This spring people have been raising awareness of the harms caused by Unilateral Coercive Measures, UCMs or “sanctions”. Sanctions have become the “go-to” foreign policy tool of the United States government, now impacting a quarter of the global economy and one-third of the world’s population. These measures cause an average of 564,000 deaths around the world annually—comparable to the toll from armed conflict—mostly among children under 5 years old.

On April 22 Congress held a briefing on “Humanitarian Impacts of Economic Sanctions, Cuba as a Case Study,” with three outside experts: Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy, co-author of the largest study ever conducted on the impacts of sanctions on mortality; David Paul, co-founder of the SanctionsKill campaign, retired nurse practitioner, and co-author of a letter from health workers to Congress about child deaths from sanctions; and Danny Valdes, co-founder of Cuban Americans for Cuba, who shared the perspective of bi-national families impacted by the longstanding and escalating US blockade of Cuba.

Economist Weisbrot said that 71% of the world’s broad economic sanctions are imposed by the United States. These unilateral measures violate international law by deliberately targeting civilian populations for collective punishment in the hope of bringing about regime change, and may even constitute war crimes. In addition to his global study, Weisbrot has compiled research that found US sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry caused the worst depression in world history outside of wartime, leading to 40,000 excess deaths in just one year, from 2017-2018. And current data on Cuba shows a strained health system and deteriorating health indicators, such as a doubling of infant mortality over the past eight years due to the tightening of the US blockade.

David Paul painted a devastating picture of life in Cuba under escalated coercive measures, especially the fuel blockade which is causing massive power outages and disrupts transportation, the production and distribution of food, refrigeration, water and sanitation, and the operation of ambulances and lifesaving medical equipment. He said this is not an embargo, but an actual blockade of the island. “People in the US government make the false claim that ‘Cuba can buy all the medicines wherever they want.’ It’s a total lie, when in reality all their banking transactions are blocked. [The US] will threaten and punish any corporation—domestic or international—or government, that trades with you. But you are free to buy!”

One parent asked, “Why is the president of the United States deciding whether my son lives or dies?”

More pregnant women are starting prenatal care late and suffering from malnutrition, which results in premature births and low birth weights. More babies are at risk of dying from congenital malformations because of the shortage of functioning diagnostic equipment like ultrasounds needed to detect them. Half of all essential medicines are no longer available in the country, as Cuba cannot even import the raw materials needed to keep its pharmaceutical industry afloat. Children are dying from treatable cancers due to lack of medicines, and physicians are hand-pumping ventilators for their patients when the lights go out. Heartbroken Cuban doctors tell parents, “We know what medicine your daughter needs to treat her cancer, we know where it is, but we can’t get it because they won’t sell it to us.” One parent asked, “Why is the president of the United States deciding whether my son lives or dies?”

Valdes reported an exponential deterioration of conditions on the island between his visits in October 2025 and March 2026, due to the lack of fuel, such as health problems caused by uncollected garbage in the streets of Havana. He says that some blame Cuba exclusively for these troubles, but one cannot deny the role played by US policy. Cuban Americans are impacted because they cannot easily visit relatives or efficiently send them remittances, which can make the difference “between eating and not eating; between accessing medicines and going without.” He noted that the Florida International University poll, running since 1991, reports that 52% of Cuban Americans support the embargo, yet 70% also support the sale of medicine to Cuba. This shows they are not actually in favor of maximum pressure policies.

The host of the briefing, Congresswoman Delia Ramírez (D-Ill.), is a strong proponent of respectful and constructive US foreign policy. She is a leading co-sponsor of H.Res. 1056, which calls for a reset of US relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, including the end of all unilateral economic sanctions. The congresswoman indicated that from Presidents James Monroe to Donald Trump, US interventionism has left a legacy of destruction and distrust, which never leads to peace and democracy.

Congress is gaining awareness of these injustices. A growing number of lawmakers are working to curtail the threat of military force against Cuba, and several signed a statement condemning the ongoing blockade and have endorsed legislation to end it. Some even use the proper terminology, calling for an end to “coercive economic measures.” Are they finally listening to the demands of the American people to end the longest blockade in history? Ever more people are moved to act. During its Congressional Advocacy Day on April 15, Doctors Against Genocide insisted that Cuba be allowed to import medical supplies and pushed legislation to lift the blockade.

We must take advantage of this moment to grow the movement to expose the human cost of sanctions and work to end them. Popular education materials are available on the SanctionsKill website, such as the Sanctions Toolkit. A recent webinar titled “Sanctions Undermine Children’s Right to Health” uses Cuba and Venezuela as case studies to illustrate these impacts and propose a new approach to human rights, such as the Peoples-Centered Human Rights framework.

As stated in the Letter calling on Congress to end child-killing sanctions, “Imposing collective punishment on the innocent is morally reprehensible. It must stop.” Join the fight to end Unilateral Coercive Measures by contacting AmericasWithoutSanctions@gmail.com, a project of the SanctionsKill campaign.

On April 19, 2026, an image circulated of an Israeli soldier standing before a statue of Jesus Christ in Debel, a Maronite Christian village in southern Lebanon, bringing a hammer down upon the sacred face while another soldier recorded him. The image spread within hours because it seemed to compress a moral education into one gesture.

Tucker Carlson was furious. So was a segment of the American right that has, for years, supplied the political and theological conditions that produced this soldier. That is the story the image tells, if you are willing to read it past the shock.

Since October 7, 2023, Israeli soldiers have assembled one of the most extensive self-incriminating records in the history of modern warfare. They posted thousands of videos to Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook under their own names—soldiers posing with Palestinian women's underwear in the ruins of their homes, filming the humiliation of detainees, torching food supplies, demolishing houses while comrades cheered. The Israel Defense Forces chief of staff eventually issued a communiqué instructing troops to stop filming what he called "revenge videos." That such an instruction had to be issued is the revelation.

A soldier films his contempt after the contempt has been sanctioned. He brings a hammer to the face of Christ in a Lebanese Christian village after spending long enough in a world where the sacred things of subjugated people are available for whatever use he finds amusing. The camera reveals how comfortable the contempt has already become.

Here is Islamophobia in one of its oldest disguises: Muslim injury must first pass through a Christian icon before Christian power agrees to see a wound.

That comfort has been built over decades, through laws and habits that operate below the threshold of outrage. Palestinian life under Israeli rule is managed through permits withheld without explanation, military courts where the accused often faces a sealed file in place of evidence, and detention orders renewed in six-month increments until time joins the punishment. At Sde Teiman, a desert detention facility established after October 7, five soldiers were charged in February 2025 with beating a Palestinian prisoner, breaking his ribs, puncturing a lung, and causing a perforated rectum. When the soldiers were arrested, far-right members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition stormed military facilities in protest. The defense minister called the prosecution a blood libel. In March 2026, Israel's top military lawyer dropped all charges. Netanyahu declared that Israel must spare its "heroic fighters."

The United Nations special rapporteur found in March 2026 that torture had become a structural feature of the ongoing genocide, extending from prisons into bombardment, starvation, forced displacement, and the terror of soldiers and settlers. B'Tselem has described Israel's prison system as a network of torture camps for Palestinians.

The same contempt moves through sacred space. Gaza's only Catholic church was struck by Israeli fire in July 2025, killing three people. In February 2026, during Ramadan, Israeli settlers vandalized and set fire to a mosque near Nablus, spray-painting insults against the Prophet Muhammad. The Palestinian Ministry of Religious Affairs said settlers had attacked 45 mosques in the West Bank in the previous year. Israeli authorities condemned the incident and promised a search—which is how impunity often speaks when it wishes to sound like law.

The deeper scandal lies in the moral conditioning of recognition. A violated Muslim sanctity can be treated as a security matter, a disputed incident, another complication in a place supposedly fated to brutality. Then a soldier raises a hammer against Christ, and men who had tolerated the pulverizing of Gaza discover that their theology has been disturbed. Here is Islamophobia in one of its oldest disguises: Muslim injury must first pass through a Christian icon before Christian power agrees to see a wound.

Tucker Carlson weeps for the statue in a world his own political allies helped construct. Mike Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, told a television audience in February 2026 that it would be "fine" if Israel took over the entire Middle East. He had already stated that there is "really no such thing as a Palestinian." He is a Christian who calls on the Bible. The president he serves stood beside Netanyahu in February 2025 and announced that the United States would "take over" Gaza and that its 2 million inhabitants should "go to other countries." The United Nations said this constituted ethnic cleansing.

The United States has been a co-author of this order—replenishing the arsenal, shielding Israel at the Security Council, resisting the jurisdiction of international courts, treating Palestinian death as a cost to be managed after the weapons have done their work. In March 2026, the administration bypassed congressional review to approve a $650 million bomb sale to Israel, invoking emergency authority while Palestinians were still living under ruins made by earlier emergencies.

Christian Zionist theology has blessed this map from the beginning: a map in which Palestinian land, Lebanese land, and Syrian land can be folded into sacred entitlement. That theology sanctifies the conditions, the army carries them out, and supremacist politics rewards the result. The soldier with the hammer grew inside that order. He filmed himself because he believed the record would survive as proof of victory.

What struck the statue was already striking everything else. The violence became visible to a new audience. A conscience that required the face of Christ as its activation point had been choosing all along.

April 28 is National Superhero Day. It’s a shame that Superman is fictional, because our planet needs saving from its most deadly threat: climate change. Our real heroes will come from science, not planet Krypton.

The threat of climate change is not theoretical, and neither are the health impacts. The Earth was 2.3°F warmer in 2024 than during the 20th-century average, and the 10 warmest recorded years have all taken place between 2015 and 2024. According to the World Health Organization, 3.6 billion people already live in areas highly vulnerable to climate change. Climate-driven deaths are rising, from heat illness and malnutrition to vector-borne disease and disasters such as flooding. Thirty-seven percent of heat-related deaths are linked to human-induced warming, a number expected to climb.

Yet at the very moment when the world needs bold climate action, the Trump administration has taken major steps backward. The United States, historically the world's largest emitter, pulled out of the Paris Agreement and failed to show at last year's United Nations Climate Change Conference, sending clear messages to international partners. Federal disinvestment has been staggering: The latest proposed federal budget will cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 52% and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's by 32%. Funding for climate change research has been gutted across major universities. We are not on track to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, a deadline scientists view as essential for planetary stability. This backslide disproportionately harms low-income communities, contributing to rising climate-related mortality.

Even as the US retreats from its international and domestic commitments to reduce emissions, America still has a league of planet defenders made up of scientists, engineers, and activists. They may not have capes, but their work saves lives.

No one is coming to save us, and while the impacts of climate change may feel distant to some healthcare providers, the rest of us cannot afford to sit this one out.

It's time for physicians to step up and join the fight. This is not just an environmental issue; it’s a public health issue. All the statistics about heatwaves, floods, and disasters aren’t just abstract; they’re at the bedside. We’re seeing the direct impacts of climate change in emergency medicine as it affects both the types of diseases we’re treating and how we deliver care.

As a physician myself, I know asking overworked healthcare providers to do more is, well, a big ask. But research shows that physicians are viewed as credible messengers on climate-related issues. Our voices and expertise matter, not just in clinics and operating rooms, but in our communities. We know that change does not just come in the form of lobbying and big communication campaigns. Often, it can come from everyday conversations. It can look like asking patients how they keep their medications cool during a heatwave or reviewing their asthma action plan in preparation for wildfire season. By leading with curiosity, we can help patients make the connection between their environment and its effect on their health.

It can take the form of a discussion with your colleagues about eco-friendly prescribing, like opting for tablets over liquid formulations or dry powders instead of propellant inhalers. Within our hospitals and clinics, we can make simple changes like adding recycling bins and minimizing the use of single-use disposables. Plastic waste is a huge problem in the medical field, but it’s a scalable problem within our control.

No one is coming to save us, and while the impacts of climate change may feel distant to some healthcare providers, the rest of us cannot afford to sit this one out. Joining the Justice League of climate change advocacy does not mean taking on everything; it means starting with doing something. The planet doesn’t need a superhero; it needs all of us to take a step toward changing our practice.

While stopping evictions is the PAH’s [Platform for People Affected by Mortgages, or Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca] most well-known activity, the movement only began to use civil disobedience as a tactic of resistance out of necessity. Foreclosure processes tend to move slowly and a series of other problems must be resolved before eviction is imminent. At some point, people in the assembly started getting eviction notices, but the first ones to receive them didn’t feel the strength to try and resist the police kicking them out. In 2010, PAH Barcelona was approached by a man named Lluís who had just received a date for eviction from his house in La Bisbal del Penedès. He was desperate, claiming that he’d rather fill his house with butane canisters and blow it up, than to hand it over to the bank. At the PAH, they quickly understood the need for an alternative solution.

The platform’s founders realized that at some point they would have to resort to direct action to stop evictions, but they didn’t think they’d be capable of it... until they were forced to. To stop Lluís’ eviction, they armed themselves with a strong narrative, echoing the legal and ethical arguments against eviction, and an energetic communication campaign that included signs, banners, and media coverage. Moreover, the entire action was recorded.

They knew they had to avoid violence, and when the judicial delegation arrived, the activists did not physically engage them, but simply blocked the entrance to the house, tried to talk them out of evicting Lluís and refused to move. There was little the two police officers could do, and the eviction was postponed. Two days later, the PAH released the video of the demonstration, providing proof of what would later become one of the movement’s slogans: “Sí se puede!”

Harnessing Legitimacy

Members of PAH hold a protest. (Photo by PAH-Barcelona)

Civil disobedience as a tactic to stop evictions became part of the PAH’s regular activity. “What we have to do to stop evictions has become so normalized that when we talk about it at the assembly, we don’t speak in terms of ‘we’re engaging in civil disobedience,’ although that is what we do, and perhaps we should reflect more on that,” ponders Berni from PAHC Bages. “The PAH emerged at a time when thousands of evictions for mortgage defaults were taking place and the issue affected a lot of people who thought they were middle class; in the public discourse, everyone saw that this was something dramatic and unfair,” recalls Emma from PAHC Sabadell. “The fact that in this context, a group of people spoke out to draw attention to this injustice and engaged in nonviolent but active civil disobedience led to the success of the PAH model and its acceptance within society,” she concludes.

“The experience of protesting inside a bank with fifty people is really fulfilling, it takes away your fear and it empowers you.”

To ensure that the platform’s civil disobedience continues to be successful, it’s vitally important for it to preserve that legitimacy. That means being able to justify each and every action as legitimate. Although it will sometimes react to emergency situations, the PAH only takes action on evictions affecting people already involved in the platform. At their assemblies, PAH groups make it clear that they’re not an eviction prevention service, but that they work on the basis of mutual support and only try to block evictions when the people being evicted do not have proper alternative housing.

Beyond the general idea behind these actions—to resist peacefully at the entrance to the building to prevent the judicial delegation from entering—they must be carefully planned and roles must be assigned to make sure everything runs smoothly. If there are minors in the family’s care, a solution must be found to ensure that they aren’t in the house at the time when the eviction is scheduled. It’s very important to support the family, who might be out on the street with their compas, or prefer to resist from inside their home. It’s also very important to remember that the action revolves around their interests and they must be kept informed of what’s happening and able to make decisions when necessary.

Outside, the aim is to keep people’s spirits up while they wait for the judicial delegation to arrive, which might take the whole morning. It’s important to have people to energize the protest in creative ways and give directions. Although people can move around, someone must be responsible for making sure that the door is always protected.

It’s also important to decide in advance how to communicate the purpose and legitimacy of the action to the public, and who will be in charge of communicating with the authorities and the media, rather than leaving it to be decided on the spot.

It’s also helpful to consider preparing the affected person how to deal with the press, if necessary. The movement’s social media presence and its relationship with the media are also very important, as these are tools that can be used to amplify the PAH’s demands and reinforce its legitimacy.

Empowering Actions

Members of PAH-Barcelona stick flyers on a bank window. (Photo by PAH-Barcelona)

The PAH has an extensive repertoire of actions that goes far beyond stopping evictions. In fact, stopping an eviction is not usually the final solution, but a postponement that should make it possible to find a more permanent answer to the problem. This might require action against financial institutions, public authorities or water, electricity, and gas companies. Besides taking action in support of specific cases, big demonstrations can be called to target the institutions responsible for the problems faced by many families.

“I remember the first time we occupied a bank, back in 2010 or 2011. We occupied Caixa Catalunya and the riot police came to kick us out; that was ecstasy, a real high, and then the fear disappeared,” says Delia from PAH Barcelona. “The experience of protesting inside a bank with fifty people is really fulfilling, it takes away your fear and it empowers you.” Many people emphasize the strength of collective action; sometimes the mere act of covering a bank with posters condemning its actions is very powerful. “Wallpapering is a high, an outlet for your rage; you can take out all the hatred you’ve built up inside and stick it all over the institution,” says Juan Luis from PAH Torrevieja.

That’s where the festive tone and creativity of the PAH’s actions come in. Even if you’re protesting against a very difficult issue, you have to make room for joy. If you occupy a bank, you can use the leaflets that are there for anyone to take as confetti and play music or put up balloons and banners. “It wiped away my fear of the bank when I saw how all the employees could leave and the office would be left alone, occupied by activists,” says Juan Luis. The PAH manages to paralyze the bank’s activity without confronting anyone or even directly hindering its work. The movement’s actions are simply intended to make its presence felt because the bank is unwilling to continue its activity in these conditions.

Of course, everyone experiences these actions in their own way and that’s why some groups in Madrid organize what they call “fear workshops.” “These are workshops for people to learn how to act during an action: how to avoid losing their temper or falling for police provocation, how to rely on colleagues. In short, how to overcome yourself so that you can go to the protest, even if you’re afraid, because nothing is going to happen to you in 90 percent of the cases,” explains Alejandra from PAVPS [Platform for People Affected by Public and Social Housing], Madrid.

It’s also important to think about how to look after people in these protests. This can be done, for example, by warning when there’s a possibility that the police show up and recommending that people in an irregular administrative situation stay away to avoid unnecessary risks. “Besides that, they tell you how to act or how to hold onto another person so that they don’t hurt you if they’re trying to remove you by force,” adds Francisco from PAH Barcelona.

This excerpt is adapted from Yes, It’s Possible! A Handbook for Building Power by João França and The Platform for People Affected by Mortgages, published by Common Notions. Copyright (c) 2026 Common Notions. All rights reserved. Do not republish.

It takes decades to build institutions and the norms and values that keep them working, but far less time to destroy them.

Less than two years into the second Trump administration, the United States finds itself in an undeclared war with Iran, while at home, efforts to undermine institutions like the Justice Department and the legitimacy of elections continue to grow, alongside the threat of Christian nationalism, an ideology that weakens democracy by narrowing the definition of who belongs. At the same time, immigration enforcement has been at the forefront of normalizing the repressive use of state power, with two US citizens killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and deaths in ICE custody reaching their highest levels in two decades. There is cause for serious concern about the future of US democracy, as exclusionary rhetoric and practices contribute to political instability.

I grew up in a politically unstable system. In just a few years at the end of the 1990s, Ecuador went through five presidents, a civilian-military uprising, a banking collapse, rising inflation, and widespread social unrest. When I first came to the United States as an exchange student, I didn’t understand the importance of “institutional legitimacy,” the idea that an institution is rightful, appropriate, and deserving of trust or respect. In my home country, no such legitimacy existed—and the consequences were dire.

Now, I see Americans’ confidence in institutions—particularly those meant to protect the public and uphold justice, such as the Justice Department and the police—being weakened in real time. At the same time, President Donald Trump continues to delegitimize the entire US electoral system by promoting his (baseless) claim that the 2020 election was stolen. Because of this misinformation, the majority of Republicans believe this to be the case (62%), compared with 31% of all Americans, according to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), where I am the director of research.

As we move through this election season and approach the nation’s 250th anniversary, it is worth reflecting on how diversity, trust, tolerance, respect, honesty, and empathy are hallmarks of the American democratic ideal.

It is deeply troubling to see continued messaging from the president that risks undermining confidence in the integrity of midterm elections, instilling widespread fear around voting, and advancing immigration rhetoric and policies that demonize vulnerable minorities and limit their rights. Freedom House, an organization that monitors democracy levels worldwide, reports that over the past decade, US democracy has declined from 92 (out of 100) to 81 in 2025, reflecting a gradual erosion in key democratic indicators, particularly in the protection of minority rights.

Despite recent changes in the Department of Homeland Security’s leadership, the Trump administration has continued to pursue its aggressive immigration agenda, conflating undocumented immigrants with violent criminal convictions, and, most recently, with Trump’s push for the Supreme Court to uphold his executive order ending birthright citizenship.

Diversity strengthens democracies by bringing different perspectives to decision-making. It also cultivates empathy by exposing individuals to experiences beyond their own and encouraging tolerance and mutual respect. By contrast, autocracies favor conformity, distrust, the concentration of power, intimidation of critics, and targeting of minorities, like immigrants.

Most, but not all, Americans disagree with the Trump administration’s divisive, dehumanizing policies. PRRI’s recent survey shows solid majorities of Republicans (61%) and Christian nationalism adherents (57%) favor “allowing ICE officers to arrest and relocate undocumented immigrants to detention centers in states far from their home without allowing them to challenge their detainment in court.” They also favor “allowing ICE officers to regularly conduct surveillance and arrests at sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, places of worship, and social service locations” (54% and 53%), suggesting a willingness among these groups to expand state power at the expense of due process and civil liberties.

In addition, a growing movement is challenging traditional understandings of empathy. Data from PRRI finds that while most Americans agree more with the idea that “empathy is a moral value that is the foundation of a healthy society” (80%) than that it is “a dangerous emotion that undermines our ability to set up a society that is guided by God’s truth (16%),” a quarter of Republicans (25%) and nearly 4 in 10 Christian nationalism adherents (37%) agree that empathy is dangerous.

I find myself asking: At what point did we lose sight of the democratic principles we used to uphold? What happened to our commitment to human rights, the fight against corruption, limits on the unchecked use of power, and, simply put, the truth? When did we stop caring about other human beings?

As we move through this election season and approach the nation’s 250th anniversary, it is worth reflecting on how diversity, trust, tolerance, respect, honesty, and empathy are hallmarks of the American democratic ideal. What is happening across the country and abroad should serve as a wake-up call about our commitment to democratic institutions and values, compelling us to come together to repair the damage.

Trump is both an incredibly ignorant person and incredibly dishonest person. As a result, when he claims ignorance of an obvious fact it is difficult to tell whether he really is as ignorant as he claims or he’s just lying.

Such is the case with Trump’s claim that he didn’t know Iran might attack its neighbors and close the Strait of Hormuz in response to his joint attack with Israel. Trump insisted that none of the experts thought this possible when in effect just about every expert thought it was both possible and likely.

Given Trump’s ignorance and propensity to lie, it is not easy to know whether Trump actually went to war totally unaware of the most likely consequences, or instead went to war anyhow, deciding that he didn’t care about the damage it would cause. Whatever the real story, the consequences are enormous and sure to get worse as the Strait remains closed longer.

The most immediate and obvious consequence is the higher price for oil and natural gas. People in the United States see this at the gas station every time they fill their tank. Paying a dollar or so more for a gallon of gas is an annoyance for everyone. It is very bad news for low- and moderate-income households, especially those who need a car for work.

But this is just the beginning of the story. Diesel prices are up by close to $2.00 a gallon. Diesel fuel prices have risen by far more than regular gas because there is more limited refining capacity. This means when some refiners lose access to their supply of oil, their production cannot be easily replaced. Also, there is less ability for users to cut back their demand.

With gas, most people have some ability to cut back the number of trips they take, or to carpool or take public transportation. Most diesel fuel has commercial uses like trucking. There is not much ability to cut back unless fewer goods are transported.

The higher price for diesel fuel will be a big hit to independent truckers and trucking companies, who will end up with lower income as a result. And in most cases, they will look to pass on much of the higher fuel cost to their customers, who will eventually pass it on as higher prices to consumers.

There is a similar story with other commercial transportation. Many travelers are already seeing this in higher airplane prices and fewer flights.

But whatever the costs in the United States, they are far higher elsewhere. Jet fuel is in more limited supply in Europe, since they import a large share of what they use. East Asia is also being hard hit by higher gas and fuel prices, since countries like Japan and South Korea import most of their fossil fuels, and most of it comes from the Middle East.

But the worst story is in the developing world, especially Sub-Saharan Africa. Tens of millions of people in the countries of the region were already living at the edge. Higher prices for oil could mean many can no longer afford kerosene for cooking. And the cost of transporting food and other necessities could be too high for the countries to bear.

And fossil fuels are only part of the problem. Close to 30 percent of the world’s fertilizer supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz. As a result of the blockage, fertilizer prices have also soared since the start of the war. Already, 70 percent of farmers in the United States report cutting back fertilizer usage due to price increases. That number will increase if the closure persists and prices go still higher.

But as bad as the story is here, it is much worse in the developing world, where farmers will be much less capable of coping with higher fertilizer prices. Many may be forced to do without fertilizer altogether, causing crop yields to plummet. This could put millions of struggling farmers out of business.

And the result of lower crop yields in both developing countries and the United States will be higher food prices for the world. This will cause an increase in hunger and malnutrition for tens of millions of people.

The point here is that it is entirely possible, perhaps likely, that millions of people will die because of a totally foreseeable consequence of Donald Trump’s war that he claims he never even considered. I guess this is consistent with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s pursuit of “lethality.”

Capitalism only cares about profits, so it is not surprising that care work is undervalued in capitalist societies. Yet care work is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the US economy, while “adults spend, on average, about as much time in unpaid work as they do on paid work,” as renowned socialist and feminist economist Nancy Folbre points out in the interview that follows. Subsequently, she makes a makes an argument for structural reforms in the care economy and highlights strategies for organizing care workers. Folbre is professor emerita of economics and director of the Program on Gender and Care Work at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is the author of several books, including, most recently, Making Care Work: Why Our Economy Should Put People First.

C. J. Polychroniou: Your new book, Making Care Work, has an anti-capitalist subtitle: Why Our Economy Should Put People First. Could you explain the connections you see between capitalism and the undervaluation of the work of caring for ourselves and others?

Nancy Folbre: In many societies, capitalist institutions such as market exchange and wage employment were shaped by preexisting patriarchal institutions, including laws barring women from property ownership, access to higher education and well-paying jobs. The dynamics varied across countries and were shaped by patterns of imperial power, but patriarchal institutions served the purpose of keeping the cost of producing and maintaining the labor force relatively low by creating a “reserve army” of wives and mothers who also worked to the advantage of men. The economists and national income accountants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries reinforced women’s subordination by insisting that their unpaid work was a moral obligation rather than a productive contribution that deserved economic recognition.

Echoes of this view are apparent today, in a perverse campaign to slash public care programs and impugn the very concept of public service. The market-centric mania that has taken hold pretends to be “pro-family” but seems aimed primarily at sending women back to the home to help cut social spending. A crass, self-serving elite wants us to define economic success by the growth of stock market indices and cryptocurrency. They couldn't care less about our health or the long-run sustainability of our national prosperity.

C. J. Polychroniou: How should we define care work and is there a way to measure its true value? What does “undervaluation” really mean?

Nancy Folbre: I define care work as the production, development and maintenance of human capabilities. This can take the form of self-care, of active care for others that involves personal interactions that generally involve some concern for the well-being of the care recipient, indirect care devoted to the care of the environment for direct care, and “on-call” care that involves being present and available to someone who might need active care.

Care for dependents such as children, people with disabilities, and the frail elderly is a particularly important aspect of care work, but as Bruce Springsteen puts it, “everybody’s got a hungry heart.” Most of us derive considerable satisfaction from caring for others as well as being cared for.

There’s no way to put a precise number on the value of unpaid care work. All we can do is provide lower-bound estimates by asking questions like, “What would it cost to hire someone to replace this activity?” For instance, a parent staying home to keep on eye on a sleeping child knows that they could, in principle, hire a babysitter to take their place. We can also ask, “If this person wasn’t engaged in care work, how much could they be earning on the job?” Willingness to sacrifice income is an indicator of the personal satisfaction a caregiver derives.

As I explain in Making Care Work, data from time-use surveys shows that in the US today, adults spend, on average, about as much time in unpaid work as they do on paid work. Partly this reflects the activities of students and retirees, who are less likely than others to be employed, but it also testifies to the hours that people devote to activities such as cooking, cleaning, shopping, yard work, household management, childcare and elder care.

Surveys are not as effective at capturing the responsibilities of on-call care, which often restrict paid employment. However, because we have data on how much time people spend on various activities, and we also know what people are paid for different jobs, we can estimate the total value of unpaid work and even compare it to the value of all the goods and services bought and sold in the US — what’s called (misleadingly) the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The US Bureau of Economic Analysis makes this calculation, and their estimate of the value of unpaid work is about 25% of GDP.

But this is an underestimate—and an “undervaluation” for several reasons. First, it doesn’t count the on-call time that many parents provide for children under 13, and which often limits the time they can devote to paid work outside the home. Second, it sets a value on all unpaid work equal to a housekeeper’s wage, which reflects the low bargaining power of a paid labor force consisting largely of immigrants and people of color. Third, and most importantly, it doesn’t include any consideration at all of the social benefits generated by work that develops individual and social capabilities, which includes the value of increased mental and physical health, enhanced skills, and stronger families and communities.

C. J. Polychroniou: As you point out, care work encompasses both paid as well as unpaid labor, and it is also one of the fastest-growing sectors of the US economy. Doesn’t the fact that capitalist economies undervalue care work have ramifications for paid care workers? If so, what are those ramifications?

Nancy Folbre: Have you ever wondered why investment bankers make more than college professors? They produce something that is easy to measure in dollar terms because…it is mostly dollars. What I produce is far less tangible—human capabilities that may or may not pay off for my students in the labor market—and even if they do pay off, I’m not getting a share.

Capitalist logic tends to reward workers who make measurable contributions to profit. This pattern is evident even in one of the most highly-paid occupations in the US — physicians. Plastic surgeons, many of whom who cater to affluent customers who pay out of pocket (rather than through insurance) for cosmetic alternations, are at the top of the physician’s pay scale. Their final “product” is generally easy to see. Public health physicians, who try to combat epidemics, contagious disease, and environmental threats, serve people who never even see them and often don’t even realize who has saved their lives. They earn, on average, 40% as much as plastic surgeons.

Many employees in care occupations, such as childcare and elder care workers, social workers, teachers, and nurses, as well as professionals and managers in care service industries (health, education and social services) are paid significantly less than their counterparts with similar educational credentials in other jobs, a pattern that has come to be termed a “care penalty.”

Numerous other factors, such as race/ethnicity, immigrant status, and gender affect relative wages, but the care penalty crosses all these boundaries. One big reason is that paid care work generates social benefits that employers can’t directly measure or capture. Who knows what effects a good childcare worker or teacher will have on a child’s future? Who knows whether a nurse has made a decision that saved someone’s life? Who knows whether a good elder care worker has kept someone alive and happy for additional years?

The undervaluation of paid care services hurts “consumers” as well as care workers, because it often leads to shortages—such as difficulty finding a primary health care provider--or high turnover, a serious problem in the childcare and elder care work force.

C. J. Polychroniou: What strategies do you consider vital for organizing care workers and improving pay and working conditions in the care economy?

Nancy Folbre: Unionization is a key strategy. National and regional nurses’ unions such as National Nurses United have raised wages and improved working conditions, in addition to successfully pushing for mandatory staffing ratios, which improve patient safety. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has raised wages for nursing home and home care workers above federal/state minimums, expanded access to benefits, and formalized employment relationships for home care workers. Teachers’ unions (including the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have improved teachers’ pay in Republican-dominated “Red” states as well as others, and lobbied hard for increased commitments to public education.

Another key strategy is legislative setting of industry-level wage standards (as well as a higher national minimum wage). New York State’s Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law requires a minimum total compensation level (wages + benefits) for Medicaid-funded home care workers. Advocates in many states are pushing for wage boards that can, as the Oregon Center for Public Policy puts it, do the “fact-finding and analysis needed to recommend workable solutions to the issues that harm the industry and people depending on long-term care services.”

These are very complementary strategies, and they can both be enhanced by evidence showing how higher wages for care providers reduce turn-over, improve service quality and pay off in the long run by improving social well-being.

C. J. Polychroniou: Is universal basic income (UBI) a necessary strategy for resolving the problem of unpaid care work?

Nancy Folbre: Yes, but most UBI proposals fail to account for the needs of caregiving families, -- a better-designed approach brings children and other dependents into the story.

Andrew Yang’s “Freedom Dividend,” proposes $1,000 a month to all adults 18 and older. Elon Musk’s call for a “Universal High Income,” leaves all details unspecified. Many of the small-scale pilot research experiments on UBI have structured payments to low-income individual per adult recipient. This obviously ignores the extra needs of families that caring for those who can’t care for themselves.

At the other extreme, the success of the expanded Child Tax Credit in 2021 in reducing child poverty has prompted some policy-makers to call for what is essentially a UBI for children—a universal child allowance that could go to their parents but would not benefit non-parents or those caring for a disabled or dependent adult. I see a need to reconcile these two approaches and think harder about the form that a UBI should take. This is an issue I’ve just begun to work on.

I will just add that a UBI for children, while a big improvement over current US policies, would not in itself resolve the care crisis facing parents. It would need to be combined with access to free universal high-quality childcare services and paid family and medical leave from work. I am currently collaborating with colleagues to develop a better picture of such a “care package.”

C. J. Polychroniou: Care work is disproportionately carried out by working-class women, but it is also heavily racialized. Wouldn’t this ultimately mean that a transformative politics of care must necessarily address the very structural oppressions that shape it?

Nancy Folbre: Yes, a transformative politics of care needs to provide a very clear analysis of structural oppressions and ways of eliminating them. Contrary to liberal feminist approaches that focus almost entirely on gender, socialist feminists seek cross-race, cross-class, international coalitions—because care needs are genuinely universal. In practice, “structural" reform requires policies such as campaign finance reform, higher taxes on income from capital, workplace democracy, targeted investment in communities of color, and immigration reform.

I don’t have magic potion that can speed such reform along, but my book tries to provide an antidote to the toxins that have infected political debate in the US — the loss of confidence in democratic governance, the every-man-for-himself cynicism, and the sneering dismissal of public commitment to the common good. I think many people are willing to challenge traditional measures of economic success in order to prioritize policies that put people first.

The attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner Saturday night shouldn’t surprise us. Not only does America have the world’s most active small-arms industry that essentially controls the GOP (the reporters got a taste of what American — and only American — schoolkids experience every few months from their “realistic” active shooter drills), but we also host the world’s largest and most profitable hate-amplification industry.

Algorithms that amplify hate and division in order to “increase engagement” have made Mark Zuckerberg into one of the richest people on the planet, complete with a super-yacht and a doomsday bunker estate in Hawaii; Elon Musk’s X has turned into a sewer of Nazi-style rhetoric while Musk himself has posted, according to The Washington Post, nakedly white supremacist slogans and statements over 850 times just in the past seven months.

The Republican Party writ large has also benefitted from all this, since it was reinvented mid-20th century by Nixon’s racist Southern Strategy and Reagan’s embrace of “states’ rights” as the party of Christian white male supremacy. (The last four Black Republicans in the US House of Representatives are ending their political careers this year.)

Because every rightwing movement in history has been founded on hate and/or xenophobia, the openly neo-Confederate MAGA movement was simply the logical end-point of this turn the Party took a half-century ago. History shows that when the right wants to seize power, it reaches for the oldest weapon in politics: teach people to fear and then hate their neighbors, as I lay out in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy.

Finally, the billionaire class and the massive, monopolistic corporations that made them rich benefit from the hate industry because when working-class people are mobilized to hate each other based on race, religion, gender (and gender identity), nationality, or political affiliation they’re far less likely to organize together to demand union rights, benefits, healthcare, education, and/or better wages.

Some even argue that the current state of GOP corruption, billionaire greed, and societal hate in America proves that democracy has run its course. Oddly, most arguing that are the billionaires themselves, or the lickspittle “dark enlightenment philosophers” they celebrate and fund.

Billionaire Peter Theil famously wrote, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” and the CEO of his company Palantir recently released an arguably neo-fascist 22-point manifesto claiming that America must resist “the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism” and — without a trace of irony about today’s billionaire subculture that’s working to capture our government and crush worker’s movements and unions — that “certain cultures and indeed subcultures” are “regressive and harmful.”

There’s actually a long history for this antidemocratic worldview.

Plato himself argued that democracy would always ultimately lead to tyranny because democratic rule could so easily be co-opted by authoritarians using the tools of democracy itself. Karl Popper rebutted this extensively in 1945, arguing that democracies must become “intolerant of intolerance,” essentially putting limits (like the German people have done for themselves) on “free speech” when that speech is being used to undermine and ultimately destroy a democracy.

The European option would run afoul of our First Amendment, so America must come up with a different way to deal with the hate-industrial complex. There are a few options.

While corporations will argue that they are “persons” protected by the First Amendment (an argument I rebut extensively in my new book Who Killed the American Dream: The Greatest Political Crime Ever Told) and will say that their algorithms that favor outrage, hate, and division are merely corporate “free speech,” it should still be possible to regulate these bits of computer code.

I’m not proposing that people lose their right to speak online. The real issue is whether giant social media corporations should have the unlimited right to use their top-secret algorithms to pour gasoline on hate, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, misogyny, and political violence just because outrage keeps people clicking and that drives engagement/ad-views and thus profits.

That’s not free speech in any meaningful human sense: it’s just a democracy-destroying business model.

Thus, one obvious reform is to separate hosting speech from amplifying it. If somebody wants to post something vile but lawful, that’s allowed under the First Amendment. But when a corporation’s software algorithm identifies that vile content as profit-promoting and shoves it into millions of feeds, that’s no longer passive hosting: it’s active promotion. And active promotion can be regulated.

Another fix is to require transparency. Make these companies openly disclose what their algorithms reward. Do they boost rage reactions, conspiracy content, fear, tribal conflict, and endless doom-scrolling just because it increases ad revenue for their billionaire owners? Let independent researchers audit the systems so the public can see whether hate is being engineered for profit behind the curtain and use public shame to discourage it.

And finally, give social media users real choice. Break up the social media monopolies. Require a simple chronological feed, for example, and an easy opt-out from manipulation-based recommendations, along with a legal duty of care when platforms knowingly drive people toward extremism or violence.

You still get free speech; what corporations lose is the right to use the invisible part of their machines to poison our minds, our children’s minds, and our democracy for money.

None of this deals with the problem of rightwing billionaires acquiring massive media platforms and then requiring their employees to also spin the news in ways that are anti-democracy and pro-billionaire.

But reversing Reagan’s 1983 decision to largely abandon our anti-trust laws and his 1987 decision to abandon the Fairness Doctrine could go a long way toward mitigating the damage Australian-billionaire-owned Fox “News” and others have done to America.

Combine these steps with rational gun control and a re-commitment to teaching civics and critical thinking (as several European countries have done and we did before Reagan gutted federal education spending) and there’s a good chance America can rise again from the ashes of the hate and violence that today’s conservative movement and billionaire subculture have imposed on us.

The choice before us is stark. We can continue letting rightwing billionaires, monopolists, gun merchants, and hate-profiteers pit Americans against each other while they strip wealth and power from working people, or we can remember the oldest lesson of democracy: when ordinary people refuse to be divided, no oligarch or billionaire can stand against them.

In a memorandum to President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara wrote that “the current strategic posture” of the United States “is to destroy both the Soviet Union and Communist China as viable societies even after a well-planned and executed surprise attack on our forces.”

In a 1967 speech in San Francisco that he called “Mutual Deterrence,” the formal introduction to the public of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), McNamara said “we must be able to absorb the total weight of nuclear attack on our country — on our retaliatory forces, on our command and control apparatus, on our industrial capacity, on our cities, and on our population — and still be capable of damaging the aggressor to the point that his society would be simply no longer viable in twentieth-century terms.” McNamara described this as “our assured-destruction capability.”

What this means is that the Trump administration wasn’t the first to threaten the civilizational destruction of a country. That threat has been embedded in the conceptual framework of the MAD US nuclear posture since at least 1967, which includes the perverse menace to absorb “the total weight of nuclear attack” on our own country. No president since then, or defense secretary or national security adviser, or majority party of Congress, has thought to get ourselves and the rest of the world out of the MAD policy.

In the 1960s, there was little to no knowledge of nuclear winter as a nuclear-war induced catastrophic climate effect. However, a 1963 classified nuclear war-game study by President Kennedy’s National Security Council, which described “the combined effects on survivors of radiation, blast, fires, floods, substandard diet and sanitary conditions, and lack of medical services and care” of a nuclear exchange between the United States and Soviet Union should have sufficiently informed McNamara of at least the direct effects of absorbing the full weight of a Soviet nuclear attack. The same war-games study also estimated US fatalities from 63 million to 134 million and Soviet fatalities from 136 million to 143 million. The US MAD nuclear posture was developed in the immediate aftermath of this report.

The thinking among MAD policy planners at the time, and today, is that rational actors on both the US and Soviet side would not launch a nuclear first-strike knowing that it would be suicidal for the country that launched first.

This is one of several MAD fallacies. For example, last year, three academics in New Zealand authored a study titled, “The Frequently Impaired Health of Leaders of Nuclear Weapons States.” They reported personality disorders, substance use disorders, multi-infarct dementia, depression, and anxiety among a sizeable percentage of leaders. The authors concluded: “These findings indicate that physical and mental health conditions among leaders of these nuclear weapon states have been common.” They advised: “Given the importance of the decision-making around nuclear weapons by political leaders, further research on this group should be prioritized.”

Twenty years after McNamara established Mutual Assured Destruction as US nuclear policy, Carl Sagan’s pioneering study, “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions,” published in the journal Science in 1983, opened the door to extensive scientific study of the climate-related effects of nuclear war.

Using more sophisticated climate models as applied to nuclear winter, prominent climate scientists reported in Nature Food in 2022 that “more than 2 billion people could die from nuclear war between India and Pakistan, and more than 5 billion could die from a war between the United States and Russia, underlining the importance of global cooperation in preventing nuclear war.”

Alan Robock, a coauthor of the study and a leading climate scientist from Rutgers University, had previously described nuclear winter as follows: “Nuclear winter is the term for a theory describing the climatic effects of nuclear war. Smoke from the fires started by nuclear weapons, especially the black, sooty smoke from cities and industrial facilities, would be heated by the Sun, lofted into the upper atmosphere, and spread globally, lasting for years. The resulting cool, dark, dry conditions at Earth’s surface would prevent crop growth for at least one growing season, resulting in mass starvation over most of the world… More people could die in the noncombatant countries than in those where the bombs were dropped, because of these indirect effects… A nuclear war between India and Pakistan could produce so much smoke that it would produce global environmental change unprecedented in human history… The only way to be sure to prevent the climatic effects of nuclear war is to rid the world of nuclear weapons.”

Writing in 2021 in “Ending Nuclear Weapons Before They End US,” Australian physician Tilman Ruff, co-founder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), warned: “Evidence of the consequences of nuclear war, particularly global climatic and nutritional effects of the abrupt ice age conditions from even a relatively small regional nuclear war, indicates that these are more severe than previously sought. None of the nine nuclear-armed states is disarming… Abrogation of existing nuclear arms control agreements, policies of first nuclear use and war fighting, growing armed conflicts worldwide, and increasing use of information and cyberwarfare, exacerbate dangers of nuclear war.”

An added stress today is the fact that “nuclear armed countries are considering the integration of artificial intelligence into existing nuclear command, control, and communications structures as a way to increase speed and efficiency,” thus adding to the “already unacceptable level of risk,” as ICAN reports. The ICAN-identified risks include reduced decision-making time and rapid escalation, perceived increases in vulnerability that incentivizes nuclear weapon use, cyber risks, and data poisoning.

President Trump, who inherited the MAD-based strategic nuclear posture from previous administrations, would do well to focus on preventing nuclear war/nuclear winter now by negotiating a permanent cessation of military action in and against Iran, a conflict that embodies any number of escalatory scenarios to nuclear war. Trump could then be the first US president to convene a summit of all nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, Russia, China, the U.K., France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—to begin the process of abolishing nuclear weapons, including by joining the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapon. Trump could propose the idea to China’s President Xi during their upcoming bilateral summit next month in Beijing.

LIVE 9:00 am Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Editorial cartoonist Ted Rall and political analyst Jamarl Thomas deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM EST.

Today we discuss:

• Cole T. Allen, 31, is accused of trying to assassinate President Trump and other officials at the White House Correspondents Dinner. A CalTech graduate and a teacher with a close-knit family, Allen allegedly issued a manifesto that indicates a highly intelligent articulate would-be assassin with specific political grievances about Trump’s genocide in Gaza, murders of Venezuelan fishermen, etc. Is America breeding a new kind of presidential assassin?

• The U.K.’s King Charles III and Queen Camilla’s state visit to the U.S. comes at a time of heightened domestic and geopolitical tension.

• The centrist leader of Israel’s opposition, Yair Lapid, and a right-wing former prime minister, Naftali Bennett, will combine forces in elections later this year. The merger is an apparent bid to reconstitute a partnership that temporarily unseated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu five years ago.

MERCH STORE: https://www.deprogram.live

https://x.com/tedrall

https://x.com/JamarlThomas

LIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShow

SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kdFlw2w8sSPhKI8NRx8Zu

APPLE MUSIC: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deprogram-with-ted-rall-and-jamarl-thomas/id1825379504

The post Aw, Shoot! | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Right at this moment, we are witnessing an unprecedented shift of resources from domestic investments in the United States to the military-industrial complex (aka the war machine). The only comparable period in our history was the buildup to World War II, when the United States confronted a powerful adversary in Nazi Germany with designs to control not just Europe, but the world. The current buildup is breathtaking in scope and will certainly prove devastating in its impact — not just on this country’s foreign and domestic policies but also on the economic prospects of average Americans.

When, in 2023, my colleague Ben Freeman and I first conceived of our book, The Trillion Dollar War Machine, we viewed it in part as a cautionary tale about just how high the Pentagon budget might rise in the years to come (absent pushback from Congress and the taxpaying public). By the time our book came out in November 2025, however, the Pentagon budget had already topped the $1 trillion mark and, only recently, President Trump has proposed to instantly add another $500 billion to that already staggering figure and to do so in a single year’s time. And imagine this: such a proposed increase alone is higher than the total military budget of any other nation on Earth. Mind you, the current high levels of spending have already underwritten a provocative, unnecessary intervention in Venezuela and a region-wide war in the Middle East, and the larger costs of all this in human lives and damage to the global economy are guaranteed to shape the lives of the rest of us globally for years to come.

To add insult to injury, the Pentagon announced that it would seek a $200 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for its war on Iran, which has spread across the Middle East. That $200 billion would have been in addition to the $1.5 billion proposed for the Pentagon’s future budget. According to an analysis by Pentagon budget expert Stephen Semler, the Iran war, which started on February 28th with Israeli and U.S. air strikes on that country, cost the United States more than $28 billion just in its first two weeks. And to put that in perspective, $28 billion is more than three times the Trump administration’s proposed annual budgets for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency (at a time when the climate crisis and the need to head off future pandemics are essential to the health and security of all Americans). Worse yet, it’s all for a completely senseless war that should never have been started.

As President Trump alternates between engaging in negotiations to end the war and threatening to wipe Iran off the map — or even just walking away to bomb another day — there are reports that the supplemental budget request to pay for the war on Iran will shrink from the proposed $200 billion to $98 billion. And that $98 billion will include other things in addition to war costs, including disaster relief and aviation modernization.

The Garrison State and the Reign of the War Profiteers

On the campaign trail in 2024, Donald Trump pledged to drive the “war profiteers” and “war mongers” from Washington, suggesting that they like wars because “missiles cost $2 million each,” while bragging that, in his first term in office, “I had no wars.”

And his rhetoric as the ultimate champion of peace has continued during his second term, even as he has indeed launched reckless wars guaranteed to fill the coffers of the “war profiteers” he railed against on the campaign trail. He has, however, also pledged to help the weapons industry quadruple production of the same sort of “$2 million bombs” he decried during the campaign, plus — even better for the arms makers — missile interceptors that cost up to $12 million each. Worse yet, the demands of the current war on Iran, coupled with support for Israel’s war on Gaza and Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself from Russia, have left the Pentagon and the giant weapons corporations complaining that, if the U.S. doesn’t radically increase its production of artillery shells, bombs, and missiles, the cupboard could soon be bare.

Of course, filling that cupboard again to the tune of staggering sums of money is exactly the wrong solution. The answer to the current munitions shortage is not to further supersize this country’s arms manufacturing base, but to refrain from supplying the weapons used by Israel to commit genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon, or to fuel unjustified wars like the current conflict with Iran. The best policy to prevent such stocks of military equipment from running low would, of course, be a more discriminating approach to military aid and a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign policy and war-making (writ large).

Washington should, in fact, put diplomacy first and only engage in military action if there is a genuine threat to the United States itself. We need a smarter policy toward military procurement and military strategy, not the garrison state with its “military-industrial complex” that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than six decades ago.

In addition, of course, the Pentagon needs to shift its procurement strategy toward producing more reliable weapons at a more reasonable cost, while avoiding unnecessary complexity so that they can be made more rapidly and spend more time ready to be used and less time down for maintenance. Such a formula was a watchword of the bipartisan congressional military reform caucus of the 1980s, which at one point included more than 100 members of Congress and helped roll back the extremes of the military buildup launched by President Ronald Reagan.

The Diminishing Economic Returns of Pentagon Spending

In a detailed forthcoming study for the Transition Security Project and in her own writings, investigative journalist Taylor Barnes of Inkstick Media has charted the diminishing returns from Pentagon spending. Despite a soaring Pentagon budget, direct jobs in arms production are now one-third of what they were 30 years ago, down from three million then to 1.1 million now, according to the arms industry’s own trade association. Unionization rates in the arms production sector are also down sharply, with some big weapons firms like Northrop Grumman having unionization rates of less than 10%. In keeping with that trend, Lockheed Martin moved the production of its F-16 fighter — a staple of foreign arms exports — to the anti-union state of South Carolina.

Even worse, many states provide special tax breaks and other subsidies to attract or keep weapons factories — and that’s on top of the hundreds of billions the industry receives in federal tax dollars. In Utah, the state government staunchly refused to reveal how many jobs Northrop Grumman had promised in return for state subsidies, with one official claiming it would “compromise” the interests of the company to do so. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman’s work on the Sentinel, the newest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), has been a poster child for dysfunctional weapons development, with the estimated cost of the program as a whole growing by 81% in just a few years. Part of the problem was that Northrop Grumman somehow managed to ignore the fact that its new missile would be too large to fit in existing silos, creating the need for further costly new construction efforts.

The spending of scarce tax revenues goes to ICBMs that former Secretary of Defense William Perry once labeled “one of the most dangerous weapons we have.” After all, a president might literally have only minutes to decide whether to launch them on being warned of a potential enemy attack, greatly increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war prompted by a false alarm. And there have been many false alarms and nuclear accidents in the nuclear age (even if not yet an actual nuclear attack loosed on the world), as meticulously documented in Eric Schlosser’s essential book Command and Control.

Then there’s the Golden Dome missile “defense” system, a fantasy of President Trump’s that, in reality, could never provide the promised “leakproof” protection against weaponry ranging from ICBMs and hypersonic missiles to low-flying drones. By now, more than 40 years after President Ronald Reagan promised a perfect defense against ICBMs in his 1983 “Star Wars” speech, it should be all too obvious that such a leakproof shield is physically impossible, since enemy ICBMs with nuclear warheads would come in at 15,000 — and no, that is not a misprint! — miles per hour and could be surrounded by large numbers of decoy balloons that would be indistinguishable from a warhead when floating in space. There could be hundreds of such incoming warheads in a full-scale nuclear attack. To even have a chance of intercepting all of them, a defensive system would have to devote as many as 1,600 interceptors to take down incoming missiles. An analysis by the conservative American Enterprise Institute estimates that a full-blown effort to build a comprehensive Golden Dome shield could cost $3.6 trillion just to construct.

In fact, the Golden Dome concept is so delusional that it barely merits a detailed critique, though many such analyses are available. A more reasonable way to deal with it would, of course, be ridicule.

Ben Cohen, cofounder of Ben & Jerry’s and the founder of the “Up in Arms” campaign to cut Pentagon spending, has taken just such an approach. On April Fool’s Day, he placed a “Golden Hole-in-Dome” statue on the National Mall that included a Donald Trump, fully clothed, being soaked by water leaking through a faux Golden Dome shield. The Daily Beast‘s headline on its piece about the event captured the spirit of that day: “Ben and Jerry’s Co-Founder Humiliates Trump Outside His House.”

Meanwhile, the dysfunctional weapons systems on the Pentagon’s shopping list only continue to grow. Take Lockheed Martin’s F-35 combat aircraft, which was supposed to do almost anything (and does nothing) well. The plane, which could cost $2 trillion for roughly 2,500 aircraft if the Pentagon’s original plans hold, had taken 23 years to develop and still can’t operate as advertised, spending almost half its time in its hangar for maintenance.

Similarly, as Dan Grazier of the Stimson Center has pointed out, the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, which had to dock in Cyprus recently after multiple mishaps including a clogged toilet system that spewed feces onto the flight deck, is a $13 billion nightmare, chock full of fancy, untested, and expensive technology that all too often fails to work as advertised. As he points out, a more viable, less expensive carrier could have been built if proven technologies had not been replaced with high-tech fantasies. Unfortunately, that’s generally not how Pentagon procurement works these days.

Palmer Luckey Will Not Come to the Rescue

Palmer Luckey, the 32 year-old former game designer who now runs Anduril, one of Silicon Valley’s top military tech firms, made news a few months ago when he told a CNBC interviewer that, if the Pentagon were to stop buying the wrong things, it could provide a robust defense for America at a cost of perhaps $500 billion, half of current levels and one-third of the level President Trump is now seeking. Presumably, the wrong things are piloted aircraft like the F-35 and mammoth ships like the Gerald Ford, and the right things are drones, uncrewed submarines, and complex AI-driven targeting and surveillance systems of the type that Anduril and Peter Thiel’s Palantir produce.

But count on this: replacing piloted combat aircraft with swarms of drones won’t automatically be cheaper, depending on how large the swarms are and how complex their designs may prove to be. Early on, the Ukrainian military decided that U.S.-supplied drones from Silicon Valley were too brittle and expensive, so it launched a do-it-yourself drone program that took cheap commercial drones from China and fitted them with bombs and cameras. U.S. arms companies are now trying to get back in the act by partnering with Ukrainian firms to build more sophisticated drones. Don’t be surprised, though, if their price soars and their reliability sinks.

Another reason AI-driven weapons may not be as cheap as advertised is that Luckey, Thiel, and their merry band of unhinged techno-optimists want to eliminate virtually any oversight of their activities, whether through independent testing of their new systems or measures to prevent price gouging by unscrupulous contractors. At present, the motto of the military tech sector is “trust me.” I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to have someone minding the store, so that the tech billionaires don’t simply rob us blind.

Of course, what would it mean if Silicon Valley could deliver cheaper, more deadly advanced weaponry? After all, artificial intelligence systems were indeed used in recent times to accelerate targeting during Israel’s genocidal war on the people of Gaza, and they have been used in President Trump’s disastrous assault on Iran. And neither of those situations has yet had a happy ending. But that’s the point. The truth is we really don’t need ever more new weaponry that kills even faster. We need to stop the killing. And that means blunting the political influence of the warmongers and war profiteers that Donald Trump criticized on the campaign trail in 2024 and then so warmly embraced as president.

And to put all of this in grim perspective, he is now presiding over perhaps the most corrupt, incompetent, repressive regime in the history of this republic. And worse yet, some of his most dismal policies — like unstinting support for Israeli aggression — have, sadly enough, had bipartisan backing in Washington. In short, he has taken what were already some of the worst American policies and accelerated them, even as he destroys positive aspects of the government like the U.S. Agency for International Development’s provision of food, clean water, and public health services abroad or any further engagement in constructive international institutions.

Among other things, he is now narrowing America’s foreign policy options by dismantling civilian tools of statecraft, while doubling down on military approaches that haven’t “won” a war in this century (or the second half of the last one either). Meanwhile, the economic damage and humanitarian costs are spreading globally, including to his own supporters.

The challenge now is to build a movement that not only turns back Trump’s policies, but gets at the underlying economic, political, and cultural forces that have kept the United States in a permanent state of war for so long, while robbing us of opportunities to build a better, more peaceful, tolerant, and just future. Given the pace of destruction and chaos being visited upon us, it’s important to act now and continue to do so until we build enough power to rein in the war machine and begin creating actual structures of peace.

When an American pilot was shot down behind enemy lines during the US War against Iran, the military and conservative politicians crowed that we have a culture of “no man left behind” in such situations. If and when the same man suffers from PTSD and winds up homeless on the streets of America’s cities, as have so many veterans, however, there will be little to no help on offer.

The post Many Men Left Behind appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

On my radio show-podcast—the Ralph Nader Radio Hour—interviews of knowledgeable people have detailed the ravages by the cruel, serial law violator, Tyrant Trump, inflicted on millions of Americans. Still, the report from the V-Dem Institute at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg produced a jolting Common Dreams headline: 'Trump is Dismantling US Democracy at a Speed ‘Unprecedented in Modern History.’"

The report described the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term as achieving in one year what budding autocracies take a decade to accomplish, adding that “the speed of decline is comparable to some coups d’état.”

To wreck, weaken, and endanger our country, Trump disrupts the lives of millions of civil servants, contractors, small businesses, and their families. He fired or forced out hundreds of thousands of federal civil servants staffing programs that protect the health, safety, and economic well-being of tens of millions of Americans, relying on food supplements, Medicaid, government-backed loans, and innumerable other social safety nets.

Trump has especially targeted law enforcement programs directed at enforcing worker and consumer safety, financial protections, and environmental health against toxic corporations. He is taking federal cops off the corporate crime beat.

Multiply this story of undeserved misery and fragility hundreds of thousands of times.

Here are some specifics. Qualified foreign doctors have had their visas rejected. The US has a doctor shortage, especially in rural areas. These physicians were blocked by Trump from extending care in areas with no doctors.

Huge, arbitrary cuts for scientific research have closed or curtailed labs, left individual scientists pursuing crucial discoveries to save lives without the government grants funding vital promising projects. He has also accelerated a brain drain from the US to Europe and China, and reduced the number of scientists, engineers, and nurses coming to the US to work, where they are seriously needed.

Entire careers and livelihoods have been destroyed by this dictator using the White House to vastly enrich himself and his cronies.

Let’s be more specific. The New York Times published a front-page story about what is happening to employees of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), illegally closed down in the first week of Trump’s regime. This reckless action jeopardizes millions of impoverished lives abroad. The article opened with: “She was fired by email while on maternity leave, given 24 hours to clear out her desk, and left with three days of health insurance and no severance.” Her husband, also working with funding from USAID, lost his job. They are now relying on food stamps, Medicaid, and a supplemental nutrition program—long-standing programs being cravenly slashed by the Trumpsters, while giving huge tax escapes to the super rich and large corporations like Apple.

Multiply this story of undeserved misery and fragility hundreds of thousands of times. Through Elon Musk’s criminal enterprise, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), whole agencies were being illegally shattered, and virtually shut down, e.g., the Department of Education, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the US Institute of Peace. Others were being strip-mined like the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Agriculture.

Trump tore up civil service union contracts. The unions are suing Trump for this breach of contract. Such lawsuits drag on interminably and are hardly covered by the media. What the union leaders and members should be doing is peaceably encircling the White House for round-the-clock vigils and featuring large signs calling Trump out in vivid language. After all, the headquarters of the AFL-CIO is less than a block from the White House for easy logistics.

What are the pretexts coming out of Trump’s snarling mouth to justify such devastation of America? One is that he accuses these agencies of being “woke,” an ill-defined word for “leftists” that he has turned into another of his four-letter epithets for his ever-true believers.

A more frequent declaration issued without substantiation is that his decisions are based on “a grave threat to national security.” His lies don’t pass the laugh test.

This pretext is always applied to Trump’s blockage of offshore wind turbines, which he strangely has long called “ugly.” Trump recently exempted oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from measures to protect endangered species. Self-described warrior of God and Jesus Christ, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, stated that such exemptions would bolster national security by increasing domestic oil production.

Trumpian effrontery gets worse. He issued an executive order removing collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal employees employed by a dozen agencies on national security grounds. The 1978 law he falsely invoked applied to “intelligence officers,” not to cleaners, guards, clerks, etc., in federal buildings. Again, the expected lawsuits were filed. Amid judicial delays, Trump gets his way.

When pressed by reporters to explain these pretexts, Trump’s flaks come up with ridiculous assertions promptly rebutted by specialists in each area. (See The New York Times, April 19, 2026—“Trump Has a Go-To Justification for His Contentious Decisions: National Security.”)

Who elected Trump? The Democratic Party’s feeble, cowardly, and uninspiring performance in 2024—repressing through its corporate-conflicted consultants’ decisive input from its progressive wing and civic and labor leaders—was a big factor. (See the August 27, 2024, letter to Liz Shuler).

Who unleashed this runaway felonious politician violating daily innumerable federal laws, regulations, international treaties, and constitutional provisions, constituting serious impeachable offenses? (See H.Res.1155).

First, the congressional Republicans have abjectly surrendered their oath of office to constitutionally lead the congressional branch of government. In addition, the cowardly Democrats, who could have conducted scores of “shadow hearings” to inform the media and citizenry are largely MIA.

It is time for citizens to press their Senators and Representatives to stop this Trump rampage—before it is too late. The Congressional Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.

On April 17, CODEPINK and the local University of Michigan community gathered to hold a vigil in honor of UM researcher Dr. Danhao Wan on the one-month anniversary of his death. According to reports, Dr. Wang died after jumping from an upper floor of the G.G. Brown Building on North Campus, shortly after being targeted and questioned by federal authorities.

Over 30 members of the local community attended the vigil, bringing candles and flowers. They joined in a traditional Chinese bowing ceremony. During the vigil, CODEPINK and US Peace Council member Bob McMurray spoke to the crowd: “Tonight, I want us to remember there is a Mom and Dad mourning the loss of their son; there are people here in the university research community feeling his absence every day; and we, as the human family, have lost a brother.”

For weeks, Dr. Wang’s death went uncovered by the media. By the time it hit the news, the Chinese Consulate in Chicago had already confirmed the incident as a suicide and demanded an investigation of the “unwarranted interrogations and harassment of Chinese students and scholars.”

This is not the first time a Chinese scholar has been targeted at the University of Michigan; it is part of a broader pattern of political discrimination. In the last year, five Chinese scholars have been accused of various crimes, detained for months on end, and ultimately deported after the quiet dismissal of their cases due to a lack of evidence.

When individuals like Dr. Wang are targeted, it is not only their livelihoods that are threatened, but the very purpose and meaning they have built their lives around.

This discrimination is not new. In 2018, the Trump administration launched the China Initiative, a deeply flawed and racially biased program that targeted Chinese and Chinese Americans for “suspected espionage.” More often than not, federal authorities targeted individuals with no evidence of wrongdoing—simply for their identity. As a result, a new climate of suspicion and fear took root across academia. Though few convictions were made, many Chinese scholars suffered permanent professional and personal harm. They began to self-censor, withdraw from collaborations, or leave the United States entirely. For them, the US was no longer safe.

Although the China Initiative was formally ended under the Biden administration due to widespread criticism of its racial bias, its underlying logic has not disappeared. Instead, it has evolved into a broader atmosphere of suspicion directed at Chinese scholars, particularly in fields tied to advanced technology and science. At the University of Michigan, this pattern is especially visible.

Take the case of Dr. Chengxuan Han, a Chinese PhD student who was arrested for mailing roundworms commonly used in biological research. In most academic contexts, such an error would result in a minor administrative penalty. Instead, she was jailed for months and subjected to a full criminal prosecution. This outcome was wildly disproportionate to the alleged offense and one that effectively ended her academic trajectory.

Another scholar, Dr. Yunqing Jian, was accused of "agricultural terrorism” for breaking protocol and shipping materials to the US without the proper paperwork. Renowned biologists refuted this claim, saying it was impossible to use Fusarium graminearum, the fungus Dr. Jian studied, as a bioterrorist weapon. In the world of research deadlines and red tape, scholars say it's typical to try to streamline research by acquiring your own materials, even if that means skipping some paperwork. Dr. Jian has spent years researching how to mitigate the harm caused to crops by Fusarium graminearum, which is native to North America. While she did break protocol, it is absurd to accuse her of weaponizing the fungus, especially without any evidence.

Similarly, the cases of UM scholars Xu Bai, Fengfan Zhang, and Zhiyong Zhang demonstrate how ordinary research practices were reframed as criminal acts merely because of the identity of the scholars. Even though charges against them were dropped and the cases dismissed, the damage had already been done.

The three scholars had spent months in jail awaiting their trial. In a letter, Zhiyong Zhang spoke of his confusion over the situation:

I like the research atmosphere in the University. I like the people here. They are kind and polite. I am living a happy life here. However, unfortunately and apparently, some people don't like us. They want to connect us with politics. But what is politics? I didn't know what politics is when I was 13 years old, at which age I decided to study biology. Now I am also confused about what politics is. It's so abstract. We didn't hurt anyone, and we don't want to hurt anyone, either. We just want to do research and find something that can benefit humanity. That makes me feel my life is meaningful, although I can not make much money.

Zhang decided to study biology because his grandfather and father were both diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in their mid-30s: “I thought I could change to study neuroscience to cure the disease of my family and all the people who are suffering the pain from the disease… So this is what I am doing here.” At 32, he worries he will soon suffer the same fate.

Originally, the three scholars were informed by the University of Michigan that they had 30 days to pack and leave. Since they’d spent all their free time in the laboratory, they decided to use their last few weeks to visit the Grand Canyon. While there, the UM administration backtracked on their words, informing the scholars they had to leave immediately. At the airport, while attempting to return home, they were intercepted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and arrested.

This was no coincidence. The UM administration not only provided the wrong information, but they also had terminated their SEVIS status, which gave them permission to live and study in the US, making them vulnerable to federal authorities at passport control.

The repeated pattern points to a system in which Chinese researchers are treated as potential threats merely on the basis of their identity—which is all a part of the larger campaign to paint China as an enemy of the United States.

Dr. Danhao Wang’s life and work stand in stark contrast to this narrative. An assistant research scientist in the University of Michigan’s College of Engineering, Dr. Wang dedicated his career to advancing semiconductor technology. His research focused on gallium nitride, a material critical to modern electronics and essential for improving the speed, efficiency, and energy consumption of devices ranging from smartphones to renewable technology systems.

He made significant contributions to understanding how these materials behave at the atomic level, correcting long-standing assumptions and helping to unlock new possibilities for high-performance electronics. His work also explored how next-generation semiconductors could remain stable under extreme electrical conditions, paving the way for more efficient energy systems and emerging technologies.

We must put increased pressure on the University of Michigan and other universities to do more to protect their international students.

The repercussions of this research are vast. Semiconductors with such high performance potential could potentially make the data center industry obsolete by enabling a smaller device to do what normally takes an entire facility. For the US, gallium nitride semiconductors are the key to significantly improving its high-power weapons systems, and China’s current dominance over the material is considered a looming threat. This is all part of the US preparation for war against China, and the ongoing arms race around strategic resources and technology.

It’s reported that Dr. Wang was planning to return to China in May and already had a job set up. This raises even more questions over the circumstances of his death, and many Michigan locals have begun calling for an independent investigation.

Like most scientists, Dr. Wang’s research stemmed from deep intellectual commitment and passion. Years of specialized training, long hours in the lab, and a singular focus on discovery defined his life’s work. When individuals like Dr. Wang are targeted, it is not only their livelihoods that are threatened, but the very purpose and meaning they have built their lives around.

His death is a profound tragedy. And while the full circumstances remain unclear, it occurred within an environment where Chinese scholars have repeatedly been subjected to intense surveillance and unfair targeting.

The broader political climate cannot be ignored. Increasingly, US policy and rhetoric have framed China as a primary geopolitical adversary, particularly in areas like technology and national security. This framing has filtered down into academic spaces, where international collaboration between the US and China is now essentially criminalized.

The Chinese Consulate in Chicago has criticized the US for “overstretching the concept of national security” and has called for a full investigation and accountability. These demands should not be dismissed.

There must be transparency around the circumstances leading to Dr. Wang’s death. There must also be concrete safeguards to prevent discriminatory investigations targeting international scholars. This includes stronger legal protections, clearer institutional accountability, and accessible mental health support for those under investigation.

Universities, in particular, have a responsibility to protect their students and researchers. The University of Michigan is clearly doing the opposite. They are not protecting their students; they are instead actively targeting them by aiding these discriminatory investigations, putting all international students at risk.

We must put increased pressure on the University of Michigan and other universities to do more to protect their international students, to preserve the integrity of academic research, to protect international collaboration, and to ensure that scientific progress is not undermined by federal discrimination. If institutions fail to act, the cost will not only be measured in lost careers but in lost knowledge, lost innovation, and lost lives.

In the Trump 2.0 era, many Americans have begun to engage in a new “conscious consumerism”—avoiding the companies that have bent the knee to the president. Data firm Numerator found that 38% of US consumers have participated in some form of a boycott over the last year, and 48% said they would stop buying from a company that had differing political views. Some may have felt that outdoor retailer REI would be an ideal place to shop during this time, a home for like-minded, outdoorsy people who care about the environment.

As an REI worker, I’m still expected to evangelize about REI’s mission—the outdoors, sustainability, and community. But ever since we started unionizing at REI in 2022, it’s now become a facade. REI’s leadership has endorsed leaders who gutted public lands, greenwashed their use of AI, deployed a union-busting law firm, and rigged their governance structure to shut out different perspectives. REI, a favorite of outdoor-loving liberals, has gone Trump.

The first public sign came when REI endorsed the Trump administration directly. The executives of the “co-op,” without any direct feedback from the members whose values and opinions they claim to base their decisions on, signed a letter of support for then-nominee for Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, who ended up being confirmed in a vote of 79-18. In the year since his confirmation, Burgum has spent much of his time opening federal lands up to oil and gas drilling and trying to make the “Gulf of America” name stick. While REI’s new CEO has issued an apology since, the damage is already being done.

But throughout our union effort, from organizing to now bargaining, we’ve seen up close how the co-op has aligned itself with President Donald Trump. REI has met our unionization campaign by hiring a law firm with deep ties to pro-business, anti-worker cases, Morgan Lewis. This firm has been contracted to bust unions in everything from Amazon to professional baseball.

As REI has continued to stonewall us at the bargaining table, it’s opened itself up to a new opportunity for “conscious consumerism.” We have authorized a boycott should the company fail to agree on a contract with its 11 unionized stores.

Its reputation has earned the respect of the Trump administration, as the president installed Crystal Carey, a former partner at Morgan Lewis, as the general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In that role, Carey is responsible for setting the agenda for the NLRB as it weighs decisions on union elections, unfair labor practices, and more—including major cases regarding our union campaign. Morgan Lewis also handled the president’s taxes for many years. That’s who REI chose to hire—one of Trump’s favorite law firms.

Perhaps the most damning example of how REI is taking a page from the Trump playbook is how they’ve changed their governance structure. As a co-op, REI members elect the board of directors each year, seemingly a symbol of democratic governance and participation. Any co-op member can vote, and any member can run.

Last year, we decided to nominate two members to the board, Tefere Gebre and Shemona Moreno, longtime labor advocates, outdoor enthusiasts, and progressive leaders. Both were ideal candidates for REI’s board, but instead, their candidacies were rejected outright in favor of a slate of candidates handpicked by REI executives.

In response, we urged co-op members to vote down this slate. They responded overwhelmingly in support—members defeated the slate of candidates, and the board was left with multiple vacancies in response. An expression of will like this—again, from the very members whose values the co-op's executives claim impact their decisions—should have prompted REI to look inward and reflect.

Instead, REI took the Trump route. REI didn’t like the results, so they changed the rules. They moved up the board election to December, after holding it in April and May for years. This came in the middle of negotiations, which prevented us from speaking out against this anti-democratic move. Holding the election over the holidays meant participation would be low, and members couldn’t hear another perspective on any of the co-op’s preferred candidates. It’s a microcosm for how Trump is trying to change the rules of our democracy with the SAVE America Act and gerrymandering.

Of course, REI isn’t alone in cowering to the president. Another major retailer, Target, has also kept its head down during the second Trump administration. The company pulled back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and remained silent as Immigration and Customs Enforcement ran amok in the company’s home state of Minnesota. And Target has paid the price as it has faced boycotts from customers and protests outside its stores.

While many corporations have bowed their heads to the president, it wasn’t always this way. During the first Trump administration, we even had companies like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook speaking out against Trump’s immigration policies.

As REI has continued to stonewall us at the bargaining table, it’s opened itself up to a new opportunity for “conscious consumerism.” We have authorized a boycott should the company fail to agree on a contract with its 11 unionized stores. We do not take this decision lightly, but we know that REI members and customers have our backs in the fight for a fair contract and in the fight against Trump.

For anyone breathlessly wondering what artificial intelligence will achieve in the coming years, yesterday provided me with a remarkable answer.

Time travel.

Early in the morning, I received an email message from me in the year 2035, made possible by an AI agent that identified a suitable wormhole in the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy. So far it can only send bits and bytes, but organic material seems just a matter of time. (I expect to bump into myself at the store any day now.)

The gist of the message from my future self? The United States in 2035 is actually doing okay.

Rather than writing shrill jeremiads to decry the current state of affairs and finishing them with vague admonitions to “act now,” the left needs to cultivate a habit of curiosity about alternative methods of collective action, drawing inspiration from around the world.

Apparently authoritarianism, greed, and disinformation reached all-time highs by the summer of 2026. Relentless attacks on democracy and voting rights, a spate of climate-related disasters, and a rise in unemployment caused by AI led to broad despair. The United States’ 250th birthday on July 4 was marked not by celebration but by simmering tension and polling that suggested the highest levels of pessimism in the nation’s history.

And then something unexpected occurred. Things got better—and fast. In fact, by some measures, Americans in 2035 are doing better than they ever have before. How did it happen?

It started with successive feats of staggering collective action, taking the spirit of Minnesota’s activists and multiplying it nationally. Responding to a leaked Trump administration memo that revealed a clear plan to use Immigration and Customs Enforcement forces to suppress midterm voting, millions moved beyond demonstrations, staging a general strike just after Labor Day that was then echoed by business across the country. The resulting economic disruption drew widespread attention, as well as concern from Wall Street and large corporations, who persuaded the government to completely stand down.

Then, on Thanksgiving, a coalition of 200 civil society organizations and labor unions (cumulatively representing more than 40 million people) announced that they had created a massive “health security fund” to cover health expenses for those in the United States expected to lose coverage because of the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Matched by high-net-worth individuals who agreed to donate their tax breaks from the bill to the fund, they pooled over $600 million and created an easy way for those facing medical emergencies to access it. The following spring they created a similar fund for those in areas rocked by climate catastrophes where insurance markets had collapsed.

This work drew enormous attention, and the group awakened to its power, realizing that the only chance it stood against unprecedented concentrations of power and wealth—and a sclerotic political system—was to keep combining in unprecedented ways. Calling itself the Movement of Movements (“MoM”), it became a perpetual engine for progress, joining forces behind a single charismatic action every quarter.

In one instance, the group orchestrated a major sell-off of AI-related stocks to protest the lack of safety standards for the new technology, resulting in the rapid introduction of new federal and state regulations. In another, it funded the construction of 25,000 affordable housing units in critical areas across the country and purchased over 600,000 acres of adjacent land, roughly the size of Rhode Island, for conservation. In another still, it enlisted its widely distributed membership to map threats to safe voting in real time, significantly reducing voter intimidation during the 2028 election. Next up, they will be carrying out a “coordinated unfollow” of the 200 most incendiary propagandists on social media (from both the political right and left) and buying out three major corporate polluters to shut down their plants (while providing compensation for all affected employees).

The organizations making up this coalition left behind their fragmented organizational agendas and competition for resources, first temporarily and then permanently. Their leaders—among them some of the most charismatic influencers in the social sector—expertly managed the territorialism and fights over credit that had undermined them in the past, creating something intentionally big and charismatic. A group of innovative young billionaires, many of them wealthy heirs, cast off the conventions (and self-aggrandizement) of their parents’ philanthropy to jointly underwrite the work, shoring up operational gaps for organizations joining the collaboration.

The group also benefited from a simple, overarching objective to guide its work—a return to decency, care, and well-being in American life. That translated into action in three areas, each embraced by more than 70% of Americans. The first is reducing autocracy and corruption in American government; by 2035, 99% of candidates running for office have signed a pledge to follow the rule of law, support fair elections, and recuse themselves from any policy questions that would directly enhance their family’s wealth. The second is catalyzing pro-social investment in science and technology, addressing the self-defeating disinvestment of the Trump administration by funding gaps in critical research that can save lives and stimulate the economy while introducing clear global safety standards for AI and similar advances. The third is making sure that everyone has access to free education, healthcare, and emergency recovery support—period.

The values and vibes of the movement have had as much resonance as its accomplishments. Always nonviolent and favoring in-person interaction, its leaders have summed up their operating principles in two sentences: "Ours is a movement rooted in two things: taking back power for the people and caring for our neighbors by sharing what we have so that no one suffers. There will be no violence, nastiness, or assertions without facts and we will respect all people." While this fairly generic statement drew criticism from some quarters, the way the group carried out its work and generated real results for disenfranchised groups—rather than merely nodding to them—converted most of those critics.

Above all, they made it fun. Jettisoning the rhetoric of despair, they got people in the country to once again believe that they had power, and they made exercising it collaborative and joyful. They realized that charismatic actions—increasingly sourced directly from the public—were important but perhaps less so than the habit of doing big things together, escaping from isolation and rampant mistrust. Older people made way for younger people, richer people made way for poorer people, whiter people made way for other people. They invested strenuously in joy and meaning and celebration, seizing the crisis to rebuild the solidarity and community that have deteriorated so much in recent decades. Their confidence and sense of security grew as their numbers did, and they created a permanent mindset shift in the American electorate, forming the basis for a permanent revival in Democratic politics and governing. Regularly joined and emulated by other groups (e.g., universities, supportive businesses, a surprising collection of progressive male athletes), their momentum now seems unstoppable.

I cannot wait for the next dispatch from the future.

* * *

Fanciful? Maybe.

But consider that every single one of the actions imagined above has already happened somewhere in the world, and often on a much larger scale. In the last decade alone, farmworkers in India achieved a 250-million person general strike, soccer fans in Europe joined together to put an immediate halt to a greedy scheme to defund all but the richest clubs on the continent, and donors pooled funds to relieve over $40 billion in medical debt for more than 27 million Americans. Fueled by incredible connectivity and growing worry, these efforts have shown that massive, sustained change is possible when action is sufficiently concentrated. They recognize the paramount importance of focus and cooperation in emergencies and gain confidence and safety through their numbers.

They have also introduced a remarkably innovative set of new tactics, jointly investing in financial markets (e.g., the “wallstreetbets” Reddit community), combining purchasing power (e.g., cooperative ownership and “buycotts”), withholding labor and attention (e.g., coordinated unfollowing and digital walkouts), and providing safety for those under political attack (e.g., protection funds for activists and whistleblowers) to foster great progress. The greatest examples of recent, massive collective action are captured here in a newly released report. While some of these approaches might be hard to reproduce—and all require hard work and organizing—none are out of reach.

They also build “on-ramps” for broader participation since traditional approaches like protests and petitions cannot alone meet the moment. Only a fraction of the public is comfortable taking to the streets—with a skew toward liberal elites—so these methods provide other options and give youth, in particular, new ways to engage. The best of these movements utilize hundreds of fresh techniques, which is especially important as suppression and surveillance from those in power become more sophisticated and pervasive.

Rather than writing shrill jeremiads to decry the current state of affairs and finishing them with vague admonitions to “act now,” the left needs to cultivate a habit of curiosity about alternative methods of collective action, drawing inspiration from around the world. This breaks us free of tired dogma about how change happens, building hope and agency and stimulating other new ideas. Activists from the Global South and former Eastern Bloc countries, consistently challenged by autocratic regimes, have particularly powerful insights to share.

Thorough analysis and intellectual fatalism won’t meet the moment. Simply put, President Donald Trump, his administration toadies, and a cabal of billionaires are hellbent on controlling the nation and, to the degree possible, the world. The only way to stop them is to come together—rapidly, morally, and joyfully—on a scale larger than anyone has seen before.

There is little doubt that most of the benefits of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act flow to the wealthy. But the White House has put considerable effort into promoting the idea that the law benefits working class people too, in particular those who earn tips.

To drive that point home, they staged an April 13 photo op with a DoorDash delivery to the White House. But the stunt was actually a good reminder of the gap between the White House’s rhetoric and reality.

First, it helps to understand that the "no tax on tips" policy applies to very few workers; less than 3% of workers are tipped. And its effects are even narrower than that. The policy is actually a deduction (topping out at $25,000) that can be claimed by tipped workers to lower their taxable income. But many tipped workers—about 1 in 3, or possibly close to 40%—do not earn enough to file taxes, so this deduction does them no good.

Now on to the White House event. When DoorDash driver Sharon Simmons "delivered" his McDonald’s order, President Trump commented that she “picked up an extra $11,000” because of the new policy. As Paul Waldman (and others) noted, this was mathematically dubious, given the $25,000 cap on the deduction. Indeed, Simmons would later explain that she earned $11,000 in tips, not that she saved that amount of money on her taxes. How much she saved on her taxes is unclear; by one high-end estimate, if she were paying a 24% tax rate she would have saved just $2,640.

If the goal of these kinds of policies are to provide some relief for workers—especially those earning a low wage—there are plenty of other options that would apply more broadly. Raising the minimum wage, for example, or eliminating the subminimum "tipped" wage would put more money in more workers’ pockets.

Speaking just after the White House photo op—and at a different "no tax on tips" event—Trump said the photo op was “a little tacky.” Given that Simmons is making DoorDash deliveries to pay for her husband’s cancer treatments, and the fact that his signature tax cut bill slashes food assistance and will cause millions to lose their health insurance coverage, "tacky" is an understatement.

I’m trying to return to the book I started writing a decade ago, and doing so has pulled my awareness of and relationship to the events of 2026 into the larger consciousness the book is struggling to address: What is power?

Can we broaden and expand this word? Can we merge it with collective awareness—you know, the idea of working together? Can we expand our awareness beyond the sense of dominance: power with, rather than power over? Yes, power with, in the “love thy enemy” sense, but without the cynicism and ignorance that usually accompany the word “love."

When we think of power, as I discuss in the book, the word itself commands that we carve the concept into something isolated and wieldable: a sword, a gun, a scepter. Power means power over. There is no basic concept of power—seemingly no word for power in the English language—that also means collaboration, collective participation: people working together, individually empowered at the same time that the larger whole is empowered.

Even when we examine the dark side of power—as in, power corrupts—the examination seems to hover as a warning rather than open up to larger awareness. Consider, for instance, this 2017 article in The Atlantic by Jerry Useem, titled (fasten your seatbelts!) “Power Causes Brain Damage,” which discusses a concept he calls “hubris syndrome.” The essential point the article makes is that people who gain a significant amount of power over others lose the ability to empathize with—or mime, as the article puts it—people in general, the lesser mortals who must follow the boss’ orders. Why am I suddenly thinking of Donald Trump, the world’s “Power Jesus”?

Let’s break the automatic linguistic link right now between power and dominance. True power enlarges the whole; it doesn’t isolate.

This inability to express or feel empathy, it turns out, is serious. It isolates the powerful into their own stereotypes and egotistical certainties, which lessens their ability to make good, or even rational, decisions. (Right, Donald?). And hubris syndrome isn’t merely psychological; it’s also physiological.

Citing neuroscience research, Useem writes:

And when he put the heads of the powerful and the not-so-powerful under a transcranial-magnetic-stimulation machine, he found that power, in fact, impairs a specific neural process, ‘mirroring,’ that may be a cornerstone of empathy. Which gives a neurological basis to what (psychologist Dacher) Keltner has termed the ‘power paradox’: Once we have power, we lose some of the capacities we needed to gain it in the first place.

Useem quotes authors David Owen and Jonathan Davidson, who define hubris syndrome as “a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader.” Its 14 clinical features, he adds, include: “manifest contempt for others, loss of contact with reality, restless or reckless actions, and displays of incompetence.”

The idea is that we’re naturally connected and subconsciously “mimic” others: We laugh when others laugh, tense up when others grow tense. It’s not faking an emotion to fit in; it’s participating in, feeling, the collective emotion that fills the room. “It helps trigger the same feelings those others are experiencing and provides a window into where they are coming from,” Useem writes. But: Powerful people “stop simulating the experience of others,” leading to what the psychologist calls an “empathy deficit,” which saps the powerful of most, or maybe all, of their social skill, leaving them, even as they generate endless obeisance, socially isolated souls.

The conclusion to be drawn here is that what is commonly thought of as power—power over others, aka, dominance—isn’t power at all. It’s an illusion of power that weakens, and perhaps destroys, those who hold it. Consider the rise and fall of dictators, the toppling of empires, the comeuppance of kings and queens. Let them eat cake.

The article does an excellent job pointing all this out, but at a certain point it falls into a linguistic trap. Useem writes despairingly: “This is a depressing finding. Knowledge is supposed to be power. But what good is knowing that power deprives you of knowledge?”

My answer is this: Knowledge in all its basic innocence is, indeed, power, but rarely is this “power over” someone. Knowledge of how to walk, how to read... this is a child claiming her life. And the entire family is empowered. As the child learns how to function independently, Mom and Dad learn how to parent. Yes, knowledge—power—can be used to further the interests of our darkest impulses. We can use what we learn to blackmail, extort, cheat, bully, win, etc., etc. But let’s break the automatic linguistic link right now between power and dominance. True power enlarges the whole; it doesn’t isolate. As the child learns to function, the family grows.

Yes, the power of self-defense is sometimes necessary, at the individual and, yes, the national level. And power can enable us to win, whether a game or a fight. Hurray! But the point my unfinished book is trying to make is that such power exists in a larger context, just as we exist in a larger context—and this context is ever opening and expanding before us. The US relationship to the rest of the world is larger than Donald Trump’s, or any president’s, ego. It’s larger than our military.

Rather, every last one of us, from newborns to geezers, is a participant in creating who we are, and who we are becoming. Perhaps no one says it better than Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: “Driven by the forces of love, the fragments of the world seek each other so that the world may come into being."

We cannot separate fossil fuels from the ongoing US and Israeli war on Iran. The volatility surrounding the Strait of Hormuz has shaken the global economy, restricting the passage of oil from the largest producers in the Gulf region.

The economic costs of this illegal, unjust, and unpopular war are mounting alongside the heartbreaking human costs—including troops lost and thousands killed throughout Iran and Lebanon.

But there’s also a rapidly increasing environmental cost. The first two weeks of Operation Epic Fury alone emitted 5 million tons of carbon dioxide—equivalent to the 84 lowest-emitting countries combined.

The international community must end this war—and address the deeper climate crisis—before more damage is done. Luckily, a vehicle of hope opens up at the end of April in Santa Marta, Colombia, offering a prime chance for countries to move toward a more secure future and livable planet.

The First-Ever Conference to End Fossil Fuels

Governments are gathering in Santa Marta for the first-ever global diplomatic conference explicitly focused on transitioning away from fossil fuels. Co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, the convening brings together dozens of countries, alongside civil society and Indigenous leaders, to do what decades of climate negotiations have failed to do: confront fossil fuels directly.

Unfortunately, international climate negotiations centered on the United Nations process have failed to move us meaningfully closer to a just transition by refusing to confront fossil fuels. Instead, they have relied on emission targets, offsets, and market mechanisms that allow extraction to continue.

Fossil fuels are the lifeline of the modern military-industrial complex. At the same time, militaries exist in part to secure access to fossil fuels.

The Santa Marta conference breaks from this framework. It creates space to ask a more fundamental question: What would it take to actually phase out fossil fuels—and who stands in the way?

The Santa Marta conference is a crucial initial step for stakeholders to commit to a global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. Groups will address the processes, timelines, and actions needed to get to a negotiated agreement for a fossil fuel phaseout, which will be further developed in a future gathering in the Pacific nation of Tuvalu.

The Military-Oil-Industrial Complex

But taking that step seriously requires confronting another issue that has been deliberately sidelined: militarism.

Fossil fuels are the lifeline of the modern military-industrial complex. At the same time, militaries exist in part to secure access to fossil fuels. The infrastructure of war, from weapons production to military bases, locks governments into long-term fossil fuel dependence while also acting as the enforcement arm of fossil fuel interests. Militaries protect oil supply chains, secure trade routes, and shape geopolitical outcomes around these fuels in favor of dominant powers.

Military control over oil and gas long shaped the architecture of global power. This dynamic is visible across the globe. US aggression toward Iran continues to escalate tensions around oil, and the US intervention in Venezuela is inseparable from the country’s position as a major oil producer. In Palestine as well, Israel’s US-backed occupation and control of offshore gas deposits, among other resources, is part of the broader system of colonization that cannot be separated from land, infrastructure, and energy.

As long as nations invest in their militaries at the expense of everything else, fossil fuel dependence won’t be broken. The $2.7 trillion in global military spending in 2024 siphons resources that are desperately needed to achieve a full fossil fuel phaseout and global just transition: healthcare, education, jobs, renewable energy, and direct spending to confront the climate crisis.

The United States is the worst culprit as the highest military spender in the world. The Pentagon is also the largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world—it has a larger carbon footprint than most entire countries. Next year, President Donald Trump is demanding a shocking $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget. Even now, estimates suggest that the US is spending $1 billion to $2 billion per day on its assault on Iran, while the US contributed just $2 billion to the Green Climate Fund in the span of 10 years.

Santa Marta Must Address Militarism, Too

Militarism does more than protect the fossil fuel system. It actively undermines the possibility of a just transition. That’s why we, along with other groups part of the Santa Marta conference, are calling on countries and stakeholders to consider three demands:

1. Address critical gaps in military emissions reporting.
2. Reduce the dependence of militaries on fossil fuels.
3. Reverse runaway military spending to support a just transition.

Achieving this will require coordinated pressure at all levels—by governments, international bodies, Indigenous and Afro-descendant leaders, academics, organizers, and civil society—to get to a fossil fuel phaseout and a more secure world.

The conference in Santa Marta represents a break from decades of delay through the UNFCCC process. But it will only matter if it confronts the full system driving this crisis. Fossil fuels and militarism are part of the same architecture of power. If governments are serious about combating climate change, they must be willing to do more than set targets. They must be willing to challenge the political and economic structures that sustain extraction and war.

That means investing in the real work of a just transition: shifting economics, redistributing resources, and repairing harm that has been done to frontline communities. That means no new fossil fuel expansion. No false solutions that prolong dependence. And no continued investment in systems of violence that undermine the possibility of a just transition.

We can continue to fund war and extraction or we can choose to invest in our communities, in care, and in a future that is not built on sacrifice. Santa Marta opens the door. What comes next depends on whether we are willing to walk through it and to demand our governments to do the same.

Before stepping into the classroom, I spent 12 years as an investigator with the California State Bar, examining cases of attorney misconduct. I chose to teach because I saw a meaningful way to serve my community, and I understood there would be sacrifice. Still, it took 10 years before my salary caught up to what I earned in my final year as an investigator.

In California, becoming an educator is neither easy nor inexpensive. In fact, it is one of the most challenging states to obtain a teaching license. Despite this, teachers remain among the most underpaid professionals relative to their level of education. According to the US Census Bureau, teacher earnings have not only lagged behind comparable fields, but have experienced a steady annual decline.

The debate is not whether schools have enough money, it is about what we choose to spend it on. Today, many educators cannot afford to live where they teach. Teaching, while never lucrative, used to offer a stable path to a middle class life. Educators could buy a home, live in the communities where they worked, and maintain the financial stability expected of other professions with similar levels of education. Sadly, even the most modest of those expectations are rapidly disappearing. I only own a home because I purchased it prior to switching my career.

Most educators did not choose this career for the money, but there is a clear difference between modest compensation and exploitation. Nearly 1 in 5 teachers in Los Angeles are housing insecure. And nearly 60% of educators across the country take on second jobs outside of teaching to make ends meet. It is unacceptable that the people responsible for educating our children are struggling to hold their head above water.

These victories for Los Angeles educators are not perks. They are the foundation of a functioning school system, and a respected career.

Teachers are also expected to subsidize their classrooms out of their own pockets. These stories are often framed as heartwarming and altruistic, but they reflect systemic failure and a lack of meaningful investment in public education. Few other professions require employees to pay out of pocket while already being underpaid.

The consequences of this underinvestment are becoming impossible to ignore. As the cost of living rises, fewer educators can afford to remain in the classroom. A teacher shortage has already hit Southern California, and the impact is profound. Nationally, teaching shortages have led to larger class sizes, burnout, and financial strain on the education system.

Education is expected to operate in scarcity while other sectors experience enormous growth. The education technology market alone is projected to grow by $170.8 billion by 2029. In the Los Angeles Unified School District alone, more than $1.6 billion has been spent on edtech. Framing this as a funding problem misses the point; it is a question of priorities. We are told we can’t make investments in educators, while billions continue to flow toward technology and outside contracts instead of the classrooms they are meant to serve.

And yet, during recent labor negotiations in Los Angeles, we were told a familiar refrain: There is no money.

This was the backdrop of three educational unions, representing more than 70,000 workers, on the brink of striking across Los Angeles. At the center of the dispute for United Teachers Los Angeles was a straightforward demand: a salary structure that reflects economic reality. As negotiations stretched over 14 months, frustration grew not only among educators but across school communities, culminating in escalating public pressure, organizing efforts at school sites, and an overwhelming strike authorization vote that made clear teachers were prepared to act if necessary.

Only when the possibility of a strike became real did the district return to the table with urgency. We ultimately won the majority of our demands, including overhauling the outdated pay system that kept incoming educators at artificially low salaries, raising the starting salary from $68,966 to $77,000 for teachers, and securing an average salary increase of 13.86% across the board. This is evidence that the “no money” claim is negotiable, not factual.

Just as significantly, for the first time in California, educators in Los Angeles have secured four weeks of paid parental leave. This is a historic breakthrough that now sets a precedent for teachers across the state of California, as well as the entire country. Additionally, we won a major expansion of student support, including more than 450 additional social workers, to address the growing mental health crisis among our youth.

These victories for Los Angeles educators are not perks. They are the foundation of a functioning school system, and a respected career.

When teachers are paid a living wage, they stay. When they can afford to live in the communities they serve, schools are more stable. And when students have access to trained mental health professionals, they are better able to learn. Investment is what makes public schools strong. Without it, everything else collapses.

For too long, the narrative has been that we cannot afford to support teachers. We’ve just shown we cannot afford not to. The lesson from Los Angeles is simple: School funding is not fixed by scarcity, but by priorities. And when educators and school workers organize, those priorities can change—for the better.