❌

Reading view

Ex-NBA player says LeBron James should 'stand the f--- still' during national anthem

Philadelphia 76ers star LeBron James' habit of swaying and appearing to practice his golf swing during the national anthem has drawn significant attention this season, with even the president of the United States weighing in.

Now, a former NBA player is making his feelings known, and let's just say he's not super fond of it.

Former point guard Jason Williams — who spent 12 seasons in the league with the Grizzlies, Kings, Heat and Magic — co-hosts Bartsool Sports' "Hoopin’ N Hollerin'" podcast. The topic of James' anthem habits came up on the most recent episode, and he didn't hold back.

LEBRON JAMES CURSES OUT KNICKS FAN IN HEATED EXCHANGE: 'I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F--- YOU TALKING ABOUT'

"I do," Williams told his co-host Adam Ferrone when asked if he had thoughts on the issue. "I think motherf---ers should just stand the f--- still during the national anthem. That’s just my opinion."

Fair enough.

ENES KANTER FREEDOM GOES SCORCHED EARTH ON LEBRON JAMES, NBA WITH NEW REVELATIONS AFTER WNBA FINALS INCIDENT

Williams did, however, note that he didn't personally care about what LeBron was doing, but did once again note that he wished the NBA great would stand still.

"You’re supposed to stand still!" he continued. "Look, they’re all dressed the same. He’s dressed different. Guaranteed he got fined because you’re all supposed to be dressed the same. You’re supposed to be standing still. When I played, that was the rules. They could’ve changed the s--- now, but I guarantee he got fined."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

It's important to note the NBA has not levied any fines against James for his mid-anthem warm-ups.

However, Williams and President Donald Trump are not the only ones to criticize James.

NBA legend and "Inside the NBA" co-host Charles Barkley also ripped him for not standing still during the anthem.

  •  

The Brazilian victory: left unity and digital autonomy

The leftist leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva secured a historic victory in Brazil’s presidential election on October 25, 2026. The result came amid intense political and social polarization and the growing influence of the far right in Brazil and across Latin America, backed by the US far right led by Donald Trump.

The significance of this electoral victory extends beyond Lula securing a fourth term. It also lies in the political and organizational experience that helped make it possible, above all the ability of diverse left-wing and progressive forces, with different programs and ideological outlooks, to forge a broad electoral alliance around common ground in confronting the far right.

A broad left-wing and progressive alliance despite differences

Lula contested the election with the support of the “Brazil Ready for More” alliance, comprising seven left-wing and progressive parties organized into two party federations and two separate parties. The “Brazil of Hope” federation brought together Lula’s Workers’ Party, the Communist Party of Brazil, and the Green Party. The second federation united the Socialism and Liberty Party, which includes socialist and radical-left currents, with the Sustainability Network. The Brazilian Socialist Party and the Democratic Labor Party also joined the alliance, alongside supportive social movements and trade unions. Lula ran with Geraldo Alckmin of the Brazilian Socialist Party as his vice-presidential candidate.

The importance of this alliance lies in its ability to bring together communists, socialists, the radical left, social democrats, and Greens despite their disagreements over capitalism, the role of the state, and the limits of social reform. These forces agreed on common electoral objectives while preserving their identities and organizational autonomy.

This is one of the most important lessons of the Brazilian experience. Left unity does not require ideological or organizational uniformity. It means being able to work together on common ground while respecting pluralism and differences. Disagreements over Lula’s economic and social policies will naturally persist, including among the forces that supported him at the ballot box.

Unity does not mean abandoning criticism or autonomy

The Brazilian experience raises an important question for left-wing forces around the world. Why do ideological and organizational differences become barriers to cooperation, despite so much common ground, even when these forces face shared political and class challenges?

Pluralism among communists, social democrats, the radical left, environmentalist and feminist currents, and independent leftists can be a source of strength and intellectual and political richness, provided it is managed democratically and constructively, without monopolization, exclusion, or claims to possess the absolute truth. Unity does not require abandoning criticism or offering unconditional acceptance of the policies of governments led by left-wing and progressive alliances.

Confronting Capitalism and the far right requires a broad social front

The victory demonstrated the importance of connecting the defense of democracy, rights, and freedoms with the economic and social demands of working classes and poor and marginalized communities.

Lula drew broad support from lower-income groups and proposed expanding social assistance, improving living conditions, and defending democratic institutions.

Confronting capitalism and the far right therefore cannot be confined to elections and party alliances. It requires sustained mass organizations in workplaces, neighborhoods, universities, trade unions, and social movements, together with policies that tackle class inequality and improve the lives of the majority.

Digital autonomy: the fifth pillar of the left’s independence

The Brazilian election revealed the growing importance of the digital sphere in political struggle. Social media platforms, algorithms, and artificial intelligence have become powerful tools in the hands of capitalist interests for shaping public consciousness and steering political debate.

During the campaign, Lula’s supporters submitted complaints and evidence supporting allegations that Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms, showed digital bias in favor of his opponent. The company acknowledged “technical problems.” The dispute reached Brazil’s electoral court, which issued a ruling requiring Meta to apply equal standards to the candidates.

The problem is not confined to Brazil. During Colombia’s most recent presidential election in 2026, journalistic investigations uncovered coordinated accounts and AI-generated fake videos targeting the left-wing camp, as well as shortcomings and bias in the platforms’ oversight of political advertising and content.

In Germany, Elon Musk, the owner of X, publicly endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) during the 2025 election. He used his platform to promote the party’s positions and host its leaders, while several studies found a clear bias in the reach of the party’s content on the platform.

Proving deliberate algorithmic bias is difficult because proprietary algorithms give capitalist corporations exclusive control over information about how they work and how content is ranked, amplified, or restricted. Without transparency, independent public and legal oversight, and access to the data needed for investigation, it is difficult to determine whether bias arises from algorithm design or deliberate intervention. Companies can easily attribute such problems to a “technical glitch”!

The Brazilian experience also highlighted the importance of combining three interconnected arenas of struggle: mass struggle on the ground, legal action to hold digital platforms accountable and regulate their operations, and organized digital activism. Mass mobilization in the streets was accompanied by legal challenges against Meta and the development of a wide-ranging digital campaign that used social media effectively to reach millions of voters. This experience shows that the digital left’s struggle cannot replace grassroots struggle. It can reinforce and complement it.

This is where digital autonomy emerges as the fifth pillar of the left’s independence, alongside ideological, organizational, financial, and media autonomy. Genuine political independence is no longer possible without a meaningful degree of autonomy over digital tools, platforms, and infrastructure, the protection of data, and the capacity for mass communication and organization free from the monopolistic control of capitalist corporations and major powers.

Digital autonomy does not mean withdrawing from digital platforms. It means using them today with a critical, progressive awareness while working to develop open-source, democratically-governed digital alternatives and to build and strengthen independent technical capacities within the left.

A left that fails to develop its digital autonomy and technological tools will remain at the mercy of its class adversaries in one of the most important arenas of contemporary political and social struggle.

Lessons for the left worldwide

The Brazilian experience cannot be reproduced mechanically. Every society has its own conditions and balance of class and political forces. The Brazilian approach to building alliances and working together can nevertheless offer valuable lessons.

The unity the left needs is neither a single party nor a centralized leadership imposing its vision on everyone. It is flexible, democratic cooperation among diverse forces, grounded in common programs, respect for autonomy and pluralism, and meaningful participation by the grassroots, young people, and women.

Such cooperation can be developed locally, regionally, and globally through different left-wing fronts and alliances on the ground, as well as digital left networks and internationals that contribute to the exchange of experience, coordinate shared initiatives and struggles, and work toward progressive digital alternatives.

Lula’s victory offers an experience worth studying and learning from. It demonstrates the possibility of cooperation among left-wing forces despite their differences, while recognizing the other factors that contributed to the result.

The left does not need to erase its diversity to unite. It needs to turn that diversity into an organized and effective force, strengthen its independence across all five pillars, and pursue the struggle for freedom, equality, and social justice while developing democratic, humanist socialist alternatives to capitalism.

Rezgar Akrawi is a leftist writer and researcher focused on technology, AI, the digital revolution, and the development of contemporary leftist thought and practice in response to these transformations. He works as an expert in systems development and e-governance and is a theorist of the concept of the “Digital Left.”

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

  •  

Press told “no drones over Rossio for tomorrow’s housing protest”

Television commentators have said the order coming through this evening prohibiting drones over Rossio, in Lisbon, tomorrow – precisely when a new ‘right to housing’ protest has been scheduled –

The post Press told “no drones over Rossio for tomorrow’s housing protest” appeared first on Portugal Resident.

  •  

One year after the election killings, Tanzania still awaits justice

One year ago, Tanzanians went to the polls in an election followed by deadly protests and a violent security crackdown. The immediate unrest has since subsided, but the wounds remain, and the demand for justice continues.

President Samia Suluhu Hassan was declared the winner with 97.66% of the vote, an overwhelming margin that came with the exclusion of opposition forces and mounting restrictions on political activities. The disputed election and the violence that followed exposed deep tensions over Tanzania’s political realities, democratic participation, and the state’s response to dissent. A year on, not a single official has been held responsible, and justice for the victims and their families remains out of reach.

A disputed election and a deadly crackdown

The violence of October 2025 did not erupt out of nowhere. In the months before the election, opposition parties faced mounting restrictions, rallies were disrupted, and political activists were arrested. Opposition leader Tundu Lissu was arrested in April 2025 and charged with treason, which kept him out of the electoral process. His party, CHADEMA, was then excluded from the election after refusing to sign the electoral code of ethics.

These developments narrowed the space for political competition and raised serious questions about the credibility of the vote. When Tanzanians went to the polls on October 29, demonstrations broke out in several parts of the country, including Dar es Salaam, Arusha, and Mwanza. Protesters rejected the election and demanded political change. The government responded with a nationwide curfew and an internet shutdown that lasted several days, cutting off communication and the flow of information as security forces confronted demonstrators. Human rights organizations documented the use of lethal force against protesters and other people who did not pose an imminent threat to life.

The scale of the killings became clearer in April 2026, when a government-appointed Commission of Inquiry reported that at least 518 people had died during the election-related violence. Thousands were also injured.

The opposition has maintained that the death toll was higher, with concerns also raised about people who remain missing and the circumstances in which bodies were removed from hospitals and mortuaries.

The commission submitted its report to President Samia Suluhu Hassan on April 23. However, the full report has not been made public, leaving victims’ families and the wider public without access to the complete findings.

One year later, impunity remains

On October 28, Amnesty International marked the anniversary by condemning the continuing failure to hold officials accountable for the violence.

“Not a single official has been criminally investigated, let alone prosecuted and punished for the excessive force that Tanzanian security forces used against protesters,” said Tigere Chagutah, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for East and Southern Africa.

The organization also warned that, instead of opening a transparent accountability process, the authorities had increasingly used counterterrorism laws against opposition supporters and government critics.

The withholding of the inquiry report has become a central obstacle to establishing the truth. Without public access to the findings, it remains difficult to scrutinize the evidence, understand the circumstances surrounding individual deaths, and determine what action the government intends to take against those responsible.

President Samia Suluhu Hassan and other government officials have repeatedly portrayed the protests as a foreign-backed attempt to overthrow the government, a coordinated plot to destabilize the country. Activists argue that this narrative serves to deflect responsibility, evade justice, and excuse the authorities’ slow response to the killings. Tanzania today is marked by silence, not reconciliation. And a nation cannot simply move on from an atrocity of this scale without truth and accountability.

  •  

Italians Protest Against Meloni Over Cost of Living and Rearmament

A nationwide strike brought together workers, students, housing rights groups and farmers.

On Friday, thousands of people demonstrated in major Italian cities against far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the high cost of living and military rearmament.

RELATED:

Southern Italy Faces Food Shortages as Drivers’ Strikes Continue

The protests took place as part of a general strike called by the Unione Sindacale di Base (USB) and were supported mainly by students, public-sector workers and housing rights organizations.

Rome was one of the main focal points of the demonstrations, with a protest encampment outside the Colosseum set to remain in place through Sunday.

The largely peaceful demonstrations spread across cities including Milan, Florence, Naples, Genoa, Turin and Bologna, as well as several locations in Sicily.

“Workers, working-class communities, homeless people and agricultural producers have mobilized against the economic crisis this government is imposing on us to finance rearmament and military spending that have nothing to do with the interests of the population,” USB Director Stefano De Angelis said, noting that more than 1.5 million people had taken part in protests held across the country.

👥 Roma, sciopero generale: circa 100mila manifestanti secondo le stime dell'USB.

Il corteo di studenti e lavoratori, partito da piazza dei Cinquecento, è tornato alla stazione dopo aver attraversato la città. Video di Maurizio Leggeri e Diariodigitale pic.twitter.com/PwJ3GMkRVK

— Italia 24H Live 🔴 – Notizie dall'Italia (@Italia24HLive) October 30, 2026

The text reads, “General Strike in Rome: approximately 100,000 protesters, according to USB estimates. The march of students and workers, which set off from Piazza dei Cinquecento, returned to the station after moving through the city.”

Protest Encampment Outside the Colosseum Through Sunday

In Rome, the main demonstration drew at least 20,000 participants and set off from Piazza del Cinquecento toward the area surrounding the Colosseum.

Once there, organizers announced their intention to occupy Via dei Fori Imperiali, the avenue connecting central Piazza Venezia with the monument, and set up tents through Sunday, when a national assembly is scheduled to take place.

The initiative, organized by the USB and the Lotta per la Casa collective, aims to turn the site into a space for mobilization and participation by the various groups that have joined the protests across Italy.

“This demonstration does not end here. We will continue mobilizing through Sunday, when we will hold a major national assembly in this square, beneath the Colosseum, attended by representatives of all the demonstrations taking place across the country today,” De Angelis said.

The union leader also denounced restrictions preventing demonstrators from approaching Montecitorio, the seat of the Chamber of Deputies, describing them as “anti-democratic.”

“In any country where demonstrations are held against the government, people can reach government and parliamentary buildings. In Italy, this is prohibited,” he said.

“We will stay here, outside the Colosseum, through Sunday to show that this city, too, must be a place for participation in protest mobilizations.”

Sciopero generale, studenti e lavoratori insieme nelle piazze: “Siamo centinaia di migliaia”. Da Milano a Napoli occupate le tangenziali https://t.co/wolYZWxUmR

— Elio Lannutti (@ElioLannutti) October 30, 2026

The text reads, “General strike, students and workers together in the streets: ‘There are hundreds of thousands of us.’ From Milan to Naples, ring roads occupied.“

Clashes and Roadblocks

The day’s main episode of tension occurred in Turin, in northern Italy, where clashes broke out between demonstrators and security forces in the central Piazza Castello.

Participants in the march threw eggs, bottles and red paint at riot police, who responded with charges and high-pressure water hoses.

After the clashes, participants returned to the occupied university campus and announced a new gathering for 6 p.m. local time to continue the protests. Objects were also thrown at police in Rome, near the Colosseum.

The strike also caused major traffic disruptions, particularly in Bologna, in northern Italy, where demonstrators blocked access roads to several educational institutions and marched along the ring road, forcing the temporary closure of the A14 highway.

In Genoa, in northern Italy, participants blocked access to the port, while other demonstrations disrupted daily activities in major Italian cities.

Friday’s strike marks the beginning of a series of mobilizations in Italy that will continue Nov. 20 with a general strike across all sectors called by the CGIL, the country’s largest trade union confederation, and a taxi-sector strike scheduled for Dec. 14.

The day was marked by a heavy security presence across the country following violent incidents reported Oct. 17 and 18 in Milan, Turin and Bologna. Those incidents prompted Meloni’s government to approve an extraordinary security decree and deploy 500 military personnel to support police forces.

teleSUR/ JF

Source: EFE

  •  

Culture groups ‘on their knees’ after 30% funding cut proposed in EU’s next budget

“Thirty percent, we won’t consent” chants echoed across Schuman roundabout in the Brussels European quarter this week, as culture, media and journalist workers demanded that national leaders halt plans to reduce cash for culture in a protest on Thursday (29 October).

Representatives from European rights forums, culture groups and a journalism federation gathered in a bid to keep enough money flowing to their organisations.

“There’s a very grim future if we continue with these cuts,” said Rhys Nugent of Culture Action Europe, one of the protest’s organisers. “These sectors are already on their knees.”

The demonstration came after EU leaders discussed giving less money than previously proposed to AgoraEU, an umbrella for culture, media, democracy and rights initiatives, within the EU’s 2028-2034 budget.

30% less for culture

Reacting to the EU Commission’s proposal to give AgoraEU €8.6bn under the long-term budget, the EU parliament’s budget committee asked to ramp this up to €10.7bn.

But national capitals have not agreed to either proposal.

Instead, the Irish presidency of Council presented a plan earlier this month (October 10) to allocate €5.3bn for AgoraEU –  representing a 30 percent cut to the commission’s proposal. It was responding to pressures for frugality from some member states.

National capitals are yet to finalise a budget agreement.

“They picked culture because they think it’s an easy target, but it will affect journalists, artists and NGOs who are the backbone of our democratic society” said Nela Reihl, a German Green MEP and chair of parliament’s culture and education committee.

“If this goes through, people will wake up one day and ask: why are my rights not protected? Why has that film festival disappeared? Where has my local publisher gone?” she said.

“These cuts will save only a tiny percent of the EU budget but cause massive damage to these sectors,” added the German lawmaker. 

What could be chopped?

AgoraEU is a new umbrella for Creative Europe and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV).

Protest organiser Nugent said Creative Europe “funds everything from small theatrical productions to large cooperation around Europe.”

He pointed to Flow, an Oscar-winning film, Europa Cinemas, and Culture Moves Europe as examples of the types of bodies that could be affected by a lack of EU funding.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

  •  

Minister accepts political responsibility for police interventions

Portugal’s minister for internal affairs accepted political responsibility today for the police operations at protest camps in Lisbon and Porto at the weekend, clarifying that the PSP has “full technical,

The post Minister accepts political responsibility for police interventions appeared first on Portugal Resident.

  •  

France Prepares for 'Very High' Violence as It Braces for Halloween Riots

Another weekend, another round of violence on the strife-torn streets of France. That was the grim forecast Friday as the country's interior minister warned of a "very high risk of public disorder" across the coming 48-hours as some 70,000 police officers prepare for riots over the Halloween weekend.

The post France Prepares for ‘Very High’ Violence as It Braces for Halloween Riots appeared first on Breitbart.

  •  

France to Impose 'Riot Tax' on Insurance to Pay for Damage of Islamo-Leftist Unrest

The French government is reportedly considering a so-called riot tax that would add the cost of frequent unrest to citizens' insurance bills.

The post France to Impose ‘Riot Tax’ on Insurance to Pay for Damage of Islamo-Leftist Unrest appeared first on Breitbart.

  •  

The ADHD TikTok generation, and Serbia’s Trust Me Bro election

Serbs voted “Students Win” without knowing what their program offers, it doesn’t even matter, “anyone is better than Vučić.”

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

What to make of the present Serbian moment? Post-Milošević politics is closing a two-and-a-half-decade cycle, standing on the threshold of a new era whose dynamics mirror the old. But history does not repeat; it rhymes. Eerily familiar patterns, driven by traits of the collective Serbian psyche, are re-emerging, even as external and internal material conditions chart a divergent course.

Color Revolutions are quite simple on a level identical to basic marketing. Why does the average person opt to pay a considerable premium for Nikes over some generic basketball shoe? There is top-down vertical advertising at the first level, but this is later surpassed by horizontal peer to peer viralization which leverages on social acceptance. Here this is a simple combination of Edward Bernays’ 1923 work, Crystalizing Public Opinion, his 1928 work, Propaganda, combined with Gustav Le Bon’s 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Then of course there are Saul Alinsky, Gene Sharp, and Sharp’s student and Otpor! leader, Srđa Popović. But since the Arab Spring series of Color Revolutions, social media starting with Twitter became a critical factor.

There resides a great strength in social media, the TikTok generation, which also characterized by and large the foreign NGO-backed “Student” movement itself. The “Student list” came to power without clearly communicating to its own voters what exactly they would do on economic, territorial, and foreign policy matters if elected. On October 26th, they were placating Serbian nationalists and Eurosceptics on Russian television to absolve them of fears which in reality they are justified in having. We saw this also with Magyar in Hungary, so this part of the play’s script was not only already rehearsed, but had seen its opening night in the Hunnic lands to the north. But the “Student List” color revolutionaries did not wait long, on October 27th, Ilija Srdanović, lead candidate of the Student List told the U.S. funded Radio Free Europe that the new government will continue EU integration and the EU-mediated dialogue with Pristina, we presume, towards Kosovo recognition.

Screenshot from RFE/RL Interview with Srdanovic

What Serbs before the election were told by the “Student List” was “Trust me, bro”, a gamble that a “majority” of people in the small Balkan country were apparently willing to take. We will not even discuss the improbability of over 600,000 new voters rising from graves or crawling out of strollers to vote, as Vučić is not challenging the results, even though the “Student List” Color Revolutionaries expected him to.

That fact alone relates to a broader economic and military crisis which looms overhead, and will be the subject of further analysis which will better explain why Vučić is in the optimal position politically as an opposition leader over the course of the coming years. But on that note, our prior analysis of the EU/NATO drive to war with Russia in 2029/2030 is all but certain; see Still a failure: The City of London backs EU’s €90 billion Ukraine war-chest.

The vaguemaxxing approach perfected at Occupy Wall Street sixteen years ago allowed the anti-Vučić opposition to present as a Rorschach blot of sorts; appearing as anti-EU/NATO nationalists to the nationalists and appear as pro-EU liberal to the liberals. Though, to wit, most sophisticated-enough liberals understood the strategy: to fool the “under-educated, Orthodox, working class, country-bumpkin nationalists”. This is part of the problem of the Serbian professional managerial class “intelligentsia” as Archibald Reiss understood over a century ago, and as we will discuss later on in this piece.

To understand the present moment requires grasping the years of betrayal that followed the post–Cold War era’s first color revolution, which unfolded in Belgrade twenty-six years ago. We outline those fifteen years before the rise of the Serbian Progressive Party for two important reasons; first to set the record straight on the actual condition of the “selling out” of Serbia as those new to the Serbia story are prone to believe the “Student list” ADHD propaganda that Vučić did these things, and second, perhaps more importantly, as a funhouse mirror forecast of sorts, given that we are nearing the start of a new rhyming historical cycle (back towards chaos and betrayals). However, the broader global context has changed. NATO is in a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Serbia is threatened on all sides, and is obviously both the lowest hanging fruit and the “punching bag” for the EU/NATO: what they cannot inflict upon Russia, they will inflict upon Serbia, which they regard as “little Russia”.

October 5th – The “Bulldozer Revolution” – Color Revolutionaries storm the Parliament building and overthrow Milošević

Recall back in October, 2000; after winning the election, DOS (Demokratska opozicija Srbije), whose representative at the time was Vojislav Koštunica, the ruling party Socialists hastily betrayed and extradited their man, former president Slobodan Milošević, to an ad hoc tribunal established by bodies that had no jurisdiction over it. Immediately before the election, the sentiment of the people and the opposition movement “Otpor” was that anyone was better than Slobodan Milošević; they promised prosperity, peace and stability, a state without corruption or the mafia, and the people believed it. Following the election results, celebrations lasted for days with the slogan “He’s finished” and with hope for a better tomorrow. Their “better tomorrow” never came.

Serbia was in an abyss from 2000 all the way to 2012, around 1200 state-owned companies were sold for chump change, largely to foreign interests. These had been not only a mark of sovereignty, but also provided fair and reliable wages that working families relied upon. Because of the leaders of the DOS, Serbia was economically destroyed in the years that followed. When it was believed things couldn’t get worse, they proved Serbs wrong. Serbia was ruled by a party whose members were not in agreement regarding politics and the path they wanted to take, for all that united them was the rancid combination of Western backing and opposition to Milošević, (and this is the same contradiction we find with the “Student government” today).

This was evidenced again in 2003 with the extradition of the president of the opposition Radical Party, Vojislav Šešelj, to the Hague Tribunal, where he remained until 2014 and was never convicted, and released and returned to Serbia in 2016 as the result of back-channel work done under Vučić in coordination with the Radical Party (an effort which this author participated). Later in that same year of 2003, just a month after Šešelj’s extradition, Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić was likely assassinated by members of the Serbian security establishment who feared that Đinđić would continue to extradite more Serbian patriots, which further weakened an already shaken state. Following this and the failed presidential elections, the disagreements between the leaders of DOS reached a culmination and the party split into two fronts, DS and DSS. During 2003 and 2004 Serbia had no president but rather a string of acting presidents: first Nataša Mićić (Civic Alliance of Serbia), who held that duty for three months, then Dragan Maršićanin (DSS) held the role for a month, then Predrag Marković (G17plus) performed the function for three months, after which Boris Tadić, of the Democratic Party (DS), was elected president in July 2004.

To make themselves more acceptable to EU membership, Serbian laws were changed and a new Constitution was adopted in 2006, during the term of President Tadić. In that constitution, Kosovo and Metohija were placed in the preamble of the constitution supposedly to emphasize the significance of the fact that Kosovo and Metohija is part of Serbia, forgetting to emphasize that the preamble of a constitution is not necessarily a binding part. Immediately before the adoption of the 2006 Constitution, the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was dissolved, leaving Serbia landlocked. This was the culmination of a Western-instructed independence referendum, made possible when Serbian authorities previously signed the Belgrade Agreement to restructure relations between Serbia and Montenegro, where there we saw the renaming of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into the Union State of Serbia and Montenegro before its eventual split. A questionable constitution was adopted. At that moment, Serbia had no real army, the “Democratic” authorities made sure of this during that period, which in turn laid the perfect groundwork for the ethnic Albanian declaration of independence of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia in February 2008. Serbia had no army to defend it, the people took to the streets and protested, but since preserving Serbian sovereignty was not on the list of Western/NGO requirements of Serbia, nothing came of it. Nota bene: this is what happens when protests are without mass institutional support (foreign or domestic); the elites weather them and people’s spontaneous protests fizzle out and demoralization sets in. Sustained protests for years requires massive organization and high levels of funding and coordination.

After this, Serbia under Tadić signs the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU. In 2008 Serbia experiences an economic crash during the global crisis engineered by Wall Street and the City of London (which as an aside led to the next round of Color Revolutions in the form of the Arab Spring within two years), the loss of jobs, and a spike in the euro exchange rate. After that, the then- Democratic Party (DS) authorities under President Tadić extradited more Serbian heroes to the Hague Tribunal: Republika Srpska President Radovan Karadžić in 2008, followed Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić in 2011, in exchange for which Serbia received candidate status for EU membership.

Archibald Reiss, the Swiss criminologist and Serbophile was so moved by the Serbian spirit, unity, and sacrifice during the First World War that he made Serbia his home, but in equal measure found himself outraged and indeed demoralized by the levels of corruption, opportunism, and classism among the elites both during and after the war. His insights into the Serbian mentality tell us a lot about what we have just seen, or rather, why things played out the way they did. Reiss meticulously dissected the tragic rift between the noble, heroic ordinary people and a self-serving, corrupt intellectual and political elite. Reiss would have viewed the foreign-backed NGO color revolution that ousted Vučić as little more than another manifestation of the Serbian elite’s moral decay, naivety, and subservience to external powers, and also their sense of entitlement lording over the Serbian masses, in Ottoman style, but worse for it requires manipulating and playing upon Serbian patriotism, sense of duty, and their deep rooted commitment to both personal and collective freedom. Reiss would sharply lament how the populace, endowed with immense bravery yet often prone to political short-sightedness and easily gas-lit by grand rhetoric, allowed themselves to become pawns in a geopolitical game orchestrated by foreign money and nefarious interests. He would fiercely criticize the urban “intelligentsia” and opportunistic political actors for their uncritical envy and imitation of foreign masters (what today we would call a product of autochauvinism combined with foreign soft power acculturation), pointing out that in exchanging one ostensibly “corrupt autocrat” for leaders beholden to external NGOs, Serbia merely traded internal political clientelism for foreign subservience. To Reiss, actual national sovereignty and social justice could never be gifted by foreign-funded apparatuses; rather, by relying on foreign interventions instead of conducting a deep, self-reliant moral regeneration from within, Serbians had once again fallen victim to their tragic flaw: letting the “king of money” and corrupt elites dictate their destiny while losing sight of their own authentic identity.

Čujte Srbi: čuvajte se sebe – by Rodolphe Archibald Reiss

Reiss observed that the Serbian political elite and the self-proclaimed intelligentsia flipped wildly between a sense of superiority over their own populace and deep-seated envy of wealthier, more advanced foreign nations. Their idea of modernizing Serbia was not to build on authentic national virtues, but to copy external models superficially (today, the EU or the ‘Nordic model’) while harboring a hidden disdain for the common Serbian peasant (Vučić voters, derided as Sendvučić, voting in exchange for sandwiches). Modernization, in that sense, was a vanity project rather than a matter of national survival.

Magyar offers congratulations to the Student List

So now here in late October 2026 we hear “He’s finished” on the streets. Once again, Serbs have bought the lie. Once again a state without corruption, without a mafia was promised. Serbs voted “Students Win” without knowing what their program offers, it doesn’t even matter, “anyone is better than Vučić.” The paradox is that now the state will be led by the very people who ruined it in the period from 2000 to 2012 and to finish everything they couldn’t back then. We can forecast the return of the Hungarian separatist movement in Vojvodina, which flourished in the early 2000s with the support of the Provincial Government headed by Bojan Pajtić in the period from 2004 to 2009, who is now on the Students Win parliamentary list. Without Orbán in Hungary, and specifically with Magyar there in charge, we can all but guarantee it. But as we have said, war is on the horizon. Where the Russian army situates by 2028 will determine much. Where the U.S. will situate after presidential elections in November of that same year will determine the rest.

Follow Joaquin Flores on Telegram @NewResistance or on X/Twitter @XoaquinFlores

  •  

Why I’m protesting against the Palantir contract: a mother’s perspective on  raising her son in Poland

I moved to Poland from London with my Polish husband, and we are raising our two-year-old  son here. My son will grow up and live his entire life within the digital infrastructure that the government is building today. The fact that I was not born in Poland does not mean I don’t care about its future, as a mother, I have an obligation to fight for my son’s rights as a Polish  citizen. 

Recently, I saw that the Polish Ministry of National Defence has signed a  Letter of Intent with the American analytics company Palantir Technologies.

Having lived  through what happened in the United Kingdom when our government signed similar agreements, I believe that Polish people deserve to know what happens when public systems are handed over to a foreign defence contractor.

Among the company’s founding investors was In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm. 

In London, I was part of a campaign group fighting against Palantir’s contract with our National Health Service (NHS).

Under that agreement, the US defence contractor gained deep access to NHS data systems, including mental health records, reproductive health data, and medication history.

Olivia Law-Zygadlo: ‘I have seen what happens when people in the United Kingdom did not ask questions until it was too late, and I cannot stay silent and watch exactly the same thing happen in Poland’ (Pic: Author)

Heavily redacted contracts

Over 100 pages of the contract remain heavily redacted and hidden from the public. Because Palantir is an American corporation, citizens cannot easily hold them to account or use basic data access requests in the way they could with an EU-based company.

In the UK, two parliamentary committees and the British Medical Association are calling on the government to exit the contract before the break clause in  2027. 

Poland is not the first European country Palantir has approached, but other allied nations  have already drawn the line.

In Switzerland, the Swiss armed forces rejected Palantir’s offers nine times. The military’s conclusion was that it was technically impossible to guarantee that  sensitive national data would not reach American intelligence services.

When a Swiss  investigative outlet reported on this, Palantir sued them and lost on 22 of 23 counts. In Germany, the Bundeswehr explicitly excluded Palantir from a military cloud procurement on  grounds of data sovereignty, with senior military officials stating that granting external  industry employees’ access to the national database was completely unacceptable. 

Poland is now preparing to deepen its cooperation with a company that the Swiss and German militaries both rejected on security and sovereignty grounds.

It is our children who  will have to face the long-term consequences of today’s decisions. I have seen what happens when people in the United Kingdom did not ask questions until it was too late, and I cannot stay silent and watch exactly the same thing happen in Poland.

If you care about data sovereignty, public transparency, and protecting the next generation,  join us at the public protest against Palantir’s contracts in Poland, organised by Nasze Dane, on 8 November at Plac Konstytucji in Warsaw at 3pm.

  •  

Ecuador Protesters March Against Noboa Ahead of Local Elections

Protesters march against Daniel Noboa in Quito, Ecuador, demanding Luisa González's release ahead of November 2026 local elections.

Unions and left-wing groups plan further demonstrations in November, calling for the release of opposition figure Luisa González.


Nearly 100 people marched through Ecuador’s capital, Quito, on Thursday to protest President Daniel Noboa’s government, launching a new wave of demonstrations ahead of local elections scheduled for Nov. 29.

RELATED: Ecuador Readies Snap Regional Elections Amid Opposition Exclusion Accusations

Organized by the country’s main trade unions and left-wing political parties, the peaceful march moved through the historic center before reaching the attorney general’s office. Protesters gathered outside the building carrying banners demanding the release of Luisa González, a former presidential candidate and one of the leading opposition figures.

González, who belongs to the political movement associated with former President Rafael Correa, was placed in pretrial detention in a case involving alleged money laundering. Prosecutors accuse her of involvement in the irregular financing of her first presidential campaign in 2023.

Chanting “Out, Noboa, out,” demonstrators also called for improvements to public education and healthcare. Some participants urged voters to cast null ballots in the upcoming local elections.

Natasha Rojas, a politician and activist, described the mobilization as a defense of democracy, civil liberties and the rights of Ecuadorians. She argued that the government was losing public support and warned that its policies would fuel further protests.

Nelson Erazo, president of the Popular Front, accused state institutions, including the attorney general’s office and the comptroller’s office, of being used to target social activists and political leaders.

He said the demonstration brought together groups seeking political change and demanding that Ecuadorians be able to express themselves freely, with guarantees of access to education, healthcare and employment.

Opposition organizations have announced further demonstrations on Nov. 7 and 15, followed by a march alongside feminist groups on Nov. 25 to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Another mobilization is planned for Dec. 10, in coordination with international organizations, to defend human rights.

  •  

From Brussels to Belgrade: Europe’s Generation Z Protests Challenge Established Politics

Youth-led demonstrations across Europe are bringing together concerns about housing, education, employment and political accountability. Although the movements differ considerably between countries, their emergence reflects growing dissatisfaction among younger Europeans over economic prospects and their influence on political decisions.

A series of demonstrations involving young people across Europe has developed into a wider political phenomenon, as students and younger workers challenge governments over living costs, public services and their expectations for the future.

Protests have taken place in France, Belgium, Italy, Albania and several other countries, while a student-led movement in Serbia has achieved a particularly consequential political outcome.

In Serbia, nearly two years of demonstrations culminated in a parliamentary election victory for a student-backed political movement, ending the electoral dominance of President Aleksandar Vučić’s Serbian Progressive Party.

The outcome, reported by Reuters on 29 October, has given the movement a prospective parliamentary majority, although final certification of the election results remains outstanding.

Elsewhere, protesters have secured fewer immediate political concessions.

Nevertheless, their campaigns share a recurring concern: that conventional channels of political representation have failed to address problems affecting younger generations.

Economic Pressures Behind the Demonstrations

The grievances vary between countries, but housing affordability, insecure employment, education funding and living costs feature prominently.

A European Parliament youth survey published in February 2025 found that 40 per cent of respondents aged 16 to 30 considered rising prices and the cost of living a priority for the EU.

Almost one-third identified economic conditions and job creation as a principal concern, while education also ranked prominently.

More recent figures illustrate the financial pressures confronting younger Europeans.

According to Eurostat data published in June 2026, 24.2 per cent of EU residents aged 15 to 29 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2025.

That compares with 20.9 per cent for the population as a whole.

These figures do not establish that economic hardship is the cause of every protest. They do, however, provide context for the dissatisfaction expressed by participants.

Belgium’s Students Demand Better Education

In Brussels, demonstrations have focused partly on the condition of schools and the availability of educational resources.

Students have criticised deteriorating facilities, shortages of teachers and government decisions affecting education funding.

Nineteen-year-old student Maya Gourdel told Reuters that peaceful attempts to draw attention to these concerns had attracted little response from political leaders.

Her account reflects a wider frustration among demonstrators who believe that public attention has increased only after protests became more disruptive.

Belgium’s education system is organised primarily at community level, meaning decisions concerning funding, staffing and school infrastructure are divided among different authorities.

The demands of protesters consequently involve both national political debates and decisions taken by regional and community institutions.

France and Italy Face Wider Social Unrest

In France, demonstrations concerning the cost of living and public services have involved students alongside trade unions and other organisations.

Recent protests have also been accompanied by violence, including attacks on commercial premises and confrontations with police.

The involvement of younger demonstrators does not mean that every participant supports violent tactics.

Rather, the events illustrate how movements with economic and political grievances can encompass groups with different objectives and methods.

Italy has experienced similar tensions, particularly in Milan, where demonstrations against rising living costs have followed earlier episodes of unrest.

The Italian government has faced pressure over household expenditure, wages and the affordability of essential services.

These disputes have developed against a background of high energy prices and concerns about the broader economic outlook.

Albania’s Frustration With Political Institutions

In Albania, student-led protests have challenged Prime Minister Edi Rama’s government over alleged corruption, limited employment opportunities and education standards.

Demonstrations that began in Tirana have spread to other cities.

On 29 October, opposition lawmakers disrupted proceedings in parliament following weeks of protests and confrontations between demonstrators and police.

The government has offered measures intended to address economic concerns while condemning violence associated with the demonstrations.

For many younger Albanians, employment prospects are closely connected to the possibility of emigrating.

The perception that professional opportunities depend on political connections or personal networks has become another source of dissatisfaction.

However, the Albanian movement cannot be treated as identical to protests in EU member states, given the country’s different economic conditions and political institutions.

Serbia Shows the Political Potential of Student Movements

Serbia provides the most substantial example of youth-led protest translating into electoral change.

The movement emerged after the collapse of a railway station canopy in Novi Sad in November 2024, which killed 16 people and prompted allegations of corruption and negligence.

Students organised prolonged demonstrations demanding accountability and institutional reform.

Their campaign subsequently developed into an electoral challenge to the governing Serbian Progressive Party.

Preliminary results from the October 2026 parliamentary election indicate that the student-backed list has secured a majority of seats.

However, electoral certification and the formation of a new government remain incomplete.

The movement now faces a different challenge: converting protest demands into administrative decisions, legislation and economic policy.

Its success will be judged not only by the election result but also by its ability to govern.

A Generational Shift, But Not a Single Movement

It would be misleading to describe Europe’s demonstrations as a unified political campaign.

Participants have different objectives, national circumstances and ideological positions.

Some demand increased public expenditure, while others concentrate on corruption, political accountability or employment opportunities.

What connects them is a recurring concern about whether established institutions respond adequately to younger citizens.

The political consequences will depend on whether demonstrations produce lasting organisations, influence elections or secure changes in government policy.

Serbia suggests that student mobilisation can translate into substantial political change.

For governments elsewhere in Europe, the question is whether the grievances driving these movements can be addressed through existing political institutions before dissatisfaction generates further unrest.

  •  

Albanian opposition lawmakers disrupt parliament with smoke flares and furious attacks on socialist PM

Opposition lawmakers in Albania disrupted a parliamentary session on Thursday by setting off flares that filled the chamber with colored smoke, marking an escalation following weeks of student-led anti-government protests.

Members of the main opposition Democratic Party also blocked access to the podium during a vote on a central bank bill, Reuters reported.

"These ruling lawmakers are criminals, and they deserve tear gas, rubber bullets, cracked skulls, and broken bones—not the young people," opposition leader Sali Berisha declared during a speech before his microphone was cut off.

SERBIA’S STUDENT MOVEMENT TOPPLES VUCIC’S PARTY AFTER 14 YEARS, BUT POLITICAL AGENDA REMAINS UNCLEAR

As the chamber devolved into chaos, fellow opposition members surrounded Berisha, holding blue flares, the official color of their party, and displaying images of protesters injured by police rubber bullets.

Albania has been gripped in recent weeks by student-led demonstrations demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama over alleged government corruption, underfunded schools, widespread unemployment, and a lack of economic opportunities.

SERBIA’S LONGTIME LEADER FACES BIGGEST POLITICAL TEST AS STUDENTS MOUNT ELECTION CHALLENGE

The protests began on Oct. 13 and quickly turned violent as demonstrators clashed with police and set fire to government buildings. Protesters also targeted Rama’s ruling Socialist Party headquarters in Tirana, clashing with riot police deployed to protect the property.

The unrest has since spread to several other cities across the country.

THOUSANDS FLOOD BRUSSELS STREETS AS ANTI-AUSTERITY PROTESTS ERUPT INTO CLASHES WITH POLICE

In response, Rama, who has governed since 2013 and secured a fourth term last year, blamed "foreign hands who do not want Albania in the European Union. " He accused outside forces of manipulating the movement, claiming they "represent organized crime rather than students. "

To curb the violence, Rama introduced strict new measures, including $6,000 fines for anyone participating in a protest that turns violent, regardless of whether they personally commit acts of violence.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Another demonstration is scheduled for Saturday.

Fox News Digital's Chris Massaro contributed to this report. 

  •  

French interior minister to deploy 70,000 police for Halloween protests

French Interior Minister Laurent Nunez said that this Saturday was looking like “a very high risk” day for public order and that he would again deploy 70,000 security forces to try to safeguard the country.

Nunez told reporters on Thursday that several radical groups had called on social media for violent gatherings that day, which is also Halloween, and that the response of security forces would be “extremely firm.”

He highlighted the risk of disorder on Saturday evening in particular once more mainstream demonstrations had ended.

“We are seeing many calls for rallies coming from the labor movement, the radicalized far left, and certain radicalized ‘Yellow Vests’ websites, urging people to attend rallies on public streets starting at 8:00 p.m. (on October 31) in many cities across France, accompanied by various messages which are, let’s just, say quite radical,” he said.

“October 31 is a day that poses a very high risk to public order,” he added.

The Interior Ministry has said 410,000 people took part in marches last Saturday when authorities deployed 70,000 police, helping to avert a repeat of the looting and vandalism that swept many cities on October 17.

Labour leaders and students have urged further protests on October 31 and a nationwide strike on November 5, saying frustration over wages, living costs and public services was spreading far beyond the student movement that first mobilised last month.

  •  

Charles Barkley calls out LeBron James for disrespecting the national anthem with practice golf swing

Charles Barkley did not appreciate seeing LeBron James practicing his golf swing on the court during the middle of the national anthem ahead of his Philadelphia 76ers debut earlier this month.

President Donald Trump blasted James after the incident, calling him a "total disgrace," and while Barkley made it a point to say he doesn't care what the President has to say about anything, the two see eye to eye when it comes to James disrespecting the anthem.

"I don’t pay what President Trump says any attention, first and foremost, at all," Barkley began when asked about the moment on SiriusXM NBA Radio. "But I thought that was very disrespectful, practicing your golf swing in the middle of the anthem. I always stand for the anthem. I just think it’s important. We live in the greatest country ever where you can always protest, but I think you have to be very careful with the anthem."

LEBRON JAMES CURSES OUT KNICKS FAN IN HEATED EXCHANGE: 'I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F--- YOU TALKING ABOUT'

This is not the first time James has decided that the middle of the national anthem was an opportune time to work on his golf swing.

Last Christmas, while playing for the Los Angeles Lakers, James got in a few practice swings ahead of his team's eventual loss to the Houston Rockets.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

While Barkley mentioned always being allowed to protest, it doesn't appear that James was protesting anything in this instance, but instead simply not being able to stand still and disrespecting the anthem in the process.

"I look at it, I'm supporting the troops when I stand for the national anthem," Barkley continued. "I'm standing there for free speech, so even though I believe in free speech, I think you have to be very careful with the anthem. I always stand for the anthem. I think it's important, and I think it's significant."

James' faux golf swings in the middle of the anthem have understandably drawn attention and criticism, but perhaps the most disrespectful stunt he's pulled during 'The Star-Spangled Banner' came back in 2023.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

As a late arrival to his courtside seats at USC to watch his son, Bronny James, play for the Trojans, LeBron made his entrance during the middle of the anthem, with a hat on, and sat in his seat while the rest of the arena was standing and showing respect to the United States.

  •  

Dream, Valkyries leave court before TI’s 10-year-old daughter sings WNBA Finals anthem

Heiress Harris, the 10-year-old daughter of rapper T.I., sang the national anthem before Thursday's Game 6 of the WNBA Finals at State Farm Arena. But, as has been the case all series, the players weren't on the court for the performance.

Both the Atlanta Dream and Golden State Valkyries left the floor just before the young Black singer began "The Star-Spangled Banner," marking their sixth straight absence for the anthem in this series.

OutKick interviewed fans outside State Farm Arena prior to Game 6. They offered different views on the practice, with some wanting players on the floor and others defending their choice to leave.

THE CRAIG CARTON SHOW–UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!

One defender of the practice was the father of Golden State guard Tiffany Hayes.

"This is America, by the way, and I’ve served this country, so they can choose what they want," Renard Hayes told OutKick.

Asked whether, as a veteran, he had an issue with the absences, he said he did not.

"I don’t have an issue with it because it’s not a disrespect of the flag," he said.

Hayes’ father, who said he lives in Florida, had criticized the game’s 12:30 p.m. start, blaming the league and Atlanta organization for the scheduling situation. On the anthem, however, he defended the players’ freedom to decide.

The game was moved from its originally scheduled 8 p.m. start to accommodate a doubleheader with the NBA’s Atlanta Hawks at State Farm Arena. Golden State entered Thursday leading the best-of-seven series 3–2 after winning Monday’s Game 5, 64–55, with a chance to clinch its first championship.

Some fans want players on the court, while others defend their choice

One Dream fan told OutKick she believed everyone should stand for the national anthem.

A male Valkyries fan said he respected the players’ opinions and beliefs but wanted them on the floor.

VANCE CONDEMNS 'DISGRACEFUL' WNBA NATIONAL ANTHEM WALKOUTS, SAYS PLAYERS SHOULD SHOW MORE GRATITUDE

"I do think they should be out there," he said.

Other fans were less troubled by the absences.

"They’ve been doing it for years," another Dream fan said. "And that’s their choice. It is what it is."

A woman who said she represents Valkyries center Kiah Stokes offered a similar view.

"I think it’s their decision," the representative said.

For one man attending with a female Dream fan, the question was more complicated. Asked whether he considered the absences disrespectful, he said, "Me personally, maybe a little bit."

OUTKICK READERS BLAST WNBA PLAYERS FOR HIDING DURING FINALS NATIONAL ANTHEM

"But it doesn’t concern me that much either," he added. "Not particularly bothered by it."

Another Dream fan attending with his family said he respected the anthem and the players’ ability to decide whether to participate.

"But we live in a country where you have a choice, so I gotta respect it," he said.

Players and coaches say skipping anthem is a pregame routine

During media availability in Atlanta on Oct. 23, Golden State coach Natalie Nakase described the absences as part of the team’s pregame routine.

Those interviews were OutKick’s first opportunity to ask the anthem questions directly after attending all 13 formal press conferences during the first three games without being called on.

"We’re two years in," Nakase said. "That’s been part of our pregame."

Asked who established the routine and why, she said, "I really don’t know."

OutKick followed up: "What do you do during those 90 seconds that you’re off the court?"

"I’m with my staff, so I’m focused on my plays," Nakase said.

Golden State’s public relations staff then moved to the next reporter. OutKick did not get an opportunity to ask why those preparations needed to happen during the anthem rather than before or afterward.

Valkyries forward Gabby Williams denied that the team’s absence was a protest.

"No," she said.

Asked why the team was off the floor, Williams responded: "That’s been the routine for like, seven years now."

An Atlanta public relations representative moved to the next question after Dream coach Karl Smesko declined to explain his team’s absences.

"We’re just kind of focused on the Finals," Smesko said.

Asked whether he had any further comment about the anthem and his team’s absences, he said, "No."

Dream guard Rhyne Howard was asked about calls to exclude players from Team USA over their anthem conduct during the WNBA season.

Howard said she did not think she had been on the court for the anthem at any point during her tenure in Atlanta. She also defended her commitment to representing the United States internationally.

"When I go put on USA jersey I’m out for the national anthem every time, there’s no doubt about it," Howard said.

OutKick asked Howard why she was not on the court for the anthem with the Dream.

Howard and an Atlanta public relations representative both responded, "Next question."

WNBA policy and team decisions remain questions

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

The WNBA’s 2026 official rulebook says players, coaches and trainers are to "stand and line up in a dignified posture" along the sidelines or on the foul line during the national anthem.

The Associated Press reported Oct. 20 that the league suspended its anthem protocols in 2017. The provision remains in the 2026 rulebook.

OutKick has asked the WNBA to clarify its current requirements and enforcement, whether discipline is planned or under consideration, and whether teams have received instructions about being on the floor.

The inquiries to the WNBA and both teams began after Game 1 on Oct. 17, with follow-ups Oct. 18 and Oct. 20. OutKick also contacted the NBA league office on Oct. 20 about its role in the matter.

OutKick has also asked Atlanta to confirm an arena employee’s account that Dream players stand in a hallway after leaving the floor before games, including whether they remain there during the anthem.

During Game 4, I attempted to observe what Atlanta’s players do after leaving the court. Arena staff said my credential did not grant access to that area and escorted me to my assigned media seat.

The WNBA, NBA and both teams’ front offices have not responded to OutKick’s emailed requests for comment about the anthem absences. The player and coach responses came during media availability.

OUTKICK IS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE FOX NEWS APP: CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD

Six games into the Finals, fans disagree about whether the players should be on the court for the anthem. The teams still haven’t explained why their preparations require leaving it.

  •  
❌