by Jake Johnson | Jan 8, 2026 | Article, Climate, Climate Change, Climate Crisis, Politics and Movements: International, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint, Trump
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Jan. 08, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday withdrew the United States from dozens of international treaties and organizations aimed at promoting cooperation on the world’s most pressing issues, including human rights and the worsening climate emergency.
Among the treaties Trump ditched via a legally dubious executive order was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), making the US—the world’s largest historical emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases—the first country to abandon the landmark agreement.
The US Senate ratified the convention in 1992 by unanimous consent, but lawmakers have repeatedly failed to assert their constitutional authority to stop presidents from unilaterally withdrawing from global treaties.
Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that “Trump cutting ties with the world’s oldest climate treaty is another despicable effort to let corporate fossil fuel interests run our government.”
“Given deeply polarized US politics, it’s going to be nearly impossible for the U.S. to rejoin the UNFCCC with a two-thirds majority vote. Letting this lawless move stand could shut the US out of climate diplomacy forever,” Su warned. “Withdrawing from the world’s leading climate, biodiversity, and scientific institutions threatens all life on Earth.”
Trump also pulled the US out of the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the UN International Law Commission, the UN Democracy Fund, UN Oceans, and dozens of other global bodies, deeming them “contrary to the interests of the United States.”
The president’s move came as he continued to steamroll domestic and international law with an illegal assault on Venezuela and threats to seize Greenland with military force, among other grave abuses.
Below is the full list of international organizations that
by Brad Reed | Jan 7, 2026 | Article, ICE, Politics and Movements: US, Prisons and Policing, Reprint
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Jan. 07, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
This a developing story… Please check back for possible updates… WARNING: This post includes graphic footage of the shooting which some people may find disturbing…
Residents of Minneapolis reacted with fury on Wednesday after a woman was shot and killed by a federal immigration agent.
Emily Heller, a Minneapolis resident who witnessed the shooting, told Minnesota Public Radio that she saw a federal agent confronting a woman who was sitting in her car and telling her to leave the area during an immigration enforcement operation in the neighborhood.
“She was trying to turn around, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent was in front of her car, and he pulled out a gun and put it right in,” Heller told MPR. “And he reached across the hood of the car and shot her in the face like three, four times.”
The identity of the woman shot by the agent has not yet been released, but US Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote in a social media post that the woman was a US citizen.
The senator also said that “ICE should leave now for everyone’s safety.”
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is also demanding that ICE leave the city, according to a post from the city’s official X account.
US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) echoed Smith and Frey’s calls for ICE to get out of Minneapolis.
“ICE must stop terrorizing our communities and leave our city,” she wrote in a social media post.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz released a statement saying that his public safety team “is working to gather information on an ICE related shooting this morning,” while vowing to “share information as we learn more.”
“In the meantime, I ask
by Sharon Zhang | Jan 6, 2026 | Article, Politics and Movements: International, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint, Trump, Venezuela
This story was originally published on Truthout on Jan. 05, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.
Major American news outlets were informed of the Trump administration’s plan to bombard Venezuela and abduct its president ahead of the operation early Saturday morning, but withheld their reporting on the operation to protect the military, Semafor reports.
Both The New York Times and The Washington Post knew about the raid before President Donald Trump approved it on Friday night at 10:46 pm, Semafor reported over the weekend.
However, according to two people familiar with the administration’s communications with the outlets, they “held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering U.S. troops.”
The report raises major questions about the media’s role in the operation, which has been widely condemned as an illegal and authoritarian action by legal experts and foreign leaders; Semafor describes the withholding of coverage as potential “cooperation” with the military by news outlets.
Major news outlets in the U.S. have a history of coordinating with the Pentagon in order to protect military operations.
As Semafor notes, The New York Times reportedly withheld a story about the disastrous Bay of Pigs operation in 1961 before the Cuban invasion at the behest of the Kennedy administration.
There are numerous other such examples. In the mid-2000s, the Times withheld a major report on the National Security Agency’s campaign of warrantless spying on American citizens, Stellar Wind, for a year at the Bush administration’s request.
Most recently, The Atlantic withheld a potential report on a planned U.S. attack on Yemen that was the central focus of Signalgate. That attack, which the magazine’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was notified about two hours in advance, killed 15 people, including six children, one of them a newborn baby.
Goldberg noted that he wasn’t clear about the authenticity
by Jon Queally | Jan 5, 2026 | Article, Oil, Politics and Movements: International, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint, Venezuela
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Jan. 05, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
President Donald Trump on Sunday told reporters that the heads of American oil companies were informed of the US military’s attack on Venezuela—described as “brazenly illegal” by scholars and experts—even before it took place.
Trump’s admission, a renowned liar, sparked condemnation because the administration refused to consult with US lawmakers about the operation, citing fears of a leak that would compromise operational security.
“Before and after,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday when asked if he’d spoken with oil executives or perhaps “tipped them off” about the operation. “They want to go in, and they’re going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela.”
Reporter: Did you speak with the oil companies before the operation? Did you tip them off?Trump: Before and after. They want to go in and they’re going to do a great job. pic.twitter.com/zxOG648Ww0— Acyn (@Acyn) January 5, 2026
Trump’s remarks were condemned by those critical of the president’s actions in recent days, including his failure to consult with or seek authorization from Congress.
“I can’t begin to tell you how insane this is,” said Fred Wellman, an Army combat veteran now running for Congress as a Democrat in Missouri. “He did not inform Congress, but he’s saying he informed the oil companies.”
“Keep in mind who he means,” Wellman added. “The billionaire mega donor that just got control of Citgo. Our service members were used directly to move the interests of Trump’s donors.”
“The oil companies were notified before Congress,” said Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health. “This
by Medea Benjamin | Dec 17, 2025 | Article, Drones, Opinion, Politics and Movements: International, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Dec. 16, 2025. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
In May 2013, as President Barack Obama delivered a major foreign-policy speech in Washington, I managed to slip inside. As he was winding up, I stood and interrupted, condemning his use of lethal drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.
“How can you, a constitutional lawyer, authorize the extrajudicial killing of people—including a 16-year-old American boy in Yemen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki—without charge, without trial, without even an explanation?”
As security dragged me out, Obama responded, “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.” Perhaps my questions touched a chord in his conscience, but the drone attacks did not stop.
Just before that incident, I had returned from Yemen, where a small delegation of us met with Abdulrahman’s grandfather, Nasser al-Awlaki—a dignified man with a PhD from an American university, someone who genuinely believed in the values this country claims to represent. He looked at us, grief etched into his face, and asked, “How can a nation that speaks of law and justice kill an American child without apology, without even a justification?”
Under Obama, drone strikes killed thousands of people. Entire communities lived under the constant terror of buzzing drones—never knowing whether a flash in the sky meant death for them, their children, or the neighbors who ran to help.
We heard these horrors firsthand in 2012, when CODEPINK traveled to Pakistan to meet with victims’ families. A tribal leader from Waziristan described attending a peaceful jirga—a gathering of elders—when a US missile obliterated the meeting. Dozens were instantly killed. As survivors rushed to help the wounded, a second missile struck.
Forty-two people died, including elders
by Dean Baker | Dec 16, 2025 | Article, Economy and Inequality, health care, Opinion, Politics and Movements: US, Reprint
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Dec. 16, 2025. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
During his first term, after repeatedly promising the country a terrific healthcare plan, Donald Trump famously commented, “Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” In fact, everyone who spent even a few minutes looking at the issue knew that healthcare was complicated. That is why Obamacare ended up being a hodgepodge that was pasted together to extend healthcare coverage as widely as possible. It is also the reason Trump and the Republicans never produced a healthcare plan in Trump’s first term.
The basic problem is that healthcare costs are hugely skewed. Ten percent of the population accounts for more than 60% of total spending, and just 1% accounts for 20% of spending. Most people have relatively low healthcare costs. The trick with healthcare is paying for small number of people who do have high costs.
Individual Choice, Cherry-Picking the Pool, and Screwing Cancer Survivors
The Republicans in Congress, along with Trump on alternate days, are pushing plans that are supposed to give choice to individuals and somehow take it away from insurers. It’s not clear what they think they are saying. They seem to still envision that people will buy insurance, as they do now in the Obamacare exchanges, but somehow that they will have more control in the Republican option.
There is one story they could envision, which would make it much easier for insurers to skew their pool. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) restricted what sort of plans could be offered in the exchanges in order to limit the ability for insurers to avoid high-cost individuals.
It would be possible to relax
