Groups helping LGBTQ+ victims of violence could face a catastrophic loss of federal funding

Feb 26, 2025 Mel Leonor Barclay, Jasmine Mithani

This story was originally reported by Mel Leonor Barclay and Jasmine Mithani of The 19th. Meet Mel and Jasmine and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Organizations that provide services to LGBTQ+ victims of domestic and intimate partner violence expect much of the federal funding they rely on to dry up as the Trump administration’s executive orders target the work they have been carrying out for years.

Some received direct notices from the federal government to stop work that promotes what the administration is calling “gender ideology extremism” and to include disclaimers on their websites that the federal government doesn’t support their mission. 

Federal grants make up significant shares of operating budgets for many domestic violence nonprofits, and losing that funding puts their continued existence at risk. 

Groups that focus specifically on LGBTQ+ victims are part of a broader network of federally funded nonprofits that provide life-saving counseling, housing and legal aid to people experiencing violence from spouses, partners or family members. Some nonprofits also train social workers, therapists and lawyers in how to work sensitively with LGBTQ+ victims of violence. 

The White House has promised to slash funding for programs that don’t align with the administration’s ideology on gender, race and immigration.

Domestic violence groups and the broader network of gender-based violence nonprofits have been on high alert since a temporary federal freeze in late January, as The 19th reported this month. The vague language of President Donald Trump’s executive orders — “illegal” diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility activities; “gender ideology extremism” — has left organizations scrambling to figure out if they stand to lose federal funding.

Some are trying to protect their funding by removing language or resources that they fear may be at odds with the executive orders. The people leading groups founded specifically to support LGBTQ+ people say that for them, there is no hiding: The executive orders specifically target the people they are focused on serving.

“Some groups are making an effort to kind of change the way they talk about their services and the populations they serve. Our organization literally has the words gay and lesbian in our IRS name — we’re not fooling anybody. And obscuring what we do and who we serve doesn’t help those services stay accessible,” said Audacia Ray, the interim executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project, officially the New York City Gay And Lesbian Anti-Violence Project Inc., which supports LGBTQ+ and HIV-affected victims of violence.

LGBTQ+ Americans, with the exception of gay men, are more likely to have experienced domestic violence, partner abuse or dating violence than cisgender and heterosexual people.  Queer women are significantly more likely to have experienced intimate-partner violence in their lifetime than straight women, according to an analysis of federal survey data by the Human Rights Campaign. 

Transgender people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime than cisgender people, according to research from the Williams Institute at UCLA. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the 2015 U.S. Trans Survey — the most recent data available — said they have experienced intimate partner violence, and 47 percent reported being sexually assaulted. Transgender people are also more likely to experience severe physical intimate partner violence than the average American. 

Nonprofits serving victims of violence have long relied on federal funding, especially since the Violence Against Women Act created specialized grant programs 30 years ago. They receive little support from private philanthropy: Most recent data from the Equitable Giving Lab shows about 0.1 percent of charitable giving in the United States goes toward LGBTQ+ causes, and less than 2 percent goes toward women and girls. 

“The danger of this moment is that it becomes very nebulous to people how federal funding contributes to the basic social safety net. There aren’t donors. There isn’t all this money,” said the executive director of a regional nonprofit serving LGBTQ+ victims of violence that receives about 40 percent of its funding from the federal government. The organization helps offer shelter and direct cash assistance, among other services, to LGBTQ+ people fleeing violence. 

The executive director spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear that their organization would be targeted further by the Trump administration.

“When people are facing imminent threat of being murdered, and there are no resources to give people funding to flee that situation … it is going to result in more death. Truly, I believe that.” 

The need for targeted LGBTQ+ services

Nonprofits focused specifically on LGBTQ+ communities sprung up to meet the specific needs of this population, which experiences higher incidences of violence and also discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual orientation. 

Specialized resources for LGBTQ+ survivors are dearly needed: A 2017 survey of LGBTQ+ survivors who received services from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs showed that 43 percent of LGBTQ+ intimate partner violence survivors were denied entry to a shelter; of those denied, a third were refused entry due to their gender identity. 

LGBTQ+ people are vulnerable to abuse related to their identity, including threats of outing that could cost them housing, jobs or other relationships. Queer survivors are often isolated from typical support systems like family who could help them in an abusive situation. Transgender people are more likely to be killed by intimate partner violence, and the risk is increased for people of color, especially Black trans women. 

Groups focused on LGBTQ+ survivors serve as a critical safety net for LGBTQ+ victims, often accepting referrals from national and local groups without tailored resources. The Hotline, a national nonprofit that supports victims of domestic violence, describes the “fear of not receiving services” as an obstacle “to reaching safety that LGBTQ+ people might confront.” It offers referrals to service providers focused on LGBTQ+ people – the same providers that are now staring down the loss of federal funding. 

Given the executive orders, “there’s no universe in which some of the work doesn’t take a hit. I feel very clear about that,” said Ray of the New York City Anti-Violence Project. And at the same time, “we have to be able to answer the phone and support our community, who’s directly impacted by all this violence.”

NYCAVP runs a 24/7 hotline for victims of violence, as well as free long-term counseling, legal services and connections to support groups. About two-thirds of the organization’s budget comes from a mix of federal, state and local government grants. Most of its funding comes from programs targeting “underserved communities.” 

Ray said that the New York City Anti-Violence Project, in addition to offering direct services to victims, including through its hotline, also spends resources advocating and advising lawmakers on legislation affecting LGBTQ+ people. For example, NYCAVP helped shape the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, the first federal funding statute that banned discrimination based on actual or perceived gender identity and sexual orientation. 

“My immediate thought was we will do what we do as long as we can, and we’re not preemptively laying people off or shutting anything down,” Ray said. 

“We have a couple different contingency plans around, ‘What are the services that we need to prioritize and center, and how do we continue to do that as long as possible?’”

The executive director who spoke on condition of anonymity said their organization connected with more than 600 LGBTQ+ people facing abuse and violence in the past year. Some came as referrals from domestic and intimate partner violence organizations that weren’t equipped to serve them, or who were working with a victim needing relocation to a state less hostile to LGBTQ+ people. “It’s kind of like an informal witness protection program,” they said.  

Without federal funding, they said, their ability to help these victims will significantly shrink. 

How nonprofits are fighting back

In a lawsuit filed Thursday by Lambda Legal on behalf of nine nonprofits that receive federal funding, the plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration’s executive orders, including the order calling for the end of federal funding for activities that promote “gender ideology extremism,” amount to “an existential threat to transgender people.” They argue the orders are unconstitutional because they violate the groups’ free speech, due process and equal protection rights. 

“The executive orders force plaintiffs to silence their speech and viewpoints… that are not only of great societal importance but also central to plaintiffs’ missions… or forgo federal funding,” the complaint reads. “That choice is an impossible one.”

Among the plaintiffs suing Trump is FORGE, one of the only organizations in the country focused on supporting transgender people experiencing intimate partner violence. FORGE trains providers who assist transgender and nonbinary survivors of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and hate crimes. The 30-year-old organization also connects victims with wellness services.

According to the case filing, 90 percent of FORGE’s funding is derived from federal grants, the highest out of any listed plaintiff. It has received grants from a wide range of agencies including the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health. 

Several other plaintiffs that received funds from HHS programs, according to the complaint,  were sent notices in late January to “immediately terminate, to the maximum extent, all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts promoting ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’” or, separately, “gender ideology.”

“Trans and nonbinary people are scared and hurting – not only from the high levels of violence so many of us experience every day, but also because of the dehumanizing, erasing, and damaging impact of the Executive Orders. For the past 30 years, FORGE has been committed to serving trans survivors of sexual assault, stalking, and hate-fueled harm. We are not going anywhere,” michael munson, executive director of FORGE, said in a statement. “Conditioning federal funding on rejecting transgender identity and DEI not only harms trans people, but it also creates a world that is less safe and less free for us all.”

Deleting language and resources

The National LGBTQ Institute on Intimate Partner Violence urged fellow providers to “hold the line together” and stand in solidarity with LGBTQ+, immigrant and BIPOC survivors in an email obtained by The 19th. The missive explicitly called upon organizations to continue serving LGBTQ+ survivors, to not take down materials tailored to the queer community and to keep pronouns on public-facing materials. It also cited previous reporting from The 19th detailing how some groups removed mentions of LGBTQ+ people from their websites.

“For organizations that have removed LGBTQ+ materials, we encourage that these materials be restored,” the statement read. “We urge organizations to not cede our collective power as a movement and back down in our work to protect LGBTQ+ survivors.”

The group reminded organizations in its network that federal law — the same law that the New York City Anti-Violence Center helped pass — makes it illegal to discriminate based on actual or perceived gender identity or sexual orientation. “These federal non-discrimination policies remain in place and give us power to protect transgender survivors in the work that we do,” the organization said. 

The Los Angeles LGBT Center, where the institute is housed, declined to speak on the record, citing the current lawsuit.

Several days later, Respect Together, the umbrella organization of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center and the Pennsylvania Coalition to Advance Respect, publicly apologized for removing resources for LGBTQ+ people from their websites. 

“Federal and state funding accounts for the vast majority of our operational budget, and as a result, we acted too swiftly to the news from the current administration,” the apology reads. “We heard you, and recognize that this was the wrong choice,” CEO Yolanda Edrington said in the statement. “We are committed to rebuilding trust, learning from this experience, and ensuring that our actions align with our mission to support survivors of all communities, their allies, and advocates.”

The Hotline, which had deactivated a page on LGBTQ+ resources earlier this month, has now restored it. The organization did not respond to a request for comment on the restoration, but told The 19th earlier this month that it was reviewing its website to protect its federal funding.

Even if groups commit to still serve all people in need, regardless of identity, removing resources adds friction. Visibility and ease of navigating resources when you are in need of services is important, said Tandra LaGrone, the CEO of In Our Own Voices, a nonprofit supporting LGBTQ+ people of color in upstate New York, which has received a grant from the Office on Violence Against Women.

The erasure of information can lead victims to feel like they are at fault, LaGrone said.

Ray said that it’s a big risk to not change their organization’s public-facing content in anticipation of a potential loss of funding, but they think holding steady is the right thing to do. Backing down won’t reduce violence, they said. 

“I really believe that complying in advance of direct demands and being forced to change those programs is contributing to the overall violence against LGBT people,” Ray said. “That sort of advance compliance is extremely worrisome to me, because it shows that those orgs are concerned about the org as an institution more than they’re concerned about the community as a directly impacted population.”

News For DOD Employees About Tomorrow, And More

Termination Spree Begins Friday for DOD Civilians

By Josh Marshall | February 26, 2025 10:01 p.m.

Reviewing a directive from DCPAS Director Daniel J. Hester. This applies to DOD civilian personnel. On Friday the 28th, they “must terminate the employment of all individuals who are currently serving probationary or trial periods in the DOD.” The document lists categories of exception: positions “designated mission critical,” “political appointees.” There are a few other technical exception categories. Document signed yesterday.

==========================================================

You Must Read This: Uproar Over Malicious and Disastrous Cuts at VA

By Josh Marshall | February 26, 2025 6:43 p.m.

Yesterday I saw a video from VA Secretary Doug Collins (former member of Congress from Georgia) bragging about how they were cutting $2 billion worth of what were clearly, in his estimation, worthless and stupid contracts. They were in fact almost one thousand different contracts tied to everything from medical and burial services to cancer prevention and doctor recruiting programs. I’ve posted that video below. This afternoon I received this email from a longtime reader …

I’m a contractor working for a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) for 15 years. I’ve worked on projects with the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. During that time, I’ve run marketing campaigns to get veterans to enroll in healthcare, conducted program evaluations and process improvement efforts, and provided strategic communications support.

I’ve been very proud of my work and the VA mission. But today I’m devastated. My contract was one of more than 800 that were canceled last night. The cancellations were not based on any evaluation. DOGE appears to have simply identified all professional services contracts and canceled them.

The cancellations will not only have a terrible impact on VHA healthcare, it will destroy hundreds of SDVOSBs because a great deal of VA contracts go to SDVOSBs. I don’t know how Republicans in Congress can let this destruction continue when so many of them profess to care deeply about veterans.

This afternoon, VA appears to have reversed course, now saying their going to review and potentially reverse at least some of the cancellations. “Under pressure, VA halts contract cancellations in major reversal” reads the WaPo headline. It goes on: “Records show the 875 contracts at issue included support for medical and burial services, cancer programs, and efforts to recruit doctors for critical vacancies.”

“I don’t have a lot of hope that they’ll reverse many,” the TPM Reader followed up.

Here’s the Collins video.

==================================================

Oversight?: Trump NIH Pick Fails to Include Big Award From Major Right-Wing Group On Financial Disclosure by Walker Bragman

Jay Bhattacharya won the $250,000 Bradley Prize in 2024 but did not include it in his government filing. Read on Substack (snip-MORE)

==================================================

This Is How to Debunk the Onslaught of Disinformation

The last Trump administration might not have introduced the concept of disinformation, but 2.0 has taken propaganda to a new dangerous level. Are we better equipped to combat it this time around?

Brooke Binkowski Feb 26, 2025

Snippet:

But I have some ideas that might help. Here is what I have learned from my work as a debunker and a cross-border reporter with a background in breaking news, where you have to learn to protect yourself and your information:

  1. Limit the time you spend consuming news. The news cycle is being deliberately weaponized to make you feel hopeless in ways that many journalists are unable or unwilling to understand and mitigate at the moment.
  2. Limit your time on social media unless you can have trusted private networks. And even then don’t talk about anything unlawful. Save those conversations for face-to-face meetings.
  3. Embrace physical media. Write things down. Send letters to each other. No, really.
  4. It’s possible to step up and help when others won’t. We can learn from previous disasters and do better, if we work together.
  5. Find and form trusted mutual aid networks.
  6. Support your local libraries.
  7. Do not waste your time appealing to authority that has demonstrated they are unwilling to fight for you. Fact-checking is always important, but it is only effective on its own in a healthy democracy. We are not in a healthy democracy.
  8. Learn your regional history, particularly unresolved crimes against humanity such as slavery and genocide. Learn about vulnerable groups and how they are treated. Often, those painful histories are leveraged in the service of disinformation campaigns. Listen to marginalized people.
  9. Follow people online who you have already observed having integrity. Give people the benefit of the doubt if you hear rumors. Do not give them the benefit of the doubt if you observe them engaging in bad behavior.
  10. Toss toxic people out of your trusted networks.
  11. Keep a journal. Write a few words in it every day, if you can; it doesn’t need to be a long letter to yourself.  Writing down your thoughts will help you remember what you want to remember, and it will also provide you with a bulwark against weapons-grade gaslighting.
  12. Take breaks and find joy somehow. This is going to really suck. Find or make a haven for yourself if you possibly can.
  13. Take care of your health. Don’t forget to rest, eat, and hydrate. Find a place you can retreat and shut out the rest of the world if you have to.
  14. Spend time with your loved ones.
  15. Stand up for each other, even when it’s hard. (And it will be hard.)

We can get through this. But in order to do so, we all have to work together to debunk poisonous lies and preserve our memories and our thoughts, because that’s how we build resilience, real resilience, the type that gives us what we need in order to bounce back from the heartbreak and tragedies of the last few years and whatever is to come. We can do that if we work together, and the time to do so is now. 

Some News Of The Effects Of The Republican Government Cuts

The Cultists Are Restless

Published by digby on February 26, 2025

Media Matters is documenting comments from callers on right wing radio. Here are some of them:

Fox host and loyal Trump ally Sean Hannity told a listener who was pleading for the jobs of military vets in the federal government that “there will be other opportunities.” The caller elaborated on their experience: “One of our tenants just recently got laid off from the USDA, and he’s a stable vet, multiple deployments overseas. And yeah, the guy is without a job now, and I’m just afraid that, you know, stuff like this is going to get out there.” The caller noted Hannity’s “soft spot for military and police and EMS and all those guys” and said that it’s “just a little concerning that we don’t let these guys, you know, fall off the wagon here and get neglected, because they’ve done so much for our country.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show, 2/21/25]

Another caller to Hannity’s show asked him to stand up for “rank and file” agents: “This appears to be a misstep in the wrong direction.” Hannity responded by saying, “There are going to have to be hard questions for rank and file members in terms of their priority and whether or not they challenged some of the higher-ups.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show, 2/5/25]

A listener called into The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show to say that they are “not happy with his [Trump’s] recent comments on Ukraine.” Travis appeared to cut the caller off, asking of Russia’s war with Ukraine, “How do you think this should end?” [OutKick, The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, 2/21/25]

A caller into Hannity’s show who described themselves as a “strong supporter of this administration” pleaded for advice with the firings: “How do you make life decisions?” Hannity responded by saying, “The main focus is going to be on limiting the bureaucracy. How many of these jobs are redundant? … Just make yourself as essential as possible.” The caller elaborated: “Mr. Musk talks about cutting, you know, $2 trillion. Well, that’s beyond what the entire discretionary budget every year is, you know, roughly 1.7, 1.8 for discretionary. You would have to eliminate everything, the entire federal government to hit that.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show, 2/6/25]

A caller to The Alex Jones Show accused Trump of “lying” about birthright citizenship: “If they want to pass this, we’re going to get rid of 150 million U.S. citizens.” Jones responded by asking the caller if they like the “Chinese flying here one week before they have their baby, getting all their health care paid for?” The caller expressed that their “concern is I was born in this country.” [Infowars, The Alex Jones Show, 2/20/25] 

A Canadian listener called into Hannity’s radio show to discuss boycotts there against the U.S.: “You’ve disrespected us to this point, and we have to respond.” The caller told Hannity that Canadians are “buying Canadian” and are not going to Florida for vacation, concluding that the “boycott’s already begun.” Hannity retorted: “Who would be hurt worse by” a “boycott war” between the U.S. and Canada? [Premier Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 2/25/25]

A caller told Hannity, “I cannot agree with you on the Gaza situation.” They continued, “As far as making those people leave their land and not being able to return, that’s just totally wrong.” Hannity defended Trump’s plan as “rebuilding Gaza, creating jobs, [and] building innovation,” to which the caller responded “that’s not innovative. That’s racist,” because “the president said those people cannot return” and “most of these people don’t have anything to do with Hamas.” When Hannity claimed that “the people in Gaza voted in Hamas’ leadership,” the caller told him that “what you’re saying is that everybody there is a terrorist, and that’s racist.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 2/13/25]

A listener called into Hannity’s show to discuss their child’s cancer diagnosis and advocate for cancer research funding: “With the lack of funding, basically, all you get is parents like me who have had a kid with this, starting organizations and coming up with money to carry on the research for them. So that’s why I wanted to call and … advocate for research.” Hannity responded by arguing that “most of the solutions for cancer are going to be found in the private sector, not with public money.” The caller noted that “with such a small number of kids getting this [cancer diagnosis], yeah, it’s definitely something that doesn’t get looked at as much.” Hannity responded that “even if the government spent … $300 million on this particular cancer tomorrow, it’s not going to be your answer.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 2/12/25]

Chris Stigall, host of The Chris Stigall Podcast, noted that he’s received “quite a bit of outreach from you federal workers.” He read one email from a listener who remarked that “it’s difficult to get beyond your disrespect and disregard for federal employees.” Stigall noted that the email is “not the only one of these that I got on both X and in email.” Stigall responded to the reader’s email: “I’m going to talk to you like an adult here for a minute. Grow up. Grow up. If you work for the federal government, you need to grow up, respectfully.” [The Chris Stigall Podcast, 2/24/25]

A caller to Fox host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show accused Trump of trying to “bribe” people with DOGE dividends. The caller noted, “The last tax break that Trump gave was $1.9 trillion and 65% with the people making over a $130,000 a year. … If you’re going to get after the excess spending, you have to go after a military waste and the rich — make the rich pay. Instead, he’s trying out for a $5,000 bribe to people.” [Fox News Radio, Brian Kilmeade Show, 2/21/25] 

A caller to Fox host Mark Levin’s radio show makes impassioned plea concerning the legal status of his fiancé: “We’ve been planning on getting married now for a few months. And it seems like I’ve read on the news now that, if you were paroled into the United States, you can’t file any forms, for immigration.” The caller also expressed concern with people turning against Ukraine, where his fiancé and her family are from. [Westwood One, The Mark Levin Show, 2/19/25]

It’s interesting because these shows have screeners so I assume they wanted their audiences to hear these complaints so that the hosts could knock them down. I don’t think they actually did. Those retorts are lame and I would guess that a lot of listeners get that.

The best way to make people understand what’s going on is to relay real stories of real people being affected by this chaotic purge. I’m surprised they are even letting them on the air. They have to realize that even allowing them to voice their pain is a mistake but it’s entirely possible they are so filled with bravado and hubris that they think their lame rationales will be convincing. And in fairness, they probably are to quite a few of their listeners. But I doubt it’s convincing to everyone.

The Republican party understands this and they have a plan:

House Republicans are becoming weary and wary of in-person town hall meetings after a number of lawmakers have faced hometown crowds angry about the Trump administration’s push to slash government programs and staffing.

Party leaders suggest that if lawmakers feel the need to hold such events, they do tele-town halls or at least vet attendees to avoid scenes that become viral clips, according to GOP sources.

A GOP aide said House Republican leaders are urging lawmakers to stop engaging in them altogether.

The town halls, and the rash of negative headlines, have been the first bit of public blowback for members who face voters next year. And the new reluctance to hold them indicates there are bubbling concerns about the impact the cuts could have on the GOP’s chances of holding its thin majority in the House next year.

The viral nature of video clips spreading from one district to another means a bad confrontation in safe Republican territory could influence voters in battlegrounds.

Good luck with that. Pissed off people are not going to be silenced. They should know that having been the beneficiaries of the Tea Party back in 2010.

By the way, in that mid-term, the Democrats lost 53 House seats and six Senate seats. That was after Obama had won by a huge margin compared to Trump last November. I don’t know that such a landslide can be possible in these days but you never know. I certainly wouldn’t bet on them holding their majority in any case. (snip)

Peace & Justice History for 2/27

February 27, 1939
 
Flint sit-down strikers, 1937
The Supreme Court outlawed sit-down strikes in its decision NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. Such strikes had become a very effective strategy employed by workers to organize unions. The 1937 Flint sit-down strike of autoworkers against General Motors forced GM to recognize the United Auto Workers as the representative of its hourly employees, and negotiate wages and working conditions.
The text of the Supreme Court’s decision: 
February 27, 1973
Hundreds of Oglala Lakota Sioux and members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) occupied the village of Wounded Knee, South Dakota.
Angered over a long history of violated treaties, mistreatment, family dismemberment, cultural destruction, discrimination, and impoverishment through confiscation of resources, they particularly demanded the U.S. live up to the terms of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. That treaty recognized the Sioux as an independent nation in the western half of South Dakota. Additionally, there had been a recent campaign of harassment and violence by tribal and FBI officials. Wounded Knee was chosen because of the 1890 massacre there of several hundred men, women and children by U.S. troops. The occupation lasted until May.


The Fort Laramie Treaty
 What happened at Wounded Knee

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryfebruary.htm#february27

Spot On!

This Is A Ray Of Hope!

I wrote and called and called and wrote, so many times. 🌞 Via Death Penalty Action:

Supreme Court orders new trial for death row inmate in Oklahoma

Updated February 25, 20254:57 PM ET 

Heard on All Things Considered Nina Totenberg

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the conviction and death penalty for Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man who has maintained his innocence for more than a quarter century, and who came so close to execution that he three times ate what was supposed to be his “last meal.”

Glossip has been tried and convicted twice and lost multiple appeals, including one at the Supreme Court, where Justice Samuel Alito dismissed his claim as nothing but a “stalling tactic.”

But on Tuesday, three of the court’s conservatives joined the court’s three liberals in concluding that prosecutors had denied Glossip a fair trial, not once, but twice.

The six-justice court majority said that prosecutors had violated Glossip’s rights by concealing evidence helpful to the defense — including information about the drug use and mental status of the prosecution’s star witness, and by persuading that witness to change his testimony when it conflicted with his prior testimony.

Glossip’s lawyer, Don Knight, said his client is “beyond thrilled,” noting that “He actually has a future that’s not going to be on death row.”

Prosecutors never contended that Glossip himself bludgeoned motel owner Barry Van Trease to death with a baseball bat. Rather, they ultimately settled on the theory that Glossip, who managed the motel, commissioned handyman Justin Sneed to murder Van Trease. The alleged motive being, alternately, to steal a wad of cash from the owner, or to conceal embezzlement of funds.

There was no physical evidence to tie Glossip to the crime, so prosecutors initially offered to take the death penalty off the table if he testified against handyman Sneed. But when Glossip continued to maintain his innocence, the prosecution offered the deal instead to Sneed, who was sentenced to life in prison, while Glossip was convicted and sentenced to die.

The case, in many ways, is as remarkable as a True Crime mini-series. Most extraordinary is that Glossip’s Supreme Court appeal was supported by Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a conservative Republican and supporter of the death penalty. After two separate independent investigations found that both Glossip trials had been tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, Drummond took the very rare step of formally asking for a new trial.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, however, refused to accept the attorney general’s so-called “confession of error,” and the state court maintained that its decision was not reviewable in federal court.

On Tuesday the Supreme Court vociferously disagreed. Writing for the Court majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the prosecutors had violated their constitutional obligation to correct false testimony elicited from Sneed, the only witness to tie Glossip directly to the crime. The obligation to correct such false testimony, the court observed, is a clear violation of the court’s precedents dating back more than 65 years.

Joining Sotomayor in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and, for the most part, Amy Coney Barrett.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented and accused the majority of bending “the law at every turn to grant relief to Glossip.” Justice Thomas said that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that Sneed’s false testimony did not significantly alter the outcome for Glossip anyway.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was recused from the case, presumably because it came before the appeals court he served on prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court.

Much of the credit for Tuesday’s win goes to to Attorney General Drummond, said defense attorney Knight. “Only he had the courage to say, ‘we’re not going to continue to try to kill this man.’ That’s a tremendous amount of political courage for a man who is now running for governor as well. He saw something that was wrong and he tried to make it right, and he did.” (Emphasis mine-A.)

Peace & Justice History for 2/25

February 25, 1941
A general strike was called in Amsterdam to protest Nazi persecution of Jews under the German Nazi occupation. The previous weekend 425 Jewish men and boys had been imprisoned (only two survived the war). Truck drivers, dock and metal workers, civil servants and factory employees — Christians, Liberals, Social Democrats and Communists — answered the call and brought the city to a standstill. The work stoppages spread to Zaanstreek, Kennemerland and Utrecht.
Two days later the strike was called off: nine people were dead, 50 injured and another 200 arrested, some of whom were to die in the concentration camps.

“The Dokwerker” is a statue by sculptor Mari Andriessen in Amsterdam’s Jonas Daniel Meyer Square commemorating the February 1941 strike. It is frequently the rallying point for demonstrations against racism.
Read more   (pdf)
February 25, 1968
Discussing the war capacity of North Vietnam, a country that had been fighting for its independence for 23 years and had just staged the massive, successful Tet Offensive, U.S. General William C. Westmoreland stated, “I do not believe Hanoi can hold up under a long war.”
He was replaced as commander in Vietnam less than four months later.

Vietnam commander General William Westmoreland meeting with President Lyndon Johnson
Westmoreland’s life and career  (It’s NYT’s obit.)
February 25, 1971
Legislation was introduced in both houses of Congress to forbid U.S. military support of any South Vietnamese invasion of North Vietnam without prior congressional approval. This bill was a result of the controversy that arose following the invasion of Laos by South Vietnamese forces.
On February 8, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam had launched a major cross-border operation into Laos to interdict activity along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and destroy the North Vietnamese supply dumps in the area. The Ho Chi Minh Trail, named for the leader of North Vietnam, was an informal network of jungle trails down which supplies came from the north, supplying insurgents and troops in the south.
February 25, 1986
The newly elected Philippine president, Corazón Aquino, was sworn in, bringing to an end years of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos. In the face of massive demonstrations against his rule, President Ferdinand Marcos and his entourage had been airlifted from the presidential palace in Manila by U.S. helicopters.
February 25, 2011
A Day of Rage saw demonstrations across the Middle East. Protesters in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Bahrain showed their support variously for an end to corruption and income inequality, political reform and better public services, and the replacement of long-running dictatorships with democratic regimes.

Day of Rage in Taiz, Yemen
Reports from throughout the region 

https://www.peacebuttons.info/E-News/peacehistoryfebruary.htm#february25

Work To Do, Indeed, And A Great Week In Which To Do It!

It Is Here.

(Also you are beautiful, and you should never stop existing. -A)

Hunter Schafer on why she spoke out about being issued a male passport

By  KRYSTA FAURIA Updated 7:34 PM CST, February 23, 2025

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) — Hunter Schafer says “it’s important to just keep track of where things are in our country,” a day after the “Euphoria” star posted a video in which she revealed her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker.

Speaking to The Associated Press on the red carpet at the Independent Spirit Awards on Saturday, the 26-year-old actor, who is trans, said she felt “it was a good, necessary point” to share. Schafer, also a presenter at the award show, was nominated for best lead performance for “Cuckoo. ”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office instituting a new and narrow federal government definition of the sexes. As part of the order, the federal government defines sex as only male or female and says that must be reflected on official documents, like passports. The State Department, responsible for passports, is no longer issuing passports with the “X” marker that’s been available since 2021 and is not honoring requests to change gender markers between “M” and “F.”

In an 8 ½-minute video posted to TikTok on Friday, Schafer, who transitioned as a young teen, said the passport that was meant to carry her well into her 30s was stolen while she was filming in Spain. After receiving an emergency passport, she later had to apply for a new, permanent one in Los Angeles. Having had female gender markers on her license and passport since she was a teenager, Schafer marked “female” on her application — but received a passport that identified her as male, she said. In the video, she said she had not had her birth certificate amended.

Schafer acknowledged the executive order in her TikTok video: “Because our president, you know, is a lot of talk, I was like, ‘I’ll believe it when I see it.’ And, today, I saw it,” Schafer said, holding up her new passport page with the “M” marker. She said she was making the video not to “fearmonger or like create drama or receive consolation,” but to note the reality of the situation.

“I wasn’t even really looking for support, but I have an amazing community around me and it’s one of the greatest blessings of my life and so I felt very supported throughout, before and then now,” she told the AP on Saturday.

The State Department said in response to a request for comment that it was implementing Trump’s executive order but declined to comment on specific cases, citing privacy laws and restrictions.

“It doesn’t really change anything about me or my transness. However, it does make my life a little harder,” Schafer said in the video, saying she has to travel for the first time with the new passport next week.

“Trans people are beautiful. We are never going to stop existing. I’m never going to stop being trans. A letter and a passport can’t change that,” she concluded.

Associated Press journalist Andrew Dalton contributed reporting.

I Have Read and Re-Read This Article. I Think It’s Important to Share It. It’s Not Too Long-It’s Fascinating!

‘It allowed us to survive, to not go mad’: the CIA book smuggling operation that helped bring down communism

From George Orwell to Hannah Arendt and John le Carré, thousands of blacklisted books flooded into Poland during the cold war, as publishers and printers risked their lives for literature

Charlie English Sat 22 Feb 2025 04.00 ESTShare

The volume’s glossy dust jacket shows a 1970s computer room, where high priests of the information age, dressed in kipper ties and flares, tap instructions into the terminals of some ancient mainframe. The only words on the front read “Master Operating Station”, “Subsidiary Operating Station” and “Free Standing Display”. Is any publication less appetising than an out-of-date technical manual?

Turn inside, however, and the book reveals a secret. It isn’t a computer manual at all, but a Polish language edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell’s famous anti-totalitarian novel, which was banned for decades by communist censors in the eastern bloc.

This copy lives now in the library of Warsaw University, but for much of the cold war it belonged to the Polish writer and dissident Teresa Bogucka. It was Teresa’s father, the art critic Janusz Bogucki, who first brought it to Poland. In 1957, during a window of liberalisation that opened after Stalin’s death, Janusz picked up the Orwell translation from a Polish bookshop in Paris, smuggled it back through the border and gave it to his daughter. Teresa was only 10 or 11 years old then, but she was a precocious reader, and recognised the ways in which communist Poland mirrored Orwell’s fictional dystopian state: “It absolutely traumatised me,” she remembered.

Years later, in 1976, when Bogucka joined the emerging Polish opposition movement, she decided to create a library of books that had bypassed the state censor, and donated her own small collection, including this Nineteen Eighty-Four. The SB security service, Poland’s KGB, kept continual watch on her, eavesdropping on her conversations, arresting her and searching her apartment, so she asked neighbours to store the forbidden books. Much of the time, though, they would be circulating among readers, since this would be a “Flying Library”, which rarely touched the  ground.

Bogucka’s system of covert lending ran through a network of coordinators, each of whom was responsible for their own tight group of readers. She sorted the books into categories – politics, economics, history, literature – and divided them into packages of 10, before allocating each coordinator a particular day to pick up their parcel, which they carried away in a rucksack. The coordinator would drop the books back the following month at a different address, before picking up a new set.

The demand for Bogucka’s books was such that soon she needed more, and these could only come from the west. Activist friends passed word to London, where émigré publishers arranged shipments of 30 or 40 volumes at a time, smuggling them through the iron curtain aboard the sleeper trains that shuttled back and forth between Paris and Moscow, stopping in Poland along the way. By 1978, Teresa Bogucka’s Flying Library had a stock of 500 prohibited titles.

How many people read her copy of Orwell’s book in those crucial cold war years? Hundreds, probably thousands. And this was just one of millions of titles that arrived illegally in Poland at that time. As well as via trains, books arrived by every possible conveyance: aboard yachts; in secret compartments built into vans and trucks; by balloon; in the post. Mini-editions were slipped into the sheet music of touring musicians, or packed into food tins or Tampax boxes. In one instance, a copy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago was carried on a flight to Warsaw hidden in a baby’s nappy.

What some in the east suspected, but very few knew for sure, was that the uncensored literature flooding the country wasn’t reaching Poles by chance. It was sent as part of a decades-long US intelligence operation, known in Washington as the “CIA book program”, designed, in the words of the programme’s leader, George Minden, to assault the eastern bloc with an “offensive of free, honest thinking”. Minden believed that “truth is contagious”, and if they could only deliver it to the oppressed peoples of the Soviet zone, it was certain to have an effect.

From today’s vantage point, when disinformation threatens western liberal democracy as never before, and censorship and book bans are once again turning schools and libraries into ideological battlegrounds, the CIA literary programmes appear almost quaint. Although they had political goals, they must rank among the most highbrow of psychological warfare operations. Along with copies of the Manchester Guardian Weekly and the New York Review of Books, the CIA sent works by blacklisted authors such as Boris Pasternak, Czesław Miłosz and Joseph Brodsky, anti-totalitarian writings by Hannah Arendt and Albert Camus, literary fiction from Philip Roth and Kurt Vonnegut, writing advice from Virginia Woolf, the plays of Václav Havel and Bertolt Brecht, and the spy thrillers of John le Carré.

Later, as well as smuggling books, the CIA would fund and ship presses and printing equipment into Poland, so that the banned titles could be reproduced in huge quantities by underground printers in situ. Few individuals were more central to these latter operations than the dissident publisher Mirosław Chojecki, known to the CIA by the cryptonym QRGUIDE.

On a Tuesday evening in March 1980, the police came to arrest Chojecki for the 43rd time. Chojecki was 30 years old that night – a tall man, with a mane of red-brown hair. He lived with his family in a third-floor apartment in Żoliborz, a suburb of northern Warsaw, and was cooking dinner for his young son and talking to his father-in-law when they heard the door. There were three men outside, a local cop in the jackboots and grey tunic of the citizen’s militia, and two plainclothes SB agents. They flashed their badges and told him to get his coat. There was no explanation. He had just enough time to calm his crying son, grab a toothbrush and a pack of cigarettes, then they clapped handcuffs on his wrists and took him down to the police Fiat waiting on the road below.

They brought him to Mokotów jail, a house of terror to rival the KGB’s Lubyanka headquarters in Moscow, and put him in block III, a wing reserved for political prisoners. He had been here before, once for “vilifying the Polish People’s Republic” and again for “organising a criminal group with the aim of distributing illegal publications” – at least then he had known the reason for his detention. As the days dripped by, he and his cellmates talked politics and played chess with a set made from heavy black prison bread. He wasn’t allowed a lawyer.

At Easter, when he had been locked up for 10 days without being summoned to court or allowed to contact his family, he decided to take the path chosen by political prisoners everywhere: he would go on a hunger strike. Eight days later, when he had lost 8kg (17lb), the prison doctor announced that they would force-feed him. They inserted a hose into his mouth, pushing it in deep so that it scratched his oesophagus and made him gag, and poured in a sweet, fatty mush. Tears ran down his face, of helplessness, rage, revulsion. When the food was gone, the doctor whipped out the tube and left without a word.

Chojecki had not yet recovered when the guards returned and forced him to climb three landings to an interrogation room, where an intelligence officer was waiting. It was Lieutenant Chernyshevsky, an old sparring partner.

How was he feeling, Chernyshevsky asked?

“Bad.”

“Do you know that there is a printing house on Reymonta Street?”

Chojecki didn’t answer.

“Do you have Jan Nowak’s book Courier from Warsaw? If so, where, when and how did you come into possession of it and what is your relationship with the author?”

There were more questions in this vein, all about the underground press. Chojecki gave the same response to each: as long as he didn’t know what the evidence was against him, they had nothing to discuss.

Realising the interrogation was pointless, Chernyshevsky brought it to an end. He offered the prisoner a cigarette, then the guards took Chojecki back to his cell.

Of course he knew all about Nowak’s outlawed text. His publishing house had just printed it. It was, he said later, one of the best books they had ever produced.


Unlike the Nazis, who burned books as a public ritual, in the Soviet system the destruction of literature was designed to be invisible. The lists of banned titles sent round to libraries and bookstores every year were secret. Works were pulped covertly. Allusions to censorship were not allowed. A list of prohibited publications from 1951 details 2,482 items, including 238 works of “outdated” sociopolitical literature and 562 books for children. Mostly these were proscribed for ideological reasons, but some rulings made little sense even within the bizarre logic of the party: a book about growing carrots was destroyed for implying that vegetables could sprout in individuals’ gardens, as well as in those run by collectives.

Chojecki was introduced to the idea of uncensored literature by Krystyna Starczewska, a teacher at his high school. “She got me interested,” he remembered. “She got me reading.” It wasn’t hard for Chojecki to find banned books, as his parents – war heroes who fought against the Nazis – were already plugged into dissident intellectual circles. He was never allowed much time with these publications as they had to be passed on to other readers. But the fragments he read, often overnight, were enough to sow the seeds of dissent.

The Main Office for the Control of the Press, Publications and Public Performances in Warsaw.
The Main Office for the Control of the Press, Publications and Public Performances in Warsaw. Photograph: Zbyszko Siemaszko/National Digital Archive

In 1976, when the government announced drastic increases in the state-controlled prices of food, workers went on strike, and the party responded as it always did, with violence. One victim recalled waking up from a beating with a broken nose and no teeth; another remembered seeing men beat a pregnant woman. The 1976 events turned a group of bookish young graduates into hardened opposition activists, and it didn’t take them long to realise they needed a public voice.

In spring 1977, Chojecki decided to focus on underground publishing. He wasn’t the only pioneer of illicit printing techniques, but the operation he led, the Independent Publishing House NOWa, grew to be the biggest and most successful in the underground. By Christmas they had published short runs of half a dozen books by blacklisted writers in Poland. Crucially, they also began to reprint editions of titles that were arriving from the west. The same books that were actively pushed by the CIA.

By the third week of his hunger strike, Chojecki’s body was shutting down. On 27 April 1980, the warden came to see him. This was a first: he had never heard of the head of the prison visiting an inmate in their cell before.

“How’s the starvation?” the warden asked.

“Very well.”

“Do you intend to starve for a long time?”

“Until I leave prison.”

“That’s five years.”

“Less.”

“Four and a half years?”

“A few days, Citizen Warden.”

The warden was wrong, as it turned out. Two weeks later, on Saturday 10 May, the order came through that Chojecki was to be released. He had been arrested in the snow; now the season had turned. As he squinted out from the shadow cast by the prison wall at the sunshine blazing down, he could pick out green shoots on the branches of the trees.

He had no appetite, but he knew he needed to eat. He struggled round the corner to a cafe, where he bought a small coffee and two doughnuts, and sat at a window table. He ate very slowly, savouring the sweet pastry with absolute delight. People passed by on the other side of the glass.

“They think they are free,” he thought.

The regime might have released him, but it was still determined to prosecute Chojecki. As he prepared for his moment in the dock, it was more important than ever for the dissidents to show that underground publishing operations would not be stopped. Five days before the court date, two young NOWa printers set out on a job that would turn into a cat-and-mouse game with the secret police.

The night before leaving for work, Jan Walc went through his pockets. In this line of business, you had to assume you would be caught, searched and interrogated, and he couldn’t be found with anything that would incriminate him or his friends. Next he packed a few essentials and took a long bath, knowing it would be his last for some time.

He knew where to meet his partner, Zenek Pałka. The only extra piece of information he needed was the time, and Pałka had given him that over the phone. Without saying his name, he had announced that they should get together at 11am on Monday 9 June. Walc recognised the voice. He also knew what the wiretap sergeant listening in didn’t: namely, that he had to subtract two from everything, so the rendezvous was set for 9am on Saturday 7 June. That morning, he said goodbye to his wife and young son and walked out into a humid Warsaw day.

Dissident publisher Mirosław Chojecki.
Dissident publisher Mirosław Chojecki. Photograph: Chojecki family

Leaving the building, Walc discreetly scanned the street. As a rule the secret police liked to watch your apartment or place of work and follow you from there, so if you didn’t pick up a tail right away, the prospects of avoiding one were good. All the same, he kept checking until he reached the cafe. Soon Pałka, a giant of a man with frizzy red hair, was settling into the seat next to him.

“Is the place far away?” Walc asked. Pałka took a paper serviette and wrote down an address before burning through the words with his cigarette. Then he passed on a few more details. Water came from a well, but they would need a week’s worth of food, since they couldn’t risk leaving the job to go shopping. The printing machine was a mimeograph made by AB Dick of Chicago. It had already been delivered to the house, along with a tonne and a half of paper, six full carloads. The job was to print several thousand copies of the civil society newsletter Information Bulletin, plus some pages for NOWa’s literary journal Pulse. They would need to buy 10 bottles of turpentine to run and clean the press.

By the time they’d packed all the food, they had no room for the solvent, so they stopped by at a friend’s place to borrow an extra bag. They didn’t realise he was under surveillance, and when they left his building they spotted a boxy grey Fiat saloon with three men inside which shadowed them as they walked along the road.

Reaching a tram stop, they saw the Fiat pull into a side road and park illegally, a sure sign it was the secret police, and when the tram arrived and the printers boarded, two plainclothes agents jumped out of the car and ran across the street, climbing up behind them. All four men now sat in the same streetcar as it rattled towards Zawisza Square. The Fiat kept pace alongside.

How to get rid of them? As they reached a stop, the printers saw the Fiat was boxed in at the traffic lights, and they took their chance, leaving the tram at the last minute. When the lights changed and the unmarked car had to pull away, Walc and Pałka were hurrying in a different direction, towards the railway station. A part of their tail was lost, but the other two agents had been alert and were keeping pace behind them as they ran down the station platform.

The agents were close as they boarded a train for Warsaw Central. Walc made a show of placing his bags on the luggage rack, but as the doors closed Pałka jammed his leg between them and slipped out. Walc now had the two remaining agents to himself. His job was to drag them around long enough for Pałka to prepare the next move. The men were behind him as he left the train at Warsaw Central and ducked into the warren of passages beneath the station. He knew police radios wouldn’t work down here. He ordered a Coke at a bar, bought some cigarettes, browsed the shops. When 20 minutes had passed, he emerged and headed for the taxi rank. He could see one of the men talking into his lapel as he climbed into a cab.

Warsaw’s Poniatowski Bbridge is as much a viaduct as a river crossing, the roadway linked to the streets below by a series of stone staircases. Speeding east, Walc gave the driver his instructions. Midway along the viaduct, the taxi came to a sudden halt, and the printer dived out and ran down the steps to the street below.

The chasing agents pulled up behind and raced down in pursuit, but as they reached the lower level Walc was already climbing into another cab, where Pałka was waiting. The policemen watched as their quarry pulled away. Knowing they would now be radioing in the cab’s licence plate, a few hundred yards up the road the printers swapped into another taxi. They transferred their bags, left a generous tip and gave the new driver an address on the far side of the city.

Around 3pm, they caught the train to Rembertów The place looked ideal. It was set back from the street, at the far end of a large, overgrown garden. The printing machine and the paper were hidden in an outhouse, 500 reams stacked almost to the roof. The paper was damp, which was far from ideal, but they would make it work somehow.

By evening their small room was filled with the fumes of cigarettes and turpentine, and the sound of the duplicating machine beating out its regular, soporific rhythm, bad-dum bad-dum bad-dum bad-dum. Underground printing was filthy, exhausting work. The duplicators were old and the paper was poor. Bibula, the Polish word for uncensored publications, means “blotting paper”, which reflected the stock they had to work with, which had to be hand-fed into the machine, three pages a second, hour upon hour. This meant they worked round the clock, in shifts, for days, until the job was done.

Pałka had brought along a transistor. They tuned it to Radio Free Europe, which maintained a regular commentary on Chojecki’s upcoming trial. American printers and British lawyers were protesting at what they called a show trial. Amnesty International was sending a legal representative. “A great day is coming,” Walc thought, “and we are stuck in a printing shop!” If they hurried the job, they might still be able to get to court.

Early on Thursday morning they had 20 reams left to print. By 8pm, Pałka was finishing the last stencil and Walc was burning misprints in the garden. Before leaving they had to strip down the machine, wash all the parts and lubricate them.

At last, carrying 50 copies of the Bulletin, they found a taxi and gave the driver the address of the apartment where they had been told to collect their pay. They arrived around 11pm. It was crowded with people, including half the Bulletin’s editors. Walc asked about the trial. He was astonished to hear it was already over. The sentence had been read an hour ago. One of the editors had just come back from the court, where they saw Chojecki deliver an excoriating indictment of the communist system. He told the court that his flat had been searched 17 times in the past four years, on a litany of pretexts: they were looking for a murderer, they had said, or a poisoner or a thief, but all they ever took away for evidence were books, typewriters and manuscripts.

“Why are such accusations levelled against people who fight against the pillaging of our culture? Officially, half of our recent history is erased from textbooks, studies, encyclopedias,” said Chojecki. It was the same in literature, where the state gave itself a “monopoly of thought” and a “monopoly of the word”. The lists of banned authors contained some of world’s best writers, he said. That was why he and his colleagues had set up NOWa, to fill the silences and correct the falsification.

Reaching a rousing finale, Chojecki announced that the trial was not about the accused at all, but about “free speech and thought, about Polish culture, about the dignity of society”.

Of course, none of this would change the verdict. The court duly convicted Chojecki and his co-defendants of theft of state property. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for three years. But to everyone gathered in the editors’ apartment, this was a tremendous victory and Chojecki was a hero.

“Everybody around us rejoices,” Walc wrote in his account of that week’s events, which would be published in the following month’s Bulletin.

Someone pressed a cold beer into his hand. It was midnight.

Chojecki’s parents had fought for Polish independence with guns and bullets. He continued the struggle through literature and publishing. At times, his father, Jerzy was sceptical of his son’s tactics. “Do you think, Mirek, that you’ll be able to bring down the communist system with your little books?” he would ask. “Do you think your little words will make a difference?”

In fact, the impact of the CIA-sponsored literary tide was huge. By the mid-1980s the so-called “second circulation” of illicit literature in Poland grew so large that the system of communist censorship began to break down. Poland was the most crucial of eastern bloc nations: when communism collapsed in 1989, this was the first domino to fall. As the leading Polish dissident Adam Michnik put it: “It was books that were victorious in the fight. A book is like a reservoir of freedom, of independent thought, a reservoir of human dignity. A book was like fresh air. We should build a monument to books … they allowed us to survive and not go mad.”

Teresa Bogucka didn’t know for sure who was paying for the literature she received from the west, but she was aware that the Polish regime claimed that American intelligence supported émigré publishers, and the idea didn’t concern her at all.

“I thought, wow, a secret service supporting books,” she said. “That’s fantastic.”

 This is an edited extract from The CIA Book Club: The Best Kept Secret of the Cold War by Charlie English, published by William Collins on 13 March.