*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
How Trump Got Rich
It had nothing to do with brains!
President Trump’s executive order sent a signal to Republicans that the administration was serious about winding down the Education Department. Credit...Doug Mills/The New York TimesSome excerpts from Wikipedia:
Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, at Jamaica Hospital in the New York City borough of Queens, the fourth child of Fred Trump and Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. He is of German and Scottish descent. He grew up with his older siblings, Maryanne, Fred Jr., and Elizabeth, and his younger brother, Robert, in a mansion in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of Queens. Fred Trump paid his children each about $20,000 a year, equivalent to $265,000 a year in 2024. Trump was a millionaire at age eight by contemporary standards. Trump attended the private Kew-Forest School through seventh grade.
He was a difficult child and showed an early interest in his father’s business. His father enrolled him in New York Military Academy, a private boarding school, to complete secondary school. Trump considered a show business career but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University. Two years later, he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1968 with a Bachelor of Science in economics.
He was exempted from the draft during the Vietnam War due to a claim of bone spurs in his heels. …Starting in 1968, Trump was employed at his father’s real estate company, Trump Management, which owned racially segregated middle-class rental housing in New York City’s outer boroughs.
In 1971, his father made him president of the company and he began using the Trump Organization as an umbrella brand. Roy Cohn was Trump’s fixer, lawyer, and mentor for 13 years in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1973, Cohn helped Trump countersue the U.S. government for $100 million (equivalent to $708 million in 2024) over its charges that Trump’s properties had racially discriminatory practices. Trump’s counterclaims were dismissed, and the government’s case was settled with the Trumps signing a consent decree agreeing to desegregate; four years later, Trumps again faced the courts when they were found in contempt of the decree.
Before age thirty, he showed his propensity for litigation, no matter the outcome and cost; even when he lost, he described the case as a win. Helping Trump projects, Cohn was a consigliere whose Mafia connections controlled construction unions. Cohn introduced political consultant Roger Stone to Trump, who enlisted Stone’s services to deal with the federal government.
Between 1991 and 2009, he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for six of his businesses: the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, the casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts company.
In 1992, Trump, his siblings Maryanne, Elizabeth, and Robert, and his cousin John W. Walter, each with a 20 percent share, formed All County Building Supply & Maintenance Corp. The company had no offices and is alleged to have been a shell company for paying the vendors providing services and supplies for Trump’s rental units, then billing those services and supplies to Trump Management with markups of 20–50 percent and more.
The owners shared the proceeds generated by the markups. The increased costs were used to get state approval for increasing the rents of his rent-stabilized units. …Trump has said he began his career with “a small loan of a million dollars” from his father and that he had to pay it back with interest.
He borrowed at least $60 million from his father, largely did not repay the loans, and received another $413 million (2018 equivalent, adjusted for inflation) from his father’s company.
Posing as a Trump Organization official named “John Barron,” Trump called journalist Jonathan Greenberg in 1984, trying to get a higher ranking on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans. Trump self-reported his net worth over a wide range: from a low of minus $900 million in 1990, to a high of $10 billion in 2015. In 2024, Forbes estimated his net worth at $2.3 billion and ranked him the 1,438th wealthiest person in the world.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
We need a united, independent, democratically organized mass movement for peace, justice and equality in solidarity with similar movements worldwide if we are to survive the death agony of capitalism and its inevitable descent into fascism and barbarism before it destroys the world altogether!
—Bonnie Weinstein
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Russia Confirms Jailing of Antiwar Leader Boris Kagarlitsky
In a secret trial on June 5, 2024, the Russian Supreme Court’s Military Chamber confirmed a sentence of five years in a penal colony for left-wing sociologist and online journalist Boris Kagarlitsky. His crime? “Justifying terrorism” — a sham charge used to silence opponents of Putin’s war on Ukraine. The court disregarded a plea for freedom sent by thirty-seven international luminaries.
Kagarlitsky, a leading Marxist thinker in Russia’s post-Soviet period, recently addressed socialists who won’t criticize Putin:
“To my Western colleagues, who…call for an understanding of Putin and his regime, I would like to ask a very simple question. [Would] you want to live in a country where there is no free press or independent courts? In a country where the police have the right to break into your house without a warrant? …In a country which…broadcasts appeals on TV to destroy Paris, London, Warsaw, with a nuclear strike?”
Thousands of antiwar critics have been forced to flee Russia or are behind bars, swept up in Putin’s vicious crackdown on dissidents. Opposition to the war is consistently highest among the poorest workers. Recently, RusNews journalists Roman Ivanov and Maria Ponomarenko were sentenced to seven, and six years respectively, for reporting the military’s brutal assault on Ukraine.
A massive global solidarity campaign that garnered support from thousands was launched at Kagarlitsky’s arrest. Now, it has been revived. This internationalism will bolster the repressed Russian left and Ukrainian resistance to Putin’s imperialism.
To sign the online petition at freeboris.info
—Freedom Socialist Party, August 2024
https://socialism.com/fs-article/russia-jails-prominent-antiwar-leader-boris-kagarlitsky/#:~:text=In%20a%20secret%20trial%20on,of%20Putin's%20war%20on%20Ukraine.
Petition in Support of Boris Kagarlitsky
We, the undersigned, were deeply shocked to learn that on February 13 the leading Russian socialist intellectual and antiwar activist Dr. Boris Kagarlitsky (65) was sentenced to five years in prison.
Dr. Kagarlitsky was arrested on the absurd charge of 'justifying terrorism' in July last year. After a global campaign reflecting his worldwide reputation as a writer and critic of capitalism and imperialism, his trial ended on December 12 with a guilty verdict and a fine of 609,000 roubles.
The prosecution then appealed against the fine as 'unjust due to its excessive leniency' and claimed falsely that Dr. Kagarlitsky was unable to pay the fine and had failed to cooperate with the court. In fact, he had paid the fine in full and provided the court with everything it requested.
On February 13 a military court of appeal sent him to prison for five years and banned him from running a website for two years after his release.
The reversal of the original court decision is a deliberate insult to the many thousands of activists, academics, and artists around the world who respect Dr. Kagarlitsky and took part in the global campaign for his release. The section of Russian law used against Dr. Kagarlitsky effectively prohibits free expression. The decision to replace the fine with imprisonment was made under a completely trumped-up pretext. Undoubtedly, the court's action represents an attempt to silence criticism in the Russian Federation of the government's war in Ukraine, which is turning the country into a prison.
The sham trial of Dr. Kagarlitsky is the latest in a wave of brutal repression against the left-wing movements in Russia. Organizations that have consistently criticized imperialism, Western and otherwise, are now under direct attack, many of them banned. Dozens of activists are already serving long terms simply because they disagree with the policies of the Russian government and have the courage to speak up. Many of them are tortured and subjected to life-threatening conditions in Russian penal colonies, deprived of basic medical care. Left-wing politicians are forced to flee Russia, facing criminal charges. International trade unions such as IndustriALL and the International Transport Federation are banned and any contact with them will result in long prison sentences.
There is a clear reason for this crackdown on the Russian left. The heavy toll of the war gives rise to growing discontent among the mass of working people. The poor pay for this massacre with their lives and wellbeing, and opposition to war is consistently highest among the poorest. The left has the message and resolve to expose the connection between imperialist war and human suffering.
Dr. Kagarlitsky has responded to the court's outrageous decision with calm and dignity: “We just need to live a little longer and survive this dark period for our country,” he said. Russia is nearing a period of radical change and upheaval, and freedom for Dr. Kagarlitsky and other activists is a condition for these changes to take a progressive course.
We demand that Boris Kagarlitsky and all other antiwar prisoners be released immediately and unconditionally.
We also call on the authorities of the Russian Federation to reverse their growing repression of dissent and respect their citizens' freedom of speech and right to protest.
Sign to Demand the Release of Boris Kagarlitsky
https://freeboris.info
The petition is also available on Change.org
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Mumia Abu-Jamal is Innocent!
FREE HIM NOW!
Write to Mumia at:
Smart Communications/PADOC
Mumia Abu-Jamal #AM-8335
SCI Mahanoy
P.O. Box 33028
St. Petersburg, FL 33733
Join the Fight for Mumia's Life
Since September, Mumia Abu-Jamal's health has been declining at a concerning rate. He has lost weight, is anemic, has high blood pressure and an extreme flair up of his psoriasis, and his hair has fallen out. In April 2021 Mumia underwent open heart surgery. Since then, he has been denied cardiac rehabilitation care including a healthy diet and exercise.
Donate to Mumia Abu-Jamal's Emergency Legal and Medical Defense Fund, Official 2024
Mumia has instructed PrisonRadio to set up this fund. Gifts donated here are designated for the Mumia Abu-Jamal Medical and Legal Defense Fund. If you are writing a check or making a donation in another way, note this in the memo line.
Send to:
Mumia Medical and Legal Fund c/o Prison Radio
P.O. Box 411074, San Francisco, CA 94103
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Updates From Kevin Cooper
A Never-ending Constitutional Violation
A summary of the current status of Kevin Cooper’s case by the Kevin Cooper Defense Committee
On October 26, 2023, the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP wrote a rebuttal in response to the Special Counsel's January 13, 2023 report upholding the conviction of their client Kevin Cooper. A focus of the rebuttal was that all law enforcement files were not turned over to the Special Counsel during their investigation, despite a request for them to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office.
On October 29, 2023, Law Professors Lara Bazelon and Charlie Nelson Keever, who run the six member panel that reviews wrongful convictions for the San Francisco County District Attorney's office, published an OpEd in the San Francisco Chronicle calling the "Innocence Investigation” done by the Special Counsel in the Cooper case a “Sham Investigation” largely because Cooper has unsuccessfully fought for years to obtain the police and prosecutor files in his case. This is a Brady claim, named for the U.S. Supreme court’s 1963 case establishing the Constitutional rule that defendants are entitled to any information in police and prosecutor's possession that could weaken the state's case or point to innocence. Brady violations are a leading cause of wrongful convictions. The Special Counsel's report faults Cooper for not offering up evidence of his own despite the fact that the best evidence to prove or disprove Brady violations or other misconduct claims are in those files that the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office will not turn over to the Special Counsel or to Cooper's attorneys.
On December 14, 2023, the president of the American Bar Association (ABA), Mary Smith, sent Governor Gavin Newsom a three page letter on behalf of the ABA stating in part that Mr.Cooper's counsel objected to the state's failure to provide Special Counsel all documents in their possession relating to Mr.Cooper's conviction, and that concerns about missing information are not new. For nearly 40 years Mr.Cooper's attorneys have sought this same information from the state.
On December 19, 2023, Bob Egelko, a journalist for the San Francisco Chronicle wrote an article about the ABA letter to the Governor that the prosecutors apparently withheld evidence from the Governor's legal team in the Cooper case.
These are just a few recent examples concerning the ongoing failure of the San Bernardino County District Attorney to turn over to Cooper's attorney's the files that have been requested, even though under the law and especially the U.S. Constitution, the District Attorney of San Bernardino county is required to turn over to the defendant any and all material and or exculpatory evidence that they have in their files. Apparently, they must have something in their files because they refuse to turn them over to anyone.
The last time Cooper's attorney's received files from the state, in 2004, it wasn't from the D.A. but a Deputy Attorney General named Holly Wilkens in Judge Huff's courtroom. Cooper's attorneys discovered a never before revealed police report showing that a shirt was discovered that had blood on it and was connected to the murders for which Cooper was convicted, and that the shirt had disappeared. It had never been tested for blood. It was never turned over to Cooper's trial attorney, and no one knows where it is or what happened to it. Cooper's attorneys located the woman who found that shirt on the side of the road and reported it to the Sheriff's Department. She was called to Judge Huff's court to testify about finding and reporting that shirt to law enforcement. That shirt was the second shirt found that had blood on it that was not the victims’ blood. This was in 2004, 19 years after Cooper's conviction.
It appears that this ongoing constitutional violation that everyone—from the Special Counsel to the Governor's legal team to the Governor himself—seems to know about, but won't do anything about, is acceptable in order to uphold Cooper's conviction.
But this type of thing is supposed to be unacceptable in the United States of America where the Constitution is supposed to stand for something other than a piece of paper with writing on it. How can a Governor, his legal team, people who support and believe in him ignore a United States citizen’s Constitutional Rights being violated for 40 years in order to uphold a conviction?
This silence is betrayal of the Constitution. This permission and complicity by the Governor and his team is against everything that he and they claim to stand for as progressive politicians. They have accepted the Special Counsel's report even though the Special Counsel did not receive the files from the district attorney that may not only prove that Cooper is innocent, but that he was indeed framed by the Sheriff’s Department; and that evidence was purposely destroyed and tampered with, that certain witnesses were tampered with, or ignored if they had information that would have helped Cooper at trial, that evidence that the missing shirt was withheld from Cooper's trial attorney, and so much more.
Is the Governor going to get away with turning a blind eye to this injustice under his watch?
Are progressive people going to stay silent and turn their eyes blind in order to hopefully get him to end the death penalty for some while using Cooper as a sacrificial lamb?
An immediate act of solidarity we can all do right now is to write to Kevin and assure him of our continuing support in his fight for justice. Here’s his address:
Kevin Cooper #C65304
Cell 107, Unit E1C
California Health Care Facility, Stockton (CHCF)
P.O. Box 213040
Stockton, CA 95213
www.freekevincooper.org
Call California Governor Newsom:
1-(916) 445-2841
Press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish,
press 6 to speak with a representative and
wait for someone to answer
(Monday-Friday, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. PST—12:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. EST)
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Resources for Resisting Federal Repression
https://www.nlg.org/federalrepressionresources/
Since June of 2020, activists have been subjected to an increasingly aggressive crackdown on protests by federal law enforcement. The federal response to the movement for Black Lives has included federal criminal charges for activists, door knocks by federal law enforcement agents, and increased use of federal troops to violently police protests.
The NLG National Office is releasing this resource page for activists who are resisting federal repression. It includes a link to our emergency hotline numbers, as well as our library of Know-Your-Rights materials, our recent federal repression webinar, and a list of some of our recommended resources for activists. We will continue to update this page.
Please visit the NLG Mass Defense Program page for general protest-related legal support hotlines run by NLG chapters.
Emergency Hotlines
If you are contacted by federal law enforcement, you should exercise all of your rights. It is always advisable to speak to an attorney before responding to federal authorities.
State and Local Hotlines
If you have been contacted by the FBI or other federal law enforcement, in one of the following areas, you may be able to get help or information from one of these local NLG hotlines for:
Portland, Oregon: (833) 680-1312
San Francisco, California: (415) 285-1041 or fbi_hotline@nlgsf.org
Seattle, Washington: (206) 658-7963
National Hotline
If you are located in an area with no hotline, you can call the following number:
National NLG Federal Defense Hotline: (212) 679-2811
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
1) Two children with U.S. citizenship were sent to Honduras with their undocumented mother.
By Rachel Nostrant, April 27, 2025
A 4-year-old and a 7-year-old with U.S. citizenship were deported alongside their mother to Honduras last week, the family’s lawyer said, adding to the recent string of American citizens caught in the cross hairs of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.
The children and their mother were put on a flight to Honduras on Friday, the same day another child with U.S. citizenship, a 2-year-old girl, was sent to that country with her undocumented mother.
Lawyers for both families said the mothers were not given an option to leave their children in the United States before they were deported. In the case of the 2-year-old, whose 11-year-old sibling was also sent to Honduras, a federal judge in Louisiana expressed concern that the administration had deported the American child against the wishes of her father, who remained in the country.
But President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, denied that any American child was deported. Speaking about the 2-year-old’s case on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Mr. Homan said that federal immigration agents gave her mother a choice of whether to be deported with or without her child, and that she had left the country with her daughter at her discretion.
The children are from two different families who were living in Louisiana. The mother of the 2-year-old is pregnant, and the 4-year-old, a boy, has a rare form of late-stage cancer, the families’ lawyers said. They said the boy had no access to his medications or his doctors while he was in custody with his 7-year-old sister and mother.
The moves come as the Trump administration has ramped up its immigration enforcement and mass deportation efforts. In Florida last week, nearly 800 immigrants were arrested in an operation involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and state law enforcement officials.
Immigration advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union have condemned the administration’s actions, raising concerns of due process.
Gracie Willis, a lawyer with the National Immigration Project who is involved in the 2-year-old’s case, said, “What we saw from ICE over the last several days is horrifying and baffling,” referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
But the administration has stood firm. “Having a U.S. citizen child after you enter this country illegally is not a get-out-of-jail free card,” Mr. Homan said.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said on Sunday that it was common for parents who face deportation to want to be removed with their children, noting that the mother of the 2-year-old had made that choice.
“We take our responsibility to protect children seriously and will continue to work with federal law enforcement to ensure that children are safe and protected,” Ms. McLaughlin said.
Both families were detained earlier last week during routine check-ins with ICE. They were in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, a probationary program that allows people undergoing immigration proceedings to stay in the country.
The 2-year-old and her mother, along with an 11-year-old sibling who is not an American citizen, were detained April 22. The family with the 4-year-old and 7-year-old was detained Thursday morning, said Erin Hebert, their lawyer.
When they were detained, the families were taken hours away from New Orleans, the site of their appointments, their lawyers said, adding that they were prohibited from communicating with other family members or their lawyers. Lawyers for both families said that they were not able to reach the mothers until after they had arrived in Honduras.
Ms. Hebert said she had attended the appointment with the family she is representing, but the family was quickly taken into custody before she could speak with them. She said that she and her team plan to challenge the family’s deportation but are still evaluating their next steps.
In a brief order issued on Friday from Federal District Court in the Western District of Louisiana, Judge Terry A. Doughty asked why the administration had sent the 2-year-old — identified in court records only as V.M.L. — to Honduras with her mother even though her father had sought, through an emergency petition on Thursday, to stop her from being sent abroad.
Judge Doughty, a Trump appointee, said that he had a “strong suspicion that the government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process,” and set a hearing for May 16 to explore the issue.
“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Ms. Hebert said. “There is just no good-faith interpretation for what happened to these children.”
Alan Feuer, Minho Kim, Hamed Aleaziz and Brandon K. Thorp contributed reporting.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
2) D.E.A. says more than 100 undocumented immigrants were detained in a Colorado raid.
By Eduardo Medina, April 27, 2025
Federal agents raided an underground nightclub in Colorado early Sunday morning and detained more than 100 people who they said were undocumented immigrants, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The raid occurred at a club in Colorado Springs, about 70 miles south of Denver. Federal officials said there were more than 200 people inside the club at the time, including 114 who were in the country illegally. More than a dozen active-duty members of the U.S. military were detained as well, they said.
Officials said agents found weapons and illicit drugs inside the nightclub, including cocaine, methamphetamine and a mixture of powdered drugs known as pink cocaine.
Jonathan C. Pullen, the DEA Rocky Mountain Division special agent in charge, said in a news conference that the club had been under law enforcement surveillance for months and that “drug trafficking, prostitution and crimes of violence” had been taking place inside the club.
Mr. Pullen said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement took custody of the immigrants detained at the club. He said the members of the military were “running security at the club and involved in some of these crimes.”
The service members were handed over to the criminal investigation division of the U.S. Army.
A spokeswoman for Fort Carson, an Army post in Colorado, said in a statement on Sunday night that “there were some Fort Carson service members present at the location during” the raid.
“Each person involved in this incident is presumed innocent until proven guilty. We will look at everyone’s situation on a case-by-case basis,” the spokeswoman said. “Illegal activities of any kind do not represent our military values.”
Mr. Pullen said that during the investigation of the club, law enforcement officers saw members of the Hell’s Angels, MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gangs inside the club.
“I don’t have the information about whether those members were there tonight, but we’re still working through a lot of that, because we have so many people in custody,” Mr. Pullen said.
The D.E.A. and several members of the Trump administration posted videos and photos of the raid on their social media accounts on Sunday.
In one video posted on X by the D.E.A.’s Rocky Mountain Division, agents can be seen breaking through a window as red and blue police lights flash around them. When the agents crack the window, several people run out of the building and raise their hands as law enforcement agents appear to point weapons at them.
Another video showed a line of dozens of people with their arms tied behind their backs.
The agency said that the undocumented immigrants who were detained were placed on buses “for processing and likely eventual deportation.”
Mr. Pullen said there were about 300 law enforcement agents from several agencies who participated in the raid.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi praised the raid in a statement on social media, saying that two people with existing warrants had been arrested.
The raid was the latest display of the Trump administration’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, which appear to be struggling to round up enough people to meet Mr. Trump’s mass deportation goals.
The administration has publicized its raids in big cities and its deportation flights to Latin America, using tactics steeped with showmanship that have profoundly unnerved immigrant communities.
Efforts on Sunday to reach local immigrant advocacy groups for comment were not immediately successful.
President Trump’s administration has been criticized for wrongly deporting people, including U.S. citizens, who have been caught up in the crackdown.
A federal judge said on Friday that the Trump administration had deported a 2-year-old U.S. citizen to Honduras “with no meaningful process” and against the wishes of her father.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
3) Trump Doesn’t Want to Protect All Jewish Students — Just Those on His Team
By Peter Beinart, April 28, 2025
Mr. Beinart is a contributing Opinion writer at The Times. His latest book is “Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza.”
Bing Guan for The New York Times
On April 29, 2024, Tess Segal, a 20-year-old sophomore at the University of Florida, joined her fellow activists at a prominent plaza on campus calling on the university to divest from weapons manufacturers and boycott academic institutions in Israel. Some protesters studied or played cards. Later they read obituaries of Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip.
Then law enforcement moved in. And although Ms. Segal says she did not resist arrest, she was handcuffed and taken to jail, where she was held overnight.
Ms. Segal was charged with resisting arrest without violence. The state later dismissed her case. The University of Florida, however, had already banned her from campus. University officials had warned protesters that they could be punished if they violated tough new restrictions on protest. Administrators also said that officers had instructed the demonstrators to disperse. Ms. Segal said it was too loud to hear that directive.
Ms. Segal told me that she was barred from taking her final exam of the semester and participating in a school-sponsored summer program to which she had been admitted. A university disciplinary committee ruled that she had not acted in a disruptive manner but deemed her responsible for violating university policy, among other things. They proposed a one-year suspension. The university’s newly installed dean of students went further. In a letter shared by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, he declared that Ms. Segal’s conduct “caused major disruption to the normal functions of the university and prevented law enforcement officers from performing their duties promptly” and boosted her suspension to three years. (The university would not officially confirm or comment on events surrounding Ms. Segal’s suspension, pointing out that it’s protected information under privacy laws.)
The University of Florida requires any student absent for more than three semesters to reapply for admission. Ms. Segal said she had been on a full scholarship. She now works in food service and doesn’t know how or when she’ll return to college.
In an era in which students without U.S. citizenship are snatched off the street by federal agents, Ms. Segal’s punishment may seem comparatively mild. But her case contains a special irony. Ms. Segal is Jewish.
Since Oct. 7, 2023, several prominent Jewish organizations and their political allies have repeatedly demanded that universities protect Jewish students by punishing violations of campus conduct and protest, including with suspension or even expulsion. Ms. Segal is the granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor. She’s an alumna of a Jewish summer camp. Why weren’t Jewish organizations concerned about her? Because over the last few years, mainstream American Jewish leaders — in partnership with sympathetic politicians — have done something extraordinary: They have effectively redefined what it means to be a Jew. To silence condemnation of Israel, they have equated support for the state with Jewishness itself.
Few have articulated that redefinition more baldly than President Trump. Last month, in an apparent reference to the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer’s allegedly insufficient support for Israel, Mr. Trump announced, “He’s not Jewish anymore.” Mr. Trump is simply making explicit what Jewish leaders have implied for years. In 2023, the chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, declared that “Zionism is fundamental to Judaism.” In 2021, the influential former Soviet dissident and Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky co-wrote an essay calling Jews who oppose Zionism “un-Jews.”
This redefinition of Jewishness is occurring alongside one of history’s harshest crackdowns on American Jewish activism. Many American Jews, particularly young Jews, hold critical views about Israel. A 2021 poll by the centrist Jewish Electoral Institute, which monitors Jewish voting engagement, found that 38 percent of American Jewish adults under the age of 40 considered Israel an apartheid state, compared with 47 percent who did not. When presented with the accusation that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza in a survey last year, 38 percent of American Jewish adults under the age of 44 agreed.
Given these figures, it’s not surprising that Jews have taken a leading role in the protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza. Eleven days after Oct. 7, 2023, progressive and anti-Zionist Jewish groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, gathered roughly 400 protesters, many wearing shirts that said “Not in Our Name,” and occupied a congressional building. Later that month, Jewish Voice for Peace and its allies led a takeover of New York’s Grand Central Terminal. At Brown University, the first sit-in demanding divestment from companies affiliated with Israel comprised solely Jewish students.
Jewish students are not generally as vulnerable as their Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, Black and noncitizen counterparts, but it is precisely this assumption of greater safety that may have made them more willing to protest in the first place. And many have paid a price. It’s impossible to know what percentage of the students punished for pro-Palestinian activism have been Jewish, since university disciplinary proceedings are often secret. But anecdotal evidence suggests it is significant. And regardless of one’s views about how universities should treat campus activism, there is something bizarre about repressing it in the name of Jewish safety when a number of the students being repressed are Jews.
Since Oct. 7, at least four universities have temporarily suspended or placed on probation their chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace. In 2023 at BrownU Jews for Ceasefire Now protests, 20 members were arrested. (The charges were dropped.) At a pro-Israel event at Rockland Community College at the State University of New York on Oct. 12, 2023, a Jewish student who briefly shouted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Jews for Palestine” was reportedly suspended for the rest of the academic year. In May 2024, a Jewish tenured professor in anthropology at Muhlenberg College said she was fired after she reposted an Instagram post that declared, in part: “Do not cower to Zionists. Shame them. Do not welcome them in your spaces. Do not make them feel comfortable.” In September, Michigan’s attorney general brought felony charges for resisting or obstructing a police officer, as well as misdemeanor trespassing charges, against three Jewish activists — as well as four others — for offenses related to a Gaza solidarity encampment at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. (They all pleaded not guilty).
Even when protest has taken the form of Jewish religious observance, it often has been shut down. Last fall, when Jewish students opposing the war during the holiday of Sukkot built Gaza solidarity sukkahs, temporary boothlike structures in which Jews eat, learn and sleep during the holiday, at least eight universities forcibly dismantled them, or required the students to do so, or canceled approval for their construction. (The universities said that the groups were not allowed to erect structures on campus.)
Despite this, establishment Jewish pro-Israel organizations have applauded universities that have cracked down on pro-Palestinian protest. When Columbia suspended its branch of Jewish Voice for Peace alongside Students for Justice in Palestine, the A.D.L. congratulated the university for fulfilling its “legal & moral obligations to protect Jewish students.” After New Hampshire police broke up Dartmouth’s Gaza solidarity encampment, the A.D.L. thanked the college’s president for “protecting all students’ right to learn in a safe environment.” But the experience was hardly safe for Annelise Orleck, the former chair of the school’s Jewish studies program, who said she was zip-tied, body-slammed and forcibly dragged by police officers when they moved in. After the state attorney general announced that she would bring charges against demonstrators at the University of Michigan’s encampment who had allegedly violated the law, an official at the Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor praised her for acting “courageously.” The A.D.L. has since reversed its prior support for the Trump administration’s detention of pro-Palestinian activists. But it still wants universities to impose tough restrictions on campus protest. When I reached out to the organization asking if it had a position on Jewish students getting swept up in campus crackdowns, representatives referred me to Mr. Greenblatt’s recent opinion essays. Each one reiterated the need to fight against what it deems campus antisemitism, but also advocated due process for all those involved.
Nonetheless, Jews keep protesting. In early April, a small group of Jewish students chained themselves to Columbia’s gates to protest the ongoing detention of Mahmoud Khalil, the former graduate student and green card holder who is now being held in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Louisiana over his engagement in campus protest. And just before the holiday of Passover more than 130 Jewish students, faculty members and alumni of Georgetown University signed a letter protesting the detention and arrest of Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral fellow accused of spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism.
There is a deep irony in the American Jewish establishment’s apparent questioning of the Jewishness of these young dissenters. Because what distinguishes today’s Jewish student activists from prior generations of American Jewish leftists is precisely their interest in incorporating Jewish ritual itself into their protests. In New York alone, at least 10 non-Zionist or anti-Zionist minyanim, or prayer communities, have sprouted in the last several years. They’re overwhelmingly populated by Jews not much older than Tess Segal.
BrownU Jews for Ceasefire Now erected a Gaza solidarity sukkah last fall. One Jewish undergraduate fearful that the sukkah would be vandalized or dismantled began guarding it at night. She even joined other students who slept in the rickety structure, which symbolizes human frailty and divine protection, as Jews have done for millenniums, despite the administration’s prohibition. She escaped disciplinary proceedings without punishment but soon hatched another plan entwining her Judaism with her support for the Palestinian cause: to belatedly become a bat mitzvah, a woman accepting the obligations of Jewish law. This February, she was called to the Torah for the first time, in a ceremony entirely conducted by members of BrownU Jews for Ceasefire Now, now called Brown Jews for Palestinian Liberation.
To Mr. Trump and the leaders of the American Jewish establishment, she may not be a real Jew. But like many in her generation, she is angrily and joyfully proving them wrong.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
4) ‘60 Minutes’ Chastises Its Corporate Parent in Unusual On-Air Rebuke
The show’s top producer abruptly said last week he was quitting. “Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways,” the correspondent Scott Pelley told viewers.
By Michael M. Grynbaum and Benjamin Mullin, April 27, 2025
In his remarks on Sunday night’s telecast, Scott Pelley presented Bill Owens’s decision to resign as an effort to protect “60 Minutes” from further interference. Credit...John Paul Filo/CBS, via Associated Press
In an extraordinary on-air rebuke, one of the top journalists at “60 Minutes” directly criticized the program’s parent company in the final moments of its Sunday night CBS telecast, its first episode since the program’s executive producer, Bill Owens, announced his intention to resign.
“Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways,” the correspondent, Scott Pelley, told viewers. “None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”
A spokesman for Paramount had no immediate comment, and has previously declined to comment on Mr. Owens’s departure.
Mr. Owens stunned the show’s staff on Tuesday when he said he would leave the highest-rated program in television news over disagreements with Paramount, CBS’s corporate parent, saying, “It’s clear the company is done with me.”
Mr. Owens’s comments were widely reported in the press last week. The show’s decision to repeat those grievances on-air may have exposed viewers to the serious tensions between “60 Minutes” and its corporate overseers for the first time.
Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of Paramount, has been intent on securing approval from the Trump administration for a multibillion-dollar sale of her media company to a studio run by the son of Larry Ellison, the tech billionaire.
President Trump sued CBS last year, claiming $10 billion in damages, in a case stemming from a “60 Minutes” interview with the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, that Mr. Trump said was deceptively edited. Ms. Redstone has expressed her desire to settle Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, although legal experts have called the case far-fetched.
In his remarks on Sunday night’s telecast, Mr. Pelley presented Mr. Owens’s decision to resign as an effort to protect “60 Minutes” from further interference.
“He did it for us and you,” Mr. Pelley told viewers of the show, which began airing in 1968. “Stories we pursued for 57 years are often controversial — lately, the Israel-Gaza War and the Trump administration. Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. He was tough that way. But our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it.”
After “60 Minutes” ran a segment in January about the war between Israel and Hamas, Ms. Redstone complained to CBS executives about what she considered the segment’s unfair slant. A day later, CBS appointed a veteran producer to a new role involving journalistic standards. She reviewed certain “60 Minutes” segments that were deemed sensitive.
Representatives for Mr. Trump and for Paramount are involved in settlement talks, and mediation is expected to start this week.
Mr. Pelley’s on-air monologue on Sunday night evoked a previous moment of public discord between “60 Minutes” and its corporate overseers.
In 1995, also in a closing note to viewers, the correspondent Mike Wallace said on air that the program had chosen not to broadcast an interview with a former tobacco industry executive because managers at CBS News had given in to legal pressure. “60 Minutes” ultimately aired the interview, and the episode was later dramatized in “The Insider,” a 1999 movie starring Al Pacino as Lowell Bergman, a “60 Minutes” producer.
Sunday’s “60 Minutes” episode also featured a segment that examined the Trump administration’s decision to reduce funding to the National Institutes of Health, including an interview with a former director who expressed his concerns about adverse effects on Americans’ health.
Lauren Hirsch contributed reporting.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
5) Albuquerque Has a Crime Problem. Is the National Guard the Answer?
New Mexico’s governor said the troops are needed to help quell violence. But in the deeply blue city, the plan to deploy them has drawn uneasy comparisons to the talk of President Trump.
By Jack Healy, Reporting from Albuquerque, April 28, 2025
National Guard troops in Albuquerque listen to an instructor in preparation of deploying next month to support law enforcement. Credit...Brad Trone for the New York Times
To critics, President Trump’s threat to deploy the military to fight crime and unrest in America’s cities is a nightmare scenario, a pretext for martial law and a potential assault on democracy.
But starting next month, dozens of National Guard troops will be on the streets of a deeply Democratic city, Albuquerque, in a deeply Democratic state, New Mexico. And they are being deployed by the state’s governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat. She said they are needed to help the strained police force confront a crisis of violent crime and fentanyl use.
“The situation in Albuquerque has reached an unacceptable crisis point,” she said. “We simply cannot wait for traditional solutions to take effect.”
Few residents of Albuquerque would deny the scourge of violence in a neighborhood bisected by Route 66 and home to dense blocks of auto shops, immigrant-run businesses and working-class families. Officially, it is the International District. But many call it the War Zone.
The governor’s move to deploy Guard troops more commonly seen at wildfires, hurricanes and tornadoes has divided locals, reflecting the broader civil war within the Democratic Party over crime and disorder. It is already emerging as an issue among the Democrats who seek to succeed her in the governor’s office in Santa Fe.
Some praised the Guard’s arrival, saying extra resources could help to restore order before the 100-year anniversary of Route 66 brings thousands of tourists to Albuquerque next year. Critics called it an invasion of a neglected neighborhood that desperately needs better housing and services.
“What’s the difference between Trump and the governor if they’re both rolling out the military?” asked Enrique Cardiel, a longtime community organizer who helps run a monthly potluck in the neighborhood.
Under the governor’s plan, the Guard troops will deploy across Albuquerque but will focus on the area around Route 66, a strip of fading, neon-lit Americana that is now home to homeless encampments, shuttered motels, people smoking fentanyl on the sidewalks and a corner market where seven murders have occurred since 2020.
The area has grappled with gangs and drug-related violence stretching back decades, residents said, but crime and homelessness have soared since the Covid pandemic. Retailers have fled. People have built steel security fences around their pueblo-style homes.
But debate lingers over whether that calls for military action. The governor and her allies are quick to say there’s plenty of difference between the state’s plan and the deployments Mr. Trump has entertained.
“This isn’t about militarizing our streets,” Ms. Lujan Grisham said in an email, sent while she was traveling in Asia last week. She framed the deployment as “bold, decisive action.”
She said the Guard’s role of supporting law enforcement would be completely different than the domestic uses of the military that Mr. Trump has entertained, such as patrolling the border, quelling protests or fighting crime.
“There’s a clear line between supporting law enforcement with specialized capabilities versus using troops to perform law enforcement functions,” she said. “Our operation is a targeted, strategic deployment requested by local officials who are on the front lines of this crisis.”
Ms. Lujan Grisham, who will complete her second and final term in 2026, has made confronting New Mexico’s high rates of violent crime a central issue in her final years as governor, and the issue is likely to shape the Democratic primary to replace her between Sam Bregman, the district attorney in Albuquerque, and Deb Haaland, the progressive former congresswoman and Interior secretary.
This spring, Ms. Lujan Grisham scolded fellow Democrats in the state Legislature for failing to pass new laws to address a surge in juvenile crime. After three people were killed in a shooting at a park in the border town of Las Cruces last month, she suggested calling lawmakers back for a special session focused on “our ongoing public safety crisis.”
She issued the emergency declaration in response to a request for help from Albuquerque’s police chief, Harold Medina, made in March. City officials say the 950-officer department is chronically understaffed, like many nationwide, and that putting Guard troops into supporting roles would free up more officers to patrol the streets, respond to complaints and investigate violent crimes.
About 60 to 70 National Guard members will deploy to Albuquerque. They will not have the power to arrest people or do any direct police work, officials say, and will not carry guns, be in uniform or roll down Route 66 in Humvees. Instead, they will wear polo shirts and khakis, and carry radios and — maybe — pepper spray, officials said. The effort is expected to cost the state about $750,000 a month.
The Guard troops are likely to transport detainees to jail, direct traffic around accidents or crime scenes, monitor security cameras, or help with airport security, officials say. Some may end up giving aid to fentanyl users, or handing out water to homeless people when the pounding summer temperatures hit 100 or higher.
It is hardly the first time Guard soldiers have been deployed beyond the bounds of a natural disaster. Thousands responded to chaotic protests after George Floyd’s killing in 2020, and Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York, a Democrat, sent hundreds to assist with an influx of migrants two years ago. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, dispatched rifle-carrying Texas National Guard troops as part of a border-security operation.
In New Mexico, Guard troops deployed as substitute teachers during the pandemic, when Covid depleted the ranks of teachers, and responded to record-breaking wildfires. Some Guard members said deploying in Albuquerque was a chance to address a different kind of emergency.
“It’s definitely not an invasion,” said Staff Sgt. Richard Aragon. “The military’s just there to help the police officers and the community.”
But critics say the Guard’s deployment to the streets of Albuquerque puts citizen-soldiers into a fraught role. Should they be required to wear body cameras, as Albuquerque police officers are? What if they get into a physical confrontation while securing the perimeter of a volatile crime scene?
“There is a ton of liability,” Sheriff John Allen of Bernalillo County, which includes Albuquerque, said in a social media post. He said he had declined to deputize any Guard members. “Lines can be skewed. I don’t want people to feel like we’re militarizing our community.”
The complexities of their mission were on display last week, when several dozen Guard troops sat in an auditorium watching a slide presentation about how to transport a prisoner. An instructor from the New Mexico State Police ticked through a minefield of challenges: how to buckle them in safely; how to search for drugs or weapons; how to check the tightness of their handcuffs; how to prevent an escape; the proper holds to use to escort a detainee.
“You guys might have to testify,” the instructor cautioned. “You’re always under the spotlight.”
On the streets of the International District, some residents welcomed the Guard’s upcoming arrival while others dismissed it as the latest in a string of cleanups and crackdowns. Heather Still, 49, a retired nurse, recently called 911 when a woman overdosed behind her apartment building, and said she welcomed any help from anywhere.
“It’s gotten really bad,” she said.
Albuquerque officials say they have been making progress. Property crimes like auto theft, burglary and shoplifting are down by double digits this year compared with 2024, and homicides were about 40 percent below last year’s numbers, the police said. Albuquerque has cleared encampments and opened tiny-home villages. A public-safety campaign led by Mr. Bregman, the Bernalillo County district attorney, the county sheriff and others has resulted in more than 500 arrests and the seizure of 35,000 fentanyl pills and 40 guns, officials said.
Tony Johnson, a deacon at Highland Baptist Church, doubted much would change. People frequently camp and use drugs on church property, he said, and when he asked three men to leave one day last year, one of them struck him with a metal pipe, crushing the bones in one hand. It is still scarred and swollen, and some in his congregation now refuse to leave their homes at night.
“People don’t have any hope,” he said, driving past an apartment building where a 17-year-old would be arrested in a fatal shooting two days later. “Fifteen-year-olds, 16-year-olds, what are they doing with guns? But is that the National Guard’s responsibility, to figure that out?”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
6) There Are Limits to What the Courts Can Do in the Face of Trump’s Legal Onslaught
By Kate Shaw, April 29, 2025
Ms. Shaw, a contributing Opinion writer, is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
For weeks Americans have been debating whether we’re facing a constitutional crisis. My answer, for the record, is that we are.
But perhaps more than a constitutional crisis, we’re in a rule of law crisis. And while the courts are caught in the middle of this crisis, it’s not something they can adequately remedy.
The basic proposition of the rule of law is that we are a society of laws, not of men. Government actors must wield their power consistent with rules that are known in advance, so people understand what’s expected of them and what consequences will attach to particular actions.
It also demands that government officials take action based on what the legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron recently described as a set of “public norms” rather than “on the basis of their own personal or political preferences.” It requires what the scholar Lon Fuller called “generality” — the equal application of the law — and it demands accountability by those in power when they are found to have taken unauthorized action or exceeded their authority.
Many of the administration’s actions in the first 100 days of President Trump’s term violate core principles of the rule of law — most notably in the administration’s almost gleeful lawlessness in response to its mistaken deportation of Maryland father Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, but also in its elimination of funds in violation of numerous statutes passed by Congress, mass firings of both high-level officials and civil servants and the targeting of perceived enemies in cartoonishly unconstitutional orders. While these actions are inconsistent with core rule-of-law principles, they may also violate specific provisions of the Constitution.
The Constitution sets forth particular requirements: Laws must be passed by Congress and signed by the president or over a veto; the president shall “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed; no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Those aren’t self-defining terms or phrases, and there’s much room for interpretation and application. But they impose a set of obligations and create a set of rights that all government actors are obliged to respect.
In our system, courts have come to serve as key guarantors of those rights. But courts, in particular federal courts, are limited in both power and reach. They are by design slow and reactive. They are not self-starters: They can rule only in cases properly before them, which means there needs to be a party experiencing a particular injury that is continuing or will imminently occur and that the judicial process can remedy.
Courts typically confront cases raising discrete questions, meaning there’s an atomistic nature to constitutional law and constitutional adjudication. Courts have also devised an array of doctrines identifying spheres in which they will be reluctant to rule or to rule in too directive a fashion: Most relevant here are cases involving sensitive questions regarding the president’s conduct of foreign affairs and diplomacy (as in the Abrego Garcia case, which involved dealings with El Salvador), where courts typically give executives very wide berth.
These various screens prevent courts from reaching every legal question. They also mean that courts cannot generally protect against unlawful conduct before it occurs, and they are often limited in what they can do after the fact. They can and they should, as in the case of Mr. Abrego Garcia, seek to finish superintending his return, in part by requiring the executive branch to fix its egregious error. But they cannot act as roving guarantors of the rule of law.
As more challenges to the administration’s actions arrive at the Supreme Court, the administration will likely notch some wins and some losses. The court will be asked to answer specific questions in each case: Does the Impoundment Control Act invade presidential prerogatives? Does the clause of Article II vesting “the executive power” in the president mean that the president must have complete control over all subordinate officials, so that efforts to limit his ability to fire at will are not permissible? Do the guarantees of the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments protect law firms from targeted attacks? Does anything in the text or history of the 14th Amendment allow the president to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to parents without legal status?
Whatever happens in these cases, the possible inability of courts to provide redress doesn’t relieve other officials in government of their obligations to the rule of law. Regrettably, high-ranking executive branch officials in this administration have given no indication that they intend to adhere to that obligation.
But other officials can — like the Justice Department lawyer whose concession of the government’s error in the Abrego Garcia case has been critical to the litigation success Mr. Abrego Garcia has had, and who was evidently placed on leave and then terminated for having the temerity to adhere to duties to both the court and the rule of law.
Other Justice Department lawyers should follow his lead. Perhaps U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III had such actors in mind when he wrote, in Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case, of the hope that “it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the executive branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos.”
Members of Congress, too, should use their platforms to seek information and keep attention trained on the administration’s trampling of the rule of law, as Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland did when he traveled to El Salvador to seek contact with his wrongly deported constituent. They should also use their power over the executive branch, from funding to personnel, to compel compliance. And in the face of flagrant violations of both the rule of law and specific provisions of law, they should consider impeachment.
Members of the public, too, should continue to push the administration to comply with court orders and with the rule of law, as did attendees at an Iowa town hall who recently shouted down Senator Chuck Grassley over his failure to stand up for Mr. Abrego Garcia and for the rule of law. And institutions of civil society should stand up for the rule of law, as Harvard recently did when it announced that it would not comply with demands from the administration that would undermine academic freedom.
Governing within the rule of law should not be optional, something to be applied when it is convenient and ignored when it is not. The rule of law is not necessarily easy, since it contains difficult questions of both theory and application — but that is what makes it so critically important, and its absence so dangerous.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
7) After Pro-Israel Crowd Assaults Woman, Protesters Rally in Brooklyn
The police were investigating the attack in Crown Heights, where hundreds of pro-Israel demonstrators surrounded a woman and hurled slurs at her.
By Liam Stack and Chelsia Rose Marcius, Published April 28, 2025, Updated April 29, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/28/nyregion/protests-israel-woman-attacked-brooklyn.html
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Barclays Center on Monday. They had planned to march to Chabad Lubavitch World Headquarters, where a woman was attacked by pro-Israel counterprotesters, but police officers blocked them. Credit...Victor J. Blue for The New York Times
A small group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, shadowed by a heavy police presence, rallied in Brooklyn on Monday night to condemn the actions of a crowd of pro-Israel counterprotesters who verbally and physically assaulted a woman there last week.
After gathering at Barclays Center, the pro-Palestinian group, which numbered in the dozens, set out for the Chabad Lubavitch World Headquarters in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, the focal point of dueling protests on Thursday where the woman was attacked.
The police filled the streets, with some officers blocking off cross streets by standing in a line while holding bicycles. When the crowd began to drift into the street, a police recording directed protesters to get back on the sidewalk or face arrest.
One man was arrested near the Central Library on Grand Army Plaza shortly before 9 p.m. The protest was otherwise peaceful, and the police kept the group from reaching its intended destination.
Fliers for the protest cited two other assaults that organizers said had happened at the Crown Heights protest. Mayor Eric Adams said on Sunday night said that a second woman had been separated from other pro-Palestinian protesters and harassed by counterprotesters. She was injured in the encounter, Mr. Adams said.
Erin Williams, 37, was among those in the crowd. Ms. Williams, who lives in Crown Heights, said the attacks on the two women had motivated her to join the protest.
“It’s not that it takes happening in my neighborhood to care, but this felt like the final straw,” she said. “When I see a mob of 100 men threatening to rape a woman, I’m done defending Israel. I’m out in the streets.”
The police have said they are investigating the attack on the first woman. That woman, who has not been publicly identified but who provided a statement to The New York Times, said the assault occurred after she wandered onto the scene of the protests, which had been touched off by an appearance at the Lubavitch headquarters by a far-right Israeli official.
The official, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s national security minister, has espoused racist anti-Arab views and fiercely opposed a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. His speech on Thursday drew a small group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators and a much larger crowd of pro-Israel counterprotesters, according to videos posted online by those in both camps.
In her statement to The Times, the woman said a large crowd of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men kicked her, threw objects at her, threatened to rape her and hurled sexist, racist and anti-Arab abuse at her. Her account is consistent with video footage of the incident that was shared widely online.
The protest on Thursday devolved into chaos because of a potent mix of provocative factors: the presence of Mr. Ben-Gvir, who has been considered a political extremist in Israel for decades; its location on Eastern Parkway outside Chabad headquarters, a cherished site for the Hasidic Jewish community; and the attack on the female bystander.
As news of the assault spread, activists posted calls on social media for the protests on Monday.
The organizers said they planned to “flood the streets of Crown Heights to inform them Zionism is not welcome here.”
Protests in support of both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have become common in New York in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel’s ensuing war in Gaza.
According to Police Department data, there have been roughly 2,400 associated protests since the war began, with 400 held in the last four months alone. An estimated 29,500 people have attended those protests since Jan. 1, according to the data.
At one point during the protest on Thursday, hundreds of men and boys, many dressed in Hasidic attire, surrounded the woman, according to the police and videos of the episode.
In her statement to The Times, the woman said she was not involved in the protests but had been watching with neighbors and pulled a scarf over her face when people began filming. She asked that her name not be used for fear of retribution.
The woman said she was quickly encircled by an angry crowd and moved near a line of police officers for protection. The crowd began to chant “death to Arabs” in Hebrew and followed her and an officer who had begun escorting her, video shows.
Many people also shouted racist and sexist profanities at the woman as others shoved her. At least one person hurled an orange construction cone at her head before the officer was able to guide her into a police vehicle, the footage shows.
Rabbi Motti Seligson, a spokesman for Chabad Lubavitch World, said the organization condemned “the crude language and violence” seen at the demonstration, though he attributed it to a “small breakaway group of young people.”
“Such actions are entirely unacceptable and wholly antithetical to the Torah’s values,” Mr. Seligson said in a statement. “The fact that a possibly uninvolved bystander got pulled into the melee further underscores the point.”
Scott Richman, the Anti-Defamation League’s regional director for New York and New Jersey, echoed that sentiment, describing the events as “totally unacceptable and appalling.”
“No one should be singled out for harassment or violence because of their perceived views,” he added, “nor should Jews meeting in a synagogue be shouted down with antisemitic slurs or accusations of genocide.”
The attack was also denounced by groups critical of Israel. Edward Ahmed Mitchell, the deputy director of the national Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the organization condemned “the violent mob of pro-Israel racists who chased and attacked a woman down a New York City street.”
And Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, a left-leaning activist group, said in a statement, “It is impossible to separate the mob’s hateful, violent attacks from the ideology Ben-Gvir promotes.”
Mr. Ben-Gvir spent decades on the political fringes in Israel before he rose to influence in recent years as part of the coalition government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
He attracted public attention in Israel for the first time in 1995, when he appeared on television and threatened the life of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Several weeks later, Mr. Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing extremist, Yigal Amir, who opposed the prime minister’s participation in the Oslo peace process.
Mr. Ben-Gvir was also barred from serving in the Israeli army because of his political views, a rare occurrence in a country where most people fulfill military service as a rite of passage.
And for many years he was well-known for keeping a portrait in his home of Baruch Goldstein, a Brooklyn man who killed 29 Palestinians in a 1994 massacre at a mosque in the West Bank.
His visit to the United States has been punctuated by frequent protests.
On Wednesday, hundreds of protesters rallied outside an appearance by Mr. Ben-Gvir in New Haven, Conn., at Shabtai, a private Jewish discussion society that is based at Yale University but not affiliated with the school.
And on Thursday, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, appeared outside a restaurant in Manhattan where Mr. Ben-Gvir was speaking.
Joined by several rabbis and Brad Lander, the city comptroller and a mayoral candidate, Mr. Nadler announced that he would introduce legislation designed to impose economic sanctions on Israeli settlers who commit violence in the West Bank.
Another protest against Mr. Ben-Gvir was held Sunday in front of the Edmond J. Safra Synagogue in Gravesend, Brooklyn, according to the police and video footage.
That synagogue is across the street from Congregation Shaare Zion, where Mr. Ben-Gvir had been expected to speak, according to members of both synagogues. His talk, which was scheduled for around 9:30 a.m., was canceled, the members said.
Cassidy Jensen and Molly Longman contributed reporting.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
8) Justice, Louisiana-Style, for Immigrants
By Laila Hlass and Mary Yanik, April 29, 2025
Ms. Hlass and Ms. Yanik are immigration law professors at Tulane Law School and the faculty authors of the report “No End in Sight: Prolonged and Punitive Immigration Detention in Louisiana.”
“The Biden administration largely maintained this vast system as part of the ongoing border crackdown.”
Gerald Herbert/Associated Press
Several of the recent high-profile cases of immigrant detention share something in common. The Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil, University of Alabama engineering doctoral candidate Alireza Doroudi, Tufts graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk and young scientist Kseniia Petrova were all rounded up in their respective states and sent to detention centers here in Louisiana.
It is no coincidence that they all were sent to the same state — a place where they are far from their families, communities and legal counsel. Louisiana has for years been part of America’s epicenter of immigrant detention, and the second Trump administration is using the state to its advantage in its effort to strip immigrants of their rights and to do so in a way that is largely hidden from public view.
Our state boasts nine immigration and customs enforcement detention centers, including a staging facility, with a capacity to hold more than 7,000 people, second only to Texas in the number of beds assigned to the task. Like Mr. Khalil, Mr. Doroudi, Ms. Ozturk and Ms. Petrova, thousands of immigrants arrested around the country have been transferred to these Louisiana jails in recent decades.
Louisiana is notorious for a trifecta of compounding barriers to effectuate the rights of immigrants: conservative courts, scarce access to legal support and horrific detention conditions. The resulting “black hole,” as civil and human rights groups have called it, threatens to erode America’s rule of law well beyond the immigration legal system.
This dates back to 1986 when an immigrant detention center was established in Oakdale, La., with 1,000 beds. Since then the state’s immigrant detention capacity has ballooned to several thousand. During President Trump’s first term, eight local jails and old state prisons were converted into immigration detention centers in the wake of statewide criminal justice reforms that reduced the prison population. Nearly overnight, the number of beds in the state warehousing immigrants more than tripled. The Biden administration largely maintained this vast system as part of the ongoing border crackdown.
Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi hold more than half of the country’s detained immigrants; immigration researchers call the stretch “Detention Alley.” These three states, and their immigration courts, fall under the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the most conservative federal circuit in the nation, known for anti-immigrant jurisprudence. Transferring immigrants from more progressive jurisdictions allows immigration officials to effectively shop for the courts of their choice.
Immigrants detained in Louisiana face antagonistic judges for virtually every type of legal claim: in seeking release from detention, in arguing for the right to stay in the United States, and in appealing any unfavorable ruling. Lower court judges sitting in what are known as detained immigration courts — there are two such courts in Louisiana, one in Oakdale and the other in Jena — deny more than three out of every four asylum claims, according to available data. If immigrants challenge their detention as unconstitutional, they generally must file in the Western District of Louisiana, a federal district court, which, from 2010 to 2020, ordered release in only 1 percent of such cases.
Immigration lawyers aren’t just scarce in remote areas of Louisiana, where detention centers are found — they’re also hard to find in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. A vast majority of detained immigrants across the country attempt to represent themselves, with little success; as slim as their odds are, detained immigrants with a lawyer are at least twice as likely to win their case as detained immigrants without representation.
Even those who secure a lawyer often have trouble arranging legal visits and phone calls. And according to one lawsuit, immigration and jail officials interrupted attorney-client visits, intimidated lawyers, trapped them for hours inside a facility and followed them off the property.
The conditions in Louisiana immigration facilities are punishing. A great majority of immigrant detention centers in Louisiana, as is the case nationally, are run by private corporations intent on turning profits. A 2024 report by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organization documented a litany of abuses, from brown water and food infested with maggots to sexual assault, liberal use of tear gas and dozens of instances of denied medical care. Those who complained faced retaliation, including months of solitary confinement.
These conditions have contributed to the deaths of eight people detained in Louisiana in the past five years, according to the same report. Some scholars and advocates have speculated that these conditions are meant to deter people from pursuing their legal claims to remain in the United States, forcing them to give up, even when facing possible violence in the country to which they would be deported.
In 2021, a Buzzfeed News investigation uncovered an internal memo written by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties recommending that one notorious Louisiana detention center be “drawn down to zero” in light of “conditions that can lead to abuse, mistreatment and discrimination.” The facility, Winn Correctional, remains open, with a daily population of about 1,500 people. The Trump administration has since shuttered the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Advocates for immigrants have gotten U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to end its contracts with a handful of detention centers over the last five years. One group, Southeast Dignity Not Detention Coalition, aims to replicate those successes in Louisiana.
The human rights abuses perpetuated in these facilities reverberate well beyond the state and beyond immigrant communities, undermining our understanding of due process for all. When government officials and powerful private actors are allowed to create legal black holes and act with impunity to shield their actions, everyone’s right to liberty and justice is threatened.
Laila Hlass and Mary Yanik are immigration law professors at Tulane Law School.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
9) Attack on Migrant Facility in Yemen Kills Dozens, Houthis and Aid Officials Say
The Houthi militia, which is backed by Iran, said the attack was an American strike. The U.S. Defense Department said it was assessing the claims and took them seriously.
By Ismaeel Naar, Reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Published April 28, 2025, Updated April 29, 2025
Rescue workers at the scene of the attack in Saada, Yemen, on Monday. Credit...Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Dozens of people were killed on Monday in an attack that hit a migrant facility in an area of northern Yemen controlled by the Houthi militia, according to the group and aid officials.
The Houthi militia, which is backed by Iran, said that an American strike hit what the group called a migrant center in Saada, killing at least 68 African migrants.
A U.S. Defense Department official said that Central Command was “aware of the claims of civilian casualties related to the U.S. strikes in Yemen, and we take those claims very seriously.” The official said it was conducting a damage assessment and an inquiry into the Houthis’ claims.
The attack came hours after the U.S. military said that American forces had conducted more than 800 strikes in Yemen since mid-March in a campaign against the Houthis. It said the campaign targeted “multiple command-and-control facilities, air defense systems, advanced weapons manufacturing facilities and advanced weapons storage locations” — but made no mention of civilian casualties.
Houthi officials have said that more than 100 civilians have been killed and condemned the latest strike as a “heinous crime against African migrants.”
The Houthis and the U.S. military have made competing claims about who was responsible for civilian deaths in recent strikes. Last week, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command said that an explosion on April 20 that killed 12 people in the Yemeni capital had been caused by a misfired Houthi missile, not an American strike as the Houthis had claimed.
On Monday, graphic footage broadcast by the Houthi-controlled al-Masirah news channel showed bodies scattered amid the rubble in Saada. In addition to the dozens who were killed, at least 40 migrants were injured, according to two aid officials in Yemen who spoke on the condition of anonymity while they further verified the circumstances of the attack.
The United Nations said it was deeply alarmed by the reports of an airstrike on the migrant facility, adding that it had received reports from colleagues that hospitals in Saada were being overwhelmed because of their limited capacity.
“Two nearby hospitals have already received more than 50 injured people, many of them critically wounded,” Stéphane Dujarric, the spokesman for the U.N. secretary general, said. “These numbers could increase as search-and-rescue efforts continue, which are being led by frontline responders.”
The Houthis claimed that the migrant center was operating under the supervision of the International Organization for Migration and the International Committee of the Red Cross — an assertion that both organizations denied.
The International Organization for Migration said that it was not operating at the facility but that it was monitoring the situation and was “ready to offer support as needed.”
The International Committee of the Red Cross said it did not run or supervise the facility but that the Red Cross and the Yemen Red Crescent Society were working to evacuate the wounded to nearby hospitals.
The International Organization for Migration withdrew from Saada this year after the United Nations suspended operations in Houthi-controlled areas.
Each year, tens of thousands of African migrants attempt the perilous journey across the narrow strait separating the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula, hoping to reach wealthy Gulf States north of Yemen. Nearly 60,900 migrants have arrived in Yemen in 2024 alone, according to the International Organization for Migration.
Yemen’s ongoing conflict and political instability have made it an increasingly dangerous destination for migrants. African migrants face exploitation, abuse and sexual exploitation, according to aid groups.
Over the past year, the Houthis have launched rockets and drones at Israel and targeted ships in the Red Sea, saying that their actions are in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.
The United States intensified a bombing campaign against the Houthis starting on March 15, under orders from President Trump, who has vowed to continue military operations until the Houthis no longer pose a threat.
On Monday, the Houthis’ military representative, Yahya Saree, vowed in a televised statement to continue carrying out attacks in the Red Sea.
Abdi Latif Dahir contributed reporting from Nairobi, Kenya.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
