Rights

Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, a California attorney who radically reshaped the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to focus on political issues important to President Trump — including by targeting transgender rights and launching a nationwide hunt for alleged voter fraud by noncitizens — resigned her post Thursday.

In a resignation letter and in a post to X — where she routinely lambasted liberal policy and touted her office’s legal work to dismantle it — Dhillon said serving as the division’s chief was an honor.

“We ushered in the downfall of illegal DEI, we fought to protect women and girls’ sports, and so much more,” she wrote on X. “I want to thank President Trump for giving me this opportunity. I look forward to what’s next!”

Critics of Dhillon — including prominent civil rights leaders who had opposed her confirmation to the post — cheered her departure, saying she had flipped the storied Civil Rights Division on its head by attacking pillars of its past work, such as affirmative action policies, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, LGBTQ+ rights and voting rights.

“Is Harmeet running from a sinking ship? Trying to avoid actual oversight? Or getting pushed out by DOJ leadership?” Vanita Gupta, who headed the Civil Rights Division under President Obama, said in a text message. “Maybe it’s all of the above but regardless, she used the Civil Rights Division against the very communities and values it was founded to protect and that will be her legacy.”

Another part of her legacy, Gupta said, will be that she “oversaw the decimation of the Division’s incredible career workforce.” Many career civil rights attorneys left the department after she took over and demanded an ideological shift in the work.

Dhillon’s departure comes two days after a midterm election in which Republicans suffered sweeping losses, and amid widespread speculation as to how Trump and other leaders in his administration would respond — and who among them, if any, would leave or be unceremoniously ousted. Turnover after such an electoral drubbing is not uncommon.

In her resignation letter, Dhillon said she initially resigned in October, but that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles asked her to stay on until after the midterms. Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that Dhillon did “a fantastic job … boldly protecting Americans’ civil liberties.”

Dhillon also touted what she called “historic victories for the American people” under her leadership, and specifically cited her work ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs, suing states including California over their policies for transgender students and athletes and for their voter rolls, defending gun rights and fighting anti-Semitism.

Dhillon’s success in those initiatives was middling at best — and in some areas disastrous. Out of dozens of lawsuits demanding states turn over their voter rolls, for instance, she had zero wins.

Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on X, wrote that Dhillon “has defended the civil liberties of every American and enforced the law without fear or favor,” and that the department “is grateful for her dedicated public service” and wished her “every success in her future endeavors.”

A spokesperson for Dhillon said she was returning to her firm, the Dhillon Law Group.

Mark Trammell, the chief executive of the conservative Center for American Liberty — which Dhillon founded — praised her work in the Justice Department as “advancing civil rights for all Americans.”

Others expressed stridently different feelings about her tenure.

Stacey Young, executive director of Justice Connection, a nonprofit organization of former Justice Department employees that advocates for a non-politicized department, blasted Dhillon’s tenure in the department and cheered her departure.

“Harmeet Dhillon has been the most destructive, lawless, and hateful head of the Civil Rights Division in DOJ history,” Young said in a statement. “After she upended the division’s mission-critical work, the civil servants who dedicated their careers to protecting vulnerable communities were instead told to target them — and more than three-quarters of the division’s lawyers left.”

Dhillon turned away from the division’s traditional role of investigating problematic police departments and rebuffed calls for federal civil rights investigations into the killing by immigration agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. She later relented amid intense public pressure to launch an investigation into Pretti’s killing, but was criticized for assigning inexperienced staff and not taking the inquiry seriously.

Dhillon also helped dismantle long-standing firewalls between the Justice Department and the White House, acknowledging that she saw her mission as pursuing civil rights in line with Trump’s executive orders.

She focused on targeting universities accused of discriminating against white and Asian students, attacking policies protecting transgender students and athletes in California and elsewhere, and launching her failed nationwide effort to obtain state voter rolls in order to root out alleged noncitizen voters.

She also took a leading role in threatening election workers processing ballots in the midterms.

As of Thursday morning, Dhillon still had pinned to the top of her X account a post from July, in which she discussed sending letters to elections officials in all 50 states warning them that it is a crime to knowingly process ballots from noncitizens.

“Every state and local election official is on notice — knowingly encouraging noncitizens to vote or conspiring to fraudulently register noncitizens is a federal crime,” she wrote.

Before being appointed to the Justice Department, Dhillon had made a name for herself in California by attacking transgender rights and challenging COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and voting rights initiatives.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, asked about Dhillon’s departure, said, “Good riddance.”

“Few people have done more to undermine U.S. DOJ’s civil rights legacy than Harmeet Dhillon — undermining free and fair elections, subverting anti-discrimination laws, and targeting marginalized communities,” Bonta said — efforts he said his office helped thwart in court.

Brian Levin, a professor emeritus of Cal State San Bernardino and founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, said Dhillon’s tenure atop the Civil Rights Division “was nothing short of an unmitigated catastrophe” compared with the division’s work under past Republican and Democratic administrations.

Levin said Dhillon ignored data showing discrimination against “the very vulnerable communities for whom the Civil Rights Division” was created to help to instead focus on things like “anti-white discrimination” and gun rights — overseeing “a complete abdication of protecting voting rights, housing and a slew of other projects that have been the foundation of what the division was founded to do.”

Levin said that “among these vulnerable communities that need the help the most that she has turned her back on have been the gay community, the trans community, immigrants, racial minorities, as well as the disabled,” and accused Dhillon of having “butchered” the division’s career staff and replaced it with people who “were vastly underqualified.”

“She was horrible, and anyone who cares about the preservation of civil rights, … and those who are the most vulnerable in our society, while not rejoicing today, can at least take some solace that the hemorrhaging will at least temporarily stop,” Levin said.

Young, of the Justice Connection, called on the next Senate — which will have a Democratic majority thanks to Tuesday’s elections — to exercise its confirmation powers to ensure Dhillon’s successor atop the Civil Rights Division fulfills its “congressional mandate to enforce all Americans’ civil rights diligently and fairly.”

New Democratic Congress expected to probe Trump Justice Department civil rights office’s handling of Epstein files and ICE killings.

As President Donald Trump’s administration prepares for a flurry of congressional investigations into shootings by immigration agents and the Jeffrey Epstein files, the top official in charge of the United States Department of Justice’s civil rights division has resigned.

US Attorney General Todd Blanche on Thursday confirmed Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s departure in a post on social media.

“Today, I accepted the resignation of Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon,” Blanche wrote on X. “She has defended the civil liberties of every American and enforced the law without fear or favor.”

A top Trump ally, Dhillon was confirmed to her role in April 2025 and has overseen a dramatic overhaul of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which is tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Hundreds of former Justice Department officials penned a letter last December decrying the “destruction” of the agency division under Trump.

Dhillon is the first high-ranking official to resign from the Trump administration since US Democrats swept both chambers of the US Congress in the country’s pivotal midterm elections on Tuesday.

Democratic congressman Robert Garcia, who will likely become the new chair of the powerful House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability, pledged on Wednesday to take on four major investigations, including abuses of power by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and the Epstein files.

Dhillon reportedly told her staff earlier this year that her office, which has typically been charged with investigating law enforcement killings by police officers, would not be looking into the fatal shootings of two US citizens – Renee Good and Alex Pretti – who were gunned down by ICE agents in Minneapolis.

In May, Garcia accused the administration of continuing to shield Trump from scrutiny related to unreleased documents tied to the Epstein investigation

During a closed-door hearing in which Blanche’s predecessor, Pam Bondi, was asked by lawmakers about the case, the California Democrat Garcia alleged Dhillon repeatedly intervened to block questions about the president’s connection to the release of the files.

The Justice Department referred Al Jazeera to Blanche’s social media post when asked when Dhillon submitted her resignation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dhaka, Bangladesh – Laili Begum can no longer afford to keep her two children in school. There are days when the 37-year-old garment worker struggles to put even one proper meal on the table.

An experienced sewing operator at Virtual Bottoms Limited, a ready-made garments factory near Bangladesh’s capital Dhaka, Begum earns around 15,000 taka ($121) a month, which sometimes rises to 18,000–20,000 taka ($145–$161) when she works overtime.

Her 15-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son dropped out of school earlier this year because she could not afford their education.

“We can barely afford one proper meal a day. This morning, we had only puffed rice and Bombay mix [a snack]. There was nothing for lunch. We’ve been going hungry, hoping to have a proper meal tonight. Yesterday was the same. This is how we survive now,” she told Al Jazeera.

“My son is so thin that you can count every rib in his chest. What else can I do?”

Begum is among approximately four million garment factory workers in Bangladesh, half of them women. They are now protesting for better wages.

Bangladesh, the world’s second-largest apparel exporter after China, is a key supplier to global fashion brands such as H&M, Zara, Levi Strauss, Walmart, and Primark. The country’s ready-made garment sector accounts for more ⁠than 80 percent of its export earnings, which touched $39bn last financial year.

Yet, the people sewing those clothes say their pay no longer covers basic living costs.

‘Government only makes promises’

A Muslim-majority South Asian nation of 170 million people, Bangladesh has one of the world’s lowest wages among apparel-producing countries.

Cambodia has a minimum wage of $210 a month for garment workers, Vietnam’s range from $140-$210, while wages at China’s manufacturing hub of Guangdong range between $286 and $378.

That disparity – worsened by rising inflation and the growing cost of living – pushed the workers to strike and hit the streets on Saturday to demand a minimum wage of 30,000 taka ($241), more than double the current wage of 12,500 taka ($102).

On Sunday, Begum joined one such protest in the Jamgora part of the Ashulia industrial area on the outskirts of the capital Dhaka, with the police firing tear gas and stun grenades to disperse the protesters, and arresting dozens of them.

The ⁠Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association said the demonstrations disrupted operations at 529 factories on Sunday and affected nearly a million workers.

Later that day, the government announced the formation of a six-member wage board to review the workers’ demands.

But that did not stop the garment workers from returning to the streets for a third straight day on Monday.

In northern Dhaka’s Gazipur area, the workers blocked the Dhaka-Tangail highway, and vandalised and torched several vehicles, while clashes with police were reported from the neighbouring Mirpur district.

“The government only makes promises,” Begum told Al Jazeera. “They haven’t told us when wages will increase and by how much.”

Inflation eating into wages

Rasel Khan, a 30-year-old garment worker at Ashulia, told Al Jazeera his monthly earnings of 18,000–20,000 taka ($145–$161), including overtime, were no longer enough to support his family, which included his mother and younger brother besides his wife and child.

As living costs soar, he has accumulated a debt of about 100,000 taka ($805) to meet his needs. “It’s impossible to support a family on this income anymore. Prices keep rising, and we have to borrow money just to survive,” he said.

The last revision of the minimum wage in the garment sector took place in December 2023. Since then, prices have continued to climb. Official data put annual inflation at 8.34 percent in September, including 7.22 percent for food and 9.30 percent for non-food expenses.

Begum says she pays 3,500 taka ($28) as rent for a single room shared with her mother and children. Her father, living in their village in the central district of Sirajganj, also depends on her income.

She says she is burning discarded paper and other materials to cook because she is not able to afford a gas cylinder that costs about 2,200 taka ($18).

Zahid Hussain, a former lead economist at the World Bank’s Dhaka office, said persistent inflation over the past five years has sharply eroded the purchasing power of low-paid workers.

“When real income falls, they have to cut their daily living standards,” he told Al Jazeera. “They don’t have any surplus income.”

Hussain said a recent hike in the salary of government employees has had a “demonstration effect” among private-sector workers waiting for a similar relief.

The government’s announcement of a wage board follows an amendment to labour laws to reduce the wage review cycle from five years to three years. The current three-year period ends in December.

Prime Minister Tarique Rahman convened an emergency meeting of top government officials on Sunday, while Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed met the garment factory owners on Monday, assuring them that a new minimum wage would be fixed through negotiations.

Labour Minister Ariful Haque Choudhury meanwhile urged the workers to resume work, saying the wage board would begin its deliberations shortly.

But Babul Akhter, a workers’ representative on the board, called for the new wages to take effect with January 2027 salaries. He also asked the demonstrators to return to work and demanded the release of arrested workers and withdrawal of cases against them.

‘Western brands hold lion’s share’

The impending wage negotiations come at a challenging time for Bangladesh’s garment industry, as manufacturers balance workers’ demands for better wages with rising production costs and intensifying global competition.

Sheikh Hossain Muhammad Mustafiz, an official at Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association and managing director of Cute Dress Industry Ltd, told Al Jazeera that fair wages and employment security must go hand in hand with their ability to compete in the international market.

“Workers deserve wages that support a decent standard of living. However, without fair purchasing prices from international brands, significant wage increases could put pressure on factories and threaten employment,” he said.

Mustafiz emphasised that protecting the workers’ purchasing power amid rising inflation is a responsibility that global brands that buy Bangladeshi garments must share.

“Sustainable wage growth cannot be achieved by manufacturers alone,” he said. “International brands must contribute through fair pricing and responsible purchasing practices to protect both the workers’ livelihoods and the industry’s long-term sustainability.”

Taqbir Huda, a Tech Global Institute senior fellow at the University of Oxford, accused the western brands who buy Bangladeshi garments of not addressing the issue of the workers’ rights.

“One party that could change the situation overnight has held the most extractive and exploitative role: the western buyer brands who hold the lion’s share of the value that is generated by the clothes that these workers produce,” he told Al Jazeera.

Huda said the wage board, which was due this year, was announced only after the workers began their protest.

“History gives very little reason for the workers to believe anything will improve unless they protest,” he said, adding that the formation of the wage board does not meet their demands unless it addresses rising inflation and the cost-of-living crisis.

For Begum, a drawn-out process to decide the new wages means another month of struggle to feed her family.

“Wages must rise, but food prices must also come down.”

Workers in Bangladesh’s largest export sector are demanding a minimum wage increase amid rising inflation.

Hundreds of garment factories in Bangladesh are facing disruptions as worker protests over low pay and the rising cost of living rock the country’s industrial hubs.

There was a heavy police presence in the Mirpur industrial area of Dhaka on Monday and reports of protests taking place for the third day in the Savar, Ashulia and Gazipur areas, Al Jazeera’a Tanvir Chowdhury reported from the capital.

About 500 factories were temporarily shuttered after the protests began on Saturday. Thousands of workers have taken to the streets, facing tear gas and sound grenades from police.

In an attempt to quell the demonstrations, Bangladesh formed a new wage board on Sunday to review the minimum wage for garment workers. Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, meanwhile, held an emergency meeting with his ministers and advisers.

Workers are seeking a minimum monthly wage of 30,000 taka ($242), more than double the current wage of 12,500 taka ($101).

Bangladesh’s garment industry is worth about $38bn and is a key source of export earnings and employment.

But workers’ current wages are “not enough because of the rising cost of living”, Chowdhury said.

Workers “cannot handle the lifestyle with that kind of money, and they want a share” of the multibillion-dollar export industry, he added.

Slowing demand

The protests come as Bangladesh’s garment industry, which competes with Vietnam’s, Cambodia’s and India’s, faces a range of challenges.

Factory owners said the industry is struggling with higher costs, energy market uncertainty during the United States-Israel war on Iran and slowing demand in some export areas.

Still, Bangladesh has “among the lowest garment wages in the world”, said Babul Akhter, general secretary of the Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation and a representative for workers on the wage board.

“If factory owners cannot pay workers properly, they should negotiate better prices with international buyers. They cannot build a business on the backs of underpaid workers,” Akhter added.

The president of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, Mahmud Hasan Khan, said the government “has already taken a step by forming the wage board”.

“We expect workers to allow the review process to proceed,” he said.

If protests continue throughout Monday, Khan added, “we will have no option but to invoke the ‘no work, no pay’ provision.”

Couple say they are ‘prisoners of conscience’ being made into an example by Pakistan’s military-backed authorities.

An antiterrorism court in Pakistan has sentenced prominent human rights lawyers Imaan Mazari and her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, ⁠⁠to 10 years in prison on terrorism-related charges.

Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra announced the verdict on Thursday, following their trial inside Adiala prison in the garrison city of Rawalpindi.

The couple were found guilty of putting “the security of [the England and Wales Cricket] team at risk”, the judge wrote, adding that it “clearly shows the intentions and objective of the accused to create a sense of terror”, according to a copy of the court judgement obtained by the AFP news agency.

At the same time, the ruling conceded that the security breach was “a very common nature ordinary type of incident apparently of removal of a barrier”.

The case relates to an October 2024 incident in which the couple removed road barriers in the capital, Islamabad, along a route designated for the touring England cricket team.

The couple were indicted on October 7, accused of obstructing police and inciting public interest, and pleaded not guilty.

In statements seen by the Reuters news agency, the couple denied the charges, while calling themselves “prisoners of conscience”, adding that ⁠⁠they were being targeted for their human rights work.

In their defence document, the couple had earlier said they were “being made an example to further cement the chilling effect against those who stand (or want to stand) against tyranny, oppression and injustice”.

Relatives criticise judicial process

Shireen Mazari, who is Imaan Mazari’s mother and served as Pakistan’s human rights minister under incarcerated former Prime Minister Imran Khan, said it was a “sham trial without any due process”.

Mazari told the Reuters news agency the couple “were not permitted to defend themselves through their own lawyer, and were not provided with key legal ⁠⁠documents”, adding that the defence would file a petition against the verdict in the Supreme Court.

Amnesty International called the convictions “an indictment of Pakistan’s justice system.”

“It was a test of the judiciary’s ability to uphold the principles of justice and the right to fair trial. It has failed that test miserably,” said Amnesty’s Yasmine Ahmend.

“It is clear that these ‘anti-terrorism’ charges are being used to punish Imaan and Hadi for their human rights advocacy,” she added.

Mazari and Chattha have been in custody since January 23, in a separate case over their social media posts.

A lower court sentenced ‌‌them each to 17 years the next day under Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, which critics have said is designed to quash antigovernment dissent online.

Although the Supreme Court later suspended those sentences, police re-arrested ‌‌the couple the same day in the security breach case.

“Imaan and Hadi’s re-arrest dispels any pretence that the charges against them are anything other than a politically motivated attempt to punish them for their human rights work”, said Babu Ram Pant, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for South Asia, adding that the case demonstrates once again the authorities’ willingness to weaponise the legal system against critical voices.

Pakistan’s ⁠⁠law minister, Azam Nazeer Tarar, has repeatedly said the country’s judiciary is independent.

Khalil returned to Columbia University to discuss memoir detailing his arrest and detention by ICE agents.

Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil says campus advocacy has shifted public perception and encouraged a generation of leaders to question their views on Israel, speaking as he returned to Columbia University for the first time since his arrest.

The 31-year-old Columbia graduate, who became a figurehead of the campus movement that swept the United States in 2024, returned to campus on Tuesday to discuss his new memoir, No Land to Stand On: Notes from Detention, marking his first visit since his arrest on March 8, 2025.

“The American public is finally changing, is finally looking at the Palestinian as an equal human,” he told the AFP news agency in an interview.

While Khalil described the event, attended by about 100 people, as a “victory”, he accused university leadership of seeking “to erase me, to erase any Palestinian voices on campus”.

Some Jewish groups on social media opposed his return to campus. In response, a Columbia spokesperson said the university is “committed to rigorous debate, inquiry, and respectful dialogue across differing perspectives”.

“Columbia supports the right of faculty members to organize academic events,” the statement carried by US media read. “An invitation to speak does not signify university endorsement of a speaker’s views.”

Khalil helped lead student demonstrations at Columbia in 2024, which became the epicentre of nationwide campus protests against Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. He was later arrested by immigration authorities at the height of a federal crackdown on foreign student activists and held for three months without criminal charge, despite holding permanent US residency.

He has repeatedly slammed the university for its handling of the demonstrations, which included authorising the New York Police Department to clear protesters from the Manhattan campus.

“They chose brutality. They chose repression,” Khalil told AFP.

Columbia maintained at the time that the demonstrations presented a safety threat. Khalil also accused the university of failing to protect him from harassment prior to his detention.

Despite the personal toll, Khalil credited Palestinian student advocacy with driving broader political shifts in the United States, pointing to gains by progressive candidates.

“Also, we can see on the ground that we have more progressive candidates being elected into US Congress and positions of power,” he said, citing candidates like Dr Abdul El-Sayed, running for the US Senate in Michigan, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Khalil was released from immigration custody on June 20, 2025, though the Trump administration continues to seek his deportation.

“A big part of my fight is like fighting for normalcy,” he said. “To go back to being the young father who would go to the park with his son and wife, and no one would bother them.”

Despite the ongoing legal battle, he expressed resolve over his public role.

“My fight is not only about whether I get to stay in this country,” Khalil said. “It is about whether, you know, people in this country can speak their minds.”

The deportation was the first of its kind since a mass border crossing into the territory from Morocco in July.

Spain has deported more than a dozen migrants from its North African enclave of Ceuta, prompting criticism from Amnesty International, which said Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s left-wing government was endangering their human rights.

It was the first deportation of its kind since a mass border crossing into the territory from Morocco in July.

The Spanish Interior Ministry said on Tuesday that it had deported the migrants from Ceuta after their asylum applications were rejected, and that Morocco had agreed to receive them.

Nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) told the Reuters news agency that 16 people from African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries had been deported.

About 80,000 people entered from Morocco over a 48-hour period in late July. At least 100 people died during the mass crossing into the autonomous city, which covers just 18.5 square kilometres (7.2sq miles) and has a population of about 80,000.

The crisis has evolved into a major political challenge for Sanchez, who is seeking re-election in snap polls scheduled for November 29.

Tens of thousands of protesters have gathered across Spain in recent months to denounce the government’s handling of the situation. Meanwhile, right-wing parties have used the crisis to attack Sanchez.

The leader of the far-right Vox Party, Santiago Abascal, has branded the prime minister a “traitor”.

Human rights guarantees

Amnesty International has warned that the human rights of those deported from Ceuta on Tuesday could be at risk.

“Spain, despite its [progressive] speeches in Europe, is not ensuring that human rights guarantees are met for people who cross its borders in Ceuta and Melilla,” said Virginia Alvarez, an Amnesty International researcher.

“Morocco does not respect many human rights.”

However, Madrid disputes the rights group’s accusations. In a statement, the interior ministry told Reuters that the European Union considers Morocco to be a safe country, adding that deportations are carried out “with all the necessary safeguards”.

Most of those who entered Ceuta in late July left within days. However, about 8,000 migrants still remain. Some are sleeping on the streets, while others are being housed by Spain, charities and civil society groups.

The U.S. government seems to be coming for California (again). Big surprise.

But scratch the surface of the recent Department of Justice voter fraud blitz and the ugly truth peeks through — this is an attack on immigrants of color, no different than accusing the Haitians of Ohio of eating cats and dogs or the aggressive escalation of detaining and deporting Black and brown people with no criminal record.

It’s meant to excite and appease the Christian nationalist contingent of MAGA voters — including Trump advisor Stephen Miller — who make no secret of their belief that even some naturalized citizens should be forced out of the country if they aren’t white.

Just a few days ago, the White House posted on social media that “If you import the third world, you become the third world.” Not be be outdone, the fine Americans at the Department of Homeland Security responded with what seems to be a problematic mission statement that may wind up in court documents: “Reject the third world. Export the third world.” So far in President Trump’s second term, only 20% of the nearly 1 million people deported had a criminal record, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

Speaking of court documents, wow, do we have a lot to go through. Turns out not a lot of judges are into voter suppression.

After First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the son of Lebanese immigrants and the first Muslim to serve in the California Legislature, announced charges against 28 Californians — all immigrants — who allegedly registered or voted illegally, the legal battles went into overdrive.

There’s the U.S. Justice Department case claiming California is somehow stopping the feds from enforcing federal voting laws, despite those 28 cases. There’s a ruling in a different case that prevents the Department of Homeland Security from going door-to-door in California and other places checking on immigration status and voter registration — a terrifying overreach of power meant to intimidate legal voters.

And there’s the ongoing lawsuit from the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in a Washington courtroom — a case that could take the lead in protecting the midterms.

Here’s what you need to know about all three, and what comes next.

Stop the knocks

Starting around August, Homeland Security began knocking on the doors of residents in California and eight other states in what it dubbed a “surge” in investigations on voter fraud.

These in-person checks were based on lists of folks the government thought might not be legally allowed to cast a ballot — and focused on naturalized citizens, according to court documents. They were also, according to the court, unreliable and included “instances where DHS simply did not have data to determine that the individual did not engage in voter fraud,” the California judge in the case wrote, meaning it was a giant fishing expedition.

In addition, Homeland Security was apparently investigating nonprofits and other organizations that help get out the vote, including interrogating the staff and covertly infiltrating their operations, according to court documents.

That’s McCarthyism-level scary. The California Nurses Assn. and its parent union, National Nurses United, filed a lawsuit to stop the Homeland Security surge, arguing in part that one of their core missions is political organizing and turning out voters, and that the operation directly harmed them by scaring their members away from that work.

They also have a lot of members who are naturalized citizens. Four union members told the court that they didn’t want to participate in the union’s election work because they were afraid of being targeted by the government, citizens or not.

The court found that fear “objectively reasonable” and ordered Homeland Security to stop the door-knocking until after the election. The judge then stayed that order until Friday to give the government time to appeal. So far, the government hasn’t filed that objection.

“So many people in the United States are suffering under Trump’s corrupt and cruel policies on behalf of the billionaire class that he knows cannot hold onto power in these upcoming elections without illegally suppressing our vote through outright harassment, intimidation, and even detention,” said Puneet Maharaj, executive director of the two nurses groups.

Emergency relief

At the same time, the Department of Justice this week filed a suit against California seeking an emergency order to force the state to segregate 20,000 ballots of folks it claims may not be citizens — an unprecedented ask in furtherance of the long-running conspiracy theory that immigrants who lack legal status are in a scheme with Democrats to vote en masse.

State Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has asked the court to throw out the case, in part because the federal government can’t prove it’s actually being harmed in any way by state law. The feds have already filed charges in those 28 cases claiming voter fraud, so it’s hard to argue that state law is preventing them from going after illegal voters.

But the feds are arguing that the state is aiding and abetting illegal voting by not segregating those ballots, even though there is no proof they are in the hands of noncitizens. A review by the Los Angeles County registrar’s office found that about 40% of those on the list were born in the United States.

Trump even threatened that election officials could be jailed for not bending to his will.

Attorneys general from other states filed a friend of the court brief siding with California, arguing that the Justice Department is basically trying to create a new law where “the executive branch can invent new election requirements, unmoored from any constitutional or statutory authority, and demand that States enforce them in the middle of an election.”

The court will rule on that next week.

Beyond Nov. 3

Our final case takes us to Washington, where the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, are asking for their own temporary restraining order — this one stopping the government from carrying out its ballot segregation scheme and from using its flawed, janky methods for supposedly identifying noncitizen voters.

I’ve written about this lawsuit before, and how the Voting Rights Project beat back Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s attempt to snatch ballots. The court will probably make a ruling in that one next week as well.

But election day is less than two weeks away, and many have already voted. So what does it all mean?

It means we’re in for a rough ride. The Trump administration is not dumb. Midterms might not go the way Republicans would like, potentially even giving control of both the House and Senate to Democrats. Some experts and legislators are concerned that all these ballot drama is posturing for that midterm loss — creating a reason to potentially question results or even refuse to seat newly elected Democrats when the time comes.

That would be unthinkable, unprecedented, a constitutional crisis. But impossible? Nope.

And almost certainly, no matter what voters decide, Trump will spin it back to that white nationalism — the idea that “true” Americans are being replaced through fraud, violence and vote stealing, a trio of conspiracies glued together by the sticky, tricky manipulations of a man who will do anything for power.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: How Meta struck a deal to keep Mark Zuckerberg in California despite looming billionaire tax
The California angle: As companies leave California, is the state’s $4.25-trillion economy really in trouble?
The L.A. Times Special: In Trumpworld, dogs who commit voter fraud aren’t as bad as immigrants

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Demonstrators gathered on the sixth anniversary of a near-total abortion ban imposed by Poland’s highest court.

Thousands of people have protested in more than 20 towns and cities across Poland, calling for access to free and legal abortion services.

Demonstrators gathered on the sixth anniversary of a near-total abortion ban imposed by Poland’s highest court.

Currently, abortion is only legal in Poland when a pregnancy results from a criminal act like rape or incest, or when it threatens the life or health of the mother.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government promised to liberalise abortion laws ahead of its 2023 election victory, but divisions within the coalition have slowed progress.

The demonstrations come days after parliament passed two bills that would ease abortion restrictions in the mostly Catholic country, but are likely to be vetoed by Poland’s conservative President Karol Nawrocki.

Passing the draft laws now, a year before the next parliamentary election, is a case of “token gestures” rather than a genuine effort to reform abortion law, said Zofia Marcinek of the Abortion Dream Team, a reproductive rights activist group in Warsaw.

She said the liberal government knew the draft laws stand no chance of withstanding Nawrocki’s veto, and has merely tried to create the impression of taking action because it needs women’s support to win elections next year.

In the capital, Warsaw, about 1,000 protesters demonstrated in front of parliament despite rain.

“Over the last six years, nothing has really changed,” said 36-year-old Emilia Niemiec, who manages the AboTak abortion centre, which provides women with access to resources, including pills, and a space to be able to seek support or carry out a pharmacological abortion.

Abortion laws tightened

Restrictive abortion laws have been in place in Poland since 1993, with Polish women leading calls for the legalisation of abortion ever since. In 2016, nationwide demonstrations took place, with women donning black as a sign of protest.

But rather than being relaxed, Poland’s abortion laws were tightened further, banning abortions of foetuses with congenital defects in 2020 under the national-conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government.

Despite the laws, abortions remain common in Poland, with the overwhelming majority carried out by women at home using pills obtained from outside the country. Women who undergo abortions, including by taking pills, do not face criminal responsibility under Polish law. But people helping them, including doctors and family, can potentially be prosecuted.

Polish hospitals performed 573 abortions in the first half of 2026, compared with 452 in the whole of 2022 before Tusk came to power, according to data from the National Health Fund. But activists say tens of thousands of abortions happen yearly outside of hospitals.

Campaigners organising Thursday’s protests are claiming the Tusk government has betrayed Polish women – and that Tusk’s claims that women’s access to abortion has improved during his administration have actually complicated getting care for some women.

“The government’s promises act as a type of disinformation,” Marcinek said. “Women getting pregnant hear the prime minister say that everything is OK, that there is access to abortion, and then they end up in the hospital and see that is not the case. So they come to us when it’s very late and very complicated and expensive to help them.”

And the DRC’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Therese Kayikwamba Wagner said in a statement last week that “giving (Rwanda President) Paul Kagame this platform would help polish the image of an authoritarian leader whose government has helped fuel a devastating war in our country”.

She pointed out that the US had sanctioned the Rwandan army and four senior officers for their role in destabilising the region, conducting military operations inside the DRC and supporting, training and fighting alongside the M23 rebel group.

She added that F1 “should require credible, independent guarantees that no money used to host the race comes from conflict-linked minerals or the exploitation of Congolese resources”.

Seven-time world champion Hamilton said: “Africa is a place that deserves to have a grand prix. It’s about more than just one country. It’s about the continent itself, and there are so many beautiful countries within it.

“The people are so lovely. The culture is so rich, and I think it’s important that we get to show that to the world. We get to do that with our sport. We get to go to all these different countries, and people see some of these countries they didn’t really know too much about.

“All of a sudden, it becomes something that’s on the screen, and kids are talking about it. They go to school talking about it. So, I’m really, really hopeful for that grand prix.”

However, the Ferrari driver added: “Going there doesn’t mean that you neglect the things that are happening there.

“So hopefully many people start to educate themselves a little bit more about what is happening there and what has happened there for hundreds of years. I hope that does spark the conversation.

“And then I guess I’ll finish it off with this: I think we need to make sure we’re pushing to free Congo, free Sudan, free Syria, free Palestine. I think there’s a lot of peace that I’m hoping we get to at some stage.”

Class action could be first in Australia to blame social media for harming its users.

Meta and its social media platforms Facebook and Instagram are facing a class action lawsuit in Australia over allegations that addictive design features are harming children and teenagers.

The lawsuit, filed by MinterEllison in the Australian Federal Court, seeks to recover compensation for current and former users of Facebook and Instagram who claim they were exposed to harmful content or developed an addiction to social media as a result of using those platforms, the law firm said in a statement released on Thursday.

“This proceeding raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia. Those questions will now be considered through the Federal Court process,” MinterEllison Partner William Nolan said in the statement.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of eight plaintiffs who allege they were harmed by Meta while they were below the age of 18.

In a suppression order on Monday, the court prohibited the reporting of any information that could reveal their identities and the statement of claim.

“We are aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” a Meta spokesperson said.

Litigation Lending Services said it was funding the class action for Australian families who “would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant”.

The lawsuit comes amid rising tensions between Australia and Big Tech after a world-first ban on social media for children below 16 in 2025, and newly proposed rules that could let users switch off algorithm-driven content on their feeds.

Meta agreed in August to pay $18bn to settle with nearly all US states to resolve claims that it designed social media to addict children.

Lander says dozens remain in Israeli custody after being detained while helping Palestinian farmers harvest olives.

United States Democratic congressional candidate Brad Lander says he has been released from Israeli military custody with a warning after being detained alongside dozens of volunteers helping Palestinian farmers harvest olives in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday.

But several dozen others, including rabbis and international volunteers, remain in detention, according to Lander, who called them to be released immediately.

“I’ve been released from IDF custody with a ‘warning,’ apparently because of my public profile,” Lander wrote on X. “I told them I wasn’t even a congressmember yet, just a nominee.”

Lander, a former New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate, was among approximately 80 volunteers detained by Israeli soldiers and police near the village of Nahalin, outside Bethlehem, according to the Israeli organisation Rabbis for Human Rights.

The group, which included American, Israeli, Palestinian, British and Canadian volunteers, had been accompanying Palestinian farmers for about two hours when Israeli forces arrived and informed them that they were in a closed military zone.

The volunteers were then taken to a police station, according to Rabbis for Human Rights.

The Israeli government has not responded to a request for comment.

An animal rights group is urging Crystal Palace to retire their live bald eagle mascot with immediate effect, saying a “bright stadium filled with boisterous fans is no place for animals”.

In a letter to Palace CEO Sharon Lacey, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) asked the Premier League club to stop using the eagle, named Phoenix, in pre-match displays at Selhurst Park and to never use live animal mascots again.

The London team, known as the Eagles since 1973, introduced a live eagle to matchdays in 2010. Kayla, who died in 2020, performed the role for 10 years and her replacement Phoenix made her debut against West Ham in August 2024.

Peta says birds can become “frightened, disoriented and panicked” in stadium environments, putting themselves and fans at risk.

Using them for displays and entertainment also denies the animals, who “would naturally avoid humans”, the opportunity to engage with their natural instincts, leading to “frustration and stress”, the group said.

The organisation has “detailed records” of incidents involving live mascots, including birds, being injured or killed in collisions with walls, windows and match balls, as well as a falcon embedding its talons in a spectator’s scalp after landing on his head.

In 2017, a Charlton Athletic fan was found guilty of trying to punch Kayla the eagle at a League Cup fixture two years earlier.

“Many professional sports teams use only willing humans as mascots and the club already has Pete the Eagle to excite the crowd,” said Dr Carys Bennett, Peta’s senior corporate projects manager.

“Bald eagles are widely recognised as symbols of freedom. They deserve better than to be used as an entertainment prop to amuse the Eagles’ fans.”

This autumn, the Supreme Court will consider a question with potentially far-reaching consequences for civil rights in the United States: Who gets to enforce them? On November 30, the justices will hear a case over whether employees of federally funded universities can sue under Title IX over alleged workplace sex discrimination. The Trump administration has urged the court to rule that they cannot, arguing that Congress never gave university employees a private right to bring such claims.

The dispute is the latest front in a broader legal push to restrict the ability of individuals and advocacy groups to take rights violations to court themselves. In June, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a federal appeals court ruling that barred Arkansas United, an immigrant advocacy organisation, from suing to enforce protections for voters who need assistance at the polls. Across a growing number of cases, Republican-led states and the Trump administration are advancing the same basic principle: Unless Congress has clearly authorised private citizens to sue, enforcement should largely be left to the government.

That may sound like an arcane legal argument, but its implications are anything but. If individuals and civil rights groups cannot go to court when laws protecting them are violated, the power to decide which rights are actually enforced increasingly rests with the very government that may be violating, ignoring or choosing not to enforce them.

A private right of action allows individuals, or groups acting on their behalf, to file lawsuits to enforce rights protected by law. These lawsuits can seek compliance with the law or compensation for past violations. Private rights of action are not automatic under US federal and state law. Congress and state legislatures sometimes explicitly authorise private lawsuits. Where they have not, courts have had to determine whether a law implicitly allows individuals or groups to sue, or whether enforcement rests solely with government authorities.

In practice, private litigation has been an essential part of enforcing rights throughout much of US history. As University of Virginia School of Law Professor George Rutherglen writes in a 2015 law review article (PDF):

“The long history of civil rights, dating back to Reconstruction, makes them quintessentially private rights, whose exercise and enforcement should depend primarily on the initiative of the individuals who bear those rights. Public enforcement no doubt remains necessary, and it has an equally long and distinguished pedigree in civil rights law, but it cannot entirely displace individual control over individual rights.”

Proponents of private rights of action, such as AARP, consider them an effective tool for vulnerable individuals and groups to protect their rights when government agencies are unwilling or unable to act. Critics, such as the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, however, argue that private lawsuits can encourage frivolous litigation.

These critics, often from the political right, have attempted to restrict private litigation through legal arguments against private causes of action. An example is the 2001 Alexander v Sandoval decision, in which a Supreme Court majority led by Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that Title VI did not provide a private right of action to enforce regulations prohibiting policies or practices with a disparate impact on protected groups – discrimination that can occur without clear evidence of intent.

The legal push against private rights of action has intensified in recent years. Republican-led states have increasingly challenged the doctrine of implied private rights of action, arguing that courts should reject private suits to enforce various types of rights. The Trump administration has also adopted this stance. When the court decided a 2021 voting rights case, Justice Neil Gorsuch submitted a one-paragraph concurrence, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, questioning whether “the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action,” despite that issue not being raised in the case itself.

The conservative push to restrict private rights of action has extended to a variety of areas. In June, the Supreme Court ruled against Falun Gong practitioners who accused Cisco Systems of helping the Chinese government develop surveillance technology used to facilitate their persecution, concluding that they could not pursue those aiding-and-abetting claims under the federal laws they had invoked.

One of the most consequential implications of restricting private rights of action is the threat to voting rights. In the Arkansas United case, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the immigrant advocacy organisation did not have the right to sue on behalf of non-native English speakers over the right to have language assistance in the voting booth. The ruling concerned Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But it extended a much broader argument already adopted by the Eighth Circuit: that private individuals and advocacy organisations cannot sue to enforce key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court’s refusal in June to hear Arkansas United left that ruling in place.

This argument has also been pushed by Republican-led governments in two redistricting and vote-dilution cases: Board of Election Commissioners v NAACP in Mississippi and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v Howe in North Dakota. In May, the Supreme Court vacated judgments in both cases and sent them back for reconsideration in light of its ruling in Louisiana v Callais, without resolving the private-enforcement question. That decision sharply raised the bar for some racial vote-dilution claims, endangering the voting power of Black, Hispanic and Native American communities across the US. At the same time, conservative-controlled governments are attempting to deny members and advocates for these communities the right to even bring some of these cases before the courts, arguing that only the Department of Justice can initiate action over such voting rights violations.

The broader danger is that, as private rights of action are curtailed, enforcement of federal law increasingly depends on decisions made by the executive branch.

The Trump administration is now pursuing a different means of restricting private enforcement. The Clean Air Act explicitly gives private citizens the right to bring certain lawsuits, yet the Justice Department has sought to intervene and dismiss a case brought against xAI over allegations that gas turbines at its power facility in Southaven, Mississippi, are violating federal environmental law and polluting surrounding communities. The facility powers xAI’s Colossus 2 data centre in nearby Memphis. In September, the Justice Department appealed to the Fifth Circuit and sought to halt the case. The department has argued that allowing the suit to proceed would threaten national security and the US pursuit of global leadership in AI. Here, the issue is not whether Congress created a private right to sue – it did – but whether the executive branch can nevertheless step in to stop such a case when it conflicts with its priorities.

Relying solely on the Justice Department to pursue such cases at the federal level is a particularly dubious proposition under the current administration. The department has also been weaponised to target political foes of President Trump. Its Civil Rights Division has been steered away from defending the rights of racial and ethnic minorities and refocused on cases brought by white plaintiffs alleging so-called “reverse discrimination”.

The Justice Department’s current politicisation may be reversed under a future administration. But even then, the erosion of private rights of action would leave the enforcement of civil and political rights increasingly dependent on a federal agency with limited resources and subject to political direction. For example, as Democracy Docket noted in 2024, of the 216 active voting rights and redistricting cases it was tracking at the time, only five were cases brought by the Justice Department. As Professor Rutherglen noted in his article, to rely primarily on government actors to enforce rights “is to transform the nature of those rights: from private to public, from individuals to groups, from legal control by plaintiffs to political control by administrators.”

Private rights of action are now being eroded, case by case. Politicians, civil liberties advocates and organisations must challenge this trend before more avenues for enforcement are closed off. Otherwise, protections won over decades may become increasingly dependent on the willingness of government authorities to uphold them, leaving those whose rights are violated with fewer ways to seek redress.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

At least 350 Palestinian children currently face “harsh conditions” in Israeli prisons.

Israeli forces have detained more than 2,000 Palestinian children since October 2023, the Palestinian Prisoner’s Society said.

In a report released on Wednesday, the Palestinian rights group said Israeli authorities continue to escalate their targeting of Palestinian children. At least 350 Palestinian children are currently facing “harsh conditions” in Israeli prisons.

On Tuesday, Israeli forces arrested at least six children from Hebron in the occupied West Bank, the report said.

The organisation said information regarding the number of children arrested in Gaza is unclear, given the thousands of missing persons in the besieged Gaza Strip, including children, and the ongoing policy of enforced disappearance.

The group said Israel’s policy of detention without charges or a release date constitutes “an additional violation and crime that leaves children facing the unknown and deprives them of family and educational stability”.

Cases of Palestinian children in prison

The report described Israeli practices that begin with “intimidation and arrest” and extend to “torture, starvation and denial of healthcare”.

The group highlighted the case of 15-year-old Mohammed Hamid, who contracted scabies, a contagious skin infestation, while he was detained in Ofer Prison, where rights groups have long documented abuses. He suffered severe infections, underwent heart surgery and was admitted to intensive care in critical condition. He subsequently had one of his legs amputated.

The organisation also highlighted the case of 17-year-old Walid Ahmed, who died in March 2025 after six months in Megiddo Prison. In December, an Israeli judge halted the investigation into his death, stating that although there was evidence of starvation, no definitive cause of death had been established.

American children in Israeli prisons

Ahmed was imprisoned in Megiddo with his friend Mohammed Ibrahim, a teenager from Florida. Ibrahim was released after months of advocacy from US-based organisations and appeals from high-ranking lawmakers.

Mohammed Ibrahim was not the only young American held in Israeli prison without charge – Israeli forces reportedly took Abdalkareem Issa Ahmed Safi from his West Bank home in a late-night raid in June. He turned 18 in detention, and authorities subsequently moved him from a youth holding area into an adult section at Ofer Prison.

Similarly, Israeli forces arrested 16-year-old Adam Wajeh Abdelfattah Karakrah, also an American, in July. Although he was set for release in August after his family secured bail, Israeli authorities abruptly reversed the decision to free him.

The Palestinian Prisoner’s Society called for “real international action” to ensure the release of arbitrarily detained children, enforce investigations and end torture, starvation and the denial of treatment in Israeli prisons.

Israeli forces have detained more than 25,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, and thousands more in Gaza, since Israel’s genocidal war began in October 2023.

The immigration agency has rejected a report from a government watchdog, making suggestions for improved body camera policy.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a United States agency that has taken a central role in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign, has rejected a government report calling for its agents to wear body cameras that automatically activate.

On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that provides research to Congress, released a report recommending an update to ICE guidelines for camera usage.

It suggested that “automated camera activation” would be helpful in situations where “unexpected and unplanned incidents, unrelated to sensitive operations, result in use of force by or against personnel”.

“Given the important role of body-worn cameras in law enforcement activities, we maintain that additional controls are needed to help ensure that ICE personnel capture footage in accordance with policy,” the report said.

Automatic activation, it added, would address difficulties ICE agents face in manually turning on their cameras during enforcement operations.

But ICE has rejected the recommendation for automatic activation, which could be triggered by an agent pulling a gun or turning on a car siren. The agency cited privacy concerns.

But the Trump administration faces public pressure to improve transparency during its immigration raids.

Agents from ICE and other agencies such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have faced accusations of excessive force and civil liberties violations.

In January, two US citizens – Renee Good and Alex Pretti – were shot to death in separate shootings in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during immigration operations.

The New York Times estimated in July that immigration agents had opened fire on at least 25 people since the start of Trump’s second term. A CBS News review updated this week counts at least 30 shootings, with nine people killed and 13 others wounded.

ICE has often blamed such incidents on aggression against its agents, and it has argued that its officers have opened fire to defend themselves from danger.

But in several cases, that rationale has come under scrutiny.

Critics argued that video footage in Good’s fatal shooting disproved government statements alleging that she had weaponised her vehicle against agents. Her car, according to observers, appeared to be turning away from agents, not towards them.

In another case, ICE agent Christian Castro was accused of making false statements about a shooting that resulted in injury to Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan man living in Minneapolis.

Castro faces federal charges for allegedly lying about being attacked with a snow shovel and broom before the shooting, after video footage contradicted his account. Castro pleaded not guilty last month.

More recently, on October 8, immigration agents shot a man named Oscar Belgal in New York City while his five-year-old son was in the backseat of his car. ICE stated that Belgal appeared to be “going towards officers” in his car when they opened fire.

On Tuesday, a judge rejected the government’s effort to have Belgal deported.

Activists say better recording procedures for body camera footage could help clarify what happened in such incidents.

But the Trump administration has largely refused to implement reforms to ICE protocol.

Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress delayed funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, on the basis that significant changes needed to be made to reduce incidents of excessive force.

The department said on Wednesday that automatically recording cameras could result in “the unauthorised recording of sensitive interactions with informants or victims”.

The agency added that all ICE offices had received body cameras as of August 5, but that training in their use was still ongoing and would be finished “soon”.

Mexico will require the digital platforms to protect minors from violent and sexual content.

Mexican ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠President Claudia ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sheinbaum signed a presidential decree requiring digital platforms, including TikTok, Meta and X, to protect children from violent, sexual and other harmful content online.

The decree establishes that digital platforms must, by design, restrict exposure to content involving violence, harassment or sexual abuse, as well as immediately remove any risky material from the profiles of minors.

Sheinbaum said on Wednesday that the government would back legislation to penalise companies that fail to implement the decree.

“If no progress is made, it would become a law,” she told a news conference on Tuesday.

“The goal is for digital platforms to take on some of the responsibility and refrain from disseminating, promoting, or spreading content related to this type of information — including criminal acts or violent behaviour,” Sheinbaum had said earlier when she indicated she would introduce the decree.

The decree comes after an attack by two 18-year-olds on their former high school in the northern ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌state of Coahuila in early October that killed one and wounded three others.

Digital platforms will have one month to comply with the decree, government adviser Luisa Maria Alcalde said.

Officials said they had already discussed the matter with representatives of social media outlets and streaming platforms such as Meta, Microsoft, Apple, TikTok, Google, X and Huawei.

Last August, Meta, for example, agreed to pay an $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing it of endangering children, and was forced to introduce new safety features to platforms including Instagram and Facebook. The lawsuit alleged Meta had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠retaining, and using personal data from children under 13 without proper parental consent.

Mexico’s move follows a broader global push to protect minors online, with governments in Europe and Australia tightening oversight of digital platforms and US states pursuing a range of child-safety measures.

Brazil has also moved to strengthen protections for children online. Such measures have raised questions over how to protect minors while safeguarding privacy and freedom of expression.