Here Are the Texted War Plans That Hegseth Said 'Nobody Was Texting' on Signal

 By Jon Queally

In response to U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth claiming on live television earlier this week that "nobody was texting war plans," The Atlantic magazine on Wednesday morning published the "war plans" that were, in fact, shared on the private sector messaging app Signal by top members of President Donald Trump's national security team, including Hegseth and national security advisor Mike Waltz.

It was The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg who on Monday published a bombshell report about how he was, seemingly "inadvertently," added to the Signal group chat by Waltz, a conversation that, in addition to Hegseth, also included director of national security Tulsi Gabbard, CIA director John Ratliffe, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, Vice President JD Vance, and others.

In the new piece published, Goldberg said that public denials by these top officials since the original reporting presented the magazine "with a dilemma" about what to do with information the editorial team had initial withheld, citing national security concerns.

"These are strike plans. There must be a broad investigation of how compromised our national security is because of their shocking incompetence." — Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas)

Though its editorial decision to withhold information was criticized by some journalists who believe the public has a right to know such details—including reporter Ken Klippenstein who accused the magazine of falling prey to "media paternalism" by not initally releasing the full contents of the chat—Goldberg explained The Atlantic's decision this way:

we withheld specific information related to weapons and to the timing of attacks that we found in certain texts. As a general rule, we do not publish information about military operations if that information could possibly jeopardize the lives of U.S. personnel. That is why we chose to characterize the nature of the information being shared, not specific details about the attacks.

However—citing Hegseth's on-air denial Monday, a statement by Trump that nothing in the chat was "classified," as well as testimony before a committee in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday by Gabbard and Ratliffe, both of whom said under oath that classified information was not shared—Goldberg said the magazine's assessment changed.

"We believe," writes Goldberg in the latest piece, "that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions. There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared."

Given that the nation's highest-level national security officials, up to and including the President of the United States, have said the material is not classified, the magazine acknowledged—and since the attack plans were for an operation already carried out against Houthis targets in Yemen—it would be strange if The Atlantic still felt not at liberty to publish them.

After reaching out to various agencies in advance of its decision to publish, Goldberg reports that the White House still objected to the release of the exchange, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt claiming that even though "there was no classified information transmitted in the group chat," the administration holds that what was said on the unsecured, third-party communication app was "intended to be a an [sic] internal and private deliberation amongst high-level senior staff and sensitive information was discussed."

What follows are screenshots of the detailed war plans discussed on the Signal group chat by Trump's top officials, as reported by The Atlantic:

After this portion, Goldberg notes: "If this text had been received by someone hostile to American interests—or someone merely indiscreet, and with access to social media—the Houthis would have had time to prepare for what was meant to be a surprise attack on their strongholds. The consequences for American pilots could have been catastrophic."

More details:

And then these paragraphs:

While The Atlantic's new reporting on Thursday sits behind a paywall, reaction to it was immediate and widespread.

"Hegseth repeatedly lied to the American people and should be fired—along with all the others in the chat," said Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) in response to Goldberg's latest revelations. "These are strike plans. There must be a broad investigation of how compromised our national security is because of their shocking incompetence."

On Wednesday, two Democratic House members—Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs—launched a congressional probe into whether or not war plans were discussed in the group chat and called on every official involved to preserve all related documents and communications.

"This incident raises grave concerns about the misuse of unsecured communication platforms for classified discussions and the potential that American military and intelligence professionals may have been compromised by the reckless dissemination of such classified material,” Connolly and Frost wrote in a letter addressed to all the officials involved.

Given their testimony before the Senate on Tuesday, Ratliffe and Gabbard may come under specific scrutiny by members of that committee and other lawmakers.

"A reminder that various administration officials lied under oath in the Senate yesterday," said former Democratic congressman Mondaire Jones, "which is a crime punishable by imprisonment."

Photo credit: Japanexpertise

“I will wear my persona non grata as a badge of dignity”, said South African ambassador expelled by the US

 By Pavin Kulkarni

“We must enter into trade negotiations with the USA because our economy and our people need them. But we must never trade our sovereignty, lest we be told that China and Cuba cannot be our friends,” said veteran diplomat Ebrahim Rasool on his return to South Africa.

Cheering crowds thronged outside the Cape Town International Airport on Sunday, March 23, to welcome the South African ambassador expelled from the US after being subjected to repeated attacks for his stance in solidarity with Palestine.  “Ebrahim Rasool is a race-baiting politician who hates America,” US State Secretary Marco Rubio accused in a X post on March 15.

“We have nothing to discuss with him and so he is considered PERSONA NON-GRATA,” Rubio added, sharing the alt-right Breitbart News report on the academic observations Rasool had made on the white supremacist character of the “MAGA movement” in a webinar hosted by a South African think tank.

“We will welcome him and say we agree, there is nothing wrong with what he said,” insisted Western Cape Secretary of Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Malvern de Bruyn, who was present at his popular reception. Alongside was also the regional leadership of the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the ruling African National Congress (ANC).

A “badge of dignity”

South African police jostled with the crowd to make way for Rasool, who addressed them on a megaphone saying that a “declaration of persona non grata is meant to humiliate you,” but returning “to crowds like this… I will wear my persona non grata as a badge of dignity.”

His expulsion – just months after his appointment as South Africa’s US ambassador was announced in November – marked a historic low in the relations between the two countries, already souring under the previous Joe Biden-led US administration.

Escalating US hostility toward South Africa

US hostility began to escalate after South Africa, like much of the Global South, maintained a non-aligned posture on the war in Ukraine. This intensified after South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2024, amid its US-funded genocide in Gaza.

“In contrast to its stated stance of nonalignment, the South African Government has a history of siding with malign actors, including Hamas, a US designated Foreign Terrorist Organization and a proxy of the Iranian regime, and continues to pursue closer ties with the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) and the Russian Federation,”complained the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act, introduced in the US House of Representatives last February.

After Donald Trump assumed the presidency earlier this year, the US has turned increasingly aggressive toward South Africa. Describing its act of taking Israel to the world’s highest court for genocide as an “aggressive” position toward the US, Trump halted all aid and assistance this February.

While restricting US entry to actual refugees, Trump went on to offer “resettlement through the United States Refugee Admissions Program” for South Africa’s European colonial settlers, known as the Afrikaners.

Through colonialism and apartheid, these settlers seized most of South Africa’s land through violence. Over three decades after the defeat of apartheid, this white minority who make up just over 7% of the country’s population still owns 72% of all its farmlands, as a result of its failed land reforms.

In “a symbolic gesture” toward correcting this, the South African government enacted the Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 this January, broadening the scope of the already-existing state powers to expropriate land.

Deeming this a “racially discriminatory property confiscation”, Trump’s executive order last month stated that the US “shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination.”

The role reversal: Blacks oppress the whites

This description echoed the conspiracy theory championed by AfriForum, a South African alt-right, white supremacist lobby group that has long been peddling the narrative of a “white genocide” – not a genocide by the white settlers against the colonized natives, but of them.

The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, a beneficiary and a product of Apartheid South Africa who was amplifying this narrative on X, went on to become one of the most powerful figures in the Trump administration, albeit unelected.

Appointed as South Africa’s ambassador in the aftermath of Trump’s electoral victory, veteran diplomat Rasool was reportedly denied meetings with the Trump administration’s officials from the start.

“After weeks of sustained assaults on my character and reputation – being called a terrorist, jihadist, Islamist, anti-Semite – it is good to be here at home… where we see the human in each other… even inviting those who despised us, dispossessed us, and discriminated against us, into the fold of human rights,” he told his supporters outside Cape Town airport.

“Such a warm welcome,” he added, “would have been better on returning in three to four years having successfully… destroyed the clear and obvious lie of Afrikaner oppression… and white qualification for refugee status in the USA.”

Diverging positions on US relations

Contrasting his defiant posture – cheered by the rank and file of the ruling party and its allies on the left and in the trade union movement – South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, however, appeared anxious, urging restraint ahead of Rasool’s arrival.

His spokesperson Vincent Magwenya explained on March 20 that Ramaphosa “is not asking” his supporters to call off the gathering for his welcome, but only to “be considerate about what is at stake with regards to the country’s economy with respect to doing our level best to retain that strategic partnership with the US.”

Rasool also reiterated that “our relationship with the USA is critically important and so we must continue to pursue dialogue and engagement”. However, he set out some “bottom lines” in his speech.

“We can negotiate a lot, but we cannot negotiate away our case against genocide in the ICJ,” he said. “Withdrawing from the International Court of Justice is not an option until Palestine is free and Israel is accountable.”

Sovereignty and BRICS relationships are as important as trade relations with US

Acknowledging the “value [of] our trade with the USA,” he added, nevertheless, that it should not be salvaged at the cost of South Africa’s relations with fellow BRICS members and loss of its non-aligned posture, which will leave it with an “unpredictable” US as its only ally.

“We must enter into trade negotiations with the USA because our economy and our people need them. But we must never trade our sovereignty, lest we be told that China and Cuba cannot be our friends. Our friends are the mighty in the G20. But they are also the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the occupied, whether in Sudan or whether in Palestine.”

This article originally appeared in People's Dispatch on March 25th, 2025

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   

Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard

X/Twitter: @_charlesbrooks

Trump’s school choice push adds to momentum in statehouses

 By Robbie Sequeira

Federal moves might provide additional money for universal vouchers and scholarships.

More than a dozen states in the past two years have launched or expanded programs that allow families to use taxpayer dollars to send their students to private schools. Now, President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress want to supercharge those efforts.

Trump in January issued an executive order directing several federal agencies to allow states, tribes and military families to tap into federal money for so-called school choice opportunities. Those can come in the form of education savings accounts, voucher programs, tax credits or scholarships. Trump’s order also aims to expand access to public charter schools, which are free from some of the rules that apply to traditional public schools.

Meanwhile in Congress, 24 Republican senators have signed on to legislation that would provide $10 billion in annual tax credits to individuals and corporations who make charitable contributions to organizations that provide private-school scholarships. A Nebraska Republican introduced a companion measure in the House.

Already this year, Idaho, Tennessee and Wyoming have approved school choice programs, and bills are advancing in Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas. A bill in Mississippi died before advancing. Most of the measures still in play would open programs to all families regardless of income, though some states would cap the total amount of money available.

Supporters of school choice say it gives parents control of their kids’ education — and an escape hatch if they are dissatisfied with their local public school. Many conservatives, religious institutions and private schools are in favor of school choice, along with some people of color who live in districts with underperforming public schools.

“Every child is different. They learn in different environments. There are just so many factors, that I believe that parents should be the ones that make the decision on where their child is going to do the best and have the most success,” said Indiana Republican state Sen. Linda Rogers. A former educator, Rogers has sponsored a bill in her state that would provide additional money to charter schools, which are considered to be a form of school choice.

Opponents, including teachers unions, public school professionals and many rural lawmakers of both parties, say such measures undermine traditional public schools by shifting money away from them.

“When we start to take from public schools, we’re hurting our kids, our lower-income kids. They will not prosper from this legislation,” Tennessee Democratic state Rep. Ronnie Glynn said during the floor debate on a far-reaching voucher bill in his state.

Joshua Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University, said vouchers are a budget-buster for states.

“Vouchers don’t shift costs — they add costs,” Cowen said in a phone interview. “Most voucher recipients were already in private schools, meaning states are paying for education they previously didn’t have to fund.”

The switch to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, which gave parents a front-row seat to watch what their children were — or were not — learning in their classes, contributed to the recent school choice momentum. So did parent frustration over prolonged public school closures.

I believe that parents should be the ones that make the decision on where their child is going to do the best and have the most success.

– Indiana Republican state Sen. Linda Rogers

“Parents got a good look into sort of what was happening in schools,” said Bella DiMarco, a senior K-12 education policy analyst at FutureEd, an independent think tank at Georgetown University. “There was a lot of talk during the pandemic around school choice … of what public schools aren’t doing for their kids.”

The first modern school voucher program, created in Milwaukee in 1990, was a bipartisan effort to help lower-income families afford private schools. In recent years, more states have moved from school choice programs focused on certain groups, such as low-income students or students with disabilities, to universal programs open to students of all backgrounds.

“Historically, the programs were always sort of targeted to students in need,” DiMarco said. “But in the last couple of years, the new push has been for these universal programs.”

Currently, more than 30 states and Washington, D.C., have at least one school choice program. More than a dozen states now offer universal or near-universal access, allowing K–12 students to participate in school choice regardless of income.

EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice, estimates that 1.2 million students are attending private schools this school year with the help of public tax credits, scholarships or vouchers.

Different strategies

States that enacted school choice programs this year have pursued different strategies.

The program Idaho enacted last month, for example, will provide an annual tax credit of $5,000 per child ($7,500 for students with disabilities) to help cover private education expenses.

Most voucher recipients were already in private schools, meaning states are paying for education they previously didn’t have to fund.

– Joshua Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University

Tennessee’s new program will provide 20,000 scholarships of roughly $7,000 each. During its first year, half of the Tennessee scholarships will be reserved for households earning less than $173,000 for a family of four, but that restriction will be removed in subsequent years.

About 65% of the Tennessee vouchers are expected to be awarded to students who already attend private schools, according to a legislative analysis.

Critics say the cost of the program will grow quickly, creating a hole in the state’s budget. Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who pushed hard for the proposal, suggested that Trump’s executive order might provide additional resources. Lee told reporters he hasn’t yet analyzed the order, “but I think there’s opportunity there.”

“The president wants to support states like ours who are advocating for school choice,” Lee said in a news conference after lawmakers approved the measure. Lee was at the White House on Thursday when Trump signed an order calling for the U.S. Department of Education to be dismantled.

Texas lawmakers also are actively debating a voucher program, a longtime priority for Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who worked to defeat resistant rural Republicans in last year’s state legislative elections and who also attended the White House event. The Senate passed a bill that would provide $10,000 per student ($11,500 for students with disabilities) annually through education savings accounts. A similar House proposal is under review.

Kansas is considering a universal refundable tax credit — $8,000 per child for accredited private school tuition and $4,000 for non-accredited private schools. The program starts with a $125 million cap, increasing annually if participation hits certain thresholds.

Ballot box defeats

School choice opponents question the wisdom of sending taxpayer dollars to schools that may lack certified teachers, follow nonstandardized curricula or discriminate in admissions. Many private schools have testing standards, maintain religious requirements or exclude LGBTQ+ students or those with certain disabilities, for example.

In some Republican-led states that have expanded school choice, Democrats have filed bills to increase oversight and place restrictions on these programs. A bill in Tennessee would require background checks for teachers at private schools that receive voucher money. And an Iowa bill would require that property tax statements include information on how much money education savings accounts subtracted from local public schools.

As voucher programs have grown, they have attracted greater scrutiny.

ProPublica, an investigative journalism outlet, last year found that Arizona’s universal voucher program has mostly benefited wealthier families. Some Arizona parents have tried to use voucher money to pay for dune buggies and expensive Lego sets, according to press reports.

Critics also note that despite recent legislative successes, school ballot initiatives fared poorly at the ballot box last fall.

Voters in Colorado rejected a measure that sought to enshrine school choice rights in the state constitution.

In Nebraska, voters partially repealed a state-funded private school scholarship program.

And in Kentucky, voters overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed the use of public money to support private schools, with 65% of voters — and a majority in every county — opposed.

“There’s a handful of these billionaires that have been pushing vouchers for 30 years,” said Cowen, the Michigan State University professor. “The school choice movement is not necessarily driven by public demand, but rather by wealthy donors and political maneuvering.”

Youngkin vetoes minimum wage hike, prescription affordability board bills

By Charlotte Rene Woods and Nathaniel Cline

Monday was Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s deadline to take action on the roughly 900 bills that Virginia’s legislature approved to send his way. Monday afternoon saw over 300 signatures and a handful of vetoes, while he had until 11:59 p.m. for his other signatures, amendments and vetoes to be posted on Virginia’s Legislative Information System.

Youngkin vetoed for the second straight year a widely backed bill to raise Virginia’s minimum wage that would have allowed it to climb from $12.41 per hour to $13.50 per hour by January 2026, and reach $15 by January 2027.

Democrats, including the bill patron Del. Jeion Ward, D-Hampton, and various advocates insisted that the increase is necessary to keep pace with rising living costs. However, Republicans and other critics warn it could burden businesses.

The governor’s veto excluded a statement.

Ashley Kenneth, president and CEO of the progressive Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, said in a statement that the governor’s veto will continue making Virginia unaffordable for many working families and deepening barriers to economic opportunity for Virginians.

“Working people in Virginia drive our economy and deserve to be paid a fair wage for a fair day’s work,” Kenneth said. “Yet some businesses continue to exploit their workers through low pay that does not allow them to meet their basic needs.”

Prescription Drug Affordability Board proposal defeated again

A years-long quest to create a Prescription Drug Affordability Boardwas defeated again. 

The proposal would have created an independent, nonpartisan board of medical and health experts tasked with analyzing data to set payment limits on drug prices within state-sponsored health plans. 

While Democrats have largely led the effort to establish a board, some Republicans, including ​​Del. Ellen Campbell, R-Rockbridge, who co-sponsored the bill, have lent their support. 

“Big Pharma has gotten away with charging hardworking Virginians outrageous prices just so they can stay alive,” said Del. Karrie Delaney, D-Fairfax, who has been a key champion of the bill in the House of Delegates. 

No statement was attached to his veto by the time of this publication. Previously, Youngkin described the proposal as “noble in its intent” but warned it could “limit access to treatments and hinder medical innovation” when he rejected the bill last year. 

Other opponents of the bill included the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a prominent trade group that has lobbied against the bill and expressed skepticism about it.

Charise Richard, a senior director of state policy at PhRMA, stressed in an interview last week that PDABs are relatively untested, despite their surge in recent years. 

Though at least 11 states have implemented such boards, Maryland was the first. Last fall the board approved a process to set an upper limit payment to cap drug costs on state health plans, its overall set up has been slow since its 2019 establishment and it’s not yet yielded the cost-savings at the core of its mission. An effort this year to expand the board resulted in heated debate in Maryland’s legislature.

Certain firearms will still be allowed in public areas

The governor vetoed an effort to prohibit assault firearms from being carried in public areas.

Senate Bill 880, carried by Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, would have prohibited certain firearms, including semi-automatic center-fire rifles, from being carried on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk or any other place everyone can go, with some exceptions, the proposal states.

The current law prohibits certain shotguns, semi-automatic rifles and pistols from being carried in specific localities and when they are loaded.

Ebbin’s SB 1450 was also vetoed. 

His bill would have created standards of responsible conduct for members of the firearm industry and required them to establish “reasonable controls” regarding the selling and marketing of firearms. The companion bill, carried by Del. Dan Helmer, D-Fairfax, was also vetoed.

Solar canopy bill rejected

A proposal from Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax would have allowed localities to include solar canopy requirements for applicants seeking local developments

Solar canopies are structures over parking lots that provide shade to parked cars and generate electricity through solar panels on top. While the state law wouldn’t have required localities to include this idea in local ordinances, it would have empowered localities that wanted to do so. 

Though the bill passed with bipartisan support, it was ultimately vetoed. 

Mahmoud Khalil still detained in notorious Louisiana detention center as case is moved to New Jersey

By Bobbi-Jean Misick 

After former Columbia University student and permanent U.S. resident Mahmoud Khalil was detained by federal immigration officials over his involvement in student-led protests last year — a move that shocked advocates for free speech and immigrants’ rights around the country — he was taken to Jena, a small town of 4,000 in north-central Louisiana and home to one of the country’s largest and most notorious immigration detention centers. 

Since last week, Khalil — a Syrian-born Palestinian and permanent U.S. resident— has been locked up in the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center, a privately-run immigration lockup with an average daily detainee population of nearly 1,200. 

Though the center’s surroundings appear peaceful and idyllic — tucked into a tall pine forest on the edge of town —  it has a troubled past that includes allegations of abuse and sexual assault, excessive use of force, overuse of solitary confinement, medical mistreatment or neglect and unfit living conditions. 

Earlier this month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Khalil in the lobby of his Columbia University apartment building, took him to New Jersey and quickly transferred him to Jena, more than 1,000 miles away from his pregnant wife, who is a U.S. citizen, and his attorneys in New York. 

Civil rights lawyers who work with immigrants locked up in Louisiana’s detention centers say they are concerned for Khalil, given the Jena facility’s unsettling history. However, they say they are not surprised that ICE transferred Khalil to Louisiana, where access to counsel is extremely limited, and where the courts skew conservative.

In a phone interview with Verite News last week, Anthony Enriquez, vice president of U.S. advocacy and litigation at civil rights nonprofit RFK Human Rights, said the Trump Administration is “forum shopping” Khalil’s deportation case — looking for the jurisdiction that will give the government the outcome it wants. 

“The government has the ability to do that with immigration,” Enriquez said. “It can arrest someone in a jurisdiction where the case law is very favorable to the person arrested, and then sweep them away to another jurisdiction.” 

Khalil’s attorneys are eager to get the case, and Khalil, out of Louisiana. On Monday (March 17), his attorneys asked a federal judge to transfer the case. On Wednesday, the judge obliged, ordering the case transferred to New Jersey. The New York Times reported that the order would not have an immediate effect on where he is being detained. A federal judge in New Jersey will have to make a decision on whether to transfer him out of Louisiana.

Khalil’s legal team did not respond to requests for comment. 

Representatives from the Department of Justice, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests from Verite News for comment on Khalil’s case or on immigration detention centers in Louisiana. 

‘The black hole’

Nora Ahmed, legal director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said she has visited Khalil in Jena since he was transferred there — a four hour drive from her office in New Orleans. 

She stressed the challenge that Louisiana’s “handful” of immigration attorneys who represent immigrants in detention face getting to their clients in remote areas. 

The Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center, where Khalil is detained, is more than 100 miles from Baton Rouge, the closest major city. 

“[Louisiana is] the place where you can cut off from outside eyes,” Enriquez said. “That’s the place where you can ensure that they won’t have access to lawyers or to advocates.”

Court filings reveal Khalil’s wife, Noor Abdalla, who cannot fly to Louisiana as she is in the last stage of pregnancy, is concerned about her husband’s well-being in Jena. She said her husband, who is Muslim and fasting for Ramadan, is finding it hard to sustain himself on the food provided to him after he breaks his fast at the end of each day. According to Abdalla, Khalil did not receive his daily medication for an ulcer until two days after he arrived in Jena. 

“I also worry about Mahmoud braving this period of detention,” Abdalla said in a sworn statement of support. “I cannot overstate how distressing this entire experience has been. … This experience has flipped our lives upside down.” 

The Jena facility, operated by private prison corporation GEO Group – ICE’s single largest private contractor – has been plagued with allegations of abuse and mistreatment since the late 1990s when it opened as a juvenile correctional center. In 2000, the federal government closed the facility, operated when GEO Group went by a different name, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, for “excessive abuse and neglect,” including the use of chemical weapons on children. 

Last year, the ACLU of Louisiana and RFK Human Rights co-produced a report on the Louisiana immigration detention system called “Inside the Black Hole” that featured information gathered from interviews with more than 6,000 detainees over roughly two years. Prominent features of the report include prison-like settings, inadequate mental health and medical care, allegations of human rights abuses, and extremely limited access to language interpretation services and to attorneys.

Immigrants detained at the Jena facility reported rodent droppings on the facility’s kitchen surfaces, human excrement in a shower area and allegations of prolonged isolation leading to medical and mental health distress. 

In one example, detainees in Jena told interviewers they had to clean sewage in their cells without protective gear after toilets and drains overflowed in an isolation unit.

“The smell was unbearable. It burned my eyes and made it almost impossible to breathe,” the report quoted one man saying. “The sewage sat there for hours until we were given towels to clean it ourselves. They didn’t even give us gloves.” 

In 2023, Verite News reported on a Nicaraguan man who filed at least 29 grievancesagainst different aspects of his conditions of confinement before he died after suffering a heart attack inside the facility. And last year Verite News reported on federal oversight bodies findings that staff at the Jena detention center violated the civil rights of a Columbian man with epilepsy, by repeatedly assigning him to an upper bunk, threatening his well-being. 

The GEO Group did not respond to a request for comment.

This article originally appeared in Verite News on March 21st, 2025

Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!   

Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:

Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard

X/Twitter: @_charlesbrooks