Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1397745374-scaled

Progressives to Garland: Drop the charges against Assange

A letter calling for the Australian journalist’s release drew a harsh backlash from many in Washington.

North America

A group of seven progressive House members called on Attorney General Merrick Garland Tuesday to drop all charges against Australian journalist Julian Assange, who is currently facing extradition from Britain to the United States over alleged violations of a World War I-era anti-spying law.

“​​The prosecution of Mr. Assange marks the first time in U.S. history that a publisher of truthful information has been indicted under the Espionage Act,” the lawmakers, led by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), wrote in an open letter. “The prosecution of Mr. Assange, if successful, not only sets a legal precedent whereby journalists or publishers can be prosecuted, but a political one as well.”

The U.S. case against Assange stems from his work at WikiLeaks, where his team published a wide range of classified documents that revealed details about human rights abuses committed during America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other notable leaks include documents related to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign as well as the U.S. Army’s manual for its policies at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.

Assange has fought extradition since being arrested in London in April 2019. He faces numerous espionage charges for alleged improprieties in how WikiLeaks got a hold of classified documents as well as three further charges for publishing information that could put U.S. government sources in danger.

Many of the world’s leading newspapers and press freedom groups have called for Assange’s release, citing fears that his conviction would serve as a dangerous precedent for journalists.

As the lawmakers note, “[m]uch of this information was published by mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, who often worked with Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks directly in doing so.”

“Based on the legal logic of this indictment, any of those newspapers could be prosecuted for engaging in those reporting activities,” they argue.

Other signatories include Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Greg Casar (D-Texas).

The letter sparked a deluge of harsh responses from those in the U.S. national security community who view Assange as an ally of America’s adversaries abroad. “This is absurd,” tweeted Alexander Vindman, a former national security official whose testimony helped lead to President Donald Trump’s impeachment in 2019. “Assange was a tool of the Russian state and broadcast United States secrets that endangered Americans.”

For their part, the lawmakers argued that prosecuting Assange will damage American interests by weakening Washington’s claim to being a protector of free press around the world. 

“The prosecution of Julian Assange for carrying out journalistic activities greatly diminishes America’s credibility as a defender of these values, undermining the United States’ moral standing on the world stage, and effectively granting cover to authoritarian governments who can (and do) point to Assange’s prosecution to reject evidence-based criticisms of their human rights records and as a precedent that justifies the criminalization of reporting on their activities,” they wrote.


Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) (Photo: Phil Pasquini / Shutterstock.com)
North America
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: Inspired by maps via shutterstock.com

How the US could use Iran's uranium enrichment to its own advantage

Middle East

Since mid-April, Iran and the United States held numerous rounds of nuclear negotiations that have made measured progress — until Washington abruptly stated that Iran had no right to enrich uranium. Moreover, 200 members of the U.S. Congress sent president Trump a letter opposing any deal that would allow Iran to retain uranium enrichment capability.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called U.S. demands “excessive and outrageous” and “nonsense.” Since the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis in 2003, Tehran has drawn a clear red line: the peaceful right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is non-negotiable.

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest 3

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.