It’s been an eventful year since Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos tapped Adam O’Neal for the prestigious job of Post Opinions editor. O’Neal was an unusual hire, a 33-year-old with little by way of managerial experience. But O’Neal had a redeeming quality: He was ready to shill for Bezos, and the man Bezos has been desperately wooing, President Donald Trump.

It’s remarkable how far Bezos has come since 2013, when he said he purchased the Post from the Graham family out of a sense of civic duty.

Bezos was still singing a similar tune nearly midway through Trump’s first term, telling Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner (4/28/18), “I would be humiliated to interfere” with the Post’s coverage. “I would be so embarrassed. I would turn bright red… It would feel icky; it would feel gross.”

But days before the 2024 election, with Trump looking like he might return to the White House, Bezos apparently got over his queasiness and personally spiked the Post’s endorsement of Kamala Harris (FAIR.org, 10/30/24). “Trump was thrilled, advisers said, and later thanked Bezos,” The Wall Street Journal (7/2/26) reported.

It’s a jarring listen; like the keys to a once-storied newspaper have been turned over to the manosphere.

Bezos followed up by declaring that Post Opinions would now promote “personal liberties and free markets,” while “viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.” Coming a month into Trump’s second term, this came across as another gift to the president (FAIR.org, 2/28/25).

‘Unapologetically Patriotic’

To lead the newly oriented Opinions page, Bezos tapped O’Neal, who had been a correspondent for The Economist, editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal, and executive editor at the conservative Dispatch for just one year.

In that last role—apparently O’Neal’s only newsroom managerial experience—he quickly alienated the Dispatch staff. “He was a competent editor who had no idea how to talk to another human being,” a former associate of O’Neal’s told Status (7/18/25):

He was tough on reporters, sure, but that’s common in newsrooms. He just couldn’t express even the most minor thing without being abrasive, hostile, or raising his voice.

After being named to his post in June 2025, O’Neal declared that Post Opinions would be “unapologetically patriotic” and “communicate with optimism about this country.” This echoed Bezos, who declared a month into Trump’s second term, “I am of America and for America, and proud to be so.” Bezos was, of course, echoing Trump’s “America first” rhetoric.

O’Neal has demonstrated his patriotism by overseeing an editorial page that has backed Trump in destroying the East Wing of the White House (10/25/25), kidnapping the Venezuelan president (“one of the boldest moves a president has made in years”—1/3/26), militarily taking over DC (8/11/25; FAIR.org, 8/14/25), and unprecedented gerrymandering (8/20/25). (When Democrats responded in kind, the Post decried the “power grab”—4/21/26).

The Post’s pro-Trump boosterism under O’Neal has been so over the top, wrote Chris Lehmann (The Nation, 2/4/26), it’d “be a stretch for Pravda to pull off.”

“I try to avoid reading what the opinions section publishes,” a current Post staffer told Status (5/10/26). “I can’t tell if some of these arguments are being made in good faith or not. Sometimes it just seems like rage bait.”

‘Being Reconciled Is Not Enough’

While O’Neal’s predecessor, David Shipley, did everything Bezos could have asked for—spiking the Post’s Harris endorsement and a cartoon depicting Bezos and other tech moguls as Trump supplicants (FAIR.org, 1/7/25)—he did it without zeal, which Bezos found intolerable. “I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t ‘hell yes,’ then it had to be ‘no,’” Bezos wrote, in explaining Shipley’s February 2025 resignation.

Shipley had voiced concern over the direction Bezos was taking the Post, warning the billionaire that spiking the Harris endorsement days before the election and yanking Opinions rightward could turn off subscribers. “I don’t care,” Bezos replied (New York Times, 3/14/26). (Shipley proved correct; Bezos’ interventions led to over 375,000 Post readers canceling their subscriptions—NPR, 1/30/26.)

Replacing Shipley, O’Neal wasted little time in transforming Opinions’ editorial outlook, and its personnel. In his first email to the Opinions desk, O’Neal encouraged his colleagues to get with the program or quit, mimicking Bezos’ message to Shipley. “Simply being reconciled to these changes is not enough,” O’Neal wrote. “We want those who stick with us to be genuinely enthusiastic about the new direction and focus.”

Seeing the writing on the wall, many of the Post’s centrist and left-of-center columnists took the generous buyouts on offer (which some had been contemplating since before O’Neal was hired). Gone in quick succession were Perry Bacon Jr., Philip Bump, Jonathan Capehart, Joe Davidson, Marc Fisher, Glenn Kessler, Ruth Marcus, Dana Milbank, Catherine Rampell, Eugene Robinson, Eduardo Porter, and others. “It’s just an absolute exodus,” a Post staffer told Politico (7/28/25).

The paper’s last full-time Black Opinions columnist, Karen Attiah, was fired in September 2025 (Golden Hour, 9/15/25; FAIR.org, 9/23/25). (Theodore R. Johnson of New America writes roughly once a week as a contributing columnist, but is not on staff.)

Bezos hollowed the Post out further in February when he laid off nearly half of the newsroom, in what “may have been the biggest one-day wipeout of journalists in a generation” (Washingtonian, 2/9/26).

Publicly, Bezos claimed he was doing this for the long-term viability of the paper. To be relevant, the Post has to be a “profitable enterprise that stands on its own two feet,” Bezos told Andrew Ross Sorkin (CNBC, 5/20/26). Otherwise, “it would be like poetry without rhyming.”

Privately, however, Bezos told Trump that Post employees “are terrible…. They don’t listen. My other companies, they listen,” according to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan’s new book Regime Change.

To make the Post more like his other companies, Bezos needed “hell yes” management, like Adam O’Neal (and former publisher Will Lewis).

O’Neal, in turn, needed fellow travelers, and seems to have hired exclusively MAGA-friendly columnists. According to media critic Adam Johnson (Real News Network, 5/22/26), the Post

purged its opinion page of its actually popular writers and replaced them with charmless Economist and Wall Street Journal also-rans so they can spew libertarian cliches [and] tedious anti-woke screeds.
‘A Whole Bunch of Incredible Miracles’

O’Neal’s fealty to Bezos is most blatant in Opinions’ approach to artificial intelligence.

“All of the things that I work on today have something to do with AI,” Bezos told the Financial Times (6/11/26). “We’re in the middle of multiple golden ages right now, certainly with AI,” he continued, sounding every bit the snake oil salesman. “I think you’re going to see a whole bunch of incredible miracles unfold here in the next decade.”

And Bezos is banking on these miracles to expand his empire on Earth and in space. Despite being worth a quarter-trillion dollars, Bezos is presently scouring the globe to raise $100 billion for a new fund that plans to buy companies in industrial sectors and improve them using AI (Forbes, 3/19/26). Bezos’ latest effort aligns neatly with his new role as co-CEO of Project Prometheus, a low-profile AI company that’s raised $18 billion in funding (Morning Brew, 6/12/26).

Meanwhile, Amazon—the company Bezos founded, where he remains the largest shareholder and executive chair—“recently placed a series of staggeringly expensive bets on artificial intelligence, audacious even by the standards of Silicon Valley’s ongoing trillion-dollar AI bacchanalia,” Bloomberg reported (5/14/26).

With so much on the line, Bezos has little patience for doomsayers who fear AI will cause mass job loss—the very thing Wall Street is salivating over. Sure, AI will be “shrinking the number of people needed by 10x,” Bezos told The Wall Street Journal (6/11/26). But the technology will in fact create “more than 10x” as many jobs, he said. The suggestion seems to be that more than 90% of us will soon be in hitherto unimagined job categories made possible by artificial intelligence. (Bezos’ fellow tech titans recently started following his lead and saying similar things about AI job losses.)

Despite Bezos’ rosy outlook, “the public isn’t so reassured,” the Journal reported (6/13/26) two days later, citing a Pew Research Center survey from March. “Only 17% of Americans say AI will have an overall positive effect on the US over the next 20 years.”

And the data centers needed to power AI fare little better. “Americans have changed their minds about data centers. Decisively,” reported the outlet Heatmap (6/2/26), which conducted a recent poll. “At least 7 in 10 Americans would now oppose a data center being built near their home… a record low.”

Opposition to data centers—and their insatiable demand for power and water—has become “The Most Bipartisan Issue Since Beer,” according to a New York Times headline (5/1/26).

‘Data Centers Don’t Deserve So Much Hate’

With the American people on one side of the AI divide, and Bezos and his fellow tech oligarchs on the other, O’Neal has rushed to his boss’ rescue (FAIR.org, 11/20/25). Here are some recent Opinions headlines (a couple have been subsequently altered):

• “Why the AI Jobs Panic Is Misplaced” (2/17/26)
• “Halting Data Center Construction Will Entrench Inequality” (3/24/26)
• “High Energy Bills? Blame the Trial Lawyers” (4/24/26)
• “Blocking the Construction of Data Centers Is a National Security Risk” (5/28/26)
• “AI Backlash Threatens to Hold Kids Back” (6/21/22)
• “AI Is Sparking a Boom in Blue-Collar Jobs…” (6/22/26)

Beyond the dutiful headlines themselves, the editorials also fail to disclose Bezos’ AI ties—which is not unusual. “What the Post’s data-center cheerleading only intermittently mentions is its owner’s vested interest in the topic,” noted Paul Farhi (Washingtonian, 6/23/26), the Post’s former media reporter. “I was unable to find a single editorial or opinion column opposing [AI data centers’] construction over the past six months.”

One of O’Neal’s top deputies, James Hohmann, took things a step further (while also failing to note Bezos’ ties to AI). Hosting an episode (5/26/26) of Opinions’ new flagship podcast, Make It Make Sense—headlined “Why Data Centers Don’t Deserve So Much Hate”—Hohmann “described climate activists as a ‘cult’ and argued that the media is ‘guilty’ of fueling ‘hysteria’ over climate change,” Status (6/7/26) summarized. It’s a jarring listen; like the keys to a once-storied newspaper have been turned over to the manosphere.

Even as Bezos hollows out the rest of the Post, money is flowing to Make It Make Sense, which has a well-appointed new studio. So far, however, “the investment has produced an astonishingly small audience,” Status reported (5/11/26). “It does feel like this is just for an audience of one,” a former Post staffer told the outlet.

Bernie Sanders, ‘Leading Luddite’

As grassroots fights against AI data centers spring up from coast to coast, opposition in the Senate is led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who introduced a bill to place a two-year moratorium on the construction of new data centers.

Already a bête noire of the Post (FAIR.org, 3/8/16), Sanders’ critique of data centers has led to a renewed thrashing. In a March editorial (3/25/26) headlined “Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on His Dumbest Idea,” the Post placed Sanders at “the lunatic fringe” of society for “throwing sand into the gears of progress.” The editorial also called Sanders “the leading Luddite of the 2020s.”

Two weeks later, the Post (4/8/26) returned to the “L” word, this time in an editorial that didn’t mention Sanders, but did associate opposition to data centers with domestic terrorism:

The mob-like movement against data centers that’s been gaining traction across the country took a dark turn this week. Indianapolis Councilor Ron Gibson (D), who supports a project to build such a facility in his district, woke up early Monday to the sound of 13 gunshots fired at his home. The gunman left a note on the lawmaker’s doorstep: “NO DATA CENTERS.”

No one was injured, but the incident illustrates how opposition to artificial intelligence can metastasize into an irrational frenzy. It wouldn’t be the first time in history that deranged Luddites turn to violence to fight the advancement of frontier technology.

Later that month, the Post’s editorial page was back to attacking Sanders. Under a scowling picture of the senator, a Post editorial (4/30/26) charged that Sanders

is as naive now as he was during the Cold War. Rarely, if ever, has the socialist met an enemy of the United States who he doesn’t think he can partner with to advance his agenda. The same impulse that led Sanders to cozy up to the Soviets, the Sandinistas, and Fidel Castro in the 1980s was on display again Wednesday night at the Capitol as he invited two Chinese academics to urge Americans to slow-roll our pursuit of artificial intelligence.

“Of course that’s what Beijing wants Washington to do,” the Post continued, in a brazen attempt to paint skepticism of AI data centers—a view held by most Americans—as anti-American.

The Post’s inflammatory editorial mentioned neither Bezos or Amazon, per usual.

The Billionaire Project

It’s not just Bezos’ financial interests that are advanced by O’Neal’s Opinions page, but also Bezos’ and his fellow billionaires’ broader ideological project (Real News Network, 5/22/26).

Under O’Neal’s watch, no tax on the wealthy seems to go uncensured. “The Post has weighed in on tax policy everywhere from Switzerland to Seattle, lambasting every attempt to reduce the grotesque inequality of our times,” Nathan Robinson wrote in a detailed review of the Post Opinions page for The Nation (4/21/26):

Almost no tax on the rich around the world escapes the paper’s notice—one might wonder why capital gains taxes in the Netherlands are a priority for a DC paper.

And no social program appears too small to earn O’Neal’s ire, not even diapers. In providing 400 free diapers to new parents, “California’s nanny state is taking infantilization to a new level,” decried a Post editorial (5/12/26).

Other recent Post editorials have “opposed minimum wage increases, tenant protections, social housing, rent control, free buses, caps on credit card interest rates, caps on the prices of staple foods, congestion pricing, and even the Railway Safety Act,” wrote Robinson.

But when government largesse flows to the rich, the Post is more open minded. The Trump administration’s request for another $200 billion for the Iran War, as well as a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget for next year, both received the Post’s blessing (3/21/26, 5/12/26). “Peace doesn’t come cheap,” the Post wrote.

Left unmentioned in the editorials is that Bezos’ empire—via his space company Blue Origin and Amazon’s cloud computing arm, AWS—holds billions of dollars worth of Pentagon contracts.

Under the beating sun on the morning of June 21, Mirtala del Rosario Hernández Agustín joins families of the disappeared and members of organizations including the Association of Family Members of the Detained and Disappeared in Guatemala, or FAMDEGUA, and Sons and Daughters for Identity and Justice against Oblivion and Silence, or HIJOS, in Guatemala City’s Plaza de la Constitución to commemorate the National Day Against Enforced Disappearances.

“We dream of a different Guatemala, and we fight for it. We cannot sit back and cross our arms. We have a person detained and disappeared.” Mirtala’s voice carries across the plaza. Behind her sit more than 400 empty chairs, each bearing the portrait of someone forcibly disappeared during Guatemala’s 36-year internal armed conflict. “I am the sister of Luz Leticia Hernández Agustín,” she continues. “To have peace in my heart, to be able to say we’ve been heard, we need my sister's remains returned.”

More than 44 years have now passed since Guatemalan state forces abducted Luz Leticia on November 22, 1982. It was her 25th birthday. And it was the last time she was seen.

Yet her sisters, Marta and Mirtala, refused to let her vanish completely. Every day since, they have fought to preserve the truth and dignity of Luz Leticia’s life while demanding answers not only for her, but for the tens of thousands who were disappeared, tortured, and killed during Guatemala’s US-backed campaign of state terror and genocide.

No amount of political power can permanently shield perpetrators from the demands for truth and justice made by the people they sought, and ultimately failed, to erase.

Now, their case is finally being heard in court. Three days a week, the Hernández Agustín sisters climb the stairs to the fifth floor of Guatemala City’s Palace of Justice. They sit through hours of testimony and legal argument, filling notebooks with observations and listening for the answers that have eluded their family for decades. Some days sting with the reopening of old wounds. Others dissolve into procedural delays, technical difficulties, and bureaucratic legal wrangling. They often leave frustrated and exhausted.

Still, they return. They do so because this case is about more than one family’s pursuit of justice. At a time when the United States is escalating violence at home and abroad, and governments like Guatemala’s continue to subordinate themselves to the imperatives of that long-standing imperial project, this trial carries particular significance. Most recently, this has included expanded military cooperation with Washington targeting alleged drug cartels in the country, a justification the US has invoked to extrajudicially kill more than 210 people over the past nine months.

The trial has therefore become a testament to all those who refused the silence imposed upon them. It is proof that those marked for erasure can reclaim their place in history. Above all, it is a reminder that no amount of political power can permanently shield perpetrators from the demands for truth and justice made by the people they sought, and ultimately failed, to erase.

The Long Shadow of Empire in Guatemala

The Guatemala into which the Hernández Agustín sisters were born bore the unmistakable imprint of empire. It was a country of staggering inequality, where generations inherited the desiccated remains of a nation picked clean by the vultures of foreign capital. The promise of reform had long since been extinguished. Gone was the Democratic Spring, the brief decade from 1944 to 1954 when popularly elected governments sought to expand democracy and direct the country’s wealth toward its people rather than multinational corporations and the landed oligarchy.

That dream was crushed with the 1954 CIA-backed overthrow of President Jacobo Árbenz. The coup sought not simply to remove a government but to restore the deeply unequal social order whose foundations had been laid under the dictatorship of Jorge Ubico. A pliant strongman who willingly auctioned off his country’s future to the highest bidder, Ubico granted sweeping concessions to US corporations while enriching himself. Under his rule, the Boston-based United Fruit Company became Guatemala’s largest landholder, acquiring more than 40% of its arable land and near-monopolistic control over not only its lucrative banana exports but also critical infrastructure, including the country's railroads and electrical network.

The threat posed by the Democratic Spring was not simply that it had challenged landowners and foreign corporations. It had shown workers, peasants, and Indigenous communities that collective action could transform society.

Ubico’s regime collapsed in 1944 with a popular uprising. Under elected Presidents Juan José Arévalo and then Árbenz, Guatemala embarked on an ambitious reform program. Building on Arévalo’s efforts, Árbenz expanded labor protections, social security, and universal suffrage while pursuing economic modernization that sought to transform Guatemala from what he referred to as “a semi-colonial dependency into an independent nation” and “a predominantly feudal economy into a modern capitalist state.”

It was this challenge to entrenched economic power that placed Árbenz in the crosshairs of both Washington and Wall Street. The flash point was Decree 900, his sweeping agrarian reform. The measure authorized the expropriation of uncultivated large estates, including United Fruit’s vast holdings, for redistribution to hundreds of thousands of peasants. Remuneration would be based on the value the company itself had declared, a figure it had deliberately undervalued to reduce its tax burden. While the reform was rooted in economic nationalism and guaranteed compensation for the land, officials in Washington cast it as evidence of communist subversion.

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and CIA Director Allen Dulles, both closely tied to United Fruit, orchestrated Árbenz’s overthrow. The coup ended Guatemala’s democratic experiment and ushered in decades of military rule, repression, and civil war.

A State Built on Terror

The dictatorship that emerged in the wake of the coup gave rise to a popular insurgency determined to reclaim the democratic aspirations that had been violently swept aside. It also ushered in a new era of repression. For Guatemala’s military rulers, the objective was to preserve their power. For their patrons in Washington, Guatemala became a Cold War proving ground, meant to demonstrate the consequences of challenging US political and economic power.

The threat posed by the Democratic Spring was not simply that it had challenged landowners and foreign corporations. It had shown workers, peasants, and Indigenous communities that collective action could transform society. That lesson had to be unlearned. In its place, they sought to teach another: that any attempt to remake Guatemala would be met with overwhelming violence. Terror became the principal pedagogy of the state.

From 1960 to 1996, Guatemala’s internal armed conflict claimed roughly 200,000 lives and left another 45,000 disappeared.

Repression failed to extinguish resistance. In 1960, dissident military officers launched an uprising against the regime. After it was crushed, many of its survivors retreated to the countryside, where they helped form the Rebel Armed Forces (FAR), the first of several guerrilla organizations. The state responded with a brutal, US-backed counterinsurgency waged through roving death squads, systematic torture, forced disappearances, and indiscriminate targeting of suspected dissidents.

Rather than destroying the insurgency, the violence pushed it deeper into rural Guatemala, where Indigenous Maya communities and peasant organizers assumed an increasingly central role in new guerrilla organizations. By the late 1970s, the military had embraced a genocidal scorched-earth campaign, particularly against the Ixil Maya. Entire communities were treated as inherently subversive. The objective was no longer simply to defeat guerrillas but to destroy the social fabric that sustained Indigenous life.

Villages were razed. Thousands were massacred. Survivors were displaced or forced into tightly controlled “model villages” under a policy known as Palestinianization, where military authorities sought to erase Indigenous languages, traditions, religious practices, and communal life in the name of anti-communist pacification and national modernization.

From 1960 to 1996, Guatemala’s internal armed conflict claimed roughly 200,000 lives and left another 45,000 disappeared. The bloodiest paroxysm of violence came between 1981 and 1983, when security forces killed an estimated 100,000 people, overwhelmingly Indigenous Maya, in a genocidal campaign that journalist Vincent Bevins has referred to as “the largest bloodbath unleashed by the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere.” The atrocities unfolded with US training and the material and diplomatic backing of the Reagan administration, which viewed Guatemala as a critical front in its campaign against leftist movements across Latin America, alongside its support for the Contras in Nicaragua and allied security forces in El Salvador and Honduras.

The Disappearance of Luz Leticia

Luz Leticia Hernández Agustín, or Leti, as her sisters call her, was one of the many lives cut short by the Guatemalan state during this period of extreme violence. As the eldest sibling, she occupied an outsized place in her family’s life. Marta and Mirtala remember her as hardworking, intelligent, and deeply compassionate. In a household, and community, marked by intense economic precarity and hardship, she assumed responsibilities well beyond her years, helping care for her younger siblings and easing whatever burdens she could.

This experience shaped Leti’s politics. She came to understand that centuries of colonial conquest had produced enduring systems of racism, dispossession, and exploitation that were still being felt. “Leti could see all of that,” Marta explains. “All the deep-seated wrongs that have persisted for so long.” She imagined a different Guatemala, one where those structures no longer defined people's lives and where everyone, regardless of ethnicity or social standing, could live with dignity.

Leti’s sisters have never abandoned their search for truth and justice, nor their determination to affirm their sister’s existence.

Her commitment extended beyond her immediate family. As Mirtala recalled, Leti was motivated certainly “by her own experiences, and the way our parents lived,” but equally “by the suffering she witnessed among our people.” Despite all the evidence seemingly to the contrary, she never surrendered her belief that Guatemala could become a more just society. That conviction would draw her into the resistance. She joined Nuestro Movimiento (“Our Movement”), an underground organization affiliated with the Organization of People in Arms (ORPA).

In late 1982, Leti became involved in an effort to secure the release of a comrade, Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, who was illegally detained by the regime. On October 14, members of Nuestro Movimiento abducted Jorge Mario Ríos Muñoz, the nephew of General Efraín Ríos Montt, Guatemala’s de facto president who presided over the bloodiest phase of the genocide, for which he was convicted in 2013. The operation sought to force a prisoner exchange. Jorge Mario remained captive until November 21, when an intelligence unit, working alongside Israeli advisors, rescued him. In the process, Luz Leticia, Ana María López Rodríguez, María Cruz López Rodríguez, and Leandro Gabriel Calate Temu were all captured.

In that moment, Leti entered the opaque machinery of forced disappearance. She was taken into a clandestine detention system notorious for torture, sexual violence, and the systematic degradation of prisoners. Her family never saw or heard from her again.

The Struggle for Justice

Leti’s sisters have never abandoned their search for truth and justice, nor their determination to affirm their sister’s existence. In 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH) concluded that the Guatemalan state had violated the rights to life, liberty, humane treatment, judicial protection, and a fair trial of Ileana, Luz Leticia, and Ana María. It recommended that Guatemala locate the women’s remains, compensate their families, and identify and prosecute those responsible.

Five years later, the Guatemalan government offered the Hernández Agustín family an “amicable settlement agreement,” consisting of financial compensation without accountability and without the return of Luz Leticia's remains. They refused on principle.

In 2023, prosecutors indicted Juan Francisco Cifuentes Cano, the former commander of the National Police’s Fifth Corps Special Operations Reaction Battalion (BROE), on charges of crimes against humanity and enforced disappearance. After years of defense appeals aimed at delaying or derailing the proceedings, the long-awaited trial finally began on May 5.

Will we accept a world in which some have the right to kill and others the right to die, or insist on one governed by justice and accountability?

Justice, for them, means a broader reckoning with the collective trauma inflicted by enforced disappearance. The crime was designed to leave families trapped in cycles of hope and grief, producing what Marta described as the “strange sensation” that “[Leti] had died, yet was somehow still alive,” condemning them to “so much uncertainty, anxiety, and immense, constant stress.”

For Mirtala, that torment was central to the crime itself. “Enforced disappearance,” she explained, “is an act committed by the state against its own citizens, often in collusion with the very groups meant to guarantee the population's safety.” It extends far beyond the individual. “They don't just make the person disappear,” she said. “They do so in a way that instills terror and fear, and that is precisely what they have sought to do: to plunge us and our entire family into that terror.”

“It is a crime, an undeniable crime, but one committed in a sophisticated manner against our humanity,” she continued. The violence is directed not only at the disappeared but those left behind, condemning families to live with uncertainty while knowing their loved one is in the hands of the state. “It's agonizing to know that she's with these people.” “It’s powerlessness,” Mirtala said, “unable to do anything to pull [the disappeared] out of that cycle of violence and cruelty.”

Yet they have found meaning in the struggle. Their search for Leti has become inseparable from a broader fight over historical memory and for accountability. As Mirtala put it, it is a “story that reflects everything fractured in our country, all the underlying tensions and societal pain, and the struggles being waged on various fronts everywhere.”

Still, they approach that work with humility, believing that lasting change is built through small acts of collective resistance. “We are like an ant carrying a single grain of salt,” Mirtala explained. Yet she sees power even in the smallest acts. “This is how dust turns into sand, then into a gust of wind, and finally into a storm. We believe it will change many people’s perceptions.”

But this is not merely a struggle over memory. It is also a struggle over the present, over the ways impunity continues to shape Guatemala. In the decades since Leti’s disappearance, Guatemala has remained marked by stark inequality, corruption, violence, and rights abuses. The state continues to repress dissent, fueling recurring political crises rooted in its failure to meet the needs of its people. Mirtala sees in today’s situation the echoes of the violence that took her sister. “All these things,” she said, “they weigh on you, drop by drop, little by little.”

That is why pursuing Leti’s case has become about far more than one family’s search for justice. It is an act of resistance, a “vindication,” against a state that, as Mirtala put it, “has turned against its own people. Those who take power rob and take money from the people to enrich themselves" while the people “lack education, healthcare, food, and the chance for decent housing.” “To me,” she said, “it is a slap in the face, a punch to the gut of the state.”

The struggle has not been without risks. As documentary filmmaker Nancy Peckenham observed, “In Guatemala, to remember is dangerous.” Yet Mirtala and her sister remain resolute. “Sometimes I think about the risks,” Mirtala reflected, “but then I remember this isn’t just about asserting my sister’s rights. It is about the rights of thousands of people, both within Guatemala and abroad, because this is something suffered by all of us who lack power.”

Ultimately, she said, “that is what this has meant for us. It is a collective struggle.”

The case will continue through July. Its verdict will test not only Guatemala, but also whether we are doomed to live in a world, as the Trump administration architect of the United States’ ongoing nativist assault Stephen Miller put it, “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” Will we accept a world in which some have the right to kill and others the right to die, or insist on one governed by justice and accountability? The trial is one link in this broader struggle over whether a better world is possible: one free from the violence of impunity and imperialism, sustained by the conviction that those who commit atrocities will one day be held to account, from Guatemala to Venezuela, Palestine to Iran, and here in the United States.

All quotes from Marta and Mirtala Hernández Agustín are from a June 2026 speech and interview conducted by the authors and translated from Spanish.

Correction: The name of General Efraín Ríos Montt's nephew was Jorge Mario Ríos Muñoz, not Mario Ríos Montt. The piece has been updated to reflect this.

I was 13 years old. We’d just returned from Christmas vacation, and I was asleep in my room.

My mother tells me she heard a noise and found me in my bed, twisted up like a clam, frothing at the mouth. She was in shock. The paramedics came and took me to the ER. I don’t remember anything about it.

That night, I had a CT scan and an MRI. They found an abnormality in my brain called a cavernoma, and I needed surgery right away to correct it. Because it was a delicate operation, I needed not only a pediatric surgeon but a sub-specialist—a pediatric neurologist.

Little did my family know, there is a nationwide shortage of pediatric sub-specialists.

Medicaid and CHIP must be protected. Congress must invest in pediatric care so that no other children are told to wait months for necessary care.

The surgeon on-call that night assured us that I could be cured with surgery, but we needed to get it done as soon as possible to avoid another seizure and more damage. But when my mom called the hospital, they said the next available appointment was more than three months away due to a lack of pediatric neurosurgeons.

I was already isolating myself. Scared, missing school, I withdrew from sports and hid from my friends. At 13, you don’t want to be different, and you definitely don’t want anyone to know there’s something wrong with your brain. The depression and anxiety deepened. And I would have to go on like this for months?

My family was financially comfortable, we had private insurance, and we lived in Manhattan. Yet even someone as fortunate as I was had to wait because there’s a severe shortage of pediatric specialists.

What if it happens to a girl from a poor or middle class family without good insurance, or who lives farther away from good care? How long would her wait be? Would her family be able to afford it all?

Thankfully, I was lucky. I was able to get the surgery sooner before three months passed, and I’m cured now. But having gone through this experience, my mom and I wanted to find out the cause of the deficit in pediatric care—and how it can be fixed.

With the help of a bipartisan advocacy organization that works on these issues, First Focus On Children, we found out that most pediatric specialties are reimbursed largely through Medicaid and its state-tailored companion program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Half of the nation’s children receive health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, and even children with private insurance rely on Medicaid when they need specialized care. So most pediatric specialists and sub-specialists have to rely on these government programs for reimbursement.

But unlike Medicare and private insurance, which reimburse adult and senior care specialists at much higher levels, Medicaid reimbursements are significantly smaller for pediatric care—though the doctors go through the same expensive training and have the same qualifications. Because of this, far fewer medical specialists go into pediatric care because it’s financially untenable.

As a result, there is a crisis in pediatric care. To make it worse, Congress’s partisan “Big Beautiful Bill” slashes almost $1 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years. At a time when we desperately need more investment in Medicaid, we are going in the opposite direction.

Cuts to Medicaid don’t only hurt the poor, disabled, or seniors—as my family and I learned, they hurt all of us. Healthcare in this country isn’t sufficiently serving those in need. If things continue this way, what will pediatric care look like for my own children one day?

We must do better. Medicaid and CHIP must be protected. Congress must invest in pediatric care so that no other children are told to wait months for necessary care. It’s not only about the “haves” and the “have-nots.” It’s about all of us.

President Donald Trump is a desperate man. With the midterms on the horizon and his approval ratings under water, he doesn’t want to talk about affordability. Nor does he want to talk about his war with Iran. And he certainly doesn’t want to talk about Jeffrey Epstein.

What does he want to talk about? Communists.

Over the last two weeks, Trump has ratcheted up his overheated rhetoric in response to democratic socialists’ victories in primary elections in Colorado, New York, Washington, DC, and elsewhere.

During a speech to Christian conservatives at a Faith and Freedom Coalition convention in Washington on June 26, he called democratic socialists “animals” and said, “We have to stop this horrible threat of cancer that’s permeating our country called communism.” He went on to say that the “godless” communists in the Democratic Party pose a particular risk for Christians. “They will close your churches in this country,” he warned. “They will kill your people. And that’s what they’re about.”

It’s not as if Trump and his fellow Republicans haven’t hurled the communist epithet before, but over the past six months they have upped the ante.

Heading into the 250th birthday celebration on the National Mall, Trump continued his tirade. Speaking at Mount Rushmore on July 3, he not only besmirched Democrats, but immigrants as well. “There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success,” he said. “...You can be a communist or you can be a patriot. You cannot be both.” He made no secret that he is trying to salvage Republican candidates’ chances in November. “America will never be a communist country,” he said. “We can only lose the midterms if we allow ourselves to lose the midterms if we are foolish, stupid, and unwise.”

Trump was only slightly more restrained on July 4 at the National Mall. After introducing a handful of World War II veterans and lauding them for their heroism, Trump ahistorically declared: “Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world, only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We’re not going to let it happen.” (In fact, American troops, along with troops from Great Britain and communist Soviet Union, defeated fascism in World War II.)

The GOP’s Red-Baiting Tradition

It’s not as if Trump and his fellow Republicans haven’t hurled the communist epithet before, but over the past six months they have upped the ante. According to a recent Washington Post analysis of statements, social media posts, and podcasts, from January to June, they applied the word “communist” or “communism” to Democrats an average of 626 times per week, 43% more than during the same time frame in 2025.

Right-wing pundits have entered the fray, too. Megan McArdle, a self-described “right-leaning libertarian” columnist at The Washington Post, recently wrote that democratic socialist victories represent “a heady moment for the left, because socialism’s tainted brand has recovered from the vivid failures of the Soviet Union.”

Likewise, historian Arthur Herman, writing for Fox News, disingenuously equated democratic socialists’ policy agenda with that of the Soviet Union in a July 3 column. “In June, Marxist radicals calling themselves democratic socialists swept the New York City primaries...” he wrote. “...Communist-style socialism has brought poverty, mass starvation, and subsistence misery to tens of millions worldwide.”

Such attacks are nothing new. Republicans denounced Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as “socialism” and even “communism.” In 1961, then General Electric spokesman Ronald Reagan warned that government health insurance would lead to socialism. Over the following decades, however, Republicans largely abandoned that mantra in favor of attacks on “big government” and the welfare state.

Trump is a throwback to an earlier time. In his 2020 State of the Union address, Trump attacked socialism, claiming it “destroys nations.” Like Reagan before him, he specifically denounced a “Medicare for All” proposal endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and 130 other members of Congress at the time, calling it a “socialist takeover of our healthcare system.”

During the last election, Trump often called Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris a “Marxist,” tying her to her father’s economic perspective on markets and inequality. More recently, he labeled New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, a “communist,” and dubbed Janeese Lewis George, a democratic socialist who won last month’s Washington, DC, Democratic mayoral primary, a “Communist adherent.”

Democratic socialists in the Democratic Party are not communists. If they are a member of any organization, it likely would be the Democratic Socialists of America, which does not function as a party. Communist organizations still exist in the United States, but they are politically marginal and have no representation in Congress or in any state legislature.

Americans Support Democratic Socialist Policies

Likewise, democratic socialism is not synonymous with Soviet communism, which fell apart 35 years ago. The countries that democratic socialists in America hold up as models can be found in Western Europe. They are multiparty democracies with market economies, strong unions, and robust social safety programs that include universal healthcare. Their economic models are nothing like the one-party command economy of the Soviet Union and, as I pointed out in detail in a December 2025 essay, they do a much better job of ensuring their citizens live long, healthy, and prosperous lives than the United States does.

While only about 17% of Americans have a favorable view of democratic socialist politicians, their policies are quite popular. For example:

• According to a new Economist-YouGov poll, 52% of Americans support eliminating private health insurance companies and replacing them with a national health plan. Only 30% oppose the idea.
• Public support for a higher federal minimum wage has remained strong for years. A 2021 Pew survey found that 62% of Americans supported raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, while a 2019 Pew survey found support at 67%.
• A February Pew survey found that 69% of Americans favor requiring employers to provide paid family leave. Even 59% of Republicans support it.
• Finally, 63% of Americans favor raising taxes on large corporations, according to a March 2025 Pew poll, and 58% favor raising taxes on households earning more than $400,000 annually.

Perhaps what is holding democratic socialists back is how they identify themselves. The term “socialist” just may have too much baggage. After all, many Americans still associate the word with the Soviet Union, whose official name was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, even though it was a communist dictatorship.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist, told The Washington Post earlier this week that political labels should not be an issue. “What matters is the legislation, your proposals, the ideas before us,” she said. “How a person identifies in their economic view of the world is less important to people than if we’re making their groceries more affordable.”

Maybe. But Trump and the GOP are betting that calling Democrats “communists” will matter to enough voters to overshadow their concerns about the cost of food, gasoline, housing and healthcare. November will reveal whether that Cold War strategy still works.

This article first appeared at the Money Trail blog and is reposted here at Common Dreams with permission.

Iran, Iraq, Irate.

What a world! It couldn’t be much stranger, could it?

And by the way, what is it about the Middle East? Since the Gulf War of 1990-1991, it’s just never really ended, has it? Who cares that the region is halfway around the world from Washington, DC? Yes, the US fought Iraq there from 2003 to 2008. And recently, of course, President Donald Trump has gone after Iran. If you want to spread out just a bit more, you could toss in this country’s relatively brief war in Libya and its almost endless one this century in Afghanistan. And don’t blame me if I left something out. After all, I’m almost 82 years old and starting to forget a few things.

I mean, Iran makes particular sense, right? After all, it’s a mere 6,000-odd miles from this country. Anyway, why not shut down part of the world’s supply of fossil fuels and threaten us all with global economic disaster? And since you asked, how could anyone be surprised? After all, since World War II, my country has indeed been the definition of a (if not the) global imperial power and it’s never really stopped making war.

President Trump should really be considered the equivalent of a giant piece of green algae from that Washington pool of his, but the pool he’s actually in is the United States of America—or, perhaps even more accurately, Planet Earth.

In my youth, for instance, Washington spent almost 20 years fighting in Vietnam. Of course, who even remembers these days, given all the wars that have followed?

Still, on a planet with so many other problems, particularly heat, you might wonder why our government continues to periodically turn up the heat in the Middle East and beyond, led, of course, by a president who, once upon a time (in the wake of his first term in office) in what now seems like another age and another universe, was proud of not going to war anywhere. Oops! Except—yes again, in the Middle East—Syria. Oh, double oops, and I almost forgot to look in the direction of Africa and so include his more recent brief bombing campaign in Nigeria and the seemingly never-ending one in Somalia—yes, Somalia!

And in case you hadn’t noticed, despite all those endless wars (without a victory in sight), the US military doesn’t exactly feel at the top of its game anymore either. Otherwise, despite Donald Trump’s promise of an unparalleled future Pentagon budget of $1.5 trillion—and no, that is not a misprint!—why would one US general after another be resigning, retiring, or—thank you, Secretary of (most distinctly) War Pete Hegseth—being fired?

These days, of course, if you want to be a—if not the—major power on this planet (and I’m thinking, as I’m sure you’ve already guessed, about China), there’s distinctly something to be learned from the previous great power’s three-quarters of a century of failed wars that (yes, again!) just never seemed to end (and may soon be added to, possibly not in the Middle East or anywhere near it, but in Cuba, or perhaps Greenland, or—since it’s Donald Trump—almost anyplace you care to imagine on Planet Earth.

Honestly, just in case you hadn’t noticed, what a truly strange world we now find ourselves in. I mean, from George Washington to Barack Obama, we’ve had presidents of all sorts, temperamentally speaking, but never one faintly like Donald J. Trump. And there have, of course, been endless leaders of powers in decline on this planet, but perhaps never one who so distinctly and personally embodied decline, not at least since ancient Rome’s Caligula or Nero.

President Trump should really be considered the equivalent of a giant piece of green algae from that Washington pool of his, but the pool he’s actually in is the United States of America—or, perhaps even more accurately, Planet Earth. And it seems there’s simply no way to clean him out.

Worse yet, he wasn’t just elected mistakenly once, but purposely twice by American voters (49.8% of them the third time around), who could imagine only him (and no one else) leading this country. What they seem not to have imagined, however, is the most obvious thing of all: where he might be leading the rest of us, which is, of course, directly down the planetary toilet, algae and all. Of course, it’s no news, historically speaking, that all great powers from imperial Rome to imperial Britain to the Soviet Union do go down sooner or later, but to think of Donald Trump simply as the president of American decline on this deeply disturbed planet of ours is to sell him distinctly short.

And unlike the rest of us, he’s getting just what he’s always wanted. Any day you look at the paper (and yes, I’m old enough that I still read a paper paper), his ultimate dream—a Trumpian headline—invariably awaits him. Friday’s (as I was writing this) in The New York Times was: “Trump Cut Big Mine Deal, and Sons Stand to Gain, $1.6 billion Pact for Kazakhstan Tungsten Furthers Pattern of Self-Enrichment.” And honestly, you don’t really have to read another word of it, do you? Tungsten in Kazakhstan and his family is going to make a fortune! Well, what’s new? Not much, really.

After all, in some mad fashion, we are now distinctly on a Trumpian planet of billionaires. (Note that I almost wrote “billionaires and a trillionaire,” but of course the first trillionaire in human history, Elon Musk, only recently lost part of his shirt and is once again a mere multi-, multi-billionaire.) And Donald J. Trump would never want his sons or himself to be left out of the action.

Nor would he ever want anyone to say to him, “You’re fired”—certainly not the six conservative (or do I mean deeply reactionary) Supreme Court justices who just allowed him by the usual 6-3 margin to freely fire the leaders of independent agencies or commissions any time he pleases. Or, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in her dissenting opinion, “The Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted, elevating him above his once-coequal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.”

Give him another two and a half years and who knows what this president will be able to do—but the odds are that, by at least a 6-3 margin, he might indeed be able to take this planet down with him. And in doing so, he’ll give that phrase of once-upon-a-time New York Yankees announcer Mel Allen for a batter hitting a home run—“going, going, gone!”—a distinctly new meaning.

As a long-time anti-Zionist activist and retired teacher, I submitted a Public Records Act request to the California Department of Education for copies of all formal complaints, filed from October 7, 2023 to May 26, 2026, alleging discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying that was so “severe” and “pervasive” as to violate federal or state law in California schools.

If a local education agency (LEA), a school district or county office of education, receives a complaint—a Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP)—the LEA must, within 60 days, conduct an investigation, interview parties involved, and decide whether to order “corrective action.” Sometimes the UCP ends there. If, however, the complainants are dissatisfied with the LEA ruling, they may appeal to the California Department of Education (CDE).

I reviewed the appeals.

The CDE lacks authority to discipline school personnel, and the appeals I reviewed did not recommend teacher discipline. Teachers, however, have been told by their school districts to remove their keffiyehs and steer clear of stating as fact that Israel exemplifies “settler colonialism.” If an LEA or CDE finds a complaint has merit, it may order school districts to implement teacher training in antisemitism in consultation with a Jewish or Israeli organization. These orders open the door for Zionist organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee to teach teachers that criticism of Israel is antisemitic and discriminates on the basis of national origin.

Teacher and Union del Barrio organizer Ron Gochez said the district’s edict that teachers remain silent in the face of a US-subsidized genocide was like telling teachers in Nazi Germany to take a neutral stance on the Holocaust.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment, education, and public accommodations based on someone’s birthplace or ancestry—but does not prohibit criticism of a sovereign state, which is protected speech according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The CDE’s release of files reflects the department and school districts’ tendency to conflate anti-Zionism (opposition to Israel) with antisemitism (bigotry toward Jews for being Jewish). Under AB 715 (D-Zbur) legislation that establishes an antisemitism coordinator to police instruction and teacher training, this confusion could get a lot worse because AB 715 incorporates the US National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which promotes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and examples that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

Teachers and their allies can, however, revolt: March on Sacramento, challenge Zionist teacher training, file their own complaints, and collectively teach Palestine across school departments and districts.

The following is a review of some of the CDE’s cases addressing allegations of antisemitism or discrimination against Jews or Israelis.

Banned!

Sammy Obeid speaks on "The Abortion Joke That Got Me Banned From High School" (Image via Comedy Calculus)

In 2025, the principal of Mountain View Los Altos High School banned popular Lebanese-Palestinian American comedian Sammy Obeid after he cracked jokes about Israel at an after-school on-campus event in 2025 hosted by the Muslim Student Association (MSA). The school investigation report (IR) read, "During the event, the comedian made antisemitic remarks: about the Israeli Prime Minister getting cancer, calling the Prime Minister a supervillain, and how Israel does not believe in abortion so it can bomb more Palestinians.”

Months earlier, on November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity in Gaza, including “starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”

Nevertheless, the district concluded, after berating the Muslim students for inviting Obeid—that the comedian’s performance was antisemitic. The CDE agreed and ordered the district to further revise its guest speaker policies to include strict vetting and get-off-the-stage intervention should an administrator believe the speaker’s conduct discriminated against a protected group on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, and physical or mental disabilities.

P.S. For the record, abortion is legal in Israel as long as women obtain approval from the Israeli Pregnancy Termination Board.

San Ramon Valley HS

In another example of conflation, the CDE ordered (11/24/25) San Ramon Valley High School to deliver teacher training on antisemitism to all social studies teachers after the department ruled a teacher’s class statements were proof of discriminatory bias against Jewish and Israeli students. The department’s fact finding said the teacher told students that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. Hardly breaking news. Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Doctors without Borders, and the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry had all determined Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.

Nonetheless, the CDE said the appeal had merit because the teacher did not cite sources and present an opposing viewpoint. The Department ordered San Ramon Valley High School to provide the CDE with evidence by January 30, 2026 that the school had delivered training from someone not affiliated with the school district to ensure that classroom instruction “does not promote a discriminatory bias.”

Anti-Palestinian Racism

The Institute for the Understanding of Anti-Palestinian Racism (IUAPR) defines anti-Palestinian racism as a form of racism that “silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames, or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives.”

A CDE ruling involving New Haven Unified School District might serve as an example of erasing the human rights and worth of Palestinians. After teachers in the summer 2025 Ethnic Studies Social Justice Academy (ESSJA) presented a slide deck describing actions by Israelis against Palestinians as potentially constituting “genocide, ethnic cleansing, and settler colonialism,’ the department said instruction lacked adequate balance and historical context, and cast Israel in a negative light. The department acknowledged that the slides for students also discussed the horrific impact of the Holocaust, the ancient connection of Jews to the land also claimed by Palestinians, and how “the Israeli government is separate from innocent Israeli/Jewish people who stand for justice,” but still...

The department then ordered the school district to train ESSJA teachers and administrators in the “obligation to comply with Education Code 51500, which states that a teacher shall not deliver instruction, and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias.”

Points for the MAGA team.

Teacher and Community Resistance

Oakland rank and file teachers included P Is for Palestine on their recommended list of resources at a December 2023 teach-in on Gaza; the Brandeis Center for Human Rights objected in a lawsuit against California.

Rank and file Oakland educators circulated an Open Letter in spring 2026 calling on the district “to resist the concerted attacks by political groups who slander as 'antisemitic' anyone who criticizes Israeli apartheid and genocide or Zionism.” Yet, the Oakland Unified School District, facing a lawsuit from the CDE, still mandated teachers watch and interact with an Anti-Defamation League 20-minute video “Antisemitism: What Do Educators Need to Know,” which defines antisemitism as “marginalization and/or oppression of people who are Jewish based on the belief in stereotypes and myths about Jewish people, Judaism, and Israel.”

The ADL training stands in dramatic contrast to a teach-in rank-and-file Oakland teachers organized in December 2023, two months after October 7, as Israel dropped 2,000-pound bombs on Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. Objecting to district resources from Zionist-funded organizations, the teachers provided workshop participants with a recommended list of books, films, and lessons.

Across the bay, in San Francisco, in the fall of 2024, a dozen teachers declined to participate in district antisemitism training with the American Jewish Committee, a Zionist organization that boasts on its website, “We stand up for Israel.” Teachers instead chose to attend professional development with PARCEO, a non-Zionist organization anchored in the belief that ending antisemitism is part of an intersectional fight for collective liberation of all people.

Down in Los Angeles, teachers and community members rallied (5/16/26) in front of the Downtown Business Magnet to protest the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) decree that ethnic studies and social studies teachers remove “Stop Genocide” posters and Palestinian and Black Lives Matter flags, as well as undergo teacher training on the use of “neutral terms” to describe sensitive topics, including Israel’s slaughter and starvation of Gaza.

Teacher and Union del Barrio organizer Ron Gochez said the district’s edict that teachers remain silent in the face of a US-subsidized genocide was like telling teachers in Nazi Germany to take a neutral stance on the Holocaust.

In another act of resistance, K-12 Legal Defense, led by attorney Liz Jackson, and San Francisco law firm Leonard Carder, LLP, filed a motion (5/11/16) to intervene in Brandeis v California on behalf of a group of 10 California families—Jewish and Palestinian parents and students enrolled in public schools.

For teachers walking a tightrope under the watchful eye of an AB 715 enforcer, there are some lessons that lend themselves to a “both sides” debate: South Africa vs. Israel at the International Court of Justice or Zionists vs. non-Zionists on school board adoption of the IHRA definition and examples of antisemitism. In many instances, however, the “both sides” approach fails to acknowledge the power imbalance between Israel and Palestine to leave students confused.

History will not look back kindly on those demanding investigations of educators who dare to teach about Palestine during a documented genocide. Nor will history applaud those who conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism in lawsuits against states and school districts.

This summer, the Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW is once again going on tour nationally. Wobblies in multiple cities have organized the Fire Your Boss Tour to, well, show all workers how to fire your boss and to spread the principles of industrial unionism, solidarity unionism, and radical workplace organizing.

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was once feared by capitalists and the state. The IWW, often referred to as the “One Big Union,” represented a fundamentally different vision of working-class power than had existed. At its peak in 1917, the union counted roughly 150,000 members, nearly half a percent of the entire United States’ working class. Half a percent might sound small, but that amounted to 150,000 or more worker-organizers, across industries and across the country, all working to build a revolutionary union. Imagine what that would mean today. If even half a percent of the modern working class were organized around the same vision, it would amount to nearly 1 million worker-organizers fighting together for the same goal.

Today, as workers across the country face renewed repression and new (or old) forms of exploitation, we would not be ill-served to look to the example of the IWW for inspiration. We do not seek to romanticize the past, but the conditions the early IWW confronted then are strikingly familiar today: massive concentration of wealth; rampant inequality; and a divided, collaborationist labor movement. Against this world, the early IWW offered a bold vision, one in which workers organized as a class, across every artificial division imposed on them, and fought capitalism right where it hurt: at work. The IWW’s scale, industrial approach, and insistence on worker-led organizing still offer powerful lessons for worker-organizers seeking to break through the barriers that divide us and unite the working class to build a force capable of real, transformative change.

So, how did the IWW become such a powerful force back in 1917? What drew so many workers to this union and inspired them to organize under its banner?

Workers do not need to wait for permission from employers, courts, or labor boards to act collectively; our power begins at the precise point when we collectively recognize our shared conditions and organize to change them.

First, the IWW was committed to a united working class. While other unions excluded workers based on their skill level, gender, race, ethnicity, or trade, the IWW welcomed all workers. Its grand vision was “an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.” The IWW sought to break down the divisions that existed among the working class and unite against our common enemy, the employing class, and it was working. That is precisely why the ruling class feared the IWW.

Second, the IWW was committed to radical democracy and rank-and-file control. Rather than building a union that depended on paid staff, the IWW developed worker-organizers on the shop floor, and all decisions were made by the workers themselves. This model is critical for building a mass movement. It engages large swaths of workers in the struggle; empowers them to take direct, autonomous action; and creates a sustainable model by continuously developing new organizers rather than relying on charismatic leaders or “superhero” organizers. We still see traces of this organizing culture today. The Starbucks Workers United campaign, which was preceded by an IWW Starbucks workers campaign nearly 20 years earlier, has been driven by baristas organizing democratically at the shop level, with workers themselves taking the lead and engaging in collective decision-making rather than relying on external union staff as is still too often the expectation in other unions.

One famous story from 1916 captures this culture of rank-and-file democracy:

In 1916 in Everett, Washington, a passenger ferry loaded with Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) free speech activists attempted to dock. On the dock, the local sheriff, along with armed deputies and armed guards hired by local businesses, attempted to block the ship from docking. According to lore, when the sheriff asked, "Who are your leaders?" the response from the ferry was a shout from everyone aboard, declaring, "We are all leaders here." As folk musician Utah Phillips explains, "That scared the tar out of the ol’ law you know’"

The power of the early IWW did not lie in any single leader who could be arrested, bought off, discredited, or removed. Its power lay in the collective capacity of everyday rank-and-file workers to lead themselves.

Finally, the IWW was committed to working-class dignity in its deepest sense. The Preamble to the Constitution of the IWW (1905) famously declares: “Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work,' we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wage system.’ It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism.” When the IWW said it wants more of the good things in life, they were not just talking about getting the bosses to fork over a bit more cash. The IWW’s goals are bigger than that. We want a better life here and now. This can be contrasted with the trade union movement, which disheartened (and continues to dishearten) workers by making shady backroom deals with bosses.

The IWW is, was, and will always be a union for and by the working class.

The contemporary IWW is still committed to all of these things, and the grand vision that it set forth in the early 1900s is just as relevant and necessary today as it was then. Its contemporary form is not identical to that of the early 20th century, but the grand vision it set forth remains urgently relevant.

Solidarity and Industrial Unionism

In 1911, Big Bill Haywood, a founding member of the IWW, gave a speech about "the general strike as a weapon of the working class." In response to a question from the audience about political action and what distinguishes the IWW from the AFL, he replied:

The Industrial Workers of the World is an economic organization without affiliation with any political party or any non-political sect. I as an Industrialist say that industrial unionism is the broadest possible political interpretation of the working-class political power, because by organizing the workers industrially you at once enfranchise the women in the shops, you at once give the black men who are disenfranchised politically a voice in the operation of the industries; and the same would extend to every worker. That to my mind is the kind of political action that the working class wants. You must not be content to come to the ballot box on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, the ballot box erected by the capitalist class, guarded by capitalist henchmen, and deposit your ballot to be counted by black-handed thugs, and say, “That is political action.” You must protect your ballot with an organization that will enforce the mandates of your class. I want political action that counts. I want a working class that can hold an election every day if they want to.

As Haywood made clear, the IWW did not reject politics so much as it rejected reducing politics to the electoral kind. For the Wobblies, the workplace itself was a political arena. In fact, it was the political arena. It was and remains where workers spend most of their waking hours (and often their sleeping hours). Industrial unionism for the Wobblies was a means of democratizing power where workers actually lived, labored, and were disciplined. Industrial unionism could also extend real political power to workers excluded from or marginalized within formal citizenship. The ballot box is an institution shaped, guarded, and constrained by capitalist power. What mattered, then, was not simply the right to vote, but the collective capacity to enforce working-class demands through organization at the point of production. When Haywood says that he wants a working class that can hold an election every day if they want to, he means that his vision of democracy is not one in which (some) workers get to delegate periodic representation within capitalist institutions, but rather one in which continuous collective power is exercised directly by workers who have wrested control of their workplaces.

For the founding members of the IWW, the fundamental flaw in established labor organizations like the AFL extended far beyond mere conservatism. They argued that the very structure of trade unions was inherently incapable of addressing the monopolistic tendencies of modern capitalism. In the Preamble to the Constitution of the IWW (1905), the founding members of the IWW observed that, as capital became increasingly concentrated into the hands of a few monopolies, the trade union model, focused narrowly on specific skilled crafts, was no more than an obsolete barrier. Faced with the overwhelming power of an employing class that had consolidated industries into vast monopolies, the IWW believed that the AFL's approach of protecting only skilled workers served only to fragment and ultimately weaken the working class.

Consequently, the Wobblies championed a radically different vision of worker power, described by William Trautmann at the 1905 IWW founding convention as one in which workers refused to be "bound by the sacredness or the sanctity of a contract." Instead, the IWW sought to unite all workers, regardless of trade, whether capital and state deemed them skilled or unskilled, into a single, cohesive force capable of achieving true economic justice, and thus social and political justice, through industrial unionism. This vision of industrial unionism relied on what Alice and Staughton Lynd would later describe as solidarity unionism, namely a form of organizing in which workers learn to be in solidarity with each other, rejecting the many divisions imposed on them by employers and the state, in order to directly take collective action to improve their lives. For the Wobblies, the union was not to be a service organization that represented workers from above, but rather the self-organization of workers themselves, capable of forming and enforcing their own demands through various forms of direct action that they would collectively and democratically decide. The point was not simply to win better contracts within capitalism, but to cultivate the everyday practices of true working-class democracy and power that would eventually challenge capitalist authority at its source.

Why This Moment Calls for a Return to Solidarity Unionism on an Industrial Scale

Consolidating our power and coming together across entire industries opens up a world of opportunities for what workers can achieve. Our bosses (or our owners, as a co-worker once quipped) already understand this. Capital is always consolidating: Four corporations own a third of all grocery stores in this country, and just 12 corporations own virtually every product and brand on those shelves. The wealth and power accumulated by these corporations is staggering, but the structure is not new. In many ways, the conditions of the 21st century resemble those of the early 20th century, when the IWW emerged in response to monopolies, deskilling, precarious work (what we call gig work is, of course, a new name for an old form of exploitation), and, above all, the concentration of entire industries in the hands of a few powerful capitalists. Then, as now, workers were divided by job, workplace, race, gender, citizenship, whether they were deemed skilled or unskilled, while capital operated across all of those divisions.

If capital organizes industrially, workers must do the same. What if we did the same and organized into a One Big Union? What if we formed cross-workplace organizing committees that brought together workers from different shops within the same industries? It is by building these connections and structures that we will lay the groundwork for industrial solidarity, thereby creating working-class networks that make any one group of workers that much harder to isolate, intimidate, and, ultimately, defeat. Above all, like our Wobbly ancestors, we must begin to practice the basic principle of solidarity unionism: that workers do not need to wait for permission from employers, courts, or labor boards to act collectively; our power begins at the precise point when we collectively recognize our shared conditions and organize to change them.

From another perspective, while wealth inequality is at an all-time high, government repression against activists is at an all-time high as well. That too is another key similarity between our time and that of the early Wobblies. From Prairieland to the FBI raids in Minnesota and Michigan, the government is once again trying to quash dissent; building a militant, industrially organized labor movement is one of the most effective ways to fight back against these attacks. We have to build the power necessary to defend ourselves as a class. Imagine if when the FBI or ICE came to Minneapolis, the entire country came to a screeching halt and we actually shut shit down. Imagine if we went on the offensive instead of always reacting. That is what is possible through revolutionary, industrial unionism.

The Fire Your Boss Tour

The Fire Your Boss Tour marks the first coordinated national organizing event by Wobblies in recent history. In Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Sacramento, California; Denver, Colorado; Burlington, Vermont; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Ypsilanti, Michigan; New York City; and potentially additional cities, Wobblies will once again preach the Wobbly Gospel of industrial unionism, solidarity unionism, and revolutionary unionism. Unlike a traditional speaking tour, where a few "experts" deliver speeches nationwide, this is a decentralized initiative in which local IWW branches organize their own events while collectively coordinating the tour. Depending on the city, events during the tour include workshops on workplace organizing, discussions on organizing strategy, and sessions where workers can share experiences.

Most importantly, each stop on the tour is an opportunity to connect with fellow workers in your region who are committed to building a stronger labor movement. As our precarious working and living conditions increasingly resemble those of the original Wobblies, the principles and strategy of solidarity unionism and industrial unionism are now more critical than ever. Workers of the World, Unite (and RSVP to the tour)!

Soon after the Israeli and US attacks on Iran assassinated its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and four of his family members, as well as other senior leaders, President Donald Trump urged Iranians to rise up, saying: “To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably be your only chance for generations." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did the same in a video addressing the Iranian people, saying, “This is an opportunity that comes only once in every generation.” He called on them to “take to the streets in your millions and unite to bring down the ruling system.”

However, far from creating the outcome they fervently hoped for, the regime that emerged, after further assassinations, is “younger, savvier, ruthless, and more hard-line than ever.”

This is also evidenced by the choice of the second son of Khamenei as the new supreme leader. Mojtaba Khamenei (who was also injured in the attack on the Khamenei residence) was elected by a unanimous vote of the Assembly of Experts—after pressure by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with whom he has close ties. According to the Atlantic Council, “In political ideology and jurisprudence, Khamenei is considered to be more hard-line than his father.” Moreover, a source in Tehran notes: “They’ve just killed his family... He’s bloodthirsty now.”

The hard-liners appear to have further strengthened their hand during the recent week-long funeral events attended by millions. Ultra hard-line politicians are now publicly condemning the Iranian politicians involved in peace talks, including Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibad and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. This may account for the resumption of Iranian attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz in recent days—in spite of the ceasefire—which has led to several new rounds of fighting between the US and Iran.

The Desire for Revenge

The massive funeral event not only confirmed Khamenei’s status as a martyr, but also galvanized a tremendous desire for revenge in the Iranian population, with mourners waving red flags of revenge, chanting, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and carrying signs calling for the killing of Trump and Netanyahu.

On the second day of the events, to thunderous applause, Poet Mohammad Resouli stated ominously: “Why is the most bastard man in the world still alive? The world is no longer a good place for Trump. Why should we not kill the man who killed our imam? It would be a disgrace if we did not.”

Violations of International and Domestic Law

The attacks on Iran were, in fact, a violation of international law, since they do not meet the requirements of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter regarding the right to self-defense but, instead, violate Article 2(4), which states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

In an article in The Guardian, entitled “Into the Void: How Trump Killed International Law,” the authors argue that “amid this chaos, there has been one consistent target for Trump’s contempt: the constraints imposed by international law, and its value system built around national sovereignty, including the prohibition of the use of force...” Indeed, in an interview with The New York Times in January, Trump made this point explicit: “I don’t need international law,” arguing that his power is limited only by “my own morality, my own mind.”

The killing of Khamenei was also in breach of the generally-accepted international taboo against the assassination of leaders. In fact, Trump also violated domestic US law—by violating Executive Order 11906, which states that “no employee of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” This order, signed by President Gerald Ford 50 years ago, followed congressional investigations into previous US assassination plots against foreign leaders, such as Fidel Castro. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both broadened the scope of the ban, which is still in force, by dropping the “political” qualifier, making it illegal to “engage in assassination” per se.

Taboos such as these represent socially agreed-upon norms that certain actions are forbidden, and they play a crucial role in maintaining social order. Their codification in law helps to solidify the regulation of social interaction. Breaking a taboo can have serious consequences that, in extreme circumstances, can trigger violence.

In an article entitled, “Trump Opens the Pandora’s Box of Assassination,” Columbia University historian Timothy Naftali writes:

As killing foreign leaders gets easier for us, harming our leaders also presumably gets easier for others. The international taboo against foreign political assassinations has arguably had a stabilizing effect... To put a fine point on it, however tempting it may be to eliminate troublesome foreign leaders, no policy makers in a democracy wants to spark acts of retaliation that cost the lives of our own leaders in turn.

Luca Trenta and Arturo Jiminez-Bacardi, in “Khamenei Killing and the Perilous Death of the Assassination Ban,” suggest, “When a new Congress is sworn in next year, it should open an investigation into the Khamenei operation, hold public deliberations on the role of assassination in US foreign policy, and finally enact a statutory ban that unambiguously prohibits and criminalizes assassination once and for all.”

The Slippery Slope of Gradually Breaking Taboos

It has been argued that both the US and Israel began lowering their restrictions to the taboo on assassinations (or “targeted killings” as the US likes to call them or “eliminations” as the Israelis call them) in response to major terrorist attacks.

After the horrendous events of 9/11, and during the subsequent “war on terror,” it became common practice for the US to assassinate al-Qaeda operatives, including Osama-bin-Laden, as well as “terrorists” from other groups. Wikipedia offers a long list.

At the end of Trump’s first term, the US took a step closer to assassinating members of government when, on January 3, 2020, it assassinated Qasem Soleimani, “the second most powerful man in Iran,” who was commander of the Quds Force branch of the IRGC—justifying it by calling him a “terrorist” and providing a long list of grievous abuses.

However, it wasn’t long before the dangers of this action became evident, as US authorities uncovered several plots by Iranians to assassinate Trump administration officials associated with the killing, including Trump himself.

Israel also seemed to have increased its policy of “eliminations” following the horrific October 7, 2023 events, by assassinating the Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran in July 2024 and Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in September 2024, as well as many others. A long list is also available on Wikipedia.

Clearly, Trump is already feeling the heat from the Khamenei assassination. In a news conference at the end of the recent NATO summit in Türkiye, he said, “I’m No. 1 on the kill list for Iran,” joking that he would rather be “No. 1 on TikTok.” He added: “They had leaders; they’re gone, and they had another set of leaders; they’re gone. Now they have another set of leaders, they may be gone, who knows, and you know, I may be gone too, because I’m their No. 1 target.”

Indeed, because of concerns for his security, the Secret Service urged Trump to fly from Türkiye to the UK on the old Air Force One (which he did) rather than taking the retrofitted Qatari-gifted plane, since there are questions about whether the new Air Force One has the same defensive systems as the old one.

The intense Iranian desire for revenge will be likely to plague Trump, Netanyahu, members of their administrations, and their security services into the foreseeable future.

Surely it would have been much wiser to have adhered to international and domestic law and to have respected the taboo on the assassination of leaders. After all, this is what international law and established taboos are meant to do—establish rules of behavior to protect the social and international order.

As Trenta and Jimenez-Bacardi state:

The political vacuums that follow the assassination of heads of state can lead to civil war, chaos, unrest, and cycles of revenge. The Khamenei assassination has already turned into a regional war and sparked a global economic crisis. Simply put, a new era of political assassinations is likely to make the world less safe.

Let us hope that the revenge currently being called for in Iran never eventuates. Not only would it be tragic for a US president to be assassinated, but it could also be disastrous for Iran, since Trump has vowed that he would destroy the country in the event that it were successful in assassinating him, saying: “That would be the end. I’ve left instructions, if they do it, they get obliterated, there won’t be anything left.”

This has to be taken seriously since it could lead to even more unspeakable outcomes, potentially the breaking of another crucial taboo—on the use of nuclear weapons.

The Maine Senate race may be the most consequential in the country. If Susan "Kavanaugh promised me he wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade" Collins is reelected to the Senate, it may guarantee a small Republican Senate majority that will approve young extremist right-wing Supreme Court Justices to replace Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas and control the law for the next 30-40 years.

But young "progressive" Democratic consultants like Morris Katz and old "moderate" Democratic politicians like Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) may have collectively f**cked up the process.

Graham Platner was recruited to run with minimal vetting by Katz, a 20-something political consultant from Tribeca who produces brilliant campaign ads. Chuck Schumer used his political muscle to ensure that 78-year old Maine Gov. Janet Mills would be the other contender in the Democratic primary. After Platner took a commanding lead in the polls, Mills dropped out, virtually assuring that Platner would be the then-likely nominee.

Katz is a 26-year old (or maybe 28-year-old since he previously lied about his age)) who grew up in a Tribeca to family of writers and film producers. Katz produced a series of brilliant ads for Mandami that help propel him to the NY mayoralty. Katz had previously produced ads for Democrat John Fetterman's (Pa.) successful Senate campaign depicting Fetterman as a populist working class hero, although once in the Senate Fetterman turned Republican-lite.

But Chuck Schumer is even worse. His anointing of Janet Mills as the party-approved candidate was as disastrous as Katz's anointing of Platner as the working class progressive hero.

Last autumn Katz formed a Brooklyn-based political consulting firm, The Fight Agency. Based on Mandami's success, Katz seemed to have decided that he himself was the singularly best person in the entire country to "cast" progressives to successfully win office.

Katz focused much of his efforts on recruiting a progressive working class candidate who he believed could defeat Susan Collins in Maine. He was tipped off to Platner by some labor organizers and traveled to Maine to meet him. “Within a few minutes of talking to him, I was, like, ‘This guy owes it to the country to run for Senate'" Katz recalled of his first meeting with Platner.

Platner fit Katz's script for a rough working class guy with progressive politics, and he virtually immediately cast Platner as his leading man. Katz and his partners didn't bother to vet Platner, a process that takes several weeks and costs over $20,000. In three days, New York-based Northside Research was paid $6,250 to produce a brief, risk-assessment memo in lieu of a detailed research book—or the start of one—that can be hundreds of pages long. According to The Wall Street Journal, "The expedited research didn’t discover issues that would later hurt his campaign, including the full trove of Platner’s Reddit posts or sexually explicit texts Platner sent to other women while married."

Less than two weeks later, Platner released a brilliant populist launch video produced by Katz that went viral and catapulted Platner into prominence. He drew adoring crowds, and his polling showed him overwhelming Gov. Janet Mills in the primaries.

But while concerning revelations about Platner's personal life kept dripping out, Platner's consultants brushed them off arguing they were irrelevant compared with Platner's charisma and his populist politics. As Slate reported: "Each time a new and disturbing Platner story landed—the Reddit posts, the tattoo, the alleged physical abuse, the sexting, the rape allegation—Platner’s team responded with an almost Trumpian playbook. They disparaged the media, played it off as a targeted attack by a vengeful political establishment, and insinuated that each scandal only made Platner more authentically Maine."

I'm generally in agreement with the populist anti-oligarchy themes of Platner's campaign and those of his progressive consultants (and even sent him a contribution). But they were immature and deluded to not vet Platner and to cavalierly dismiss the charges against him. The unvetted revelations about Platner's abusive treatment of women eventually doomed Platner's campaign.

Adam Jentleson, the late Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's former chief of staff, characterizes Katz's view of the ideal progressive candidate as "a highly selective image of populism that is tailored to an Upper West Sider’s political sensibilities.”

Katz grew up in Tribeca. His father is a successful screenwriter, his mother is a successful children's book author, and his godfather was the late actor Philip Seymour Hoffman. After dropping out of college, he worked as a production assistant and wrote screenplays, before entering politics.

That's a good background for learning progressive politics but not necessarily one to designate yourself as the leading casting director for progressive candidates with a working class background. This failure was demonstrated by his casting of the unvetted Platner and of John Fetterman who turned into a corporate Democrat.

But Chuck Schumer is even worse. His anointing of Janet Mills as the party-approved candidate was as disastrous as Katz's anointing of Platner as the working class progressive hero.

Because of both of their failures, we're left with a broken Maine Democratic Party now scrambling to find a replacement for Platner in less than two weeks. Let's hope it doesn't lead to Collins being returned to the Senate and helping confirm right-wing Supreme Court justices who could shape the law for decades to come.

When is the last time the US government, or a fragment thereof, has truly been held accountable—not merely legally or politically, but morally accountable—for an act of violence, for its addiction to violence? Ever?

And what might that even mean?

These are not questions I’ve ever even asked until I began learning about a lawsuit that has been filed against Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director David Venturella. Technically, it’s a freedom of speech lawsuit, but it’s also so much more than that. At least that’s how it seemed to me, the more I learned about it.

The suit pulls back horrible January and the invasion of Minneapolis, aka, Operation Metro Surge, when armed and masked members of ICE and Customs and Border Protection began occupying the Twin Cities for the purpose of snatching and deporting (“allegedly”) undocumented immigrants, creating immense fear and chaos everywhere, and leading to huge protests.

This is militarism. The enemy dead are hidden behind patriotic propaganda and soon vanish from collective awareness. They’re subhuman; they’re evil.

As everyone knows, two of the protesters were murdered: Renee Good on January 7 and Alex Pretti on January 24. This was too much. The nation was outraged. The murders, combined with the fact that most of the arrestees were found to be in the US legally, quieted down the invasion—though hardly ending the arrests and deportations.

Five months later, David Streever, of Rochester, New York, was contacted—much to his stunned surprise—by agents from the Department of Homeland Security, who gave him a “Warning Notice: You May Be in Violation of Federal Law.”

Turns out, many months earlier, in the wake of the two protest murders, he had sent an email, titled, “What’ Next,” to Todd Lyons, who was the acting ICE director at the time. As quoted in The New York Times, this is part of what Streever wrote:

The director “will never know peace (and) will go down in history as America’s Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher”—referencing the Nazi SS security chief, who is considered to be a principal architect of the Holocaust.

“Even Trump will turn on you before the end, and you will be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness,” the email read.

“You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.”

Sit with these words for a while. Yeah, I found them shocking. I even momentarily wondered if they had gone too far. But notice: There’s no actual threat in the words. Instead, the email is both a moral condemnation and a psycho-spiritual warning. Murder always comes back to haunt the perpetrator. As Adam Steinbaugh, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is filing the freedom-of-speech suit, put it: This is not a threat in any way, but a plea to the ICE director to recognize what he has done. And, I would add, take responsibility for it, rather than try to make it vanish by turning the deaths—plus the shattered lives of thousands of deportees—into abstractions.

Indeed, Streever’s email challenges the basic, media-perpetuated belief that nationally committed deaths—mostly via war—are indeed an abstraction, and the more there are, the more abstract they become. I’m glad the email has gone public. This is a far bigger issue than freedom of speech, but the lawsuit is making this forgotten exchange public.

But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.

This applies collectively. In the last three years, about 60 detainees have died in detention cells, according to ICE’s own statistics, described on their website as “detained alien deaths.” But these deaths are not abstractions. Nor are the thousands of alleged “aliens” arrested—pulled from their families—every day. Can we open the national soul, just as Streever pleaded with the ICE director to open his soul? This means being aware that the consequences come home... and beyond that, those who died were loving people who deserved to live.

Consider these words of Bita Iuliano, writing recently about the military jets flying over the nation’s capital, where she lives, that were part of the country’s 250th birthday celebration. Seven hours of flyovers were scheduled for July 4. “These flyovers,” she writes, are “an exercise of an illusion of force, domination, and strength. All to further prop up hyper nationalism and militarism. But we were lucky it was just for a ‘show.’”

She went on:

As an Iranian immigrant, as I watched my children tremble and cover their ears at the roar of bombers and fighter jets over our home, so loud the walls vibrated, I was struck by a haunting duality. My heart broke because I knew what that sound means to children just like them back in Iran.

The Iranian children, she pointed out, knew, as they covered their ears and cuddled, that this could be the last day of their lives. For too many of them, that’s exactly what it was.

This is militarism. The enemy dead are hidden behind patriotic propaganda and soon vanish from collective awareness. They’re subhuman; they’re evil. They’re radical leftists. We have no choice but to kill them, over and over and over. At least 7,300 Iranians (so far). More than 70,000 Palestinians.

People have a right to protest this, to voice their opinions. They also have the right to make moral values public—no matter how much fear this creates for those who are “above” such values.

There are few tools left for a young girl coping with the reality of surviving a genocide, and so she writes in her journal.

Rachel Corrie was 23 years old when she left her hometown of Olympia, Washington in 2003 to volunteer in Rafah and Gaza City. It was her second time ever leaving the United States.

While in the occupied territories in Israel, Rachel wrote furious to-do lists about possible next steps she should take as a volunteer acclimating to a new country. From getting a new phone number to call her mom, to calling the other organizers she worked with, her journals quickly filled with reminders about the next important thing she needed to do, and the larger questions she wrestled with as she dreamed and planned for her future.

In the safety of her diary, Rachel reckoned with the US military-industrial complex and Israeli soldiers shooting at children, and how these forces overshadowed the nonviolent activism she engaged in.

Rachel, Anne, and Aysenur are dead because genocide does not differentiate the joyful young girl from the villainized political “threat” to the supremacist military state.

On March 16, 2003 Rachel Corrie stood outside the home of a Palestinian family to position herself as an unwavering obstacle in the face of a bulldozer driven by Israeli soldiers intending to violently wreck the 600th Palestinian home that week. Despite her privileged white skin and neon orange jacket demanding the protections that an American citizen is supposedly entitled to, the bulldozer pushed her down a mound of dirt and drove over her body, crushing and killing her while an audience of activists and families watched in powerless dismay.

Rachel’s journal entries and emails to her parents in the weeks leading up to her murder were collected and curated into a play called My Name is Rachel Corrie. Recently, I watched a powerful production of this play at the Mirage Theatre in Kendall, Florida and it reminded me of three other girls whose documentation of their daily life became a historic tool for the world to understand a genocide, and how the precarity of the life and death of one young girl can touch a million hearts and humanize the victims who experience war.

Aysenur Ezgi Eygi. Anne Frank. Bisan Owda

Palestinians and international activists lift portraits of slain Turkish-American activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi as they arrive for her final farewell at the Rafidia hospital morgue in Nablus in the occupied West Bank on September 8, 2024. (Photo by Jaafar Ashtiyeh/ AFP via Getty Images)

The story of Rachel Corrie mirrors that of Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, another American from Washington who went to volunteer in the West Bank in 2024 after graduating college. Like Rachel, Aysenur was moved by the ongoing oppression of Palestinians, and the current genocide. She traveled to the West Bank and was trained in nonviolent activism practiced to show resistance to injustice without provoking violent reaction. On September 6, 2024, just three days into her volunteer mission, Aysenur peacefully ended a protest, followed Israeli military orders to vacate and disperse, and was standing with other activists in an olive orchard when an Israeli soldier shot her through her head. This murder of a US citizen happened during the Biden administration, and despite urgency from Aysenur’s congressional Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), her murder was never prosecuted as a war crime, violation of international law, or example of a larger practice of unjustified murders Israeli soldiers have committed since 1948.

Rachel Corrie and Aysenur Ezgi Eygi were young, hopeful, and driven by a deep sense of compassion and justice. They were courageous to risk their safety by volunteering in Gaza and the West Bank, but no volunteer participating in a peaceful demonstration should be murdered. The loss of two extremely bright girls with impressive futures ahead is devastating and cruel.

When discussing young girls who keep diaries during genocides, I don’t need to introduce the world to Anne Frank, or the power of her diary as an educational tool about the Holocaust that has been translated into dozens of languages across the world. Her father, Otto Frank, decided to publish Anne’s diary to memorialize his grief, love, and pride for his daughter’s unbridled spirit and unfinished life, and thanks to him millions of non-Jewish people are introduced to the Holocaust and emotionally moved to believe that an atrocity like that should never happen again.

My mom is a Holocaust educator who takes hundreds of Florida students every year through a model of the annex Anne Frank hid in. She introduces students to this girl named Anne who was around their age when she hid from Nazis, and died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp just weeks before it was liberated by British forces.

While my Mom and I often disagree about the politics of Israel, we share an extensive education on the Holocaust, and the firm values that human rights should be respected, and that never again means never again for anyone. During one of our disagreements about whether or not a genocide was occurring in Gaza, I reminded her of our shared values, and shared the name of a young girl my age: Bisan Owda.

Bisan is a 29-year-old journalist in Gaza, whose charm and unwavering spark of life reaches millions of people across the world through her daily Instagram videos titled: It’s Bisan from Gaza, and I’m Still Alive. I told my mom that Bisan’s Instagram posts remind me of a modern Anne Frank’s diary, and that every time I see her face on my feed I am relieved she survived another day of these three years of Hell.

Rachel Corrie, Anne Frank and Aysenur Ezgi Eygi are dead, but I hope Bisan Owda lives to see the end of this genocide, and a world where Palestinians have the same safety, peace, dignity, and sovereignty that others are granted, entitled to, and have the privilege and power of possessing. Now that my mom knows Bisan’s name and watches her Instagram videos, she also hopes that Bisan survives this genocide.

When someone is apathetic to a group identity, or denies an ethnic cleansing, sometimes the simplicity of one name, a face, an innocent spirit, a young girl dreaming about her future despite the uncertainty of her death, can clarify the human impact of genocide.

Her name is Rachel Corrie. Anne Frank. Aysenur Ezgi Eygi. Bisan Owda

She is one precarious life in a war of indiscriminate massacre. One flower in a bloodied field.

Rachel, Anne, and Aysenur are dead because genocide does not differentiate the joyful young girl from the villainized political “threat” to the supremacist military state.

Bisan is still alive. We can follow her story, share her name, and find the individual humanity that she shares with the millions of Palestinian children, mothers, fathers, uncles, and brothers immensely suffering that all deserve to live in peace with dignity.

A major showdown on the House floor seemed imminent. An amendment, advanced by the Rules Committee, was poised to force a rare and telling record vote on stripping Israel of $3.3 billion in annual US military aid.

Brought forward by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and drawing support from key progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Greg Casar (Texas), the measure was set to put every lawmaker's stance on unconditional foreign assistance under a public microscope.

However, the high-stakes vote never actually happened. On June 30, the entire legislative package collapsed under the weight of Washington's internal political warfare. In a dramatic procedural twist, a coalition of Democrats and disgruntled conservative Republicans voted down the mandatory "rule" required to even begin debating the underlying State Department spending bill.

But even if the vote on Massie's amendment had occurred, the result would have been entirely predictable. It would have been defeated, as support for Israel on both sides of the congressional aisle remains structurally entrenched—even as the American public shifts against Israeli policy in historic numbers.

The strategic focus must remain on reaching out to the public, who hold the true power to influence—and even coerce—politicians into making the right choices.

According to a watershed Gallup poll published on February 27, a plurality of Americans now sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, leading by a margin of 41% to 36%. This marked the first time since Gallup began tracking the metric over two decades ago that Israel did not hold the upper hand in public sympathy.

Yet the shift is part of a broader, undeniable trend. A nationwide survey published in late June 2026 by Quinnipiac University revealed that an unprecedented 48% of American voters now think the United States is “too supportive” of Israel—the highest percentage recorded since the pollster first began tracking the question in 2017.

This is precisely why Massie's amendment carries such profound weight. It is significant not because US politicians have suddenly developed a collective moral conscience, but because recent election cycles represented the first time in modern American history where Palestine factored as a major, decisive variable in how citizens cast their ballots.

For years, conventional political analysts dismissed pro-Palestinian mobilization, claiming Americans only vote based on immediate socioeconomic interests and rigid party loyalties. That assessment has since proven faulty.

The political cost of Washington's complicity became undeniable following the fallout of the 2024 presidential race, a reality later confirmed by those within the inner sanctums of power. In the post-election debates, senior administration insiders admitted that the handling of the Gaza genocide alienated core voter blocks.

The political cost of Washington's complicity became undeniable after the 2024 presidential race. According to Axios, top Democratic strategists conducting the party's post-election audit explicitly admitted to advocacy groups that internal party data proved the administration's Gaza policy was a "net-negative" on the ballot.

This finding—disclosed during internal briefings by Democratic National Committee autopsy author Paul Rivera—confirmed that the party's unconditional backing of Israel directly fractured its base, and ultimately contributed to its loss of the elections.

The upcoming November elections are expected to be fiercely contested, and Gaza will, once more, be on the ballot. Following a series of progressive, anti-war victories in local primaries, The Guardian reported that US foreign policy toward the conflict has effectively "turned into something of a litmus test for the left."

This historic transformation in the popular American perception of Palestine and Israel does not indicate that a political rupture is soon to follow, as US politicians are notorious for their moral flexibility and their ability to spin language in whatever way is necessary to remain in power.

Indeed, the evolution of the language used by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez regarding the word "genocide" in Gaza tells the entire story of how the Democratic establishment is never compelled by genuine moral urgency, but rather by sheer political expediency.

In the early months of the genocide, Ocasio-Cortez hesitated to adopt the term, acutely aware of the deep sensitivities surrounding such language in US media and mainstream society.

"The fact that this word is even in our discourse... demonstrates the mass inhumanity that Gaza is facing," she stated, attempting to navigate an acceptable rhetorical middle ground in January 2024 during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Yet, under the relentless weight of pressure from an increasingly mobilized progressive constituency, she systematically upgraded her language in March of the same year, declaring on the House floor: "If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like, open your eyes. It looks like the forced famine of 1.1 million innocents."

This linguistic shift continued to intensify until it reached the Munich Security Conference last February, where Ocasio-Cortez finally deployed the term without any qualification. Unconditional US aid, she flatly argued, "enabled a genocide in Gaza."

Ocasio-Cortez is just one of many Democratic progressives who carefully filtered their vocabulary to avoid the political fallout of using the term genocide too early, or too late. Her position was eventually corrected not because of a sudden moral awakening or the discovery of new information regarding the "unfolding genocide," but because the margins of error allowed by a newly conscious American public have completely closed.

Therefore, the strategic focus must remain on reaching out to the public, who hold the true power to influence—and even coerce—politicians into making the right choices.

Ultimately, the current movement serves as a crucial barometer, proving that sustained, grassroots, anti-war pressure is successfully destabilizing Israel's traditionally unquestioned shield in Washington.

Amid a succession of financial shocks, the Middle East war being only the most recent, developing countries’ debt levels are alarmingly high and continuing to rise. These burdens make it even more difficult for governments in the Global South to meet the basic needs of their populations. And because the world is interconnected through international trade and financial markets, these developing country debts boomerang back to harm ordinary people in the United States and other advanced economies as well.

To effectively address this growing crisis, we need to recognize that the debt landscape is very different today than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when global leaders agreed on relief initiatives worth more than $130 billion. Back then, private creditors held only about 5% of developing country debt. The rest was in the hands of public creditors, including the United States, UK, Germany, and other Group of 7 rich country governments, as well as multilateral financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which the G7 largely control.

Today, more than 60% of developing country debt is owed to private creditors who typically have the power to sue for full payment even when collective talks or international community initiatives for debt relief are ongoing. The mere threat of litigation gives these private creditors disproportionate leverage that puts debtors at a disadvantage and erodes debt relief gains. During Ethiopia’s prolonged struggle to access debt reductions under the G20 Common Framework, for example, private bondholders threatened to sue rather than make an effort similar to that of public creditors.

What can be done? One promising approach involves working the levers of power in the jurisdictions that govern private debt contracts. More than 90% are issued in New York and the UK. And over the past year, a bill to crack down on predatory private creditors gained real traction in the New York legislature. The “Champerty Fix Act” would prevent private creditors with debt contracts in that state from purchasing heavily discounted debt and then litigating to collect in full, instead of constructively engaging in debt negotiations. The bill would also significantly cut the high interest rates that debt crisis countries pay on claims under litigation.

Lifting the burden of unsustainable debts is the morally right thing to do—and it is in our interest.

With support from a coalition of religious, business, union, anti-poverty, environmental, development, and diaspora organizations, the bill passed the New York Senate and had enough support to pass in the Assembly, but that chamber’s leader chose not to bring it up for a vote by the time the session ended in early June. Supporters continue to demand that the Assembly be re-opened for a vote on the matter before the end of the year.

This legislation would be a huge win for the billions of people in countries where high debt payments divert essential financing for poverty reduction, social services, and development progress. It would also benefit workers, savers, consumers, and taxpayers in advanced economies—including the United States. Private creditors’ current power to disrupt sovereign debt resolution has negative ripple effects on our own people, especially the most vulnerable.

When debt crises affect US trade partners, jobs and wages that depend on import- and export-dependent companies in the United States inevitably suffer. And when inflation goes up due to supply chain disruptions in countries undergoing debt crises, consumers quickly feel it in the prices of their groceries and other everyday goods.

Pensions and other savings vehicles in the United States have exposure to indebted developing economies either directly—when they invest in instruments they issue—or indirectly—when they invest in US companies that have trade or investment in such countries. Reducing the time it takes a country to go from a debt crisis to a lasting restructuring—which currently averages 10 years—would significantly improve returns for our pensions and savers.

Taxpayers also have a stake in ensuring that taxpayer-funded debt relief does not bail out private creditors unwilling to negotiate fairly. In current restructuring deals, private creditors typically get repayments that are 20 percentage points higher than those received by public lenders.

Debt relief for the poorest has strong religious foundations that cut across multiple faith traditions and has been a landmark bipartisan pillar of US policy under every administration since the late 1990s.

Last year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his counterparts in all G20 countries adopted a declaration on debt sustainability. As the United States took over this year’s Presidency of the G20, he reaffirmed this direction by making the improvement of debt restructurings and debt transparency a priority. Building checks on private creditors in jurisdictions whose courts they use as leverage would go a long way toward supporting these goals by facilitating successful debt renegotiations.

Lifting the burden of unsustainable debts is the morally right thing to do—and it is in our interest.

Last week, millions of people around the world were subjected to record-breaking heatwaves. At least 25 deaths in the U.S. from this heat dome were reported. The French government also counted over 2,000 excess deaths during the June heatwaves. At the same time, this past weekend, a devastating super typhoon hit the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam, leaving islands like Rota, where 2,000 people live, without running water and most buildings impacted.

In both cases, the people least responsible for the climate crisis are the most vulnerable to its effects. And in both cases, people’s ability to withstand crises has been made dramatically worse by militarization. Those most threatened by heatwaves are too often in neighborhoods subjected to militarized policing, economic abandonment, and the exploitation of their communities. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are occupied by the U.S. military and subjected to environmentally destructive bases and training exercises.

These climate disasters are not new, but they are coming at a moment when we have an opportunity to do something about them. Congress will soon vote on the Pentagon budget. This year’s proposed budget is an obscene $1.5 trillion, and the cumulative amount of military spending would be even higher. For the first time in years, there will likely be a notable number of Democratic Party votes against it. Senator Ed Markey has also introduced a bill to cut it in half. Cutting this budget could be one of the only pieces of climate policy that can meet the speed and scale of the climate crisis. Fighting it could open up new organizing terrains and break down movement silos that have prevented traction for so long.

Even without redistributing that $1.5 trillion, cutting the Pentagon’s budget could do wonders for the planet. The Pentagon is the world’s largest institutional polluter. It has over 800 bases worldwide. Each base acts as part of the permanent enforcement mechanism for the fossil fuel industry, driving ecocidal resource wars and entrenching U.S. corporate dominance in oil- and mineral-rich regions. This budget also opens a direct line of funding for more data centers that poison communities and drive further resource wars to power them. At least $30 billion is requested for direct Department of War-owned data centers, over $58 billion is requested for AI capabilities more broadly, and over half of the proposed budget is going to private weapons contractors whose AI programs are directly supported by the data centers being developed around the country. Companies building these centers, like OpenAI, Meta, and Amazon Web Services, have all passed their own multi-billion-dollar deals with the Pentagon.

What could we do with that money instead? The scale of the Pentagon’s environmental destruction and its financial power is unfathomable; each of those 800 bases has generations of stories of destruction, displacement, and long-term illness. Each transaction covers multiple continents. And so the scale of possibility — what we could do alternatively with these resources — is equally immense.

According to the National Priorities Project, the current $1 trillion Pentagon budget could fund a year’s solar electricity for 1.92 billion homes, for instance. And according to the Climate and Community Institute (CCI), the proposed $500 billion increase alone could cover 60% of U.S. homes. $500 billion could also end the wildfire crisis in California and restore 100 million acres of forest. Of course, the current oil-motivated wars, like the U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran, are quite costly. The CCI report estimates that as of early April 2026, the $37 billion that the U.S. had spent on the assault on Iran could have paid for pre-k for every four-year-old in the country, green retrofits for 2,000 public schools, and over double the cost of restoring Trump’s cuts to SNAP benefits.

We can also point to other pathways for addressing the climate crisis: Instead of funding missile development, we could fund clean technology development. The land taken up by massive, sprawling, and toxic bases could be cleaned up and devoted to cultural sites, schools, agro-ecological farms, regenerative production, and the return of land to indigenous sovereignty and stewardship. New jobs and training programs could be created in all of these areas while, of course, avoiding false solutions such as carbon credits, carbon capture technology, and nuclear energy.

Without more money to new bases increasingly encircling China, we could collaborate on green technology instead of starting a new ecocidal cold war, and we could stop trampling on the sovereignty of countries throughout the Asia-Pacific like the Northern Mariana Islands. We could move toward a fossil fuel treaty and work with extremely vulnerable countries being occupied and sanctioned, like Cuba, to move their own holistic climate adaptation plans forward.

Fossil fuel supply chains are global, as is the impact of the U.S. military. Many states in the Global South continue to be dominant producers of fossil fuels due to debt traps and sanctions. Global climate finance could help alleviate that debt and fund a transition to truly renewable energy, free from the reproduction of violent extraction often enacted through the mining of so-called “critical” minerals (often deemed “critical” for the sake of military usage), also carried out in states like New Mexico and on indigenous territory.

This is, of course, just a sliver of what is possible, based on projects, blueprints, and visions already developed by those on the front lines of the climate crisis for decades. In recent years, these visions have been defined and revised in the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba, The Red Deal, and A People’s Green New Deal. This year’s People’s Declaration for a Rapid, Just, and Equitable Transition was developed from a global summit made up of 900 civil society organizations in Santa Marta, Colombia. Notably, its 12th principle emphasizes the irreplaceable and central role of dismantling U.S. imperialism and militarism globally within the much larger framework for confronting the climate crisis — we can and should be just as clear-eyed in our organizing.

When we cut the Pentagon budget, we can be imaginative. We can see a world where the iron claw of extraction is weakened, and we can begin building something new in its place. The Pentagon budget is a clear target, with the potential to address rising environmental, economic, and public health crises globally. At a time when most environmental policy is almost impossible to pass at the federal level, we can fight against this Pentagon budget and choose to breathe new life into our movements and our world.

Janeese George’s recent victory in the Washington, DC, mayoral primary and wins by progressive Democrats in New York and Colorado last week are signs that Zohran Mamdani's election was not a one-off, and that populist, “eat the rich” messaging is effective across a broad swath of voters. But as the US heads toward midterm elections, Democrats are having a hard time finding a partywide motto with similar resonance. Since last fall, they have been focusing on “affordability” because the slogan resonates with working-class voters; their main message is that things are too expensive and that the cause is unchecked corporate greed.

But here’s the problem with focusing on affordability: It addresses poor and working-class Americans as consumers rather than as workers. It ignores the stagnant hiring environment and Americans’ widespread anxiety about getting and keeping jobs. And it fails to differentiate between short-run price pressures, such as the ones created by the war in Iran, and prolonged economic trends. Campaigning on affordability could leave Democrats laser-focused on unclogging temporary economic bottlenecks without a strategy for the long term. And affordability candidates must contend with the awkward fact that, by some measures, US wages have actually outpaced inflation. Some big-ticket items, including college tuition and airfare, are more affordable now than they were a decade ago.

If Democrats want to win this fall, promising to curb inflation and pinning the blame for high prices on corporate greed is not enough. Candidates should instead focus on precarity, the sense that American jobs and the future are hanging by a thread. I am a historian who studies how the economic concepts we use shape the politics we pursue. I have also seen firsthand how low-paying, precarious work and short-term contracts have engulfed higher education and how precarity has become a rallying cry for student workers and contingent faculty seeking to unionize.

If Democrats want to win this fall, promising to curb inflation and pinning the blame for high prices on corporate greed is not enough.

Precarity has great sloganeering potential. It names a phenomenon that straddles the working and the middle classes. More importantly, precarity messaging could help Democrats connect with younger voters, who are not yet fretting about childcare or housing prices but are very much worried about artificial intelligence, automation, and the lack of entry-level jobs.

Precarity sets in the moment someone begins thinking about entering the workforce. High schoolers and college students across the country ask themselves, “Will there be jobs for me? What can I add to the new A.I. economy?” Affordability rhetoric cannot answer these pressing questions. But running on an anti-precarity agenda would give Democrats the opportunity to lay out bold plans for working- and middle-class Americans, including strengthening safety nets for recent graduates, bankrolling programs that train young Americans for the many well-paying blue-collar jobs that go unfilled, and retraining workers when occupational demand shifts.

They should also capitalize on labor unions’ popularity, which has in the past decade returned to historic highs. Expanding workers’ collective bargaining rights should be a core part of the Democrats’ midterm platform. Only by empowering labor unions and strengthening worker protections will elected officials be able to deliver on eliminating precarity. Unfortunately, the Democrats’ other major campaign slogan, “abundance,” has drawn opposition from workers’ groups. Unions are wary that the push to cut red tape and supercharge new housing and infrastructure construction could come at the cost of hard-won wage and training standards.

Widespread unionization can eliminate bottlenecks and lower prices by ensuring that workers are better coordinated and trained, helping to avoid the accidents, delays, and manpower shortages that cause construction prices to soar. Lawmakers hoping to deliver on promises of abundance should start by creating stable jobs and secure futures for the workers who are expected to build new houses and energy infrastructure.

Of course, Democratic candidates do not have to choose between campaigning on increasing affordability or eliminating precarity. These are complementary messages, and they point to related problems. So far, however, Democratic pollsters have yet to fully test a worker-centered slogan and battleplan. Americans need something more ambitious and less transitory than relief at the checkout counter. Prices go up and down, but secure and satisfying jobs can last years, if not decades.

On July 7, an Immigration Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a Mexican national. According to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, Araujo “weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run over an ICE law enforcement officer resulting in our officer firing his weapon in self-defense.” As of the time of this writing, the agency has yet to provide any evidence.

This shooting comes days after a massive surge in ICE arrests. Between June 26 and June 30, 10,000 people were reportedly detained by immigration agents.

This is a tragic story—one that we have seen many times before.

Silverio Villegas González: On September 12, Villegas González, a Mexican national, was shot and killed by an ICE agent. This occurred during the agency’s “Operation Midway Blitz” in the Chicago area.

Araujo was not the first of ICE’s victims. So long as the agency exists, he will not be the last.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleged that the ICE agent “was hit by the car and dragged a significant distance. Fearing for his own life, the officer fired his weapon.” DHS further claimed that the agent “sustained multiple injuries.”

These were lies. Bodycam footage collected by Franklin Park police officers show the ICE agent saying he “got dragged a little bit” and describing his own injuries as “nothing major.” Surveillance video shows that Villegas González did not drive toward or hit either agent. Several eyewitnesses further refute DHS’ narrative.

Marimar Martinez: On October 4, Martinez, a US citizen, was shot five times by Border Patrol agent Charles Exum. In a statement, DHS described this as “defensive fire.” They alleged, without evidence, that Martinez and her fellow “domestic terrorists” “ambushed” and “rammed federal agents with their vehicles.” On social media, FBI Director Kash Patel posted a video—from an unrelated incident—of a black SUV aggressively ramming an agent’s truck as "proof" of Martinez’s crime.

These, too, were lies. Bodycam footage shows the agents already had their weapons drawn as one of them turned the steering wheel toward Martinez’s car. One agent can be heard saying, “It’s time to get aggressive.”

Text messages reveal the “big time” support Exum received from then-Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks, and then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in the aftermath of this incident. Hours after the shooting, Bovino even offered to extend Exum’s retirement with CBP “in light of [his] excellent service in Chicago.” He added, “you have much yet left to do!”

In a group chat, Exum bragged about how he “fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes.”

Renee Nicole Good: On January 7, Noem alleged that Good, a US citizen, “weaponize[d] her vehicle” and “attempted to run” over ICE agent Jonathan Ross. This act of so-called “domestic terrorism” justified Ross’s lethal action.

Once again, more lies. Footage captured on that day definitively showed—from multiple camera angles—that Good was turning away from Ross as he opened fire. He was never in danger.

Six months later, her murder has yet to be properly investigated. This was always the government’s plan. The day after her death, Vice President JD Vance insisted that the officer had “absolute immunity.” A few weeks afterwards, six federal prosecutors resigned over the Justice Department’s reluctance to investigate Ross. An FBI agent who had opened a civil rights investigation into Good’s death also resigned after she was ordered to reclassify it as an investigation into an assault on the ICE agent.

To these names, there are many we can add: Ruben Ray Martinez (shot and killed), Alex Pretti (shot and killed), Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis (shot), Jesus Javier Gomez Islas (shot, left permanently blind in his right eye), Keith Porter Jr. (shot and killed), Carlitos Ricardo Parias (shot).

Trump’s bigotry, Congress’ cowardice, and the Supreme Court’s blind obedience; a government devoid of checks and balances at war with its own people—this is America after 250 years.

This is the new normal of Donald Trump’s America—federal agents flood our neighborhoods. A poorly trained, gun-happy immigration agent kills someone. The administration alleges, without evidence, that the victim was responsible. No proper investigation is conducted. No one is held accountable. A family is torn apart. A community traumatized. Rinse and repeat.

We do not yet know all the details surrounding Araujo’s death. Perhaps we will never.

For now, there are two things we can take as certainties: First, any official narrative put forth by ICE, DHS, or the Trump administration cannot be trusted. They have repeatedly lied to the public, defended their killers, and blamed the victims. In their view, if you are killed by ICE, protest ICE, criticize ICE on social media, or even write a strongly worded email to ICE, then you are the criminal. You are the “domestic terrorist.”

Second, Araujo was not the first of ICE’s victims. So long as the agency exists, he will not be the last. The next victim could be anyone. Regardless of race or legal status, we are all vulnerable to Trump’s taxpayer-funded secret police.

This is the reality that we all find ourselves in—one that is nurtured and sustained by every aspect of the federal government: the Trump administration’s militarized immigration enforcement and crackdown on political dissent; a Congress that continues, despite the deaths, to provide billions to ICE and DHS; and a Supreme Court that gives ICE agents legal immunity to racially profile minorities and that paves the way for DHS to strip noncitizens of their protection status.

Trump’s bigotry, Congress’ cowardice, and the Supreme Court’s blind obedience; a government devoid of checks and balances at war with its own people—this is America after 250 years.

On Facebook, Araujo’s son, Ronaldo Salgado, wrote: “My father has been in this country for nearly 35 years, working in construction to provide for myself, my two brothers, and my mother. He was in the process of obtaining his work permit through the legal process. He was on his way to work, picking up his workers. My father did not deserve this.”

None of ICE’s victims deserved this.

We cannot allow ICE to continue tearing families apart. We cannot continue to suffer politicians and institutions that prioritize war and violence over helping the people they are meant to serve.

Despite the dangers, we must continue to protest ICE. We must advocate for progressive candidates and policies. The situation is bleak, but things will only get worse if we do nothing. The White House will not save us. The Supreme Court will not save us. Congress, as it stands, will not save us. We must save ourselves.

Temperatures have soared globally this summer. And far from simply being uncomfortable, it’s killing people.

This past July 4 was one of the hottest in US history. While Americans gathered to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday, dozens died from extreme heat—and the toll may still rise. In Europe, which has seen its own devastating heatwave, some 3,700 people have died. And the heat has become so extreme in Pakistan that people’s teeth are literally dissolving in their mouths.

This is only the beginning of extreme heat this summer—and if we don’t stop the climate crisis, for the rest of time. Scientists are warning that this marks “uncharted territory” in rising temperatures.

The good news? We know the solution. To build a better world, with cheaper and cleaner energy, we have to phase out fossil fuels and transition to green energy. This process is easier and cheaper than ever. Some 90% of renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels, and renewables don’t heat our planet the way that fossil fuels do.

As temperatures rise, we are now in a battle of people vs. fossil fuels.

The bad news? Fossil fuel companies, and the politicians who support them, are trying to block this transition. Companies like Exxon have known for over 50 years that fossil fuels cause climate change —and that rising temperatures would cost lives. But they’ve tried to bury this information, stall the transition, and deceive the public that fossil fuels aren’t responsible.

I’ve seen this play out firsthand.

When I was 17, I spent a sunny week in Dubai at the 28th United Nations annual climate conference (COP28). I was so excited to attend the conference. I met other activists passionate about renewable energy and taking down the fossil fuel industry. I even attended lobbying meetings with the lead US negotiators, Trigg Talley and Sue Biniaz.

Everything in Dubai felt larger than life—from the Burj Khalifa to the massive dome in the middle of the conference center. But over the week, the conference began to feel more and more dystopian. The fossil fuel industry had sent 2,456 lobbyists to that COP—and despite the loud cries of activists and scientists, their voices drowned ours out.

At the end of the conference, we had a small win—fossil fuels were mentioned in a COP text for the first time ever. But the language was so weak that the statement felt almost meaningless. The text did nothing to change the trajectory of the climate crisis.

The fossil fuel industry has propagated lies about climate change for years. They’ve tried to convince us that climate change is our fault instead of theirs, with campaigns around “carbon footprints”—a concept created by BP—and recycling, which was popularized by the plastics industry but has never managed to efficiently recycle plastics themselves.

They have also spent hundreds of millions of dollars on influencing climate decision-making spaces—from United Nations conferences to Washington, DC. Big Oil spent $445 million during the 2024 elections—and in return has gotten $40 billion in fossil fuel subsidies from the Trump administration.

The time has come for us to rise up against this deceptive and powerful industry, to finally kick them out of spaces with influence. It is high time for us to stop being manipulated by fossil fuel companies that are only out to make a profit and harm us.

As temperatures rise, we are now in a battle of people vs. fossil fuels. We must win—it’s a matter of life and death.

The Trump administration is illegally using the Social Security email list to spew political propaganda. That email list likely includes everyone with an online Social Security account—over 100 million people, both current and future Social Security beneficiaries. The purpose of the list is for the government to share important information about Social Security benefits.

On July 2, the Trump administration sent an email from Commissioner Frank Bisignano, ostensibly to mark America’s 250th birthday. The email, like a similar one sent a year ago, is a fully political document.

Bisignano begins by bragging about President Donald Trump’s tax bill without mentioning:

1. Trump’s bill cuts over $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which is causing hospitals around the country to close—a disaster for seniors, especially those living in rural areas.
2. Trump’s bill gives massive tax cuts to the ultra wealthy, including trillionaire Elon Musk.
3. Trump’s bill does not end taxes on Social Security benefits, but does weaken Social Security’s long-term finances.

Bisignano then goes on to tout allegedly improved customer service. Widespread media reports show that customer service has massively deteriorated since Musk’s DOGE pushed out more than 8,000 of Social Security’s most experienced, knowledgeable workers. These reports include first-person stories where even highly educated people with Social Security expertise have faced months-long nightmares to resolve simple errors that cut themselves or their family members off from benefits.

Shortly after Bisignano was confirmed last year, Social Security removed longstanding customer service metrics from its website. Since then, Bisignano has cherry-picked his own metrics and used them to mislead.

Bisignano moved many of the remaining Social Security office workers to answering phones, while other essential work piles up. Then, he brags about shorter waits on the phone. What he doesn’t mention is that if you hang up in frustration, or talk to someone who can’t help you because they aren’t adequately trained, it still counts toward a short wait on the phone. The only metric that really matters is if people are getting the help they need. On that count, Bisignano is failing miserably.

The situation is particularly dire for people who need help in person. The country is dotted with Social Security “ghost offices” that aren’t officially closed (because that’s bad publicity for Trump and Bisignano) but have only a skeleton crew of workers remaining. These offices can’t meaningfully serve the community, and people are losing their hard-earned benefits as a result.

The same week that Bisignano sent out his political propaganda email, the Social Security Administration announced that the Freedom 250 logo will appear on the Social Security Cards of all babies born for the rest of 2026.

Freedom 250 is a semi-private, partisan entity. Trump and his allies are using it to turn the celebration of our nation’s 250th anniversary into profit for themselves. Freedom 250 has a history of harvesting data, and employs former DOGE operatives. Bisignano claims that the Social Security Administration isn’t paying Freedom 250 a licensing fee, or sharing data with it. But we already know that Bisignano lies as easily as he breathes.

Trump’s hijacking of Social Security is just the latest example of his corruption. Like the reflecting pool, the Kennedy Center, and the White House, Social Security is a sacred American institution that Trump is abusing for his own financial and political gain.

Social Security is a nonpartisan program, with overwhelming support from Democrats, Republicans, and independents. By using it for political purposes, Trump and Bisignano are betraying the American people.

On the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, a coalition of more than 500 veterans, active-duty military members, and military families gathered in the birthplace of the nation to reject what they called the “Trump administration's fascist vision for the country's future.”

Undeterred by 101°F heat that forced the cancellation of the official Philadelphia parade, the coalition—About Face, 50501 Vets, Veterans For Peace, Common Defense, Military Families Speak Out, Fayetteville Resistance Coalition, and Center on Conscience and War—marched under the banner “Veterans Against Fascism."

"We cannot continue the next 250 years as we have the last 250," proclaimed About Face organizing director Rebecca Roberts, a 12-year veteran of the New Jersey National Guard who resigned her commission in protest of US foreign policy.

“Our neighbors are being kidnapped by ICE and put into concentration camps; VA, Medicaid, and SNAP—vital services—are being cut to instead fund war crimes abroad, and for troops to occupy cities like DC, Memphis, and New Orleans,” said Roberts.

“So who is with me?” asked Roberts, as she led attendees in a call-and-response, asking marchers to raise their fists if they demand:

• No Troops and No ICE in the Streets or at the Ballot Box.
• An End to Endless Wars and War Crimes.
• Divestment From War and Funding Communities at Home.

Roberts noted the march returned to the same ground where veterans and military families gathered 50 years ago, led by Vietnam Veterans Against the War, to demand a country that took care of them as they suffered and healed from the wounds of war.

The Veterans Against Fascism coalition was the front contingent of the larger Peoples’ Parade, comprised of local Philadelphia groups and national groups such as the American Friends Service Committee, AFL-CIO Philadelphia Council, Juntos, and No ICE Philly. Over 1,000 people marched on July 4 in what the Peoples’ Parade called “an act of decisive opposition to the current state of American politics and material conditions, including mass deportation, forced displacement, climate crisis, and international war.”

Michael McPhearson, executive director of Veterans For Peace, invoked the Declaration of Independence signed 250 years ago in the same city:

On this anniversary, hundreds of veterans and military families have come to sound an alarm for democracy, as our national leaders ignore these basic truths, trample our rights, and treat us as subjects of the billionaire class, not as self-governing equals.

McPhearson reminded service members of "your duty to refuse illegal orders" and called on the public "to honor our service not with ‘thank yous’ but by organizing and acting to protect our elections and stop fascism.”

Largest Gathering of Service Members for Anti-War Protest since Vietnam

Hundreds of vets and military families marched through Philadelphia on the 250th anniversary of the United States, along with the People’s Parade, calling for common sense reforms on July 4, 2026 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Lisa Lake/Getty Images for About Face: Veterans Against The War)

Among the marchers were at least a dozen currently-serving members of the US military, part of the Service Members’ Anti-War Contingent. Cam White of the Center on Conscience and War, marching alongside active-duty members of the Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy, said:

There are more active duty troops at this protest than there have been in generations, because people in uniform today are waking up. Many service members are facing the greatest crisis of conscience that they have ever dealt with in their lives.

White reminded attendees that "service members do not take an oath to a president or a government; they take an oath to the Constitution. Troops have a duty to disobey unlawful orders."

Maxine Rebeles, a Navy veteran and member of About Face and Common Defense, tied the march to her work with the No Border Wall Coalition and Frontera Federation in her hometown of Laredo, Texas, describing efforts to stop a border wall and river buoy obstructions that endanger riverfront communities' only water source:

We're watching militarized law enforcement like ICE and Border Patrol harass, intimidate, and outright murder people who were standing up for their neighbors. This is an alarm bell for the country. And we don't intend to be quiet about it.

"The future does not belong to billionaires, it does not belong to bulldozers, and it does not belong to fear," she said. "It belongs to our children, it belongs to our communities, and it belongs to us."

Johnny Odom, a retired US Army Sergeant First Class, combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, and member of Military Families Speak Out, spoke as the father of a service member currently deployed to Jordan since the start of the war with Iran.

"Today I stand here before all of you as a father... to denounce this illegal and unjustified war against the people of Iran and the mis-utilization of American forces without congressional approval and, most important, the people's approval,” said Odom.

“In my multiple deployments, I honestly can't tell you why we were in Iraq or Afghanistan or what we achieved other than violence and trauma. Now my son is repeating the cycle in Jordan, and it tears me up inside to think he is in harm's way for no good reason."

Odom called on veterans and military families to help "restore the standards and traditions that make this country truly unique," warning:

We are at a crossroads. We can choose to build and fight for the country that we all deserve, or we can let a wealthy few steer us down a path of ruin.

Another participant, Savanna Rostad of Milwaukee, was full of praise for the marchers:

A key word I would use to define the July 4 Veterans Against Fascism march in Philadelphia is "care." From the medic team who worked tirelessly in the heat to distribute water to the crowd, to the leaders who centered our collective voice around a message of unity and hope, everyone demonstrated care for each other and for our collective future. Witnessing this community in action redefined what nationhood means to me. I now feel a sense of meaning and belonging.

As NATO convenes once again to double down on military spending, arms production, and the logic of deterrence through superior firepower—this despite the alliance’s own members having repeatedly used force in violation of international law in recent years, in Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, and the open-ended War on Terror—it is worth asking: What kind of security are we actually buying?

These interventions, often justified under the guise of humanitarianism or collective defense, have in practice destabilized entire regions, fueled insurgencies, and visited immense suffering upon some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. The result is a perverse paradox of an alliance that presents itself as the guardian of a rules-based order but has, through its own actions, undermined that very order, deepening the insecurity it claims to combat.

The record is unambiguous: Militarized security is reactive, not preventive. It treats symptoms—territorial disputes, insurgencies, great-power rivalry—while ignoring root causes such as inequality, resource scarcity, political exclusion, and the erosion of trust in institutions. The post-1945 era, for all its flaws, demonstrated that stability is not the product of arms races, but of norms, institutions, and the rule of law.

The relative peace among liberal democracies, the decline in international armed conflicts, and the gradual expansion of human rights all occurred not because states built bigger arsenals, but because they built stronger frameworks for cooperation. International organizations—including the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the International Court of Justice—have encouraged cooperation and stability, while aircraft carriers or hypersonic missiles have mainly spread terror and destruction. Yet as NATO attempts to expand its influence these very institutions of social cooperation are under attack by the same NATO member states who have cut funding and even withdrawn from the organizations in some cases.

What we require is a legal framework that serves as the foundation for a truly equitable international community—one that enforces cooperation over competition, shared development over extraction, and the rights of all people over the privileges of a few.

The opportunity cost of this militarized approach urged by NATO is staggering. The combined military expenditure of NATO members now exceeds $1.3 trillion annually according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The UN Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Reports indicates this is a figure that dwarfs the estimated $40 billion needed to close the global gaps in education, healthcare, and food security.

For the price of a single nuclear-powered submarine, a nation could fund universal pre-kindergarten for its entire population for a year. For the cost of a new fighter jet squadron, it could eliminate malaria in an entire region. These are not moral abstractions; they are strategic failures.

Study after study has shown that spending on healthcare, education, and renewable energy generates far greater economic multipliers in terms of job creation and GDP growth than equivalent spending on defense. Military expenditure distorts economies, prioritizing a narrow industrial base of contractors and exporters over diversified, sustainable development. It exacerbates inequality by funneling public resources into capital-intensive sectors that benefit elites, while social services—hospitals, schools, public transit—suffer from chronic underfunding. When citizens see their tax dollars funding bombs rather than bridges, cynicism replaces civic engagement, and the very legitimacy of a country’s governance is undermined.

International law, which has been a strong impetus to cooperation in the world and which can provide fundamental rules of fairness, has been used as an instrument to promote militarization and violence in the world by the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world.

The path forward demands a radical reimagining of international law—not as it is currently wielded by powerful states to justify intervention, enforce economic dependency, or entrench global hierarchies, but as a tool for genuine equity, cooperation, and shared prosperity.

Today, international law is too often a weapon of the strong, invoked selectively to punish adversaries while ignoring the transgressions of allies. This is not the international law we need. What we require is a legal framework that serves as the foundation for a truly equitable international community—one that enforces cooperation over competition, shared development over extraction, and the rights of all people over the privileges of a few.

Such a system must prioritize binding agreements on climate change to ensure our natural environment is protected not as a luxury but as a fundamental right. A fair international legal system would mandate fair trade practices that prevent the exploitation of weaker economies, and it would guarantee economic rights—food, water, education, healthcare—as inalienable entitlements for every human being, not as charities doled out at the discretion of the wealthy. A rejuvenated international law would also hold all states, regardless of power, accountable to the same standards, ending the hypocrisy that allows some nations to flout norms with impunity while others are punished for far lesser offenses.

The argument for participatory governance is not merely moral but strategic. States that involve all their citizens in a meaningful way in the governance of their country are less likely to engage in external conflict because their leaders are accountable to electorates who bear the costs of war. But this participation must be substantive, not procedural. Holding elections means little if economic inequality allows elites to dominate policy, if media concentration distorts public discourse, or if voter suppression silences marginalized groups. True participation requires deliberative assemblies, workplace unionization, digital direct democracy, and local autonomy. When people feel ownership over their government, they are less susceptible to the siren song of populist demagogues and the xenophobic chants of nationalists.

The post-2008 austerity consensus has been a disaster for global stability. Neoliberalism’s core assumption—that unregulated competition drives progress—ignores the fact that markets produce winners and losers, and that losers, when abandoned, turn to extremism. The rise of far-right parties, the spread of extremist movements, and the surge in gang violence are all, in no insignificant part, responses to economic despair.

A global fair deal must prioritize universal basic services as human rights, not commodities. It must invest in green industrial policy to create high-wage, low-carbon jobs. It must cancel the crushing debts of the Global South and replace free trade with fair trade, ensuring that corporations cannot exploit weak regulations in developing States. And it must tax extreme wealth to fund the end of extreme poverty. These are not socialist or communist ideas; they are merely common sense policies.

Yet NATO’s current trajectory assumes that security is a zero-sum game, where one state’s gain is another’s loss. This ignores that the greatest threats of our time—climate change, pandemics, nuclear proliferation—respect no borders. Even China and the United States, despite their rivalry, have cooperated on climate accords and pandemic response when it served their interests. The Montreal Protocol succeeded because states realized ozone depletion threatened them all. Collective security, properly structured, can work. The question is not whether cooperation is possible, but whether we have the will to pursue it. NATO does not answer this challenge, but seeks to exploit it by setting people against each other in the name of militarization.

We have a choice. We can continue down the path of militarized security, where trillions are spent on weapons that guarantee mutual destruction, where inequality festers, and where the logic of competition ensures that no one is ever truly safe. Or we can invest in a future where no child goes hungry, no family lacks healthcare, and no nation lives in fear of another—a future where international law serves as an equalizer, ensuring that the rights and dignity of all people are upheld, and that our shared planet is preserved for generations to come. The former is the path of barbarism. The latter is the path of civilization.

NATO’s leaders would do well to remember that true security is not measured in the size of an arsenal, but in the strength of the societies it claims to protect—and that those societies are far weaker when their most vulnerable members are abandoned to the consequences of unchecked militarism.