UN Warns New Wave of Locust Swarms Threatens Food Security of Millions in East Africa

"We must not waiver. Locusts keep growing day and night and risks are exacerbating food insecurity for vulnerable families across the affected region."

by

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 Published on Wednesday, December 16, 2020

by

Common Dreams

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, locusts moved through the Arabian Peninsula in Dhamar, 

Yemen on June 7, 2020. (Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Despite an "intense" international effort to combat a major, climate crisis-fueled invasion of desert locusts in Eastern African communities since January, a new generation of locust swarms is threatening the food security of millions of people in the Horn of Africa and Yemen, a United Nations agency warned Wednesday.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which has been coordinating the global response, said in a statement that pest control actions across 10 countries costing about $200 million have prevented the loss of an estimated 2.7 million tonnes of cereal, worth nearly $800 million—enough food to feed 18 million people for a year.

"However, favorable weather conditions and widespread seasonal rains have caused extensive breeding in eastern Ethiopia and Somalia," FAO explained. "This was worsened by Cyclone Gati which brought flooding to northern Somalia last month allowing locust infestations to increase further in the coming months. New locust swarms are already forming and threatening to re-invade northern Kenya and breeding is also underway on both sides of the Red Sea, posing a new threat to Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, [Sudan], and Yemen."

"For Kenya, the threat is imminent, it could happen any time now," Keith Cressman, the FAO's senior locust forecasting officer, told BBC News, which pointed out that this year had already featured the region's worst locust invasion in 70 years—and in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. "It could be as bad as what we've seen in the past year because the area of breeding ground in these countries is as big as 350,000 sq. km. (135,000 sq. miles)."

"We lost so much of our pastures and vegetation because of the locusts and as a result we are still losing a good number of our livestock," Gonjoba Guyo, a pastoralist in North Horr, Kenya, told the BBC. "I have lost 14 goats, four cows, and two camels because of the locust outbreak and now there is lots of fear that we may face similar or worse consequences."

In a statement from International Committee of the Red Cross on Tuesday, Somali farmers shared how the region's locust crisis has similarly impacted them this year.

"Most of the farms in Jowhar town have been destroyed by floods in the last six months now. The water is stagnant on the grounds and no one can farm in this state. On top of this flood problem, we have had locusts destroying the few vegetables and fruits remaining," said farmer Yusuf Ahmed.

Muna Hussein, a 35-year old mother of 10, has lost two of her farms to the floods and locusts. "I have been a farmer all my life," she said. "That is all I know, and it is my lifeline. The situation is getting really difficult especially with the locust[s] eating all the food we were trying to grow and planning to sell."

Noting that pest control efforts could slow or halt early next year without additional funding, FAO is seeking $40 million to increase its locust-related activities in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen in 2021. The agency warned that over 35 million people in total are already acutely food insecure across those five countries—a number that could rise by 3.5 million in the absence of urgent action.

"We have achieved much, but the battle against this relentless pest is not yet over," said FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu. "We must not waiver. Locusts keep growing day and night and risks are exacerbating food insecurity for vulnerable families across the affected region."

 

'A Troubling Indication of What Could Be to Come': Biden Quietly Adds Goldman Sachs, Big Tech Officials to Transition

"We cannot move forward in a new direction with just the same people, including some of the people who are responsible for the mess we are in."

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

by

Common Dreams

President-elect Joe Biden speaks during an event to announce new cabinet nominations at the Queen Theatre on December 11, 2020 in Wilmington, Delaware. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

President-elect Joe Biden's transition team in recent weeks has quietly brought aboard alumni of Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs, tech giants Google and Facebook, and notorious consulting firm McKinsey, heightening alarm among watchdog groups that have urged the incoming administration to steer clear of the corrupting influence of corporate America.

Without the public announcements that accompanied the president-elect's cabinet picks and original members of the transition, Team Biden has added to its agency review groups Monica Maher, vice president for cyber threat intelligence at Goldman Sachs; Eric Goldstein, an 18-year Goldman Sachs veteran; and Josh Zoffer, a former engagement manager at McKinsey who now works at private equity firm Cove Hill Partners.

"Corporate America is meticulous in its pursuit of influence over the executive branch, targeting not only the highest profile spots but the full slate of relatively obscure, powerful positions beneath them."
—Eleanor Eagan, Revolving Door Project

On or around Thanksgiving, Politico reported, Biden's transition also "quietly added four Facebook and Google employees to its agency review teams," despite pressure on the president-elect to resist Big Tech's efforts to "co-opt" his administration. As Reuters pointed out earlier this month, there are currently "more tech executives than tech critics on Biden's transition team."

Eleanor Eagan, research assistant at the Revolving Door Project (RDP), an initiative that scrutinizes executive branch appointees, told Common Dreams Tuesday that the Biden team appears to have been counting on "people not paying quite as much attention" to later additions to the transition team.

"This move by the transition team to slip in these revolving-door figures later in the game certainly is a troubling indication of what could be to come" as Biden begins staffing lower-profile but powerful positions in his administration, said Eagan.

As part of its ongoing effort to shine light on industry influence on the upper reaches of the federal government, RDP on Tuesday morning unveiled a Personnel Map that aims to visualize and track "the breadth and depth of corporate America's interest in the executive branch."

News of Biden's latest additions to his transition team "fits very well with what we're trying to highlight with the Personnel Map," said Eagan.

"Corporate America is meticulous in its pursuit of influence over the executive branch, targeting not only the highest profile spots but the full slate of relatively obscure, powerful positions beneath them," Eagan added in a statement. "The Revolving Door Project believes it is time for groups with the public interest at heart to think just as expansively about executive branch governance."

With Biden's cabinet beginning to take shape following his picks to lead the State Department, the Pentagon, the Agriculture Department, Housing and Urban Development, and other key agencies, progressives are growing increasingly concerned about the corporate ties and business-friendly records of several of his nominees.

"The progressive movement deserves a number of seats—important seats—in the Biden administration. Have I seen that at this point? I have not."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

Tom Vilsack, Biden's pick to lead USDA, is a dairy industry lobbyist; retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, the president-elect's nominee for defense secretary, currently serves on the board of Raytheon, one of the largest military contractors in the world; and Antony Blinken, Biden's secretary of state pick, co-founded a consultancy firm that has worked on behalf of corporate clients in the tech, finance, and arms industries.

"I think there are some red flags or, in this case, some discouraging blue flags," Norman Solomon, national director of the progressive advocacy group RootsAction.org, told the Associated Press over the weekend, pointing specifically to Neera Tanden, Biden's pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget.

Progressives have also been vocalizing their frustration with what they view as a lack of representation among the president-elect's nominees thus far. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told Axios last week that given the significant role it played in Biden's decisive victory, "the progressive movement deserves a number of seats—important seats—in the Biden administration."

"Have I seen that at this point? I have not," the Vermont senator said. "I've told the Biden people: The progressive movement is 35-40% of the Democratic coalition. Without a lot of other enormously hard work on the part of grassroots activists and progressives, Joe would not have won the election."

Evan Weber, political director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, told the Washington Post over the weekend that "we cannot move forward in a new direction with just the same people, including some of the people who are responsible for the mess we are in."

"We would like to see more young progressives in roles in the Biden administration," said Weber.

Survey Shows Americans—Regardless of Partisan Affiliation—Don't Want Biden to Appoint a Corporate Cabinet

"People across party lines want an administration that is run by people who care about the public interest—not by corporate executives, lobbyists, and consultants."

by Brett Wilkins, staff writer

Published on Wednesday, December 16, 2020
by Common Dreams


Protestors gather for a #BidenSayNo protest outside BlackRock corporate
headquarters in New York City on August 11, 2020.

 (Photo: Angela Weiss/AFP/Getty Images)


A new report from a leading progressive advocacy group reveals a majority of Americans regardless of partisan affiliation don't want President-elect Joe Biden to appoint corporate executives, consultants, or lobbyists to his Cabinet and administration.

"In a polarized political environment, Biden has a rare opportunity to bridge the partisan divide by excluding corporate lobbyists and executives from his administration in favor of individuals committed to advancing the interests of working families."—David Segal, Demand Progress

While preparing its report—entitled Americans Want a Progressive Biden Administration (pdf)—Demand Progress surveyed 1,075 likely voters chosen from a representative sample of Americans based on age, gender, race, education, and voting history.

"As the Biden administration takes shape, the Beltway insider consensus is that the path to achieving bipartisanship runs through installing corporate-friendly officials in key posts," said David Segal, the progressive Rhode Island politician who in 2010 founded Demand Progress with the late hacktivist Aaron Swartz.

"But our polling shows what is common sense outside of the Beltway," Segal added. "The D.C. insiders are dead wrong. People across party lines want an administration that is run by people who care about the public interest—not by corporate executives, lobbyists, and consultants."

Key findings from the polling include:

56% of respondents across party lines opposed appointing senior corporate alumni to key positions in the administration.

57% would see Biden less favorably if he hired many corporate executives and lobbyists into his administration, while only 22% would see him more favorably.

67% indicated that they agreed the revolving door between government and the private sector is "corrupt and dangerous."

76% think it would be a "very" or "somewhat" big problem for an official to oversee an industry for which they had previously lobbied.

77% of Americans say Wall Street executives have too much influence over policy.

When it came to potential nominees, survey respondents expressed the strongest support for Cabinet candidates who advocate progressive policies, including Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.) for interior secretary and Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) for transportation or housing and urban development secretary, although the latter was selected for neither post.

Conversely, those polled were most opposed to blatantly corporatist candidates such as BlackRock's billionaire CEO Larry Fink, BlackRock executive Brian Deese, U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbyist Mark Gitenstein, and former Big Pharma lobbyist Steve Ricchetti.

"There's little doubt that Biden eschewing corporate lobbyists and executives from his administration would stand to shore up his base of support," Segal said. "In fact, closing the revolving door between the private sector and government office would allow him to make inroads with the people who ​didn't ​vote for him, too."

"In a polarized political environment, Biden has a rare opportunity to bridge the partisan divide by excluding corporate lobbyists and executives from his administration in favor of individuals committed to advancing the interests of working families," Segal concluded.

Demand Progress and Revolving Door Project have been spearheading a "No Corporate Cabinet" initiative in partnership with Climate Investigations Center, Documented, and True North Research since November. The campaign includes a website that aims to "serve as a central hub for information about, and activism related to, the Biden transition," featuring news and a "Persons of Interest" page detailing some potential Biden administration appointees whom progressive campaigners say he should avoid.

Other leading progressives have been imploring Biden to fill his remaining cabinet picks with leaders who will prioritize human need over corporate greed.

On Wednesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was a guest on The Intercept's Intercepted podcast and warned listeners that doing otherwise—as Democratic presidents have done since at least the Clinton administration—is "a huge reason why we got [President] Donald Trump in the first place."

Many progressive critics say Biden isn't hearing their message. They point to his transition team's hiring of corporate executives including Goldman Sachs veterans Monica Maher and Eric Goldstein, and former McKinsey and current Cove Hill Partners manager Josh Zoffer, as well as senior officials at tech titans Amazon, Facebook, Google, Uber, and Airbnb, as cause for alarm.

 

New Report: Americans Oppose Having Corporate Insiders Run Biden Administration

Demand Progress polling demonstrates that people want administration run by people who care about the public interest.

WASHINGTON - This morning, Demand Progress released a new report “Americans Want a Progressive Biden Administration” demonstrating broad, cross-party support for keeping corporate insiders outside the administration. Notably, the polling shows that 56 percent of Americans don’t want Biden to appoint corporate execs, consultants, or lobbyists, while only 23 percent indicate support for doing so — suggesting that is not just the right thing to do, but the smart political move for Biden.

“As the Biden administration takes shape, the Beltway insider consensus is that the path to achieving bipartisanship runs through installing corporate-friendly officials in key posts,” said Demand Progress Executive Director David Segal. “But our polling shows what is common sense outside of the Beltway: The DC insiders are dead wrong. People across party lines want an administration that is run by people who care about the public interest — not by corporate executives, lobbyists, and consultants.”

Key findings from the polling below. You can find the full report here.

• 56 percent of respondents across party lines opposed appointing senior corporate alumni to key positions in the administration.
• 57 percent would see Biden less favorably if he hired many corporate executives and lobbyists into his administration — while only 22 percent would see him more favorably.
• 67 percent indicated that they agreed the revolving door between government and the private sector is “corrupt and dangerous”. This was true of both Democrats and Republicans, with a wide majority (60 percent) of Republican respondents agreeing with the dangers of the revolving door.
• 76 percent think it would be a “very” or “somewhat” big problem for an official to oversee an industry they had previously lobbied for. 
• More than three-quarters of Americans (77 percent) say Wall Street executives have too much influence over policies

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

Months After AOC Demand and Federal Suit, USPS Releases DeJoy Calendar That Is 'Almost Entirely Redacted'

"Haul Louis DeJoy in front of a criminal grand jury for his postal sabotage and subversion of our elections," said Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr.

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer

 Published on Wednesday, December 16, 2020

by

Common Dreams

"Shrouding his calendar in secrecy likely violates the letter of the law, and certainly violates its spirit," said Austin Evers, executive director of American Oversight. (Image: American Oversight)

Nearly four months after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first demanded that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy turn over his daily calendar, the U.S. Postal Service on Tuesday released documents rendered almost completely useless by heavy redactions concealing who DeJoy met with as he worked to implement his destructive overhaul of mail operations.

"DeJoy works for the public, but you wouldn't know it from his calendar. Even in the Trump era, this is an extraordinary level of obfuscation."
—Austin Evers, American Oversight

The Postal Service released DeJoy's calendar in response to a public records lawsuit filed in September by watchdog group American Oversight, which was not at all amused by what it finally received from the agency.

"Shrouding his calendar in secrecy likely violates the letter of the law, and certainly violates its spirit," Austin Evers, executive director of American Oversight, told HuffPost. "DeJoy works for the public, but you wouldn't know it from his calendar. Even in the Trump era, this is an extraordinary level of obfuscation."

In a series of tweets on Tuesday, American Oversight noted that the Postal Service "didn't specify which specific exemptions they are claiming applied to the individual redactions," as is generally required by law.

"DeJoy supervised the delivery of mail-in ballots and USPS is now delivering Covid-19 vaccines," the group noted. "The public is entitled to see how he's spending his time and who has been influencing his decisions, but USPS continues to obscure this information."

The only details left visible after the redactions are the dates and times of DeJoy's meetings between June 15—when the postmaster general formally took over the agency—and November 7 as well as a handful of words, such as "meeting" and "in office."

"Yeaaaah that's not gonna work," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to the redacted calendar. When the New York Democrat requested during an August 24 hearing that DeJoy submit his calendar to lawmakers, the postmaster general said he would need to check with counsel before doing so.

In a subpoena issued in September, the House Oversight Committee demanded that the Postal Service provide DeJoy's "complete, unredacted calendar from June 15, 2020, to the present."

DeJoy, a GOP megadonor who was appointed to lead the Postal Service in May, is one of a number of government officials who will likely remain in power long after Trump leaves office in January, given that the president does not have the authority to remove the postmaster general.

As such, Democrats in Congress are facing pressure to exercise their oversight powers and pursue impeachment of DeJoy, whose brief tenure at the Postal Service has been enveloped in scandal.

"DeJoy is a 'civil officer' and is clearly impeachable under Article 2, Section 4," The Nation's John Nichols recently argued. "He stands accused of committing crimes and of lying to Congress. There is more than enough evidence that he has abused his position in order to benefit a political ally and benefactor, Donald Trump. In addition, there is daunting evidence that he has done harm to an agency that was outlined in Article 1, Section 8."

With the presidential election over, the DeJoy-led USPS has wasted no time resuming work on sweeping operational changes that dramatically slowed mail delivery nationwide before they were briefly put on pause in August.

"Haul Louis DeJoy in front of a criminal grand jury for his postal sabotage and subversion of our elections," Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-N.J.) demanded on Tuesday.

With $4.2 Billion in Direct Giving, MacKenzie Scott, Formerly Bezos, 'Puts Shame to the Billionaire Class'

"The bulk of these gifts are to the works of mercy during this pandemic—food banks, direct social service organizations, emergency funds, and support services for the most vulnerable."

by

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 Published on Tuesday, December 15, 2020 

by

Common Dreams

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his then-wife MacKenzie Bezos—now Scott—participated in the opening ceremony of the Washington Post's new location January 28, 2016 in Washington, D.C. Jeff Bezos owns the newspaper. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

While progressives often argue that billionaires shouldn't exist, as long as about 650 still do in the United States, they could all learn from MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, who on Tuesday prompted widespread praise for announcing nearly $4.2 billion in gifts to 384 organizations.

Scott ranks 18th on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index—which her ex-husband leads by a sizable margin—thanks to a 2019 divorce settlement in which she gained millions of Amazon shares. She has pledged to give away most of her wealth and in July announced $1.67 billion in direct grants to 116 charities addressing racial injustice and other aspects of inequality.

Her second major giving announcement, which came in a Medium post, acknowledges that the ongoing coronavirus pandemic "has been a wrecking ball in the lives of Americans already struggling. Economic losses and health outcomes alike have been worse for women, for people of color, and for people living in poverty. Meanwhile, it has substantially increased the wealth of billionaires."

According to the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the collective wealth of the nation's billionaires has soared by $1 trillion since March, while the pandemic has raged on, killing over 302,000 people nationwide as millions struggle to stay fed and afford rent or mortgage payments in the absence of adequate federal relief.

"Scott's bold and direct giving puts shame to the billionaire class and their perpetual private foundations," Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at IPS, wrote Tuesday for Common Dreams. He noted that "the bulk of these gifts are to the works of mercy during this pandemic—food banks, direct social service organizations, emergency funds, and support services for the most vulnerable."

"Many private foundations are still guarding their perpetual endowments and giving the minimum 5% required, including overhead," Collins explained. "By example, Scott is shaming these mega-foundations that worry more about perpetuity than the suffering of their neighbors during an unprecedented crisis."

As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, nearly 800 social justice-minded philanthropists and charitable foundations have signed on to a letter—initially released in May by the Patriotic Millionaires, the Charity Reform Initiative of IPS, and the Wallace Global Fund—calling on Congress to pass a three-year Emergency Charity Stimulus that would move $200 billion to frontline nonprofit groups by increasing payout requirements for private foundations and donor-advised funds.

Collins, in his response to Scott's announcement, wrote that "of particular note is not just the size of her gifts, but the approach she has taken to giving. Scott, a newcomer on the billionaire wealth scene, has surrounded herself with advisers that come from under-resourced communities, not the folks that typically sit on foundation boards."

Scott shared some details about the selection process on Medium, explaining that she had put together a team of advisers earlier this year:

The result over the last four months has been $4,158,500,000 in gifts to 384 organizations across all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington D.C. Some are filling basic needs: food banks, emergency relief funds, and support services for those most vulnerable. Others are addressing long-term systemic inequities that have been deepened by the crisis: debt relief, employment training, credit and financial services for under-resourced communities, education for historically marginalized and underserved people, civil rights advocacy groups, and legal defense funds that take on institutional discrimination.

To select these 384, the team sought suggestions and perspective from hundreds of field experts, funders, and nonprofit leaders and volunteers with decades of experience. We leveraged this collective knowledge base in a collaboration that included hundreds of emails and phone interviews, and thousands of pages of data analysis on community needs, program outcomes, and each nonprofit's capacity to absorb and make effective use of funding. We looked at 6,490 organizations, and undertook deeper research into 822. We put 438 of these on hold for now due to insufficient evidence of impact, unproven management teams, or to allow for further inquiry about specific issues such as treatment of community members or employees. We won't always learn about a concern inside an organization, but when we do, we'll take extra time to evaluate. We'll never eliminate every risk through our analysis, but we'll eliminate many. Then we can select organizations to assist—and get out of their way.

 

While Scott's gifts elicited applause, some pointed out that progressives policies including a wealth tax would make billionaires like her pay for services provided by the recipients of her donations "every day instead of just when they feel like it."

Scott's announcement comes as Amazon and Bezos are under fire for working conditions, particularly during the pandemic. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Sunday shared part of an email he recently received from a worker at Amazon's Whole Foods delivery warehouse in New York City, which he called "particularly distressing."

The worker told Reich that six of her co-workers had tested positive for Covid-19 since October 22, because "safe social distancing is not only being ignored but discouraged." She added that "when we express our discomfort to management, we are yelled at about filling orders faster, or told that we can take a leave of absence without pay."

Earlier this month, after workers and activists took to the streets on Black Friday to launch the #MakeAmazonPay campaign, 401 lawmakers from 34 countries endorsed the effort with an open letter to Bezos that said, "We, elected representatives and public officials from around the world, hereby put you on notice that Amazon's days of impunity are over."

#CRIMESAGAINSTHUMANITY

Immigrant Rights Attorneys Sue DHS and ICE for Information on Terror Tactics Used in Arrests

ICE’s Operation Palladium Sparked Wave of "Supercharged Arrest Operation[s]" in Sanctuary Cities.

WASHINGTON - The Immigrant Defense Project and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit today against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to demand access to arrest records and related information for a wave of ICE raids in sanctuary cities across the U.S. this year.

The lawsuit seeks to compel both government agencies to release policy guidances, memos, and trainings as well as records regarding the process ICE uses to determine “targets” pertaining to “Operation Palladium,” an aggressive immigration surveillance and policing initiative that advocates say has dramatically increased the use of force and other aggressive tactics by ICE since it began in early 2020. ICE and DHS refused to release information on the program in response to an urgent FOIA request, filed in June 2020, over concerns about the program. The lawsuit filed today seeks a court order to immediately release the requested documents.



“Since this administration came to power almost four years ago, they have made it a priority to attack and try to destroy immigrant communities,” said IDP Interim Executive Director Mizue Aizeki. “‘Operation Palladium’ is clearly another bullying tactic by the federal government against cities like New York due to policies that protect immigrants. In February and March of this year, ICE policing in NYC included not only intensive surveillance of immigrants and their loved ones but also an escalation in violent tactics by ICE. This included ICE agents shooting a witness during a raid, and brandishing an assault rifle in the street and inside an apartment building. We filed the FOIA to shed light on how DHS and ICE policing tactics threaten safety and stability in our cities. As the public, we have a right to know this information to protect our communities.”

“Operation Palladium” was implemented in “sanctuary” cities across the country in February 2020. As part of the operation, the Trump administration has deployed Customs and Border Protection agents – including officers from BORTAC, a militarized unit normally deployed at the southern U.S. border – in cities to support ICE in their surveillance and arrest of immigrants. The New York Times described Operation Palladium as a “supercharged arrest operation,” and today’s lawsuit alleges it has led to a drastic increase in the extent and aggression of ICE arrest practices – including the shooting of a bystander during an ICE arrest in February. Attorneys say the program was coupled with the Trump administration’s use of DHS personnel and technology to surveil the Movement for Black Lives protests in many cities.

In the first 11 weeks of 2020, Immigrant Defense Project has reported a 400 percent increase in the number of sightings of ICE agents and of arrests as compared to what was reported in the last 11 weeks of 2019, and since the beginning of this year, thousands of immigrants have been arrested by ICE at their homes, on the street, and at their workplaces. This escalation of immigration policing has continued despite the global COVID-19 pandemic and the dangers it poses to people that ICE refuses to release from jails and detention centers despite the rapid spread of COVID at these facilities. IDP and the Center for Constitutional Rights say that information about the policies, procedures, and data regarding Operation Palladium is of vital public interest, given concerns about privacy and other constitutional rights, as well ongoing debates about funding for DHS and ICE.

“ICE and DHS have refused to produce even one document regarding their surveillance and enforcement tactics and policies,” said Ian Head, coordinator of the Center for Constitutional Rights’ Open Records Project. “It should not take a court order to force federal agencies to meet their obligations under FOIA, particularly on topics of urgent importance to the public."

For more information, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case page.

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, December 16, 2020
Organization Profile: 
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)