The only efficiency Elon Musk cares about is how efficiently he can take your money to line his own pockets. Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign promises, Musk is coming after your earned Social Security benefits.

President Dwight Eisenhower, Republican and war hero, could have been talking about Musk when he warned in 1954 of a handful of “Texas oil millionaires” attempting to abolish Social Security. “Their number is negligible, and they are stupid,” he wrote.

Musk has made no secret of his disdain for our Social Security system. In just the last few weeks, he has used his gigantic platform to spread outrageous lies about Social Security.

We must demand that every member of Congress stand up to Musk’s cynical efforts to steal our earned Social Security benefits while giving himself and other billionaires a hefty tax cut.

Unlike the extremely rich, stupid men to whom Eisenhower was referring, Musk is, unfortunately, not just ignorant. Trump is giving him the power to steal our earned benefits. Musk is drawing on an old playbook of claiming that the government in general, and Social Security in particular, is full of “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Then, when he steals your benefits, he will claim that he is simply cutting waste.

Both Musk’s ignorance and his anti-Social Security playbook were on full display Tuesday, when the shadow president talked to reporters in the Oval Office. In trying to convince us that our extremely efficient Social Security system is rife with fraud, he unknowingly proved how economical its administration is, when he asserted, “Just cursory examination of Social Security, and we’ve got people in there that are 150 years old.”

No one born 150 years ago is receiving benefits.. The hardworking civil servants at the Social Security Administration are extremely diligent in tracking the deaths of beneficiaries. Social Security spends millions of dollars every year to purchase the automated death data of state vital records agencies.

And Social Security provides a lump sum death benefit, in part to encourage the families of beneficiaries to report their deaths promptly. When beneficiaries die, their benefits are immediately terminated. Eligible survivors, if any, start to receive the benefits their loved ones have earned for them.

It is important to recognize that what Musk and others label “waste” is usually unavoidable because of the way politicians have drafted our laws. For example, Social Security benefits are paid in the month following the month that they are due. That means that if you die at the end of the month and are paid a benefit a few days later, at the start of the next month, that is considered an overpayment—even when the death is quickly reported and the benefits quickly cancelled. The law requires the Social Security Administration to claw back those benefits from the grieving survivors—which it routinely does.

Again, no one born 150 years ago is still receiving benefits. But here is where Musk is showing his ignorance: Let’s take the example of a person who is issued a Social Security card as an infant and dies at age 10, never having received a penny of benefits. Social Security doesn’t waste taxpayer dollars finding that information and cancelling their Social Security number—this would be prohibitively expensive and wasteful.

Moreover, most adults who die leave behind spouses and children, including adult disabled children, who may be eligible for benefits for many years based on the decedent’s earnings record. Therefore, that record may remain active for a very long time. For example, the last person to receive a Civil War pension was a veteran’s disabled daughter, who died less than five years ago—in 2020.

Disturbingly, the reason Musk was able to assert the ignorant claim about 150-year-olds is that he has accessed our personal data. Because Musk has access to the Treasury’s payments system, he has the Social Security numbers of every worker and Social Security beneficiary. He also has our bank account numbers, and other sensitive, private information.

Musk and his minions are reportedly now not just at the Treasury but also at Social Security’s headquarters in Baltimore. That means they may already have access to how much a person has ever earned, at what job, and when, how old they are, their marital status, and more. Musk may also have access to the medical records of every single one of the millions of Americans who have applied for disability benefits. No unelected, unconfirmed ideologue should be anywhere near those records, especially not the wealthiest man in the world, given his numerous conflicts of interest.

What is going on should be obvious. Musk wants to cut off your benefits and then have Congress use the savings to give himself a gigantic tax cut. But Social Security is incredibly popular, so he can’t be open about his intentions. Instead, he is trying to convince Americans that our Social Security system is overrun with massive fraud. The truth is the opposite.

Less than 1% of Social Security payments are improper. And remember, that already-low percentage includes all the beneficiaries who die immediately before their benefit is due.

Given that these and all other improper payments constitute less than 1% of all payments made, those that are the result of fraud are vanishingly small. This is in sharp contrast to private insurance. Indeed, the American Academy of Actuaries issued a report just last September about private insurance and concluded that “insurance fraud is widespread.”

Ironically, the best way to stop improper payments—including those vanishingly few that result from fraud—is to adequately staff the Social Security Administration. Face-to-face transactions at your local Social Security field office will catch fraudsters. Online transactions generally won’t.

Unfortunately, your local Social Security office will be closing. Musk has instructed the General Services Administration to terminate all federal office leases, including every Social Security office and every post office.

Musk will do whatever it takes to avoid paying his fair share and enrich himself at our expense. He has his eyes on our Social Security. Lies about fraud might shake people’s confidence, but they are unlikely to shake people’s support for Social Security.

His rummaging around in our private information is unprecedented. It is hard to know what he has in mind or how to stop him. But there is one thing we absolutely can stop.

We can stop Congress from cutting our benefits. We must demand that every member of Congress stand up to Musk’s cynical efforts to steal our earned Social Security benefits while giving himself and other billionaires a hefty tax cut.

Every single member of Congress must publicly pledge that they will keep the promises Trump made on the campaign trail. That means not one penny in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Every member of Congress must tell Musk and Trump: Hands off Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Armed to the teeth with M4 rifles and Glock pistols and pockets stuffed with their $10,000 advance plus some, 96 former U.S. special forces veterans are currently stationed in Gaza.

These mercenaries have been hired by UG Solutions, a North Carolina-based military contractor, to patrol the intersection that Israel used to separate the north from the south of Gaza. What the Occupation called the “Netzarim Corridor” split Gaza with a fortified, wide road to resupply weapons and tanks as well as providing a vantage point to launch attacks on both the north and the south. Named after the settler encampment in the same area from 1975-2005, the area was once again made into a violent and deadly zone. After the occupation forces withdrew from the intersection, the decomposing bodies and skeletal remains of Palestinian people were found.

In a recruiting email from UG Solutions, the company describes the primary purpose of the soldiers as “internal vehicle checkpoint management and vehicle inspection.” They claim to be searching for weapons moving in Gaza, of course only on Palestinians, not their or their colleagues’ own American and Israeli guns, nor those of the Israeli occupation forces (IOF.) We know this means that these soldiers are doing the work of the occupation forces. Like the checkpoints that slice into the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, these armed and oppressive checkpoints aim to terrorize Palestinians, securitize their land, and provide outposts for attacks. As the cease-fire unfolds in stages, all eyes should be on these checkpoints to ensure all soldiers are removed, American or Israeli.

The presence of U.S. mercenaries in Gaza highlights a disturbing pattern of American involvement in the region’s violence.

The images of these mercenaries, being paid a minimum of $1,100 a day, standing with their sunglasses and rifles next to Palestinians trying to travel in their own land is infuriating. But it’s also revealing. American boots have been on the ground in Gaza many times over the past 15 months of the accelerated genocide, and certainly before that. You might recall the since-deleted photograph accidentally posted by the White House’s Instagram account that revealed the high-level U.S. Delta Squad were in Gaza. Not to mention the many, many Americans in the IOF—either settlers or enthusiastic killers traveling from the U.S.—who have had their hand in committing genocide, perhaps recording a video celebrating themselves blowing up a mosque or parading in their victims’ undergarments, before returning to the United States—if not after taking a brief vacation to Dubai or Brazil first.

This is not the first time that U.S. private mercenaries have been hired to provide assistance to U.S. military invasions. Blackwater, a private mercenary company also headquartered in North Carolina, was hired to send U.S. mercenaries to both Afghanistan and Iraq shortly after the U.S. invasions. Between 2001 and 2007, Blackwater received $1 billion in U.S. government contracts. On September 16, 2007, Blackwater mercenaries massacred 17 Iraqi civilians, aged between 9 and 77, and wounded 20 people in Nisour Square, Baghdad. Four Blackwater mercenaries were convicted of their murders: Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nicholas Slatten, and Paul Slough. Despite the global outrage, Blackwater CEO, Erik Prince, maintained that they acted “appropriately” and, in his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump pardoned all of the killers.

The Nisour Square massacre is but one example of the violence of Blackwater in Iraq. Between 2005 and 2007, U.S. mercenaries attacked Iraqi civilians at least 195 times. The actions of Blackrock employees revealed in the WikiLeaks’ War Logs uncover that these were not only random acts of violence but how the private soldiers were acting in coordination with the U.S. military itself. Blackwater is but one of the many companies like it that exerted imperialist violence on behalf of the U.S. empire. The U.S. government turned to using privatized militaries to outsource accountability and actions, often opting for private contractors in the years after they officially withdrew from countries, or in places where they wanted a presence but fewer U.S. soldiers.

The presence of U.S. mercenaries in Gaza highlights a disturbing pattern of American involvement in the region’s violence. In Gaza today, these mercenaries fulfill a role without scrutiny that neither the U.S. military nor Israeli occupation forces could with the same guns and boots but different logos. These soldiers, whether it’s the IOF, Blackwater, U.S. military, or UG Solutions, only mean violence for the Palestinian people. The continuation of using private mercenaries reflects the unaccountability and disregard for Palestinian lives that characterizes U.S. foreign policy in the region, underscoring the need for global scrutiny and calls for justice as the potential for escalated violence continues.

America’s policymakers have been debating for decades now the fairness of the preferential tax rate for capital gains. The maximum federal income tax rate applicable to long-term capital gains currently sits a whopping 17 percentage points lower than the maximum rate applicable to ordinary income: 20% on long-term gains versus 37% on ordinary income.

Let’s note here at the outset that both ordinary income and capital gains may be subject to federal employment tax or the net investment income tax. But including those additional taxes does not change the essential tax-time gap between ordinary and capital gains income. So, for simplicity’s sake, let’s just here consider the gap between the 20 and 37% rates.

Eliminating the preferential rate for capital gains, many analysts maintain, would finally place investment income and wages on an equal footing tax-wise. But would that actually be the case? Unfortunately, no. Simply equalizing the basic tax rates on ordinary and capital gains income would leave in place the gaping “buy-hold for decades-sell” loophole.

If you had to choose between paying tax at 10% annually or paying 10% every 10 years, would you consider those two rates equal?

The framing of the debate over the current preferential treatment for capital gains makes this loophole quite difficult to notice. And that same framing leaves us accepting, incorrectly, the implied premise that the low nominal tax rate rich investors pay on their capital gains—barely half the rate applicable to other types of income—accurately describes the tax rate in an economic sense.

If we continue to focus solely on whether the 20% rate applied to billionaire gains should be raised to 37%, in other words, we won’t be questioning that accuracy.

A similar phenomenon arises when we’re discussing billionaire wealth. Most of us see the obscene fortunes of the world’s billionaires, as reported by Forbes and Bloomberg, and seldom consider the possibility that many of those fortunes may actually be higher than the published estimates. But think a moment: If you held a billion-dollar fortune and wanted to keep your tax bill as low as possible, would you want policymakers knowing the full extent of your wealth? Of course not.

But most of the rest of us don’t ask that question. We see a deep pocket’s wealth estimated at, say, $50 billion—about 50,000 times more than our own $100,000 net worth—and the last thought to enter our minds would be that this deep pocket’s wealth might really stand at $75 billion.

Just as the bloated level of estimates of billionaire fortunes causes us not to consider the possibility those fortunes may be actually even larger, the low tax rate nominally applicable to capital gains income leaves us unlikely to fully compare tax rates on ordinary and capital gains income.

The key to understanding how to make better comparisons: taking tax frequency into account.

Most of the income Americans make—wages and salaries, most notably—gets taxed annually. Capital gains, by contrast, get taxed only when the holders of investment assets decide to sell them. That reality turns a simple comparison of the 20% tax rate on capital gains with the 37% top tax rate on ordinary income into an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Or to put things another way: If you had to choose between paying tax at 10% annually or paying 10% every 10 years, would you consider those two rates equal?

We can overcome the difficulty in comparing the tax rates on ordinary and capital gains income once we begin to understand why we cannot consider these two situations the same.

Consider, for starters, what your tax liability would be if you inadvertently understated your income from a small business on your tax return by $50,000 and then reported the missing income three years later. You would end up paying the IRS not just the tax you should have paid on that income, but an interest charge as well—for deferring the payment of tax beyond the year you earned your income.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say you were required to pay $10,000 in tax and $2,500 in interest. You would then have paid tax at an overall 20% rate.

Now compare that to the situation your rich friend encountered. She invested $50,000 in stocks and held that investment for four years. Say that investment doubled in value, to $100,000, in the first year—the same year you earned the $50,000 of income you failed to report—and then held that value for another three years. If your friend then sold her investment and paid tax at the 20% rate applicable to capital gains, she could claim to have paid tax at the same 20% rate you did.

But would that be accurate? Not really. Economically, your friend has obviously paid tax at a lower rate than you. Yes, you both realized $50,000 of income in the same year and you both paid tax on that income three years later. But you paid a total of $12,500, including interest, while she paid only $10,000.

What happened here? Economically, your friend’s $10,000 tax payment includes a charge for the privilege of deferring the payment of tax. By contrast, our tax system considers your $2,500 deferral charge on your $10,000 obligation a separate item. To make the comparison apples-to-apples, then, we might consider your friend to have paid tax at an effective annual rate of 16%, $8,000, plus a $2,000 deferral fee.

Now consider the case where you received your $50,000 of income—along with additional income necessary to place you in the top marginal tax bracket—in the same year your friend sold her $50,000 investment for $100,000, rather than the year she purchased it.

You would have paid tax on your $50,000 at the marginal rate of 37%, a total of $18,500—and likely have been laser-focused on having had to pay nearly double the tax rate that your ultra-rich friend paid–37% versus 20%—on the same $50,000 of income. In all likelihood, you would at the same time have failed to focus on the reality that the 20% rate applied to your friend’s gain actually overstated the rate she paid in comparison to the rate you paid.

Let’s expand our financial horizon. Say a rich investor purchases an asset for $1 million. Over the next 30 years, that asset grows in value at a steady pace of 10% per year, an average-ish return for a rich American investor. At the end of the 30 years, the asset would be worth about $17,450,000. If the investor then sold the asset and paid tax at 20% on the $16,450,000 gain, a total tax of $3,290,000, he would be left with about $14,160,000.

Suppose instead our investor had to pay tax annually on each year’s investment gains at the rate of just 7.65%. Suppose our investor each year sold a portion of the investment sufficient to pay the tax liability. At the end of the 30 years, the investor will have paid a total of $1,090,000 in tax and be left with the same amount, $14,160,000, that he would have been left with after paying tax at 20% upon a sale in year 30.

Why the $2,200,000 difference between the $3,290,000 total paid when taxed in year 30 and the $1,090,000 total paid when taxed annually? In economic terms, that’s what the investor paid for the privilege of not paying tax until year 30. In other words, interest.

Removing what economically amounts to a charge for the privilege of deferring tax allows us to make an apples-to-apples comparison. The investor effectively has paid tax at a rate of 6.63%. That’s a 30.37 percentage-point difference between the investor’s effective rate of tax and the 37% top tax rate on ordinary income.

How much would that 30.37 percentage-point gap be reduced if the investor’s $16.45 million gain were taxed at a 37% rate when he sold his investment after 30 years? About five percentage points. Of the investor’s 37% nominal tax rate—using the same method of analysis—about 25.34 percentage points would constitute interest, leaving only 11.66 percentage points, economically, as tax.

Should we equalize the tax rates applicable to capital gains and ordinary income? Absolutely. But let’s not kid ourselves. Making that change will not remotely eliminate the preferential tax treatment accorded to capital gains. We need a further change, at least for the billionaire class.

The Billionaires Income Tax proposal that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced last year would require billionaires to pay tax annually on the growth in their wealth—in the same way the rest of us pay tax on our salaries and wages. It’s high time to close the “buy-hold for decades-sell” loophole. Sen. Wyden’s Billionaires Income Tax would be one way to do just that.

Israelis are taught to “never forget” the Holocaust. In the case of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and his right wing followers, however, they seem to have taken genocide as something to emulate rather than to avoid.

The post Never Forget first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post Never Forget appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

In early January, Donald Trump Jr.’s private plane landed on a snowy airfield in Greenland. There was little fanfare upon his arrival, but his 14 million social-media fans were certainly tagging along.

“Greenland coming in hot… well, actually really really cold!!!” U.S. President Donald Trump’s eldest son captioned a video he posted on X. It was shot from the cockpit of the plane, where a “Trumpinator” bobblehead (a figurine of his father as the Terminator) rattled on the aircraft’s dashboard as it descended over icy blue seas.

It was a stunt of MAGA proportions. Don Jr. was arriving in Greenland on behalf of his father who, along with his new buddy Elon Musk, had announced a desire to seize that vast Arctic landmass from Denmark through strong will or even, potentially, by force. There’s been plenty of speculation as to why Trump wants to make Greenland, the largest island on this planet, a new territory of the United States. And yes, his inflated ego is undoubtedly part of the reason, but an urge for geopolitical dominance also drives Trump’s ambitions.

Let’s assume that Trump’s fascination with Greenland is unrelated to fossil fuels or military installations. If so, that leaves one other obvious possibility: Greenland’s expansive reservoir of minerals.

His fascination with Greenland can be traced back to his first administration when, in late 2019, he signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act establishing the U.S. Space Force. “There are grave threats to our national security,” he said shortly after signing the bill. “American superiority in space is absolutely vital. The Space Force will help us deter aggression and control the ultimate high ground.”

The following year, the U.S. government renamed Greenland’s Thule Air Base, the Department of Defense’s northernmost outpost since 1951, Pituffik Space Base. According to the official United States Space Force Website, the “Top of the World vantage point enables Space Superiority… Pituffik SB supports Missile Warning, Missile Defense, and Space Surveillance missions.” As such, it’s a key military asset for NATO and the United States. Denmark, a founding member of NATO and the country that has long controlled Greenland, had no problem with Trump’s Space Force operation taking root on that island’s soil.

Some have argued that Trump’s obsession is related to the Pituffik Space Base and Greenland’s strategic importance for U.S. power, given its proximity both to Europe and to the melting Arctic. Yet, given that the U.S. Space Force already operates there with NATO’s and Denmark’s blessing, it’s hard to understand why this would be the case.

So, what gives? Do you wonder whether Trump has his sights set on exploiting Greenland’s natural resources? A few small problems there: It has no accessible oil. Tapping its sizable natural gas reserves—mostly parked beneath massive sheets of glacial ice—would be challenging, if not impossible, and certainly not profitable. Even pipelines and other infrastructure would be difficult to build and maintain in its icy climate. Besides, the U.S. already has the world’s fourth–largest natural gas reserves.

Let’s assume that Trump’s fascination with Greenland is unrelated to fossil fuels or military installations. If so, that leaves one other obvious possibility: Greenland’s expansive reservoir of minerals, deposits crucial to making the gadgets we use and producing the green technologies that Trump appears to oppose.

Trump’s Green Energy Paradox

As soon as President Trump took office, his administration began issuing executive orders in hopes of dismantling and disrupting environmental initiatives put in place by the Biden administration. One of its first actions included canceling former President Joe Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, which requested that 50% of all autos sold in the U.S. be electric by 2030 (though it wasn’t binding).

“We will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American auto workers,” Trump boasted during his inaugural address. “In other words, you’ll be able to buy the car of your choice.”

Of course, from their batteries to their engines, Biden’s push for electric vehicles would require a plethora of critical minerals, ranging from copper to graphite, cobalt to lithium. So, too, would other clean energy projects the Biden administration supported, from home energy storage systems to the deployment of solar panels. Given Donald Trump’s battle over electric vehicles, you might assume he would prefer to keep such minerals in the ground. Yet, like much of Trump’s bombast, his ploy to reverse Biden’s mandate had ulterior motives.

Trump wants to hamper renewables’ growth while increasing the domestic production of those minerals. If that seems incongruous, that’s because it is.

Like Biden’s executive order, Trump’s doesn’t automatically change existing regulations. All emissions policies remain in place, and no rules have been altered that would require congressional approval. In many instances, such executive orders are essentially aspirational. Tax credits for electric vehicles remain active, but the federal government, as under Biden, doesn’t require automakers to sell a certain number of electric cars.

This isn’t to say that Trump doesn’t want to alter such standards. However, doing so would require outfits like the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to propose changes and then provide time for public feedback. Bureaucracy can run slow, so during Trump’s first term, such changes took over two years to implement.

Moreover, despite his war on electric vehicles, Trump has shown no sign of any eagerness to slow the mining of critical minerals on federal lands. In fact, his advisers want to do away with nettlesome environmental reviews that have gotten in the way of such mining. He is going all in, looking to ramp up not just oil, coal, and natural gas production but also uranium and critical minerals. After taking office, one of his first actions was to sign an executive order declaring a “National Energy Emergency,” which specifically called for expanding critical mineral development.

“The energy and critical minerals… identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs,” reads the order. “We need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.”

Energy experts disagree. The U.S. is not experiencing an energy emergency and hasn’t for decades. Gas prices are at a three-year low, and the country remains the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas exporter. In reality, Joe Biden’s oil and gas approvals outpaced those in Trump’s first term, even if he also halted some further oil and gas exploration on public lands. After initial excitement from oil and gas companies, insiders admit that Trump’s emergency declaration isn’t going to cause a production ramp-up anytime soon. Those companies are, of course, in it to make money, and overproduction would lead to significant price drops, resulting in lower profits for shareholders and company executives.

If that’s the situation for fossil fuels, when it comes to critical and rare earth minerals, Trump wants to hamper renewables’ growth while increasing the domestic production of those minerals. If that seems incongruous, that’s because it is.

He wants to boost U.S. mining of critical minerals because he knows that China, his archnemesis, is leading the global charge for their acquisition. Trump doesn’t seem to understand that it’s hard to stimulate investment in critical minerals if the future appetite for the technologies they support remains uncertain. As a result of his battle against electric vehicles, manufacturing expectations are already being slashed.

While he may not comprehend how contradictory that is or even care, he certainly understands that the U.S. depends on China for many of the critical minerals it consumes. Around 60% of the metals required for renewable technologies come directly from China or Chinese companies. Trump’s tariffs on China have even worried his buddy (and electric car producer) Elon Musk, who’s been working behind the scenes to block additional tariffs on graphite imports. Chinese graphite, an essential component of the lithium-ion batteries in his Teslas, may face new tariffs of as high as—and no, this is not a misprint—920%. Such pandemonium around imports of critical minerals from China may be the true factor driving Trump’s impetus to steal Greenland from the clutches of Denmark.

Trump and Musk also know critical minerals are big business. In 2022 alone, the top 40 producers brought in $711 billion. Total revenue grew 6.1% between 2022 and 2023, exceeding $2.15 trillion. That number is set to jump to $2.78 trillion by 2027.

Eco-Colonialism

Greenland’s Indigenous Inuit people, the Kalaallit, account for 88% of that island’s population of 56,000. They have endured vicious forms of colonization for centuries. In the 12th century, Norwegians first landed in Greenland and built early colonies that lasted 200 years before they retreated to Iceland. By the 1700s, they returned to take ownership of that vast island, a territory that would be transferred to Denmark in 1814.

In 1953, the Kalaallit were granted Danish citizenship, which involved a process of forced assimilation in which they were removed from their homes and sent to Demark for reeducation. Recently uncovered documents show that, in the 1960s, Danish authorities forcibly inserted intrauterine devices (IUDs) in Kalaallit women, including children, which post-colonial scholars describe as a “silenced genocide.”

In other words, the colonization of Greenland, like that of the United States, was rooted in violence and still thrives today through ongoing systemic oppression. The Kalaallit want out. In 2016, 68% of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark, and today, 85% oppose Trump’s neocolonial efforts to steal the territory.

Like the billionaires around him, he desires it all—the oil, the gas, and the critical minerals essential for the global energy transition, while China is pushed aside.

“Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” said the island’s prime minister, Múte Egede, who leads the democratic socialist Inuit Ataqatigiit party, which won 80% of the votes in the last general election. Even though Greenlanders are Danish citizens, the territory is self-governing.

This brings us back to what this imperialist struggle is all about. The island is loaded with critical minerals, including rare earth minerals, lithium, graphite, copper, nickel, zinc, and other materials used in green technologies. Some estimates suggest that Greenland has 6 million tons of graphite, 106 kilotons of copper, and 235 kilotons of lithium. It holds 25 of the 34 minerals in the European Union’s official list of critical raw materials, all of which exist along its rocky coastline, generally accessible for mining operations. Unsurprisingly, such enormous mineral wealth has made Greenland of interest to China, Russia, and—yep—President Trump, too.

“Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will protect it, and cherish it, from a very vicious outside World. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Right now, in this geopolitical chess game, graphite might be the most valuable of all the precious minerals Greenland has to offer. The Amitsoq graphite project in the Nanortalik region of southern Greenland could be the most significant prize of all. Considered to be pure, the “spherical” graphite deposit at the mine there may prove to be the most profitable one in the world. Right now, GreenRoc Mining, based in London, is trying to fast-track work there, hoping to undercut China’s interest in Greenland’s resources to feed Europe’s green energy boom. The profits from that mine could exceed $2 billion. Currently, spherical graphite is only mined in China and is the graphite of choice for the anodes (a polarized electrical device) crucial to lithium-ion battery production.

“This is Not a Joke”

Despite President Trump’s attempt to put the brakes on EV growth in the U.S., sales are soaring across the planet. In 2024, EV sales rose 40% in China and 25% globally. Such growth comes with obstacles for manufacturers, which will need a steady stream of minerals like graphite to keep the assembly lines moving. It’s estimated that 100 new graphite mines alone will need to come online by 2035 to meet current demand.

Such a reality is, no doubt, well understood by Elon Musk, the co-founder and CEO of Tesla. Musk benefits from his very close relationship with Donald Trump, overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency (which isn’t an actual department but an office inside the White House) and would certainly benefit if the U.S. came to control Greenland.

“If the people of Greenland want to be part of America, which I hope they do, they would be most welcome!” Musk recently wrote on his platform X.

Musk is not the only one with potential interests in Greenland. Trump’s pick for Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, has a financial stake in the territory, though he’s promised to divest. Lutnick’s investment firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, backs Critical Metals Corporation, which is set to start mining in Greenland for rare earth minerals as soon as 2026.

Like Musk, Lutnick will significantly influence Trump’s approach to the island, even if he officially divests. Trump has also dispatched Ken Howery, a billionaire tech investor, co-founder of PayPal, and buddy of Musk, to be the next U.S. ambassador to Denmark. Howery has told friends he’s excited about his post and the possibility of brokering a deal for the U.S. to acquire Greenland.

Marco Rubio, the new secretary of state, insists that Trump isn’t bullshitting when it comes to Greenland. “This is not a joke,” he said. “This is not about acquiring land for the purpose of acquiring land. This is in our national interest and it needs to be solved.”

Greenland and its resources are merely the latest potential casualty of Trump’s quest for global domination and his fear of China’s economic power. His interest in the green energy sector does not signify a change of heart regarding the dangers of climate chaos or the value of renewables but rather a drive for global financial supremacy. Like the billionaires around him, he desires it all—the oil, the gas, and the critical minerals essential for the global energy transition, while China is pushed aside. Regarding the Kalaallits and their aspirations, he could care less.

Last Friday, an estimated 14,000 federal workers were fired from their positions across multiple agencies. Among them was Brian Gibbs, a National Park Service ranger whose heartbreaking account of losing his "dream job" puts a human face on a crisis that threatens the very fabric of American life. "I am the smiling face that greets you at the front door," Gibbs wrote. "I am your family vacation planner... I am the Band-Aid for a skinned knee."

This generous offering of his words reveals an essential truth: Public service is not about bureaucracy—it's about the careful, often invisible, undervalued work of maintaining our society's fundamental freedoms.

These thoughtless mass firings represent more than a reduction in excess workforce. They are an assault on what sociologists call "connective labor"—the deep interpersonal work that underlies all public service. As researcher Allison Pugh explains, this represents a "layer of labor beneath the labor," the essential but often invisible work of building trust and maintaining human connections. When a park ranger comforts a lost child or a cybersecurity expert coordinates across agencies to protect our infrastructure, they're not just performing tasks listed in a job description—they're engaging in the profound work of caring for one another that makes our public institutions function.

Our collective survival depends on workers who prioritize public good over private profit.

This connective labor is the foundation of what we might call care infrastructure—the essential work of maintaining systems that make our daily lives possible and our shared spaces safe. From the Veterans Affairs data scientist developing machine-learning algorithms to serve veterans, to the Forest Service trail crews maintaining backcountry access for rural communities, to the USDA loan technicians supporting small-town development, these federal employees perform work that transcends mere employment. They create the web of trust and mutual recognition that holds our society together. They show up, they maintain a disciplined commitment to public service so that we can be free.

The implications are both immediate and far-reaching. As one ranger warned about the summer season in the National Parks, "There will be nobody to clean the bathrooms, nobody to manage parking, nobody to collect fees, nobody to issue permits, nobody to ensure mountaineers entering steep glaciated terrain have the requisite skills and equipment... nobody to rescue injured or lost hikers. People will die from incidents that would otherwise be just another Tuesday for us."

This crisis reveals a dangerous shift in how we value public service. When billionaires like Elon Musk pressure federal workers to abandon their posts for more lucrative private sector positions, and disturbingly compare federal workers to weeds that have to be eradicated by the root, they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom means in America. True freedom isn't just about what we're against—whether that's fascism or authoritarianism—but also what we're for. Timothy Snyder argues freedom requires five essential elements: sovereignty (the ability to make meaningful choices about our lives), unpredictability (the power to act outside algorithmic control), mobility (the chance for people to grow beyond their circumstances), factuality (a grip on reality that enables us to challenge it), and solidarity (the recognition that these freedoms must be universal).

Our federal workers are not just employees—they are the guardians of these freedoms, but humble guardians who rarely seek the spotlight. You won't find them giving press conferences or cultivating personal brands. Instead, they show up day after day, maintaining the invisible infrastructure of democracy through quiet dedication rather than grandstanding. This humility isn't a weakness—it's their strength. It allows them to operate beyond political pressures and partisan loyalties, focused solely on their mission of public service.

These are the people who process veterans' benefits without fanfare, who conduct critical medical research at the National Institutes of Health without recognition, who maintain our nation's nuclear security without acclaim. When FEMA workers respond to natural disasters, when Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists track disease outbreaks, when Rural Development officers help fund vital infrastructure in small towns—they do so not for glory or profit, but because they believe in the promise of collective well-being. Through their steady, often unseen labor, they create the conditions that make genuine freedom possible. They build the foundation for what Snyder calls "sovereignty"—not the narrow nationalism of isolationists, but the creation of conditions where all individuals, regardless of their circumstances, can make meaningful choices about their lives.

These freedoms don't exist in a vacuum. They require maintenance, protection, and care—the very work being dismissed as "fat on the bone" by those orchestrating these firings. The Environmental Protection Agency scientist who monitors air quality in our cities, the Education Department specialist making education accessible for disabled students, the IRS worker ensuring corporations pay their fair share—these are not luxuries we can afford to lose. They are the essential guardians of our collective freedom.

The timing of these firings is particularly cruel, coming on Valentine's Day and affecting workers like Gibbs, whose wife is expecting a child, and others who have relocated across the country for their dream jobs. There are at least 14,000 stories of dreams destroyed in these 14,000 firings. But beyond the personal tragedies lies a broader threat to our collective democratic values. When we allow unelected billionaires to influence the dismantling of public services, we surrender a piece of our democratic control over the systems that maintain our quality of life.

During the pandemic, a crisis laid bare what had long been invisible: the essential infrastructure of care that sustains our society. We stood at our windows at 7:00 pm to applaud healthcare workers, celebrated delivery drivers as heroes, and finally saw the vital work of public health officials who tracked disease spread and coordinated emergency responses. That moment of recognition revealed a fundamental truth: Our collective survival depends on workers who prioritize public good over private profit.

Yet now, barely three years later, we're witnessing an orchestrated assault on the very concept of public service. This isn't merely about budget cuts or government efficiency—it's about a fundamental attack on the infrastructure of democracy itself. When billionaires like Musk ally with political forces to dismantle public institutions, they're not just eliminating jobs—they're attempting to redefine freedom as nothing more than market choice. This convergence of oligarchic wealth and authoritarian politics threatens not just our government services, but our very capacity to exist as a democratic society. Our freedom to thrive—to access public spaces, to trust our infrastructure, to rely on essential services—hangs in the balance.

The effects of these firings will ripple through our communities for months, perhaps years to come. When national parks become dangerous or inaccessible due to understaffing, when public utilities face increased vulnerability to cyber attacks, when basic government services break down, we'll all feel the impact. But by then, it may be too late to reverse the damage.

We must recognize this moment for what it is: a critical juncture in the fight for American democracy. The question isn't just about government jobs—it's about what kind of society we want to be. Do we want to live in a country where public service is devalued and dismantled, where the careful work of maintaining our shared spaces and systems is abandoned in favor of private profit? Or do we want to preserve and protect the essential care labor that makes our freedoms possible?

The answer to these questions will determine not just the fate of 14,000 federal workers, but the future of American democracy itself. As Ranger Gibbs reminded us, we must "stay present, don't avert your gaze." But what does it mean to truly stay present in this moment of crisis? Timothy Snyder, writing about tyranny in 2017, provided an answer: "Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on a screen... Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people."

This is how we defend our freedoms—not through passive observation, but through active solidarity with those who maintain our democratic infrastructure. We must stand alongside the park rangers who protect our public lands, the cybersecurity experts who safeguard our systems, and all the federal workers whose invisibilized care labor has long been the bedrock of our democracy. Their fight is our fight. Their freedom is our freedom. The time to act is now. Not just to protest these firings, but to reaffirm our commitment to the very idea of public service—to recognize that our collective freedom depends on the careful, committed work of those who choose to serve their communities rather than chase private profit. In defending these workers, we defend the possibility of a democracy built on care, connection, and collective well-being.

Vice President J.D. Vance’s embrace of Germany’s neo-Nazi party in a high profile Munich visit this past week sparked outrage and alarm across Europe. It was the latest example of a long history of U.S.-Nazi racism and dictatorship ties that should be a stark warning of what it portends for the U.S. as well.

Vance’s refusal to meet with German Chancellor Olof Scholz, instead holding a private meeting with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) leader, followed Elon Musk’s video appearance at a campaign kickoff for the AfD ahead of next Sunday’s German elections. It also coincided with escalation of the Musk-Trump administration’s gutting of federal programs and firing of workers, a key step for establishing authoritarian rule at home.

The rise of the AfD and President Donald Trump’s election were both animated by vitriolic, racist practices and ideology, a stark reminder of how the U.S. legacy of racist behavior and laws were a prime model for the ascent of Hitler and Nazi fascism. And how Hitler’s success inspired U.S. acolytes of Hitler like Charles Lindberg, Father Coughlin, and Henry Ford.

Just as Hitler utilized antisemitism, along with vilification of the left and traditional party elites to propel his dictatorial dreams, Trump has long employed speech and actions to animate his thirst for unchecked power. For Trump it went from launching his first campaign by branding Mexican immigrants as “rapists and murders,” to today’s demonization of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as a vehicle to rally support for his autocratic goals.

Unleashing Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on public agencies and staff accelerated the longtime far right libertarian goal and Project 2025 plan to privatize, deregulate and shrink federal government to nothing more than handouts to corporations and the super-rich and expanding military, policing and border control. Augmenting it with a DEI shroud enabled them to further a white surpremacist vision of purging workers of color from public service.

Trump and Musk seem intent on reversing every political, economic, multi-cultural democratic advance envisioned by the post-Civil War Reconstruction reforms that also were the foundation of subsequent legislative and cultural gains of the 1960s and ‘70s for racial, ethnic, gender and LBGTQ+, and disability rights.

‘It’s a coup’

That plan is just getting started, as illuminated by the Washington Post in a preview of the next phase, escalating evisceration of critical public health, safety net and environmental and consumer protection programs already underway. On February 11, Trump signed an updated executive order directing federal agency heads to prepare wholesale “reorganization plans,” commencing a “critical transformation” of “our system of Government itself.”

Even two veteran Republican budget experts, told Reuters the plan is “driven more by an ideological assault on federal agencies long hated by conservatives than a good-faith effort to save taxpayer dollars.” The goal, says Our Revolution more pointedly, is to “consolidate billionaire power and dismantle democracy as we know it. This is not efficiency—it's a coup."

The DEI demagogy, a focus of Trump’s 2024 campaign, drives Trump 2.0. Following the Potomac plane crash, White House press secretary made it explicit, “when you are flying on an airplane with your loved ones, do you pray that your plane lands safely, or do you pray that your pilot has a certain skin color?”

Building authoritarian power through fanning bigotry has a long backstory in the U.S., from the slave states’ power over the federal government and post-Civil War in the former Confederate states following the counter revolution against Reconstruction. It was also the cudgel used by Hitler, along with political violence, to attain power following his failed 1923 Beer Hall Putsch coup and then to secure his regime.

The U.S. blueprint for Hitler

As James Whitman writes in his book, Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, Hitler praised the U.S. as “the one state” that had made progress for a racial order that has allowed it “to become the master of the American continent and … remain the master as long as he does not fall victim to racial pollution.” Hitler used antisemitic demagogy blaming Jews, especially, for Germany’s defeat of in World War I and its economic crisis, as a key lever to gain votes, leading to being handed the Chancellorship in 1933.

Nazi demagogy admired how Americans felt the need to exclude the “foreign body” of “strangers to the blood” of the ruling race, Whitman observes, an eerie prelude to Trump’s depiction of immigrants from South America, Asia and Africa “poisoning the blood of our country” that built upon year of similar racist rants.

Echoing Mein Kampf in the 1930s segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo asserted “one drop of Negro blood placed in the veins of the purest Caucasian destroys the inventive genius of his mind and palsies his creative faculty,” a racist trope Trump nearly a century later paraphrased to disparage the intellect of numerous Black leaders, including Vice President Kamala Harris.

Shortly after Hitler’s reign began, Germany adopted a law on the Revocation of Naturalization and the Withdrawal of German Citizenship for the “denaturalization and expulsion of Eastern European Jews who arrived after the First World War,” Whitman observes.

Nazi lawyer Otto Koellreutter called it, “a further necessary measure for maintaining the healthy racial cohesion of the Volk (German people),” another step influenced by U.S. as well as British Dominion laws that parallels Trump’s racist immigration goals and his effort to overturn the 14th Amendment right of birthright citizenship.

By 1934, as the Nazis were well on their way to sustaining their dictatorship they moved to codify persecution of German Jews. Leading Nazi lawyers began crafting the notorious 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws to prevent “any further penetration of Jewish blood into the body of the German Volk.” It banned intermarriages and sexual relations between Jews and other Germans. They cited anti-miscegenation laws ultimately adopted in 30 U.S. states, and not finally expunged until the 1967 Supreme Court Loving v Virginia ruling.

Jews were also barred from a broad swath of employment in governing, academia, and the legal world. “What they were worried about,” Whitman explained to journalist Bill Moyers, “was that Jews might take over Germany, so the Jews had to be kept out of government, out of the legal profession, and out of any other situation in which they might exercise what the Nazis always called influence.” It looks like a harbinger of Trump and Musk’s DEI goals.

The U.S. assumed the mantle of “the leadership of the white peoples” after World War I, wrote far-right German professor Wahrhold Drascher in The Supremacy of the White Race, in 1936, adding without the leadership of the U.S. “a conscious unity of the white race would never have emerged.” He termed the founding of the U.S. “the turning point” for the theory of the white supremacy.

What especially appealed to Nazi legal experts, Whitman concludes, was how readily traditional legal norms were overridden in the United States. “What commanded the respect of the Nazi lawyers," he said, "was an America where politics was comparatively unencumbered by law,” which the Nazis quickly replicated.

“While it is true that ordinary citizens were to be blindly obedient, Nazi officials were expected to take a different attitude,” writes Whitman. “Political leaders were enjoined to be loyal to the spirit of Hitler. Whatever you do, always ask: How would the Fuhrer act, in accordance with the image you have of him.”

Whitman could have envisioned how Vance, Musk, and Trump would endorse defying multiple adverse court rulings on DOGE “reorganization,” illegal firings and executive orders, best evidenced in Trump’s post quoting Napoleon: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”

What will actually “save the country” is spirited fight and resistance to the coup.

German Chancellor Scholz responded to Vance noting the U.S. helped overthrow Nazism. “‘Never again’ is the historical mission that Germany, as a free democracy, must and wants to continue to live up to day after day,” he said. “Never again fascism, never again racism, never again war of aggression.”

What is needed right now across the country, said Indivisble in a recent call to action, is "an unprecedented show of constituent power to hold Republicans accountable for their complicity in the Trump-Musk coup and demand that Democrats in Congress use every ounce of leverage and power they have to fight back.”

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

Five years ago this week, the United States entered an unprecedented national lockdown. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the government, businesses and educational institutions to shut down. The streets of major cities turned into ghost towns. Confused, traumatized and terrified of a fatal respiratory virus whose means of transmission was not clearly understood until later, Americans hid in their homes while over a million of their fellow citizens died, many of them alone in terrible agony.

The novel coronavirus struck as the United States was experiencing three major societal trends: a growing divide between Left and Right, decreasing trust in institutions and a splintering of the information environment.

Three-quarters of Americans say the pandemic took a toll on their own lives. 27% say they were traumatized. On “The TMI Show,” Ted Rall and Manila Chan ask: What are the longstanding implications? Have we learned anything? What would we do different?

The post TMI Show Ep 80: Covid: Five Years Later first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 80: Covid: Five Years Later appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Let’s be clear: The forced displacement of Palestinians is not a new idea. U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest proposal to take “long-term ownership” of Gaza, to “clean out” the “mess,” and to turn it into a “Riviera of the Middle East” is just the latest iteration of efforts aimed at ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homeland.

What makes Trump’s comments dangerous is not the immediate threat of U.S. military intervention in Gaza followed by the expulsion of its 2.2 million residents. The real danger lies elsewhere.

First, Israel may interpret Trump’s words as a green light to push Palestinians out of Gaza or the West Bank. Second, the U.S. could tacitly endorse another Israeli offensive under the guise of fulfilling the president’s wishes. Third, Trump’s remarks suggest his foreign policy on Palestine will remain largely unchanged from his predecessor’s.

Trump’s so-called “humanitarian” ethnic cleansing proposal will similarly go down in history as another failed attempt, particularly as Arab and international solidarity with the steadfast Palestinian people is stronger than it has been in years.

Some Democrats have seized this moment to criticize Arab and Palestinian Americans who voted for Trump or abstained from supporting Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in the last elections. However, the idea of ethnic cleansing was already being floated during the Biden administration.

While then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated that “Palestinian civilians... must not be pressed to leave Gaza,” former President Joe Biden created the conditions for displacement through unconditional military support for Israel. This allowed one of the most devastating wars in modern Middle Eastern history to unfold.

Just days into the war, on October 13, 2023, Jordan’s King Abdullah II warned Blinken in Amman against any Israeli attempt to “forcibly displace Palestinians from all Palestinian territories or cause their internal displacement.”

The latter displacement became a reality as most of northern Gaza’s population was crammed into overcrowded refugee encampments in central and southern Gaza, where conditions have been and remain inhumane for over 16 months.

At the same time, another displacement campaign is underway in the West Bank, particularly in its northern regions, accelerating in recent weeks. Thousands of Palestinian families have already been displaced in the Jenin governorate and other areas.

Despite this, the Biden administration has done little to pressure Israel to stop.

Arab concerns over Palestinian expulsion were real from the war’s outset. Almost every Arab leader raised the alarm, often repeatedly.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi addressed the issue multiple times, warning of Israeli efforts—and possibly U.S. involvement—in a “population transfer” scheme.

“What is happening now in Gaza is an attempt to force civilian residents to seek refuge and migrate to Egypt,” Sisi stated, insisting that such an outcome “should not be accepted.”

Fifteen months later, under Trump, he repeated his rejection, vowing that Egypt would not participate in this “act of injustice.”

The Saudi statement was issued almost immediately after Trump doubled down on the idea during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 4. The Saudi foreign ministry went further than rejecting Trump’s “ownership” of Gaza but articulated a political discourse that summarized Riyad’s, in fact, the Arab League’s position on Palestine.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirms that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s position on the establishment of a Palestinian state is firm and unwavering,” the statement said, adding that the Kingdom “also reaffirms its unequivocal rejection of any infringement on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, whether through Israeli settlement policies, land annexation, or attempts to displace the Palestinian people from their land.”

The new U.S. administration, however, seems oblivious to Palestinian history. Given the mass displacement of Palestinians in 1948, no Arab government—let alone the Palestinian leadership—would support another Israeli-U.S. effort to ethnically cleanse millions into neighboring states.

Beyond the immorality of expelling an Indigenous population, history has shown that such actions destabilize the region for generations. The 1948 Nakba, which saw the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, ignited the Arab-Israeli conflict, whose repercussions continue today.

History also teaches us that the Nakba was not an isolated event. Israel has repeatedly attempted ethnic cleansing, starting with its intense attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza in the early 1950s, and ever since.

The 1967 war, known as the Naksa or “Setback,” led to the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, both internally and externally. In the years that followed, various U.S.-Israeli initiatives throughout the 1970s sought to relocate the Palestinian population to the Sinai desert. However, these efforts failed due to the steadfastness and collective resistance of the people of Gaza.

Trump’s so-called “humanitarian” ethnic cleansing proposal will similarly go down in history as another failed attempt, particularly as Arab and international solidarity with the steadfast Palestinian people is stronger than it has been in years.

The key question now is whether Arabs and other supporters of Palestine worldwide will go beyond merely rejecting such sinister proposals and take the initiative to push for the restoration of the Palestinian homeland. This requires a justice-based international campaign, rooted in international law and driven by the aspirations of the Palestinian people themselves.

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk are running amok at the federal agency that administers Social Security benefits for some 70 million Americans. Earlier this month, Musk and his DOGE squad were granted access to data from the Social Security Administration (SSA) as part of a bogus campaign to root out “fraud” at the agency. Their intrusion into the workings of SSA escalated to an alarming new level when it was reported on Monday that the agency’s acting commissioner resigned, apparently over requests from the DOGE team for even more sensitive data—which may include claimants’ medical records, detailed work histories, and detailed family information. This is a ‘canary in a coal mine’ moment for anyone who cares about the integrity of our nation’s most popular social insurance program.

Trump and Musk are using allegations of “fraud” to justify interfering with Social Security—the program that Americans pay into and depend on for basic financial security upon retirement, disability, or the death of a family breadwinner. Musk and company are perpetrating the ultimate con: hoodwinking people into believing that improper payments and “fraud” are out of control in the programs that conservatives want to shrink, while (so far) ignoring legitimate waste, fraud, and abuse in myriad others.

On February 11, Musk wrote on X that he is “100% certain that the magnitude of fraud in federal entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid… etc.) exceeds the combined sum of every private scam you’ve ever heard by far.” This is a laughable and undocumented claim, a cynical ploy to convince the American public, “See? These programs that are supposed to help people are rife with fraud. You are being ripped off!”

Let’s be clear: there is no massive fraud or abuse at the Social Security Administration (SSA), which pays benefits to seniors, people with disabilities, survivors, spouses, and children. According to the agency’s Office of the Inspector General, improper payments by the SSA are less than 1% of total benefits paid, and most of them are made in error, but not largely fraudulent.

The most troubling possibility, of course, is that Musk and DOGE are attempting to soften public support for the Social Security Administration so that they can dismantle the agency, just as they are doing at USAID.

No doubt, there is waste, fraud and abuse in every large federal program. The bigger the program, the greater the likelihood that a certain amount of money will be misspent. That is why there are myriad safeguards within the system, although Trump recently fired 17 Inspectors General across the federal government whose job it was to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse.

Elon Musk, head of Trump’s inaptly named Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has been given unprecedented access to the Social Security Administration, including the personal data of millions of beneficiaries. Musk may be Trump’s right-hand man and the richest guy in the world, but it’s safe to say he has no experience with administering the nation’s largest social insurance program. As a retired, long-term employee of SSA told me, “Musk and his staff know nothing about how Social Security works.”

As ProPublica reported, Musk’s crew consists largely of engineers, coders and programmers from his own corporate orbit with little to no knowledge about the actual workings of the federal government, and does not include a single professional auditor.

Ignorance of the system has not stopped the unelected billionaire from cherry-picking anecdotal instances of supposed “fraud” from the Social Security Administration’s database. (See Musk’s wholly unsubstantiated claim that 150-year-olds are receiving Social Security benefits.) The Economist magazine called Musk’s assertions “baseless and unfounded.”

Former SSA employees say that the agency already has systems in place to protect taxpayers’ money. “SSA has always worked really hard to root out improper payments, of which fraud is a small fraction. And there is transparency on how they report on it and what they’re doing about it,” says Kathleen Romig, who took a leave of absence from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to work at SSA under former Commissioner Martin O’Malley.

Romig says that Commissioner O’Malley held biweekly staff meetings about improper payments and how to reduce them, including “when those payments were a result of fraud, so they could be investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted.”

“There are ways to take this issue seriously,” Romig says. “Trump and Musk are doing the opposite, making wild accusations and removing the safeguards that we have against fraud.”

In fact, SSA has done a noble job administering the nation’s largest social insurance program amid serious funding shortfalls. The agency has not received adequate funding from Congress since the Tea Party era. Staffing is at a 50-year low at year-low at a time when 10,000 baby boomers are reaching retirement age every day. The SSA, under Commissioner O’Malley, made admirable strides to improve customer service and reduce overpayments. We give the incoming commissioner, Frank Bisignano, the benefit of the doubt that he will continue those efforts in good faith.

The last thing SSA needs is Elon Musk and his DOGE squad interfering with the administration of Social Security benefits. Jacob Leibenluft, a former Treasury Department official, released a paper about the threats posed by DOGE to Social Security and other federal programs, including the potential for illegal withholding of benefits; putting sensitive personal data in the hands of individuals who shouldn’t have access to it; and the risk of “breaking the system” in ways that could inadvertently delay or stop payments from arriving on time.

The most troubling possibility, of course, is that Musk and DOGE are attempting to soften public support for the Social Security Administration so that they can dismantle the agency, just as they are doing at USAID. In December, Musk (the owner of the social media platform X) amplified a post by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) that referred to Social Security as a “Ponzi Scheme” and called the program “government dependency at its worst.” Other prominent Republicans (including the House GOP Study Committee) have proposed cutting Social Security. Worse yet, DOGE’s interference in the workings of SSA blatantly undermines President’s Trump’s promise to the American public “not to touch” Social Security. His and Musk’s fingerprints are all over it now, and they will own any damage done to America's most popular federal program.

Update: This piece has been updated from its original to account for the resignation of the Social Security Administration's Acting Commissioner.

A combination of pro-Israel advocacy groups and political action committees, including right-wing Christian fundamentalists, neoconservative hawks, and weak-kneed liberals, have not only enabled Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestinians—they’ve done so much more.

• They’ve silenced congressional debate on decades of Israel’s illegal policies toward Palestinians. Pro-Israel groups and political action committees cry foul whenever their role in this regard is noted. But the tens of millions they’ve spent to punish critics and create a climate of fear—and their own gloating over their successes—are too well-documented to ignore. The result has been that too many members of Congress have either been cowed into silence or motivated to pass excessively bizarre legislation singling out Israel for special treatment in budgetary matters or for political favors.

This same coalition of groups from the right and left of American politics has also pressed successive US administrations not only to turn a blind eye to Israeli actions that violate US laws, but also to take an aggressive posture toward other nations who are critical of Israel. These acts have contributed to dismantling the architecture of international diplomacy, laws, and covenants developed in the aftermath of the two world wars and have done grave damage to the stature of the US in the world community.

US presidents from Ford to Obama have been pressured by pro-Israel group-inspired congressional letters calling on them to back away from positions critical of Israeli policies. Successive administrations have thus been cowed into silence in the face of Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied territories and other well-documented Israeli violations of international law and human rights.

This pressure has resulted in US denunciations of UN reports on Israeli violations, the US withdrawal of funds from various UN agencies over actions critical of Israeli behaviors, and repeated US vetoes of Security Council resolutions—even when those resolutions simply affirmed policy positions supposedly reflecting stated US policies. More recently, this same practice could be observed in sanctioning by both Congress and the administration of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court and individuals and countries who participated in decisions that were critical of Israel. These actions contributed to dismantling guardrails put in place to promote world peace, enforce international law, and protect vulnerable populations against abuse—and have left the US increasingly isolated.

• This same collection of groups and the pressures they create to distort US policies have also done incalculable damage to Palestinians and Israelis, and the prospects for Middle East peace. Annually the US Department of State reports on the performance of other countries’ human rights policies. Congressional legislation mandates these reports so that US assistance is not awarded to countries that violate human rights.

The State Department Human Rights report on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is ignored, even when it has been accurate in its reporting. As a result: tens of thousands of Palestinians have been tortured or detained for extended periods without being charged with any crime; and violations of international laws prohibiting seizure of Palestinian lands, evictions from their homes, and mass transfers of Israelis into settlements in illegally seized Palestinian lands have continued unabated.

With no restraints on their actions, Israel’s military and civilian settlers operate with a sense of impunity. While Gaza was destroyed in a 16-month genocidal war, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were being ravaged by the massive demolition of Palestinian neighborhoods and the terrorizing of Palestinian villages and farmlands. The number of Israelis living on Palestinian lands has more than quadrupled in this century, and settlements and Israeli-protected “state lands” and “military zones” and secured infrastructure for settlements now carve the territories into ever smaller areas in which Palestinians can operate. Discussions of a two-state solution have become difficult to entertain. The US has enabled it all by doing nothing to stop it.

One further byproduct of this US acquiescence to Israel’s behavior has been the decline of Israel’s peace movement. Once fairly vibrant, these Israelis used to be able to make the case that settlement expansion or violations of rights would damage Israel’s relationship with the US. After decades of evidence that there would be no such repercussions, this movement has faded into irrelevance. In their absence the hard right has become the dominant force in Israel, leaving the only serious divisions in Israeli politics being whether the next coalition government will be formed with or without the Ultra-Orthodox or Netanyahu in command. Palestinians or matters of peace and justice are not on the agenda.

• Since October 7th, the coalition of pro-Israel forces, led by right-wing Christian Ideologues and pro-Israel groups in the US, have accelerated their efforts on the home front using congressional pressure and Presidential Executive Orders to dismantle constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom on college campuses. The expanded definition of antisemitism to include legitimate criticism of Israel is now being enforced to threaten federal funds to universities who don’t punish students and faculty for what are now deemed antisemitic activities. The Department of Justice has launched a task force to identify groups and individuals who participated in anti-Israel actions. And right-wing groups have undertaken to identify foreign students and faculty who have been involved in pro-Palestinian protests or against whom Jewish students have issued complaints for anti-Israel remarks. They are reporting them to authorities for deportation, as per another of President Trump’s Executive Orders.

What is deeply disturbing is that equating “anti-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian” with “antisemitism” has created a climate of fear on campuses, impeding free speech and academic freedoms on campuses and public discourse.

And so, while Palestinians are paying with their lives because pressure from pro-Israel groups has silenced criticism of Israeli policies, the damage done by this pressure grows. It has discredited the structures of the international order, humiliated and isolated the US in the eyes of the world, and is now eating away at many of our much-cherished freedoms.

The 32-year-old Norwegian considered himself a deep thinker and a big fan of the rightwing and Russian propaganda which argued western civilization was rotting from within because of multiculturalism, empowered women, racial/religious minorities, and liberalism. Putting pen to paper, he wrote:

“When I first started blogging I was concerned with how we could ‘fix the system.’ I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed, and perhaps shouldn’t be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies, it also has too many internal contradictions.
“If we define the ‘system’ as mass immigration from alien cultures, globalism, multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of ‘tolerance,’ then this is going to collapse. It’s inevitable.
“The goal of Western survivalists — and that’s what we are — should not be to ‘fix the system,’ but to be mentally and physically prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes.
“We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve.”

After writing over 1500 pages describing how it’s the essential duty of every white man in the world to marginalize or even kill as many non-white non-Christians as possible, Anders Breivik set off a bomb in Oslo’s Government Quarter, killing eight people.

He then drove to Utøya, an island in Tyrifjorden where the Norwegian Social Democratic party’s youth organization, the Workers’ Youth League (AUF), held their summer camp. There he used a semiautomatic rifle to kill another sixty-nine people, most in their teens or early twenties. He shot and wounded another 41 mostly young people, leaving many with life-changing injuries.

The epigraph to the paragraphs cited above was the polestar of Breivik’s philosophy, one he’d learned from studying the writings and lives of his heroes: Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte. He opened the chapter with it at the top of the page, apart from all the other text:

“He who saves his country, violates no law.”

The phrase was most recently quoted three weeks ago — on January 24, 2024 — by El Salvador’s notoriously violent and lawbreaking President Nayib Bukele, who also tweeted: “He who saves his country violates no law.”

Napoleon overthrew the Directory in 1799, naming himself as First Consul, and then declared himself Emperor in 1804 with those same words: “Celui qui sauve sa patrie ne viole aucune loi.”

Emperors like Napoleon and dictators like Bukele don’t bother with trivial details like obeying the law. They rule by decree. Write it down, put your signature on it, and boom, it’s now the law of the land.

That was also Breivik’s hope for the Scandinavian countries: throw off the yoke of the “globalist” EU and embrace a racist strongman to lead the continent into an era of whites-only paradise. Replace “the system” of democracy with a white supremacist Christo-fascist oligarchy.

Which is why it’s so troubling that Trump tweeted the same Napoleonic phrase that Breivik made famous. The phrase every white supremacist has memorized, along with the fourteen words and the number 88 as code for “Heil Hitler.”

It would be a mistake at this point to think that when Trump quotes people like Breivik he’s just trolling us: People are now dying all over the world because a half-billion dollars’ worth of USAID food is rotting in storage; millions have lost access to AIDS drugs that were keeping them alive; children in cancer drug trials have been cut off from lifesaving medication; and federal workers who thought Civil Service would protect them are now on the verge of homelessness.

He means it. And for three weeks he’s been acting on his words, largely with impunity.

So long as he’s “saving the country,” he argues, he’s “violating no law.” It’s why he’s defying court orders right now to eject Musk’s teenage hackers from the Treasury Department or restart NIH and USAID funding.

And, truth be told, six corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court have already ratified the White House’s new American dictator doctrine with the Trump v US decision last July, saying that if the president breaks the law while executing “official acts,” he’s immune from criminal prosecution for the crime.

He just gets away with it. As long as he’s saving the country, he violates no law. Don’t even bother going after him, the Republicans on the Supreme Court said; it simply won’t succeed.

It’s probably why Trump is now talking about running for a third term — perhaps even pulling a Putin and running for VP with a figurehead for president — because, like most dictators throughout history, he knows that the minute he’s no longer in power he’ll be facing prison.

This declaration by Trump was no passing joke or meme. He posted it both on Truth Social and on Xitter.

He wants us all to see it.

To hear it.

To know that he means it.

He’s shoving it in our faces. Pounding it out on the keyboard. Declaring it to the world. Quoting Anders Breivik.

And perhaps not just on his own behalf. Kyle Clark, a reporter for 9News Denver, believes it’s a shout-out to the armed insurrectionists Trump recently pardoned:

“As a journalist who covers extremism at the local level, I think it’s a mistake to view Trump’s Napoleonic statement as solely about presidential power.
“Consider if it’s interpreted as a wink and a nod for any extremist to act outside the law to ‘save’ the country as they see fit.”

Time to start killing liberals? Harassing queer people? Burning down the homes of undocumented immigrants?

After all, the rightwing gangs in Russia and Hungary enthusiastically do all these things with the tacit approval of Putin and Orbán.

And now Trump is doubling down; yesterday he retweeted a rightwinger’s message that he could defy the courts if he chose to because he is “saving the country.”

And his fellow billionaire, Elon Musk, is burning through our federal government like a California wildfire.

TS Eliot was wrong: sometimes the world does end with a bang rather than a whimper…

“If we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable. And it is a fact that the body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the Gulf of America. I’m not sure why news outlets don’t want to call it that, but that is what it is. The Secretary of the Interior has made that designation . . . and Apple has recognized that, Google has recognized that, pretty much every other outlet in this room has recognized that body of water as the Gulf of America, and its very important to this administration that we get that right.” —White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking at her February 12 daily press briefing.

Back in 1997, in the dim pre-history of American Greatness, David King published a book entitled The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin’s Russia. In almost two hundred pages of photos, it demonstrated the ways that Stalin’s Soviet regime literally erased historical events and persons no longer considered to be consistent with the dictat of The Leader.

Such efforts involved extensive censorship and coercion, typically requiring the removal not simply of images and documents but the people to whom they were attached, who often wound up in a Gulag if they were lucky or in a ditch if they were not. At the same time, as the book shows, even more insidious than the coercion was the regime’s wholly cynical attitude towards truth—an attitude so well analyzed by George Orwell’s 1984 that it has come to be described by the colloquialism “Orwellian.” The regime and its Leader regarded themselves as literally authorized to dictate what is and what is not. It was not enough to denounce or disappear an opponent or to censor an image. It was considered necessary, and legitimate, to figuratively and literally erase the opponent and to produce an appropriately revised image or document in which that opponent did not appear, and thus did not exist, and indeed perhaps had never existed.

For Stalin—and, in different ways, for Hitler and Mussolini too—the essential principle of rule was simply stated: “what is, is what I declare it to be.”

On January 20, 2025, within minutes of his inauguration as President of the United States, Donald J. Trump declared, via Executive Order 14172, that heretofore the U.S. government would rename “the area formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico” as “the Gulf of America.”

Trump’s “Restoring [of] Names That Honor American Greatness” generated enthusiasm among his supporters, criticism among his opponents, and incredulity among most people, including most journalists. For the designation “Gulf of Mexico” has been in use for centuries, since before there was a United States. It has long been the internationally recognized designation for the body of water in question. And, until a few weeks ago, it was the designation employed by every American and especially by every American travel agent and resort owner.

And yet, with a stroke of a pen, Donald Trump declared it was now and forever the “Gulf of America.”

Google and Apple complied with Trump’s order. So too Axios.

But Associated Press chose a more nuanced response: “The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years. The Associated Press will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.”

As a consequence, the White House very publicly blocked AP from Oval Office and Air Force One, making an example of the news agency for its temerity in failing to fall in line.

When questions were raised by journalists about whether such a move was consistent with either the First Amendment or long-standing White House practice, Trump doubled down, and went one step further, issuing a Proclamation declaring February 9 as “Gulf of America Day,” and calling “upon public officials and all the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.” Describing his renaming as a “momentous occasion,” he thus declared that Americans must not only change their language but celebrate him for proclaiming the change.

It was in this context that CNN reporter Kaitlin Collins pressed White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who responded as she did on February 12, by not simply defending the denunciation and punishment of AP, but by declaring AP to be lying, and misleading the public, by refusing to acknowledge what is a fact.

Her logic was impeccable. Trump declared it. His hand-picked Interior Secretary “made that designation.” And thus it simply is. And to raise any question about this is to be not simply against what Trump says, but against the simple truth. The rhetorical coup de gras is the gaslighting at the end, the seemingly straightforward claim that “pretty much everyone else” knows this to be true, which renders anyone outside this supposed consensus very peculiar, suspicious, and indeed dangerous.

This is the methodology of totalitarian and quasi-totalitarian rule.

It is playing out in the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. And in the widespread scrubbing of federal government websites, an effort recently described by CBS News as a deliberate attempt “to remove content contrary to the president’s thinking.” And in the many directives requiring the repudiation of any and all signs of “wokeness” (citing recent Trump administration guidance, the Maryland National Guard just backed out of its long-standing participation in the state’s official celebration of the birthday of Frederick Douglass. One wonders how long until it is declared that Douglass himself is a much more complicated figure than many have thought, and perhaps never really lived, and the true heroes of the Civil War were Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson).

But the most serious instance of this quasi-totalitarian approach to truth, also declared in a January 20 Executive Order, was Trump’s pardoning of all individuals convicted of or charged with crimes associated with the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Through this edict, Trump explicitly redescribed every insurrectionist as a patriot, and every government official involved in the defense of the Capitol on January 6 or the arrest or prosecution of the insurrectionists as a “deep state” oppressor. As I argued recently, in “It’s Official: Donald Trump Won the 2020 Election,” through these pardons “Trump has commenced the process of erasing the truth not simply about January 6, 2021, but about the last four years.”

How serious is Trump’s Orwellian effort? Can it really succeed in reshaping public discourse? We can hope not. But can we be sure?

I am reminded of Vaclav Havel’s famous essay “The Power of the Powerless.” Writing in 1978, at a moment that he describes as “post-totalitarian,” Havel asks whether and how it might be possible to break through the repressive Czech regime’s veneer of invulnerability. He tells the story of a greengrocer who, upon instruction from the Party, “places among the onions and carrots, the slogan ‘Workers of the World Unite,’” not because he believes the slogan but because it is the easiest way to get by in a very cynical society. As Havel writes:

We have seen that the real meaning of the greengrocer’s slogan has nothing to do with what the text of the slogan actually says. Even so, this real meaning is quite clear and generally comprehensible because the code is so familiar: the greengrocer declares his loyalty (and he can do no other if his declaration is to be accepted) in the only way the regime is capable of hearing; that is, by accepting the prescribed ritual, by accepting appearances as reality, by accepting the given rules of the game. In doing so, however, he has himself become a player in the game, thus making it possible for the game to go on, for it to exist in the first place.

The Czechoslovakia of the 1970’s was not a full-blown Stalinist regime—thus Havel’s designation “post-totalitarianism.” But both parts of the designation matter, and while the Communist regime did not practice mass terror, and allowed a sphere of civil freedom in which individuals were free to “go about their business,” the regime very much claimed the authority to decide the limits of such business, and to exercise substantial control over both political and cultural life. When the regime circulated Communist slogans, it was well understood that the slogans were to be honored, and that every “good citizen” was expected to act as if they were not simply followers of the law but sincere and enthusiastic Communists. To do otherwise was to flout the official “truth,” which was the only accepted “truth”—and thus to be a dangerous liar if not certifiably insane.

We do not live in 1970’s Czechoslovakia.

But we do live at a moment when the democratically elected President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, seems intent on pursuing a very similar approach to public life, dictating what is and what shall be, and expecting those around him, and the citizenry at large, to follow in lockstep, and with at least feigned enthusiasm.

Havel makes clear in his 1978 essay that he understands the very real reasons why so many fellow citizens will make such accommodations with the regime, which are surely rational from the vantage point of the individuals involved. But he also holds out the hope that there are individuals who, following the example of his Charter 77 colleagues, will eventually discover that such accommodations come at too high a price, and thus will begin to raise questions, and to refuse to comply. Whether, when, and how such refusals might grow, he acknowledges, are open questions. What is important, he insists, is that there be some refusal, on the basis of which hope for the future can be sustained.

It took over a decade before Havel’s hope was vindicated (even if briefly, for the Europe of today is not the Europe of Havel’s hope).

Trump has only just begun to do the damage that he will surely do. On what basis can we sustain hope for a future beyond Trump? And how long must we wait for such hope to be vindicated?

Americans these days don’t much like billionaires. Our ultra-rich, Americans overwhelmingly believe, aren’t paying enough in taxes. Polling earlier this month found that nearly three-quarters of the nation’s likeliest voters — 74 percent — feel billionaires are paying “too little’ at tax time.

Just how concerned about billion-dollar fortunes have Americans become? Nearly half of us overall, Harris polling found last summer, would like to see a limit on “wealth accumulation.” Among Gen Z’ers, that support for limits on billionaire fortunes runs all the way up to 65 percent.

“Billionaires,” some 58 percent of Americans agreed in that same Harris poll, “are becoming more like dictators.”

The share of Americans equating billionaires with dictators — given Elon Musk’s current dominant role in the new Trump White House — is most likely running even higher today.

The best way to counter our ongoing billionaire coup? We might want to look east for some answers. In the run-up to Germany’s February 23 parliamentary elections, that nation’s Left Party, Die Linke, has proposed a detailed five-step set of initiatives designed to cut the super rich down to democratic size.

“We believe,” the Die Linke co-chair Jan van Aken notes simply in his intro to his party’s new plan, “that there should not be any billionaires.”

But van Aken and Die Linke understand quite well that no government can suddenly snap its fingers and make billionaires disappear. The party has instead melded ideas from all around the world into a coherent and common-sense package.

The Die Linke plan’s step one: restoring a “wealth tax.” Germany has been without one since the nation’s top court nixed the wealth tax in effect back in 1995. The proposed new version would revolve around an annual levy starting at 1 percent on wealth over 1 million euros — the equivalent of about $1.03 million — and rising up to 12 percent on wealth concentrations above a billion euros.

On top of that would come a special one-time wealth tax, also on a graduated scale, that would only impact Germans sitting on fortunes worth more than 2 million euros. This levy’s top rate would hit 30 percent for awesomely affluent Germans in the proposal’s highest wealth bracket.

Germany’s super rich would also see, under the Die Linke plan, a higher inheritance tax on the wealth they leave behind. On the annual income side, top corporate executives and other high-earners would face a 75-percent tax rate on their take-homes over a million euros.

The fifth and final plank of the Die Linke plan: replacing the current 25-percent flat tax on capital gains — the income from the sale of financial and other assets — with a graduated sliding scale of rates.

The overall goal of the Die Linke tax plan: a halving of the wealth of Germany’s wealthiest over the next decade. Three other German parties on the left side of German politics are also backing tax hikes on the wealthy, but at levels not nearly as significant as Die Linke.

Elon Musk’s favorite German party, meanwhile, sees nothing wrong in boosting the fortunes of Germany’s most fortunate. The ultra-far-right Alternative for Germany party, the Musk-backed Alternative für Deutschland, is pledging higher tax relief for capital gains and an end to Germany’s existing inheritance tax.

Current polling is making the former investment banker Friedrich Merz the favorite to become Germany’s next chancellor. His conservative Christian Democratic Union party favors lowering the corporate tax rate and is now polling support from near 30 percent of Germany’s voters. Polls have the anti-immigrant AfD at a bit over 20 percent.

Die Linke has been rising in the pre-election polling since the party unveiled its tax plan, and the party gained 11,000 new members in January. Analysts now see Die Linke likely to finish with about 6 percent of the overall vote tally, maybe enough to prevent Germany’s right-wingers from forming a new government. But the party’s bold tax plan, either way, has no shot at becoming the law of the land in Germany’s next legislative session.

Still, what seems no more than tax-the-rich pie-in-the-sky in one generation can become actual tax policy in the next. In 1917, for instance, a bold group of American progressives proposed a tax rate of 100 percent on annual income over $100,000, the equivalent of nearly $2.5 million in today’s dollars. A generation later, in 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt asked Congress to place that same 100-percent tax rate on America’s most affluent.

Lawmakers didn’t buy FDR’s 100-percent top rate, but they did pass legislation that had America’s richest facing a 94-percent tax on their top-bracket income by 1944. That U.S. top tax rate would hover around 90 percent for the next two decades, years that would see the United States become the world’s first-ever mass-middle-class nation.

It is well to remind ourselves that today is President’s Day, not Dictator’s Day.

Of all the things the framers of the Constitution worried about, their biggest worry was that a president would become as powerful as a king. Which is why they created Congress and the judiciary — to check and constrain him.

Fast forward to the first Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century, when inequalities of income and wealth had become extreme that the so-called “Robber Barons” of the era (think Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg) controlled the economy, and corruption was rampant. (I say “first” Gilded Age because we are now clearly in the second.)

Reformers of that era created an income tax to try to limit the Robber Barons’ incomes, limits on corporate campaign expenditures to limit their political reach, and independent regulatory agencies to limit their power. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, was established as an independent agency in 1914, to take on corporate monopolies and fraud.

Fast forward again to today. There are by now 19 independent regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Special Counsel.

These independent agencies, staffed with experts, have become a major countervailing power to the political clout of large corporations.

But I fear that the Supreme Court is about to end their independence.

On Sunday, White House lawyers asked the justices to allow Trump to fire the head of an independent watchdog agency. It’s the first case to reach the Supreme Court arising from the blizzard of actions taken by Trump in the early weeks of the new administration.

The White House’s emergency application asks the Supreme Court to vacate a federal trial judge’s order temporarily reinstating Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel.

The Office of Special Counsel — a little-known but important independent agency — enforces federal whistleblower laws, which protect whistleblowers from political retribution, and the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in most political activity.

In the 1978 law that established the Office of Special Counsel, Congress gave the Counsel a five-year term and provided that he or she could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

But Trump’s one-sentence email to Dellinger on Feb. 7 gave no reasons for firing him, effective immediately.

Dellinger sued. He called his removal illegal and argued that nothing about his performance could possibly meet the standard Congress laid out for dismissing a special counsel:

“Since my arrival at OSC last year, I could not be more proud of all we have accomplished. The agency’s work has earned praise from advocates for whistleblowers, veterans, and others. The effort to remove me has no factual nor legal basis — none — which means it is illegal.”

Since February 7, Dellinger has continued to police the government against Hatch Act and whistle-blower violations — even when they have involved federal workers who allegedly discriminated against Trump. (In a complaint filed last Tuesday, Dellinger alleged that, during a hurricane response in October, an aid supervisor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency illegally instructed FEMA workers not to visit homes with Trump signs.)

Last Monday night, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump from firing Dellinger.

Judge Jackson wrote that the 1978 law “expresses Congress’s clear intent to ensure the independence of the special counsel and insulate his work from being buffeted by the winds of political change,” adding that the government’s “only response to this inarguable reading of the text is that the statute is unconstitutional.”

On Saturday, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Trump’s emergency motion for a stay of Judge Jackson’s ruling. The unsigned majority opinion said the government’s motion was premature.

“The question here is not whether the president is entitled to prompt review of his important constitutional arguments. Of course he is. The issue before us is whether his mere claim of extraordinary harm justifies this court’s immediate review, which would essentially remove the legal issues from the district court’s ambit before its proceedings have concluded.”

In its Sunday filing before the Supreme Court, the White House said the Supreme Court “should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will.” Translated: Congress can not limit the president’s power to fire heads of independent agencies.

Make no mistake. This is a fundamental challenge to the basic idea — part of the fabric of our government for well over a century — that Congress has the power to create independent agencies.

Trump’s emergency application took direct aim at a precedent from 1935 in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress can shield independent agencies from politics.

That case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, concerned a federal law that protected commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, saying they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” — the same language that Congress used decades later to protect the Special Counsel.

Franklin D. Roosevelt nonetheless fired a commissioner, William Humphrey, arguing only that Humphrey’s actions were not aligned with the administration’s policy goals. The Supreme Court held that the firing was unlawful and the law establishing the independence of the Federal Trade Commission was constitutional.

Fast forward again. The Roberts Supreme Court doesn’t like independent regulatory agencies. Most of the current justices subscribe to what’s called the “unitary executive” theory, a bonkers notion that the framers intended for a president to have total control over every aspect of the executive branch.

In 2020, the Roberts Supreme Court laid the groundwork for reversing Humphrey’s Executor in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The law that created the Bureau — again, using language identical to that at issue in Humphrey’s Executor and in Dellinger’s case — said the president could remove its director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down that provision, ruling that it violated the separation of powers and that the president could remove the bureau’s director for any reason. Roberts, writing for the majority, said the presidency requires an “energetic executive.” He continued:

“In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the president, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.”

Two justices — Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — would have pulled the plug on independent agencies then and there. Thomas wrote:

“The decision in Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people. With today’s decision, the court has repudiated almost every aspect of Humphrey’s Executor. In a future case, I would repudiate what is left of this erroneous precedent.”

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for what was then the court’s four liberals, dissented, saying the Constitution did not address the scope of the president’s power to fire subordinates. Congress should therefore be free, she said, to grant agencies “a measure of independence from political pressure.”

That 2020 decision by the majority of the Supreme Court anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision last July that granted Trump, then a private citizen, immunity from prosecution for any “official” conduct during his first term.

So what now? I’m afraid the Trump White House and the Supreme Court have teed up the Dellinger case to mark the end of Humphries Executor — and therefore the practical end of independent agencies. They may carve out the Federal Reserve on some pretext, but they are bent on centralizing presidential power.

I wish I could be more hopeful, but I honestly don’t see any other decision emerging from this high court.

Celebrate President’s Day today, not Dictator’s Day. And don’t, whatever you do, give up hope. This is all part of democracy’s stress test. I guarantee that eventually democracy will come out stronger for it.

The global commitment to fair climate finance is at a crossroads. COP29 concluded with a disappointing New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance, or NCQG, leaving developing nations at risk of being left behind. With the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris agreement and slashing development aid, prospects for more ambitious fair climate finance are disappearing out of sight. Decisions like these not only threaten global cooperation on climate change but will also fail to meet its core purpose in supporting the most affected communities in adapting to and mitigating climate change. Now, more than ever, fair and equitable climate finance—such as increased grant-based funding and debt relief—is critical.

In Africa, the impacts of climate change are stark and undeniable. Extreme weather events on the continent surged from 85 in the 1970s to over 540 between 2010 and 2019, causing over 730,000 deaths and $38.5 billion in damages. The increasing frequency and severity of floods, droughts, and storms are threatening food security, displacing populations, and putting immense stress on water resources. According to the World Bank, climate change could push up to 118 million extremely poor people in Africa into abject poverty by 2030 as drought, floods, and extreme heat intensify. A stark reality that underscores the urgent need for robust climate finance to implement adaptation and mitigation strategies to safeguard and secure the continent's future.

Without stronger commitments to public grants and additional funding, developing countries risk falling into a cycle of debt that hinders climate action.

At the same time, climate response remains critically underfunded in Africa. From the figures released by the Climate Policy Initiative, the continent will need approximately $2.8 trillion between 2020 and 2030 to implement its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris agreement. However, current annual climate finance flows to Africa are only $30 billion, exposing a significant funding gap for climate adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Climate Finance at COP29

COP29's main objective was to deliver on a finance goal that would see the world off the tipping point. However, after two weeks of nearly failed climate diplomacy, negotiators agreed to a disappointing $300 billion annually by 2035. This amount falls short of the $1.3 trillion per year figure, supported by the Needs Determinant Report, that many developing countries had advocated for.

Nevertheless, the Baku to Belem Roadmap has been developed to address the climate finance gap. This framework, set to be finalized at COP30 in Brazil, offers a crucial opportunity to refine finance mechanisms to effectively and equitably meet the needs of developing countries.

Why the Finance Outcome of COP29 Could Leave Developing Countries Behind

Beyond the insufficient funding, the NCQG lacks a strong commitment to equity, a key principle of the Paris agreement. The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) emphasizes that developed countries should bear a greater share of the financial burden. However, the NCQG merely states that developed nations would "take the lead" in mobilizing $300 billion, reflecting a lack of firm commitment.

A major concern is the climate debt trap for developing nations. Much of the climate finance provided is in the form of loans rather than grants, worsening existing debt burdens and limiting investments in sustainable development. Without stronger commitments to public grants and additional funding, developing countries risk falling into a cycle of debt that hinders climate action.

Moving Forward: Shaping Conditions for Fair, Equitable, and Enduring Climate Finance

To ensure COP29's finance outcomes do not leave the Global South behind, several actions are needed.

Firstly, debt relief is crucial. Approximately 60% of low-income countries are already in or near debt distress. Between 2016 and 2020, 72% of climate finance to developing nations was in loans, while only 26% was in grants. Reducing debt burdens would allow developing countries to allocate more resources to climate projects, improve fiscal stability, and attract additional investments.

Similarly, given the mounting climate finance debts in low-income developing countries, increased grant-based financing for climate action is needed. In 2022, developed countries provided around $115.9 billion in climate finance to developing countries, but a significant portion was in the form of loans. Heavy reliance on debt-based financing exacerbates financial burdens on these nations. Grant-based finance, on the other hand, aligns with equity principles and ensures that funding effectively supports adaptation and mitigation.

Another potential path is leveraging private sector investment. The private sector plays an essential role in climate finance. However, its involvement often prioritizes profit over genuine climate benefits. Strategies must ensure that private investments align with climate justice principles. To address this, approaches are needed such as those used by Bill and Melinda Gates.

Lastly, implementing robust governance and transparent mechanisms is critical. This includes developing detailed reporting templates, public participation in decision-making, and clear monitoring systems to track climate finance flows and prevent double counting.

While the developed world is rapidly changing its relationship with the rest of the world from aid to trade, the price of not providing equitable, grant-based, public climate finance will be economic losses, health impacts, increased disaster costs, food insecurity, biodiversity loss, and infrastructural damage. Quite simply, taking the equity conditions into account is the way forward if we are to ensure that the outcomes of COP29 leave no low-income developing nation in the Global South behind.

A few years ago, I came across an old book at an estate sale. Its title caught my eye: “Our New Possessions.” Its cover featured the Statue of Liberty against stylized stars and stripes. What were those “new possessions”? The cover made it quite clear: Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. The subtitle made it even clearer: “A graphic account, descriptive and historical, of the tropic islands of the sea which have fallen under our sway, their cities, peoples, and commerce, natural resources and the opportunities they offer to Americans.” What a mouthful! I’m still impressed with the notion that “tropical” peoples falling “under our sway” offered real Americans amazing opportunities, as did our (whoops — I meant their) lands. Consider that Manifest Destiny at its boldest, imperialism unapologetically being celebrated as a new basis for burgeoning American greatness.

The year that imperial celebration was published — 1898 — won’t surprise students of U.S. history. America had just won its splendid little imperial war with Spain, an old empire very much in the “decline and fall” stage of a rich, long, and rapacious history. And just then red-blooded Americans like “Rough Rider” Teddy Roosevelt were emerging as the inheritors of the conquistador tradition of an often murderously swashbuckling Spanish Empire.

Of course, freedom-loving Americans were supposed to know better than to follow in the tradition of “old world” imperial exploitation. Nevertheless, cheerleaders and mentors like storyteller Rudyard Kipling were then urging Americans to embrace Europe’s civilizing mission, to take up “the white man’s burden,” to spread enlightenment and civilization to the benighted darker-skinned peoples of the tropics. Yet to cite just one example, U.S. troops dispatched to the Philippines on their “civilizing” mission quickly resorted to widespread murder and torture, methods of “pacification” that might even have made Spanish inquisitors blush. That grim reality wasn’t lost on Mark Twain and other critics who spoke out against imperialism, American-style, with its murderous suppression of Filipino “guerrillas” and bottomless hypocrisy about its “civilizing” motives.

After his exposure to “enlightened” all-American empire-building, retired Major General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, would bluntly write in the 1930s of war as a “racket” and insist his long career as a Marine had been spent largely in the service of “gangster” capitalism. Now there was a plain-speaking American hero.

And speaking of plain-speaking, or perhaps plain-boasting, I suggest that we think of Donald Trump as America’s retro president from 1898. Isn’t it time, America, to reach for our destiny once again? Isn’t it time for more tropical (and Arctic) peoples to be put “under our sway”? Greenland! Canada! The Panama Canal! These and other regions of the globe offer Donald Trump’s America so many “opportunities.” And if we can’t occupy an area like the Gulf of Mexico, the least we can do is rebrand it the Gulf of America! A lexigraphic “mission accomplished” moment bought with no casualties, which sure beats the calamitous wars of George W. Bush and Barack Obama in this century!

Now, here’s what I appreciate about Trump: the transparent nature of his greed. He doesn’t shroud American imperialism in happy talk. He says it just like they did in 1898. It’s about resources and profits. As the dedication page to that old book from 1898 put it: “To all Americans who go a-pioneering in our new possessions and to the people who are there before them.” Oh, and pay no attention to that “before” caveat. We Americans clearly came first then and, at least to Donald Trump, come first now, and — yes! — we come to rule. The world is our possession and our beneficence will certainly serve the peoples who were there before us in Greenland or anywhere else (the “hellhole” of Gaza included), even if we have to torture or kill them in the process of winning their hearts and minds.

It’s 1900 Again in America

My point is this: Donald Trump doesn’t want to return America to the 1950s, when men were men and women were, as the awful joke then went, “barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen.” No, he wants to return this country (and the world) to 1900, when America was unapologetically and nakedly grabbing everything it could. To put it in his brand of “locker room” language, Trump wants to grab Mother Earth by the pussy, because when you’re rich and powerful, when you’re a “star,” you can do anything.

It’s white (male) hunter all over again. Think Teddy Roosevelt and all those animals he manfully slaughtered on safari. Today, we might even add white (female) hunter, considering that Kristi Noem, the new director of homeland security, infamously shot her own dog in a gravel pit because she couldn’t train it to behave. It’s an America where men are men again, women are women, and trans people are simply defined out of existence while simultaneously being forced out of the U.S. military.

To replace the “yellow journalism” of newspaperman William Randolph Hearst in that age, think of the corporate-owned media networks of today, with billionaire owners like Jeff Bezos showing due deference to you know who. For the robber barons of that age, substitute men like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg (to name only the two most famous billionaires of our moment) along with Bezos and their billionaire tech bros. It’s a new gilded age, a new age of smash and grab, where the rich get richer and the poor poorer, where the strong do what they will and the weak suffer as they must.

Of course, it’s highly doubtful Trump can convince Canada to become the 51st state. Denmark doesn’t seem remotely interested in selling Greenland to America and the Panamanians aren’t eager to return their canal to all-American interlopers and occupiers. Even the “Gulf of America” remains the Gulf of Mexico to the other peoples of the Western Hemisphere. But perhaps Trump and Musk can team up to plant the American flag on Mars!

Yet, while Trump may fail when it comes to any of these specific imperial designs, he’s already succeeding, famously so, where it really matters. With all his imperial blather about Greenland, Gaza, and the like, what he’s really conquering and colonizing is our minds. The man and his ideas are now everywhere. Whatever else you can say about Trump, you can’t get rid of him, especially in the mainstream media which he uses so effectively to trumpet (pun intended) his expansionist agenda.

Yes, Trump is normalizing imperial conquest (again); yes, naked exploitation is unapologetically “destiny” (again). It’s “drill, baby, drill” and party like it’s 1900, since ideas about global warming due to fossil-fuel production and consumption simply didn’t exist in that age. It’s so retro chic to be chauvinistically selfish, to loot openly, even to commit or enable atrocities under the cover of humanitarian concerns. (Think of Gaza and Trump’s recent open call for cleansing the region of Palestinians to make way for their “betters,” the Israelis, to enjoy peace and a “beautiful” seaside location.)

Regression, thy name be Trump. Unabashed greed and unbridled hypocrisy are selling points once again. Protectionist tariffs are “great” again. Immigrants, black- and brown-skinned ones naturally, are depicted as endangering America’s way of life. Time to get rid of as many “illegals” as we can. Deport them! Jail them in Cuba! America is for Americans!

A Global Military Makes It All Possible

President Teddy Roosevelt was a big fan of the U.S. Navy’s Great White Fleet, the 16 battleships, painted white, that he sent around the world in 1907. He used it to intimidate recalcitrant powers and impress them with America’s growing might and reach. Though the U.S. wasn’t quite a military superpower yet, it was already an economic one, and combining military persuasion with economic prowess was an effective tactic to get other countries to toe Washington’s line.

Today’s U.S. military is quite obviously a global one, an imperial one bent on total dominance of everything: land, sea, air, space, cyberspace, information, narrative. You name it and our military and its partners in what Ray McGovern calls the MICIMATT (which includes industry, Congress, intelligence, the media, academe, and think tanks) conspire to seize, occupy, control, and otherwise dominate. Small wonder that Trump and his operatives within what might be thought of as the Mondial Imperial State have continued a tradition of seeking ever greater budgets for the Pentagon, more and more weapons sales, and the unending construction of new military bases. Contraction in this highly militarized version of disaster imperialism is never an option (until, of course, it becomes one). Only growth is to be allowed, commensurate with seemingly bottomless appetites.

One example: newly appointed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and his Project 2025 supporters argue that U.S. military spending should equal 5% of America’s gross domestic product (GDP). With this country’s GDP sitting just under $29 trillion in 2024, that would drive an imperial war budget of $1.45 trillion instead of the nearly $900 billion in this year’s Pentagon budget. For Hegseth & Co., the U.S. military is all about warfighting (and wars, if nothing else, are expensive), so it must embrace and hone its warrior mystique. It matters to him and his like not at all that, since 9/11, if not before then, the U.S. military has honed its warfighting identity in disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere.

Another example. Just before I retired from the U.S. military in 2005, I learned of efforts to create a new military command with sub-Saharan Africa as its focus. At first, it seemed like a joke. How was Africa directly related to U.S. national security? Whence the threat? Of course, Africa as a threat wasn’t the issue. It was Africa as an arena for U.S. economic exploitation, just as it had been for European countries like Belgium, England, France, and Germany circa 1900, most infamously in the Congo, later exposed as the “heart of darkness” at the center of a European imperialism that would contribute to the tensions leading to the eruption of World War I in 1914. Two years after I retired, the U.S. military did indeed form Africa Command (AFRICOM) as its latest combatant command. Today, every sector of the globe has been accounted for by various commands within the Pentagon assigned to four-star generals and admirals, each in his or her own way as powerful as, once upon a time, the proconsuls of the Roman Empire.

With all of this as background, in his own mind at least, Donald Trump doth bestride the world like a colossus. What backs him up is a Republican vision (shared by most Democrats) of an imperial military (theoretically) unchallengeable in all domains. And whether the United States spends $1.45 trillion or a mere $900 billion annually on it, count on this: in the years to come, that military will be used in, most likely, the stupidest and most violent ways imaginable.

How Long Before the Next World War?

If you buy the conceit that Donald Trump is taking America back to 1900, it suggests a likely starting point for the next world war roughly 10 to 15 years in our future. Ever-increasing military spending; calls for mobilization and a return of the draft; talk of enervating national decline that could allegedly be reversed by an embrace of a new warrior mystique; viewing all competition as zero-sum games that America must win and countries like China must lose: these could act collectively to create conditions similar to 1914 — a tinderbox of tensions just waiting for the right spark to set the world aflame.

The critical difference, of course, is nuclear weapons. Though World War I wasn’t the “war to end all wars,” a World War III fought between the U.S. and its allies and China and/or Russia and their allies promises to be that “last” war. There’s nothing like a few dozen thermonuclear weapons to settle accounts — as in ending most life on Planet Earth.

In an age of weapons of mass destruction and their widespread “modernization,” jaw-jaw, as in compromise and cooperation through conversation, is the only sane choice when war-war looms. Dominance through destruction must give way to détente through dialogue. Can the Trump administration advance progress toward peace instead of letting us regress into war?

Mr. President, here’s the real art of the deal. Rather than turning the calendar back to 1900, your goal should be to turn the atomic clock back to several hours (if not days or weeks) before midnight. That clock currently sits at a perilous 89 seconds to midnight, or global nuclear war. With every fiber of your being, your goal should be to guarantee that it will never strike that ungodly hour.

For surely, even the most deluded strong man shouldn’t wish his manifest destiny to be ruling over an empire of the dead.

Even if you didn’t vote for Donald Trump and you hate his guts, you have to be jealous of how much he’s doing so quickly. Liberal Democrats can’t even imagine one of their presidents leaping into action like this.

The post A Democrat Would Never Do This first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post A Democrat Would Never Do This appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Across the country, trans and nonbinary people and their families are reeling from U.S. President Donald Trump’s cruel anti-trans executive orders, which restrict our access to passports, lifesaving healthcare, military service, athletics, and more.

This builds off an election season that placed us squarely in the crosshairs of political and religious scapegoating.

In 2024 alone, 672 anti-trans bills were introduced at the state and federal level, most of them targeting trans and nonbinary young people. Although more than 600 of those bills failed, President Trump just signed an executive order carrying out many of their worst impulses.

Today, both in the United States and in many parts of the world, trans and nonbinary people—a tiny, frequently poor, and marginalized percentage of the general population—are being used as scapegoats, as symbolic threats to the “right” way of being.

Trump’s order directs multiple agencies to withhold funds from medical providers that provide gender-affirming medical treatments to children. Despite legal challenges to the order, several major hospital systems have indefinitely suspended this care already.

These assaults on trans and nonbinary people closely parallel the strategy that Christian Nationalists used in politicizing abortion access—an issue that had been previously considered apolitical by the majority of Americans, including the majority of American Christians.

Now the eerily similar argument of “defending innocent children” is being deployed against gender-affirming care, despite overwhelming medical and psychological evidence that this care saves young people’s lives.

Denying this care is about repressively controlling young people, not protecting them.

Throughout history, the unjust and powerful have sought to control people’s bodies as a means to maintain their own social position. This often led to “othering” people who could be isolated, marginalized, and blamed for any variety of injustices, while drawing attention away from those who were actually responsible for widespread misery. It’s a practice that goes all the way back to ancient Rome.

Today, both in the United States and in many parts of the world, trans and nonbinary people—a tiny, frequently poor, and marginalized percentage of the general population—are being used as scapegoats, as symbolic threats to the “right” way of being.

There is nothing innate or organic about the rise of anti-LGBTQ hate in the United States. As illustrated through the research of Translash Media, organizations like the National Christian Foundation, the DeVos Family, and the Council for National Policy have been instrumental in the funding, development, and workshopping of anti-trans and anti-queer sentiment, policy, and theology.

Fundamentalist Protestant organizations such as Focus on the Family, the Family Policy Alliance, and the Family Research Council have been key in launching the anti-trans movement within the last decade, including drafting the first anti-trans legislation at the Heritage Foundation’s “Summit on Protecting Children from Sexualization” conference in 2019.

These constant attacks are aimed at getting struggling people to blame trans folks for their problems. And they’re designed to keep us all politically reactive, overwhelmed, and unfocused on the deep systemic failures of our society.

But trans and nonbinary people know all too well what it’s like to struggle. Indeed, being poor and being trans are frequently inseparable experiences: Trans and nonbinary people are twice as likely to be unemployed, twice as likely to be homeless, and four times as likely to live in extreme poverty than the general population.

So we are allies in the struggle against hardship, not rivals. Similarly, we see our struggles as trans people as linked to the fights for reproductive justice, fair wages, safe working conditions, housing, and immigration justice—and against sexual violence, militarism, and police brutality.

In short, we support every other struggle for people just trying to live safely in their own bodies.

While the real dangers and strain of this moment cannot be underestimated, we must continue to examine and effectively address the root causes of our suffering—and find our common cause with all other hurting and dispossessed people.

The remarkable Bob Dylan bio-pic A Complete Unknown has been nominated for eight Oscars—best picture, actor, supporting actor, supporting actress, director, costume design, sound, and adapted screenplay. The ceremony is scheduled for March 2, but the film, released in December, has already been drawing enormous attention over how true it is to Dylan’s early career, relationships, and music, particularly the controversy over his performance of "Maggie's Farm" at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, backed up by an electric blues band. The film’s arc leads us to this crucial final moment, when he steps on stage and sings, “I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more."

In the first stanza, Dylan sings, “Well, I wake up in the morning, fold my hands, and pray for rain” and “It’s a shame the way she makes me scrub the floor.” Then he complains that Maggie’s brother “hands you a nickel, and he hands you a dime. And he asks you with a grin, if you're havin' a good time.” Dylan’s protagonist clearly hates the backbreaking work, the low pay, and the lack of respect he gets from Maggie’s family.

Where did those ideas and images come from? What does the song tell us about Dylan’s personal and political transformation represented by his performance at Newport? And who was the real "Maggie"?

First some background.

Dylan was born Robert Zimmerman and raised in Hibbing, a mining town in northern Minnesota, in a middle-class Jewish family. As a teen he admired Elvis Presley, Johnny Ray, Hank Williams, and especially Little Richard, and taught himself to play guitar. In 1959, he moved to the Twin Cities to attend the University of Minnesota but soon dropped out. He stayed in the area to absorb its budding folk music and bohemian scene, began playing in local coffeehouses, and improving his guitar playing. A friend loaned Dylan his collection of Woody Guthrie records and back copies of Sing Out! magazine, which had the music and lyrics to many folk songs. He read Guthrie’s autobiography, Bound for Glory, and learned to play many of his songs.

By then young Zimmerman had changed his name (apparently after Welsh poet Dylan Thomas) and had adopted some of Guthrie’s persona. He mumbled when he talked and when he sang, spoke with a twang, wore workman’s clothes (including a corduroy cap), and took on what he believed to be Guthrie’s mannerisms. At first Dylan seemed to identify more with Guthrie as a loner and bohemian than with Guthrie the radical and activist. Soon after Dylan arrived in New York City in January 1961 at age 19 he visited Guthrie, then suffering from Huntington’s disease, in his New Jersey hospital room.

At the time, New York’s Greenwich Village was the epicenter of the folk music revival, a growing political consciousness, and (along with San Francisco) the beatnik and bohemian culture of jazz, poetry, and drugs. The area was dotted with coffeehouses, some of which charged admission fees and others which allowed performers to pass the hat while customers purchased drinks and sandwiches.

Dylan made the rounds of the folk clubs, making a big impression. His singing and guitar-playing were awkward, but he had a little-boy charm and charisma that disarmed audiences. Dylan’s initial repertoire consisted mostly of Guthrie songs, blues, and traditional ballads. At the time, he began weaving a myth about his past, including stories about being a circus hand and a carnival boy, having a rock band in Hibbing that performed on television, and running away from home and learning songs from black blues artists. He was, as he continued to do throughout his life, reinventing himself.

Dylan was never comfortable being confined by the “protest” label and being called the “voice” of his generation. He disliked being a celebrity, having people ask him what his songs meant, and being viewed as a troubadour who could represent American youth.

Between 1962 and 1965, Dylan wrote more than a dozen songs that reflected the turmoil of the period. These included “The Ballad of Emmett Till,” about a fourteen-year-old African American who was beaten and shot to death in Mississippi in 1955 for whistling at a white woman. It was Dylan’s first “protest” song. To this he soon added “Talkin’ John Birch Society Blues” (poking fun at the right-wing organization), “Let Me Die in My Footsteps” (a critique of the Cold War hysteria that led Americans to build bomb shelters), “Oxford Town” (about the riots by white students after James Meredith became the first Black student admitted to University of Mississippi), “Paths of Victory” (about the civil rights marches), and “A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall” (about the fear of nuclear war, which he premiered at a Carnegie Hall concert a month before the Cuban missile crisis made that fear more tangible).

In 1963, Dylan also wrote “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll” (based on a news story from earlier that year about the death of a black barmaid at the hands of a wealthy white man), “Who Killed Davey Moore” (about a black boxer who died after a brutal match), “Talkin’ World War III Blues” (about the threat of nuclear annihilation), and “Masters of War” (a protest against the arms race).

Dylan borrowed the tune from “No More Auction Block,” an anti-slavery Negro spiritual, for what would become his most famous song, “Blowin’ in the Wind.”

Dylan recorded “Blowin’ in the Wind” on his second album, The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, released in May 1963, but it was the version released a few weeks later by Peter, Paul, and Mary that turned the song into a nationwide phenomenon. The single sold 300,000 copies in its first week. On July 13, 1963, it reached number two on the Billboard pop chart, with over a million copies sold. Millions of Americans learned the words and sang along while it was played on the radio, performed at rallies and concerts, and sung at summer camps and in churches and synagogues.

Unlike Dylan’s songs that were ripped from the headlines about specific events, “Blowin’ in the Wind” suggested broad themes. Dylan‘s three verses achieve a universal quality that makes them open to various interpretations and allows listeners to read their own concerns into the lyrics. “How many times must the cannonballs fly before they’re forever banned?” and “How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?” are clearly about war, but not any particular war. One can hear the words “How many years can some people exist before they’re allowed to be free?” and relate them to the civil rights movement and the recent Freedom Rides. “How many times can a man turn his head pretending he just doesn’t see?” could refer to the nation’s unwillingness to face its own racism, or to other forms of ignorance. The song reflects a combination of alienation and outrage. Listeners have long debated what Dylan meant by “The answer is blowin’ in the wind.” Is the answer so obvious that it is right in front of us? Or is it elusive and beyond our reach? This ambiguity is one reason for the song’s broad appeal.

“The Times They Are a-Changin’” was also not about a specific event but broadly challenged the political establishment on behalf of Dylan’s youth cohort. The finger-pointing song is addressed to “senators, congressmen,” and “mothers and fathers,” telling them that “there’s a battle outside and it is ragin’” and warning them, “don’t criticize what you can’t understand.” Dylan’s lyric “For the loser now will be later to win” sounds much like the biblical notion that the meek shall inherit the earth, or perhaps that America’s black and poor people will win their struggle for justice. Like “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “The Times They Are A-Changin’” became an anthem, a strident warning, angry yet hopeful. It came to symbolize the generation gap, making Dylan the reluctant “spokesman” for the youth revolt.

Dylan’s third album, also called The Times They Are a-Changin’, was recorded between August and October 1963 and included the song “North Country Blues,” which draws on Dylan’s Minnesota upbringing and describes the suffering caused by the closing of the mines in the state’s Iron Range, turning mining areas into jobless ghost towns—a theme that Bruce Springsteen would reprise years later. Remarkably, Dylan tells the tale from the point of view of a woman.

By 1963, Dylan was a super-star, aided by his manager Albert Grossman (who got him a recording contract) and other performers (including Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, and Peter, Paul, and Mary) who recorded Dylan’s songs and popularized them to wide audiences. Dylan, Baez, Peter, Paul, and Mary, and Odetta were invited to sing at the August 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Martin Luther King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

But Dylan was never comfortable being confined by the “protest” label and being called the “voice” of his generation. He disliked being a celebrity, having people ask him what his songs meant, and being viewed as a troubadour who could represent American youth. In 1963, before singing “Blowin’ in the Wind” at Gerde’s Folk City in Greenwich Village, Dylan explained, “This here ain’t a protest song or anything like that, ‘cause I don’t write protest songs…I’m just writing it as something to be said, for somebody, by somebody.” Dylan may have been being coy or disingenuous, but it didn’t matter. The song caught the wind of protest in the country and took flight. Her later told Phil Ochs, who continued to write and perform topical songs and to identify with the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements, “The stuff you’re writing is bullshit, because politics is bullshit. You’re wasting your time.”

In 1965, the Newport Folk Festival invited Dylan to be the closing act on Sunday night, June 25. He agreed, but insisted on singing a few songs backed by an electrified blues band. There is much controversy about what actually happened before, during and after his performance. A Complete Unknown—based on Elijah Wald’s 2015 book, When Dylan Went Electric: Newport, Seeger, Dylan, and the Night That Split the Sixties—shows Seeger agonizingly trying to persuade Dylan to stick to his acoustic music. When Dylan insists on performing with his rock-and-roll back-up band, Seeger is visibly upset, but it isn’t clear if he actually tries to pull the plug on the amplified sound or is mainly angry that the sound system isn’t adequate to blast such loud music. The person in the film who appears most shaken up by Dylan’s performance is Alan Lomax, the eminent folklorist who played a major role in aiding little-known rural blues singers, mostly in the South, to gain more widespread attention.

Underlying the controversy is a debate about whether “folk” music mainly involves traditional songs by everyday people or newly-written songs about contemporary concerns by professional singers and songwriters. It also involves whether performers who use amplified electronic instruments are performing “folk” music. Even Seeger and Lomax were big fans of Black blues musicians (like Howlin’ Wolf and Memphis Slim) who played with electrified bands. In fact, the black Chambers Brothers and the white Paul Butterfield Blues Band, which backed Dylan, had already done electrically-amplified sets at Newport on Sunday afternoon with no complaints.

On stage, Dylan sang three amped-up songs—“Maggie’s Farm,” “Like a Rolling Stone,” and a work-in-progress called “Phantom Engineer” (which would eventually turn into “It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Lot to Cry,” on his sixth album, Highway 61 Revisited. His back-up band included three members of the Paul Butterfield Blues Bank (guitarist Mike Bloomfield, bassist Jerome Arnold, and drummer Sam Lay), Al Kooper on organ, an Barry Goldberg (who died on January 22) on organ and piano.

Some audience members were not happy with Dylan’s new sound. A few even booed. After performing those songs, Dylan stormed off the stage. But Seeger and others persuaded him to return to the stage, where he performed two songs with an acoustic guitar, “Mr. Tambourine Man” and “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue.” Many of those same audience members who had booed his first set and cheered his second set no doubt would eventually cheer for the upcoming wave of folk-rock music, like the Byrds’ version of “Mr. Tambourine Man.” But it was “all over now” between Dylan and the Newport Folk Festival. He refused to return to that venue for 37 years.

One aspect of the Newport controversy was Dylan’s apparent rejection of politically-oriented music. That was certainly the direction he was heading. With occasional exceptions, he abandoned acoustic and political music for rock and roll, country, blues, and gospel.

But the back story of “Maggie’s Farm”—and its double meaning—is missing from A Complete Unknown and from most tellings of the Newport brouhaha.

On different occasions, Seeger said he liked Dylan’s song. That shouldn’t be surprising. Seeger had recorded a traditional song, "Penny's Farm," on his first solo album (Darling Corey) in 1950. He often sang it at concerts. It is told from the perspective of a sharecropper protesting the working conditions on the farm.

It was originally recorded on Columbia records as "Down on Penny's Farm" by the Bentley Boys, a duo from North Carolina, in October 1929. That was a few days before the Wall Street stock market crashed, triggering the Great Depression. But the rural south was already facing a depression, especially among sharecroppers.

Here the opening lyrics to the Bentley Boys’ song:

Come you ladies and you gentlemen and listen to my song
I'll sing it to you right, but you might think it's wrong
May make you mad but I mean no harm
It's just about the renters on Penny's farm

[Refrain]
It's hard times in the country
Out on Penny's farm

It continues:

You go in the fields and you work all day
Way into the night but you get no pay
Promise you meat or a little lard
It's hard to be a renter on Penny's farm

[Refrain]

It’s hard times in the country

Out of Penny’s farm

Now here's George Penny come into town
With his wagon-load of peaches, not one of them sound
He's got to have his money or somebody's check
You pay him for a bushel and you don't get a peck

Then George Penny's renters, they come into town
With their hands in their pockets and their heads hanging down
Go in the store and the merchant will say
Your mortgage is due and I'm looking for my pay

It is likely that Dylan heard the Bentley Boys' version, which was reasonably well-known because Harry Smith had included it in his three-record Anthology of American Folk Music, issued in 1952, which helped spark the folk music revival during that decade. Dylan was familiar with the songs on the Anthology and recorded several of them on his first album.

The first stanza and chorus of Dylan’s "Hard Times in New York Town," as well as the tune, are borrowed directly from the Bentley Boys' "Down on Penny's Farm."

Here's the opening words and the tune for Dylan’s “Hard Times in New York Town”:

Come you ladies and you gentlemen, a-listen to my song.
Sing it to you right, but you might think it's wrong.
Just a little glimpse of a story I'll tell
'Bout an east coast city that you all know well.

[Refrain] It's hard times in the city,
Livin' down in New York town.

So, whether he learned the song from Smith's Anthology or from Seeger's album, it is clear that Dylan drew on "Down on Penny's Farm" when he wrote “Maggie’s Farm.”

“Down on Penny's Farm" was based on previous songs. That’s the folk tradition—borrowing and revising older songs. Woody Guthrie was a master of the craft. Others who recorded the song, after Seeger, include Jim Kweskin and Geoff Maldaur, Natalie Merchant, and Roger McGuinn of the Byrds.

There’s another twist to Dylan’s “Maggie’s Farm.” On July 6, 1963, Dylan traveled to Greenwood, Mississippi—in the heart of the Delta—to perform at a voter registration rally sponsored by the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). He was joined by Seeger, Theo Bikel, and the Freedom Singers. SNCC leader, and later Congressman, John Lewis was there, too. You can see a clip of Dylan’s performance in the 1965 documentary about Dylan, Don't Look Back.

Dylan performed a new song, “Only a Pawn in Their Game,” about the murder of Mississippi NAACP leader Medgar Evers by a segregationist thug, which occurred only a few weeks earlier, on June 12. The song expresses Dylan’s outrage at the assassination of the civil rights leader, but it also attacks the white Southern politicians and landed aristocracy, who used Jim Crow to pit black and white workers against each other to weaken both groups. In the song, Dylan revealed a sophisticated analysis of the white ruling class’ divide-and-conquer strategy, something that Martin Luther King discussed in some detail in his March 1965 speech at the end of the Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights.

One stanza of the song captures Dylan’s perspective:

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game

The voting rights rally at which Dylan performed took place on a cotton farm owned by the McGhee (sometimes misspelled Magee) family who were deeply involved with SNCC’s local organizing work. The family included six sons, one of whom, Silas, who had organized to desegregate a movie theater, was shot in the face the following summer by someone whom many believed was a Ku Klux Klan member.

It is hardly a stretch to see that Dylan turned McGhee’s farm into Maggie’s farm.

But what did he mean that he wasn’t going to “work on Maggie’s farm no more”? He certainly wasn’t referring to the McGhee family, whose courage Dylan surely admired. The words refer to his involvement in civil rights movement and politics more broadly.

At the end of the song, Dylan says,

Well, I try my best to be just like I am
But everybody wants you to be just like them

This is Dylan's way of telling his fans, and the broader public, that, having written many protest songs about civil rights and war in his still-early career, he was no longer going to be a protest singer and didn't like being pigeonholed that way. That was the message he was sending at Newport when he went electric and performed “Maggie’s Farm.”

In fact, Dylan wrote few politically oriented songs after that. By his fourth album, the aptly titled Another Side of Bob Dylan, he had decided to look both inward for his inspiration and outward at other kinds of music. He began to explore more personal and abstract themes in his music and in his poetry. He also became more involved with drugs, alcohol, and religion. His songs began to focus on his love life, his alienation, and his growing sense of the absurd. In subsequent decades, Dylan would reinvent himself several more times.

Even after 1965, however, Dylan occasionally revealed that he hadn’t lost his touch for composing political songs. His “Subterranean Homesick Blues” references the violence inflicted on civil rights protestors by cops (“Better stay away from those/That carry around a fire hose”) but also reflected his growing cynicism (“Don’t follow leaders/Watch the parkin’ meters”). The extremist wing of Students for a Democratic Society took their name—Weatherman—from another line in that song (“You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”). Other songs, such as “I Shall Be Released” (1967), the Guthrie-esque “I Pity the Poor Immigrant” (1967), “ George Jackson” (1971), “Hurricane” (1975), “License to Kill” (1983), and “Clean Cut Kid” (1984) indicate that Dylan still had the capacity for political outrage.

A Complete Unknown captures the mood and the music of the first few years of Dylan’s ascendency. Timothee Chalamet as Dylan and Edward Norton as Seeger embody their characters, including their voices, playing, looks, and performance styles. If the film gets people to be more curious about Seeger, to listen to his songs and learn about his life and legacy—that alone would be enough.

The movie accurately portrays Dylan's two sides—a brilliant creative genius as a songwriter/poet and a narcissist who used and discarded people on behalf of his ambition.

Though based on Wald’s extraordinary book, the film takes some artistic liberties that bend or distort the truth. It underplays the importance of his girlfriend Suze Rotolo, a committed leftist, in educating Dylan about both literature and the civil rights movement. It downplays the fact that Joan Baez was already famous when she met Dylan and helped jumpstart his career by introducing him at music festivals. Contrary to the film, Dylan never appeared on Seeger's homespun educational TV show, "Rainbow Quest." Dylan did visit Woody Guthrie in the hospital when he first arrived in New York, but Seeger wasn't there. And Dylan's second visit with Woody, as depicted at the end of the film, is entirely fictional.

But perhaps most disappointing is what the film left out—Dylan playing on McGhee’s farm in Mississippi and at the March on Washington, both in 1963. Had those incidents been included, we could see that Dylan’s commitment to civil rights and activism , however brief in the context of his long career, was more than rhetorical, and contributed to his image as a protest singer.