Mexico City, home to world’s biggest bullring, bans killing bulls

By AFP
March 18, 2025


Mexico City is home to the world's biggest bullring, the Plaza de Toros, which has a capacity of more than 40,000 people - Copyright AFP/File Tetiana DZHAFAROVA, Brendan Smialowski, YURI KOCHETKOV

Legislators in Mexico City, home to the world’s largest bullring, voted Tuesday to ban bullfights where the animals are killed or wounded, as opponents and supporters staged rival protests.

The initiative, which was promoted by the capital city’s mayor Clara Brugada, aims to move toward “violence-free” bullfighting events.

Mexico City cannot allow “cruelty as a spectacle, much less the long pain and death of an animal for entertainment,” Brugada said last week.

The vote also bans using sharp objects such as swords, but matadors can use capes and muletas — sticks with red cloth hanging from them.

The ban, which also limits bullfights to 15 minutes for each animal, was approved by 61 votes in favor and one against, the capital’s legislature announced.

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum last week threw her support behind the initiative, calling it a “good solution” to maintain jobs in the bullfighting industry while respecting a constitutional reform prohibiting animal abuse.

Bullfighting promoters, however, opposed the ban, saying it threatens a deeply rooted cultural tradition.

Scuffles involving rival demonstrators broke out near the legislature before riot police intervened.

Mexico City is a bastion of bullfighting, and at its heart sits the Plaza de Toros, which has the capacity for more than 40,000 people.

But the capital is also considered a progressive stronghold, and there have been years of legal battles between bullfighting supporters and animal rights activists, who welcomed the ban on wounding the animals.

Anton Aguilar, executive director of Humane World for Animals Mexico, called it “an important step toward eradicating the torment and killing of animals for entertainment.”

At the same time, “it’s important also to acknowledge that a bull event without violence does not mean one without suffering, as bulls will still be subjected to significant and completely unnecessary stress,” he added.

Several of Mexico’s 32 states have banned bullfighting, which was brought by the Spanish conquistadors centuries ago.

Bullfighters point to the economic value of the industry, which generated 80,000 jobs and around $50 million in revenue in 2023, according to figures from the Mexico City legislature.

Among other countries, Ecuador, Spain, France, Mexico, Peru, Portugal and Venezuela still hold bullfighting events.

Colombia last year approved a ban on bullfights starting in 2027, while the killing of animals has been banned in the Ecuadoran capital Quito.

Judge blocks Trump administration order to ban transgender people from military


Continuing US federal judges' resistance to President Donald Trump's sweeping executive orders, a Washington, D.C., District Judge moved to block Trump's ban on transgender people from serving in the military, a seminal component of the President's crusade to eliminate diversity, equality, and inclusion initiatives in the US.


Issued on: 19/03/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24
Protester waves a LGBTQIA pride flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building on June 26, 2023 in Washington, DC. © Anna Moneymaker, Getty Images/AFP


A federal judge blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender people from military service on Tuesday, the latest in a string of legal setbacks for his sweeping agenda.

US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., ruled that Trump's order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights. She was the second judge of the day to rule against the administration, and both rulings came within hours of an extraordinary conflict as Trump called for impeaching a third judge who temporarily blocked deportation flights, drawing a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Reyes, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, delayed her order until Friday morning to give the administration time to appeal.

"The court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals. In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes,” Reyes wrote. “We should all agree, however, that every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect.”

Army Reserves 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott, one of 14 transgender active-duty servicemembers named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said he was holding his breath as he waited to find out if he would be separated from the military next week.

“This is such a sigh of relief,” he said. “This is all I’ve ever wanted to do. This is my dream job, and I finally have it. And I was so terrified that I was about to lose it.”

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, posted about the ruling on social media, writing, “District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces…is there no end to this madness?”

The judge issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys who also represent others seeking to join the military.

On Jan. 27, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members "conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys contend Trump’s order violates transgender people’s rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

Government lawyers argue that military officials have broad discretion to decide how to assign and deploy servicemembers without judicial interference.

Reyes said she did not take lightly her decision to issue an injunction blocking Trump’s order, noting that “Judicial overreach is no less pernicious than executive overreach.” But, she said, it was also the responsibility of each branch of government to provide checks and balances for the others, and the court “therefore must act to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day.”

Thousands of transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1% of the total number of active-duty service members.

In 2016, a Defense Department policy permitted transgender people to serve openly in the military. During Trump’s first term in the White House, the Republican issued a directive to ban transgender service members. The Supreme Court allowed the ban to take effect. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, scrapped it when he took office.

Hegseth’s Feb. 26 policy says service members or applicants for military service who have “a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”

The plaintiffs who sued to block Trump’s order include an Army Reserves platoon leader from Pennsylvania, an Army major who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan and a Sailor of the Year award winner serving in the Navy.

“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed—some risking their lives—to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the military ban seeks to deny them," Reyes wrote.

Their attorneys, from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law, said transgender troops “seek nothing more than the opportunity to continue dedicating their lives to defending the Nation.”

“Yet these accomplished servicemembers are now subject to an order that says they must be separated from the military based on a characteristic that has no bearing on their proven ability to do the job,” plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote. “This is a stark and reckless reversal of policy that denigrates honorable transgender servicemembers, disrupts unit cohesion, and weakens our military.”

Government attorneys said the Defense Department has a history of disqualifying people from military service if they have physical or emotional impairments, including mental health conditions.

“In any context other than the one at issue in this case, DoD’s professional military judgment about the risks of allowing individuals with physical or emotional impairments to serve in the military would be virtually unquestionable,” they wrote.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys say Trump’s order fits his administration’s pattern of discriminating against transgender people.

Federal judges in Seattle and Baltimore separately paused Trump’s executive order halting federal support for gender-affirming care for transgender youth under 19. Last month, a judge blocked prison officials from transferring three incarcerated transgender women to men’s facilities and terminating their access to hormone therapy under another Trump order.

Trump also signed orders that set up new rules about how schools can teach about gender and that intend to ban transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.

“From its first days, this administration has moved to strip protections from transgender people across multiple domains — including housing, social services, schools, sports, healthcare, employment, international travel, and family life,” plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote.

Talbott, 31, of Akron, Ohio, enlisted in March 2024 as an openly trans person after fighting for roughly nine years to join the service. He said his fellow soldiers gave him some good-natured flak for being so much older than other recruits, but never treated him differently for being trans. Talbott anticipates that his colleagues will be “pretty excited that I get to stay.”

“Now I can go back to focusing on what’s really important, which is the mission,” said Talbott, a platoon leader for a military policing unit.

(France 24 with AP)

Alarm as Texas Files State's First Criminal Abortion Charges Against Midwife

"Republicans are strategically targeting people they think the public won't rally behind," said rights advocate Jessica Valenti. "Let's make sure to prove them wrong."


Abortion rights demonstrators protest outside the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse on June 24, 2022, in Houston, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade that affirmed the constitutional right to an abortion.
(Photo: Brett Coomer/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Mar 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

A midwife in the Houston area on Monday became the first person to be criminally charged under Texas' abortion ban, with Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton accusing Maria Margarita Rojas of providing illegal abortion care and practicing medicine without a license.

If convicted, Rojas faces up to 20 years in prison under the state's near-total ban on abortion.

Writer and abortion rights advocate Jessica Valenti said Rojas is likely being "targeted" by Paxton, noting that the midwife provides "healthcare to a primarily Spanish-speaking, low-income community."

"Paxton, a political operator who picks cases strategically, likely chose Rojas because he believes Americans won't find her sympathetic—whether due to racism, classism, or the stories his office plans to spin," wrote Valenti. "In other words: Republicans are strategically targeting people they think the public won't rally behind. Let's make sure to prove them wrong."

Rojas owns and operates Clínicas Latinoamericanas, which includes four health clinics in the Houston suburbs of Spring, Waller, and Cypress. She has reportedly been a certified midwife in Texas since 2018 and was an obstetrician in Peru before immigrating to the United States.

According to The Washington Post, Rojas was first arrested on March 6 on charges of practicing medicine without a license, and was held on $10,000 bond. The new charges were added Monday, and Rojas and another employee of the clinic, Jose Ley, were being held in a jail in Waller County, with their bond set at a combined $1.4 million.

The New York Times noted that Waller County, where the charges were brought, is more conservative than Harris County, the largest county in Texas and the one where a majority of Rojas' clinics are located.

Court documents show that Paxton's office has accused Rojas of having "attempted an abortion on" a woman identified as E.G. in March.

"Paxton and Texas Republicans will be working overtime to paint Rojas as a villain, regardless of the truth. They know that abortion bans are incredibly unpopular, as is arresting healthcare providers."

Rojas was "known by law enforcement to have performed an abortion" on another occasion earlier this year, according to the attorney general, who has filed for a temporary restraining order against Clínicas Latinoamericanas "to prevent further illegal activity."

When she was first arrested, Rojas was "pulled over by the police at gunpoint and handcuffed" while she was on her way to the clinic and was taken to Austin and held overnight before being released, her friend and fellow midwife Holly Shearman told the Post.

Shearman said she did not believe Rojas is guilty of the charges against her.

Valenti emphasized that most details of Rojas' case at this point are being shared by Paxton's office, and warned that the vehemently anti-abortion attorney general will likely attempt to portray the midwife in a negative light to garner support—considering that a majority of Americans don't support criminal charges for health professionals who provide abortion care.

A survey last March by the KFF found that 8 in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of Independents, and about 50% of Republicans did not believe doctors who provide abortion care should face fines or prison time.

"You cannot trust any information coming from Paxton's office or Texas law enforcement," said Valenti. "Paxton and Texas Republicans will be working overtime to paint Rojas as a villain, regardless of the truth. They know that abortion bans are incredibly unpopular, as is arresting healthcare providers. They're not just fighting a legal battle here, but a PR one."

Valenti noted that when Paxton filed a civil lawsuit against Dr. Maggie Carpenter, a physician in New York who he accused of prescribing and sending pills for a medication abortion to a patient in Texas, he claimed the Texas resident "suffered 'serious complications' despite providing no evidence." Carpenter was fined more than $100,000 last month.

"There's every reason to believe Paxton's team will pull similar tactics here, coming out with all sorts of claims about this midwife and her practice," wrote Valenti.

Marc Hearron, interim associate director of ligation at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Post that "Texas officials have been trying every which way to terrify healthcare practitioners from providing care and to trap Texans."

Hearron toldThe Cut that "doctors all across the state are saying that they are afraid that their judgment is going to be second-guessed, and all of these actions show that Paxton is chomping at the bit to go after anybody who provides an abortion."

"It's just a litany of situations where it shows the state of Texas does not care about women's lives," said Hearron. "What it cares about is stopping women from getting the care that they need, no matter what."

In Key State of Delaware, 'Corporate Insider Power Grab' Quietly Underway

"Delaware's Senate just chose billionaire insiders—like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg—over pension funds, retirement savers, and other investors by passing S.B. 21."


Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, arrives at the Delaware Court of Chancery in Wilmington on November 16, 2022.
(Photo: Hannah Beier for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Mar 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

The push to pass Senate Bill 21 in Delaware, the "corporate capital of the world," is garnering criticism from some anti-monopoly, economic, and legal experts this week.

"Delaware's Senate just chose billionaire insiders—like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg—over pension funds, retirement savers, and other investors by passing S.B. 21," Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), said in a Monday statement about state senators' overwhelming support for the "corporate insider power grab" last week.


Delaware lawmakers are swiftly working to overhaul state law after a judge ruled against Musk's $56 billion 2018 compensation package for Tesla. The CEO—who is the world's richest person and now a key leader in President Donald Trump's administration—then moved the incorporation for his other companies elsewhere, and urged other businesses to follow suit. Some are doing so and others are reportedly considering it, including Zuckerberg's Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.

As Business Insiderreported last month, citing Delaware's Division of Corporations, nearly 2.2 million entities are registered in the tiny state, including two-thirds of all Fortune 500 companies.

"This bill only serves to make it easier for corporate boards to rubber-stamp excessive executive pay and self-serving deals that drain returns from pensioners and retirement accounts," warned Kilgour. "Coming on the heels of another panicked giveaway to the corporate defense bar just last year, this is a reckless move that will undermine investor confidence and further erode Delaware's credibility as a fair corporate forum. The Delaware House must step in and stop this dangerous bill before it's too late."



Specifically, as AELP laid out, "S.B. 21 jeopardizes the ability of investors to protect themselves from harmful board decisions that slash returns to investors' hard-earned retirement savings, such as awarding exorbitant executive pay packages that far exceed any rational benchmark, or overpaying to acquire companies in which controlling shareholders have financial stakes."

"The bill makes it easier for corporate boards to insulate directors and controlling shareholders from litigation over conflicts of interest and self-dealing by corporate insiders, narrows who qualifies as a controlling shareholder, imposes a new presumption that board members are independent no matter who they are appointed by, and makes it more difficult for shareholders to discover conflicts by restricting their access to internal corporate records," the nonprofit detailed.

Joseph R. Mason, a Ph.D. economist and fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, also sounded the alarm on S.B. 21 with a Monday opinion piece in the Delaware Business Times.

"I recently conducted an economic impact study on the likely effects of Senate Bill 21 (S.B. 21) on the Delaware economy. Based on my findings, a reasonable estimate of the annual economic activity lost due to S.B. 21's passage is $117 million-$235 million in decreased economic activity and 450-900 lost jobs, statewide," he wrote. "My analysis very likely understates the impact to Delaware, as it only estimates lost economic activity generated by law firms located in the state."



Mason's op-ed followed a Delaware Onlinepiece from attorney Greg Varallo, who is head of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann's Delaware office and represented Richard Tornetta, the Tesla shareholder behind the Musk case in the state.

"On March 5, this paper published an op-ed by William Chandler and Lawrence Hamermesh," Varallo pointed out last week, referring to a former chancellor on the Delaware Court of Chancery who is now a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and a professor emeritus at the Widener University Delaware School of Law.

"In the piece, my old friends extolled the virtues of S.B. 21, going so far as to argue that the bill restored balance to the corporate law playing field. Nonsense. S.B. 21 is a license to steal for corporate controllers like Elon Musk," argued the lawyer, who spent decades leading a defense-side firm.

According to Varallo: "The idea that S.B. 21 will restore 'balance' between the interests of regular investors and billionaires who control companies is demonstrably false S.B. 21 creates 'safe harbors' for controllers to steal from their controlled public companies and from the stockholders who invested in those companies without having to answer for doing so. The bill overturns decades of thoughtfully crafted common law and puts Delaware in direct competition with Nevada for the state which gives controllers the clearest and easiest to follow road map to commit grand larceny."

"This isn't someone else's problem. If your retirement includes index funds, as most do, you are a stockholder in controlled companies because no index fund operates without owning controlled companies," he added. "As a citizen who believes that the independence of our judiciary is at the very core of our form of government, I can't sit still while the proponents of this legislation continue to attack the public servants who serve on the Court of Chancery, the nation's leading business court."

Meanwhile, as the Delaware Business Timesnoted Monday, S.B. 21 is backed by "two of the most powerful Delaware business organizations, the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce and the Delaware Business Roundtable," and groups that testified in support of it include ChristianaCare, the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce, and the Home Builders Association of Delaware.

Despite expert warnings, Delaware lawmakers are continuing their efforts to send S.B. 21 to the desk of Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer, who last week called on them to pass the legislation "as quickly as possible." According to the Delaware General Assembly website, the state House introduced an amendment to the bill on Tuesday.

GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY

Trump Orders US Military to Plan Invasion of Panama to Seize Canal: Report


U.S. officials familiar with the planning said options for "reclaiming" the vital waterway include close cooperation with Panama's military and, absent that, possible war.


Two cargo ships enter the Miraflores Locks of the Panama Canal in Panama City on January 22, 2025.
(Photo: Martin Bernetti/AFP via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Mar 13, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

President Donald Trump has directed the Pentagon to prepare plans for carrying out his threat to "take back" the Panama Canal, including by military force if needed, two U.S. officials familiar with the situation told NBC News Thursday.

According to the outlet, the officials said that U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) is drawing up potential plans that run the gamut from working more closely with Panama's military to a less likely scenario in which U.S. troops invade the country and take the canal by force. They also said that SOUTHCOM commander Adm. Alvin Holsey has presented draft strategies to be reviewed by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is scheduled to visit Panama next month.

The officials explained that the likelihood of a U.S invasion depended on the level of cooperation shown by the Panamanian military.

Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out use of military force to seize control of the vital U.S.-built waterway, as well as Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark.

Last week during his joint address to Congress, Trump proclaimed that "to further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal," but his administration has not clarified precisely what "reclaiming" entails.

The Republican president says the U.S. needs to retake control of the Panama Canal to enhance "economic security," and has falsely claimed that the waterway is "operated by China."

Earlier this month, the New York-based investment firm BlackRock led a group of investors in a $23 billion deal to purchase ports at both ends of the Panama Canal from a Hong Kong-based conglomerate, an agreement Trump dubiously seized upon as proof that "we've already started" reclaiming the conduit.

Panamanian President José Raúl Molina countered that "the Panama Canal is not in the process of being reclaimed... The canal is Panamanian and will continue to be Panamanian!"

The U.S. controlled what was formerly called the Panama Canal Zone from the time of the waterway's construction in the early 20th century—largely done by Afro-Caribbean workers, thousands of whom died in what's widely known as the world's deadliest construction project—until then-President Jimmy Carter transferred sovereignty to Panama in the late 1970s. Under the Torrijos-Carter treaties, the U.S. reserves the right to use military force to defend the canal's neutrality.

The United States has repeatedly used deadly military force in Panama over the decades, including during a 1964 student-led uprising against American control in which 22 Panamanians and four U.S. soldiers were killed, and in a full-scale invasion in 1989 ordered by then-President George H.W. Bush to capture erstwhile ally and CIA asset turned narcotrafficking dictator Manuel Noriega. The U.S. invaders killed hundreds of Panamanians, including many civilians.

Writing for Americas Quarterly this week, Panamanian jurist Alonso E. Illueca argued that Panama's efforts to appease Trump aren't working. These include the BlackRock deal and other moves like quitting China's "Belt and Road" initiative, taking in third-country migrants deported by the U.S., backing a U.S. resolution on Ukraine at the United Nations Security Council, auditing the country's ports, and revisiting a railway project originally developed by the Chinese government.

"Panama should abandon its accommodating policy towards the U.S., which can only lead to escalating demands to banish Chinese influence, to the detriment of Panama's national sovereignty," Illueca asserted.

"An alternative policy for Panama is to align with the rules based international order," he continued. "This includes establishing synergies with like-minded states which have been also affected by U.S. actions such as Canada, Mexico, Greenland, and Denmark. The country should seek to transcend the U.S.-China binary and find alternatives for alliances, which should include partners like the European Union."

"In short," Illueca added, "the way forward for Panama lies in replacing strategic dissonance with strategic clarity."

'National Disgrace': Sanders and Senate Dems Call Out Trump Attack on Education Dept



"Our nation's public schools, colleges, and universities are preparing the next generation of America's leaders—we must take steps to strengthen education in this country, not take a wrecking ball to the agency that exists to do so."

Fourth grade science teacher Paul Obakpolo teaches at Benavidez Elementary School on October 10, 2024, in Houston.
(Photo: Karen Warren/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Mar 17, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

In a letter to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon on Monday, Sen. Bernie Sanders led more than three dozen of his Democratic colleagues in dismissing the Trump administration's "false claims of financial savings" from slashing more than 1,000 jobs at the Education Department, emphasizing that the wealthy people leading federal policy "will not be harmed by these egregious attacks" on public schools.

"Wealthy families sending their children to elite, private schools will still be able to get a quality education even if every public school disappears in this country," reads the letter spearheaded by Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. "But for working-class families, high-quality public education is an opportunity they rely on for their children to have a path to do well in life."

The decision by President Donald Trump and his unelected billionaire ally, Elon Musk of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), to slash the Department of Education (DOE) workforce by 50%—or 1,300 people—and take steps to illegally close the agency has already had an impact on students, noted the senators, pointing to a glitch in the Free Application for Federal Financial Aid (FAFSA) that preventing families from accessing the applications "not even 24 hours after the staff reductions were announced."

"The staff normally responsible for fixing those errors had reportedly been cut," reads the letter, which was also signed by lawmakers including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

"Without the Department of Education, there is no guarantee that states would uphold students' civil and educational rights."

The letter was sent as The Associated Pressreported that cuts within the DOE's Office of Civil Rights have placed new barriers in front of families with children who have disabilities. Families who can't afford to take legal action against schools or districts that are not providing accommodations or services for students with disabilities have long been able to rely on on the office to open an investigation into their cases, but the AP reported that "more than 20,000 pending cases—including those related to kids with disabilities, historically the largest share of the office's work—largely sat idle for weeks after Trump took office."

"A freeze on processing the cases was lifted early this month, but advocates question whether the department can make progress on them with a smaller staff," reported the outlet.

The reduction in force has been compounded by the fact that the remaining staff has been directed to prioritize antisemitism cases, as the Trump administration places significant attention on allegations that pro-Palestinian organizers, particularly on college campuses, have endangered Jewish students by speaking out in favor of Palestinian rights and against Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza and the West Bank.

An analysis of more than 550 campus protests found that 97% of the demonstrations last year remained non-violent, contrary to repeated claims by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers that they placed Jewish students in danger. Meanwhile, the Trump administration, pro-Israel advocates, and Republicans have dismissed outcry over Musk's display of a Nazi salute at an inaugural event in January.

"Special needs kids [are] now suffering because of a manufactured hysteria aimed [at] silencing dissent against genocide," said writer and political analyst Yousef Munayyer. "Utter depravity."

In their letter, Sanders and his Democratic colleagues noted that "several regional offices responsible for investigating potential violations of students' civil rights in local schools" have also been shuttered, expressing alarm that many cases will likely "go uninvestigated and that students will be left in unsafe learning environments as a result."

They noted that at a time of "massive income and wealth inequality, when 60% of people live paycheck to paycheck," the federal government's defunding of public education "would result in either higher property taxes or decreased funding for public schools, including in rural areas."

"It is a national disgrace that the Trump administration is attempting to illegally abolish the Department of Education and thus, undermine a high-quality education for our students," wrote the lawmakers. "These reductions will have devastating impacts on our nation's students and we are deeply concerned that without staff, the department will be unable to fulfill critical functions, such as ensuring students can access federal financial aid, upholding students' civil rights, and guaranteeing that federal funding reaches communities promptly and is well-spent."

Trump, they noted, has expressed a desire "to return education back to the states" despite the fact that state governments and local school boards already make education policy, with just 11% of public education funding coming from the DOE.

However, "the Department of Education has a necessary and irreplaceable responsibility to implement federal laws that ensure equal opportunity for all children in this country," they wrote. "These laws guarantee fundamental protections, such as ensuring that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, that students from low-income backgrounds and students of color will not be disproportionately taught by less experienced and qualified teachers, and that parents will receive information about their child's academic achievement."

"Without the Department of Education, there is no guarantee that states would uphold students' civil and educational rights," said the lawmakers. "We will not stand by as you attempt to turn back the clock on education in this country through gutting the Department of Education. Our nation's public schools, colleges, and universities are preparing the next generation of America's leaders—we must take steps to strengthen education in this country, not take a wrecking ball to the agency that exists to do so."

Peace Institute Vows Legal Action to Oppose 'Illegal Takeover' by DOGE


"If DOGE can do this to USIP, what's to stop them from breaking into offices of other NGOs that receive U.S. funds? Or law firms or media that annoy the president?" said one humanitarian advocate.

A view of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) building headquarters is seen on March 18, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Mar 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Representatives of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency on Monday entered the headquarters with of the U.S. Institute of Peace with the help of D.C. police, according to the institute's staff—and now USIP's acting president, who was fired by the institute's newly configured board, is vowing to take legal action.

Fired acting president George Moose, who is challenging his removal, toldThe Associated Press on Monday, "What has happened here today is an illegal takeover by elements of the executive branch of a private nonprofit."

To CNN, Moose said that the institute intends to "vigorously" oppose DOGE's actions in court. "We are confident of our legal status, and we are confident that a court that gives us a hearing will be persuaded by the strength of our legal argument," he told the outlet.

The dramatic showdown on Monday follows an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump in February that called for "the nonstatutory components and functions" of select "governmental entities"—including USiP—to "be eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law."

USIP, whose mission is to promote peace and end conflict abroad, is an independent organization that was created by Congress in 1984. Representatives from USIP contend that because the institute is a congressionally chartered nonprofit, Musk and Trump do not have the power to dismantle it, according to the The New York Times.

On Friday, the White House told all but three members of USIP's board they were fired and its remaining members—Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and president of the National Defense University Peter Garvin—replaced Moose with Kenneth Jackson, a State Department official who, per the Times, was involved in the Trump administration's targeting of the now largely hollowed out U.S. Agency for International Development. USIP does not view Jackson's appointment as legal, per CNN.

DOGE representatives unsuccessfully tried to gain access to the USIP building twice on Friday, the second time with FBI agents in toe, but were turned away by representatives for the institute, according to the Times.

Then, on Monday, members of DOGE arrived again with Jackson. According to multiple outlets, citing representatives from USIP, the institute called the D.C. Metropolitan Police, but when they arrived they allowed Musk's team to enter the building.

USIP's chief security officer Colin O'Brien toldCNN that when he went out to greet the police "they held the door open and allowed members of DOGE to enter the building, where they were also followed by 10 to 12 police officers, uniformed D.C. police officers."

Some USIP officials remained in the building after DOGE representatives were let in, including Moose. Police later forced him to leave the building, per CNN.

"Mr. Moose denied lawful access to Kenneth Jackson, the acting USIP president (as approved by the USIP board). The D.C. Police Department arrived on-site and escorted Mr. Jackson into the building. The only unlawful individual was Mr. Moose, who refused to comply, and even tried to fire USIP's private security team when said security team went to give access to Mr. Jackson," DOGE wrote in a post on X on Monday night.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) declared on X on Monday night that "I was at USIP tonight to conduct congressional oversight over DOGE's break-in. I spoke with Acting President & CEO Moose. USIP is an independent, non-profit entity and I will work to stop DOGE's illegal power grab."




Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International, wrote on X: "if DOGE can do this to USIP, what's to stop them from breaking into offices of other NGOs that receive U.S. funds? Or law firms or media that annoy the president?"

Two Musk officials who gained entry to USIP on Monday were Nate Cavanaugh and Justin Aimonetti, the same DOGE staffers who last month forced entry to the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), which was also named in Trump's February order, per the Times.

In early March, staff with the USADF tried to keep DOGE staff from entering their offices in D.C. DOGE staff managed to gain entry after returning with U.S. Marshals.

'Completely Delusional': Trump Calls for Reinvigorating Domestic Use of US Coal

"Donald Trump is not concerned with Americans' health or economic wellbeing. He is only concerned with helping out his billionaire buddies in the fossil fuel industry," said one climate advocate.

U.S. President Donald Trump salutes his supporters at a political rally at Charleston Civic Center in Charleston, West Virginia on August 21, 2018.
(Photo: Mandel Ngan / AFP)

Eloise Goldsmith
Mar 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

After U.S. President Donald Trump declared on Truth Social on Monday night that he is ordering his administration "to immediately begin producing Energy with BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL," a leader at the grassroots environmental group Sierra Club quickly hit back, calling the move "completely delusional."

Trump said he was announcing the move as a means to counter China's economic edge. The announcement comes "after years of being held captive by Environmental Extremists, Lunatics, Radicals, and Thugs, allowing other Countries, in particular China, to gain tremendous Economic advantage over us by opening up hundreds of all Coal Fire Power Plants," Trump wrote.

It was not immediately clear what Trump's directive was referring to or how his announcement on social media would impact U.S. policy, according to Bloomberg.

"There is no such thing as clean coal. There is only coal that pollutes our air and water so severely that nearly half a million Americans have died prematurely from coal in the last two decades," said Sierra Club director of climate policy Patrick Drupp in a statement Tuesday. "Donald Trump is not concerned with Americans' health or economic wellbeing. He is only concerned with helping out his billionaire buddies in the fossil fuel industry."

Trump's cabinet includes a number figures who are friendly to the fossil fuel industry, such as Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who was a fracking industry CEO, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, a known ally of oil and gas companies.

On his first day in office, Trump declared a national energy emergency to ensure "an affordable and reliable domestic supply of energy," called for expedited "permitting and leasing of energy and natural resource projects in Alaska," and withdrew the United States from the the world's main climate pact.

The U.S. is mulling using emergency authority to bring coal-fired plants back online and halt others from shutting, Burgum toldBloomberg Television in an interview last week.

"Under the national energy emergency, which President Trump has declared, we've got to keep every coal plant open," Burgum said while at the energy sector gathering CERAWeek. "And if there had been units at a coal plant that have been shut down, we need to bring those back."

Meanwhile, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin earlier this month announced a new effort to rollback a host of EPA regulations, including some that will impact coal producers.

The coal mining company Peabody Energy saw their stock rise 3.5% after Trump's Monday post on social media about "clean coal," according to Tuesday morning reporting from Schaeffer's Investment Research.

As of 2023, coal accounted for 16.2% of U.S. electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That year, 21.4% came from renewables.

In its statement released on Tuesday, Sierra Club took issue with Trump's assertion that investing in coal has provided an economic boost to other countries. "Trump refers to the 'Economic advantage' that burning coal has afforded other nations. In reality, renewable energy is quickly becoming more affordable and reliable than coal," they wrote.

In 2023, the think tank Energy Innovation Policy & Technology released an analysis which found that 99% of coal plants are more expensive to run compared to replacing their generation capacity with either solar or wind power, when taking into account credits that were made available through the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Fix Our Forests Act and the Politics of Wildfire

Logging interests and the U.S. Forest Service have a history of using the wildfire threat to create “emergency” authority to bypass environmental reviews and curtail judicial oversight.


Trees grow in a redwood forest.
(Photo: Getty Images)

Rob Lewis
Mar 18, 2025

Common Dreams

When on January 23 of this year, California Senator Jarred Huffman stood on the House floor to voice his opposition to the Fix Our Forests Act, or FOFA,, he bitterly noted how the bill had been rushed to a vote without normal consultation.

The reason for the rush was obvious. Fires were raging in the suburbs of Los Angeles and FOFA’s proponents wanted to capitalize on the tragedy to pitch their bill, which in the name of wildfire prevention exempts vast acreage of backcountry logging from ordinary scientific and judicial oversight. The irony is that the LA fires had no connection with forests whatsoever. They began as grass and brush fires near populated areas, which, fanned by ferocious Santa Ana winds, quickly spread building to building, with disastrous results.

The irony widens when you consider that in 2024, Huffman, along with California Republican Jay Obernolte, introduced a bill that actually would help communities deal with fire. Called the Community Protection and Wildfire Resilience Act, it proposed $1 billion per year to help communities harden homes and critical infrastructure while also creating defensive space around their perimeters. The bill was introduced this year yet again, six days after FOFA was rushed to a vote, but it hasn’t even been given a hearing by the House Natural Resources Committee. That committee is chaired by Oklahoma Republican Bruce Westerman, who, it turns out, is the chief sponsor of the Fix Our Forests Act.

Once again, it’s the same old formula: slash citizen oversight in the name of wildfire reduction.

Do you see the political convolutions at work here? A very real fire danger facing communities is used to promote a bill focused primarily on back country “fuels reduction,” far from such communities, while the Huffman-Obernolte bill, that focuses on the communities themselves, gets nowhere. The process not only puts millions of acres of mature and old-growth forests at risk of massive “mechanical treatments,” it leaves the immediate fire dangers faced by communities largely unaddressed.

This political formula is nothing new. Twenty two years ago, then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, which also sought environmental restrictions for expanded logging under the pretext of preventing wildfires like those in California. The concern for conservationists was the same then as it is now—logging interests and the U.S. Forest Service using the wildfire threat to create “emergency” authority to bypass environmental reviews and curtail judicial oversight, providing easier access to mature and old-growth forests, while doing little in the way of home hardening and community protection.

Proponents of the Fix our Forests Act would counter that there are provisions within the bill that help coordinate grant applications for communities. That’s well and good, but falls far short of what the Huffman-Obernolte bill provides, which not only includes major funding to harden homes and critical infrastructure, but helps with early detection and evacuation planning and initiates Community Protection and Wildfire Resilience plans for insurance certification.

Further, there is a plethora of research that contradicts the notion that fuels reduction and forest thinning protects communities from wildfire. In fact, intensive forest management is shown to often increase fire severity. Meanwhile, the industry position that forest protection increases fire risk doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, years of mechanical treatments have done little to solve the problem, while doing tremendous ecological damage.

Now we have President Donald Trump’s all-caps Executive Order: “IMMEDIATE EXPANSION OF AMERICAN TIMBER PRODUCTION.” Once again, it’s the same old formula: slash citizen oversight in the name of wildfire reduction. The order calls for action to “reduce unnecessarily lengthy processes and associated costs related to administrative approvals for timber production, forest management, and wildfire risk reduction treatments,” while putting community safety up as the justification. From the first paragraph: “Furthermore, as recent disasters demonstrate, forest management and wildfire risk reduction projects can save American lives and communities.” Only they don’t. The only things shown to save lives and communities are the types of actions put forth by the Community Protections and Wildfire Resilience act.

The Democratic Party has a history of protecting public lands and a constituency that expects such protection. A similar thing can be said of certain moderate Republicans, where a courageous spirit prevails when it comes to environmental protection. If there ever was a time to remember that tradition and that spirit, it would be now.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Rob Lewis is an environmental writer, poet, and activist. He has been published in numerous anthologies, newspapers, and magazines, and is the author of the poem and essay collection, The Silence of Vanishing Things. He currently writes the Substack newsletter, The Climate According to Life.
Full Bio >

'Not Acceptable': Trump EPA Teases Evisceration of Scientific Research Office

"Every decision EPA makes must be in furtherance of protecting human health and the environment, and that just can't happen if you gut EPA science," said one Democratic lawmaker.


Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, speaks at the EPA on February 18, 2025.
Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Julia Conley
Mar 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


Climate campaigners on Tuesday accused the Republican head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of a "calculated betrayal of public health and the environment" after House Democrats obtained documents outlining the possible elimination of the EPA's science research office—whose work underpins the agency's anti-pollution policies.

The Democratic staff on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee reviewed the proposal, which was shared with the White House last Friday and called for the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) to be eliminated as a national program office, with 50-75% of its 1,540 staffers dismissed and the rest reassigned to EPA positions that "align with administration priorities."

The ORD employs chemists, biologists, doctors, nurses, and experts on wetlands and other issues who contribute to research on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or "forever chemicals," in drinking water; contamination in drinking water caused by fracking; the impact of wildfire smoke on public health; and other environmental matters. The New York Times reported that the proposed cuts—which follow President Donald Trump's call to slash the EPA's overall budget by 65%—would cost jobs at the agency's major research labs in North Carolina and Oklahoma.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) ranking member of the House science panel, told the Times that closing the office would mean the EPA was no longer meeting its legal obligation to use the "best available science" to draft regulations and policies.

"Every decision EPA makes must be in furtherance of protecting human health and the environment, and that just can't happen if you gut EPA science," Lofgren said, noting that the ORD was created by Congress and cannot be unilaterally dismantled by the executive branch.

The plan to eliminate the ORD "sells out our public health," said the Federation of American Scientists.




During his campaign, Trump promised the fossil fuel industry he would work to slash regulations meant to protect public health. On Tuesday, Chitra Kumar, managing director of the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said making it harder for the government to "set protective health standards" is likely "exactly what this administration is aiming for."

"The scientists and experts in this office conduct and review the best available science to set limits on pollution and regulate hazardous chemicals to keep the public safe," said Kumar. "We're talking about soot that worsens asthma and heart disease, carcinogenic 'forever chemicals' in drinking water, and heat-trapping emissions driving climate change. The administration knows, and history shows, that industry will not regulate itself."

With an EPA spokesperson saying Tuesday that "no decisions have been made yet," Kumar said that "it's paramount that the administration hear: This is not acceptable."

"Everyone, including President Trump and his Cabinet's children and grandchildren, would feel the consequences of this move, not to mention the most polluted communities, predominantly Black, Brown and low income, who would bear the brunt," said Kumar. "Is the administration’s ideology and pledge to industries that strong that they are willing to put their own loved ones at risk?"

The potential closure of the ORD would represent another victory for the authors of Project 2025, the right-wing policy blueprint that called to shutter the Department of Education and impose work requirements for Medicaid recipients.

The agenda's chapter on the EPA calls for the elimination of programs in the ORD and claims that the office is "precautionary, bloated, unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, and inclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals."

Project 2025's authors have particularly called for the termination of the ORD's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which informs toxic chemical regulations by assessing their effects on human health. As ProPublicareported earlier this month, Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that would prohibit the EPA from using IRIS' chemical assessments to underpin regulations and other policies.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents more than 190 corporations, called on EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to disband IRIS earlier this year, and the Republican lawmaker who introduced a bill to end the program represents a district where formaldehyde maker Hexion has a plant.

The push to close the ORD, according to former official Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, is the result of a "multi-decade... attack on the risk-assessment process, in particular."

Without the ORD and IRIS, Orme-Zavaleta told the Times, "the agency will not be fulfilling its mission, and people will not be protected. They will be at greater risk. The environment will be at greater risk."

John Noel, deputy climate director for Greenpeace USA, said the push to close the ORD and end its risk assessment work suggests that Zeldin "seems to believe his job is to serve corporate polluters rather than the American people."

"For decades, these EPA regulations have been a critical line of defense against harmful pollution, protecting public health, and tackling the climate crisis," said Noel. "Yet even these safeguards have never been enough. This year alone, our country has been ravaged by extreme hurricanes, devastating wildfires, and record-breaking heat—in large part, consequences of pollution. Instead of holding these industries accountable, the EPA is giving them a free pass."

“EPA exists to protect our health and environment—not to gut the very safeguards that protect us," said Noel. "As the climate crisis grows, the agency must reverse this reckless course and recommit to its core mission: protecting people and not the economic interests of polluting corporations."