02 February 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Can we agree, at least here, that COVID is not over?
Thousands of people are dying every day in this country, not to mention the rest of the world. And even when, hopefully sooner rather than later, the case counts dwindle, COVID will still remain with us.
It will speak to us in a generation of loss and pain.
It will linger in those suffering from long COVID.
It will reappear in the aftershocks of disruption.
It will fester in the tragic fraying of our social fabric.
But the suffering will be particularly acute for those who have lost loved ones. I especially pray for the children, young and old, who will never again hear a parent say, “I love you.” To even write these words brings a shudder to the soul.
The numbers of the deceased are so mind-numbing that those of us who have been lucky not to see death up close risk losing sight of the human dimension of this global tragedy.
We need to guard against that, and make sure that neither us nor the world forgets what has transpired.
These thoughts flooded forth when we came across a string of tweets from a courageous woman we follow on Twitter. Pamela Addison lost her husband Martin, a health care worker, to COVID early in the pandemic. He was 44 years old and left behind two very young children.
We asked if we could share her story here with you, and she graciously agreed.
Tragedy has been compounded by those who have politicized death without empathy or shame.
The burden of this pandemic has been borne unevenly - especially for health care workers (HCW).
Cruel lies exacerbate the pain.
Imagine living a personal tragedy and being told your pain isn’t real.
Empathy and kindness are the least we can give to those who are suffering.
Please keep Pamela, her children, her family, and all those who are similarly suffering in your thoughts and prayers. In the comments section here let us provide her and others who are grieving with our love and support.
If you also have lost loved ones or want to share your own stories, please do so if you feel comfortable. And let us remember that pain and grief come in many forms, and many are touched in ways that might not be apparent. So please reach out to others to see how they’re doing, and let people know if you are in need of help.
Let us stare directly into the pain, together. Let us acknowledge its reality. Let us build upon strength that can come from a community of support and empathy.
Health care professionals have been, and continue to be, heroes. They are frontline soldiers in the war against this deadly virus. So are those who stocked shelves and kept supply lines running. We also owe a deep debt to the scientists who rushed to understand this elusive killer and developed vaccines, treatments, and tests.
These are the armies of helpers who have served tour after tour of duty, often putting their own health at risk while facing cruel hostility from those they sought to help. And they are the ones who will be called again - for the next variant, or the next pandemic.
We need a national movement to honor these heroes. We need memorials to tell their story to future generations. We need their children and loved ones to feel the warmth of our appreciation. We need to let them know that their heroes are our heroes, and that they are remembered and cherished.
I don’t know if it’s parades of thanks, a day of mourning, a national teach-in. I am not so naive as to be blind to the fact that such efforts will be met with resistance or even belligerence. But we cannot be deterred. It is up to us to raise up our voices to drown out those who will sow hate. We can demonstrate that from the soil of heartbreak we can cultivate flowers of hope and remembrance.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman arrives to testify before the House Intelligence Committee in November 2019 during the impeachment inquiry against former President Donald Trump. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)
According to the 73-page complaint, Vindman’s lawsuit “seeks long-overdue accountability for unlawful actions knowingly undertaken by close associates and allies” of Trump, alleging that they “engaged in an intentional, concerted campaign of unlawful intimidation and retaliation against [Vindman] to prevent him from and then punish him for testifying truthfully before Congress during impeachment proceedings against President Trump.”
Those named as defendants in Vindman’s lawsuit include Donald Trump Jr., Trump’s eldest son; former Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani; former White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino; and former White House deputy communications director Julia Hahn. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which makes it unlawful to conspire to interfere with a federal official’s ability to carry out the duties of their office or to interfere with any witness’s ability to testify.
Vindman, who was formerly the National Security Council’s expert on Ukraine, had listened to a July 2019 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and his ties to Ukrainian businesses, in exchange for an official White House visit by Zelensky and military aid. Vindman reported the call through official channels, and Trump’s alleged attempts to pressure Ukraine into political investigations would later become the basis of his first impeachment and Senate trial.
Congress issued a subpoena to Vindman, who testified in an impeachment inquiry about his concerns over Trump’s actions involving Ukraine. According to his lawsuit, Vindman immediately became the target of a witness-intimidation campaign by Trump and his allies that “did not simply happen by accident or coincidence.”
Representatives for Trump Jr. and Giuliani did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Vindman alleges that Trump and his allies coordinated strategies regarding impeachment witnesses, propagated false narratives about Vindman’s loyalty to the United States, and leaked classified information to further their false narratives. They also publicly removed Vindman and his twin brother, a former National Security Council attorney, from their White House jobs and sought to derail Vindman’s promotion to full colonel.
“Defendants’ campaign against Lt. Col. Vindman was designed to inflict maximum damage by creating and spreading disinformation that they knew would be picked up and amplified by anchors at Fox News, other right-wing media outlets, and across social media — all while Lt. Col. Vindman’s active duty status prevented him from effectively defending himself,” the complaint states.
Hahn, for instance, would channel Trump’s “preferred messaging to surrogates and chosen media partners (including, on information and belief, Laura Ingraham and others at Fox News),” his complaint alleges, noting a “unique interdependence and high level of coordination between the [Trump] White House and Fox News.”
The complaint also includes captured images of Trump’s previous tweets insinuating that there would be “Big Consequences” for people within his administration who provided information on the Zelensky telephone call.
What’s more, Vindman’s complaint noted, the campaign to tarnish Vindman’s reputation encouraged Trump’s supporters to attack Vindman in “even more dangerous and frightening ways,” including with physical threats to him and his family.
As a result of the “bullying” and “intimidation” campaign, Vindman said he was left with no choice but to retire from the military in 2020.
“The actions taken by Defendants against Lt. Col. Vindman sent a message to other potential witnesses as well: cooperate and tell the truth at your own peril,” the complaint states. That message “reverberates to this day,” with several Trump allies subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol continuing to defy those subpoenas. The former president has urged his allies and former aides to stonewall the panel.
According to the complaint, Vindman is seeking unspecified compensation “for the injuries he suffered as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct,” as well as other punitive damages and legal fees. Vindman alleges that he and his family suffered “significant reputational, emotional and financial harm” because of Trump and his allies’ actions, as well as from the public attacks. The attacks on his service and loyalty to the United States also prevented him from pursuing the kind of career for which he had expertise, he alleges.
In a guest column Wednesday for USA Today, Vindman wrote that his life took “a dramatic and unexpected turn” when he listened to a July 2019 phone call during which Trump made “inappropriate and possibly unlawful demands of a foreign leader.”
“I don’t regret telling the truth either in private or during the public impeachment hearings,” Vindman wrote. “I did what I was trained and obligated to do as a longtime member of the U.S. Army and a federal official.”
The Democratic-controlled House impeached Trump in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. In February 2020, the Republican-led Senate voted to acquit the president.
Ammon Bundy speaks to a crowd of about 50 followers in front of the Ada County Courthouse Saturday, April 3, 2021 in Downtown Boise. (photo: Darin Oswald/AP)
Anti-Defamation League list includes at least a dozen with links to white supremacists, anti-government extremists and Proud Boys
Aside from those expressing extremist rhetoric and far-right views, the ADL has found at least a dozen of the candidates had explicit connections to ‘“white supremacists, anti-government extremists and members of the far-right Proud Boys”. It includes primary challengers running to the right of some sitting Republicans.
In Arkansas’s third district Neil Kumar, who the ADL found has written for white supremacist publications, is challenging the incumbent congressman, Steve Womack, who broke with Republicans in voting in favor of creating the January 6 commission to investigate the Capitol attack. The openly racist views of Kumar prompted the Arkansas state Republican party to take the unusual step of declaring him a “non-recommended candidate” in the upcoming primary.
The wave of far-right candidates includes sitting legislators like the Arizona state senator Wendy Rogers, who has admitted to being a member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia with 11 members currently under federal indictment for seditious conspiracy.
Other militia groups have candidates running or already in local office. The Washington Three Percent militia claims members in dozens of elected offices throughout the Pacific north-west, the Washington Post found, “including a mayor, a county commissioner and at least five school board seats”.
In Idaho the far-right anti-government activist Ammon Bundy – who led an armed standoff against federal agents at Malheur wildlife refuge in 2014 – is running for the governor’s office. Bundy’s group, the People’s Rights network, has now increased its national membership to 33,000 members and has at least 398 activists in 39 states, according to a report by Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights.
Many far-right candidates have no direct links to violent extremist groups, but do support a range of far-right views. The ADL tracked at least 45 candidates running for office this year that have “lent credence in some way” to the QAnon conspiracy theory movement. Many more hold on to Donald Trump’s “big lie” – the false belief that the 2020 election was stolen.
Nationwide there are 207 current elected officials who aided former president Trump in efforts to overturn the 2020, according to data compiled by the Insurrection Index, a project of the voting rights group Public Wise. The index includes senators like Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, who voted against certifying the 2020 election and spread misinformation including suggesting that the January 6 attack was carried out by “fake Trump voters”.
While many candidates are seeking local or national legislative seats, some are purposely running for bureaucratic offices whose chief responsibility is to certify elections. Thirty are standing in contests for attorney general, according to tracking by the States United Democracy Center, a non-partisan group that monitors election races nationwide.
Fringe political candidates are a part of every US election cycle, but while these 2022 candidates hold far-right views they are also part of a wave within the Republican party that is no longer fringe but increasingly represents a powerful – even dominant – wing in the party.
“The real danger is not just the wave of extreme candidates, it’s their embrace, their mainstreaming by the Republican party,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and the co-author of How Democracies Die. “The United States has always had nutty, extremist, authoritarian politicians around the fringe. What is new and really dangerous for democracy is that they’re increasingly running as Republican candidates.”
Levitsky added: “At first you had a flirtation and tolerance with a handful of extremists at the fringes. We’re now seeing an army of extremists embraced by the former president. They’re marching in and taking over the Republican party at the state and local level.”
In Oregon, Daniel Tooze, a prominent associate of the Proud Boys who has participated in street brawls with anti-fascists in Portland, is running for Oregon’s state legislature in the 40th district. Tooze ran for the same seat in 2020, failing to secure the Republican nomination in the primary, but he received 40% of the Republican vote in the primary. This year Tooze is the only Republican who has filed to run again.
“When mainstream parties take onboard figures who deny the legitimacy of elections, refuse to accept electoral defeat, condone or even engage in political violence, you are putting democracy at risk,” said Levitsky.
Tooze declined to be interviewed for this article but stated in correspondence: “I’m just a regular guy.”
A review of Tooze’s campaign website and filing statement show no mention of affiliation with the Proud Boys. Tooze campaign messaging uses the language of mainstream Republican talking points.
The Guardian has previously reported on far-right groups shifting their focus to local communities. Since the Capitol attack members of groups such as the Proud Boys have shown up to local venues including school board meetings to stand alongside mainstream conservatives, especially around issues such as Covid-19 restrictions.
This month Tooze tweeted a video of Thomas Renz, a far-right anti-vaccine influencer, speaking at a panel convened by Senator Johnson that promoted misleading information about Covid-19 and vaccines. The video of Renz went viral in alt-tech platforms but also within mainstream social media. Tooze wrote of the video: “It’s time to hold the government accountable for what they’ve done to the people.”
FBI has confirmed it purchased NSO Group's hacking software, which has been used to spy on journalists and dissidents across the globe. (photo: iStock)
ALSO SEE: Israel's NSO Group Offered
'Bags of Cash' for Access to US Cell Networks,
Whistleblower Claims
Bureau says sophisticated hacking tool was never used in support of any investigation
In a statement released to the Guardian, the bureau said it had procured a “limited licence” to access Pegasus for “product testing and evaluation only”, and suggested that its evaluation of the tool partly related to security concerns if the spyware fell into the “wrong hands”.
The bureau also claimed it had never used Pegasus in support of any FBI investigation. “There was no operational use in support of any investigation, the FBI procured a limited licence for product testing and evaluation only,” it said.
The statement marks a direct acknowledgment by the FBI that it acquired Pegasus, one of the world’s most sophisticated hacking tools.
The FBI’s procurement of Pegasus, which occurred in 2019 under the Trump administration, was first reported by the New York Times.
It was a stunning revelation in part because the Biden administration has recently placed NSO on a commerce department blacklist, saying it had evidence that the company’s hacking tools had enabled governments around the world to conduct “transnational repression”, targeting dissidents and journalists.
The Guardian and other media organisations have reported multiple cases in which security researchers say governments have used NSO’s tools to target American citizens around the world, including Carine Kanimba, the daughter of the jailed Rwandan dissident Paul Rusesabagina, and Lama Fakih, a senior staff member of Human Rights Watch in Beirut.
Once deployed, the user of Pegasus spyware can take complete control of a person’s phone, accessing messages, intercepting phone calls and using the phone as a remote listening device.
A person with close knowledge of the FBI deal, who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity, claimed that it occurred after a “long process” of negotiations between US officials and NSO.
It is claimed one disagreement centred on how much control NSO would retain over its software. The source claimed that NSO usually kept sensors on its technology so that the company could be alerted in Israel if the technology was moved by a government client.
But the source claimed the FBI did not want the technology to be fitted with sensors that would have allowed NSO to track its physical location.
The source also claimed that the FBI did not want NSO’s own engineers to install the technology and did not want to integrate the spyware into its own systems. Ultimately, it is understood that NSO and the FBI agreed to keep the technology in a large container. NSO did not respond to a request for comment on these claims.
The FBI was also concerned about possible “leakage” of any data to another foreign intelligence service, the source said.
The source claimed the Pegasus licence was acquired by the FBI using a financial “vehicle” that was not easily identified as being linked to the bureau.
The FBI did not respond to specific questions about its alleged concerns, the financial vehicle it used to procure the Pegasus licence, or other details.
In the end, the source claimed, the FBI did not actually use Pegasus. “They weren’t using it at all. Like, not even switching it on. But they kept paying for it, and they wanted to renew. It was a one-year test project and it cost about $5m [£3.7m], and they renewed for another $4m,” the source claimed. “But they didn’t use it.”
In an emailed statement in response to claims about the bureau’s acquisition of Pegasus, the FBI said: “The FBI works diligently to stay abreast of emerging technologies and tradecraft – not just to explore a potential legal use but also to combat crime and to protect both the American people and our civil liberties.
“That means we routinely identify, evaluate, and test technical solutions and problems for a variety of reasons, including possible operational and security concerns they might pose in the wrong hands. There was no operational use in support of any investigation, the FBI procured a limited licence for product testing and evaluation only.”
NSO has categorically denied that its Pegasus spyware can be used against US mobile phones.
Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, the chair of the finance committee and a staunch privacy advocate, said: “The public deserves far more transparency from the executive branch, including the FBI and justice department, about any US government relationships with NSO and other cyber-mercenaries. The public has a particular interest in whether the government believes the use of these tools against Americans is legal.”
The New York Times reported that NSO brought a version of Pegasus to New Jersey in June 2019, after the FBI had reportedly been offered a workaround by NSO that allowed a product called Phantom to “hack any number in the United States”. Without naming sources, the New York Times reported that NSO conducted demonstrations of Phantom to the FBI, which the newspaper said resulted in an alleged “attack” against a US phone number.
In a lawsuit it filed in 2019, WhatsApp accused NSO of sending malware to 1,400 of its users. The company has said about 100 of the individuals who were targeted were members of civil society, including journalists and activists. NSO has said in legal filings that even if WhatsApp’s allegations were true, it was acting as a “foreign agent” when its spyware was deployed against WhatsApp users, because its software is used by foreign governments who are meant to use its spyware to fight crime.
NSO has also said it does not have information about how its clients use its spyware or who its clients target.
WhatsApp has also alleged in court filings that a US phone number was targeted by Pegasus on 9 May 2019. Without providing evidence or sourcing, the New York Times reported that the alleged intrusion on a US number, as described in WhatsApp’s legal case, was in fact a demonstration of NSO’s technology to the FBI.
The FBI declined to comment on the allegation. NSO did not respond to a request for comment.
WhatsApp said: “In all circumstances our priority is to defend our services from threats that would harm people’s ability to safely communicate with one another. We will continue our efforts to hold NSO accountable for their attacks against journalists, human rights activists and government officials in violation of US law. The spyware industry must be prevented from undermining the privacy and security of people in the US and across the world.”
A pedestrian walks past a Bank of America branch in New York. (photo: Craig Warga/Getty)
Small businesses have been struggling to appeal the obscure decisions by Bank of America to deny them full forgiveness on the loans.
One of the first forms of aid Congress offered to businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic was PPP loans, which were meant to be forgiven completely if used to cover payroll and other specified expenses. But in over a half-dozen interviews and emails with The Intercept, small business owners who got their PPP loans through Bank of America described the same experience: A year or more after they first received their loans, they were told that the bank determined they had originally received too much money and that it would only forgive a portion, leaving them to pay back the remainder with interest. Jose Ramos, owner of Kin-Keepers in Virginia, was told that none of his $67,500 PPP loan would be forgiven.
Not all of the business owners have been able to determine why they are being denied full forgiveness; some say it has to do with whether the money could be used to pay contractors, and others say it has to do with whether they should have included health insurance costs in their applications. But all maintain that they followed the rules as they were written at the time they signed the promissory notes on their loans and shouldn’t be held accountable for the many rule changes the SBA made afterward. Bank of America, they point out, reviewed their applications and approved them for the original loans.
When the business owners went to apply for forgiveness, Bank of America’s online portal was pre-populated with the lower amount of forgiveness and didn’t allow them to change it or upload any documentation that they did, in fact, qualify for the full original loan. In a screenshot shared with The Intercept, when one small business owner tried to change the figure in a box titled “Requested Loan Forgiveness Amount” from the bank’s figure to her full PPP loan, an error message appeared and she was unable to advance to the next screen. And calls to the bank were fruitless. Christopher Martin, owner of CT Martin Inc., kept meticulous receipts as proof that he used his $10,885 PPP loan on the specified purposes. “All the receipts, all the records they told you to keep meant nothing to them,” he said.
In a statement, Bank of America said, “In the forgiveness process, we are required to follow the Small Business Administration’s rules and guidance,” pointing specifically to discrepancies over payments to contractors. “This idea that people simply can’t send us documents is simply not true,” said spokesperson William Halldin. The SBA declined to comment for the story.
Fearing a hit to their credit scores or defaulting on their unforgiven loans, some small business owners submitted Bank of America’s forgiveness application for the lower amount despite believing that they should be forgiven for the full loan. Others are refusing to apply for forgiveness for an amount they say is less than they deserve.
Heather Sheppard has refused to file her forgiveness application with Bank of America because it won’t let her change the forgiveness amount or upload any documents. She received a $16,933 PPP loan, which got her Illinois-based dance and fitness studio, Allegro Performing Arts, through lean months in early 2020. But the bank has said the maximum amount of forgiveness she can receive is $6,900. “If I hit [submit], then that makes me accountable for the rest of the money,” she said. “Under the parameters of the law I should be forgiven for the full amount.”
Sheppard says she called the bank about 80 times between May and July 2021. At first she would reach actual people, who would send her to different teams and promise to escalate her issue. But she got no answers. “In August I got so frustrated I actually stopped calling,” she said. She would periodically log in to the bank’s forgiveness portal to see if the number had changed, but it never did. “I just got very depressed,” she said. “This whole experience has been extremely stressful.”
Sheppard took a second job doing overnight shifts at an Amazon warehouse to try to keep her business afloat, but it’s taking a physical toll on her. If her PPP loan were fully forgiven, she said, she might be able to finally quit the Amazon job. “What they’re hoping for is we get tired, depressed, move on,” she said.
After widespread complaints about the slow and confusing forgiveness process across all lenders, in August the SBA set up its own portal through which small business owners can apply directly with the agency. But banks had to opt in to the SBA’s portal, and Bank of America is among those that refused to do so. That means businesses that got their PPP loans through the bank have no other option than to go through the bank’s own portal. In a statement, Bank of America said, “If we used the SBA’s site … we would still be required to review each application for forgiveness and provide the recommended forgiveness amount, as we do on our own site.”
Fearing the impact on her credit score, Amy Yassinger, owner of a music company in Illinois, applied for forgiveness through Bank of America’s portal even though the bank says it will only forgive $2,436 of her $38,730 PPP loan. “I submitted that forgiveness application under duress,” she said. She’s now paying it back in $2,000 monthly installments. She hired an attorney at one point, who sent the bank a letter alleging that it had violated the False Claims Act by submitting the original paperwork for the loan to the SBA, but the bank dismissed it, and the lawyer warned Yassinger that taking things further could cost the same as her original PPP loan.
“You feel trapped, you feel suffocated, because the bank is so powerful,” she said.
The experience has been so difficult that Yassinger created a support group made up of Bank of America customers who had the same experience. The group currently has 29 members, including Yassinger, Sheppard, and Ramos. All of the business owners’ loans are for under $100,000. “Honestly, having this group has been therapy for all of us,” Yassinger said.
The members of Yassinger’s group have tried filing complaints with federal regulators — including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — but they were closed without action against the bank. So they are focused on a legislative solution to their problem. Congress had debated automatically forgiving PPP loans under $150,000 in late 2020, but lawmakers never acted.
In the meantime, PPP borrowers are allowed to appeal forgiveness decisions through the SBA, but that process can’t begin until a borrower submits an application for forgiveness to their bank. In these business owners’ case, that requires accepting Bank of America’s forgiveness number. “Anybody is free to appeal to the SBA,” Bank of America’s Halldin said.
When Martin contacted the SBA asking to appeal Bank of America’s determination that he can only get $3,114.79 forgiven out of his $10,885 PPP loan, he was told that the agency couldn’t process an application until the bank went through two rounds of appeals itself. “But Bank of America refuses to talk to me,” he said.
Martin’s business is still suffering due to the pandemic; he’s a freelance information technology professional and estimates that nearly 60 percent of his clients have gone out of business. He didn’t have the money to start making payments on what the bank says he owes. But because Martin lives in an economically depressed region, at the end of last year he was able to apply for a grant through the Economic Injury Disaster Loans program, also run by the SBA. As soon as he received the money, he turned around and used it to pay off the balance.
“The EIDL loan should have been mine to keep, to run my business,” Martin said. It would have covered the costs of travel to meet new clients and book new business. “But instead it got me out of being sued by Bank of America.”
“I was the small business person this was designed to help,” Martin said. “And Bank of America just decided to not fulfill their promise.”
Xiomara Castro is inaugurated as president of Honduras in Tegucigalpa on January 27, 2022. (photo: Inti Oncon/Getty)
Honduras inaugurated socialist Xiomara Castro as president last week, ending the nightmare of the 2009 US-backed coup in the country. The challenges she faces are immense, but her presidency could be a key piece of a new left-wing surge throughout Latin America.
Turning the traditional Spanish activist slogan from “SÃ se puede” (Yes we can) to “SÃ se pudo” (Yes we did), Hondurans inside and outside the stadium heaved a sigh of relief that the twelve-year nightmare of the National Party’s rule had come to an end. The transition from the 2009 coup — in which Castro’s husband, former president Manuel Zelaya, was ousted from the presidential palace and spirited out of the country in his pajamas — to Xiomara Castro donning the turquoise and white presidential sash in the presence of her husband was, as the master of ceremonies declared, a historic “return of legality.”
For a tiny Central American country of less than 10 million people, Castro’s inauguration was an international event, with attendees including US vice president Kamala Harris, the King of Spain Felipe VI, and Argentina’s popular vice president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Throughout the continent, the Latin American left celebrated her victory as giving momentum to the “second pink tide” of progressive governments sweeping the region, a tide that will soon include Gabriel Boric in Chile and, hopefully later this year, Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro.
Castro’s agenda for cleaning house is vast. She called for “no more death squads, no more silence on femicides, no more hired killers, no more drug trafficking, no more organized crime.” She even used the term “democratic socialism” to describe her agenda.
But Castro faces intense challenges going forward. She inherits one of the most violent countries in the world, where the majority of homicides are connected to gangs, organized crime, and drug trafficking; and collusion between government officials, state and private security forces, paramilitary groups, and business leaders is widespread. Honduras is also a nation with a biased and corrupt judiciary that routinely fails to bring perpetrators of violent crimes to justice.
Castro also inherits a nation battered by crushing debt, immense inequality, coronavirus, and recent natural disasters such as intense rains, droughts, and hurricanes. Castro said, “I receive a country bankrupted after twelve years of dictatorship. We are the poorest country in Latin America. That explains the caravans of migrants fleeing northward, risking their lives.”
She pledged free electricity for the country’s poorest citizens and a reduction in fuel prices. But given the bare government coffers, her policies will be constrained by the dictates of foreign donors — especially the United States. Castro will also be constrained by the Honduran Congress, which is in the midst of an intense power struggle that has muddied the waters of her victory lap.
During the elections, the Salvation Party of Honduras (PSH) agreed to support Xiomara Castro in exchange for the positions of vice president for PSH leader Salvador Nasralla and congressional leader for PSH congressman Luis Redondo. But twenty-one deputies from Castro’s Libre Party broke away and colluded with the conservative National Party to elect Jorge Cálix as the head of Congress. A pathetic spectacle of pushing, shoving, and shouting on the floor of Congress was followed by two separate swearing-in sessions. Now there are two separate congresses.
Charges of constitutional violations have been filed by both sides, and criminal charges have been filed against Redondo for usurpation of public functions and falsification of documents. In an effort to solve the crisis, Castro offered Cálix a cabinet position, but he turned it down, reportedly because of opposition from the rest of his coalition.
It is not clear how the congressional crisis will evolve, but it has strengthened the conservative forces in Congress and, with the Libre Party so divided, the task of governing and passing a progressive legislative agenda will be even more complicated.
There are, however, measures that Castro can take on her own, such as addressing the plight of women in a country that has Latin America’s second-highest rate of femicide (the killing of a woman by a man because of her gender). According to the National Autonomous University of Honduras, a woman is killed, on average, every twenty-three hours.
Castro framed her entire speech with a message to the nation’s women. She opened by declaring, “The presidency of the republic has never been assumed by a woman in Honduras. We are breaking chains and we are breaking traditions,” and closed with a pledge: “No more violence against women. I am going, with all my strength, to close the gap and create the conditions for our girls to fully develop and live in a country free of violence. Honduran women, I will not fail you. I will defend your rights — all your rights. Count on me.”
It’s a historic new era for Honduras, where the people managed to defeat Juan Orlando Hernández’s narco state and elect Xiomara Castro, the country’s first-ever woman president, and a progressive to boot. As presidential candidate of the left-leaning Libre Party, Xiomara Castro won a landslide victory and was inaugurated on January 27 in a ceremony at the National Stadium, attended by thousands of enthusiastic supporters.
Turning the traditional Spanish activist slogan from “SÃ se puede” (Yes we can) to “SÃ se pudo” (Yes we did), Hondurans inside and outside the stadium heaved a sigh of relief that the twelve-year nightmare of the National Party’s rule had come to an end. The transition from the 2009 coup — in which Castro’s husband, former president Manuel Zelaya, was ousted from the presidential palace and spirited out of the country in his pajamas — to Xiomara Castro donning the turquoise and white presidential sash in the presence of her husband was, as the master of ceremonies declared, a historic “return of legality.”
For a tiny Central American country of less than 10 million people, Castro’s inauguration was an international event, with attendees including US vice president Kamala Harris, the King of Spain Felipe VI, and Argentina’s popular vice president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Throughout the continent, the Latin American left celebrated her victory as giving momentum to the “second pink tide” of progressive governments sweeping the region, a tide that will soon include Gabriel Boric in Chile and, hopefully later this year, Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro.
Castro’s agenda for cleaning house is vast. She called for “no more death squads, no more silence on femicides, no more hired killers, no more drug trafficking, no more organized crime.” She even used the term “democratic socialism” to describe her agenda.
But Castro faces intense challenges going forward. She inherits one of the most violent countries in the world, where the majority of homicides are connected to gangs, organized crime, and drug trafficking; and collusion between government officials, state and private security forces, paramilitary groups, and business leaders is widespread. Honduras is also a nation with a biased and corrupt judiciary that routinely fails to bring perpetrators of violent crimes to justice.
Castro also inherits a nation battered by crushing debt, immense inequality, coronavirus, and recent natural disasters such as intense rains, droughts, and hurricanes. Castro said, “I receive a country bankrupted after twelve years of dictatorship. We are the poorest country in Latin America. That explains the caravans of migrants fleeing northward, risking their lives.”
She pledged free electricity for the country’s poorest citizens and a reduction in fuel prices. But given the bare government coffers, her policies will be constrained by the dictates of foreign donors — especially the United States. Castro will also be constrained by the Honduran Congress, which is in the midst of an intense power struggle that has muddied the waters of her victory lap.
During the elections, the Salvation Party of Honduras (PSH) agreed to support Xiomara Castro in exchange for the positions of vice president for PSH leader Salvador Nasralla and congressional leader for PSH congressman Luis Redondo. But twenty-one deputies from Castro’s Libre Party broke away and colluded with the conservative National Party to elect Jorge Cálix as the head of Congress. A pathetic spectacle of pushing, shoving, and shouting on the floor of Congress was followed by two separate swearing-in sessions. Now there are two separate congresses.
Charges of constitutional violations have been filed by both sides, and criminal charges have been filed against Redondo for usurpation of public functions and falsification of documents. In an effort to solve the crisis, Castro offered Cálix a cabinet position, but he turned it down, reportedly because of opposition from the rest of his coalition.
It is not clear how the congressional crisis will evolve, but it has strengthened the conservative forces in Congress and, with the Libre Party so divided, the task of governing and passing a progressive legislative agenda will be even more complicated.
There are, however, measures that Castro can take on her own, such as addressing the plight of women in a country that has Latin America’s second-highest rate of femicide (the killing of a woman by a man because of her gender). According to the National Autonomous University of Honduras, a woman is killed, on average, every twenty-three hours.
Castro framed her entire speech with a message to the nation’s women. She opened by declaring, “The presidency of the republic has never been assumed by a woman in Honduras. We are breaking chains and we are breaking traditions,” and closed with a pledge: “No more violence against women. I am going, with all my strength, to close the gap and create the conditions for our girls to fully develop and live in a country free of violence. Honduran women, I will not fail you. I will defend your rights — all your rights. Count on me.”
Women’s rights groups have been working with members of Castro’s transition team to draft a violence against women law that will address the difficulties of bringing violators to justice; she also advocates shelters for women who are survivors of domestic violence. While Castro is a strong advocate for women’s rights and sexual diversity, issues such as abortion or equal marriage are a bridge too far in the conservative, Catholic country. Also, the congressman Castro is advocating for as head of Congress, Luis Redondo, is anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, and does not have the support of Honduran feminist groups.
Castro is, however, expected to overturn the existing prohibition against emergency contraceptives. Honduras is the only country in Latin America with absolute bans on both abortion and emergency contraceptives. Since emergency contraceptives were outlawed by decree, Castro will be able to act unilaterally to undo the ban.
The issue of abortion is more complex. Castro wants to legalize abortion in the case of rape, when the mother’s life is at risk, or when the fetus is not viable. But when a similar measure came to a vote in 2017, only eight of the 128 legislators voted in favor. To make matters worse, last year, conservatives in Congress raised the threshold needed to modify the country’s total abortion ban to two-thirds of Congress.
Castro has also called for amnesty for political prisoners and justice for the many Hondurans who have lost their loved ones at the hands of the police, the army, paramilitaries, and hitmen, often for opposing illegal logging, mining, and construction of hydroelectric dams.
In her presidential speech, Castro called for freedom for the eight people from the Guapinol community who are on trial (and held for over two years in illegal pretrial detention) for their actions opposing a mining project. Castro also called for justice for environmental leader Berta Cáceres, who was murdered in 2016. Cáceres’s daughter “Bertita” appeared on the stage with Castro at the inauguration, holding a sign with her mother’s photo and giving the new president a gift from the Lenca people.
Castro is also calling for accountability for the abuses of outgoing Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH). JOH’s brother has been sentenced to life imprisonment in the United States for smuggling large quantities of cocaine into the United States. During his trial, the president’s name came up more than one hundred times for complicity with a local cartel.
The popular clamor for JOH to be extradited and tried in the United States was evident during the inauguration. When Kamala Harris was introduced, the crowd broke out in a raucous chant of “Take JOH back, take JOH back!” implying that the US government had backed the scoundrel and should now hold him accountable.
But JOH won’t be going to jail any time soon. The very day of the inauguration, he was sworn in as a Honduran representative to the Central American Parliament — a tradition for Central American ex-presidents that, unfortunately, will likely guarantee him diplomatic immunity for the next four years.
Lastly, Castro will have to contend with Honduras’s giant neighbor to the north. The United States is Honduras’s largest donor and trade partner, and the US military maintains a foothold at the Soto Cano Air Base. Vice President Harris’s appearance at the inauguration was taken by many Hondurans as a positive sign that President Joe Biden has a stake in making Castro’s tenure successful — if only to stem the mass migration that has dogged his presidency. But they also saw Harris’s presence as a sign that the United States is closely watching President Castro and will try to keep her in line.
Castro immediately asserted her independence by returning the Venezuelan embassy in Tegucigalpa to Nicolás Maduro’s government (it had been usurped by the US-supported fake president Juan Guaidó). On the other hand, it is rumored that US pressure stopped Castro from immediately switching allegiances from Taiwan (a big contributor to projects in Honduras) to China, as she had proposed on the campaign trail. Castro’s next four years will likely be a delicate dance between keeping good relations with the United States and integrating more into the Latin America left.
For the moment, millions of Hondurans are basking in the “Xiomara glow.” “She is a forceful woman who has fought alongside us,” said human rights lawyer Priscila Alvarado, as she left the inauguration elated. “We have hope and faith that she will govern for the people and with the people. And millions of Hondurans who voted for her will be there to back her up.”
Native Alaskan children playing on melting ice. (photo: Mark Ralston/Getty)
The higher court upheld the 2018 ruling of a lower court, which decided to dismiss the case, AP News reported.
“I am very disappointed with what the court decided today,” lead plaintiff Summer Sagoonick, who is 20, said in a press release from Our Children’s Trust. “With climate change worsening with every season of Alaska’s continuing promotion of fossil fuels, it is hard to tell how long our sustainable life may last.”
Sagoonick is a Iñupiaq from Unalakleet, and one of several Alaska Native young people represented in the suit, according to Anchorage Daily News. The plaintiffs argued that the state government was violating their constitutional rights by propping up fossil fuels and therefore worsening the climate crisis. If the court ruled in their favor, it would make pro-fossil-fuel policies unconstitutional under Alaska state law.
However, the lower and higher courts both ruled that the issues raised by the plaintiffs should be addressed by the legislative or executive branches of state government, AP News explained.
“The young Alaskans appeal, raising compelling concerns about climate change, resource development, and Alaska’s future. But we conclude that the superior court correctly dismissed their lawsuit,” the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in its decision.
The decision was narrow, however; the young people lost their case with a 3-2 split. One active judge and two retired judges ruled against the plaintiffs, while the other two active judges ruled in their favor, Our Children’s Trust said.
“[The law] requires that we explicitly recognize a constitutional right to a livable climate — arguably the bare minimum when it comes to the inherent human rights to which the Alaska Constitution is dedicated,” dissenting justices Peter J. Maassen and Susan M. Carney wrote, according to Our Children’s Trust.
Our Children’s Trust is a non-profit that works to help young people mount legal cases to “secure their right to a safe climate.” They are also behind a similar case against the federal government, Juliana v. United States. While Friday’s ruling was a loss, the fact that a majority of active judges supported the youth was promising, Our Children’s Trust chief legal counsel and Juliana v. U.S. lead counsel Julia Olson said.
“This decision today is a 2-1 win for the youth from the active justices on this Court. And one day soon, it will be the majority opinion. More and more judges around the country and the world are finally embracing their constitutional role to be a check on the political branches of government that are destroying the planet and lives of children,” Olson said in the press release.
The Alaska youth’s lead counsel, Andrew Welle, said the young people were not done fighting.
“These youth are resolute in their quest for climate justice. With the state continuing to undermine their health, safety, and futures, we will evaluate our next steps and will continue to fight for climate justice,” Welle said in the press release.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
