‘There Must Be Independent Investigations,’ House Democrats Argue After ICE Killings in Maine and Texas

“Trump’s DHS has lost the trust of the American people and can no longer be considered a reliable source of fact.”

A woman holding a “How Many More?” sign visits a memorial a day after a federal immigration agent shot and killed Johan Sebastián Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine.
(Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jul 15, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Nearly all Democrats in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday demanded independent investigations into federal immigration agents’ recent fatal shootings of Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston, Texas.

The men killed—immigrants from Colombia and Mexico—apparently weren’t even the targets of the operations that claimed their lives earlier this month, Democrats stressed in their letter to the leaders at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

RECOMMENDED...



Susan Collins ‘Must Be Held Accountable for Funding This Terror,’ Says Troy Jackson After ICE Killing



‘We Are Grieving, We Are Furious’: Mainers Protest Fatal ICE Shooting in Biddeford

“Both of these incidents have created enormous fear and outrage in the community, and raise serious questions about the safety of community members, regardless of immigration status,” the nearly 200 members of Congress wrote to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE acting Director David Venturella.



The letter was led by Democrats from both states, Congresswomen Chellie Pingree (Maine) and Sylvia Garcia (Texas), as well as ranking members on key House panels: Reps. Bennie Thompson (Miss.) of the Committee on Homeland Security, Jamie Raskin (Md.) of the Judiciary Committee, and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

“DHS agents have shot at least 22 people just since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term. Six of these shootings have been fatal, resulting in the death of US citizens and individuals with no criminal records,” wrote the lawmakers—who have also drawn attention to the dozens of immigrants who have died at ICE detention centers under this administration.

“In several of these cases, DHS and its component agencies made unsubstantiated allegations about individuals its agents have shot and even killed, including Renée Good, Alex Pretti, Ruben Ray Martinez, Marimar Martinez, and Julio Sosa-Celis,” they highlighted. “DHS claimed that the shooting victims were attacking law enforcement officers, attempting to ‘weaponize’ their vehicles, and even called them domestic terrorists.”

The Democrats emphasized that “in each case, evidence later emerged that contradicted these claims, showing that DHS representatives made false statements and DHS agents acted inappropriately, resulting in several cases against DHS’s victims to be dismissed with prejudice. As such, Trump’s DHS has lost the trust of the American people and can no longer be considered a reliable source of fact.”

“We are calling for immediate independent investigations into both of these deaths, without interference. We are also calling on ICE to stop any removal proceedings against the witnesses to Mr. Salgado Araujo’s killing for the duration of the investigation,” they wrote, pointing to reported attempts by the administration to deport his brother, Victor Hugo Salgado Araujo, as well as two employees, Jose Trinidad Rojas Pliego and Daniel Tirado Pantoja.

Those three witnesses to the killing in Texas “should have no threat of retaliation or deportation to provide their testimony,” the lawmakers argued. “Similarly, DHS must not interfere with any investigations into the death of Mr. Guerrero. Far too many people, Americans and noncitizens alike, are dead as a result of DHS’s reckless actions.”

The House Democrats aren’t alone in their demand. The Fair Immigration Reform Movement, faith leaders, and labor advocates held a Wednesday press conference to call for “independent investigations and real accountability” after the deaths in Texas and Maine, as well as Florida.

The 28-year-old man who officials say died Tuesday after being hit by a tractor-trailer while fleeing federal immigration agents at a gas station in St. Augustine has not yet been publicly identified, but like the other two cases, he had been in a vehicle. Despite the rising death toll, Trump said Wednesday that he wants ICE to keep pulling over cars.



“No one can be guaranteed safety from this rogue agency, which has terrorized our community since long before the current administration, but is now capturing and even widening a net of Americans in their ruthless execution of the mass deportation agenda,” said Lizeth Chacon, executive director of Workers Defense Action Fund, one of the groups demanding an independent probe.

“To end this brutal campaign for good, we must abolish ICE and offer a pathway to citizenship for all,” Chacon declared. “The officers responsible for the killing of Mr. Lorenzo must be held accountable. We can and must dismantle this agency because ICE’s next victim could be any of us. Mr. Lorenzo could be any of us.”

Rev. Jodi Hayashida, an organizer from Multifaith Justice Maine, said Wednesday that “the most important fact about ICE is that it is simply the latest vehicle in this nation’s long-standing practice of racialized state-sanctioned violence and terror, that this paramilitary force accountable to nearly no one and funded by billions of dollars pulled from our housing and healthcare does not provide the safety or security it promises. It is a threat to the well-being of all people.”

“We know that death is an inevitable consequence of the existence of ICE, modifications to practices and policies are not enough,” Hayashida added. “In the very short term ICE must not be allowed to investigate itself. We demand a full, transparent accounting of every single death, and then we demand that Congress stop funding this violence and remove ICE from our communities altogether.”

Collins Won’t Say She Regrets Funding ICE After Killing in Maine

“Maine does not need a senator who signs the checks and hopes for the best from Donald Trump,” said one Democratic US Senate candidate.

US Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) attends a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on July 15, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jul 15, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Two days after a federal immigration agent fatally shot 26-year-old Johan Sebastián Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, the state’s Republican senator, who voted earlier this year to fund US Immigration and Customs Enforcement without requiring reforms, refused to say she regrets the vote.

Prem Thakker of Zeteo News approached Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins at the Capitol on Wednesday with a polite but direct question.

“Hi senator, how are you?” Thakker began. “I was wondering, do you regret giving ICE more money, given the killings, including the one in your state?”

Collins, who was waiting for an elevator with an aide, did not reply, while her staffer asked what outlet Thakker was with before saying the senator had to leave.

As Collins approached the elevator, Thakker repeated the question: “No regrets?”



The senator did not directly answer the question, but suggested she stood by her vote in April to provide ICE and Customs and Border Protection with $70 billion for the next three years—without agreeing to guardrails Democrats had demanded following the killings of at least four people since the beginning of 2026 and the deaths of dozens of people in ICE detention and during deportation operations in 2025.

She referred to “money I got for body-worn cameras and training”—but as Thakker pointed out, that money didn’t stop agents from killing Guerrero on Monday morning.

“They didn’t wear cameras though, did they, Senator?” asked Thakker as the elevator doors closed.

Guerrero, who reportedly had legal status in the US and was married with a 3-year-old daughter, was killed in his vehicle Monday morning. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said ICE had been “conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal,” and details that have emerged since the shooting suggest Guerrero was not the person agents were looking for.

DHS said Guerrero “attempted to flee the scene” and bullet holes were seen in the windshield of Guerrero’s car. ICE agents are trained never to shoot into a moving car, but they have in several recent cases, including the killings of protester Renee Good in Minneapolis in January and immigrant Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston last week.

Fleeing a scene is also not considered grounds for the use of force, according to the Department of Justice.

Nirav Shah, who is running to be the Democratic US Senate candidate in Maine, noted that Collins’ call for ICE to suspend its use of vehicle stops was ineffectual, with President Donald Trump ordering the stops to continue on Wednesday.

“That is the entire measure of her influence in Washington,” said Shah. “Sen. Susan Collins can’t stop Trump, and she’s too weak to stand up to him—period.”

“Susan Collins funds ICE and has given them a blank check,” he added. “Maine does not need a senator who signs the checks and hopes for the best from Donald Trump. It needs one who will end ICE’s rampage and abolish it.”

Democratic US Senate candidate Troy Jackson also condemned Collins for helping Trump enact his “deadly, racist, and authoritarian agenda.”

“Mainers won’t forget,” he said.

‘A Human Rights Disaster’: Groups Demand Closure of Trump’s Largest Immigrant Detention Center

“The US government should shut it down, conduct independent investigations into all abuses and deaths in custody, and put an end to mass deportations and mandatory immigration detention.”

80 migrants from Guatemala are deported to their country with a United States military plane at the Fort Bliss facility in El Paso, Texas on January 30, 2025.
(Photo by Christian Torres/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Jul 15, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

The ACLU and Human Rights Watch on Wednesday released a joint report documenting abusive treatment of immigrants at the largest immigration detention facility in the US.

The groups’ report focuses on Camp East Montana, located on Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, which can hold up to 5,000 detainees.

In total, the groups interviewed 71 detainees at the facility, along with four family members of detainees, and five legal service providers.

According to the report, people detained at Camp East Montana have suffered from “conditions of confinement that amounted to enforced disappearance, cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment, excessive use of force including one extrajudicial killing, life-threatening medical neglect, barriers to legal representation, and coercive third-country removals.”

Detainees said that the camp’s unsanitary conditions—which the report says include “overcrowded housing areas, bathrooms covered in feces and urine, and living quarters flooded with dirty water and dust”—have led them to develop infections and other health complications for which they have been regularly refused treatment.

One woman who spoke with investigators said that she is now at risk of permanent blindness after guards and nurses denied her request for emergency medical care, the report notes.

A Honduran immigrant identified as “Ismael M,” who was detained at the camp for over five months, told investigators that conditions there were so terrible that he often had suicidal thoughts.

“I’ve gone a month without seeing the sun,” said Ismael. “I am forced to live in filth... I have been taken from my family, from my home, and I know that no matter how long they keep me here, they will end up deporting me. I’m so afraid I will get killed once I am sent back. That is why I left.”

Detainees also described regular beatings by guards at the facility.

A Cuban detainee identified as “Ricardo H” told investigators that he was beaten by guards simply for demanding to be fed.

“I didn’t get breakfast that day,” Ricardo explained. “Our lunch is usually distributed at noon. By 1:30 pm the guards had not handed our meals out. Our meals were ready, the guards placed the food cart in front of us and were refusing to serve it. I protested verbally, I told them I was hungry and that I was human. I needed food. They ignored me so I kicked the metal door out of desperation.”

This led to several officers opening his cell and beating him, he said.

“A lieutenant grabbed me by the shirt and slammed me to the ground,” he said. “Six officers restrained me with my face down. I still have severe pain in my ear and in my right collarbone. They also stomped on my neck.”

A Venezuelan detainee identified as “Armando G” said that he was beaten by guards after he went on hunger strike to protest food that he said was “not nourishing and was making us sick.”

“I was tackled to the ground by seven guards,” said Armando. “One of them was choking me, another pulled my hair and slammed my head on the ground. They were dragging me on the ground like a rag doll.”

Angélica César, Aryeh Neier Fellow at Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, said the groups’ report shows the camp is “a human rights disaster.”

“The US government should shut it down,” said César, “conduct independent investigations into all abuses and deaths in custody, and put an end to mass deportations and mandatory immigration detention.”

Op-Ed

ICE Keeps Killing Immigrants in Cars It Claims Were “Weaponized” Against Agents

Joan Sebastian Guerrero, a father of a young daughter in Biddeford, Maine, is the second man ICE has killed in six days.

By Austin C. McCoy , 

Truthout

July 14, 2026

Anti-ICE protesters attend a vigil for Joan Sebastian Guerrero, who was shot by an ICE agent on July 13, 2026, in Biddeford, Maine.Ryan Murphy / Getty Images

This week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shot to death yet another immigrant in his car — a 26-year-old father living in Biddeford, Maine, who was originally from Colombia.

Neighbors reported that the victim, whom they identified as Joan Sebastian Guerrero, is the father of a young daughter and was authorized to work in the U.S. While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reportedly initially claimed that Guerrero had “weaponized his vehicle,” it has since shifted its narrative to claim that an ICE officer shot Guerrero as his “vehicle attempted to flee.”

Guerrero’s killing by ICE in broad daylight on July 13 is the second in a week. In Texas, Houstonians are still reeling from Lorenzo Salgado Araujo’s death at the hands of ICE officers.


On July 7, Salgado Araujo, a 52-year-old Mexican construction worker, became the 21st person whom ICE shot since Donald Trump took office last year. Over the same period of time, Salgado Araujo was the fifth person whom ICE killed after agents shot into the victim’s vehicle.

ICE officers claimed that they shot Salgado Araujo after he tried to ram them with his work van. The officers did not wear any body cameras to document the encounter, and Salgado Araujo’s colleagues dispute ICE’s account. Jose Trinidad Rojas told The Washington Post, “there were no officers in front or behind the vehicle. They were on the sides.”


DHS Says ICE Killed Man in Maine While He Was Trying to Flee
The victim was identified by Sen. Angus King’s office as Joan Sebastian Guerrero, a 26-year-old father from Colombia. By Sharon Zhang , Truthout July 14, 2026

In fact, Salgado Araujo had stopped the van before the officers fired their weapons into it. One of the ICE officers shot Salgado Araujo from the passenger side of the van, hitting him in the abdomen. They then pulled him out of his van onto the street. Salgado Araujo, in a scene that is becoming entirely too familiar in the age of social media, can be heard in a video crying out for help.

Joan Sebastian Guerrero’s and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo’s killings exemplify how the Trump administration’s deportation machine thrives on racism, dehumanization, violence, and cruelty. While the president’s bigoted comments about Mexicans, Haitians, Somalis, and other groups of migrants often garner headlines, it’s important to recognize the role of the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo in facilitating Guerrero’s and Salgado Arajuo’s deaths, as the ruling institutionalized racial profiling in immigration enforcement. Soon after their encounter, numerous media sources reported Salgado Araujo was not the intended target of ICE’s operation. Similarly, the Portland Press Herald reported that a top ICE official told Maine Sen. Angus King that Guerrero also lost his life to a case of mistaken identity. Guerrero and Salgado Araujo, who both just happened to “fit the description” of other migrants, might still be alive if it were not for ICE profiling them.

Guerrero’s and Salgado Araujo’s killings this July follow reports of ICE apprehending 10,000 people in the last five days of June. This exorbitant number of arrests marks the DHS’s shift from engineering dramatic encounters with migrants to a quieter strategy of arresting, detaining, and disappearing as many undocumented folks as possible. DHS and ICE would rather we not know about workers like Salgado Araujo and the others who have been disappeared into the U.S. prisons. This was heartbreakingly evident in Salgado Araujo’s killing. In a final act of dehumanization, the ICE officers then stripped him of any identifying information before he was transported to the hospital. Salgado Araujo later succumbed to his injuries while at the hospital, not as Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, but as “John Doe.” Due to ICE’s actions, Ronaldo Salgado, Salgado Araujo’s eldest son, said he could not get confirmation of Salgado Araujo’s medical status until he heard from a news report that his father had died.

ICE’s killings of Guerrero and Salgado Araujo also share the cruelty used in the fatal shooting of Renée Good in Minneapolis. ICE officers also claimed that Good tried to “weaponize” her car against them, justifying their use of lethal force. “Weaponizing” one’s vehicle seems to be the government’s go-to excuse for lethal force. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reportedly used the same terminology to justify ICE fatally shooting Guerrero. Yet, it’s the ICE officers who are turning people’s vehicles into caskets.


“Weaponizing” one’s vehicle seems to be the government’s go-to excuse for lethal force. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reportedly used the same terminology to justify ICE fatally shooting Guerrero. Yet, it’s the ICE officers who are turning people’s vehicles into caskets.

The day after ICE officers killed Salgado Araujo, Ronaldo Salgado gave a statement that resembles many that have been made over the last decade and a half after police killings. Anticipating an ICE cover-up, his son, consumed by grief, called for an independent investigation. Ronaldo Salgado engaged in public testimony — a tactic that many families of those who perish from state violence practice to thwart the state’s (and media’s) narrative of “justified” force.

Salgado told his father’s story to humanize him. Lorenzo Salgado Araujo lived and worked in the U.S. for more than three decades. And, according to his son, Salgado Araujo’s life revolved around his family and his work in construction. Salgado Araujo had embarked on the process of trying to obtain a work permit. He built his own house with the help of his colleagues. By his son’s account, Salgado Araujo preferred to live an ordinary life. “You could find him every evening after work, resting on his porch, listening to music, petting his dog,” Ronaldo Salgado said at a press conference.

Unfortunately, humanizing the victims of state violence and pointing out the flagrant racism of its officials will not stop the deportation machine’s attempts to whiten the U.S. While Salgado’s testimony reinforces the illegitimacy of ICE, other state institutions like Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other administration officials who lie to stir up nativism, we need a broad-based movement against state violence to halt this administration’s attempts to use ICE, CPB, and the military to serve white supremacist ends.

Houstonians have joined this fight. Ronaldo Salgado and others held a vigil for Salgado Araujo at Houston’s Service Employees International Union’s (SEIU) office. Hundreds assembled at city hall to demand more information about his death and accountability for ICE.

While undocumented migrants are the primary targets of the state, the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, and the calls from Trump’s allies to deploy ICE at polling stations during the midterms, illustrate how this anti-immigrant crusade ultimately threatens everyone. The resistance to ICE and CBP in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Newark show us what must be done to halt the machine.


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.

Austin C. McCoy
Austin McCoy is a scholar of African American history, labor, social movements, and popular culture. He is also the author of Living in a D.A.I.S.Y. Age: The Music, Culture, and World De La Soul Made. Follow him on Bluesky.

American Bar Association May Soon Upend Diversity Standards for Accredited Law Schools

Organizers are fighting another possible surrender to racism in higher education.

By Danny Katch , 

Truthout

July 14, 2026

Harvard Law School graduates celebrate at commencement in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 28, 2026.John Tlumacki / The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Racial justice organizers in the legal profession are gearing up for an American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates meeting this August that will decide whether the ABA will officially drop its commitment to promoting diversity in law schools — and reversing the longstanding exclusion of women and people of color from the legal profession.

“We’re trying to put pressure on the House of Delegates vote,” says Kara Sheli Wallis, an associate professor of law at the City University of New York and board member of the Critical Legal Collective, which has been organizing in defense of Standard 206, which requires law schools to demonstrate “a commitment to diversity and inclusion” by having faculty, staff, and student bodies that are “diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.”

On May 15, a council of the American Bar Association voted to recommend that the association repeal Standard 206. But for that proposed repeal to be implemented, it must be approved in early August by the annual conference of the ABA House of Delegates.

“There’s still a chance for 206 to survive and say, no we’re not going to backslide to the 1950s South,” Wallis told Truthout.

The fight over a law school accreditation standard might sound like a technical and relatively inconsequential debate, but the repeal of Standard 206 could significantly reverse decades of slow progress toward making the legal profession a more inclusive institution. Fewer lawyers who are not white men would in turn mean worse legal representation for women and people of color, as well as fewer paths to upward mobility.

American Bar Association Suspends DEI Rules for Law Schools Amid Trump Crackdown
“I’m unsurprised that the ABA jumped at the chance to roll back protections for students,” one legal advocate said.  By Zane McNeill , Truthout  February 24, 2025

Out of 50 comments received by the American Bar Association Standards Committee, all but two opposed repealing the diversity standard, but the committee still pressed forward with the repeal. One cautiously worded sentence in the committee statement points to the reason:

Recent developments have led the Standards Committee to conclude that this national system of accreditation — and the Council’s role as an accreditor — would be imminently threatened if Standard 206 is not repealed.

Simply put, the American Bar Association is afraid that it will be stripped of its accreditation authority if it doesn’t drop its diversity standard. This is not an idle concern. As the biggest accreditor of law schools in the U.S., the ABA has many standards that law schools must meet or work toward in order to gain or retain the accreditation that enables students to be eligible for everything from federal loans to being able to being accepted by state bar associations, which enables them to legally practice.

The American Bar Association is afraid that it will be stripped of its accreditation authority if it doesn’t drop its diversity standard.

But many in the law school community argue that repealing 206 is not only unprincipled but also naive. “There’s no indication [the Trump administration] is not going to plow through with their own agenda,” says Athena Mutua, a professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law. “Even where people have capitulated, particularly Columbia, the administration just came back with more demands.”

Mutua is president of the Critical Legal Collective, which has been organizing opposition to the American Bar Association decision. In a comment submitted to the ABA Council, the Critical Legal Collective argues that the repeal of Standard 206 is “driven by political pressure and faulty risk assessments rather than a legally sound conclusion that Standard 206 is unconstitutional.”

Even “a Modest Device” Against Discrimination Is Too Much

Standard 206 came about as a result of demands from the feminist and civil rights movements to make law schools more diverse. The first standard, around student diversity, came in 1991. Fifteen years later, the standard was expanded to cover faculty and staff diversity. These measures were long overdue, considering the American Bar Association’s historic reactionary role in the legal profession.

Many in the law school community argue that repealing 206 is not only unprincipled but also naive.

The Critical Legal Collective public comment cites Daria Roithmayr’s scholarship about the organization’s origins as an “alliance between elite law firms and prestigious East Coast law schools in the late 19th and early 20th century” that aimed “to take out educational alternatives that competed with the preserve of white male elites.” As Roithmayr explains:

The ABA was part of a larger movement to eliminate part-time, night-time, and proprietary law schools, which served the rising numbers of immigrants and African Americans who sought to become lawyers. Reinforcing the hierarchy between prestigious law schools and schools that served immigrants and African Americans, Christopher Columbus Langdell and others introduced the case method into elite law schools, which helped to orient legal education toward abstract legal reasoning and away from practical experience.

Over a century later, industry still has a long way to go. Black and Latinx lawyers comprise only 11 percent of the legal profession, less than a third of their share of the U.S. population. Even in its public comment in defense of Standard 206, the Critical Legal Collective soberly calls it “a modest device to move us toward a diverse profession.”

Unsurprisingly, the right wing considered even this moderate progress to be a dire threat. Standard 206 has long been in the crosshairs of conservative and libertarian legal organizations, which complained that American Bar Association’s status as a large accreditor gave it “monopoly” power to impose a draconian liberal agenda and deny law schools the right to determine their own policies.

The Critical Legal Collective argues that the repeal of Standard 206 is “driven by political pressure and faulty risk assessments rather than a legally sound conclusion that Standard 206 is unconstitutional.”

“For people in the Heritage Foundation and all the forces backing the Trump administration,” says Mutua, “I think there is this thought that the only people who should get to be a lawyer are white men.”

In recent years, these formerly fringe arguments have started to become the law of the land.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious higher education admissions policies were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The conservative movement has had the American Bar Association’s diversity standards in its sights ever since. (To the surprise of nobody, opponents of Standard 206 didn’t have a problem with SCOTUS using its monopoly power to impose universal admissions criteria.)

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 called for new laws to ban accreditors from having diversity requirements. In April 2025, the Trump administration dutifully followed through on this threat, not with legislation but an executive order, in which the American Bar Association was specifically named, calling on the secretary of education to terminate accreditation recognition for organizations that include diversity standards.

These are the “recent developments” cited by the American Bar Association Standards Committee for its decision to recommend the repeal of Standard 206 — against the wishes of 96 percent of comments it received from American Bar Association members.

Building a Record

According to the Critical Legal Collective public comment, American Bar Association Council members have privately defended their vote to end the diversity standard on the grounds that if the organization loses its law school accreditation authority, “whatever might replace the ABA Council is likely to be worse than what currently exists.”

But the comments of ABA Council member David Brennen demonstrate the fallacy of this strategy. Brennen told a reporter that he “personally” supports Standard 206, but “I think it’s appropriate as an ​accrediting body that we eliminate that standard so we don’t inhibit the diversity of ideas out there in ​various types of legal education environments.”

This is essentially an application of the old “states’ rights” argument used by defenders of Jim Crow segregation: a national attempt to prevent discrimination would “inhibit the diversity” of those who want to abolish diversity. When organizations like the American Bar Association capitulate to the White House without putting up a fight, they are not practicing harm reduction by preventing an even worse outcome; they are increasing harm by adding their institutional credibility to the assault on basic civil rights.

When organizations like the American Bar Association capitulate to the White House without putting up a fight, they are increasing harm by adding their institutional credibility to the assault on basic civil rights.

The Critical Legal Collective has held protests and helped facilitate public comments before the ABA Standards Council meeting in May. Now organizers are getting ready for the American Bar Association House of Delegates meeting in August, where the final vote on Standard 206’s repeal will take place.

If the American Bar Association reverses course and refuses to relinquish its support of diversity, it could find at least temporary backing in the courts. The Critical Legal Collective notes that there have been successful challenges to the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague Letter”sent to schools with diversity policies.

But even if these efforts don’t succeed, organizers argue that fighting for law school diversity is worth the risk of losing.

“We just don’t fight because we think we’ll win,” says Mutua. “We see ourselves building a record, because this too will pass. What were the small decisions every day along the way that led to one outcome or another? Who stood, who fell?”

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.

Danny Katch
Danny Katch is a socialist, activist, and humor writer. He is the author of Socialism…Seriously: A Brief Guide to Surviving the 21st Century and Why Bad Governments Happen to Good People.

Trump's forever war has entered a 'scary' new phase: Nobel economist

Nick Hilden

July 15, 2026

ALTERNET

As President Donald Trump’s war with Iran ramps back up, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman warns that the conflict has entered a “very scary phase” in which the danger extends beyond “bombs and drones.” As the war spirals out, says Krugman, Trump may bring the fighting back home.

“The U.S. position has been wildly erratic,” wrote Krugman on Wednesday. “First, Trump said he was going to impose a 20 percent toll on all shipping, basically turning the Strait of Hormuz into a U.S. toll booth, which would have been wildly illegal and irresponsible, aside from being impossible. Now he says, no, he’s going to demand that countries invest in the United States, which is also actually wildly illegal. But in any case, it’s never going to happen.”

“And yet,” he continues, “this is extremely scary. The reason to be afraid is not that I think the war is going to come to America. It’s not even that I think the United States is going to seriously try to occupy Iran. We don’t have the troops. We don’t have the missiles. Trump depleted a large share of our weaponry in the course of his failed war so far.”

Krugman explains that he’s most worried because it increasingly looks “as if Trump has given up on trying to extract something that looks like victory.” Just a few day ago, it appeared “that Trump was going to de facto pull out, give up on the project, take advantage of falling oil prices because the strait was sort of kind of open — and try to spin the story about how this was actually an American victory and the economy is great and look at the stock market.”

This plan, asserts Krugman, was both “stupid and doomed,” and was “also kind of amazing because a serious attempt to end the conflict would have required facing up to reality, saying, OK, this war didn’t go well, but America remains great. Sorry about that.” But Krugman says Trump is not “emotionally” capable of admitting such a failure.

Instead, Trump has pivoted back to open conflict and bumbled attempts at extracting concessions, a decision Krugman says is “ominous” in light of the fast-approaching midterms. The return to war means further disruptions, and that Trump can’t rely on short memories and easing gas prices to reduce the headwinds Republicans face heading into the elections.

According to Krugman, “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that just as Trump essentially gives up, not gives up in the sense of abandoning his war, but gives up on trying to achieve anything he can even spin as a positive outcome, that we now have an announcement that this Thursday he’s going to have a primetime speech, which reports say is going to be about election fraud in 2020. Some reports hinting that he might try to declare the two Democratic senators from Georgia somehow illegitimate.”

Krugman says that while no one will believe him, “what is happening is that effectively he’s setting up the pretext, the groundwork for massive interference in the vote this November. That we’re basically seeing the stage set for some kind of attempt to block fair elections, maybe block elections entirely.”

“The fact that Trump is back to bombing Iran is really bad news,” Krugman concludes, “not because I have any real fear that America is going to be at risk from a foreign power, but because I think it signals an enormous risk to us from our own president, our own government. Be afraid, be very afraid.”

Trump’s 'humiliating failures' are even worse than you think: Nobel economist


Alex Henderson

July 14, 2026

ALTERNET


Although U.S. President Donald Trump promised a brief military operation against Iran, the war is dragging on after four and one-half months. Liberal economist Paul Krugman is warning that the longer the war lasts, the more it will cause prices for a variety of goods to soar. And in a mid-July column for his Substack page, Krugman argues that the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict only makes things worse.

"The U.S. is, once again, bombing Iran while Iranian drones strike shipping," Krugman explains in his Substack column. "Iran, giddy with its success in defying America, is demanding sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, while Donald Trump is saying no, he owns the Strait and will collect 20 percent tolls. Folks, this is bad. U.S. national security policy is now entirely in the service of one man's vanity. We got into this mess because Trump thought he could win an easy victory that would let him strut around feeling powerful. Now, we can't get out because he won’t admit that his war has been a humiliating failure."

The former New York Times columnist continues, "The good news is that Trump's temper tantrum will probably do less economic damage than one might have expected — because the cease-fire that is apparently over wasn't doing as much good as one might have expected. The fact is that there is now a disconnect between events in the Strait of Hormuz and the energy prices that matter. This disconnect is coming from a surprising place, another war that was supposed to yield a quick, easy victory but didn't: Vladimir Putin's attempt to conquer Ukraine."

Oil prices, Krugman notes, "rose a lot" after "it became clear that Trump's vision of a splendid little war wasn't going to be fulfilled and that Iran retained the ability to choke off shipping through the Strait (of Hormuz)."

"Millions of barrels of oil a day literally bypassed the Strait via pipelines," according to Krugman. "Suppliers outside the Persian Gulf, including Venezuela, increased production. China sharply reduced its oil imports. And a significant part of world oil demand was met by drawing down inventories. There was, however, another factor: the effective price of oil to consumers — which is the price that matters for demand — rose a lot more than the crude oil prices one usually hears about. Even before the latest crisis that effective price remained far above pre-war levels. And these continuing high prices to consumers kept oil demand low and hence depressed the demand for crude."

Krugman warns that Americans can "expect the pain at the pump to continue and inflation to remain sticky."

"And, of course," the liberal economist laments, "the overarching moral of this story is the immense folly and criminality of a war that has left America and the world in a much worse place than they would have been if Trump and his enablers had just left things alone — or, better yet, had preserved the pretty good deal Iran and Barack Obama had agreed to in 2015."

Internal Estimates Put Iran War Cost Near $100 Billion, Reports Say

The Pentagon’s estimate varies drastically from the $30 billion figure stated publicly by the Trump administration.

By Sharon Zhang , 

Truthout

Published

July 15, 2026

The United Stated Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford arrives in Souda Bay on March 23, 2026 in Souda, Greece. The USS Gerald R. Ford is undergoing repairs at Naval Support Activity Souda Bay on the Greek island of Crete, following a fire that reportedly broke out in a laundry room on the aircraft carrier earlier this month, injuring some sailors and causing significant damage. The vessel has also had issues with its toilet system.Carl Court / Getty Images

The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has already cost the U.S. up to $100 billion, the Trump administration has internally estimated — over three times higher than the Trump administration’s public estimates of the price tag.

Citing six people familiar with internal estimates, including three U.S. officials, NBC reports that the Pentagon has estimated that the costs of the historically unpopular war fall between $80 billion and $100 billion when additional operational costs and the price to replace destroyed aircraft and other equipment is factored in.

Rebuilding the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) base in Bahrain, for instance, could cost nearly $1 billion after Iranian strikes earlier this year caused extensive damage to the facilities. The base serves as the Navy’s headquarters in the Middle East, and the facilities housing the headquarters as well as piers, warehouses, and military housing require hundreds of millions of dollars in repairs, sources said.

These costs may increase as Iran has now restarted attacks on U.S. military sites across the Middle East in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s unilateral declaration that the ceasefire is over.

Just two weeks ago, however, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought told House lawmakers that the conflict has cost “about $30 billion,” citing figures from the Pentagon. This is despite the fact that the Pentagon’s comptroller, Jay Hurst, gave Congress that same figure on May 12, when he said that the war had cost $29 billion so far.

Vought did not provide any explanation for why that figure was nearly unchanged despite almost six weeks of war between the two cost estimates. Just a week before his testimony, the White House requested $88 billion in supplemental funding from Congress, including roughly $72 billion in funding related to the war.

Throughout the war, the U.S. has been obfuscating the damage to U.S. assets done by Iranian forces, making it difficult for external sources to fact check the administration’s claims on costs. Trump administration officials have also been severely downplaying the costs of operations for the war, or seemingly omitting them altogether in estimates, as sources told NBC.

However, the $100 billion figure roughly lines up with other independent estimates. Researcher Stephen Semler calculated last week that the war had cost over $103 billion thus far — higher than the annual military budgets of all but three countries in the world, Semler noted.

This includes $47 billion in weapons costs, $29 billion for operations, and $20 billion for destroyed assets, he estimated. Another $3 billion has been spent on subsidies for Israel’s bombs and interceptors, and $5 billion in other war-related costs for other U.S. agencies, he found.

Semler noted that the Trump administration has become “increasingly brazen in lying about the war’s cost,” and that Vought’s $30 billion figure was “parody-level.”

Meanwhile, the war has cost American consumers an additional $69 billion as a result of the rise in gas and diesel prices caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid the war.

Op-Ed


The Fight Against Surveillance Cameras Is a Struggle for Democracy

In a growing movement, over 80 communities have canceled, rejected, or deactivated automated license plate readers.

By Ed Vogel ,

Truthout

July 15, 2026

Activists speak out against automated license plate readers during a press conference at city hall on June 4, 2025, in Austin, Texas.Ricardo B. Brazziell / The Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images

When residents of Madison County, North Carolina, sought to speak about the county’s AI surveillance cameras at a recent Madison County Commissioners meeting, commissioner Michael Garrison’s response was simple: “You will not speak on Flock tonight.”

A clip capturing Garrison’s move to prevent public comment soon went viral, resonating with others waging similar battles in their communities. This sort of democratic abuse is not unusual when it comes to the fight against Flock Safety, automated license plate readers more broadly, and other forms of surveillance.

To thousands of people across the country demanding an end to the use of automated license plate readers, it has become abundantly clear that the struggle is deeper than surveillance. At its core, organizing to end the use of automated license plate readers is a fight to imagine and build meaningful practices of democracy.

While companies like Flock Safety, Axon, and Motorola Solutions (among others) sell cameras to cities and police departments across the country under the auspices of improving public safety, these AI surveillance cameras are much more powerful than the companies pushing them suggest, and it is increasingly clear that they actually make us all less safe. These misnamed cameras are always on, collecting data on passing cars at all hours, and do more than just document license plates of driving cars: They can make essentially all information captured in a photo — including the make of a car, color, manufacturer, if the car has dents, bumper stickers, etc. — searchable by police and corporate customers.

This past year has exposed just how dangerous automated license plate readers are as Flock Safety’s products have reportedly been used in immigration enforcement, abortion monitoring, repeated incidents of stalking, and experienced major cybersecurity breaches. But Flock is not alone. Motorola Solutions has long partnered with federal immigration enforcement, while Axon has deep ties to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and a history of major ethics violations. Flock has rightfully earned the public’s ire, but these problems are constitutive of the police surveillance industry more broadly.


SCOTUS Ruling Could Be Bad News for Flock — But Won’t Stop Mass Surveillance
Organizers across the country are using every tool in their arsenal against Flock surveillance cameras.  By Mike Ludwig , Truthout  July 10, 2026

After learning about the use of these AI cameras in their communities, thousands of people across the country have demanded that automated license plate reader cameras be removed. Thus far, more than 80 communities have either canceled, rejected, or deactivated their cameras in the growing challenge to the surveillance apparatus. These fights have also illuminated a deeper structural issue wherever such surveillance technologies are in use: a crisis of democracy. In many of these fights against AI cameras, community members have uncovered the conspicuously quiet processes their police departments or elected officials have employed to approve the use of these tools without anything resembling a democratic process, such as public disclosure, community engagement, public oversight, or any hint of transparency.

This past year has exposed just how dangerous automated license plate readers are as Flock Safety’s products have reportedly been used in immigration enforcement, abortion monitoring, repeated incidents of stalking, and experienced major cybersecurity breaches.

Elected officials in Greenville, South Carolina, have never voted to approve the use of Flock Safety — instead, the local police have used civil asset forfeiture funds to sign a contract. Residents in Saranac Lake in New York called out their police department for moving forward with Flock Safety automated license plate readers and claimed that a potential contract was never discussed at a village board meeting. In San Diego, the police signed a new contract with Flock without engaging the city’s oversight process.

And the lack of disclosure is not limited to the license plate readers. Denver signed a contract with Flock for drones but never disclosed it to Denver’s oversight board. Even in cities with the semblance of a democratic process like Oakland, backdoor dealing moved along an expansion of Flock automated license plate readers after the proposed expansion died in committee.

When pressed, many elected officials have responded negatively to public engagement, exemplified by the incident in Madison County, giving a clear impression that these elected officials do not believe that the public has any role to play in defining public or community safety. Like struggles against other carceral infrastructure and policing, these fights have exposed the expansion of surveillance as a symptom of a deeper structural problem with the practice of democracy in cities across the country.

In response, communities are resisting, using the oftentimes meager democratic tools available to them. In addition to speaking at public meetings, communities are researching these tools using public records requests, engaging in political education, and hosting public events toward building consensus that these AI surveillance cameras need to go. When faced with obstinate elected officials and police departments, communities are ratcheting up pressure and engaging in direct action. While the CEO of Flock Safety calls these groups “terroristic,” communities are utilizing the limited democratic infrastructure available, like zines, to dismantle surveillance systems.

Dismantling the growing surveillance apparatus is one task of many that we must undertake to address this multifold crisis. Groups like the ACLU have attempted to create guardrails and limit the growth of the surveillance apparatus through oversight models, but these policies have often proven inadequate to address the structural problem. To address the core issue, we must not just regulate but fully dismantle the web of surveillance, both public and private, that enables fascism. If we have learned anything from the fights against automated license plate readers, it is that these are authoritarian tools — both a symptom and a material mechanism enabling this political moment.

Democracies should not need to surveil their residents. For many in the U.S., fascism has long been the norm, executed through policing, incarceration, and genocidal policy. For others, authoritarianism has been normalized through the growing use of surveillance in our daily lives since 9/11. And for some, this past year has exposed how the massive data production and collection facilitated by Big Tech and supported by the federal government has undermined all our safety and security.

Whether it’s through the consistent tracking of smartphones, the massive data collection performed by new cars, or the police surveillance apparatus, we’ve been collectively duped by well-executed marketing plans selling us convenience and safety when these tools really produce enormous datasets that reveal intimate aspects of our lives. These datasets are then used against us by corporations and public agencies like DHS — especially against communities already targeted for oppression, criminalization, and other forms of violence.

What many have learned from this past year is how deeply violent these tools are and the certainty that many harms will come if we do not collectively demand an end to surveillance everywhere. We cannot implement tools that create such intense power asymmetries and expect any restraint or regulation to prevent them from being used to intensify repression.

The fights against surveillance (and data centers) have demonstrated a political will and desire for a more radical form of democracy than any of us have ever known. What is encouraging is how the growing movement against automated license plate readers and other surveillance includes people with a wide range of political commitments.

This past year has shown that people with different politics want to work together to address the problems we share. The many groups challenging surveillance understand that the stakes are too high to not work together. People across the country want to shape what safety means in their communities. We collectively recognize that real safety is not a product to be bought and sold.

Meaningful public debates about safety will not be easy to conduct or facilitate, but we don’t have a choice. Either we start to practice democracy, or the surveillance dream built by DHS and the technofascists will reign supreme.

Trump spiraling because everyone knows his threats are 'not to be taken seriously'

Thomas Kika

July 15, 2026

ALTERNET

President Donald Trump is once again spiraling as he tries to end the war engulfing his presidency, but according to a new piece from The i Paper, his efforts continue to fail because everyone now knows his threats are "not to be taken seriously."

After hyping up the "memorandum of understanding" with Iran as a breakthrough in peace negotiations, Trump confirmed in the past week that the ceasefire is "over" as military strikes resumed against the Middle Eastern nation. This has also led to the Strait of Hormuz being closed once again, threatening to send gas prices skyrocketing once more as the global oil supply craters.

Writing for The i Paper on Wednesday, journalist James Ball argued that Trump is flailing when it comes to Iran, as all of his ideas seem to crash and burn immediately, while Iranian leaders have learned that he will never follow through on his most outlandish threats, taking away his preferred method for gaining leverage. Now, all he is left with is his old standby approach: "making extraordinary threats – then chickening out."


"The US President is looking increasingly desperate when it comes to Iran," Ball wrote. "His new ideas fall apart on first contact. Iran’s regime has seen for itself that his threats are not to be taken seriously. Time and again, when the stakes are high, Trump is the first to back down. He has now resorted to threatening to bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure including bridges and power plants – a war crime, but one he’s threatened so many times before that by this stage, it’s old news."

He added: "Officials within the Trump administration are reportedly referring to the reignited Iran conflict as Operation Bitch Slap. They may mean that to impress, but to many across the world it will only smack of desperation. Trump seems to have propelled the US back into a conflict that it has no idea how to end."


Ball noted further that this resumption of chaos and violence over Iran comes as there are less than four months left until the midterm elections, which Republicans are expected to lose badly as a result of Trump's toxic reputation with many voters. The war in Iran remains hugely unpopular as it roars back to life, and the gas prices that come with it are sure to be even worse for the GOP's electoral prospects.

"Everyone except Trump seems to know that he needs this war to be over – and yet he seems unable to tear himself away from it," Ball concluded. "Trump seems to be left with just one tactic: desperately lobbing bombs at a Middle Eastern nation and hoping something comes up. He should ask any of his recent predecessors as president how doing that worked out for them."

Critics whale on Trump’s Chinese election tampering claims

Adam Lynch 

July 15, 2026 

ALTERNET

CBS News reports sources familiar with the speech that President Donald Trump teased earlier this week claim the president will be accusing China of election tampering.

“Part of President Trump's speech Thursday night is expected to touch on previously unreported alleged Chinese meddling in U.S. elections, according to sources familiar with the matter,” said CNS News. “One component: Allegations that Beijing compromised U.S. voter data and evidence the CIA knew about the action and didn't share that information with Mr. Trump during his first term.”

Earlier, Trump had only mentioned that his speech would focus on election security.

CBS reports the audience for the primetime speech is expected to include “members of the president's cabinet. Among those invited are the heads of CIA, FBI, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Department of Homeland Security, as well as other agencies and staff,” suggesting the speech might act as marching orders for the federal government to pursue the allegations.

But even though important agency leaders and staff may be present, social media was already lambasting the claim and calling out Trump’s hypocrisy.

“It’s all projection after Russia helped him win in 2016,” said one commenter on X, who echoed many similar comments about Trump focusing only on China because that was the tampering that was intended to help Biden. Russia’s tampering, however unmentioned, advocated for Trump.

“Will he talk about Russia meddling in 2016,” said another.

“OK we've moved on now we're gonna focus on China meddling and elections instead of Russia right?” intoned another X heckler with clear memory of the Kremlin’s advocacy for Trump in 2016.

Other critics wondered on X just what Trump planned to do about China’s alleged tampering if true: “Are we going to kidnap their leader and pirate their natural resources too?”

Other critics, however, including CNN and Fox News legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold, said Trump’s impending announcement smelled more like a set-up for U.S. election rigging himself: “The excuse for shamelessly using the Insurrection Act to rig the 2026 election,” said Gold on X.

“Well, it's been a good 250 year run anyway,” Gold added in a later post. “... Trump sowing the seeds for a declaration of emergency in November.”

Trump has been obsessed with his investigation into the 2020 election that he lost, and he has sent staff to dig up proof of wrongdoing despite multiple judges dismissing allegations throughout 2020. Researchers claim Trump himself orchestrated a coup in 2020 by ratcheting up the pressure to unleash the might of the federal government to undo his defeat.

Trump to level bombshell accusation against China during primetime speech: insiders

Bennito L. Kelty
July 15, 2026 

RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump attend a meeting on the sidelines of their visit to the Zhongnanhai Garden in Beijing, China, May 15, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci/Pool/File Photo

President Donald Trump's primetime speech on Thursday is expected to feature a bombshell allegation against China, according to CBS News.

Sources familiar with the speech that Trump teased earlier this week say it will accuse China of election meddling, the report indicated. Trump had only teased that his speech would focus on election security, but didn't reveal much else.

"Part of President Trump's speech Thursday night is expected to touch on previously unreported alleged Chinese meddling in U.S. elections," CBS News reported, adding that Trump alleges that "Beijing compromised U.S. voter data and evidence the CIA knew about the action."

Trump will also say that the CIA "didn't share that information with Mr. Trump during his first term," CBS News added, noting Trump invited the current heads of major intelligence and national security agencies and members of Trump's cabinet.

"Among those invited are the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Homeland Security," CBS News reported.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the sourcing as speculation when asked by CBS News about the contents of Trump's speech.

"As usual, anonymous sources are speculating about what President Trump will say during his speech on Thursday evening," Leavitt told CBS News in a statement. "The truth is, nobody knows yet what President Trump will ultimately say, which is why everyone should tune in."

People globally view China's Xi more favourably than Donald Trump, Pew poll finds


More people have favourable views of China than the United States in 25 out of 36 countries and territories surveyed, including Canada and Mexico, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center released on Wednesday. Views were also more favourable of Chinese leader Xi Jinping than US President Donald Trump in 22 of the countries and territories.


Issued on: 15/07/2026 -
By: FRANCE 24

US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping after a visit to the Zhongnanhai Garden in Beijing on May 15, 2026. © Evan Vucci/Pool Reuters via AP - Evan Vucci

The world has largely viewed the US more favourably than China for the past two decades but those opinions flipped in Beijing's favour this year, a remarkable shift driven in part by Trump administration policies and tensions with US allies.

The poll was conducted from February to May, a period when the United States and Israel launched a war against Iran.

In only six countries do people still see the US more positively than China, according to the findings released Wednesday.

Views in 22 out of the 36 countries and territories also are more favourable of Chinese leader Xi Jinping than US President Donald Trump, including in Canada, Mexico and major European powers including France, Germany and the UK.

However, people in many of the countries have low confidence in both men.

It marks the first time in the roughly 20 years Pew has been tracking global opinions that China has been viewed more positively than the US, said Laura Silver, associate director of Pew's Global Attitudes Research and one of the researchers on the study.

Views of Beijing and Washington have been very similar at some points in the past but have not been significantly more favourable for China until now, she said.

Americans' pride in US history and democracy dropped steeply over past decade, poll finds

The shift follows the Covid-19 pandemic becoming a distant issue and as global views of the US have soured, Silver said.

“There was just an actual relationship between the outbreak of the war and the sense that the US is just not contributing to peace and stability and that people have less confidence in Donald Trump," she said.
'A more reliable partner'

Trump's demands to control Greenland, the US military raid that captured Venezuela's then-leader Nicolas Maduro, and the US handling of the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza also have led to low approval in many countries, Silver said.

“The US has done a lot in terms of global engagement in recent months to years that is not being perceived positively internationally,” she said.

Aside from benefiting from the fading memory of the pandemic, China appears to have gained from comparison with the US, Silver said.

“By comparison, we know that China is seen to be a more reliable partner in many places. It’s more likely to be seen to contribute to global peace and stability,” the researcher said.

Notably, those in some US allied countries have drastically shifted their views in recent years, such as Canada. In the new survey, only 33% of Canadians have positive views of the US, down from 57% in 2023. Over the same period, their favourable opinions of China rose from 14% to 44%.

Trump slapped a barrage of tariffs on Canadian goods last year, and even claimed that Canada could be the “the 51st state”.

Major European countries – including France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy – all have switched their opinions toward the world's two largest economies.

People in the UK, where about six in 10 held positive views of the US in 2023, now view China and the US similarly. Three years ago, the spread was 32 percentage points in Washington's favour.

Of the six countries where people have more favourable views of the US, Israel leads the way. About eight in 10 Israelis view the US positively, compared with 19% for China.

The other five countries are Japan, India, South Korea, the Philippines and Poland. Still, even their views of the US have dimmed over recent years.

The US is still ahead of China when it comes to government respect for personal freedoms, though the gap is shrinking, the Pew report says.

While China's standing has improved somewhat, the narrowed divide is “driven largely by the fact that people in nearly every country surveyed have become less likely to say the US government respects its people’s personal freedoms” since 2021, when Pew last asked the question.

For the new study, Pew surveyed more than 42,000 people across 35 countries plus the West Bank and east Jerusalem, with margins of error ranging from 2.3 to 5.5 percentage points depending on the country.

(FRANCE 24 with AP)