Trans, nonbinary, and intersex people share a common struggle not because their experiences are identical, but because all are forced to live under a social order that disciplines bodies, punishes divergence, and enforces rigid categories of sex and gender for the benefit of capitalism and patriarchy. Each group encounters that structure differently. Some face medical gatekeeping and the violence of denied transition care. Some face erasure because their existence unsettles binary norms. Some face invasive regulation and pathologization of their bodies from birth. But these differences do not negate a shared political condition. They reveal different expressions of the same underlying contradiction. The task of revolutionary politics is not to collapse those distinctions into sameness, but to understand them concretely and organize on that basis. A struggle for rights, dignity, and acceptance that excludes trans, nonbinary, or intersex people from one another is not a struggle for liberation at all. It is a fragmented politics that leaves the system itself untouched.

This is exactly why the transmedicalist line pushed by Jenna Taylor and others must be rebuked. This is a reactionary resolution of a real contradiction. The anger Taylor describes is being turned sideways into gatekeeping instead of being directed at the system that produces the conditions both she and nonbinary people are struggling under. Saying “nonbinary people are not trans” doesn’t clarify anything materially, it just draws a line of exclusion and calls it truth. That’s not analysis, but resentment hardened into ideology. The issue Taylor describes in that classroom was a real-time liberal identity politics collapse. That flattening Taylor describes, if it really happened that way, feels like it might have widened the scope a bit much, and it should be criticized if that were the case. However, this occurred in a Black Feminism classroom, and Taylor is white. Furthermore, she turned that moment into a denial of other people’s relationship to gender, thereby reproducing the same bourgeois logic of sorting people into “real” and “fake” categories. Taylor also failed to articulate her point in the moment and instead chose to keep quiet and harbor resentment.

Maoist science demands we locate the contradiction correctly. Binary trans people may choose not to medically transition or medically transition in different ways. Many nonbinary people also choose medical transition. Trans and nonbinary groups are not identical, but oppression of both groups is the product of the same oppressive gender system under capitalism and patriarchy. The task is not to compete over legitimacy, but to distinguish experiences concretely while building unity against the structure that produces them. When Taylor says this experience of hers “dilutes” the struggle, what she's really describing is a lack of political clarity, not the existence of other identities. The solution is sharper analysis, not exclusion. Gatekeeping fragments oppressed people and serves the system by keeping the struggle horizontal. Revolutionary politics requires rejecting both liberal flattening and reactionary dismissal, and instead organizing around the material conditions that shape all of these experiences.

The harm done by transmedicalism is not limited to bad theory or rude rhetoric. It builds a culture of exclusion. It teaches people to measure one another against a hierarchy of legitimacy, pain, and medical recognizability. It rewards proximity to a narrow standard of acceptable transness while casting others outside the boundary of the human and the political. In this way, it establishes a kind of internal apartheid, where some are treated as deserving of protection, recognition, and community, while others are relegated to suspicion, dismissal, or social death. That logic does not defend trans people. It reproduces the very mechanisms used by the state, the medical establishment, and bourgeois society to deny autonomy and divide the oppressed. It poisons collective will by replacing solidarity with policing and replacing struggle with boundary enforcement.

A revolutionary approach has to move in the opposite direction. It must insist that trans, nonbinary, and intersex people have a common enemy in the structures that regulate gender, body, and identity in service of domination. It must make room for concrete differences without transforming them into castes. It must oppose the liberal urge to flatten every experience into one undifferentiated umbrella, but it must oppose just as fiercely the reactionary urge to sort people into “real” and “fake” camps. The point is not to erase contradiction. The point is to struggle through contradiction correctly, in a way that builds unity, deepens analysis, and strengthens the collective fight for liberation. Any politics that cannot do that will remain trapped in resentment, fragmentation, and exclusion. Any politics that can do it has the possibility of becoming a real force.

Within Democratic Socialists of America, the question of whether to continue endorsing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a question of loyalty or personal affinity. It is a struggle between two fundamentally opposed political lines.

One line holds that socialism in the United States can be advanced through deepening engagement with the Democratic Party, electing better representatives, and leveraging their positions to win reforms.

The other line holds that the Democratic Party is structurally incapable of serving working class interests, and that any strategy subordinated to it will ultimately be absorbed, neutralized, and turned against the very people it claims to represent.

This is the line struggle we are already living through. AOC is simply where it becomes unavoidable.

We cannot resolve this question at the level of rhetoric. It must be evaluated through practice. AOC’s record provides clear examples of how participation in the Democratic Party reshapes political actors:

Each of these moments reflects the same pattern. When forced to choose between the demands of mass struggle and the discipline of the party, she has chosen the party.

This is not incidental.

The Internal Debate in DSA.

These contradictions have already surfaced within DSA.

Following the Iron Dome vote, multiple chapters and members called for the withdrawal of DSA’s endorsement. The organization entered into a period of internal conflict over accountability, political standards, and the limits of electoral strategy.

The National Political Committee was forced to confront a question it has long avoided: what does endorsement actually mean if it does not carry consequences?

Similarly, the rail strike vote sharpened tensions between those who see elected officials as instruments of struggle, and those who see them as constrained actors whose primary function becomes maintaining institutional stability.

In both cases, the outcome was hesitation. Criticism was issued, but no decisive break was made.

This hesitation is not neutrality, but a reflection of the continued dominance of a line that prioritizes maintaining access to elected officials over maintaining political clarity.

The role AOC plays within this framework is not simply that of an individual politician, but of a stabilizing force.

Her presence allows DSA to maintain the belief that it has a foothold within the Democratic Party that can be expanded. This belief justifies continued investment in electoral work under Democratic ballot lines, even as evidence accumulates that such work leads to compromise rather than confrontation.

At the same time, her rhetoric absorbs and redirects discontent. Anger is acknowledged, but ultimately routed back into electoral cycles and legislative timelines.

What appears as representation functions, in practice, as containment.

What Line Are We Advancing?

To continue endorsing AOC is to affirm a specific political line:

That integration into the Democratic Party is a viable path to socialism.
That compromise within state institutions is a necessary stage of struggle.
That elected officials can serve as the primary drivers of transformation.

But the evidence of the past several years points in the opposite direction.

Every major test has demonstrated that participation in these institutions leads not to their transformation, but to our adaptation to them.

Breaking with Revision.

A break with AOC is not about punishing deviation. It is about rejecting a line that has repeatedly shown its limits.

If DSA is to develop into an organization capable of leading real struggle, it must draw clear boundaries. It must be willing to say that alignment with imperial policy, suppression of labor militancy, and adherence to party discipline are incompatible with its stated commitments.

Without that clarity, “endorsement” becomes meaningless, and strategy collapses into habit.

Toward a Different Path.

The alternative is not abstention. It is reorientation.

It means shifting our center of gravity away from elected officials and toward the masses themselves. It means prioritizing organizing that builds independent capacity rather than dependence on representatives.

It means developing structures that can confront power directly, rather than seeking proximity to it.

This is not an easy path. It offers fewer immediate wins and less visibility. But it is the only path that does not lead back into the system we claim to oppose.

Conclusion.

The question of AOC is already a question of line.

To continue endorsing her is to continue down a path of integration, moderation, and containment. To break is to begin the process of clarifying what kind of organization DSA intends to be.

We cannot carry both lines forward indefinitely. One will define us.

I have built a life out of people.

Not in the shallow sense. Not a list of contacts or passing connections. I mean I have rooted myself in others. In family. In comrades. In lovers. In struggle. My life is dense with human connection.

I come from a large family. Siblings, history, noise, conflict, loyalty. The kind of family that leaves marks on you, shapes how you move through the world. I am a mother. I raised my son with my own hands, carried that responsibility through exhaustion and uncertainty, and watched him become someone real and whole.

I have three partners. Three different forms of love, three different ways of being seen and held and understood.

There is so much love in my life that, from the outside, it should be enough.

And yet.

I go home alone.

This is the contradiction I cannot resolve, no matter how dialectically I try to think through it.

Because I understand contradiction. I live inside it politically. I organize around it. I believe that everything moves through tension, through struggle, through opposing forces that cannot be neatly reconciled.

But some contradictions don’t resolve in time for the people living inside them.

Some just sharpen.

My life is one of those contradictions.

On one side, I am embedded in collective struggle. I organize. I lead. I take on responsibility when things fracture. Recently, everything broke open at once. Internal conflict. Line struggle. People leaving. Documents scattered across hands that could have disappeared with them.

So I stepped in.

I gathered everything. Secured it. Stabilized what could have fallen apart. Took on leadership not because I wanted power, but because someone had to hold the line.

I am building something that is meant to outlive me.

On the other side, I am a single body in a quiet room at night.

Because beneath all of this, there is a material reality that does not care about my commitments or my clarity or my discipline.

My heart is failing.

Congestive heart failure is not poetic. It is not metaphor. It is a timeline written into the body. Fifteen years. Maybe twenty. Maybe less, if stress tips the scale early.

I can feel it already. The stairs that take more out of me than they should. The moments where my mind slips, where words stall, where I have to reach for something that used to be immediate. The quiet awareness that my body is not stable ground.

I know what comes next.

Oxygen tanks. Slower movement. A narrowing of space, of possibility, of independence.

And then, eventually, an end.

What terrifies me is not that I will die.

It is how.

Because capitalism does not just alienate us in life. It organizes our deaths, too.

It fragments us. It disperses our families across distance and obligation. It reshapes intimacy into something negotiated, scheduled, constrained by survival. It ensures that even those of us who are rich in love can still be poor in presence.

I have family, but not one that lives together in a single place.

I have partners, but not ones who can share a daily, material life with me.

I have community, but not one structured around collective living.

So when I imagine the end honestly, I don’t see a circle of people around me.

I see an empty apartment.

An empty bed.

A body that stops, quietly, without witness.

And that is the contradiction that breaks me open.

Because I have done everything I was told would make a life full. I have loved deeply. I have built relationships. I have given myself to others, to my child, to my family, to my comrades, to the work.

And still, I cannot secure the most basic human thing.

Someone there.

Someone present.

Someone whose life is materially intertwined with mine in a way that does not dissolve at the end of the day.

It feels selfish to want that.

It feels like I am betraying everything I believe in by centering something so personal, so intimate, so small compared to both the scale of the work I do, and the amount of people in my personal life who love me.

But the truth is, this is not separate from the political.

This is what alienation looks like when it reaches all the way down.

Not just isolation, but fragmentation. Not just loneliness, but disconnection between love and presence, between care and structure, between what we feel and how we are forced to live.

I want something simple.

I want to come home to someone every night.

I want to cook for them. I want to be there to greet them at the door. I want to sit on a couch and exist next to another body without it being temporary, without it being scheduled, without it ending.

I want warmth that stays.

I want to be held in a way that does not require negotiation with the rest of the world.

And I want it before my body makes it impossible.

Because I know what is coming.

Five to seven years before day-to-day grows more difficult. Fifteen to twenty before I am gone, if I am lucky.

Time is not abstract for me.

It is counted.

Measured.

Closing.

And still, I do not step back.

I will not abandon the work. I will not retreat into a smaller life just to chase comfort. The masses matter to me. The future matters to me. What we are building matters to me.

So I live inside the contradiction instead.

I give everything I have to something collective, something enduring, something that might outlast this system that makes even love feel incomplete.

And then I go home.

Alone.

Most days, I am fine. I laugh easily. I hold others. I move forward. I am seen as strong, capable, even stable.

But underneath that, there is something quieter.

Fear.

Not loud. Not dramatic. Just a steady awareness that one day my heart will stop, and there may be no one there when it does.

That all this love, all this connection, all this life I have built, might not translate into presence at the end.

I do not need solutions.

I do not need to be told it will be okay.

I just need to say it plainly.

I am surrounded by love.

And I am afraid of dying alone.

And both of those things are true at the same time.

Mexico’s national history is often framed as a series of major political transformations: Independence (1810–1821), La Reforma (1855–1861), the Mexican Revolution (1910–1917), and the contemporary period under the Morena movement beginning in 2018. Each of these moments promised profound change, justice, and inclusion.

Yet for Indigenous peoples, these transformations frequently reproduced new forms of dispossession, marginalization, and violence rather than delivering true liberation. Despite shifts in political power and ideology, the underlying structures of inequality have remained strikingly consistent.

The First Transformation: Independence (1810–1821).

The War of Independence is commonly celebrated as the moment Mexico broke free from Spanish colonial rule. Leaders like Miguel Hidalgo mobilized large numbers of Indigenous and rural poor people in rebellion against colonial exploitation. However, the end of Spanish rule did not dismantle the social hierarchy that placed Indigenous communities at the bottom.

Instead, power shifted to criollo elites who maintained systems of land concentration and racial inequality. Indigenous communities continued to face tribute demands, land loss, and exclusion from political power. Independence changed who ruled Mexico, but not how Indigenous people were treated within it.

The Second Transformation: La Reforma (1855–1861).

La Reforma was led by figures such as Benito Juárez. Juárez and others sought to modernize Mexico by weakening the Catholic Church and promoting liberal ideals like equality before the law. While Juárez himself was of Zapotec origin, the liberal reforms had devastating consequences for many Indigenous communities.

The push for privatization of communal lands under laws like the Ley Lerdo forced Indigenous villages to sell or lose collectively held territories. This policy, intended to create a modern capitalist economy, instead accelerated land dispossession and deepened poverty. Indigenous systems of communal governance and land stewardship were undermined in the name of progress.

The Third Transformation: The Mexican Revolution (1910–1917).

The Mexican Revolution promised “land and liberty,” especially through leaders like Emiliano Zapata, who explicitly fought for Indigenous land rights. The 1917 Constitution included provisions for land redistribution and recognized communal land (ejidos). While some land reforms did occur, they were uneven and often controlled by the state.

Many Indigenous communities received poor-quality land or remained excluded altogether. Furthermore, the revolutionary state promoted a national identity based on mestizaje, which celebrated mixed heritage while erasing distinct Indigenous identities and cultures. Rather than empowering Indigenous autonomy, the revolution often absorbed Indigenous struggles into a centralized national project.

The Fourth Transformation: Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO’s) administration, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, and Morena Party objectives (2018-Today)

The Fourth Transformation, associated with Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the Morena Party, and continued under Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, presents itself as a break from neoliberalism and a return to social justice. The government has increased social spending and rhetorically centered Indigenous communities.

However, many Indigenous activists argue that large infrastructure projects, such as the Tren Maya, have been imposed without meaningful consultation and threaten Indigenous lands and ecosystems. While framed as development, these projects often prioritize tourism and capital investment over Indigenous sovereignty. Violence against Indigenous land defenders and ongoing poverty in Indigenous regions suggest that structural inequalities persist despite the language of transformation.

A Pattern of Broken Promises

Across all four transformations, a pattern emerges: moments of national change mobilize Indigenous people and invoke promises of justice, yet ultimately fail to address the root causes of their oppression. Land dispossession, cultural erasure, political exclusion, and economic marginalization continue in new forms under each regime. These transformations, rather than breaking from the past, often repackage old hierarchies in new ideological frameworks.

In conclusion, Mexico’s history of transformation reveals less a story of liberation for Indigenous peoples than one of continuity in struggle. True transformation would require not just political change at the national level, but a fundamental restructuring of land, power, and autonomy that centers Indigenous communities themselves. Until then, each “transformation” risks becoming another chapter in a long history of unfulfilled promises.

Applying the mass line to organizing within Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) offers a way to move beyond insular activism and toward genuinely rooted, mass-based political work. While DSA is not a revolutionary party in the classical sense, its size, diversity, and local chapter structure make it a fertile ground for experimenting with methods drawn from Mao Zedong’s concept of the mass line.

What Is the Mass Line?

The mass line is a method of leadership and organizing developed through the revolutionary practice of Mao and the Chinese Communist Party. It is often summarized as “from the masses, to the masses,” but this phrase only gestures at a deeper process. The mass line begins from the understanding that the people already possess fragmented, partial, and experience-based knowledge of their own conditions. These ideas exist in an unorganized form, shaped by daily struggle but limited by ideology, isolation, and lack of coordination.

Organizers practicing the mass line do not impose a fully formed program from above. They go among the people and investigate. They listen carefully to what workers, tenants, and community members are already saying about their lives. They gather grievances, desires, and informal analyses. These are then processed through a political framework that can identify the underlying contradictions at work. The organizer’s role is to synthesize these scattered insights into a coherent line that points toward collective action.

That synthesized line is then returned to the people in the form of campaigns, demands, and structures that are both politically advanced and immediately recognizable. If the process is done correctly, people do not experience the program as something foreign. They recognize it as a clearer and more powerful expression of what they already knew in part. Through participation in struggle, their understanding deepens further, which allows the cycle to repeat at a higher level.

The mass line is not a one-time consultation or a branding exercise. It is a continuous cycle of investigation, synthesis, and return. It requires discipline, humility, and a willingness to be transformed by the people one is organizing with. It also requires a break from the idea that political clarity originates primarily in leadership bodies or national committees.

The Problem of Electoralism and the Limits of Reform

Within DSA, much of the organization’s energy has been directed toward electoral campaigns. These efforts have produced some reforms and a layer of elected officials who identify as socialists. However, an overreliance on electoralism risks substituting representation for power.

The structure of the United States state is not neutral. It is the political expression of a capitalist system that is deeply tied to imperial power. From its foundations in settler colonialism and slavery to its present role in maintaining global dominance, the state is not simply an arena that can be gradually repurposed toward socialist ends. It is a machinery designed to reproduce class rule.

Figures like Karl Marx and later revolutionaries argued that the working class cannot simply take hold of the existing state apparatus and wield it for its own purposes. The experience of reform movements in the United States has repeatedly shown that even modest gains are constrained, rolled back, or absorbed into the system. Electoral victories often require compromise, and those compromises tend to dilute the very demands that mobilized people in the first place.

Within DSA, electoral work can create a feedback loop where organizing becomes oriented toward campaigns and candidate viability rather than toward building independent power among the masses. Members are transformed into canvassers and staff rather than organizers rooted in their communities. The horizon of struggle narrows to what is considered politically feasible within existing institutions.

The result is a form of politics that can win positions but struggles to transform the underlying relations of power. It risks producing symbolic victories while leaving the fundamental structures of exploitation intact.

Why Dual Power Must Be the Focus

If electoralism operates within the limits of the existing system, the concept of dual power points toward a different path. Dual power refers to the creation of institutions, practices, and relationships that meet people’s needs while also building their capacity to govern themselves. Dual Power is not simply about providing services, but constructing an alternative basis of power rooted in collective organization.

In the context of DSA, this could take the form of tenant unions that challenge landlord control, workplace organizing that builds worker leadership, and mutual aid networks that move beyond charity toward collective self-reliance. These are not isolated projects. When developed through a mass line approach, they become interconnected sites of struggle that can begin to contest the authority of existing institutions.

The importance of dual power lies in its ability to transform people through participation. Rather than waiting for elected officials to deliver change, people engage directly in shaping their conditions. They develop political consciousness, organizational skills, and a sense of collective agency. These are the foundations of any meaningful challenge to capitalist power.

The argument that the American Empire can be fundamentally transformed from within its own political structures rests on a misunderstanding of how those structures function. The state is not a passive tool. It actively resists efforts that threaten the interests it was built to protect. Repression, co-optation, and bureaucratic limitation are not anomalies. They are built-in features.

This does not mean that electoral work must be abandoned entirely. It can play a tactical role in certain contexts. However, when it becomes the primary focus, it diverts energy away from the slower but more essential work of building mass power. Without that foundation, electoral gains remain fragile and reversible.

The Problem of Organizer-Centric Politics in DSA

Many DSA chapters struggle with a familiar issue. Political direction is often driven by the most active members rather than the broader base. Campaigns can become shaped by ideological preferences, national talking points, or internal meeting culture rather than the lived realities of working people in a given locality.

This dynamic creates a gap between members and the broader class. Campaigns may be well intentioned but fail to resonate. Participation remains limited, and burnout among core organizers becomes common. Without a method for systematically engaging non-members, DSA risks becoming self-referential rather than mass-based.

What the Mass Line Changes in Practice

Applying the mass line shifts the role of a DSA organizer. Instead of primarily advocating pre-formed positions, organizers become investigators, listeners, and synthesizers. They engage in structured conversations, not just to recruit but to understand. They identify patterns in what people are experiencing and develop campaigns that emerge from those patterns.

When done correctly, this process produces organizing that feels grounded and necessary. People are more likely to participate because they see their own lives reflected in the struggle. Campaigns gain durability because they are rooted in real contradictions rather than abstract priorities.

This also creates a feedback loop that strengthens the organization. As more people become involved, the capacity for investigation and action grows. The organization becomes less dependent on a small core and more reflective of the class it seeks to organize.

Toward a Mass Line DSA

For DSA to become a genuinely mass organization, it must reorient its practice. The mass line offers a method for doing so, but it also demands a shift in priorities. Organizing must begin with the people as they are, not as the organization wishes them to be. Political clarity must be developed through engagement, not assumed in advance.

At the same time, the organization must grapple with the limits of electoralism and the necessity of building dual power. Without independent bases of working class organization, electoral gains will remain constrained. Without a mass line approach, even dual power efforts risk becoming disconnected from the people they aim to serve.

The task is not simple. It requires discipline, patience, and a willingness to rethink established habits. But in a moment marked by widespread dissatisfaction and fragmented resistance, it offers a path toward building the kind of rooted, collective power that can move beyond the limits of the present system.

Kenny Lake is right about one thing in “Malcolm X Didn’t Dish Out Free Bean Pies.” Revolution is not a soup kitchen. His attack on charity as a substitute for class struggle is correct in principle. Maoists have always opposed economism, the idea that improving material conditions by themselves leads to revolutionary consciousness. Lake correctly targets the tendency to replace organization and struggle with service work that only manages misery.

But Lake draws the wrong political line from a correct critique. They treat material service as inherently non-revolutionary. That is not Maoism, nor does the article actually critique Maoist philosophy in fact, but a straw version. Maoism begins from the material life of the masses. The masses encounter capitalism as hunger, eviction, sickness, and police terror. To ignore these realities is to separate politics from the people and replace the mass line with empty agitation.

Lake is correct that Malcolm X did not run a charity project. He built political consciousness through struggle. But Maoists do not counterpose political struggle to material practice. We fuse them. In every successful revolutionary movement, communists distributed food and medical care while organizing collective survival and waging ideological struggle. This was not charity, but the building of proletarian authority and dual power.

Lake warns that charity turns the masses into passive recipients. This danger is real. But the Maoist solution is not to abandon service. It is to transform it. Aid must be organized, politicized, and collectivized. It must expose the system that produces deprivation and recruit the masses into a disciplined organization against it. The problem is feeding people without the inclusion of a revolutionary line.

By rejecting material service in practice, Lake risks promoting a politics of rhetoric without roots. Maoism rejects this split. We investigate the concrete needs of the people, meet those needs in collective forms, and turn those struggles into schools of revolution. Every act of service must deepen hatred for imperialism and strengthen organization for its overthrow.

Lake is right to demand struggle. Where he is wrong is in separating struggle from the daily survival of the oppressed. Maoism teaches that revolution grows out of these conditions, not above them. To serve the people is not charity. It is class war in social form. The task is not to stop meeting needs. The task is to turn need into organization and survival into rebellion.

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Passed by Cleveland City Council on Feb. 2, Tanisha’s Law reshapes how the city responds to mental health and substance-use crises, shifting responsibility away from police and toward medical and behavioral health professionals.

The ordinance passed with amendments negotiated with Mayor Justin Bibb’s administration, including the removal of language that would have created a new city department with its own director.

The law is named for Tanisha Anderson, whose death during a police encounter in 2014 was ruled a homicide by the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner. Anderson’s family called 911 requesting a mental health evaluation as the 37-year-old experienced symptoms of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Detective Scott Aldridge used what police described as a “takedown maneuver,” slamming Anderson face-down onto icy pavement and pinning her with his knee while handcuffing her. After Anderson stopped moving, officers left her on the ground for approximately 21 minutes before calling for an ambulance. She was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at a hospital.

Police initially said Anderson resisted efforts to place her in a patrol car and “inexplicably went limp.” A later civil lawsuit alleged officers used unreasonable and excessive force. A grand jury declined to indict the officers. Aldridge received a 10-day suspension, and Officer Bryan Myers, who was also present, received a written warning.

Supporters of Tanisha’s Law argue the case exposed the risks of using police as default responders to mental health emergencies. Police are not trained primarily as medical de-escalators, advocates say, and spend much of their training learning to apply force to resolve confrontations.

Tanisha’s Law establishes a Bureau of Community Crisis Response within the Division of Emergency Medical Services. The bureau will be led by a deputy commissioner and tasked with coordinating the city’s non-police crisis response system.

Under Tanisha’s Law, teams of social workers, behavioral health professionals and peers with lived experience will be dispatched to nonviolent mental health calls, wellness checks and substance-use crises. Mental health clinicians will also be embedded in the 911 call center to help identify appropriate responses and route calls away from police when possible.

Tanisha’s Law also mandates crisis intervention training for all Cleveland police officers and tightens eligibility for Crisis Intervention Team officers, excluding those with histories of excessive force. The ordinance requires annual public reports and the creation of an online dashboard to track outcomes, effectiveness and costs.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Cleveland chapter said police should not be the default responders for vulnerable populations and stressed the need for culturally responsive care. CAIR called the law an important shift toward treating mental health as a medical issue rather than a criminal one.

The Ohio chapter of the National Association of Social Workers described the law as a “major win” for community safety, saying mental health crises require clinical expertise instead of punishment or force. The group urged crisis responses centered on care and de-escalation by licensed professionals.

For advocates, Tanisha’s Law is a response to a life lost under a system that treated a medical emergency as a criminal threat. Whether the new approach prevents similar tragedies will depend on how fully the city commits to replacing force with care.

Maggie Rice’s first experience with protest ended before it began.

“The first protest I was ever supposed to go to was canceled,” Rice said, “because it was the day after the Cleveland Four were arrested.”

She was referring to a 2012 plot involving Occupy activists accused of attempting to blow up the Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge. The FBI said an informant infiltrated the group, supplied fake explosives and worked with members to select targets. Five men were later charged with terrorism.

Civil liberties advocates later questioned the FBI’s role in the case. Deb Kline of Jobs with Justice said she wondered “who else was pulling the strings of those in the group.” Michael German, a former FBI counterterrorism agent and then a senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the government was “manufacturing threatening events” rather than preventing harm.

“Before 9/11,” German told Rolling Stone, “the FBI would have considered the idea of advancing terrorism plots just to defuse them as ‘laughable.’ But what was justified as an emergency method has become a normalized part of regular criminal-justice work.”

The FBI has acknowledged that its informant provided what the group believed to be explosives. Similar cases occurred in New York and Chicago, where men were convicted after an informant supplied what they thought were weapons.

“That is state repression right there in action,” Rice said. “It was entrapment by the FBI to destroy Occupy in Cleveland.”

Rice likened the FBI’s tactics to those used under COINTELPRO against the Black Panthers and other Black liberation groups in the 1960s and 1970s.

“Divisiveness was the best tool they used,” she said. “And they’ve only gotten better at it since.”

Rice traces her political awakening to the Occupy movement of the early 2010s, when she became interested in freedom of information and online activism. She followed the work of hacktivists who sought to expose corruption and make scholarly research freely available, including Aaron Hillel Swartz, a co-founder of Reddit and developer of RSS.

Swartz was arrested by MIT police and the U.S. Secret Service on Jan. 6, 2011, and later indicted on federal charges including wire fraud and unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer. Rice described the potential penalties he faced as “disproportionate.”

“He was given charges that would have brought decades in prison,” Rice said. “In my mind, that fits the definition of a political prisoner.”

She said Swartz’s death by suicide in 2013 had a lasting impact on her.

“I was following his story day by day,” she said. “I started wondering if other political prisoners knew that people valued their sacrifice.”

Rice began writing letters to political prisoners and eventually heard back from Jeremy Hammond, a hacktivist serving a lengthy sentence. Hammond became what she called a “movement mentor” and later introduced her to activists with Food Not Bombs. This teaching relationship shaped her focus on mentorship and political education.

Rice now works as a freelance consultant for nonprofit, student and activist groups, helping people identify their values and strategies for social change. She said she got her start in political education through the Ann Braden Anti-Racist Organizer Training Program, run by the Catalyst Project. The program’s purpose is to train white activists to undo their own racist and imperialist tendencies, empowering them to bring their best selves forward into the multiracial liberation struggle.

For Rice, political education includes teaching people to recognize repression and protect themselves from it.

“Quite frankly,” she said, “Food Not Bombs is a mostly-white organization. We’re mostly working class, but college-educated. From the FBI’s point of view, that’s a great potential target for information on Black and Brown people. They think we’ll snitch. We absolutely did not. We know our rights.”

To counter surveillance and disruption, she encourages activists to prioritize in-person conversations and operational security rather than relying solely on online organizing. She said Food Not Bombs distributes The Troublemaker’s Guide to its leaders and holds discussions about the history and mechanics of state repression.

“For those who take on leadership in Food Not Bombs,” Rice said, “we talk about state repression. We give them The Troublemaker’s Guide, and practical ways to stay safe, as well as the history and politics behind state repression. For our new members, we point them to the National Lawyer’s Guild (NLG) to learn their rights, that they should never answer the door or answer questions, not even confirm their name.”

She said Food Not Bombs finds itself in the crosshairs of federal agencies “every four years,” at least.

“In 2016,” she said, “during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, we were the targets of state repression.”

Rice said federal agents have knocked on the doors of Food Not Bombs activists. Because the group provides food support at protests and local resistance actions, members often know who is organizing and where. That visibility, she said, makes them targets.

“We did a press blitz,” she recalled, “at the advice of our lawyers, to publicly and loudly condemn what was happening, to let the FBI know we would not be an easy target.”

Rice’s Food Not Bombs chapter distributes produce, bread, hygiene products and pantry staples weekly in the St. Clair neighborhood on Cleveland’s East side, as well as in Willoughby in Lake County. The group does not require proof of income, sobriety, or any other self-identifying information. FNB also provides food at protests, which Rice said allows demonstrators to remain active longer. She and other volunteers have had confrontations with law enforcement over those efforts.

“Law Enforcement knows,” Rice said, “that if people are hungry and thirsty or in heat exhaustion, they’ll go home sooner. We were aware that we might be a target for that because of our connections.”

Food support, she added, is not incidental to repression — it is one of its reasons.

When discussing hunger, Rice emphasizes the difference between charity-based responses and justice-based solutions and encourages students to analyze root causes. Food Not Bombs frames hunger as the product of racism, colonialism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia — forces it describes as “racial capitalism” — and aims to address those systems rather than operate solely as a food charity.

“Over the years, the anti-hunger movement has lost its teeth,” Rice said, arguing that traditional charities often discourage broader political action.

For Rice, feeding people and confronting repression are inseparable.

Mutual aid, she said, builds the relationships that allow movements to survive — and that is precisely why it draws state attention.

“The point of repression is to break movements apart,” Rice said. “Our job is to keep people together.”

Columbus, OH — Ohio Republicans say they intend to align the state more closely with President Donald Trump’s national agenda, introducing a slate of legislation during the 136th General Assembly that would expand cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, encourage the development of large-scale artificial intelligence data centers and further restrict the rights of transgender people, particularly in public schools.

Ohio offers significant sales tax exemptions for the construction and equipment of data centers that meet a minimum investment threshold of $100 million and an annual payroll of at least $1.5 million.

Gov. Mike DeWine has preserved the tax incentive, arguing it is necessary for Ohio to remain competitive in attracting technology jobs and capital investment.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is considering changes to its permitting process that would streamline water discharge approvals for data centers. The proposal would allow facilities to release cooling wastewater directly into lakes and streams, prompting concern from environmental advocates.

Environmental groups warn the policy could increase thermal pollution, strain local water resources and weaken oversight of large-scale industrial facilities.

Dozens of bills have been introduced in the 136th general assembly. Below is a categorized summary of legislation that targets specific minority groups, along with primary sponsors and key arguments raised by opponents.

Legislation Targeting Immigrants

SB 172 - “Specify persons unlawfully present are not privileged from arrest.”
Primary Sponsor - Sen. Kristina D. Roegner.
Status: Passed by Senate, In House Committee.

Summary: SB 172 specifies that individuals unlawfully present in the United States are not privileged from arrest and allows law enforcement officers to inquire about the citizenship status of individuals they detain.

Opposition Arguments: Opponents say the bill fosters an environment in which immigrants are treated as threats rather than neighbors and workers. Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson called the measure “an abomination,” warning it could lead to unlawful detention based on suspicion rather than evidence and erode civil liberties. Sen. Beth Liston argued the bill elevates immigration enforcement within state government without adequate oversight or local input.

Organizations including the ACLU of Ohio, Ohio Immigrant Alliance, and Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE) warn the measure could encourage racial profiling and expose local governments to civil rights litigation.

HB 1 - “Enact Ohio Property Protection Act.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Angela N. King, Roy Klopfenstein.
Status: In House Committee.

Summary: HB 1 restricts national governments and state-run entities identified by the federal government as “foreign adversaries” from purchasing “protected property” in Ohio, including agricultural land and property within 10 miles of military installations or critical infrastructure.

Opposition Arguments: Civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations argue the bill unfairly targets people based on national origin and may violate the Equal Protection Clause and the federal Fair Housing Act. Opponents note similarities to historical “alien land laws” that barred Asian immigrants from owning property. Critics also warn that Ohio’s broad definition of critical infrastructure could make large swaths of land off-limits, harming lawful immigrants and investors.

HB 42 - “Require certain agencies to collect and report citizenship data.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Tex Fischer, Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.

Summary: HB 42 would require state agencies — including law enforcement, school districts and Medicaid programs — to collect and report data on the citizenship and immigration status of individuals they serve.

Opposition Arguments: Groups including Vibrant Ohio and the Refugee Advocacy Lab say the requirement would erode trust between immigrant communities and service providers, making people less likely to report crimes or seek education, health care or benefits. Critics also argue the mandate would impose costly administrative burdens with little demonstrated public safety benefit.

HB 200 - “Enact the America First Act.”
Primary Sponsor - Reps. Gary Click, Nick Santucci.
Status: In House Committee.

Summary: HB 200 would make it a felony for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States to enter, attempt to enter or remain in Ohio. The bill would also require state and local law enforcement agencies and detention facilities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and would allow the state to withhold funding from local governments that do not comply.

Opposition Arguments: Civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations, including the ACLU of Ohio, Ohio Immigrant Alliance and Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE), argue the bill would criminalize individuals based solely on immigration status, transforming a federal civil matter into a state felony offense.

Opponents say the proposal represents a significant departure from long-standing federal authority over immigration enforcement and could increase arrests and prosecutions absent any underlying criminal conduct. Civil liberties advocates warn the measure could encourage racial profiling, expand unnecessary contact between immigrants and local police, and further erode trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.

HB 281 - “Regards hospitals and enforcement of federal immigration law.”
Primary Sponsor - Rep. Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.

Summary: HB 281 would require hospitals that receive state funds or Medicaid reimbursements to allow ICE agents access to their facilities to interview or arrest individuals with a warrant. Hospitals would also be required to adopt written policies governing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Opposition Arguments: The Ohio Nurses Association has raised concerns about tying health care delivery to enforcement cooperation. Opponents warn the bill could deter patients from seeking medical care, particularly undocumented or mixed-status families, posing broader public health risks.

HB 282 - “Add immigration status as a required factor for sentencing, bail.”
Primary Sponsor - Rep. Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.

Summary: HB 282 would require courts to consider a person’s immigration status when determining bail or sentencing.

Opposition Arguments: The ACLU of Ohio, Ohio Justice & Policy Center, and Ohio Immigrant Alliance warn the bill could institutionalize discrimination in the criminal legal system by penalizing individuals based on immigration status rather than conduct. Critics argue it undermines due process and equal protection guarantees by treating similarly situated defendants differently.

Immigrant justice groups also say the bill could discourage cooperation with law enforcement and destabilize families by increasing pretrial detention risks for noncitizens.

Legislation Targeting Vulnerable LGBTQ+ Groups

SB 274 - “Prohibit minor mental health services without parental consent.”
Primary Sponsors - Sens. Jerry C. Cirino, Andrew O. Brenner.
Status: In Senate Committee.

Summary: SB 274 would repeal current law allowing minors ages 14 to 18 to access limited outpatient mental health services without parental consent, expanding parental control over youth mental health care.

Opposition Arguments: Mental health advocates, including the American Nurses Association of Ohio, warn the bill could discourage minors from seeking early mental health care. Groups such as NAMI Ohio and Mental Health America of Ohio say confidential access to limited outpatient services is often critical for youth experiencing depression, anxiety or family conflict.

Opponents argue mandatory parental consent in all cases could place vulnerable youth — including LGBTQ+ teens — at greater risk when home environments are unsupportive or unsafe.

HB 190 - “Enact the Given Name Act.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Johnathan Newman, Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.

Summary: HB 190 would prohibit public school employees from referring to students by names or pronouns that do not align with their sex assigned at birth without parental consent. The bill would also require educators to report such requests to school administrators and direct the Department of Education and Workforce to establish a formal complaint process.

Opposition Arguments: LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, educators and civil rights organizations describe the bill as a targeted attack on transgender and gender-expansive students. Groups including Equality Ohio, TransOhio, ACLU of Ohio, and the Human Rights Campaign say the reporting requirements would effectively force schools to out transgender students without their consent.

Critics also point to similarities with model legislation promoted by the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025.

HB 196 - “Regards candidate nomination protests, names on candidacy forms.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Rodney Creech, Angela N. King.
Status: In House Committee.

Summary: HB 196 would revise election procedures by requiring space for former legal names on candidacy petitions and expanding who may challenge a candidate’s eligibility.

Opposition Arguments: Critics say the bill could enable partisan or discriminatory challenges to candidates under the guise of transparency. Organizations including Equality Ohio, TransOhio, and voting rights advocates at the Ohio Voter Rights Coalition warn that requiring disclosure of former legal names could force transgender candidates to reveal “deadnames,” exposing them to harassment or frivolous eligibility challenges.

Opponents argue the bill could deter LGBTQ+ Ohioans from running for office and chill political participation.

HB 249 - “Enact the Indecent Exposure Modernization Act.”
Primary Sponsors - Reps. Angela N. King, Josh Williams.
Status: In House Committee.

Summary: HB 249 would expand definitions of “adult cabaret” and restrict certain performances outside adult-only venues. The bill includes performers who express a gender identity different from their biological sex, a provision that could encompass many drag performances.

Opposition Arguments: The ACLU of Ohio, Stonewall Columbus, Equality Ohio, and arts advocacy groups such as CreativeOhio argue the bill constitutes broad censorship of drag and gender-expressive performances. Critics say vague definitions of “adult cabaret” and “harmful to juveniles” could chill constitutionally protected speech and invite costly legal challenges.

Venue owners and performers have also warned the restrictions could harm local arts economies by discouraging festivals, community events and nightlife programming.

The video, recorded and uploaded to TikTok by user “StormiBabyy27,” shows Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents surrounding the home, positioned in both the front and back yards. Several agents appear with their hands on holstered weapons.

According to the homeowners, the agents threatened to break down the door while searching for the DoorDash driver, whom they said had an arrest warrant. The couple, who were inside the home with a child, refused to open the door and repeatedly asked to see a warrant.

The woman called local police, who told her the individuals outside were federal agents and that there was little local law enforcement could do.

“I really don’t know what to do,” the woman can be heard telling police in the video. “This lady was just shot yesterday. Now I ordered food, and there’s people outside my house.”

The shooting referenced is that of Renee Good, who was killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis on Wednesday.

As the standoff continued, agents warned they would call in a SWAT team to force entry, according to the homeowners. Fearing for their safety and that of their child, the couple ultimately brought the DoorDash driver from their basement to the doorway after shouting at agents to back away and remove their hands from their weapons.

The homeowners can be heard crying in the footage. The woman says she is Native American and references the historical harm Indigenous people have suffered at the hands of U.S. government violence. Both homeowners appear conflicted about their decision to comply.

At the doorway, the driver can be heard speaking in Spanish and crying. The dasher pleads for her children, saying she does not want to leave without her daughters and fears being taken into custody while they are left behind.

Neighbors and local activists later gathered outside the home, blowing whistles and demanding that ICE agents leave the area. As more people arrived, the woman confronting the agents grew more defiant, shouting insults and accusing them of being murderers. The agents eventually retreated.

In the video, the woman also says another person was removed from the DoorDash driver’s vehicle. The couple initially believed it was the driver’s child, but the individual has since been identified as her husband.

Under federal law, ICE agents generally cannot enter a private residence without a warrant unless they are in active pursuit of a felony suspect.

Know your rights. Stand together. Stay strong. Fascism can be fought and defeated with concrete effort, strength, and will. There are many avenues of the fight, and this fight involves all of us. Even mothers, like myself, who are trying to live our lives for our children. It is beyond our duty, beyond our moral imperative, to resist this empire and bring these atrocities to a definite, permanent end.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Jan. 8, President Donald Trump said the United States would begin targeting drug cartels “by land,” signaling a potential expansion of U.S. operations beyond maritime interdictions. The comments followed a U.S. military operation on Jan. 3, 2026, that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Trump and some members of his inner circle, including Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz, have previously suggested the possibility of military action against drug cartels in Mexico. Critics say such rhetoric threatens Mexico’s sovereignty, though no formal plan for U.S. ground or air operations inside Mexico has been announced.

Trump’s remarks on Jan. 8 were among his most explicit to date.

“Mexico has to get their act together because they’re pouring through Mexico and we’re going to have to do something,” Trump said. “We’d love Mexico to do it. They’re capable of doing it. But unfortunately the cartels are very strong in Mexico.”

The U.S. military has recently expanded naval operations in the Caribbean and international waters off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia. Critics, including some South American political leaders, have described those actions as examples of “gunboat diplomacy,” while U.S. officials have defended them as lawful counter-narcotics and security operations.

Mexican and international observers have also pointed to last year’s anti-MORENA protests in Mexico City, including attempts by small groups to breach the National Palace. While the U.S. government has denied any involvement, some critics in Mexico have characterized the unrest as a failed attempt at destabilization, a claim not supported by evidence and rejected by U.S. officials.

President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo has publicly dismissed threats of U.S. military action as unlikely and reaffirmed Mexico’s sovereignty. Sheinbaum has repeatedly said Mexico will not permit foreign military intervention on its soil and described sovereignty and the self-determination of people as fundamental principles of international law.

In response to President Donald Trump’s comments about taking action against drug cartels, Sheinbaum said Mexico seeks coordination and collaboration with the United States on security and drug-trafficking issues but will not accept outside military forces operating on Mexican territory. She has described the idea of a U.S. invasion as not something she believes is being seriously considered by Washington.

Sheinbaum said, “I don’t believe in an invasion; I don’t think it’s something they take seriously,” and emphasized that cooperation must respect Mexico’s constitutional commitment to non-intervention.

Mexico’s government has also stressed strong bilateral cooperation on law-enforcement efforts with the United States while firmly rejecting any notion of military intrusion into its territory.

A significant share of Mexicans oppose U.S. military action inside Mexico, viewing it as a violation of national sovereignty. Mexican officials and political commentators have pointed to longstanding sensitivities rooted in past U.S. interventions, including the Mexican-American War of the 1840s, in which Mexico lost roughly half of its territory.

Public opinion is divided, however. A recent poll by the newspaper El Financiero found that about one-third of respondents said they support the deployment of U.S. military forces in Mexico to combat drug cartels, while a majority said they oppose such action.

Facts of American intervention, such as those in recent memory like the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, interdictions in Yemen, and Pakistan, indicate that the American agenda is one of control over resources and land. The American Empire is self-serving, and would likely conduct the same exploitative operations in Mexico as it has done elsewhere. Venezuela is now threatened with further military action if it does not meet American resource demands, and the last thing Mexico needs to do right now is enter into a new era of colonialism.

Portland, OR — Just over 24 hours after the killing of Renee Good, Portland police said officers were called to the area of Northeast 102nd Avenue and Southeast Main Street hours ago, where they confirmed federal agents were involved in a shooting. Officers found a man and a woman with apparent gunshot wounds.

Border patrol agents claimed that they fired “defensive shots” after a vehicle with two occupants “attempted to run them over” after fleeing an attempted detention. Alleged leaked dispatch messages name ICE as the shooters, and then name Border Patrol as the shooters. The situation remains unclear, as FBI’s Portland Office later stated that the agents were with US Customs and Border Protection, not ICE. The FBI has taken the lead in the investigation. Officials have not yet given a reason for the shooting.

The conditions of the victims were not immediately known, though Portland City Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney said both were alive. Witnesses said the two are Spanish speakers.

Portland Police Chief Bob Day and Sen. Jeff Merkley urged residents to remain calm and keep protests peaceful. Merkley warned that the Trump administration may be attempting to provoke unrest.

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson issued a statement to the media at about 3:45 p.m. local time. He drew attention to what he described as “horrific violence” in Minnesota under the watch of federal agents.

“Our community here in Portland is now grappling with another deeply troubling incident,” Wilson said. He confirmed that two people were shot and injured by federal agents.

Wilson issued a strong rebuke in the statement, saying Portland is not a “training ground” for militarized agents and warning that the “full force” threatened by the administration carries deadly consequences. He called on ICE to halt all operations in Portland until a full investigation is completed.

“Federal militarization undermines effective, community-based public safety,” the mayor said in the statement, “and it runs counter to the values that define our region.”

Wilson said he would use “every legal and legislative tool available” to protect the civil and human rights of Portland residents.

This story is developing.

Perhaps it was too personal an issue; reading what her wife, who was in the car with her when she died, had said…even learning that she was killed in front of her wife, hurt me deeply to my core. As an activist myself, especially lately with increased violence toward us, I’ve been roused from bed at times with the thought of dying or being arrested in front of my own wife. The thought of them being left alone to pick up the pieces of what was once our life, to have to witness that, chills me to my core.

Minneapolis, MN. — ICE agents moved through the Powderhorn neighborhood of south Minneapolis early Wednesday afternoon near East 34th Street and Portland Avenue.

The Department of Homeland Security, through Secretary Kristi Noem, said “rioters began blocking ICE officers” during what the agency described as “targeted operations.” DHS alleged that one person “weaponized a vehicle,” prompting an agent to fire what the department called “defensive shots.” The incident was labeled “domestic terrorism.” Noem said the agent involved had “been dragged by a vehicle” in an earlier incident. DHS confirmed those details Thursday.

A law enforcement source who was not authorized to speak publicly identified the shooter as Jonathan Ross, the same agent involved in the vehicle-dragging incident in Bloomington, Minnesota, last June. The source told The Minnesota Tribune that Ross is named in multiple court records related to that case, including photo exhibits from a hospital, and is also listed as a witness.

Trump said, “The woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” He went on to blame “the Radical Left” for threats and assaults on federal officers “on a daily basis.”

In a non-graphic, slowed segment of video aired Wednesday, the victim can be seen waving ICE vehicles past her car as two people stand behind it. She appeared to be pulling out of a driveway or parking area in the neighborhood. The presence of people behind her vehicle, who have been identified as her wife and her killer, left no room to reverse.

She was killed because ICE agents interpreted her to be a threat, based on her presence. She was simply a mother in the wrong place at the wrong time. She paid the ultimate price due to the undisciplined nature of an armed Federal organization.

Mayor Jacob Frey said Minneapolis police responded shortly after 9:30 a.m. to reports of gunshots. Local officials said the woman was acting as a legal observer during ICE activity. Legal observers are typically volunteers who attend demonstrations to monitor interactions between law enforcement and demonstrators and document potential legal violations.

As the scene quieted after the tear gas, shouting and confusion, questions emerged about who the woman was.

Renee Nicole Good was a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, an award-winning poet and a mother of three. She had recently moved to Minneapolis and was fatally shot Wednesday in front of her wife.

“We have a 6-year-old at school,” Good’s wife said, her voice strained. “We’re new here.”

Witnesses said ICE agents created a chaotic scene and prevented at least one doctor from assisting Good, who was slumped over her steering wheel with the airbag deployed. Agents said they had their own medical personnel on site, though witnesses said no one was seen administering first aid to the woman in the vehicle.

Good was identified late Wednesday by her mother, Donna Ganger, who spoke with the Minnesota Star Tribune. Ganger said her daughter lived in the Twin Cities with her partner and was not involved in protests or legal observation related to ICE activity.

“She was probably terrified,” Ganger told the newspaper. “Renee was one of the kindest people I’ve ever known. She was extremely compassionate. She’s taken care of people all her life. She was loving, forgiving and affectionate. She was an amazing human being.”

Good’s death has sparked protests nationwide and ignited a legal and political confrontation between Minnesota officials and the Trump administration.

The events led to a fierce standoff that ultimately turned violent between protesters, police, and ICE agents. On the national stage, tensions escalated between the state of Minnesota and the federal government.

Gov. Tim Walz expressed anger, offered condolences and demanded answers, saying the federal government had “done enough” and that the state was capable of handling public safety.

Walz sharply criticized the presence and actions of federal immigration agents following the shooting, calling it an escalation. He issued a warning order, though it was initially unclear whether he intended the National Guard to be prepared to deploy to protect Minnesotans or to respond to the protests.

In later statements, Walz made clear that his focus was protecting Minnesotans from ICE actions, emphasizing that National Guard members are community members themselves. He directed state agencies to support public safety efforts in Minneapolis and St. Paul, with an emphasis on protecting residents amid rising tensions.

Protests continued Wednesday in Minneapolis, with solidarity demonstrations spreading nationwide. A protest and vigil were held Wednesday night at Market Square in Cleveland. Additional protests are planned for Thursday evening in Painesville, Cleveland and elsewhere across Northeast Ohio and the state.

I would like to close with a poem by the award-winning poet who was killed yesterday.

On Learning to Dissect Fetal Pigs

by Renee Nicole Good

i want back my rocking chairs,

solipsist sunsets,

& coastal jungle sounds that are tercets from cicadas and pentameter from the hairy legs of

cockroaches.

i’ve donated bibles to thrift stores

(mashed them in plastic trash bags with an acidic himalayan salt lamp—

the post-baptism bibles, the ones plucked from street corners from the meaty hands of zealots, the

dumbed-down, easy-to-read, parasitic kind):

remember more the slick rubber smell of high gloss biology textbook pictures; they burned the hairs

inside my nostrils,

& salt & ink that rubbed off on my palms.

under clippings of the moon at two forty five AM I study&repeat

ribosome

endoplasmic—

lactic acid

stamen

at the IHOP on the corner of powers and stetson hills—

i repeated & scribbled until it picked its way & stagnated somewhere i can’t point to anymore, maybe

my gut—

maybe there in-between my pancreas & large intestine is the piddly brook of my soul.

it’s the ruler by which i reduce all things now; hard-edged & splintering from knowledge that

used to sit, a cloth against fevered forehead.

can i let them both be? this fickle faith and this college science that heckles from the back of the

classroom

now i can’t believe—

that the bible and qur’an and bhagavad gita are sliding long hairs behind my ear like mom

used to & exhaling from their mouths “make room for wonder”—

all my understanding dribbles down the chin onto the chest & is summarized as:

life is merely

to ovum and sperm

and where those two meet

and how often and how well

and what dies there.

Bystanders rushed to offer assistance, but there was nothing that could be done. Paramedics pronounced her dead on-scene.

Witnesses continued to record the events as they unfolded.

This video directly conflicts with the Department of Homeland Security’s statement made earlier. DHS claimed the woman attempted to ram her vehicle into a group of agents unprovoked. Video evidence shows that the agents approached her first. It is not clear whether the agents had the legal authority to attempt to take her into custody or open her car door.

The victim has been identified as Renee Nicole Good, a legal US citizen. Christopher Wiggins of Advocate.com reported that Good’s wife was in the SUV with her. She was not a legal observer, as was previously reported by many outlets, including this one. Good was a concerned citizen who opposed the idea, as many do, that people should be rounded up with brute force and hostility because of their race or ethnicity.

Minneapolis, MN — According to Governor Tim Walz, a woman was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Jan. 7. Her name has not yet been released.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said the woman was shot after she and others in a vehicle attempted to run over federal agents who were trying to detain her in connection with the vandalism of a law enforcement vehicle, which DHS described as an act of “domestic terrorism.”

Witnesses disputed that account, saying the woman’s vehicle did not begin to accelerate until after shots were fired. In a video posted by Freedomnews.tv, one woman told reporters that agents chased the vehicle after the woman resisted attempts from agents to open her car door, and that an agent fired through the windshield.

WARNING: The contents below may be disturbing to some viewers.

Scenes in Minnepolis following the ICE shooting. Video: Freedomnews.tv, Mercado Media.

The shooting occurred during an ICE operation in the Powderhorn neighborhood of south Minneapolis, near East 34th Street and Portland Avenue.

The victim has been identified as Renee Nicole Good, a legal US citizen. Christopher Wiggins of Advocate.com reported that Good’s wife was in the SUV with her. She was not a legal observer, as was previously reported by many outlets, including this one. Good was a concerned citizen who opposed the idea, as many do, that people should be rounded up with brute force and hostility because of their race or ethnicity.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Gov. Tim Walz confirmed that the shooting involved an ICE agent and urged calm as authorities continued to gather information.

The woman was taken to a hospital, where she was later pronounced dead.

ICE agents and local police later deployed tear gas to disperse a crowd of protesters at the scene.

Local police and ICE use pepper balls and tear gas on peaceful protestors. Video: Freedomnews.tv

ICE agents were seen firing pepper balls and tear gas toward the crowd as individual agents moved in to detain and arrest people at the scene. Protesters were heard urging one another not to endanger their lives. Members of the crowd were seen attempting to block the movement of ICE vehicles and agents.

As the situation continues to unfold and ICE expands its enforcement activity in the neighborhood, the story remains developing.

UPDATE: Video has emerged depicting the shooting.

WARNING: Content may be disturbing to some viewers.

The video confirms witness statements, that the driver did not attempt to run over agents, but instead was shot and killed after agents attempted to enter her vehicle. She attempted to leave the scene, and was killed.

More as the story develops.

The American Empire invaded a sovereign nation with a small force, which exchanged gunfire with the military of another country. The US Navy carried out missile attacks and bombings to cover the retreat of its extraction team as it abducted the Venezuelan Head of State and First Lady in the dead of night. Over 40 civilians have been confirmed to be killed in the bombardment, with Venezuelan officials claiming upwards of 80 dead. The Cuban government reports that an additional 32 Cuban military officers lost their lives trying to defend their ally. The American military reports that some of its forces were wounded.

While Venezuela has not yet formally declared war, Venezuelan Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino López vowed retribution and demanded the immediate release of Nicolas Maduro.

Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Adela Flores de Maduro were captured in an early-morning raid by the U.S. military and are being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The couple’s three children are alive. In the aftermath of what critics described as a smash-and-grab operation, President Donald Trump said the U.S. objective for the B.R.V. is regime change.

After being brought to New York to face charges filed by the Trump administration, Maduro was transported through city streets in a white van with its doors open to public view. The display was described as a humiliation ritual, likened by observers to a small-scale Roman triumph. Venezuela’s current president is Delcy Eloína Rodríguez Gómez, the country’s former vice president.

Several leaders across the Latine world, including Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Cuban First Secretary Miguel Díaz-Canel, Chilean President Gabriel Boric and Colombian President Gustavo Petro, spoke from their respective countries on Jan. 3. They condemned the U.S. military action, calling it a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law.

Trump addressed the nation on Jan. 3, the morning of the attack.

Trump did not mention Venezuelan casualties, despite announcing that no American soldiers were killed. While American estimates place the report at 40 civilians killed in American strikes, Venezuelan sources report upwards of 80 civilians dead, as well as casualties to Maduro’s personal guards and to Cuban military officers who, according to the Cuban government, were in the country to advise and train Venezuelan militias.

Trump spoke at length about the importance of Venezuelan oil to U.S. interests in the region, declaring that the American Empire would “run the country for as long as necessary,” to allow U.S. companies to rebuild infrastructure and begin exporting Venezuelan crude to the U.S. mainland.

Following Maduro’s capture by U.S. forces, Venezuela’s Supreme Court ordered Delcy Rodríguez, then vice president, to assume the interim presidency to ensure “administrative continuity.” She was formally sworn in by the National Assembly on Tuesday. The Trump administration has indicated it may work with Rodríguez to maintain stability, reportedly citing a CIA assessment that Maduro loyalists are best positioned to prevent chaos. Trump has warned, however, that Rodríguez must comply with U.S. priorities or face severe consequences.

Trump said that “justice is what we’re all about.” Hours later, Grand Rapids, Michigan, police arrested a protester immediately after an interview with ABC 13 News in which she condemned U.S. imperialism in South America.

Maduro and his wife, along with other defendants, have been indicted by the U.S. government on charges including drug trafficking and narco-terrorism.

The full indictment was released by the U.S. Department of Justice. Its introduction uses broad and charged language, including the phrases “MADURO MOROS moved loads of cocaine” and “MADURO MOROS allows cocaine-fueled corruption to flourish.” The indictment alleges that Maduro, Flores and members of their family worked with the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or FARC, a Colombian Marxist-Leninist guerrilla organization that formally disbanded following peace agreements with the Colombian government in 2016. While some successor groups remain active, the primary FARC organization disarmed, demobilized and reintegrated into civilian life, later forming a legal political party known as Comunes.

Trump has also threatened other sovereign nations with occupation or annexation, including Cuba, Colombia and Greenland.

Those threats, along with the U.S. operation in Venezuela, prompted an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday. Member states sharply criticized U.S. actions, raising concerns about the military operation in Venezuela and Trump’s remarks regarding Cuba and Greenland.

In Venezuela, there were unconfirmed reports of minor skirmishes between unidentified groups and the military. Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets to express anger and opposition to what they described as the U.S. abduction of Maduro. As a new president is sworn in and the continuity of Venezuela’s government appears relatively stable for now, the world is watching closely, wary of further U.S. overreach and renewed gunboat diplomacy.

UPDATE: Marco Rubio says Maduro has been arrested to stand trial on criminal charges in the US.

CARACAS, B.R.V. — Donald Trump, via Truth Social, delivered a statement declaring that Imperial forces have abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their residence in the capital. The post went live minutes ago, at 4:21 A.M. Eastern time, 1:21 A.M. Pacific. This is a statement from the U.S. president and has been confirmed by multiple members of the U.S. Government, including Marco Rubio. Venezuelan Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino López also confirms the abduction.

The Maduro government has denounced the strikes as “military aggression” by the United States. Venezuela declared a state of emergency, condemning what it calls a violation of sovereignty. The government has called for national mobilization.

Special forces and unconfirmed law enforcement carried out the abduction of Venezuela’s lawful head of state under the cover of devastating airstrikes, some of which struck heavily populated areas in addition to military targets. Several buildings of cultural significance were struck, including the Hugo Chávez Mausoleum. Damage assessments continue to be reported in broad terms.

There are reports of widespread disruptions in Caracas and surrounding regions, including outages and public fear, but accurate casualty figures and damage assessments are not yet available.

Multiple sources have reported on this video. We can confirm its contents and the identity of the speaker as Venezuelan Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino López.

The Bolivarian National Armed Forces inform the world that in the early hours of today, January 3, 2026, the Venezuelan people have been the target of the most criminal military aggression by the U.S. government.

López said that “Missiles and explosives were launched from U.S. helicopters and aircraft. Civilian areas were hit. We are currently tallying the casualties.”

Earlier, he called for an “anti-imperialist and liberation war” against the American empire.

Marco Rubio told reporters that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the early morning bombing campaign was ordered to “protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant.”
︀︀
︀︀The President will likely use Article II of the U.S. Constitution as justification for the strikes on Venezuela, claiming the barrage “protected U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack.”

Antiwar protests have been announced around the country, with some scheduled to take place later today.

Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela — Under cover of night, the American empire has unleashed what appears to be an aggressive bombing and missile campaign against targets in the city of Caracas.

President Gustavo Petro of Colombia was quick to condemn the attack, stating that Caracas is being bombed with missiles. Petro warned the world: Venezuela is under attack.

Videos show impacts in the capital city of Caracas, some with what appear to be Chinook and other helicopters flying low overhead. Video: various social media users. Attribution provided where possible.

The strikes began just before 1 a.m. Eastern time. Currently, much of the city is without power, and what appear to be Chinook helicopters have been spotted in Venezuelan airspace. There have been unconfirmed reports of imperial soldiers, possibly special forces, on the ground in the city.

As Imperial forces deploy from the air, the people of Venezuela vow to resist any foreign invasion.

More on this story as it develops.

I didn’t imagine going into 2025 that I would write stories read by hundreds of people, or that I would meet so many inspiring individuals along the way. I certainly couldn’t have imagined adding acclaimed South African political analyst and journalist Kim Heller to my contact list, or listening directly to South African Parliament Member Carl Niehaus and members of the Economic Freedom Fighters—much less being invited to speak with them. Rising trans rights activist Jenna Taylor expressed her appreciation for my work and her interest in contributing her own column to MCT. I’ve also had the opportunity to sit down with Lakewood City Council President Sarah Kepple, Painesville City Councilman Mario Rodriguez, and his wife, the powerful and deeply inspiring activist Rachel Rodriguez. Writing about these people and their work has been a privilege, and one I don’t take lightly.

Even so, I’m still uncomfortable writing about myself—especially in this public way. That discomfort may be one of the reasons journalism feels like such a natural fit for me. While my voice shapes the way a story is told and the way facts are arranged, I’ve always believed the focus should remain on the people and events themselves. Perhaps it’s my imposter syndrome speaking, but I rarely view my own accomplishments as something deserving of recognition. Accolades aren’t what motivate me. The work is.

At the beginning of 2025, I put my writing skills to use as a copyeditor. I spent much of my time editing news articles for clarity and grammar. Before then, I had never examined their construction so closely. Over time, I began to notice how many stories felt dry or incomplete. Facts were present and properly ordered, but something human was often missing. One article I worked on focused on Nick Fuentes and his white nationalist “Groypers.” It explained who they are, but said very little about their broader political impact or the harm their ideology poses to the communities they target. That absence stayed with me. Still, as a copyeditor, my responsibility was limited to flow and grammar—not authorship.

I began to wonder why this kind of context was so often left out. I assumed much of it came down to time constraints and attention economics. Many readers don’t make it past the first few paragraphs, and mainstream media has to balance informing the public with selling stories and ad space. Even understanding that, I couldn’t imagine writing my own article about Typhoon Halong’s impact on Alaska without including the Indigenous communities and the long-standing neglect that made the disaster worse. Leaving out that history would have felt wrong.

Eventually, I realized I wanted to try a different approach. I didn’t set out with any expectations, and I was genuinely surprised when readers responded positively. I only began writing and reporting independently in September. My first article covered a particularly charged Lakewood City Council meeting, where what would later become the Lakewood Gender Freedom Policy was introduced. I felt the moment demanded more than a surface-level summary. I spoke with the policy’s authors at Cleveland DSA and with City Council President Sarah Kepple, who finalized the language and saw it through to passage. I tried to place the policy within the broader struggle for rights, and to explain why that struggle matters to all women. Those pieces remain some of my most-read works. The passage of the LGFP also became the first story I ever broke, published hours before mainstream outlets reported on it.

Context continued to guide my reporting. I was the first journalist to write about the full circumstances surrounding the arrest of Erika McGriff. Video footage later shared publicly by attorney Ben Crump revealed that Jacksonville police struck McGriff first and escalated the encounter. The arresting officer punched her while she was restrained against his cruiser, setting off everything that followed. In writing about the D.C. shooting, it became important to me to explain the background of the shooter himself, to highlight the fact that American Imperialism and abandonment were partly responsible. Telling that fuller story mattered to me; not just what happened, but how and why.

Looking back, this year has been both unexpected and deeply grounding. I’ve learned more than I anticipated; not only about journalism, but about responsibility, trust, and care. I have several interviews and pieces planned for January, including a multi-part story on Lakeland Community College, and I approach them with a clearer sense of purpose than I had when I began.

What I’ve come to understand is that journalism, for me, isn’t about visibility or recognition. It’s about listening closely, providing context, and treating people’s lives with the seriousness they deserve. I’m still learning, still uncomfortable at times, and still finding my footing—but I know now that this is work worth doing, and worth doing carefully.

Happy New Year.

Sincerely,

Alexandria Rose.