The House Republican budget released Wednesday by Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington is an extreme giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of families who already have a hard time making ends meet. It would raise families’ healthcare, food, and college costs; increase the nation’s economic risks; and worsen poverty and hardship for tens of millions of people, while doubling down on huge tax giveaways for wealthy households and businesses. This budget plan reflects a stark betrayal of U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign promises to protect families who struggle financially.

The proposed budget’s reconciliation instructions—the directives to the tax-writing and other committees that set up a special fast-track process for passing budget and tax legislation—make the Republican agenda clear: costly tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses, paired with deeply harmful cuts in programs and services for families and communities. This is an upside-down plan that prioritizes the wealthy and well-connected over families for whom the cost of healthcare, college, and food is a serious concern. A reconciliation bill that meets the reconciliation directives to each committee would add trillions to the debt over the decade.

For weeks, House Republicans have been circulating proposals that would take health coverage and food assistance away from millions of people and raise the cost of student loans to offset part of the cost of extending the expiring 2017 tax cuts. Based on various proposals, 36 million people or more could be at risk of losing their health coverage through Medicaid, and more than 40 million people could receive less help from SNAP to buy groceries, millions of them potentially losing their food assistance altogether. About 5 million undergraduate students a year use federal student loans to pay for college, and many are at risk of higher costs to go to college given the cuts assigned to the Education and Workforce Committee. Millions of borrowers no longer in school could also be at risk for higher loan costs.

Extending the tax cuts for the top 1% costs $1.1 trillion through 2034, roughly the same amount they are proposing in cuts for millions who rely on Medicaid for health coverage and who use SNAP to buy groceries.

These aren’t just numbers. The loss of Medicaid means, for example, a parent can’t get cancer treatment, and a young adult can’t get insulin to control their diabetes. Cuts to food assistance mean a parent skips meals so their children can eat or an older person who lost their job has no way to buy groceries. These cuts will affect people in every state and of all races and ethnicities, but the impacts will often be especially severe in poorer states and among Black, Latino, and Indigenous people and people in rural communities, who have higher poverty rates and thus are more likely to qualify for food assistance and health coverage. Rather than expanding opportunity, the budget would make it harder for people to afford the healthcare and food they need to survive and succeed.

In addition to taking food assistance and health coverage away from people who need it, the budget plan could result in enormous cost shifts to state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, which are already facing tougher fiscal conditions than in recent years. And when they can’t meet those higher costs, the impacts on people and families will be severe.

All of this for what? To give tax cuts to high-income people for whom the cost of eggs or prescription drugs is at most an afterthought. The spending cuts required by the reconciliation instructions total $1.5 trillion, which is about the cost of extending the expiring tax cuts through 2034 just for those with incomes above roughly $400,000. Extending those tax cuts would give households with incomes in the top 1%, who make roughly $743,000 a year or more, a tax cut averaging $62,000 a year—significantly more than the total income of most households at risk of losing Medicaid or SNAP.

Even as Republicans promise to extend tax cuts skewed to the top, they are noticeably silent about extending one tax cut that is well targeted to people who need it: the improved premium tax credits that since 2021 have made Affordable Care Act marketplace health coverage far more affordable. Failure to extend this tax cut would raise premiums for more than 20 million people, including at least 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers, and render an estimated 4 million people uninsured.

Outside of the reconciliation instructions, the budget blueprint calls for significant additional, unspecified cuts, including cuts to the part of the budget that funds K-12 education, Pell Grants for college students, medical research, transportation and flight safety, clean air and water projects, and customer service at the Social Security Administration and the IRS.

The Numbers

The budget resolution directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to reduce the deficit by $880 billion over 10 years, a target Republicans have indicated they will hit primarily by cutting Medicaid. Similarly, it directs the House Agriculture Committee to reduce the deficit by $230 billion over 10 years, which the committee would achieve primarily by cutting SNAP benefits, restricting eligibility, or both. And it directs the Education and Workforce Committee to reduce the deficit by $330 billion, the bulk of which is likely to come from making student loans more expensive.

These cut numbers are a “floor”; committees could cut even more as the legislative process advances. The budget resolution even includes a non-binding policy statement indicating a desire to make deeper cuts. (The directive to the House Ways and Means Committee may also assume cuts to energy tax credits, which would increase utility bills, imperil energy reliability, and threaten jobs and investment nationwide.)

This budget also cuts myriad investments in the budget area that covers everything from schools to roads, medical research, assistance with rents, and administering Social Security, known as non-defense discretionary (NDD) spending. In 2024, total NDD funding outside of veterans’ medical care was 14% below the 2010 level, after taking into account inflation and population growth, and it will likely fall further in 2025, when appropriations are finalized. The House Republican budget would continue this disinvestment in the future.

The House Republican budget’s path of less opportunity, higher poverty, and more inequality is the wrong direction for our nation.

As noted above, the budget plan could result in enormous cost shifts to state, local, territorial, and tribal governments. Some of the proposed cuts in Medicaid and SNAP would force them to pick up a much larger share of the programs’ costs or leave people without needed help. Cuts in funding for education, childcare, transportation, and other services would also leave states and localities to fill in the holes or see serious degradation in basic public services. If some states are better able than others to fill in those holes, the already large differences among states in areas such as education funding and quality will grow.

The budget would cut Medicaid, SNAP, and a broad set of public services and make college more costly, but not to reduce deficits or respond to a national emergency; instead to offset a portion of Republicans’ profligate tax agenda. The reconciliation instructions allow for the Ways and Means Committee to increase the deficit by $4.5 trillion through 2034. This is $900 billion more than is needed to extend the expiring 2017 tax provisions over that time period, signaling that more tax cuts will be added on top of the already expensive 2017 tax cuts and could include additional regressive corporate tax cuts. (Note that the reconciliation directives only go through 2034, so include nine years of new tax policy because the 2017 tax cuts are already in effect through 2025.)

Underscoring the House Republicans’ upside-down priorities: extending the tax cuts for the top 1% costs $1.1 trillion through 2034, roughly the same amount they are proposing in cuts for millions who rely on Medicaid for health coverage and who use SNAP to buy groceries. This is the same old trickle-down nonsense that has dramatically worsened inequality in income and wealth.

As large as the tax cuts are, the Budget Committee claims that the budget plan, if followed, would achieve deficit reduction by using unreasonable estimates of economic growth and its resulting impact on government revenues and spending. Their claimed macroeconomic “bonus” of $2.6 trillion over 10 years is far larger than independent estimates of macroeconomic effects of extending the tax cuts done by diverse entities like the Tax Foundation, Tax Policy Center, Yale Budget Lab, Joint Committee on Taxation, Congressional Budget Office, and Penn-Wharton Budget Model. While these were not estimates of this precise budget plan, it’s extremely unlikely that they would show a bonus anywhere near this size. And it should be noted that the Trump administration’s planned mass deportations (supported by the increased spending in the budget plan) as well as restrictions on new immigration and tariffs are all projected to reduce economic growth.

When you strip away the budget’s “bonus,” the budget would increase the debt by $1.6 trillion over the next decade—driven by expensive tax cuts—while increasing poverty, increasing the cost of a college education, raising families’ costs for food and healthcare, and leaving more people without health coverage. Coupled with the potential for tariffs to raise consumers’ prices for many goods, this agenda is a stark betrayal from the -resident’s promises during the campaign to look out for people who face financial struggles.

The House Republican budget’s path of less opportunity, higher poverty, and more inequality is the wrong direction for our nation. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans appear poised to head in a similar direction, only through two reconciliation bills rather than one. Congress should return to the drawing board and craft a budget that broadens opportunity, lowers costs, and invests in people and families, while responsibly raising the revenues needed to make those investments and reduce economic risks associated with high debt.

The world is in danger, mind-numbingly so, from a combination of crises: disease, hunger, mass displacement, racial and economic inequality, war and the threat of more war, a rampaging climate crisis, and an accelerating nuclear arms race (and that’s just for starters)—all occurring in a climate of massive mis- and disinformation that makes it ever harder to build a consensus toward solutions to the multiple problems we face.

Words can’t fully express our current predicament. We need other tools and other ways of making sense of the situation we now find ourselves in.

This should be a time for action and activism on behalf of our species and our planet. While there’s certainly a fair amount of that already, the combined weight of the risks we face makes all too many of us turn inward toward family and friends, or outward to find scapegoats for our problems. And yes, there are still moments of joy, optimism, and constructive action. Unfortunately, they are increasingly hard to sustain amid relentless daily attacks on people’s lives, livelihoods, and basic dignity.

One of the best ways to find a place of balance and light amid all the chaos is by creating and appreciating art, which can get to the heart of the matter by tapping not just the intellect but the emotions, putting us in touch with a deeper sense of meaning too often ignored in our rush to deal with the crises of the moment.

Sending Out an SOS

It’s in this context that I read and viewed Promemoria—Reminder (Sending Out an SOS) by EMA (Enrico Muratore Aprosio), a Geneva-based human rights advocate, humanitarian, and artist. The words in the book, which addresses Covid-19, the climate, and the prospects of nuclear war through poetry, prose, and storytelling, are compelling. But the artworks that punctuate the text are truly stunning, using bright colors and complex designs that incorporate pictures of both historical and imaginary figures—its images ranging from Karl Marx to Marilyn Monroe, Ronald Reagan to the Mona Lisa (wearing a Covid-19 protective mask).

The book honors the spirit of altruism and courage, most notably in a section dedicated to Mbaye Diagne, a Senegalese peacekeeper who saved up to 1,000 lives amid the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, only to be killed in a mortar attack 12 days before he was set to return home.

Melissa Parke, director general of the Nobel Prize-winning International Coalition to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, captures the sense of the book well, suggesting that Aprosio’s “use of beautiful animals, striking colors, and magical happenings communicates both the urgency of the situation we face and reminds us of what we stand to lose if we don’t change course.”

Not only will the book have its own impact, but it will hopefully inspire others to produce projects that address our most urgent problems in new ways, moving people to take action grounded in our common humanity.

Appreciating what we still stand to lose couldn’t be more crucial in the world we now face. Savoring everything from the signal achievements of humanity (writ large) to the pleasures and accomplishments of our everyday lives matters deeply, both as a motivation to continue working for change in an ever-messier world and as fuel for sustaining us in a struggle of unknown duration.

Yes, EMA’s book is grimly grounded in reality, even as it (literally) paints a picture of a world that could be so much better. One of my favorite panels in the book is entitled “Every Day More Bullshit,” just because, well, it seems all too sadly appropriate to the moment we’re in.

There’s also a chapter called “Radioactive Beasts,” inspired by George Orwell’s dystopian novel Animal Farm. The animals Aprosio writes about are worried by the state of the world and concerned that humans aren’t taking the risks posed by current conflicts seriously enough.

In April 2023, some of Aprosio’s fictional beasts were projected onto buildings in New York City’s Times Square with support from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). Other portions of the book could be displayed across this embattled planet of ours in a similar fashion to good effect.

There’s more to EMA’s book than can be taken in at a sitting, or even many sittings, or certainly summarized in an essay like this. Still, get your hands on it if you can. It can serve as an inspirational reference work you can dip into at any time to reenergize yourself or contemplate what a different world might indeed look like. In that way, it reminds me of the effects of Afrofuturist art and literature, not because the forms necessarily resemble each other, but because both approaches underscore the desperate need for a bold vision of what a new world might look like—a vision of what anyone trying to change things might dream of.

Artists for Peace

Promemoria is anything but the only current art project that takes on nuclear weapons and related dangers. One of the most interesting current networks is Artists Against the Bomb, a global organization of creators who have produced an amazing array of antinuclear posters, among other works.

Another vital project in a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating and the U.S. is planning to invest up to $2 trillion dollars in the (yes, this is indeed the term!) “modernization” of its nuclear force in the coming decades is Bombshelltoe. It’s a policy and arts collective that defines itself as “a creative organization pushing for an active exploration of arts, culture, and history to promote nuclear nonproliferation, arms control, and disarmament for the next generation.” One of its prominent efforts is the Atomic Terrain Project, which highlights how nuclear weapons have “seeped into our waters and tapped into our soil” and “continue to harm all life, human and non-human alike.”

I was fortunate enough to see an exhibition that the project mounted at the 2024 New York Art Book Fair entitled “How to Make a Bomb”—a book with the same title was also released then—organized and presented by Gabriella Hirst, Warren Harper, Tammy Nguyen, and Lovely Umayam (the founder of Bombshelltoe). The exhibit was built around a flower, the Rosa Floribunda, or—yes!—“Atom Bomb,” which Hirst describes as “a garden rose that was cultivated and named in 1953 during the Cold War arms race to commemorate Britain’s newfound status as a nuclear power.” Hirst has taken the lead in cultivating (and you might say pacifying) that rose, while getting it planted in gardens throughout the United Kingdom and beyond as an antinuclear gesture of beauty.

At the book fair, attendees could learn how to plant and maintain just such a rose while engaging in conversations about the history and devastating impact of nuclear weapons or checking out basic documents and books about the nuclear age. Such an indirect (even flowery!) route into truly grim subject matter drew interest from people who might not normally pick up a book on, or read an article about, the dangers of nuclear weapons but were fascinated by the physical process of grafting a rose and then willing to stay for open-ended conversations about the growing nuclear dangers in our world.

When asked why the project chose to use a rose as an entry point into discussions of such ominous and grim subject matter, Lovely Umayam noted that “nuclear issues alone can feel abstract and alarmist” and eerily unapproachable. As Gabriella Hirst put it, the project “is about taking the sublime into your own hands and working through that in small ways… to reduce fear among non-experts.”

At the same book fair where I encountered the Rose Project, I had the pleasure of meeting Ben Rejali, an organizer of the art and political website Khabar Keslan. Recent essays there include an interview with Palestinian filmmaker Khaled Jarrar, but I was first drawn to the project’s printed works, including reproductions of stamps from Iran and South Asia going back to the 1950s. There were, of course, numerous stamps portraying the once-dreaded Shah of Iran. There was also one of the CIA’s logo with blood running down it, a reference to the agency’s role in the 1953 coup that installed the Shah as Iran’s autocratic ruler. Perhaps the most emotionally powerful product of Khabar Keslan, however, may have been a collection of poems entitled “Salute to Olives” by the late Omar al-Bargouthi, many of which were written while he was being held in Israeli prisons.

On a planet where nuclear dangers are only growing, both Promemoria and the Atomic Terrain project underscore the importance of finding new ways to communicate about this increasingly fragile and endangered planet of ours that inspire creativity and action rather than fear, paralysis, and denial. At a time when challenges to fundamental rights are hurtling toward us at warp speed, taking the time to experience artworks of any kind can seem like a distinct luxury, but don’t believe that for a second. Such art is a key to reclaiming our humanity and getting in touch with the creative, collaborative impulses that could help save our planet. A pause, artistic in nature, to reflect and recharge our psychic batteries can go a long way toward helping us to cope with this all too strange present moment and build for the future. Promemoria provides us with that precious opportunity.

A Brief History of Culture and Resistance

Music, theater, painting, and other forms of artistic expression have, in fact, been part of every major movement for change in recent memory. The Federal Theatre Project of the 1930s, funded as part of the Works Progress Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the era of the Great Depression, hired unemployed performers and writers who produced more than 800 plays and dance events. In the process, they highlighted work by under-represented groups, including African Americans via the Negro Theatre Project and the African-American Dance Unit. It also funded foreign language plays in Spanish, Yiddish, and German until Congressman Martin Dies, Jr., head of the House Un-American Activities Committee, led a successful charge to defund the program because of its advocacy of racial equality and other progressive themes.

Theater, however, continued to play a central role in progressive movements of the 1960s and 1970s, from Teatro Campesino, born during the United Farm Workers Union’s organizing drives in California; to the Bread and Puppet Theater, a staple of anti-war efforts; and the San Francisco Mime Troupe, whose plays captured a whole range of progressive themes, often in hilarious fashion. And don’t forget the freedom songs that were at the core of the civil rights movement, sung by demonstrators at mass rallies and activists detained in local jails in the South.

The anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s was also sustained and amplified by works of art. Its best-known cultural product was undoubtedly the TV movie The Day After, a fictionalized treatment of the impacts of a nuclear war viewed by more than 100 million people when it aired on ABC in November 1983. But there was also a steady drumbeat of anti-nuclear cartoons, some of which were assembled in a widely distributed collection entitled Warheads. Joel Andreas’s 77-page graphic comic book, Addicted to War: Why America Can’t Kick Militarism, proved to be a primer on the roots of the American war system from the 19th-century vision of “manifest destiny” to (in an updated edition) the Global War on Terror, taking on war profiteers and the role of the media along the way.

More recently, groups like the Yes Men and Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Choir have lampooned corporations and their executives through street theater and by posing as participants in corporate gatherings (and so underscoring the absurdity of their activities and world views). The Yes Men describe their work as using “humor and trickery to highlight the corporate takeover of society, the neoliberal delusion that allows it, [and] the corporate Democrats’ responsibility for our current situation.” Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Choir ridicule materialism in all its forms from Starbucks displacing local coffee shops to the excesses of the Disney Store in New York’s Times Square.

Paul Miller, aka DJ Spooky, has similarly engaged in a wide range of politically focused art projects, ranging from a Peace Symphony performed in Hiroshima to The Book of Ice, which addresses climate change, to a wide array of films, articles, and concerts. Robin Bell Visuals has produced films and art installations, including projecting the words “Pay Bribes Here” on the side of the Trump International Hotel in Washington. And there have been scores of anti-war anthems produced in virtually every genre of modern music from folk to jazz to rock to hip hop to heavy metal.

My colleague Khody Akhavi makes short compelling videos on topics ranging from the dangerous rise of AI-driven weaponry to the impact of the funding of think tanks by weapons contractors, the Pentagon, and foreign governments. And the Center for Artistic Activism partners with advocacy groups on specific projects, schools them in artistic techniques, and helps them build art into their campaigns and public education efforts. Their slogan: “we make social and environmental change more effective—and more creative.”

Better yet, the artists and projects cited above are just a sampling of the many forms of political art that have attracted audiences and encouraged activism at the local, national, and global levels. Promemoria is a worthy addition to this tradition. Not only will the book have its own impact, but it will hopefully inspire others to produce projects that address our most urgent problems in new ways, moving people to take action grounded in our common humanity. Given the world we’re now in, it can’t happen soon enough.

On February 4, in a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States “will take over the Gaza Strip,” “level the site,” have all Palestinians removed, and enable people “from all over the world [to] be there” to enjoy what he appears to envision as an international resort area.

While many observers are dismissing Trump’s statement as a bizarre and spontaneous scheme on which he will likely not follow through, the announcement appeared to be the result of at least some degree of planning, as he read from prepared notes from a proposal assembled well ahead of Netanyahu’s visit.

While this may be among the most extreme anti-Palestinian initiatives to have ever come out of Washington, it is the logical extension of decades of bipartisan U.S. policy in support of Israel’s occupation and colonization of the West Bank, as well as recognition of Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital, and support for Israel’s decades-long siege of and successive devastating wars on the Gaza Strip. In denying Palestinians equal rights, either through a viable two-state solution or a binational state with guaranteed rights for all, the United States has contributed to the emergence of violent extremists on both sides, and has given the far more powerful Israelis license to escalate their imposition of a kind of apartheid system.

The one cause for hope is that the U.S. government’s now open, on-record support for such a flagrant settler-colonial project—as opposed to its prior platitudes about a two-state solution it never had any intention of forcing Israel to accept—might enable the emergence of a stronger movement in support of human rights and international law in Israel and Palestine.

Trump has rationalized expelling Palestinians in order to rebuild Gaza on the terms of the United States and Israel by noting that much of Gaza has been reduced to rubble, and can no longer sustain the population. While he referred to the Palestinians’ plight as a result of “bad luck,” it is in fact the result of deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure by U.S.-backed Israeli forces. A growing international legal consensus hasdescribed this ongoing siege as genocide, made possible through bipartisan support for unconditional military aid, five U.S. vetoes of otherwise-unanimous U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire, and attacks on human rights groups and international legal institutions that have sought accountability for the actions of the Israeli government.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared earlier this week on X that the United States would “Make Gaza Beautiful Again.” While members of Congress from both parties expressed skepticism, others were supportive. U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said the proposal was a “good idea,” and asked a reporter, “Do you want to be part of it?” U.S. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) also appeared to be open to the idea, calling it “provocative” but saying that it is “part of the conversation.”

Arab states, including such Trump-backed autocratic regimes as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, roundly rejected Trump’s plan, which would require them to absorb a new round of Palestinian refugees. Germany, Russia, China, Spain, Turkey, Brazil, and other nations, as well as various United Nations agencies, condemned the proposal as illegal. The proposal was reportedly influenced by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who said publicly last year that “Gaza’s waterfront property... could be very valuable” and that “from Israel’s perspective, [he] would do [his] best to move the people out and then clean it up.”

The Israeli Intelligence Ministry had already prepared a plan in October 2023 to physically remove all Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt’s Sinai desert, as ministers in Netanyahu’s government have repeatedly called for the expulsion of Palestinians in Gaza and colonization of the region. That same fall, the Biden administration proposed to the Egyptians that they accept an exodus of Palestinians into the territory. Although the State Department later claimed the administration’s proposal was only meant as a short-term measure, the Egyptians doubted that Israel would allow the refugees back, in light of Israel’s historic refusal to honor the right of return of previous waves of Palestinian refugees.

Now such plans are coming to fruition. Netanyahu has ordered the Israeli army to prepare plans to organize the removal of Palestinians from Gaza. Although Jordan and Egypt, whom Trump suggested could take the bulk of refugees, have made it clear that they will not accept Palestinians forced out of Palestine, they cannot stop Israel, with the backing of the United States, from expelling them.

Compounding the horror of Trump’s proposal is that, while many Palestinian families have lived in Gaza for centuries, the majority of current residents are themselves refugees or descendants of refugees forced out of other parts of Palestine between 1947 and 1950. When asked about what would happen if the Palestinians wanted to return to Gaza, Trump—after describing how he planned to turn the territory into a new Riviera—dismissed the question by saying, “Why would they want to return? That place has been hell.”

That no one in the Democratic Party leadership in Congress or elsewhere has called for Netanyahu’s arrest in keeping with the International Criminal Court, or even objected to his being invited, has likely emboldened Trump and Netanyahu to announce their support for this ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. With the majority of congressional Democrats continuing their support for unconditional military aid to Israel despite its slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and the threatened expulsion of 2 million more, these two right-wing leaders appear to believe there is little stopping them.

The one cause for hope is that the U.S. government’s now open, on-record support for such a flagrant settler-colonial project—as opposed to its prior platitudes about a two-state solution it never had any intention of forcing Israel to accept—might enable the emergence of a stronger movement in support of human rights and international law in Israel and Palestine. Supporting unconditional military aid to a government committed to ethnic cleansing may prove even more difficult for members of Congress to justify than providing such assistance to a government in its terror bombing of crowded urban areas and then restricting relief supplies.

What is at stake here is not just a new threat to the rights of the Palestinians, but a threat to the entire international legal order. With Trump’s plans to colonize Gaza, congressional Democrats may finally be forced to choose which side they are on.

Trump and Musk are stirring up a resistance movement among liberals and the left. The protests are a righteous struggle against the authoritarian usurpation of lawful power, the reckless, illegal attacks on government agencies, the stripping of DEI programs and language, and the trampling over the rights of immigrants and transgender people.

But what are the goals of this resistance? And do voters outside the liberal bubble support them?

It's time to face up to the harsh reality: Trump’s flurry of activity, at least so far, has made him more popular, not less so, with the American public. Here’s the latest CBS poll:

• How would you describe Trump? 69 percent said “tough,” 63 percent said “energetic,” 60 percent said “focused,” and 58 percent said “effective.”
• Is Trump living up to his campaign promises? 70 percent said “yes.”
• Trump’s overall job rating is 53 percent. At this point in his first term it was only 40 percent.
• A hefty 59 percent approve of his program to “deport immigrants illegally in the U.S,” while 64 percent approve of sending troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. A smaller majority, 52 percent, oppose setting up large detention centers.
• How about Gaza? 54 percent approve of Trump’s handling of the conflict, though only 13 percent think it would be a good idea to for the U.S. to take over Gaza.
• Trump’s major vulnerability seems to be inflation. Two-thirds believe he is not focusing enough on lowering prices.

Progressives emphatically believe that Trump is destroying democracy, but doesn’t democracy have something to do with the will of the people? And what does it mean for democracy if Trump’s actions are broadening his base even beyond those who voted for him? It likely means that a majority of the public does not view Trump as the destroyer of democracy.

Rather than simply coming to the defense of USAID, progressives should organize protests aimed at stopping pharmaceutical price gouging and for promoting price controls on the food cartels.

Trump is broadening his base by doing what he said he would do and thinks he was elected to do. His support is growing because there is a hunger for action that is, at least symbolically, in the people’s interest. Will Trump’s approach improve the outcomes for the working class? That’s doubtful, but there is a desire for defiant action, and they are getting it.

Breaking Out of the Bubble

There’s a lesson there. Broadening the base is precisely what progressives must do.

That starts with a recognition that protests alone don’t signal action on behalf of working people. And such displays may be helping Trump increase, not undermine, his support. He may even want to provoke them, because he understands what liberals don’t—that most of the protests will be seen as resistance to change, as support for established elite institutions, and as obstacles to creating a better life for voters.

Think for a second about USAID. Most Americans are not strong supporters of spending billions to aid other countries while needs at home go unmet. As David Axelrod, Obama’s former chief advisor, put it:

“My heart is with the people out on the street outside USAID, but my head tells me: ‘Man, Trump will be well satisfied to have this fight,’ When you talk about cuts, the first thing people say is: ‘Cut foreign aid.’”

What then are the tests to evaluate resistance tactics?

• Do protests and resistance expand the progressive base?
• Do they engage with working people who have drifted away from the Democratic Party over the last generation?
• Do they win over those who support Trump’s efforts to dramatically change the federal government?

So far, probably not. That’s because progressive protests mostly, if not entirely, involve mobilizing and appealing to those who already agree with liberal positions. There are plenty of people who support these efforts, but not enough.

It will take real effort and imagination to figure out how to promote dialogue that expands the progressive base.

This is not to say that protests to protect the vulnerable are not important. Saving an immigrant child from being ripped out of the classroom and deported is both courageous and humanitarian. But by themselves, most protests only give Trump more ways expand his base.

Mobilizing for 2026?

If progressives want to halt Trump’s authoritarian actions, they will want the Democrats recapture at least one of the Congressional chambers. To do that the progressive base must expand in swing districts.

How should those battles be waged?

We know from the polling done by the Center for Working Class Politics that a strong populist economic message is far more effective than attacking Trump on democracy issues. We also know from the CBS poll that Trump is vulnerable on the high cost of living.

Saving an immigrant child from being ripped out of the classroom and deported is both courageous and humanitarian. But by themselves, most protests only give Trump more ways expand his base.

Rather than simply coming to the defense of USAID, progressives should organize protests aimed at stopping pharmaceutical price gouging and for promoting price controls on the food cartels. As I recently wrote, the Democrats also could put Trump on the defensive by demanding he implement an executive order that prevents government contractors (like Musk) from laying off workers involuntarily.

Progressive activists have the creativity to mobilize protests around price hikes and needless layoffs. But the move from defense to offense will only be possible if they are engaged in dialogue with Trump supporters about an economic platform that protects the livelihoods and economic well-being of working people.

In a fragmented society, this is a heavy lift. More affluent progressives and Trump working-class supporters do not often live in the same areas or share the same spaces. Inflation and job insecurity may not feel as pressing to them as they do to working people. It will take real effort and imagination to figure out how to promote dialogue that expands the progressive base.

The move from defense to offense will only be possible if they are engaged in dialogue with Trump supporters about an economic platform that protects the livelihoods and economic well-being of working people.

In our own small way, the Labor Institute has figured out how to build educational bridges between MAGA workers and others in our Reversing Runaway Inequality training for union members. The participants bring with them a wide range of political preferences, but after an 8-hour workshop they come together to design a common vision for what a society without runaway inequality should look like. It turns out workers from all across the red-blue spectrum have similar ideas about the key elements of a fair and just society.

Then what? That openness won’t translate into Democratic votes unless candidates are willing to put forth a powerful populist economic message that supports workers’ jobs and wages.

It turns out workers from all across the red-blue spectrum have similar ideas about the key elements of a fair and just society.

And there’s the rub: those candidates not only have to mouth the words, but also, they need to believe in the message. To build a bigger base, they must be willing to take on Wall Street and the billionaire class instead of trying to raise money from them.

The alternative? More marches, more chanting, and... more defeats.

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

The deep freeze in U.S.-Russian relations is about to thaw out bigly.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump talked for about an hour and a half yesterday, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. The call was “lengthy and highly productive,” Trump said on Truth Social. “We discussed Ukraine, the Middle East, Energy, Artificial Intelligence, the power of the Dollar, and various other subjects.” They agreed that they “want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine,” Trump added, announcing an “immediate” start of negotiations to resolve the Ukraine conflict.

The two men discussed the Middle East and Iran’s nuclear program and agreed to visit one another in person.

What’s next for Russia, the U.S. and Ukraine? Political and international relations expert Mark Sleboda joins Ted Rall and Manila Chan on “The TMI Show” to figure that out.

The post TMI Show Ep 78: Putin and Trump’s Perfect Phone Call first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 78: Putin and Trump’s Perfect Phone Call appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

In his book, The Present Age, the late sociologist Robert Nisbet applied a pithy descriptor to a phenomenon we have seen all too often in public life: the “no-fault” theory of political action, particularly in foreign affairs. “Presidents, secretaries, and generals and admirals in America seemingly subscribe to the doctrine that no fault ever attaches to policy and operations,” he wrote. “This No Fault conviction prevents them from taking too seriously such notorious foul-ups as Desert One, Grenada, Lebanon, and now the Persian Gulf.”

Nisbet did not live to see a spectacular example of his theory. George W. Bush, having failed to prevent the 9/11 disaster his own intelligence agencies foresaw, proceeded to initiate a years-long disaster in Iraq, a catastrophe of his own making. Yet what were the consequences? The American people rewarded him with a second term in the face of abundant evidence of his incompetence and bad faith.

It would appear that Nisbet’s thesis needs revision. What he said was blatantly obvious: of course politicians rarely blame themselves for their own egregious policy failures, for it characterizes the typical behavior of ambitious, self-confident, and often corner-cutting people.

We frequently hear calls for “accountability:” for politicians, tech moguls, and the like... How telling then, that there are no such calls for accountability when it comes to the American people.

What is more significant, and troubling, is the reaction of the people who elect them: why do they more often than not reward leaders who inveigle them into national calamity? Isn’t there also a no-fault doctrine that applies to the American voter, a doctrine that is for the most part rigidly observed by journalists, pundits, and the self-proclaimed wise men who monopolize the op-ed pages of the prestige newspapers?

From the platforms of the chattering classes, we frequently hear calls for “accountability:” for politicians, tech moguls, and the like. Holding someone accountable implies that the person in question is a functioning adult who can be considered responsible for his actions. How telling then, that there are no such calls for accountability when it comes to the American people.

Turning back to Bush, his reelection did not end his reign of error. His policy of radical financial deregulation, about which he and his underlings bragged incessantly, and about which the public had to know if it were remotely paying attention, led in his second term to the greatest financial meltdown in 80 years.

Temporarily chastened, voters latched on to Barack Obama as the savior du jour. It turned out that Obama was no Moses leading the people to the promised land. A nominal Democrat, he was more an old-school Rockefeller Republican whose two terms were mostly an uneventful placeholder in history—not that such administrations are necessarily bad, as the current all-enveloping chaos demonstrates.

But placid, play-it-safe presidencies are boring, particularly for an increasingly infantilized public that needs 24/7 entertainment to stave off that worst of mental states: honest self-reflection. So they grew tired of Perry Como’s crooning, hankering instead after Ozzy Osbourne smashing his guitar and biting the head off a bat. That explains a good deal about how we got Trump 1.0 and 2.0.

Placid, play-it-safe presidencies are boring, particularly for an increasingly infantilized public that needs 24/7 entertainment to stave off that worst of mental states: honest self-reflection.

Wait, say the pundits, weren’t great swathes of the American people in 2016 victimized by the system, suffering from “economic anxiety?” But exit polling data from 2016 showed that Hillary Clinton won by 12 points among voters making less than $30,000 a year and by nine points among those making between $30,000 and $49,999. Trump, on the other hand, won every demographic making $50,000 or more

In 2024, the U.S. economy was the best in almost 60 years, with October unemployment at 4.1 percent. This is not to argue that everything was ideal, but the economy was better than recent U.S. experience, and unemployment and GDP growth were far better than most developed countries.

Accordingly, pundits dropped the economic anxiety excuse. Instead, we have been inundated with think pieces about how Democrats in some unexplained way “lost the working class,” a demographic conveniently left undefined. This claim contradicts continued polling evidence that Trump consistently did better among more affluent voters. The notion that Trump has magnetic appeal among Americans living a precarious economic existence is largely myth.

Otherwise, the media has treated Trump’s election like an asteroid falling from the sky, a natural disaster seemingly without input from the electorate. Why? It may be that the press still refuses to violate the last moral taboo in American public life: the essential innocence and virtue of this country’s citizens.

Denouncing the rascality of politicians is a revered American tradition, from Artemus Ward to Mark Twain, to Will Rogers, right down to the late-night TV hosts of today. Even the ultra-refined Henry Adams, scion of the Adams's of presidential fame, approvingly quoted the line, “A congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and beat him on the snout!”

Perhaps the only well-known American literary figure to take a dim view of the people who actually elect the politicians was H.L. Mencken. He denounced vigilantism during World War I, Prohibition, the 1920s resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, and the revival of religious fundamentalism that same decade, not as some plague that befell the country from nowhere, but as an expression of Americans’ mob mentality, anti-intellectualism, and search for easy solutions.

Otherwise, American literary tradition gives us Walt Whitman singing the praises of his fellow citizens, Carl Sandberg (“the people, yes . . .”), Thorton Wilder and his sentimental tale of small-town folks, and Frank Capra’s maudlin cinematic paeans to the fundamental goodness of the common clay. Thousands of lesser lights have engaged in similar rhetorical puffery to the present day. The tragic, grown-up sense of social life in Victor Hugo or the great Russian novelists is absent from the American tradition.

Mystification merely being academic slang for bamboozlement, the theory never answers the question: why are the people so easily conned by the most childish lies and distortions...?

Editorial departments still hew to this convention. A journalist friend recently submitted a piece to a well-known center-left magazine arguing that some responsibility must attach to the voters for the 2024 election. The response: “We can’t say the American people are stupid,” even though the editor agreed with the author.

Political theorists from the center to the far left are also prone to this delusion. They have built an edifice of psychological denial on the idea that even if there is a pervasive system of illegitimate corporate or governmental control, it is miraculously unconnected with the character of the people the system administers. Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent is typical of the species, a late-20th century adaptation of Karl Marx’s theory of mystification: that the common people do not recognize their genuine interest because they have been mystified by the powers-that-be.

Mystification merely being academic slang for bamboozlement, the theory never answers the question: why are the people so easily conned by the most childish lies and distortions when accurate information is easily accessible, and never more so than today? (This is quite apart from the fact that Trump told voters very explicitly about the horrors he would inflict, meaning that something other than gullibility is also at work).

It wasn’t always thus: farmers in the 1890s, the core support for the old People’s Party, knew very well who was screwing them: the railroads, the banks, the grain traders. So did 1930s production-line workers in steel, autos, and rubber, struggling for union recognition: they knew it was their own employers, not foreign competition or some culture-wars chimera that was responsible for their miserable conditions.

But now, farmers vote overwhelmingly for Trump, despite their suffering under foreign retaliatory tariffs resulting from his ill-considered economic policy during his first term and likely further damage in his second. And unionization is at record post-World War II lows, despite the material benefits of union membership.

What changed? Historian Rick Perlstein, writing in The Invisible Bridge, said that in the 1970s, as the crises of Vietnam, racial unrest, and Watergate abated, the American people had a chance to learn from these events: in other words, to grow up and be responsible citizens.

They didn’t. Ronald Reagan’s soothing fairy tale of innocent virtue, of a country sinned against but never sinning, became America’s secular religion. I would extend Perlstein’s thesis by suggesting that this bogus innocence has become embedded in the American psyche and individualized into a personalized martyr complex. Every vicissitude of life is now the fault of some detested minority, or the elites, or the system generally.

The vanguard of this personality type, the people who actually generate the atrocious ideas the Trump regime is now implementing, is what substacker John Ganz calls the “creep-loser.” You know the type from high school: awkward, asocial, and full of resentment against the world for failing to recognize his genius.

Many of them become brooding, failed intellectuals, the sort that were the idea engine of authoritarian movements throughout the 20th century, and who now infest places like the Claremont Institute and Heritage Foundation. They are to MAGA what the Old Bolsheviks were to the Communist movement. It is no coincidence that Steve Bannon described himself as a Leninist. Their goal is simply destruction as revenge.

It is true that all of these resentful fantasists together would barely fill a stadium: hardly a key national voting bloc. But their nihilistic attitude is surprisingly prevalent among “real Americans” who never read Ayn Rand or attended Hillsdale College. Beginning in 2015, pollsters have been rather surprised at the frequency that respondents claim they just want to “burn it all down,” not troubling themselves with what will happen to the social infrastructure that supports their very existence.

If it reaches the point where Americans are sent to Guantanamo for their political opinions, what will be the reaction of the unserious?

Add to them the rapturist Christians, the hard core of the Christian fundamentalist voting bloc (the largest single constituency of the Republican Party). The belief that a millennial holocaust wiping out earth is something to look forward to is in its basic psychology no different from Hitler’s Götterdämmerung in the Berlin bunker or suicide cults like Jim Jones’ People’s Temple. Even the wider fundamentalist belief system is prone to rigidly separate human beings into the blessed and the damned, a mindset hardly consistent with pluralist democracy.

A final demographic is the most diffuse and least attached to any ideology: the tens of millions of unserious Americans who refuse to take anything seriously, for whom the smallest exercise of civic responsibility is either uncool, or boring, or a violation of their freedom to be irresponsible. Some of them voted for Trump because “he’s funny;” you may know the type. No doubt they think even now that plundering Greenland or sending combat troops to Gaza is comedy gold. Others will apply a sort of degenerate folk wisdom that they think is clever, saying they “always vote those in office out, and those out of office in,” or some similar nonsense.

Other unserious people feign a righteous anger over the price of eggs on the assumption that the White House controls the cost of consumer goods regardless of circumstances like bird flu. The price of eggs or broiler chickens is much more important to them than living under the rule of law or handing down a decent and humane society to their children.

Maybe we were always deceived by popular culture, or misread it.

If it reaches the point where Americans are sent to Guantanamo for their political opinions, what will be the reaction of the unserious? No doubt indifference, because it won’t affect them, just as arrests of Jews or Social Democrats didn’t affect “good Germans” in the 1930s. As for the true believers, whether religious fundamentalist or secular neoreactionary tech-nerd, they’ll be cheering it on: they never believed in any nonsense about democracy or human rights in any case.

How can America’s purported thought-leaders seriously maintain that a working majority of Americans (those who voted for Trump and those who didn’t bother to vote because they didn’t care) didn’t consciously will what is now unfolding? As Steve Bannon’s role model Lenin was reputed to have remarked, “who says A must say B:” people are intellectually and morally responsible for the consequences of their actions. To argue otherwise is the equivalent of saying that tens of millions of Americans are legally incapable of signing contracts, marrying, driving cars, or exercising the franchise.

Maybe we were always deceived by popular culture, or misread it. It’s a Wonderful Life is conventionally viewed as a heart-warming Christmas movie, with a depressing second act making the finale all the more sentimentally fulfilling, like Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Yet, but for the contingency of George Bailey’s having been born and lived, Bedford Falls inevitably would have defaulted to Potterville, hardly an affirmation of the goodness and civic-mindedness of the majority, who might have been expected to resist the designs of the grasping Mr. Potter.

Contingencies work that way in real life, too. But for the pandemic and the resulting inflation, we might be living in a different world. Alas, given the recent price of eggs, most Americans preferred to ditch safe, staid old Bedford Falls for the vulgar excitement of Potterville. The town’s owner, whether Mr. Potter or Donald Trump, will cheerfully ensure that while he might fleece you for every cent and jail you if you defy him, you’ll never be bored.

Live at 12:30 PM Eastern/11:30 am Central time, and Streaming 24-7 Thereafter:

House Leader Jeffries sounds like a Vichy Democrat who has given up. “What leverage do we have?” he asked reporters at his weekly news conference on Friday. “They control the House, the Senate and the presidency. It’s their government.”

Yet Republicans had a very different attitude when they found themselves in the same position Democrats are in now. They threatened to shut down the federal government and sometimes did so. They extracted concessions in order to raise the debt ceiling. They blocked judicial and other nominations.

What parliamentary and other tools could Democrats deploy to block or slow down Trump and his initiatives? Do they want to use them? If not, why not?

That’s what editorial cartoonists Ted Rall (from the Left) and Scott Stantis (from the Right) are talking about on today’s DMZ America Podcast.

 

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 193: Democrats Say Resistance Is Futile first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 193: Democrats Say Resistance Is Futile appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

As President Donald Trump tests the limits of manufactured crisis and chaos, he claims a mandate from the American people. But his razor-thin electoral victory tells a different story. Voters didn’t ask for an illegal takeover of government offices, a freezing of funds for needed services, sending our immigrant neighbors to camps at Guantanamo, or aggression against our allies. Yes, we wanted change. But as multiple polls show, a clear majority were seeking relief from unaffordable prices, real economic hardship, and inequality, not an authoritarian takeover.

The Trump administration’s initial barrage of orders will make life worse for the most vulnerable — especially immigrants and transgender people — but soon enough for everyone else in the non-billionaire community. The rapid roll out of these policies is right out of the fascist playbook, designed to overwhelm and demobilize the public.

How can we regain our footing and our strength? We need to not only stop the roll out of policies that threaten to make life worse for ordinary people, but we need to keep focusing on the changes we the people are actually looking for. We need to demand the changes we voted for. If we do that, we can stay grounded during the turmoil, resist the chaos, and build the power to create an authentically populist future.

Does Trump have a mandate?

First, did the American people actually vote for the Trump/Musk actions? Clearly the answer is no. Trump won the vote of less than 1 in 3 eligible voters. 31 percent voted for Kamala Harris. This margin of victory was significantly lower than President Biden’s victory over Trump in 2020.

It was “none-of-the-above” that won a landslide in the 2024 election; 38 percent of eligible voters either cast a vote for a third-party candidate or they didn’t vote for president.

What Americans really want

Economic wellbeing, not chaos and threats, were the top of the list for Americans, including those who voted for Trump. Ninety percent of voters told Gallup the economy was a top influence in their 2024 vote. The rising cost of housing and everyday expenses was cited as the most critical issue by both Trump voters (79 percent) and the broader electorate (56 percent). Trump won four out of five voters who said they were worse off financially than four years ago.

The hardships are real. According to Federal Reserve data, more than one-third of American adults lack the resources to handle a $400 emergency. Families face crushing costs—median childcare runs $1,100 monthly, matching typical rent payments. Twenty-five percent of households with children carry medical debt. Nearly one in five adults has been financially impacted by natural disasters.

Democrats often tout improvements in inflation and unemployment under the Biden Administration. Yet the ALICE metric (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) reveals a hidden crisis: 42 percent of American households — often working multiple jobs — struggle to cover basic needs, a 23 percent increase since 2010.

Meanwhile, America's billionaire class has accumulated unprecedented wealth—$6.72 trillion among 813 individuals, growing by $1 trillion in just that last nine months of 2024, according to the Institute for Policy Studies. Seventy-two percent are dissatisfied with the size and influence of major corporations (and that number has grown by 14 points since the beginning of Trump’s first term).

It’s no surprise, then, that the economy remains the concern most noted by Americans in a Jan. 24-26, 2025 Reuters/Ipsos poll (21 percent), just behind is “political extremism or threats to democracy (20 percent). Immigration is third at 14 percent. Another poll shows 80 percent of Americans dissatisfied with the nation’s efforts to deal with poverty and homelessness, 69 percent dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and 69 percent dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are distributed.

Trump focuses on tax cuts for the wealthy and safeguards

President Trump used populist talking points when he was running. Sure corporate CEOs are happy to have fewer environmental and health regulations, and yes, that would boost their profits. But he has done nothing to further the economic wellbeing of ordinary Americans. Tariffs will make prices climb for consumers. And increased drilling will make the climate crisis worse while accomplishing little in a nation already awash with fossil fuels.

Trump is a genius at distraction, especially when his policies are mostly aimed at improving the prospects of himself and other billionaires. He does that by channelling MAGA anger at the least powerful members of our society, beginning by bullying undocumented families and transgender people.

It is true that Americans of both parties are dissatisfied with the level of immigration into the country. Migration is a global challenge—war, climate-caused displacement, and economic dislocation have sent millions of people on desperate searches for safety and opportunities. Some of them have come to the United States.

But many Americans value the neighbors, family members, business owners, and workers who are part of our communities. Few want to see forced family separations, the deportations of hard-working neighbors, and federal agents stalking our communities. And those with a long view recognize that they, too, could be displaced by natural disasters and climate change, and might wish to be treated well in their new homes.

Mobilizing for real populism

Early signs are that Americans are not on board with many of the Trump administration’s barrage of executive orders. According to an early February Reuters/ Ipsos poll, 62 percent opposed the temporary freezing of domestic spending.

Other executive orders supported by MAGA are also unpopular. Abolishing DEI programs in the military was supported by 46 percent of respondents, but opposed by 49 percent. And 55 percent opposed Trump’s order barring transgender people from the military.

How can ordinary people build sufficient power to protect democratic principles and the wellbeing of our families?

We should reject bogus claims of a mandate and recognize that Trump’s policies are unpopular and his approval ratings are low, already underwater with 46 percent disapproval compared to 45 percent approval.

That should embolden us to speak out!

But public opinion won’t save us. We have to act. And Americans are mobilizing, shaking off the shock and overwhelm of the initial onslaught of Trump orders:

Elected officials in Washington, D.C., report thousands of phone calls and emails coming in from constituents, and Democrats are beginning to push back. Even Republicans might find the backbone to stand up for ordinary people if their constituents let them know.

State and local officials are taking steps to protect residents from the worst damage from Trump administration action.
Thousands of people came together in hastily organized protests at state capitols around the country under the hashtag 'Build the Resistance.' Plans are underway for more mobilization and grassroots organizing.

Public officials and civil society groups are mounting successful lawsuits to rein in the worst abuses—the legal challenges are already demonstrating that the co-equal judicial branch of government is still functioning, and that many independent judges are prepared to stand up to administration bullying.

The next few years will be difficult for all who value freedom and equity. And, like the hardships the Trump administration is inflicting on Americans, citizens of other countries will feel the pain.

Our best hope is to organize, mobilize, and create common ground around the demands for economic relief, not authoritarianism. Instead of being distracted, divided, and overwhelmed, we can set our own agenda for positive change and insist that our elected leaders act on our behalf, not for the billionaires.

We will need many, many leaders—no one will save us. But if we step up and work together on the issues that affect ordinary people, we may come through this difficult time with renewed clarity about America’s strengths and values, and with the collective power to create a better future and a more durable democracy.

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

“I’m not a cheap date,” Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said yesterday. “[Republicans] want to run and tell everybody that they have this huge mandate — that they can do whatever the hell they want to do. Well, if that’s the case then they should put their mandate-pants on and do whatever the hell they want to do. But if you want us to be helpful, then you have to engage us. And we’re not going to just be there to bail you out.”

Democratic votes will be needed to get a federal spending bill through Congress. That might mean holding the line to save Medicaid, US-AID and education. They might try to fire Musk and DOGE. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries warns that Democrats won’t support efforts to reduce the mortgage interest deduction or slash food subsidies for low-income children.

Does the Democratic #Resistance (finally) start here? Or will they cave like a cheap date? “The TMI Show”’s Ted Rall and Manila Chan preview the budget fight.

The post TMI Show Ep 77: Dems Threaten a Shutdown first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 77: Dems Threaten a Shutdown appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

On January 20, the fate of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border was abruptly changed as U.S. President Donald Trump announced new executive orders further dismantling the right to asylum.

That morning, the patients I saw in our pop-up clinic at a migrant shelter were full of apprehension about the threatened Trump policies, but a sense of hope remained. One young man told me he was so excited he could barely sleep because his CBP One appointment, which would allow him and his family to request parole to enter the U.S. while they applied for asylum, was scheduled for the following day.

By noon, the tone had changed. People tried desperately to log in to the CBP One app but were given error messages. Cancelation notices arrived in the email inboxes of those who had already been granted appointments. One patient who had left his country fleeing political violence and had been waiting for eight months at the border for the appointment, frantically held his phone up to show me the email. “Now what are we supposed to do?” he lamented, “We have nowhere safe to go.”

There is much work to be done now to uphold human rights in the U.S. But we must not forget the people who are desperate for relief at our borders.

Indeed, the end of the CBP One appointment program has effectively closed the door on asylum seekers at the U.S.’ southern border. With the ongoing restrictions of the asylum ban and border closure rules put in place during the Biden administration, there are now no viable legal pathways to entry for the hundreds of thousands of migrants seeking safety at the border.

The effect on our patients waiting in Mexico has been devastating, and it’s only going to get worse. Patients came into the clinic reporting depression, panic attacks, and despair. Some had just narrowly survived being kidnapped, beaten, or raped, and were petrified about being targeted again by the organized crime groups that prey on migrants in Mexican border cities.

Over the years in our clinics, we have seen that increased restrictions in border policies—such as Trump’s Remain in Mexico—increase danger, injuries, mental health problems, childhood developmental problems, and untimely death for asylum seekers trying to make it to the U.S. Most recently, these issues had still been occurring given the long waiting periods of the CBP One system, but now they will undoubtedly worsen.

Being stranded leads people to make impossible choices. Some families will risk (and some lose) their lives trying to cross the swift currents of the Rio Grande or the harsh landscape of the desert. Some families choose to send their children over the border unaccompanied, taking on the trauma of family separation because they see no other way for their child to escape from danger and have a better life.

President Trump says we shouldn’t care about the plight of immigrants and should instead focus on American citizens’ needs—of which, undoubtedly, there are many. But such perspectives miss the bigger picture, and are, in fact, woefully inaccurate. Not only are we able to support immigrants, we desperately need to, for the sake of all of us. Without immigrants, we’d be facing a home care crisis, an agricultural crisis, and our economy would suffer. What’s more, the plight of migrants in transit impacts our communities in the U.S. I have patients at my primary care clinic in Massachusetts who have fallen into a deep depression or whose blood pressure has skyrocketed when a loved one of theirs is lost along the migrant route or is assaulted on the journey. Let alone our international and domestic legal obligations that require us to recognize and honor the right to seek asylum.

As our patients at the migrant shelter reeled from the news of the cancelation of CBP One, one man was still smiling. “I believe the new president will have compassion for us,” he said, standing outside his tent and nodding toward his wife and small children inside. “He has a family too. I pray that he will be able to understand that we need safety for our kids.”

It would be nice. But in the absence of that change of heart, our communities need to take action. Elected officials, civil society, and our communities must band together to resist the current assaults on asylum, and push for humane and welcoming border policies. There is much work to be done now to uphold human rights in the U.S. But we must not forget the people who are desperate for relief at our borders—it’s our obligation, and it’s a matter of life and death.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent executive order, which reverses the push for paper straws in favor of plastic ones—based on the claim that paper straws don’t work (which, by the way, isn’t true)—is about way more than just straws. It is designed to undercut the Biden administration’s 2022 initiative to phase out single-use plastics, including straws, containers, and bottles, from federal buildings by 2032.

While the administration’s EO focus might seem to be shining a light on a seemingly trivial issue, it is a symptom of a much larger, and much more alarming problem: plastic pollution and its impact on all of us. Plastic is a human health crisis in the making and this decision is more than absurd—it’s actually dangerous.

Firstly, while banning plastic straws specifically is not all about saving turtles and trashing the ocean—we are in fact by using them helping to trash the oceans.

This decision to roll back a policy aimed at reducing plastic waste isn’t just a misguided nod to convenience—it’s a big win for Big Oil.

Plastics have become a pervasive pollutant with 8 million tonnes of plastic dumped in our oceans every single year, killing marine life, including whales and seabirds at an alarming rate. One million sea turtles alone die every year from ingesting plastic trash. That represents 10% of the entire global population.

Researchers estimate there are around 199 million tonnes of plastic contaminating our marine environment already, and every year we do not take action and instead back plastic, that number rises.

Much of this largely single-use plastic, like straws, eventually breaks down into microplastics, smaller than a grain of rice. So, when we eat fish, we are consuming all the plastic junk and chemicals they have been ingesting too.

Which might help to explain why scientists have found plastic particles in human brains, lungs, hearts, and even placentas. We are poisoning our own babies with plastics, even before they are born.

These microplastics are harmful in their own right but, they also leach out toxic plastic chemicals, like Bisphenol A and phthalates, both known endocrine disruptors. Exposure to these chemicals in early development can have lifelong effects on a child's health, from developmental delays to ADHD, autism, and increased risks of certain cancers. These chemicals are even linked to miscarriages and infertility.

We already know that babies and infants appear to be ingesting high levels of microplastics because a study by scientists from Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland discovered they had over 10 times higher rates of microplastics in their feces samples than adults.

From the moment we wake up to the time we go to sleep, we are being exposed to microplastics—whether through the food we eat, the water we drink, or the air we breathe.

The harmful effects of plastics on human health should be a primary concern for any administration that claims to value human life. So, the president’s focus on supporting plastic straws is worryingly indicative of a disregard for the growing scientific consensus on the dangers of microplastics and the chemicals used to make plastics in general.

This decision to roll back a policy aimed at reducing plastic waste isn’t just a misguided nod to convenience—it’s a big win for Big Oil. Why? Because plastics are made from petrochemicals, this order therefore supports the fossil fuel industry. An industry already wreaking havoc on our planet by fueling climate change.

If we are serious about safeguarding human health, we must shift away from our throwaway plastic culture that has dominated our society for decades. The impacts of plastic pollution on our health, and our babies’ too, are far-reaching and catastrophic. It's time for our leaders to prioritize the health of people, not the interests of the plastic industry.

As the debate over plastic straws continues, which it will, we need to refocus the conversation on the real, life-threatening dangers posed by plastic pollution. It is time to recognize that this is not a fight over a straw—it is a fight for children’s health.

Which is why EARTHDAY.ORG is running an End Plastic Initiatives—so we can continue to drive public support around making a stand against plastic pollution and in the process protect our planet—and more importantly our health—for generations to come. The fight continues. Plastic is Toxic. DON’T GO BACK TO PLASTICS!

On February 10, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, filed suit for damages against the Trump-Musk-DOGE cartel. The lawsuit, which EPIC filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, calls for damages on behalf of tens of millions of government workers and Americans resulting from the administration’s illegal breach of personal privacy and its threat to national security.

“These basic security failures have resulted in the unlawful disclosure of personal data—including social security numbers and tax information,” reads the complaint.

EPIC is claiming the data incursion—among many other violations—is illegal under the Privacy Act of 1974. “Plaintiffs have a constitutional right to the privacy of their information… Defendants have violated and continue to violate that right by unlawfully disclosing extremely personal information about plaintiffs and millions of others to unchecked actors in violation of law,” the complaint states.

The courts (and hopefully Congress) are catching up to public opinion, which has taken a drastic turn since Musk began violating the privacy rights of millions of people.

EPIC urges the court to compel defendants to “delete all unlawfully obtained, disclosed, or accessed personally identifiable information from systems or devices on which they were not present on January 19, 2025.” It calls on the court to award plaintiffs statutory and punitive damages “in the amount of $1,000 per each act of unauthorized inspection and disclosure.” That’s a sum that could add up to trillions of dollars in damages given the scope of DOGE’s breach.

The law is catching up to Elon Musk. The EPIC suit is just one of many that have been filed since U.S. President Donald Trump was sworn in and Musk and his DOGE crew infiltrated several key federal agencies and their extensive public records.

On February 7, a federal judge issued an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) against DOGE after 19 state attorneys general filed a complaint also alleging that DOGE had violated the Privacy Act of 1974 and other laws. The TRO blocks Musk et al. from accessing Treasury systems and requires they destroy any material downloaded.

On filing their case for the TRO, New York State Attorney General Letitia James said: “President Trump does not have the power to give away Americans’ private information to anyone he chooses, and he cannot cut federal payments approved by Congress. Musk and DOGE have no authority to access Americans’ private information and some of our country’s most sensitive data.”

The largest data breach in U.S. history

During a Free Press webinar held prior to EPIC’s filing, the organization’s chief litigator, John Davisson, called the DOGE incursion into federal agencies like the Department of Treasury “the largest and most consequential breach of personal information in U.S. history.” To make matters worse, Davisson noted, “it’s being led by malign, unaccountable forces from both without and within the government.”

Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert led the very first suit against Trump’s second administration. Since then, the organization has filed several other suits against the Trump White House and its operatives, with most focused on pushing back against the DOGE power grab. “What really stands out is the corruption implicit in Musk being at the helm,” Gilbert said during the Free Press webinar. A Public Citizen report from October found that three of Musk’s businesses—SpaceX, Tesla, and X—face at least 11 criminal and civil investigations at the federal level.

“The biggest risk of all is the risk to democratic governance,” said Davisson. “The folks involved here—these bandits, these hijackers—have correctly assessed that the systems in federal agencies are critical levers for how they carry out the functions Congress has assigned.” Davisson added that the massive DOGE data breach empowers Musk’s unaccountable team “to exert all sorts of pressure on federal employees and people at large on people they disagree with politically and that is something we should be very, very worried about.”

The groundbreaking reporting of WIRED’s Vittoria Elliott has exposed the relatively inexperienced team of techies that has accompanied Musk into these federal agencies to access massive troves of personal data. “One of the biggest issues is the lack of transparency,” she said during the webinar. “We don’t know what systems they’re accessing. We’re not given transparency about their roles… The consequences of [Musk’s team] getting it wrong are so dire for so many people.”

Sowing the Seeds of DOGE’s Downfall

One of the things that stands out to Davisson is just how many mistakes DOGE has made since it began its work. Musk and his team have left themselves vulnerable to the sorts of lawsuits being filed by EPIC, Public Citizen, and state attorneys general, he said. “They’ve aggravated a lot of stakeholders; they’re in the process of aggravating the courts. They’ve embarrassed themselves in many ways; they’ve drawn the eye of the public. I think in many ways they have already sown the seeds of their downfall.”

Congress has reportedly been inundated with calls from people who are deeply unhappy about Musk’s raid on government agencies. “It is a deluge on DOGE,” Sen. Tina Smith (D–Minn.) told The Washington Post. “Truly our office has gotten more phone calls on Elon Musk and what the heck he’s doing mucking around in federal government than I think anything we’ve gotten in years… People are really angry.”

People must share their concerns with their lawmakers and call on Congress to act against the incursions. But that’s just a start.

“There is broad public dislike for Musk,” Davisson said during Monday’s webinar. “And we should continue to find ways to leverage that... This is going to require many small—sometimes unsatisfying—actions by a lot of different people in a lot of different places. This assault on democracy is vulnerable to that.”

Turning Anger About Musk Into Action

There are productive places to channel outrage, said Gilbert. “There have been some really effective engagements and protests and people are ginning up for the next phase of resistance... There are some places where we can win things,” she added, pointing to the upcoming budget fight in Congress.

“There’s a battle to be had, where everyone's senators and members matter,” she said. “Knowing that and knowing that there are places where constituents can weigh in hopefully changes the calculus a little bit when folks are feeling like there’s nothing they can do.”

And indeed Musk may be popular among the extremist MAGA crowd, but voters in general aren’t on board with the DOGE team’s privacy violations. A new Hart Research survey indicates that his popularity is in rapid decline as people learn more about his efforts to compromise our data.

The Economist/YouGov conducted a poll finding that the billionaire is falling out of favor with voters, including Republicans, who say in increasing numbers that they want him to have little-to-no influence over the way the government conducts its business.

The wins against DOGE are just the beginning, Davisson said. The legal strategy is “going to be important for staying grounded through what is going to be a very long and difficult fight. So I encourage everyone to celebrate the wins when they come.”

The courts (and hopefully Congress) are catching up to public opinion, which has taken a drastic turn since Musk began violating the privacy rights of millions of people. With continued public pressure and legal challenges, it’s possible DOGE’s days may be numbered.

Is the Rule of Law one thread that might draw Americans together? Here is a perspective drawn from recent conversations among four elders from different backgrounds—one over 90, two in their early 80s, one in his mid-70s.

We are at present a divided nation, although an elder account might identify many divisions that have been overcome, some against great odds. The advantages of being old are distance from the demands of public life and the privilege of looking at it with a wide lens. Elders can take the long view, sitting in the balcony, looking at a story unfolding on stage now. No dispute, it is one that causes much sorrow and concern.

Each of us has loved ones in intense disagreement, in some cases having cut off contact. In perhaps a grandfatherly way, we feel a responsibility to do what we can to help heal relationships that are off course.

When our promises are broken and are no longer deemed trustworthy, everything collapses: government, marriages, friendships, work relationships.

Every play has a stage setting, an agreed upon backdrop against which the story is played out. When the drama becomes heated and intense, with new and surprising events unfolding moment by moment, it can be easy to lose sight of the shared agreements that make the story possible.

From our balcony perspective, the Rule of Law is one of those core shared agreements. Ours is a story of a 250-year-old experiment in self-governance. Never perfect, always in need of improvement, ours is nevertheless an extraordinary tale of how vast differences can be safely managed.

Promises made and promises kept. That’s how healthy marriages, families, and institutions work. Let’s keep our promises to each other. We can disagree passionately, reform and repeal laws that no longer serve, vote officials out of office who have lost our trust, and elect new ones that earn it. But let’s not give up on the Rule of Law. It anchors our relationships with each other. That’s the governing story we inherited from our nation’s founders and that our ancestors struggled and died for. That’s the promise that we’ve made to each other.

Faithfulness to our covenant with each other codified in law, from the Constitution to safe driving laws, as well as other measures, mostly implicit but followed 99% of the time. These must govern our actions. They are the promises we make to each other and they form the core assumption underlying the functioning of this nation.

When our promises are broken and are no longer deemed trustworthy, everything collapses: government, marriages, friendships, work relationships. Trust in that covenant with each other is the glue, the “be all and end all,” the heart of the matter, the centerpiece of our society.

That’s how it looks to us, elders with a balcony perspective. We see a family in pain, living out a drama, a family that is dangerously close to abandoning the script. Let’s honor the Rule of Law and the democratic structures we’ve worked so hard to build. Let’s listen to our better angels as Abe Lincoln advised us to do at an earlier time of crisis.

The time is now to cast our eyes upward toward a unifying cause rather than downward toward divisiveness, mutual recrimination, and disabling antagonism. We have come this far. It would be a devastating blow to all in this country, and in fact to all the world, if we can’t find a path we can walk together.

Advocates have long warned about the interconnected threats to both education and democracy, but the lightning speed at which these attacks are unfolding under the Trump administration is astonishing. This intentional campaign of shock and awe is meant to send the administration’s opposition into submission—or, a tailspin. It is also meant to signal strength, power, and action to its supporters across our communities.

And so in just a handful of weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump has already signed executive orders impacting nearly every aspect of public education in the U.S.—from illegally attempting to dictate classroom curricula (“Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”), to undermining protections from discrimination by reverting to 2020 Title IX enforcement based on “biological sex,” to prioritizing privatization initiatives that intentionally divert funding from public schools.

Our aim must be to reach the other side of this administration with the core functions of this country’s democratic institutions and the promise of public education both intact.

This barrage of executive actions is an intentional mix of impulsive and arbitrary power grabs—and initiatives clearly rooted in Project 2025 and the American First Policy Agenda, both of which are the fruits of a vicious entanglement of white supremacy, ultra-nationalism, and white Christianity. The president’s allies have worked tirelessly over the course of the last four years to create division and conflict in school districts across the country. From book bans and efforts to rewrite U.S. racial history in school curriculums, to policies targeting transgender and LGBTQ students, they are intentionally undermining parents’ trust in public schools to pave the way for funneling taxpayer dollars from public education into private hands.

This agenda extends far beyond efforts to dismantle public education. There’s mounting evidence that we’re entering into a full-blown constitutional crisis, wherein the intended checks and balances between our branches of government are not holding up to the administration’s unbridled assertions of power. The federal government is out of balance and increasingly leaning toward an executive branch that has engaged in unconstitutional overreach from day one.

Yet, we must remind ourselves that this surge of executive orders is a reflection of the administration’s weakness—not its power. If the administration felt it could succeed in meaningfully restructuring the government via legislative action—the kind of action that would be both constitutional and lasting—it would be working with Congress to enact those changes. But instead with slim majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and the lowest inaugural approval rating since 1953, the administration is left signalling its power with the hope that we’ll concede to it.

We will not. Our aim must be to reach the other side of this administration with the core functions of this country’s democratic institutions and the promise of public education both intact. We are crystal clear about what the administration’s underlying motives and limitations are because we understand what time it is. The promise of so much that we care about—from the promise of our public schools to build productive, civically engaged, and healthy futures for each of our children to the promise of our democracy to represent and respond to the needs and will of our diverse communities—is at stake.

Most Americans want an end to the polarizing and ideologically driven attacks on our schools. We are not seeking needless strife. Life is already full of very real struggles to find well-paying jobs; to pay mounting bills; and to cover the costs of childcare, basic life necessities, and access the healthcare we need to stay or get healthy. We understand that our public schools play essential roles in our communities, from educating our children to serving as gathering points where we vote and set our town budgets. We understand that we pay taxes into a system of government whose sole purpose is to serve us, the people. And we understand that our schools and our government more broadly are imperfect because they are led by people. And just as we strive as individuals to continually do better and learn, we expect the same from our schools and our government. Most Americans want improvement. And, we want to be heard and better served.

We will not concede. We will show up for our public schools. We will show up for each other and our future.

We also understand that the administration’s best hope at consolidating the unconstitutional power it seeks is by intimidating lawmakers so they bend to its will and the rest of us to preemptively concede our rights and be silent in our opposition. We will not concede. Instead, we will be clear-eyed, focused, and undeterred. Together, we will protect and continue to advance the promise of both our public schools and democracy in this country.

Here are the actions you can take:

1. Do not preemptively silence your voice of opposition. Self-censoring in conversations with friends and neighbors, or holding back on submitting letters and op-eds to local papers, speaking up on radio shows, or showing up at community rallies all mean relinquishing fundamental rights you still have. Keep asserting them.
2. Call on congressional leaders to show up for public education. Reach out to your representatives to share the importance of public schools to you and your community, and the need for them to hold firm against the administration’s proposals and exercise their voice to advocate for the funding and policies schools need.
3. Help state leaders understand and act on their vital role in protecting and supporting vulnerable students to learn and succeed. State boards of education and administrators should take steps to shore up school resources and civil rights protections, including by connecting schools to sanctuary state and local efforts. Look to the Los Angeles Unified School District; the city of Portland, Maine; and New Jersey for ideas on what those steps can look like.
4. Support school board members and local education leaders to push back against censorship and voucher programs that undercut their decision-making authority and make it harder to provide rigorous and engaging learning experiences for students. The growing number of school boards that passed resolutions to combat school vouchers make clear that community-driven, grassroots initiatives can have a powerful impact.
5. Join other students, families, educators, and advocates mobilizing for a system of public education that supports every student, family, and community to thrive. Tapping into state and national networks can amplify the impact of local advocacy and provide avenues to mobilize against other harmful measures as a united front. Last year in Kentucky, students did exactly that to defeat Amendment 2, a ballot measure that would have allowed public tax dollars to be used for private schools. Students mobilized against the measure by elevating their concerns in the media, educating their local communities, and organizing a bus tour to get the word out across the state, proving the power of networks in the face of harmful bills.

The threats facing public education and democracy in this country are profound, but they are not insurmountable. Privatization efforts and ideological attacks demand sharper focus, stronger connections, and a unified approach to meet the challenges ahead. Each obstacle we confront in the fight for public education is deeply interconnected with the broader fight for justice and inclusion in our society and our democratic institutions.

Democrats say they’re overwhelmed by all the outrageous policy changes and executive orders Trump is cranking out. But there’s no evidence that they’re actively resisting anything at all.

The post We Have Found the Anti-Trump Democratic Resistance and They Are first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post We Have Found the Anti-Trump Democratic Resistance and They Are appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Last April, in a move generating scant media attention, the Air Force announced that it had chosen two little-known drone manufacturers — Anduril Industries of Costa Mesa, California, and General Atomics of San Diego — to build prototype versions of its proposed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), a future unmanned plane intended to accompany piloted aircraft on high-risk combat missions. The lack of coverage was surprising, given that the Air Force expects to acquire at least 1,000 CCAs over the coming decade at around $30 million each, making this one of the Pentagon’s costliest new projects. But consider that the least of what the media failed to note. In winning the CCA contract, Anduril and General Atomics beat out three of the country’s largest and most powerful defense contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman — posing a severe threat to the continued dominance of the existing military-industrial complex, or MIC.

For decades, a handful of giant firms like those three have garnered the lion’s share of Pentagon arms contracts, producing the same planes, ships, and missiles year after year while generating huge profits for their owners. But an assortment of new firms, born in Silicon Valley or incorporating its disruptive ethos, have begun to challenge the older ones for access to lucrative Pentagon awards. In the process, something groundbreaking, though barely covered in the mainstream media, is underway: a new MIC is being born, one that potentially will have very different goals and profit-takers than the existing one. How the inevitable battles between the old and the new MICs play out can’t be foreseen, but count on one thing: they are sure to generate significant political turbulence in the years to come.

The very notion of a “military-industrial complex” linking giant defense contractors to powerful figures in Congress and the military was introduced on January 17, 1961, by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to Congress and the American people. In that Cold War moment, in response to powerful foreign threats, he noted that “we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.” Nevertheless, he added, using the phrase for the first time, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Ever since, debate over the MIC’s accumulating power has roiled American politics. A number of politicians and prominent public figures have portrayed U.S. entry into a catastrophic series of foreign wars — in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — as a consequence of that complex’s undue influence on policymaking. No such claims and complaints, however, have ever succeeded in loosening the MIC’s iron grip on Pentagon arms procurement. This year’s record defense budget of approximately $850 billion includes $143.2 billion for research and development and another $167.5 billion for the procurement of weaponry. That $311 billion, most of which will be funneled to those giant defense firms, exceeds the total amount spent on defense by every other country on Earth.

Over time, the competition for billion-dollar Pentagon contracts has led to a winnowing of the MIC ecosystem, resulting in the dominance of a few major industrial behemoths. In 2024, just five companies — Lockheed Martin (with $64.7 billion in defense revenues), RTX (formerly Raytheon, with $40.6 billion), Northrop Grumman ($35.2 billion), General Dynamics ($33.7 billion), and Boeing ($32.7 billion) — claimed the vast bulk of Pentagon contracts. (Anduril and General Atomics didn’t even appear on a list of the top 100 contract recipients.)

Typically, these companies are the lead, or “prime,” contractors for major weapons systems that the Pentagon keeps buying year after year. Lockheed Martin, for example, is the prime contractor for the Air Force’s top-priority F-35 stealth fighter (a plane that has often proved distinctly disappointing in operation); Northrop Grumman is building the B-21 stealth bomber; Boeing produces the F-15EX combat jet; and General Dynamics makes the Navy’s Los Angeles-class attack submarines. “Big-ticket” items like these are usually purchased in substantial numbers over many years, ensuring steady profits for their producers. When the initial buys of such systems seem to be nearing completion, their producers usually generate new or upgraded versions of the same weapons, while employing their powerful lobbying arms in Washington to convince Congress to fund the new designs.

Over the years, non-governmental organizations like the National Priorities Project and the Friends Committee on National Legislation have heroically tried to persuade lawmakers to resist the MIC’s lobbying efforts and reduce military spending, but without noticeable success. Now, however, a new force — Silicon Valley startup culture — has entered the fray, and the military-industrial complex equation is suddenly changing dramatically.

Along Came Anduril

Consider Anduril Industries, one of two under-the-radar companies that left three MIC heavyweights in the dust last April by winning the contract to build a prototype of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Anduril (named after the sword carried by Aragorn in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings) was founded in 2017 by Palmer Luckey, a virtual-reality headset designer, with the goal of incorporating artificial intelligence into novel weapons systems. He was supported in that effort by prominent Silicon Valley investors, including Peter Thiel of the Founders Fund and the head of another defense-oriented startup, Palantir (a name also derived from The Lord of the Rings).

From the start, Luckey and his associates sought to shoulder aside traditional defense contractors to make room for their high-tech startups. Those two companies and other new-fledged tech firms often found themselves frozen out of major Pentagon contracts that had long been written to favor the MIC giants with their bevies of lawyers and mastery of government paperwork. In 2016, Palantir even sued the U.S. Army for refusing to consider it for a large data-processing contract and later prevailed in court, opening the door for future Department of Defense awards.

In addition to its aggressive legal stance, Anduril has also gained notoriety thanks to the outspokenness of its founder, Palmer Luckey. Whereas other corporate leaders were usually restrained in their language when discussing Department of Defense operations, Luckey openly criticized the Pentagon’s inbred preference for working with traditional defense contractors at the expense of investments in the advanced technologies he believes are needed to overpower China and Russia in some future conflict.

Such technology, he insisted, was only available from the commercial tech industry. “The largest defense contractors are staffed with patriots who nevertheless do not have the software expertise or business model to build the technology we need,” Luckey and his top associates claimed in their 2022 Mission Document. “These companies work slowly, while the best [software] engineers relish working at speed. And the software engineering talent who can build faster than our adversaries resides in the commercial sector, not at large defense primes.”

To overcome obstacles to military modernization, Luckey argued, the government needed to loosen its contracting rules and make it easier for defense startups and software companies to do business with the Pentagon. “We need defense companies that are fast. That won’t happen simply by wishing it to be so: it will only happen if companies are incentivized to move” by far more permissive Pentagon policies.

Buttressed by such arguments, as well as the influence of key figures like Thiel, Anduril began to secure modest but strategic contracts from the military and the Department of Homeland Security. In 2019, it received a small Marine Corps contract to install AI-enabled perimeter surveillance systems at bases in Japan and the United States. A year later, it won a five-year, $25 million contract to build surveillance towers on the U.S.-Mexican border for Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In September 2020, it also received a $36 million CBP contract to build additional sentry towers along that border.

After that, bigger awards began to roll in. In February 2023, the Department of Defense started buying Anduril’s Altius-600 surveillance/attack drone for delivery to the Ukrainian military and, last September, the Army announced that it would purchase its Ghost-X drone for battlefield surveillance operations. Anduril is also now one of four companies selected by the Air Force to develop prototypes for its proposed Enterprise Test Vehicle, a medium-sized drone intended to launch salvos of smaller surveillance and attack drones.

Anduril’s success in winning ever-larger Pentagon contracts has attracted the interest of wealthy investors looking for opportunities to profit from the expected growth of defense-oriented startups. In July 2020, it received fresh investments of $200 million from Thiel’s Founders Fund and prominent Silicon Valley investor Andreessen Horowitz, raising the company’s valuation to nearly $2 billion. A year later, Anduril obtained another $450 million from those and other venture capital firms, bringing its estimated valuation to $4.5 billion (double what it had been in 2020). More finance capital has flowed into Anduril since then, spearheading a major drive by private investors to fuel the rise of defense startups — and profit from their growth as it materializes.

The Replicator Initiative

Along with its success in attracting big defense contracts and capital infusions, Anduril has succeeded in convincing many senior Pentagon officials of the need to reform the department’s contracting operations so as to make more room for defense startups and tech firms. On August 28, 2023, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, then the department’s second-highest official, announced the inauguration of the “Replicator” initiative, designed to speed the delivery of advanced weaponry to the armed forces.

“[Our] budgeting and bureaucratic processes are slow, cumbersome, and byzantine,” she acknowledged. To overcome such obstacles, she indicated, the Replicator initiative would cut through red tape and award contracts directly to startups for the rapid development and delivery of cutting-edge weaponry. “Our goal,” she declared, “is to seed, spark, and stoke the flames of innovation.”

As Hicks suggested, Replicator contracts would indeed be awarded in successive batches, or “tranches.” The first tranche, announced last May, included AeroVironment Switchblade 600 kamikaze drones (called that because they are supposed to crash into their intended targets, exploding on contact). Anduril was a triple winner in the second tranche, announced on November 13th. According to the Department of Defense, that batch included funding for the Army’s purchase of Ghost-X surveillance drones, the Marine Corps’ acquisition of Altius-600 kamikaze drones, and development of the Air Force’s Enterprise Test Vehicle, of which Anduril is one of four participating vendors.

Just as important, perhaps, was Hicks’ embrace of Palmer Luckey’s blueprint for reforming Pentagon purchasing. “The Replicator initiative is demonstrably reducing barriers to innovation, and delivering capabilities to warfighters at a rapid pace,” she affirmed in November. “We are creating opportunities for a broad range of traditional and nontraditional defense and technology companies… and we are building the capability to do that again and again.”

Enter the Trumpians

Kathleen Hicks stepped down as deputy secretary of defense on January 20th when Donald Trump reoccupied the White House, as did many of her top aides. Exactly how the incoming administration will address the issue of military procurement remains to be seen, but many in Trump’s inner circle, including Elon Musk and Vice President J.D. Vance, have strong ties to Silicon Valley and so are likely to favor Replicator-like policies.

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host who recently won confirmation as secretary of defense, has no background in weapons development and has said little about the topic. However, Trump’s choice as deputy secretary (and Hick’s replacement) is billionaire investor Stephen A. Feinberg who, as chief investment officer of Cerberus Capital Management, acquired the military startup Stratolaunch — suggesting that he might favor extending programs like Replicator.

In a sense, the Trump moment will fit past Washington patterns when it comes to the Pentagon in that the president and his Republican allies in Congress will undoubtedly push for a massive increase in military spending, despite the fact that the military budget is already at a staggering all-time high. Every arms producer is likely to profit from such a move, whether traditional prime contractors or Silicon Valley startups. If, however, defense spending is kept at current levels — in order to finance the tax cuts and other costly measures favored by Trump and the Republicans — fierce competition between the two versions of the military-industrial complex could easily arise again. That, in turn, might trigger divisions within Trump’s inner circle, pitting loyalists to the old MIC against adherents to the new one.

Most Republican lawmakers, who generally rely on contributions from the old MIC companies to finance their campaigns, are bound to support the major prime contractors in such a rivalry. But two of Trump’s key advisers, J.D. Vance and Elon Musk, could push him in the opposite direction. Vance, a former Silicon Valley functionary who reportedly became Trump’s running mate only after heavy lobbying by Peter Thiel and other tech billionaires, is likely to be encouraged by his former allies to steer more Pentagon contracts to Anduril, Palantir, and related companies. And that would hardly be surprising, since Vance’s private venture fund, Narya Capital (yes, another name derived from The Lord of the Rings!), has invested in Anduril and other military/space ventures.

Named by Trump to direct the as-yet-to-be-established Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, like Anduril’s Palmer Luckey, fought the Department of Defense to obtain contracts for one of his companies, SpaceX, and has expressed deep contempt for the Pentagon’s traditional way of doing things. In particular, he has denigrated the costly, generally ill-performing Lockheed-made F-35 jet fighter at a time when AI-governed drones are becoming ever more capable. Despite that progress, as he wrote on X, the social media platform he now owns, “some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.” In a subsequent post, he added that “manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway.”

His critique of the F-35 ruffled feathers at the Air Force and caused Lockheed’s stock to fall by more than 3%. “We are committed to delivering the world’s most advanced aircraft — the F-35 — and its unrivaled capabilities with the government and our industry partners,” Lockheed declared in response to Musk’s tweets. Over at the Pentagon, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall had this to say: “I have a lot of respect for Elon Musk as an engineer. He’s not a warfighter, and he needs to learn a little bit more about the business, I think, before he makes such grand announcements as he did.” He then added, “I don’t see F-35 being replaced. We should continue to buy it, and we also should continue to upgrade it.”

President Trump has yet to indicate his stance on the F-35 or other high-priced items in the Pentagon’s budget lineup. He may (or may not) call for a slowdown in purchases of that plane and seek greater investment in other projects. Still, the divide exposed by Musk — between costly manned weapons made by traditional defense contractors and more affordable unmanned systems made by the likes of Anduril, General Atomics, and AeroVironment — is bound to widen in the years to come as the new version of the military-industrial complex only grows in wealth and power. How the old MIC will address such a threat to its primacy remains to be seen, but multibillion-dollar weapons companies are not likely to step aside without a fight. And that fight will likely divide the Trumpian universe.

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

Should we like our children like we like our livestock: free-range?

Older Americans, who grew up before electronic trackers/devices and helicopter parenting, remember childhoods with much more independence than many kids get today. In the 1970s and 1980s, when “The TMI Show”’s Manila Chan and Ted Rall came of age, it wasn’t uncommon for the under-18 set to take mass transit by themselves and disappear for hours between meals with little accountability. It was riskier. But it also made for bigger lives and bigger imaginations.

Joining us is a leading pioneer of today’s “free-range parenting” movement. Writer Lenore Skenazy is a writer and blogger famous for her 2008 article “Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone.” In 2017, Skenazy co-founded the nonprofit Let Grow to make it “easy, normal, and legal to give kids the independence they need to grow into capable, confident and happy adults.” In 2018, Utah became the first state to pass the Free-Range Parenting bill, assuring parents that they can give their children some independence without it being mistaken for neglect, for which the Washington Post credited Skenazy’s 2008 column as a contributing influence. Similar laws have since been enacted in Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and several other states have relaxed laws regarding some aspects of childhood independence.

The post TMI Show Ep 76: Make Our Kids Free Again? first appeared on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The post TMI Show Ep 76: Make Our Kids Free Again? appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

A classic coup d’état has guns. Uniformed men run wild seizing government agencies and claiming control over what government does and who government serves.

But in our new cyber age, the Yale historian Timothy Snyder reflected this past week, a coup can unfold without any armed overthrow. We can have “a couple dozen young men go from government office to government office, dressed in civilian clothes and armed only with zip drives.”

These young men, operating upon “vague references to orders from on high,” can gain access to basic computer systems and “proceed to grant their Supreme Leader” effective power over just about everything that government does.

The historian Snyder is, of course, describing America’s current reality. He’s calling this reality a coup — and so are countless other defenders of America’s democratic faith.

We aren’t living through “a coup with tanks in the streets and mobs overrunning government offices,” charges former U.S. attorney and current Brennan Center senior fellow Joyce Vance. We’ve living through “a quieter coup, a billionaires’ coup.”

“The richest man on Earth is attempting to seize physical control of government payment systems and use them to shut down federal funding to any recipient he personally dislikes,” adds in the University of Minnesota Law School’s Will Stancil. “Elon Musk is directly usurping Congress’s most important authority, the power of the purse.”

The Musk legions now hacking their way through the nation’s capital, the New York Times reports, have already “inserted themselves” into the databases of 17 federal agencies. These legions include fervent Musk admirers like Akash Bobba, a software engineer less than three years out of high school who once interned with a tech firm chaired by fellow Musk billionaire Peter Thiel.

One by one, the federal agencies that keep our nation running have been falling — with the full backing and blessings of Donald Trump — under Musk’s effective control. Trump, meanwhile, is making headlines about taking over Gaza and Panama, in the process, notes Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut, “distracting everyone from the real story — the billionaires seizing government to steal from regular people.”

The Trumpsters, agrees Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, are moving us “into an oligarchic form of society where extraordinary power rests in the hands of a small number of unelected multi-billionaires.”

Elected officials and progressive activists are pushing back in the courts against the Musk putsch and scoring some initial victories. One federal judge, for instance, has just blocked Musk’s access to the Treasury Department’s computer payments system. That access, the judge ruled, threatens “irreparable harm” to the personal and financial data of millions of Americans.

But lower-level court rulings may not pass muster with higher-level Trump-appointed judges. Stopping the Musk coup will require a broader popular mobilization, and that push back is indeed building, with protests drawing thousands in locales ranging from downtown Washington to a host of state capitols nationwide.

Our single best hope to counter the Musk coup’s billionaire corporate backers — “and their boundless options” to shape “our elections, legislation, and judicial appointments”? That may well be intensified trade union action, suggests a new analysis from long-time labor activist Michael Podhorzer — and that action is also building.

Labor’s national voice, the AFL-CIO, has just launched a new campaign, the Department of People Who Work for a Living, to challenge Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency.”

“Government can work for billionaires,” points out AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler, “or it can work for working people — but not both.”

As the Trump-Musk administration takes an axe to the federal government’s budget and personnel, the Democrats have an opening to raise an issue that Musk will hate but Trump can’t ignore—private sector mass layoffs.

Right now, as Acting President Musk goes after agency after agency in the name of cost cutting, the Democrats are focused on public sector job cuts. As they should, tens of thousands of jobs are at risk.

But those numbers pale in comparison to the 1.8 million private sector workers who lost their jobs in December of 2024 due to involuntary layoffs. For the past several decades, more than 20 million jobs per year have been taken away from workers who did nothing wrong.

It won’t be easy to convince private sector workers that cutting federal government costs is a mistake. If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, you don’t want your tax dollars squandered, and USAID., to many, sounds like a money pit.

If the Democrats act forcefully to defend working-class jobs, they should have better chance to win back Congress from Trump in 2026.

But private sector workers do care about their own job insecurity, and Donald Trump knows it. He has spoken forcefully about keeping worker jobs from migrating to Mexico and elsewhere, and he could take actual action to make that happen with one simple Executive Order:

Corporations that receive taxpayer money via federal contracts and tax subsidies shall not lay off taxpayers involuntarily.

More than $750 billion in contracts for materials and services are made each year by the federal government. Many of the corporate recipients have had no qualms about laying off workers and using the savings to enrich their investors via stock buybacks, and there have been no effective rules to prevent this. (A stock buyback is when a corporation repurchases its own shares, thereby raising the price of the stock without improving the company in any material way.)

Taxpayers know there is a great deal of waste built into federal contracts, especially those massive purchases involving defense and advanced technologies.

It turns out that Musk’s companies, reportedly, have received $20 billion in federal contracts, with $15.4 billion coming to Tesla and Space X in the last decade. Last year, Tesla laid off more than 14,000 workers, and Space X has announced that this year it will lay off more than 10 percent of its workforce, about 6,000 jobs. Imagine if Musk were not allowed to stuff himself with taxpayer money unless he refrained from involuntary layoffs?

To get there the Democrats, for the first time in memory, would need to care about greed-driven private sector layoffs.

That will be difficult because the Democrats are more in tune with highly educated, upper middle-class federal workers. These are the kind of voters who have been trending Democratic while the party has shed the working class. And the Democrats see the federal agencies in which these voters work as part of their legacy, often created and enhanced by legislation they spear-headed. Federal workers are their people, doing the work that the Democrats care most about.

Not so much the private sector, where voters have been drifting away from the Democrats in large numbers for decades, especially in the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. As I show in Wall Street’s War on Workers, since 1992, as a county’s mass layoff rate has gone up, the Democratic vote has gone down, even as these voters have grown more liberal on social issues.

The Democrats have been losing these working-class voters because they have failed to interfere in private sector layoff decisions, even when job destruction became a campaign issue.

For example, in the run up to the 2024 election, John Deere and Company announced they were shipping more than 1,000 jobs to Mexico while recording $10 billion in profits and conducting $12.2 billion in stock buybacks. Trump immediately called for a 200-percent tariff on all Deere imported goods if they didn’t rescind their layoffs.

The Democrats didn’t say a word about how to stop this needless job destruction and instead attacked the tariffs. Deere’s stock buybacks and profits proved the company had more than enough money to offer voluntary buyout packages for all their workers, not just the executives. But the Democrats did not speak up.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Democrats also remained silent when the Mylan Pharmaceutical plant in Morgantown, WV, moved to India. Workers there begged the Democrats to use the Defense Production Act to keep open the facility, which made generic drugs. If Biden could do it for baby formula, why not for badly needed pharmaceuticals?

But not one Democrat came out in support of these workers, and 1,500 jobs with an average wage of $70,000 per year were tossed away.

Clearly, the Democrats have been pulling away from the working class. Why help these workers, some are saying, when they’re more than likely to vote for Republicans? And why challenge corporate power when you’re trying to win over highly educated executives and financial leaders?

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is up and arms these days about the attacks on federal workers, was very honest about this switch in 2016. I’ve quoted him again and again because he tells us precisely what the Democratic strategy has been all about:

"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio & Illinois & Wisconsin."

At the launch of a second Trump presidency, Schumer’s political acumen has not aged well.

Nor has Ken Martin’s, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, who has made it clear that billionaires are welcome.

“There are a lot of good billionaires out there that have been with Democrats, who share our values, and we will take their money, but we’re not taking money from those bad billionaires,” Martin said recently.

It is doubtful that Martin ever gave one second’s thought to the fact that most, if not all, of these “good” billionaires that “share our values” have grown wealthy from, to some significant extent, stock buybacks funded through mass layoffs.

The country needs the Democrats to go from defense to offense. If the only activity is mounting a resistance movement to Trump, the odds are slim that enough new voters will be gained to win back the House or the Senate in 2026.

Every elected Democrat should be demanding that no taxpayer dollars go to corporations that lay off taxpayers involuntarily. They should put that message on social media, old media, even billboards all over the swing states. They should challenge every Republican candidate to take a stand on it. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer one dime, but it can protect the livelihoods of millions of working people every year. Or, at least, give them leverage while working out their severance.

Every day Democrats should be asking Trump to sign the order. Does he really want to be seen giving our tax dollars to corporations that lay off taxpayers and funnel the savings to the rich?

And wouldn’t it be good for our weary souls to see Musk squirm because he wouldn’t be able to sup at the federal trough while casually laying off his employees?

You have to wonder if the Democrats are capable of such a move, or anything remotely close to it. Only if they truly are willing to take on Wall Street and the billionaire class. They need to believe, not just mouth the words, that they will fight the wealthy to protect the livelihoods of working people.

If the Democrats act forcefully to defend working-class jobs, they should have better chance to win back Congress from Trump in 2026. But in the short term, pushing Trump to defend his populist flank might help put a wedge between Trump and his billionaire bros, and get some relief for workers from financialized layoffs.

But don’t hold your breath. All those “good” Democratic billionaires might get upset.

Harvard's decision to impose the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, definition of antisemitism on its campus underscores the university's complete failure to rise to the occasion of opposing Israel's crimes against humanity, its subservience to the Israeli lobby, and its actual complicity in the mass killings carried out by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.

Not only does Harvard refuse to examine its likely investments in companies profiting from the destruction of Gaza (those investments are secret). But it actively silences opposition to that killing by large numbers of its own students through punishments and suspensions. How times have changed since a previous Harvard administration finally listened to the cries of its students for divestment from the white racist apartheid South African regime in the 1980s! The days when Harvard would welcome a Nelson Mandela to its campus to sing the glories of its protesting students who helped to end apartheid are over because of Mandela's outspoken championing of Palestinian rights during his whole political life.

Even though American Jews are among the leaders of the opposition to Israel's crimes against Palestinians, Harvard will now label these vast numbers of Jews as antisemites because of the loud opposition they are organizing against Israel's indiscriminate attack on Palestinians, against the calls of Israeli leaders to destroy Palestinians through starvation and onslaught, and against Israeli apartheid and denial of basic rights to Palestinians and their parents who once called the land their home.

Is Harvard really concerned about antisemitism? Or just policing its students' language and actions to undermine opposition to the atrocities Israel has been committing in Gaza and now in the West Bank?

The issue here is far beyond free speech. It is about playing a major role in silencing opposition to monstrous murder and destruction. In all its expressed concern about what it labels antisemitism and about the discomfort of some of its students who support the Israel's war, there is no mention at all about the reason that so many of its students condemn Israel's actions in Gaza—where it will take years just to remove the bodies of thousands of Palestinians buried under the rubble of their homes, schools, and hospitals. It is as if Israel's policies in Gaza are irrelevant to the upheaval that the Harvard administration seeks to crush. Harvard students were risking their futures not primarily for their rights to free speech but to maintain a semblance of integrity and as an expression of their grief while their own country provided Israel with full-throated support for its attack on Palestinian children.

Antisemitism is a centuries-long curse that must be opposed and challenged whenever it rears its ugly head. The Holocaust is a crime that stands out against all others in the modern age and whose lessons must never be forgotten. One of those lessons is "never again." And that is the lesson that the vast majority of young Jews who condemn Israel for its deliberate destruction of Palestinian society are acting on—as their forebears condemned white South Africa for its brutal apartheid system. The vast movement against Israel's racism and killing is not calling for Israelis to be murdered or driven into the sea. The call is for an end to the war on Palestinians and for equal rights for both peoples whether in the same country or in separate independent states. To pervert the fight against antisemitism into a weapon to be used to subdue opposition to what we have seen each day in Gaza is morally reprehensible. A principled leadership of Harvard and of all the other great universities of this country should be giving leadership and effective direction to the movement against this war on a people—not figuring out how to destroy it.

Why is the assertion by large numbers of American Jews that "the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" labeled antisemitic? It may be true or it may not be true. But why is it antisemitic? Why can a student at Harvard say that the United States is a racist endeavor without being charged with racism? They can certainly be challenged, but what does racism have to do with such a claim? Why would drawing a comparison between the brutal October 7 Gaza uprising and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis be considered antisemitism? It may be right, wrong, or partially wrong. Let the facts speak. But why is it antisemitic? "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" is wrong. But why is it just fine for Israelis to deny Palestinians that same right without being called on the carpet for doing so? The chant "from the river to the sea" may be mistakenly experienced by many Israelis as calling for the violent destruction of Israel. Clearly the violent destruction of any people cannot be tolerated. But why was it just fine when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party enshrined the same slogan in its documents in the not too distant past? And why is the call by millions of Israelis today for the expansion of the state of Israel into wider areas of the Middle East—even beyond the river to the sea—just fine with our country's leaders?

When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its legal ruling that "Israel's occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid," is that antisemitism? Or just a statement of fact? When the ICJ preliminarily ruled that South Africa (now joined by Ireland) had made a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, was that because Ireland and South Africa are antisemitic? When the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes, were they motivated by antisemitism or by the facts of the matter?

We applaud Harvard's commitment to oppose antisemitism whether directed against Israeli Jews, Zionist Jews, or anti-Zionist Jews. Would that Harvard was just as concerned about the pervasive doxing and harassment of its students for their support of Palestinian life by pro-Israel zealots—in some cases with dire consequences for those students' careers.

So the question is: Is Harvard really concerned about antisemitism? Or just policing its students' language and actions to undermine opposition to the atrocities Israel has been committing in Gaza and now in the West Bank?

Harvard University should be faithful to its better angels. To oppose antisemitism and Islamophobia, of course. But to jettison its imposition of the IHRA definition of antisemitism on its faculty and students. To insist that the rights of all its students be respected. But also to stand, as it has at times in the past, on the side of justice. There is a monstrous crime that poses a threat to the very existence of a people that must be ended. There are hostages on both sides that must be released. Let's hope that this first phase of the cease-fire in Gaza can be turned into the beginning of a necessary process that brings immediate peace, food, and medical care to the people of Gaza; ends land seizures and attacks in the West Bank; begins the reconstruction of Gaza; allows self-determination for Palestinians as well as Israelis; and even moves toward the reconciliation of two peoples who wish the same things for their children and who, some day, can do great things together.