onslaught of attacks continues," said the head of Planned Parenthood North Central States.
Jun 02, 2025
On the heels of Planned Parenthood announcing clinic closures in the Midwest last month, The Guardianpublished a Monday analysis showing that the reproductive healthcare provider has closed or disclosed plans to shutter at least 20 locations across seven states since the beginning of the year "amid immense financial and political turbulence."
"The Planned Parenthood network, which operates nearly 600 clinics through a web of independent regional affiliates and is overseen by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is facing a number of threats from the Trump administration," the newspaper reported, detailing closures in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Utah, and Vermont.
In a May statement, Planned Parenthood North Central States (PPNCS) detailed cost-saving closures, consolidation, and layoffs impacting eight health centers in Iowa and Minnesota, and stressed that "dangerous attacks on care continue."
"My heart hurts as we announce the closure of health centers and the departure of trusted and talented colleagues, but our patients come first—always," said Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of PPNCS. "We have been fighting to hold together an unsustainable infrastructure as the landscape shifts around us and an onslaught of attacks continues."
Since the U.S. Supreme Court empowered abortion opponents by reversing Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022, those attacks have included the freezing of Title X funds and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voting last month to advance a reconciliation package that would defund Planned Parenthood.
In response to the House's May vote, Jessica Barquist, Kayla Montgomery, and Lisa Margulies, vice presidents of public affairs at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE), said, "To be clear, 'defunding' Planned Parenthood and taking away health insurance from millions will do nothing to lower healthcare costs, address challenges in our healthcare system, or save lives."
"Taking healthcare away from people struggling to deal with rising costs and preventing people from using their health insurance at their trusted provider is cruel," they continued. "We know what happens when people lose access to care: they skip cancer screenings, delay STI testing, miss birth control appointments. These delays lead to worsened health outcomes and more costly emergency care down the line."
In addition to warning of "catastrophic" consequences for patients, the trio highlighted that "analysis from the Congressional Budget Office finds 'defunding' Planned Parenthood would cost $300 million and is the only provision in the healthcare portion of the bill that would increase the deficit."
PPNNE in April announced the closure of a Vermont health center, citing "serious financial hardship." Nicole Clegg, president and CEO of the regional group, said at the time that the decision was "very difficult" and "PPNNE attempted many different investments and organizational changes to tackle the complexities of delivering care in St. Johnsbury, but the challenges persisted."
That same month, Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) said that it had to restructure due to the Trump administration's attacks, "including the recent withholding of $2.8 million in Title X funding."
"The painful decisions to close Logan and St. George health centers, reduce PPAU's staff, and increase service fees are forced on us by the Trump administration," declared PPAU interim CEO Sarah Stoesz. "We believe that by consolidating our healthcare delivery and expanding telehealth, we will be in a better position to continue serving those who rely on us for healthcare."
Planned Parenthood of Michigan (PPMI) also revealed in April that it "is reducing its brick-and-mortar footprint and reorganizing operations statewide," which includes closing three health centers in Jackson, Petoskey, and Marquette; consolidating two clinics in Ann Arbor; and expanding its telehealth offerings.
PPMI president and CEO Paula Thornton Greear said at the time that "the Trump administration and its anti-abortion allies have made clear their intention to defund Planned Parenthood and attack access to sexual and reproductive healthcare nationwide," and "these necessary changes strengthen PPMI's ability to adapt quickly in a challenging political landscape."
The Guardian noted that PPMI "was not among the Planned Parenthood affiliates that saw their Title X funding frozen," and "did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the clinic closures and the role of Title X in those closures."
According to the newspaper:
Planned Parenthood’s financial woes have raised eyebrows for some advocates of abortion rights and reproductive health. The organization has weathered several crises, including allegations of mismanagement, in the years since Roe collapsed—but as the face of U.S. abortion access it continued to rake in donations. (Most abortions in the US are in fact performed by small "independent" clinics, which are grappling with their own financial turmoil.) As of June 2023, the Planned Parenthood network had about $3 billion in assets, according to its 2024 report.
In March, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York (PPGNY) announced it would put its property that houses the Manhattan Health Center up for sale as part of an "ongoing strategy to ensure future, long-term patient access for underserved communities throughout New York state."
Just two days after U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office in January—following a campaign in which the Republican tried to downplay how much voters care about reproductive rights while also bragging about his role in reversing Roe—Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL) said it would close four health centers, downsize administrative staff, and boost telehealth.
Illinois, a blue state surrounded by red ones, saw an influx of "abortion refugees" post-Dobbs. PPIL interim president and CEO Tonya Tucker said in January that "we made plans for the patient surge, however, rising care costs and lower reimbursement rates from insurers is jeopardizing PPIL's sustainability."
"Unfortunately, this is the reality many other Planned Parenthood affiliates are facing in the rapidly evolving healthcare environment," Tucker added. "We are making the difficult decisions today so we can continue providing care tomorrow and well into the future."
Other recent reporting has also highlighted how reproductive healthcare providers, particularly those that offer abortion, are struggling to stay open, even in places where politicians haven't passed laws that make it harder to end pregnancies.
"At least 17 clinics closed last year in states where abortion remains legal," NPRreported last month, citing the Guttmacher Institute. "Experts say the closures indicate that financial and operational challenges, rather than future legal bans, may be the biggest threats to abortion access in states whose laws still protect it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Trying to Spook States out of Suing Big Oil—Why They Shouldn’t Back Down
Given the shakiness of the administration’s lawsuits, what really matters is whether state and local officials have the courage to stand strong against Trump’s mafia-style threats.
May 14, 2025
As U.S. President Donald Trump continues to threaten any institutions that could check his administration’s ongoing drive toward authoritarianism, there’s been a stark contrast in responses to his mob boss-style attacks. Some targets—like Harvard, which vowed to fight Trump’s assault on universities, or the law firm Perkins Coie, which recently scored a judicial win holding Trump’s actions against the firm unconstitutional—have seen their stature in their respective fields skyrocket,. Others—like Columbia University or the law firm Paul Weiss, which both immediately folded at the first sign of aggression from Trump—have been publicly, and perhaps permanently, tarred as feckless cowards.
This contrast between courage and gutlessness appeared once again earlier this month in response to Trump’s latest dictatorial salvo: an all-out assault on behalf of the fossil fuel industry against state and local efforts to hold Big Oil companies accountable for deceiving the public about climate change.
Right now, 1 in 4 Americans live in a jurisdiction that is fighting to put Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies and make them pay for the catastrophic damage they knew decades ago that their products would cause. The fossil fuel industry concedes that it faces “massive monetary liability” in these cases, and has been growing more and more desperate to stop plaintiff communities from having their day in court. In the last few years Big Oil has asked the Supreme Court to block these cases on five separate occasions. Recently, industry front groups tied to Leonard Leo ran a pressure campaign pushing the court to take up the issue.
Making polluters pay for climate damages is widely supported—and far more popular than Trump ever has been.
But the court has denied Big Oil every time, and so fossil fuel companies have had to shift to Plan B: asking the man they spent hundreds of millions of dollars electing to fulfill his end of the quid pro quo. The Wall Street Journal reported that oil executives asked Trump during a White House meeting for legal help against the cases, and their lobbyists are pushing congressional Republicans to include legal protections for the fossil fuel industry “in a coming Trump-endorsed bill.”
In his typical oligarchical style, Trump has gone all in to protect his corporate backers. On April 8 Trump issued an executive order directing the attorney general to “take all appropriate action” to stop states that have “sued energy companies for supposed ‘climate change’ harm.” And this month the Department of Justice filed a series of lawsuits attempting to prevent Hawaii and Michigan from pursuing climate litigation.
We’ve become so inured to the extreme misconduct of this administration that it’s often hard for any new scandal to stand out. But it’s worth taking a moment to appreciate the staggering corruption of this new broadside on the rule of law.
Trump is taking unprecedented action on behalf of an industry that understood decades ago that their fossil fuel products would cause, in their own words, “great irreversible harm,” “more violent weather—more storms, more droughts, more deluges,” and “suffering and death due to thermal extremes.” Instead of warning consumers about this existential threat, they waged a massive disinformation campaign to prevent the public from understanding the dangers of climate change. They made trillions of dollars from this deception, leaving regular Americans to pay the price.
And regular Americans certainly have been paying that price. They’ve been paying in higher insurance costs driven by the “violent weather” that Big Oil companies knew their products would cause. They’ve been paying in homes, businesses, and livelihoods lost in climate-driven “deluges.” And in far too many cases they’ve been paying with their own “suffering and death.” That is why many of the communities hit hardest by these disasters have sued—under the same long-established state laws used to hold Big Tobacco and opioid profiteers accountable—to force the companies responsible for global warming to contribute at least something to the often devastating climate costs that right now are falling entirely on the shoulders of regular Americans.
Trump, of course, doesn’t care about regular Americans experiencing, in his words, “supposed ‘climate change’ harm.” His concern is limited entirely to his Big Oil donors, who are terrified of having to defend their climate lies to a jury composed of the people they screwed over.
Unfortunately for Big Oil, we live in a federalist system of government that does not allow a president to unilaterally block a state from pursuing valid state-law claims in state courts. Indeed, legal experts seem to agree the suits filed by the administration against Hawaii and Michigan are “shockingly flimsy.”
That doesn’t mean Trump’s legal maneuvering isn’t a potent weapon, however. As we’ve seen with Trump’s assault on universities and law firms, the goal of these attacks is not winning in the courtroom. It’s all about intimidation—which means that what really matters is whether state and local officials have the courage to stand strong against Trump’s mafia-style threats.
Some leaders are demonstrating that they have that backbone. On May 1, Hawaii ignored the DOJ’s specious lawsuit and became the 10th state to sue Big Oil. As Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said, “The state of Hawaiʻi will not be deterred from moving forward with our climate deception lawsuit. My department will vigorously oppose this gross federal overreach.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel had a similar response: “Donald Trump has made clear he will answer any and every beck and call from his Big Oil campaign donors… I remain undeterred in my intention to file this lawsuit the president and his Big Oil donors so fear.”
Sadly, not all local leaders have demonstrated such courage. Shortly after the DOJ announced its suits against Hawaii and Michigan, Puerto Rico voluntarily dropped its 2024 case that sought to make fossil fuel companies pay to help protect the commonwealth’s infrastructure against stronger storms, sea-level rise, and other damages fueled by climate change. The Leonard Leo-linked Alliance for Consumers, which days earlier called on Puerto Rico’s governor to help kill the case, crowed that the dismissal would allow consumers to “take comfort in knowing the things you buy for your family will still be there, at the store, when you need them”—an Orwellian message for the millions of Puerto Ricans who were unable to access basic goods for months following the climate-driven catastrophe of Hurricane Maria.
A spokesperson said the commonwealth dropped its case, which was brought under a previous administration, because Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón wanted to “be aligned with the policies of President Trump,” which is “to support the burning of fossil fuels [and] the protection of oil companies.” As a result, her constituents will be condemned to a future of escalating climate disasters that they—and not the polluters most responsible—will have to pay for.
But maybe the contrast between Puerto Rico’s humiliating supplication and Hawaii and Michigan’s courageous stands can help inspire other local and state jurisdictions to refuse to bend to Trump’s future threats. After all, making polluters pay for climate damages is widely supported—and far more popular than Trump ever has been.
When the history books are written about this lawless moment, the collaborators—the Columbias, the Paul Weisses, the González-Colóns—will not like how posterity remembers their cowardice. But leaders who rise to the occasion, who refuse to surrender to Trump’s protection racket, and who continue fighting to make polluters pay will be able to take pride in their place on the right side of history.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular