Top World News

Last month, some House members publicly acknowledged that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. It’s a judgment that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch unequivocally proclaimed a year ago. Israeli human-rights organizations have reached the same conclusion. But such clarity is sparse in Congress.And no wonder. Genocide denial is needed for continuing to appropriate billions of dollars in weapons to Israel, as most legislators have kept doing. Congress members would find it very difficult to admit that Israeli forces are committing genocide while voting to send them more weaponry.Three weeks ago, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) introduced a resolution titled “Recognizing the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza.” Twenty-one House colleagues, all of them Democrats, signed on as co-sponsors. They account for 10 percent of the Democrats in Congress.In sharp contrast, a national Quinnipiac Poll found that 77 percent of Democrats “think Israel is committing genocide.” That means there is a 67 percent gap between what the elected Democrats are willing to say and what the people who elected them believe. The huge gap has big implications for the party’s primaries in the midterm elections next year, and then in the race for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.One of the likely candidates in that race, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), is speaking out in ways that fit with the overwhelming views of Democratic voters. “I agree with the UN commission's heartbreaking finding that there is a genocide in Gaza,” he tweeted as autumn began. “What matters is what we do about it – stop military sales that are being used to kill civilians and recognize a Palestinian state.” Consistent with that position, the California congressman was one of the score of Democrats who signed on as co-sponsors of Tlaib’s resolution the day it was introduced.In the past, signers of such a resolution would have reason to fear the wrath — and the electoral muscle — of AIPAC, the Israel-can-do-no-wrong lobby. But its intimidation power is waning. AIPAC’s support for Israel does not represent the views of the public, a reality that has begun to dawn on more Democratic officeholders.“With American support for the Israeli government’s management of the conflict in Gaza undergoing a seismic reversal, and Democratic voters’ support for the Jewish state dropping off steeply, AIPAC is becoming an increasingly toxic brand for some Democrats on Capitol Hill,” the New York Times reported this fall. Notably, “some Democrats who once counted AIPAC among their top donors have in recent weeks refused to take the group’s donations.”Khanna has become more and more willing to tangle with AIPAC, which is now paying for attack ads against him. On Thanksgiving, he tweeted about Gaza and accused AIPAC of “asking people to disbelieve what they saw with their own eyes.” Khanna elaborated in a campaign email days ago, writing: “Any politician who caves to special interests on Gaza will never stand up to special interests on corruption, healthcare, housing, or the economy. If we can’t speak with moral clarity when thousands of children are dying, we won’t stand for working Americans when corporate power comes knocking.”AIPAC isn’t the only well-heeled organization for Israel now struggling with diminished clout. Democratic Majority for Israel, an offshoot of AIPAC that calls itself “an American advocacy group that supports pro-Israel policies within the United States Democratic Party,” is now clearly misnamed. Every bit of recent polling shows that in the interests of accuracy, the organization should change its name to “Democratic Minority for Israel.”Yet the party’s leadership remains stuck in a bygone era. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, typifies how disconnected so many party leaders are from the actual views of Democratic voters. Speaking in Brooklyn three months ago, she flatly claimed that “nine out of 10 Democrats are pro-Israel.” She did not attempt to explain how that could be true when more than seven out of 10 Democrats say Israel is guilty of genocide.The political issue of complicity with genocide will not go away.Last week, Amnesty International released a detailed statement documenting that “Israeli authorities are still committing genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, by continuing to deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.” But in Congress, almost every Republican and a large majority of Democrats remain stuck in public denial about Israel’s genocidal policies.Such denial will be put to the electoral test in Democratic primaries next year, when most incumbents will face an electorate far more morally attuned to Gaza than they are. What easily passes for reasoned judgment and political smarts in Congress will seem more like cluelessness to many Democratic activists and voters who can provide reality checks with their ballots.Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his book War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine includes an afterword about the Gaza war.

The family of a Colombian fisherman has filed a formal complaint accusing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of murder.Alejandro Andres Carranza Medina was killed Sept. 15 in a U.S. military strike on a boat in the Caribbean, and the 42-year-old fisherman's wife and four children filed the complaint Tuesday with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) alleging the United States committed human rights violations in an “extra-judicial killing," reported The Guardian.“From numerous news reports, we know that Pete Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of Defense, was responsible for ordering the bombing of boats like those of Alejandro Carranza Medina and the murder of all those on such boats," reads the filing. "Secretary Hegseth has admitted that he gave such orders despite the fact that he did not know the identity of those being targeted for these bombings and extra-judicial killings.""U.S. President Donald Trump has ratified the conduct of Secretary Hegseth described herein," the filing adds.The family's lawyer, Daniel Kovalik, told the Washington Post that the man's wife and children had been left without their breadwinner and were also facing threats after speaking out about his killing.“Their world has been turned upside down,” Kovalik said.Carranza was killed in the second missile strike of the Trump administration's bombing campaign against alleged drug smuggling boats, but his family said he was a fisherman who trolled the water for marlin and tuna.“This morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility," Trump posted on Truth Social the day Carranza was killed.The president claimed the crew of that boat was from Venezuela, but the Colombian government soon identified them as Colombian.“We think this is a viable way to challenge the killing of Alejandro," Kovalik said. "We are going to seek redress for the family. We want the US to be ordered to stop doing these boat attacks. It may be a first step but we think it it’s a good first step.”Carranza's family is seeking compensation, although their attorney acknowledged the IACHR doesn't have the authority to enforce its recommendations.“They also want the killings to stop,” Kovalik said. “We hope that this can be at least part of the process of getting that to happen.”Hegseth is facing scrutiny over his verbal directive that led to the killing of two survivors of the first boat strike, on Sept. 2, and the Carranza family's IACHR complaint cited Washington Post reporting on that incident.

Conservative pundit Walter Curt argued that President Donald Trump should invade Venezuela after the country's president, Nicolás Maduro, sang John Lennon's "Imagine" as a call for peace."I believe that an attack on a drug cartel stronghold on the ground in Venezuela is imminent," Real America's Voice host Jake Novak told Curt on Monday before playing a clip of Maduro singing a line from "Imagine.""Let it be known across the world, though, that a sure way to provoke military action is to sing John Lennon's 'Imagine,' which I think is actually necessary," Curt argued. "The moment I saw this, but whenever this first came out, I said, all right, double the bounty, send the Marines.""I think there's a major play we're making down there for the entire region by going out of Venezuela," he noted. "Everyone seems to forget that Venezuela also has, you know, the world's largest oil reserves.""But, you know, any time you're singing John Lennon's 'Imagine,' I think you should immediately be invaded by the Marines, paratroopers. Send 'em all."

Shocking as this moment is, none of us should pretend we weren’t warned. When Donald Trump installed Pete Hegseth — a television provocateur whose public record is soaked in belligerence, booze, and culture-war performance — as America’s Defense Secretary, the world could see exactly where it was headed.Still, nothing prepared us for the Washington Post revelation that Hegseth personally ordered U.S. forces to “kill everybody” on a small wooden boat off the coast of Trinidad on Sept. 2.You’d expect rogue militias or failed-state paramilitaries to speak that way. You don’t expect it from the man running the Pentagon.What the Post reports is almost too grotesque to absorb.After the first U.S. missile ripped the boat apart and set it burning, commanders watched on a live drone feed as two survivors clung desperately to the charred wreckage.They were unarmed. They were wounded. They were no threat to anyone. They were simply alive; inconveniently alive for a man who had allegedly already given the order that there be no survivors.And so, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the strike, the Special Operations commander overseeing the operation ordered a second missile. It hit the water and blew those two men apart.History tells us to watch out for nations that lose their moral compass in real time.It starts when the powerful stop seeing human beings as human. It accelerates when the government itself denies any obligation to justify its killings.And when leaders begin lying to Congress and the public to cover what they’ve done, you’re no longer looking at isolated abuses. You’re staring straight into the machinery of authoritarianism.Instead of telling Congress that the second strike was designed to finish off wounded survivors, Pentagon officials claimed it was to “remove a navigation hazard.”That isn’t just spin: it’s an attempt to rewrite reality.The Post quotes Todd Huntley, a former Special Operations military lawyer now at Georgetown Law, saying exactly what any first-year law student would immediately recognize: because the U.S. is not legally “at war” with drug traffickers, killing the people on that boat “amounts to murder.”Even if a war did exist, Huntley notes, the order to kill wounded, unarmed survivors “would in essence be an order to show no quarter,” which is defined under the Geneva Conventions as a war crime.This isn’t an obscure legal debate. This is basic civilization. Armed states do not execute helpless people in the water.And yet this is now U.S. policy. The boat strike on Sept. 2 was not a one-off. It was the beginning of a campaign.The Post reports that since that first attack, Trump and Hegseth have ordered more than 20 similar missile strikes on small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing at least 80 people.The administration insists the victims were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. But in classified briefings to Congress, Pentagon officials have not provided even one single verified name of a trafficker or gang leader they’ve killed. Lawmakers from both parties say they’ve been shown nothing beyond grainy videos of small boats being destroyed from the air.If these men had truly been high-value cartel operatives, Trump would be parading names and photos across every rally stage in America. The silence tells its own story.Experts warn that many of the dead may not have been traffickers at all. They may have been border-crossing migrants, subsistence fishermen, or small-scale smugglers whose crimes did not remotely justify summary execution.International human rights groups are already calling these killings extrajudicial and illegal. Some foreign governments are asking whether the United States has effectively created a free-fire zone over parts of the Caribbean, and several have limited intelligence sharing with us for fear of being complicit in prosecutable war crimes and crimes against humanity.This, too, has been part of the authoritarian playbook since ancient times.Pick a foreign or criminal “other,” paint them as subhuman monsters, and then declare that the normal laws of war, morality, and basic decency no longer apply.For years, right-wing media has been hyping Tren de Aragua as a kind of supercharged successor to MS-13, just as Trump once used MS-13 as a bludgeon to justify abuses at home.The fact that the administration has produced no evidence for its claims isn’t a bug: it’s the point. When the government fabricates an omnipresent threat, it gives itself permission to kill whoever it wants.This may also explain the ferocity with which Hegseth and Trump went after Democratic lawmakers when they reminded U.S. service members that they are duty-bound to disobey illegal orders.Those officers weren’t being dramatic: they were issuing a warning grounded in fresh blood. And Hegseth’s and Trump’s panicked rage — calling for the death penalty for six members of Congress, including a decorated war hero and a CIA officer — now makes perfect sense: he knows perfectly well what he’s already ordered.The strike on Sept. 2 is not just a policy failure; it’s a moral collapse. If the Post’s reporting is accurate — and multiple congressional offices say it is consistent with what whistleblowers have told them — then the United States has engaged in the deliberate killing of wounded, unarmed men floating in the sea.That is the kind of conduct that topples governments, triggers war-crimes investigations, and leaves scars on nations for generations.Nobody elected Trump or Hegseth to serve as judge, jury, and executioner for impoverished people in wooden boats. Nobody gave them the authority to murder suspects without trial. And nobody gave them the right to lie to Congress about it.Congress must not let this pass. These allegations demand immediate public hearings, subpoena power, and full investigative authority.If Hegseth gave an order to “kill everybody,” he must be removed and prosecuted.If U.S. commanders falsified reports to mislead Congress and the public, they must be held accountable.And if Trump approved or encouraged these actions, then impeachment and criminal referral are not optional: they’re required to defend the rule of law.America doesn’t have many chances left to prove to the world, and to ourselves, that we still believe in the value of human life and the restraints of democratic power. This is one of them.

I’ve been struggling to imagine Elon Musk might do if he gets his trillion-dollar payday. He could spend a million dollars a day for 3,000 years. Or, more realistically, $100 million a day for 30 years. He could spend the $290 million he invested in Donald Trump’s re-election and do it 3,400 times, wherever and whenever he pleases. Or buy more media properties, spending up to 20 times the $44 billion it took to buy Twitter and make it into a misinformation swamp, key to Trump’s success.But the money the Tesla board just handed Musk isn’t guaranteed. He has to meet goals like delivering 20 million Tesla vehicles and dramatically increasing Tesla’s stock price. Ordinary citizens can prevent that, but we need to take our efforts to another level.The global Tesla Takedown campaign has spearheaded the challenges to Musk with protests at showrooms and charging stations. So signs, chants, music, inflatable animals, and a clear message that driving a Tesla means supporting all that Trump and Musk have done. They brought people out who’d never participated before and, as people have followed their lead globally, helped: Drop European Tesla sales nearly 40 percent in a year. Drop US sales 19 percent from two years ago, despite lowering prices and margins.Despite EV sales increasing overall, drive Tesla’s US share to an eight-year low,. Led Cybertrucks to sell just 16,000 in the US through September, despite Musk saying they’d sell 250,000 and having his other companies buy them. Drop Tesla’s stock price to 71 percent from its January high, before rebounding in part due to third quarter sales, when people grabbed EV’s of all kinds to buy them before Trump’s tax bill ended the $7,500 tax credits.The campaign did lose some momentum after DOGE, and as Musk left the White House and feuded with Trump. Musk became less visible and maybe seemed less toxic. But he just joined fellow tech lords at a lavish White House dinner for Saudi prince Mohammed bin Salman, bone saws optional. And he’s continued promoting ultra-right wing parties globally, like the German Alternative für Deutschland, while his Grokipedia praises White Supremacists and French Grok promotes Holocaust denial. Add to that an estimated 400,000 children and 200,000 adults who’ve died because of DOGE’s USAID cuts. Whether Musk gains or loses power remains hugely consequential. Tesla showroom protests remain a powerful way for citizens everywhere to push back. But they need to put more energy into engaging America’s 2 million existing Tesla drivers as allies, by asking them to display anti-Musk stickers, magnets, or vinyl decals. Without them, Teslas on the street function as de facto advertisements. People see the cars. It’s the EV brand people have heard of most and their owners seem content. Their presence seems uncontroversial, and they do have a great charging network, so why not buy one if you’re considering an EV.But when Teslas display anti-Elon statements, this changes the message. “I BOUGHT THIS BEFORE ELON WENT CRAZY.” “HERE FOR THE CLIMATE, NOT ELON.” “ANTI-ELON TESLA CLUB.” “FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS BUY NEW TESLAS.” Such stickers proclaim clearly that drivers bought the cars to help address climate change, not to promote would-be dictators. When most bought their cars, Musk really was an environmental hero, particularly when Tesla also bought the leading rooftop solar installer, Solar City. The bumper stickers, magnets and decals make clear that the drivers won’t buy a Tesla again, and neither should others. They become rolling advertisements against purchasing the car.Tesla Takedown has sometimes linked to particularly clever stickers. But their prime push for existing Tesla owners is to pressure them to sell their cars to undercut new sales. That’s fine when it happens. But especially with Trump killing EV credits, switching to a new equivalent EV, like replacing any car, is costly. Like $5,000-10,000 costly, despite all the great new EVs on the market. Most Tesla owners won’t switch just to make the political point, and that cuts them off as potential participants in the campaign. The bumper sticker approach invites them in.If the anti-Tesla campaign and its volunteers want to enlist more existing Tesla owners, they could:Highlight links to inexpensive stickers, magnets, and decals that anti-Tesla activists could send to or give to friends with Teslas. They can even ask vendors to add Tesla Takedown QR codes.Post template letters and emails that people can send friends and neighbors who own Teslas. Or, where legal, put them under Tesla windshields.Publicize alternatives. We bought a Chevy Bolt for $20,000 after the $7,500 tax credits that Musk has now helped kill, and it’s been great.Press companies and municipalities not cancel Tesla fleet orders, boycott Starlink, support alternatives to Tesla high speed charging stations, and to have their pension funds divest from the company. The latter might also ell pay off financially — even Peter Thiel just sold three-quarters of his holdings.The campaign is pushing on those more institutional demands, but the more they existing Tesla owners they can bring in, the more impact they’ll have. If we want to limit Elon’s destructive power, the Tesla owners can play a key role Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While, with nearly 300,000 copies in print between them

I just want to put up top that this story is about what it sounds like, which is fantastical and like something out of a spy thriller, and yet there’s nothing we can put past this administration. But it’s also about how The New York Times missed — or chose to ignore — a story staring it right in the face.When I read reports last weekend about how Jair Bolsonaro, the Brazilian president who’d been sentenced to home confinement after being convicted in a notorious coup plot, had been arrested after an attempted escape, the first person I thought about was Donald Trump.Trump, of course, is Bolsonaro’s best buddy and fellow authoritarian coup-plotter who, unfortunately for us, was indicted but never convicted because he became president again and killed the cases against himself. And since becoming president, Trump has spent months railing against Brazil and its Supreme Court — even imposing 50 percent tariffs on the country as retribution — demanding Brazil’s current president release Bolsonaro.But that wasn’t the only reason I thought about Trump. Reports about Bolsonaro’s arrest focused on how his ankle monitor was breached after midnight, and security forces immediately detained him, putting him in a pretty cushy jail, under orders from a judge on the Brazilian Supreme Court who noted that Bolsonaro lives close to the U.S. embassy. Bolsonaro had in early 2024 slept in the embassy of Hungary — where another authoritarian buddy, Victor Orbán, is president — in what authorities believe was an attempt to evade arrest.I couldn’t help but think the judge and law enforcement might be aware of a plot involving the U.S., and I discussed it on my SiriusXM show on Monday, speculating that it could have been an attempt by Bolsonaro to get to the U.S. embassy and get asylum from the U.S., which, under Trump, would give it to him.It wasn’t until Tuesday that I actually saw the video from later in the day on Saturday of Trump, heading to his chopper at the White House, being asked questions by reporters about Bolsonaro, which you can watch right here.At first, Trump clearly seems not to catch that the reporter is asking about Bolsonaro being arrested the night before and instead thinks it’s just a general question of some sort about his dictator pal.TRUMP: So I spoke last to the person you just referred to, and we’re going to be meeting, I believe, in the very near future.Reporter: Sir, are you aware about the president being arrested today?Trump responds with what is clearly shock, sticking his head out .TRUMP: What?!Reporter: I’m talking about the former Brazilian president being arrested today.TRUMP: No, I don’t know anything about that.Trump seems a bit stunned, and again says, “I don’t know anything about it,” before asking the reporter, “Is that what happened?”Then he kind of grimaces, and says, “That’s too bad,” and repeats again, “I Just think it’s too bad.”The Times published a story about the latest on Bolsonaro’s arrest, but it oddly focused up top on how Trump, supposedly learning the limits of his power, doesn’t have as much interest in Bolsonaro as he used to, and it quoted from the exchange with reporters — but only the part where he says “That’s too bad,” and not the part where he says he just spoke to Bolsonaro:“That’s too bad.”It was a telling response from President Trump on Saturday when he learned the news from reporters that his once close ally, the former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, had just been arrested.Did he have any thoughts?“No,” Mr. Trump replied. “I just think it’s too bad.”What a difference a few months make.In July, Mr. Trump sent an angry letter to the current Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, demanding that the authorities drop charges that Mr. Bolsonaro had attempted a coup. Mr. Trump slapped 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian imports and imposed sanctions on a Brazilian Supreme Court justice to try to keep Mr. Bolsonaro — a right-wing politician sometimes called the Trump of the Tropics — out of prison.Five months later, Mr. Trump has all but admitted defeat.This ia a very strange framing. It completely omits what Trump said before he said “That’s too bad.”Trump said he’d just spoken with Bolsonaro the night before. And said he they were going to be meeting “very soon.”How would Trump be able to meet Bolsonaro in home confinement in Brazil?And how did the Times not catch what would otherwise throw cold water on the framing of its story? After all, far from forgetting about Bolsonaro, Trump was very much thinking about Bolsonaro, having just spoken to him and planning to see him “soon.”Thankfully, the always sharp Rachel Maddow proved I was not crazy and being conspiratorial. Because when I did a search this morning, after seeing the video, I found that she indeed covered this on her MS Now program, raising all the right questions even as she pointed to what fantastical plot this would be if true.But where is the rest of the media, and why did the Times not home in on Trump’s highly interesting comments, instead making it appear as if Trump had been giving up on Bolsonaro?Michelangelo Signorile writes The Signorile Report, a free and reader-supported Substack. If you’ve valued reading The Signorile Report, consider becoming a paid subscriber and supporting independent, ad-free opinion journalism.

Ukrainians know Donald Trump’s Ukraine deal is a betrayal, even if Volodymyr Zelensky and others have to keep flattering Trump in the hope he changes his mind. Negotiated between American billionaire Steve Witkoff and Russian oligarch Kirill Dmitriev without Ukrainian or European participation, the proposed deal gives Russia even more territory, forces Ukraine to shrink its army, and prevents the country joining NATO. Its guarantees of future Ukraine security could easily melt away as did those Russia, the US and European nations made when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. The treaty is culmination of Trump’s undermining of Ukraine, from his first cancellations of Biden-era military support to validating Valdimir Putin’s claims to Ukrainian territory.It’s tempting to simply mourn, but those of us who’ve opposed Russia’s invasion from the start can do more than just play the role of passive spectators, particularly with the Europeans stepping up to make clear they’ll have Ukraine’s back and to push back with a plan of their own. For all of Trump’s claimed deadlines. Ukraine is not going to simply accept, and may not at all. And while they’re negotiating, supporters of Ukraine and especially Ukrainian Americans, could and should organize nationally coordinated rallies calling on Trump to support Ukraine and not Putin. And making clear the kinds of support that would strengthen Ukraine’s hand. And while they’re coming up with counter-proposals, supporters of Ukraine, and especially Ukrainian Americans, could and should organize nationally coordinated rallies calling on Trump to support Ukraine and not Putin. And making clear the kinds of support that would strengthen Ukraine’s hand. These demonstrations should be led by Ukrainian Americans, whose families and futures are most directly affected. But they could also prominently engage other Eastern European communities — Polish, Latvian, Finnish, and others — whose homelands are also threatened by Russian aggression, and who become far more vulnerable if Ukraine accepts this deal. These communities bring powerful stories, deep networks, and shared stakes in the outcome. They recognize that Ukrainians are fighting both for them and for everyone who believes in democracy. Demonstration organizers can invite them to speak, co-create messaging, and amplify the call across media and social platforms. Broader outreach — such as to the networks that mobilized an estimated 7 million people for the October No Kings Day — could expand the size and impact. But the core message should remain rooted in the voices of those on the front lines of this geopolitical struggle.The slogans can be simple and direct: Don't Abandon Ukraine. Stand Against Putin. Stand with Ukraine and Democracy. The goal would be to pressure once-supportive Republicans to break their silent compliance and themselves demand restoration of at least baseline levels of aid. It would be about making the political cost of inaction too high to ignore — an easier task in the wake of GOP electoral defeats, as Trump’s poll numbers hit new lows, and as Republicans begin to break on the Epstein files.These rallies would also send a message to Trump himself. He’s refused to authorize new U.S. support, alternately halted and resumed the delivery of previously committed air defense systems and artillery ammunition, and lamented Russia’s expulsion from the G8 for its 2014 Crimea seizure, something he wants to reverse in the new treaty. Despite occasional tough sounding words, he’s given Putin far more leverage both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. Ukraine may still prevail with courage, persistence, creativity, increased European support. But Trump’s general abandonment makes the Ukrainian situation far harder, even as the war-burdened Russian economy faces 20 percent interest rates, 10 percent inflation, and key labor shortages.Could rallies and marches still make a difference? Ukrainian and other Eastern European communities have historically leaned Republican, giving them unique leverage. When economic interests have pressured Trump, he’s reversed course on tariffs and on immigration raids targeting farmworkers and hotel workers. Nixon-era anti-Vietnam demonstrations helped halt bombing raids and accelerated troop withdrawals — even as Nixon claimed they had no affect. There are no guarantees. But coordinated, visible action could restore at least some of the support for Ukraine that Trump pulled, and shift him back in his weather vane-spin towards supporting Kyiv and not Moscow. At the very least, action would give Ukrainian Americans and their allies a way to speak out while the fate of Ukraine hangs in the balance, because publicly they’ve been much too silent. Hope alone is not a strategy. But when people organize with a common voice, they never know what they might achieve.Paul Loeb is author of Soul of a Citizen, The Impossible Will take a Little While, and three other books on social change, totaling 350,000 copies in print. An earlier version appeared in The Fulcrum

A new lawsuit against a cryptocurrency company whose billionaire founder was recently pardoned of federal crimes by President Donald Trump argued that the firm "knowingly" helped finance the Oct. 7, 2021, attack on Israel by Hamas, Reuters reported on Monday.The firm, Binance, serves as an exchange for cryptocurrency trading, and was the primary competitor to FTX before the latter firm was implicated in a fraud scheme by its CEO and declared bankruptcy in 2022."According to a complaint made public on Monday, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange laundered money for Hamas even after pleading guilty in November 2023 and paying a $4.32 billion criminal penalty for violating federal anti-money-laundering and sanctions laws," reported Reuters.The plaintiffs, who include 306 American victims and relatives of victims, "accused Binance of knowingly enabling Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Iran's Revolutionary Guard to move more than $1 billion through its platform, including more than $50 million after the October 7 attack," according to the report."Binance intentionally structured itself as a refuge for illicit activity," the complaint said. "To this day, there is no indication that Binance has meaningfully altered its core business model."Binance's former CEO and founder, Changpeng Zhao, pleaded guilty to money laundering charges in 2023. Earlier this year, Trump gave him a full pardon, claiming that he was politically targeted by the Biden administration.However, that pardon came after Binance spent months promoting a stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture owned by Trump family members that has netted them over $1 billion in profit.