Ethics Complaint Filed Over Trump Commerce Secretary's Public Push for Tesla Stock Purchases​

Campaign Legal Center wants ethics officials to probe the "apparently flagrant violation of federal law."


U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick delivers remarks before being sworn in at the White House on February 21, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Mar 21, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

The nonpartisan legal group on Friday filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics and the designated agency ethics official at the U.S. Department of Commerce, urging them to investigate comments U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick made on Fox News earlier this week when he exhorted viewers to "buy Tesla," speaking of the stock of billionaire Elon Musk's electric vehicle company.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) wants officials to look into whether Lutnick's comments on Fox News—which the group called an "apparently flagrant violation of federal law"—did violate the federal ban on government officials using their public positions for private enrichment.

According to the complaint, executive branch employees "may not use their public office for their own private gain; [or] for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise."

Other critics responded to the billionaire commerce secretary's comments on Fox by pointing out that, as one watchdog leader put it, "he conveniently forgot to mention his family business empire holds nearly $840 million in the company."

Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and also the largest shareholder, has been deputized by U.S. President Donald Trump to help oversee efforts to cut federal programs and personnel and is playing a core role in his administration.

"The president's Cabinet members take an oath to serve the American people, and with that oath comes the ability and privilege to exercise a vast amount of power," said Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel, and senior director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center in a statement on Thursday.

"The Office of Government Ethics and Commerce ethics officials should hold Lutnick accountable and reassure the public that their officials will face consequences if they use their public office to enrich themselves or their allies," said Payne.

Lutnick made the comments when he was speaking on Fox News' "Jesse Watters Primetime" on Wednesday.

"Buy Tesla. It's unbelievable that this guy's stock is this cheap. It'll never be this cheap again... Who wouldn't invest in Elon Musk?" he told viewers.

Earlier this month, Trump hosted a Tesla car show at the White House. His and Lutnick's stunts come as the company faces protests over Musk's work for the administration and falling stock prices.

Tesla stock has tumbled since it reached a post-election high in December 2024. Axiosreported Thursday that shares have fallen 42% so far this year. Axios also reported that Tesla shares fell on Thursday after Lutnick made his comments on Fox News.

DOGE Is Hitting the Accelerator on the Creeping Privatization of the US Government

Trump’s latest moves can be viewed as a massive speedup of a decades-long trend, rather than a break from the past


People hold signs as they gather for a "Save the Civil Service" rally hosted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) outside the U.S. Capitol on February 11, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

Nathan Meyers
Mar 22, 2025

The Conversation

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has aggressively moved to shrink the federal government. His administration has frozen federal grants, issued executive orders aligned with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and, most prominently, created what he calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

DOGE has been billed as a cost-cutting initiative, although the actual amount of money being saved remains unclear. To lead DOGE, Trump appointed Elon Musk, a megadonor whose companies hold federal contracts worth billions. Musk has already moved forward with major cuts, including sweeping workforce reductions, the curtailment of government operations, and purges of entire agencies. Thousands of federal workers have lost their jobs.

While certainly dramatic, these actions reflect a longer trend of privatizing government. Indeed, my sociological research shows that the government has steadily withdrawn from economic production for decades, outsourcing many responsibilities to the private sector.

3 indicators of privatization

At first glance, total government spending appears stable over time. In 2024, federal, state, and local expenditures made up 35% of the U.S. economy, the same as in 1982. However, my analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis data offers a new perspective, recasting privatization as a macroeconomic phenomenon. I find that U.S. economic activity has become increasingly more privatized over the past 50 years. This shift happened in three key ways.

First, government involvement in economic production has declined. Historically, public institutions have played a major role in sectors such as electric power, water delivery, waste management, space equipment, naval shipbuilding, construction, and infrastructure investments. In 1970, government spending on production accounted for 23% of the economy. By 2024, that figure had fallen to 17%, leaving the private sector to fill the gaps. This means a growing share of overall government spending has been used to fund the private sector economy.

The privatization trend risks eroding democratic accountability and worsening racial and gender inequalities.

Second, government’s overall ability to produce goods and services—what economists call “productive capacity”—has fallen relative to the private sector, both in terms of labor and capital. Since 1970, public employment has lagged behind private sector job growth, and government-owned capital assets have trailed those of the private sector. Although public sector capital investments briefly rebounded in the 2000s, employment did not, signaling a shift toward outsourcing rather than direct hiring. This has significant implications for wages, working conditions, and unionization.

Third, and relatedly, government increasingly contracts work to private companies, opting to buy goods and services instead of making them. In 1977, private contractors accounted for one-third of government production costs. By 2023, that had risen to over half. Government contracting—now 7% of the total economy—reached $1.98 trillion in 2023. Key beneficiaries in 2023 included professional services at $317 billion, petroleum and coal industries at $194 billion, and construction at $130 billion. Other examples include private charter schools, private prisons, hospitals, and defense contractors.

The Meaning of Privatization

Privatization can be understood as two interconnected processes: the retreat of government from economic production, and the rise of contracting. The government remains a major economic actor in the U.S., although now as more of a procurer of goods and services than a provider or employer.

The government’s shift away from production largely stems from mainstreamed austerity politics—a “starve the beast” approach to government—and backlash against the New Deal’s expansion of federal economic involvement. In 1971, the controversial “Powell Memo,” written by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, mobilized business leaders around the goal of expanding private sector power over public policy. This fueled the rise of conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation, the eventual architect of the Project 2025 privatization agenda.

While government production shrank, government contracting expanded on promises of cost savings and efficiency. These contracting decisions are usually made by local administrators managing budgets under fiscal stress and interest group pressure, including from businesses and public sector unions.

Yet research shows that contracting frequently fails to reduce costs, while risking monopolies, weakening accountability and public input, and sometimes locking governments into rigid contracts. In many cases, ineffective outsourcing forces a return to public employment.

The Consequences of Privatization

Trump’s latest moves can be viewed as a massive acceleration of a decades-long trend, rather than a break from the past. The 50-year shift away from robust public sector employment has already privatized a lot of U.S. employment. Trump and Musk’s plan to cut the federal workforce follows the same blueprint.

This could have major consequences.

First, drastic job cuts likely mean more privatization and fewer government workers. Trump’s federal workforce cuts echo President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 mass firing of more than 11,000 air traffic controllers, a source of prolonged financial struggles and family instability for many fired workers. Trump’s firings and layoffs are already reaching far beyond Reagan’s.

As Trump’s administration aggressively restructures federal agencies, these changes will likely proceed without public input, further entrenching private sector dominance.

In addition, since federal spending directly contributes to gross domestic product, cuts of this magnitude risk slowing the economy. The Trump administration has even floated the idea of changing GDP calculations, potentially masking any reality of economic decline.

Rapid privatization is also likely to trigger significant economic disruptions, especially in industries that depend on federal support. For example, USAID cuts have already sent shock waves through the private sector agricultural economy.

Finally, the privatization trend risks eroding democratic accountability and worsening racial and gender inequalities. That’s because, as my prior research finds, public sector unions uniquely shape American society by equalizing wages while increasing transparency and civic participation. Given that the public sector is highly unionized and disproportionately provides employment opportunities for women and Black workers, privatization risks undoing these gains.

As Trump’s administration aggressively restructures federal agencies, these changes will likely proceed without public input, further entrenching private sector dominance. This stands to undermine government functioning and democratic accountability. While often framed as inevitable, the American public should know that privatization remains a policy choice—one that can be reversed.

An Unconstitutional Rampage

Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next.

It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk.

Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Nathan Meyers
Nathan Meyers is a PhD candidate in sociology at UMass Amherst.
Full Bio >

'They Will Have to Come Through Us': Sunrise Protests Trump Attacks With Education Department Study-In


"Trump and Musk want to defund public schools so they can give their fellow billionaires a bigger tax break," warned one organizer. "We won't let them rob us of a good education."


Activists protest Trump administration attacks on the U.S. Department of Education outside the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C. on March 21, 2025.
(Photo: Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Mar 21, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Students and allies rallied outside the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the U.S. Department of Education on Friday for a "study-in" protest against President Donald Trump's plan to shut down the federal agency—a longtime policy goal of right-wing groups including the organization behind the infamous Project 2025—and other administration attacks on their future.

Protesters set up school desks with signs reading "Trump, Stop Stealing From Kids" and "Kids Deserve Good Schools" on a sidewalk outside the agency's main office. Sunrise Movement, the youth-led climate campaign that led the demonstration, vowed to "defend our schools, our futures, and our democracy" from attacks by Trump and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

"If Trump and Musk want to destroy the futures of millions of students across the country, they will have to come through us," Sunrise Movement said on Instagram ahead of the protest.



On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order directing billionaire businesswoman-turned-Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the states." Trump's order followed the Department of Education's announcement earlier this month that it would fire half of its workforce.

The executive order delighted conservatives, who have long targeted the agency tasked with protecting civil rights and equal access in schools, administering federal student aid programs, funding billions of dollars in scholastic loans and grants, and more. The Heritage Foundation, which led Project 2025—often described as a blueprint for a far-right takeover of the federal government—applauded the directive.

However, according to Sunrise Movement:
Abolishing the Department of Education would have severe impacts on students, teachers, and parents. Schools will face larger class sizes, fewer teachers, and severe underfunding, making it even harder for students to get the education they deserve. Pell Grants would be eliminated, putting higher education out of reach for millions. Programs that support students with disabilities, English learners, and low-income families—as well as funding for school safety, mental health services, and building repairs—will be slashed.

"Trump and Musk want to defund public schools so they can give their fellow billionaires a bigger tax break," 19-year-old Sunrise Movement schools organizing manager Adah Crandall of Washington, D.C. said Friday.

"We won't let them rob us of a good education," Crandall vowed, adding that she won't let "Musk and his goons" destroy her generation's future.



Wanya Allen, a student at Seminole State College of Florida and Sunrise Movement's Philadelphia community lead, said: "The Department of Education is a human right. We are responsible as the youth to take the torch from our ancestors to continue the fight."

"The Pell Grant that allowed me to attend college is only made possible by the Department of Education," Allen added. "Trump and his billionaire Cabinet are stealing from everyday people like me and our opportunities to access education."

Stop Asking 'Can It Happen Here?' 

It Is Happening Here.

Today the forces of wealth and power are wielding unprecedented weapons that threaten the fundamentals of the republic. It’s not just policies and government departments that are under assault, but the very foundations of our democracy.

Demonstrators protest the agenda of President Donald Trump during a rain-soaked rally and march through downtown on March 04, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois.
(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Tim Kipp
Mar 22, 2025

Common Dreams

Not since those sweltering days in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention has the United States confronted so fundamental a restructuring of the federal government. What’s happening! Today, the mainstream press declares “it can’t happen here” because we are not an authoritarian society, which is a reference to Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 novel, about a dictatorial take over of the United States. No we are not heading into a coup d’etat, they say, nor are we heading into an oligarchy.

Well, in fact, we are in the midst of a coup d’etat and we are living under an oligarchy.

The Trump-Musk regime and Republican Party are transforming how we are governed. This is not an unconstitutional assault, but rather an anti-constitutional assault. Virtually every ruling tradition is being pillaged all in the name of democracy. As the old maxim goes, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

This is not an unconstitutional assault, but rather an anti-constitutional assault.

Those leaders in 1787 contrary to their stated intentions did not resolve to reform the Articles of Confederation, rather to create a new government, the U.S. Constitution. After considerable and impassioned debate an uneasy consensus was forged among the 13 states. At the conclusion of the convention with philosophical differences still painfully evident, the esteemed Benjamin Franklin urged his fellow delegates to “place trust in their own fallibility” and endorse the new republic.
A Contest of Time

With all of its manifest imperfections and unremitting political and economic crises, many self inflicted, this government has survived for nearly 240 years. Of course, through it all the elites thrived while those not fortunate enough to be white and wealthy were obliged to endure. The influential federalist Fisher Ames, in defense of the Constitution, likened our new republic to traveling on a “raft where we never sink but our feet are always in the water.”
Are We Due to Capsize?

This time in our history is different. Today the forces of wealth and power are wielding unprecedented weapons that threaten the fundamentals of the republic. It’s not just policies that are under assault.

Unique concentrations of economic and political authority, dysfunctional legislative and judicial branches, a collapsed political party system, race and class scapegoating and toadying by influential sectors of the mass media combine to provide opportunities for demagogues to sell snake oil to an economically vulnerable and politically disillusioned public. This could be, in the words of the American sage Mel Brooks, a “springtime for Hitler” moment.
What Lurks Within?

Just as Trump’s rise to power is a symptom of undemocratic features of the political economy, an oligarchy and coup d’etat can emerge from a regime that incessantly consolidates power by and for the wealthy. It’s not the greed it’s the need. Power concentration is baked into the scheme. The internal logic dictates that elite political power consolidates and expands in order to preserve and amplify economic power.

Capitalism, according to noted economist Sam Bowles, is a never-ending race that requires aggressive undemocratic strategies to persevere. Well, democracy gets in the way of all of this; it organically interferes with the forces of wealth and power. Thus elite self-aggrandizement is compulsory for survival. Predictably this ceaseless jockeying for advantage in the race comes at the expense of the general welfare of the people or as the African proverb has it “when the elephants dance the mice gets trampled.”
Wizards Behind the Curtain

It is widely understood that Trump is not known for his intellectual curiosity or acuity. During his first term he seldom read his briefing books preferring to lean on his confidantes for any particulars. Presidents, in part are judged by who the advisors are. So who are some of Trump’s “brain trust”?

In the early 1970’s, Roy Cohn, the legal henchman for Senator Joseph McCarthy, became a trusted mentor to Trump. Cohn bragged that, “My scare value is high. My arena is controversy. My tough front is my biggest asset.” He admonished Trump to never admit a mistake. Sound familiar? Another key influencer was—and remains—Steve Bannon, publisher of Breitbart News, a reactionary platform for Republican extremism. Bannon is credited with saying the goal is the “destruction of the administrative state.” Then there’s Stephen Miller, the ever-dyspeptic long-time insider who stated, “I would be happy if not a single refugee’s foot ever again touched American soil.”

In the words of historian Doris Kearns Goodman, in another context, these people are not a “team of rivals” like those that Lincoln assembled. Trump’s team of advisors and cabinet secretaries are the mandatory paragons of sycophancy.
The Coup’s Afoot

The Trump-Republican agenda is in part based on Project 2025, which is a wish list of extremist proposals of an influential ultra conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. As will be shown the ultimate goal is to challenge and repeal foundational theories, structures and methods of how this country operates.

Their methods are straight out of an authoritarian’s playbook. The process consists of serial deceit, edict and executive orders all in arrogant violation of congressional and constitutional mandates and methods. This is a “shock and awe” that sabotages the rule of law. Trump’s second term is a barrage of dismantling of departments and agencies and the firing of hundreds of thousands with no regard for due process or social and human consequences. This is a coup d’etat.
Constitutional Foundations Crumble

This Trump –Musk and Republican Party coup is not a palace revolt that merely changes the faces in power. This is not about tinkering or modifying policy. This is not about upholding long cherished principles and values or a return to the “good old days.” This is about systemic change, about power and how it is structured and wielded and for who’s benefit.

What follows is an exposition of the coup’s structural attacks on governance. The actual specifics of the daily policy plundering will not be emphasized. Rather what will be explored are the why and how of this destruction of the basic architecture and operation of constitutional government. While historically this governing design and process has never been perfect it has always held the virtue of an ideal, of being a worthy democratic goal.
Reneging on the Contract

The insurrectionists intend to break the “Social Contract.” Philosopher John Locke’s foundational principle embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of an implicit agreement between the citizens and their government whereby the people abide by the authority in exchange for a freedom and the security of a stable society. People of good will understand that with freedom comes responsibility. This coup represents a comprehensive attack on the very purpose and methods of governing. Trump and Republicans are willfully undermining citizen’s trust in their government by demolishing the Contract.
How Popular is Sovereignty?

Trump, Inc. is sabotaging the principle of Popular Sovereignty whereby government’s power derives from the consent of the people. There is no need for consent in an authoritarian regime. Do citizens now want more voter suppression with fewer people voting, do they want the wealthy to have more control over campaign financing and who gets to run for office? Do citizens want an electoral system that they can’t trust? Not long ago Trump in his juvenile and artless way mused that when he becomes president the country would be so great that there would be no need for further elections.
Checking the Power of Democracy

An effective coup will subvert basic notions of how power should operate. The constitutional principles of the Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances are designed to prevent one branch from dominating the others and to insure the sharing of powers and accountability.

Republicans and Trump are consciously undermining that balance by promoting dubious theories, such as the “unitary executive” that bestows unrestrained power to the executive. Trump is impounding funds that were congressionally authorized. He is ignoring congressional oversight, thereby making a mockery of committee hearings and denying the senate it’s Advice and Consent authority. “Being president means I can do anything, I have Article 2,” thus spake Trump, the learned constitutional scholar during his first term.

In the early 1970s mainstream historian, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in his book, The Imperial Presidency, warned of the escalation and dangers of an omnipotent president. One of his subjects of course was Richard Nixon who by comparison to Trump looks like a Mr. Rogers in his neighborhood oval office.
A Supremely Political Court

Revamping and controlling the judicial system is vital to the effectiveness of a coup. The U.S. Supreme Court wields extraordinary powers through a legalism concocted in 1803 that bestowed through “judicial review” the irrevocable authority to determine what laws are constitutional. This enables an unelected branch the ability to overturn a decision of elected representatives.

That power, now in the hands of the Trump-Roberts court, is a form of despotism. If insurgents can shape the ideological tenor of the court then politics will replace judicial fairness rendering the court a confederate in the unraveling of democracy.

Working with the Federalist Society over recent decades, the right-wing movement has spent millions to colonize the Supreme Court with a super majority of conservative and reactionary jurists. This hostile takeover of our highest court has turned a once esteemed branch into an ideological bunker where the robber barons take on cases to further limit the “excesses” of democracy.

The Robert’s Court has, among other things, destroyed voting rights protections, eliminated campaign finance regulations, undermined first amendment rights, eroded immigrant and women’s rights and unabashedly championed corporate interests. And perhaps most egregiously has put the president above the law by anointing him with unprecedented immunity. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senate’s most effective judicial watchdog, describes the Robert’s Court as having “advanced a far right agenda” that is “deeply out of touch with the will of Americans.” This court has virtually overturned the rule of law and enabled extremism to reign supreme.
The Political Party Is Over

The party system is being destroyed enabling coup mutineers to demagogue their way to power. They have been aided and abetted by two political parties that are no longer honest or effective advocates for citizens interests.

For a long time the political party system has been a poor representative of the interests of a broad cross section of the population. Class considerations and structural weakness of government has disenfranchised many. Historically it has been up to minorities, the poor and working classes, women, and others to compel political parties and others make the country live up to its founding ideals. Yes, if the people will lead the leaders will eventually follow.

The party system is being destroyed enabling coup mutineers to demagogue their way to power. They have been aided and abetted by two political parties that are no longer honest or effective advocates for citizens interests.

The perennial issue is how well the parties have represented the citizens. The Democratic Party once an advocate for minorities, the poor and working classes has over the past 50 years abandoned its grassroots focus and party building. Aided by the myopic assistance of the Bill Clinton wing of the party, the old New Deal coalition has been abandoned in order to pander to the interests of Wall Street.

Republicans, starting in the 20th century, consistently represented business and elite interests, nothing new here. What is new and distinctive is the impact of the growing reactionary wing that gained traction in the 1970’s and surged during the1980s Reagan era. With a shrinking middle class, a tidal wave of unregulated corporate money, a new high tech Internet media combined with an economically vulnerable populace provided an opportunity for cynical Republican Party exploitation. With Trump as the carnival barker the fringe elements of the party grew in popularity and became amenable to extremist ideas.

Today Republicans are more of a cult than a party while most Democrats dither as they try to figure out what they stand for other than re-election.

With the major parties in existential disarray they are less capable of countering the anti democratic forces of oligarchy. The logical consequence is a coup d’etat to “save the country.”
Is There No Direction Home?

Not since the Civil War have the principles, structure, and means of governance been so ferociously attacked. The Lockean Social Contract between the people and the government is being torn apart.

While it was not a mandate, only about 30% of the voting age population supported Trump (76 out of c. 259 million adults), that’s nonetheless a significant portion of voters. Clearly citizens are angry with a government that consistently ignores the real interests of working-class Americans. They voted their frustrations, their anger and their pocketbooks. Hey that Trump guy is talking about my concerns.

But did they vote to promote fear and hatred in order to divide people by class, gender, race, and sexual orientation? Did they vote to destroy public education, Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service and healthcare by privatization or to politicize the Supreme Court and the Justice Department? Did they vote to further shrink the middle class and escalate the gap between the rich and the poor or to destroy unions? Did they vote to deny climate change or to blow up relations with our allies by abrogating treaties or start destabilizing tariff wars?

We do know that people’s contentment in life is primarily derived from a society that offers a fair chance for equal opportunity and security.

If we are like the theologian Abraham Heschel, “pessimists of the intellect and optimists of the will” this crisis offers a real opportunity to seek a newer world, a world where an authentic political and economic democracy can be made a reality.

Returning to the venerable Franklin, during the Constitutional Convention he would frequently gaze at the sun carved high on the chair of presiding officer George Washington and muse whether it was a setting or rising sun...

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


Tim Kipp
Tim Kipp taught history and political science for 39 years and has been a political activist since the 1960s.
Full Bio >

Sanders, AOC Draw Biggest Crowd of Their Careers at Rally to Fight 'Oligarchy' in Denver

 A rally in Denver, Colorado on Friday evening  drew more than 34,000 people

"The American people will not allow Trump to move us into oligarchy and authoritarianism. We will fight back. We will win," said Sanders.


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks during a rally on March 21, 2025 at Civic Center Park in Denver, Colorado. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) stands next to him.
(Photo: Chet Strange/Getty Images)

Eloise Goldsmith
Mar 22, 2025

COMMON DREAMS

On the heels of record-breaking attendance at a "Fighting Oligarchy" event in Tempe, Arizona earlier this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York held a rally in Denver, Colorado on Friday evening that drew more than 34,000 people—making it largest event that Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez have ever held.

Sanders, an Independent, wrote on social media on Friday that the turnout is a sign that "the American people will not allow Trump to move us into oligarchy and authoritarianism. We will fight back. We will win."

According to Anna Bahr, Sanders' communications director, the senator's largest rally prior to Denver took place in Brooklyn, New York in 2016, when he was running for president.

Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, wrote online that "something special is happening... Working people are ready to stand together and fight for our democracy. Thank you Colorado!"

At the rally, which took place at Denver's Civic Center Park, the two lawmakers hit on the same themes they spoke about in Arizona.

"The American people are saying loud and clear, we will not accept an oligarchic form of society," Sanders said, according to Colorado Public Radio. "We will not accept the richest guy in the world running all over Washington, making cuts to the Social Security Administration, cuts to the Veterans Administration, almost destroying the Department of Education—all so that they could give over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%."

"If you don't know your neighbor, it's easier to turn on them," said Ocasio-Cortez, per CPR. "That's why they want to keep us separated, alone, and apart. Scrolling on our phones thinking that the person next to us is some kind of enemy, but they're not."

Sanders launched his "Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here" tour in February, with the aim of talking to Americans about the "takeover of the national government by billionaires and large corporations, and the country's move toward authoritarianism."

The series of "Fighting Oligarchy" events have been taking place as some Democrats have gotten an earful at town halls back home, where constituents have come out to implore them to do more to counter efforts by the Trump administration.

Earlier in the day, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders also held a rally in Greeley, Colorado—which is represented by Republican Gabe Evans in the House of Representatives—which drew more than 11,000 people.

Semaforreporter David Weigel, who attended both the Greely and Denver rally, posted online that at the Greeley rally it wasn't easy to find people in the crowd who had voted for Sanders in the 2020 presidential primary. Weigel also wrote that the Sanders team told him that half of the RSVPs to the rallies were not from the lawmaker's supporter list.

Eric Blanc, an assistant professor the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University, wrote on Bluesky on Saturday that it is "pretty remarkable how AOC and Bernie have become leaders not just of lefties, but of the Democratic Party's mainstream liberal base."

While its dangerous that "establishment liberals" are yielding to Trump, he wrote, "the silver lining is that this has enabled anti-corporate forces such as labor unions and AOC-Bernie to set the tenor of Resistance 2.0."

"Because today's anti-Trump resistance is more focused on economic concerns, more rooted in labor unions, and more anti-billionaire, it has the potential to sink much deeper roots among working people and, in so doing, to definitively overcome MAGA," wrote Blanc.

DEI IS MERIT

Zimbabwe's Coventry elected as head of International Olympic Committee

Seven-time Olympic medallist Kirsty Coventry was elected on Thursday as president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Former Olympic swimming champion Kirsty Coventry was elected president of the International Olympic Committee following a vote of the 109 committee members.

 AP - Fabrice Coffrini

By: Paul Myers
Issued on: 20/03/2025 - 

The 41-year-old Zimbabwean was chosen after the first round of voting among the 97 IOC members at the 144th IOC session and will take over on 23 June from Thomas Bach.

She will be the first woman and the first African to occupy the top job in an organisation founded 131 years ago by Pierre de Coubertin and Demetrios Vikelas to oversee the organisation of the Olympic Games.

Zimbabwe's aspiring Olympics supremo Coventry targets development of athletes

"This is not just a huge honour, but it is a reminder of my commitment to every single one of you that I will lead this organisation with so much pride," said Coventry in her first speech as the planet's most powerful sports administrator.

"And I will make all of you very, very proud and hopefully extremely confident in the decision you’ve taken today. Thank you from the bottom of my heart, and now we’ve got some work together."

Coventry won her medals - two of them gold - swimming for her country at Olympic Games between 2000 and 2016.

To rise to the top spot, she beat beat off challenges from six other candidates including the Frenchman David Lappartient who heads his country's national Olympic committee as well as the International Cycling Union.

Olympic gold medallist Sebastian Coe, who leads World Athletics, was also in the running with Morinari Watanabe, Prince Feisal Al-Hussein, Johan Eliasch and Juan Antonio Samaranch whose father led the IOC between 1980 and 2001.

"This race was an incredible race," added Coventry, who has been her country's sports minister since 2018. "And it made us better, made us a stronger movement. Thank you very much for this moment, and thank you very much for this honour."

On the eve of the vote at the exclusive Greek coastal resort of Costa Navarino, Bach graciously offered to share the wisdom and experiences harvested from his 12 years in the job since replacing Jacques Rogge.

"If the new president would like to have some advice or support they can call me in the middle of the night," said the 71-year-old German.

"I don't know if I'll respond then but I'll be happy at any time if they want my advice. If not, I will not impose my advice."

Coventry will be head of the organisation for an eight-year term which will encompass the Summer Games in Los Angeles in 2028 and Brisbane in 2032 as well as the Winter Games in Cortina d'Ampezzo next February and the French Alps in 2030.

In an interview with RFI just before the vote, Coventry vowed to use the memories of her trials and tribulations as an aspiring athlete in her homeland to improve the lot of up-and-coming youngsters if successful.

"The hardest part of my journey was becoming an Olympic champion," she said.

"That's where I believe we should be focusing a little bit more with dedicated programmes to help support directly athletes on their journey to becoming an Olympian. So I would like to do that."

Two die from chikungunya as virus spreads on France's Reunion Island

A mosquito-borne disease called chikungunya has killed two elderly people on France's Reunion Island, local authorities said on Friday.

The tiger mosquito is one of two species that can infect humans with the chikungunya virus. © Shutterstock _ InsectWorld

By: RFI

Issued on: 21/03/2025 - 

An 86-year-old and a 96-year-old died last week from the virus, which causes fever and severe joint pain.

Nearly 9,000 cases have been reported on the French Indian Ocean island since August 2024.

With infections rising earlier this month, local officials activated Orsec Plan 4 – an emergency response for medium-intensity epidemics.

"The epidemic has accelerated in recent weeks and is now spreading throughout the country," authorities said on Friday.

Health response

Health workers have been deployed across the island alongside municipal teams to carry out daily fumigation operations. Around 150 medical personnel are involved in the response.

Officials have advised vulnerable people to get vaccinated.

The chikungunya virus is spread by two species of mosquito, which also transmit dengue and Zika. The disease is not usually fatal, but can be dangerous for older people or those with other health conditions.

The name “chikungunya” comes from the Kimakonde language of southern Tanzania. It means “to become contorted” and refers to the bent posture of people suffering from joint pain caused by the virus.

Reunion experienced a major outbreak in 2005 and 2006, when around 240,000 people were infected and 225 died. Until this current wave, no chikungunya cases had been recorded on the island since 2010.
Vaccine trial

In June 2023, Franco-Austrian drugmaker Valneva published encouraging results from a vaccine trial.

The randomised, placebo-controlled phase three trial tested a live-attenuated vaccine – which uses a weakened version of the virus – to see how well it triggered an immune response.

Out of a subgroup of 266 people who received the vaccine, 263 – or 99 percent – developed antibodies that could neutralise the chikungunya virus, said the study, which was published in The Lancet journal.

In a larger trial involving 4,100 healthy adults, the single-shot vaccine was found to be “generally safe”, with side effects similar to other vaccines.

Only two participants developed serious side effects linked to the vaccine, and both made a full recovery.

French farmers contend with drop in demand for organic food

A drop in demand for organic food in France is raising difficult questions for the country's organic farmers. A new law passed in March maintained organic farming targets, but critics say it does nothing to boost the sector at a time when climate concerns are crucial, and pits productivity against the environment.

00:46

Only 6 percent of food consumed in France is organic, and as demand drops, farmers are worried about their long-term economic prospects.

By: Sarah Elzas

Video by:Sarah Elzas

Issued on: 21/03/2025 - 

After double-digit growth in the last few years, including throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, organic food is in free fall in France.

"During Covid we reached 12 to 15 percent of our sales in organic, but then after Covid, people were more cautious about their food spending, so it has dropped," Pierre Gratacos, operations director for Cardell, an apple producer in south-western France, explained at the recent Paris international agricultural show, where he was showcasing the company’s organic Juliet apples.

During the pandemic people cooked at home more and spent more money on food, but as leisure activities resumed and rising inflation started to impact prices, the cost of buying organic has become a sticking point.

More about how organic farmers are dealing with the drop in consumer demand in the Spotlight on France podcast:

Spotlight on France, episode 125 © RFI

"People have less money to spend on food, so they usually buy less," said Gratacos, explaining that organic apples are more expensive to grow because the trees yield less fruit.

"Because the method of growing is a bit more demanding, so there are fewer apples in one organic tree than in a normal tree, and if you grow fewer apples, you need to sell them at a higher price," he explained.

With increased costs for packing added, the company's organic apples are 25 to 30 percent more expensive than conventionally grown ones.
Convincing the middlemen

However, Gratacos believes consumers would be willing to pay more, with the right information.

"They are OK about buying more expensive apples if they're organic," he said. "I think the end consumers are ready, but the middle buyers are not ready and are not really educated about it."

The middle buyers are the middlemen who buy produce wholesale and resell it to grocery chains, where the bulk of food is purchased.

Today, just 6 percent of food consumed in France is organic, according to the Agence Bio, the agency supported by the agriculture ministry which promotes organic production.

This drop in demand means farmers have less of a market to sell to, which has led them to question their business models.

In 2023, France had around 61,000 organic farms – 14.4 percent of the total number – which were working on 10.4 percent of the country's agricultural land.

That was a drop of 1.3 percent from the previous year and, according to the chamber of agriculture, the number of farmers converting to organic dropped by 30 percent.
Organic aspirations

Those in the organic sector say this drop impacts everyone, as half of all France’s farmers are set to retire in the next 10 years, and newcomers to the sector are particularly interested in organic

"We have a lot of aspiring farmers, and they want to become organic farmers," said Philippe Camburet, president of the National Organic Agriculture Federation. "If we do not allow them to go into organic farming, they will not go into this profession."

Setting up any agricultural enterprise requires significant investment. Conventional farms need to sign contracts with pesticide and fertiliser suppliers and are under pressure to produce.

"They don’t want this," Camburet says of new farmers. "This is not the agriculture that makes you dream. What makes you dream is what has meaning."

French PM Bayrou says more must be done to support farmers

But ideals only go so far, and without the consumer demand, people are hesitant to go into organic farming.

"Some people who want to get installed in organic agriculture think a little bit more, and they sometimes hesitate to go into this field," says Vincent Kraus, co-founder of Fermes en Vie ("Farms alive"), an organisation which raises investor funds to provide new farmers with land to start out as organic farmers.

"They really want to do things differently, and are interested in other ways to produce," he says of the farmers he works with.
Agriculture and environment

He and others had hoped that the long-delayed agricultural reform law that was passed in March to address the grievances raised by farmers in protests in the winter of 2024, would provide more support to organic farmers.

Environmentalists and politicians on the left have criticised the law for backtracking on environmental commitments, with articles loosening rules on pesticides and land usage.

"I was expecting the pragmatic guidelines that make sense for future generations," Camburet said. "Unfortunately, that is really not at all the case."

The text of the law states that agriculture is a "major national interest", essential to the French economy. It goes on to define food sovereignty as not only the capacity to produce enough food to feed the French population, but also to support France’s exports to "contribute to global food security".

"The agricultural industry wants to be on the world market, to compete with others, who are much bigger than we are," Camburet said. "What we must do is take a different path. Why should we continue to go big, exhausting ourselves, and exhausting our economy, our environment and our health?"
Linking farm and plate

This law maintains France’s ambition to reach 21 percent organic agriculture by 2030 – a target that had been removed in the right-leaning Senate version of the text, but which was later reinstated.

The Senate argued that there was no point in setting targets if consumer demand was not there.

EU ramps up support for farmers with agricultural policy overhaul

Laure Verdot, director of the Agence Bio – which the senators had also wanted to cut – agrees with this to some extent, but says that the goal should instead be to change consumer demands.

"It’s not enough to declare an objective of the number of hectares of organic in the fields," she said "We must have ambitions for organic consumers."

The agency has launched a campaign to promote organic food to the general public.

"We must absolutely make the link between our consumption, on our plates, and the farmers in the field," Verdot said. "If we want to be able to draw in farmers who want to go organic, we must make room for them on our plates."

To hear more on the state of organic farming in France, on the Spotlight on France podcast, episode 125, listen here.

Preserving the planet's glaciers is a 'matter of survival' says UN

All 19 of the world's glacier regions experienced a net loss of mass in 2024, for the third consecutive year, the United Nations said on Friday. It has declared 21 March World Day for Glaciers, warning that at current rates of melting, many glaciers "will not survive the 21st century".

A sign indicates the level of the Mer de Glace glacier in 1990, at Chamonix in the French Alps, pictured in June 2019. AFP/Marco Bertorello

By: RFI

Issued on: 21/03/2025 

Five of the last six years have seen the most rapid glacier retreat on record, the UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said, on its inaugural World Day for Glaciers.

"Preservation of glaciers is a not just an environmental, economic and societal necessity: it's a matter of survival," said WMO chief Celeste Saulo.

"From 2022 to 2024, we saw the largest three-year loss of glaciers on record," she said, adding that the worst year was 2023.

Together, "all 19 glacier regions lost 450 billion tonnes of mass," the WMO said, citing new data from the Swiss-based World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS).

Beyond the continental ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, more than 275,000 glaciers worldwide cover approximately 700,000 square kilometres, said the WMO. But they are rapidly shrinking due to climate change.

Why climate change is heating Europe faster than the rest of the world

Until now, scientists had counted only 220,000 glaciers. "This doesn't mean that new glaciers have appeared, it means that the new inventory is much more detailed," French glaciologist Etienne Berthier told RFI.

A specialist in the spatial analysis of glaciers at the Legos laboratory at the University of Toulouse, he says technology has vastly improved monitoring systems.

"We now have very high-resolution space instruments, on the order of 50 centimetres, which provide much more detail in this inventory of glaciers based on satellite images. We can therefore better see each small glacier, or those that deserve to be separated in two because they have different behaviours," he explained.

According to a study published in the scientific journal Nature on 19 February, approximately 273 billion tonnes of ice melted each year between 2000 and 2023.

This is like emptying "the equivalent of three Olympic-sized swimming pools per second," warned the European Space Agency project Glambie, which authored the study.

Berthier points out that Europe, the fastest-warming continent, lost 39 percent of its glacier volume between 2000 and 2023. In 2021 and 2023 alone, Swiss glaciers lost 10 percent of their mass, the same amount lost between 1960 and 1990.

As Arctic climate warms, even Santa runs short of snow

"Melting accelerated and became widespread in the 1990s due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Each decade, mass losses are greater. In the Alps, it is estimated that between 1 percent and 10 to 15 percent of glacier volume will remain in 2100, depending on the scenario," he explained.

"In the Pyrenees, we have been losing one glacier per year since 2000. Around 10 remain, which are expected to disappear in the next 10 to 15 years," he said.

Based on a compilation of worldwide observations, the WGMS estimates that glaciers – not including the continental ice sheets – have lost more than 9,000 billion tonnes since records began in 1975.

"This is equivalent to a huge ice block of the size of Germany, with a thickness of 25 metres," said WGMS director Michael Zemp.

View of Borebukta Bay, located at the northwestern side of Isfjorden, in Svalbard Archipelago, northern Norway, on 3 May, 2022. AFP - JONATHAN NACKSTRAND

However, the rate of loss is not the same around the globe.

Glacier mass loss was relatively moderate last year in regions such as the Canadian Arctic and the peripheral glaciers of Greenland – while glaciers in Scandinavia, Norway's Svalbard archipelago and North Asia experienced their worst year on record.

At current rates of melting, many glaciers in western Canada and the United States, Scandinavia, central Europe, the Caucasus and New Zealand "will not survive the 21st century," said the WMO.

The agency said that together with ice sheets, glaciers store around 70 percent of the world's freshwater resources, with high mountain regions acting like the world's water towers. If they were to disappear, this would threaten water supplies for millions of people downstream.

No chance of saving global glaciers as melt rate goes 'off the charts'

Another issue is rising sea levels, which saw an increase of 1.8 cm between 2000 and 2023.

A rise of at least 30 to 60cm is projected by the end of the century, according to the European Union's observation programme Copernicus, which will affect hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas.

For the UN, the only possible effective response is to combat global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"We can negotiate many things in the end, but we cannot negotiate physical laws like the melting point of ice," said Stefan Uhlenbrook, the WMO's water and cryosphere director.

"Ignoring the problem" of climate change "is maybe convenient for a short period of time," he said, but "that will not help us to get closer to a solution".

Nike, do you see us now?

We have just launched a major new campaign in support of women workers -- check it out here. The campaign features an extraordinary video featuring women workers from across Asia who make clothing and shoes for Nike.  I just watched it and was very moved by these women and their struggle.  The message they are sending could not be clearer:  Pay us what you owe us.   Treat us with respect.   And if you're going to be running advertisements promoting the image of "strong women", why not include us?  You can watch this very short video here Those women come from 25 garment worker unions from India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Bangladesh, coordinated by Asia Floor Wage Alliance and Global Labor Justice.  Today, the campaign is sending a photo petition from over 1,000 workers to Nike to demand wage increases and human rights protections in its supply chain.  You can help make sure that Nike hears those women by clicking here  Please share this message with your friends, family and fellow union members. Thank you. Eric Lee LabourStart

The impact of lockdown on young people in France, five years after Covid crisis

On 17 March, 2020, France implemented its first nationwide lockdown in an effort to curb the spread of the Covid-19 virus. What followed was a two-month period of strict confinement, mandatory mask-wearing, curfews and university closures. While the pandemic took a psychological toll on almost everyone, the lasting impact on young people has been severe.

The Covid lockdown has left psychological scars on young people in France.

 Getty Images - Victor Dyomin

By: RFI
Issued on: 21/03/2025 

In a bar in the 15th arrondissement of Paris, Maya orders an espresso. Five years ago, during the first Covid-19 lockdown, meeting like this in a café would have been impossible.

"I think it's crazy that we went through that, and now, I don’t think about it anymore. I love going out. I’m definitely not a homebody," the 24-year-old told RFI.

However, she does still have painful memories of that period. Her mother worked at the Regional Health Agency (ARS) and came home with news of terrible statistics every day.

But the worst, for Maya, came after that first lockdown. "I moved into an apartment on my own, but there I was much more isolated, I think. My studies were bothering me," she explains.

"Honestly, I kind of fell into depression during that time. It was weird because, at the same time, it was nice not to be confined anymore, in the sense that I was doing a lot of things in my apartment. But I wasn’t stimulated at all. I enjoyed my day itself, but I didn’t see the point of having a second one."

Maya is feeling better now and doesn’t miss an opportunity to go out. For her, it's a way to reclaim some of the youth that was stolen from her.

Five years on from the Covid-19 pandemic, what legacy has the virus left?

For other young people, however, the outside world has become threatening since the lockdowns. "I’m not necessarily going to walk around, visit Paris, go to museums or things like that alone," says Élisa, 28. "I’d like to do it more, but I don’t feel capable of it."

She has always been a bit of a homebody – she likes being in her tidy, cosy apartment, with a book in hand or watching a good TV series. But it was after the lockdown that her anxiety began.

"For example, going grocery shopping takes huge mental preparation. Or if I arrive in a place where I don’t know many people and I’m going to have to socialise, my body reacts, my body can’t breathe, without knowing why," she said.

"It really annoys me to be like this when I’m in Paris, I’m young, I’m 28. I have so many things to live for and I’m actually getting anxious about things that, objectively, aren’t a big deal."
Social media, eco-anxiety and international conflicts

According to a study of 20 million young people in France, published on 7 January in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "a significant increase in mental health consultations, hospitalisations, and prescriptions for antidepressants, mood stabilisers, and antipsychotics was found among young people, particularly after the Covid-19 pandemic".

The findings continued: "This trend aligned with studies indicating that Covid-19 infection and lockdowns have had biological and societal impacts on the mental health of the youth."

The study also found that this change was particularly marked among females

But while the lockdown has left scars on France's young people, five years on it is not the sole cause of their distress.

"It’s true that these particular circumstances did weaken students, isolated them, and may have anticipated this decline in their mental health," says Melissa Macalli, a researcher at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) who studies the mental health of young adults.

She added: "It's also true that the causes are probably multiple: worsening instability, feelings of loneliness, the impact of social media. But also collective environmental factors that have been added – especially eco-anxiety, international conflicts and the global political situation, which worries them a lot."

This report was adapted from the RFI podcast Reportage en France produced by Lou Ecalle.

France accused of failing migrant teens trapped in legal limbo

Thousands of unaccompanied migrant youths arrive in France each year seeking safety, education and healthcare. Many claim to be under 18, which would entitle them to special protections under French law. But without documents, they fall into a legal grey zone – too young to be treated as adults, yet not officially recognised as minors.

 - 


A crowd scuffles with French riot police on 18 March 2025 following an order to evict unaccompanied migrant minors from the Gaîté Lyrique theatre in Paris. © AFP/Alain Jocard


By: Zeenat Hans rod  Issued on: 21/03/2025

Their cases are passed between institutions and the process can take months. In the meantime, they risk sleeping rough, being arrested or even deported before a final decision is made.

The recent police eviction of hundreds of youths occupying a Paris theatre has thrown a spotlight on this national challenge.

"We are not criminals, nor drug addicts. The only thing we are asking for is shelter, education and access to health. How can this be bad for France?" said Hamadou, a 16-year-old from Guinea who was among those evicted.

Watch on TikTok

Each year, around 8,000 undocumented migrant minors arrive in Paris alone. Only about 2,500 are officially recognised as underage and immediately taken into care, according to Mayor Anne Hidalgo.

For those caught in administrative limbo, options are limited. Some, like Hamadou and 500 others, occupied La Gaîté Lyrique theatre in central Paris from 10 December 2023, before being forcibly removed by police on 18 March.

"I was so frightened, I could not find any sleep that night, before the police evicted us," Hamadou told RFI.

"The policemen, a hundred of them, looked like they were geared up for war with their shields, helmets and batons. Up till the last minute, I was convinced that they would never use force, that the Paris municipality will come to the rescue with news of lodgings for us."

Most of the youths at Gaîté Lyrique come from former French colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Many find themselves in a paradox: French law guarantees protection for unaccompanied minors under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child – but proving they qualify for that protection is increasingly difficult.

The X-ray bone examination is hardly ever carried out nowadays, the age assessment tests is mainly through interviews.

“This is problematic for us because it is not based on scientific evidence and it looks like the interviewer can decide whatever they choose to believe,” Hamadou said.

A hot potato

Mohamed Gnabaly, mayor of Ile-Saint-Denis and member of the Green party, told RFI that the Gaîté Lyrique case shows how different institutions bounce responsibility back and forth.

"It is fine as long as they remain invisible. The unaccompanied migrant minors became a problem because they were a sore sight right in the centre of the capital city," he said.

"And this fed the racist speech we heard about them within both the ranks of the government and the far-right."

Fousseni, from the Belleville park youth group which helped organise the occupation, said the delays and lack of shelter push the minors into impossible choices.

"By the time many have built up their case while trying not to get arrested, they have already reached 18," he said.

The Municipality of Paris brought the case to court in January. A court then issued an order on 13 February for the theatre to be evacuated within one month. When the city failed to act by the deadline, police chief Laurent Nunes said he had to intervene.

"The Municipality of Paris [owner of the theatre] did not contact me by 13 March. I had to take my responsibilities and put an end to this occupation which was disrupting public order," Nunes said on the TV programme C à vous.

"The Municipality of Paris asked for details on what accommodation would be given to the young people and how they were to be treated," he added. "This to me implicitly meant that the Municipality of Paris did not want security forces to intervene."

Caught in the clash

On 18 March, riot police used batons and tear gas to enter the theatre, pushing past human chains formed by activists, civilians and politicians.

"This show of force and attacking vulnerable black migrant minors is the first step of the military discourse the government and the far-right is currently using," Danièle Obono, an MP from the left-leaning France Unbound party, told RFI.

Police evict migrants from Paris theatre after months-long occupation

Belleville parc youth group reported that around 60 people were arrested, including minors and adult supporters. Ten were injured. So far, 25 minors have been issued deportation orders – a move the group says violates their legal rights.

"This is illegal because they are minors and are currently being processed by the ministry of Justice to prove that they are under 18," said Fousseni. "They cannot be thrown out of the French territory like used tissue papers."

Differing perspectives

Government officials say the situation is not as clear-cut. Minister François-Noël Buffet told parliament that the youths were mostly over 18. The government and far-right groups blamed them for damage and losses to neighbouring businesses.

Mayor Hidalgo defended the eviction, saying the situation had become unsafe.

"There are around 8,000 young undocumented migrants who arrive in Paris every year. Approximately 2,500 of them are recognised as minors and are immediately taken care of," she told France Inter.

"The situation was tensed, dangerous and very complicated."

Hidalgo said accommodation had been offered, but turned down.

Fousseni said the offer was in Rouen – too far from Paris, where most of the young people are enrolled in school, receiving healthcare and attending legal appointments. Only six accepted the placement.

Billionaire Elon Musk commented on the case on X, writing: "Another case of suicidal empathy... it will end civilization. Game over." He later added, "They're exploiting a bug in Western civilisation which is the empathy response."

Uncertain future

For Hamadou, the eviction had immediate consequences.

"I couldn't breathe. I escaped with only the clothes I am now wearing," he said. His suitcase, containing all the documents gathered to prove his age, was lost in the chaos.

Now, he and others like him try not to sleep in the same place twice, fearing police checks. They depend on charities for food.

"The greatest danger they now face is police violence," said Fousseni. "Police in Paris are preventing the unaccompanied migrants to sleep in the streets of the city. They are being pushed to the outskirts of Paris."

La Gaîté Lyrique management had supported the occupation at first, despite cancelling shows and taking financial losses.

"It is out of question to throw them out in the streets where it is freezing cold. We regret, however that we were taken over so suddenly," it said in a communiqué last December.

The theatre later criticised the lack of coordination between the Paris Municipality and the national government, which left the minors in limbo for three months.

For thousands of unaccompanied minors across France, the system remains opaque, slow and unforgiving – and the stakes are growing by the day.