This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 30, 2026.It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
Dockworkers in more than 20 countries—from France to India to Greece—are withholding their labor on Friday to demand an end to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza and highlight the role that commercial ports play in fueling deadly militarism worldwide.
Organizers said the work stoppages, led by dockworkers’ unions at 113 ports across 22 countries, would be the “largest coordinated port action ever,” easily surpassing the international day of action held in February. No Harbour for Genocide, a collective of trade unions and others supporting the day of action, said $2.8 billion worth of cargo will be halted at Mediterranean ports, where workers are planning to strike for 24 hours.
“A cargo refused in one port sails on to the next,” said No Harbour for Genocide. “Refused in every port, it stops, and the workers have enforced the embargo that governments announced and did not.”
In a joint statement last month announcing the day of action, dockworkers’ unions from Türkiye, Morocco, Italy, France, Greece, Italy, and Basque Country laid out their demands:
An immediate end to the genocide of the Palestinian people and the opening of safe corridor for humanitarian aid.. An end of colonization, occupation and apartheid imposed to Palestinian People and the recognition of an independent Palestinian state recognized by the international community on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
An end to the war in the Middle East. No support, no facilitation, no participation in the US-Israeli war against Iran, Lebanon or any other imperialist intervention. Military fleets and bases out of the region. We express our full solidarity to the people of Cuba and Venezuela and Sudan menaced by US imperialism and we call for defend people’s sovereignty, resources, territorial integrity, peace with justice, and the right for resistance for self-determination.
Ports must not be used for the transport of weapons, ammunition, military equipment and troops. We call on unions to strengthen vigilance, to inform workers, to expose the cargoes of war, and to organize mass collective resistance with all our rightful available means and our struggle.
An end to the militarization of ports and critical infrastructure. Ports belong to the peoples and the workers. They are not bases for NATO, the USA or the EU, nor tools of shipowners and monopoly groups.
No to the war economy and armaments. The money must go to wages, collective agreements, health, education, social needs, and the protection of life and safety at work.
Health and safety measures in the workplaces. Not one worker dead for profits. An end to intensification, subcontracting, dangerous conditions, and employer arbitrariness.
Collective agreements with real wage increases, stable jobs with rights, a retirement policy with better pensions, and a reduction of working time. Technological developments, mechanization, automation, the use of AI and the development of ports must serve the needs of workers, and not lead to the intensification of work or the disappearance of their jobs.
“Our strength lies in organization. It lies in our unions, in general assemblies, in collective decisions, in solidarity among workers from different countries,” the unions said. “We, the workers in the ports, know very well that without us nothing moves. Without our hands, containers remain still, ships are not loaded, the war machines are blocked.”
Al Jazeera noted that of the ports participating in Friday’s actions, “Genoa, Livorno, and Gioia Tauro in Italy, Marseille in France, Piraeus in Greece, and Tangier in Morocco all have proven links to weapons shipments to Israel.”
Dockworkers International Day of Action across 5 Continents and 113 Ports
In Pireaus, at COSCO’s terminals, dockworkers are holding the picket lines. Their message is clear
Dockworkers do not work for war! Ports for the peoples and for peace, not bases for imperialists! pic.twitter.com/cpOwK8XLhV
The strikes come as Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues despite a ceasefire agreement that putatively took effect last October. A United Nations report published earlier this week noted that “Israeli authorities and forces continue to commit genocidal acts” in Gaza “even after the so-called ceasefire agreement, with the intent to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part.”
The report found that Israel—which is armed and supported diplomatically by Western governments, principally the United States—has “committed war crimes and the crimes against humanity of extermination, persecution, torture, rape, and other forms of sexual violence” in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories.
Port Workers and Communities for Palestine said in a statement Friday that will be demonstrating at the Port of Elizabeth in New Jersey. The coalition said the New Jersey port is the only port on the East Coast of the US where a protest is expected. Demonstrations are also expected in Oakland and San Francisco, California.
“We know that, regardless of what union leadership may decide, workers everywhere stand in solidarity with Palestine,” said Port Workers and Communities for Palestine. “We will be out there on Friday to show them that they are part of this movement too. Workers have the power to stop the war machine.”
Jaffa, Israel — Outside of Ahva Elementary School in Ajami, a historic Palestinian neighborhood just south of central Tel Aviv, the mood was defiant on October 27, the day of Israel’s national elections. “We fear that if we do not get this government out of power, we will lose everything,” one Palestinian voter told me after casting her ballot.
It came as no surprise that she, like most of the Palestinian citizens of Israel I interviewed on Election Day, asked not to be named. Since October 7, 2023, more than 400 Palestinian citizens of Israel have been investigated by police for “incitement,” often over social media posts, according to the legal rights group Adalah.
During the 1948 war, which Palestinians call the Nakba, most of Jaffa’s nearly 100,000 Palestinian residents fled or were expelled. The fewer than 4,000 who remained were concentrated in Ajami, fenced in with barbed wire, where they lived under Israeli military rule until 1949.
Just weeks ago, it was not clear that the parties most Palestinian citizens of Israel vote for would even appear on the ballot. In September, Israel’s Central Elections Committee, a body of party representatives, voted to disqualify both Arab parties — which are led by and draw most of their votes from Palestinian citizens of Israel — from running in the election. The Joint List is an alliance of three parties running together to clear the 3.25 percent threshold needed to enter the Knesset.
Hadash, a left-wing party with roots in Israel’s Communist Party, is the only one of the three with both Jewish and Palestinian members. Ta’al’s platform has historically focused on the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Balad, a Palestinian nationalist party, calls for Israel to become a state of all its citizens, with equal rights for everyone.
The other party, running independently, is Ra’am, a conservative Islamist party led by Mansour Abbas, which in 2021 became the first Arab party to join an Israeli governing coalition.
The two Arab parties were eventually reinstated and allowed to run in the Israeli election, but only after an appeal to Israel’s Supreme Court.
As Israelis vote to elect the country’s 26th parliament (Knesset), Palestinian voters in the Ajami neighborhood said Gaza was at the top of their minds. Just down the road is a public memorial displaying photos of some of the more than 20,000 children who have, according to a UN commission, been killed by the Israeli military in Gaza since October 7, 2023.
The memorial, at Hajj Kahil Square, has been torn down more than once. In May, according to Bokra, a Palestinian news site, two men, one of them carrying a rifle, ripped the photos from the walls. The next day, Jaffa residents put them back up and renamed the traffic circle the “Gaza Children’s Roundabout.” Police, who ultimately answer to Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far right minister of national security, have also tried to stop protesters from displaying the images.
Whether or not to participate in Israel’s national elections has long been a fraught topic among Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Whether or not to participate in Israel’s national elections has long been a fraught topic among Palestinian citizens of Israel. Some fear that voting in the election would lend legitimacy to a state that expelled most of their families in 1948 and maintains a military occupation over Palestinians in the West Bank, and that human rights groups say has committed genocide in Gaza; but others view it as their only way to gather power in the Knesset, especially more than three years after October 7.
An unprecedented wave of homicides in the community has also pushed many to the polls. At least 184 Palestinian citizens of Israel have been killed this year, putting 2026 on pace to surpass last year’s record of 252, according to the Abraham Initiatives. Police filed indictments in just 12 percent of homicides in Palestinian communities by June 2026, compared with a historic rate of indictments in 65 percent of cases involving homicides committed against Jewish Israelis.
On Israel’s Election Day, a recorded voice message went out to more than 1 million Palestinian voters from Sousan Sultan, whose sister Susan was killed in April 2025, and whose husband, Ziad, was murdered last August. “My sister was murdered, and she cannot vote in the election,” Sultan said in the recording, asking voters to cast their ballots in her sister’s name.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main challengers have all ruled out forming a coalition with the Arab parties, even as polls suggest the opposition may struggle to reach a majority without them. Throughout the campaign, Likud (Israel’s largest right-wing party) and its allies have made those parties a frequent target of their campaign ads, using Palestinian electoral power as a way to drum up turnout among anti-Palestinian blocs.
Some ads depict images of Palestinian political leaders, including Ahmad Tibi, who was an adviser to Yasser Arafat, alongside center-right politician Gadi Eisenkot, whose Yashar party leads the opposition, proclaiming the choice is “the right” or “Palestine.”
In the Negev, the desert region in Israel’s south that is home to most of the country’s roughly 300,000 Bedouin citizens, many of whom identify as Palestinians, voter turnout has historically been low. But in this election, that appears to have completely shifted. In the Bedouin village of al-Atawneh, turnout had reached 64 percent by noon on the day of the election, the highest in the country, according to Central Elections Committee data. In the last election, it was 41 percent for the entire day.
“We are seeing record-breaking voter turnout in the Naqab [the Arabic name for the Negev] today for the Knesset elections, reaching unprecedented levels,” Huda Abu Obaid, advocacy coordinator with the Negev Coexistence Forum, told Truthout on Election Day. “However, right-wing groups are intentionally delaying the voting process, forcing voters to wait in excessively long lines.”
Many of the Negev’s Bedouin citizens live in villages the state does not recognize, which lack connection to the national water and electricity grids and where homes face demolition for being built without permits. Israeli authorities demolished a record 5,187 buildings in Bedouin communities in the Negev in 2024 alone, up from 3,283 the year before, according to the Negev Coexistence Forum.
Far right parties sent their own observers to polling stations in Palestinian communities, and rights groups reported long delays in the Galilee, in the north, and the Negev, both home to large Palestinian populations. The Central Elections Committee said it had found no evidence of systematic tampering and that polling stations would stay open past 10:00 pm for anyone still in line.
On Election Day in 2015, Netanyahu warned in a video that Palestinian voters were heading to the polls “in droves,” a message widely credited with driving a late surge in support for Likud. This year, he did it again, warning his base of high Palestinian turnout and claiming, without evidence, that his opponents were trying to steal the election.
With about 84 percent of all votes counted by Wednesday afternoon, no party bloc was close to reaching the 61-seat threshold required to form a majority in the Knesset. Netanyahu’s bloc was the largest, at 54 seats, but it was still down from 68 he held in the outgoing Knesset. Meanwhile, the opposition bloc (composed of all non-Arab parties running to unseat Netanyahu) won 49 seats. The Arab parties won a combined total of 17 seats, the most they have ever won in history. Turnout among Palestinian citizens reached an estimated 80 percent, breaking a record set in 1999, and surpassing the turnout rate among Jewish Israeli voters for the first time ever.
Jafar Farah, director of the Mossawa Center, a Haifa-based advocacy group for Arab citizens of Israel, cautioned against reading too much into the numbers. Farah was elected to the No. 2 spot on Hadash’s slate in May but withdrew in September. He said the rise in Palestinian turnout does not necessarily mean Palestinian citizens have renewed faith in the Israeli state or its institutions, or believe the ballot can end the military occupation of the West Bank (a theme in some of the Joint List’s campaign ads), or change conditions in Gaza. Instead, Farah said, many voters see casting a ballot as a form of “damage control.”
At least 184 Palestinian citizens of Israel have been killed this year.
“The increase in turnout projected in the 2026 polls, if it materializes, cannot automatically be interpreted as a return of trust in the Israeli establishment or in the Arab parties,” Farah said. “It may also reflect a growing sense of the need for political protection in conditions marked by uncertainty.”
A May poll by Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center found that while more than 77 percent of Palestinian citizens of Israel want an Arab party in the next government, only 40 percent believe Jewish Israelis genuinely support a political partnership with them.
Netanyahu’s challengers offer little on the issues many Palestinian voters care about. Eisenkot’s party says it supports Jewish settlement wherever it is carried out legally and opposes a Palestinian state. Eisenkot himself has said anyone still thinking about a two-state solution after October 7 is “simply delusional.” Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who leads the B’Yachad list, has ruled out ceding any land to what he calls Israel’s enemies, an apparent reference to a Palestinian state.
As of today, the math appears simple: Without the Joint List or Ra’am joining the coalition, the opposition appears to have no way to form a majority in the Knesset. Yet Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman, two right-wing opposition leaders, are still ruling out any government that relies on Arab parties, and Eisenkot has not dropped conditions for coalition partners that most Palestinian lawmakers are unlikely to accept.
Palestinian citizens of Israel turned out in record numbers to get the Netanyahu government out of power, but it remains to be seen whether the other opposition parties will join in their efforts.
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 28, 2026.It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
Labor advocates and Democratic lawmakers called on Americans to honor the legacy of the legendary union organizer Dolores Huerta, who died Wednesday at age 96, by “continuing to fight for her dream” of justice for all.
A spokesperson for Huerta’s family said she died of cancer, and her family members said they would share plans “to recognize and celebrate her incredible life and legacy” at a later date.
“We know that many of you around the world share in our mourning,” said her family, including her 13 children who survive her.
Huerta became a hero to workers across the world in the 1960s when she joined Cesar Chavez to establish the National Farm Workers Association, which became known as the United Farm Workers in 1972.
She helped lead a strike by Filipino workers in the grape-growing industry in Southern California, as well as boycotts of companies that paid migrant workers low wages, while exposing them to toxic chemicals and providing no job security.
Huerta faced violence by strikebreakers and police, 22 arrests for her nonviolent protests, and surveillance by the FBI, which suspected her and Chavez of Communist ties—but nevertheless organized one of the most successful produce boycotts in US history in 1968, garnering support from 17 million households and thousands of grocery stores that pledged not to purchase California table grapes due to growers’ abuse of workers.
Dolores Huerta has passed away from cancer at 96. She was a founder of what became the United Farm Workers and an inspiration for generations of organizers.
Her courageous leadership in civil disobedience set an invaluable example in nonviolence. Dolores’s memory will live on. https://t.co/BMnLgbI2XK
The strike led by Huerta and Chavez also gained the backing of the United Auto Workers and Democratic Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and the grape growers were forced to provide benefits to the workers the industry depended on.
“Through courage and determination, she helped change what the world saw as possible, who the world saw as deserving of rights and dignity. Every worker owes her a debt of gratitude,” saidSara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants. “It’s a debt that we must pay forward by continuing to fight for her dream of a world where no human is exploited and no injustice is written off as someone else’s problem.”
Along with Huerta’s historic boots-on-the-ground victory for farmworkers, she pushed for the passage of one of the country’s first major farm-labor laws, the Agricultural Labor Relations Act in California, which was passed in 1975. The law gave the state’s farmworkers the right to organize unions and made them eligible for health insurance, pensions, and other benefits.
For those who pursue peace and justice around the world, we mourn the loss of Dolores Huerta. The strength of today’s labor movement would not be possible were it not for the decades-long work of Dolores. From the Delano Grape Strike of the 1960s until the very end of her life,… https://t.co/DsCq6CXLDe
She also pushed lawmakers to pass immigration reform in the 1980s and backed campaigns for voting rights, environmental justice, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her last arrest was in 2019, when she was rallying for fair pay for home health aides.
“Dolores Huerta gave us all of the empathy, care, and encouragement of a mother for workers everywhere, with a fierce love for people that fueled her principled, relentless, strategic action for results that lifted millions of workers and our families,” said Nelson. “She never gave up, she never gave in, and she fought for a better world to her last breath.”
Chavez was often viewed as the leader of the movement they led together, with Huerta serving as vice president of the United Farm Workers for nearly forty years.
But earlier this year, Huerta and other women in the movement revealed to The New York Times in a bombshell report that Chavez had sexually abused women and children as young as 12 for years.
Huerta accused Chavez of raping her at least twice in encounters that led to pregnancies. She said she did not report the assaults to police because they were hostile to their labor organizing, and said she had not been aware of his alleged abuse of minors.
“Unfortunately, he used some of his great leadership to abuse women and children,” Huerta told the Times. “I never talked about it to anybody, and the reason I didn’t is because I just didn’t want to hurt the movement.”
Huerta remained with the United Farm Workers until 1999. Three years later she established the Dolores Huerta Foundation, which leads grassroots organizing efforts to promote education equity, LGBTQ+ equality, and other causes.
She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012 by President Barack Obama, who acknowledged at the ceremony that the rallying cry he adopted in 2008, “Sí se puede” (“Yes we can”), had originated with Huerta.
“¡Sí, se puede! is more than a chant,” said Melat Kiros, a progressive Democratic US House candidate in Colorado. “It’s a promise we must keep in her honor: that the people united can change the world.”
This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Oct. 27, 2026, and is shared here with permission.
Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro arrived in the United States on Tuesday, according to Mexican lawyer Simón Levy, who describes himself as a liaison to President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. In a post on X made at 3:20 p.m., Levy said the failed presidential candidate had landed safely and credited U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio with orchestrating the operation.
As of the time this information was provided, the U.S. government, Brazil’s Foreign Ministry and the Federal Police had not officially confirmed his arrival. Brazilian authorities also had no formal record of the senator leaving the country.
“As I reported hours ago, Flávio Bolsonaro has arrived safely in United States. The mastermind behind this operation is U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. From the United States, free and safe, Flávio will lead the opposition against Lula,” Levy wrote on X.
The trip came after Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Bolsonaro’s passport seized. According to reports, he fled Brazil overnight, accompanied by his family, with help from a small group of allies from both Brazil and the United States. The Federal Police found no record of him passing through a regular immigration checkpoint.
Bolsonaro’s legal team said their last contact with him was at 4:30 p.m. on Monday. Reports in the Argentine press mentioned a possible border crossing and a jet that reportedly reached Puerto Iguazú but never took off. The exact circumstances of his departure have not been officially confirmed.
Bolsonaro Said He Would Stay in Brazil, Then Fled the Next Day
Bolsonaro had said he would hand over his passport to the Federal Police and would not leave the country over the election results. That is not what happened.
Who Is Simón Levy
Simón Levy is a Mexican lawyer and businessman who presents himself as connected to the MAGA movement. He previously served in the government of Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
Levy had already said on social media that Bolsonaro was en route to the United States. He later announced the senator’s arrival and said Rubio was responsible for orchestrating it. In another post, he said a U.S. protection operation was underway to ensure the lawmaker’s safety.
Levy’s statements, however, have not been confirmed by U.S. officials. His claim of proximity to Trump’s political circle does not, on its own, prove that the U.S. government formally participated in Bolsonaro’s departure or his reception in the United States.
What Is Operation Alba
Operation Alba is a name Levy uses to describe an alleged political strategy involving Bolsonaro and U.S. activity in Latin America. According to Levy, the senator will lead opposition to President Lula da Silva’s government from within the United States.
In Levy’s account, the effort is tied to pressure from Washington on Venezuela, Cuba and Mexico, including economic measures. Levy also credited Rubio with orchestrating the operation. Levy has written about Operation Alba on his website.
Asylum Request or Fugitive From Justice?
Allies of Bolsonaro say he plans to request political asylum from President Trump. According to these accounts, that protection could extend to his wife and two daughters. The reported favorable signal from the U.S. government has also not been officially confirmed.
In Brazil, the Federal Police canceled both Bolsonaro’s regular and diplomatic passports. Workers’ Party (PT) lawmakers have requested his pretrial detention and asked that his name be added to an Interpol Red Notice. The Socialism and Freedom Party (PSOL), meanwhile, has asked the Senate to investigate whether he has abandoned his elected position.
His departure also upends the political plans attributed to him. Allies had said he intended to lead opposition to Lula’s government in Congress. With his trip to the United States, that strategy is now on hold, according to these accounts.
This article originally ran in the Brazilian labor union news portal TVT News, was translated with express authorization of the editor by Panamerican Dispatch, and can be read in its original Portuguese here.
The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council voted unanimously this October to ban data centers on tribal land in Montana. The ban follows a decision in August by the Fort Peck Tribes to bar officials from projects involving data center developers.
But Montana’s Tribes are now split. Next door to the Northern Cheyenne, the Apsáalooke, or Crow Tribe, has not taken an official position and remains open to hearing proposals from companies, according to Shane Doyle, an Apsáalooke tribal member and The Nature Conservancy’s Indigenous right relations director. Doyle grew up on the Crow Reservation and has consistently advocated for reciprocity with the land, rendering him a voice in the dissent, whether he intends to be or not.
The stakes are highest in Crow country. In the small city of Hardin, at the Crow Indian Reservation’s northern edge, a former cryptocurrency mine is being actively converted into an AI data center. About 14 miles northwest of the reservation, Texas-based Quantica Infrastructure plans to build its Big Sky campus on nearly eight square miles of ranchland near the town of Broadview, north of Billings, Montana’s most populous city. As it’s currently planned, the data center would rank among the largest data centers in the world. The Yellowstone River Valley is “the heart of the Crow Nation,” Doyle said.
Krystal Two Bulls, who is Oglala Lakota and Northern Cheyenne, has been tracking these data centers closely. As the executive director of Honor the Earth, a nonprofit tracking data centers on or near reservation lands, she takes an extensive view of history and geography when it comes to tribal land and AI developments.
“Broadview is still a traditional territory of the Northern Cheyenne and also the Crow,” she told Truthout. “It may not technically be on the reservation, but it definitely is still going to have an impact on the land and the people around it.”
The divide over data centers comes as developers eye Montana for its land, water, and power, and as Tribes test how far their sovereignty can actually reach. Bans like the Northern Cheyenne’s are enforceable on tribal land, said Matthew Fletcher, a University of Michigan Law professor and member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. But tribal bans on off-reservation data centers that affect reservation waters are “unlikely to be enforceable,” Fletcher said, unless a tribe can show a very significant threat to its waters, enterprises, or citizens’ health.
Quantica has asked Northwestern Energy for more than 7,000 megawatts. The utility currently serves about 750 average megawatts, said Anne Hedges, executive director of the Montana Environmental Information Center. “We’ve never imagined something this massive,” she told Truthout. The company’s plan includes about 1,700 megawatts of gas generation, which alone would be more than the gas generated by all Montana’s existing gas plants combined.
The gas would affect more than just the rural Broadview community. A retired Billings pulmonologist modeled the air-quality impact of 1,700 megawatts using EPA tools, Hedges said, and found fine-particulate pollution spreading to communities east of the site, including the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, and Fort Peck reservations. “It’d be a disaster,” she said.
The Northern Cheyenne resolution, which passed by a vote of 8-0, covers all land on the reservation, says Melissa Lonebear, a Northern Cheyenne citizen and tribal council member. It quashes any extant or future data center discussions on their territory. (None are currently active.) “We have fought historically to preserve our land,” says Lonebear. “We have fought against coal development, coal bed methane, all these things.”
The Northern Cheyenne own nearly all of the land within their reservation, which makes the Tribe a target for developers looking for large, contiguous sites, Lonebear said. She added that the governor had remarked in a closed meeting with tribal leaders that big corporations were looking for land. “I almost felt like we would be targeted,” she said.
Fort Peck’s ban bars the tribal government, individuals, and entities from discussing proposals to build data centers on the tribe’s reservation. The tribe passed the ban after three companies approached the tribe about data center projects on tribal land, Tribal Chairman Floyd Azure told Montana Free Press. Azure had asked standard questions about the benefits to his community, and after learning about the required natural resources, he strongly rejected theirs and any future proposals. Azure did not respond to Truthout’s request for comment.
Tribal water rights in the state define what is available for development projects like data centers. Fort Peck and the Northern Cheyenne coordinate with state environmental agencies, such as Montana’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), to enforce these rights. “Physical and legal water availability analysis are part of the water rights permitting process, as is an assessment of adverse effect to other water right,” Patricia Spencer, a DNRC spokesperson, told Truthout.
Water rights are set out in an agreement between a tribe and a state, and sometimes the federal government. Such an agreement limits the amount of water available to the tribe within the state’s overall supply, which is sourced from groundwater and rivers near and far. “The proposed datacenter in Hardin is located in a basin closed by the compact, and DNRC cannot process or grant an application for an appropriation of water within the Bighorn River Basin,” Spencer said in an email. “At this time, DNRC has not received any water rights applications or change applications tied to that facility.”
The Crow’s calculation also includes revenue, according to Lonebear. The Absaloka coal mine, which was long the Tribe’s marquee employer and profit source, shipped its last rail car of coal in 2024, the Billings Gazette reported. In August, a Senate committee advanced the Crow Revenue Act, a bill with full-throated support from Crow reservation chairman Frank White Clay that would give the Crow ownership of their coal, previously paternally managed by the Hope Family Trust. In exchange, the Hope family is offering federal coal reserves in Bill Mountains, which they’re anticipated to lease to Signal Peak Energy, whose customers are in Japan and South Korea. The Crow also plan to participate in the mining directly in the future.
The Absaloka coal mine reduced capacity and then halted production in April 2024 after losing its main client, Xcel Energy’s Sherburne County Generating Station (Sherco Plant), in Minnesota, which pivoted to cheaper, cleaner alternatives like natural gas. It’s a loss that left the Crow without a clear surrogate source of revenue.
“The Crow Tribe has decided to develop their coal… and so the rest of the world should not be in our way for that,” Conrad Stewart, energy director of the Crow Tribe, told Inside Climate News.
We’re trying to always make sure that we protect our water, keep it clean, make sure there’s enough for the fish and for people to drink and use in the community … So I think a data center would conflict with that.
Water is on everyone’s mind. “We’re trying to always make sure that we protect our water, keep it clean, make sure there’s enough for the fish and for people to drink and use in the community,” says Doyle. “So I think a data center would conflict with that, with all our values.”
Asked whether the Crow will follow suit on the ban, Two Bulls said she was “hopeful,” but added that she doesn’t think the Crow will “entertain a ban or even a moratorium,” citing her understanding that tribal leadership sees data centers as a way to replace declining coal revenue.
The Crow chairman and executive officers all declined requests for comment.
Water may be a forefront issue, but that may not be the same for tribal consultation. Without a federal permit, federal land, or federal money, the federal consultation duties don’t apply: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA review, and the federal government’s consultation obligations to Tribes.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has a public comment period that closes October 29 on Quantica’s water well. The company hasn’t yet applied for a water right, according to the DNRC, and that application will come with its own public notice.
Asked whether Montana’s Department of Natural Resources and Conservation must notify or consult the Crow Tribe, DNRC spokesperson Patricia Spencer pointed to the general public notice process. “Public notice, including an opportunity for the public to comment and make objections, is a part of the water rights permitting process,” Spencer told Truthout. “The Crow Tribe–Montana Water Rights Compact would not have any bearing on an application near Broadview.”
Meanwhile, the Montana Public Service Commission is developing a large-load tariff for data centers. The state legislature is scheduled to convene in January 2027, with what Hedges describes as dozens of data center bills. No Native legislators sit on the energy committee drafting them, and at the same time she called the American Indian Caucus “a force to be reckoned with.”
“We do not anticipate the construction and operation of our Big Sky Campus will impact tribal lands or water rights,” a Big Sky Digital Infrastructure spokesperson told Truthout over email.
“If we put a project like this in around Yellowstone County, in that river valley, it’s gonna be an environmental impact similar to a coal mine, or something that’s gonna cause irreparable harm to the area. I think that’s why there’s so much opposition to it right now,” Doyle said.
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 26, 2026.It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
“There is nothing inevitable about the far right,” said one former Obama administration official Sunday night as supporters of the left-wing Student List in Serbia poured into the streets of Belgrade and other cities across the Balkan country, celebrating their defeat of right-wing President Aleksandar Vučić, who has led the nation for nearly a decade and has been accused of corruption and autocratic rule.
The Student List’s victory coincided with that of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was also backed by a student-led movement that marched through Rio de Janeiro and other cities in recent weeks, as US President Donald Trump was accused of election interference on behalf of right-wing Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, Lula’s opponent.
Both countries reported high voter turnout in the pivotal elections, proving, as journalist Anne Applebaum said, “that voters can alter what feels like a historical shift.”
In years of genocide hope came from the young
In Serbia 2 yrs of youth-led protest -integrity, unity, perseverance- brought change
Today that hope is a rainbow its far end in Brazil
May it shine wherever wounds run deep and the young are fighting the old
— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) October 26, 2026
In Serbia, Vučić said it was “clear that we have lost the election,” as results showed his Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) had won about 105 seats while the Student List had won at least 135.
The Student List movement, officially registered by the Republic Electoral Commission as “Studentska lista—Studenti pobeđuju” (Student List—Students Win) began in November 2024 after the concrete roof of a newly renovated train station in Novi Sad collapsed, killing 16 people. Students and other Serbians blamed corruption and negligence by Vučić’s government, and soon began blockades at a majority of the country’s higher education institutions.
Rallies in the coming year drew hundreds of thousands of people. The political movement that grew out of the sustained protests called for an independent judiciary, a special prosecutor to hold public officials accountable, independent reviews of major infrastructure projects, a higher minimum wage, and better funding for education, healthcare, and agriculture.
A cardiologist and professor from Novi Sad, Ilija Srdanović, topped the list of 250 candidates that the Student List put forward ahead of the snap elections on Sunday, but the movement has said Srdanović will not automatically be its choice for prime minister. The list of candidates for Serbia’s 250-seat Parliament includes doctors, farmers, activists, athletes, and actors.
“Never again tyrants in our country,” Srdanović said after the defeat of Vučić, who was prime minister before becoming president in 2017 and has been Serbia’s central political figure since 2012, developing a reputation for threatening his critics and cracking down on press freedom.
One Student List supporter, Sara, told The Guardian in Belgrade, “It’s very strange that on the very streets where the police beat us, on the streets where we retreated countless times in the face of the gendarmerie, we are now standing here as the victors.”
Nebojsa Cosic said to Reuters: “The people have won! The people defeated a dictator! The people will lead Serbia!”
In Brazil, thousands rallied ahead of the runoff election between Lula and Bolsonaro, the son of convicted former President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally who is serving a 27-year sentence under house arrest for orchestrating a coup attempt after his election loss in 2022.
Right-wing candidates won a significant number of seats in the earlier elections, which followed Trump’s push to secure partnerships across Latin America—stoking fears that Bolsonaro could win Sunday’s runoff and pushing students to lead pro-Lula rallies and marches across the country.
At a Copacabana Beach rally in Rio on Saturday, supporters carried a yellow and green banner that read, “We are going to turn this around!”
Isabella Graze, a retired teacher who joined a 10-million member WhatsApp group aimed at mobilizing pro-Lula voters, told The Guardian that “being a soldier in Lula’s army… means fighting for Brazilian democracy. This isn’t a normal election.”
Huge respect to the organizers, activists and voters of Brazil and Serbia. These results are due to so much work and they give us so much hope. There is nothing inevitable about the far right.
The Serbian and Brazilian elections came two days before Israelis are set to vote, potentially ending the long-running term of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an accused war criminal whose US-backed government has waged war on Gaza, killing more than 74,000 Palestinians, and pushed to violently take control of more of the occupied West Bank.
They also came just over a week before the midterm elections in the US, with Democrats pushing for congressional control to rein in Trump for the final two years of his term. The campaign has been marked by openly racist, anti-Muslim attacks by Trump and his allies on Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Republican ad claiming that Ohio Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton lied about her abusive childhood, and persistent claims by the president that the cost of living is down, contrary to all evidence.
“Feeling so much hope from the results out of Serbia and Brazil,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.). “This took tremendous people power, organizing, and grit. Now it’s time to turn our country around, too.”
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Sunday was “a good day for democracy.”
“Israel could be next on Tuesday, then the US midterms the following week,” said Roth. “The best case against the autocrats is the autocrat.”
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 26, 2026.It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
In a historic comeback, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva triumphed in Sunday’s run-off election over right-wing challenger Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of former Brazilian President and convicted coup-plotter Jair Bolsonaro.
Lula’s victory comes despite the best efforts of US President Donald Trump and his Big Tech backers, as Trump’s administration openly intervened on behalf of Bolsonaro and Meta boosted pro-Bolsonaro over pro-Lula content on its social media platforms.
“Lula won, Brazil won, democracy won, the Americas won,” saidPennsylvania Democratic House nominee Chris Rabb from Lula’s campaign headquarters in Sao Paulo, Brazil, after the results were announced around 9:15 pm Brasilia time. “They declared victory for Lula da Silva for his fourth term against a raging fascist, rubber-stamped for Donald Trump.”
“These elections have represented a historic victory for the majority of the Brazilian people, who mobilized to defend democracy against the threat of fascism.”
Rabb noted that Lula’s victory marked an important turning point for the left in Latin America, as far-right parties hadwon every other national election in the region since the start of Trump’s second term. “This is the first victory for democracy in this hemisphere since Trump took office,” Rabb said.
ith 99.99% of the votes counted, Lula won by 51.79% to Bolsonario’s 48.21%, making him the first Brazilian candidate since the restoration of democracy in 1985 to win a second-round election after coming in second in the initial round.
“I would like to thank the Brazilian people for the generosity they have shown me for a long time,” Lula said in his victory speech in São Paulo late Sunday. “And, in this second round, I want to thank the generosity of the Brazilian youth, who took to the streets to defend democracy.”
After finishing two percentage points behind Bolsonaro in the October 4 poll, Lula re-energized his campaign by finally shortening the Brazilian workweek from six to five days, as his supporters launched demonstrations against the far-right.
“These elections have represented a historic victory for the majority of the Brazilian people, who mobilized to defend democracy against the threat of fascism,” Francesca Emanuele, senior international policy associate with the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), told Common Dreams from Sao Paulo, Brazil, where she was monitoring the elections. “It was the Brazilian people themselves (students, working-class, and middle-class Brazilians) who took to the streets and mobilized tirelessly from the very first day after the first round of voting to overturn the first-round results and secure Lula’s victory.”
Reginaldo Lopes, a federal deputy for Lula’s Workers’ Party, told The Guardian: “I feel incredible… This is Brazil telling the world that the extreme right is fascist, that the extreme right is against Black people, is against the poor, against the state, against gay people… We are going to reorganize the democratic forces [in this country.]”
Sunday’s victory did not come easily, as the Lula campaign complained of bus shortages in the key cities of Salvador and Sao Paulo, requesting that the Brazilian Supreme Court extend the voting by two hours. The court granted the request, so polls closed at 7 pm Brasilia time instead of 5 pm.
“Lula’s win is the first good news for the planet in a while!”
“Lula has won despite the unfair practices his campaign has faced from Meta, interference from the Trump administration, and severe disruptions to public transportation on election day in major cities (where up to 50% of bus fleets were reportedly out of service),” Emanuele told Common Dreams. “These disruptions disproportionately affected working-class voters, who rely heavily on public transportation and have historically been a key part of Lula’s electoral base.”
She continued: “Despite all these obstacles, Lula’s campaign managed to turn around a first-round result that, just a few weeks ago, had seemed extremely difficult to reverse. This is a major victory for the majority of the Brazilian people.”
Several advocates and lawmakers hailed the election results as a rebuke to the far-right and the Trump administration in particular.
“During his campaign, President Lula characterized 2026’s elections as a choice between ‘sovereignty or submission.’ Brazil has clearly chosen sovereignty,” the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who sent a delegation to observe both rounds of Brazil’s elections, wrote in a statement.
Progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) posted on social media: “People all across the world are fighting back against extremism. With Lula in Brazil, they just won. Authoritarian leaders always attack democracy because they stand no chance against the will of their people. Trump must respect the results and not undermine Brazil’s elections.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said: “Congratulations to Lula on his extraordinary reelection victory in the Brazilian presidential election. Lula has stood up for Brazilian workers & democracy—and will continue to do so in the next four years.”
“Lula’s hard-fought victory is an indictment on the right-wing wave sweeping through Latin America,” Joseph Bouchard, a journalist and researcher who focuses on Latin America, told Common Dreams. “Except for [ Salvadorian President Nayib] Bukele, the right across the region is still incredibly unpopular, and rightly seen as corrupt, autocratic, and uncommitted to fixing systemic issues. Lula shows there is still a fight for democracy worth having, while the region is plunged into its darkest, most regressive period since the Cold War. The entire region is populated by vassal states for US interests, who have declared states of exception to curtail rights, freedoms, and basic principles of social democracy, in the name of a failed and anti-human war on drugs.”
Lula’s victory also has planetary consequences, as he broughtdeforestation in the Amazon rainforest back down to record lows after it accelerated during the tenure of Jair Bolsonaro, who attacked environmental protections and Indigenous rights.
“Lula’s win is the first good news for the planet in a while!” wrote350.org and Third Act co-founder Bill McKibben. “I bet it shaves a tenth of a degree off how hot our Earth eventually gets, which will save millions of lives. Thank you Brazil!”
Lula still faces a fight ahead, as Bolsonaro announced it was “impossible to concede the election result” due to the extension of polling hours, even though his team had also sought an extension in parts of southeastern Brazil because of unfavorable weather.
Bouchard pointed out that “Lula will fight an uphill battle with a far-right Congress, inept Supreme Court, and constant outside pressure..”
“Trump’s silence on the result is worrisome, with Flavio not conceding and demanding an annulment,” he told Common Dreams. “Sadly, much of the corporate press has legitimated these claims, despite the right’s concerted efforts at destroying democracy. No matter how much the authoritarians try to tip the scales, the people can still prevail, if the left is willing to fight. This might prove to be a confidence boost to the demoralized and overpowered left all over the region, and may hopefully set the region back toward progress, hard fought after decades of dictatorship and neoliberal transitions.”
US-based Lula allies urged others in the US to defend Brazil’s democracy from Trump administration interference and to take their own stand against the far-right in the upcoming midterm elections.
The DSA wrote:
However, the fight continues—the thin margin of this victory indicates that continued struggle and mobilization will be crucial. As global capitalism fails to solve worsening problems of its own making, the capitalists turn to right-wing authoritarianism. Brazil’s left-wing coalition will face a right-wing Congress at home, a hostile Trump administration in the US, and hostile capitalists both [at] home and abroad in the years ahead. We of the DSA stand in solidarity with our comrades in the PT [Lula’s Partido dos Trabalhadores], PSOL [Brazil’s left-wing Socialism and Liberty Party], and Brazilian social movements in this fight for democratic self-determination.
This solidarity means recognizing our country’s role in the threat to Brazilian democracy. These elections were marred by interference from the US, whether by Trump’s politically motivated tariffs, or by manipulation of social media by US-based tech companies like Meta. They aimed to subvert Brazil’s democracy to favor its far-right allies grouped in the “Shield of the Americas,” and to get their hands on crucial natural resources, such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earth minerals as well as petroleum and iron ore, which Brazil possesses in abundance and which Lula has sworn to protect as national patrimony. The DSA categorically denounces these meddlesome, imperialist efforts. We fight for a working-class foreign policy—one which centers peace, multilateralism, and respects national self-determination, free from US interference.
Rabb concluded his message with a call to action, and a celebration: “This is a big deal for us in the United States. This shows that Trumpismo is waning, and it is our responsibility now to make sure that we kill the beast. That beast is injustice, it’s oligarchy, it’s neoliberalism. All of these things. Now it’s our turn, folks. November 3 is right around the corner, but right now I’m going to party with these Brazilians.”
Update: This piece has been updated with commentary from Joseph Bouchard.
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied an emergency petition from the Trump administration, which sought a stay on a lower court’s injunction on a policy that would have denied gender-affirming care to federally incarcerated transgender people.
That policy was implemented by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 that denied the existence of transgender people. The order also directed federal agencies to take steps that would be consistent with that view, and included specific instructions for the BOP.
“The Attorney General shall ensure that the Bureau of Prisons revises its policies concerning medical care to be consistent with this order, and shall ensure that no Federal funds are expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex,” the order reads.
After the BOP conformed to the order, a group of incarcerated trans people who had been receiving gender-affirming care sued the administration. The group is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued that their Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment were being infringed upon.
A federal judge agreed, and, in August, ordered the policy to be blocked. The Trump administration challenged that finding, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld it, prompting Solicitor General John Sauer to submit an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
The court has regularly ruled against transgender people, allowing state bans on trans athletes’ participation in sports, ruling in favor of a ban on transgender people in the military, and upholding state laws that bar gender-affirming care for trans children and teens. Yet on Wednesday, the court denied the Trump administration’s request.
“The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied,” the order read, giving no further explanation. Two justices for the court — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — would have granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay, the document said.
Around 1,000 federally incarcerated trans people have also been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The ruling means these individuals can continue receiving gender-affirming care while they remain in federal prisons or jails and the case moves forward in the lower courts.
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 21, 2026.It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
Democratic US congressional candidate Brad Lander said Wednesday that he was released by Israeli forces with a “warning” after he and dozens of others were detained while helping Palestinians harvest olives in the illegally occupied West Bank.
“Several dozen rabbis and participants harvesting olives with me are still in detention,” Lander, who is Jewish, wrote on social media. “They should all be released immediately. To be clear: Palestinians face far worse consequences every day. These detentions by the IDF are one more attempt to undermine Palestinians’ right to harvest their olive groves, travel on their roads, and live in their homes.”
Prior to his release, Lander posted a video from a bus that he said was “taking us away for processing” after settler security called the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on the group harvesting olives.
“Let’s be clear: Occupation is a crime under international law,” said Lander, who is running to represent New York’s 10th Congressional District in the US House of Representatives. “Harvesting olives is not a crime under any law.”
I’ve been released from IDF custody with a “warning,” apparently because of my public profile (I told them I wasn’t even a congressmember yet, just a nominee).But several dozen rabbis & participants harvesting olives with me are still in detention.
Lander was part of a group of around 80 American and Israeli rabbis and activists who were detained by the IDF on Wednesday as they helped Palestinians harvest olives from a grove near an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. Israeli lawyers toldNPR that the incident marked “the largest mass detention of activists in the occupied West Bank in at least a decade.”
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the US-based advocacy group J Street, said in response to the detentions that “when the government of Israel and its military and law enforcement are arresting rabbis and volunteers who have journeyed 6000 miles to protect Palestinian farmers harvesting olives and not the violent terrorists harassing and attacking the farmers—it tells you all you need to know about this government’s moral compass.”
“This illegal and immoral occupation must end,” he added.
Heba Morayef, Amnesty International’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, said in a statement earlier this week that “Israel’s apartheid system is turning the olive harvest into a season of horror for Palestinian families across the occupied West Bank.”
“States must recognize that settler attacks are not isolated acts, but a central policy of the Israeli state,” said Morayef, calling on nations to “take concrete measures to respect their obligations under international law and to avoid complicity in Israeli violations and crimes against Palestinians by halting all trade, investment, and cooperation that contribute to maintaining the unlawful occupation, apartheid, and the ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing.”
“Hiding behind empty rhetoric is not only cowardly, it is enabling further abuses,” she added. “For Palestinians, it continues to be deadly.”
This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Oct. 19, 2026, and is shared here with permission.
Supporters of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva returned to the streets on Sunday, October 18, for a nationwide mobilization in defense of democracy and the president’s reelection. The second round of the presidential election is set for October 25.
Demonstrations in various regions of the country brought together students, artists, social movements, and political leaders in a show of support for the president.
Carrying Brazilian flags, wearing red t-shirts, and holding signs, people occupied streets, squares, and avenues in state capitals, including Rio de Janeiro, Brasília, Salvador, São Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Florianópolis, and Maceió. Many of the rallies were accompanied by musical performances.
The demonstrations also aim to engage undecided voters and encourage people to participate who did not cast a ballot in the first round.
Some of these mobilizations are part of the “Bora Virar” (“Let’s Turn It Around”) initiative, which seeks to bolster Lula’s candidacy in the final stretch of the race against Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. The movement gained momentum following the first round of voting on October 4, when the far-right candidate finished ahead of President Lula.
This Sunday’s rallies are the latest in a series of demonstrations organized primarily by students and social movements since the start of the second round campaign. On October 11, a huge demonstration took place on Avenida Paulista in São Paulo, with Lula himself in attendance.
Rio de Janeiro: Artists Gather in Support of Democracy and Lula’s Reelection
Copacabana Beach, in the South Zone of Rio de Janeiro, served as the setting for a major concert and political rally in support of President Lula’s reelection this Sunday, October 18. Organized by singer Caetano Veloso and the “342 Artes” movement, the “Musical Act for Democracy” brought together artists from various generations and musical styles, alongside supporters of the president. The concert began around 2:00 PM near Posto 5, with musical performances starting at 4:15 PM, opened by singer-songwriter Edu Krieger. Artists in attendance include Caetano Veloso, Djavan, Simone, Marina Sena, Chico César, João Bosco, Frejat, Fernanda Abreu, Ivan Lins, Rubel, Duda Beat, and Xamã.
The rally transformed the Rio de Janeiro waterfront into a space for political and cultural expression, uniting music with the defense of democracy during the final stretch of the race between Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro.
The musical event in Copacabana also faced a legal challenge aimed at stopping it.
The right-wing Novo Party petitioned the Superior Electoral Court to block the demonstration, arguing that the artists’ performances could constitute “disguised campaign rallies.” Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, however, denied the request and allowed the event to proceed. The organizers clarified that the initiative is not part of Lula’s official campaign agenda and that a portion of the expenses would be covered by their own funds.
Actor Paulo Vieira, who hosted the event, criticized the legal attempt to block it. “They tried to prevent this event from happening, but they failed. Democracy is precisely this: the ability to create art, to sing, and to express oneself,” Vieira said. “This is not a campaign rally, it is not a ‘show-rally’, and it is not a campaign act.”
Members of the crowd wore T-shirts and displaying stickers supporting Lula. They also waved flags. Several politicians are present, including congressman-elect Guilherme Cortez (PSOL-SP) and Congressman Henrique Vieira, both from the left Socialism and Liberty Party.
Supporters of Brazil’s President and presidential candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of the Workers’ Party (PT) attend a rally in Brasilia on October 18, 2026. Photo by Igo ESTRELA / AFP via Getty Images
Rio de Janeiro: Students Occupy Candelária, Chico Buarque Defends Democracy.
Also in Rio de Janeiro, students, social movements, and supporters of the president gathered in the Candelária area, in the city center, this Sunday morning. Organized by the National Union of Students and supported by political parties such as the Workers’ Party nd the Democratic Labour Party, the demonstration focused on defending public education, the youth, and democracy.
Participants occupied a stretch of Avenida Presidente Vargas, carrying flags, signs, and slogans in support of Lula’s reelection.
A major highlight was the appearance of singer-songwriter Chico Buarque, who was greeted by the crowd. Addressing the attendees, the artist spoke in defense of democracy and underscored the pivotal role of students in political mobilization.
Chico Buarque junto a los estudiantes en Río de Janeiro.
Como a fines de los 60’s, pero con 82 años, el cantante sale a enfrentar a quienes todavía enaltecen a la dictadura militar y quieren llegar a la presidencia. pic.twitter.com/2R5MALy1X9
“We are here to stand against brutality and subservience. Long live the students, long live democracy, and long live President Lula!” Chico Buarque said, to the cheers of the participants.
In Rio de Janeiro, a demonstration also took place near the Madureira Overpass, in the city’s North Zone.
Brasília: Supporters March Along the Esplanade Toward the National Congress
In the capital, Brasilia, supporters of Lula occupied the Esplanade of Ministries from the early hours of the morning. The gathering began around 9:00 a.m. in front of the National Museum of the Republic, with protesters setting off on a march in support of the president’s reelection. The mobilization led to road closures in the central area of Brasília.
Around noon, the participants headed toward the National Congress.
En Brasilia hay una regla:
No hagas fotos aéreas de tus manifestaciones porque todo parece pequeño.
This mobilization came just days after another event held on the Esplanade last Tuesday (13), organized by the student union of the University of Brasília. Thousands of people took part in that demonstration, highlighting the role of the student movement in the reelection campaign.
Lula remained in Brasília throughout the day but did not attend the demonstration in person.
Salvador: Gilberto Gil, Daniela Mercury, and BaianaSystem in Rally for Democracy
In Salvador, music and political mobilization converged at a “Rally for Democracy” held on Sunday, featuring prominent figures from Brazilian culture.
The gathering began at 1:00 p.m. A sound truck led the rally, which marched toward the Farol da Barra lighthouse. Among the artists who made an appearance were Gilberto Gil, Daniela Mercury, BaianaSystem, Zélia Duncan, Armandinho Macêdo, O Kanalha, Rachel Reis, and Buja Ferreira, lead singer of the band Timbalada.
The lineup also included traditional groups from Afro-Bahian culture, such as Ilê Aiyê, Cortejo Afro, Filhos de Gandhy, and Banda Didá.
Conceived by Daniela Mercury, the event was presented by its organizers as an independent civil society initiative aimed at defending democracy, freedom of expression, and collective rights.
The mobilization also expressed support for Lula’s candidacy.
São Paulo: Mobilizations Hit the City’s Poor Neighborhoods
In São Paulo, supporters of Lula organized demonstrations across different parts of the city, with a special focus on low-income neighborhoods. In the morning, crowds gathered at Largo da Batata and Vale do Anhangabaú. Aadditional events were scheduled for the afternoon in areas such as Grajaú and Itaquera.
The mobilization aimed to extend the campaign’s reach beyond the central districts of São Paulo, foster direct dialogue with the public and win over new voters during the final week before the election.
This Sunday’s events followed a series of demonstrations that gained momentum in São Paulo after the first round of voting. On October 11, supporters of the candidate occupied a long stretch of Avenida Paulista in an event that included the participation of Lula himself. Reports indicate that the gathering spanned approximately 12 city blocks along the avenue.
Belo Horizonte: Supporters Return to the Streets for the Second Consecutive Day
In Belo Horizonte, protesters gathered at Praça da Estação, in the city center, starting at 11:00 a.m. Organized via social media, the event brought together supporters of Lula’s reelection bid and sought to encourage popular participation in the runoff election.
The demonstration took place one day after another large rally was held in the city. On Saturday, October 17, participants marched through the streets of the city center.
Minas Gerais is a key state in the presidential race. In the first round, Flávio Bolsonaro received 47.03% of the valid votes in the state, while Lula garnered 45.16%. In light of this result, Lula supporters intensified their efforts to increase his vote share among Minas Gerais residents.
In the capital of Rio Grande do Sul, supporters of the president began gathering around 11:00 a.m. at Largo Zumbi dos Palmares. The demonstration brought together leftist political leaders from the state, with participants dressed predominantly in red and carrying flags of the Workers’ Party and Brazil.
Florianópolis: Thousands Participate in March in Support of Lula
In Florianópolis, thousands of Lula supporters took part in a march through the city center. The rally began around 11:00 a.m. and included the presence of artists, political leaders, and representatives from movements allied with the Workers’ Party candidate.
Following the march, the demonstrators gathered in front of the Metropolitan Cathedral of Florianópolis.
O Corredor Vera Arruda, em Maceió (AL) tá tomado pela maré vermelha!
Maceió: March Highlights Defending Education and Sovereignty
In Maceió, supporters of Lula took to the streets of the capital of Alagoas for a march in favor of the president’s reelection. Images shared by the account “Alagoas Que Queremos” (“The Alagoas We Want”) show a large gathering of demonstrators with flags, banners, and signs.
Among the causes championed by the participants are the promotion of public education, national sovereignty, and the continuation of social investments. The demonstration is also part of efforts to secure additional votes during the final stretch of the presidential campaign.
Rapaz, nunca vi nada parecido em Curitiba! Ato GIGANTE em apoio a Lula. Repito: EM CURITIBA!
Curitiba and Other Cities Also Join the Mobilizations
In Curitiba, supporters of Lula held a demonstration starting at 1:00 p.m. at Praça 19 de Dezembro, located in the center of the capital of Paraná.
In addition to the state capitals where demonstrations have already been reported, events also took place in cities across states in more than half of the country.
The runoff vote is scheduled for next Sunday, October 25.
This article was originally published by ICL Noticias. It was translated by Panamerican Dispatch. You can read it in its original language, Portuguese, here.
This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Oct. 14, 2026, and is shared here with permission.
On August 18, Fernando Cerimedo was arrested in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, for hiring hitmen to assassinate his ex-partner, Nadia Beller, who was pregnant at the time, after she threatened to go public about his large-scale illegal bot farm operations to throw elections for far-right candidates across Latin America. Still recovering from the multiple gunshot wounds she miraculously survived, she gave an interview this week on the Ventana al Mundo program on Mexico’s public television network, Channel 14. During the interview, she explained how Cerimedo and a member of the Bolsonaro family, who is assumed to be Flavio’s brother Eduardo, met with Meta officials to plot interference in Brazil’s presidential elections. She also said Cerimedo’s largest bot farms are still operating, and that his group is planning to interfere in the Claudia Sheinbaum administration in Mexico. You can watch her interview below. Beneath that, is a transcribed and translated excerpt from her interview.
“In early August, Fernando sent me a photo with one of the Bolsonaros in the United States. I can’t pin down the exact date right now, because, as I told you, my phone is with the public prosecutor’s office. But between the first and the fifth of that month, while he was in the United States, he sent me a photo and told me they were discussing the campaign, that he was going to seek financing and that he was going to take part in that campaign, in that election, one way or another. And what they did with Meta is straight out of a playbook. They have very good contacts at Meta. In fact, there was a journalist whose page they had taken down themselves, and Fernando stepped in to get it restored, and he told me at least three times that he had very good relationships at Meta and could get any page taken down or put back up. I have no doubt that his team, his group, intervened for this. I understand there are complaints about electoral violations by Meta, that some dirty war campaigns were allowed through, along with the suspension of Lula’s accounts. I have not the slightest doubt that this was part of a strategy by this team to strip away Lula’s visibility.
The bot farm they took down here is tiny, it’s minuscule. From the very first day I gave interviews, I said there was a much bigger one. I told them where it was. They never touched it. I imagine it’s still active. I don’t think it’s in the same location anymore. It was in the business district. They never touched it, and the same goes for Argentina. I know they have their own bot farms there too. I imagine Fernando’s arrest caused some disruption, and for a moment they went inactive, but they’re fully active now. I’m a victim of it myself, because it spreads lies. His lawyer goes out and says some outrageous thing, and it immediately gets amplified by their bots. So I myself am a victim of their farms, and they use them everywhere, in every single country, with exactly the same modus operandi.
He also told me he was going to get involved in the Mexican election and would have his own candidate, because they were extremely interested in removing her, the president, from office. How do they get involved in elections? As you mentioned before: by distorting public debate, through cognitive fraud, dirty war tactics, buying influencers, their coordinated bot farms that organize attacks, that manufacture trending topics. All of that, what does it do? It distorts public debate.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered Israel’s attorney general and the heads of the Israeli military and Shin Bet security service to investigate the soldiers and officers interviewed anonymously in the documentary film NAZA.
Netanyahu called Sunday for the agencies to identify “all those who are involved or appear in the libel film” and to prosecute them for “serious information security offences, criminal defamation, and harming Israel’s diplomatic and security interests.”
In a letter to IDF Chief of Staff, the head of the Shin Bet, and Israel’s attorney general, Netanyahu decried the film for “present[ing] a false, misleading and biased narrative that defames the State of Israel and the IDF around the world and severely damages Israel’s standing.”
The film NAZA features anonymous interviews with 24 Israeli soldiers and officers involved in remote mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza over the past three years. The soldiers’ faces are obscured and voices are altered for anonymity as they speak with journalist and director Yuval Abraham on rooftops in Tel Aviv.
NAZA reveals how Israel’s AI-based surveillance systems have been used to facilitate and execute remote killings of thousands during Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The film’s title is a Hebrew military acronym for collateral damage – as in, the number of Palestinian civilians deemed acceptable to kill in a bombing with a military target. In one instance, a soldier tells director Yuval Abraham that the military approved the killing of 500 Gazans for one target.
The film and its directors have faced attacks by the Israeli government since its world premiere in September at the Venice Film Festival. Both the Israeli culture minister and Netanyahu have called for revoking the Israeli citizenship of the film’s directors, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, while accusing them of treason and defamation. The IDF chief called the film a “blood libel” and “an attack on the State of Israel.”
Upon the film’s premiere in the U.S. in late September, Netanyahu compared NAZA to “launching dozens of ballistic missiles at Israel.”
Several Israeli civil society organizations, including human rights group B’Tselem, criticized the attacks on the filmmakers, and called for “an end to the wave of incitement and threats of violence against them.”
Abraham and Szor produced No Other Land, the 2024 documentary focused on Israel’s displacement of Palestinian villages in the West Bank, along with Palestinian activist and journalist Basel Adra and Palestinian researcher and photographer Hamdan Ballal. After the film won major international awards, including an Academy Award, members of the film’s Palestinian crew were attacked by both Israeli settlers and soldiers.
Earlier this month, Israel put forward a hastily-produced rival film to counter NAZA; last week, the Israeli government announced that it was awarding the filmmakers “for their contribution to Israeli public diplomacy.”
The Guardian, which produced the film, has pushed back on the Israeli government’s attempts to discreditNAZA. On October 1st, a Guardian spokesperson said that “The process of assessing the credibility of the testimonies was rigorous. It included leaked classified documents, detailed verification of specific strikes and corroboration via a wider pool of confidential journalistic sources who did not appear on camera in the film.”
The Guardian added that the team that produced the film interviewed “more than 100 sources familiar with IDF systems used in the war in Gaza, including senior-ranking commanders directly involved in the authorization of strikes.”
Much of the material in the film had already been published in reports at The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Israel’s left-wing publication, Local Call.
In a 2024 piece co-published by +972 Magazine and Local Call, Yuval Abraham explained how AI systems like “Lavender” and “Where’s Daddy” identified low-ranking Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives as military targets. After October 7, 2023, Israel’s military decided that these tens of thousands of people could be bombed inside their homes with their families – even tracking and monitoring their children in order to strike their homes. In NAZA, one soldier spoke about using the gruesomely named “Where’s Daddy” AI system to track a 12-year-old girl before killing her. According to Abraham, the Israeli military was also aware that much of the AI systems’ data was also faulty – some 10-15 percent of the people identified as targets were not militants or operatives whatsoever.
In an interview, Abraham explained that NAZA also reveals the extent of the dehumanization of Palestinians within Israeli society – including among the self-identified Israeli “center-left,” which disproportionately took part in the aerial bombardment campaign on Gaza. The aerial bombardment campaign has constituted “some of the most heinous crimes in Gaza,” Abraham argued, as it led to the killing of thousands of Palestinian toddlers in their homes – and it was led largely by members of the center-left opposition against Netanyahu.
This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Oct. 14, 2026, and is shared here with permission.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, said technical glitches impacted posts and ads from President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s campaign, but has categorically denied any electoral interference benefiting other candidates.
Lula’s campaign petitioned the Superior Electoral Court and the National Agency for Data Protection last week, alleging “strong suspicions of an attempted interference in the Brazilian electoral process to benefit the candidacy of Flávio Bolsonaro.”
The Superior Electoral Court gave Meta 48 hours to respond, and the company submitted a document on Monday, October 12, reiterating the claim regarding technical issues and asserting that its algorithms are neutral and auditable.
Meta Acknowledges Glitches but Denies Interference
In a document submitted to the Superior Electoral Court, Meta acknowledged the occurrence of technical glitches that affected ads and posts from Lula’s campaign but rejected the campaign’s central accusation: that it was favoring the far-right candidacy of Flávio Bolsonaro.
“Facebook Brazil categorically rejects such a premise. The claim is false, unsubstantiated, and does not hold up when confronted with the facts and objective data presented herein,” reads a statement from the company, which is led by Mark Zuckerberg, who has allied himself with President Donald Trump in the US.
The company maintains that “Meta’s content distribution systems do not operate based on ideological criteria” and that “Meta does not operate its systems to disadvantage or favor candidates.”
According to the document, community standards apply equally to all users, and neutrality is described as a “design attribute of the systems themselves, with criteria that are objective, public, and auditable by the Electoral Court.” The company also stated that the technical issues mentioned did not exclusively affect Brazil or specific accounts.
What Meta failed to provide, according to Lula’s campaign, was concrete evidence that the glitches had affected other Brazilian candidates or other markets to a similar degree. The lack of verifiable data to support the claim of widespread impact is precisely the point Lula’s team disputes; this makes the “technical issue” explanation insufficient as a response to the formal complaint filed with regulatory agencies.
Accusations by the Lula campaign and the Involvement of Regulatory Agencies
On Saturday, October 10, Lula’s campaign filed a formal complaint with the Superior Electoral Court and the National Agency for Data Protection describing a pattern of issues that has persisted, according to the campaign, since last December: ad account failures, interruptions in view counts, and restrictions on boosting posts. Collectively, Lula’s team said, these incidents systematically reduced the president’s digital reach on Meta’s platforms.
To support the suspicion that their opponent was being favored, the Workers’ Party’s communications department conducted an analysis revealing a significant figure: Flávio Bolsonaro’s page recorded, on average, 2.96 times more engagement than Lula’s, despite having 17.2% fewer followers.
The PT campaign questions the company’s explanation: “The company claims that this ‘glitch’ affected other advertisers and markets but provided no evidence of this—let alone proof that the problem affected other candidates in Brazil as well. Once again, Meta claims it was a ‘technical issue’.”
The involvement of regulatory agencies signals that the dispute will not remain confined to the realm of public statements. By setting a 48-hour deadline for the company to respond, the Superior Electoral Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation during the pre-election period. The Data Protection Agency, for its part, has the authority to investigate how platforms handle personal data, opening up a regulatory front that runs parallel to the electoral process.
Meta’s Track Record in Elections and the Issue of Neutrality
Meta cites its own track record as a defense against claims of bias. In the document submitted to the Superior Electoral Court, the company states that its “institutional conduct across more than 200 elections since 2016—and in Brazil since 2018—is incompatible, both logically and historically, with the theory of deliberate manipulation in favor of a candidate.”
The company also says it has made investments exceeding $30 billion in security teams and technology over the past decade, including artificial intelligence systems and human analysis teams covering more than 70 languages.
The problem with this argument is that the company’s track record is not free from controversy. In March 2018, the company then known as Facebook Inc. acknowledged “failures” that allowed Cambridge Analytica to harvest data from tens of millions of users to target campaigns during the 2016 US presidential election—when Donald Trump was first elected—and the UK’s Brexit campaign. In July 2019, the company was fined $5 billion by the US Federal Trade Commission for allegedly misleading users regarding privacy controls over their information, a direct consequence of the scandal.
The current context adds a significant political dimension: following Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg announced he would work alongside the Republican leader against countries or governments advocating for social media regulation, a stance that repositions Meta within the global contest over digital sovereignty.
In Brazil, where the debate on platform regulation is ongoing, citing a “technical issue” to explain reach disparities during an election campaign cannot be accepted as a sufficient response—especially given a history that combines admitted failures, multi-billion-dollar fines, and the declared political alignment of the company’s top executive.
This article first appeared in Revista Forum, was translated byPanamerican Dispatch with authorization from the author, and can be read in its original Portuguese here.
This story originally appeared in Jacobin on Oct. 12, 2026. It is shared here with permission.
Speaking with members of the newly formed AutoZone Workers Union, you would never guess that one of them had just been fired — and that another would be the next morning. That’s what happened to Nathan DuCongé and then David Valencia after they won their union election. On a Zoom call with Jacobin, though, their joy was contagious. DuCongé and his coworkers were all smiles and banter as they talked about their union campaign, how it feels to win, and the unexpected boost they received from filmmaker Boots Riley.
On Friday, September 25, an AutoZone store in White Plains, New York, became the first of the company’s nearly seven thousand American retail locations to unionize. DuCongé and his coworkers, now members of United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 259, said they hadn’t been sure which way the vote would go.
“The deck was really stacked against these workers trying to organize here,” said Brian Murray, an experienced organizer brought on in August by UAW Local 259 Vice President Mike DiGuiseppe. “It was because of their sticking together, the amount of fun they have, and their camaraderie, their solidarity for each other, [that] they were able to overcome a lot of union busting.” He added, “I would have expected [them] to not have succeeded in winning that vote, but they did.”
“We Were Already a Union”
DuCongé moved to New York City two years ago and soon started working for AutoZone as a part-time employee. A year later, he became a parts sales manager. He said he decided to start organizing his store after he was removed from the schedule one Saturday in April, and instead went to a joint meeting of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) and the New York City Democratic Socialists of America (NYC-DSA). There he was connected with UAW members who encouraged him to unionize.
By then, DuCongé and Valencia, who was hired several months after him, had already discussed the possibility of a union. Valencia’s turning point came in 2025, when he worked a Fourth of July shift and found out from his paycheck that he wasn’t getting holiday pay. “I went in and I told my manager that day . . . I’m going to make a union.”
“I know this isn’t always the case, but for us, it was already there,’ said Valencia. ‘We were already a union.“
Valencia said he already knew DuCongé’s political orientation when he approached him about unionizing. “We got to talking about it, and it took a long time because we didn’t have the institutional knowledge on where to even begin, until by chance Nate met someone at a DSA meeting. They hooked us up with the UAW, and the rest is history.”
Given the store’s small size, the workers’ specific grievances, and the tight-knit relationships among several key employees, DuCongé and Valencia felt it would be a good place to test whether AutoZone could be organized.
“I know this isn’t always the case, but for us, it was already there,” said Valencia. “We were already a union.”
Do the Job Right
Juan Accostupa, a full-time sales associate who has worked at AutoZone for ten years and trained many of the organizers, described the extra responsibilities workers take on. “We’re not just a retail place. We do a lot of work,” he said. “We unload the trucks, we do installations — batteries, headlights, brake lights, wiper blades, whatever the case might be — and we’re just not getting paid properly.”
“You’re expected to do a lot for so little,” said DuCongé. “These are the kind of things that mechanics are paid to do, right?”
Accostupa said he has made minimum wage throughout his tenure at the store. “Some people think this is, like, a revolution thing. It’s not. We’re just asking for what should be done: better pay and better benefits. That’s it.”
Jess Omelia, a part-time commercial driver who previously worked for a Pepperidge Farm warehouse in Florida with “really great benefits,” said working for minimum wage with little to no benefits was a huge adjustment. “It was a job that I needed at the time, so I took it.”
“Some people think this is, like, a revolution thing. It’s not. We’re just asking for what should be done: better pay and better benefits.“
Omelia said the lack of holiday pay for part-time employees came as a shock. She recalled being put on the schedule for Mother’s Day even though she was the only one among her coworkers with a toddler. “I was the only one there working on Mother’s Day,” she said. “It was only my store manager there. He had given everyone the day off or people had called out to be with their families.”
Workers also cited other reasons for unionizing: inconsistent and last-minute scheduling, inadequate equipment, no say in how they handle their routine responsibilities or in disciplinary procedures, and a push to upsell customers known as “WITTDTJR” — short for the AutoZone slogan “What It Takes To Do the Job Right.”
“We would literally come in and underneath the [sales] numbers every day, there would be a threatening note underneath that you need to get these numbers up,” said Omelia. “You would be punished and your hours would be taken away if you weren’t upselling.”
What Makes a Supervisor?
Workers said their card drive proceeded with little incident until July, when corporate got wind of it. After the workers sent their demand letter and submitted their cards in late July, AutoZone promptly rejected them, saying DuCongé’s involvement as a parts sales manager — a position the company says is supervisory — nullified them.
DuCongé disputes that categorization. Under the National Labor Relations Act, a supervisor must have the authority, using independent judgment, to make or effectively recommend decisions like hiring, firing, disciplining, or promoting other workers — authority DuCongé said he did not have. Rather than fight the issue, which could have delayed an election, the workers resubmitted the cards without him.
“I just felt like it would be selfish if I tried to fight for my eligibility,” said DuCongé. “I never wanted to stand in the way of these people. They’re my friends, my coworkers. It was a good feeling to be able to just help.” He added, “As a member of DSA as well, I felt that as a responsibility. It was kind of like, hey, look, I’m in this organization, I might as well do something that lives up to the organization and the reason why I’m in it.”
Workers said that at a prehearing meeting in late August, AutoZone made clear that it intended to challenge the election not before the National Labor Relations Board but in federal court in Tennessee, where the company is based. At the same meeting, the workers and AutoZone signed an agreement that locked in the list of eligible voters to prevent challenges to votes on election day.
Yet other employees who hold the same position as DuCongé were allowed to vote. Two workers who were transferred to the store in mid-August were also deemed eligible.
“We Will Accept Your Invitation to Fire You”
In the lead-up to the vote, workers reported being subjected to heavy surveillance, multiple antiunion meetings per week, and threats of disciplinary action against the organizers.
“We were having three meetings a week. It was constant . . . and they were really just reading off of a script every time,” said Omelia. “It was just all anti-union. They were extremely against it, said that they would do everything in their power to fight it. If we didn’t like the conditions, [they said] that we could quit and go to another store.”
Valencia said the anti-union messaging relied on half-truths and accusations, including misleading claims about union dues and employees’ ability to communicate with their manager. Organizers, he said, were accused of misleading or threatening workers into voting yes, and were portrayed as using the campaign to land union jobs paid for by workers’ dues.
Workers said AutoZone brought in managers from locations around the country to surveil the store. “There were up to eight, nine people in the store a day, and even the customers were like, ‘What’s going on?’” said Omelia. “There would be times where they’re literally just standing at the back of the store with their arms crossed, just watching us.”
DuCongé said that after the workers submitted their demand letter on July 24, an account under the name of AutoZone CEO Philip Daniele showed up among the viewers of one of his Instagram stories.
In a September 4 recording shared with Jacobin, management threatened to fire DuCongé for union activity on the grounds that he was a supervisor: “If you continue to involve [yourself] in unionization activity, we will accept your invitation to fire you.”
LaborLab, a workers’ rights watchdog group, estimates that AutoZone spent around $200,000 trying to defeat the union. “They do everything except pay you more,” said Murray.
AutoZone in Six
Despite the onslaught of anti-union activity, the workers said the solidarity they felt with one another kept them moving forward. When Omelia’s mother died, her coworkers took up a collection. “I came into work, and they had a little envelope, and they all pitched in to help with my mom’s funeral costs. That’s how close we are.” Accostupa was quick to point out that every manager declined to contribute.
Support also came from outside the store. DuCongé, a filmmaker himself, had posted on social media about how inspiring he found Boots Riley’s new film, I Love Boosters. To his surprise, Riley started reposting updates on their organizing efforts. His first feature, Sorry to Bother You, follows a group of telemarketers who organize and go on strike.
“Boots has been massively influential on my personal life, my filmmaking efforts, but also really, really influential for this campaign,” he told Jacobin. “The solidarity is going beyond the movies and TV shows that he makes.” He added, “I just can’t thank him enough, truly, for helping us out.”
Workers said management kept talking to employees about the election in the twenty-four hours before the vote — and even during it. “On the day of voting, during voting happening, managers were pulling some of those people out of the store, and trying to sway those votes,” said Omelia.
Barred from voting and, he said, from entering the store, DuCongé stayed nearby. He recounted the moment:
I didn’t know what to do with myself, so I just stand on this hill that’s looking down at the store . . . I felt locked onto the ground, and there’s this groundhog sitting right next to me, just also looking out there too. I’m looking at the groundhog, and then eventually it just looks at me, like, “What are you looking at?” It turns out we’re both just looking down at the store. There’s this beautiful sunset and all these crows and everything, and that’s when Mike [DiGuiseppe] texted us the news, and said, “You won.” I just collapsed.
The final tally was 6–4 in favor of the union. Despite the prehearing agreement, and despite his serving as the union’s election observer, Valencia’s vote was challenged during voting, but, in the end, every eligible vote was counted.
After the Win
The day after the vote, AutoZone fired DuCongé. In a recording provided to Jacobin, management tells him: “Effective immediately, AutoZone is terminating your employment as a result of the failure to act appropriately as a manager by engaging in and/or facilitating union activity.”
The following day, another worker was fired for, in DuCongé and Valencia’s words, “not stopping the union.”
Valencia says he was fired too, on October 3, the morning after the Zoom call. Asked on the call whether he was worried about his job, he had said, “If I get fired, I get fired. They’re going to have to come up with a good reason, because I’m in the bargaining unit. It won’t be so easy.”
“If I get fired, I get fired. They’re going to have to come up with a good reason, because I’m in the bargaining unit.“
That same day, AutoZone filed three objections to the election with the National Labor Relations Board, a move the union sees as a delay tactic. The workers seem undeterred.
“We fought for this and we did it. It’s funny, I was telling the staff and everybody else, we were like the Knicks. Knicks in six,” said Accostupa. “The thing about it was we won six and four, 6–4. That was the key.”
Next they intend to help workers at other AutoZone stores organize. “I deliver to other stores, so I see the things that they go through,” said Omelia. “They were watching this election and waiting to see what happened with us to see if they could move forward.”
Valencia says AutoZone runs on the work of people like him and his coworkers. “People come into AutoZone frantic,” he says. “You help them out, you send them on their way with a smile on their face. It’s a good thing. We’re not saving the world, but one person at a time, we’re making their day better.”
“The workers on the ground are really providing all the value to the companies that eat up all the value,” Valencia says, “and all the people at the top that take all the profits that we create. And we just want some kind of compensation that looks closer to the value that we provide.”
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 13, 2026.It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
US Rep. Ilhan Omar on Monday forcefully condemned the Department of Homeland Security’s raid on her Washington, DC home as part of a broader effort to weaponize federal law enforcement against progressives who oppose President Donald Trump’s agenda.
“This is part of the fascist playbook to rile up Trump’s die-hard supporters and give them a big distraction in advance of the midterms,” Omar (D-Minn.) wrote in an email distributed by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hours after the raid. “With this obviously political investigation, Trump is telling his voters: ‘Ignore the price of gas, ignore the war in Iran, ignore that you’re losing your healthcare—we want you to get angry about this instead.’”
The email followed a statement issued by Omar’s office saying that the congresswoman “has done nothing wrong” and condemning the raid as “an outrageous abuse of power.”
“For a decade, Donald Trump has relentlessly targeted Congresswoman Ilhan Omar with inflammatory rhetoric, repeatedly putting a target on her back,” the statement read. “Now, those attacks have escalated to a pointless federal raid.”
The Trump Justice Department said the raid, executed by the investigative arm of DHS, was “part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.” Trump administration officials are reportedly probing whether Omar, who entered the US as a child refugee from Somalia and became a citizen in 2000, is in the country illegally. CBS News reported that the investigation centers on paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she was a child.
Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that he has “nothing to do with” the Omar investigation while attacking her as a “terrible person.” Omar and the Somali American community in Minnesota have been frequent targets of the president’s bigoted attacks, and Trump has called for the Democratic lawmaker to be jailed or deported.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation. I will not be silenced,” Omar wrote in a social media post on Monday.
In the campaign email, Omar called the federal investigation a “sham” and “further proof” that Trump is “willing to use the power of the federal government to try to intimidate and silence anyone who stands up to him.”
“It’s up to us to make sure it doesn’t work,” Omar added.
The raid on Omar’s home drew widespread condemnation, including from top Democrats in Congress. The leadership of the House Democratic caucus issued a statement calling the raid a “deeply disturbing” act that “raises serious questions about the continued corrupt weaponization of the federal government against Donald Trump’s adversaries.”
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) denounced the raid as “fascism in the extreme.”
“Trump is weaponizing the federal government to escalate his racist attacks against Rep. Omar, undermine her ahead of the midterms, and distract from his failures as president,” Kamlager-Dove added.
This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Oct. 08, 2026, and is shared here with permission.
No doubt you’ve seen it yourself, or read about it: Meta, the tech giant behind Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, manipulating engagement on certain accounts or banning pages and posts outright to limit the reach of specific political groups.
Here’s something that happened to me. I recently set up a second Instagram account. I never interacted with, followed or liked any far right content. I only followed progressive accounts: Brasil 247’s page, the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement, Lula and a few others. So what showed up first in my feed? A reel from Lucas Pavanato. Yes, the same far right extremist who won more than 3 million votes for federal deputy on the strength of his viral social media clips. Let’s be honest about how he got those millions of views. It wasn’t charisma, and it certainly wasn’t political substance.
Jeferson Miola, a columnist and political analyst at Brasil 247, shared an account of his own: “Instagram took down the page of SAJU, the legal aid service run by the law school at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul,” he said. “SAJU was founded in 1950, and it provides free legal help to low income people. Instagram removed the page after it posted support for Lula’s reelection. That’s a university institution being shut down for political and ideological reasons. It’s a clear restriction of freedom of expression.”
When media personality Fábio Porchat, who has 7.5 million followers on Instagram alone, posted a video video calling out abuses at senatorial candidate Michelle Bolsonaro’s prosperity gospel church, Lagoinha, Instagram pulled it offline with no explanation. It only went back online after a wave of public pressure.
I could list case after case all day. But one account stood out to me in particular: someone who actually works at Meta Brazil. I’m protecting her identity, as journalism allows, so I’ll call her Lira. Here’s what she told me:
“At Meta, there’s a whole team of human moderators who review content. They decide what gets approved and what gets flagged, whether it’s political violence, sexual content, or anything else that crosses their line. These are people with judgment and critical thinking, making real decisions, even while working within the platform’s guidelines. Right in the middle of Brazil’s election season, a large number of them were laid off and replaced almost immediately by AI systems. That means decisions are now coming from a single automated command, possibly issued from the US, designed to boost certain content while burying the rest.”
It’s no secret that Meta has been cutting jobs worldwide. What’s not public is which jobs these were, what those employees actually did, or why the company chose this specific moment in Brazil’s political calendar to make the switch.
There’s a bigger issue here too. AI doesn’t just follow orders, it scales them, instantly and at massive reach, whether the intent behind them is good or bad. All it takes is one command. Maybe from one billionaire.
Zuckerberg’s Unapologetic Support for Trump
Lira’s story connects a lot of dots. Pavanato showing up in my feed, Porchat’s video disappearing, a university page getting banned: all of it could trace back to a single AI instruction, one that executes instantly with no human review at all.
In 2025, Meta’s CEO doubled down on his alignment with the Trump administration, the same administration that openly admits to meddling in Brazil’s politics. “The government can either be actively against you, adding friction and getting in your way, or it can actively help you break down barriers,” Zuckerberg said. Asked about backing Trump specifically, he called it “the right thing to do.”
This partnership isn’t subtle. The support runs both ways, and there’s a real appetite here to control entire countries, Brazil especially. Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court and federal government still try to regulate social media and hold Big Tech accountable to the Constitution, as we saw recently with Discord. For Meta, getting Flávio Bolsonaro into the presidency would mean restoring the lawless digital free for all his father presided over. That’s not just a preference. It’s a profitable mission for Meta, and one that’s more alive than ever. After all, how do you think those viral, extremist friendly clips that get far right candidates elected actually come about, if not with some help from Big Tech?
Laís Gouveia has been a reporter at Brasil 247 since 2018. Before that, she was educational policy director at the National Student Union (União Nacional dos Estudantes/UNE) and an editor at Portal Vermelho.
This article originally ran at Brasil 247, was translated, with consent, by Panamerican Dispatch, and can be read in its original Portuguese here.
This article originally appeared on Dean Baker’s Patreon. It is reprinted here with permission.
Virtually everyone who is not a billionaire, or owned by one, agrees that we have to limit the ability of the rich to buy elections. While the Republican Party has taken “policy for sale” politics to a new level, there are plenty of Democrats who have been happy to support obviously awful policy in exchange for contributions from the AI industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the crypto industry, and Wall Street more generally. It costs a lot of money to run a competitive campaign and it’s hard to raise that from small contributions, so there will always be a temptation to bend policy positions to get some serious money.
While most people favor limits on campaign contributions, the current Supreme Court has made this very difficult. They have ruled that campaign contributions are speech and therefore any effort to limit campaign contributions is an unconstitutional restriction on speech.
There are some promising alternative paths that focus on making small donors matter. Seattle has a system of “democracy vouchers” that give every voter in local elections a modest sum that they can contribute to a candidate(s) of their choice. To qualify to get the vouchers, candidates must agree to limits on spending and large contributions.
Super-matches are a comparable system. Under this system, small dollar contributions can be matched up to 8 to 1, which means that even a $50 contribution can make a difference to a campaign. New York City, along with several other cities, have gone this route.
While these paths for amplifying the voice of ordinary people are promising, it will take much more to match the power of the billionaires. It is important to realize they exercise their political power in ways other than campaign contributions, primarily through their ownership of the media.
The importance of billionaire ownership goes far beyond the constant stream of lies and right-wing propaganda from Fox News. Last year, the very Trumpy Ellison family took control of CBS and immediately began to shift its news to the right. They are now taking control of CNN through the merger of Paramount and Warner Brothers. They also got control over TikTok, after Trump wrestled it away from a Chinese company for them.
Trumper Mark Zuckerberg owns Facebook and Instagram and is not shy about banning political material he doesn’t like. And Elon Musk bought Twitter, explicitly to advance his right-wing agenda. The rest of the media landscape doesn’t look much better. The rich and very rich own the countries’ newspapers and broadcast outlets, and most of these people lean right, even if they have not yet joined the Trump Reich.
And let’s just be clear. The idea that the campaign ads bought by the rich can influence votes, but not the material that people see between the ads, is beyond absurd. Even if we banned all political contributions from rich people and corporations, the rich could still control elections by showing us nothing but their propaganda on television, in newspapers, and on social media.
This is why the Community News Act that Governor Gavin Newsom just signed is so important. The measure provides $20,000 each for up to five journalists per news outlet covering local news. This subsidy can keep newspapers and news sites across the state in business and help to support new ones that might start up. It is similar to other programs that have been started in Illinois, New York, and New Mexico.
This might seem like small change in a world with multi-billion dollar media empires, but it is not realistic to imagine matching the super-rich dollar for dollar; the goal is to sustain reality-based reporting that people can rely upon. (Repealing Section 230 protection for the mega-platforms like Facebook and X would be a big step towards leveling the playing field.) And support for local news reporting is likely to also lead to better national and international reporting, both by training more reporters and also increasing the comfort level with public funding, perhaps opening the door for a national system.
To be clear, there are no political conditions attached to this funding. Conservative news outlets are as eligible for this subsidy as more liberal ones. The point is to support local journalism, not to favor a particular political perspective.
To my view, this system is not ideal. I prefer support coming through an individual refundable tax credit to support local news. This would allow people to have a more direct attachment to the news outlets being supported with public money. Ideally, this would give them a sense of ownership that many feel towards other community organizations.
But whether or not this is the best approach, there is no doubt that the California bill, along with the ones already passed in other states, are big steps forward. It will help to reverse the collapse of local news reporting, which is giving corruption free rein in many areas. We need to build on the positive and make it better, rather than reject a plan because it may not be ideal. Progressive opponents of California’s wealth tax initiative may want to give that point some thought.
This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Oct. 07, 2026, and is shared here with permission.
The CIA is allegedly working behind the scenes in Brazil’s election, planting stories to favor Flávio Bolsonaro and build a positive narrative about the senator.
The claims come from John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who has become something of a celebrity in recent years. Earlier this week, he took to social media to flag what he called “credible” evidence of the spy agency’s involvement in Brazil’s election.
On Tuesday, Kiriakou gave more details on his podcast.
“I heard a rumor from a former CIA colleague of mine this past weekend that the agency is actively working behind the scenes to support Bolsonaro,” he said.
“And the way they’re doing it is by planting pro-Bolsonaro stories in both the Brazilian press and the international press,” he claimed.
He offered no evidence and was careful to say he doesn’t know whether this account is true. But he argued that it fits the agency’s pattern of behavior over the years.
“There’s a long history of CIA involvement in elections abroad, controlling the media narrative,” he said.
He noted that much of the Brazilian press has swung behind Bolsonaro.
“This is despite the fact that Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency was one mistake after another,” he said.
The former agent pointed to the former president’s 27 year prison sentence, calling his conduct “incredibly corrupt.”
Kiriakou said the runoff projections don’t favor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and suggested the right has already secured one of its biggest wins in Brazilian history.
“Lula is likely to lose the election, and I think the younger Bolsonaro will end up pardoning his father,” he predicted.
He also noted that Donald Trump has already endorsed Flávio Bolsonaro’s candidacy, acknowledging that doing so could be a “violation of international rules.”
Earlier in the week, Kiriakou wrote on social media that he met with Lula three years ago. On Tuesday, he explained that a Lula aide had reached out so the two could discuss government transparency.
According to the former agent, one topic in that conversation was police violence under Jair Bolsonaro’s government. He said he suggested that Lula confront that issue directly, and that doing so had led police to turn against Lula.
Who Is This Former Agent?
In 2013, Kiriakou pleaded guilty to revealing the identity of an undercover agent, the first case of its kind in 27 years. He had worked for the CIA from 1990 to 2004 and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison as part of a plea deal.
He admitted to disclosing to a reporter the identity of an undercover officer who had taken part in harsh interrogations of alleged Al Qaeda members held at secret CIA detention sites.
Kiriakou first drew national attention in 2007, during the George W. Bush administration, when he told ABC News in an interview that waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, had been used on a Guantánamo detainee named Abu Zubaydah.
Then CIA Director David Petraeus issued a statement praising the plea deal with Kiriakou, even though four other charges against him were dropped. The case “represents an important victory for our agency, for our intelligence community and for our country,” Petraeus said.
It was the first time in 27 years that someone had been found guilty of revealing the identity of an undercover agent.
This article first ran in ICL Notícias, was translated by Panamerican Dispatch, and can be read in its original Portuguese here.
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Oct. 06, 2026.It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
“Keep our city out of your reckless war talk,” said San Diego’s mayor, Todd Gloria, Monday night after President Donald Trump’s rambling speech at a rally in Nebraska included a particularly violent mention of the California city.
Gloria was among several Democratic political leaders who were incensed after Trump—moments after predicted the Republican Party would see a “tremendous victory” in the November 3 midterm elections—suggested that he would not object to an Iranian military or nuclear attack on San Diego and Los Angeles.
The president said that soaring prices for gas, groceries, and other essentials are a “small price to pay for keeping the world safe—keeping our country safe.”
Trump on Iran: Let 'em take out Los Angeles and San Diego, it's a small price to pay pic.twitter.com/Fc4BcjVDKj
He warned that Iran could “take out a city,” before adding that he would “let them” attack the two deep-blue cities—home to a collective 5.2 million people, with more than 20 million residents in the surrounding areas
“Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego,” Trump said at the rally in Grand Island. “This is a very small price to pay… It’s gonna be over very soon.”
The crowd responded to Trump’s comments with laughter and cheers. The president has frequently made Democratic strongholds like Los Angeles, Chicago, and his own hometown of New York City the targets of rhetorical attacks. He has also targeted those cities with the deployment of armed federal agents as part of his mass deportation agenda.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat whose name has been floated as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, condemned Trump’s remarks as “deranged and dangerous.”
“After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego,” said Newsom, who later criticized Trump’s vice president and secretary of state for not speaking out against the comments.
Gloria added that San Diego, which is home to major military installations, “is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a ‘small price to pay.’”
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass accused Trump of compromising the safety of the nation’s second-largest city.
“The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives,” said Bass. “In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city.”
Jim Desmond, a Republican running for Congress in California’s 48th District, which lies in San Diego, was also quick to distance himself from the president’s comments.
Some observers claimed the president had simply been speaking in an “especially confusing style,” as journalist Daniel Dale suggested, and did not intend to suggest that the two cities could be acceptable collateral damage.
“Of course you can say it’s inappropriate regardless for the president to casually float the possibility of a city being wiped out,” he added.
Trump’s comments came days after it was reported that the Pentagon is prepared to send thousands more troops and a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, as talks between the US and Iran remain stalled. Gas prices remain elevated, at $4.36 per gallon on average, and nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Associated Press poll in June said they disapproved of how Trump had handled the war, which he joined Israel in starting in February without congressional approval.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) had a succinct response to Trump’s remarks, referring to the constitutional amendment that allows members of a president’s Cabinet to remove him from office on the ground that they cannot fulfill the duties of the president.
This story originally appeared in Panamerican Dispatch on Oct. 05, 2026, and is shared here with permission.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva spoke on Sunday, after the release of the results of the first round of the 2026 elections. He said his campaign for a second round of the presidential race begins this Monday, October 5.
Lula will face Senator Flávio Bolsonaro in the runoff, scheduled for October 25.
In his speech, Lula stated that he intends to present to voters the differences between the two candidates’ platforms.
“Starting tomorrow, we begin a new campaign,” he said. “We will be able to show the difference between the proposals that exist for Brazil. The Brazilian people will have no doubt about choosing who will win the election.”
Lula also launched direct attacks on Flávio Bolsonaro’s political track record and cited the candidate’s past.
“He has a dark history,” Lula said. “With dark connections, with extremely serious suspicions, with ties to militia members and organized crime. All of this will become clear.”
The president mentioned Banco Master. He claimed that Flávio had a hand in the institution’s creation.
“Banco Master resulted in the greatest corruption scandal in this country and the biggest free-for-all involving politicians,” he said.
The accusations raised by Lula are part of his runoff campaign rhetoric and are expected to be a key point of contention between the two candidates in the coming weeks.
The president also argued that the race should be framed as a choice over the country’s future. He stated that his candidacy represents an opportunity to drive change in the Brazilian economy.
“We will show what has been done and what society expects to be done,” he said. “No one is better positioned than us to offer a future to Brazilian society.”
Lula further stated that Brazil needs to take a “qualitative leap” to become internationally competitive.
“I’m very good at the knockout stage”
Commenting on the first-round results, Lula referred to the fact that he had won the second Rond vote in previous presidential elections.
“It didn’t work out [this time],” he said. “You know why? Because the people like seeing me compete in the runoff.”
In a lighthearted tone, he added, “I’m very good at the knockout stage.”
The runoff will be a head-to-head contest between Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro, after neither candidate secured more than 50% of the valid votes in the first round. The vote will take place on October 25.
“More than 20 million people didn’t turn out to vote,” he said. “We are going to make an appeal: at this historic moment for Brazil. Voting is essential to determine the country’s future.”
“Bolsonaro supporters had better get ready,” he said. “Because we are going to defeat them.”
You can watch Lula’s speech below.
This article was originally published by Revista Forum. You can read the original in Portuguese, here.
Login
