Among the flurry of actions by the Trump administration, it could be easy to miss one that poses a grave danger to public health and our planet: a no-holds-barred attack on science.

In a series of disturbing moves, the administration has censored scientific research, slashed resources for public health and the environment, and advanced fossil fuel industry propaganda. These moves only serve corporate interests—at the expense of ordinary people and the planet.

Already, the administration has scrubbed government websites providing information on climate change and environmental justice. And it’s attempted to slash funding for research on climate and medical science (though a federal judge has temporarily blocked the defunding of medical research).

An administration claiming to crack down on “fraud, waste, and abuse” in government is doing the opposite.

Meanwhile, in a pair of astonishingly irresponsible moves, the administration has fired a large number of staff of the Epidemic Intelligence Service, which identifies and tracks emerging epidemics, and pulled the U.S. out of the World Health Organization— even as we face the serious risk of a worldwide bird flu pandemic.

On the climate front, President Donald Trump has launched an ideological attack against the very idea of environmental justice. That’s the idea that marginalized communities—including people of color and poor people of all races—suffer the worst from pollution. There’s a large body of peer-reviewed scientific literature confirming this pattern, but Trump and his ideologues don’t care.

Elsewhere, Trump’s Energy Secretary—former fossil fuel executive Chris Wright—has made the outlandish claim that electricity in the U.S. is more expensive today, and the electric grid is less reliable, because of closure of coal-fired power plants.

Every part of this industry propaganda is verifiably false. The U.S. electricity grid is highly reliable. While electricity rates are rising, the increase over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2023 was only about 1% in inflation-adjusted terms.

If anything, coal plant retirements were a factor in keeping rates lower, since the plants being retired are older plants with higher operating costs. And this year, solar energy is expected to be a major contributor to keeping rates almost unchanged.

Significantly, every one of these facts comes from the Energy Department’s own research and data. That’s why we shouldn’t let them scrub it.

The administration’s erasure of data has profound human consequences.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the foremost international climate science institution, “Human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people,” including “reduced food and water security.”

These statements are in the present tense. Severe climate change impacts are already occurring, and will get much worse if we don’t slash our greenhouse gas emissions rapidly. Disasters like this year’s Los Angeles wildfires and last year’s floods in Appalachia and the Southeast will become more frequent and damaging.

By censoring and defunding climate science, Trump and his cronies are trying to erase the link between these impacts and fossil fuel pollution. Trump has been effectively bribed by fossil fuel oligarchs—and he’s returning the favor by making it official U.S. government policy to remove all restraints on the growth of their industry.

Under Biden, fossil fuel companies reported record profits as drilling reached record highs in the United States. Yet consumers still battled high gas prices and other costs. Under Trump, doing favors for this polluting industry is no likelier to benefit regular people.

An administration claiming to crack down on “fraud, waste, and abuse” in government is doing the opposite. It’s engaging in corruption on a massive scale to benefit wealthy, politically connected oligarchs—at the expense of the rest of us.

With an annual budget rapidly approaching $1 trillion, the Pentagon already gets more discretionary tax dollars than any other agency.

Now congressional Republicans are proposing to hike that figure by anywhere from $100 billion to $150 billion—while slashing funding for programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs that help keep Americans on their feet.

Lawmakers have it backwards: We need to invest more in those programs and less in the Pentagon, which simply can’t account for how it’s spending our money.

We have to curb our endless spending on the military—and put that money back into our real needs, like creating jobs, educating students, protecting our planet, and much more.

Late last year, the Pentagon failed its mandatory audit—yet again.

This isn’t the first time this has happened, either—in fact, the Pentagon has failed every audit it’s ever undergone. According to the Project on Government Oversight, the Defense Department is the only department to have achieved consistent failure over nearly 35 years of government audits. Quite the achievement.

While the Pentagon may not know where its money goes, we do know that about half of its budget each year goes to private, for-profit military contractors. The Pentagon’s deep over-reliance on these corporations not only wastes billions of taxpayer dollars, but also feeds conflicts and contributes to weapons proliferation. Ultimately, this creates a fundamentally less secure world.

Much of the Pentagon’s operations and personnel have been outsourced to “private military contractors,” or PMCs. The use of PMCs exploded during the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars—by 2019, there were 1.5 times as many contractors on the ground in the Middle East as U.S. troops.

These corporations have turned our tax dollars into their private slush fund with rampant waste, fraud, and abuse.

Take for instance the time in 2020 when the Pentagon paid over $52,000 for a trashcan. Or when a Pentagon contractor made a 9,400% profit margin off of a half-inch metal pin. Last year, reports emerged that Pentagon contractor Boeing made almost $1 million in profit just from overcharging for spare parts on C-17 cargo planes, such as soap dispensers.

There are countless examples of Pentagon contractors defrauding American taxpayers like this, and yet we keep writing them bigger and bigger checks. And the wealthier these companies and their executives get, the easier it is for them to throw their weight around in government.

Look at Elon Musk, President Trump’s chief billionaire backer and the one he charged with rooting out “waste” from the government.

Musk, the wealthiest oligarch on the planet, has many glaring conflicts of interest as he meddles in the U.S. government. Not the least of which: He’s a Pentagon contractor CEO himself, through his company SpaceX.

Contractor fraud isn’t going away—in fact, it will only get worse with the most recent Pentagon budget’s loosened restrictions on how these companies can spend taxpayer dollars. Despite this, there is little political will to crack down on the companies that are bleeding taxpayers dry.

Our politicians can’t just allow the Pentagon to fail audit after audit forever. We have to curb our endless spending on the military—and put that money back into our real needs, like creating jobs, educating students, protecting our planet, and much more.

Targeting companies that make billions ripping off taxpayers is a perfect place to start.

“...I write today from a position rare for a former prosecutor: to beseech you to commute the sentence of a man I helped put behind bars.”

Thus begins one of the most stunning letters I have ever read, written almost four years ago by former U.S. Attorney James H. Reynolds to then-President Joe Biden, pleading with him to exonerate former American Indian Movement (AIM) leader Leonard Peltier, who had been convicted of murdering two FBI agents at South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Reservation in 1975.

In one of his last acts before leaving office, Biden did so: freeing Peltier, now 80 years old and beset with health problems, after nearly half a century in federal prison, allowing him to serve the rest of his sentence—lifetime imprisonment—from the Chippewa reservation in North Dakota that is his home. Peltier was released from prison on February 18.

Hey, big news—kind of. Much of the mainstream coverage has been careful to present it as simply a kind-hearted act by the U.S. Department of Justice, allowing an elderly, convicted murderer to spend his final years under home incarceration. It has downplayed not only the serious flaws in the case against Peltier and the worldwide demands for his release—from Amnesty International, from Pope Francis, from Nelson Mandela, and so many others—it has avoided any mention of the larger context: that white America has long been at war with the continent’s Native population, taking their land and attempting to obliterate their culture, essentially declaring them to be subhuman.

For that reason, the fact that Reynolds’ letter is now poking itself into the present news cycle is utterly mind-boggling.

The Pine Ridge shootings occurred on June 26, 1975, when two FBI agents entered the reservation to arrest a resident for stealing a pair of cowboy boots. According to Peltier-supporters’ account, the agents entered private property without identifying themselves. Many AIM members happened to be present at the time. A shootout took place—the reason uncertain—and the two agents, along with a Pine Ridge resident, were killed. The reservation was soon surrounded by about 150 police and FBI officers. Peltier, a Native rights activist, was among those arrested and eventually became the focal point of the government’s case.

Reynolds’ letter to Biden continues: “Leonard Peltier’s conviction and continued incarceration is a testament to a time and a system of justice that no longer has a place in our society. I have been fortunate enough to see this country and its prevailing attitudes about Native Americans, progress dramatically over the last 46 years.”

He then goes into detail about the case itself, explaining: “We were not able to prove that Mr. Peltier personally committed any offense on the Pine Ridge Reservation. As a result, we shifted our stance on the theories of guilt throughout the prosecution and appeal.”

Ultimately, the entirety of the case against Peltier, he writes, was that he was present at the reservation and was in possession of a weapon. There was no evidence that he shot the agents—or evidence against anyone else at the reservation. Indeed, The Guardian, writing about the case, notes that a witness who testified that she saw Peltier shoot the agents “later said she had been coerced into testifying and recanted her testimony.”

All of which sets the context for the largest point Reynolds makes to Biden, transcending the case itself and looking directly at the country’s evolving social consciousness:

“I believe,” he writes, “that a grant of executive clemency would serve the best interests of justice and the best interests of our country. In my opinion, to continue to imprison Mr. Peltier any longer, knowing what we know now, would serve to continue the broken relationship between Native Americans and the government.”

“I urge you to chart a different path in the history of the government’s relationship with its Native people through a show of mercy rather than continued indifference. I urge you to take a step toward healing a wound that I had a part in making. I urge you to commute Leonard Peltier’s sentence and grant him executive clemency.”

All I can do is let these words sit there for a moment. My God, this is a larger look at the nature of justice than I would expect from at actual member of the Department of Justice. Mr. President, let us take action now to begin healing our broken relationship with Native Americans. Let us look at ourselves!

It took Biden several years to take action on Peltier’s incarceration, and it’s not as though Biden’s commutation was also an exoneration—a declaration of his innocence... nor was it an apology for the nation’s, or for Europe’s, five centuries of land theft and cultural dehumanization of Indigenous people of the Americas.

But let me dig for a moment into the words of Peltier himself, who has written an account of how, as a nine-year-old boy, he (along with his sister and a cousin) were taken from their homes and sent off to... uh, boarding school, perhaps more accurately called dehumanization school, the point of which was to take away their language, their culture, their humanity. Upon arrival, the children were stripped naked, forced into hot showers, then “they put DDT all over us. The poison even got in our eyes and mouths.”

The children were told it was to kill lice and other insects—but in reality it was no doubt to eliminate the “Indian” in them. “They made it clear we were hated,” he wrote. “With every look, with every cruel word, they continued a war our ancestors had fought since their ancestors landed here back in 1492.” Some of the kids wound up committing suicide; they were buried in unmarked graves on the school grounds.

Peltier also noted: “We spoke our language. We sang our songs. And we prayed in our languages, all in secret.”

Proof of his guilt—he broke the rules!

He concluded his boarding school memories by writing: “You don’t treat people badly like that. I rise only when I help you rise. Despite all those beatings, I still believe it. It’s a law, like physics, and it’s true. You get nowhere being mean and disrespecting the feelings of others, especially the most vulnerable. I have seen both kinds of people and more than my share of evil ones, and I know I’m right. I rise only when I help you rise.”

This isn’t what the boarding school taught, but apparently this is what he learned. And now, his intention is to teach it to the world.

“What the Democrats are not saying is how they propose to fix what was wrong with the system Trump is destroying. I won’t repeat the numbers here. But the richest country on Earth is also one of the most unequal, unhealthy, and unhappy countries on Earth—probably half the nation is again ‘ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed,’ to quote FDR. Is it any wonder many people are fed up? Is it any wonder they grasp at straws? The most radical proposal I have heard from the establishment Democrats is to shut the government down. In other words, the best they can come up with is what the Republicans have been demanding for years. Shoot me now!” —Professor Mike Merrill, Rutgers University, February 2025

Democrats and the Left are terrified of the threat to democracy posed by the Trump administration and by his assault on needed government programs. But so far, the public doesn’t seem to care all that much.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s approval rating is at 49%, three points higher than his disapproval rating, (according to fivethirtyeight.com). Former President Joe Biden’s end of term approval rating was only 37%.

Build a worker political movement outside the Democratic Party—a movement, an association, an organization by and for working people.

Flailing away at every perceived Trump transgression isn’t working any better now than it did during the Harris campaign. The Center for Working Class Politics demonstrated that focusing on Trump and the threat to democracy was the least effective message for Pennsylvania voters, while a bold populist message was the strongest. Which supports Merrill’s point—voters, especially working-class voters, want proposals “to fix what was wrong with the system Trump is destroying.”

But aren’t working people the problem? Aren’t they getting what they really want? A dictator to own the libs? An enforcer to put America first? An attacker of DEI, transgender people, and criminal immigrants who bedevil the country? Don’t they really crave a sexist, racist leader willing to play footsie with authoritarians the world over? Isn’t this just another populist uprising, like others which have historically been threats to democracy and liberty?

That’s not what we’ve found in the hundreds of day-long Reversing Runaway Inequality workshops we’ve conducted for working-class union members. (See curriculum here.) We ask, during these sessions, rather than tell, and we listen to what the participants say.

After spending much of the workshop day reviewing materials on the economy and having small group discussions about the causes of rising inequality, the participants are asked:

“What would the world look like if we were able to reverse runaway inequality? How is your vision different from the world we live in today?”

The trainers then give each small group a piece of easel paper and some markers and ask them to create a map or drawing of what a community would look like in a world without runaway inequality. After they finish the drawings each group in turn goes to the front of the room and describes their vision.

In workshop after workshop, workers all along the blue-red political spectrum come up with joyful expressions of the world they want. When shared with the class, applause always breaks out, eyes water, there’s hope bursting out all over the room. (Full disclosure: At first, I thought this exercise would be hokey. But my colleagues, thankfully, ignored me. I was wrong.)

While every picture is different, the common elements are predictable. The groups want job security, better pay, vacation time, responsive institutions, reliable and affordable healthcare, and a safe environment. The drawings represent a party platform of ideas supported by the working class across party lines.

Here’s my version of what a working-class agenda would include:

• Increasing the minimum wage to a livable wage, providing paid family leave, and giving four weeks paid vacation for all workers.
• Protecting jobs by prohibiting large corporations that receive taxpayer money and tax breaks from laying off taxpayers involuntarily or without adequate compensation.
• Guaranteeing the right to a job at a living wage, which if the private sector doesn’t provide the public sector must.
• Stopping drug company price-gouging and ending health insurance company rip-offs by replacing them with Medicare for All.

Why isn’t the Democratic Party vigorously supporting these kinds of policies? They certainly fall within the Roosevelt and Truman agendas and are akin to the Freedom Budget developed by A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin in 1966. Full employment legislation was once a cause celeb for the Democrats. Not any longer. Why is that?

Today, far too many Democrats are no longer interested in radically changing the institutions that are reproducing rising inequality and job insecurity. They support a system that has served them well. Change would require more than messaging and branding. It would require going after Wall Street and large corporations through much tougher regulations, higher taxes on the wealthy, price controls on price gougers, ending stock buybacks, and more.

Many Democrats also believe that the pendulum will swing their way without major changes. The inevitable rise of the knowledge economy, pushed forward by AI, means that more and more educated workers will replace those without degrees, they think. As those more educated voters flock to the Democrats, the party will gain an electoral advantage. So best to stay the course and not panic!

That’s not exactly an inspirational call to working people. As educated voters turn to the Dems, workers and business owners without degrees have turned to the Republicans. At some point progressive Democrats and the Left need to face up to reality. Trump winning twice is not an accident. It’s the result of the abject failure of a left political strategy that ignores financial reform and attempts to nudge the Democratic Party forward based more on identity than class.

What should we do?

We should do what working-class activists have done for the last 150 years. Build a worker political movement outside the Democratic Party—a movement, an association, an organization by and for working people.

That’s a tall order and will require a great deal of debate, discussion, and planning. It will require dozens of pilot programs to find a model that can scale up. It will require most of all a belief and commitment to the idea that something new needs to be built. Working people are desperate for a political voice independent from the two major parties.

The alternative is more of the same: resist, resist, resist, while, in effect, defending the elite establishment that so many voters detest.

If that’s all we do, don’t be surprised if Trump’s wrecking ball makes him even more popular.

If we do have the courage to face up to our strategic failures, we may become as hopeful as the workers who share their depictions of a fair and just society.

U.S. President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their ilk are returning the U.S. to the Gilded Age of robber barons, replete with railroad monopolies and no union protections. They are bringing us back to a time before the Progressive movement had instituted the first real wave of social reforms, which were later widely expanded by New Deal programs. These initial reforms offered workers’ compensation, free school meals for poor children, regulated working hours, and put antitrust laws on the books. They protected the everyday person, white- and blue-collar alike, and were a setback for the ultra-rich. For generations afterward, the ultra-rich have been pushing to overthrow the Progressive Era’s and the New Deal’s utilitarian reforms.

It started with deregulation in the 1970s and was then magnified during Ronald Reagan’s neoliberal presidency. The talking points behind deregulation duped people through bastardizing the concept of “freedom.” The U.S. is a free country, the argument goes, so there shouldn’t be regulation. Yet deregulation, in this sense, is focused on giving businesses and corporations free rein, screwing the rest.

Inevitably, the neoliberals’ free trade policies, the gutting of unions, the reducing of social programs, and the lowering of taxes for the very wealthy led to wide-scale disillusionment. It birthed the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements.

That brings us to today, where there is one option: resistance everywhere.

The Tea Partiers, mostly unwittingly, pushed for the policies of the late 19th-century robber barons, free of any regulation on business and extremely low (if any) taxes, as if these policies would help the average person. The Occupy movement failed in that, while offering an accurate critique of vast wealth inequality, it did not propose any concrete goals. There was the fear that its message would be branded, hijacked, or warped by the mainstream media. Fair point, I suppose. But a protest movement without policy objectives is like a tree falling in an empty forest. Luckily, the forest was not empty.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had been voicing the same message for decades. He rose to national prominence shortly after the movement’s demise, and his popularity was, in part, due to the Occupy movement raising the issue of wealth inequality to public consciousness. Unlike Occupy, Bernie had specific utilitarian policy goals.

On the other side, Trump voiced the radical Tea Partiers’ message of the robber barons, with more overt xenophobia and racism.

In 2016, both establishment parties tried to crush their mass movement candidates. The Democratic Party succeeded and had Hillary Clinton run as its presidential candidate. On the other hand, the GOP failed to stop Trump and held their nose, presuming Hillary Clinton would trounce him in the general.

When Trump won, most were surprised. Trump himself was unprepared, and the majority of institutions were unprepared to back him. His policy efforts, such as the Muslim ban and immigrant parent-child separation, were short-lived due to popular and legal pushback and sloppy execution.

During his first term, Trump’s core supporters remained steadfast behind him, but most mainstream institutions did not overtly support or cave to him.

For an unprepared presidency, dawdling along much like a toddler with a flippant mouth, the Covid-19 pandemic was icing on the cake for executive leadership failure. Because of Trump’s anti-vax rhetoric, inept health policies, and spewing of misinformation, the deaths of nearly half-a-million Americans can be attributed to him.

Unsurprisingly, Trump was booted out of office in 2020 and Joe Biden stepped in. Once again, the Democrat establishment coalesced against Bernie’s candidacy.

During Biden’s first three years in office, he was a good president, passing the most important climate change legislation in U.S. history, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the bipartisan infrastructure bill. He supported unionization efforts and tried to eliminate student loan debts. He restored a sense of decency and aid for UNWRA.

As the 2024 election came closer, the Gaza genocide commenced, which Biden wholeheartedly backed. In Biden’s last year in office, when Trump became the clear GOP presidential candidate, he tried to outflank the GOP on the right on immigration, restricting asylum seeker border crossings and attempting to push an anti-immigrant bill that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) crafted. (Of course, Trump killed it to prevent Biden from getting “credit.”)

Throughout the Biden years, inflation increased dramatically, similarly to most of the world. Yet Biden could never adequately explain this phenomenon to the American people and was horrible at communicating his domestic accomplishments.

He and his staff ignored his mental decline, leaving former Vice President Kamala Harris little time to campaign. Simultaneous to Biden’s growing unpopularity, far-right institutions began crafting Project 2025 (now being instituted) for a new Trump administration. When the Dems lost this time, the far-right was prepared with institutional backing. For the most part, the establishment (media, corporations, etc.) caved to Trump and his anti-constitutional, authoritarian executive actions.

That brings us to today, where there is one option: resistance everywhere.

Resist on the streets, in Congress (wake up Jeffries and Schumer!), and the courts, to save a very flawed republic before it’s too late. Before fascistic robber barons steal it away, leaving the American people whistling in the desert wind watching a whiny rich snowflake asshole pretend that the United States is a reality TV gameshow.

"The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters."—Antonio Gramsci

Over the weekend, an avalanche of emails buried the careers of countless workers in the federal government. The wave of mass layoffs, dubbed the Valentine's Day Massacre, is the latest and perhaps most far-reaching attack on the civil service since U.S. President Donald Trump's inauguration, targeting probationary employees across the federal government whose ranks include some 200,000 workers. While families across the nation were reeling from the crippling blow to their very livelihoods, a small man—a monster, really—gleefully celebrated the mayhem. Signaling his cruel pleasure at the suffering he inflicted, he reposted himself as a gladiator destroying the "woke mind virus."

The United States' descent into full-blown kleptocracy, as the new Trump regime unleashes the fangs of fascistic oligarchs into seemingly every inch of government and society, has been a surreal and horrifying spectacle. Each day brings a barrage of devastating executive orders and headlines. Elon Musk, the billionaire sociopath who commands a vast cult of petty techno tyrants with dangerously fragile egos, has gained unprecedented access to the inner workings and data of agencies across the federal government. His team of unelected bureaucrats has swarmed offices like a flock of rapacious vultures picking at the carcass of government, devouring all vestiges of racial and gender equality, all acknowledgment of the very existence of transgender people—all in the name of ending the scourge of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Predictably, after masquerading as a champion of working-class Americans alienated by the Democratic Party, the new Trump regime has put the rights and regulations that protect working people in its cross hairs.

Throughout human history, tyrants have believed they could use their wealth and power to kill ideas. In its war on the "woke mind virus," the new regime's delusional hubris is no different than that of so many despots before it. Likewise, Trump's politics of distraction is nothing new. Since the time of chattel slavery in America, and perhaps before, the ruling classes have exploited cultural distinctions among workers to keep them divided, focusing their grievances against one another instead of their common oppressor: the rich.

Today, the assault on DEI is more than an ugly war against people of color, women, and other marginalized groups. While engineering a reversal of civil rights in the U.S., Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency" is using the cultural grievances of white America as cover to roll back nearly every institutional means designed to protect the working class from the parasitic impulses of Musk and other billionaires.

Under the guise of attacking woke politics, a total siege has hit communities across the nation and the world, with draconian cuts shutting down essential programs and services that working people rely on.

Predictably, after masquerading as a champion of working-class Americans alienated by the Democratic Party, the new Trump regime has put the rights and regulations that protect working people in its cross hairs. The administration quickly gutted the National Labor Relations Board, the single most important government agency charged with enforcing the rights of workers against greedy and abusive bosses. Anti-union zealots are being installed in key posts across the government to execute the billionaire agenda of Trump and Musk. And while Musk's henchmen set out to cut jobs and government waste, the Tesla CEO was set to rake in $400 million from a pending State Department contract for armored Tesla vehicles until public attention forced the department to put the deal on hold. Still, the purchase would have only added a fraction to the roughly $20 billion of taxpayer money from federal contracts awarded to Musk's companies.

Downsizing government with the aim of handing off essential services to profit-driven private enterprise has long been the vision of America's corporate elite. Only now, the corporatists have a perfect moment and a pair of big business moguls to make it happen. Not even so-called "free speech" is spared from the onslaught, as anyone who dares criticize this fleecing and grift of public resources faces the wrath of Musk's cyber sycophants, activated by snide barbs spewed from the megaphone of Musk's personal social media platform.

Alongside Musk's federal rampage, the regime's new war on undocumented immigrants further feeds the flames of cultural tensions meant to divide workers and criminalize anyone deemed unworthy of Trump's definition of America. And if the process of terrorizing immigrant communities with the promise of deporting "millions and millions" of their lot doesn't offer sufficiently swift gratification for his supporters, Trump has usurped the Gulf of Mexico with the stroke of a pen, albeit in name only. Trump's second regime indeed intends to expand its racist cultural crusade far beyond U.S. borders. From its arrogant posturing across the Atlantic to boost far-right xenophobic parties in Europe to its colonial dreams of wholesale ethnic cleansing and conquest of Gaza, neoconservative U.S. imperialism is being slowly reborn under Trump, despite the many so-called right-wing isolationists influencing the new regime.

If it seems we are living in what Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci called "a time of monsters," we must examine the conditions that got us here and what kind of future we should fight for in which those monsters are forever buried. We must understand the old world that spawned the Musk monster virus and have a sense of the new world that struggles to be born free from the contagion.

As much as villains like Musk are the product of America's capitalist decay, Musk's new throne atop the highest government offices is a product of a rotten political system. This system has empowered the richest man in the world to effectively withhold food, healthcare, and other vital resources from the poorest people on the planet.

Each day, the establishment entities that exist to counter the power of Trump and Musk demonstrate their feebleness. The tepid pushback from the courts, the Democratic Party, and most of the media make it clear that the heart of resistance only beats beyond the strictures of these institutions, at the level of militant community organizing, mutual aid, and collective disobedience.

Only there at the grassroots, in defiance of monsters, will the struggle be sustained and the new world be born.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order that purports to place independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, under his direct control. Based on the so-called “unitary executive” theory, which claims that any congressional limits on presidential control of every lever of government power are unconstitutional, this action poses a grave threat to the rule of law and the separation of powers—cornerstones of our constitutional system.

This executive order states that the president is charged with ‘faithfully executing the laws.’ This is true. However, the laws of our nation include the existence of independent regulatory agencies, the power of Congress to appropriate funds and direct how they are spent, and protection for certain government employees and officers from arbitrary dismissal.

Executive orders are not the law—they are statements of policy, and memos from the president about how the Executive Branch conducts its internal affairs. By attempting to use executive orders to override actual laws—the kinds that are passed by Congress, not issued on a whim from the Resolute Desk—the Trump administration is effectively asserting that it stands above the law. Indeed, that it is the law. But the role of the executive branch is not to decide what the law is, or to pick and choose which ones it likes, but to carry out and enforce the law, as written. Donald Trump is a high-ranking government employee—not a king. If there are laws he does not like, he can work with Congress to change them.

Donald Trump is a high-ranking government employee—not a king.

A nebulous and broad understanding of the phrase ‘executive power’ cannot prevail over duly enacted statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by presidents of both parties, over the course of decades. The U.S. Constitution did not change its meaning when President Trump took office. That this ‘unitary executive’ theory has made its way from the fringes of academia to the halls of power, and that it has even been accepted by some credulous judges, does not mean that it is right. Many legal observers have pointed out the shoddy scholarship and selective history that underpins it. We are a nation of laws, and we cannot be ruled by executive fiat.

In the order, the Trump administration purports to seize for itself the power Congress delegated to independent regulatory agencies, and as written, declares the White House’s interpretation of the law as ‘authoritative,’ with no mention of the courts. Of course, the president is not, and never has been, the final arbiter of what is lawful. Lawyers working for the government owe their allegiance to the American people, not to President Donald J. Trump. The many government lawyers who have already resigned rather than follow illegal or unethical directives from Trump's appointed political operatives are an inspiration, despite how frightening a hollowed-out Department of Justice might seem.

As for independent regulatory agencies, in addition to being the law of the land, they are often good policy. While I have sometimes disagreed with decisions taken by the FCC or FTC, under both Republican and Democratic control, I understand the importance of expert agencies that are free from day-to-day political interference. The FCC’s control over broadcast licenses, and its unenviable role of coordinating spectrum use between different industries and other government agencies, among other things, means it should be free to try to come to the best answer – not the one with the loudest political support. This applies to enforcement activities as well. Under the Biden administration, for instance, the FTC frequently investigated politically powerful companies, to the ire of many prominent Democrats and Democratic donors.

While I have sometimes disagreed with decisions taken by the FCC or FTC, under both Republican and Democratic control, I understand the importance of expert agencies that are free from day-to-day political interference.

President Trump, like other presidents have done, is free to express his views as to what the agencies should prioritize, and to nominate like-minded commissioners as vacancies arise. But, as directed by Congress, and reflected in commissioners' protection from being fired due to policy or political differences with the president, such agencies must make the final call on policy decisions.

The notion that independent agencies are ‘unaccountable’ is, on its face, absurd. The president nominates all agency commissioners, including ones of the opposite party, and names the Chair from among them. Agencies regularly answer to Congress, which controls their budget, and enacts the statutes that spell out the limited scope of their authority. Independent agencies cannot issue regulations without following the strict guidelines of the Administrative Procedure Act, and their rules and enforcement actions are regularly challenged in the courts, and occasionally reversed by Congress.

The wisdom of having independent agencies and tenure protections for certain government officials has been confirmed in recent weeks by the disastrous and irresponsible actions of the lawless Trump administration. One president should not be able to nullify statutes passed into law by past presidents and past Congresses with the stroke of a sharpie. Congress must re-assert its central constitutional role. Further, one hopes that federal judges and Supreme Court justices who, in the past, have lent their support to an imperial vision of the presidency, can see where this is going and act to limit the ability of the president to subvert our democracy and constitutional order.

Among the many attacks in U.S. President Donald Trump’s Day One Executive Order on “unleashing” American (fossil) energy, is a directive to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin to reevaluate the agency’s bedrock 2009 scientific determination of the harms caused by heat-trapping emissions and submit recommendations within 30 days (i.e. this week). The “”“Endangerment Finding” establishes that heat-trapping emissions harm people and the environment, and it forms a core legal basis for the agency’s subsequent actions to set standards to limit global warming pollution from vehicles and power plants, as well as methane pollution from oil and gas operations.

The fact remains that any science-based update to the Endangerment Finding would conclusively demonstrate that the actual harms and projected risks from climate change have only grown grimmer since the 2009 endangerment finding was issued.

It’s no surprise that this anti-science, pro-fossil fuel administration wants to go after the Endangerment Finding. Of course, an honest assessment of the latest climate science will show that since 2009 the evidence has become even more compelling and dire. Climate change, driven by rising heat-trapping emissions, is already causing significant harm to people’s health and well-being and to vital ecosystems. Those harms will worsen rapidly as global warming emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, increase.

This blatant attempt to do an end-run around scientific evidence deserves to fail.

What Is the Endangerment Finding?

Back in 2007, the Supreme Court reached a landmark judgment in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. establishing that heat-trapping emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions) are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The court further mandated that, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must set protective standards for global warming pollutants if the agency found them to be harmful to human health and welfare.

The 2007 case was brought by petitioners (which included several state attorney generals and NGOs, including the Union of Concerned Scientists) in the context of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles.

The EPA subsequently undertook an extensive process, including hearings and a public comment period, and concluded that a vast body of scientific evidence showed that heat-trapping pollutants do indeed harm public health and welfare and that motor vehicles contribute to that pollution.

In 2009, the agency issued the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases, summarized below:

• Endangerment Finding: The administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
• Cause or Contribute Finding: The administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.

The findings have subsequently been extended to other major sources of heat-trapping emissions, including power plants and oil and gas operations, and have been upheld in court.

For more on the legal and political twists and turns in the history of the Endangerment Finding, please check out this blogpost: “Endangered Science: Why Global Warming Emissions Are Covered by the Clean Air Act.”

What Is Zeldin Being Directed to Do?

President Trump’s Day One executive order directs the EPA administrator to work with other relevant agencies to submit recommendations, within 30 days, to the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the “legality and continuing applicability” of the agency’s Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act.

Opponents of climate action have long understood the power of the Endangerment Finding and tried unsuccessfully to dismantle it during the first Trump administration. Project 2025 also includes a call to “Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding.”

With a new more dangerous Trump administration, thoroughly corrupted by fossil fuel interests—and with the architect of Project 2025, Russell Vought, now confirmed as OMB Director—this time the risk to the Endangerment Finding is definitely greater. Gutting the Endangerment Finding would completely undermine EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and put a stop to all of EPA’s regulations to limit global warming pollution, a gift to the fossil fuel industry.

But getting rid of the Endangerment Finding is not going to be easy and is by no means a foregone conclusion, as even Lee Zeldin knows. It would require such a brazen effort to lie about climate science evidence that it’s hard to imagine courts going along with that even if the EPA were to take that unwise route.

The Latest Climate Science Is Clear and Alarming

There’s no question that this is a bad faith effort to try to find ways to undercut EPA’s responsibility and authority to regulate heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act. The fact remains that any science-based update to the Endangerment Finding would conclusively demonstrate that the actual harms and projected risks from climate change have only grown grimmer since the 2009 endangerment finding was issued.

As heat-trapping emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, continue to rise, global average temperatures too continue their relentless climb with 2024 once again the hottest year on record. Extreme climate-related disasters—including heatwaves, storms, droughts, wildfires, and flooding—are worsening, taking a fearsome toll on people, the economy, and ecosystems. Accelerating sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and loss of major ice sheets also continue apace, with profound consequences for the planet.

If Lee Zeldin is looking for a recent authoritative assessment of the science, he should turn to the 2023 Fifth U.S. National Climate Assessment, produced under the direction of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that the USGCRP—which collaborates across 15 federal agencies—deliver a report to Congress and the president at least every four years.

Here’s the headline from the NCA5:

The effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States. Rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions can limit future warming and associated increases in many risks. Across the country, efforts to adapt to climate change and reduce emissions have expanded since 2018, and U.S. emissions have fallen since peaking in 2007. However, without deeper cuts in global net greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated adaptation efforts, severe climate risks to the United States will continue to grow.

Another valuable source is the IPCC sixth assessment report, which reflects the work of thousands of scientists around the world—including many from the United States—in assessing the latest climate science, impacts, and opportunities to cut heat-trapping emissions and adapt to climate change.

The National Academy of Sciences would also be a good source of information. Here, for example, is a handy booklet on the evidence for and causes of climate change.

NOAA and NASA, premier federal science agencies, also closely monitor and track global climate change and its impacts. (And hopefully will continue to do so—although recent attacks on NOAA, foreshadowed in the Project 2025 manifesto, do not bode well.)

An Anti-Science, Pro-Fossil Fuel Administration

Barely a month into the term of this second Trump administration, it’s clear that the president and his cabinet are hell-bent on doing everything they can to boost fossil fuels and shred climate and clean energy policies, catering to deep-pocketed fossil fuel interests.

They clearly intend to use every means at their disposal (lawful or not) to roll back regulations to help address global warming pollution. Those actions will be rightfully challenged in court, and it takes time to undo regulations in a legal way. However, any delay in implementing strong standards is harmful when the climate crisis is so acute. If the Trump administration succeeds in weakening or stopping EPA’s efforts to cut heat-trapping emissions, that will just leave people bearing the costs while fossil fuel polluters rake in profits.

Revisiting the endangerment and cause or contribute findings is just one more backdoor way to try to advance that harmful agenda. This directive shouldn’t fool anyone. It’s not a genuine effort to engage with scientific facts and listen to climate scientists. After all, the president has called climate change a hoax and many of his cabinet are climate science deniers.

The question for Lee Zeldin is whether he will just pander to that destructive agenda, or will he actually defend the mission of the agency he leads, which is to protect public health and the environment. He has already overseen a series of harmful actions at the EPA—including firing staff, cutting budgets, gutting its environmental justice work, and illegally freezing already-allocated funds for clean energy. So, I doubt we can count on a courageous defense of the endangerment finding from him.

Regardless of how Zeldin responds to President Trump’s directive, this administration cannot hide the reality of climate change. Undoing the Endangerment Finding is such an extremist anti-science endeavor, it is hard to imagine how it could succeed.

Over the past few years, there has been an alarming surge of coups d’état across the world, particularly in Africa. The most common definition of a coup is an illegal attempt to seize control of the government. The seizure of power by coup leaders is often justified by pointing to poor governance and/or deteriorating security situations.

Coups are typically irregular transfers of power that occur in countries with weak democratic institutions and may be carried out by military or civilian elites. Consolidated democracies have long prided themselves of being immune to the conditions that generate coups d'etat, but the Trump phenomenon in U.S. politics seems to suggest that there are no absolutes, and that liberal democracy can be brought down.

The storming of the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, was a coup attempt incited by outgoing president Donald Trump, and can be best described as an “attempted auto-coup.” Yet, shockingly enough, not only wasn’t Trump held accountable in the end for being criminally engaged in a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 election but was allowed to run again for the presidency in 2024. And what is even more shocking is that he prevailed in his third presidential bid by winning both the electoral college and the popular vote.

Trump and his Nazi buddy Elon Musk are trying to destroy civil society by dismantling the State.

Both Trump’s attempt to incite a coup in 2021 and his subsequent victory in the 2024 presidential election speak volumes of the democratic decline in the United States. Citizens’ support not just for a democracy-eroding leader but for one who repeatedly promised during his campaign to be a dictator, even if only for one day, is ample evidence to make the case that the end of democracy in the U.S. (or whatever is left of it as the country was never designed to be democratic) is upon us.

Indeed, an actual neo-fascist coup is now underway. Trump and his Nazi buddy Elon Musk are trying to destroy civil society by dismantling the State. Trump had promised on numerous occasions during his campaign to “demolish the deep state,” and even offered specific details for how he planned to do so. And this is exactly what is happening right now.

During his first month back in office, Trump signed a plethora of executive orders which ranged from a militarized crackdown on immigration and pardoning those who had taken part in the January 6, 2021, coup attempt to shutting down scores of federal agencies and starting mass layoffs across governments. By declaring himself above the law, Trump’s intent is to use executive power not for the purpose of dismantling the “deep state” in order to make federal government more efficient and therefore more responsive to citizen needs, but rather in order to take over government and have it run by loyalists, by people who would faithfully obey the commands of the “Great Leader.”

The aims behind this neofascist coup are threefold: Oligarchic state capture; white Christian nationalism as the hegemonic project; and the rise of a new U.S. empire.

Oligarchic state capture is a key goal of the Trump-Musk strategy behind the demolition of the so-called “deep state.” Dismantling the government bureaucracy is seen by the aspiring dictator and the world’s richest person as an essential course of action if “powerful individuals or corporations” are to have absolute freedom in creating rules and policies that serve their own benefit, at the expense of society. Trump and Musk are both fervent believers in the “natural right” of the rich and powerful to shape society as they please and make government function as they see fit.

Oligarchic state capture is a key goal of the Trump-Musk strategy behind the demolition of the so-called “deep state.”

The assault on regulations and on workers’ rights and vital workers’ institutions by the “two brothers” as prerequisites for economic prosperity forces us to go back to the 1880s when laissez-faire capitalism and social Darwinism ruled the day in order to find comparable situations. Trump has always been anti-labor, but Trump 2.0, influenced as heavily as it is by the anti-labor agenda of Project 2025, that wants to roll back all labor reforms under the Biden administration, outlaw public sector unions and indeedrewrite a hundred years of labor law, could be the most damaging administration the U.S. labor movement has ever faced. Trump’s agenda for the economy revolves around laissez-faire product market regulation and laissez-faire labor market regulations. Thus, the fact that the white working-class, which has been increasingly voting Republican instead of Democrat since 2000, helped Trump to return to power is indeed one of the most disconcerting trends in U.S. society.

Trump’s vision for America’s future is also rooted in white Christian nationalism and, as such, its realization virtually mandates anti-equality and so-called “gender ideology” attacks, along with a host of other “enlightened” undertakings such as book bans and seeking to revoke birthright citizenship. Trump’s white Christian nationalism agenda is born out of the preconceived notion that the rightful owners of this country are losing their political and cultural power. It is thus an exclusionist and nostalgic ideology which transcends social class and thus may explain why a significant segment of white working-class Americans support Trump.

Dark times are ahead—dark times, indeed.

Lastly, Trump envisions a new U.S. empire which includes gaining control of the Panama Canal, the purchase of Greenland, the possibility of turning Canada into the 51st U.S. state, owning Gaza, and even extending America’s manifest destiny into the stars.The acquisition of new wealth, greater security and strategic advantage in power politics are the drivers behind this new U.S. imperialism envisioned by Donald Trump. His imposition of tariffs on imports, which is baffling to economists, is intended to force countries to play according to the rules of the free market, so it is a profound mistake to think that Trump has somehow turned his back on neoliberalism. His deadly anti-regulatory blitz combined with tax-cutting for the rich and corporations and the use of economic rules into politics should be alone sufficient enough to dispel the notion that Trump is somehow waging a war on neoliberalism simply because he is using tariffs as part of his “America First” policy.

This, of course, is not to indicate that the neoliberal world order that the United States created after the end of the Cold War is not in crisis. Economic inequalities, political fragmentation, and social discontent threaten to bring down western liberal democracies and be replaced instead by authoritarian yet staunchly pro-capitalist regimes. The contradictions of neoliberal capitalism have become so extreme that only neofascism may be able to prevent the system’s ultimate collapse. This is precisely why Trump’s billionaire top lieutenant has so enthusiastically embraced far-right parties not only in Europe but across the globe. Neofascism is also needed to defend Christian values from the “radical left” and halt the alleged threat of the Islamization of the western world.

Dark times are ahead—dark times, indeed. And the only question is how to fight back before everything good and decent is lost once again in the return to fascism.

Rural Farmers?

When U.S. President Trump and Elon Musk shut down the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, they hit MAGA farmers’ pocketbooks. American farmers provide more than 40% of the food aid that USAID and the U.S. Department of Agriculture send throughout the impoverished world—$2.1 billion in 2020.

“USAID plays a critical role in reducing hunger around the world while sourcing markets for the surplus foods America’s farmers and ranchers grow,” according to the senior director of government affairs at the American Farm Bureau Federation.

But Elon Musk declared—without evidence—that USAID is a “criminal organization.” He is proud to have spent a weekend “feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” telling thousands of employees that they no longer had jobs. Farmers learned that a critical market for their product had now disappeared.

As the consequences of the Trump administration’s incompetence ripple through the country, even the most dedicated MAGA supporter will actually feel the impact personally.

North Carolina—a Trump stronghold—was one of the top recipients of USAID dollars.

“I will be very blunt. The freeze has been devastating,” according to the executive director of the North Carolina Global Health Alliance. “Already we are seeing mass furloughs and mass layoffs. Hundreds of people have already lost their jobs…” The impact “will reach people in every corner of our state.”

Palestinians?

Michigan is home to a large number of traditionally Democratic Palestinians who sat out the 2024 election, cast ballots for third-party candidate Jill Stein, or voted for Trump. They believed that the Biden administration was too gentle with Israel and too dismissive of their concerns about Gaza’s ongoing destruction. Apparently, they thought that Trump would do better.

It was magical thinking.

A week after Trump was sworn into office, he signed an executive order to “Combat Antisemitism.” Among other provisions, it calls for canceling student visas of foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

And now Trump—who views the world in potential real estate development terms—has called for ethnic cleansing. That war crime is the only path to his desired conversion of Gaza into the “Riviera of the Mideast.” Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu—who is on trial, hoping to avoid prison, and trying to save his political skin—is all for Trump’s plan.

People Who Fly on Airplanes?

After three significant airline crashes in the month since Trump took office, Musk’s response has been to fire hundreds of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees who worked as maintenance mechanics, aeronautical information specialists, environmental protection specialists, aviation safety assistants, and management and program assistants.

Another 1,000 employees, including rocket scientists, are scheduled for termination at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Musk’s company, Space X, gets its mission approvals from the FAA.

Anyone Concerned About Nuclear-Weapons Safety?

The Trump administration scrambled to undo the termination notices that went to more than 300 employees at the agency responsible for managing America’s nuclear weapons.

According to CNN, “Some of the initially fired employees included NNSA staff who work at facilities where nuclear weapons are built, oversee contractors who build nuclear weapons and who are responsible for inspecting those weapons. Many of the employees affected hold a ‘Q’ security clearance within the Energy Department, meaning they have access to nuclear weapons design and systems. It also included employees at NNSA headquarters who write requirements and guidelines for contractors who build nuclear weapons.”

Anyone Concerned About Veterans?

The Trump administration fired more than 1,000 employees at the Veterans Administration.

Anyone Interested in Visiting a National Park?

The Trump administration fired 3,000 U.S. Forest Service employees.

Anyone Interested in Consumer Protection?

The Trump administration began the process of dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—until a federal court stopped that effort. An unknown number of terminations is planned for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which oversees banks. Apparently, no one in Trump’s circle remembers the bank-related financial crash of 2008.

Anyone Seeking a Timely Tax Refund?

The Trump administration has slated 7,500 Internal Revenue Service employees for termination.

Anyone Who Could Become a Victim of Terrorism or a Natural Disaster?

Hundreds of employees are set for termination at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Anyone Interested in Public Health?

The Trump administration fired more than 1,000 workers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as an unknown number at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—including staff members involved in reviewing Musk’s brain implant company, Neuralink. Another 1,300 CDC employees got the ax—including a group responsible for training public health laboratory staffers and supporting outbreak response efforts.

And all of that is just the tip of an ugly and growing iceberg that already includes thousands of employees: FBI agents, prosecutors, investigators, and other Justice Department personnel; 19 inspectors general—watchdogs who assured agency accountability; the Department of Education; the General Services Administration; and anyone connected to diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI).

Just wait until Trump’s clown car of cabinet members begins asserting itself:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spent his adult life opposing vaccines, is now in charge of vaccines;

Tulsi Gabbard, who has consistently spouted Vladimir Putin’s talking points, is in charge of national intelligence;

Pete Hegseth, who is now the ultimate poster child for on-the-job training, is trying to run the 2.2 million-member Defense Department.

And orchestrating the decimation of the federal workforce is Elon Musk, whose conflicts of interest are staggering.

Who Voted for This?

As the consequences of the Trump administration’s incompetence ripple through the country, even the most dedicated MAGA supporter will actually feel the impact personally. And then the answer will finally become clear:

No one voted for this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Green Energy Paradox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eco-Colonialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“This is Not a Joke”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘It’s a coup’

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

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

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

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

The U.S. blueprint for Hitler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He wants us all to see it.

To hear it.

To know that he means it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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