Thursday, November 14, 2024

With the US Election Over, Israel’s Genocide Continues With No End in Sight

Donald Trump has given every indication that Israel’s atrocities will continue unchecked in his second term.
November 10, 2024
A displaced Palestinian woman looks through a fence in a tent camp in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, on November 9, 2024.Majdi Fathi / NurPhoto via Getty Images

My Palestinian American family is in great pain. Every member of my Arab American community lost a relative or a friend during the past 13 months. We are torn to pieces and outraged by the U.S. support for Israel’s war on Gaza and the ravages wrought in southern Lebanon. Having lost several family members and friends — among them artists, teachers and academics I’ve known and writers with whom I’ve worked — I too wake up every morning in pain.

I am in pain because my Palestinian parents died before they could realize their dream of returning to their home in West Jerusalem. My father used to lament and say: “We were expelled from our home even though we had nothing to do with the Holocaust. And yet, we Palestinians have paid dearly for Europe’s crimes.” I am in pain because my people have experienced unimaginable suffering for 76 years with no end in sight — especially those living and dying in Gaza today, who were expelled from their homes in 1948 and 1967 and have been under siege for the past 17 years. They have not known a single day of peace in their lives and are now suffering from a live-streamed annihilation in front of the eyes of the entire world.

Every day in Gaza is a day of massacres, slaughter, death and destruction. Every day in Congress and the White House is a day of complicity, violating U.S. and international law by continuing to arm and support Israel’s ongoing genocide.

Both major political parties support funding and arming Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, against the will of the majority of the American people. Since October 2023, U.S. taxpayers have paid for 70 percent of Israel’s military assault, which has resulted in the total destruction of Gaza, the death of at least 43,000 Palestinians and the displacement of nearly 90 percent of Gaza’s residents. According to the UN, 96 percent of Gaza’s population of 2.15 million people face acute levels of food insecurity as a result of Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war.

In southern Lebanon, Baalbek and parts of the Bekaa Valley, Israeli airstrikes have obliterated 37 towns and villages, including historic sites — claiming that Hezbollah turned them into fortified combat zones — killed more than 3,000 people, maimed and wounded thousands more and displaced over 1.2 million in a country that was already bleeding from an economic collapse and political paralysis.

Related Story

Palestine Was a Top Concern for Many Voters. Harris Refused to Listen to Them.
After refusing to call for an arms embargo, Harris lost to Trump, to the delight of Israel’s right-wing leaders.
By Marjorie Cohn , TruthoutNovember 7, 2024


The U.S. is the only reason Israel has been able to sustain its genocidal practices for 13 months.

In the 2024 presidential election, racism, reproductive rights, immigrants and border control, gun laws, the economy, our constitutional democracy — even fascism — were on the ballot. Genocide was not.

We Are Unlikely to See a Change in US Foreign Policy Toward Israel

Israel is hell bent on a war of total destruction and ethnic cleansing. It will do so with the overwhelming support of the majority of Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Congress. It will do so under the watchful eye of the president of the United States who will not have the will or the courage to stop the Israeli assaults, displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the ongoing Israeli land grab. For more than a year now, Joe Biden has not wavered in his material support of Israel as it conducts genocide. We can expect that support to continue under Donald Trump when he takes office again.

Since October 7, Donald Trump has urged Prime Minister Netanyahu to “finish the job” and “do what you have to do.” On the campaign trail, Trump promised “We’re going to do a lot for Israel; we’re going to take care of Israel.”

U.S. unconditional support will continue in order to help Israel achieve its endgame of the “out-of-state” solution: emptying Gaza of Palestinians and continuing its ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jerusalem — and now southern Lebanon — in order to realize its ultimate goal of a greater Jewish ethnostate.

While Trump was in office, Netanyahu called him “the best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.” He called Trump’s victory this week “history’s greatest comeback” and “a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America.” Other members of his far-right coalition have also expressed their praise for Trump and their excitement for his return to office.

Fighting US Complicity Must Continue Beyond the Election

Kamala Harris lost the presidential election in part because the Democratic Party has lost touch with the American people and abandoned the working class in exchange for war profiteers. The Biden-Harris administration’s active support for the Gaza genocide caused a significant shift in the voting patterns of the American Muslim and Arab American communities, which led a large percentage to ditch the Democratic Party. What’s more, Harris suffered a decline in support among young voters, Black voters and other key elements of the Democratic base. With the Vice President running to the right, the Democratic and Republican candidates looked as though they represented two sides of the same coin.

While there are major policy differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to domestic issues as well as international affairs, their unconditional support for Israel is not an issue of disagreement.

On the contrary, we’ve seen both parties on the campaign trail vigorously competing with each other to show us who is a better friend to Israel. President-elect Trump even went as far as saying President Biden was “like a Palestinian,” using the word as a slur or an insult to prove his greater love of Israel. Both Trump and Harris are staunch supporters of Israel and both said on numerous occasions that Israel has the “right to defend itself” even though international law clearly prohibits an occupier from bombing the occupied. Both candidates vowed to continue U.S. military aid to Israel and dismissed the calls from the majority of Americans who support a ceasefire and an arms embargo of the Israeli state.

So when it comes to the genocide in Gaza — and the war on Lebanon — Arabs and Arab Americans on the whole already knew their fight would continue regardless of the outcome of the election.
Trump’s Past Actions Give Us a Clue of Future Policy

In 2017, during his first term as president, Donald Trump moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in violation of international law and several UN resolutions. He also suspended U.S. opposition to the establishment and expansion of illegal Israeli settlements on stolen Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank.

In 2018, in another blow to Palestinians, President Trump shut down the office of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) mission in Washington, D.C.

In 2019, President Trump’s official recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in Syria upended half a century of U.S. Middle East policy.

In 2020, Trump initiated and mediated an agreement known as the Abraham Accords, a series of bilateral agreements that saw the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and four Arab countries — the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan — breaking a long-held Arab policy of refusing to recognize the Israeli state until Israel ends its occupation.

In the same year, he announced the “Trump peace plan” for the Middle East in a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The plan provided for a unified Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the principal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, amounting to annexation of roughly 30 percent of the territory. The Palestinians would be offered some desert areas near the Egyptian border, limited sovereignty and a non-contiguous state with numerous Israeli enclaves. The New York Times wrote that “rather than viewing it as a serious blueprint for peace, analysts called it a political document by a president in the middle of an impeachment trial working in tandem with Mr. Netanyahu, a prime minister under criminal indictment who is about to face his third election in a year.”

Trump’s son-in-law and former senior adviser, Jared Kushner, has also offered some signal of what we might expect. When Israel dropped dozens of bunker buster bombs on Beirut in September, killing Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Kushner called it “the most important day in the Middle East since the Abraham Accords breakthrough” in a statement that flagrantly called for Israel to expand its war across the Middle East with continued U.S. support.

Kushner, who was one of the brokers of the Abraham Accords, went on to say: “The Middle East is too often a solid where little changes. Today, it is a liquid and the ability to reshape is unlimited. Do not squander this moment.”
What Next for the Palestine Solidarity Movement?

Over the last 13 months, we’ve witnessed incredible solidarity movements, with millions of people in the U.S. and around the globe organizing, marching and protesting against Israel’s atrocities in Gaza and its apartheid system and inhumane treatment of Palestinians.

From ending the Vietnam War to dismantling the apartheid regime in South Africa, students have long been at the forefront of movements that made history by speaking up against injustice and endless wars. Today they are proving again to be the conscience of the nation by challenging the genocide in Gaza and standing up against the anti-Palestinian racism on their university campuses as they are being met with increasing repression and violence. Colleges and universities across the country have arrested students for peaceful protests; they have enacted policies that stifle pro-Palestinian activism; and have created a hostile environment for pro-Palestinian students, faculty, staff and members of the community.

Trump’s response to the student protest movement: “Deport pro-Hamas radicals.”

Still, those students remain determined to end the U.S.’s shameful policy of enabling Israel’s genocide and they are clearly not about to give up.

Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard wrote recently in Haaretz:

“Generations of Israelis will have to live with what we have done in Gaza over the last year … Generations of Israelis will have to explain to their children and grandchildren why we behaved that way. Some will have to explain why they didn’t refuse to bomb. And some will have to explain why they didn’t do more to stop the horror.”

We in the U.S. will also have to explain to our children and grandchildren why our country did nothing to stop the genocide.

While we are embarking on a period of political uncertainty, it is likely that the U.S.’s destructive foreign policy towards the Palestinians will continue. But so will our fight for Palestinian freedom, equality and an end to occupation.

Copyright © Truthout. 


Michel Moushabeck  is a Palestinian American writer, editor, translator and musician. He is the founder and publisher of Interlink Publishing, a 37-year-old Massachusetts-based independent publishing house. Follow him on Instagram: @ReadPalestine.


CROCK O SHIT 💩💩💩

U.S. says Israel now in compliance with law on humanitarian assistance to Gaza


A truck carrying humanitarian aid passed into the Northern Gaza Strip as another drives back into Israel at the Erez Crossing checkpoint after delivering supplies on May 5, 2024. The United States said Tuesday that Israel had largely satisfied its demand for "concrete measures" to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza within 30 days or risk military assistance being suspended. File Photo by Jim Hollander/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 13 (UPI) -- The United States has determined that Israel has substantially met its demand to take "concrete steps" to improve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza within 30 days or risk losing military assistance provided by Washington in line with U.S. law.

While more needed to be done, Israel was not in breach of U.S. law, State Department spokesman Vedant Patel told the department's regular press briefing Tuesday -- the day the 30-day deadline set by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin expired.

Patel said Israel had taken a number of steps to address the measures laid out in an Oct. 13 letter penned by Blinken and Austin including reopening the Erez crossing, establishing a new crossing at Kissufim and waiving certain customs requirements for the Jordanian armed forces corridor.

Other improvements included the opening of additional delivery routes within Gaza, including Bani Suheila Road, greater use of the Israeli fence road, repairs to the coastal road and the resumption of some deliveries to the north -- to Gaza City and most recently to areas around Jabalia -- and the expansion of the Mawasi humanitarian zone.

"This is all to say, we at this time have not made an assessment that the Israelis are in violation of U.S. law. But most importantly, we are going to continue to watch how these steps that they've taken, how they are being implemented, how that they can be continued to be expanded on," said Patel.

"And through that, we're going to continue to assess their compliance with U.S. law. We've seen some progress being made. We would like to see some more changes happen. We believe that had it not been for U.S. intervention these changes may not have ever taken place. But most importantly, we want to see continued progress, and that's what we're looking for."

Aid agencies and the United Nations, however, disagreed, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs on Tuesday told a Security Council briefing that "conditions of life across Gaza are unfit for human survival."


While welcoming the opening of the new Kissufim crossing at the 11th hour on Tuesday morning, Acting Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Joyce Msuya warned of potential famine and grave violations of international laws in Gaza, calling for unimpeded humanitarian access to those in need.

Msuya said that as she spoke Israeli authorities were blocking humanitarian assistance from entering North Gaza, where fighting continued, and around 75,000 people remained with dwindling water and food supplies.

"Conditions of life across Gaza are unfit for human survival. Food is insufficient. Shelter items -- needed ahead of winter -- are in extremely short supply. Violent armed lootings of our convoys have become increasingly organized along routes from Kerem Shalom, driven by the collapse of public order and safety.

"Essential commercial goods and services including electricity have been all but cut off. This has led to increasing hunger, starvation and now, as we have heard, potentially famine. We are witnessing acts reminiscent of the gravest international crimes.

"The latest offensive that Israel started in North Gaza last month is an intensified, extreme and accelerated version of the horrors of the past year," she said.

With fuel for mechanical diggers blocked by Israel, many remained trapped beneath rubble and first responders had been prevented from reaching them. Ambulances had been destroyed and hospitals attacked.

Supplies to the north were being cut off and people pushed further south, Msuya said.

"The daily cruelty we see in Gaza seems to have no limits. Beit Hanoun has been besieged for more than one month. Yesterday, food and water reached shelters, but today, Israeli soldiers forcibly displaced people from those same areas. People under siege now tell us they are afraid that they will be targeted if they receive help," she added.

Many food assistance kitchens had been forced to close and daily food distribution during October was down almost 25% from September levels.

Msuya said these were not logistical problems but issues that could be resolved with the right political will, adding that the Israeli military's announcement that the Kissufim crossing into central Gaza is now open "cannot come soon enough."

Eight aid agencies, including Oxfam, Save the Children and the Norwegian Refugee Council said Tuesday that the measures Israel had taken failed to meet any of the specific criteria set out in the U.S. letter.

"Israel not only failed to meet the U.S. criteria that would indicate support to the humanitarian response, but concurrently took actions that dramatically worsened the situation on the ground, particularly in Northern Gaza. That situation is in an even more dire state today than a month ago.

"The principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee now assess that the entire Palestinian population in North Gaza is at imminent risk of dying from disease, famine and violence."

The NGOs said their scorecard underscored Israel's failure to comply with U.S. demands and international obligations and that it should be held accountable for the end result of failing to ensure adequate food, medical, and other supplies reached people in need.

Blinken and Austin's letter demanded Israel allow 350 aid trucks daily into Gaza at a minimum, but U.N. data showed just 37 a day during October, the lowest figure since the conflict started, although that number has risen this month.

The arm of the Israeli military responsible for humanitarian affairs in the Gaza Strip, GOGAT, insisted Israel had complied with U.S. demands, telling the BBC "most aspects have been met and those which have not are being discussed, [and] some U.S. demands are for issues that were being resolved already."

Protests break out in Paris over pro-Israel gala organized by far-right figures
France


A gala organized in Paris by far-right association "Israel is Forever", which aimed to "mobilize French-speaking Zionist forces" and raise funds for Israeli armed forces, incited two pro-Palestine protests in the French capital. French authorities said the event featuring Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, an ardent supporter of Israeli settlements, posed "no threat to public order".



Issued on: 14/11/2024 
By: NEWS WIRES
Video by: James ANDRE

Protests erupted in Paris on Wednesday against a controversial gala organized by far-right figures in support of Israel. The event, intended to raise funds for the Israeli military, included Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich among its invited guests.

The demonstrations came on the eve of a high-stakes soccer match at France's national stadium against the Israeli national team, overshadowed by tensions around the wars in the Middle East. Authorities in Paris announced that more than 4,000 police officers and 1,600 stadium staff will be deployed for the game.

Smotrich, a vocal advocate of Israeli settlements, had been expected to attend Wednesday's gala, dubbed “Israel is Forever,” which was planned by an association of the same name. The group’s stated goal is to “mobilize French-speaking Zionist forces.”

After days of growing criticism of the event, Smotrich's office confirmed Wednesday that the minister would not travel to Paris to participate.



But the invitation to Smotrich drew sharp criticism from local associations, unions and left-wing political parties, prompting two protests in the French capital. The minister, a hard-line settler leader, has been accused of inflaming tensions in the West Bank and drew international condemnations this week by saying he hopes the election of Donald Trump will clear the way for Israeli annexation of the West Bank — a step that would extinguish Palestinian statehood dreams.

The French Foreign Ministry called Smotrich’s remarks “contrary to international law” and counterproductive to efforts to reduce regional tensions.

“France reiterates its commitment to the implementation of the two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security, which is the only prospect for a just and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” the ministry said in a statement.

01:48


Critics also pointed at Nili Kupfer-Naouri, president of the “Israel is Forever” association, who sparked outrage in 2023, after the Israel-Hamas war started, when she tweeted that “no civilian in Gaza was innocent.”

On Wednesday night, several hundred protesters marched through central Paris, denouncing the event as a “gala of hatred and shame.”

“Imagine if an association were hosting a gala for Hezbollah or Hamas — there’s no way the police would allow that,” said Melkir Saib, a 30-year-old protester. “The situation is just unfair."

The march was largely peaceful, but some demonstrators broke windows at a McDonald's along the route.

A separate group, including Jewish leftist organizations opposed to racism and antisemitism, gathered near the Arc de Triomphe chanting slogans against the gala and Smotrich.

French authorities defended the event, with Paris police chief Laurent Nunez stating that the gala posed “no major threat to public order.”

The protests came days after tensions flared in Paris and Amsterdam related to the conflicts in the Mideast. A massive “Free Palestine” banner was displayed during a Paris Saint-Germain Champions League match against Atletico Madrid, while violence broke out in Amsterdam last week targeting fans of an Israeli soccer club.

(AP)
 
Could Trump actually get rid of the Department of Education?

Getting rid of the agency would cause a lot of harm and wouldn’t really change school curriculum.



by Ellen Ioanes
VOX
Nov 13, 2024


Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks to guests during a rally at Clinton Middle School on January 6, 2024, in Clinton, Iowa.
Scott Olson/Getty Images

While campaigning, President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to dismantle the US Department of Education (DOE), on the basis that the federal education apparatus is “indoctrinating young people with inappropriate racial, sexual, and political material.”

“One thing I’ll be doing very early in the administration is closing up the Department of Education in Washington, DC, and sending all education and education work it needs back to the states,” Trump said in a 2023 video outlining his education policy goals. “We want them to run the education of our children because they’ll do a much better job of it. You can’t do worse.”


Closing the department wouldn’t be easy for Trump, but it isn’t impossible — and even if the DOE remains open, there are certainly ways Trump could radically change education in the United States. Here’s what’s possible.

Can Trump actually close the DOE?


Technically, yes.

However, “It would take an act of Congress to take it out,” Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, told Vox. “It would take an act of Congress to radically restructure it. And so the question is whether or not there’d be appetite on the Hill for abolishing the department.”

Related:What do librarians do? Do they need degrees?


That’s not such an easy prospect, even though the Republicans look set to take narrow control of the Senate and the House. That’s because abolishing the department “would require 60 votes unless the Republicans abolish the filibuster,” Jal Mehta, professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Vox.


Without the filibuster rule, legislation would need a simple majority to pass, but senators have been hesitant to get rid of it in recent years. With the filibuster in place, Republicans would need some Democratic senators to join their efforts to kill the department. The likelihood of Democratic senators supporting such a move is almost nonexistent.

That means the push to unwind the department is probably largely symbolic. And that is the best-case scenario, Jon Valant, director of the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy, told Vox. According to Valant, dismantling it would simultaneously damage the US education system while also failing to accomplish Trump’s stated goals.

Closing the department “would wreak havoc across the country,” Valant said. “It would cause terrible pain. It would cause terrible pain in parts of the country represented by congressional Republicans too.”


Much of that pain would likely fall on the country’s most vulnerable students: poor students, students in rural areas, and students with disabilities. That’s because the department’s civil rights powers help it to support state education systems in providing specialized resources to those students.

Furthermore, much of what Trump and MAGA activists claim the agency is responsible for — like teaching critical race theory and LGBTQ “ideology” — isn’t actually the purview of the DOE; things like curriculum and teacher choice are already the domain of state departments of education. And only about 10 percent of federal public education funding flows to state boards of education, according to Valant. The rest comes primarily from tax sources, so states and local school districts are already controlling much of the funding structure of their specific public education systems

“I find it a little bewildering that the US Department of Education has become such a lightning rod here, in part because I don’t know how many people have any idea what the department actually does,” Valant said.


Even without literally shutting the doors to the federal agency, there could be ways a Trump administration could hollow the DOE and do significant damage, Valant and Kettl said.


The administration could require the agency to cut the roles of agency employees, particularly those who ideologically disagree with the administration. It could also appoint officials with limited (or no) education expertise, hampering the department’s day-to-day work.


Trump officials could also attempt changes to the department’s higher education practices. The department is one of several state and nongovernmental institutions involved in college accreditation, for example — and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) has threatened to weaponize the accreditation process against universities he believes to be too “woke.”


Finally, Trump could use the department’s leadership role to affect policy indirectly: “There’s power that comes from just communicating to states what you would like to see” being taught in schools, Valant said. “And there are a lot of state leaders around the country who seem ready to follow that lead.”


Trump’s plans for the department will become clearer once the administration nominates an education secretary. Once that person is confirmed, Kettl said, “They’re just gonna be off to the races on the issue again.”

Ellen Ioanes covers breaking and general assignment news as the weekend reporter at Vox. She previously worked at Business Insider covering the military and global conflicts.


An undercover investigation reveals the deception of “humane”-certified farms

Regulators had a chance to fix the meat industry’s false advertising problem. They failed.


by Kenny Torrella
VOX
Nov 14, 2024,


A flock of large white broiler chickens, approximately 10 weeks old, are ready to be processed. 
Monica Fecke/Moment via Getty Images


An overwhelming majority of Americans say they’re concerned about the treatment of animals raised for meat, and many believe they can help by simply selecting from one of the many brands that advertise their chicken or pork as “humane.” But such marketing claims have long borne little resemblance to the ugly reality of raising animals for meat.


Nearly all farmed animals in the US live on mega factory farms, where they’re mutilated without pain relief and fattened up in dark, overcrowded warehouses before being shipped off to the slaughterhouse. Only a tiny sliver of livestock are actually reared on the small, higher-welfare farms that many companies conjure on their packaging with quaint red barns and green rolling hills — and even those operations can be rife with animal suffering.

This summer, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had an opportunity to fix the false advertising problem pervasive in the meat aisle when it published updated guidelines that companies must follow when making animal welfare claims on their labels. Instead, its new guidance barely changed anything.

The updated rules “remain insufficient to combat misleading label claims used to market meat and poultry products,” as the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute put it, allowing companies “to essentially make up their own definitions with no repercussions.” (The one improvement, the organization noted, was a clearer definition of the term “pasture raised,” though that label remains poorly enforced and does not guarantee animals were raised humanely.)

Here’s how the USDA’s guidelines work: If a meat company wants to make an animal welfare or environment-related claim on its packaging, it must fill out a form with an illustration of its label and an explanation as to how the animals are raised to justify the claim; how the company will ensure the claim is valid from birth to slaughter to sale; and whether or not an independent, third-party organization certified the claim, which is optional. The USDA never conducts surprise audits, or any audits at all, to verify the company is telling the truth. It is, in essence, an honor system.

The USDA also has an incredibly low, and often nonsensical, bar for what passes as humane treatment.


The agency states, for example, that a chicken company can use the term “humanely raised” if it feeds its birds an all-vegetarian diet, which has virtually no bearing on their welfare (chickens are omnivores).


Similarly, the agency says pork can be labeled “humanely raised” if the company provides its pigs with “proper shelter and rest areas.” By that definition, standard factory farms — which produce practically all US pork — are humane because they provide ample shelter in the form of vast, crowded warehouses where the animals have nothing to do but rest on the same concrete flooring where they defecate and urinate.

Chickens raised for meat at an operation in Maryland. Edwin Remsberg/The Image Bank via Getty Images

Pigs at a breeding farm. Chayakorn Lotongkum/iStock via Getty Images


“I think that a lot of this is out of touch with what consumers are really thinking these claims mean,” P. Renée Wicklund, co-founder of Richman Law & Policy — a law firm that takes meat, dairy, and egg companies to court over false claims — told me.


Over the last decade, the Animal Welfare Institute has requested from the USDA the applications that meat companies submitted for 97 animal welfare claims. For the overwhelming majority of them, there were either no records at all or the justifications for the labels had little to no relevance to animal welfare.


The USDA declined an interview request for this story and didn’t directly respond to numerous detailed questions. Instead, it sent a statement that read in part: “USDA continues to deliver on its commitment to fairness and choice for both farmers and consumers, and that means supporting transparency and high-quality standards.”


To be fair to the agency, it doesn’t have the authority to conduct on-farm audits, which would require an act of Congress. But it does have authority to define animal welfare claims — an authority it rarely exercises. Instead, it allows companies to define animal welfare claims themselves.


The USDA also added that it “strongly encourages” companies to validate animal welfare claims using third-party certifiers — private organizations that audit conditions on farms and license the use of their own humane labels. But a recent undercover investigation into one of the nation’s biggest “humane-certified” poultry companies shows how low third-party certification standards can be.

Chickens kicked and run over with forklifts: Inside a “humane-certified” poultry farm


Foster Farms, the 11th largest chicken company in the US, advertises meat from animals raised with supposedly “better care.” On its packaging, chickens are shown roaming free on pasture, even though the company’s conventionally raised birds will never step foot onto grass. On its website, Foster Farms says its farming is “safe, sustainable, and humane” and that its chickens are “raised on local West Coast farms” with “strenuous, high standards.”


The company also promotes its chicken as “cage-free” with “no added hormones or steroids ever.” But touting these aspects is misleading because chickens raised for meat in the US are not kept in cages — only those raised for eggs are — and it’s illegal to feed chickens hormones or steroids.


“They’re feel-good words, but they don’t have any real meaning,” veterinarian Gail Hansen told Vox.


This summer, an undercover investigator with the animal rights group Animal Outlook worked for a month on the company’s catch crew, a job that entails grabbing chickens on farms, stuffing them into crates, and loading them onto trucks bound for the slaughterhouse.


Over the course of more than a dozen shifts at multiple Foster Farms facilities, the investigator — who requested anonymity due to the covert nature of undercover investigations — documented workers slamming birds into crates, kicking and hitting chickens, and numerous instances of forklift drivers running over birds.


The investigator recalled making eye contact with a bird shortly after they were run over by a forklift. “They were being crushed and everything was being pushed forward, and they had their beak open, and they had this look on their face like they knew that they were dying. And then I watched them flap and struggle for a moment before passing,” the investigator told me.
“From a veterinary perspective, some of the things are just horrific,” Hansen said.


The investigator chalked up most of the cruelty to the chaotic, fast-paced work environment imposed by supervisors during long, grueling shifts.


After Animal Outlook released its investigation last month, Foster Farms fired several employees and reported them to county law enforcement. In a statement to a chicken industry news site, the company said it would also hire for more roles focused on animal welfare, retrain employees on animal welfare, and conduct more audits. Foster Farms did not respond to Vox’s multiple requests for comment.


Cheryl Leahy, who was executive director of Animal Outlook when the investigation was released but has since left the organization, said the company’s problems go much deeper than just a few employees.

Related:The “humanewashing” of America’s meat and dairy, explained
Undercover audio of a Tyson employee reveals “free-range” chicken is meaningless
“Wild-caught,” “organic,” “grass-fed”: What do all these animal welfare labels actually mean?


Cruelty is “woven into the culture,” Leahy said. “It is a feature, not a bug. It is a business practice. There is a decision made to go with volume and speed” over animal welfare.


In recent years, the USDA has cited Foster Farms for 18 incidents of violating federal animal welfare laws. Numerous other investigations into Foster Farms facilities have found cruel conditions and practices that, to be fair to the company, have also been documented across the US poultry industry.


Foster Farms’ announced reforms in response to Animal Outlook’s latest investigation are unlikely to do much to improve overall conditions, Leahy said. It has already taken similar actions — penalizing workers and increasing training — in the wake of previous investigations. More importantly, the company’s animal welfare standards are already at rock bottom, in line with the rest of the chicken industry.


But you wouldn’t know that from its marketing or its “American Humane” certification.

How misleading marketing — enabled by the USDA — tricks consumers


For years, Foster Farms has bolstered its humane image through a certification from the nonprofit American Humane — the kind of third-party organization that the USDA “strongly encourages” meat companies making humane claims to work with. As of the late 2010s, the company paid American Humane $375,000 annually for its certification, and a lawsuit claimed that American Humane would give Foster Farms seven to 14 days’ notice of an audit, allowing them to prepare for the visits.


Animal advocacy groups like Animal Outlook argue that American Humane’s standards largely mirror that of the typical chicken factory farm, not the higher-welfare conditions a consumer would reasonably expect.


Hansen, the veterinarian, echoed that sentiment: “The daylight between them is pretty narrow.”



American Humane’s “standards are not meant to actually bring these companies up to a level of palatability for the public,” Leahy said. “What they’re trying to do is stop the criticism.”


A former American Humane executive is now an owner and partner of a PR firm that defends factory farm interests and executive director of a related pro-factory farming organization. American Humane did not respond to multiple requests for comment.


Processing Meat

A newsletter analyzing how the meat and dairy industries impact everything around us.

Email (required)
Sign Up


A 2015 class action lawsuit, alleging that Foster Farms misleads consumers with its American Humane Certified label, demonstrates how the USDA’s low standards enable such deception: In a 2018 decision, a three-judge panel rejected an appeal in part because the USDA had already approved the label.


“The Foster Farms of the world can say, ‘Look, this was approved by a government agency,’”said Wicklund. (Wicklund’s law firm, Richman Law & Policy, has represented and co-counseled with Animal Outlook in meat labeling lawsuits; earlier this year, it filed a legal complaint against Foster Farms over its animal welfare claims, which is ongoing.)


The recently released Animal Outlook investigation reported that Foster Farms employees — and, according to the undercover investigator, its supervisors, too — did violate some of American Humane’s poultry handling standards, which are laid out in a dense 115-page document. However, Foster Farms remains certified by American Humane — when companies are in violation of the organization’s standards, there are seemingly no penalties. They have to fill out a form explaining how they’ll meet full compliance in the future and alert American Humane when that’s been done. Companies can still obtain certification even if they don’t fully pass their annual audit. (And numerous investigations into poultry companies have found that rough handling appears to be the industry norm, not the exception).


While some animal certification programs do set standards above the industry norm, what makes especially weak third-party certifications like American Humane’s so fundamentally inadequate — and deceptive — is that they permit the worst systemic abuses of poultry farming: cruel breeding practices, overcrowding, and especially inhumane slaughter methods.


Virtually all chickens raised for meat in the US have been bred to grow so big so fast that they’re in constant pain. Many have difficulty walking or even standing and are more likely to suffer from leg deformities, heart attacks, and other health issues when compared to heritage breeds that grow at a normal pace. Animal Outlook’s investigator alleged that many of the birds in the Foster Farms operations couldn’t walk and that some had broken legs. American Humane’s standards allow for these rapid-growth chickens, which animal rights activists call “Frankenchickens.”




The group’s standards also allow for overcrowding, giving birds a little more space than the industry standard but what still amounts to almost 20 percent less space than what animal advocacy groups argue should be the bare minimum. American Humane allows for the standard chicken slaughter process: shackling chickens upside down, dunking them in a bath of electrified water to stun them unconscious, slitting their throats, and then placing them in a scalding vat to loosen their feathers.


Despite all that, the resulting meat can still be advertised as humane, sustainable, and produced from healthy birds.


The empty claims many meat companies make on their labels and in their advertising stem from forces bigger than the USDA and third-party certifiers. Currently, chickens and other poultry birds have zero federal legal protections while on the farm or in the slaughterhouse, and third-party certification programs make an exceptionally weak substitute for this legal gap. If we wanted truly “humanely raised” chicken, we’d have to fundamentally change how chickens are farmed, which would require significant anti-cruelty legislation from Congress. That would substantially raise the price of chicken, making it more of a delicacy than a staple.


But the USDA, the poultry giants, and the dubious third-party certification schemes would like us to believe otherwise — that wholesome marketing and hollow honor systems can fix the horrific reality of what it is to be a farmed animal in the US.



Kenny Torrella is a senior reporter for Vox’s Future Perfect section, with a focus on animal welfare and the future of meat.




Trump Taps Fossil Fuel Ally to Head EPA, Push Anti-Environment Agenda


Lee Zeldin has a history of opposing critical environmental protections and clean energy job investments.
November 13, 2024


Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.

Environmental defenders are raising alarm over Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, former New York Congressmember Lee Zeldin, who has a history of opposing critical environmental protections and clean energy job investments. Zeldin’s nomination comes as Trump is reportedly discussing moving the EPA headquarters outside of Washington, D.C., which could lead to an exodus of staff and expertise from the agency. “I really don’t think this is about government efficiency. I think this is about terrorizing the career staff,” says Judith Enck, who served as a regional administrator of the EPA in the Obama administration.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman.

As Donald Trump quickly moves to name his Cabinet, we turn now to look at his pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, former New York Congressmember Lee Zeldin. The Long Island Republican served four terms in the House, where he earned a score of just 14 out of 100 from the League of Conservation Voters, after consistently voting against critical environmental protections and clean energy job investments.

Zeldin’s nomination came after The New York Times reported Trump’s transition team is discussing moving the EPA headquarters outside D.C. Nate James of the American Federation of Government Employees told Politico many career EPA officials would leave the agency if it moves, adding, “it could be advertised as a relocation, but really it would be decapitation.”

Related Story

Biden Made Slow But Steady Progress on Climate. Trump Is Poised to Dismantle It.
Trump is threatening to unleash pollution, increase emissions and incapacitate the most robust EPA in a generation.
By Mike Ludwig , Truthout  November 11, 2024


We go now to Judith Enck, who served as EPA regional administrator under President Obama, now president of Beyond Plastics. We’re speaking to her outside Albany.

Hi, Judith. Thanks so much for joining us again.

JUDITH ENCK: Thanks for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about, as both a former EPA administrator and a person from New York, where Lee Zeldin was a congressmember for years — talk about what a Zeldin heading the EPA looks like.

JUDITH ENCK: Well, Lee Zeldin at the helm of EPA will be a wonderful tenure for fossil fuel companies, plastics companies, chemical companies. But it’s going to be really bad for people who want to breathe clean air, drink water that doesn’t have toxic chemicals or lead in it. And I’m particularly concerned about what a Zeldin EPA would mean for environmental justice communities, places like Cancer Alley in Louisiana, places like Appalachia and Texas, where there’s a concentration of petrochemical facilities, and today there is not enough environmental protections in place.

I’m glad you mentioned Lee Zeldin’s tenure in Congress, where he had the not very impressive score of 14% voting record when he was in Congress. But let’s go back even further. Some people don’t know that Lee Zeldin was a state senator in Albany. And his record was so bad that a statewide environmental group gave him the distinguished 2011 Oil Slick Award. And he earned that Oil Slick Award because he introduced bills that would have, for instance, reduced funding for mass transit, provide dirty water in his Long Island district. And he just really stood out when he was in Albany, and then he took that environmental perspective to Washington, where his record was equally bad.

I do want to talk a little bit about his run for governor against Democrat Kathy Hochul, because some people are saying it kind of doesn’t matter what Zeldin’s policy positions are because he’s just going to do what Donald Trump tells him to do. But make no mistake: Lee Zeldin is in lockstep agreement with the Trump administration anti-environmental agenda.

When he was in Congress, he did a few good things that’ll be interesting to watch, very few. He opposed offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. I don’t know what that means, though, for offshore wind development. He was a member of the Republican Climate Solutions Caucus, and they never did anything. And in breaking news, he supported protections for shellfish in Long Island Sound. Those are the only three positives that I could dig up on his environmental record. So, I have to agree with the guest from the ACLU who said this is going to be worse than anything we have ever seen at the EPA.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about Project 2025, that Trump disavowed, but that as soon as he was elected, people were saying, “Of course this is what the plan is.” Talk about the plan including over 150 pages with, to say the least, damaging environmental plans.

JUDITH ENCK: Yeah, this is very concerning. Project 2025 is 900 pages, and 150 are dedicated to anti-environmental policies. Project 2025 calls for disbanding the EPA Office of Environmental Justice. It’s disbanding the office at EPA that deals with enforcement of critical environmental laws. They want to speed approval of chemicals. They want to weaken the Clean Air Act by removing the essential part of the statute which requires the EPA to set health-based standards when regulating air pollution.

The plan uses phrases like “the perceived threat of climate change.” They want to shut down climate research not only at the EPA, but at a dozen federal agencies. They want to see more fossil fuel development on public lands, not just private lands. So they’re advocating for drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and also drilling for fossil fuels in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Wilderness areas.

And finally, all of us, unfortunately, have learned about the tremendous health damage caused by forever chemicals, known as PFAS chemicals, where EPA plays a major role. Something EPA, finally, recently did was classify PFAS chemicals as a hazardous substance. That was kind of a no-brainer. And this plan wants to reverse that.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I wanted to ask you about moving the EPA out of Washington. Is this just a geographic thing, or what would it mean, with so many people, obviously, not moving?

JUDITH ENCK: Well, I think it’s not efficiency. I think it’s an effort to drive out the long-term career employees that work at the EPA office. I want to point out there are 10 regional offices all over the country, but the role of the Washington office is to essentially establish the rules of the road when it comes to pollution, how much air toxics are we allowed to breathe in in Cancer Alley, what toxic chemicals will be in our drinking water. So, I really don’t think this is about government efficiency. I think this is about terrorizing the career staff at EPA, making their life harder, distracting them, and, most importantly, taking them away from their day jobs, which is strictly enforcing environmental laws.

AMY GOODMAN: Judith Enck, I want to thank you for being with us, former EPA regional administrator under President Obama, now serving as president of Beyond Plastics.
COP29 Leader Caught on Tape Pushing Oil and Gas Deals


“We need the UN to ban petro interests from sitting at the table,” says Lela Stanley, an investigator at Global Witness.

November 13, 2024

Honest, paywall-free news is rare. Please support our boldly independent journalism with a donation of any size.

The U.N. climate summit known as COP29 is underway in Baku, Azerbaijan, where negotiators are trying to make progress on reducing emissions and preventing the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Many activists, however, have criticized the decision to hold the talks in an authoritarian petrostate. The host country is also facing accusations that it is using the climate talks for business, after the head of the talks, Elnur Soltanov, was caught in a secret recording promoting oil and gas deals. That sting was organized by the group Global Witness, which put forward a fake investor. “In exchange for just the promise of sponsorship money, that got us to the heart of the COP29,” says Lela Stanley, an investigator at Global Witness. “We need the U.N. to ban petro interests from sitting at the table, from influencing the COP.”

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman.

Get our free emails

Email*









We end today’s show talking about the U.N. climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan. It’s entered its third day. On Tuesday, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres issued a dire warning.


SECRETARY-GENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: The sound you hear is the ticking clock. We are in the final countdown to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. And time is not on our side.

Related Story

Greenhouse Gases Increased to Record High Levels in 2023 — Report
The Earth is set to experience “rising temperatures for many, many years to come,” one UN official said.
By Chris Walker , Truthout  
October 30, 2024

AMY GOODMAN: Many climate activists have criticized the decision to hold the talks in Azerbaijan, an authoritarian petrostate. Azerbaijan is also facing accusations it’s using the climate talks to make future fossil fuel deals.

Well, the group Global Witness has released a secret recording of Elnur Soltanov, the chief executive of the climate talks known as COP29. An undercover investigator with Global Witness posed as a fossil fuel investor and held an online meeting with Soltanov during which he discussed possible fossil fuel deals.


ELNUR SOLTANOV: As I said, we have a lot of pipeline infrastructure. We have a lot of gas fields that are to be developed. We have a lot of green projects that SOCAR is very interested in. There are a lot of joint ventures that could be established, potential joint ventures. Our SOCAR trading is trading oil and gas all over the world, including in Asia. So, to me, these are the possibilities to explore.

AMY GOODMAN: Those were the words of Elnur Soltanov, the chief executive of the U.N. climate talks in Azerbaijan.

We go now to Lela Stanley, interim head of fossil fuel investigations at Global Witness, joining us from Philadelphia.

Lela, thanks for being with us. So, talk about the significance of what he admitted to your group, albeit he thought he was talking to a fossil fuel investor and thought he could make a deal during the U.N. climate summit, that he’s heading.

LELA STANLEY: That’s right. Thanks so much for having me, Amy.

So, let me just set the scene for your listeners. As many folks probably remember, last year the climate conference was hosted by another petrostate, the United Arab Emirates. And we found that over the year that the UAE held the COP28 host position, its state-owned oil company sought out close to $100 billion in new oil and gas and petrochemical deals. And given that Azerbaijan, also a petrostate, most of its revenue coming from oil and gas, is hosting this year’s climate conference, we thought we wanted to see if something similar might be happening this year. So, as you say, we went undercover. We posed as a fake oil and gas investor, and we reached out to the COP29 team behind the climate conference.

And what we found was that in exchange for just a promise of sponsorship money, that got us to the heart of the COP29 team. We spoke with people who introduced us to a chief executive — excuse me, a senior executive at the state-owned oil company of Azerbaijan. That’s SOCAR. And we were introduced, as you say, to Elnur Soltanov, the CEO of COP29, also the deputy energy minister of Azerbaijan and on the board of SOCAR. And in speaking with our investigators, Soltanov said the COP is not about oil and gas, but then he pitched Azerbaijan as a growing gas producer. And he described an energy future in which fossil fuels would feature, in his words, perhaps forever.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to that clip, that same call, Soltanov saying that oil and gas would be produced perhaps forever.


ELNUR SOLTANOV: So, definitely, in couple of years, I think the production levels will start declining, not now, not next year. And even with net zero, we will have a certain amount of oil and natural gas being produced, perhaps forever.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if you can talk, Lela, about what this means for the U.N. climate summit? You have countries pulling out, saying these are not worth it. And yet you have thousands of activists who come from the most hardest-hit parts of the planet, saying, “This is our last hope.”

LELA STANLEY: Yeah, a couple of things. So, first, I want people to remember that the U.N. climate conference, the COP process, it is the only game in town when it comes to rallying global efforts to avert climate breakdown. And that’s the point of these conferences. And so, that’s why it’s so shocking to me that the COP executive, Soltanov, would allow the conference itself to be essentially hijacked by oil and gas interests looking to use it as another business opportunity.

At the same time, we can’t lose sight of how essential this process is. I think the recent election results in the U.S. underscore how essential it’s going to be, more than ever, to have a functioning international process to stop climate breakdown. And we can’t afford to give up on COP. What we can do is force fossil lobbyists out of COP. We need the U.N. to ban petro interests from sitting at the table, from influencing the COP. Last year, our analysis showed that there were over 2,400 fossil fuel lobbyists at the climate conference, and that was more than almost any individual county’s delegation, save one, I believe.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if you — you just referenced what’s going on in this country, in the United States. Talk about Trump once again saying he’s going to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, and what that means.

LELA STANLEY: Yeah. You know, you can’t talk about the state of climate now and the state of climate diplomacy now without acknowledging America’s role as historically the biggest emitter, as Joe Biden’s role in overseeing a huge expansion of crude oil exports, and now Donald Trump’s commitment to removing us from the Paris Agreement and from international climate diplomacy. It’s a huge blow to the climate movement.

It is also one country. And I think that really underscores how essential having this functioning U.N. climate process is and how important it is for the host country of COP29, for Azerbaijan, to do its job and ensure that the talks this year are moving us forward toward that goal of averting climate breakdown.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, what has been the response of the head of the COP, Soltanov, to your exposé?

LELA STANLEY: So, we made multiple efforts to reach Soltanov again, to try to reach the COP29 team, SOCAR, and they didn’t respond to any of our outreach or requests for comment after the fact

AMY GOODMAN: Lela Stanley, we want to thank you for being with us, interim head of fossil fuel investigations at Global Witness. Democracy Now! will be reporting live from COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, all next week, from November 18th to November 22nd. Tune in to democracynow.org.


Trump Isn’t Hiding Plan to Use Military to Quash Protests and Deport Immigrants

“The next time, I’m not waiting” before committing troops to suppress protests, Trump said at a rally in 2023.
PublishedNovember 12, 2024

The new president-elect and former President Donald Trump walks off stage after his campaign rally at PPG Paints Arena on November 4, 2024, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.

Employing federal troops to suppress domestic protests and deport immigrants from U.S. soil en masse would be illegal, but Donald Trump has been pushing to do so since his first administration. The recent Supreme Court decision granting presidents nearly absolute immunity for official acts has created a situation with far fewer guardrails to prevent Trump from abusing his authority in his second presidential term.

Trump and his allies have reportedly drafted plans for him to deploy the military against civil demonstrators on his first day in office, according to a Washington Post report from November 2023. And Trump, who promised to carry out the largest deportation effort in U.S. history, has also indicated that he will use the military to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

When Fox News asked Trump whether he thought “outside agitators” might have an effect on Election Day, Trump responded by saying, “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within.” He added, “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

Never miss another story

Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day.

Email*









During his campaign, Trump also said that if re-elected, he would use the military at the southern border and to enforce the law in cities like Chicago and New York, which he dubbed “crime dens.”

Trump’s prior time in office shows that his willingness to raise such threats goes beyond campaign rhetoric. After massive demonstrations erupted around the country in protest against the May 25, 2020, murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, then-President Trump told his Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley that he wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act — which allows the president to deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement — and order “ten thousand troops in Washington to get control of the streets.”


Presidential Immunity Ruling and Project 2025 Pave Way for Trump’s Fascist State
A second Trump presidency would target immigrants, civil rights, health, safety and efforts to end the climate crisis.
By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout July 18, 2024


On June 1, 2020, Trump said, “If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.” Esper and Milley objected, saying the turmoil was best handled by civil law enforcement and the D.C. National Guard. Trump was furious. He called his top military leaders “losers” and repeated his wish to send active-duty troops into Minneapolis. “Can’t you just shoot them?” he asked Milley. “Just shoot them in the legs or something?”

Trump also proposed sending federal troops into Chicago, Seattle and Portland in response to Black Lives Matter protests and once again, Esper and Milley, joined by then-Attorney General William Barr, talked him out of it.

A former senior Defense Department official who served in the first Trump administration said that federal forces could be sent to U.S. cities to assist with Trump’s mass deportation plan once he is inaugurated.

During his second term, Trump will not likely be deterred from using the military against protesters and immigrants, even though employing federal troops to enforce domestic law in this manner would be illegal.


“Soldiers have not only a right, but a duty, to refuse illegal orders; yet the legality of those orders would be determined by courts-martial of refusers.”

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878 to end the use of federal troops in overseeing elections in the post–Civil War South, bars the use of the military to enforce domestic laws, including immigration law. The Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the willful use of “any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus [power of the county] or otherwise to execute the laws.” The only exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibition are “in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.”
“Serious Risk of Abuse” of the Insurrection Act

The Insurrection Act carves out an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act can be used to authorize the president to deploy the U.S. armed forces, federalize the National Guard, or deputize private militias of nongovernmental forces within the United States.

There are three sections of the Insurrection Act that the president could invoke, only one of which requires the consent of state officials:First, where the legislature or governor of a state asks the president for assistance to quell an insurrection against the government (section 251);
Second, where the president decides that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States,” render it “impracticable” to enforce U.S. or state law in the courts (section 252); or
Third, when “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” deprives people of a legal right, privilege, immunity, or protection, that results in the denial of Equal Protection or “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws” (section 253).

Most of the instances in which the Insurrection Act has been invoked occurred under section 251. The Act was last used in 1992, when then-California Governor Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy federal troops to put down the uprising against anti-Black racism and police brutality in Los Angeles that followed the state acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King.

Section 252 of the Insurrection Act can be triggered by the president’s subjective belief that it is “impracticable” for the courts and criminal legal system to function properly. Although courts would hesitate to overrule a president’s subjective decision, service members could decide that his order was illegal and refuse to obey it.

Section 253 of the Insurrection Act was enacted after the Civil War to ensure that Southern states enforced the federal rights of Black people. President John F. Kennedy used this section in 1962 and 1963 to send federal troops to Mississippi and Alabama to enforce the civil rights laws. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed troops to desegregate schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, consistent with section 253. And in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson used section 253 to protect civil rights demonstrators from police violence during the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

The Insurrection Act does not authorize the president to deploy federal troops on U.S. soil to “restore public order,” Harold Hongju Koh and Michael Loughlin explained for the American Constitution Society in 2020.

As Laura Dickinson writes at Lawfare, executive branch lawyers — including members of Trump’s past administration — have previously made the case that the language of the Insurrection Act should be construed narrowly and used only as a “last resort” to avoid running afoul of the 14th Amendment; the Supremacy Clause (which says federal law trumps state law when there is a conflict); and Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which requires the federal government to protect a state against “domestic violence.”

Section 253 is “particularly broad and vague,” Dickinson notes. It could encompass a small demonstration that interferes with law enforcement activities or judicial proceedings, “so long as there were a conspiracy to do so by two or more persons.”

“The Insurrection Act, if deployed without restraint, could ultimately transform a constitutional democracy into a police state patrolled by the U.S. military,” according to Dickinson.

“Trump’s threat to use U.S. military forces domestically against protesters, immigrants and other ‘enemies,’ places servicemembers in a legal and ethical dilemma,” Kathleen Gilberd, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild’s Military Law Task Force, told Truthout. “Soldiers have not only a right, but a duty, to refuse illegal orders; yet the legality of those orders would be determined by courts-martial of refusers. And servicemembers have a moral obligation not to harm the innocent; yet such harm would be inevitable if troops are used against civilians here.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires that all military personnel obey lawful orders. A law that violates the Constitution or a federal statute is an unlawful order. Both the Army Field Manual and the Nuremberg Principles create a duty to disobey unlawful orders.
Proposed Reform of the Insurrection Act

In April 2024, at the invitation of the American Law Institute, a bipartisan group led by Bob Bauer, professor at NYU School of Law and former White House Counsel to President Barack Obama, and Jack Goldsmith, professor at Harvard Law School and former Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush administration, issued “Principles for Insurrection Act Reform.”

“There is agreement on both sides of the aisle that the Insurrection Act gives any president too much unchecked power,” Goldsmith said.

The bipartisan group proposed amending the Insurrection Act to say the president cannot deploy the armed forces unless “the violence [is] such that it overwhelms the capacity of federal, state, and local authorities to protect public safety and security.”

The main points of reform proposed by the bipartisan group this April would:Require the president to consult with the governor before deploying troops into any state;
Require the president to report to Congress within 24 hours of deployment about the need to invoke the Insurrection Act and about consultations held with state authorities;
Limit the president’s authority to deploy troops under the Act to a maximum of 30 days unless Congress renews authorization; and
Establish a fast-track process for Congress to vote on renewal of presidential authority under the Insurrection Act.

However, the Principles for Insurrection Act Reform document states that Insurrection Act reform “need not and should not include a provision for judicial review.” This appears to be a compromise reached to achieve bipartisan consensus.

On the other hand, S. 4699, titled the “Insurrection Act of 2024,” which was introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal in July, does contain a provision for judicial review. It provides that any individual or state or local government that is injured by, or has a credible fear of injury from, the deployment of the armed forces may bring a civil lawsuit for declaratory or injunctive relief in the U.S. district court. The Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the district court.

Given the current political climate, prospects for reform of the Insurrection Act are slim to none.
“The Next Time, I’m Not Waiting” Before Committing Troops

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group, analyzed more than 13,000 of Trump’s Truth Social posts from January 1, 2023, to April 1, 2024, and discovered that he pledged at least 19 times to weaponize law enforcement, including several branches of the military, against civilians.


“It’s very likely that you will have the Trump administration trying to shut down mass protests and to specifically pick fights in jurisdictions with blue-state governors and blue-state mayors,” ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said.

An investigation by Military.com found that few checks would exist on a president who illegally orders the military to be used against U.S. citizens, particularly when he invokes the Insurrection Act.

The intent behind the Insurrection Act is to allow the president to use the military to help civilian law enforcement authorities “when they are overwhelmed by an insurrection, rebellion, or other civil unrest, or to enforce civil rights laws when state or local governments can’t or won’t enforce them,” Joseph Nunn wrote at Slate. “In such cases, a narrow exception to the general rule against using the military for law enforcement makes good sense,” he added. “The problem is that the Insurrection Act creates a giant loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act rather than a limited exception to it.” The “central failing” of the Insurrection Act “is that it grants virtually limitless discretion to the president.”

Trump expressed regret at not using the Insurrection Act in the aftermath of the summer 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. “The next time, I’m not waiting,” he declared at a rally in November 2023.

“It’s very likely that you will have the Trump administration trying to shut down mass protests — which I think are inevitable if they were to win — and to specifically pick fights in jurisdictions with blue-state governors and blue-state mayors,” ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in August. “There’s talk that he would try to rely on the Insurrection Act as a way to shut down lawful protests that get a little messy. But isolated instances of violence or lawlessness are not enough to use federal troops.”

Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney, told The Washington Post that members of the organization “are particularly concerned about the use of the military to round up immigrants,” predicting that a second Trump term “will be much worse” than his first administration. “As always, we will go to court to challenge illegal policies, but it is equally essential that the public push back, as it did with family separation.”

Regardless of the illegality of Trump’s threatened abuse of the Insurrection Act, the Supreme Court has recently granted almost absolute immunity to presidents for official acts.

The ACLU is already drafting legal challenges to Trump’s invocation of the Insurrection Act against protesters.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Marjorie Cohn  is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Veterans For Peace and Assange Defense, and is the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.