With protesters having shut down Pakistan’s capital Islamabad last month, demanding the release from prison of the country’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan, plenty of questions loom over Khan’s future and the fate of his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

Have the protests made the military-backed government more fearful of keeping Khan behind bars? Why was the former prime minister’s family denied access to court earlier this month? And how could amendments to the country’s social media policies be weaponized against Khan and his supporters?

All these questions and more will be discussed with Aleema Khan, sister of Imran Khan, at Zeteo’s live townhall, exclusively for paid subscribers, on Thursday at 12pm ET (9am PT and 5pm GMT). Aleema and Mehdi will be taking questions from subscribers who join the call.

Aleema has been one of the few people who continues to remain in close contact with the former prime minister and she has been active in the proceedings surrounding his trials. Her insights into his condition in prison, the future of his trials, and what his party views as targeted political persecution, will all make for a conversation you do not want to miss.

This is your chance to put your questions directly to Imran Khan’s sister - but you must be a paid subscriber to join our Pakistan town hall on Thursday. Click the link below to register for what will be a timely conversation with Aleema as her jailed brother asks the nation to prepare for “the next course of action."

Read more

Palestinians and Palestinian-Americans filed a federal lawsuit against Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday, accusing him and his department of failing to implement a law that prohibits the US from sending military aid to foreign security forces committing gross violations of human rights.

“This lawsuit demands one thing and one thing only: for the State Department to obey the law requiring a ban on assistance to abusive Israeli security forces," Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), said, referring to the Leahy Law. DAWN is helping support the lawsuit.

"For too long, the State Department has acted as if there’s an ‘Israel exemption' from the Leahy Law, despite the fact that Congress required it to apply the law to every country in the world. As a result, millions of Palestinians have suffered unimaginable, horrific abuses by Israeli forces using U.S. weapons,” Whitson added.

Subscribe now

Plaintiffs include a math teacher in Gaza, identified in the lawsuit with the pseudonym Amal, who has been forcibly displaced seven times since October 2023. Twenty of her family members were killed by US-backed indiscriminate Israeli attacks.

Amal joins four other Palestinians and Palestinian-Americans in suing the US through the Administrative Procedure Act, for failing to implement the Leahy Law.

Ahmed Moor, a Palestinian-American plaintiff from the southern Gazan city of Rafah, told Zeteo that being part of such a historical lawsuit – that itself is part of a growing canon of efforts to seek justice against Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza – has been sobering. “There was life before the genocide, and then there’s life now and through the genocide,” said Moor, who moved to the US as a child and now resides in Pennsylvania. Several of Moor’s family members in Gaza have been displaced numerous times. Many have also died, including his cousin’s 19-year-old son, who was killed by an Israeli sniper in Rafah weeks ago. Another cousin, his wife, and their younger daughter were killed in an Israeli bombing.

Two other plaintiffs, Said and Hadeel Assali, Palestinian-American siblings, have also lost multiple relatives in Gaza, including six of their cousins killed in an Israeli airstrike, and another cousin killed by an Israeli sniper.

The lawsuit – supported by the human rights organization DAWN, the group founded by Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi before he was assassinated by the Saudi government – accuses the State Department of creating distinct and insurmountable processes to evade enforcing the Leahy Law on Israel.

Subscribe now

The lawsuit alleges the US did so to avoid seeking accountability for Israeli violations, including torture; prolonged detention without charge; forced disappearance; genocide; indiscriminate and deliberate killings; and deprivation of food, water, fuel, and medicine. The complaint cites the State Department’s own yearly acknowledgment of Israeli human rights violations in Palestine.

The State Department said it does not comment on pending litigation. It has previously insisted it complies with the Leahy Law. Rights groups argue it has done anything but. In August, the State Department decided not to sanction Israeli military battalions accused of human rights violations in the occupied West Bank, arguing Israel was taking steps to address the issue.

Mountain of Evidence

Tuesday’s complaint comes amid mounting evidence of human rights abuses committed by Israeli forces in Palestine.

In May, the State Department itself admitted that Israel had “likely” used US arms in violation of international law – but announced no concurrent policy change.

In November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes. A South Africa-led International Court of Justice Case accusing Israel of genocide has had several nations – including Spain, Ireland, and Belgium – join. The ICJ has ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide (which Israel has since continued to flout) while the case proceeds.

And earlier this month, the world’s largest human rights group, Amnesty International, announced it had concluded Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.

Subscribe now

Last year, a group of human rights organizations, residents of Gaza, and US citizens with family impacted by Israel’s military campaign sued President Joe Biden, Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for failing to “prevent an unfolding genocide.” While a federal judge ruled the court did not have jurisdiction, he was critical of the Biden administration, saying it was “plausible" that Israel’s conduct amounted to genocide and urging the White House “to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.”

“A Paper Trail”

Nearly 15 months into Israel’s war on Gaza and with more than 45,000 Palestinians killed and 1.9 million displaced, the plaintiffs of Tuesday’s lawsuit remain hopeful the US will stop funding units accused of human rights violations but are also managing their expectations.

Share

“I'm hoping, through this action, through this lawsuit, that we can just call out the federal government to begin to enforce American laws,” Moor said. “Now, I'm realistic about the chances of that happening, and frankly, feels like a lot of this work is almost archival at this point. If there's ever justice or pursuit of justice, we got a paper trail. You know, who broke what law, who actively abetted genocide, it’s all there.”

He added that at this stage, he feels “almost numb,” particularly after appealing to Pennsylvania lawmakers earlier in the war to no avail.

“It’s not so much disillusioned,” he said, but the "callousness, the powerlessness, the extreme indifference to American life” that has been especially jarring.

Read the lawsuit.

Check out more of Zeteo’s coverage of Israel’s war in Gaza:

Since then, Yousaf has remained a backbench member of the Scottish Parliament.

However, in this exclusive interview with Zeteo in London, Humza Yousaf announces that he will not be seeking re-election to the Scottish Parliament in 2026, telling Mehdi that it’s time for him to “step away from frontline politics.”

“I think the time is right for me to step down, step away from frontline politics and make way for the next generation of elected members,” Yousaf says to Mehdi.

Subscribe now

In this wide-ranging interview, the former leader of Scotland discusses his fallout with the Green Party earlier this year, which ultimately led to the collapse of his coalition government, saying that terminating the power-sharing agreement with the Greens was, “the right thing to have done.”

“My successor is no longer encumbered with that deal, [he] can make decisions in policy that he wants to take forward in our country's interest without having to negotiate and compromise with the Greens. They can do that on an issue by issue basis, which I think is the best way to do it,” Yousaf says.

Yousaf also discusses the Middle East with Mehdi, telling him that the UK Labour Party is complicit in Israel’s genocide on Gaza.

“There's no doubt in my mind at all they are complicit. And I hope and pray that I live to see the day that all of those who are complicit are held accountable for these crimes,” Yousaf tells Mehdi.

Subscribe now

Mehdi asks Yousaf about his feud with billionaire Elon Musk, with the former first minister reiterating why he thinks Musk is, “one of the most dangerous men on the planet.”

Yousaf also sounds the alarm about reports that Musk has been considering donating to the hard-right Reform UK party (Musk has denied these reports).

Watch the full exclusive interview above to hear Mehdi and Yousaf also discuss the rise of Islamophobia and the UK race riots from this past summer, his party’s catastrophic performance in the UK’s general election this year, and the Pakistani government’s continued imprisonment of former prime minister Imran Khan.

Subscribe now

Zeteo has put together this video above highlighting 10 Trump administration picks who have direct ties to Project 2025, from co-authors to contributors to top affiliates, including border czar Tom Homan, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, budget office director Russ Vought, and more.

Watch the full video above to see who’ll be behind the hard-right, Christian nationalist Trump agenda come January 20, 2025.

In case you missed them, here are some more stories on Project 2025 you might be interested in:

One of the many annoying things about Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House is having to rehash facts that should have been settled long ago. Here's one: in August 2017, after a deadly white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump claimed there were “very fine people on both sides,” praising the racists responsible for the violence.

The backlash was immediate. Trump’s Republican allies distanced themselves. CEOs quit his advisory councils. A White House arts committee disbanded and called on the president to resign. For about two years, this incident stood as a glaring example of Trump’s coddling of white supremacists.

Subscribe now

Then came the revisionist spin. Weaving together a handful of moments, cherry-picked from days of typically Trumpian contradictions and doublespeak, the president’s defenders weaved together an alternate narrative. Trump condemned Nazis, they argued. He was merely defending peaceful, non-racist protesters who opposed removing a statue of Robert E. Lee. The idea that the whole thing was a hoax has become an article of faith on the right (just watch the video above). On a podcast taped the day before last month’s election, Elon Musk could work Joe Rogan into a frenzy simply by invoking the phrase “fine people.”

MUSK: The Dems are like, ‘Oh, we’re the good guys. We’re the honest people.’ No, no. Hang on. You can’t claim to be the honest people if you’re deliberately pushing hoaxes that have been debunked thoroughly … like the ‘fine people’ hoax.

ROGAN: Obama just said that on stage. … That’s a flat-out goddamn lie. Flat out fucking lie.

But it isn’t a lie. Here’s what happened, for the next time Rogan needs his producer to pull facts up.

The Facts

On Aug. 11 and 12, 2017, white supremacists from across the country held a rally called “Unite the Right” in Charlottesville, the central Virginia college town home to the state’s flagship public university. As the name suggests, their goal was to unite neo-Nazis, the KKK, and other hate groups with the broader pro-Trump movement.

Subscribe now

Nominally, the event was tied to a local debate about removing Confederate statues, erected half a century after the Civil War as monuments to segregation, from the city’s public parks. But as the organizers said in internal chats, later revealed in court: “The rally was never about the Lee statue … It’s about increasing our ability to exploit circumstances in the real world and attract more activists to our cause.” Promotional posters made the event’s true purpose clear: to “end Jewish influence in America” and to create “a pivotal moment for the pro-white movement.” Several of the white nationalists wore MAGA hats, hoping to signal solidarity with the president.

August 11

As the evidence presented in court made clear, Nazis were planning violence from the start. On the night of Aug. 11, hundreds of white supremacists carrying tiki torches marched through the grounds of the University of Virginia, chanting the old German Nazi slogan “blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us.” This protest had nothing to do with the Lee statue – it was over a mile away. Instead, they surrounded a statue of Thomas Jefferson, the university’s founder, where a small group of unarmed anti-racist counterprotesters had gathered. The Nazis attacked them with pepper spray and fists until police broke it up.

August 12

The main rally took place the next day, Aug. 12. This time, more white supremacists came armed with shields, clubs, and helmets. Far-right militias provided additional security for the Nazis; at least one leftist community defense organization brought guns as well. Violence broke out all over the city, including the brutal beating of 20-year-old DeAndre Harris by white supremacists. That afternoon, James Alex Fields, a neo-Nazi from Ohio, drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring dozens more.

All eyes were now on Trump. The white supremacists had explicitly appealed to the president during the rally. David Duke had told reporters on the morning of Aug. 12: “We're going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he's going to take our country back.”

Trump seemed to live up to Duke’s hopes when, a few hours after the car attack, he made his first public statement, vaguely criticizing “hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides. On many sides.” He didn’t mention Fields’ car attack or the white supremacist violence. Instead, he tried to reject responsibility, saying: “It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama.” When reporters pressed him to denounce the Nazis, he walked out. The Neo-Nazi blog Daily Stormer celebrated: “Really, really good. God bless him.”

August 14

The reaction was fierce. Prominent Republicans demanded stronger condemnation. On Aug. 14, Trump issued a second statement, condemning “the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups.” But his flat tone and the two-day delay left the public unconvinced – and the Nazis unfazed. Prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer dismissed it as “kumbaya nonsense” meant only for public relations.

Subscribe now

August 15

This was the backdrop for the third press event: the now-infamous Aug. 15 press conference at Trump Tower. (I encourage you to watch the press conference below.) What was supposed to be a news conference about infrastructure turned into Trump’s impassioned defense of his days of earlier comments. In a familiar pattern, Trump both doubled down and contradicted himself, insisting his first statement was “fine” and accusing critics of spreading “fake news.” He lashed out at reporters, repeatedly reminding them he had condemned neo-Nazis – albeit belatedly – while simultaneously blaming the left for the violence.

When a reporter interjected to note, correctly, that the “neo-Nazis started this thing,” Trump launched into the key section of his comments:

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.

The first part was confusing. The Nazis “didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis” – to whom? Not to the city that issued the permit, knowing they were white nationalists; nor to the American Civil Liberties Union, who defended them. But the second part was a clear escalation of Trump’s rhetoric. Not only was he making the Nazis and some of the people they’d harmed out to be equivalently bad, but it sounded like he was making at least some of the Nazis out to be equivalently good.

Subscribe now

As reporters shouted follow-up questions, Trump elaborated, claiming that among the neo-Nazis were people “there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He added, in the line that is most often cited as exoneration: “You had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?”

This could be a compelling argument. There’s just one problem: There has never been a shred of evidence produced showing that there was any discernable number of non-Nazi/pro-statue protesters on the streets of Charlottesville that weekend. Pressed for evidence, Trump referenced supposedly widely seen footage from “the night before” – Aug. 11. But the only public protest that night in Charlottesville, a town that is barely 10 square miles in area, was the Nazi torch rally.

I’ve spent years hunting for any kind of proof of what Trump described as a “very quiet,” non-Nazi, pro-statue rally that night or the next day. What I’ve found is that, when asked, Trump’s online defenders invariably dig up photos of the Nazis themselves – or of the counterprotesters they attacked.

What likely happened is simple: Stung by criticism, Trump made up a story to excuse his original “both sides” remark. Either he saw footage of Nazis and decided there were "very fine people" among them, or he lied about having seen such images altogether.

Whatever he was thinking, Trump gave away the game during that third press conference by emphasizing that the pro-statue group he was praising had a legal permit for their rally. That permit was issued to Jason Kessler, the neo-Nazi organizer of Unite the Right. In other words, the group that Trump lauded – the one he said was there “to innocently protest and very legally protest” – was a Nazi rally. End of story.

Trump on Repeat

As Musk noted on Rogan a month ago, Snopes.com weighed in on this question this year. The site’s reporter took the revisionist way out, saying that Trump could not have been referring to the Nazis as “very fine people,” since he also said they should be “condemned totally.” Musk failed to note that, when readers responded by putting both those comments in their full context, Snopes appended an editor’s note, saying: “Virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong.”

The best defense you can make of Trump is that he accidentally defended a group of Nazis and other white nationalists in the aftermath of a rally where they savagely beat and killed residents of an American city; and then, when criticized, either made up or hallucinated a third group of people who never existed to use as an excuse. (And if you’re going to cite an Aug. 16, 2017, New York Times article that purported to find such a person, you should know that article was wrong.)

Share

It’s more likely that Trump knew that some of the white nationalists were his supporters and did not want to push them away, so long as the trade-offs to his reputation weren’t too high. Having gotten away with it in Charlottesville thanks to the help of his supporters and credulous media, Trump would employ the same move again and again: with the Proud Boys in his first re-election bid, with a white supremacist dinner guest in the interregnum, and so on.

Last month, Trump tapped Fox News host Pete Hegseth as his nominee for secretary of defense. After the Charlottesville riot, Hegseth openly sympathized with neo-Nazis' racial grievances on air, describing them as “young white men” who believed they were being treated unfairly in America. He didn’t even bother to frame their actions as a color-blind defense of Confederate statues. In the next Trump administration, such thinly veiled excuses might be things of the past.

Check out other recent stories from Zeteo, and subscribe now to get more directly in your inbox:

After the Democrats’ second fumbling performance against Donald Trump, it remains to be seen who will carry the torch for the American left moving forward. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will still be around in the Senate, but it seems unlikely these two progressive torchbearers will make another run for the White House (Sanders would be 87 in 2028; Warren would be 79).

So, who could credibly step up in their place? Progressives don’t seem to have much of a deep bench. Zeteo was hard-pressed to find who on the left could mount a potential 2028 presidential candidacy.

Here are five possible options – along with their pros and cons:

Read more

Who actually cares about corporate monopolies? Most Americans, it turns out.

Last April, the Rural Democracy Initiative commissioned a wide-ranging poll of swing voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They found a surprising result: 81% of those polled said they agreed with the statement a small handful of “corporate monopolies now run our entire economy.” Some of the policy proposals swing voters liked the most were proposals designed to stop monopoly abuse and curtail their power, like the right to repair, or efforts to take on meat-packing monopolies.

In August, More Perfect Union commissioned a poll of likely voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, slightly oversampling Black and Latino voters. When they were asked to give their views on seven different institutions, including the federal government and Project 2025, voters responded by singling out “corporate monopolies” as the most hated, with 79% having an unfavorable view.

Kamala Harris and most polling outfits ignored corporate monopolies. Unlike frontline Senate Democratic victor Ruben Gallego, she didn’t campaign with – or even publicly praise – popular FTC Chair Lina Khan. She didn’t rail against Ticketmaster’s abusive monopoly, and she didn’t go to farm country and promise to take on Big Agriculture or the fertilizer cartel.

Subscribe now

She said she’d take on price gouging in August, but then backed off making monopolistic price abuses central after elite criticism. She didn’t promise to defend the federal ban on non-compete agreements, a centerpiece of the FTC and Biden administration’s assault on monopolies abusing workers.

After she lost, Adam Jentlesen argued in the New York Times that people pushing her to do more were “cosplay[ing] as populists by over-relying on niche issues like Federal Trade Commission antitrust actions.”

But the politicians who actually won – and those who got more votes than Harris in their respective districts – treated antimonopoly as the opposite of niche.

Democratic Overperformers Dug In

I looked at the campaigns of the top congressional overperformers to see how they dealt with antimonopoly. Overperformers are important, because most swing voters are not that engaged, and so most congressional candidates in most races are within a few points of the top of the ticket. If any candidate gets more than 5% more votes than the presidential candidate, that’s a really big deal.

Here are the top seven Democrats who fit into that category:

Read more

In his second presidency, Donald Trump aims to break many things: the federal bureaucracy, the rule of law, America’s international security alliances. But is he planning to break the US economy, too?

It’s not a flippant question. Campaign demagoguery notwithstanding, outgoing President Joe Biden will leave his successor an unusually strong economic hand, with solid growth, rising wages, and falling inflation that has made the US the envy of the world. Trump’s stated economic plans would put all of that at risk – if he actually follows through.

What Trump told voters sends one message about his intentions. His choices for key positions in the administration send another.

The most incendiary of Trump’s picks have drawn the most attention. For attorney general, a Florida congressman so odious that Republican senators nixed him within days; for the Pentagon, a Fox News host with many skeletons and no experience; for health secretary, a conspiracy-minded vaccine skeptic. Senators haven’t even wrestled yet with the zealot Trump wants to run the FBI.

But Trump has taken a calmer approach in building his economic team. Kevin Hassett, a conservative veteran of the first Trump White House with previous stints advising George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, will run the National Economic Council. Jamieson Greer, chief of staff for trade representative Robert Lighthizer in Trump’s first term, will move up to his former boss’s job. And for treasury secretary, Trump tapped wealthy hedge fund ace Scott Bessent.

With a resume that includes work with billionaire investor and conservative bête noire George Soros, Bessent has won bipartisan praise as a mainstream choice. He hasn’t hidden his unease with Trump’s plan for massive tariffs, labeling them a tactic for negotiating with other countries.

That’s significant because the tariffs the president-elect has signaled – 20% across the board and 60% on Chinese goods – would wreak havoc. They would raise the cost of goods here and invite retaliation that would harm US exporters, leaving American consumers and businesses to suffer the consequences of a trade war.

Trump’s plan to round up and deport millions of residents living here without legal permission would prove similarly damaging. In addition to the horrendous human toll, it would deprive the economy of badly needed workers and taxpayers, constraining growth, fueling inflation, and exacerbating the challenge of financing retirement benefits for our swelling elderly population.

Promises vs Ego

What’s impossible to gauge in advance is Trump’s determination to withstand public and political resistance to both his objectives. His carnival barker’s bluster has long since grown familiar.

Read more

Dozens of Democratic lawmakers are urging President Joe Biden to pardon Steven Donziger, an environmental lawyer who led a $9.5 billion legal case against Chevron for its responsibility in the dumping of oil waste en masse in Ecuador, in what became known as the “Amazon Chernobyl.”

“President Biden, your administration has prioritized promoting the rule of law, standing up for those who are victims of injustice, and working to defend our democracy,” the 34 members of Congress wrote in a letter sent to Biden on Wednesday.

“In light of the highly suspect charges against Mr. Donziger and their alarming connection to his work as an environmental lawyer, we ask that you exercise your power of executive clemency to issue a full and unconditional pardon for Mr. Donziger,” the lawmakers added, referring to contempt of court charges the environmental lawyer was convicted of in 2021.

Subscribe now

The appeal to Biden comes on the heels of the outgoing president’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter, reneging on his previous pledge not to do so.

An array of high-ranking and ideologically diverse Democrats signed onto Wednesday’s letter. It’s led by Rep. James McGovern (Mass.), the ranking member of the House Rules Committee, and supported by Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, as well as Reps. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Ted Lieu (Calif.), and the outgoing and incoming chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Greg Casar (Texas), among others.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined the effort from the Senate side.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

A Strategy to Demonize

Supporters of Donzinger often point to internal company memos that show Chevron sought to “demonize” the lawyer for more than a decade. The case stems back to 1964, when oil brand Texaco – which Chevron purchased in 2000 – began exploring and extracting in Ecuador. Over the decades to come, Texaco dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon Rainforest, polluting acres of earth and Indigenous ancestral lands, directly contaminating 30,000 people, bringing diseases and birth defects to the population.

Donziger, who represented those affected in a class action lawsuit against Chevron, called what he saw in Ecuador "an apocalyptic disaster, almost like the end of the world."

His years-long effort netted a historic $9.5 billion judgment against Chevron in 2011 – a judgment the oil giant did not pay, and instead filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) suit against Donziger, claiming the entire case against it was built off fraud and extortion. US District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in favor of Chevron in 2014. The company’s star witness later admitted he lied, but an appeals court declined to consider the revelation.

Subscribe now

As the legal saga drew on, Kaplan, in 2019, charged Donziger with contempt of court after the environmental lawyer defied a court order and refused to turn over case files, arguing it would violate attorney-client privilege. While federal prosecutors declined to take up the case against Donziger, Kaplan made the unprecedented move to appoint a private firm – one with alleged ties to Chevron itself – to prosecute Donziger on the charges.

Donziger was then denied a jury trial and convicted in 2021. He was ultimately disbarred and spent 45 days in prison and 993 more under house arrest.

Attorney General Merrick Garland ignored appeals, including from members of Congress, to review Donziger’s case, and in 2022, his Justice Department filed a brief in opposition to Donziger’s appeal to the Supreme Court. Donziger exhausted all legal avenues to overturn his conviction last year after the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

‘Chilling Effect’

Wednesday’s letter adds to the growing calls for a pardon. Earlier this year, 50 environmental and human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and Amazon Watch, urged Biden to pardon Donziger.

Share

In Wednesday’s letter, the Democratic lawmakers wrote that they are concerned “about the chilling effect this case will have on all advocates working on behalf of other frontline communities, victims of human rights violations, and those seeking environmental justice.”

Pardoning Donziger, they added, would “send a powerful message to the world that billion-dollar corporations cannot act with impunity against lawyers and their clients who defend the public interest.”

Read the full letter below:

Check out more from Prem:

At first, I dismissed my mother's call. “Something is happening in Syria,” she told me late last month.

An armed rebellion had erupted in the country’s north, but I was reluctant to believe it was significant. Years of repeated failures made it almost seem unreal. Yet, as the rebels swept across Syria with unprecedented speed, it was clear this time was different. City after city fell to the rebels, and in each, prisons were being emptied. Some detainees were seeing freedom for the first time in decades, their stories of survival emerging after 42 years of captivity. For the first time in more than a decade, I, too, could imagine freedom – for my family, my country, and my people.

The past 14 years have been a journey through pain, loss, and reflection. Today, as I write, Syria no longer feels like the distant memory it had become. There’s a weight lifting, a closure that’s difficult to fully comprehend but profoundly changes everything.

Subscribe now

I Had Lost Hope

Before the latest armed rebellion that began on Nov. 27, Syria had long faded into the background of my life. The old habit of waking up and instantly checking my phone for news was long gone. I pretty much avoided even talking about Syria, sidestepping conversations with friends and relatives who wanted to. I had once judged others for distancing themselves from their Syrian identity, people I assumed were embarrassed to admit where they came from. Eventually, though, I found myself doing the same, casually saying I was from London, not out of shame, but to avoid the ordeal of telling a story I did not want to revisit.

For much of the last 14 years, however, Syria consumed me, leaving everything else, including my daughter, secondary. She was born just days before the first protests in Damascus in 2011. At the time, dedicating myself to the fight for freedom in Syria seemed like a given, even necessary. Millions of Syrians were rising to demand change, and I justified my involvement with the reasoning that it would ultimately secure a better future for those I loved.

But as the popular uprising unfolded, the Assad regime’s zero-tolerance policy became brutally apparent. Entire neighborhoods were locked down, people were kidnapped from their homes, tortured, and killed. The regime’s security apparatus targeted protesters and anyone involved in disseminating news. I joined one of the activist networks in Damascus, and while we would meet each other every now and then when it was necessary, we largely hid our identities and communicated online, making sure to take every precaution one could think of; a single mistake could have been fatal for all of us.

Read more

Subscribe now

Of course, Trump being Trump thinks he can end it all by himself, via simple executive order – rather than the required constitutional amendment. But, as Mehdi points out in the video above, Trump not only would be defying the plain text of the 14th Amendment, he would also be going against over 100 years of judicial precedent.

Watch the short video above to see Mehdi rebut the right-wing critics of birthright citizenship, dismantle Trump’s lies on this issue, and brings receipts dating all the way back to the 1860s.

Paid subscribers can comment below.

Check out some of our other stories from the past week:

History was made in Syria this past weekend, as the government was finally toppled by rebel forces in a stunning takeover of Damascus, leading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to flee to Russia and end his family’s 54-years of authoritarian reign.

On Monday, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) — the extremist group that led much of the Syrian rebel forces into Damascus — announced that one of their key officials, Mohammed al-Bashir, will be serving as acting prime minister for Syria’s transitional government. But in spite of that rather grand announcement, all eyes remain on the man who will really be running the show: Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of HTS.

Just hours after rebels captured Damascus, Jolani delivered a speech in which he declared victory for the “entire Islamic nation” and “a new chapter in the history of the region."

Jolani is now of course everywhere in the news, and is even being presented as a reformist by some in the Western media, despite him and his group’s previous ties to al-Qaeda and ISIS.

But who is he really? What’s his background? And how did he end up as the new man in charge of Syria? Here are 10 things you need to know about Abu Mohammed al-Jolani.

Read more

On Monday, 26-year-old Daniel Penny was acquitted after killing Jordan Neely, a desperate Black homeless man on the subway, on the grounds that he was trying to protect others. On the same day, police detained 26-year-old Luigi Mangione, who is suspected of killing the CEO of a company that has denied thousands of life-saving healthcare claims.

Penny walks free after killing a man victim to the system. What will be the verdict for Mangione, who is suspected of killing a man symbolic of it?

Subscribe now

As many have remarked, Brian Thompson’s tenure as CEO of insurance giant UnitedHealthcare was grisly. Thompson (alongside other higher-ups) allegedly conducted insider trading, selling millions of dollars of stock upon learning that the Department of Justice re-opened an antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth. While the company was on an upward profit swing, it has been awash in allegations and revelations of limiting mental health care coverage via algorithm, denying healthcare services needed after hospitalization at drastic rates via artificial intelligence, and denying insurance claims at a starkly high rate.

A gun killed Thompson. Paperwork has killed thousands.

A Cruel Juxtaposition

As others have also noted, Thompson is also not aberrant – from either the bloodsucking industry or the broader social structure that has long allowed people of high status to skate by with no regard for the rules governing us, while enjoying esteem and priority nary any of us enjoy.

While thousands have joked about the premeditated killing, celebrated it, even propped up the assailant as some folk hero, some – mostly members of Congress and the establishment media – have dug their heels, categorizing all reaction that isn’t somber as vicious, dehumanizing, or even just as another example of the radical left. How dare you? He had a wife and kids! How can so many Americans be indifferent, or even celebratory in response to death?

Sen. John Fetterman is one of those who has loudly insisted that the “public execution of an innocent man and father of two is indefensible.” We are expected to ignore the fact that for 14 months straight before Thompson’s killing, Israeli forces have publicly executed thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza with the enthusiastic support of US politicians like Fetterman.

Subscribe now

We are also expected to ignore that two days after Thompson was killed, two migrant teenagers were stabbed in Lower Manhattan. The culprits asked if they spoke English. The teenagers indicated they did not. They were then stabbed. One was killed. No ensuing nationwide manhunts.

Indeed, that same day, a judge dismissed one charge against Penny – the man who put Jordan Neely, a homeless man who suffered from mental illness, in a chokehold on the subway for several minutes, killing him. Neely was allegedly behaving aggressively and yelling about his lack of food, water, and shelter and that he was ready to die. Penny, who claimed he was trying to protect others on the train, was acquitted of the remaining charge – criminally negligent homicide – he faced.

Each case, obviously, is its own. But in each, contradictions of who is human, questions of who merits sympathy, and inquiries of what sort of society we tolerate, ring loud and clear.

How many migrants has this country really killed, either in wreaking havoc across the world and creating migrants to begin with, or in how it treats them if they manage to cross our militarized southern border?

How many tax dollars have been funneled towards endless war abroad, towards uncounted massacres of foreigners?

How many people here in the US have been left without a place to call home, a pillow to return to on good days or bad ones, to the point of desperation? How many times have they been met with violence, often tolerated or encouraged, rather than care and uplift – like in Daniel Penny’s killing of Jordan Neely? And has that violence helped in any discernible way?

It's a cruel juxtaposition. The system that produced a behemoth health insurance company that haphazardly denies thousands of healthcare claims is the same that brought a homeless man with schizophrenia and depression to bounce between subway cars.

Whose Humanity Matters?

Read more

“The message to Israel is that this needs to stop. What we are seeing in the Golan is the violation of the 1974 agreement. This is a very serious issue.”

Given the UN has listed the Nusra Front as a proscribed terrorist organization, and given Abu Muhammed al-Jolani and his Nusra Front spin-off Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) led the offensive against Assad and now controls much of the country, Mehdi asks Pedersen about the UN’s approach towards HTS going forward.

“This creates obviously challenges and I have been very open when it comes to this… The messaging coming out so far has been good… What we now need to see when they are in Damascus, and of course, they are not alone in Damascus, is that this vision is actually implemented.”

Subscribe now

A precursor to opening a political pathway for such groups will of course be changing their “terrorist’ designations, something that Pedersen says he is willing to take to the UN Security Council.

“My message to the Security Council will be, yes, it's time to have a deeper look at this and see if it's possible to delist. But as I said, only if these things happen.”

Given Pedersen’s six years as Special Envoy for Syria, Mehdi also asks about the UN’s role over the last 14 years.

“We all failed the Syrian people,” Pedersen responds “and the United Nations, for many, will be the face of that, and we have to take responsibility for that.”

Watch the full interview above to hear why Pedersen is cautious in his hope for Syria, and the steps he believes need to be taken to see “Syria developing now, in the next days, weeks, months and years ahead of us.”

Please do consider also becoming a paid subscriber to Zeteo to support our independent journalism and make Zeteo the go-to place for exclusive interviews with high-profile guests such as this one!

In case you missed it, here is Zeteo’s interview with a former child prisoner of Syria’s notorious Sednaya prison:

Zeteo proudly presents, exclusive to paid subscribers, this award-winning documentary available in a limited release until December 31 only. 36 Seconds: Portrait of a Hate Crime is only available to watch here on Zeteo during that time. Free subscribers are able to watch just a 10-minute preview.

Subscribe now

Part of Zeteo’s mission is to serve as a platform for voices, perspectives, and stories that mainstream news has ignored. 36 Seconds is a film that isn’t just about what happened in 2015. We have chosen to license it for subscribers and to co-host a screening of it in Washington, D.C. this week (more information on that here, including a link to tickets) because the film reopens the essential and timely conversation of race-based violence in the US, and Islamophobia in particular. With the return of Donald Trump and his allies to the White House in just weeks, Americans will very soon have to grapple with the consequences when it comes to racial tensions and the emboldening of far-right white supremacists, including even individuals in Trump’s inner circle.

A Note from the Director

As a Muslim/Arab American growing up in the South, I had experienced challenges our community continues to face. In the weeks post 9/11, I was bullied, physically assaulted, and called a terrorist during my high school soccer matches. I had seen hate and ignorance up close and knew this virulent mix could ultimately kill. When the tragedy happened on February 10th, 2015 our worst fears had been realized in my home state. Over the ensuing months, I watched the Abu-Salha and Barakat families struggle to convince the authorities to investigate the murders as a hate crime. Whether on the news or in front of thousands of grieving supporters, they were stoic, articulate and brave. I was deeply moved by their dignity in the face of so much pain. Our community rallied behind these families, to help amplify their voices by all means necessary.

Through our research on the film, we have found a direct parallel between the election cycle and an increase in hate crimes. There has also been a wave of dangerous Islamophobia since the war started in Oct 2023. Many of these targeted attacks are focused on our community members protesting the ongoing genocide in Gaza. We will not stand down and we will not be intimidated. Our stories matter and that is why we are so blessed and honored to partner with Zeteo. Mehdi and his team have been working around the clock to deliver bold, unfiltered news and independent films like 36 Seconds to people who demand the truth. I believe it is incredibly important to support platforms like Zeteo at a time when we desperately need reliable journalism.

In case you missed some of our recent pieces:

Read more

“I was celebrating with my fellow Syrians…when they’re jumping, when they’re happy, when they’re crying, everybody is hugging everybody, that gives me hope.”

People all over the world watched as statues, billboards, and banners of Bashar Al-Assad, now Syria’s former president, were toppled, ripped, and removed after opposition groups forced him out of power over the weekend. Few, however, would have had the emotional reaction of Omar Alshogre, a leading activist and former child prisoner of Syria’s notorious Sednaya prison, who joined Mehdi from Sweden to talk about this historic moment.

“The joy that we have, we can’t even explain or tell you how huge it is,” says Alshogre, who was detained at the young age of 15 during a protest in Syria. “The officer was jumping over my body, came down to me and asked me, ‘Do you want freedom?’” Alshogre recounts, “I said yes. And then with the back side of his gun started to hit me on my head, on my back... I was taken to prison and I was tortured for the first time.”

Alshogre, who was smuggled out of prison on the day of his execution, describes the joy of seeing the people freed from detention over the weekend get a taste of that same freedom. “Imagine those people, some of them been in prison for 43 years, nobody knew that they are alive.” As hopeful as he is, Alshogre also tries to be realistic of the state that post-Assad Syria is in.

"I'm not saying we have democracy today. I'm not saying we have freedom of speech today. I don't think we have enough institutions. But the biggest obstacle that we had in Syria, that's the government that's killed over a million people for the last 14 years. So that's the biggest obstacle that brought Russia and Iran and Hezbollah to Syria, now all of them are gone.”

Subscribe now

That transition into a post-war Syria, as Alshogre describes it, is off with a wave of forgiveness fueled by a seeming desire to move forward, not back. “The Alawites today joined the demonstration of celebration and they came there. The top leaders came and apologized for being so involved with that regime and people welcomed them back. You know, people welcomed back even though they suffered on their hands.”

Mehdi asked about some of the challenges ahead, as well the critics who worry about an extremist takeover of the war-torn country. Alshogre also addressed the millions of displaced Syrian refugees all over the world, hoping that this will be the start of a return for so many who had been forced out of their homes over so many decades.

“Millions of refugees had to flee to the West and study in the top universities in the world. Learn and experience democracy in Sweden, in America, and so on… Refugees are also one of the important keys for Syria, returning to Syria is necessary,” says Alshogre, and to those that do, he extends the warmest of invites.

“I invite the whole country and the whole of Syria to come and have tea at my grandma’s place in my village later… Everybody is invited to see the springs of water. We have the mountains and the sea.”

Watch the full interview above, which we are making free for all Zeteo subscribers, to hear why Alshogre’s family had to keep the existence of his sister in Syria a secret for the past decade, his plans for their long awaited reunion, and his views on HTS and some of the more extreme opposition groups.

In case you missed it, here is Zeteo’s latest town hall on Syria with Syrian-American journalist Hassan Hassan:

Sudanese artist and producer Khalid Albaih tells Mehdi in the conversation above, “It’s basically a displacement; a huge displacement situation, a crisis. We have a health crisis. We have epidemics, like a lot of cholera right now is turning up. There’s not enough hospitals for everyone. It’s a really bad situation in all areas of Sudan and even in the safe areas where the army is located.”

Subscribe now

But the RSF have not only unleashed a brutal attack on the Sudanese people — they have also targeted Sudanese journalists, creating a media blackout that has prevented reporting about the genocide from reaching the rest of the world.

“It's incredibly hard to find any source of credible news,” Albaih explains. “It’s more dangerous to have a camera than to have a weapon in RSF areas, so that’s one of the main reasons why there’s not enough footage coming out of Sudan.”

Watch the full interview above to hear about the war in Sudan, including the attacks on aid workers, the role of the UAE in the Sudan genocide, and how Albaih uses art to tell the story of his people.

In case you missed them, here are some recent Zeteo stories you might be interested in:

During Donald Trump’s first presidency, his staunch political opponents became known as “the resistance.” The label will doubtless return during his second term.

But that gets the action-reaction dynamic backward. If you step back from immediate political skirmishes, a moment’s reflection makes clear: it’s Trump himself who leads a movement of resistance.

What Trump and his allies resist are the giant waves of cultural, economic, and governmental change that have reshaped the United States and the world in recent decades. The intensity of their grievances doesn’t lessen the futility of trying to recreate the past – even with control of the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court.

What the MAGA World Resists

The components of Trump’s coalition – composed disproportionately of whites, men, evangelical Christians, and blue-collar workers – don’t hide their complaints against the 21st century.

They resist the rising autonomy, power, and occupational status of women. Their bro-culture edge comes through in, among other things, a shrugging response to allegations of sexual misconduct by Trump and his appointees, opposition to abortion, and calls to remove women from the combat roles they’ve been allowed to perform for the last eight years.

Read more

Right before the US presidential election, Mehdi sat down in New York for an exclusive, paywalled interview with Piers Morgan. The two discussed whether the media in the US and the UK are biased in favor of Israel; Morgan’s refusal to call Israel’s war on Gaza a genocide; and the former Celebrity Apprentice winner’s false statements about 40 babies being killed on Oct. 7th, “some of them being beheaded.”

The full discussion is now available above, with no paywall, free to all of our subscribers.

Subscribe now

In his interview with Mehdi, Morgan does say he would like to see allegations of Israeli war crimes investigated, and says Netanyahu has got to go, but draws a line in terms of his criticisms of Israel’s action in Gaza.

“I wouldn't categorize it, as you do, as terrorism, although I do think that they've committed some acts which I do think are acts of terrorism,” Morgan told Mehdi, before adding: “You're not going to get me to say that what Israel's been doing is terrorism.”

For paid subscribers, do join the conversation in the comments below, and let us know what you think of the discussion with Piers Morgan, as well as who you think we should have on the show next.

Check out some of our stories in the last week:

On Tuesday night, local time, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol abruptly declared martial law. The announcement, broadcast live on television, plunged the nation into shock and disbelief. It rekindled memories of an authoritarian past that remains uncomfortably recent. This marked the first such decree since South Korea transitioned to democracy in 1987. Though brief – the declaration lasted only six hours before Yoon rescinded it following lawmakers' vote to lift it – this sudden descent into military oversight left an indelible mark on the nation's collective consciousness.

To much of the global audience, this event came as a shock. For South Koreans, though it was surprising, it felt like an inevitable moment – the culmination of tensions that had been building for a long time. More than 100,000 protesters, joined by over 4,000 professors and 1,466 Catholic priests, have been calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol’s resignation for more than a month. This movement already echoed the massive protests that led to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2017 for corruption and abuse of power, showcasing South Koreans’ enduring commitment to holding leaders accountable.

Subscribe now

News coverage has excelled in capturing the fast-paced chaos of what many are calling the six darkest hours in South Korea this year. Dramatic headlines and live updates have detailed every twist and turn. However, the global audience remains largely unaware of the simmering unrest that led to this breaking point. The deeper story – of widespread domestic dissatisfaction with democracy – has yet to be fully told. With little time for the media to provide this crucial context, it is essential to examine the nationwide protests already underway before Yoon's shocking declaration of martial law.

Vetoes, Corruption, and Inequality

At the heart of the protests have been allegations of corruption and abuse of power. Yoon has exercised his veto power 25 times since 2023, blocking investigations into allegations against his wife, first lady Kim Keon Hee, including claims of stock manipulation in Deutsch Motors. This is the most frequent use of veto power South Korea has seen since its first president, Syngman Rhee, who faced impeachment in 1952 and eventually resigned in 1960 amid widespread public outrage over his authoritarian rule and attempts to consolidate power.

These vetoes, alongside scandals like the “Myung Tae-Kyun Gate,” have eroded public trust in the administration. The scandal centers around allegations that political broker Myung Tae-Kyun, a close ally of Yoon and his wife Kim, manipulated public opinion during the 2022 presidential election. Through his Future Korea Research Institute, Myung reportedly conducted biased polls favoring Yoon to influence election narratives. A leaked phone recording released by the opposition Democratic Party has further implicated Yoon in discussions about candidate nominations, fueling allegations of election interference. Yoon has denied any wrongdoing.

Subscribe now

Beyond these vetoes, Yoon’s administration has faced widespread criticism for systemic failures in governance, public safety, and economic management. The 2022 Itaewon tragedy, in which 159 people lost their lives during a crowd crush, starkly exposed grave inadequacies in public safety protocols and emergency response systems. Lawmakers passed a bill to open a special investigation into this tragedy, but Yoon vetoed it.

Similarly, the death of Marine Corporal Chae Su-geun during military service revealed systemic abuses and negligence within the military. Instead of enabling accountability, Yoon has repeatedly vetoed special prosecutor bills aimed at investigating these military abuses. Public frustration has only grown as investigations into these tragedies have failed to hold senior officials accountable. Meanwhile, Yoon’s administration has also faced allegations of undermining press freedom by targeting journalists and media outlets critical of the government.

Adding to these failures is a healthcare system on the brink of collapse, where prolonged medical staff shortages, exacerbated by budget cuts, have caused long-term disruptions in patient care. Instead of addressing these structural issues, the government has opted for a hasty increase in medical school quotas – a move experts warn will only further destabilize the system.

Yoon’s economic policies have similarly drawn heavy criticism for favoring the wealthy with tax cuts while reducing public welfare budgets, deepening inequality between South Korea’s elites and its struggling middle and working classes. Rising household debt and record-breaking small business closures have fueled calls for reform, yet the administration’s inaction has only alienated the public further. Compounding these grievances, a 15% cut to South Korea’s research and development budget has alarmed academics and scientists, who warn that this decision jeopardizes the nation’s innovation-driven economy and long-term global competitiveness – a concern echoed by prominent universities like Yonsei and Ewha Womans University, which cite these cuts as emblematic of broader governance failures.

A Lesson for the World

South Korea’s overnight struggle has reminded the world of a stark truth: democracy is not self-sustaining. It demands vigilance. It requires collective action.

Martial law has been lifted, but the fight is far from over. On Saturday, South Korea's National Assembly will vote on the impeachment of President Yoon. If the motion secures a two-thirds majority, the Constitutional Court will decide its fate. With protests still raging and reform demands growing louder, the outcome of this vote will likely shape the nation’s democratic future.

Share

What the world witnessed this week in South Korea highlights the crucial role of institutions and citizens working together to confront governance failures and uphold democratic principles. In an era marked by widespread democratic backsliding and the steady erosion of institutions, South Korea's fight for justice and transparency stands as a powerful testament to resilience. Safeguarding democracy is a collective responsibility – a lesson that resonates far beyond its borders.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Zeteo.

Check out more from Zeteo: