Content: Popular RSS News Feeds Sites | Arc of Justice Alliance

(Note: these articles are from RSS News Feeds websites, and are deleted after 30 days,
unless readers (you!) add comments, or add to your favorites.)

First * Back * Next * Last

September 9, 2026 at 2:34 PM EDT
Israel/OPT: Settlement trade restrictions must be followed by further concrete measures to end Israel's unlawful occupat

Israel/OPT: Settlement trade restrictions must be followed by further concrete measures to end Israel's unlawful occupation and apartheid Responding to the announcement by Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK that they plan to restrict trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and are considering further measures, Amnesty International's Senior Director for Research Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns, Erika Guevara Rosas said: "The announcement that 12 states plan to introduce restrictions on trade with Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international humanitarian law, is a welcome, if long overdue, development that must pave the way for the adoption of further measures to bring an end to Israel's unlawful occupation and institutionalized system of apartheid imposed against Palestinians. "The measures announced so far, while important, fall far short of meeting the International Court of Justice's July 2024 instructions to states 'not to render aid or assistance' in maintaining Israel's unlawful occupation of the Palestinian Territory. "Settlement creation and expansion - with state-backed settler violence now a central tool driving displacement and dispossession at unprecedented levels under the current Israeli government - are a core component of Israel's policy and cannot be separated from its overarching system of apartheid. "Entire Palestinian communities face the imminent risk of erasure in the West Bank amidst an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign. Meanwhile Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip continue to battle for survival amidst Israel's ongoing genocide. To truly tackle the violations stemming from illegal settlements states must go further; they must target the very infrastructure that funds, sustains and supports Israel's unlawful occupation. Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International "To truly tackle the violations stemming from illegal settlements states must go further; they must target the very infrastructure that funds, sustains and supports Israel's unlawful occupation. This requires imposing measures on key entities, including Israeli government ministries, implicated in establishing, maintaining and providing material support to illegal settlements and settlement infrastructure, as well as taking effective action to prevent and halt the forcible transfer of Palestinians. "All states must make absolutely clear that they will no longer provide political, financial and military support that contributes to Israel's serious and systematic violations of international law. "They must also impose targeted sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against Benjamin Netanyahu, Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel Katz and Orit Strock as Israeli officials directly implicated in the ethnic cleansing and forcible transfer of Palestinians in the West Bank, and in maintaining Israel's unlawful occupation and apartheid. They must also ban the transfer of arms and security equipment that risk facilitating Israeli violations. "For their part, EU states must now call on President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen to present them with a proposal for a comprehensive EU-wide ban on trade with settlements, and on key states to support it, including Italy and Germany. They must also take the next logical step and suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement. "There is no longer any room for excuses, delays or half measures. Failure to act decisively to tackle Israel's mass violations against Palestinians sends a dangerous signal that states are unwilling to uphold their own legal obligations. It also emboldens the Israeli authorities to continue violating international law with impunity while denying Palestinians meaningful protection." Responding to the announcement by Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK that they plan to restrict trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and are considering further measures, Amnesty International's Senior Director for Research Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns, Erika Guevara Rosas said: "The announcement that 12 states plan to introduce restrictions on trade with Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international humanitarian law, is a welcome, if long overdue, development that must pave the way for the adoption of further measures to bring an end to Israel's unlawful occupation and institutionalized system of apartheid imposed against Palestinians. "The measures announced so far, while important, fall far short of meeting the International Court of Justice's July 2024 instructions to states 'not to render aid or assistance' in maintaining Israel's unlawful occupation of the Palestinian Territory. "Settlement creation and expansion - with state-backed settler violence now a central tool driving displacement and dispossession at unprecedented levels under the current Israeli government - are a core component of Israel's policy and cannot be separated from its overarching system of apartheid. "Entire Palestinian communities face the imminent risk of erasure in the West Bank amidst an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign. Meanwhile Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip continue to battle for survival amidst Israel's ongoing genocide. To truly tackle the violations stemming from illegal settlements states must go further; they must target the very infrastructure that funds, sustains and supports Israel's unlawful occupation. Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International "To truly tackle the violations stemming from illegal settlements states must go further; they must target the very infrastructure that funds, sustains and supports Israel's unlawful occupation. This requires imposing measures on key entities, including Israeli government ministries, implicated in establishing, maintaining and providing material support to illegal settlements and settlement infrastructure, as well as taking effective action to prevent and halt the forcible transfer of Palestinians. "All states must make absolutely clear that they will no longer provide political, financial and military support that contributes to Israel's serious and systematic violations of international law. "They must also impose targeted sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against Benjamin Netanyahu, Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel Katz and Orit Strock as Israeli officials directly implicated in the ethnic cleansing and forcible transfer of Palestinians in the West Bank, and in maintaining Israel's unlawful occupation and apartheid. They must also ban the transfer of arms and security equipment that risk facilitating Israeli violations. "For their part, EU states must now call on President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen to present them with a proposal for a comprehensive EU-wide ban on trade with settlements, and on key states to support it, including Italy and Germany. They must also take the next logical step and suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement. "There is no longer any room for excuses, delays or half measures. Failure to act decisively to tackle Israel's mass violations against Palestinians sends a dangerous signal that states are unwilling to uphold their own legal obligations. It also emboldens the Israeli authorities to continue violating international law with impunity while denying Palestinians meaningful protection."

September 9, 2026 at 2:34 PM EDT
Israel/OPT: Settlement trade restrictions must be followed by further concrete measures to end Israel's unlawful occupat

September 9, 2026 at 2:33 PM EDT
Federal Appeals Court Hears Baseless Challenge to the Abortion Pill Mifepristone -- Again

Federal Appeals Court Hears Baseless Challenge to the Abortion Pill Mifepristone -- Again A federal appeals court today will again hear a lawsuit designed to restrict abortion access nationwide by banning mail and pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in two-thirds of U.S. abortions as well as for miscarriage care. The hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the latest step in a legal battle in which anti-abortion politicians are seeking to make abortion harder for patients to access, even in states where abortion is protected. Today, nearly 30 percent of people who have abortions in the U.S. access care through telemedicine and pharmacy dispensing."Abortion opponents will stop at nothing to try to end medication abortion in every state," said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. "Preventing people from getting their mifepristone prescription by mail and at pharmacies is just the start. But we're not standing by as the courts and the Trump administration weigh whether to reduce access based on tired anti-abortion lies. The ACLU will use every tool we have to protect access to this safe and effective medication for people across the country."In May, the Fifth Circuit ruled for Louisiana, resulting in a brief disruption of telehealth access to mifepristone before the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily paused the appeals court's decision while the litigation continues. The case is widely expected to return to the Supreme Court. Any decision from the Fifth Circuit to limit telehealth access will be on hold until then.Legal challenges are not the only threat to patients' ability to access mifepristone. Despite use by millions of patients, hundreds of studies, and decades of evidence proving mifepristone's safety, including when prescribed through telemedicine, the Trump administration, after intense lobbying from abortion opponents and their allies in Congress, is conducting yet another review of mifepristone as a pretext for imposing extreme and medically unjustified restrictions on access to the medication. The administration announced the review citing one self-published report that grossly distorts mifepristone's safety record. This report has since been widely debunked, including by more than 250 experts.Regardless of whether restrictions on mifepristone come from the courts or from the Trump administration, ending telehealth and pharmacy access will devastate patients' ability to get this essential medication. Without telemedicine and pharmacy access, patients using mifepristone would be forced to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, to a health center just to pick up a pill, a requirement that leading medical authorities agree has no safety benefit.Both the public and experts agree: the federal government should not further restrict mifepristone. A July 2026 survey found that two-thirds of U.S. adults oppose nationwide restrictions on mifepristone and medication abortion. And a wide range of experts -- from emergency medicine physicians to experts in intimate partner violence to drug developers -- submitted amicus briefs in the Supreme Court and in the court of appeals opposing this nationwide restriction as medically unjustified and harmful to people seeking care. A federal appeals court today will again hear a lawsuit designed to restrict abortion access nationwide by banning mail and pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone, a safe and effective medication used in two-thirds of U.S. abortions as well as for miscarriage care. The hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the latest step in a legal battle in which anti-abortion politicians are seeking to make abortion harder for patients to access, even in states where abortion is protected. Today, nearly 30 percent of people who have abortions in the U.S. access care through telemedicine and pharmacy dispensing."Abortion opponents will stop at nothing to try to end medication abortion in every state," said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. "Preventing people from getting their mifepristone prescription by mail and at pharmacies is just the start. But we're not standing by as the courts and the Trump administration weigh whether to reduce access based on tired anti-abortion lies. The ACLU will use every tool we have to protect access to this safe and effective medication for people across the country."In May, the Fifth Circuit ruled for Louisiana, resulting in a brief disruption of telehealth access to mifepristone before the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily paused the appeals court's decision while the litigation continues. The case is widely expected to return to the Supreme Court. Any decision from the Fifth Circuit to limit telehealth access will be on hold until then.Legal challenges are not the only threat to patients' ability to access mifepristone. Despite use by millions of patients, hundreds of studies, and decades of evidence proving mifepristone's safety, including when prescribed through telemedicine, the Trump administration, after intense lobbying from abortion opponents and their allies in Congress, is conducting yet another review of mifepristone as a pretext for imposing extreme and medically unjustified restrictions on access to the medication. The administration announced the review citing one self-published report that grossly distorts mifepristone's safety record. This report has since been widely debunked, including by more than 250 experts.Regardless of whether restrictions on mifepristone come from the courts or from the Trump administration, ending telehealth and pharmacy access will devastate patients' ability to get this essential medication. Without telemedicine and pharmacy access, patients using mifepristone would be forced to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, to a health center just to pick up a pill, a requirement that leading medical authorities agree has no safety benefit.Both the public and experts agree: the federal government should not further restrict mifepristone. A July 2026 survey found that two-thirds of U.S. adults oppose nationwide restrictions on mifepristone and medication abortion. And a wide range of experts -- from emergency medicine physicians to experts in intimate partner violence to drug developers -- submitted amicus briefs in the Supreme Court and in the court of appeals opposing this nationwide restriction as medically unjustified and harmful to people seeking care.

September 9, 2026 at 1:04 PM EDT
Concerns over AI Corporations' Safety Failures Reach Fever Pitch After Dire Warnings from Anthropic Researchers

Concerns over AI Corporations' Safety Failures Reach Fever Pitch After Dire Warnings from Anthropic Researchers Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, who previously worked for OpenAI, has resigned from the AI industry, warning that leading AI companies are racing to create increasingly powerful AI systems without adequate safeguards. Coxon said that neither Anthropic nor OpenAI is "acting responsibly" and accused the companies of "gambling with our lives." His resignation follows other departures of researchers from leading AI companies raising concerns about safety and the pace of AI development. Coxon specifically pointed to recent incidents involving AI systems accessing external computer systems as a warning of the risks ahead.In response, J.B. Branch, director of federal AI governance and technology policy at Public Citizen, issued the following statement:"Jacob Coxon is not the first AI researcher to leave the Big Tech industry because of AI safety concerns and he won't be the last. Researchers with the most intimate knowledge of how this technology works and is being developed are sounding the alarms, walking away from prestigious jobs to start up evaluation organizations, and warning the public about the risks posed by corporations' failure to guarantee AI safety."But calls for companies to voluntarily pause or slow down are not enough. Members of Congress routinely state their concerns about AI but have failed to pass federal safeguards or emergency measures to respond to the AI cyber security incidents that AI corporations have failed to prevent - and have covered up. Right now, the only protections the U.S. has in place are completely voluntary. There is no comprehensive federal AI regulation, no safety standards imposed on AI companies, and no agency capable of investigating serious AI incidents."Believe the researchers and whistleblowers who are telling us that Big Tech does not have these AI systems under control. The people building the most powerful AI systems in the world are warning us about what could go wrong. Why isn't Congress listening?" Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, who previously worked for OpenAI, has resigned from the AI industry, warning that leading AI companies are racing to create increasingly powerful AI systems without adequate safeguards. Coxon said that neither Anthropic nor OpenAI is "acting responsibly" and accused the companies of "gambling with our lives." His resignation follows other departures of researchers from leading AI companies raising concerns about safety and the pace of AI development. Coxon specifically pointed to recent incidents involving AI systems accessing external computer systems as a warning of the risks ahead.In response, J.B. Branch, director of federal AI governance and technology policy at Public Citizen, issued the following statement:"Jacob Coxon is not the first AI researcher to leave the Big Tech industry because of AI safety concerns and he won't be the last. Researchers with the most intimate knowledge of how this technology works and is being developed are sounding the alarms, walking away from prestigious jobs to start up evaluation organizations, and warning the public about the risks posed by corporations' failure to guarantee AI safety."But calls for companies to voluntarily pause or slow down are not enough. Members of Congress routinely state their concerns about AI but have failed to pass federal safeguards or emergency measures to respond to the AI cyber security incidents that AI corporations have failed to prevent - and have covered up. Right now, the only protections the U.S. has in place are completely voluntary. There is no comprehensive federal AI regulation, no safety standards imposed on AI companies, and no agency capable of investigating serious AI incidents."Believe the researchers and whistleblowers who are telling us that Big Tech does not have these AI systems under control. The people building the most powerful AI systems in the world are warning us about what could go wrong. Why isn't Congress listening?"

September 9, 2026 at 11:23 AM EDT
CODEPINK Statement: Marking 25 Years of the Global War of Terror

CODEPINK Statement: Marking 25 Years of the Global War of Terror Twenty-five years ago, in the ashes of the September 11th attacks, the United States launched what it called the "Global War on Terror." While the country was afraid and vulnerable, neoconservatives in the Bush administration, like then-Vice President Dick Cheney, saw an opening for expanding empire and U.S. hegemony by selling the country and its allies a story of revenge and "freedom." What they ushered in, however, was a brutal invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq that spanned over two decades, both of which had nothing to do with 9/11. For the past 25 years, the "Global War on Terror" has been used by the United States to wreak havoc in the SWANA region with an endless cycle of violence that has cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars.CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin reflects: "As CODEPINK, we went to Iraq 25 years ago to meet the people our government was preparing to bomb. What haunts me today is not only the devastation of the invasion, but how little accountability there has been for those who lied us into war""and how those same lies are now recycled to justify the attack on Iran."The loss of human life, injuries, environmental damage, and destroyed infrastructure is staggering. A Brown University report shows over 900,000 killed directly, with an estimated 3.6 to 3.8 million more dying indirectly, reminding us of the profound human cost and the importance of resisting this cycle of violence. This brings the total death toll to at least 4.5 to 4.7 million lives. Over 38 million people from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria have been displaced in the past 25 years. That is tens of millions of lives forever changed by this decades-long war waged by the United States. The "War on Terror" was never about keeping the citizens of the United States safe. It was about the unchecked growth of power, the expansion of the U.S. empire, the destabilization of the region, and the enrichment of the war economy. The "War on Terror" was a vehicle to use fear to dismantle civil liberties, such as with the PATRIOT Act, paving the way for the surveillance state that tracks our every move today. It was about stoking anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant hatred as a means to divide regular working people, a playbook that politicians and complicit media are continuing to pull from to wage war on countries like Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.At the start of this war, we watched in horror as feminist organizations were cynically trotted out to manufacture consent for the invasion of Afghanistan, wrapping brutal colonialism in the language of women's rights. In November, First Lady Laura Bush had begun framing the war as a mission to "free Afghan women," followed by leaders from Feminist Majority Foundation petitioning the State Department and other senior administration for the "establishment of Democracy" in Afghanistan. They asked the Bush administration to do "everything in their power to restore human rights of Afghan women." In its 2002 spring edition, Ms. Magazine called the invasion a "coalition of hope." The idea that war liberates women was a shameful lie then, and it is a shameful lie now, as it has been used to justify the genocide in Gaza after October 7, 2023, as well as a false provocation for the war on Iran.The utter lack of accountability for what was actually a "Global War of Terror" has paved the way for a Pentagon budget ballooning toward a grotesque $1.5 trillion, and a Homeland Security apparatus that now stalks our streets and executes people in broad daylight, as well as invasive surveillance cameras that spy on the public without cause. And then there's Guantanamo Bay, a torture black site and a monument to lawlessness, still standing open inside a country we are threatening with another invasion. The same impunity that has shielded the architects of the Global War on Terror now emboldens the war criminals behind the genocide in Gaza and the Minab School massacre in Iran. The Global War of Terror did not end. There are currently around 2,500 service members still stationed in Iraq, as well as U.S. access to select military installations, such as Al-Harir Air Base, in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region. Outside of its physical presence, the war of terror became entrenched in the infrastructure of our daily lives. Ending this reign of violence doesn't just mean pulling troops out of a country or closing a few bases; it means dismantling the entire architecture built by the Bush administration that every administration has since expanded. That means cutting the Pentagon budget and reallocating those billions to healthcare, housing, climate justice, and reparations. It means abolishing ICE and DHS. It also means holding those accountable for countless war crimes committed, from the architects of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to the torturers in black sites, to the media who shamefully gave cover for it all. It is time to end the impunity and finally see those behind it all face justice.Like in every war, nobody wins except war criminals and billionaires. We now live in a culture of war, violence, aggression, and dehumanization. The reign of terror cost an estimated 8 trillion dollars, yet the world is no safer today than it was on 9/11. The citizens of the United States not only paid for this with their tax dollars but also live in the constant state of anxiety it has created. Twenty-five years is an entire generation lost to endless war. Today, we mourn the dead, we honor those who resisted and continue to resist, and we recommit to building a world that invests in life, not death. Twenty-five years ago, in the ashes of the September 11th attacks, the United States launched what it called the "Global War on Terror." While the country was afraid and vulnerable, neoconservatives in the Bush administration, like then-Vice President Dick Cheney, saw an opening for expanding empire and U.S. hegemony by selling the country and its allies a story of revenge and "freedom." What they ushered in, however, was a brutal invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq that spanned over two decades, both of which had nothing to do with 9/11. For the past 25 years, the "Global War on Terror" has been used by the United States to wreak havoc in the SWANA region with an endless cycle of violence that has cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars.CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin reflects: "As CODEPINK, we went to Iraq 25 years ago to meet the people our government was preparing to bomb. What haunts me today is not only the devastation of the invasion, but how little accountability there has been for those who lied us into war""and how those same lies are now recycled to justify the attack on Iran."The loss of human life, injuries, environmental damage, and destroyed infrastructure is staggering. A Brown University report shows over 900,000 killed directly, with an estimated 3.6 to 3.8 million more dying indirectly, reminding us of the profound human cost and the importance of resisting this cycle of violence. This brings the total death toll to at least 4.5 to 4.7 million lives. Over 38 million people from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria have been displaced in the past 25 years. That is tens of millions of lives forever changed by this decades-long war waged by the United States. The "War on Terror" was never about keeping the citizens of the United States safe. It was about the unchecked growth of power, the expansion of the U.S. empire, the destabilization of the region, and the enrichment of the war economy. The "War on Terror" was a vehicle to use fear to dismantle civil liberties, such as with the PATRIOT Act, paving the way for the surveillance state that tracks our every move today. It was about stoking anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant hatred as a means to divide regular working people, a playbook that politicians and complicit media are continuing to pull from to wage war on countries like Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.At the start of this war, we watched in horror as feminist organizations were cynically trotted out to manufacture consent for the invasion of Afghanistan, wrapping brutal colonialism in the language of women's rights. In November, First Lady Laura Bush had begun framing the war as a mission to "free Afghan women," followed by leaders from Feminist Majority Foundation petitioning the State Department and other senior administration for the "establishment of Democracy" in Afghanistan. They asked the Bush administration to do "everything in their power to restore human rights of Afghan women." In its 2002 spring edition, Ms. Magazine called the invasion a "coalition of hope." The idea that war liberates women was a shameful lie then, and it is a shameful lie now, as it has been used to justify the genocide in Gaza after October 7, 2023, as well as a false provocation for the war on Iran.The utter lack of accountability for what was actually a "Global War of Terror" has paved the way for a Pentagon budget ballooning toward a grotesque $1.5 trillion, and a Homeland Security apparatus that now stalks our streets and executes people in broad daylight, as well as invasive surveillance cameras that spy on the public without cause. And then there's Guantanamo Bay, a torture black site and a monument to lawlessness, still standing open inside a country we are threatening with another invasion. The same impunity that has shielded the architects of the Global War on Terror now emboldens the war criminals behind the genocide in Gaza and the Minab School massacre in Iran. The Global War of Terror did not end. There are currently around 2,500 service members still stationed in Iraq, as well as U.S. access to select military installations, such as Al-Harir Air Base, in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region. Outside of its physical presence, the war of terror became entrenched in the infrastructure of our daily lives. Ending this reign of violence doesn't just mean pulling troops out of a country or closing a few bases; it means dismantling the entire architecture built by the Bush administration that every administration has since expanded. That means cutting the Pentagon budget and reallocating those billions to healthcare, housing, climate justice, and reparations. It means abolishing ICE and DHS. It also means holding those accountable for countless war crimes committed, from the architects of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to the torturers in black sites, to the media who shamefully gave cover for it all. It is time to end the impunity and finally see those behind it all face justice.Like in every war, nobody wins except war criminals and billionaires. We now live in a culture of war, violence, aggression, and dehumanization. The reign of terror cost an estimated 8 trillion dollars, yet the world is no safer today than it was on 9/11. The citizens of the United States not only paid for this with their tax dollars but also live in the constant state of anxiety it has created. Twenty-five years is an entire generation lost to endless war. Today, we mourn the dead, we honor those who resisted and continue to resist, and we recommit to building a world that invests in life, not death.

September 8, 2026 at 3:37 PM EDT
Trump Proposes Revoking SEC's Decades-Old Pay-to-Play Rule

Trump Proposes Revoking SEC's Decades-Old Pay-to-Play Rule President Donald Trump and his recently appointed U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Aitkins are proposing to rescind the pay-to-play rule. The rule prohibits investment advisers and their officers from making or soliciting campaign contributions above a small threshold to government officials responsible for awarding investment contracts to those advisers for two years prior or during the contracting period. Craig Holman, Ph.D., government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, released the following statement:"In a stunning and completely out-of-the-blue new proposal, President Trump and SEC Chair Aitkins are seeking to overturn a highly successful and decades-old anti-corruption rule. Trump's proposal comes on the heels of - nothing. There have been no new problems with the rule and no new reasons for its repeal, though investment advisers have never particularly cared for it. The effort to rescind the pay-to-play rule is simply the latest extension of the Trump administration canceling ethics rules, especially those that get in the way of the rich getting richer."Back in 1994, then-SEC Chair Arthur Levitt grew fed up with repeated scandals in which investment advisers appeared to be buying government contracts by making large campaign contributions to those responsible for awarding the contracts. Levitt cracked down on this corrupt practice by banning anything but small de minimis contributions from advisers and their associates to those responsible for awarding government investment contracts, which quickly became known as the 'pay-to-play' rule. "The pay-to-play rule remains on the books today because it works. Repealing it is nothing but the most brazen corruption." President Donald Trump and his recently appointed U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Aitkins are proposing to rescind the pay-to-play rule. The rule prohibits investment advisers and their officers from making or soliciting campaign contributions above a small threshold to government officials responsible for awarding investment contracts to those advisers for two years prior or during the contracting period. Craig Holman, Ph.D., government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, released the following statement:"In a stunning and completely out-of-the-blue new proposal, President Trump and SEC Chair Aitkins are seeking to overturn a highly successful and decades-old anti-corruption rule. Trump's proposal comes on the heels of - nothing. There have been no new problems with the rule and no new reasons for its repeal, though investment advisers have never particularly cared for it. The effort to rescind the pay-to-play rule is simply the latest extension of the Trump administration canceling ethics rules, especially those that get in the way of the rich getting richer."Back in 1994, then-SEC Chair Arthur Levitt grew fed up with repeated scandals in which investment advisers appeared to be buying government contracts by making large campaign contributions to those responsible for awarding the contracts. Levitt cracked down on this corrupt practice by banning anything but small de minimis contributions from advisers and their associates to those responsible for awarding government investment contracts, which quickly became known as the 'pay-to-play' rule. "The pay-to-play rule remains on the books today because it works. Repealing it is nothing but the most brazen corruption."

September 8, 2026 at 1:35 PM EDT
Allies' Concrete Action on Settlements Welcome and Necessary

Allies' Concrete Action on Settlements Welcome and Necessary Center for International Policy Executive Vice President Matt Duss issued the following statement in response to new measures announced by the United Kingdom and other US allies in response to Israeli settlement expansion:"Banning the import of settlement goods and sanctioning those who facilitate settlement expansion are welcome, if long overdue, steps toward upholding international law, protecting Palestinian national rights, and advancing regional security. Several countries have announced that they will join the United Kingdom in adopting such measures, which we urge them to consistently enforce. We also applaud the UK's recognition that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful."American lawmakers who seek to uphold the rule of law and pursue a non-violent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should welcome these efforts by some of our closest allies. They should call on the US government to adopt these and similar measures, instead of resisting them. "The decades-long approach of urging Israel to halt settlement expansion, while failing to impose any consequences for it, has been a catastrophic failure. By effectively granting Israel impunity from international consequences, the US has fueled an annexationist movement that openly terrorizes Palestinian communities, forcibly displaces them, and steals their land in full partnership with the Israeli government and armed forces. Make no mistake: Those trying to undermine or penalize the lawful steps rightly taken in response to the occupation are actively abetting this deadly, illegal conquest." Center for International Policy Executive Vice President Matt Duss issued the following statement in response to new measures announced by the United Kingdom and other US allies in response to Israeli settlement expansion:"Banning the import of settlement goods and sanctioning those who facilitate settlement expansion are welcome, if long overdue, steps toward upholding international law, protecting Palestinian national rights, and advancing regional security. Several countries have announced that they will join the United Kingdom in adopting such measures, which we urge them to consistently enforce. We also applaud the UK's recognition that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful."American lawmakers who seek to uphold the rule of law and pursue a non-violent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should welcome these efforts by some of our closest allies. They should call on the US government to adopt these and similar measures, instead of resisting them. "The decades-long approach of urging Israel to halt settlement expansion, while failing to impose any consequences for it, has been a catastrophic failure. By effectively granting Israel impunity from international consequences, the US has fueled an annexationist movement that openly terrorizes Palestinian communities, forcibly displaces them, and steals their land in full partnership with the Israeli government and armed forces. Make no mistake: Those trying to undermine or penalize the lawful steps rightly taken in response to the occupation are actively abetting this deadly, illegal conquest."

September 8, 2026 at 10:02 AM EDT
Public want 'bold' climate action after record-hot summer, polling shows

Public want 'bold' climate action after record-hot summer, polling shows After a summer of heatwaves, wildfires and record-breaking temperatures, new polling has revealed the UK public want Burnham's government to take strong climate action to protect people in schools and hospitals. The More in Common polling, commissioned by investigative climate non-profit Global Witness, revealed high levels of concern about how extreme heat impacts the NHS' ability to treat patients (75%) and schools' ability to teach pupils (63%). When it came to support for targeted climate interventions, 75% of people supported the installation of solar-powered AC in schools and hospitals.Over two thirds (69%) backed a new legal maximum indoor working temperature of 30 Celsius, while 65% thought councils should be required to open free, cool public spaces with air conditioning during heatwaves (65%). NHS doctors have told Global Witness that hospital temperatures became so high during this summer's heatwaves that MRI scanners and CT machines cut out, with waiting times and patient flow affected. Teachers told Global Witness that staff and students fell sick during the extreme heat this summer and reported a lack of clear guidance on school closures or maximum working temperatures. Global Witness says Andy Burnham should foot the bill for climate adaptation and mitigation by fairly taxing the oil and gas industry, who raked in big windfalls from the Iran war this year, after bumper profits following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.Key polling findings75% of the public were concerned about high temperatures' impact on the NHS's ability to treat patients63% were concerned about high temperatures' impact on schools' ability to teach pupils75% support the installation of solar-powered air conditioning in schools and hospitals69% support a new legal maximum indoor working temperature of 30 CelsiusWhen asked who should foot the bill to protect Britain from climate change, the two most popular answers were: government and taxpayers, closely followed by multinational oil and gas corporationsGlobal Witness senior campaigner, Flossie Boyd said:"Our schools and hospitals should be keeping people safe, but this summer many of us lost sleep worrying about our loved ones in baking hot classrooms and wards. "MRI scanners cut out in the heat, teachers reported classrooms hitting 40 degrees and kids have fallen sick in sweltering school buildings. "It's scandalous that as people's lives were put at risk this summer, the oil giants turbo-charging extreme heat were raking in sky-high profits, pushing for more dirty drilling and lower taxes."The climate crisis is here, and bold action is needed to keep people safe. If Burnham wants to stand up for families and working people, he should stand up to oil giants, tax them fairly and use the proceeds to fund the climate preparedness Britain desperately needs - like solar-powered AC to protect the most vulnerable."UNISON head of policy Sampson Low said:"Paramedics, cleaners and other public sector workers have no choice but to carry on when the mercury rises."Extreme heat not only brings a rise in demand for care but can also affect the health of staff. What's needed are thresholds based on evidence. This is for jobs where work can't simply stop when a temperature is reached."Such an approach would allow employers to bring in measures such as extra breaks, more water and ways to cool the work environment."Earlier this year, Global Witness sent thermometers to teachers across the UK to measure excess heat in school classrooms during the mid-June heatwave. Several teachers reported temperatures between 30 and 38 degrees - well above the recommended maximum classroom temperature of 26 degreesC set by the National Education Union.The TUC reignited calls for government to introduce a maximum working temperature this summer, after amber heat alerts in the South of England. They say workers should have the right to stop work if workplace temperatures reach 30C, or 27C for those doing strenuous jobs. After a summer of heatwaves, wildfires and record-breaking temperatures, new polling has revealed the UK public want Burnham's government to take strong climate action to protect people in schools and hospitals. The More in Common polling, commissioned by investigative climate non-profit Global Witness, revealed high levels of concern about how extreme heat impacts the NHS' ability to treat patients (75%) and schools' ability to teach pupils (63%). When it came to support for targeted climate interventions, 75% of people supported the installation of solar-powered AC in schools and hospitals.Over two thirds (69%) backed a new legal maximum indoor working temperature of 30 Celsius, while 65% thought councils should be required to open free, cool public spaces with air conditioning during heatwaves (65%). NHS doctors have told Global Witness that hospital temperatures became so high during this summer's heatwaves that MRI scanners and CT machines cut out, with waiting times and patient flow affected. Teachers told Global Witness that staff and students fell sick during the extreme heat this summer and reported a lack of clear guidance on school closures or maximum working temperatures. Global Witness says Andy Burnham should foot the bill for climate adaptation and mitigation by fairly taxing the oil and gas industry, who raked in big windfalls from the Iran war this year, after bumper profits following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.Key polling findings75% of the public were concerned about high temperatures' impact on the NHS's ability to treat patients63% were concerned about high temperatures' impact on schools' ability to teach pupils75% support the installation of solar-powered air conditioning in schools and hospitals69% support a new legal maximum indoor working temperature of 30 CelsiusWhen asked who should foot the bill to protect Britain from climate change, the two most popular answers were: government and taxpayers, closely followed by multinational oil and gas corporationsGlobal Witness senior campaigner, Flossie Boyd said:"Our schools and hospitals should be keeping people safe, but this summer many of us lost sleep worrying about our loved ones in baking hot classrooms and wards. "MRI scanners cut out in the heat, teachers reported classrooms hitting 40 degrees and kids have fallen sick in sweltering school buildings. "It's scandalous that as people's lives were put at risk this summer, the oil giants turbo-charging extreme heat were raking in sky-high profits, pushing for more dirty drilling and lower taxes."The climate crisis is here, and bold action is needed to keep people safe. If Burnham wants to stand up for families and working people, he should stand up to oil giants, tax them fairly and use the proceeds to fund the climate preparedness Britain desperately needs - like solar-powered AC to protect the most vulnerable."UNISON head of policy Sampson Low said:"Paramedics, cleaners and other public sector workers have no choice but to carry on when the mercury rises."Extreme heat not only brings a rise in demand for care but can also affect the health of staff. What's needed are thresholds based on evidence. This is for jobs where work can't simply stop when a temperature is reached."Such an approach would allow employers to bring in measures such as extra breaks, more water and ways to cool the work environment."Earlier this year, Global Witness sent thermometers to teachers across the UK to measure excess heat in school classrooms during the mid-June heatwave. Several teachers reported temperatures between 30 and 38 degrees - well above the recommended maximum classroom temperature of 26 degreesC set by the National Education Union.The TUC reignited calls for government to introduce a maximum working temperature this summer, after amber heat alerts in the South of England. They say workers should have the right to stop work if workplace temperatures reach 30C, or 27C for those doing strenuous jobs.

September 8, 2026 at 10:01 AM EDT
Cluster Munitions: Ban Treaty Under Pressure

Cluster Munitions: Ban Treaty Under Pressure An increase in civilian deaths and injuries caused by cluster munitions should trigger united action among the 124 countries that are members of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Human Rights Watch said today on the release of the "Cluster Munition Monitor 2026" by the Cluster Munition Coalition. Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the coalition and contributed to the report. The 150-page report assesses all countries' adherence to the 2008 convention. Cluster munitions killed or injured at least 1,063 people globally in 2025. This figure is among the highest annual totals recorded by the Cluster Munition Coalition. The actual number is most likely higher as many casualties go unreported. New casualties were recorded in nine countries in 2025: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Myanmar, Russia, Syria, and Ukraine. Cluster munitions continued to disproportionately affect civilians, whether from direct attacks or the remnants they leave behind. Civilians accounted for 87 percent of casualties recorded for 2025, where the civilian status was recorded."It's critically important for countries to renew their commitment to the international treaty that seeks to rid the world of the scourge of cluster munitions," said Verity Coyle, deputy crisis, conflict and arms director at Human Rights Watch. "The clearest way to do that is for all convention member states to condemn continued production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions."In recent months, both the United States and Turkiye have disclosed plans to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine have used cluster munitions during the war in Ukraine. Lithuania's withdrawal from the treaty, the first member state to do so, became final in March 2025. The country delegations meeting at the convention's Third five-year Review Conference in Vientiane, Laos on September 14-18, 2026, should condemn the production, transfer, and use of cluster munitions by other countries and reaffirm their commitment to pressing for universal support for the ban treaty. Laos hosted the first meeting of states parties to the treaty in 2011. There has been no confirmed use of cluster munitions by any state party since the convention was adopted in May 2008. Cluster munitions were used by non-state parties Iran, Myanmar, Russia, Thailand, and Ukraine during the reporting period of mid-2025 to mid-2026. Iran repeatedly used cluster munitions in Israel in 2026, while Thailand used them in Cambodia in 2025 in the context of their border conflict. Cluster munitions were used in northern Mali in May 2026, but it was not possible to confirm who used the weapons.Cluster munitions can be fired from the ground by artillery, rockets, missiles, or mortars, or they can be dropped by aircraft. They typically open in the air, dispersing multiple explosive submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. Due to their wide area effect, the weapon cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants, especially when they are used in populated areas. In addition, many submunitions fail to explode on initial impact, leaving unexploded duds that can indiscriminately injure and kill""like landmines""for years, until they are found and destroyed.The Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions and requires the clearance of explosive remnants. The Third Review Conference will address the potential for expanding treaty membership, closing funding gaps for explosive ordnance clearance programs, and providing assistance to affected communities. The Convention on Cluster Munitions has 112 states parties and 12 signatories. The most recent country to accede to the treaty was Vanuatu in September 2025. Prior to that, South Sudan and Nigeria were the last countries to become parties, joining in 2023. During the current reporting period there was evidence of cluster munition production in China, India, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, and South Korea. Eighteen countries outside of the treaty actively produce cluster munitions, maintain the capacity to do so, or have not formally committed to never producing them.Approximately US$116 million in international and national funding was provided in 2025 to address the impact of cluster munition contamination in states parties to the convention. The US foreign assistance freeze in February 2025 disrupted the clearance of cluster munition remnants in several regions, notably in Southeast Asia. Subsequent grant terminations reduced clearance capacity in Afghanistan, Iraq, and South Sudan. Other major donors have also begun to reduce allocations and narrowed their geographic focus in response to changing political priorities."In the face of the continued use of cluster munitions and rising civilian casualties, member countries to the convention need to send a clear message that they will stand firm in their commitment to end all use of these indiscriminate weapons," Coyle said.The Cluster Munition Monitor 2026 is the 17th annual monitoring report by the Cluster Munition Coalition, the global coalition of nongovernmental organizations co-founded by Human Rights Watch in 2003. The report will be presented to countries attending the Third Review Conference of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Vientiane, Laos on September 14-18. An increase in civilian deaths and injuries caused by cluster munitions should trigger united action among the 124 countries that are members of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Human Rights Watch said today on the release of the "Cluster Munition Monitor 2026" by the Cluster Munition Coalition. Human Rights Watch is a founding member of the coalition and contributed to the report. The 150-page report assesses all countries' adherence to the 2008 convention. Cluster munitions killed or injured at least 1,063 people globally in 2025. This figure is among the highest annual totals recorded by the Cluster Munition Coalition. The actual number is most likely higher as many casualties go unreported. New casualties were recorded in nine countries in 2025: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Myanmar, Russia, Syria, and Ukraine. Cluster munitions continued to disproportionately affect civilians, whether from direct attacks or the remnants they leave behind. Civilians accounted for 87 percent of casualties recorded for 2025, where the civilian status was recorded."It's critically important for countries to renew their commitment to the international treaty that seeks to rid the world of the scourge of cluster munitions," said Verity Coyle, deputy crisis, conflict and arms director at Human Rights Watch. "The clearest way to do that is for all convention member states to condemn continued production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions."In recent months, both the United States and Turkiye have disclosed plans to transfer cluster munitions to Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine have used cluster munitions during the war in Ukraine. Lithuania's withdrawal from the treaty, the first member state to do so, became final in March 2025. The country delegations meeting at the convention's Third five-year Review Conference in Vientiane, Laos on September 14-18, 2026, should condemn the production, transfer, and use of cluster munitions by other countries and reaffirm their commitment to pressing for universal support for the ban treaty. Laos hosted the first meeting of states parties to the treaty in 2011. There has been no confirmed use of cluster munitions by any state party since the convention was adopted in May 2008. Cluster munitions were used by non-state parties Iran, Myanmar, Russia, Thailand, and Ukraine during the reporting period of mid-2025 to mid-2026. Iran repeatedly used cluster munitions in Israel in 2026, while Thailand used them in Cambodia in 2025 in the context of their border conflict. Cluster munitions were used in northern Mali in May 2026, but it was not possible to confirm who used the weapons.Cluster munitions can be fired from the ground by artillery, rockets, missiles, or mortars, or they can be dropped by aircraft. They typically open in the air, dispersing multiple explosive submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. Due to their wide area effect, the weapon cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants, especially when they are used in populated areas. In addition, many submunitions fail to explode on initial impact, leaving unexploded duds that can indiscriminately injure and kill""like landmines""for years, until they are found and destroyed.The Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions and requires the clearance of explosive remnants. The Third Review Conference will address the potential for expanding treaty membership, closing funding gaps for explosive ordnance clearance programs, and providing assistance to affected communities. The Convention on Cluster Munitions has 112 states parties and 12 signatories. The most recent country to accede to the treaty was Vanuatu in September 2025. Prior to that, South Sudan and Nigeria were the last countries to become parties, joining in 2023. During the current reporting period there was evidence of cluster munition production in China, India, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, and South Korea. Eighteen countries outside of the treaty actively produce cluster munitions, maintain the capacity to do so, or have not formally committed to never producing them.Approximately US$116 million in international and national funding was provided in 2025 to address the impact of cluster munition contamination in states parties to the convention. The US foreign assistance freeze in February 2025 disrupted the clearance of cluster munition remnants in several regions, notably in Southeast Asia. Subsequent grant terminations reduced clearance capacity in Afghanistan, Iraq, and South Sudan. Other major donors have also begun to reduce allocations and narrowed their geographic focus in response to changing political priorities."In the face of the continued use of cluster munitions and rising civilian casualties, member countries to the convention need to send a clear message that they will stand firm in their commitment to end all use of these indiscriminate weapons," Coyle said.The Cluster Munition Monitor 2026 is the 17th annual monitoring report by the Cluster Munition Coalition, the global coalition of nongovernmental organizations co-founded by Human Rights Watch in 2003. The report will be presented to countries attending the Third Review Conference of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Vientiane, Laos on September 14-18.

First * Back * Next * Last