President Donald Trump has said “tariff” is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.” He claims tariffs will restore American trade supremacy, bring lost jobs back to the United States, and most bizarrely, replace income taxes.

Tariffs can be a useful tool to regulate global trade in the interest of jobs, wages, labor rights, the environment, and consumers—if applied correctly.

But Trump’s chaotic, overly broad tariffs are only likely to hurt working people. They won’t ensure labor rights or protect the environment. They won’t even return jobs to the U.S., if his first term tariffs are any indication.

Tariffs on oil imports, for example, if done correctly, can foot the bill to repair the climate destruction that fossil fuel companies profit from, and incentivize phasing out oil and gas altogether.

Because new tariffs require congressional approval, Trump manufactured a crisis about the flow of drugs and undocumented immigrants across U.S. borders in order to use executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. He insists that foreign governments and companies pay these tariffs—and that imposing them on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China will solve all of the U.S.’ economic problems.

Tariffs aren’t the same as income taxes. When applied to goods being imported from, say, Canada, tariffs aren’t paid by either the Canadian manufacturer or the Canadian government. They’re paid by the U.S. importer to the U.S. government. So a company like Walmart would pay a fee in order to be able to import specific goods from Canada.

Importers will often pass increased tariffs on to consumers, resulting in higher prices. But as Hillary Haden of the Trade Justice Education Fund explained to me in an interview, that’s not a given. Sometimes tariffs are absorbed by the importer as the cost of doing business.

Unsurprisingly, the stock market is leery of tariffs, as are investors and free market champions, who’ve pushed for decades to demolish trade barriers via such initiatives as the World Trade Organization (WTO). Indeed, China has already filed a lawsuit against Trump’s tariffs at the WTO.

With the world’s free-trade-based economy teetering on a knife’s edge, Democrats are attempting to undo Trump’s haphazard tariffs, especially against our neighbors, Mexico and Canada. After all, it was a Democratic president—Bill Clinton—who signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1992, turning all three member nations into a tariff-free zone. (In 2020, Trump signed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement, replacing NAFTA.)

There’s good reason to criticize Trump’s blanket tariffs. But rather than reflexively dismiss tariffs altogether, those of us who care about sweatshop labor, plastic pollution, climate change, and other destructive by-products of tariff-free trade can still use them to demand a fairer economy.

In 1999, hundreds of thousands of activists, including union members and environmentalists, marched against the WTO in Seattle. The “Battle of Seattle,” as it came to be known, was the high point of the so-called anti-globalization movement, which sought to prioritize human rights, workers’ rights, conservation, and other considerations before corporate profits.

It was the pursuit of a “fair-trade” economy over a free-trade one.

So it’s ironic that President Trump is wielding tariffs as a central pillar of his pro-billionaire economic agenda—and his liberal opposition is championing free trade. Neither pro-billionaire trade nor unregulated trade is in the interests of working people.

Tariffs on oil imports, for example, if done correctly, can foot the bill to repair the climate destruction that fossil fuel companies profit from, and incentivize phasing out oil and gas altogether.

Similarly, tariffs on products manufactured with slave labor or underpaid labor can level the playing field for manufacturers who pay their workers a fair, living wage and ensure safe working conditions.

Rather than reflexively opposing tariffs because it is Trump’s latest fixation, we ought to demand a protectionist economy that can apply tariffs carefully, strategically, and thoughtfully in order to undo the damage of free market capitalism.

LIVE 10 am Eastern time & Streaming anytime thereafter:

In this episode of The TMI Show, hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan tackle the legacy of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, on the 29th anniversary of his 1996 arrest. Joined by guest Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer with deep counterterrorism experience, the show examines Kaczynski’s 17-year bombing campaign that killed three and injured 23, driven by his anti-technology manifesto. The discussion covers the FBI’s extensive manhunt, ending with his capture in a remote Montana cabin, and the broader implications of his actions on security and society.

Johnson brings firsthand expertise from his CIA tenure, while Rall and Chan offer their distinct perspectives as a renowned cartoonist and seasoned journalist, respectively. Together, they explore Kaczynski’s journey from Harvard graduate to domestic terrorist, including his time in CIA-linked psychological experiments, and the lasting questions his case raises about technology and control. It’s a mix of historical insight and expert analysis, making it essential viewing for true crime and security enthusiasts.

The post TMI Show Ep 110: “Unabomber Arrest Anniversary with CIA’s Larry Johnson” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The deep sea, Earth’s last untouched ecological frontier, is an ancient, living system that regulates our climate, stores carbon, and hosts breathtaking biodiversity. It is the common heritage of all of us. It is not a resource bank for speculative profits. And it is not for sale.

Yet, the deep-sea mining industry, led by The Metals Company (TMC), is determined to change that. The company has threatened to submit the world’s first commercial mining application in June 2025—with or without regulations in place. And now, in a desperate new move, it says it will bypass the International Seabed Authority (ISA) altogether and seek mining permits under the United States’ 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHRMA).

TMC’s reckless and dangerous attempt at a deep-sea neocolonial land grab came on the penultimate day of the ISA’s 30th Council session, ahead of a discussion of its mining application and a Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings Update call. As it became clear that it would be forced to leave the meeting empty-handed, when nations rejected its wish to secure a process to have its commercial application approved, the company doubled down. Its tactics echo those of the oil and gas industry—manufacturing urgency and demanding fast-tracked approval.

The truth is this: deep-sea mining is a “cause in search of a purpose.” Greed, driven by speculative profit rather than public need, is driving the push for the launch of this destructive industry.

Member states and the ISA’s newly appointed Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho swiftly condemned it as a blatant attempt to sidestep international law and undermine the multilateral governance of the global commons. This pressure from TMC and other industry players forces a defining question for the ISA: Will it uphold its mandate to protect the seabed for the benefit of all humankind, or will it cave to corporate pressure?

Contrary to industry complaints, the careful ISA deliberations that have taken place over the years are safeguards to ensure that crucial unresolved questions around environmental risk, equity, science, and underwater cultural heritage are addressed. Notably, in this session, the African Group spotlighted long-ignored issues of how benefits will be shared and the socioeconomic impacts of seabed mining on terrestrial mining countries. These questions cut to the core of justice and global balance, and they demand answers before any approval can be considered.

Outside the meeting rooms, public opposition is mounting. Greenpeace International and Pacific allies brought the voices of over 11,000 people from 91 countries directly to the ISA urging deep-sea conservation. Thirty-two countries now support a moratorium, ban, or precautionary pause on deep-sea mining. The United Nations Environment Program has echoed these calls, emphasizing the need for robust, independent science before any decisions are made. And legal scholars have dismissed recent threats of lawsuits from contractors as baseless.

The industry is increasingly being recognized for what it is—a false solution. Deep-sea mining proponents claim that mining the seabed would reduce pressure on land-based ecosystems. However, research suggests deep-sea mining is more likely to add to global extraction than replace it. Meanwhile, emerging battery technologies, recycling breakthroughs, and circular economy models are rapidly reducing any purported demand for virgin metals from the seafloor.

With its original green-washing narrative unraveling, TMC and others are now stoking geopolitical tensions, positioning themselves as a strategic necessity for national security. However, the cracks are showing. For instance, TMC recently surrendered a third of its mining contract area in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), after ending a services agreement with its Kiribati-sponsored partner, Marawa. The industry faces failed mining tests, equipment and vessel delays, no finalized regulations, and growing investor skepticism over the industry’s environmental and financial viability.

The truth is this: deep-sea mining is a “cause in search of a purpose.” Greed, driven by speculative profit rather than public need, is driving the push for the launch of this destructive industry.

And the risks are profound. A recent study published in Nature found reduced biodiversity and ecosystem degradation more than 40 years after a small-scale mining test. Recovery of these nodules, which take millions of years to form, in human timescales is impossible.

But there is still hope. The recent appointment of Leticia Carvalho, a scientist who is calling for transparency, inclusivity, sustainability, environmental protection, and science-driven governance, as the secretary-general of the ISA presents a real opportunity. The multilateral body, recently decried for its seemingly pro-industry stance, should seize it and reorient itself back toward its most weighty purpose: protecting the seabed for the benefit of humankind as a whole.

The ISA’s dual mandate under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—to both manage the mineral resources of the seabed and ensure the effective protection of the marine environment—has always been fraught with tension. But in this era of climate chaos, biodiversity loss, and ocean degradation, it is precaution and protection that must prevail. The health of the ocean, the rights of future generations, and the principle of the common heritage of humankind demand it.

As the world heads toward the U.N. ocean conference in Nice, France this June—just a few weeks before the July ISA Assembly—leaders will have a crucial chance to show where they stand. They must reject TMC’s and the rest of the deep-sea mining industry’s attempts to force the ocean floor to be opened for exploitation with no assurance of marine protection. They must not allow themselves to be bullied into the adoption of a weak Mining Code built on industry-favored timelines. They must honor their roles as stewards—not sellers—of the international seabed.

The deep sea is not for sale—and the ISA still has a chance to prove it.

There's a relatively obscure quotation, sometimes attributed to the 20th-century American author Sinclair Lewis, that reads, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

Although no one’s actually sure that Sinclair Lewis ever wrote or said this, his 1935 novel, It Can't Happen Here, centers around a flag-hugging, Bible-thumping politician named Berzelius (”Buzz”) Windrip. Despite having no particular leadership skills other than the ability to mesmerize large audiences by appealing to their baser instincts (and to bully those people who aren’t so easily mesmerized), Windrip is elected President of the United States. Shortly after Windrip takes office, through a flurry of executive orders, appointments of unqualified cronies to key governmental positions, and then a declaration of martial law, Windrip quickly makes the transition from a democratically elected president to a brutal, fascist dictator. The novel’s title, It Can’t Happen Here, refers to the mindset of key characters in the novel who fail to recognize Windrip’s fascist agenda before it’s too late.

The question now is whether the people of the United States have the necessary critical thinking skills, moral compass, and political courage to reverse the rise of fascism in our country before further harm is done.

Written almost a century ago during the rise of fascism in Europe prior to World War II, It Can’t Happen Here is disturbingly prescient today. Buzz Windrip’s personal traits, his rhetoric, and the path through which he initially becomes the democratically elected U.S. president, and soon afterward, the country’s first full-fledged fascist dictator, bear an uncanny resemblance to the personality traits and rhetoric of Donald Trump and the path through which he has come thus far to be the 47th President of the United States, and through which he appears to be on course to become our country’s first full-fledged…. But no! It can’t happen here! Or can it?

Trump’s uncanny resemblance to the fictional dictator in Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel is disconcerting. The far more important concern, though, is the degree to which Trump resembles real-life fascist dictators, past and present. A study of notorious 20th- century fascist dictators, including Hitler and Mussolini, concluded that they and their regimes all had several characteristics in common. (The current regimes of Vladimir Putin in Russia, Xi Jinping in China, and Kim Jong Un in North Korea also share these characteristics.)

Fascist Dictators Encourage and Condone Violence Against Their Political Enemies

After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump urged a large crowd of supporters on the morning of January 6, 2021 to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” After the violent assault on the Capitol had been going on for more than three hours, when Trump finally posted a video message urging the rioters to go home, he told them, “We love you, you’re very special.” On his first day back in office in 2025, he granted clemency to the more than 1,500 rioters who were charged with crimes related to the attack on the Capitol, including rioters convicted of assaulting police officers and rioters with past convictions for other violent crimes, including sexual assault.

Fascist Dictators Blur the Distinction Between Private Business Interests and the Public Good and Put Wealthy Business Leaders in High Governmental Positions

At the beginning of his second term, Trump appointed Elon Musk, reportedly the world’s richest man and the CEO of companies that have received tens of billions of dollars in federal funding, to head the ad hoc “Department of Government Efficiency,” with the power to summarily fire vast numbers of federal employees without cause and to potentially steer federal funding away from other companies and toward his own.

Fascist Dictators Promote Bold-Faced Lies and Other Propaganda

Some of Trump’s most notorious lies include his claims that he won the 2020 presidential election; that the January 6, 2021 insurrectionist attack on the Capitol was a “day of love;” and that the Ukrainians themselves, not the Russian invaders, are responsible for starting the war in Ukraine. The Washington Post catalogued more than 30,000 other demonstrably false or misleading statements that Trump made during his first term as president. Currently, a special team within the Trump administration is spewing out pro-Trump propaganda at a prodigious rate on social media, including a portrait of Trump wearing a golden crown with the caption, “Long Live the King,” via Elon Musk’s “X” platform.

Fascist Dictators Promote the Myth That Their Citizens Are Being Threatened by Scapegoats

Trump’s favorite scapegoats are undocumented immigrants whom he frequently refers to as “criminals,” “gang members,” and “killers,”and who he claims are stealing jobs and benefits from U.S. citizens. In fact, undocumented immigrants do the work that most U.S. citizens are unwilling to do; they pay far more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits; and, unlike Trump himself, they are convicted of committing serious crimes at a lower rate than the U.S. population as a whole.

Fascist Dictators Put Grossly Unqualified Sycophants in Key Governmental Positions

The many grossly unqualified sycophants who Trump has nominated or appointed to key government positions in his second administration include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a favorite Fox News interviewee who has himself been accused of alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct, and mismanagement of nonprofit financial funds, and who has spoken in defense of U.S. soldiers charged with war crimes; Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who seeds doubt concerning vaccine effectiveness and promotes other medical quackery; and FBI Director Kash Patel who endorses the “deep state” theory and who has previously described jailed January 6 insurrectionists as “political prisoners.”

Fascist Dictators Exhibit Flagrant Sexism

Trump boasted in a 2005 video recording about not only groping women and kissing them without their consent, but about an incident involving a married woman in which, in his own words, “I moved on her like a bitch.” He added, “I failed, I admit it, I did try and “f—k her.” Trump called Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman” during their final 2016 presidential debate; he has repeatedly referred to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as “Pocahontas;” and he entertained a joke during a 2024 campaign rally implying that past Vice President Kamala Harris once worked as a prostitute.

The list of common characteristics in the study of 20th-century fascist dictators and their regimes includes 14 categories in all, and Trump and his MAGA disciples have already exhibited characteristics in most of these categories. One common characteristic not mentioned in the study is the fact that all the 20th-century fascist dictators met ignominious ends—but not before they had caused enormous damage, including the deaths of millions of innocent people.

Questions about what fascism might look like when it comes to the United States of America and whether it can or cannot happen here are no longer merely hypothetical. Fascism has come to the USA. It is happening here. The question now is whether the people of the United States have the necessary critical thinking skills, moral compass, and political courage to reverse the rise of fascism in our country before further harm is done, or will we be like the characters in Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 novel; the people in Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy; and the people in current day Russia, China, and North Korea and allow our system of government to devolve into a full-fledged fascist dictatorship.

The second administration of President Donald J. Trump has already started working its special magic across the Washington, D.C. capital region. Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have fired tens of thousands of federal workers, with more to come. Those who have lost their jobs include people who find housing and other support for veterans struggling with mental illness. They include civil servants who maintained safeguards to prevent our nuclear weapons from becoming dirty bombs. They include healthcare researchers developing treatments for cancer and other killer diseases; workers who ensured that low-income, homeless, and rural students were able to get an education; agricultural researchers who opened up international markets to American farmers; and too many others to mention here.

My neighborhood, located on farmland about 40 miles outside Washington, D.C., is among those wracked by this administration’s shakeup of the government workforce. An estimated 20% of our country’s federal workers make their homes right here in Maryland and in nearby Virginia within reach of the capital. And that doesn’t count the tens of thousands of us who work in (or adjacent to) federal agencies as contractors. All those workers have also been subjected to the same back-to-work requirements, anti-DEI policies, and (depending on their roles) job insecurity, as their government colleagues.

To see how this administration’s attack on federal workers penetrates everyday life, look no further than the lives of children in local public schools.

President Trump, his unelected right-hand man and billionaire businessman Elon Musk, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) began wreaking havoc on government agencies in late January with a poorly formatted, emotionally worded PDF that some in the civil service initially mistook for a phishing email. That “fork in the road” document offered workers a chance to take eight months of severance pay, or else face the possibility of simply losing their jobs — a possibility that turned out to be all too real for those who risked staying and continuing to serve.

I hope that red state voters are happy.

My Own Deep State

Before all this started, life was pretty good for families like mine, who live here and depend on the federal government for work. Of course, I have to admit that, by many measures, we are privileged in so many ways: A White, upper-middle-class, dual-income (for now) family, with healthy kids, cats, and even a raucous flock of chickens. And as of yet, many families like mine are still fine. But for how long?

I think the wholesomeness of life in my area of Maryland owes much to the diverse cultures represented in our communities. You don’t need to look hard to find someone who can tell you about customs, food, norms, and rituals in places as far away as Afghanistan, China, El Salvador, Ukraine, and elsewhere. (Maryland has long offered broad protections to refugees and asylum seekers.) Until recently, the military and the civil service also cast wide nets in their recruitment and anti-discriminatory hiring practices, coming up with some of the best of the best in every field, regardless of national origin.

To the cultural anthropologist in me, this diversity offers remarkable wealth. You can drive a few minutes from my house and get the crispest Peruvian chicken, the most fragrant Salvadoran pupusas, the tenderest Afghan kabobs. Kids growing up here have a chance to understand the world and international affairs in an up-close-and-personal way. My kids grasp just why democracy and peace are so important, because they know other kids whose families fled authoritarian dictators. They also get why hanging out with people who are different from you is both challenging and rewarding.

Another aspect of life here in the capital region that I value is the high-quality services accessible to many, if not (unfortunately) all — from well-funded Medicaid and Medicare health clinics, to nearby Veterans Administration and military hospitals, to cutting-edge treatments at the National Institutes of Health for sickle cell anemia and cancer, including for those around the country who can’t afford to travel here on their own dime. Until recently, at least.

I think you’d find it hard to fault our federal government for not providing for those in its backyard, at least in my county, which is admittedly the wealthiest in Maryland. Schoolchildren visit science and art museums for free. There are outdoor marvels like national monuments, sprawling botanical gardens, and hiking trails that, at least until recently, have been remarkably well maintained. Whatever you make of those who have made careers running our government, I see how federal facilities and their workers have made my community safer, more exciting to live in, and more beautiful.

In the age of Trump, I fear it’s goodbye to all that, not to speak of a Department of Education. (Who needs education after all?)

Elon Musk, DOGE, and Mass Firings

Unfortunately, just a little more than two months after Donald Trump entered the White House for the second time, that beauty is diminishing. Already, the D.C. area and its suburbs are bearing the economic brunt of his and Elon Musk’s cuts because federal jobs form the backbone of the local economy. Since military veterans make up about a third of the federal workforce, they have been disproportionately affected by DOGE’s slashing of jobs, with at least 6,000 veterans nationally losing their employment, including in this area.

The federal workforce is more racially diverse than the private sector, meaning that those firings will impact minorities particularly strongly. In addition, as most of us already know, DOGE has been targeting the federal staff responsible for enforcing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which people of color and women are more likely to say are important to ensure that they succeed in the workplace. And that’s without even mentioning the way DEI programs allow women who are being sexually harassed or Black employees facing racial slurs to seek redress. People implementing DEI programs are also responsible for ensuring that nursing parents get safe, clean places to pump breastmilk, while protecting many of us — White men included — whose extenuating circumstances (eldercare at home, difficulties entering buildings due to disabilities) would otherwise make work senselessly harder, if not inconceivable.

And make no mistake, DOGE’s firings have nothing to do with efficiency. If the Trump administration cared about that, it wouldn’t have launched itself by firing the inspector generals who were charged with identifying projects responsible for tens of billions of dollars in waste and fraud.

At best, I suspect such cuts reflect real resentment over problems our government does indeed need to address (like why insufficient stable and well-paid jobs exist in large pockets of this country), and consequently, the need for our leaders to create the appearance of “getting things done.” At worst, they reflect a deep spitefulness and Musk’s desire to line his pockets, as every good profiteer does in times of conflict (though I don’t think he ever expected the stock value of his line of cars to fall through the floor).

Back to a Military Lifestyle

Let me describe a few of the costs of Trump’s war on the home front on federal workers. The lucky ones in my community, like us, are those who still have their jobs. But nearly everyone with a federal job now has to commute daily to his or her office in order to meet Musk’s return-to-work requirements. Telework is a privilege that most white-collar workers across this country got to enjoy in the Covid years and thereafter, though civil servants and military personnel have strict requirements to prove they are indeed working. Moreover, research suggests that, surprisingly enough, people who work from home are often more productive, due to fewer distractions and more time made available without lengthy commutes.

Under the new return-to-work mandate, folks I know in the broader Maryland-Virginia area around Washington now often have to commute hours on a daily basis in punishing traffic or decide to try to move closer to their work. Former military families like mine may have thought that the days of long separations from their loved ones, due to deployments and 16- to 18-hour work shifts, were a thing of the past. Now, however, our family has less time to help with the kids’ homework, less time for me to earn a sorely needed living, and (again for me, alone with kids into the evening) more housework and childcare. (I can’t help but think that this last aspect was part of Musk’s whole point.) Stress, exhaustion, and their close relative — loneliness — now permeate our lives and those of so many others. Even health problems that emerged when our family was actively engaged in military service have resurfaced.

As many who have served in the military can attest, it’s hard to quantify the stress of living at the whims of abusive commanders who see needless suffering as a feature, not a detriment, of military service. And now such attitudes are being transferred to civilian life. Consider, for example, Trump’s appointee to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, who has said that he actually wants federal workers to be “in trauma.” I consider that hazing on a national scale.

During our military service, for some in my family and community, there was at least a sense of contributing to a wider purpose: serving a government that pledged allegiance to the American people rather than to one man.

As we deal with the fallout of DOGE policies, I can only imagine the kinds of wait times that military health facilities are going to have with a gutted government in the second age of America’s very own You Know Who.

“A Protest a Day Keeps the Fascists Away!”

To see how this administration’s attack on federal workers penetrates everyday life, look no further than the lives of children in local public schools. Typically, for military kids and many others, school provides a respite from the uncertainties of messy family life. Schools also provide regular meals, uninterrupted adult attention, a predictable schedule — sometimes even healthcare. At my kids’ elementary school, which is still fantastically resourced and run, they are starting to hear from their friends about parents who have lost their jobs and are dealing with spiking food prices and an abysmal local job market. Meanwhile, beloved classmates from immigrant families are preparing to leave the country for fear of harassment, separation from other family members, or worse.

The problem with cruelty as a governing strategy is that it spreads like wildfire among the nation’s loneliest– even the youngest ones. Recently, my older child started coming home from school sick to his stomach because a peer had told him that Trump was a role model for “making America great again” through his deportations of immigrants — and his two best friends both happen to be foreign-born kids of color. Even when a kid repeatedly claims that immigrants commit crimes and spread disease, it’s difficult for a school counselor to intervene, given that those racial slurs come directly from the highest office in our land.

Since public school can offer exposure to just such grim sentiments, I’m not surprised that schoolchildren like mine have come out with some of the most courageous statements against the Trump administration’s malice. Take, for example, the middle schoolers at a military post in Stuttgart, Germany, who staged a walkout to protest Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s DEI purge of books and curricula related to race, gender, and sexuality, or the online record of a 12 year-old protesting to support his mom, fired from the Department of Education.

My son recently came home from a rough day of standing up to the little urchin harassing him and his friends, and started to craft his own political posters, as he imagined one day running for office. He then put them on his window facing the world beyond our house. One of them reads, “Make America Great Again,” with two lines through it. Underneath, he wrote, “Make America Better Than Great. We All Belong.” And underneath that, in small red letters: “Help us.”

Fellow progressives who are searching for strong leaders: How about instead helping ensure that more of us lead from where we are by speaking out! In our national culture, infused with Trump’s cult of personality, it’s easy to forget that we Americans are the government. The real waste and fraud happens when we miss opportunities to stand up for each other, or when, out of fear, we nod and smile at injustice.

Young kids who call out hate, injustice, and hypocrisy should be role models for the rest of us. They have everything to lose. They can’t look for a new job, move to Canada, or hire a lawyer. All they have is the truth (unless some adult is feeding them grown-up Trumpian poison) and they hold the truth dear.

More people speaking out will make it harder for Musk and Trump to destroy institutions that did many things so well most Americans didn’t even realize they were behind the scenes. As Democratic Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin said recently at a teach-in I attended: “A protest a day keeps the fascists away!”

In the meantime, please consider what I’ve shared about my community as a sort of canary-in-the-coal-mine warning that, unless more people — including you and your neighbors — speak out, too, we can expect the end of American democracy.

Live 12 noon Eastern and Streaming Afterwards:

Hosts Ted Rall and Scott Stantis dive into a heated question: Is the United States veering toward fascism under Donald Trump’s influence? They analyze recent political trends—Trump’s tightening grip on power, weakened democratic institutions, and polarizing rhetoric—debating whether these signal an authoritarian shift. The conversation then takes a dramatic turn: If fascism is emerging, is it time to leave the U.S.? To ground the discussion, they highlight high-profile Americans who have already fled, linking their departures to Trump’s impact.

Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley, a fascism expert, is leaving the U.S. for the University of Toronto in fall 2025, citing America’s authoritarian slide under Trump. Author of “How Fascism Works,” he points to threats like Columbia University’s compliance with Trump’s demands as evidence. Stanley, who compares the U.S. to pre-WWII Germany, wants to protect his family and continue his work from Canada, sparking talk of a U.S. intellectual exodus.

Former Gawker publisher Nick Denton also left, settling in Budapest and citing the U.S.’s authoritarian leanings as his motivation. Adding to the list, filmmaker Michael Moore relocated to Ireland, publicly stating that Trump’s policies and cultural influence made staying untenable. Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk’s ex-partner, musician Grimes, departed for New Zealand, expressing unease with America’s political trajectory under Trump’s shadow. Even conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, despite his ideological differences, moved his family to Israel, hinting at discomfort with domestic unrest tied to Trump’s polarizing return.

With their dynamic interplay of perspectives, Rall and Stantis probe whether these notable exits reflect a broader crisis, challenging listeners to consider: Should I stay or should I go?

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 199: “Is It Time To Leave the USA?” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The richest person in the world couldn’t buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which was won by liberal Susan Crawford, who defeated Elon Musk’s favored candidate and Trump toadie, Brad Schimel. She will serve a ten-year term, cementing liberal dominance for some time. Vested interests poured $100 million into the race, a record for a state Supreme Court contest. This orgy of big money in politics was unleashed in large part by John Roberts’s wretched Citizens United ruling in 2010, which solidified America’s march to (further) plutocracy.

This election may signal the beginnings of a backlash against the Trump regime. Since his inauguration, Trump has acted more lawlessly than any president in history, even Tricky Dick Nixon, willfully thwarting the legislative intention of Congress in funding government agencies to do jobs Congress wanted them to do. Trump has undermined the basic parliamentary principle that the people’s elected representatives have the power of the purse, a principle that goes back to Britain hundreds of years ago.

At the same time, the Trump regime has exalted toxic masculinity and signaled its intent to liquidate workers’ unions. The problem for Trump is that a majority of Americans are women or workers or both.

Moreover, Trump’s surrender of such fiscal decisions to Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency has resulted in mass firings of government personnel and the gutting of America’s health services, scientific research and threats to the solvency of the country’s preeminent research universities. The attack on Social Security — removing the ability of recipients to do business by phone, the firing of 7,000 Social Security employees (14% of the workforce), the breaking of the agency’s website — has alarmed the elderly nationwide.

American democracy is stronger today because voters in one Midwest state stood up to the richest man in the world.

Trump won Wisconsin last fall by less than a percentage point, with a margin of only 29,000 votes. Trump’s full court press against the institutions Americans depend on has made a bad impression. In early March, Savannah Kuchar explained in USA Today, a Marquette poll found that 51% of the voters in Wisconsin viewed Trump’s initial weeks in office negatively. He had frittered away his slight advantage in the state. Of course, Republicans supported him and Democrats despised him. But the key is the independents, and of those 60% disapproved of the initial Trump record and only 39% approved.

As for Elon Musk, the same poll found that 53% of Wisconsin voters viewed him negatively, and only 41% saw Musk positively. Someone with such high negatives and so few supporters in a relatively conservative “purple” state likely made a mistake by taking a high profile, pouring $20 million into the Supreme Court race, and offering a million dollars to select voters to vote for the conservative candidate.

Elon may have defeated himself, just as Trump did.

Of course, there were other issues. Schimel as attorney general of Wisconsin a decade ago attempted to defend a restrictive abortion law that Federal judge William Conley in Madison struck down as unconstitutional in 2015. More recently, Republicans have argued that a nineteenth-century law banning abortion came back into effect once the US Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. A liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court is likely to find that the freedoms enshrined in the state constitution take precedence over Victorian era legislation.

Abortion rights activists came out to vote in large numbers in an off-year election of a sort that often sees low turnout in the state. Abortion rights helped drive the blue wave of 2018 and the return of the Democrats to the White House in 2021.

Union issues also brought out workers. The far right wing Gov. Scott Walker had in 2011 gutted teachers’ unions, which resulted in a precipitous fall in pay and in high turnover, which disadvantages schoolchildren. Late last fall a state judge found the 2011 law to violate the equal protection clause of the constitution, since Walter had actually favored police and fireman unions that supported him politically but had placed disabilities on teachers’ unions. Republican attempts to overturn this ruling by taking it to the Supreme Court have now been dealt a substantial blow.

Finally, Wisconsin’s congressional delegation is skewed 6 to 2 for Republicans, even though the two parties are neck and neck in the state. The current districts for federal elections disadvantage Democrats concentrated in Madison and Milwaukee. Districts for the state legislature, however, were made fairer in 2022 by legislation.

In 2020, as well, the Trump campaign demanded that 200,000 votes in the presidential contest be thrown out in Wisconsin. Any further such scurrilous demands will clearly be rebuffed in the state.

American democracy is stronger today because voters in one Midwest state stood up to the richest man in the world. The people of Wisconsin and of the United States have more rights today because of Wisconsin voters. Trump’s catastrophic policies, which threaten the health of the Republic both literally and figuratively, may produce not so much a blue wave as a blue tsunami as people realize that they are the ox to be gored.

Another moment of truth for Gaza has arrived.

Any day now, the Senate will vote on Senator Bernie Sanders' resolutions to block $8.8 billion in U.S. arms sales to Israel – and every single American who believes in human rights needs to flood Senate phone lines demanding support for these resolutions.

Let's be crystal clear about what's happening: Since Israel unilaterally shattered the ceasefire on March 17, over 600 Palestinians have been killed, disproportionately women and children in just the initial wave of strikes. These aren't just statistics—these are human beings, families, entire communities being obliterated with American-made weapons, paid for with our tax dollars.

Whether you just believe in following U.S. and international law when it comes to human rights, or you see this as part of a broader struggle against U.S. imperialism and militarism—or both—this is your moment to act.

The humanitarian catastrophe has reached unimaginable levels. According to the UN, Israel imposed a complete blockade on all aid into Gaza for several weeks, despite desperate daily efforts by UN agencies to deliver essential supplies. Think about that – 40 out of 49 aid movements coordinated with Israeli authorities were denied in just one week in March. Tom Fletcher, the UN relief chief, warned that food is “rotting, medicine expiring, and vital medical equipment stuck” while children are sick and starving. This isn't just a policy failure – it's a moral catastrophe of historic proportions.

What's at stake in Sanders' resolutions? We're talking about 35,000 MK84 2,000-pound bombs—massive weapons that have already been used to demolish Gaza's hospitals, schools, and refugee camps. The death toll has now surpassed 50,000 Palestinians. And the Trump administration wants to send more of these weapons, bypassing congressional oversight through cynical abuse of "emergency" authorities.

Trump’s Gaza policies are part and parcel of his authoritarian drift: In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked “national security emergency” waiver provisions to ram through these weapons transfers—despite the fact that many won't even be delivered for years. Some "emergency." This is nothing but a transparent attempt to avoid public scrutiny and democratic oversight of our role in this catastrophe.

Simultaneously, Trump’s bizarre “Riviera of the Middle East” plan for Gaza has been repeatedly endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The plan would involve forcibly relocating Palestinians under the guise of voluntary migration, a move widely condemned as ethnic cleansing. Netanyahu affirmed his support for Trump’s vision, describing it as a coordinated effort between their governments. This approach not only violates international law but also exemplifies Trump’s authoritarian tendencies: consolidating executive power to implement policies that prioritize militarism and demographic engineering over human rights and democratic accountability. Together, these actions reflect a pattern of governance rooted in unilateralism.

Whether you just believe in following U.S. and international law when it comes to human rights, or you see this as part of a broader struggle against U.S. imperialism and militarism—or both—this is your moment to act. We cannot let weapons paid for with our tax dollars continue to devastate civilian populations. We cannot allow a wannabe dictator to bypass democratic oversight through bogus "emergency" declarations.

Here's what you need to do right now (the vote is expected any day):

1. Call your senators’ offices immediately at (202) 224-3121. Demand they vote YES on Sanders' Resolutions of Disapproval on U.S. arms transfers to Israel – S.J.Res 26 and S.J.Res 33.

2. Remind them that these are the exact weapons used to destroy Gaza’s schools, hospitals, and homes.

3. Remind them that U.S. law requires U.S. weapons sales to cease when the weapons are being used in exactly these kinds of violations of human rights.

4. Spread the word – share this article, organize call-in campaigns, make your voice heard.

The vote could come any day. UN human rights experts have warned that Israel's recent actions have opened "the gates of hell" in Gaza. Will the United States continue to supply the weapons that keep those gates open? That depends on what we do right now.

So... Pick up your phone. Call your senators. Demand they vote YES on Sanders' resolutions to block these arms sales. Countless Palestinian lives hang in the balance, and history will judge all of us by what we do in this moment.

Live at 10 am Eastern/9 am Central time, and Streaming 24-7 Thereafter:

In this episode of The TMI Show, hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan tackle the workplace fallout from President Trump’s rollback of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, zeroing in on what it means for women. Joined by guest Gloria Esoimeme, a seasoned workplace equity advocate, they dissect how scrapping DEI reshapes professional landscapes across industries. The conversation dives into potential changes in hiring practices, promotion tracks, and corporate culture as companies abandon mandated diversity targets under Trump’s anti-woke agenda.

Esoimeme brings hard data and real-world accounts, shedding light on how women—particularly from underrepresented groups—might navigate this new terrain. Let’s whether this policy shift opens doors, widens gaps, or simply reverts workplaces to pre-DEI norms. With Trump’s administration doubling down on deregulation, the stakes are high. Too much info? That’s the TMI promise.

The post TMI Show Ep 109: “Gloria Esoimeme on Trump’s DEI Rollback” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

U.S. President Donald Trump is trashing the world trade system over a basic economic fallacy. He wrongly claims that America’s trade deficit is caused by the rest of the world ripping off the U.S., repeatedly stating things such as, "Over the decades, they ripped us off like no country has never been ripped off in history…”

Trump aims to close the trade deficit by imposing tariffs, thereby impeding imports and restoring trade balance (or inducing other countries to end their rip-offs of America). Yet Trump’s tariffs will not close the trade deficit but will instead impoverish Americans and harm the rest of the world.

A country’s trade deficit (or more precisely, its current account deficit) does not indicate unfair trade practices by the surplus countries. It indicates something completely different. A current account deficit signifies that the deficit country is spending more than it is producing. Equivalently, it is saving less than it is investing.

America’s trade deficit is a measure of the profligacy of America’s corporate ruling class, more specifically the result of chronically large budget deficits resulting from tax cuts for the rich combined with trillions of dollars wasted on useless wars. The deficits are not the perfidy of Canada, Mexico, and other countries that sell more to the U.S. than the U.S. sells to them.

Trump blames the rest of the world for America’s deficit, but that’s absurd. It is America that is spending more than it earns.

To close the trade deficit, the U.S. should close the budget deficit. Putting on tariffs will raise prices (such as for automobiles) but not close the trade or budget deficit, especially since Trump plans to offset tariff revenues with vastly larger tax cuts for his rich donors. Moreover, as Trump raises tariffs, the U.S. will face counter-tariffs that will directly impede U.S. exports. The result will be lose-lose for the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Let’s look at the numbers. In 2024, the U.S. exported $4.8 trillion in goods and services, and imported $5.9 trillion of goods and services, leading to a current account deficit of $1.1 trillion. That $1.1 trillion deficit is the difference between America’s total spending in 2024 ($30.1 trillion) and America’s national income ($29.0 trillion). America spends more than it earns and borrows the difference from the rest of the world.

Trump blames the rest of the world for America’s deficit, but that’s absurd. It is America that is spending more than it earns. Consider this. If you are an employee, you run a current account surplus with your employer and a deficit with the companies from which you buy goods and services. If you spend exactly what you earn, you are in current account balance. Suppose that you go on a shopping binge, spending more than your earnings by running up credit-card debt. You will now be running a current account deficit. Are the shops ripping you off, or is your profligacy driving you into debt?

Tariffs will not close the trade deficit so long as the fiscal irresponsibility of the corporate raiders and tax evaders that dominate Washington continues. Suppose, for example, that Trump’s tariffs slash the imports of automobiles and other goods from abroad. Americans will then buy U.S.-produced cars and other merchandise that would have been exported. Imports will fall, but so too will exports. Moreover, new tariffs imposed by other countries in response to Trump’s tariffs will reinforce the decline in U.S. exports. The U.S. trade imbalance will remain.

While the tariffs will not eliminate the trade deficit, they will force Americans to buy high-priced U.S.-produced goods that could have obtained at lower cost from foreign producers. The tariffs will squander what economists call the gains from trade: the ability to buy goods based on the comparative advantage of domestic and foreign producers.

The budget deficit is not due to the salaries of civil servants, who are being wantonly fired, or to the government’s R&D spending, on which our future prosperity depends, but rather to the combination of tax cuts for the rich, and reckless spending on America’s perpetual wars...

The tariffs will raise prices for automobiles and wages of automotive workers, but those wage hikes will be paid by lower living standards of Americans across the economy, not by a boost of national income. The real way to support American workers is through federal measures opposite to those favored by Trump, including universal health coverage, support for unionization, and budget support for modern infrastructure, including green energy, all financed with higher, not lower, taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporate sector.

The federal government does not cover its overall spending with tax revenues because wealthy campaign donors promote tax cuts, tax avoidance (through tax havens) and tax evasion. Remember that DOGE has gutted the audit capacity of the IRS. The budget deficit is currently around $2 trillion dollars, or roughly 6 percent of U.S. national income. With a chronically high budget gap, the U.S. trade balance will remain in chronic deficit.

Trump says that he will cut the budget deficit by slashing waste and abuse through DOGE. The problem is that DOGE mispresents the real cause of the fiscal profligacy. The budget deficit is not due to the salaries of civil servants, who are being wantonly fired, or to the government’s R&D spending, on which our future prosperity depends, but rather to the combination of tax cuts for the rich, and reckless spending on America’s perpetual wars, U.S. funding for Israel’s non-stop wars, America’s 750 overseas military bases, the bloated CIA and other intelligence agencies, and interest payments on the soaring federal debt.

Trump and the Congressional Republicans are reportedly taking aim at Medicaid—that is, at the poorest and most vulnerable Americans—to make way for yet another tax cut for the richest Americans. They may soon go after Social Security and Medicare too.

Trump’s tariffs will fail to close the trade and budget deficits, raise prices, and make America and the world poorer by squandering the gains from trade. The U.S. will be the enemy of the world for the harm that it is causing to itself and the rest of the world.

In a genocidal war that has spiraled into a struggle for political survival, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition and the global powers supporting him continue to sacrifice Palestinian lives for political gain.

The sordid career of Israel’s extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir epitomizes this tragic reality.

Ben-Gvir joined Netanyahu’s government coalition following the December 2022 elections. He remained in the coalition after the October 7, 2023 war and genocide, with the understanding that any cease-fire in Gaza would force his departure.

Though “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” as Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz once surmised, in Israel’s case, the “politics” behind the war is not about Israel as a state but about Netanyahu’s own political survival.

As long as the killing of Palestinians and the destruction of their cities continued, Ben-Gvir stayed on board—though neither he nor Netanyahu had any real “next-day” plan, other than to carry out some of the most heinous massacres against a civilian population in recent history.

On January 19, Ben-Gvir left the government immediately following a cease-fire agreement, which many argued would not last. Netanyahu’s untrustworthiness, along with the collapse of his government if the war ended completely, made the cease-fire unfeasible.

Ben-Gvir returned when the genocide resumed on March 18. “We are back, with all our might and power!” he wrote in a tweet on the day of his return.

Israel lacks a clear plan because it cannot defeat the Palestinians. While the Israeli army has inflicted suffering on the Palestinian people like no other force has against a civilian population in modern history, the war endures because the Palestinians refuse to surrender.

Yet, Israel’s military planners know that a military victory is no longer possible. Former Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon recently added his voice to the growing chorus, stating during an interview on March 15 that “revenge is not a war plan.”

The Americans, who supported Netanyahu’s violation of the cease-fire—thus resuming the killings—also understand that the war is almost entirely a political struggle, designed to keep figures like Ben-Gvir and extremist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in Netanyahu’s coalition.

Though “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” as Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz once surmised, in Israel’s case, the “politics” behind the war is not about Israel as a state but about Netanyahu’s own political survival. He is sacrificing Palestinian children to stay in power, while his extremist ministers do the same to expand their support among right-wing, religious, and ultra-nationalist constituencies.

This logic—that Israel’s war on Gaza reflects internal politics, ideological warfare, and class infighting—extends to other political players as well.

The Trump administration supports Israel as payback for the financial backing it received from Netanyahu’s supporters in the U.S. during the last elections. On the other hand, Britain remains steadfast in its commitment to Tel Aviv, despite the political shifts in Westminster, thus continuing to align with U.S.-Israeli interests while disregarding the wishes of its own population. Meanwhile, Germany, it’s said, is driven by the guilt of its past crimes, while other Western governments pay lip service to human rights, all the while acting in ways that contradict their stated foreign policies.

This mirrors the dystopian world of George Orwell’s 1984, where perpetual war is waged based on cynical and false assumptions, where “war is peace… freedom is slavery… and ignorance is strength.”

Indeed, these elements are reflected in today’s equally dystopian reality. However, Israel substitutes “peace” with “security,” the U.S. is motivated by dominance and “stability,” and Europe continues to speak of “democracy.”

Another key difference is that Palestinians do not belong to any of these “superstates.” They are treated as mere pawns, their deaths and enduring of injustice used to create the illusion of “conflict” and to justify the ongoing prolongation of the war.

The deaths of Palestinians—now numbering over 50,000—are widely reported by mainstream media outlets, yet rarely do they mention that this is not a war in the traditional sense, but a genocide, carried out, financed, and defended by Israel and Western powers for domestic political reasons. Palestinians continue to resist because it is their only option in the face of utter destruction and extermination.

Netanyahu’s war, however, is not sustainable in the Orwellian sense, either. For it to be sustainable, it would need infinite economic resources, which Israel, despite U.S. generosity, cannot afford. It would also need an endless supply of soldiers, but reports indicate that at least half of Israel’s reserves are not rejoining the army.

Furthermore, Netanyahu does not merely seek to sustain the war; he aims to expand it. This could shift regional and international dynamics in ways that neither Israeli leaders nor their allies fully understand.

Aware of this, Arab leaders met in Cairo on March 4 to propose an alternative to Netanyahu-Trump’s plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza. However, they have yet to take meaningful action to hold Israel accountable if it continues to defy international and humanitarian laws—as it has since the Arab summit.

The Arab world must escalate beyond mere statements, or the Middle East may endure further war, all to prolong Netanyahu’s coalition of extremists a little longer.

As for the West, the crisis lies in its moral contradictions. The situation in Gaza embodies Orwell’s concept of “doublethink”—the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both. Western powers claim to support human rights while simultaneously backing genocide. Until this dilemma is resolved, the Middle East will continue to endure suffering for years to come.

On April 30, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that could fundamentally reshape public education: Oklahoma’s controversial approval of the nation’s first religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School. The case forces a critical question to the forefront—should taxpayers be compelled to finance religious schools while having no authority to regulate them?

The court’s decision could continue a pattern of rulings that have chipped away at the traditional separation between church and state, transforming the landscape of public education and public funding. If the justices side with St. Isidore, the ruling could mark a turning point in American schooling—one that may erode public accountability, alter funding priorities, and blur the constitutional boundaries that have long defined the relationship between religion and government.

This case builds on a series of decisions from the Roberts Court that have steadily eroded the wall between church and state. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the court allowed public funds to be used for secular purposes by religious institutions. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue expanded this principle, ruling that states cannot exclude religious schools from publicly funded programs. And in Carson v. Makin, the court went further, mandating that state voucher programs include religious schools, arguing that exclusion constitutes discrimination against religion.

As the justices deliberate, they would do well to consider not just the legal arguments, but also the practical and moral consequences of their decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in Carson, stated, “[i]n particular, we have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” On its face, this reasoning frames the issue as one of fairness—ensuring religious entities are not treated unequally. But the deeper implications of this logic are far more radical.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in her dissent, this interpretation fundamentally redefines the Free Exercise Clause, equating a government’s refusal to fund religious institutions with unconstitutional religious discrimination. Justice Stephen Breyer took this concern a step further, pointing to the court’s own precedent to highlight the dangerous trajectory of its rulings:

We have previously found, as the majority points out, that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” We have thus concluded that a State may, consistent with the Establishment Clause, provide funding to religious schools through a general public funding program if the “government aid… reach[es] religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of… individual [aid] recipients.”

Breyer then underscored the significance of this distinction:

But the key word is “may.” We have never previously held what the court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education.

Finally, he distilled the implications into a warning: “What happens once ‘may’ becomes ‘must’?”

That shift—from allowance to obligation—could force states not only to permit religious education in publicly funded programs, but to actively finance it, eroding any semblance of neutrality between public and religious schooling. This transformation threatens to unravel the Establishment Clause’s core protection: that government does not privilege or compel religious exercise.

Now, the Oklahoma case brings Breyer’s warning into sharp focus. The petitioners are asking the court to declare that charter schools are not state actors—meaning they would be free from public accountability and regulations, including those related to discrimination or special education. At the same time, they argue that public funds must be made available to religious charters. The implications of such a ruling could reverberate across the country, reshaping education in profound and troubling ways.

The May-to-Must Transformation and Its Far-Reaching Consequences

If the Court sides with St. Isidore, the ripple effects could be seismic, triggering a wave of religious charter school applications and fundamentally altering the landscape of public education. Here’s how:

1. A Surge in Religious Charter Schools

Religious institutions, particularly those struggling to sustain traditional parochial schools, would have a financial lifeline. Charter subsidies, which often surpass voucher amounts, would incentivize religious organizations to enter the charter school market. For years, leaders in some religious communities have sought public funding to buoy their schools, and a decision in favor of St. Isidore could provide the legal green light. The result? A proliferation of religious charters, funded by taxpayers but largely free from public oversight.

2. Erosion of Protections for Students with Disabilities

The implications for students with disabilities are especially concerning. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s implementing regulations, a student with disabilities who is “placed in or referred to a private school or facility by a public agency…[h]as all of the rights of a child with a disability who is served by a public agency.” Yet, a ruling in favor of St. Isidore risks undermining these guarantees by creating a loophole for private religious charters to skirt IDEA’s requirements.

This concern is not just theoretical. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the hybrid nature of charter schools already complicates questions of accountability and state action, particularly when it comes to safeguarding student rights. Allowing religious charters to operate free from IDEA’s obligations would further erode the fragile legal protections students with disabilities rely on—protections that are already too often disregarded in practice.

3. Undermining Public Health and Safety Policies

The pandemic underscored the challenges of balancing public health mandates with constitutional protections for religious freedom. In 2020, a federal judge in Kentucky struck down the state’s attempt to close religious schools during a Covid-19 spike, even as public and secular private schools complied. Extending public funding to religious charters could further erode the state’s ability to enforce neutral regulations, from health measures to curriculum standards. Such decisions privilege religious institutions over secular ones, creating a patchwork of inconsistent rules that could undermine public safety and equity.

Toward Transparency and Accountability

Can these challenges be mitigated? Some experts argue for stricter regulations to preserve the public nature of charter schools. Bruce Baker, a professor of education finance, suggests limiting charter authorization to government agencies and requiring boards and employees to be public officials. Such reforms could ensure that charters remain accountable to taxpayers and subject to the same constitutional constraints as public schools.

Other scholars, like Preston Green and Suzanne Eckes, propose requiring religious charters to forgo certain exemptions if they wish to receive public funding. Specifically, they recommend restructuring charter school boards as government-created and controlled entities to ensure they are unequivocally recognized as state actors subject to constitutional obligations. For example, this would require religious charters to comply fully with anti-discrimination laws and other public mandates, maintaining the balance between religious freedom and public accountability.

The Larger Threat to Public Education

Even with these potential safeguards, the broader implications are sobering. If the court rules in favor of religious charters, states will face difficult choices: increase taxes to fund an expanding universe of religious and secular schools, divert money away from public schools, or create new bureaucracies to regulate religious institutions. Taxpayers could find themselves funding schools tied to a bewildering array of faiths, from mainstream denominations to fringe sects.

As the justices deliberate, they would do well to consider not just the legal arguments, but also the practical and moral consequences of their decision. What happens to a society when its public institutions are splintered along religious lines? And what happens to the students and families who depend on those institutions for equity, opportunity, and inclusion?

The answers to these questions will shape the future of American education—and the values we choose to uphold.

As a self-confessed polling nerd, I have studied polling for decades. One of the more interesting things I have done in my life is worked as an analyst for a prominent Democratic polling firm. There is no organization with a better reputation than Gallup. Founded way back in 1935, Gallup is truly the gold standard. Their nonpartisan reputation is without question. However, Gallup has not been perfect: It predicted New York Gov. Thomas Dewey would beat President Harry Truman back in 1948 and it had Gerald Ford edging out Jimmy Carter back in 1976. Despite these misses, you could always depend on Gallup to uphold the strictest methodological ethics and, even more importantly, they would report their data without any spin. Sometimes I liked what the Gallup reported, other times I did not.

So, when Gallup released new polling data last Thursday, I eagerly clicked on the link. I was wondering if President Donald Trump’s job approval was trending up or down. The headline of the Gallup press release was “Republicans, Men Push Trump Approval Higher in Second Term.” I was perplexed by the sub-header which said “Black, Hispanic adults more approving of Trump in second term, but still disapprove of him overall.”

The point that Gallup is making is that in 2017, 22% of Hispanics approved of Trump’s job performance while now it is 37%. Similarly, Black voters are more positive about Trump now than they were in 2017 (13% vs. 22%). This is a notable trend and one that political analysts need to watch. However, Gallup is missing the bigger point that if Trump wants to make inroads in the Black and Hispanic communities, he has a lot of work to do.

The only problem for Democrats, and it is a big one, is that the party needs to come up with an economic message.

The more important story in Gallup’s findings is that Independent voters have soured on Donald Trump. Fully 61% of Independents disapprove of Trump’s job performance. Independent voters’ feelings about Trump’s job as president are intense—fully 46% strongly disapprove of his performance.

When asked about Trump’s handling of the economy, two-thirds (66%) of Independents disapprove of Trump’s performance.

CNN 2024 exit polling showed that Trump lost Independent voters by 3 percentage points to Harris (49% Harris, 46% Trump). So, if we take voters’ perceptions of Trump’s handling of the economy as a proxy for their intention to vote for the GOP 2028 presidential candidate, it is evident that Republicans have some work to do to win over Independents.

Granted, the 2028 presidential election is years away. However, next year are the midterm elections. Historically, midterm elections go against the party in the White House. Furthermore, the polling that Gallup did does not measure the impact of Trump’s tariffs that will go into effect on April 2. Even the Trump administration has admitted that the president’s economic policies will cause problems in the short-term.

All of this is good news for Democrats. The only problem for Democrats, and it is a big one, is that the party needs to come up with an economic message. They have a real opportunity to take back the economy as an issue among Independents (34% of the 2024 electorate). For all our sake, I hope the party does not miss this opportunity.

Trump’s fixation on Greenland might be military overreach, a risky move given America’s war record. Since 1945, the U.S. has lost or stalemated in Korea (1953), Vietnam (1975), and Afghanistan (2021), with Iraq’s 2003 “victory” devolving into chaos. Greenland, a Danish territory with 56,000 residents and strategic Arctic value, isn’t for sale. Trump’s bluster ignores history: of 12 major post-WWII conflicts, the U.S. decisively won just three.

The post Trump’s Greenland Military Overreach appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Though this column comes to you on April Fool’s Day, it’s no joke. By now, it’s likely that many of you reading this piece have seen enough of our de facto president’s behavior to wonder if he’s in his right mind.

On January 6 last year, The Wall Street Journal ran this headline:

Elon Musk Has Used Illegal Drugs, Worrying Leaders at Tesla and Space X

In this case, the drug in question is ketamine, a powerful anesthetic and hallucinogen known to be addictive. In answer to questions about his drug use, Musk has stated that he uses the drug under medical supervision to treat chronic depression, adding that he’s “almost always sober” when he writes posts on social media during the pre-dawn hours, and that he makes sure his drug use doesn’t get in the way of his 16-hour work days.

This is the man whom President Donald Trump has chosen to advise him and to oversee the workings of the federal government, nuclear weapons included. Is he “almost always sober” when he does it? This is the man who spoke at greater length than anyone else at Trump’s first Cabinet meeting, where the barely confirmed secretary of defense was present, and where neither he nor his newly concocted department of government efficiency (no capital letters for its title, please) has Congress’ blessing. Somehow he and Trump pulled it out of the thin air of an executive order. Never mind that the Constitution places the power to create federal departments in the hands of Congress. Apparently the Constitution is nothing but a silly formality as far as he and Trump are concerned.

Then there was that little infomercial party he threw with Trump’s approval when he turned the White House into a Tesla dealership. Maybe Trump collected a commission. As for his values, this is the man who refused to say whether he would allow hate speech on his social media platform. This is the man who made his sense of right and wrong plain when he said, “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.”

Now ask yourself: Would you allow this fellow to provide official cover and excuse for Trump’s tariffs, which are increasing the price of your food, fuel, and housing? Would you allow him to ignore or defy court orders whenever he wants, as he has already done? Would you allow him to rip apart Medicare and Social Security, on which many of you depend? Would you allow him to undo the effort to control the nationwide damage which climate change has done? Would you let him pry into your personal information? Would you allow him access to our nuclear arsenal, at a very time when the nuclear arms race has reached what the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has called its most dangerous point ever?

Evidently most of our resident billionaires would, as long as the money rolls in, now that the world’s richest man is in charge.

Maybe Mr. Musk is taking ketamine under medical supervision to treat chronic depression. For the moment, let us suspend disbelief and grant that point. Does it follow that he should be running the federal show at the expense of badly needed social programs, while Mr. Trump offers us his special brand of strange entertainment?

Meanwhile, those in charge of Congress are compliant, while those in charge of the opposition cave in and pray meekly for some sort of deliverance in 2026.

Such is the prank our leaders play on us on this year’s Feast of Fools.

If you live in Wisconsin or in the 6th congressional district of Florida, you’ll have a chance to do something today the rest of us only dream about doing—tell President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to go to hell.

In Florida’s 6th, House Republicans had expected an easy win to replace Rep. Michael Waltz, who became Trump’s national security adviser (but may not be much longer, given his role in Signalgate). Trump won the district by 30 percentage points last November.

But Democratic candidate Josh Weil has a real chance of winning there. If he does, the Republicans’ margin in the House shrinks to just two.

If there was ever a symbol of why we need to get big money out of politics, reform campaign financing, stop conflicts of interest, and tax great wealth, Musk is it.

In Wisconsin, the race is for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Democrat Judge Susan Crawford is clearly more qualified and more, well, judge-like than her opponent Brad Shimel, but their temperaments and characters are not the largest issues.

The winner in Wisconsin could well determine voting districts and, hence, the likelihood that the state provides more Democratic or Republican representatives in the 2026 midterms and swings Republican or Democrat in the 2028 presidential race.

Musk is a big factor. He’s already sunk a small fortune into backing the Republican candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court—along with the same kind of million-dollar giveaway stunt he used in the presidential race.

Last night, Musk gave out two $1 million checks. One of the two recipients? The head of the Wisconsin College Republicans.

A new video released by Musk’s America PAC is further evidence that Musk’s massive cash giveaways are illegal vote buying. In the clip, a Wisconsin woman named Ekaterina Deistler, who won a $1 million prize, explicitly links her financial windfall to following Musk’s instructions—including voting.

The richest man in the world has no compunctions about throwing his wealth behind the worst possible candidates in America—as when he plunked down over a quarter trillion dollars to get Trump elected.

He has also used—or threatened to use—his wealth to back anyone who runs in a primary election against any Republican member of Congress who doesn’t totally support Trump. It’s an extortion racket that is not only helping to keep congressional Republicans silent and pliable, but has no legitimate place in our democracy.

If there was ever a symbol of why we need to get big money out of politics, reform campaign financing, stop conflicts of interest, and tax great wealth, Musk is it.

Not incidentally (speaking of conflicts of interest) Musk’s auto company, Tesla, has a case against Wisconsin pending in the state’s courts.

Polls opened in Wisconsin at 7:00 am CT and will close at 8:00 pm CT. If the margin of victory is large, the race could be called early. If close, it could come down to absentee ballots in Milwaukee, which are likely heavily Democratic and might not be fully counted until midnight or later.

The early vote appears more favorable to Judge Crawford than it was to Harris in 2024—which is good news for Crawford, although the GOP early vote has shot up relative to previous Wisconsin Supreme Court races.

One final and more general thought about these two elections today.

They’re extraordinary expensive and prominent. That’s because they’re both viewed as potential harbingers of what’s in store for Republicans or Democrats in future elections, both special elections and the 2026 midterms.

No one knows which direction the political winds are blowing and how hard, because America has never been in the place it’s in right now—with a tyrannical president aided by the richest person in the world.

Democrats have had reason to crow recently about flipping Republican-held state legislative seats in recent special elections in Iowa and Pennsylvania. On Saturday, voters in Louisiana rejected four proposed constitutional amendments backed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry that would have overhauled parts of the state’s tax codes and toughened penalties for juvenile offenders.

A victory by Josh Weil in Florida and/or Judge Crawford in Wisconsin could put wind in the sails of the Trump resistance. Let’s all hope that Floridians in the 6th district and the good people of Wisconsin do what the nation needs them to do.

The news of Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest surprised me.

It’s not that I doubted the former leader of the Philippines was guilty of the horrific crimes detailed in his International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant. Duterte himself boasted quite openly of the mass killings he’s been accused of. But I always thought that the prospects of bringing that brutal, outspoken politician to justice were remote indeed.

After all, Duterte’s daughter Sara is currently the vice president of the Philippines and that country is no longer a member of the ICC. On top of that, Duterte himself was so sure of his immunity that he was running for mayor of the city of Davao. In mid-March, after returning from campaigning in the Filipino community in Hong Kong, he suffered the indignity of being arrested in his own country.

The International Criminal Court’s arrest of Rodrigo Duterte should be a powerful reminder that justice is possible even in the most unjust of times.

Forgive me for saying this, but I just hadn’t thought the ICC was still truly functioning, given that the leaders of the most powerful countries on this planet—the United States, China, and Russia—don’t give a fig about human rights or international law. Sure, the ICC did issue high-profile arrest warrants for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on war crimes charges, but no one expects those rogues to be taken into custody anytime soon. And the impunity for the powerful has only become more entrenched now that a convicted felon squats in the White House.

The specialty of the ICC has, of course, been arresting human-rights abusers in truly weak or failed states like Laurent Gbagbo, former president of Côte d’Ivoire, and Hashim Thaçi, former president of Kosovo. With the world’s 31st largest economy, however, the Philippines is no failed state. Still, without nuclear weapons or a huge army, it’s no powerhouse either. Indeed, it was only when the Philippines became ever weaker—because of a feud between President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte (accused of threatening to assassinate him)—that the ICC had a chance to grab its target and spirit him away to The Hague to stand trial.

The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte might, in fact, seem like the exception that proves the (new) rule. After all, the international community and its institutions are currently facing a crisis of global proportions with violations of international law becoming ever more commonplace in this era of ascendant right-wing rogue states.

In 2014, Russia first grabbed Ukrainian territory, launching an all-out invasion in 2022. Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, sent troops into southern Lebanon, and expanded its footprint in Syria. U.S. President Donald Trump has spoken repeatedly of seizing Greenland, absorbing Canada as the 51st state, and retaking the Panama Canal, among other things. Small countries like Taiwan can’t sleep for fear of a late-night visit from jackbooted thugs.

But then there’s Europe.

Transatlantic Divergence

In the wake of Donald Trump’s dramatic return to the stage as a bull in the global china shop, European leaders have hastened to replace the United States as the voice of liberal internationalist institutions like the ICC. Of course, the U.S. was never actually a member of the ICC, which suggests that Europe has always been more connected to the rule of law than most American politicians. After all, if Duterte had been sent to Washington today—not to mention Beijing, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Moscow, or New Delhi—he would undoubtedly have been feted as an exemplary law-and-order politico rather than, as in The Hague, placed behind bars and put on trial.

This transatlantic divergence was only sharpened in mid-February when Vice President JD Vance berated an audience of Europeans at the Munich Security Conference, singling out for criticism Europe’s support of feminism and pro-choice policies, its rejection of Russian election interference (by overturning a Kremlin-manipulated presidential election in Romania), and its refusal to tolerate fascist and neo-fascist parties (shunning, among others, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland, or AfD). By urging them to worry more about internal challenges to “democracy” in Europe than the challenges presented by either Russia or China, Vance was effectively siding with illiberal adversaries against liberal allies.

In a certain sense, however, he was also eerily on target: Europe does indeed face all-too-many internal challenges to democracy. But they come from his ideological compatriots there like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, and far-right political parties like Germany’s AfD, as well as ultra-conservative cultural movements that target immigrants, the LGBTQ community, and secular multiculturalists.

Vance opposes mainstream European opinion, which has directly or indirectly challenged Donald Trump’s MAGA proposals and policies, as well as his rejection of the reality of climate change. Europe has, of course, been stepping up its defense of Ukraine, remains committed to promoting human rights, and adheres to democratic principles in the form of regular electoral checks and balances, as well as safeguards for civil society. Above all, unlike the Trump administration, it continues to move forward on the European Green Deal and a program to leave behind fossil fuels.

These were, of course, fairly uncontroversial positions until Trump reentered the White House.

Can Europe sustain that fragile plant of liberalism during this harsh winter of right-wing populism? Much depends on some risky bets. Will U.S. foreign policy swing back in favor of democracy, human rights, and transatlantic relations in four years? Will the weight of a never-ending war, in the end, dislodge Vladimir Putin from the Kremlin? Will Ukraine overcome its own internal divisions to become part of a newly enlarged European Union (EU)? Will Bibi Netanyahu someday become Duterte’s cellmate?

At the moment, unfortunately, it seems more likely that Europe will be the last powerful holdout in a world entering a new political Dark Age. A dismal scenario lurks on the horizon in which democracy and human rights cling to existence somewhere within the walls of the European Union, much as monasteries managed to preserve classical learning a millennium ago.

Europe Steps Forward

After Trump and Vance humiliated Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his White House visit in February, an ideologically diverse range of European leaders raced to support the Ukrainian leader and his country. But defending democracy means all too little if that defense remains largely verbal.

So, no longer being able to count on U.S. power or NATO security guarantees in the age of Trump, European Union leaders have decided to visit the gym and muscle up. Shortly after Zelenskyy’s meeting, the E.U. readied a large military spending bill meant to contribute to the “security of Europe as a whole, in particular as regards the E.U.’s eastern border, considering the threats posed by Russia and Belarus.” About $150 billion more would be invested in the military budgets of member states. The E.U. will also relax debt limits to allow nearly $700 billion in such additional spending over the next four years.

Semi-socialist, DEI-loving, human-rights-supporting, Israel-skeptical, Europe is everything Donald Trump hates. Think of the E.U., in fact, as the global equivalent of his worst nightmare, a giant liberal arts campus.

Of course, in the past, Europe’s vaunted social democracy was largely built on low defense spending and a reliance on Washington’s security umbrella. That “peace dividend” saved E.U. member states a huge chunk of money—nearly $400 billion every year since the end of the Cold War—that could be applied to social welfare and infrastructure expenses. Forcing NATO members to spend a higher percentage of their gross domestic product on their militaries is a dagger that both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are holding to the throat of Europe’s social democracy. Germany can still afford to engage in deficit spending for both guns and butter, but it presents a distinct problem for countries like Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, and Spain with high levels of government debt.

And when it comes to Europe’s future, it’s not just a military affair. While some European leaders have used intelligence assessments to focus on Putin’s territorial ambitions, others are more anxious about Russia’s assault on their values. Fearful of the way the illiberal values of Putin and Trump seem to overlap, Europeans have cast the fate of Ukraine in the loftiest of terms: the defense of democracy against fascism. However, given the connections between the European far-right and the Kremlin—thanks to Germany’s AfD, the two French far-right parties (National Rally and Reconquest), and Bulgaria’s Revival among others—the fight against fascism is now taking place on the home front as well.

Europe is also defending democratic values in other ways. It has long promoted DEI-like programs, beginning with France’s diversity charter in 2004, while the European Commission is committed to equality for the LGBTQ community. In 2021, to promote universal values, the E.U. even launched a program called Global Europe Human Rights and Democracy, which was meant to support human rights defenders, the rule of law, and election monitors across the planet. Typically, on the controversial topic of Israel-Palestine, European countries have condemned the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza and several have even recognized the (still-to-be-created) state of Palestine.

Semi-socialist, DEI-loving, human-rights-supporting, Israel-skeptical, Europe is everything Donald Trump hates. Think of the E.U., in fact, as the global equivalent of his worst nightmare, a giant liberal arts campus.

No wonder the MAGA crowd has the urge to cut the transatlantic cable as a way of targeting its opponents both at home and abroad.

Europe Divided

But wait: The MAGA crowd doesn’t hate Europe quite as thoroughly as it does Columbia University. After all, not all European leaders are on board with social democracy, DEI, human rights, and Palestine. In fact, in some parts of the continent, Trump and Vance are heroes, not zeros.

Hungary’s leader Viktor Orbán, for instance, has long been a friend and inspiration for Donald Trump. After all, he’s managed to translate the illiberalism of Vladimir Putin—anti-democratic, anti-LGBT, uber-nationalist—into a semi-democratic vernacular of great appeal to an American far-right that must negotiate a significantly more complex political landscape than the one that surrounds the Kremlin.

As Putin’s greatest acolyte, Orbán has worked overtime to undermine a common European approach to Ukraine. He initially opposed aid to Ukraine, a stance ultimately overcome by the pressure tactics of other European leaders. He pushed for a watered-down version of the most recent E.U. statement in support of that country, only to watch the other 26 E.U. members pass it without him. And he’s rejected Ukrainian membership in the E.U. Still, with elections scheduled for 2026 and the opposition now outpolling Orbán’s Fidesz party, the days of one man holding the E.U. hostage may soon be over.

While Orbán does have allies, most of them—like AUR in Romania and the National Alliance in Latvia—are sniping from the sidelines as part of the opposition. Several other far-right parties like the ruling Fratelli d’Italia in Italy don’t share Orbán’s odd affection for Putin. But if the AfD in Germany or the National Rally in France were to win enough votes to take over their respective governments, Europe’s political center of gravity could indeed shift.

Such divisions extend to the question of E.U. expansion. Serbia’s pro-Russian slant makes such a move unlikely in the near term and Turkey is too autocratic to qualify, while both Bosnia and Georgia, like Ukraine, are divided. It’s hard to imagine Ukraine itself overcoming its internal divisions—or its war-ravaged economy—to meet Europe’s membership requirements, no matter the general enthusiasm inside that country and elsewhere in Europe for bringing it in from the cold.

Nonetheless, E.U. expansion is what Putin fears the most: a democratic, prosperous union that expands its border with his country and inspires Russian activists with its proclamations of universal values. No small surprise, then, that he’s tried to undermine the E.U. by supporting far-right and Euroskeptical movements. Yet the combination of the war in Ukraine and the reelection of Donald Trump may be undoing all his efforts.

The experience of feeling trapped between two illiberal superpowers has only solidified popular support for the E.U. and its institutions. In a December 2024 poll, trust in the E.U. was at its highest level in 17 years, particularly in countries that are on the waiting list like Albania and Montenegro. Moreover, around 60% of Europeans support providing military aid to Kyiv and future membership for Ukraine.

For increasing numbers of those outside its borders, Europe seems like a beacon of hope: prosperous democracies pushing back against the onslaught of Trump and Putin. And yet, even if Europe manages to stave off the challenges of its home-grown far-right, it may not, in the end, prove to be quite such a beacon. After all, it has its own anti-migrant policies and uses trade agreements to secure access to critical raw materials and punish countries like Indonesia that have the temerity to employ their own mineral wealth to rise higher in the global value chain. Although, unlike Putin’s Russia and Trump’s America, it’s doing its best to shift to a clean-energy economy, it’s done so all too often by dirtying the nests of other countries to get the materials it needs for that shift.

Whatever its resemblance to a liberal arts college, Europe is anything but a non-profit institution and can sometimes seem more like a fortress than a beacon. As was true of those medieval monasteries that preserved the classical learning of the ages but also owned land and serfs, supplied markets with addictive products like chartreuse, and subjected their members to torture and imprisonment, saving civilization can have a darker side.

Exiting the Dark Age

The International Criminal Court’s arrest of Rodrigo Duterte should be a powerful reminder that justice is possible even in the most unjust of times. Brutal leaders almost always sow the seeds of their own demise. Putin’s risky moves have mobilized virtually all of Europe against him. In antagonizing country after country, Trump is similarly reinforcing liberal sentiment in Canada, in Mexico, and throughout Europe.

If the world had the luxury of time, holing up in the modern equivalent of monasteries and waiting out the barbarians would be a viable strategy. But climate change cares little for extended timelines. And don’t forget the nuclear doomsday clock or the likelihood of another pandemic sweeping across the globe. Meanwhile, Trump and his allies are destroying things at such a pace that the bill for “reconstruction” grows more astronomical by the day.

The gap between the fall of the Roman Empire and the first glimmers of the Renaissance was about 1,000 years. No one has that kind of time anymore. So, while long-term strategies to fight the right are good, those standing up to the bullies also need to act fast and forcefully. The world can’t afford a European retreat into a fortress and the equivalent of monastic solitude. The E.U. must unite with all like-minded countries against the illiberal nationalists who are challenging universal values and international law.

The ICC set a good example with its successful seizure of Duterte. Let’s all hope, for the good of the world, that The Hague will have more global scofflaws in its jail cells—and soon.

Live at 10 am Eastern/9 am Central time, and Streaming 24-7 Thereafter

In this episode of The TMI Show, hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan tackle the massive layoffs looming over the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under its newly appointed cabinet secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. With a staggering 10,000 jobs reportedly set to be axed as part of a radical overhaul to “trim the fat” from the sprawling agency, the duo digs into the potential ripple effects on Kennedy’s bold “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative.

MAHA promises a revolution in public health—tackling chronic disease through sweeping changes in food regulation, pharmaceutical oversight, and environmental policy—but can it succeed with a gutted workforce?

Joined by Kristen Meghan, an outspoken industrial hygienist and former whistleblower, they dissect the stakes: diminished FDA enforcement, a hobbled CDC response to crises, and slashed research funding at NIH. Could these cuts sabotage Kennedy’s vision before it even begins, or are they a necessary purge of a bloated system? Let’s weigh the trade-offs between efficiency and capability, questioning whether this shake-up will empower or cripple America’s health future.

The post TMI Show Ep 108: “HHS Layoffs Impact on MAHA” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Each day the Democrats are outraged about another outrage coming from Trump and his enablers—stomping on immigrants, undermining the courts, attacking Canada, claiming Ukraine started the war, violating campus free speech, destroying the EPA, firing forest rangers—and on and on and on.

But why the surprise? Did anyone doubt that Trump would act on his anger and his resentment, and then follow through executing the detailed plans laid out in Project 2025? Did anyone believe he would turn the other cheek at those who tried to impeach him and send him to jail? Surely every single elected Democrat knew that Trump’s election would be a disaster for everything the party claimed to stand for.

Nevertheless, the Democrats handed Trump the election on a bitcoin-plated platter. They stuck with Biden—make that sucked up to Biden—until it was too late to run primaries and find the strongest Democratic candidate. (I’m not saying Kamala Harris necessarily was the weakest one, but four years earlier she flunked out before the first presidential primary. Just saying.)

Why the hell did they do that?

I’m no political genius, but nearing Biden’s 81st birthday, in November of 2023, I begged him not to run again. It was clear to me, based on polling, his lack of energy, and my own intuition, that he had no business running again.

I was alone, but not entirely so. Obama’s campaign maestro, David Axelrod was pounded for suggesting Biden wasn’t the best candidate. That so successfully quelled any dissent that it wasn’t until six months later (July 2, 2024) that Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) became the first sitting Democratic congressman to ask Biden to withdraw. Profiles in courage, the Democrats were not, including all the governors lining up for 2028.

If I could see the trainwreck coming why couldn’t the Democrats?

I think I know why. They didn’t get upset about it because they were blinded by power and wealth.

Biden represented power. You cross him and you lose access to that power even while his grip on reality is diminishing. You become a target for party loyalists, and risk losing credibility in the party if you call for him to step down. You become an outsider. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) didn’t want to lose their influence over Biden’s pro-worker agenda as they continued to support his candidacy until the bitter end.

The Democrats today are imploding, and that’s exactly what they deserve. They blew it.

The attraction to wealth is an even bigger problem. Far too many Democrats are enamored by the rich and famous. They went to school with them. They lean on them for campaign funds. They plan to join them when they leave public office. The wizards on Wall Street and in corporate America form the class they see themselves as part of, or in the class they aspire to.

It is not a coincidence, therefore, that the Democratic Party has become the representatives of the managerial class. Too many party members with working-class roots tore them out long ago.

Many probably discounted their worries about Trump, thinking that the rich and powerful would tame him. Because that’s where the Democratic Party thinks real power lies. The financial class wouldn’t let Trump wreck the economy, would it? Surely, the corporate class wouldn’t back down on DEI programs or forgo their access to inexpensive immigrant labor. The wealthiest Democratic law firms aren’t going to cave, right? Wouldn’t the elites prevent Trump’s excesses the way they did last time? Hmmm.

Along the way, most Democrats lost their anger. They lost their fight. They lost their connection to the working people who have seen their way of life crushed after 40 years of neoliberalism. Which is why many modern Democrats found it easy to cavalierly go along with the worst political decision since Nixon taped himself committing crimes during the Watergate scandal. (Please see Wall Street’s War on Workers for why working people abandoned the Democrats, and visa vera.)

Along the way, most Democrats lost their anger. They lost their fight. They lost their connection to the working people who have seen their way of life crushed after 40 years of neoliberalism.

Biden clearly did not have the capacity to run again. The Democrats knew that even before he proved it to the world during his disastrous June 2024 debate with Trump. But they didn’t care enough to oppose his decision, publicly, where it would matter. He told his advisors during the 2020 race that he wouldn’t run for a second term, he would be 82 years old by his second inauguration, but the party refused to hold him to it when he changed his mind.

The Democrats today are imploding, and that’s exactly what they deserve. They blew it. They can’t be reformed into a working-class party, because that’s not who they are or what they want to be. From my perspective, reforming them is an utter waste of time and energy, an exercise in window dressing and spin. Instead, we need a new party, an Independence Party that comes with the slogan: The billionaires have two parties, we need one of our own!

Stop with the Spoiler Argument

All I hear from friend and foe is that third parties are impossible in America, that they only serve as spoilers and can never succeed.

Ralph Nader’s run, they tell me, elected Bush. We can argue about whether that’s true, it might be, but there’s very little argument against the idea that Biden’s run in 2024 elected Trump—for the second time!

So, we start with identifiable targets. There is nothing to spoil if we concentrate on running independent working-class candidates in one-party Congressional districts of which there are many!

In 2022, five out of every six races were decided by more than 10 percentage points, according to FairVote.org. One out of every 13 races went entirely uncontested! These districts are where the battle should be joined. The call for a new Independence Party is a call for a vibrant second party, not a third!

Dan Osborn, a former local labor leader, was surprisingly competitive in the 2024 Senate race in Nebraska, running against an unopposed Republican and far ahead of Kamala Harris. Bernie Sanders always runs as an independent as well, and he has now come out urging others to do the same.

The need for a new party could never be clearer. The time could never be more urgent.

There’s a hunger out there for something new, but it will take courage and guts to create it. That can only happen when key labor unions decide to do what their membership has been telling them to do for a generation – get away from the corporate Democrats!

Private sector unions, diminished as they may be, are still the seat of worker power in the U.S. And they can galvanize the working class around an agenda that enhances the well-being of all working people. They are key to building a new political formation that protects us all from Wall Street-driven job destruction.

The need for a new party could never be clearer. The time could never be more urgent. The opportunity is there staring us in the face, if only we have the nerve to grab it.

On March 7th the Trump administration announced the immediate cancellation of $400 million in government grants and contracts to Columbia University. Less than a week later, his administration followed up with a letter to Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, outlining the steps the university would have to take before negotiations to restore funding could even begin.

Although largely without precedent, Trump’s demands are entirely in line with an evolving authoritarianism that seeks to destroy possible sites of political opposition. The demands included suspending or expelling some of those who participated in pro-Palestinian protests; centralizing disciplinary power within the hands of the university president; banning mask wearing on campus; increasing the numbers and powers of campus police; and putting the Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department under “academic receivership” (a rare move that places a department under external/administrative control, typically because it has become dysfunctional, but in this case because it was not sufficiently pro-Israel).

On March 21st, Columbia’s interim president agreed to the demands. Columbia would not put up a fight. Armstrong’s actions were widely condemned by advocates of higher education, academic freedom, and free speech—most of whom seemed genuinely surprised, even shocked, by Columbia’s decision to simply accept Trump’s terms. On March 28th Armstrong lost her job.

Trump is coming for us because so much of the best that university faculty, staff, and students represent—science, education, reason, knowledge, and informed political engagement—poses a real threat to his project.

It is tempting, as most commentators have, to understand the quick, total, and passive submission of Columbia and other university administrations to Trump’s assault through the lens of “capitulation,” “caving,” or “appeasement.” I get the impulse. Surely liberal institutions of higher learning, with time-honored commitments to free speech and academic freedom, would not possibly agree to Trump’s outrageous demands unless they had a financial gun pointed directly at them? Campus leaders must—so the logic goes—be churning on the inside, desperately wanting to fight back even as they reluctantly recognize that capitulation is the only alternative. Fighting back poses too great a risk.

Capitulation as an explanation, however, is far too generous and rests on the false premise that—when faced with a profound threat to democracy—core institutions such as universities have, currently are, or will fight to protect our basic political norms.

The question we should be asking ourselves—especially those of us who live in academia and should know better—is why would we expect universities, or more accurately the administrators who run them, to protect free speech, academic freedom, and dissent at all, especially during moments of crisis when doing so entails taking real risks? University administrations, from the 1960s through the present, have a very thin track record of doing so. The reality is that most have worked overtime, often at the behest of the trustees that control them, to limit or crush our freedoms with such consistency, and over such a long period of time, that it is baffling that anyone would expect anything different as we race towards authoritarianism.

Complicity gets us far closer to a useful explanation of recent actions by campus leaders than capitulation. We need only listen to Columbia’s interim president. In explaining the university’s acceptance of the Trump administration’s demands for restoring the flow of federal dollars, Armstrong noted in an open letter to the campus community that the university’s actions were in line with the path it had been following in the past year and were “guided by our values, putting academic freedom, free expression, open inquiry, and respect for all at the fore of every decision we make.” Armstrong is correct when she suggests that Trump’s demands coincide with university values as defined by top campus leaders. It’s just that those values do not include, and never really did, academic freedom and free expression.

Understood this way, it seems quite likely that Columbia’s leaders accepted Trump’s demands not so much because they were forced to (capitulate), or because they saw fighting as either futile or potentially disastrous, but because they welcomed the opportunity and political cover that Trump’s order provided—to get rid of “unruly” students, increase the university’s capacity to limit protest and discipline students, staff, and faculty, and (bonus!) gain control over a department that by its very subject matter might prove troublesome. That’s complicity, not capitulation. It’s also right in line with what we have seen from university administrations, including Columbia’s, in the recent and not so recent past. Indeed, the current era of complicity started under Biden with the draconian response to pro-Palestine protests from universities throughout the country in 2024 (and of course has a much longer history dating at least to the 1950s).

The speed with which university administrations have abandoned DEI policies and practices must be seen in this light as well. The administrative commitment to very limited sets of DEI policies was always paper thin, or about as deep as their commitment to academic freedom. It’s more a marketing ploy and opportunity for virtue signaling than any sort of real political commitment. The fact that many universities scrubbed websites and academic units, in some cases overnight, of almost any mention of DEI when the political winds shifted is hardly surprising.

This is not to say that most campus leaders like or fully embrace Trump’s gestapo-like tactics (though some seem to be getting quite comfortable with it). But it is also the case—especially after the 2024 campus protests around Palestine—that most were on board with some sort of “course correction,” not unlike the position one finds on the opinion pages of the New York Times, which essentially argues that student protests went too far, faculty are too liberal, universities need to rein it in, and Trump has a point (for a good example of this “commonsense” drivel, see Greg Weiner’s piece).

To be sure, we should not downplay the distinction between Trump’s authoritarianism, which tends to see those on college campuses as dangerous radicals who need to be removed, from the liberal “course correction” that pushes reforms to “take politics out” of higher education. And yet, as soon as one starts to accept Trump’s fascist tactics for getting there, which increasingly embraces a grab-them-off-the-streets approach reminiscent of Central America paramilitaries in the 1980s, the distinction probably feels a bit like splitting hairs to those on the wrong end of it. Complicity, not capitulation.

The silver lining, if there is one, is that although highly paid administrators officially speak for universities, and have considerable power over university policies, they are not “universities” any more than are the boards of trustees that control them. Katrina Armstrong, or whoever replaces her, is not Columbia University. The students, faculty, and staff who make up the institution, as well as the communities they serve, are “the university.”

Put another way, to suggest that there is no reason to expect university administrators to be natural defenders of free speech and political dissent, and that history tells us that many of them will in fact be complicit with Trump’s brand of fascism, is not to say that we should not try to hold them accountable or that the fight is over and universities have been politically neutered. It is to say that we—“the university”—have to continue the fight that so many of us are already engaged in. Trump is coming for us because so much of the best that university faculty, staff, and students represent—science, education, reason, knowledge, and informed political engagement—poses a real threat to his project. Campus leaders may opt for complicity. Let’s make sure we are neither complicit nor capitulate.