On September 1, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told reporters that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents could be deployed to polling sites across the country. He remarked, “The only reason why we would be at polling places is if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down.” Later that day, DHS doubled down on this point. In a statement, the department said that, while ICE is not “planning operations targeting polling locations,” the agency conducts “intelligence-driven targeted enforcement, and if an active public safety threat endangered a polling location, they may be arrested as a result of that targeted enforcement action.”

Missing from those statements, however, is that this “intelligence-driven” enforcement would be based on DHS’ explicit and baseless efforts to amplify President Donald Trump’s election fraud lies. In July, Mullin said, “We will scrub all election records, looking for illegal aliens and those who are ineligible to vote, including those that somehow voted, yet they were deceased.” At the time, he also threatened to withhold federal election-related aid to states that failed to comply with the Trump administration’s probe.

That same month, DHS issued a statement alleging that over 250,000 noncitizens are illegally registered to vote in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Nevada. According to DHS employees and officials familiar with the situation, those numbers were wildly inflated. For instance, while DHS claimed that there were close to 16,000 noncitizens on Nevada’s voter list, it only managed to provide state officials with information on 185 voters. DHS failed to disclose what data they used to match those voters to noncitizens.

This is unsurprising. As the Brennan Center for Justice reports, empirical studies, state investigations, and work by journalists have consistently found that cases of noncitizens voting are exceptionally rare. Moreover, claims made by Republicans and their media allies to the contrary have been repeatedly shown to be false.

These extreme measures also point to just how afraid Trump is ahead of the midterms.

The reality is that Mullin’s DHS is actively trying to fabricate a pretext for ICE to be present at polling sites, regardless of how illegal it would be. 18 U.S.C § 592 directly prohibits any deployment of military personnel or “armed” federal agents “at any place where a general or special election is held.”

To that end, Mullin is exploiting every resource available to him. On September 1, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) reportedly launched “a coordinated criminal voter fraud surge initiative to pursue investigative leads, conduct field interviews, and support timely prosecutorial review,” according to a federal guidance reviewed by CNN. HSI offices in Washington, Wisconsin, Missouri, Georgia, California, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New York, and Connecticut are expected to take investigative action from early September through mid October. While HSI ordinarily focuses on crimes like human trafficking, drug smuggling, and child exploitation, it has been repeatedly tasked with investigating voter fraud in Trump’s second term. In February, the White House directed the agency to determine if any naturalized citizens voted or registered to vote prior to becoming citizens. HSI has also been directed to coordinate with US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to issue removal proceedings for noncitizens suspected of or linked to voter fraud.

ICE is also currently seeking vendors to handle “and secure delivery of publicly available voter registration files and voter history files to support Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) fraud detection and data segmentation activities.” To be clear, as J.B. Branch, the director of Federal AI Governance and Technology Policy for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, notes, “Publicly available does not mean ‘fair game’ for unlimited government surveillance.” He continues, “There is an enormous difference between a voter record sitting in a state database and the federal government aggregating millions of those records, cross-referencing them against other government and commercial databases, and using algorithms to generate investigative leads about individual Americans.”

That contract would be worth between $2-5 million according to an acquisition forecast document published by DHS on August 31.

This latest data grab is one of several coordinated efforts by ICE and the Trump administration to undermine voter eligibility. A procurement record from July indicated that ICE planned to pay Thomson Reuters, a major data broker firm, $125 million for access to its CLEAR database, which includes “peoples’ names, addresses, Social Security numbers, ethnicity, social media posts, and geolocation information,” to help the agency investigate voter fraud.

On September 3, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), along with individual voters, filed a motion asking a federal judge to block the Trump administration’s plan to compile state-by-state lists of people it deemed eligible to vote—“State Citizenship Lists”—and publish them online. The basis for this project is an executive order Trump signed on March 31. While a lower court blocked several key provisions from going into effect in 33 states and Washington, DC, the Supreme Court stayed the injunction in August, thus paving the way for the plan to be implemented nationwide. This, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly dictates that only states and Congress—not the president—have the power to control US elections.

All of these escalating efforts so close to the midterms point to one undeniable truth: DHS is readying itself, on behalf of the Trump administration, to engage in nationwide voter suppression and intimidation this November.

These extreme measures also point to just how afraid Trump is ahead of the midterms. On August 21, he told supporters that if Republicans lose, he will be impeached. Several Republicans, including House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), have recently echoed this "warning."

And they are right to be afraid. Democrats are favored to take back control of the House and possibly win control of the Senate. If this happens, Congress should immediately impeach Trump and put him, as well as everyone who enabled his corrupt administration, on trial for their many crimes.

The Trump administration is desperate. They will do anything—regardless of how illegal or unconstitutional—to subvert the will of people and remain in power. Yet, with the stakes so high, we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated. This country cannot afford two more years of unchecked Trumpism. While there is still time, we must continue to advocate for progressive candidates as well as calling out and challenging every effort by Republicans to steal our elections.

There’s a question that has become almost unavoidable in movement spaces over the last several years: “What is giving you hope right now?

Usually, the question is asked with good intentions—a way to remind people of their why in the middle of authoritarianism rising, civil rights rolling back, endless surveillance, and the noise of it all.

I often asked myself, “What is giving me hope?” because people I deeply respect pushed many of us to think seriously about hope, radical imagination, and our responsibility to believe that another world is possible. And I still deeply believe in the importance of those things.

My father once told me that the thing that kept him focused while incarcerated for 24 years was the hope and vision that one day he would be reconnected to me. I’ve watched my mother make miracles happen and find ways to provide because of the hope and vision she had for me to have a better life than she did.

I’ve realized that long-term discipline requires a certain level of alignment through rest, quiet, and reassessing our personal intersections of passion, curiosity, capacity, skill, and impact.

But I’ve also found myself becoming a little irritated by the question, even wondering whether the way many of us talk about hope in the first world can become disconnected from the actual conditions so much of humanity has endured throughout history. The more I learn, the more I realize that so many people continue struggling under conditions far worse than what many of us can imagine, and yet they still endure and fight.

Just this week, I was reading I’ve Got the Light of Freedom, which focuses on the organizing traditions of the Mississippi Freedom Struggle. In one section, a young organizer from the 1960s explains that every single time he got up to organize Black people in the South, he had to seriously consider the possibility that he could be stabbed, beaten by white mobs, or lynched.

And yet, they organized anyway.

I think about Palestinians enduring genocide and starvation and still fighting. I think about political prisoners who have effectively been abandoned by much of the public and are still fighting.

At some point, I started realizing that hope alone isn’t what’s carrying people through history. Or at least not entirely. Sometimes people continue struggling because they believe they can win. Sometimes they continue because they feel a responsibility to the people around them. Sometimes they fight simply because their independence and ability to live self-determined lives are worth dying for. I still struggle with these things, and my thinking is constantly adapting. Still, I now spend a lot of my time thinking about discipline, focus, and endurance, especially in this political moment.

I have dealt with actual motion sickness since childhood. But I think many of us are dealing with social and political motion sickness right now. We are trying to simultaneously process global crises, local crises, personal crises, historical crises—you name it. Eventually, your nervous system starts collapsing under the weight of it all

What keeps me grounded is not trying to respond to everything, but instead trying my best to stay focused. Paying attention to what is actually within my control. Committing deeply to a set of responsibilities instead of scattering my energy across a thousand directions and not doing anything well.

And for me, that focus has required that I ask difficult questions about where I actually have the capacity to contribute in meaningful ways, and also if my contribution is actually building toward something constructive. I’ve realized that long-term discipline requires a certain level of alignment through rest, quiet, and reassessing our personal intersections of passion, curiosity, capacity, skill, and impact. Otherwise, over time, it becomes much harder to remain grounded, focused, and useful to the people around you.

Without moments of stillness, it becomes difficult to hear yourself clearly enough to know what you actually think, feel, or believe beneath all the noise. Enough space to actually feel what is happening in your body. And creating a little space to process those questions you have been avoiding.

I’m finding that those moments of quiet are helping me see the world, and myself, more clearly.

Part of what prompted me to write this is that I often get asked some version of the same question: “How do you hold all of this?” The work. The reading. The organizing. Being an executive director, being present for family and my daughter, and trying to stay informed about everything happening in the world. And honestly, I’ve been trying to struggle through that question myself. The truth is, there is no perfect answer, and I get it wrong all the damn time.

Building the capacity to endure is a process, like anything else. Part of the reason I’m able to hold the level of responsibility that I currently do is because of conditioning. That foundation was built years ago as a collegiate athlete, structured around 5:00 am workouts, study sessions, classes, two-a-day practices, late nights, and early mornings. It was an environment that forced me to learn how to push through discomfort, organize my time, and function while exhausted.

Today, that same discipline and structure have simply been redirected toward movement work, political education, writing, relationships, and community. But the capacity itself wasn’t built in a year; it required nearly two decades of routine, failure, and adjustment.

I don’t have all the answers, but I do think I’m slowly learning that surviving these times requires more than just consuming information or reacting to every crisis. It requires building the discipline to focus, the patience to grow over time, and the willingness to create enough silence in your life so you can hear yourself think again.

What must Tyrant Trump be thinking about his opponents’ feeble, weak, cowardly responses to his daily torrent of serious, impeachable offenses? Even his egomaniacal narcissism cannot fully explain his amazing good luck.

Start with the House’s two impeachments of Donald Trump, while Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was Speaker, in 2019 and 2021. The first was over Trump’s trying to bribe or extort Ukraine into going after Hunter Biden—an investor and Board member of a Ukrainian business. Pelosi knew there was no chance of getting the required two-thirds vote required for Senate conviction, but went for the House vote anyway. At the same time, Pelosi declined to pursue numerous other "slam dunk" kitchen table impeachable offenses we and others presented to her. (See Congressional Record, December 18, 2019).

In 2021, after the January 6 Trump-incited violent insurrection involving attack on the Capitol and Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election, Pelosi did the same thing: impeached Trump in the House. Unfortunately, the Senate fell short of the two-thirds vote required to convict and remove him from office because most Senate Republicans cowardly failed to hold Trump accountable for these treacherous actions.

Come the Second Trump term, after criminal indictments, a felony conviction, and civil litigation brought by women accusing him of sexual misconduct, on Day One, January 20, 2025, Trump began issuing illegal executive orders. Many of them were impeachable offenses as he boastfully implemented them, with the aid of Elon Musk’s criminal enterprise—DOGE.

Trump continues to commit “high crimes and misdemeanors,” brazenly, taunting the so-called leaders of the Democrats by saying, “This is just the beginning."

Trump probably anticipated a much more vigorous impeachment drive by the Democrats, even though they were in the minority in the House. His luck continued. The Democratic Party’s so-called leadership decided against this excellent galvanizing get-out-the-vote initiative for their voters, 90% of whom wanted Impeachment yesterday. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries’ (D-Calif.) staffers told inquirers that they didn’t know how it would play out.

Jeffries himself told a reporter that “he didn’t want to get ahead of that discussion.” What? Ahead of 90% of his party’s voters!!?

Trump, who called for the execution of six Congressional Democrats for reminding soldiers of their obligation not to obey an illegal order that is contrary to the Constitution or the laws of the United States (as in described in the Army Manual for Courts-Martial [MCM] along with international law) must be privately dumbfounded. The more violently extreme and erratic he gets, the less interested the Democratic Party is in an Impeachment Drive. (See “Statement from Medical Professionals” in the April 30, 2026 Congressional Record.)

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) introduced H. Res. 537 on June 24, 2025. It was treated as a privileged impeachment resolution and Rep. Al Green took to the floor for debate and a prompt vote to educate the public about the necessity of ordering Trump, “You’re Fired.” Jeffries and his cohorts opposed it! Trump must have been stunned.

After all, people and their children are feeling, seeing, and hurting in the tens of millions from Trump’s wrecking, endangering, and weakening America. (See my column last week, “Open Letter to Representative Hakeem Jeffries.”)

Under the Jeffries and Schumer anti-impeachment bans, thus agreeing with Trump, the news media has little activity to cover in Washington, DC. Also, it’s not keeping up with the civic activity around the country demanding Impeachment. (See nader.org/impeachment.)

More puzzling is the refusal of editorial writers to urge impeachment. They regularly make the Impeachment case against Trump but decline to tell their readers the obvious conclusion: that the House should begin an impeachment inquiry and approve articles of impeachment. Congress also has an important role under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Congress, by statute, may appoint itself—in lieu of the principal officers of the Executive Branch—to determine whether the president is disabled and should be temporarily removed until the disability lapses.

Despite the many detailed editorials in The New York Times, such as one showing how Trump is harming the health of the American people and another “Autocracy Index” titled “Trump’s Election Meddling Erodes Our Democracy,” the editorial writers limped off their pages without answering the alarmed readers’ question, “What do you want done about this?”

The Times Sunday columnist Jamelle Bouie relentlessly documents Trump’s impeachable crimes, but not once has he moved to recommend this Republic-saving mechanism given to us by our Founding Fathers. Same for other Times columnists, Michelle Goldberg and EJ Dionne.

The Times’ reluctance to employ the “I” word is typical of the mass media. What about the independent progressive media? The Nation, In These Times, Progressive Magazine, and The Washington Monthly have all mentioned impeachment, but few have made a sustained, prominent editorial demand for an impeachment drive. Also, they do not report on the rising citizen activities behind Impeachment around the country.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to commit “high crimes and misdemeanors,” brazenly, taunting the so-called leaders of the Democrats by saying, “This is just the beginning.” He provides the Democrats with daily evidence that should prompt SHADOW CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS organized by Democratic members of Congress and designed to build a public factual record. Such hearings could attract substantial media attention, particularly if they focused on specific alleged abuses and featured affected witnesses, legal experts, and former public officials. Nonetheless, Jeffries and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) block any shadow hearings by dissenting House members.

What explains this historic cowardice? Is it fear of Trump retaliating? Is it smugness over Trump’s low polls, and a belief they can win in November by lying low, raising AIPAC and corporate campaign money, mumbling about affordability, and avoiding heavily poll-favored Pledges or Contracts for the American people showing specifically what they stand for? (See, Compact for American Workers and Robert Reich’s 10-Point Plan To Make America Affordable.) Or is it just trying to avoid Trump accusing the Democrats of having done similar things when they controlled the White House, such as starting or backing unconstitutional wars?

Whatever explains their inhibitions, the result is to signal to Trump that he has two-plus unchallenged years to ravage the lives and livelihoods of millions of people here and abroad, oppose preparedness for climate and pandemic catastrophes, to suppress renewable energy and favor omnicidal fossil-fuel combustion, invade our cities with his stormtroopers, and treat children with unsurpassed cruelty. It also leaves unanswered serious questions about his personal financial enrichment while in office—estimated to be $1.1 million per working hour. All this invites the demand that they resign. The people need fresh, stand-up leaders to take over the Democratic leadership and its party committees. (See RootsAction: “Tell Democrats in Congress to Insist That Schumer and Jeffries Step Aside”.)

The Democrats and electorally frightened Republicans pushed Richard Nixon out in 1974 for far, far lesser transgressions than those committed by Trump in a week.

Daniel Snyder, advocate of strategic nonviolence and author of Praying in the Dark: Spirituality, Non-Violence, and the Emerging World collaborated on this commentary.

Countless commentaries have shed light on the current administration’s aggressive, demonic, and systematic campaign to undercut commitments that have held us together for 250 years.

The assault we are experiencing threatens our health and well-being, bashes hopes we have for our children and grandchildren, and detracts from essential responsibilities that go along with being a good citizen. Adherence to the rule of law, assuring protections afforded in the Bill of Rights, and maintaining equitable and humane treatment of all persons are three of the nation’s most critical commitments.

An assumption throughout has been that millions of people in this country treasure these commitments and want to see them reaffirmed. If you are reading this, you are likely a person who shares these feelings. The telling question then is: What to do? What actions would be most effective in fulfilling our common aims? It would not be an understatement to say that this single question has dogged many of us since this administration came to power.

Nonviolent direct action seeks to move the center of gravity of public opinion toward the 3.5% participation that researchers have identified as the “tipping point” of social movements.

Yet the question often leaves resistors uncertain and overwhelmed. We tend to rush to action without fully understanding political dynamics and appreciating the value of strategic thinking. A critical first step is study, not only of the issues, but of approaches that have proven to work.

Desperate for brighter prospects, we are counting heavily on the upcoming midterm elections to turn the political tide in favor of preserving our treasured commitments. Perhaps we are also hoping that the judiciary will step up as a forceful counterweight to the ceaseless assaults. Yet, important as they are, Congress and the courts are "top-down" forms of political power. "Bottom-up" power is an essential complement, keeping "top-down" forms accountable to the people they were created to serve.

Rather than relying solely on one form of political power, one that is often fragile and slow-moving, we suggest a more practiced and time-tested approach: Nonviolent Direct Action.

What it is: Nonviolent direct action seeks to move the center of gravity of public opinion toward the 3.5% participation that researchers have identified as the “tipping point” of social movements. Such a groundswell of public opinion requires a careful assessment of proposed actions’ tendency to expand the “bottom-up” power base. Strategy-based action is a kind of “street theater” designed to create a broad base of people power, and a collective sense that “we” are in this together.

No Kings Protests had some of the earmarks of nonviolent direct action, but they lacked a constructive purpose. Most important, they lacked a strategy for attaining and sustaining that critical 3.5% threshold.

How it works: Imagine an inverted pyramid balanced on its point—extremely unstable, right? It will topple with the slightest breath. To maintain stability, undemocratic regimes must be propped up with "pillars of support." What are those pillars for the Trump administration? This is the essential strategic question for anyone planning an action. Weakening or removing even one pillar creates a crisis for the regime. Demonstratively successful nonviolent actions work on this principle. Economic boycotts, central to the civil rights movement, forced business owners to integrate lunch counters. Divestment actions pressured South Africa to dismantle apartheid.

What is essential for it to work well: Study the literature, especially the writings of Gene Sharp. Sign up for online training or subscribe to one or more of the online news services that report on current nonviolent actions and offer informative articles on strategy.

Within every action group there must be at least one or two people dedicated to doing the research and training necessary to offer wise and informed strategic counsel.

Build coalitions with others. No need to reinvent the wheel or act alone. Find out who else is already taking action on behalf of the commitments listed above and collaborate in learning and coordinating action.

Big picture, we need to improve our game, be more effective than activist groups, which tend to be issue-focused and action-oriented, but weak on strategy. News outlets like Waging Nonviolence and Nonviolence News provide plentiful stories of current actions. These are good places to start for us who are anxious to do something that will definitively turn the tide toward democratic governance.

Bread for the World recently held its annual Advocacy Summit in Washington, DC. As a board member, I was honored to be part of conversations on how public policies affect people experiencing hunger and poverty. People from all walks of life and all backgrounds united with the common goal of developing institutions that advance food security.

This moment was especially full of policy discussions as midterm season is in full swing across the country. Leaders are itching to advance on the campaign trail. They are more likely to be on the ground listening to what we have to say, so the opportunity is ripe to share what we care about. We can ask them what they will do to reduce hunger and improve food security for those in poverty. We can push for accountability.

But first, we must understand the current policies and context today that create and maintain food apartheid.

As of the 2017 Census, Black farmers were reported to own just 0.32% of US farmland, a number which has been continuously decreasing over the past century. They are denied grants disproportionately to their white counterparts and earn approximately one-seventh of the income that their white counterparts bring in. Land ownership is steadily being stripped from us.

Hunger is not inevitable. It is possible to make change.

In the last year and a half, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has been on the chopping block many times. Since July of 2025, well over 3.5 million people have been pushed out of the program as a result of cuts in the federal budget. Newly enacted work requirements unjustly require people to qualify themselves to eat.

SNAP’s program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is facing even further underfunding. Recent cuts will take away over $141 million in funds to feed over 5 million new mothers and young children—particularly funds designated for fresh fruits and vegetables. They are literally taking food out of the mouths of children.

This says nothing of the centuries of racism, blocked resources, and stolen land that brought us here today. It barely scratches the surface of all the factors influencing security today. We are facing hateful rhetoric; regressive social policies; global instability; and widespread threats to Black, brown, and immigrant communities. All this uncertainty makes us feel vulnerable. It makes food security and, indeed, any economic stability more tenuous.

There is no question that we need change; now is the moment to demand it from our leaders. Just as there are policies that harm access to nutritious food, there are certainly policies that can expand access.

We can remove work requirements for SNAP that pick and choose who gets to eat without regard for what they are going through. We can expand funding and access so that no one is left without nutritious food to sustain them. We can enact reparations to return land and opportunities to Black communities, and we can support the Black farmers and organizations working to feed people.

But, as we raise our voices for policy change, we must not overlook actions in our own neighborhoods.

I will always fight for a more representative government which supports the needs of our people. However, the government is still imperfect to say the least; we cannot wait for them while hunger runs rampant. We can take matters into our own hands.

Community organizing and self-reliance offers security especially when our government fails us; this is what we work for at The Black Church Food Security Network. We meet people where they are. We grow the food ourselves and distribute it throughout the community. We work together to build autonomy within our own communities.

Such an immense issue as food insecurity cannot be wholly solved by one channel or one institution alone. It takes policy advocacy, community organizing, and self-reliance moving hand-in-hand. Progress is possible when we approach it as a united front.

As Bread for the World reminded us through the advocacy summit, hunger is not inevitable. It is possible to make change. If we come together to uplift our communities and advance essential policies, we can create an environment where people are not only fed, but they are in a better position to feed themselves.

After pushing through one of the more regressive tax cuts in history back in 2017, President Donald Trump promised, on taking office in January 2025, that his new regime of onerous tariffs would be different. Foreigners would pay them, American consumers would be held harmless, and American manufacturing would bloom anew.

In the real world, of course, companies routinely pass tariffs on to American consumers in the form of higher retail prices, and it’s generally agreed that this is what happened when Trump’s tariff regime took effect. But after the Supreme Court found most of Trump’s tariffs to be illegal and ordered that they be refunded to importing companies, those refunds have not generally been passed onto consumers, as a series of candid corporate earnings calls in recent months have demonstrated.

In other words, working Americans, who make up most of the nation’s consumers, paid for checks that are now being written to corporations and that will enrich their (mostly wealthy) shareholders. Trump’s tariffs have played out as a straightforward redistribution of income from ordinary Americans to corporations, much like the two other major tax cuts he’s pushed through as president.

Of course, this is not how Trump marketed his trade policies.

Because he chose instead to levy these tariffs using authority the law simply doesn’t give him, the Trump tariff experiment now amounts to a multibillion-dollar transfer of cash from working families to shareholders.

The administration promised, at various points, that the new tariff revenue would be enough to replace the entire federal income tax, boost military spending by 50%, pay a $2,000 dividend to every American, and somehow simultaneously reduce the national debt.

The court’s February decision ruled that the tariffs—imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—were illegal and must be refunded to the companies that had initially paid them. This was no surprise—the IEEPA was enacted in 1977 to restrict presidential power, not expand it. The decision meant that fully $166 billion, well over half of the additional tariffs collected to date by the Trump administration, must be refunded.

For the millions of Americans who saw the prices of almost everything they buy increased by tariffs, the obvious question was how—if at all—these companies would pass through their tariff refunds to consumers. But as a series of corporate earnings calls have made clear over the past several weeks, in general these corporations are treating the tariff refunds—which often come with interest paid on top—not as something they should duly pass on to consumers, but a way of padding their bottom line. And this is true even of companies that acknowledged raising prices last year to offset the tariffs.

For example, in an earnings call back in summer 2025, a Nike executive estimated the company would see a tariff impact of around $1 billion, and announced that it “intend[s] to fully mitigate the impact” of the tariffs with a series of steps including “surgical price increase in the United States.” The $5 to $10 price increases introduced by the company that summer were transparently Nike’s “surgical” way of passing the buck to consumers.

Yet when Nike announced earlier this summer that it would see close to a $1 billion tariff refund, company officials simply noted that this “unplanned benefit” would boost the company’s earnings for the quarter. As a result, consumers have filed a class-action suit against Nike for extracting a double benefit from the Trump tariffs—first boosting shoe prices to offset the cost of the tariffs and then pocketing the tariff refunds.

Some companies claim that part of their refunds will lower prices for consumers going forward, but this is meaningless spin that is divorced from how prices are set. Receiving unexpected cash from the government does not create an incentive for a company to charge customers less for its products than the market will bear. But several corporations are making this claim to distract the public from their windfall.

For example, Dollar Tree recently reported it will receive $383 million in tariff refunds and said that $22 million of that $383 million in refunds will go toward “higher markdowns… related to our tariff reinvestment initiative.” While some of the remaining refund will go toward “customer messaging and marketing, and incremental improvements in store conditions and operations,” Dollar Tree has not said how much more it will devote to price markdowns. But the company’s leaders were far less squishy about announcing a $605 million stock buyback for the quarter—more than 27 times the $22 million it recorded for tariff-related markdowns.

Other big companies have vaguely promised that consumers will benefit from the giant refund checks without saying how much. Walmart says it is using refunds to support “price leadership.” Target says it will “invest in price.” Lowe’s initially promised “customer-facing actions” that will “reinforce our value proposition,” although the company subsequently pivoted toward saying its leaders “feel strongly that we want to deliver strong profitability for our shareholders.” But none have said what share of their tariff refund will actually make its way back to consumers. Levi Strauss, having previously admitted it would be taking “thoughtful, targeted pricing actions” in response to the tariffs, tops them all by saying of its $80 million tariff refund windfall only that “we haven’t figured out what to do with it.” (Levi Strauss now also faces a proposed class-action suit for not returning tariffs to consumers.)

Some companies aren’t even bothering to pretend they’re interested in offering relief to their customers. Shoe maker Steve Madden, which previously acknowledged “adjusting pricing” in response to the tariffs and subsequently noted it was “pleased overall with consumer acceptance of the price increases,” now says it will use its $92 million in tariff refunds to “pay down debt.”

This unmistakable shift of cash away from consumers and into the pockets of corporations and their shareholders is, on one level, not the companies’ fault. Once companies incorporated their tariffs into price increases across all the items they sell, there was no practical way to identify exactly which consumers bore which portion of those tariffs, or to reverse those price increases dollar for dollar: That egg can’t be unscrambled.

The ultimate responsibility for this regressive tax shift falls on the Trump administration, which chose to impose these tariffs unilaterally, without seeking the congressional authorization the law required. If Trump had gotten the approval he needed from Congress to levy these tariffs, this whole episode would merely have been an economically catastrophic, regressive tax hike on consumers.

But because he chose instead to levy these tariffs using authority the law simply doesn’t give him, the Trump tariff experiment now amounts to a multibillion-dollar transfer of cash from working families to shareholders. In that sense, Trump’s illegal tariffs are beginning to look a lot like his much-ballyhooed tax cuts of 2017 and 2025: Working families were promised big tax cuts, but corporations and their shareholders ultimately made out best.

Have you ever had to fight off a rattlesnake in the dark while on shift? Or struggled to breathe through heart palpitations, in a remote field dozens of miles away from the nearest hospital?

Farmworkers are increasingly having these experiences as extreme heat in certain states has forced people to pick onions, grapes, and berries at night when it is cooler and the work more tolerable.

Compounding the struggle, there’s the accompanying impaired visibility and occupational safety risks for workers planting seeds and picking crops before sunrise. For those partially or primarily laboring during the day, heatwaves continue to become longer year after year, more intense, and therefore, more deadly. Making matters worse are conditions for those who work at the pace of piece rate work, which pushes farmworkers to do more and faster for potential pay fueling more intense physical labor from the workers at all given times.

In an ideal world, farmworkers would have rights and protections guaranteed by the federal government so that they could labor during the day, and if needed, at night, without risking their basic bodily integrity to bring food to our tables. In fact, in 2024 the Biden administration took steps in this direction with a proposed heat standard that would require employers to establish heat safety plans, provide water and shade, and institute paid 15-minute breaks every two hours when the heat index reaches 80°F. While a final version of the rule was proposed, it has not been finalized, which means that it remains in regulatory limbo. Moreover, with a federal government brazenly hostile to federal regulations, as evident in several environmental policy rollbacks, it is unlikely that nationwide protections for workers will come into force in the immediate future.

As of last year, most states have no legislation providing protections to workers in relation to extreme heat while working outside, inside plant nurseries, or in nighttime darkness.

Still, not all hope is lost. While federal action to the benefit of farmworkers leaves much to be desired, there has actually been significant motion at the state level. In fact, some states are actively configuring and approving heat protection standards, while others are improving upon regulations already in place.

Some states, like Arizona, mandate that employers need to provide water to workers and provide shade should temperatures rise above 100°F. The Georgia House Legislature has proposed a bill with similar specifications, but has not advanced it to be signed into law by the governor, similar to New Mexico’s proposed heat stress rule. More recently, the state of Virginia approved legislation in April 2026 directing its health and labor agencies to implement heat safety standards. Despite these positive trends, California continues to be the only state to regulate nighttime work in agriculture. California also has a much lower extreme heat stress limit for daytime work—80°F—than other states for when shaded areas must be provided.

Surprisingly, these states are outliers. As of last year, most states have no legislation providing protections to workers in relation to extreme heat while working outside, inside plant nurseries, or in nighttime darkness.

For the states that have regulations, the next step to support farmworkers is to build from this regulatory patchwork and make enforcement real. Improvement, however, is a continuous uphill climb.

Currently California is considered to be the state with the best farmworker protections, yet their agency responsible for the state’s occupational safety, Cal-OSHA, reported last year how the institution suffers from a severe lack of resources and staff. The dearth of resources is so bad that case backlogs are months long, as officials cannot spend time reviewing those that don't result in fatalities, leaving workers with limited recourse.

For other states, establishment of basic protections are still needed.

Texas, for instance, has no heat stress protections for workers. This, as the Lone Star state ranks among others like California for having the highest number of farmworkers. In 2023, the state of Texas actually took a step in the opposite direction by approving legislation restricting local governments from enacting rules that go beyond the state law, striking down some city ordinances that had previously guaranteed 10-minute water and shade breaks for some outdoor workers, such as construction workers. Accordingly, workers in this state deserve at minimum the right to access cool potable water, and time in the shade should temperatures reach a certain level.

Typically, by now the high temperature season would be wrapping up but many regions are still experiencing heatwaves. While the federal government continues to lean into deregulation, Congress recently advanced the Heat Workforce Standards Act of 2025 (HR 6213), to the House floor on July 21. If passed, this bill would prohibit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing its proposed federal heat injury and illness prevention standard.

Farmworkers need local and state governments to come to their aid in implementing policies recognizing the urgency of lethal heat while learning from one another as they pass laws where there are none, and improving standards where they exist. The status quo—rattlesnakes and all—is not just absurd, but inhumane. Farmworkers deserve better.

The future of Social Security, the government program that touches the lives of more Americans than any other, will be determined by the results of the November elections. Let us explain. The Social Security program faces a funding shortfall. As ABC News reported back in June:

Social Security's trust fund that pays retiree and survivor benefits is expected to begin running low on money earlier than previously expected, leading to questions from Americans who rely on the benefits for their living expenses. Without congressional action, the fund is now expected to begin depleting by the fourth quarter of 2032, according to a report issued Tuesday by Social Security's trustees, the body that manages the trust fund.

This does not mean that, as some who for their own political purposes argue, Social Security is going “bankrupt.” Those who depend on Social Security (roughly 68 million Americans) do not have to worry about their checks stopping. Instead, they need to be concerned about a very significant cut to their benefits.

But know this: The reduction can be avoided with courageous political action. Congress and the president can make adjustments that will close the gap and pay out promised benefits. Back in 1983, Congress and President Ronald Reagan hammered out a solution to do just that.

Right now, there are a number of steps that Congress can take that will strengthen Social Security’s finances for today and for future generations. One of the most talked about solutions is raising the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax—otherwise called “busting the cap.” The Economic Policy Institute points out that:

Earnings above a cap aren’t subject to the payroll taxes that fund Social Security. As a result, billionaires pay the same tax as someone earning $176,100 in 2025 (the cap is indexed to the average wage, so it changes every year). “Scrapping the cap” is a popular and effective way to address Social Security’s funding gap. Nearly three-fourths of Social Security’s projected long-term shortfall would be eliminated if the cap were scrapped without increasing benefits.

Believe it or not there is a bipartisan proposal out there from Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio. Sens. Warren and Moreno argue that “instead of cutting benefits for the retirees who count on Social Security, we need to take bipartisan action to protect those benefits, reward work, and restore fairness. That starts with a common-sense solution: lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap.”

Other bipartisan members of Congress argue that the best way to address Social Security’s challenges is through the creation of a bipartisan commission made up of 13 members appointed by the president and congressional leaders in both parties. Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Representative Tom Suozzi (D-NY) introduced the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act which would create such a commission. Congress would then only be given an expedited up-or-down vote on the recommendations with no amendments—bypassing regular legislative order. How is public input included in this process? Hint: It isn’t.

It seems to us that raising the tax on income subject to Social Security is a much better step toward securing Social Security’s future than creating a commission that operates outside the public view. Supporters of the commission idea will argue that this is exactly what happened in 1983. This is true, but it ignores the political realities of 1983. An agreement came about because Democrats and President Reagan came together to hammer out an agreement. There is no leadership on this issue from our president.

Creating a commission may sound good to inside the beltway players like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget but to the millions of Americans who depend on Social Security, creating a commission to deal with the program’s fiscal challenges is just another way of Congress not doing its job.

There can be no doubt that the members of Congress elected this November will chart Social Security’s future. If you care about your retirement security and that of future generations, you have an obligation to ask some tough questions about Social Security. The two questions that we would put to members of Congress are:

1. If we create a special commission to deal with Social Security, why do we need members of Congress?
2. Should Elon Musk pay the same amount of Social Security tax that an IT manager earning $184,600 (one hundred dollars over the cap)?

During this election, ask your candidates where they stand on Social Security’s future, and what solutions they support to ensure that our benefits are not cut because of inaction or because of political fear. And tell them what Social Security means to you and to your families. Social Security is the only guaranteed inflation-protected retirement income source for millions of Americans—and that guarantee must be honored by our elected political leaders.

On Friday, the Trump administration announced a “deal” handing the United States 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan crude oil, roughly a fifth of the country’s total reserves (the largest on Earth), on leases running up to 100 years. They would give $200 billion, or just about $3 a barrel (just 3% of market value) to Venezuela. If this was a fair “deal,” following market value, it should be over $6 trillion. That may be the biggest fraud in human history.

Billionaires are already circling like vultures. A Coinbase co-founder is in talks to run his own Venezuelan oil fields, and pro-Israel megadonor Paul Singer is positioned to profit too. The arrangement comes eight months after US special forces stormed and carpet-bombed Caracas and abducted President Nicolás Maduro.

Marines have openly occupied the streets of Caracas since, doing numerous muscle-flexing helicopter raids across the city. The administration has said Venezuela is “not ready yet” for elections, despite running their own elections for decades—plus, why does the US get to dictate when and if countries can have elections, anyway?

The Pentagon itself reportedly holds a 35% stake in the venture set to extract the oil, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio runs the country as its de facto “viceroy," according to The New York Times. The whole scheme was backed by neocons like the Vandenberg Coalition and the Florida lobby.

Would the US accept it if China, Russia, Iran, or Mexico kidnapped a US president, bombed American fishermen, seized American oil fields, and installed a puppet government because officials in Beijing or Tehran deemed it “in the national interest”?

I guess they’ve stopped pretending this was ever about democracy or drugs (the original bogus reason). It is now even being sold as the cure-all for a worsening recession and a pre-midterm buy-off, even as the affordability crisis worsens.

President Donald Trump and the neocons’ message seems to be: It’s fine to steal trillions from other countries, kidnap their leaders, kill civilians, and install puppet governments, for profit. We skipped the Cold War and went straight back to old-school imperialism.

As almost always, most of the windfall from this “deal” will go to the super rich. Gas prices keep climbing, but oil majors are hitting record highs on Wall Street. Chevron’s stock sits near an all-time high as it committed $7 billion to the new venture. Canada’s largest oil investor also hit an all-time high in the stock market the day of the news.

You may ask yourself, how have Democrats responded to all this depravity and barbarism? Well, would it shock you if I said most Democratic politicians have attacked Trump from the right, and legitimated his warmongering? Unfortunately, it probably won’t.

My home state’s senator, the ever-boring Tim Kaine (D-Va.), joined by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), filed a war-powers resolution to block what they called an “illegal war” with Venezuela. “Illegal” is the operative word. Their objection is that Congress never voted on this, not that invading, bombing, and looting a sovereign country is morally wrong.

In a Tweet, quoting the right-wing oil-funded Wall Street Journal, Kaine added that Trump had "Invaded Venezuela, Removed the dictator Maduro but... Kept his VP in power While blocking opposition leader and Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado from returning home and delaying all talk of elections," ending on "So the US could control Venezuelan oil in violation of its constitution!"

Now we see why Trump

Invaded Venezuela
Removed the dictator Maduro but . . .
Kept his VP in power
While blocking opposition leader and Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado from returning home
And delaying all talk of elections

So the US could control Venezuelan oil in violation…
— Tim Kaine (@timkaine) August 29, 2026

He's basically saying, "We want to coup foreign governments to put in a far-right puppet and take their oil, LEGALLY." We don't need Mickey Mouse anti-imperialists.

If Congress had passed a resolution approving all of it, the way it did for the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, would that make it morally acceptable? Of course not. Torture under the Bush administration was legal, as was the US colonization of the Philippines, and even the Transatlantic Slave Trade, for that matter.

But for Democratic leadership, this was never about principle, or backing a truly progressive foreign policy vision; they just care about opposing Trump for its sake, and respecting the oh-so-perfect process. Though legislating morality is the purpose of law, legality and morality are not the same—and in this case, legal approval means nothing.

This is nothing new. Democrats have spent decades backing a hawkish, neoliberal Venezuela policy. During the 2002 coup that briefly ousted democratically elected president Hugo Chávez, then-Sen. Joe Biden dodged the question on television before pivoting, months later, to demand Washington “ratchet this up” against Chávez. By 2006 he was warning of an “axis of oil” led by Venezuela, echoing talking points from neoconservatives like Iraq War architect John Bolton.

Washington-aligned opposition forces also waged the 2002-2003 PDVSA oil lockout meant to strangle Chávez’s government economically. In 2019, when Trump anointed the unelected Juan Guaidó as president, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recognized him, and most congressional Democrats stayed silent or lined up behind her.

Now, with the Pentagon routinely bombing fishing boats off Venezuela's coast for months, which it says, without evidence, are narco boats, killing hundreds of civilians, Democrats’ loudest objection was, again, that Congress hadn’t authorized it.

They wanted to see “proof” of these being narco boats, rather than focusing on the more important point: Are we okay with just murdering any suspected criminal? This is the kind of logic that leads to right-wing politicians arguing to kill thieves and petty drug peddlers, like in Brazil and the Philippines.

Hillary Clinton, of all people, said more than many elected Democrats would. Now Democrats are lining up behind Delcy’s far-right replacement-in-waiting, María Corina Machado. Even the Central Intelligence Agency thought she was too extreme and alienating to be Maduro’s replacement. Yet, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) met with Machado months before she shamefully won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize (before giving it to Trump). Durbin later co-sponsored a resolution honoring her alongside far-right Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rick Scott (Florida). Most Democrats have been backing her as the next president, calling her a “champion of democracy,” among other ridiculous stolen valor.

Machado, backed by the Bush administration and US intelligence agencies, backed the 2002 coup; relentlessly pushed for and defended the sanctions that starved her own country; wants to privatize PDVSA and hand away her country’s, in her own words, “trillions of dollars of natural resources” to the US on Donald Trump Jr.'s podcast; and has praised autocrats like Daniel Noboa, Javier Milei, and Nayib Bukele.

Machado is “completely aligned,” historian Greg Grandin told Democracy Now!, “with the most militarist and darkest face of US imperialism. She was the main force lobbying for the coup against Maduro, and has supported the boat strikes on fishermen, her own fellow citizens. She has been supported by neocon war criminals like John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Mike Pompeo—does that sound like someone the Democrats should be backing?

There are, still, some exceptions worth naming. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has made the actual moral case, not just the legal one, calling Trump’s approach a return to "the era of gunboat diplomacy where might makes right” and saying plainly, “It's not just that it's strategically wrong. It's morally wrong.” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has also warned against letting “control of the world’s most powerful military” rest in one man's hands, and called out Trump’s imperialism plainly.

Expanding the anti-war coalition, libertarian Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has repeatedly co-sponsored bipartisan war-powers resolutions with Democrats Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.) and Joaquin Castro (Texas), arguing, “This is not about drugs; this is about oil and regime change... our troops are not pawns to be risked for the profits of oil companies and investment bankers.” A real transpartisan anti-war bloc is possible, it just needs bold politicians to lead it.

We face an unprecedented fascist and imperialist threat. Washington is using its world-bending power to expand its territory, remove leaders who won’t play ball with US crony and intelligence interests, and turn sovereign countries into de facto American possessions. Venezuela, as even the often-disappointing New York Times has reported, has effectively become a US colony.

Mealy-mouthed centrist imperialism just won’t do the trick. A legal invasion is still an invasion. Pursuing “US interests” doesn't give any official carte blanche to roam the world like rogue thugs. Would the US accept it if China, Russia, Iran, or Mexico kidnapped a US president, bombed American fishermen, seized American oil fields, and installed a puppet government because officials in Beijing or Tehran deemed it “in the national interest”? They might nuke them within the hour.

All empires end at some point. When it does, no power will grant the US the mercy it denied the countries it pillaged.

Democrats, and American officials generally, should recognize their precarious position in a world increasingly turning toward rivals like China, and finally build that coalition in earnest. Thankfully, there are now constituencies challenging Washington’s neo-imperial consensus, in academia, in think tanks, at the State Department, and even in Congress, that are growing too significant to ignore.

Working people are fed up. Job uncertainty is the new normal. Chaos and corruption are constantly spilling out of Washington. But for the people grinding out a living every day, the crisis hits much closer to home. Burnout is rampant among essential workers, especially among caregivers, first responders, and social workers. And even as working people put in longer hours, their paychecks cover less and less as prices on seemingly everything continue to rise month after month. This Labor Day, that anger needs somewhere to go.

In 2026, even a simple backyard barbecue with friends and family can feel out of reach. These days, you are paying more for the burgers and crossing your fingers, hoping the lettuce will not make you sick.

The essential workers clocking in this Labor Day to keep our communities safe, healthy, and running should be able to count on one job paying enough to live on. Instead, too many worry about how they will make ends meet—or are picking up a second or even a third job. On a day meant to celebrate working people, that is a damn shame.

And it is not just groceries stretching family budgets. It’s healthcare and prescription drugs. Gas and electric bills. Rent and childcare. Nearly every necessity costs more, and every paycheck has to stretch further.

This November, working people must vote like our jobs, our freedoms, and our families’ futures depend on it, because they do.

This affordability crisis is not an accident. It is the result of choices. It is what happens when politicians pick a side. Whenever the Trump administration had a chance to lighten the burden on working families, it chose to make that burden heavier. Its so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” gutted the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, putting groceries further out of reach for millions of families. It slashed Medicaid, threatening coverage and shifting more healthcare costs onto working people.

The administration has made its choice clear: It is on the side of billionaires. Their wealth has surged by trillions since last Labor Day. The president’s own wealth has grown by $2.2 billion—all while working people and retirees struggle to afford the basics.

AFSCME has made its choice clear, too. Our union stands with working people—with the 1.4 million public service workers and retirees who make our communities stronger every day.

We side with Chearice Vaughn, a US Department of Agriculture worker and president of AFSCME Local 3870, whose team connects rural schools, hospitals, and families to high-speed internet. Despite her 32 years of dedicated public service, the administration tried to fire her.

We stand with Sabrina Bishop, a San Diego homecare provider and a member of UDW/AFSCME Local 3930, who cares for veterans, people with disabilities, and older Americans. The administration has gone after overtime protections that ensure caregivers like Sabrina are paid for every hour they work.

And we stand with Everett Johnson, a preventive maintenance technician for Baltimore City Public Schools and a member of AFSCME Council 3. Everett keeps school buildings safe, but a lack of resources forced him to buy his own tools to do the job.

These workers are not powerless. They have a union.

AFSCME went to court and stopped the administration from forcing Chearice out. Sabrina and her union siblings mobilized at the California State Capitol and won protections for overtime pay. Everett has a seat at the table to negotiate for better pay, better equipment, and the resources to do his job.

That is what union power looks like. When working people come under attack, we organize. We fight back. And we win.

More working people are recognizing that power every day. That is why public support for unions is at an historic high and why AFSCME continues to grow despite the constant attacks.

Standing together is how we take on billionaires and anti-worker politicians. It is how we protect our jobs, our freedoms, and the spirit of Labor Day itself.

But our power does not stop at the workplace. It extends to the ballot box.

This November, working people must vote like our jobs, our freedoms, and our families’ futures depend on it, because they do. We must elect candidates who will lower costs, protect public services, and stand up for working people, not billionaires.

This Labor Day, ask yourself: Whose side are you on?

And this November, vote for the people who are on your side.

The falling US share of the world economy—40% in 1960 versus 25% in 2026—is a driving force of economic nationalism stateside. Its rhetoric under President Donald Trump is America First, with abundant use of sanctions, tariffs, and war—directly with Iran and by proxy in Israel and Ukraine. On the note of warfare, the president has used military operations abroad as did Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden since the fall of the former Soviet Union on December 26, 1991, heralding a big change in the world order.

Another landmark change in the global order is China's share of the world economy (3.5-4% in 1960 versus 19-205 in 2026). Currently, China is a manufacturing world power. The nation is also blessed with a bevy of natural resources such as rare earth minerals like erbium and yttrium. Advanced electronics and artificial intelligence, prominent industries stateside in 2026, rely upon these two heavy elements.

Accordingly, given the history of US militarism and racism against Asians, the contradictions of economic nationalism, the America First rhetoric, are plentiful. President Trump refers to America's interest as "ours" and "we" when he speaks of other nations cheating the US. This is a bid to unite the class interests of elites (billionaires and corporations, key donors to Democrats and Republicans) with workers. Thus the economic rise of China is a big target of distortion.

China's prominent trading partners help to form the grouping of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations. There is a BRICS summit in New Delhi, India set for September 12-13.

An affordability crisis of working and poor people stateside as their tax dollars flow away from them and into the congressional-military-industrial complex is the tip of a proverbial iceberg.

Speaking of military operations, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced increased economic warfare against Iran plus any countries doing business with that Persian nation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) met in Kyrgyzstan. Nations’ heads of state attending this gathering ranged from China, Russia, India, Iran, and Pakistan to Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The SCO also addressed measures to counter Uncle Sam’s deeds worldwide, including the US war against Iran and Israel's genocide of Palestinians.

In the SCO’s Bishkek declaration, the members also pledged to “support and strengthen an open, transparent, fair, inclusive, and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system based on generally accepted international principles and rules that promotes global economic development, ensures fair market access, and ensures special and differential treatment for developing countries.” Uncle Sam is looking at challenges to it alone calling the shots of a world order that gets its marching orders from Washington, DC. Meanwhile, the US is pursuing attempts to dominate other nations to boost the bottom line of America's elites.

Think of Uncle Sam’s taking of Venezuelan oil reserves, the details of which are emerging, glacially. Then there’s the talk from Washington of the US using tactical nuclear weapons to subdue Iran. The president has been threatening to take Greenland. He has also launched a trade war against Canada, a major US trading partner, claiming the neighbor to the north has been unfairly treating America.

Recall the president’s premise for his America First approach to jobs and economic gains? US global trade partners had been ripping off America. He was going to solve that problem, draining the swamp of Washington insider corruption, and so on. Wait. What?

For starters, US industry made the call to move abroad. To be clear, the deindustrialization of the Midwest and Northeast was a bipartisan priority that the political establishment facilitated, based on decisions made in corporate boardrooms. Democrats and Republicans supported corporate America moving production abroad to pursue higher returns on investment and weaker environmental policies.

Placing the drive for profits before the needs of the human population is the normal operation of the capitalist system. Ruling class interests use two-party politics to craft laws and policies that benefit elites, billionaires, and corporations.

The contradictions of economic nationalism and the world order are growing. An affordability crisis of working and poor people stateside as their tax dollars flow away from them and into the congressional-military-industrial complex is the tip of a proverbial iceberg. The worsening climate crisis that profits billionaires and corporations in the short-term as the political duopoly facilitates this ecocide is a wake-up call for movement politics.

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Nancy J. Altman's latest book, The Road to Medicare for All: A Call to Action (Routledge, 2026), published today and now available for purchase wherever quality books are sold. As the United States continues to spend substantially more on health care than other wealthy nations but with poorer health outcomes, Altman's book analyzes the dysfunction of the current system and sets forth the solution. "Medicare for All won’t happen without a fight," she argues, "but it is a fight we can win."

In the early morning hours of December 4, 2024, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was gunned down outside the Hilton Hotel in midtown Manhattan in New York City. The CEO was on his way to the health insurance company’s annual investor conference. The police found the words “Delay,” “Deny,” and “Depose” carved into bullet casings at the scene.

The public reaction was swift and overwhelming. People took to social media to describe stories of mothers, fathers, spouses, children, and friends who had died from treatable illnesses, dead because UnitedHealthcare or other health insurance companies had either denied the life-saving care doctors had prescribed to their loved ones or had endlessly delayed approval of the lifesaving treatment.

Physicians posted stories of the hours they spent on the phone, seeking to convince insurance companies of the necessity of the care. The providers detailed spending countless hours advocating for their patients to insurance company doctors who had little or no expertise in their area of medicine but with the power of literal life or death to authorize or deny payment for the prescribed treatment. The frustrated providers recounted incidents of being on hold for hours and transferred among insurance executives in what felt like perpetual loops.

The United States is an outlier. Its health care is the most expensive in the industrialized world, while its outcomes rank at or near the bottom

When the treating physicians finally got through and were told they had to schedule a time to talk, the time for the so-called peer-to-peer conversation was solely at the convenience of the insurance company doctor, with no concern for the schedule of the treating physician. One doctor talked about a particular insurance company that told doctors they would get a call back but were not told when or from what number. They were told, though, that if they didn’t answer, the claim would be denied.

Then came the denials. UnitedHealthcare and other insurance companies are not required to disclose their denial rates, but anecdotal evidence and lawsuits suggest that the rates are high. And denial is a life and death matter. Virtually all treatments are prohibitively expensive without insurance. One TikTok contributor described receiving six months of chemotherapy for her dangerously advanced, stage 4 cancer, only to receive a letter from her insurer saying it would no longer pay for the treatment. She explained in her post that the treatment cost $15,000 every three weeks and the alternatives she had tried before starting the current regimen had done nothing. Only the current treatment prescribed by her oncologist worked.

America’s Outlier Healthcare System: Expensive, Wasteful, Complicated, Deficient

The delay and denial of lifesaving care doesn’t happen in other wealthy countries the way it does here. The United States is an outlier. Its health care is the most expensive in the industrialized world, while its outcomes rank at or near the bottom… Thirty million Americans—almost 10 percent of the population—have no health insurance whatsoever. Millions more are underinsured. Though they have health insurance, it does not cover the care they need at a cost they can afford. Even those with supposedly adequate coverage often have high deductibles, causing them to delay care until their health issues are too severe to ignore. The problem is that in the United States, health care is implicitly treated like a commodity, like the latest iPhone or simply a service, like plumbing or electrical work in a home. Of course, health care is not just another commodity or service. It is literally a life-and-death matter.

Like our court system, police and fire departments, public libraries, and our public schools, high-quality health care should be available to everyone in America as a right—automatic and free of charge when we need it.

Unlike the government, which has the power to tax, can control its currency, and is not going out of business, companies can only stay in business if they turn a profit. That means that health insurance corporations must ensure that they don’t pay out more in benefits than they collect in premiums, and the premiums can’t be too large or their customers will go elsewhere. To make the numbers work and earn a large enough profit to keep shareholders happy, these companies must seek to entice those who are healthy and therefore not in need of health care, by offering benefits like gym memberships. They must carefully screen to cherry-pick the healthiest of the population and avoid covering those likely to need expensive care. If their enrollees do get sick, insurance companies can restrict what treatment patients are able to get by limiting the doctors and hospitals that are in-network. The companies can delay or even deny prescribed treatments, if they are expensive and supposedly uncertain of success, by requiring pre-authorizations. Indeed, insurance companies refused to insure anyone with pre-existing conditions, such as birth defects, pregnancy, and job-related injuries, until the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prohibited that discriminatory practice designed to reduce expenses and bolster profits.

In short, private companies must cover their costs to remain in business. That too often translates, in the case of health insurance corporations, to denying payment for doctor-prescribed medical care. Like our court system, police and fire departments, public libraries, and our public schools, high-quality health care should be available to everyone in America as a right—automatic and free of charge when we need it. Rich or poor, sick or healthy, old or young, no matter where you live, everyone should have high-quality health care.

The Obvious Solution to Our Broken Healthcare System

The way for health insurance in the United States to be universal, affordable, and efficient is to make the federal government the insurer. Insurance is most cost-efficient and reliable when the risks can be spread across as broad a population as possible and when people cannot delay purchasing the insurance until the moment people know they are getting sick—a practice known as adverse selection. Only the national government has the power and ability to establish a nationwide, universal risk pool, with mandatory participation, making adverse selection impossible. Furthermore, when the federal government administers the insurance, overhead is minimized. Instead of high-paid CEOs wielding power over our health care, hardworking, modestly-paid civil servants are in charge. Instead of unaccountable private actors in control, federal employees, subject to transparency and oversight, are the administrators. Moreover, other costs, like advertising and marketing, are unnecessary.

Fundamentally, the government is not seeking a profit for shareholders or high salaries for executives. In addition, there is only one payer, producing more efficiency and less waste. Consequently, all of us, collectively through the government, can provide health care less expensively and more efficiently for everyone. [...] Profit should have no place in our healthcare system. Instead, there should be a single insurer that can pay for the most efficient care equitably and universally. We would spend less as a nation and have better health outcomes.

Profit should have no place in our healthcare system.

We know it works because an American institution has been paying for health care efficiently and fairly for over 60 years: Medicare. To be clear, the solution is definitely not the vastly inferior, misleadingly-named Medicare “Advantage.” […] The solution is traditional Medicare as it was designed and enacted in 1965, with it improved and expanded to everyone.

Medicare works. Americans overwhelmingly agree. After living with private health insurance or, worse, no health insurance at all, your 65th birthday is eye-opening. That birthday brings Medicare. Once you enroll in Medicare, you generally have no claims to fill out, no insurance companies to contact. It is comparatively simple.

The vision of Medicare for all is for everyone to have that simplicity and much, much more. In addition to expanding it to everyone, Medicare should be improved. Today, those with traditional Medicare who can afford supplemental private-insurance coverage (colloquially known as Medigap, because it fills in the gaps) generally must purchase it to control their costs. That will be in the rearview mirror under Improved Medicare for All. All premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, and deductibles should be eliminated.

The vision is for cradle to grave, comprehensive healthcare coverage for everyone in America, automatically. It means better protection for everyone at lower cost—including for those covered under today’s Medicare. Improved Medicare for All means going to the doctor of your choice, without first checking to see if your preferred practitioner is in your insurance network. With Improved Medicare for All, there is essentially one big network of virtually every doctor and hospital in America. The result? Guaranteed health care with the provider of your choice, anywhere you happen to be, without the stress of dealing with private insurance companies. […] So how do we make that vision a reality? Medicare provides protection to the grave. But not from the cradle. At least, not yet. We are the wealthiest nation in the entire world at the wealthiest moment in our history. We are much wealthier than we were in 1965, more than a half century ago, when we enacted Medicare for those aged 65 and older. We are much wealthier than we were in 1972, when we extended Medicare coverage to people with serious, work-limiting disabilities. Seniors and people with disabilities are the segments of our population who, on average, have the highest medical costs and the most frequent need for care. Covering the rest of us should be easy. The politics make it hard, but it is achievable. As the title of the book makes clear, we are on a journey.

With Improved Medicare for All, there is essentially one big network of virtually every doctor and hospital in America. The result? Guaranteed health care with the provider of your choice, anywhere you happen to be, without the stress of dealing with private insurance companies.

Every chapter contains aspects of the discussion of how we got here—the nation’s history of health care—in order to provide context for the following points: Chapter 2 explains that the nation was on a slow path toward a single-payer system (essentially Medicare for All) during the first three-quarters of the twentieth century despite the strong opposition of powerful forces. Then, though, as Chapter 3 details, the powerful forces became more organized and pro-active. They succeeded in stopping the push for Medicare for All in its tracks. Indeed, they did not just halt progress; they partly reversed it. Perhaps most damaging, mainstream Democratic political leaders lost sight of the destination. Opportunities were lost as a result. Chapter 4 explains that where we are now is a result of having failed to enact a single-payer system. It discusses the flaws and unsustainability of the current patchwork system. The chapter explains that Democratic leaders, in the face of the election of President Ronald Reagan almost a half century ago, gave up on the destination. That was unfortunate. It has led to where the nation finds itself today. Continuing down the current road, simply tinkering with the present system, is unsustainable. Exiting the current road and getting back on track is essential.

Chapter 5 explains what the right road is. It reminds us what our North Star was prior to 1972 and what it should be again. It lays out the vision of a single-payer Improved Medicare for All system. It also explains that questioning the affordability of Medicare for All is misguided. The correct questions are (1) since the new system will save money, how should we divvy up the savings; and (2) given the complete unsustainability of the current system, how can the nation afford not to enact Improved Medicare for All. Monied interests have prevailed for the last half century, but history is not destiny. Replacing our current Rube Goldberg-style, overly complicated, dysfunctional healthcare system with a straightforward, superior system of Improved Medicare for All won’t happen without determined effort. History teaches that the commercial health insurance industry fears losing its business and will fight every initiative that jeopardizes those profits. The pharmaceutical industry will fight any initiative that will cut its exorbitant profits. Historically, physicians and hospitals have opposed government-provided health insurance. Given the powerful forces arrayed against Improved Medicare for All, its failure so far to become the law of the land is not hard to understand. Indeed, because health care is so crucial to all of us, it is easy to convince us that we will lose, not gain, from Improved Medicare for All. It is not hard to scare us into thinking that it is something foreign, un-American, inconsistent with the nation’s values, and harmful for us as individuals.

Replacing our current Rube Goldberg-style, overly complicated, dysfunctional healthcare system with a straightforward, superior system of Improved Medicare for All won’t happen without determined effort.

The concluding three chapters answer all of these challenges and fears. They provide the tools, including a roadmap, to finally reach our destination. Chapter 6 highlights the politics and how a winning coalition can be forged. It discusses why the organizations that represent hospitals and physicians may be convinced to end their opposition to Improved Medicare for All and join the other supporters working to enact it. Whether that happens or not, it is crucial to understand that the forces arrayed against Improved Medicare for All have been defeated in the past and they can be defeated again. The response to the murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO is but one example spotlighting that the American people are both united and ready. The answer lies in numbers, active involvement, and determination. To the extent the electorate is engaged and clear-eyed, victory is not only achievable; it is inevitable. Chapter 7 alerts supporters to at least some of the disinformation that opponents will use to stymie and depress those engaged in the effort. The chapter adopts the premise that forewarned is forearmed. Finally, Chapter 8 provides specific actions that readers may take to join the winning fight. Universal Health Care Is a Fight We Can and Must Win And a winning fight it will be.

It may appear that the worst time to engage in this fight is now, in the shadow of the November 2024 election, when Donald Trump was returned to office together with a Republican House of Representatives and Senate. The Supreme Court is controlled by conservative forces hostile to a domestically-active federal government, and the entire judiciary will be even more conservative after the first few years of a Trump presidency. Yet this is the perfect time.

As polarized as the American people currently are, we are overwhelmingly united in our support for Medicare, as well as Social Security. Expanding both programs can lead the way to re-unite the United States. Together, we will win. We must. Medicare for All won’t happen without a fight, but it is a fight we can win. It is a fight we must win. Our lives literally depend on it.

I’ve been a fan of Dolly Parton since her terrific 1980 movie (and hit song) 9-5, on the struggle of working women organizing for dignity and respect—and against sexual harassment. Along with millions of others, I’m saddened by the Queen of Country’s passing.

But I’m miffed about people who opposed what Dolly stood for now trying to claim her legacy as their own.

For instance, President Donald Trump has claimed that Parton was a supporter of his, even sharing a fake AI photo of the two of them together. Dolly’s sister Stella set the record straight, calling Trump’s behavior “deranged, ugly, and nasty.”

In life Dolly Parton was the opposite of Donald Trump. She was compassionate, humble, generous, humorous (including poking fun at herself), and accepting of people from all walks of life.

She never forgot where she came from and acted on her religious beliefs of “Love your Neighbor” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Dolly Parton turned down the presidential medal of freedom three times, saying she didn’t deserve it. Trump brags of his own self-importance, flies giant self-portraits from federal buildings, places his picture in passports, demands the Nobel peace prize, renamed the Kennedy Center after himself, and declares he is a genius.

As a tribute to her hardworking sharecropping father who never had the opportunity to learn to read, Dolly Parton created and funded the Imagination Library, providing hundreds of millions of books to young children—my grandchildren included. President Trump, who never lacked financial opportunity, is now pushing to slash funding for education, libraries, and literacy.

Dolly Parton embraced Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI.) She was supportive of the LGBTQ community, expressed support for Black Lives Matter, and uplifted those with disabilities. Trump has attacked DEI as “woke” and un-American, ridiculed the trans community, mocked people with disabilities, and labeled Black Lives Matter protesters as domestic terrorists.

Dolly Parton appeared with PBS’s Sesame Street characters to promote values of inclusivity and equality among children. Trump defunded PBS and Sesame Street, declaring them “radical left monsters.”

Dolly Parton celebrated women workers and was a proud union member for over 60 years. Trump crushed the union rights of over 1 million federal workers, paid millions in a lawsuit for sexual abuse, and carries on with the massive cover-up of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking.

Dolly Parton donated millions to medical research, including to children’s hospitals, cancer research, and the Covud-19 vaccine. Trump threatens the existence of rural hospitals with cuts to Medicaid, slashed federal funding for medical research, and eliminated the agency overseeing patient safety.

Dolly Parton donated substantial relief funds to those in her Tennessee Appalachian region whose property and lives were shattered by natural disasters. The Trump administration has undermined, delayed, and politicized disaster relief.

Dolly Parton had empathy toward the homeless and was known to give the “shawl off her back” to those in need. Donald Trump criminalizes the homeless and sent thousands of National Guard troops to rid DC of its homeless population.

Dolly Parton empathized with the plight of migrant workers. She loved John Steinbeck’s famous book The Grapes of Wrath and covered Woody Guthrie’s song “Deportee.” Trump demonizes hardworking immigrants as rapists and criminals and has unleashed an army of violent masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to terrorize our neighbors and communities.

I don’t have to agree with everything Dolly Parton did or didn’t do over the decades to recognize that she was a generous soul. She never forgot where she came from and acted on her religious beliefs of “Love your Neighbor” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Donald Trump hoards his riches and uses the power of the presidency to enrich himself, his family, and oligarch cronies to the tune of billions.

The best way to honor Dolly Parton’s legacy is to counter Trump’s cruel inhumanity with generosity, kindness, compassion, respect, and unity. And while we are celebrating her life, sit back with family and friends (as I have done) and watch, or rewatch, 9-5. You will laugh, cry, and applaud!

The latest casualty of Pete Hegseth’s disastrous tenure as Secretary of “War” is Dan Driscoll, who resigned Monday as Secretary of the Army after repeatedly clashing with the Heg.

Driscoll isn’t a liberal in lion’s clothing. He’s an old friend of JD Vance from Yale Law days. He resigned because of his concerns that Hegseth is damaging the Army’s efforts to modernize and adapt to the 21st century battlefield environment — where drone warfare is becoming increasingly important — by firing or pushing out leaders spearheading those efforts.

A defense official in Europe told CNN that even though Hegseth talks about technology reform, he’s focusing instead on “muscles, dudes in dresses, testosterone.”

Hegseth’s tenure has been disastrous from the moment he walked into the Pentagon. Even if Trump were capable of hearing sound advice, Hegseth hasn’t come close to giving it to him. Instead, he’s been pursuing grievances about DEI, promoting testosterone, and denigrating or firing women and Black officers.

The Army now has no Senate-confirmed secretary or chief of staff (George’s replacement, General Christopher LaNeve, so far doesn’t have the votes to be confirmed).

The Iran war, meanwhile, is requiring the ongoing deployment of 19 warships, air-defense units, fighter squadrons and paratroopers across the region — straining service members and their families and creating a maintenance backlog that could take years to unwind, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Washington Post reports that multiple senior military leaders — those still left, that is — have warned Hegseth that the United States cannot indefinitely extend military operations against Iran. Even the chief of naval operations, Admiral Daryl Caudle (who campaigned for the job by signaling agreement with Hegseth’s culture-war obsessions), told Hegseth that the Navy cannot “sustain its current level of support for the Iran conflict because there is no anticipated end date.”

Hegseth’s response? He castigated the media for revealing classified information.

I’ve known many other defense secretaries, starting with Cap Weinberger, who served as defense secretary under Reagan. I can say without fear of contradiction that Pete Hegseth is the stupidest and least qualified of them all.

Hegseth’s incompetence and determination to suck up to Trump helped launch the war against Iran in the first place.

Among the regime’s senior officials, Hegseth was the only one who supported Trump’s fantasies of a quick victory. Marco Rubio was against the war as was JD Vance; even then–Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Trump that a war with Iran was not winnable.

Since then, Hegseth has lied his way through more than six months of Pentagon and Iran war mayhem.

At a press briefing in March, Hegseth complained about a CNN report that the Trump administration had underestimated Iran’s ability to disrupt global oil traffic by closing the Strait of Hormuz. “Patently ridiculous,” Hegseth told reporters, adding — even as the strait’s blockage was proving to be Iran’s most powerful leverage in the war — we “don’t need to worry about it.” It was a false and insulting claim to an American public that deserved to know what the Trump regime was planning to do about soaring prices at the gas pump, directly due to that blockage.

He also denied that the U.S. bombed the school where some 175 children were killed — a claim belied by mounting evidence that the U.S. did bomb the school. Hegseth’s further insistence that the U.S. “never targets civilians” was refuted by the U.S. military’s killing of over 200 people on small boats in the Caribbean without evidence they were “narcoterrorists” rather than civilians.

Hegseth then lied about the severity of Iranian attacks on U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf that disrupted logistical support for American forces, leading to the deprivations suffered by the crew of the aircraft carrier the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Hegseth evidently believes that his job is to cheerlead and defend Trump with absurd claims like “We didn’t start this war, but under President Trump we’re finishing it” and “America is winning decisively, devastatingly, and without mercy” and “we will show no quarter for our enemies.” (“No quarter” means kill everyone and take no prisoners, which is a war crime.)

In the days leading up to the U.S. attack on Iran, Hegseth spent his time criticizing “wokeness” at American universities and forcing Scouting America to abandon programs aimed at promoting diversity.

Last year, he didn’t just mistakenly share the military’s plans with the editor of The Atlantic; we now know he shared them with a second Signal group, including his wife, brother, and personal lawyer.

John Ullyot, who resigned as Pentagon spokesman, said Hegseth had brought “total chaos” to the Pentagon and that the Pentagon “is in disarray under Hegseth’s leadership.”

Hegseth dismisses war crimes, pooh-poohs the rules of engagement, and projects unequivocal belligerence at a time when the United States is rapidly losing whatever moral standing it once had in the world.

Pete Hegseth is the most incompetent person in the Trump regime — with the exception of Trump himself — and a clear and present danger to the security of the United States and the world. If Trump won’t fire him, Democrats should impeach him when (hopefully) they take over the House next January, and two-thirds of the Senate should convict him.

A quarter-century has nearly passed since the terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 people in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. During the first seven years after that mass atrocity, Pentagon spending doubled. The aftermath of 9/11 was also a huge boost for “the intelligence community.” Despite—and because of—their failure to prevent the carnage on that day, the CIA and the National Security Agency as well as 14 smaller spy agencies boomed with enormous jolts of funds.

Along the way, some line items paid for torture that persisted during the George W. Bush presidency under the euphemism of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

The most publicized location was Guantánamo on the island of Cuba. There, “the US opened the offshore detention facility in an attempt to evade the rule of law,” the London-based organization Freedom From Torture reports. “In the name of the US's ‘War on Terror,’ people deemed by the US to be ‘enemy combatants’ were detained at the facility. Many were tortured and denied basic human rights and due process… Since the first detainees arrived in 2002, Guantánamo Bay has imprisoned 780 men and boys from 48 countries…. Yet only 16 detainees have ever been convicted of a crime—just 2 percent.”

Despite public pressure, Bush vetoed a version of the Intelligence Authorization Act in March 2008 that would have required CIA interrogators to adhere to Army Field Manual regulations. As soon as Barack Obama became president, he issued an executive order rescinding the free hand for the CIA director on interrogations that Bush had reaffirmed in a July 2007 order. Obama’s directive removed the CIA’s detention power and required the agency to follow Army Field Manual rules.

Yet five and a half years went by before President Obama acknowledged, in his notable words, “We tortured some folks.” He told a news conference: “When we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and I think any fair-minded person would believe were torture, we crossed a line.”

The acknowledgement came four months before the long-awaited release of a report in December 2014 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. While heavily redacted, it was a political indictment of torture. “CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques in violation of US law, treaty obligations, and our values,” wrote the committee’s chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Among the report’s conclusions:

• “The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.”
• “The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.”
• “The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.”
• “Two contract psychologists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.”

Months later, the New England Journal of Medicine summed up aspects of the Senate committee’s findings: “Medical professionals, primarily private contractors, filled four basic roles at the black sites: clearing terrorist suspects as ‘medically fit’ for torture; monitoring torture to prevent death and treat injuries; developing novel torture methods; and actually torturing prisoners. All these actions were taken only after CIA and US Department of Justice attorneys assured the medical professionals that they had immunity from prosecution and would not be held legally responsible for violating US and international law against torture as long as they used the techniques approved in legal memos (since withdrawn) written to justify their actions. Lawyers agreed to provide immunity assurances that specific torture techniques were legal ‘enhanced interrogation’ methods only if the physicians assured them that they would be present to prevent permanent harm to prisoners. The CIA opened more than a dozen black sites around the world after 9/11, in which at least 117 prisoners were held; 39 of these prisoners were subjected to one or more torture techniques.”

At least hundreds more “suspected terrorists” who’d been captured by the US were turned over to ruthless governments. “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan,” former CIA officer Bob Baer said. “If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear—never to see them again—you send them to Egypt.”

When shocking photos emerged of vile mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, a media uproar caused an official probe by two-star Army General Anthonio Taguba. His report, issued in 2004, concluded that “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees." Taguba’s candor got him pushed into early retirement. In the preface to a Physicians for Human Rights report in 2008, he addressed the matter of accountability by flatly declaring that ”the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture.”

But in spite of the voluminous evidence that documented high-level approval of methodical torture, not a single US official went to prison as a result. Foreshadowing such impunity was a comment by Obama nine days before he became president in January 2009. On national television, he voiced “a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” The words that came next were even more telling: “And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering.”

The lack of accountability set a template. As president, Obama continued with his theme of governance without a rear-view mirror. On October 25, 2012, he tweeted: "We don't look backwards, we look forward." Career outlooks were bright for top CIA officials who’d been implicated in Bush-era torture.

“Much has been made of President Trump’s disregard for rules and norms—boundaries delineated by ethics and morality if not written laws themselves,” Adam Serwer wrote in March 2018. “But transgressing laws, rules, and norms isn’t the only way to destroy them. Another way is simply not to enforce them. In that regard, the 44th president, Barack Obama, bears a measure of responsibility for the recklessness of his successor, in particular Trump’s decision to appoint Gina Haspel, the Central Intelligence Agency’s deputy director, to run the agency itself.”

Haspel became the CIA’s director in 2018 when confirmed by the Senate despite her key role in the CIA’s torture program. Citing declassified documents, the National Security Archive at George Washington University explained that she “personally supervised the torture of a CIA detainee in 2002 leading to at least three waterboard sessions, subsequently drafted the cable that ordered destruction of the videotape evidence of torture, and served as a senior CIA official while the Agency was lying to itself, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the Congress, and the public about the effectiveness of torture in eliciting useful intelligence.”

The Center for Victims of Torture points out that “architects and operators of the CIA torture program have risen to prestigious positions in government, the private sector, the federal judiciary and academia.” And so it was after president-elect Joe Biden nominated Avril Haines to be Director of National Intelligence. As Obama’s CIA deputy director, she had worked to impede the Senate committee investigation into torture.

“In 2015, Haines had to decide what to do about CIA officials who had hacked into the computers of Senate intelligence committee staffers who had been compiling a comprehensive report on torture, and even drummed up spurious criminal cases against them,” the Guardian reported. “She overrode the advice of the CIA inspector general and recommended against disciplinary action.” The lead researcher for that committee, Daniel J. Jones (who was portrayed by Adam Driver in the movie “The Report”), warned against Biden going through with the nomination, saying: “This is about the continuing cover-up of the torture program, the long legacy of that. And I wish I could say Haines wasn’t a part of that, but she was.” The Senate confirmed Haines to the DNI job with an 84-10 vote. She remained in the position throughout Biden’s presidency.

Three months ago, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace announced that its next president will be Avril Haines. The organization declared: “One of the most respected national security leaders of her generation, Avril brings a deep commitment to public service and the values at the heart of our mission.”

Today’s data center proponents argue such projects bring needed jobs and a boost to local economies. Rural America has heard confident pitches like these before. Nearly 40 years ago, concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, arrived one barn at a time with bold promises of jobs and a county tax base.

By the time neighbors organized, right-to-farm laws and state preemption had severed the ground from under them. All the while, manure lagoons leached into the groundwater and fouled the air, shortening the life expectancy of the farmworkers and downwind neighbors.

Organizing still won real things, to be sure, from North Carolina’s CAFO moratorium in 1997 to Chris Jones’s clean-water campaign for agriculture secretary in Iowa today. When it comes to CAFOs, the lessons came late, but in the age of artificial intelligence, those same lessons can give rural communities a leg up.

While CAFOs crept into rural America, data centers are arriving as a land rush. This speed is both terrifying and an advantage. Texas alone has some 248 proposed data center projects, even though 56% of Texans tell pollsters they do not want one nearby, which means that, unlike the CAFO era, rural communities are asking questions before the statutes are locked in. And rural people need their voices to be heard. According to Pew Research Center, of the more than 1,500 data centers proposed or under development, 67% are in rural communities.

Everything CAFO country learned, it learned too late, after the wells were ruined, after the smell lowered adjacent property values and health outcomes, after the statutes were written.

The ultimate question will be: Do rural residents have the power to say no?

The answer is playing out across the country. In November 2025, 800 people filled a board meeting to oppose a billion-dollar Meta-linked project in Howell Township, Michigan, and the developer withdrew. In February, the city council of San Marcos, Texas, rejected a $1.5 billion campus after nearly nine hours of public comment, then became the first Texas city to ban data centers through its zoning code. Fort Worth, Texas, is drafting data center zoning rules of its own.

Nationally, the poorest census tracts resist data center projects at five times the rate of the richest. Projects that meet resistance are cancelled at several times the rate of those that do not. One tracker counts tens of billions of dollars in blocked or delayed projects.

Opposition to data center projects is one of the few issues that many Americans agree on. A June Reuters/Ipsos poll found that only 14% of respondents would support a data center being built in their community. On July 18, organizers held 142 protests across 42 states in the first nationwide protest against data centers and artificial intelligence.

Data center hyperscalers are copying the CAFO playbook as best they can. West Virginia has stripped its counties and towns of the power to regulate data centers; similarly, the state’s right-to-farm law prohibits local governments from bringing civil or criminal action against an agricultural operation as long as it meets state and federal laws, permits, and regulations. When Hill County, Texas, passed the state’s first county moratorium in May, a developer sued for $100 million and the county rescinded within a week, because Texas counties can zone against neither a data center nor a feedlot. Hood County pulled its own moratorium after state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-7) asked whether counties even hold that power; the same senator calls the San Marcos ban illegal.

Right-wing organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), behind the pro-CAFO model legislation of right-to-farm laws since the 1990s, likewise appear intent on denying local control in the data center buildout. At its annual meeting in July, ALEC considered a model legislative framework that would undercut local bans and moratoriums and give data centers the “clear authority to secure power… subject only to objective safety and interconnection standards,” as the Center for Media and Democracy reported. The meeting featured speakers from Google and Nvidia, along with a Meta sponsorship.

The outburst of anti-data center sentiment ahead of the midterms has forced political leaders to reckon with the issue of local control. This is where data centers and CAFOs diverge. In June, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who once hailed Texas as “the epicenter of AI development,” called for a ban on AI data centers in rural neighborhoods and a cut to their billion-dollar-a-year tax exemption after facing rare bipartisan pressure. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law to preserve local control over data centers. Michigan’s candidates for governor are split over the server halls sprouting between Lansing and Detroit. Illinois recently reversed course on its data center policy, reeling in the subsidies it had rolled out in 2019. And in July, New York became the first state in the nation to enact a one-year moratorium.

So, who hasn’t been able to say no? We pulled the locations of CAFOs and data centers in North Carolina and Texas, where the data is easily available, and—yes—got Claude to plot it for us against demographic and county boundaries.

In North Carolina the answer is pretty clear. The state’s 2,482 permitted animal operations cluster in the Black Belt coastal plain where the epidemiologist Steve Wing found hog lagoons a generation ago. Weighted by the number of permits each county holds, those counties are 46% people of color, against 34% across North Carolina’s hundred counties as a whole. Duplin County alone holds over 500 permits and 2.2 million allowable hogs in a county where almost half the population of 49,000 are people of color.

Data centers are the inverse of CAFOs. The state’s data centers sit in counties whiter than the state average, in the Piedmont towns that lost their historic furniture and textile businesses as well as in wealthy Wake and Mecklenburg counties (respectively home to large cities Raleigh and Charlotte). Two of the state’s suspended projects are in adjacent Edgecombe County and Pitt County, where residents informed their resistance based on their history fighting CAFOs.

In 1995, residents of predominantly Black Kingsboro, in Edgecombe County, successfully blocked a major meatpacker from building a 300-acre slaughterhouse in their backyard through efforts to rezone land. When a $19 billion, 400-acre data center came knocking three decades later, residents opposed it en masse. The developer Energy Storage Solutions withdrew its proposal in July and by August, Edgecombe County enacted a two-year moratorium.

In Texas the pattern is a little more complex. Rural Texas tends to be whiter than a state average balanced by majority-Hispanic cities. Yet the feedlot Panhandle is majority-Hispanic meatpacking country, with counties like Deaf Smith and Castro where the workforce lives beside the feedyards it staffs. The rural counties now hosting data centers likewise run less white than rural Texas as a whole.

Other outlier cases in the US: The world’s densest data center cluster is outside Washington, DC, in Loudoun County, Virginia, among the wealthiest counties in America, while xAI’s Colossus runs beside Boxtown, a majority-Black neighborhood in Memphis.

The patterning and the possibilities for asking questions about data centers are very different. CAFOs were put next to the disempowered by history. In most of the counties with proposed data centers, there’s no local billionaire hyperscaler whose family has been on the land for generations to champion the project, with the historical ability to make people of color, in particular, suffer the consequences in the ways that CAFOs had.

In contrast, data centers are being aimed by site selectors in a hurry, looking for cheap land and water, cheap power and thin resistance. But they don’t have their local defenders and hands on the levers of power in the ways that CAFOs do.

At this intersection of race and class is the oldest American proxy for who can, and who can’t, say no.

Here are the questions that constituents should ask their local governments about new data center projects:

1. About Water

Does the permit say the cooling loop is closed, with maximum gallons per day, public metering, and penalties? We have yet to find a binding closed-loop commitment in any permit. Who owns the aquifer data, and who pays for the test wells?

2. About Power

Electric cooperatives, unique to rural America, have long been a way for farmers and rural people to claw back some power over their destiny. These cooperatives were established with a “duty to serve” the areas that investor-owned utilities refused to serve because the load factors were low. By pooling their demand, cooperatives could connect their members to a grid and lower their prices.

In the age of artificial intelligence, public utilities—rural electric cooperatives included—face a dilemma. The more a cooperative buys from its wholesale supplier, the greater its load factor and therefore the lower the cooperative’s average cost of power. When a data center project fields new requests for power, it can be life changing. Having a client with a reliable 24-7 demand for electricity means a predictable increase in the co-op’s load factor. All that new volume could, in principle, make every member’s bill cheaper and bring new system upgrades. It’s tempting to shut up and take the deal.

But as with any gift horse, every farmer knows to check the teeth. Data centers often have greater access to capital than their would-be electric cooperative providers, and their rise as buyers means a shift in the balance of bargaining power in the marketplace. Will attitudes toward universal service obligations remain in place? Will consumer protection policies evolve? And which regulator should be responsible for developing and overseeing new industry guardrails?

Who pays for the substation and the lines? Port Washington, Wisconsin found itself on the hook for a $90 million substation it did not need. Is there a curtailment agreement cutting the data center first in a grid emergency, as Texas now requires of loads over 75 megawatts? Are residential rates fenced off in a separate rate class? And for rural electric cooperative members: Does the all-requirements wholesale contract cap the solar and wind members may build, and would a giant new load deepen that dependence? Why do big loads get lower per kilowatt prices as they increase their usage while conservation earns nothing? Will data centers inherit the same pricing structure?

3. About Money

What does each abatement cost per permanent job, when a hyperscale facility employs a few dozen people? Will advance payments be required to pay for infrastructure upgrades? Will they accept provisions for interruptible power during times of peak demand to prevent rolling blackouts? Are there clawbacks? Is there a decommissioning bond for the day the hardware is scrap, as we now demand of wind farms?

4. About Democracy

Did any utility or government official sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)? Can our county or township legally say no, and if not, which law took the power and who voted for it?

Everything CAFO country learned, it learned too late, after the wells were ruined, after the smell lowered adjacent property values and health outcomes, after the statutes were written. Data centers are arriving early enough that the questions can still be asked in time, even as the hyperscalers find friends in Washington DC, and in statehouses around the country, who’ll say yes to them so that local communities won’t be able to say no.

If we want to stop Amazon, Meta, and OpenAI riding roughshod over our communities and land, it will be because average people, urban and rural alike, will have joined forces to stop the trillionaire class from building their wealth off our backs.

For many, Labor Day signifies a time of transition, the end of summer and the return to business as usual, whether it be school or work. But the holiday weekend was born out of a more radical past, and at a place charged with a history of protest and free expression.

On September 5, 1882, more than 10,000 workers sacrificed a day’s pay to march on Union Square and demand an eight-hour workday and an end to child labor. The success of their protest paved the way for Labor Day to become a federal holiday in 1894.

Initially a gated garden enclave for New York’s wealthiest, architects Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux redesigned Union Square in 1872 as an open plaza for public assembly and patriotic demonstration.

By the beginning of the 20th century, Union Square became the epicenter of radical American politics, a setting for protests by anarchists and socialists. Noted activist Emma Goldman frequently used the public plaza to challenge government censorship and advocate for women’s reproductive rights and free speech.

Fenced in by Surveillance Technology

Today, however, Union Square has been fenced in by a barricade of a different sort. Ringing the plaza is a spiky array of cameras, installed on streetlights by a New York Police Department seeking to surveil New Yorkers and anyone else who happens by the square.

The cameras include automatic license-plate recognition technology, which captures data on every car that passes the square down Broadway or across busy 14th Street.

Whether you’re driving to the grocery store for a quart of milk or attending a local No Kings protest, odds are that law enforcement has recorded, processed, and archived your activities for future reference.

Such setups are so ubiquitous to cities and major intersections that they’re easy to dismiss as normal features of a busy streetscape. But that’s changing.

The company that produces many of these surveillance cameras—Flock Group Inc.—has become a focus of concern among activists, advocates, and people of every political stripe who don’t want law enforcement documenting and archiving their every activity.

Spying on the Haystack

But Flock is not alone. Surveilling everyday Americans is now a multibillion-dollar business that’s growing fast.

Flock has struck license-plate reading camera contracts with 7,000 law-enforcement agencies, accounting for 40% of all such departments nationwide. There are more than 130,000 of these cameras deployed across 49 states, likely at a busy intersection or gathering point near you.

Whether you’re driving to the grocery store for a quart of milk or attending a local No Kings protest, odds are that law enforcement has recorded, processed, and archived your activities for future reference.

The philosophy behind such mass surveillance is that authorities need to capture data on everyone’s movements to identify those few who step out of line. It’s as though you need to know the habits of every blade of grass in the haystack to cull out the one wayward needle.

If that’s not disturbing enough, there have also been extensive reports of abuse, including local police officers deploying department surveillance technology to stalk romantic interests—including strangers—while innocent people have been thrown in jail based on a misread license plate or an inaccurate biometric scan.

“The constant and ongoing surveillance of people in public places raises serious First and Fourth Amendment concerns,” says Jenna Ruddock, Free Press’ advocacy director. “Even decisions about where to install these cameras map onto well-established practices of racist policing, aside from the fact that facial-detection technology has an alarming track record when attempting to identify people of color.”

Mass Surveillance Is Big Business

Still, more major tech companies are getting in on the expanding surveillance business. Powerful artificial intelligence companies are marketing AI-enabled video analytics with facial-recognition capacities for real-time threat detection (think Minority Report).

And while Meta doesn’t directly market its Ray-Ban smart glasses to law enforcement, local police departments and immigration agencies have been buying them in bulk via Amazon.

For its part, Amazon is chasing multimillion-dollar contracts to provide law enforcement with cloud infrastructure for data storage, analytics, and biometric systems, including more than $250 million from the Department of Homeland Security to host many of the databases and systems used to track, monitor, and deport immigrants.

Though he once promised that he wouldn’t allow anyone to use company technology to harm people, Google CEO Sundar Pichai is now seeking to profit from mass surveillance. The company is already doing business with Immigration and Customs Enforcement while vying with Amazon and other tech giants for government cloud-computing contracts. Google is also under contract to provide the tech at the center of federal projects to upgrade the “virtual wall” that surveils US borders.

Lost to the Surveillance State

As more cameras sprout up in more locations, the movement to oppose such government spying is spreading. Dozens of cities across the country have cut ties with Flock over their residents’ data-privacy concerns. People have flocked to public hearings and city council meetings to pressure local elected officials to turn the cameras off. Some have taken matters into their own hands, covering nearby Flock and other surveillance cameras with trash bags—or even cutting down camera-attached light poles with electric saws.

DeFlock, an anti-surveillance activist group, has been mapping locations of Flock and other cameras nationwide. (This author used this tool to identify the many non-Flock surveillance cameras surrounding Union Square).

In August, privacy advocates organized the DeFlock National Week of Action, which featured a series of protests, town halls, and informational events to oppose automated license-plate readers and other mass surveillance technology.

The pushback against local surveillance cameras is occurring alongside the fast-spreading movement to stop the unchecked construction of data centers. There’s a common culprit in both popular uprisings: the unholy alliances struck between Big Tech and government. Others are rightfully suspicious of the billionaire class pushing the rapid, reckless development of advanced AI and surveillance tools without first seeking the consent of surrounding communities.

In Union Square on a recent Monday, I asked local busker Lawrence Kidwell whether he knew what all of the nearby police cameras were about. “The NYPD just wants to listen to my music,” he said.

Perhaps. But the cameras are also in place to discourage other forms of expression and muzzle voices of dissent. Something that Union Square has long welcomed may become lost to the new deprivations of the surveillance state.

This piece was originally published at Pressing Issues.

Three months ago, the Office of Management and Budget proposed new rule changes that would greatly politicize federal grant making, with the potential to restrict, stall, and even terminate grants to nonprofits, state and local governments, universities, and community organizations across the country at will.

Just this week, the House passed a stopgap funding bill to temporarily block the finalization of these rule changes, with bipartisan support. If signed by the president it means that federal agencies will now continue to be funded through December 11, and no changes to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rules will take place before then.

While this funding patch is good news, come December we'll need much more than a temporary fix to address the dangerous impact these changes will ultimately have. If these rules are finalized, $1 trillion in annual discretionary grants will soon be subject to approval by a group of presidential appointees, based on alignment with the president’s extreme and erratic policy priorities. Shifting this crucial decision-making power to a small set of political appointees is highly concerning for tens of thousands of nonprofit organizations addressing public health, housing, transportation, scientific research, and more. For the survivors we serve, the consequences could be devastating.

I lead Safe Horizon, the nation’s largest victim service organization, serving 250,000 survivors of violence, abuse, and exploitation each year. We offer domestic violence shelters, criminal justice programs, case management, mental healthcare, support for unhoused youth, and expert legal advice and representation. This is lifesaving work.

A cancelled grant may mean that a woman is forced to leave emergency shelter and return to her unsafe home, or that a young person may lose their supportive housing and find themselves sleeping on trains.

Like so many of our peers in the human services sector, we rely on federal funding—through direct federal grants as well as through state and city pass-through funding—to support our clients. The proposed rule changes threaten the safety and health of our clients by adding questionable legal interpretations and ideological differences as criteria for granting funds.

Domestic violence, child abuse, homelessness, and immigration are all issues that cut across gender, race, religion, and identity. We serve ALL survivors who come through our doors, including people with marginalized identities who are disproportionately impacted by violence and abuse. Last year alone, 901 survivors of domestic violence and their 1,098 children found safety through our shelters, and we answered 93,935 crisis calls through our 24-hour hotline.

Under the new rules, federal agencies will be empowered to terminate or pause grants based on changes in agency priorities or the “national interest,” meaning grants could be cancelled at any time for any reason, disrupting critical services to those who need them. These changes will directly impact our clients’ safety. A cancelled grant may mean that a woman is forced to leave emergency shelter and return to her unsafe home, or that a young person may lose their supportive housing and find themselves sleeping on trains. A survivor of sexual violence may have no one to turn to when the hotline number stops picking up in times of crisis. Nonprofit domestic violence shelter providers across the country could be forced to pause or reduce their services, and even close their doors, leaving survivors more vulnerable to violence and uncertainty.

Beyond ideological interpretations, procedural rule changes will weaken the integrity and stability of the federal grant-making process itself. Currently, grants are reviewed by peer subject matter experts. This means independent professionals make informed decisions about which programs are most qualified to receive funding. Giving political appointees who lack this expertise the power to approve or deny grants makes grant making political, essentially reducing it to a tool of the president, instead of prioritizing the real needs of a community.

These proposed changes are alarming, and yet, we are no longer surprised. There is a pattern of manipulation at play: Just this summer The New York Times reported that the Trump administration admitted that they had canceled more than $7.5 billion in federal grants for clean energy projects, based solely on their location in Democrat-led states. We are already witnessing the misuse of congressionally approved funding for political targeting—these rule changes would hasten that process.

After OMB published their proposed rule changes on May 29, a 45-day public comment period opened during which nearly 500,000 comments were submitted by nonprofit organizations, prosecutors, law enforcement, academic institutions, and more. The majority of these comments vehemently opposed the changes.

In our work, we follow a client-centered practice model where we trust that clients are the experts of their own lives. We provide care, guidance, and options toward safety and healing, but ultimately, we listen to survivors first. I hope that after this temporary funding fix, the Senate, OMB, and this administration can follow suit, and that they won't ignore half a million voices of service leaders advocating that these proposed rule changes be withdrawn. Safety is a human right, and the well-being of our communities depends on it.

I think of Wendell Berry every time I use my chainsaw.

Berry, the novelist, essayist, and unofficial poet laureate of the sustainable agriculture movement, died this week at 92. I met him several times through my association with The Land Institute and visited their Kentucky home to write a profile of his wife, Tanya. But my main connection to Berry is through his writing.

Back to my chainsaw. I lived in cities most of my life, including when I was a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. No matter what the subject of a course, I always found ways to bring Berry’s words into my lectures, both to give students examples of elegant writing and to prod them to think about what we take for granted in high-energy and high-technology societies.

Any hope for a decent future requires us to understand we don’t face discrete problems to be solved but rather a predicament to be confronted.

Berry called out the cruelty of the masters of the modern world, especially the ways they denigrated his neighbors and devalued the land in rural America. But he understood that we all are implicated in the degradation of the ecosystems on which our own lives depend. He connected the real costs of our many labor-saving and pleasure-seeking devices to that degradation. Yes, there are corrupt individuals and corrupting social systems to hold accountable, but part of the problem is our species’ acquisitiveness—what Berry’s mentor Wallace Stegner called “the things that once possessed could not be done without.”

In a 1989 essay, Berry didn’t exempt himself from this critique of the destructive habits that draw down the ecological capital of the planet.

“I still fly on airplanes, which have nothing to recommend them but speed; they are inconvenient, uncomfortable, undependable, ugly, stinky, and scary,” he wrote. “I still cut my wood with a chainsaw, which has nothing to recommend it but speed, and has all the faults of an airplane, except it does not fly.”

We need to live with less, which is surprisingly hard.

“We are going to have to learn to give up things that we have learned (in only a few years, after all) to ‘need,’” Berry wrote. “I am not an optimist; I am afraid that I won’t live long enough to escape my bondage to the machines.”

But Berry doesn’t counsel despair: “I knew a man who, in the age of chainsaws, went right on cutting his wood with a handsaw and an axe. He was a healthier and a saner man than I am. I shall let his memory trouble my thoughts.”

I live in a rural area today and cut firewood with a battery-powered chainsaw to help heat our home. I don’t kid myself that I’m environmentally friendly because my machine doesn’t run on gasoline; the mining and manufacturing that created that chainsaw are ecologically expensive. I am part of the problem, like almost everyone else.

I’ve learned that even with a chainsaw, cutting a winter’s worth of wood is hard work. (OK, full disclosure: I also have an electric log-splitter that a friend gave me and now feels essential.) But as I cut and split and stack, I think about the extra effort required by the handsaw and axe of Berry’s acquaintance. And I also think about something else I regularly read to students, his poem “How to Be a Poet,” which I told students could be titled “How to Be a Human Being.” Berry wrote about how modern life is not only ecologically destructive but also traps us in a manufactured world, cut off from other living things. He suggested we slow down and learn to be quiet, to observe: “Stay away from anything/that obscures the place it is in.”

Every time I read the next lines from that poem, I felt myself on the edge of tears: “There are no unsacred places;/there are only sacred places/and desecrated places.”

No one knows how to get there, including Wendell Berry. But his words help me face reality and live in some kind of equanimity.

We have desecrated most of the world to make possible all the things we imagine that we need, including my chainsaw and log-splitter. We’ve built a world in which our material comfort obscures the cost of that comfort. I agree with Berry: Either every part of Earth is sacred or none of it is, and the modern world treats the entire planet as either a mine or a dump.

Back to bad people and bad systems. Yes, we can point to the actions of greedy corporate executives and self-serving politicians, and to capitalism’s perverse practices that glorify consumption. Yes, the affluent do the most damage. But most of the people around the world now embrace and chase that affluence, and we shouldn’t turn away from our own role in Earth-destruction. We won’t solve the problem by pointing fingers at others. In fact, any hope for a decent future requires us to understand we don’t face discrete problems to be solved but rather a predicament to be confronted. We’ve created ways of living that can’t be sustained unless we embrace what my coauthor Wes Jackson (cofounder of The Land Institute and a longtime friend of Berry) and I call the policy of “fewer and less”: fewer people consuming less energy and stuff.

No one knows how to get there, including Wendell Berry. But his words help me face reality and live in some kind of equanimity.

One of my fondest memories from 26 years of college teaching is standing in front of students, encouraging them to appreciate the elegance of Berry’s writing and face the fear it can bring up. I will let that memory trouble my thoughts and comfort me.

On Tuesday, the US House of Representatives approved a resolution sponsored by Republican Study Committee Member Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) to condemn socialism “in all its forms.” Eight Democrats voted with Republicans in favor of this red scare tactic ahead of the November midterm elections, which accentuates the Democrat’s divide.

The ideological divide between the establishment and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is profound, and the resolution condemning socialism is indeed part of a concerted strategy on the part of the GOP to wreak further havoc on the Democratic Party.

It is also important to take note of the fact that the resolution does not merely condemn socialism but opposes the implementation of all socialist policies in the United States. In essence, it denounces all policies seeking improvements in collective welfare.

Policies seeking improvements in collective welfare cover a wide range of objectives, like addressing massive economic inequalities, offering all people access to high-quality healthcare services, providing free public services, supporting individuals who experience various forms of income loss, protecting the environment, and so on. These policies may or may not be part of a strictly socialist agenda, but they are designed to promote economic justice and to enhance social cohesion and social welfare.

The claim that socialism leads inevitably to totalitarianism and tyranny is pure propaganda to scare the ignorant.

Indeed, many European countries have been actively pursuing policies seeking to bring about improvements in collective welfare at least since the end of World War II. The scope of some of these policies has shrunk considerably in the age of predatory capitalism, which is what the GOP anti-socialism resolution stands for, but no political party of any ideological stripe in the rest of the western world espouses the myth of social Darwinism to attack policies seeking to improve collective welfare. In fact, Europe’s far-right parties and movements advocate a strong welfare state and promise more government spending on native-born citizens (while excluding immigrants), especially in light of the ongoing erosion of social programs under neoliberalism.

There are many different types of socialism. For instance, European socialism (otherwise known as social democracy) has nothing to do with communism as the world experienced with the founding of the Soviet Union and bears no resemblance whatsoever to certain authoritarian and self-proclaimed socialist regimes that flourished during the Cold War in certain parts of the non-western world (Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, among others). The claim that socialism leads inevitably to totalitarianism and tyranny is pure propaganda to scare the ignorant. Socialist parties have ruled for long periods of time in most northern European countries, with those societies ranking globally at the top of major indexes for economic stability and personal freedoms while experiencing low rates of crime.

The Republican Party is by far the most reactionary party in the western world.

If anything, the argument has been that European socialist parties haven’t been socialistic enough. They pursued policies that improved without a doubt the condition of working-class people by striking a greater balance between capital and labor but did not go far enough with the mission of egalitarianism. DSA itself has been critical of the actual accomplishments of European socialism as it envisions a socioeconomic order based on democratic planning and participation whose sole purpose would be “to meet human needs, rather than to make profits for a few.”

Naturally, the GOP’s anti-socialism resolution paid no attention to such ideological and empirical nuances. It denounced socialism “in all its forms” and, by doing so, signaled its full support for an economic system based on predatory capitalism and a social order that advocates the notion that only the fittest members of society deserve to survive.

Policies geared toward universal healthcare, housing decommodification, strong worker rights and protections, strict financial regulation, environmental protection, and social justice? That’s the road to totalitarianism and tyranny, according to GOP’s anti-socialism resolution.

But there should be nothing surprising about this. The Republican Party is by far the most reactionary party in the western world. Yet, it continues to assert with confidence--and measurable success, no doubt--that its political and ideological positions represent the values and principles of the American people.

It is Trump’s fascism and the system of predatory capitalism that need to be denounced, not socialism.

However, the tide is turning. Americans are not only fed up with rising costs but with the way “democracy” works in their country, as a Pew Research Center poll revealed earlier in the summer. Support for capitalism has rapidly declined, especially among young people. Less than 10 percent of people younger than 30 have a “very positive” view of capitalism, according to a recent CBS/YouGov poll.

The idea propounded by the likes of Milton Friedman and implemented by Ronald Reagan and virtually every other US administration since have created one of the most unequal societies in the world while plutocrats are in control of the political system. US democracy is essentially a sham. But Trump and company have gone even further by advancing a 21st century version of fascism. It is Trump’s fascism and the system of predatory capitalism that need to be denounced, not socialism. In one of the most unequal and brutally unjust societies in the world, policies geared toward the improvement of the collective welfare represent the only realistic and humane alternative. And it appears that more and more Americans are beginning to realize that socialism is the only way out. So much so, one might add, that if Vladimir Mayakovsky were alive today and living in the United States, he might conceivably have said “Socialism is the youth of the world.”