SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Drunk on impunity," Israel has grandiosely labeled its latest genocidal move "Operation Gideon's Chariots" wherein, moving from siege to seizure, it plans the bloody conquest, ethnic cleansing, and permanent recolonization of Gaza, using the rhetoric of holy war to justify unholy mass destruction - this, even as many of the Palestinian children who've somehow survived their savage 18 months of carnage now slowly starve to death. "We are complicit," says one angry, grieving doctor. "It is an abomination."
Having gotten away with so many atrocities while the international community looks away, Israel just unveiled the latest escalation of its illegal collective punishment of Gazans by finally declaring out loud, "We are occupying Gaza to stay." Unanimously approved by Netanyahu's far-right Security Cabinet, the new "conquering of Gaza" formalizes Israel's plan for the indefinite occupation, forced expulsion and incorporation into "sanitized" Israeli zones of an already long-besieged civilian population "for its own protection." The expansion of an onslaught that has left more than 185,000 Gazans dead, wounded, or missing and millions homeless, hungry, maimed and traumatized is being ludicrously framed as a final mission to dismantle Hamas and retrieve hostages, even though Israel repeatedly failed at each before breaking a ceasefire that would have accomplished both.
"Gideon’s Chariots will begin with great force and will not end until all its objectives are achieved," Israel thundered, again virtually ignoring the fact that permanent occupation, forced displacement and ethnic cleansing violate international law. "No more going in and out - this is a war for victory," said apartheid Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who urged Israelis embrace, not fear the word "occupation...A people that wants to live must occupy its land." But the name Gideon's Chariots, Merkavot Gideon, invoking the righteous Biblical warrior who led a chosen few to annihilate an ancient Arab people, "layers this symbolism with menace," blending the concepts of divine vengeance with state-sanctioned ethnic violence, the "mythic instruments of war (with) the Israeli Merkava tanks that have long razed homes and lives in Gaza and the West Bank."
Sicker, darker undercurrents reportedly surfaced during a Cabinet meeting rife with genocidal banter. After a minister leered that Gazans should "die with the Philistines," Gaza's ancient inhabitants, Netanyahu refuted the idea with, "No. We don’t want to die with them. We want them to die alone." Ominously, the proposal also calls for (now-banned) international aid groups to be replaced with private U.S. military contractors, aka mercenaries, distributing aid at Israeli-designated relief "hubs," which critics call "not an aid plan but an aid denial plan" that flagrantly violates international principles that prohibit an occupier from exploiting humanitarian needs to achieve military or political objectives. Gazan officials angrily rejected the idea as "perpetuation of a malicious policy of siege and starvation...The Occupation cannot be a humanitarian mediator (when) it is the source and instrument of the tragedy."
Any illusion of Israel abruptly becoming a merciful presence in Palestinian lives was shattered Tuesday when far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich proclaimed at a West Bank conference, “Gaza will be entirely destroyed." He added Gazan civilians "will start to leave in great numbers (to) third countries," with hopes the territory would be formally annexed "during the current government’s term." He did not mention such annexation or any acquisition of land by military force is forbidden as a founding principle of international law, including the UN charter. Citing a 2024 report by Amnesty International titled You Feel You Are Subhuman, Dalal Yassine writes that Gaza most bitterly represents the end of humanitarian law: "The past 19 months of genocide have not only demonstrated the double standard imposed on Palestinians in Gaza, but also that there is no standard at all."
And as it's been all along, the U.S. remains complicit. Israel will not act until after an upcoming trip by Trump, who's voiced no objections - his gold-plated hotel beckons - and as usual gets it all wrong, blaming Hamas for treating Gazans "badly." "People are starving, and we’re going to help them get food," he yammered. "Hamas is making it impossible (by) taking everything that’s brought in." This week, our complicity came into harsher, shocking focus when nine former Biden officials admitted its months-long claims of "working tirelessly" for a ceasefire - a phrase used by Biden, Harris, even AOC, and derided by skeptics as "not a thing" - were all a lie. No demands were made - a moral and political crime re-enforced by a 2024 memo finding "insufficient evidence" linking U.S. arms to rights violations or Israel to blocked aid. One critic: "The lack of concern about Palestinian lives is palpable."
Still, the killing goes on, with about half the dead women and children. Implausibly, Israeli forces grow ever more savage: Drones often fire on civil defense teams trying to retrieve the wounded under debris, soldiers just executed 15 Palestine Red Crescent workers, their hands and feet bound, before burying them and their ambulances in the sand; hundreds of doctors, aid workers and journalists have been killed. Last month, they included Ahmad Mansour, burned alive in a media tent, and Fatima Hassouna, a "self-made fighter" colleagues called "the Eye of Gaza," for whom the camera was a weapon to "preserve a voice, tell a story." She died with six siblings, just before her wedding, a day after it was announced a film featuring her, Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk, will screen at the Cannes Film Festival. "If I die, I want a resounding death," she wrote last year. "Fatima planned for joy," said a friend. "Despite the war, she insisted on dreaming."
With Israeli power left untethered, Arab nations largely silent and international rules of law ignored, what's left to protect Gazan lives are mere small gestures. Hundreds of Israelis attend silent vigils to hold images of dead Palestinian children; Artists Against Apartheid and other groups protested in D.C. bearing the names of the dead and installing 17,000 pairs of children's shoes as a searing memorial; Swedish Television announced an initiative to convert the late Pope Francis’s car into a mobile clinic for Gazan children, fulfilling his final wish; World Central Kitchen barely manages to keep open its mobile bakery, the last bakery in Gaza: "We are now near (the) limits of what is possible." Still, desperate hunger mounts. Most Gazans face "acute levels of food insecurity," with more and more children dying from "starvation-related complications," a now-common term that should not exist.
Aid officials say close to 300,000 children are on the brink of starvation; about a third of those under two suffer from "acute malnutrition," with the rate swiftly climbing; more than 3,500 under five face imminent death from starvation; at least 27 have died from malnutrition, and at least several more die each day, often newborns of mothers who cannot produce milk. To date, the Israeli onslaught has directly killed over 15,000 children; for every direct death, says The Lancet medical journal, there are up to four indirect deaths from hunger, disease, the collapse of small bodies' immunity and a country's once-flourishing healthcare system. If they can, sunken-cheeked children who've lost half their body weight scavenge in mountains of trash for anything to fill their stomachs alongside their frantic parents: "I don’t want my child to die hungry." One mother: "As people, we are almost dead."
The stories and images horrify: Stick-thin, Auschwitz-like limbs protrude, ribs jut from concave chests, eyes grow wide and glazed. Once vibrant, they lie in bed, skin on bone, too weak to walk, stand, turn, lift their head, eventually breathe. An emaciated six-year-old weighing half what he should writhes on a bed, pleading, "I want to leave." A four-month-old, six-pound girl died of malnutrition, blood acidity, liver and kidney failure after her hair and nails fell out. Of newborn twin girls, one died eight days later. A father's father's infant son Abdelaziz died hours after his severely malnourished mother gave birth to him; hospital staff hooked Abdelaziz, premature and gasping, to a ventilator; it stopped a few hours later when the hospital ran out of fuel, and he died "immediately." "I am losing my son before my eyes," says one mother. "In these beds, we are waiting for them to die one by one."
Each day, says Tareq Hailat of the Palestine Children's Relief Fund, up to ten sick children in Gaza need urgent medical evacuation, but, "It's just not happening." Each one, he stresses, has a story: "They aren't just a number." Among the handful his group managed to get out was 6-year-old Fadi al-Zant from Gaza City, who had cystic fibrosis; he was also starving. When his mother couldn't find food or medication, Fadi's weight dropped from 66 to 26 pounds and he became too weak to walk, he was miraculously evacuated to first Egypt, then New York. Once the media began following his story, Fadi became "the face of starvation in Gaza." But he was a rare, blessed exception. "We are breaking the bodies and minds of the children of Gaza," says Michael Ryan, executive director of WHO. "We are starving the children of Gaza. We are complicit. As a physician, I am angry. It is an abomination."
There are so many. Drop Site Newsposted video of the distraught mother of four-month-old Yousef al-Najjar as he lay curled on a hospital bed, small fists flailing, suffering from malnutrition and dehydration. He weighed just 3.3 pounds, one fourth of what he should have weighed. His young mother lamented: He has had spasms trying to breathe, his entire ribcage sticks out, she has never experienced this before, she doesn't know each morning if he's survived: "The woman you see before you is begging for money to feed her children." She held him in her arms, then repeatedly lofted him into the unlistening air, arms straight before her, up and down, up and down, almost weightless. "Why is this happening to us?" she cried. "I swear to God, it's wrong what is happening to us." On Monday, Yousef died from malnutrition, and Israel. May his memory be for a blessing.
Update: More horrors: "Absolute savagery."
Amid global calls for a ban on deep-sea mining to protect marine ecosystems, U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to advance the risky practice and "restore American dominance in offshore critical minerals and resources."
"The broad order avoids a direct confrontation with the United Nations-backed International Seabed Authority and seeks essentially to jump-start the mining of U.S. waters as part of a push to offset China's sweeping control of the critical minerals industry," notedReuters, which had previewed the measure aimed at attaining nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, titanium, and rare earth elements.
"The International Seabed Authority—created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. has not ratified—has for years been considering standards for deep-sea mining in international waters, although it has yet to formalize them due to unresolved differences over acceptable levels of dust, noise, and other factors from the practice," the agency reported.
Trump's order directs Cabinet members including Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick—whose department oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—to expedite the permit process and work on various related reports.
"Authorizing deep-sea mining outside international law is like lighting a match in a room full of dynamite—it threatens ecosystems, global cooperation, and U.S. credibility all at once."
Deep-sea mining is opposed by over 30 countries as well as academics and advocacy groups worldwide. Among them is Greenpeace USA, whose campaigner Arlo Hemphill said Thursday that "authorizing deep-sea mining outside international law is like lighting a match in a room full of dynamite—it threatens ecosystems, global cooperation, and U.S. credibility all at once."
"We condemn this administration's attempt to launch this destructive industry on the high seas in the Pacific by bypassing the United Nations process," Hemphill declared. "This is an insult to multilateralism and a slap in the face to all the countries and millions of people around the world who oppose this dangerous industry."
"But this executive order is not the start of deep-sea mining. Everywhere governments have tried to start deep-sea mining, they have failed. This will be no different," he added. "We call on the international community to stand against this unacceptable undermining of international cooperation by agreeing to a global moratorium on deep-sea mining. The United States government has no right to unilaterally allow an industry to destroy the common heritage of humankind, and rip up the deep sea for the profit of a few corporations."
Ocean Conservancy vice president for external affairs Jeff Watters also blasted the move, saying that "this executive order flies in the face of NOAA's mission. NOAA is charged with protecting, not imperiling, the ocean and its economic benefits, including fishing and tourism; and scientists agree that deep-sea mining is a deeply dangerous endeavor for our ocean and all of us who depend on it."
"Areas of the U.S. seafloor where test mining took place over 50 years ago still haven't fully recovered," Watters pointed out. "The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn't restricted to the ocean floor: It will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it. Evidence tells us that areas targeted for deep-sea mining often overlap with important fisheries, raising serious concerns about the impacts on the country's $321 billion fishing industry."
He highlighted that "NOAA is already being threatened by this administration's unprecedented cuts. NOAA is the eyes and ears for our water and air. NOAA provides Americans with accessible and accurate weather forecasts; it tracks hurricanes and tsunamis; it responds to oil spills; it keeps seafood on the table; and so much more. Forcing the agency to carry out deep-sea mining permitting while these essential services are slashed will only harm our ocean and our country."
"It's not just our country this executive order would harm: This action has far-reaching implications beyond the U.S.," Watters added, warning that by unilaterally allowing deep-sea mining, "the administration is opening a door for other countries to do the same—and all of us, and the ocean we all depend on, will be worse off for it."
As The New York Timesreported:
The executive order could pave the way for the Metals Company, a prominent seabed mining company, to receive an expedited permit from NOAA to actively mine for the first time. The publicly traded company, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, disclosed in March that it would ask the Trump administration through a U.S. subsidiary for approval to mine in international waters. The company has already spent more than $500 million doing exploratory work.
"We have a boat that's production-ready," said Gerard Barron, the company's chief executive, in an interview on Thursday. "We have a means of processing the materials in an allied friendly partner nation. We're just missing the permit to allow us to begin."
In response to the late March disclosure—which came during International Seabed Authority negotiations—Louisa Casson, senior campaigner for Greenpeace International, said that "this is another of the Metals Company's pathetic ploys and an insult to multilateralism. It shows that a moratorium on deep-sea mining is more urgently needed than ever. It also proves that the company's CEO Gerard Barron's plans never focused on solutions for the climate catastrophe."
"The Metals Company is desperate and now is encouraging a breach of customary international law by announcing their intent to mine the international seabed through the United States' Deep-Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act," the camapigner asserted. "This comes after the Metals Company has spent years exerting immense pressure on the International Seabed Authority to try and force governments to allow mining in the international seabed—the common heritage of humankind."
Casson stressed that "states, civil society, scientists, companies, and Indigenous communities continue to resist these efforts. Having tried and failed to pressure the international community to meet their demands, this reckless announcement is a slap in the face to international cooperation."
Less than a week later, the Norwegian deep-sea mining company Loke Marine Minerals declared bankruptcy—which Haldis Tjeldflaat Helle, a campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic, noted came "on the same day that we shut down a deep-sea mining conference in Bergen."
The Norwegian government in December halted plans to move forward with deep-sea mining in the Arctic Ocean, which Steve Trent, CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, had called "a testament to the power of principled, courageous political action, and... a moment to celebrate for environmental advocates, ocean ecosystems, and future generations alike."
As people worldwide filled the streets Thursday to celebrate International Workers' Day and mobilize against attacks on the working class, a new analysis showed that average global CEO pay has surged 50% since 2019—56 times more than the pay of ordinary employees.
The Oxfam International analysis examined figures from nearly 2,000 corporations across 35 countries where CEOs were paid more than $1 million on average last year, including bonuses and stock options. Across those companies, the average pay of chief executives reached $4.3 million in 2024, up from $2.9 million just five years ago.
By contrast, average worker pay in those 35 nations rose just 0.9% between 2019 and 2024.
"Year after year, we see the same grotesque spectacle: CEO pay explodes while workers' wages barely budge," said Amitabh Behar, Oxfam's executive director. "This isn't a glitch in the system—it's the system working exactly as designed, funneling wealth ever upwards while millions of working people struggle to afford rent, food, and healthcare."
According to Oxfam, global billionaires "pocketed on average $206 billion in new wealth over the last year," or $23,500 an hour. That's more than the average annual income globally—$21,000—in 2023.
To begin redressing global economic inequality, Oxfam called for top marginal tax rates of at least 75% on the highest earners and wage increases to ensure worker pay keeps up with inflation.
"It's time to end the billionaire coup against democracy and put people and planet first."
Luc Triangle, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, said in a statement that the "outrageous pay inequality between CEOs and workers confirms that we lack democracy where it is needed most: at work."
"Around the world, workers are being denied the basics of life while corporations pocket record profits, dodge taxes, and lobby to evade responsibility," Triangle added. "Workers are demanding a New Social Contract that works for them—not the billionaires undermining democracy. Fair taxation, strong public services, living wages, and a just transition are not radical demands—they are the foundation of a just society."
"It's time to end the billionaire coup against democracy and put people and planet first," he added.
In addition to spotlighting the growing chasm between CEO and worker pay, the Oxfam analysis warned that the global working class "is now facing a new threat" in the form of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff regime. The humanitarian group argued that "these policies pose significant risks for workers worldwide, including job losses and rising costs for basic goods that would stoke extreme inequality everywhere."
"For so many workers worldwide, President Trump's reckless use of tariffs means a push from one cruel order to another: from the frying pan of destructive neoliberal trade policy to the fire of weaponized tariffs," said Behar. "These policies will not only hurt working families in the U.S., but especially harm workers trying to escape poverty in some of the world's poorest countries."
House Republicans late Sunday unveiled legislation that analysts said would rip Medicaid coverage from millions of low-income Americans—including children and people with disabilities—to help fund tax breaks that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
The bill text released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee is a section of the sprawling budget reconciliation package that Republicans are hoping to complete as soon as Memorial Day.
The legislation includes major changes to Medicaid that, if enacted, would kick millions from the program, including work requirements for some enrollees and new payment mandates for adults living above 100% of the federal poverty level—which, for a single individual, is $15,650 in annual income for 2025.
A snap analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the healthcare section of the new Republican bill would cut spending by at least $715 billion over the next decade and leave at least 8.6 million more people without insurance.
"Many of the Medicaid proposals from House Republicans are technical and wonky, and will be difficult for the public to absorb," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. "What won't be difficult to absorb: CBO's estimate that the changes will increase the number of people without health insurance by at least 8.6 million."
"Taking healthcare away from children and moms, seniors in nursing homes, and people with disabilities to give tax breaks to people who don't need them is shameful."
With the stated goal of combating fraud, the GOP bill would implement a slew of new reporting and screening requirements to check Medicaid recipients' eligibility—changes that analysts said would ensnare many in procedural red tape, resulting in large-scale loss of coverage.
The measure's work requirement mandates at least 80 hours of work, community service, or related activities per month. Most Medicaid recipients already work, and previous work requirements at the state level have resulted in disaster.
The legislation also alters "cost-sharing requirements for certain expansion individuals under the Medicaid program." In plain terms, the bill would force certain Medicaid recipients to pay more for coverage, whether through premiums or other fees.
"If you make $20,000, a state might slap $1,000 of fees onto your Medicaid," Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, wrote in an analysis of the bill. "True sicko shit."
"My heart aches for the people whose lives will be ruined if this becomes law," Kogan added. "So it's our job to stop it."
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement Sunday that "this bill confirms what we've been saying all along: Trump and Republicans have been lying when they claim they aren't going to cut Medicaid and take away people's healthcare."
"Let's be clear, Republican leadership released this bill under cover of night because they don't want people to know their true intentions," said Pallone. "In no uncertain terms, millions of Americans will lose their healthcare coverage, hospitals will close, seniors will not be able to access the care they need, and premiums will rise for millions of people if this bill passes."
"Taking healthcare away from children and moms, seniors in nursing homes, and people with disabilities to give tax breaks to people who don't need them is shameful," he added. "Democrats have defeated Republican efforts to cut healthcare before, and we can do it again."
At a hearing Wednesday on the status of nearly 140 Venezuelan immigrants whom the Trump administration hastily expelled to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, a federal judge told lawyers representing the detainees that there were "a lot of facts in their favor" regarding whether the White House has the authority to return the men to the United States.
During the hearing, Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., questioned U.S. Department of Justice lawyers to determine whether the U.S. has "constructive custody" of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Maryland man whom the administration has insisted it can't bring back to the country even though he was mistakenly sent to El Salvador—and other prisoners at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
If the White House does have constructive custody of the men, with El Salvador detaining them at the behest of the U.S. government, it would be possible to bring them back to the U.S. to receive due process—which DOJ lawyer Abishek Kambli reluctantly conceded they had not received before their expulsion.
Boasberg zeroed in on a comment President Donald Trump made in an ABC News interview last week about Abrego Garcia, when he told reporter Terry Moran that he "could" make a phone call to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to secure the Maryland father's return.
"You could pick it up and with all the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, 'Send him back,'" said Moran.
"And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that," Trump said.
On Wednesday Boasberg demanded to know if Trump's comments were accurate.
"Is the president not telling the truth, or could he secure the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia?" he asked.
"A country in which Trump can do whatever he wants to these people, say whatever he wants about what he did, but be protected from what he said in a case about what he did, is not the democratic country we have known or that we deserve."
Kambli replied that Trump was just speaking of "the influence that he has" but doubled down on the claim that the president's position of power doesn't equal legal control of constructive custody.
The White House has claimed it has no jurisdiction over the migrants even though they were sent to El Salvador under a $6 million deal Trump struck with Bukele.
Boasberg pointed to comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a visit to CECOT in which she suggested the U.S. is in control of who is sent to and remains at the prison.
"What about Secretary Noem saying CECOT is 'one of the tools in our tool kit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people,'" Boasberg asked Kambli, quoting Noem directly. "Is she wrong about that?"
Kambli attempted to deflect the suggestion that the U.S. is paying El Salvador directly to house migrants, saying that despite Noem's remarks, the administration has only paid "grants" to Bukele's government "for law enforcement and anti-crime purposes."
Boasberg also asked point-blank: "Is the United States paying the government of El Salvador to detain the migrants?"
Kambli did not reply directly, saying only that "there is no agreement or arrangement whereby the United States maintains any agency or control over these prisoners."
At another point the judge forced Kambli to admit that—contrary to repeated claims by Trump—the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule in his favor regarding his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, which the White House has used to expel people it accuses of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The Supreme Court lifted a block imposed by Boasberg in an earlier ruling on the Alien Enemies Act, but did not uphold Trump's invocation of the rarely-used law.
"I know your client believes the Supreme Court upheld the invocation of the AEA," Boasberg told Kambli. "You agree the Supreme Court never did that, correct?"
Law & Crimereported that "almost audible squirming ensued" as Kambli gave "several evasive answers" before Boasberg read the Supreme Court ruling verbatim.
"They did not analyze that precise issue," Kambli finally admitted.
Former congressman Conor Lamb suggested Boasberg's harsh questioning of the Trump administration is what is needed in the judicial system as the president continues his mass deportation operation and threatens due process rights.
"A country in which Trump can do whatever he wants to these people, say whatever he wants about what he did, but be protected from what he said in a case about what he did, is not the democratic country we have known or that we deserve," said Lamb. "Judges, we need you now."
Law & Crime reported that Boasberg "signaled an obvious inclination toward finding the U.S. does have constructive custody over the relevant Venezuelan nationals detained in CECOT" before ordering the Trump administration to provide sworn declarations regarding who has official custody.
The judge ordered the organizations representing the plaintiffs, the ACLU and Democracy Forward, to decide by Monday whether to request new documents and depositions from the government in the ongoing case.
Observers around the world sounded the alarm Wednesday over the risks of escalation between nuclear neighbors after Pakistan retaliated for Indian airstrikes that reportedly killed over 30 civilians including children in response to last month's Pahalgam massacre in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
The Pakistani newspaper Dawnreported that India bombed six sites in Punjab's Sialkot and Bahawalpur, as well as Azad Jammu and Kashmir on Tuesday night as part of Operation Sindoor, a response to the April 22 militant attack on a tourist site in Pahalgam that killed 26 people. India blamed Pakistan for supporting "cross-border terrorism" after a front group of the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba claimed responsibility for the attack.
Officials in Islamabad said the Indian strikes this week skilled 31 civilians, including several children. In retaliation, Pakistan carried out artillery attacks across the so-called Line of Control on the border with India. The shelling reportedly killed at least 15 civilians. In a televised address, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called the attacks a "reply" to India's airstrikes.
"When elephants fight, it's the grass that gets trampled."
Pakistani forces also shot down five Indian warplanes and attacked several Indian checkpoints, according to Pakistani military spokesperson Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry.
On Wednesday, Sharif claimed his government offered to cooperate with India to investigate the Pahalgam attack.
"Instead, they fired missiles inside our territory, thinking we would back down and will not retaliate," he said of India, vowing that "every drop of blood" will be avenged. Sharif added that India "must suffer the consequences" for its "cowardly" attacks.
Mirza Waheed, a Kashmiri journalist and award-winning novelist, toldDemocracy Now! on Wednesday that "this is a dangerous escalation."
Asked about the increasingly Hindu nationalist rule of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Waheed said "it is a different regime" than under previous New Delhi administrations, one that is "more open to armed response."
Noting that civilians have borne the brunt of cross-border clashes between Indian and Pakistani forces, Waheed said, "When elephants fight, it's the grass that gets trampled."
Foreign Policy South Asia analyst Michael Kugelman noted on social media that "India's strike on Pakistan is of much greater scale than the one in 2019."
"Pakistan's response, which according to many reports included downing several Indian jets, has also exceeded the scale of 2019," he added. "They're already higher up the escalatory ladder than any time in '19 crisis."
Echoing Wednesday's warning from a Nobel Peace Prize-winning nonproliferation group, British Green Party Member of Parliament Ellie Chowns said: "I am deeply alarmed by the overnight strikes between India and Pakistan and the tragic loss of civilian lives on both sides. As two nuclear-armed neighbors, escalation risks catastrophe."
"I urge both governments to step back from the brink in order to prioritize dialogue and lasting peace," Chowns added.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that it is "concerned about the current developments" between the two nations. China controls about 15% of Kashmir.
"China opposes all forms of terrorism. We call on both India and Pakistan to prioritize peace and stability, remain calm and restrained, and avoid taking actions that further complicate the situation," the ministry said. "China finds India's military operation early this morning regrettable… India and Pakistan are and will always be each other's neighbors. They're both China's neighbors as well."
In the United States—which backed Pakistan's 1971 genocide in Bangladesh that ended following an Indian invasion—President Donald Trump called the escalating situation between the nuclear neighbors "a shame."
"I hope it ends very quickly," Trump added, offering to mediate a deescalation between the two countries, as the U.S. has repeatedly done in the past.
U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said on social media that "an armed conflict between India and Pakistan would be catastrophic for the world and must be avoided at all costs."
"The United States and our allies should be doing everything we can to stop another escalation and pursue all possible diplomatic avenues to resolve this peacefully," Omar asserted.
The transportation secretary has called for upgrades to the systems used by air traffic controllers; he voted against such improvements when he was in Congress.
Travelers at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on Monday were still being impacted by flight delays and cancellations after numerous technical issues in recent days interrupted air traffic control operations—disruptions that U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Sunday are likely to spread to the nation's other airports.
Duffy toldNBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that he is currently "concerned about the whole airspace," but said traveling by air is still safe.
"The lights are blinking, the sirens are turning," said Duffy. "What you see in Newark is gonna happen in other places across the country."
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said in a statement that Newark's most recent technical disruption on Sunday was the result of a "telecommunications issue" at Philadelphia Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Area C facility, which guides aircraft in and out of Newark.
Air traffic control systems were also disrupted on Friday, with controllers at the same facility losing radar and radio contact for about 90 seconds.
At least five air traffic controllers at TRACON Area C are currently on 45 days of trauma leave after a similar incident on April 28 during a busy afternoon.
The air traffic control team at the facility lost contact with all planes while they were managing 15-20 flights. One air traffic controller at Newark toldNBC News after this incident that the airport is "not a safe situation right now for the flying public."
The disruption led to thousands of flight cancellations and delays—some longer than five hours—in and out of Newark, which serves more than 24 million travelers per year and is the nation's 12th busiest airport.
Duffy denied on Sunday that job cuts affecting about 400 staffers at the FAA—spearheaded by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, headed by billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk—had anything to do with the problems at Newark.
But representatives of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists union, which represents about 11,000 employees who support air traffic controllers, warned earlier this year that layoffs would result in critical workers guiding planes in and out of airports with less support from the FAA.
The job cuts affected workers including administrative and logistics technicians, aeronautical information specialists, and maintenance mechanics.
The FAA has blamed many of the issues at Newark, where TRACON Area C has been affected by outages four times since November, on equipment failures and staffing shortages.
Duffy has called for air travel upgrades including investments in digital flight data management, improvements to radio systems, and extending the retirement age for air traffic controllers to 61, up from 56.
On CNN last week, Kaitlan Collins pointed out that Duffy, then a Republican member of the U.S. House, joined his party in voting against upgrades to air traffic control systems.
On Sunday, signs were already emerging that staffing and technical issues could be spreading to other airports with impacts on travel.
An equipment outage at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport—the busiest in the world—led to a ground stop for more than an hour, delaying 1,337 flights. FAA staffing shortages at a control tower in Austin, Texas also led to delays for 145 flights.
"It's clear that the mission of Elon Musk and his DOGE crew has nothing to do with reducing 'waste, fraud, and abuse,' and everything to do with lining their own pockets at the expense of working people," said one advocate.
Several watchdog and advocacy groups are demanding the acting inspector general of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate potential conflicts of interest between the Department of Government Efficiency employees who have been involved in mass layoff efforts at the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with a focus on one DOGE aide in particular.
The groups behind the letter, which is dated May 8, include Accountable.US, Public Citizen, Project On Government Oversight, and others.
Twenty five-year-old software engineer Gavin Kliger was detailed to work at the the CFPB starting in March as part of DOGE operations to downsize the agency, according to ProPublica.
The investigative outlet reported that Kliger holds stock in companies "that could benefit from the agency's dismantling" but went on to help oversee mass layoffs at the CFPB, despite objections reportedly raised by ethics attorneys at the agency.
The CFPB, an agency created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from deceptive or unfair practices in the consumer financial space, bars employees from owning holdings in specific firms—a list that "is tailored to include only businesses that are subject to examination by the bureau." That list is in addition to ethics regulations in place at other financial regulatory agencies and those that apply to executive branch employees more generally.
In April, ProPublica reported that Kliger owns up to $365,000 worth of shares in Apple Inc., Tesla Inc. and two cryptocurrencies. Apple and Tesla are on the list of prohibited holdings. The two cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Solana, are not on that list but "are nevertheless barred under agency guidance on investing in cryptocurrency firms," according to ProPublica.
In May, the outlet reported that further review of his public financial report showed that Kliger has even more holdings in companies that are on that prohibited holdings list. "Kliger also disclosed owning as much as $350,000 worth of stock in Google parent Alphabet Inc., Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway and the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba," the reporting states.
Pointing to court records and government emails, ProPublica reported that Kliger was indeed involved in overseeing layoffs of more than 1,400 employees at the CFPB. A spokesperson for the White House repeatedly told ProPublica that Kliger "did not even manage" the layoffs, "making this entire narrative an outright lie."
Those layoffs are currently tied up in litigation.
Kliger departed the CFPB last week, according to Bloomberg Law.
"Americans expect that those who serve in office are looking out for the public interest, not their own bottom line," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk in a statement on Monday. "Clearly, the Trump administration is more focused on self-enrichment schemes and making it easier for corporate special interests to take advantage of regular Americans than it is on bringing down skyrocketing costs. The CFPB inspector general must investigate this matter immediately."
Mike Pierce, executive director of another group behind the letter, the Student Borrower Protection Center, added that "it's clear that the mission of Elon Musk and his DOGE crew has nothing to do with reducing 'waste, fraud, and abuse,' and everything to do with lining their own pockets at the expense of working people."
In the letter, the groups point to ProPublica's reporting about Kliger's holdings, note that CFPB employees are barred from owning holdings in specific companies, and cite federal law that forbids executive branch employees from participating in matters affecting their own personal financial interests.
The letter also links to research from the Student Borrower Protection Center which explores how Musk could also benefit from a less powerful CFPB.
"We urge you to swiftly investigate these clear conflicts of interest violations of Trump administration officials acting in their own personal financial interest, and we look forward to your prompt response on this matter," concludes the letter.
According to Politico, which first reported on the letter, spokespeople with the Office of Personnel Management, CFPB, and DOGE did not respond to requests for comment.
"If Trump is serious," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, "he will support legislation I will soon be introducing to make sure we pay no more for prescription drugs than people in other major countries."
If U.S. President Donald Trump actually wants to curb out-of-control prescription drug prices, he'll throw his support behind legislative efforts instead of trying to do so unilaterally—an approach that's unlikely to survive legal challenges.
That was the message that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and congressional Democrats sent to the White House after Trump signed an executive order Monday aimed at pushing "pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations."
The order resembles an effort that a federal judge blocked during Trump's first term after the pharmaceutical industry mobilized against it.
Sanders, a longtime proponent of legislative action to address exorbitant medicine prices, said he agrees it is "an outrage that the American people pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs."
"As Trump well knows, his executive order will be thrown out by the courts," said Sanders. "If Trump is serious about making real change rather than just issuing a press release, he will support legislation I will soon be introducing to make sure we pay no more for prescription drugs than people in other major countries. If Republicans and Democrats come together on this legislation, we can get it passed in a few weeks."
If Trump is serious about making real change rather than just issuing a press release, he will support legislation I will introduce to ensure we pay no more for prescription drugs than people in other major countries. If we come together, we can get it passed in a few weeks.
[image or embed]
— Senator Bernie Sanders (@sanders.senate.gov) May 12, 2025 at 1:01 PM
Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) have previously teamed up on a bill that would end drugmakers' monopoly control over a medication and allow generic competition if it is priced higher in the U.S. than in other rich nations.
An analysis released last year by the RAND Corporation estimated that prescription drug prices in the U.S. are, on average, 2.78 times higher than prices in Canada, Germany, France, and other comparable countries.
Khanna wrote on social media that he supports Trump's "effort to ensure Americans do not pay more for drugs than those in other countries." But, like Sanders, Khanna warned the executive order is likely doomed to fail.
"Instead of an EO that will get challenged again by Big Pharma, why not work with Bernie Sanders and me to make this law," the California Democrat wrote.
The pharmaceutical industry has made its opposition to Trump's latest order clear. In a statement, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America CEO Stephen Ubl claimed that "importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers."
"It would mean less treatments and cures and would jeopardize the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America," Ubl added, rehashing a common and false industry talking point.
"Donald Trump is all hat and no cattle when it comes to lowering the price of prescription drugs."
Since taking office, Trump has repeatedly claimed to support aggressive action to bring down drug prices while simultaneously working to roll back progress toward that goal. Last month, as Common Dreamsreported, Trump signed an executive order aimed at delaying Medicare price negotiations for a broad category of prescription drugs.
The price negotiations began during the Biden administration following Democratic lawmakers' passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, a law whose drug pricing provisions have so far withstood Big Pharma's legal onslaught.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in response to the president's executive order that "Donald Trump is all hat and no cattle when it comes to lowering the price of prescription drugs."
"Trump spent his entire first term blathering about Big Pharma, but in the end he always backed down instead of fighting for American seniors and families," said Wyden. "Democrats took on Big Pharma and won by finally giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices on behalf of seniors and capping their out-of-pocket costs for expensive prescriptions. If Trump was serious about lowering drug prices, he would work with Congress to strengthen Medicare drug price negotiations, not just sign a piece of paper."