Category: human rights Page 1 of 5

Los Angeles, CA – January 24: A sign is raised in support of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at a candle light vigil during a peaceful protest in support of a 37-year-old man shot and killed by immigration officers in Minneapolis was under way Saturday evening along Olvera Street in Los Angeles. Demonstrators gathered at the historic Placita Olvera marketplace on Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026 in Los Angeles, CA. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

The fatal shootings of Renee Nicole Macklin Good on January 7, 2026 and Alex Jeffrey Pretti on January 24, 2026 by federal immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota are not isolated tragedies; they are stark indicators of an enforcement paradigm that is failing to protect public safety, eroding civil liberties, and operating with alarming impunity. Good, a 37-year-old mother, was killed by an ICE agent during an immigration enforcement operation earlier this month, prompting widespread protests and demands for accountability (CBS News, 2026). Weeks later, Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by federal agents while documenting and intervening in the enforcement activity; his death significantly intensified local and national outrage (ABC News, 2026).

These killings have unfolded amid “Operation Metro Surge,” a large-scale federal immigration enforcement initiative deploying ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to Minneapolis and surrounding communities. The presence of thousands of armed federal agents in contexts far from the U.S. border has coincided with at least two fatal shootings of civilians in the span of weeks, incidents that have drawn protest, political backlash, and legal scrutiny (CBS News, 2026; ABC News, 2026). In the case of Pretti, footage and official preliminary reports indicate that two federal agents discharged their firearms during an encounter with Pretti, even as eyewitness accounts and bystander video challenge the notion that he posed an imminent threat (Star Tribune, 2026; ABC News, 2026).

The responses to these shootings reveal deep tension between federal agencies and local communities. Good’s family publicly denounced Pretti’s killing as “terrifying, deeply disturbing, and heartbreaking,” and called for a cessation of ICE activities, asserting that official accounts mischaracterized the circumstances of his death (People, 2026). Meanwhile, protests in Minneapolis and other cities have grown in size and intensity, with demonstrators expressing outrage not only over the deaths themselves but over the broader militarized approach federal immigration enforcement has adopted (El País, 2026; ABC News, 2026).

Federal officials have at times defended the actions of agents, framing them as lawful enforcement measures. Yet political pushback has emerged across the spectrum: senior legislators are seeking Justice Department records on both Pretti’s and Good’s killings, while even some Republican lawmakers have called for independent investigations and questioned the federal narrative (CBS News, 2026; Washington Post, 2026). These developments underscore that the core issues extend beyond partisan disagreement to fundamental questions about the role and accountability of ICE, CBP, and related agencies.

The argument for withdrawing ICE from Minneapolis and similar urban environments is compelling when one considers the lethal outcomes that have accompanied its operations, the erosion of public trust, and the disruption of civic life. Deploying armed federal agents into densely populated cities has resulted in confrontations with residents, journalists, and peaceful observers — encounters that should never escalate to loss of life in contexts unrelated to border security. The deaths of Good and Pretti, both U.S. citizens killed in broad daylight, demonstrate the high cost of maintaining such a deployment without robust accountability, transparent oversight, and clear limits on the use of force.

Moreover, these killings raise broader questions about the continued existence of ICE as an enforcement agency. When an agency tasked with upholding immigration laws repeatedly engages in operations that endanger the lives of citizens and long-term residents, it is reasonable to question whether reformation within the current institutional framework is sufficient. Critics and activists increasingly argue that ICE’s mandate — and the violence inherent in its domestic deployment — cannot be reconciled with the values of safety, justice, and civil liberties. For many, this leads to the conclusion that ICE should be abolished, and its functions reassigned to civilian agencies with clear lines of accountability and strong protections for human rights.

The tragic deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti are more than isolated headlines; they are a test of democratic norms and the limits of federal power. Their loss compels us to confront the consequences of allowing an immigration enforcement apparatus to operate in U.S. cities with insufficient oversight, minimal transparency, and a penchant for militarized tactics. For the safety of communities and the integrity of constitutional rights, wise leaders should support an immediate withdrawal of ICE from Minneapolis and initiate a broader conversation about dismantling an agency whose operations have culminated in the deaths of innocent Americans.

References

ABC News. (2026, January 27). Minneapolis live updates: Stephen Miller says CBP may not have followed protocol. https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/minneapolis-ice-shooting-live-updates-doj-investigating-apparent?id=129340693

CBS News. (2026, January 27). Key legislators seek Justice Department records on Alex Pretti and Renee Good killings by next week. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/key-legislators-seek-doj-records-on-alex-pretti-and-renee-good-killings-by-next-week/

El País. (2026, January 26). Minneapolis clama contra la “impunidad” de la policía migratoria que mató a Alex Pretti. https://elpais.com/us/migracion/2026-01-26/minneapolis-clama-contra-la-impunidad-de-la-policia-migratoria-que-mato-a-alex-pretti.html

People. (2026, January 26). Renee Good’s family reacts to Alex Pretti’s “deeply disturbing” death: “We urge all Americans to trust their own eyes”. https://people.com/renee-good-family-reacts-to-alex-pretti-death-11892182

Star Tribune. (2026, January 28). Minneapolis Border Patrol shooting: What to know about investigations, protests and immigration operations. https://www.startribune.com/ice-raids-minnesota/601546426

Washington Post. (2026, January 27). GOP backlash on Minnesota signals a tougher landscape for Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/27/pretti-shooting-trump-minneapolis-republicans/

Regime Change Is Not Lawful—It’s Plunder

By Katherine Walter

On January 3, 2026

In international law

KRAKOW, POLAND JANUARY 3:
A woman watches ABC News Live as U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine explains details of a U.S. special military operation in Venezuela, with President Donald Trump present, in Krakow, Poland, January 3, 2026. (Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

What is being reported today—that the United States military removed Nicolás Maduro, the sitting president of Venezuela, under the direction of Donald Trump—should be treated as a constitutional, legal, and moral emergency rather than a triumph. Even setting aside one’s opinion of Maduro or the failures of his government, the use of unilateral military force to depose a head of state is plainly illegal under international law. This is not a gray area. It is precisely the sort of conduct the modern international legal system was created to prohibit.

The cornerstone of international law since 1945 is the prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter bars such actions outright, allowing only two narrow exceptions: self-defense against an armed attack or action authorized by the UN Security Council (United Nations, 1945). No credible public evidence suggests that Venezuela launched an armed attack against the United States, nor has there been any Security Council authorization permitting regime removal. Absent either condition, military intervention for the purpose of removing a government constitutes unlawful aggression under international law (Brownlie, 1963; United Nations, 1970).

Attempts to justify such an action by invoking “self-defense,” “counter-narcotics,” or “restoring democracy” do not survive serious legal scrutiny. International law does not permit a state to overthrow another government because it is authoritarian, corrupt, or hostile to foreign economic interests. The UN General Assembly has repeatedly affirmed that no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, in the internal affairs of another, regardless of motive (United Nations General Assembly, 1970). This principle exists precisely because powerful states have historically cloaked invasions in moral language while pursuing strategic and economic gains.

Seen through that lens, this intervention reads less like a defense of democracy and more like a textbook exercise in plutocratic power. Venezuela possesses some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and U.S. policy toward the country for decades has revolved around control, access, and leverage over those resources (Mommer, 2002). When military force is paired with rhetoric about “stabilizing” oil production, reopening markets, or placing foreign companies in a position to manage extraction, the intent becomes difficult to deny. This is not about liberating Venezuelans; it is about aligning state violence with corporate interests, particularly those of multinational energy companies that stand to benefit from regime change.

International law directly rejects this logic. The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources affirms that a people’s land, minerals, and energy reserves belong to them alone and must be used for their national development, not appropriated through coercion or foreign occupation (United Nations General Assembly, 1962). That right does not evaporate because a foreign power disapproves of how a country governs itself or wishes to restructure its economy. To claim otherwise is to revive colonial doctrines that the postwar legal order explicitly sought to bury.

What makes this moment especially dangerous is the precedent it sets. If the United States can openly remove a foreign leader by force and then claim legal justification after the fact, the entire prohibition on aggressive war becomes performative rather than binding. Other powers will follow the same script, citing security concerns, economic stability, or humanitarian necessity as cover. The result is not a safer world, but a return to a system where might makes right and international law exists only to discipline the weak.

The Venezuelan people have the exclusive right to determine their political future and to decide how their resources are used. That process may be flawed, painful, and slow, but it cannot be replaced by foreign troops and oil contracts without shredding the legal norms that protect all states, large and small. If international law means anything at all, it means that regime change by force—especially when tied to resource extraction—is illegal, illegitimate, and profoundly destabilizing.

References

Brownlie, I. (1963). International law and the use of force by states. Oxford University Press.

Mommer, B. (2002). Global oil and the nation state. Oxford University Press.

United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter

United Nations General Assembly. (1962). Permanent sovereignty over natural resources (Resolution 1803 (XVII)).

United Nations General Assembly. (1970). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Resolution 2625 (XXV)).

OPM Ends Gender-Affirming Care in 2026

By Katherine Walter

On August 25, 2025

In LGBTQ+ rights

The recent announcement from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that gender-affirming health care will be excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs beginning in 2026 represents a profound step backward in civil rights and health equity. Under this directive, chemical and surgical interventions for gender transition will no longer be covered, though counseling for gender dysphoria must remain available. Insurance carriers are required to develop exceptions processes for individuals currently undergoing such care, yet the parameters of those processes remain undefined. Providers of gender-affirming care are also barred from being listed in plan directories, effectively discouraging access (Office of Personnel Management, 2025; Moss, 2025).

To understand the gravity of this reversal, it is necessary to recall how hard-fought the gains for transgender health care under FEHB were. In 2014, OPM lifted the longstanding blanket exclusion of gender-affirming procedures, and by 2016 carriers were instructed not to categorically deny such care. This change aligned federal benefits with emerging medical consensus that gender-affirming treatments are not elective but medically necessary. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society have long affirmed that access to hormone therapy and surgeries significantly reduces psychological distress, improves quality of life, and prevents serious health complications (Hembree et al., 2017; Coleman et al., 2022). For nearly a decade, transgender federal employees and retirees could rely on this coverage as a matter of equity and recognition of their humanity.

As a transgender woman who has been receiving gender-affirming health care for more than eleven years, this policy shift strikes me not just as a bureaucratic adjustment but as a direct threat to my life and well-being. Having undergone an orchiectomy, I rely on estradiol not simply as an affirming treatment, but as essential hormone replacement. Without it, my bones, cardiovascular health, cognition, and emotional stability would be at severe risk. Estradiol for me is no different than thyroid medication for someone with hypothyroidism—it is medically necessary, lifelong care. To see it lumped under a politically charged category of “optional” transition services is both scientifically inaccurate and deeply insulting.

What unsettles me most is the uncertainty this policy creates. OPM’s promise of an “exceptions process” offers little clarity. Will it protect those of us with medical histories spanning over a decade of consistent care? Or will it force us into endless appeals and denials, treating every prescription refill as a battle? This ambiguity is destabilizing, and I cannot help but feel that it is intentional—designed to make care harder to access and to discourage providers from stepping forward.

As a federal retiree, I gave years of service under the assumption that the benefits I earned would protect me equitably. Now, I feel as though my identity has made me a target within the very system I trusted. The estimated 14,000 transgender federal employees and retirees who will be affected are not faceless statistics; we are people who dedicated our careers to serving this country, only to be told that our health care needs are unworthy of recognition (Lambda Legal, 2025; them.us, 2025). The exclusion also signals a dangerous precedent: that essential medical care can be stripped away not because of evidence or cost, but because of politics.

This change must be understood in its broader social context. Over the past decade, transgender Americans have seen both progress and backlash. The Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 extended nondiscrimination protections in health care, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) affirmed that gender identity is protected under Title VII. Yet, simultaneously, states across the country have passed laws restricting access to gender-affirming care, particularly for youth, framing these measures as cultural wedge issues. The OPM directive extends that wave of exclusion into the federal system, embedding discrimination into the nation’s largest employer-based insurance program.

For me personally, this is not an abstract policy debate. It is about whether I will be able to continue accessing the medication that keeps me healthy and alive. It is about whether the years of progress we celebrated were only temporary reprieves. And it is about what message this sends to younger transgender people entering federal service today: that their health and dignity can be used as bargaining chips in political battles.

I cannot help but feel anxious about what the future holds, but I also feel resolved. This rollback will not go unchallenged. Advocacy groups such as Lambda Legal, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and others have already condemned it as unlawful and are preparing legal strategies (Lambda Legal, 2025). As a transgender woman and a retiree, I plan to add my voice to that chorus, because silence is what allows discrimination to endure. We have fought too hard, and for too long, to let the ground be taken out from under us without resistance.

References

Coleman, E., Radix, A. E., Bouman, W. P., Brown, G. R., de Vries, A. L. C., Deutsch, M. B., … Winter, S. (2022). Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(sup1), S1–S259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644

Hembree, W. C., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Gooren, L., Hannema, S. E., Meyer, W. J., Murad, M. H., … T’Sjoen, G. G. (2017). Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 102(11), 3869–3903. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01658

Lambda Legal. (2025, August 19). Lambda Legal condemns Trump administration’s illegal exclusion of gender-affirming care from employee health benefits. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://lambdalegal.org/newsroom

Moss, K. (2025, August 20). Coverage for gender-affirming care will be eliminated from FEHB plans in 2026. Government Executive. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.govexec.com

Office of Personnel Management. (2025). Carrier Letter 2025-01b: Chemical and surgical sex-trait modification exclusion. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://opm.gov

them.us. (2025, August 20). Trump Admin to end coverage of gender-affirming care for federal workers. them. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.them

From Liberation to Sanitation: How Corporate Pride Stripped the Parade of Its Sexual Soul

By Katherine Walter

On July 7, 2025

In LGBTQ+ rights

Participants march in the 53rd annual Chicago Pride Parade on June 30, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / AFP) (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

The Chicago Pride Parade has undergone a dramatic transformation since its early days, shifting from a jubilant, sexually expressive act of defiance into a carefully curated and often sanitized celebration. What was once a radical protest against heteronormativity and state control has become, in many ways, a corporatized festival designed for comfort rather than confrontation. I witnessed this difference firsthand. In 1996, I marched in the Chicago Pride Parade representing Northern Illinois University’s LGBTQ student group. We carried signs demanding queer liberation, chanted with raised fists, and celebrated our bodies and desires publicly, unapologetically. That experience was one of joy, solidarity, and sexual freedom—a moment when Pride was still very much about disrupting societal norms, not being absorbed into them.

Back then, Pride was deeply rooted in the spirit of the Stonewall Riots, which were themselves an uprising against police brutality and sexual repression. The early parades were messy, loud, and intentionally provocative. The presence of leather dykes, drag queens, trans sex workers, and bare-chested men wasn’t seen as a liability to be managed but as a central part of the protest. The parade was a place where queer people could publicly celebrate their sexualities, assert their right to pleasure, and reject the shame imposed by religious institutions, the state, and the medical establishment. As Gayle Rubin (1984) argues in Thinking Sex, sexuality is a frequent site of oppression, and its liberation is integral to broader social justice.

In recent decades, however, the increasing influence of corporate sponsorship and political interests has dulled the parade’s revolutionary edge. Corporate logos now dominate floats where once activists had marched. Politicians use the parade for photo opportunities rather than advocacy. In 2017, members of Black Lives Matter were briefly detained for disrupting the Chicago parade to protest police presence—an incident that underscores how the parade now often serves authority rather than challenges it (Bridges, 2017). These developments reflect a broader trend in which the politics of Pride have been defanged in order to be palatable to mainstream audiences.

As corporate sponsors and city officials pushed to make Pride “family-friendly,” explicit expressions of sexuality became increasingly discouraged. Kink communities, once a visible part of the parade, have been pressured to tone down their presence. Nude or partially clothed participants are often now treated as potential public relations liabilities rather than as rightful members of the LGBTQ spectrum. This retreat from sexual expression is not benign. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what queerness means and why visibility matters. As Sarah Schulman (2012) notes in The Gentrification of the Mind, the loss of sexual politics from queer spaces is not accidental but a consequence of neoliberal attempts to assimilate LGBTQ people into systems that continue to marginalize them.

Moreover, this sanitization undermines the very people whose liberation Pride was supposed to champion. Trans people, sex workers, people living with HIV, and those engaged in non-normative sexual practices have seen their visibility diminish just as the broader LGBTQ movement claims “inclusion.” According to Ritchie and Mogul (2007), this erasure aligns with a carceral and assimilationist approach to queer politics—one that values respectability over radicalism and marginalizes those who don’t conform. What was once a space to celebrate and politicize sex has been repackaged into a space where sexuality must be discreet, marketable, and inoffensive.

The shift is especially devastating for younger queer people, who now encounter a version of Pride that often leaves out the sexual energy that was once central to our movement. In Gay Shame, Halperin and Traub (2009) explore how the repression of queer sexuality under the guise of “progress” leads not to freedom, but to a new form of policing—this time from within the community. When Pride becomes merely a parade of sanitized slogans and rainbow logos, we lose not only our history but our future.

The LGBTQ movement was born from sexual deviance, rebellion, and refusal to conform. Sanitizing that history does not protect us—it disarms us. If we allow Pride to become sexually lifeless, we are not making it more inclusive; we are making it less honest. Pride must be reclaimed as a space where queer and trans people can express their desires and bodies with the same unapologetic defiance that launched the movement. Otherwise, it risks becoming a museum piece: brightly colored, well-funded, and utterly devoid of power.

References

Bridges, T. (2017, June 25). Activists protesting police presence at Chicago Pride Parade briefly detained. Chicago Tribune.

Halperin, D. M., & Traub, V. (Eds.). (2009). Gay shame. University of Chicago Press.

Ritchie, A. J., & Mogul, J. L. (2007). In Queer communities, police presence isn’t about safety. ColorLines. https://www.colorlines.com

Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267–319). Routledge.

Schulman, S. (2012). The gentrification of the mind: Witness to a lost imagination. University of California Press.