The Treasury Department on Friday designated Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles – known in English as the Cartel of the Suns – as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity, accusing President Nicolas Maduro and senior members of his regime of leading the group and supporting major drug cartels whose activities threaten U.S. national security.

The designation, issued by the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on July 25 under counterterrorism authorities, blocks all property and interests of the group within U.S. jurisdiction, and generally prohibits Americans from engaging in transactions with it.

“Today’s action further exposes the illegitimate Maduro regime’s facilitation of narco-terrorism through terrorist groups like Cartel de los Soles,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

“The Treasury Department will continue to execute on President [Donald] Trump’s pledge to put America First by cracking down on violent organizations, including Tren de Aragua, the Sinaloa Cartel, and their facilitators, like Cartel de los Soles.”

Tom Ozimek reports for The Epoch Times that Treasury officials said the cartel operates from Venezuela and is headed by Maduro, along with other senior figures in the regime. The group allegedly infiltrated key state institutions—military, intelligence, legislature, and judiciary—to facilitate large‑scale narcotics trafficking into the United States. Its name derives from the sun insignias worn by Venezuelan military officers.

Washington accuses the cartel of providing material support to two groups already on U.S. terrorist lists: Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel and Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua.

The latter is a Venezuelan gang that Trump has accused of engaging in an invasion of, and “irregular warfare” against, the United States, using illicit narcotics and mass illegal immigration as weapons.

The State Department designated both Tren de Aragua and the Sinaloa cartel as SDGTs and Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) earlier this year, alongside several other Mexican cartels and the MS‑13 gang.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the Embassy of Venezuela in Europe—as its U.S. embassy and consulates are closed—with a request for comment on the sanctions.

Previously, the Venezuelan government has dismissed U.S. sanctions as illegitimate and part of what it calls an “economic war” aimed at destabilizing the country.

The sanctions are the latest move in Washington’s campaign to isolate Maduro, whom the United States has accused of narco‑terrorism since Trump’s first term.

In 2020, U.S. prosecutors indicted Maduro and several top aides on drug‑trafficking charges and later offered multimillion‑dollar rewards for their capture. In January, the State Department raised the bounty for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $25 million, while adding a $15 million reward for Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López.

Alongside that reward increase, OFAC sanctioned eight Venezuelan officials accused of enabling repression and subverting democracy.

“Since last year’s election, Maduro and his associates have continued their repressive actions in Venezuela,” acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Bradley Smith said in a statement.

“The United States, together with our like‑minded partners, stands in solidarity with the Venezuelan people’s vote for new leadership and rejects Maduro’s fraudulent claim of victory.”

The United States and much of the international community have rejected Maduro’s 2019 reelection on the grounds that it was fraudulent. More recently, U.S. officials have accused his government of using narcotics flows as a “weapon” against the United States, and of cracking down violently on opposition after Venezuela’s disputed July 2024 presidential elections.

Amid the Trump administration’s mass deportation of illegal immigrants, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned in March that Venezuela could face new, escalating sanctions if it refuses to accept U.S. deportation flights carrying Venezuelan nationals, including alleged Tren de Aragua members.

The Trump administration has also tightened immigration restrictions on Venezuelans. In June, Trump suspended entry into the United States for most Venezuelan travelers holding tourist, business, student, and cultural exchange visas, citing the lack of reliable vetting and the country’s refusal to accept deported citizens.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

John Brennan, the Obama CIA Deep Stater currently up to his neck in the oversight majority staff report that details how he and others under Obama cooked up the entire Russia collusion hoax, appeared on MSNBC and provided a snapshot that perfectly encapsulates the legacy media.

Brennan openly accused DNI Tulsi Gabbard of lying even though the documents are declassified for all to read. 

And he did this with Jen Psaki, the former Biden Press Secretary.

On Wednesday John Brennan went on with Jen Psaki to lash out at Tulsi Gabbard, accusing her of lying.

Two Obama admin liars lying about lying, running cover for a hoax.

Legacy media, defined. pic.twitter.com/i1fISs0Zc1

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) July 25, 2025

Actual journalist Matt Taibbi added this succinct observation.

Perfect snapshot of modern “news”: a former White House flack masquerading as an anchor, interviewing an ex-CIA chief-turned-paid-MSNBC analyst, masquerading as a guest — with no journalists in the picture. https://t.co/DDzbzckyxv

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) July 26, 2025

Imagine watching this and thinking it’s anything other than direct propaganda.

They have nothing to fear. They know they’re protected.

— 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝔻𝕠𝕔 🇺🇸 (@TheDocRFP) July 26, 2025

There’s few things the MAGA base would like to see more than this guy and Obama perp walked in handcuffs.

What a hall of mirrors- everything he says about Gabbard could of course be applied to the two of them just as easily.

— David Grecu (@grecutopia) July 26, 2025

Gabbard responded Friday to Obama’s desperate attempt to distance himself from what she has described as a “treasonous conspiracy.”

“They would have to admit and actually address the details of their complicity in this or their absolute failure in conducting the most basic responsibilities of, again, asking, where is this intelligence coming from? What are the sources? What proof do you have of this high-confidence assessment?” Gabbard stated.

She continued, “Remember, John Brennan and James Clapper at the time assessed, and James Comey, with high confidence, that Russia aspired to help Donald Trump win the election in 2016, when there was no credible intelligence that actually reported that.”

🚨 BREAKING: DNI Tulsi Gabbard just FIRED BACK at Barack Hussein Obama saying the Trump-Russia conspiracy allegations against him are “a weak attempt at distraction”

“President Obama’s very carefully worded response that came from his office, again, deflects away from addressing… pic.twitter.com/qk21nIq8Xo

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 26, 2025

“So, President Obama’s very carefully worded response that came from his office, again, deflects away from addressing any of the truth that was revealed,” she further urged.

“The treasonous conspiracy that we have now released to the American people. The complicity, the deflection, and the silence of politicians, of the mainstream media, and of those directly implicated in this speak volumes,” Gabbard asserted.

Gabbard also revealed that Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, then head of the intelligence committee, declined to share his email address with a whistleblower who challenged his conclusions regarding the hoax.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard: Senator Warner who was head of the intelligence committee at the time wouldn’t even give a whistleblower his email! pic.twitter.com/RmIeScUmen

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) July 26, 2025

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

The United States and China once again clashed at the United Nations during a Security Council meeting, which occurred Friday. This has been a more frequent and growing trend over the last year of grinding conflict, into the Trump administration.

Acting US Ambassador Dorothy Shea accused Beijing of covertly aiding Moscow’s military machine, and urged China to “stop fueling Russia’s aggression” in Ukraine. Washington has long suspected Beijing of intentionally shipping dual civilian-military goods in order to prop up Russia’s defense industrial sector.

“Beijing’s claim to have implemented strong export controls on dual-use goods falls apart in the face of daily recovery of Chinese-produced components in the drones, weapons, and vehicles that Russia uses against Ukraine,” Ambassador Shea said.

Beijing firmly rejected the allegations, saying it enforces legal and strict controls over its exports, and has a sovereign right to trade with whatever country it likes.

China’s deputy UN Ambassador Geng Shuang reminded the US representative that Beijing is not a party to the war and has “strictly controlled dual-use materials, including the export of drones.”

“China did not start the war in Ukraine, is not a party to the conflict, has never provided lethal weapons, and has always strictly controlled dual-use materials, including the export of drones,” Amb. Shuang told the UNSC meeting.

“We urge the US to stop shifting blame on the Ukraine issue or creating confrontation and instead play a more constructive role in promoting a ceasefire and peace talks,” he added.

Of course, from China’s point of view this is brazen hypocrisy, given that the US government has sunk billions into the Ukraine conflict – not through some kind of dual use items, but through advances military systems including tanks, jets, missiles, and Patriot batteries.

The truth is that India increased its imports of Russian oil by a staggering 1,800% since before the war in Ukraine, whilst China increased its import of Russian oil by… 43% (and that’s pretty much entirely for its domestic consumption, unlike India which resells a large… pic.twitter.com/LSSNryQNMi

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) July 15, 2024

So the US is lecturing and berating others at the UN for sending potential military use industrial items to one side of the war, and all the while it remains the conflict’s single biggest military contributor, including large and constant amounts of ammo.

For this reason many pundits have called it more appropriately a proxy war which pits the US-led NATO alliance against nuclear-armed Russia. Without an off-ramp, the war could escalate into a WW3-level confrontation, many fear.

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Massachusetts has maintained his nationwide block on President Donald Trump’s policy restricting birthright citizenship, saying that a narrower injunction would be impractical and create too many problems for states that sued the administration.

“The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer if the unlawful policy announced in [Trump’s] Executive Order takes effect during the pendency of this lawsuit,” U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin said in an opinion on July 25.

Sorokin’s opinion came nearly a month after the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, in which a majority of justices said nationwide injunctions likely exceeded the authority granted to courts by Congress. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion left open some caveats, however, stating that judges should fashion their injunctions to provide complete relief for plaintiffs.

She noted this was complicated for plaintiff states given the nature of government programs and how people cross state lines. Sorokin said on July 25 that without a nationwide injunction, the plaintiff states—which included New Jersey, Massachusetts, and others—would face administrative and financial burdens because of Trump’s policy.

Sorokin stated that Trump’s policy was unconstitutional and contrary to federal law, but the Supreme Court will “no doubt” ultimately settle the question.

The Supreme Court’s decision had sent three nationwide injunctions back down to lower courts for further consideration. Since its decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has also weighed in, upholding a nationwide block from a federal judge in Washington state.

The last of the three injunctions considered by the Supreme Court came from Maryland, where a federal judge said on July 16 she didn’t have jurisdiction at this point in litigation to issue a broad injunction. That’s because, she said, the issue was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Separate from that lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union quickly followed the Supreme Court’s decision by asking a federal judge in New Hampshire to block Trump’s policy through an alternative legal mechanism known as a class action. The judge responded by temporarily blocking Trump’s policy for a provisional class of individuals, which was defined by those subject to Trump’s order.

The administration has offered multiple alternatives to nationwide injunctions for judges to consider. But according to Sorokin, none of the potential alternatives in his case would be workable or prevent certain harms.

For example, Sorokin considered narrowing his original injunction so that Trump’s policy would not impact plaintiff states and the children born in those states. That alternative would not provide “anything close to complete relief and would impose additional burdens on” the states, Sorokin said. He cited evidence that pregnant women give birth to children outside of their home state.

One of the main factors Sorokin considered was how a more limited injunction would impact public benefit programs like the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He cited evidence that families likely needing public benefits would move from non-plaintiff states to plaintiff states.

Dealing with a patchwork system of citizenship or changing existing systems was not something states could easily handle, Sorokin suggested.

“The Court finds that citizenship requirements are included in numerous relevant federal statutes and, as a result, are intrinsic components of electronic verification systems run by the United States that are interconnected with state database and other processing systems,” he said. He added that changes to citizenship and ensuing confusion might chill enrollment in public programs, impacting children’s health and wellbeing.

During a hearing on July 18, the Department of Justice told Sorokin that he didn’t have to consider the workability or practicality of his order when issuing it. Sorokin’s opinion disputed that, stating that the administration’s position “defies both law and logic.” His opinion also said that the administration didn’t do enough to bring forward evidence and facts to support its position.

The Justice Department argued on July 18 that some of the plaintiffs’ evidence wasn’t properly submitted to the court. It also questioned the plaintiffs’ standing, but Sorokin’s opinion indicated that the issue was already handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and that he wasn’t able to second-guess the circuit’s decision.

Trump has criticized the concept of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, suggesting that it’s a distortion of the 14th Amendment’s true purpose.

His policy directed the government not to grant citizenship if a person’s mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual’s father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.

The policy also states that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of that individual’s birth.

Jeff Bezos has generated billions of dollars in Amazon stock sales since late June under a 10b5-1 plan. The divestitures coincide with a new report suggesting he’s mulling over a potential acquisition of CNBC. 

According to Bloomberg data, Bezos has been on a selling spree since late June, capitalizing on Amazon’s stock rebound from its April lows. So far, the sales have generated $5.7 billion for the billionaire.

Here’s more from the Bloomberg report: 

The sales, which began when Bezos unloaded $737 million around his weekend nuptials in Venice, were part of a trading plan for up to 25 million shares that he adopted earlier this year. He sold the last of the 25 million on Wednesday and Thursday, divesting about 4.2 million shares for $954 million, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Friday.

Amid Bezos’ dumping of stock under the 10b5-1 plan, a new report emerged last week from The New York Post about the billionaire mulling a potential acquisition of CNBC.

More details from NYPost’s source:

The 61-year-old e-commerce magnate has signaled interest to business associates in buying the cable network — home to “Squawk Box” and “Mad Money with Jim Cramer” — after it is spun off by NBCUniversal parent Comcast later this year, according to a person familiar with Bezos’ thinking.

CNBC would “align well with his interests,” said another source close to Bezos, who noted that the network could serve as a credible “neutral voice” in his media portfolio — a major plus following Bezos’s headaches as owner of the left-leaning Washington Post.

. . . 

Sources close to Comcast told The Post that Bezos has not approached the cable giant headed by CEO Brian Roberts.

Jeff Bezos weighing possible acquisition of CNBC cable network: sources

Carlos Quesadilla will be furious

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 24, 2025

First, he sells off billions in Amazon stock, now rumors of a CNBC takeover… what’s Bezos plotting next?

Authored by Olivia Li via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

China has officially begun construction on a massive hydroelectric dam on the Yarlung Tsangpo River in Tibet, despite strong warnings from scientists about the region’s fragile ecosystem and complex geological conditions.

A Chinese hydrology expert has described the project as outright illegal, pointing out that it violates multiple international agreements and China’s environmental laws.

The estimated $167 billion project, formally known as the Motuo Hydropower Station, is situated on the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. It is set to become the world’s largest hydroelectric dam, with a projected annual output of 300 billion kilowatt-hours.

On July 19, Chinese Premier Li Qiang attended the groundbreaking ceremony, referring to it as the “project of the century,” according to Chinese state media.

The Yarlung Tsangpo River, also known as the Brahmaputra in India and the Jamuna in Bangladesh, is the highest major river on Earth, with an average elevation of approximately 4,000 meters (13,123 feet).

The dam will harness energy from the river’s dramatic Great Bend, where it takes a sharp U-turn and plunges nearly 2,000 meters (about 6,562 feet) before flowing into India.

After decades of planning, Chinese authorities approved the project in December 2024, reigniting serious concerns over its feasibility, safety, and environmental impact.

Geological Risks

Some experts in India and Bangladesh, where millions depend on the river for irrigation, drinking water, and flood control, have expressed concerns about the dam’s potential safety risks and the negative impact of disrupting the river’s flow.

Shortly after China’s announcement last year, Y. Nithiyanandam, head of the Geospatial Research Program at the Takshashila Institution in Bengaluru, voiced strong opposition, citing both geological instability and the dam’s potential transboundary effects.

“The region proposed for dam construction is highly susceptible to landslides and is located on a geological fault line that intersects the Yarlung Zangbo,” Nithiyanandam said, as quoted by digital newspaper The Pulse.

“Planning a dam of this magnitude in such complex terrain poses significant risks to downstream regions of India and Bangladesh, especially in the event of a mishap or if there is an alteration in the water flow.”

He further pointed to the January 2025 earthquake in Tibet, which claimed at least 126 lives, as a stark reminder of the dangers of building mega infrastructure in seismically active zones.

This region has long been known for intense seismic and geological activity.

In April 2000, a massive landslide in Yigong township, Bomi county, southeastern Tibet, created a natural dam. Two months later, the lake breached, triggering flooding that affected millions of people.

On Aug. 15, 1950, a magnitude 8.6 earthquake struck near the river bend, causing widespread destruction in both China and India. It remains the strongest continental earthquake ever recorded since modern seismic data became available in China.

A Feasibility Study

Chinese geologist Yang Yong, director of the Hengduan Mountain Research Institute, has long opposed large-scale hydropower development in the region.

In 2014, he published a series of articles explaining why the region is unsuitable for large hydropower projects. Yang pointed out that the Tibetan Plateau, the source of major rivers in Asia, relies primarily on glacier meltwater for river replenishment, making the water supply unpredictable due to weak precipitation and significant seasonal variability.

As a result, he said, hydropower plants would face low operational reliability, poor energy output, and serious risks from freezing and river blockages during winter.

Additionally, he warned that the region’s complex geological conditions make it nearly impossible to construct effective regulating reservoirs, which are crucial for adjusting output and maintaining operational stability.

An ‘Ecological Treasure’ at Risk

Beyond geological concerns, environmentalists warn that the Motuo Hydropower Station poses a severe threat to one of the planet’s most unique and biodiverse ecosystems.

Wang Weiluo, a hydrologist based in Germany, has been a vocal critic of the project since China first began considering it in 2020.

The area is “a unique ecological treasure that must be preserved with the utmost care,” he recently told the Chinese-language edition of The Epoch Times.

The project site lies within the Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon—the longest and deepest canyon in the world. Rich in endemic and endangered species, the canyon is renowned for its biodiversity and fragile ecosystem.

In 2021, a team of Chinese researchers led by Lu Zhi, a professor at Peking University’s School of Life Sciences, called for the canyon area to be designated as a national park. In an article published in the journal Nature, they stressed the urgent need to protect the area’s ecological environment from threats posed by tourism and infrastructure projects.

“The environmental consequences of damming the Yarlung Tsangpo would far exceed those of the Three Gorges Dam,” Wang told The Epoch Times, emphasizing that the region’s biodiversity is irreplaceable and must be conscientiously protected.

One of the major issues with the Yarlung Tsangpo hydropower project, according to Wang, is that it is illegal—not just under international conventions and treaties but also under China’s laws.

The canyon area is currently designated as a national-level nature reserve. Under Article 32 of China’s Regulations on Nature Reserves, “no production facilities may be constructed within the core or buffer zones of a nature reserve.”

Wang told The Epoch Times that the project also violates multiple international agreements, such as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, and the 2003 UNESCO Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage.

Chinese state media have touted the hydropower project as designed to divert 60 billion cubic meters of water from upstream of the dam site into underground tunnels for power generation, while maintaining a total downstream flow of 140 billion cubic meters to avoid disputes over water resources for downstream populations.

However, according to Wang’s calculations, this scenario would cause a stretch of the river downstream to run completely dry—“not a single drop of water,” he said. Water would only reappear where the Parlung Tsangpo River merges with the Yarlung Tsangpo north of the Great Bend, he said. This depleted section, Wang warned, would lead to the collapse of the river’s aquatic ecosystem.

“This is the ecological disaster that the Motuo Hydropower Station would bring,” he said.

Have we reached the beginning of the end for Zelensky? Does this spell game-over and victory for Putin and Russia? The following is a very rare admission from the hard news pages of The New York Times:

James Wasserstrom, an American anticorruption expert, said in an interview that “the luster is definitely coming off” Mr. Zelensky’s wartime leadership among governments providing financial assistance. He added, “There is exasperation at Zelensky in the donor community.”

Early last week, there were unexpected images coming from Kiev of the largest demonstrations against the Ukrainian government since Russia invaded more than three years ago, as more than 2,000 people gathered near the president’s office, shouting “shame” and “veto the law,” after President Zelensky signed a law gutting the country’s anti-corruption agency.

This was enough to get the attention of Kiev’s biggest donors, and days later on Friday the European Union announced it would suspend part of a €4.5 billion fund tied to good governance standards, with the NY Times reporting that the bloc has frozen €1.5 billion (about $1.7 billion) in financial aid to Ukraine over concerns about corruption and delays in key reforms.

The decision is said to not be ‘final’ yet, and on Sunday President Zelensky held a crucial call with President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. His office confirmed they discussed Ukraine’s anti-corruption system (…or we should say lack thereof).

What is tantamount to EU sanctions being on the table would impact access to the funding, dependent on Ukraine meeting specific reform requirements known as “progress benchmarks.”

One critical unmet benchmark is the appointment of judges to the High Anti-Corruption Court, which is supposed to be an independent judiciary apparatus given the power to spotlight and battle elite corruption.

The EU has also raised concerns about a lack of transparency and slow progress in the area of judicial reforms. This rare backlash from close allies with the deepest pocketbooks marks a huge blow to Zelensky – who has also kept himself in power way past his term mandate (citing the war with Russia) – after he pushed legislation through the Verkhovna Rada seen as greatly underminng the independence of two key anti-corruption bodies: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).

Critics have increasingly highlighted that these actions have come in unison with other martial law policies during the war, including the silencing of journalists, civil society activists, the suppression of the Russian language, the persecution of the Orthodox Church, as well as the wholesale banning of opposition parties.

The New York Times comments as follows:

The two agencies — the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office — had been investigating top ministers in the Zelensky government. The president’s decision to kneecap them, though reversed, prompted accusations of cronyism that jeopardized backing from civil society groups at home and Western nations bankrolling the war.

The European Union established this aid mechanism, the Ukraine Facility, last year and promised 50 billion euros over three years for repairing war damage and preparing the country for E.U. accession. The European Commission spokesman, Guillaume Mercier, told journalists in Brussels on Friday that Ukraine had requested a disbursement in June despite falling short on three of 16 benchmarks, including failing to make appointments to a specialized anticorruption court.

Further, the reported noted “That court tries cases brought by the two agencies whose independence Mr. Zelensky threatened this week.”

🇺🇦 #Ukraine: Thousands of protesters have defied wartime restrictions in central Kyiv, rallying against President Zelensky’s decision to strip the country’s independent anti-corruption agencies of their autonomy.

This marks the largest protest of wartime Ukraine, triggered by… pic.twitter.com/jm8vMZ14Yw

— POPULAR FRONT (@PopularFront_) July 22, 2025

Even British prime minister Kier Starmer has reportedly phoned Zelensky’s office this past week to discuss his latest moves regarding corruption investigations. And when you’ve potentially lost the Brits and Europeans, your wartime star power has most definitely faded.

President Putin and Kremlin officials are sure to seize on the anti-Zelensky momentum diplomatically, as they engage Trump officials behind the scenes as part of ongoing bilateral talks. Trump has of course never been a close friend of “the world’s greatest salesman” Zelensky – and could be ready to dump him especially if the mood turns drastically in Europe.

Authored by Aaron Pomerantz via RealClearPolitics,

Earlier this month, the UK Parliament voted 385-26 to ban Palestine Action after members infiltrated an air force base and vandalized equipment. Under the UK’s Terrorism Act of 2000, it is now illegal to fund, support, or even publicly approve of the organization. Arrests have already begun, sparking backlash from critics, who describe cracking down on pro-Palestine Action protests as “dystopian.”

Now, Palestine Action’s U.S. wing, “Unity of Fields” (UoF) faces similar scrutiny for similar behavior, including calling for police to be set on fire, cheering the murder of Israeli-Americans, traveling to Iran and publicly supporting them against the U.S., and advocating for “direct action” tactics including vandalism, violence, and full-blown terrorism. The question is: Should the U.S. follow the UK’s lead and formally ban UoF and similar extremist groups?

That decision rests with lawmakers. Before discussing the decision’s finer details, we must face a more basic truth: Organizations like Unity of Fields aren’t just saying outrageous things. They incite violence, empower extremism, and undermine the legitimate pro-Palestine movement.

Incitement, Not Free Speech

UoF frequently uses far-left, Marxist rhetoric, similar to Iran and Hamas, to disguise their extremist, authoritarian agendas. This dissembling has effectively led many American progressives to embrace organizations like UoF as ideological allies. However, UoF’s rhetoric crosses from critique to incitement – speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” – which the First Amendment does not protect. Among other things, UoF has:

• Stormed Columbia’s library, distributing pamphlets praising terrorists
• Called for violence during the LA riots
• Celebrated the murder of Israeli-Americans as a “legitimate act of resistance” and called for the release of the murderer

UoF claims to lead the pro-Palestinian movement, yet it follows the playbook of online radicalization, prioritizing violence over progress. Consequently, UoF and similar organizations aren’t simply exercising speech; they’re deliberately manufacturing the conditions for violence, which has already paid off in a wave of antisemitism and skyrocketing political violence.

Empowering Anti-Palestinian Extremism

By mainstreaming violent, incendiary rhetoric, groups like UoF empower extremism on the ideological right just as much as they actively appeal to it on the left.

Like post-9/11 civil liberties rollbacks, the right now exploits antisemitism fears to justify extremism –  e.g., Heritage Foundation’s “Project Esther.” This initiative, created without the input or support of any major Jewish organizations and which notably avoids any discussion of right-wing antisemitism, calls for massively expanding federal power, and it justifies this goal by pointing to extremists like UoF. President Trump has likewise exploited fears about antisemitism to further his agenda. In the name of “protecting Jews” from extremist groups like UoF, Trump has chilled academic speech, dismantled civil rights protections (even those benefiting Jewish students), and furthered his anti-immigration and surveillance agendas. When Trump does speak about Palestinians, he either demonizes them or suggests ethnically cleansing them from Gaza.

So while UoF claims to be fighting for the Palestinian cause, all their violent, hateful behavior not only fails to “Free Palestine,” but actively harms the democratic norms necessary to facilitate meaningful change for Palestinians while empowering anti-Palestinian causes.

Directly Harming Palestinians

Whatever their claims to the contrary, UoF is not interested in positive outcomes for Palestinians. All they offer is violent destruction, thereby making meaningful change impossible.

And let’s be clear: Meaningful change is possible. It’s seen as Gazans and Israelis alike hold up pictures of each other’s children, highlighting the innocent who have suffered in this war. It’s heard from dissident voices like Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, Hamza Howidy, and John Aziz – each a Palestinian who has spoken out against Hamas and violent extremism in favor of coexistence and reform. And yet, these men are also accused of being “traitors,” not from fellow Palestinians, but by “activists” like UoF who are unable to accept any solution not dripping in rage or blood.

Meanwhile, as Palestinians rise up to protest Hamas and demand an end to the war, as Hamas tortures, murders, and starves them, “activists” like UoF issue nothing but deafening silence. If UoF cared about the Palestinian cause, it would stand with those pursuing meaningful change, rather than obstructing peace by calling for nothing but more death and destruction.

Embracing Meaningful Activism

Banning UoF – and similar organizations inciting violence under the guise of activism – is a no-brainer. The UK did, and the U.S. should follow suit. But this isn’t a solution, only triage.

The deeper problem is that groups like UoF, along with rhetoric like “globalize the intifada” or “by any means necessary,” have been tolerated not only by institutions but by some progressives.

Real change demands a cultural shift: rejecting violence and embracing peace-building. That’s what defines democracy, and that’s what we threaten by tolerating organizations like Unity of Fields. We must purge our movements of violent rhetoric, or risk perpetuating cycles of extremism. Otherwise, the next crisis will replay this cycle – louder, bloodier, and irreversible.

Dr. Aaron Pomerantz is a social psychologist and research director at Rice University, where he studies both destructive leadership and strategies for developing more ethical, effective, and systems-oriented leaders.

President Trump said he reached a trade deal with the European Union late on Sunday, avoiding a trade war with the US’s largest trading partner and marking his biggest deal so far in his attempt to remake the global trading system through higher tariffs for U.S. trading partners.

The pact comes less than a week before a Friday deadline for President Donald Trump’s higher tariffs to take effect on August 1. The president in May threatened to impose a 50% duty on nearly all EU goods, adding pressure that accelerated negotiations, before lowering that to 30%.

Trump made the announcement at Trump Turnberry, his seaside golf resort in western Scotland, after meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who leads the EU’s executive body.

🚨BREAKING: President Trump lands EU trade deal:

– EU to purchase $750 billion in US and invest $600 billion in US
– EU to purchase a “vast amount” of military equipment
– EU opens up markets to US goods
– 15% reciprocal tariffs

Massive!! pic.twitter.com/cheSWDIMSJ

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) July 27, 2025

Trump said the U.S. would set a baseline tariff of 15% for European goods, including automobiles. He said steel and aluminum tariffs, which are currently at 50%, would remain unchanged. He added that the EU had agreed as part of the deal to buy $750 billion worth of energy products from the US, and the EU would agree to invest $600 billion more than previously in the US, although similar to the $550BN “investment” promised by Japan, this is unlikely to every materialize.

Adding to the list of ludicrously big numbers disclosed (or as the case may be undisclosed) today, Trump also said that the EU would buy “a vast amount” of military equipment, and while he explained that “we don’t know what number is” but added that the US makes “the best military equipment in the world so you have to do that.”

To summarize, the US has agreed:

• To purchase $750 billion in energy
• Invest $600 billion in the US on top of existing investments
• Open up countries’ markets to trade with US at zero tariffs
• Purchase “vast amounts” of military equipment

“I think it’s going to be great for both parties, I think your various countries are very happy about this,” Trump said, sitting alongside von der Leyen. The two met for about an hour with their top representatives.

“We made it,” von der Leyen said. She said the two sides wanted to rebalance their trade relationship, “and we wanted to do it in a way that trade goes on between the two of us across the Atlantic.”

Currently, the EU faces a 10% baseline tariff on most of its goods exports to the U.S., as well as a 25% tariff on its auto industry and a 50% tariff for steel and aluminum.

“I think that basically concludes the deal,” Trump told reporters at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland. “It’s the biggest of all the deals.”

The terms disclosed on Sunday suggest that 15% is likely a new minimum tariff level for most American trading partners. Economists and trade analysts say that tariffs at that level will have an impact on companies’ decisions and are expected to contribute to higher prices for Americans, but won’t stop global trade flows.

“They are not at the level where the global economy burns down,” said Dmitry Grozoubinski, senior trade adviser at Aurora Macro Strategies.

The deal comes after a flurry of recent trade announcements. Trump said this past week that he had reached a deal with Japan, another top U.S. trading partner, which put baseline tariffs at 15%. Separate agreements set Vietnam’s baseline tariff level at 20% and established a 19% rate for the Philippines and Indonesia, Trump has said.

The U.K. has the lowest tariffs Trump has so far agreed to as part of a deal, at 10%. Trump also was expected to iron out final details of the U.K. agreement in meetings with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Sunday and Monday.

The EU pact removes a major risk for markets and the global economy, a trade war involving $1.7 trillion worth of cross-border commerce, even though it means European shipments to the US are getting hit with a higher tax at the border. 

The goals, Trump said, were more production in the US and wider access for American exporters to the European market. Von der Leyen acknowledged that part of the drive behind the talks was a rebalancing of trade, but cast it as beneficial for both sides.

“The starting point was an imbalance,” von der Leyen said. “We wanted to rebalance the trade we made, and we wanted to do it in a way that trade goes on between the two of us across the Atlantic, because the two biggest economies should have a good trade flow.”

As Bloomberg notes, US and European negotiators had been zeroing in on an agreement this past week. Officials have discussed terms for a quota system for steel and aluminum imports, which would face a lower import tax below a certain threshold and would be charged the regular 50% rate above it. The EU had also been seeking quotas and a ceiling on future industry-specific tariffs, but it’s unclear if the initial agreement will shield the bloc from potential levies that have yet to be implemented. 

The announcement capped off months of often tense shuttle diplomacy between Brussels and Washington. The EU had prepared to put levies on about €100 billion ($117 billion), about a third of American exports to the bloc, if a deal wasn’t reached and Trump followed through on his warning.

For weeks, the EU has indicated a willingness to accept an unbalanced pact involving a reduced rate of around 15%, while seeking relief on sectoral tariffs critical to the European economy. The US president has also imposed 25% levies on cars and double that rate on steel and aluminum, as well as copper. 

The deal comes just days after we learned that in June the US collected a new record in tariff revenue, some $26.6 billion: a number which annualizes to an impressive $320 billion.

Several exporters in Asia, including Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan, have negotiated reciprocal rates between 15% to 20%, and the EU saw Japan’s deal for 15% on autos as a breakthrough worth seeking as well. Washington’s talks also continue with Switzerland, South Korea and Taiwan.

Authored by James Eustis via The RealClearPolitics (emphasis ours),

A little-noticed provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” forces blue states and cities to make a tough choice: Comply with federal immigration law or lose federal money for criminal justice aid.

President Trump’s signature piece of legislation allocated $3.3 billion to the DOJ, some of which will go toward the Byrne-JAG Grant Program, a federal initiative created in 2005 which provides support for local law enforcement and criminal justice efforts. To access the new funds, which supplement the $499 million already appropriated for the Byrne-JAG program in 2025, localities must comply with a section of federal immigration law that forbids them from restricting communication between their law enforcement entities and the Department of Homeland Security regarding an individual’s immigration status. This provides an incentive for localities to share their information with federal immigration authorities, helping the Trump administration implement its immigration enforcement agenda, but it also runs the risk of misallocating federal support.

This condition poses a dilemma for Democrats: Do they accept the demands of the Trump administration in return for money they need to run their cities and localities? Or do they maintain their longstanding opposition to deportation and turn it down?

Across the country, Democratic Party leaders are competing to be the face of opposition to the Trump administration. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has tried to position himself as one of the leaders of the opposition to President Trump. New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani has called himself “Donald Trump’s worst nightmare” and has stated that “I will not be working with the [Trump] administration on harming the people that I look to represent.”

But sticking with this position means their constituents won’t benefit from the additional funding that other localities will be able to use to lower their local fiscal burden and make their communities safer.

In effect, millions of dollars in federal justice system aid could flow to low-crime, less liberal suburbs and rural areas, while high-crime cities are left behind for defying federal immigration demands. Specifically, cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and Memphis, which lead the nation in homicide rates, could be prevented from receiving funding.

In a statement to RealClearPolitics, Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that “Putting unnecessary stipulations on this funding is harmful and unproductive.” “Blocking funds for this purpose,” Durbin continued, “totally misses the mark.”

In response, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson argued that “If Dick Durbin is truly focused on the safety and security of American communities, he should encourage cities and states to comply with federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities only provide sanctuary to illegal criminals, and Americans – like the CBP agent who was just shot in the face by two criminal illegal aliens – are forced to pay the price.”

This is not the first time Washington has used federal funds to influence local policies. In the 1980s, for example, the Reagan administration withheld highway funds to pressure states to raise their drinking ages. This policy was successful. Today, all 50 states require people to be 21 in order to purchase alcoholic beverages.

This situation could be different. Many big-city law enforcement leaders have resisted becoming involved in federal immigration efforts. As former LAPD Chief Charlie Beck once stated, “We are not immigration agents. We are police officers.” Similar sentiment has been echoed in other progressive-led cities where local officials argue that cooperation with ICE undermines trust between police and immigrant communities. Additionally, many local leaders may see this as an attempt to impede state and local rights by imposing a federal policy that is unpopular with their constituents.

David Pitts, vice president for the Justice and Safety Division of the Urban Institute, emphasized the difficulty of this decision. “If they adhere to these immigration focused requirements, then what would they be giving up? Sometimes,”  Pitts continued, “the funds can be used to hire additional police officers. Oftentimes, it’s used to purchase access to technology. … It is likely that if [cities with higher crime] don’t get that funding, the funding will go to rural areas that don’t need it.” Still, according to Pitt, “it remains to be seen exactly how that will play out.”

The debate also reveals a striking role reversal: Republicans, longtime defenders of states’ rights and local control, are using federal purse strings to enforce top-down immigration policy. Democrats, meanwhile, are pushing back against what they view as federal overreach.

The first Trump administration also attempted to tie Byrne-JAG grants to compliance with federal immigration law in 2017. At the time, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such restrictions were not within the power of the executive branch (City of Chicago v. Sessions). Now, the Department of Justice has explicit congressional authorization to make the grant conditional, creating a more favorable legal landscape for the Trump administration.