Data Center Giant Secures $14 Million Deal to Consume 40% of Pennsylvania Town’s Excess Water

The data center will get access to 400,000 gallons of water per day—enough to serve over 2,300 homes.



An aerial view of a 33 megawatt data center with closed-loop cooling system, amid warehouses on October 20, 2025 in Vernon, California.
(Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Feb 16, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

An artificial intelligence data center development venture has signed a multimillion-dollar deal that will allow it to consume over 40% of a Pennsylvania town’s excess water supply.

PennLive reported on Monday that Carlisle Development Partners, a joint venture created by developers Pennsylvania Data Center Partners and PowerHouse Data Centers, had signed a $14.1 million agreement that will let it tap into the public water and sewer systems of Middlesex Township, Pennsylvania.

According to PennLive, the deal will formalize the 18-building data center’s right to access up to 400,000 gallons of water per day, which the publication notes is “equal to the consumption of 2,367 dwelling units.”

Middlesex Township Supervisor Phil Neiderer said during a recent planning commission meeting that the big influx of revenue to the local government would more than make up for the massive amounts of water being consumed by the data center.

“What that’s going to do is it’s going to fund a lot of projects that have already been in the books that are completely unrelated to the data center,” Neiderer said, according to PennLive.

In recent months, residents of Middlesex Township and Cumberland County have raised concerns about not only water use but also pollution and utility rates tied to the project.

AI data centers have become a major controversy throughout the US in recent months, as their massive energy needs have pushed up utility bills and put a strain on communities’ water supplies.

A study published in the journal Nature Sustainability last year found that data centers could soon consume as much water as 10 million Americans and emit as much carbon dioxide as 10 million cars, or roughly the same amount of consumption as the entire state of New York.

CNBC reported last month PJM Interconnection, the largest US grid operator that serves over 65 million people across 13 states, projects that it will be a full six gigawatts short of its reliability requirements in 2027 thanks to the gargantuan power demands of data centers.

Joe Bowring, president of independent market monitor Monitoring Analytics, told CNBC that he’s never seen the grid under such projected strain.

“It’s at a crisis stage right now,” Bowring said. “PJM has never been this short.”

Private companies seek to import fuel amid Cuban energy crisis


By AFP
February 19, 2026


Vehicles wait in line to refuel at a gas station in Havan 

- Copyright AFP/File ADALBERTO ROQUE

Faced with a severe energy crisis exacerbated by US sanctions, private companies in Cuba are attempting to import fuel after the island’s government agreed to end its monopoly on the sector.

The fuel crisis, already chronic due to the communist government’s lack of foreign currency, has worsened significantly since the halt of Venezuelan oil deliveries and Washington’s threats to impose tariffs on any country selling Cuba oil.

On the island of about 9.6 million people, diesel sales are now suspended and gasoline sales are drastically rationed.

“We bought an isotank… through a state-owned importer,” the owner of a private company planning to import nearly 25,000 liters of diesel from the United States told AFP on the condition of anonymity, referencing a container used to transport diesel.

“They should deliver it this week.”

The operation is being carried out under a license issued by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a branch of the Treasury Department, which allows private businesses on the island to import certain products, including fuel.

A source close to the matter confirmed to AFP that Cuban private entrepreneurs were also seeking to import diesel from countries neighboring Cuba, as well as from Europe.

This type of OFAC license was granted several years ago, but the Cuban government only recently authorized private fuel imports in response to the severity of the crisis.

While the crude oil produced in Cuba powers the country’s power plants, the island is dependent on imports for diesel and liquefied petroleum gas.

“Diesel has an impact on decentralized (electricity) production through generators,” and also on “transportation, agriculture and the water sector,” Jorge Pinon, a researcher at the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, told AFP.

– Security checks –

When announcing a series of emergency measures to conserve electricity and fuel this month, Deputy Prime Minister Oscar Perez-Oliva Fraga also mentioned a new provision allowing companies to purchase fuel, though he provided few details.

The businessman interviewed by AFP said authorities have “not set any limits” on his fuel purchases, though he noted he cannot sell it to third parties.

The state previously had a monopoly on fuel sales in Cuba, but the government, caught between the US embargo, the structural weaknesses of its centralized economy and social discontent, opened certain sectors to small and medium-sized enterprises in 2021.

Currently, however, authorities have provided no details on the conditions that private companies wishing to import fuel must meet.

Safety controls, validated by the fire department, must be implemented for the storage of this fuel, the businessman told AFP, but “the institutions themselves are not able to clearly outline all the steps.”

According to Oniel Diaz, a consultant for private businesses, some entrepreneurs are already “at a very advanced stage in the import process.”

He said the possibility to import fuel opened up new opportunities for the private sector, but he noted there are still obstacles in the process, including companies’ abilities to make foreign payments and transport the fuel.

Another main concern, Diaz noted, is the risk of clashing with the Trump administration’s push to cut off fuel sales to the island.

Marco Rubio exposed for ‘secret talks’ amid Trump admin’s starvation campaign

Alexander Willis
February 18, 2026 


U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio attends a joint press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (not pictured) in Budapest, Hungary, February 16, 2026. REUTERS/Bernadett Szabo

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was revealed by Axios Wednesday to be engaged in “secret talks” with the grandson of ex-Cuban President Raúl Castro, bypassing official communication channels as part of the Trump administration’s brutal campaign to starve the Caribbean nation of resources in the pursuit of regime change.

"Our position – the U.S. government's position – is the regime has to go," one senior Trump administration official told Axios in its report Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "But what exactly that looks like is up to [President Donald Trump] and he has yet to decide. Rubio is still in talks with the grandson."

While Cuba has faced crippling sanctions and an embargo imposed on it by the United States since the late 1950s, an executive order Trump signed last month imposed even harsher penalties on nations supplying the Caribbean nation with oil, setting off a chain reaction that’s shuttered hospitals and starved people of food.

Trump openly cheered his administration’s use of starvation as a negotiating tactic on Tuesday, calling Cuba a “failed nation” that should “absolutely make a deal.” He also refused to rule out an outright attack on Cuba similar to the United States' attack on Venezuela last month.

And on Wednesday, sources revealed to Axios that Rubio is apparently in regular contact with Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, the grandson of Raúl Castro, and the great-nephew of Fidel Castro, talks that have reportedly been "surprisingly" friendly.

“I wouldn't call these 'negotiations' as much as 'discussions' about the future," the senior Trump administration official told Axios.

Another source who was “familiar with the talks” told Axios that Rubio is “looking for the next Delcy in Cuba,” referring to acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez, who’s led Venezuela since the Trump administration abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last month.

“There's no political diatribes about the past. It's about the future,” the source told Axios. “[Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro] could be straight out of Hialeah, [Florida]. This could be a conversation between regular guys on the streets of Miami."The United States has sought to topple Cuban’s government since the late 1950s after revolutionaries – led by the Castros and Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara – ousted the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista, whose leadership, critics say, maintained the Caribbean nation as a “virtual slave state” to the benefit of U.S. companies.

Trump Now ‘Boasting of a War Crime’ as Cuba Suffers Under Oil Blockade

“Cuba isn’t failing, it’s being suffocated,” said one anti-war group.


People walk along a quiet street in Havana, Cuba on February 8, 2026.
(Photo by Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Feb 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


US President Donald Trump’s latest comments on his government’s blockade on Cuba Monday evening amounted to “boasting of a war crime,” one journalist said after the president told the press that the Caribbean island is a “failed nation” weeks after Trump himself cut off Cuba’s main source of energy and threatened countries with tariffs if they provided the government with oil.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump listed some of the impacts of the blockade the White House imposed after invading Venezuela last month and pushing for control of its oil supply.
RECOMMENDED...



Pushing for Regime Change, Trump Accused of ‘Asphyxiating’ Cuba With Fuel Embargo



‘War by Another Means’: Union Movement Condemns Trump Economic Siege of Cuba

“They don’t even have jet fuel to get their airplanes to take off. They’re clogging up their runway. We’re talking to Cuba right now... and they should absolutely make a deal, because it’s really a humanitarian threat,” said the president. “There’s an embargo, there’s no oil, there’s no money, there’s no anything.”



Carlos F. de Cossio, Cuba’s deputy minister of foreign affairs, pointed out that it has been “frequent for US officials and diplomats to claim that US aggression is not responsible for difficulties in Cuba,” as the trade embargo maintained by the US for more than six decades has impeded medications, food, and other humanitarian assistance from reaching Cubans.

It seems those officials “don’t listen to their president,” said de Cossio.



Trump commented on the impact of his ramped-up blockade as Al Jazeera and Reuters reported that just 44 of Havana’s 106 sanitation trucks have been able to operate in recent weeks due to the fuel shortage, leading waste to pile up on the Cuban capital’s streets and raising fears of public health risks.

The lack of fuel has also caused blackouts in cities and rural areas, and one diplomat told The Guardian on Sunday that “it’s a matter of weeks” before the blockade could cause extreme shortages of water and food.

While appearing to express concern for the Cuban public, Trump described how he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio “are overseeing a siege on Cuba... with no discernible foreign policy objective other than sadism,” said Emma Vigeland of Majority Report.

“This is not an embargo. The US has had an embargo on Cuba for over 60 years, and it has failed” to force a regime change, said Vigeland.

The anti-war group Code Pink added: “If Cuba is a ‘failed nation’ then why has the U.S. spent 66 years trying and failing to destroy it?”

“Cuba isn’t failing, it’s being suffocated,” said the group.

Trump repeated his demand that Cuban officials “make a deal,” but Cuban officials have said they are open to coming to an agreement with the US. Meanwhile, Drop Site News reported last week that Rubio has been falsely claiming negotiations are taking place in an apparent bid to ultimately force regime change through other means.

One reporter asked the president Monday evening whether he would consider “an operation like the one in Venezuela,” where US forces last month abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and killed dozens of people, including many Cuban soldiers and guards.

Trump did not confirm or deny whether he would take military action in Cuba, but issued a veiled threat: “It wouldn’t be a very tough operation, as you can figure.”

Also on Monday, over 100 Cuban artists signed on to a call for “international solidarity” against the blockade.

“The empire says that Cuba represents a threat to its national security, which is ridiculous and implausible. It has imposed an oil blockade, resulting in the paralysis of hospitals, schools, industries, and transportation. They try to prevent our doctors from saving lives; they try to paralyze our free and universal education system, to plunge us into famine, into a lack of energy to guarantee access to drinking water and cooking food; in short, they aim to slowly and bloodily extinguish a country,” reads the open letter.

“Cuba resists and will resist this inhumane aggression, but it counts on the active solidarity of all honest, humanist, and good-willed men and women of the world,” it continues. “It is about preventing a genocidal act and saving a heroic people whose only ‘crime and threat’ has been to defend their sovereignty.”

Trump Agency ‘Setting Stage for Another Financial Crisis’ With Attack on Prediction Market Regulations

“By moving to crush state safeguards for prediction markets in court, the CFTC is giving gambling companies a green light to prey on all Americans,” said one critic.


In this photo illustration, a Polymarket logo seen displayed on a smartphone.
(Photo Illustration by Mateusz Slodkowski/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)


Brad Reed
Feb 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


A key federal regulatory commission has announced that it will be fighting against individual states’ powers to regulate prediction markets.

Mike Selig, chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), wrote in an editorial published by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that his agency has exclusive powers to regulate prediction markets, and that it would be backing an appeal by Crypto.com aimed at overturning state regulations.

Selig, who was appointed to his post by President Donald Trump last year, said this action was necessary because the prediction markets “face an onslaught of state-driven litigation,” with many states claiming that these markets are subject to their laws regulating gambling.

“The CFTC will no longer sit idly by,” Selig declared, “while overzealous state governments undermine the agency’s exclusive jurisdiction over these markets by seeking to establish statewide prohibitions on these exciting products.”

The CTFC commissioner also disputed that prediction markets constituted gambling, saying instead that they are derivative instruments of the kind that the CFTC was given sole jurisdiction to regulate under the 1936 Commodity Exchange Act.

“These exchanges aren’t the Wild West, as some critics claim, but self-regulatory organizations that are examined and supervised by experienced CFTC staff,” Selig concluded. “America is home to the most liquid and vibrant financial markets in the world because our regulators take seriously their obligation to police fraud and institute appropriate investor safeguards.”

Selig’s announcement was greeted with skepticism by Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director for the Demand Progress Education Fund, who warned the CFTC was making the same mistakes made by regulators that led to the 2008 global financial crisis.

“The 2008 financial crisis happened because we let bankers gamble on housing,” said Peterson-Cassin. “Now the CFTC is trying to let gamblers gamble on every aspect of life. By moving to crush state safeguards for prediction markets in court, the CFTC is giving gambling companies a green light to prey on all Americans and is setting the stage for another financial crisis.”

The CFTC announcement was also criticized by Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who said that state regulations for online betting markets are fundamentally different from the kinds of futures markets traditionally regulated by the commission.

“I don’t remember the CFTC having authority over the ‘derivative market’ of LeBron James rebounds,” he wrote in a social media post. “These prediction markets you are breathlessly defending are gambling—pure and simple. They are destroying the lives of families and countless Americans, especially young men. They have no place in Utah.”

Cox further vowed to “use every resource within my disposal as governor of the sovereign state of Utah, and under the Constitution of the United States to beat you in court.”

Former Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also criticized Selig for trying to interfere in the rights of states to regulate betting markets, arguing that “sports betting is not a derivative, it’s gambling.”

Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasNews, raised suspicions about the effort to undo state regulations on betting apps and pointed to Donald Trump Jr.'s connections to popular prediction markets Polymarket and Kalshi.

As reported by the New York Times last month, Trump Jr. “is both an investor in and an unpaid adviser to Polymarket, and a paid adviser to Kalshi,” as well as “a director of the Trump family’s social media company, which recently announced it would start its own platform called Truth Predict.”

Coalition Sues Trump Admin Over ‘Unlawful’ Approval of LNG Export Project

A lawyer for the plaintiffs argues that the Department of Energy “is using an untested loophole to avoid considering the impacts of this project on Americans’ health and on the environment.”



A liquefied natural gas transport ship sits docked in the Calcasieu River in Cameron Parish, Louisiana on June 7, 2023.
(Photo by Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Feb 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A coalition of green groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday contesting the Trump administration’s approval of what would be one of the world’s largest liquefied natural gas facilities—permission granted despite the project’s threats to frontline communities, the environment, and climate.

The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Earthjustice are representing the Sierra Club, which is suing the US Department of Energy (DOE) for approving Venture Global’s application to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Calcasieu Pass 2, or CP2, terminal, which is now under construction in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.

“We’re suing over DOE’s unlawful approval of this facility that will increase climate-warming pollution and do nothing to lower energy costs for Americans,” NRDC senior attorney Caroline Reiser said. “DOE is using an untested loophole to avoid considering the impacts of this project on Americans’ health and on the environment. The agency also failed to consider how LNG exports could increase US energy prices.”

As Earthjustice explained:
CP2’s pollution, traffic, sprawl, and visual impact would add to the harms the nine overburdened local Gulf Coast communities located near the facility already experience from nearby existing LNG terminals. These communities already bear the burden of other heavy industry and are on the frontlines of the bigger hurricanes and storms fueled by the worsening climate crisis. Approving CP2’s exports will add to environmental injustice, fuel additional climate change, and increase prices for domestic consumers.

CP2 is one of the key projects in what climate campaigners called a “staggering” LNG expansion under former President Joe Biden. In January 2024, his administration announced a temporary pause on DOE approvals of pending and future LNG export applications to nations with which the US did not have free trade agreements. A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump later ruled the pause illegal.

The United States is the world’s leading natural gas producer and LNG exporter. While the fossil fuel industry often calls LNG a “bridge fuel”—a cleaner alternative to coal that will ease the transition to sustainable energy sources—critics have warned that the fossil gas actually hampers the transition to a green economy. LNG is mostly composed of methane, which has more than 80 times the planetary heating power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.

Trump’s DOE—headed by former fracking CEO Chris Wright—granted preliminary approval to CP2 last March, with the final green light coming in October. If built as planned, it would export around 20 million metric tons per year of LNG.

“The estimated lifecycle greenhouse gas from this methane gas would be more than the annual emissions of 47 million gas-powered cars, or 54 coal-fired power plants,” said NRDC.

CP2 construction has already harmed local communities in Cameron Parish—especially local fishers. Last summer, dredging despoiled hundreds of acres of marshland, burying crab traps and oyster beds, and killing wildlife including the crabs, fish, and shrimp upon which fishers depend for their livelihood.

“We’re routinely seeing less and less catch. LNG has polluted our waters and disrupted the wildlife,” one local fisher and dock manager said last year. “The shrimp just do not want to come in because of the LNG projects.”

Nonviolent Climate Activist Group Says It’s Been Targeted by FBI ‘Terrorism’ Task Force

“This is an escalation against the climate movement as a whole, and the next phase of this administration’s crackdown on dissent,” said Extinction Rebellion.

Climate activists with Extinction Rebellion block escalators inside CBS Studios on September 10, 2025.
(Photo by Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Feb 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


As the Trump administration broadens its efforts to criminalize dissent, a nonviolent climate advocacy group says the FBI is targeting it with a terrorism investigation.

Using a dubious legal designation of “domestic terrorism,” the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has ramped up its efforts to surveil those it considers to be domestic enemies—including members of left-wing groups with no history of violence.

The New York City chapter of the group Extinction Rebellion said one of its former members came into the crosshairs earlier this month.

In a statement on Wednesday, the group said that a former member was visited by two special agents, one of whom was from the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces, at their residence 200 miles outside New York City.

They said the agents asked about their involvement with Extinction Rebellion. The member declined to respond, referring the questions to their attorney.

The former member, who has chosen to remain anonymous, told the Intercept that they hadn’t been involved with the group in two years and hadn’t participated in any actions they thought would warrant FBI involvement.

“I believe this to be a significant escalation of the criminal legal system against Extinction Rebellion and find it very troubling,” Ron Kuby, an attorney for Extinction Rebellion, said. “This is usually the way we find out an actual investigation is underway and is often followed by other visits and other actions.”

He said he found it strange that Extinction Rebellion would become the target of a terrorism investigation. Members of the group take part in acts of what they call “nonviolent civil disobedience” such as blocking roads, sit-ins at public buildings, and occasional vandalism.

The group has sought to use these tactics to draw attention to leaders’ inaction in fighting the climate crisis. Increasingly, they have launched protests against the Trump administration’s policies more broadly, including its deployment of federal immigration agents in cities across the country.

While its actions can be disruptive, Extinction Rebellion has always been nonviolent, Kuby said, and its tactics are at worst misdemeanor offenses, which typically wouldn’t interest federal law enforcement.

“[Extinction Rebellion NYC] is a nonviolent, decentralized group of artists, small business owners, parents, retired teachers, and everyday New Yorkers. We are not terrorists!” said a statement from Extinction Rebellion Global posted to social media on Tuesday. “We use artistic nonviolent organized protests, community outreach, and strategic advocacy to empower everyday citizens and drive meaningful environmental change.”

“This is an escalation against the climate movement as a whole, and the next phase of this administration’s crackdown on dissent that many of us have been expecting,” the group continued.

The New York City chapter of Extinction Rebellion is not the first to receive FBI visits during the second Trump administration.

Last year, six members of its sister group in Boston said the feds came to their doors, all on the same day in March, and questioned them without providing any business cards or explanation for their visit.

According to WBUR reporting at the time, none of the activists questioned had a history of participating in violent protests or of facing felony charges in federal or Massachusetts courts.

Jeff Feuer, a lawyer in Cambridge who has represented climate activists for more than three decades, told the outlet, “Until this year, I have never heard about the FBI or any other federal law enforcement officer visiting or questioning any of the hundreds of climate activists that I have personally represented.”

After months of denial, US Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledged during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month that the department does, in fact, have a list of “domestic terrorist organizations” being compiled under President Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which was described as a national directive to use the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to focus on “leftist” political violence in America.

That memo, commonly referred to as NSPM-7, was first obtained by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein in September. It laid out a national strategy to “disrupt” individuals or groups that “foment political violence” before it takes place.

NSPM-7 described many vaguely defined political viewpoints as potential “indicators” that one is a possible domestic terorrist, including: “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “Anti-Christianity”; “extremism” on “migration,” “race,” and “gender”; and “hostility to those who hold traditional views” on “family,” “religion,” and “morality.”

In another memo that leaked in December, Bondi—who just months before pledged under oath there would “never be an enemies list” compiled by the DOJ—directed the department to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”

It directs federal law enforcement agencies to refer “suspected” domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which will then undertake an “exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7” that will incorporate “a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities.”

During the hearing, Bondi refused to say which groups and entities were on the list of so-called “domestic terrorists,” though she acknowledged it existed, saying, “I know antifa is part of that.”

Trump designated “antifa,” referring to a loose confederation of antifascist groups, as a “domestic terrorist organization” in October, even though there is no formal “domestic terrorism” statute in US law.

It is unclear whether a formal federal investigation into Extinction Rebellion is underway or if it is part of NSPM-7.

An internal document shared with the Guardian in November revealed that the FBI had launched “criminal and domestic terrorism investigations” into “threats against immigration enforcement activity” in at least 23 regions across the US—including New York. It acknowledged that some of the investigations were related to the “countering domestic terrorism” memo.

“'Domestic terrorism’ may not yet be a criminal charge, but the Trump administration is gearing up to create it,” Extinction Rebellion NYC said on Wednesday. “NSPM-7... will be the broadest criminalization of free speech since McCarthyism or the height of the Civil Rights Movement. And while this fossil-fueled administration has already failed in some attempts to silence critics, we understand the broader context within which our specific activities sit.”

FBI BEGAN TARGETING ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS AS TERRORISTS AFTER 9/11

Digital Surveillance, ICE, and the Trumped-Up Charge of Domestic Terrorism

From the web to the streets, the president of the United States is weaponizing the federal government to hunt, prosecute, and punish his enemies.


US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Department of Homeland Security personnel, and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino stand together amid a tense protest outside the ICE processing facility in Broadview, Illinois, on September 27, 2025.
(Photo by Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Jordan Liz
Feb 19, 2026

Common Dreams


In recent months, the Department of Homeland Security has issued hundreds of administrative subpoenas to tech companies demanding the personal information of social media accounts that track, criticize, or oppose Immigration Customs and Enforcement. This includes Google, Reddit, Meta, and Discord, which—in a move that makes far more sense now—recently announced it will require users to submit a face scan or upload an ID to access full content.

While alarming, this is only the latest step in a year-long effort by President Donald Trump’s DHS to expand its online surveillance apparatus under the guise of combating left-wing “political violence” and “domestic terrorism.” In February 2025, The Intercept revealed that ICE was soliciting pitches for an automated system that would scan social media and other sites for anti-ICE sentiment and threats. If anything “suspicious” were detected, a contractor would conduct a detailed review of the user’s background, including:
Previous social media activity which would indicate any additional threats to ICE; 2). Information which would indicate the individual(s) and/or the organization(s) making threats have a proclivity for violence; and 3). Information indicating a potential for carrying out a threat (such as postings depicting weapons, acts of violence, refences [sic] to acts of violence, to include empathy or affiliation with a group which has violent tendencies; references to violent acts; affections with violent acts; eluding [sic] to violent acts.

To estimate one’s “potential for carrying out a threat” or “proclivity for violence,” contractors would draw on “social and behavioral sciences” and “psychological profiles.” Sentiment analysis would likely be carried out by machine-learning algorithms. While details here are sparse, the important point for now is that this review would attempt to assess one’s present and future threat to ICE based on the agency’s own internal (and politically biased) criteria.

Once flagged, the system would scour a target’s internet history and attempt to reveal their real-world location and offline identity. Contractors would provide ICE with a slew of personal information including: “photograph, partial legal name, partial date of birth, possible city, possible work affiliations, possible school or university affiliation, and any identified possible family members or associates.”

All of this meant to invoke fear, silence dissent, and consolidate power for Trump and his allies. Yet, despite the dangers, we must resist.

In October 2025, Wired reported that ICE plans to drastically expand their surveillance capabilities by hiring nearly 30 private contractors to scan social media sites and convert posts, photos, and messages into new leads for enforcement raids.

In January 2026, investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein revealed that DHS and the FBI have over a dozen “secret and obscure” watch lists they use to track “protesters (both anti-ICE and pro-Palestinian), ‘Antifa,’ and those who are promiscuously labelled ‘domestic terrorists.’” These watch lists include a classified social media repository code named Slipstream, as well as others “used to link people on the streets together, including collecting on friends and families who have nothing to do with any purported lawbreaking.” This reporting came a few days after a video was released online of an ICE agent telling a protester that they have a “nice little database” and “now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.”

These watch lists are an extension of Trump’s National Security Presidential Memo 7 (NSPM-7). That memo mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.” Per the memo, domestic terrorism is fomented by the spread of “'anti-fascist’ rhetoric” including, “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity,” as well as “extremism on migration, race, and gender.”

The labeling of any view Trump disagrees with as “domestic terrorism” is dangerous and strategic. As Rachel Levinson-Waldman, the director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, notes, under the Patriot Act, “Any federal or state crime can be used as the basis for a domestic terrorism investigation if it is ‘dangerous to human life’” and “appear[s] to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or the government. This broad basis allows DHS to use its vast policing and surveillance powers to investigate civil rights organizations, activists, and donors to progressive causes as well as online critics. Regardless of the outcome of their investigation, being suspected of domestic terrorism—regardless of how unconstitutional, frivolous, and politically motivated the charge—can have lasting impacts, including loss of employment and housing, inability to conduct financial transactions, as well as public stigma.

Importantly, the image of the “domestic terrorist” is quite different from the ordinary criminal. The “domestic terrorist” does not simply violate the law, they commit “ideologically driven crimes” aimed to destroy the nation and its people. They represent a far greater threat. This is why the State Department has been revoking the visas of hundreds of students who express “pro-Hamas” views, whether in protest, newsletters, or on social media. For Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the presence of “these lunatics” is contrary to the national security and interests of the United States. The State Department has also denied visas to people “celebrating” the death of Charlie Kirk for similar reasons.

National security is also the basis for imposing denaturalization quotas for foreign-born citizens as well as the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. In each case, “national security,” “left-wing political violence,” and “domestic terrorism” are used to justify the denial of rights and the abuse of federal powers.

For US-born citizens like Renee Good, Alex Pretti, Marimar Martinez, or those subjected to ICE’s mass digital surveillance, those punitive measures are unavailable. Instead, the designation of “domestic terrorist” is meant to mark them as traitors—as people who, like “pro-Hamas” visa holders or “dangerous illegal criminal aliens more broadly,” do not belong in this country. For this administration, they are essentially citizens in name only—they do not “share our values, contribute to our economy, and assimilate in our society.” Thus, they too must be subjected to the full arsenal of policing and surveillance powers at DHS’ disposal.

In fact, for Trump, these “faux” citizens are a greater threat than undocumented immigrants. As then-presidential candidate Trump put it, “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and destroying our country. […] I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people. Radical left lunatics.” But the reality is that far from sick, bad, or radical, these are ordinary law-abiding people whose only crime is defying the rising piss-stained tide of Trump’s authoritarianism.

The dangers here are real and serious: The blatant First Amendment violations; the widening of DHS’ mass surveillance capabilities; the policing of dissent, both actual and possible; the coordinated effort to undermine digital activism; the complicity of tech companies in furthering the fascist ambitions of the Trump administration; the malicious smearing of those who oppose this administration as “domestic terrorists”; as well as the reality—unnerving, though far from unprecedented—that from the web to the streets the president of the United States is weaponizing the federal government to hunt, prosecute, and punish his enemies.

All of this meant to invoke fear, silence dissent, and consolidate power for Trump and his allies. Yet, despite the dangers, we must resist. We must continue calling out ICE’s abuses, championing Palestinian sovereignty, denouncing Trump’s vile imperial and colonial ambitions, and protecting our rights and freedoms from the real domestic terrorist threat: the Trump administration.


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


Jordan Liz
Jordan Liz is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. He specializes in issues of race, immigration and the politics of belonging.
Full Bio >

US Youth, Climate Coalition Sue to Stop Trump EPA ‘From Torching Our Kids’ Future’

“This shameful and dangerous action,” said one expert, “is rooted in falsehoods, not facts, and is at complete odds with the public interest and the best available science.”


Children play basketball beside an oil well pump jack and tank, in the Wilmington neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, on February 24, 2022.
(Photo by Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Feb 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Over a dozen young Americans as well as a coalition of environmental and public health groups on Wednesday filed a pair of legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s administration for repealing the “endangerment finding” that enabled federal policies aimed at combating the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the long-anticipated move last week. The coalition of groups responded with a petition at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that names him and the EPA.



In Gift to Big Oil Donors, Trump Stops EPA From Combating ‘Most Terrible Environmental Threat in Human History’

Warnings of ‘Permanent’ Damage to People and Planet as Trump EPA Set to Repeal Key Climate Rule

“The endangerment finding has been the backbone of climate policy for 17 years, protecting us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare—including greenhouse gases that are driving climate change,” explained Lawrence Hafetz, legal director at Clean Air Council, one of the groups behind the case, in a statement.

“By repealing the finding, we are sweeping the single deadliest type of pollution, climate pollution, under the rug,” Hafetz continued. “Deadly floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes are harming our health, our communities, and our economy. This climate chaos plan is decimating the EPA’s ability to act when we need protections more than ever.”

Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists, another plaintiff, argued that “EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding and safeguards to limit vehicle emissions marks a complete dereliction of the agency’s mission to protect people’s health and its legal obligation under the Clean Air Act.”

“This shameful and dangerous action by the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Zeldin is rooted in falsehoods, not facts, and is at complete odds with the public interest and the best available science,” she noted. “Heat-trapping emissions and global average temperatures are rising—primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels—contributing to a mounting human and economic toll across the nation.”

In the lead-up to the repeal, institutions worldwide concluded that 2025 was among the hottest years on record, a group of global experts declared that “current economic models systematically underestimate climate damage,” and another international team of scientists warned in a review of climate tipping points that Earth is at risk of a hothouse trajectory.

Despite such findings, Trump has waged a sweeping war on the climate since he returned to office last year, thanks in part to campaign cash from the fossil fuel industry. In addition to repealing the 2009 endangerment finding—which the administration celebrated as the “single largest deregulatory action in US history”—he has declared a “national energy emergency” and ditched a long list of organizations and treaties, including the Paris Agreement.

Friends of the Earth legal director Hallie Templeton said Wednesday that “today’s lawsuit makes clear that we will not idly stand by while EPA blatantly refutes its core mission to protect the environment and public health from dangerous pollution.”

Templeton and David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, stressed that with the repeal, the Trump administration is unlawfully choosing big polluters at the expense of the public and the planet.“

“We’re suing to stop Trump from torching our kids’ future in favor of a monster handout to oil companies,” said Pettit. “Nobody but Big Oil profits from Trump trashing climate science and making cars and trucks guzzle and pollute more. Consumers will pay more to fill up, and our skies and oceans will fill up with more pollution. The EPA’s rollbacks are based on political poppycock, not science or law, and the courts should see it that way.”




Other organizations involved in the case include the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and more.

Also on Wednesday, 18 children and young adults from across the United States filed a separate petition at the same court challenging the EPA repeal. They are represented by Our Children’s Trust and Public Justice, which have worked on various youth climate cases.

“My Catholic faith teaches me to care for all life and protect the most vulnerable, and it teaches that children are a gift,” said lead petitioner Elena Venner. “I now struggle to imagine bringing a child into a world where the air is unsafe and the climate is increasingly unstable. The EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding violates my First Amendment right to practice my faith and my Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty.”

“I have asthma, and worsening pollution harms my health and makes it harder for me to breathe and live fully outdoors,” Venner explained. “When the air is thick with the pollution of fossil fuel-burning cars and trucks and ever-increasing wildfire smoke, I feel it in my chest, and I am reminded that something as basic as breathing is no longer guaranteed. That is not the life today or the future my generation deserves.”

Every Single Participant in NYT Focus Group Preferred Progressive Candidates Over Moderate Ones

“The Democratic Party needs to embrace voices that resonate with people,” said one participant


Over 13,000 people pack Forest Hills Stadium in Queens, New York, for mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s New York Is Not For Sale rally on October 26, 2025.
(Photo by Neil Constantine/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Feb 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


The New York Times’ “America in Focus” series has assembled dozens of focus groups in recent years, often asking supporters of President Donald Trump how they feel about his domestic and foreign policy one year into his second term—but political observers suggested Tuesday that the newspaper’s latest focus group should capture the attention of Democratic leaders who have been condemned for capitulating to the president and refusing to embrace and learn from the victories of progressive leaders like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

The newspaper spoke to 13 Democratic and independent voters including retirees from Indiana and Michigan, working people from states such as North Carolina and Nevada, and an unemployed voter from Iowa. The topic of discussion was the participants’ frustrations with the Democratic Party as it faces the Trump administration and the president’s aggressive deployment of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) across the country.


As Dem Voters Seek a ‘Fight’ With the Superrich, AOC is Now Their Favorite Candidate: Poll


“Spineless” was one word a participant had for the Democratic Party when asked to describe it. Another said the party appears “paralyzed” while a 46-year-old Latina woman from Nevada said Democrats in Congress are “sellouts and suckers.”

Terrill, a 68-year-old retired Indiana resident, agreed that the party leadership has “sold out.”

“I just feel we were never being governed,” said Terrill. “We’re being looted. The Democratic Party lined their pockets and created—they created this mess.”

A number of respondents expressed ire over the decision by eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote with Republicans last November to end a record-breaking government shutdown—without securing any concessions on protecting healthcare for millions of Americans who rely on Affordable Care Act subsidies.

The response from participants “tracks 100% with what I’ve seen on the streets, from No Kings protests to the resistance against ICE,” said commentator Hasan Piker.

Democratic leaders, he added, “are oblivious to the anger” felt by voters. “They’re speaking into an echo chamber of consultants who tell them what they want to hear.”



With voters expressing such intense dissatisfaction with the leadership of establishment Democrats, “how on Earth do Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries still manage to cling to their leadership roles?” asked journalist Mehdi Hasan, referring to the Senate and House minority leaders, who both represent New York.

But along with unloading their frustration about the Democrats who continue to back ICE—even as support for the agency craters among voters—and refuse to develop what one voter called “clear, concise messaging” that communicates how the party will fight for working Americans, the participants talked about the political leaders who “excite” them about the future of the party and the country.

Mike, a 33-year-old telecommunications professional in North Carolina, said that Mamdani, a democratic socialist, exemplifies what the party “should be doing more of.”

Less than two months into his mayoral term, said Mike, Mamdani has provided voters in New York and across the country with a “clear and concise” message about how he plans to govern and what he plans to prioritize.

Mike drew a comparison to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), an early backer of Mamdani who is continuing the Fighting Oligarchy nationwide tour he began last year, speaking to crowds in both red and blue districts about the need for policies that serve working families rather than billionaire political donors and corporations.

“Bernie has said the same thing since the ‘80s,” said Mike. “You’ve got to tax the billionaires. You’ve got to tax the upper class. He’s never changed. That’s the messaging. You’ve just got to drill it into them, and Zohran did it. Man, it’s beautiful.”

While other respondents expressed some enthusiasm about more moderate leaders like Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, several participants agreed with Mike’s comments on Mamdani and one independent voter named Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), another outspoken democratic socialist and a potential 2028 contender, as a leader who “excites” them.

If given a choice between voting for a moderate candidate in an election or a progressive, all 13 participants said they would choose the progressive.



A 29-year-old independent voter named Panth from Arizona said the term moderate reminded him of “people like [former West Virginia Sen.] Joe Manchin, who hold up some of the policies that I would want supported.”

“I feel like moderates are happy with the status quo and will basically do what we’ve always done. The system is working for them and they want to keep it the same. I think for a large part of Americans, the system isn’t working, so we need something new,” said Panth.

Days after taking office, Mamdani announced that he and Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul had finalized a deal to fund his universal childcare plan for the city. He also announced the launch of “rental ripoff” hearings to hold landlords accountable for abuses, intervened in a major renters’ dispute, personally aided with snow removal, and repaved a dangerous bump in the road on the Williamsburg Bridge.

Progressive policymakers “actually do stuff,” summarized Panth.

The widespread expression of enthusiasm for progressive candidates came a week after grassroots organizer Analilia Mejía’s victory in the Democratic primary in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, after which Sanders asserted that victories on the left “can be done everywhere.”

As Trump has ramped up his attacks on immigrant communities and First Amendment rights, leaders including Schumer and Jeffries have incensed progressive commentators by backing down on demands to rein in ICE, refusing to clearly condemn the administration’s arrest and attempted deportation of pro-Palestinian protesters, and expressing frustration at advocacy groups that have demanded they fight the Trump agenda.



“The Democratic Party needs to embrace voices that resonate with people,” said Panth. “When you hear Bernie, he has energy because he really believes in what he’s saying. It’s the same reason Trump resonates with people, because he acknowledges some of the struggles that they’re facing. Sure, he blames the wrong groups, but he at least voices it. The Democratic Party doesn’t do the same.”

Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who’s now chief of policy and advocacy at the economic justice group Groundwork Collaborative, commented: “Bingo.”

Oreo’s Sweet Image Hides a Bitter Truth About Forests and Human Rights

Oreo may seem harmless. But when palm oil is sourced from destroyed rainforest or land taken without consent, the cost is not just environmental—it is human.



A view shows recentl land clearing for palm oil plantations of the peatland forest inside Singkil peat swamp Leuser ecosystem, habitat of Sumatran orangutan (Pongo abelii) in Iemeudama village on November 13, 2016 in Trumon subdistrict, South Aceh, Aceh province, Indonesia.
(Photo by Ulet Ifansasti/Getty Images)

Ginger Cassady
Feb 19, 2026

Common Dreams

Oreo is marketed as “milk’s favorite cookie.” But behind that familiar blue package is a supply chain tied to rainforest destruction and violence against the people who defend their land.

Mondelēz International, the corporate giant that makes Oreo, has built a global snack empire worth nearly $40 billion a year. Its products line grocery shelves across the country. What most consumers never see is the palm oil that goes into those products—or the damage connected to its production.

Palm oil expansion remains one of the leading drivers of tropical deforestation. It is also linked to land grabs, intimidation, and violence against Indigenous and local communities who resist losing their forests.

According to Rainforest Action Network’s 2025 Keep Forests Standing Scorecard, Mondelēz ranked last among major consumer goods companies on deforestation and human rights safeguards. The company scored just 4 out of 24 possible points. Most alarming, it received zero points for having a public policy protecting Human Rights Defenders—people who face threats, criminalization, and violence for standing up to destructive development.

Communities should not be displaced for cookies.

Between 2015 and 2024, more than 6,400 attacks and over 1,000 killings of land and environmental defenders were documented worldwide. Industrial agriculture is a major driver of this violence.

These defenders are farmers, Indigenous leaders, journalists, teachers, and community members. They are protecting forests that stabilize the climate, regulate rainfall, and support biodiversity found nowhere else on Earth. They are also protecting their homes.

Mondelēz has been exposed more than once for sourcing palm oil linked to illegal deforestation in Indonesia’s Leuser Ecosystem—often called the “Orangutan Capital of the World.” The Leuser region is one of the last places on Earth where critically endangered species including rhinos, elephants, tigers, and orangutans still coexist in the wild. It is also home to Indigenous communities who depend on intact forests for survival.

Satellite monitoring continues to show forest loss in protected areas within this ecosystem. That means safeguards are failing.

Mondelēz promotes its “Snacking Made Right” campaign as proof of sustainability leadership. But marketing language does not stop chainsaws. Without enforceable policies and independent monitoring, companies continue to profit while forests fall.

The absence of a Human Rights Defender policy is not a minor oversight. It sends a message through the supply chain that violence and intimidation are not red lines. When corporations fail to adopt zero-tolerance policies against threats and criminalization, suppliers operate with fewer consequences.

This is not just about environmental damage. It is about whether communities have the right to say no when their land is targeted for development. It is about Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. It is about whether corporate profit outweighs human safety.

Deforestation is accelerating the climate crisis. Tropical rainforests absorb carbon and cool the planet. When they are cleared, that stored carbon is released, intensifying global warming. From stronger hurricanes to prolonged droughts and wildfires, the effects are already visible.

Corporations that rely on forest-risk commodities have the power to change this trajectory. Mondelēz could require full traceability for its palm oil supply. It could suspend suppliers linked to deforestation or violence. It could adopt a clear, public Human Rights Defender policy with zero tolerance for intimidation and criminalization. It could require proof that communities have granted Free, Prior, and Informed Consent before land is developed.

Instead, it continues business as usual.

Oreo may seem harmless. But when palm oil is sourced from destroyed rainforest or land taken without consent, the cost is not just environmental—it is human.

Communities should not be displaced for cookies. Forest defenders should not risk their lives so multinational corporations can maintain margins.

Mondelēz has the size and influence to shift industry standards. What it lacks is the political will.

Protecting forests starts with protecting the people who defend them. Until companies like Mondelēz adopt enforceable policies that prioritize human rights and end deforestation in their supply chains, their sustainability claims will ring hollow.

Consumers deserve snacks that do not come at the expense of forests and communities. And the people risking their lives to protect the planet deserve more than silence from the corporations profiting from their land.


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


Ginger Cassady
Ginger Cassady is the executive director of the Rainforest Action Network.
Full Bio >