In April of 1945 a number of grand historical projects were simultaneously underway. In Europe, more than ten million battle-hardened soldiers were converging upon Germany, from the east and from the west, to drive the final nail into the coffin of the odious Nazi regime. (They succeeded on May 8th.) In Asia and the Pacific, a similar effort was underway to force Imperial Japan to accept “unconditional surrender.” (They succeeded on August 15th.) In the deserts of New Mexico and elsewhere in the United States, in total secrecy, thousands of scientists were laboring to invent a bomb that could destroy a city in a second, and give humanity for the first time the ability to bring about its own extinction by its own hands. (They succeeded on July 16th.)

And at the same time, hundreds of individuals were preparing to convene in San Francisco to invent a new global political body, which might – as the eventual United Nations Charter they produced boldly proclaimed – “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” (They succeeded, at least with the new international organization part, by signing that Charter on June 26th, and bringing the new United Nations into being on October 24th.)

But on April 12th the president of the United States died.

The conference opened as scheduled on April 25th. But just four days into their project the framers made a trek across the Golden Gate Bridge, to spend some time, in quiet and contemplation, among some of the oldest living things on Earth. And they set into the ground there a heavy metal plaque, which contained these words.

“Here in this grove of enduring redwoods, preserved for posterity, members of the United Nations Conference on International Organizations met on April 29th, 1945, to honor the memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Thirty Second President of the United States, Chief Architect of the United Nations, and Apostle of Lasting Peace for All Mankind.”

ARCHITECTURAL RENOVATION? MEET POLITICAL OBSTRUCTION

Now we have passed the 80th anniversary year of the United Nations. The scourge that apostle chose to confront is at least as acute today as it was eight decades ago. And a whole host of new challenges have emerged, ones not on anyone’s radar screen in 1945. So as abundant as our admiration for FDR and his fellow architects might be, the time has come to take a look at the structural integrity of that edifice for the challenges facing humanity in 2025 and beyond. As we will see, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the United Nations is long overdue for some renewal, renovation, and rejuvenation.

There’s only one problem. What in the world can we do, about the San Francisco Charter’s Article 109 Clause Two?

That provision decrees that anything that might come out of a conference to review that Charter must be approved by all five of the Security Council’s “permanent members” – France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and the United States. These five states were already given the ability in Article 27 Clause Three to command the whole of humanity into inaction and impotence. This is “the veto,” which many observers have long asserted to be the greatest flaw in the San Francisco Charter. It degrades the democratic legitimacy of the entire construction. It insulates those five members from any kind of UN sanction (e.g., Russia regarding its war in Ukraine since 2022), as well as other states those five wish to protect from UN sanction (e.g., the United States regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza since 2023). And even when not actually cast, veto calculations dominate virtually every decision the Security Council makes, because it’s always necessary to get all five on board. It's what the late U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, citing the renowned late political scientist Walter Dean Burnham, often called “the politics of excluded alternatives.”

And when we turn our view from Article 27 to Article 109, we learn that these five states can also veto any kind of modification to their unique perch overlooking the rest of humanity. In 1992, as similar conversations were brewing in anticipation of the organization’s impending 50th anniversary, The Economist magazine tossed a cold bucket of water on UN makeover enthusiasts, when it reminded them that “the vetoers would veto a veto veto.” Is there any way out of this enduring cul-de-sac of realpolitik?

THE CASE FOR REINVENTING THE UNITED NATIONS

Let’s take a look beyond the veto, at several other incongruities between the United Nations design of yesterday and the big questions of today.

The absence of any reference to climate or environment in the UN Charter, and the absence of actual success (by the UN or anyone else) in surmounting our looming climate catastrophes.

Piecemeal and insufficient national regulation of the multiple potential dangers from runaway artificial intelligence, which clearly won’t be enough to constrain this quintessentially global technology.

A funding system both inadequate and unreliable, dependent exclusively on voluntary national contributions. Sometimes they arrive. Sometimes they don't. But either way they give major donors the ability to bully and blackmail the recipient.

Pervasive gender oppression in many areas of the world, a country like Afghanistan openly depriving half its population of the right to education, and the outside world wholly impotent to do anything more than express outrage.

Perpetual poverty, inequality and injustice for billions, propagated by the globally unregulated might of global capital.

Lessons hopefully learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, which must now be incorporated into global public policy preparation for the next ones which are sure to come.

A UN General Assembly with three fundamental flaws. First, its basic operating principle – where India’s 1.45 billion and Vanuatu’s 327,000 people exercise the same “one nation one vote” – could hardly be more undemocratic or absurd. Second, it holds no power whatsoever to enact (let alone to enforce) binding international law. Finally, it provides no voice for anyone beyond “ambassadors” appointed by the executive branches of national governments – e.g., parliamentarians, the economically impoverished and other marginalized groups, and every single voter who did not support the current head of state.

The UN playing virtually no role in confronting what we might call “the scourge of perpetual preparation for war,” in forever newly-invented technologies of mass slaughter.

And if the looming competition between China and the United States increasingly emerges as the centerpiece of international relations in the second quarter of the 21st Century – a new and even more dangerous Cold War – one can confidently predict that the UN will most likely again be relegated entirely to the sidelines.

So a creative package of amendments to the UN Charter beckons to us as both practical necessity and moral imperative. Because many of these problems of the modern age are coming at us like a runaway freight train, brakes out, heading downhill. And in the immortal words of Neil Young, our Cadillac has got a wheel in the ditch and a wheel on the track.

VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO

A number of civil society initiatives have emerged in recent years, aimed at inventing new tools of global governance that might help to slow down these multiple locomotives of future catastrophe.

One of these is the “Coalition for the UN We Need,” launched during the UN’s 75th anniversary year in 2020. Its name conveys its central conviction that the UN we got ain’t what we need. It focuses largely (but not exclusively) upon innovations that wouldn’t require Charter amendment – precisely because of the political realities this article explores. And its “coalition” consists today of 382 organizations, focusing upon a widely-differing array of issue areas themselves, from dozens of countries around the world.

Another is the “Article 109: For a Renewed UN Charter” coalition, launched just last year. Perhaps the most important word in its name is “a.” It does not push any specific “renewed Charter” complete in every detail. It argues instead that peace, justice, planetary protection, and widespread improvements in the human condition can be pursued by transforming the UN Charter – and that the provision included by the framers themselves for doing so is the vehicle to make that happen. It’s already been endorsed by hundreds of prominent global affairs thinkers and practitioners, more than 40 civil society organizations, and dozens of former diplomats, ministers, heads of state, and Nobel laureates.

And finally, in 2023 a transnational NGO known as the Global Governance Forum initiated a project to frame a “Second United Nations Charter.” This one also enlists a somewhat different group of former ministers, heads of state, and Nobel laureates among the framers. It offers a specific and comprehensive package of amendments, performing a line-by-line revision of the present Charter from beginning to end.

Some of their proposals, drawing upon longstanding conceptual ground tilled by others, are quite ingenious. One is an "Earth Systems Council," to address the health of our imperiled planetary biosphere. Another is a “UN Parliamentary Assembly,” to represent those left out of the present General Assembly and perhaps to encourage the emergence of transnational political parties. And another is a standing “UN Peace Force,” that could initially intervene in places like Bosnia and Rwanda yesterday, Sudan and Haiti today, and who knows where tomorrow – conflagrations where no states appear willing to put their own forces at risk for conflicts that have nothing to do with them – and eventually serve as the United Nations arm for peace enforcement.

In addition, in order to cultivate a sense of planetary patriotism, the framers decided to replace the opening line of the present Charter, “We the peoples of the United Nations,” with their own formulation, “We the People of the World.” The project seeks to strike just the right balance between optimal outcomes and contemporary political reality. Perhaps we might call this the Global Goldilocks Zone. A reimagined international organization not too hot (and thus politically unlikely to be realized), not too cold (and thus unlikely to make much difference surmounting big problems), but perhaps just right.

THE OBSTACLE OF 109 (2)

There is, however, sometimes an air of weary resignation among these global governance innovators. “A redesigned, democratized, and empowered United Nations could tackle so many of humanity’s problems! But we need to lower our sights. We’ll never get anything like that, because the P5 will forever block that.”

Or will they?

Article 109 Clause Two reads: “Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”

But cold calculations of national self-interest might lead to P5 calculations beyond intractable opposition to change. The veto could only serve as a tool of absolute self-interest if it was held not by five states, but only one. The U.S. government, e.g., might benefit from its ability to block UN activities it does not desire. But it also suffers from Moscow’s and Beijing’s equal ability to put a stop to Washington’s pursuit of its own objectives through the United Nations. The benefits of the power to wield the veto must be balanced against the costs of one’s own initiatives being vetoable.

In addition, let’s consider the calculations specifically in Washington at perhaps its apogee of political and economic power. A Republican or Democratic administration just might conclude that the moment might be fleeting for the U.S. to shape and lead an emerging UN Charter review process. Better, perhaps, to seize that leadership role today, rather than letting China do so tomorrow.

And finally, surely someone inside the councils of P5 governments will someday make the case that the veto isn’t actually going to serve anyone’s national interest if the planet is on fire, if WWIII is over the horizon, if the killer AI robots are coming for us all.

And even in the face of implacable P5 opposition to change, civil society can ramp up the pressure upon them. When I talk to my buddies at the bar, most of them know vaguely that five countries can block the UN from doing pretty much everything, but none of them know those same five can also block the UN from ever changing anything about the UN. (More than once I’ve talked to global affairs professionals who don’t know that either.) Public education and civil society agitation about the monstrous unfairness of 109 (2) can surely turn up the heat on the P5.

Especially because there is more to Article 109 than its second clause.

THE OPPORTUNITY OF 109 (1)

The first clause of Article 109 reads: “A General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council. …” That word “any” opens up a universe of possibility. The summoning of a comprehensive UN Charter review conference is not, repeat not, subject to the veto. This is unlike almost everything of major consequence at the UN, where the P5 always seem to wield decisive influence. Here is one thing, of potentially infinite consequence, where they don’t. Even if all those five states vote nay, an Article 109 conference still might be called to order.

My buddies at the bar (and some of those global affairs professionals) don’t know that either. Just as we should draw public attention to the inequity of Clause Two, we should do the same regarding the potential of Clause One. Because the call to activate Article 109 could become a powerful mobilizing force in civil society.

It can provide something tangible and specific to urge upon policymakers, while leaving open what might ultimately emerge from the process. It can bring together a wide variety of activist organizations already working on other issues, who could pursue imaginative planetary governance upgrades to advance their own particular agendas. It can assemble a broad coalition of supporters who might hold widely different visions of the human future, but who could all agree on pursuing the process laid out in the Charter itself to define the most appropriate vision for our unfolding 21st century.

All these calculations, regarding both Clause Two and Clause One, may eventually bring us to the stage of vote counting, where enough states are poised to vote yea for a “General Conference.” As momentum grows, from what we might call the “P188” states, from civil society pressure inside the five states, and from a surging world public opinion, it just might mobilize a grand global movement that the P5 will find impossible to resist.

And so they may show up to that General Conference, whether they had voted to summon it or not. And they may negotiate in good faith at that General Conference, rather than adamantly refusing even to discuss any diminution of their Article 27 special privilege. And if an imaginative world organization proposal emerges from that General Conference, one obviously more fit for present purposes than the present Charter, they may choose not to deploy their Article 109 special privilege to prevent its establishment.

Especially when they realize that the General Conference may not need their votes after all.

LET HISTORY BE OUR GUIDE

Has anything like this ever happened? Yep. Twice. (At least.) And the protagonists both times found a way to dodge their own veto dilemmas.

As every American schoolchild learns, when delegates from the 13 newly independent American states met in Philadelphia in 1787, their official purpose was to amend the 1777 Articles of Confederation. After they had invented their very new kind of government, it was assumed they would use the amendment process set out in those Articles to legally bring their new nation into being.

What was that process? It was unanimity. All 13 needed to agree on everything in order for anything to go forward. (Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs recently suggested that we might call them “the P13.”) So the American framers chose a different path. Their new document contained its own procedures for coming into force. When 9 of the 13 state legislatures had voted to join the new federation, the United States Constitution would take effect. That happened on June 21st, 1788, when New Hampshire voted yea. And on March 4th, 1789, a new thing in history was born.

Our second example is more recent and even more apropos. It is the invention of the United Nations. The framers in San Francisco might have set out to establish what they created via the amendment procedures set out in the League of Nations Covenant of 1920. That document required both a majority of its “Assembly” and unanimity from its “Council” for amendments. But the UN Charter instead contained its own procedures for coming into force. It required the approval of a majority of the San Francisco signatories, and all of the newly designated five permanent members. And when that requirement was met on October 24th, 1945, a new thing in history was born.

In addition, note well that in both cases the framers could have chosen a piecemeal revision of the old document. Instead, they wrote a new one from scratch. An Article 109 conference might adopt either approach. The reframers might choose to dive into the San Francisco Charter and make line-by-line revisions (the method chosen by the Second Charter Project). Or they might choose to draft a brand new document (the approach taken in Philadelphia in 1787 and San Francisco in 1945).

So let us imagine an Article 109 UN Charter review conference unfolding in much the same way as these historical precedents in 1787 and 1945. This isn't the only possible scenario, but it's certainly one scenario. The conference is convened - perhaps with the participation of all the P5 or perhaps with none. The conference produces a new document - perhaps with an elaborate package of amendments or perhaps written out on a blank sheet of paper. But that new document makes no reference to Article 109 (2). It contains its own rules for entry into force. And at some point, those criteria are met.

What might happen after that is anyone's guess. Yes, it's possible that after all that, all of the P5 will stand obstinately apart indefinitely. But perhaps it’s just as likely, as the far greater suitability of this new organization for our 21st Century world becomes apparent, that more and more states, eventually including the P5, will conclude that coming aboard will serve their individual national interests and the common human interest, will turn the tide from despair to hope, and will give homo sapiens a fighting chance to save ourselves from ourselves.

And then a new thing in history will be born.

HELP WANTED: ARCHITECTS AND APOSTLES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

My buddies at the bar may not know much about Article 109, but they know the name of the President of the United States. And whenever I talk about this stuff with them (not often), it doesn’t take long before one of them says, “Trump’s not going to go for that.” But this work is not about this political hour. These are likely not immediate objectives, but instead a positive and hopeful vision of what humanity might do to build the future we need, desire and deserve. Someday, perhaps, the prevailing political winds will all be blowing together in the right direction. Maybe even before it’s too late.

So after you make your visit to that FDR plaque among those ancient and towering redwoods, make your way back to San Francisco, take the BART over to Oakland, climb aboard an Amtrak, and don’t get off until you arrive at Union Station in Washington, D.C. Then stroll over to the Tidal Basin and step inside the Jefferson Memorial. There you will find emblazoned upon the walls an abbreviated version of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to one Samuel Kercheval in 1816. That was not 80 years, but only 27 years after the launch of the U.S. Constitution. But his sentiment about that document already?

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. … I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. … But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind … We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

So let us now weave a garment of our own, one suitable for weathering the storms, exploring the vistas, and reaching for the promise of the 21st century. Let us now act as chief architects of a reinvented United Nations. And let us now serve as apostles of lasting peace for all of humankind, as we proceed on our endless journey from the caves to the stars.

The US is home to 17 million military veterans. About 1.3 million of them currently work in union jobs, with women and people of color making up the fastest-growing cohorts. Veterans are more likely to join a union than non-veterans, according to the AFL-CIO. In half a dozen states, 25% or more of all actively employed veterans belong to unions.

In the heyday of industrial unionism in the decades following World War II, hundreds of thousands of former soldiers could be found on the front lines of labor struggles in auto, steel, meatpacking, electrical equipment manufacturing, mining, trucking, and the telephone industry. Many World War II vets became militant stewards, local union officers, and, in some cases, well-known union reformers in the United Mine Workers and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers.

The late labor organizer and author Jane McAlevey argued that the post-war union movement better understood the “strategic value” of veterans than organized labor does today. In her own advice to unions about contract campaign planning, she recommended enlisting former service members whose past “experience with discipline, military formation, and overcoming fear and adversity” could be employed on picket lines and strike committees.

In addition, the high social standing of military veterans in many blue-collar communities can be a valuable PR asset when “bargaining for the public good” or trying to general greater public support for any legislative or political campaign.

A D-Day Rally In DC

The wisdom of that advice has been confirmed repeatedly by the front-line role that veterans in the labor movement have played in resisting Trump administration attempts to cut government jobs and services and strip federal workers of their collective bargaining rights. At agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), more than 100,000 former service members have been adversely affected by these right-wing Republican attacks.

In response, the AFL-CIO’s Union Veterans Council brought thousands of protestors to a June 6 rally on the Mall in Washington, DC, where they heard speakers including now retired United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts, a Vietnam veteran.

"We served our country, and now they’re breaking their promise to take care of us. We can’t accept that.”

With local turnout help from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Nurses United, and the Federal Unionist Network (FUN), other anti-Trump activists participated in 225 simultaneous actions around the country, including in red states like Alaska, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Idaho, Kansas, and Kentucky. Some “watch parties,” organized for real-time viewing of the DC event, were held in local union halls to highlight the labor-vet overlap.

James Jones, a FUN member and Gulf War veteran from Boone, North Carolina, traveled all the way to DC on the 81st anniversary of D-Day because he wanted Congress to understand the importance of VA services to veterans like himself.

Jones now works for the National Park Service and belongs to AFGE. He’s urging all his friends who are vets, fellow VA patients, and federal workers to start “going to rallies, and join these groups that are really fighting back. The government needs to keep the promise it made to veterans. We served our country, and now they’re breaking their promise to take care of us. We can’t accept that.”

VA Not for Sale

Private-sector union activists have also been rallying their fellow veterans, inside and outside the labor movement.

Communications Workers Local 6215 Executive vice-president David Marshall, a former Marine, has joined rank-and-file lobbying in Washington, DC against Trump’s cuts in VA staffing and services, calling them “a betrayal of a promise to care for us.”

Marshall is a member of Common Defense, the progressive veterans’ group. Common Defense’s “VA Not for Sale” campaign is fighting the privatization of veterans’ healthcare, which many fear will destroy what Marshall calls the “sense of community and solidarity” that VA patients experience when they get in-house treatment, as opposed to the costly and less effective out-sourced care favored by President Trump. “Regular hospitals don’t understand PTSD or anything else about conditions specifically related to military service,” he says.

An AT&T technician in Dallas, Marshall was also a fiery and effective speaker at that city’s big “No Kings Day” rally last June, when he explained why he and other veterans in labor are opposing MAGA extremism, political and state violence, and related threats to democracy.

“We’ve seen peaceful protestors met with riot gear, and we’ve heard the threats to deploy active-duty Marines against American citizens,” he told a crowd of 10,000. “Let me be clear: Using the military to silence dissent is not strength; it’s tyranny. And no one knows that better than those who have worn the uniform.”

Veterans for Social Change

Marshall is a third-generation union member born and raised in southern West Virginia. His father and grandfather were coal miners; his grandmother Molly Marshall was active in the Black Lung Association that helped propel disabled World War II veteran Arnold Miller into the presidency of the UMW in 1972. During his own 25-year career as a CWA member, Marshall has served on his union’s safety committee, as a delegate to the national convention, and now as an officer of his local.

Marshall belongs to CWA’s Minority Caucus, the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, and the NAACP. Along with Britni Cuington, a Local 6215 steward and Air Force vet, he attended a founding meeting of Common Defense’s Black Veterans Caucus at the Highlander Center in Tennessee.

“We have to stay in lock-step with them and show everyone following the Constitution that we have their back.”

Both Marshall and Cuington have since lobbied against the redistricting scheme concocted by Texas Republicans to secure more House seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Testifying at a public hearing on behalf of the Texas AFL-CIO, Cuington pointed out that “minority veterans already face barriers to access to the services, benefits, and economic opportunities we have earned.” She condemned the state’s new districts as racial gerrymandering in disguise that will disenfranchise “veteran heavy, working class neighborhoods.”

In his role as a CWA organizer, Marshall has signed up 30 Common Defense field organizers around the country—almost all fellow vets—as new members of his local. He’s now helping them negotiate their first staff union contract. In addition, Marshall encourages former service members in other bargaining units to participate in the union’s Veterans for Social Change program, which has done joint Veterans Organizing Institute training with CWA.

One fellow leader of that network is Keturah Johnson, a speaker at the 2024 Labor Notes conference. After her military service, she got a job at Piedmont Airlines in 2013 as a ramp agent, and then became a flight attendant. A decade later, she became the first queer woman of color and combat veteran to serve as international vice president of the 50,000-member Association of Flight Attendants-CWA.

A National Guard Casualty

One CWA member, 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe, a Frontier lineman in Martinsburg, West Virginia, was seriously wounded in late November after being sent as part of the National Guard deployment to Washington, DC. A fellow Guard member was killed. (Their assailant was a mentally ill, CIA-trained former death squad member from Afghanistan, relocated to the US after the collapse of the US-backed government there in 2021.)

According to Marshall, “it’s shameful that they were ever put in that position”—by a Republican governor going along with Trump’s federalization of guard units for domestic policing purposes. “It’s all political theater,” he says. “They were just props, just standing around, with no real mission.”

Along with Common Defense, Marshall praises the six fellow veterans in Congress whose recent video statement reminding active duty service members of their “duty not to follow illegal orders” led President Trump to call them “traitors” guilty of “seditious behavior, punishable by death.”

“We have to stay in lock-step with them and show everyone following the Constitution that we have their back,” Marshall says.

This piece was first published by Labor Notes.

By Ralph Nader January 23, 2026 As Trump’s violent dictatorial grip over America worsens, his violations of our Constitution, federal laws, and international treaties become more brazen. Only the organized people can stop this assault on our democracy by firing him through impeachment, the power exclusively accorded to Congress by our Founders. This is one…

At the opening ceremony for Donald Trump’s so-called Board of Peace in Davos, Jared Kushner unveiled glossy images of his vision for a “new Gaza”: shining apartment towers, luxury developments, and sweeping views of the Mediterranean. There were no Palestinians at the ceremony—and none on the Board of Peace itself. In Kushner’s fantasy, Palestinians appear only as an absence, buried beneath the rubble of the real Gaza.

But how, exactly, are Palestinians to be “demilitarized” and pacified to make way for this Riviera of the Middle East? The assassination of Gaza’s Khan Younis police chief in a drive-by shooting this January offers a chilling clue. It was not an isolated act of lawlessness, but an ominous signal of what lies ahead. As Israeli-backed Palestinian militias openly take credit for targeted killings, the United States is reviving a familiar, deadly—and thoroughly discredited—playbook from Iraq and Afghanistan, in which death squads, night raids, and “kill or capture” missions are cynically repackaged as stabilization and peace.

Gaza is now being positioned as the next laboratory for this model, under the banner of Donald Trump’s so-called “peace plan,” with consequences that history has already shown to be catastrophic.

That strategy was laid bare on January 12th, 2026, when Lieutenant-Colonel Mahmoud al-Astal, the police chief of Khan Younis in Gaza, was assassinated by a death squad based in the Israeli-occupied part of Gaza beyond the “yellow line.” A militia leader known as Abu Safin immediately took credit for the killing, which he said was ordered by Shin Beit, Israel’s anti-Palestinian spy agency.

Another Israeli-backed militia, reputedly linked to ISIS, killed a well-known Gaza journalist, Saleh Al-Jafarawi, in October. That militia’s leader, Yasser Abu Shabab, was disowned by his family for running a pro-Israel death squad and was killed on November 4th, reportedly by one of his own gang.

These Israeli-run death squad operations follow a similar pattern to the targeted killings of Iraqi civil society leaders as resistance grew to the hostile US military occupation of Iraq in 2003 and 2004. But as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, these targeted killings are likely to grow into a much more systematic and widespread use of death squads and military “kill or capture” night raids in the next phase of Trump’s “peace” plan.

President Trump has announced that the so-called “International Stabilization Force” (ISF) in Gaza will be under the command of US Major General Jasper Jeffers, who was, until recently, the head of US Special Operations Command. Jeffers is a veteran of “special operations” in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the US occupation responded to widespread armed resistance with death squad operations, thousands of airstrikes, and night raids by special operations forces that peaked at over a thousand night raids per month in Afghanistan by 2011.

But like Israel’s Palestinian death squads during the first stage of Trump’s “peace” plan, the US mass killing machines in Afghanistan and Iraq began on a smaller scale.

For an article in the New Statesman, published on March 15, 2004, British journalist Stephen Grey investigated the assassination of Abdul-Latif al-Mayah, the director of the Baghdad Centre for Human Rights and the fourth professor from al-Mustansariya University to be killed. Professor al-Mayah was dragged out of his car on his way to work, shot 20 times and left dead in the street. A senior US military spokesman blamed his death on “the guerrillas,” and told Grey, “Silencing urban professionals… works against everything we’re trying to do here.”

On further investigation, Grey discovered that it was forces within the occupation government, not the resistance, that killed Professor Al-Mayah. An Iraqi police officer eventually told him, “Dr. Abdul-Latif was becoming more and more popular because he spoke for people on the street here… There are political parties in this city who are systematically killing people. They are politicians that are backed by the Americans and who arrived in Iraq from exile with a list of their enemies. I’ve seen these lists. They are killing people one by one.”

A few months later, retired Colonel James Steele, a veteran of the Phoenix program in Vietnam, the US war in El Salvador and the Iran-Contra scandal, arrived in Iraq to oversee the recruitment and training of new Special Police Commandos (SPC), who were then unleashed as death squads in Mosul, Baghdad and other cities, under command of the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

Steven Casteel, who ran the Iraqi Interior Ministry after the US invasion, was the former intelligence chief for the US Drug Enforcement Agency in Latin America, where it worked with the Los Pepes death squad to hunt down and kill Pepe Escobar, the leader of the Medellin drug cartel.

In Iraq, Steele and Casteel both reported directly to US Ambassador John Negroponte, another veteran of US covert operations in Vietnam and Latin America.

Just as John Negroponte, James Steele and Steven Casteel brought the methods they learned and used in Vietnam and Latin America to Iraq, Jasper Jeffers brings his training and experience from Iraq and Afghanistan to Gaza, and will clearly bring other special operations and CIA officers with similar backgrounds into the leadership of the so-called International Stabilization Force (ISF).

The ISF, as described in Trump’s “Peace Plan,” is supposed to be an international force that would provide security, support a new Palestinian police force, and oversee the demilitarization and redevelopment of the Gaza Strip. But the Arab and Muslim countries that originally showed an interest in contributing forces to the ISF all changed their minds once they understood that this would not be a peacekeeping mission, but a force to hunt down and “disarm” Hamas and impose a new form of foreign occupation in Gaza.

Turkey wants to send troops, but so far, Israel has objected, and the other countries that have expressed interest, such as Indonesia, say there is no clear mandate or rules of engagement. And what Muslim country will send forces to Gaza while Israel controls over half of the territory and moves the “Yellow Line” even deeper into Gaza?

Even if some Arab and Muslim countries are persuaded to join the ISF, the most difficult and politically explosive job of actually destroying Hamas will most likely be in the hands of the US and Israeli Special Ops commanders, the mercenaries they bring in and the death squads they recruit.

We can expect to see General Jeffers and his team provide more training and direction to Palestinians already collaborating with Israel in death squad operations, and try to recruit more militia members from current and former Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank and from the Palestinian diaspora.

CIA and JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) officers with experience in death squad operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to oversee these operations from the shadows, using the same “disguised, quiet, media-free approach” that senior US military officers hailed as a success in Central America as they adapted it to the “war on terror” and the “war on drugs.”

For political reasons, Jeffers will probably use JSOC officers mainly for training and planning, and employ private military contractors to conduct night raids and other combat operations. Along with the huge expansion of US and allied special operations forces in recent US wars, there has been a proliferation of for-profit military contractors that employ former special operations officers from US and allied countries as unaccountable mercenaries.

These privatized forces have already been deployed in Gaza, notably by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Its food distribution sites became death traps for desperate, hungry people forced to risk their lives just to try to feed their families. Israeli forces and mercenaries killed at least a thousand people at and around these sites.

The tens of thousands of Americans and others who took part in night raids in Iraq or Afghanistan and special operations in other US wars have created a huge pool of experienced assassins and shock troops that Jeffers can draw on, with for-profit military and “security” firms serving as cut-outs to shield decision-makers from accountability. More routine functions, such as manning checkpoints, can be delegated to other ISF forces, military police veterans and less specialized mercenaries.

The appointment of General Jeffers to command Trump’s ISF, and Israel’s formation and deployment of Palestinian death squads during the first phase of Trump’s phony peace plan, should be all the red flags the world needs to see what is coming—and to categorically reject Trump’s obscene plan before it goes any farther.

Like Bush and Blair planning the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Trump is planning to systematically violate the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and especially the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees protection for civilians in war zones or under military occupation.

Tony Blair’s role in Trump’s plan is further evidence that the plan has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with the Western imperialism that keeps rearing its ugly head around the world, and which has bedevilled Palestine for more than a century.

Appointing Blair to any role in governing Gaza ignores not only his role in US and British aggression against Iraq, but also his lead role in the U.K. and EU’s decision, in 2003, to abandon earlier efforts to bring Palestinian factions together in the interest of Palestinian unity. Instead, they adopted a militarized, “counterinsurgency” strategy toward Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups. Blair’s failed policy helped pave the way for Hamas’s election victory in 2006, and for the endless, US-backed Israeli violence against Gaza ever since.

It is perhaps no wonder that Trump and Blair see eye to eye on Palestine, as they share the same ignorance, egotism and inhumanity, and the same disdain for international law. But the savage methods used by US special operations forces and US-trained death squads to kill hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq only fueled broader resistance, which ultimately drove U.S occupation forces out of both countries.

The same tactics will lead to the same failure in Gaza. But unleashing such horrific violence on the already desperate, starving, unhoused, captive people of Gaza is a policy of such gratuitous barbarity and injustice that it should compel the whole world to come together to put a stop to it.

LIVE 9:00 am Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Political cartoonist Ted Rall and CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM EST.

Today we discuss:

•  Jared Kushner presented a glittering vision of postwar Gaza centered around the construction of entirely new cities where rubble and Palestinian bodies currently lay rotting. Who will be in charge? Who will profit?

• Minneapolis braces for today’s city-wide strike against ICE, which will close hundreds of businesses.

• Trump looks Left on economic populism.

• Kristi Noem’s Homeland Security tweeted a racist altered photo of a women arrested for opposing an ICE preacher.

JOIN US LIVE ON RUMBLE!

https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShow

FOLLOW TED:

https://rall.com/

https://x.com/tedrall

FOLLOW JOHN:

https://www.instagram.com/realjohnkiriakou

https://x.com/JohnKiriakou

LISTEN ON SPOTIFY:

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

LISTEN ON APPLE MUSIC:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deprogram-with-john-kiriakou-and-ted-rall

The post Club Med Gaza | DeProgram with Ted Rall and John Kiriakou appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

President Donald Trump stepped into a major political landmine by picking Minnesota as the Democratic state he opted to savage with his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents this time around. No one, anywhere, has ever regarded Minnesota as any kind of threat to any nation. Writer and former “Prairie Home Companion” radio personality Garrison Keillor often talked about the rock-steady courtesy and careful reticence of the hard-working and (once) stoic Minnesotans. “We Minnesotans believe in low key,” he quipped about himself and the other residents of his home state. Hardly the rampaging “paid political agitators” Donald Trump conjures up.

Minnesota consistently tallies among the lowest per capita crime stats in the nation. Yet there Trump’s jack-booted thugs are in repeated scenes on TV across the nation, hurling Minnesotans to the ground, kneeling on their backs, wrapping their beefy arms around their necks and squeezing, shooting them. This, despite the fact that Democratic California, along with the Republican states of Texas and Florida, have the highest number—millions—of undocumented immigrants in the nation. Yet Trump is focusing on the Midwestern state.

Nearby residents across the Minnesota’s border identify with their out-of-state neighbors. I grew up in Wisconsin, and considered Minnesota part of us, as I did Michigan, Iowa, and much of Illinois. If Trump thinks he carefully sidestepped red Iowa and Michigan, and purple Wisconsin (which went for Trump in 2024) in his targeted violence, he’s hugely mistaken. What happens in Minnesota is felt by all Midwesterners. Like me, other Wisconsinites have relatives over the border, they shop in Minnesota, and some have farms and businesses there. Minnesotans talk like us. We have the same accents, and some of us call drinking fountains “bubblers.” That kind of identification is something Trump, born and raised in Queens, will never get.

Even more problematic for Trump is that the great swath of middle Americans view Midwesterners as one of them. The country often dismisses the complaints and actions of the New York metropolitan area and the West (i.e. “left”) Coast. But they don’t take that attitude when it comes to Minnesotans, widely considered the salt of the earth by their fellow Americans.

It’s not so easy (or a genius political move) to remain popular as a vengeful president scapegoats a steady state from heartland America with combat-outfitted thugs.

Nevertheless, Minnesotans are being brutalized on the streets of Minneapolis: their “papers” demanded by ICE agents (which citizens are not required to carry), their car windows smashed and their bodies dragged over shattered glass, slugged when they dare lift their cell phones to record the violence. Yet the Minnesotans, a huge percentage of whom are hunters and own guns, remain nonviolent protesters against the brutality, steadfast and indomitable in their opposition, relying on whistles to alert one another to ICE violence, relentlessly recording the federal agents’ assault on the law despite threats from angry, threatening officers. Minnesotans have staged protest sit-ins in churches, at Hilton Hotels, where agents sleep, and at Target stores where masked men have kidnapped teenage US citizens working there. Protesters last month staged an all-night raucous anti-ICE “concert” to keep the agents awake as they tried to sleep in their Hilton Hotel beds.

It’s a lose-lose situation for Trump. Early poll results already hint that the president’s support in the wake of the violence in the Midwest—and nationally—is tanking. It’s not so easy (or a genius political move) to remain popular as a vengeful president scapegoats a steady state from heartland America with combat-outfitted thugs.

Even before news spread that ICE agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot Minneapolis mom and US citizen Renee Nicole Good in the face on January 7, a number of polls found increasing anger over Trump’s Minneapolis thugfest.

A national YouGov poll taken the same day of the shooting before word of the killing had been widely shared found that 52% of those surveyed already either somewhat or strongly disapproved of how ICE was doing its job (39% somewhat approved or strongly approved). Just 27% thought the agency's tactics were "about right," compared to 51% who labeled them"too forceful.”

Six out of ten of those surveyed said they believed a “war” or “conflict” is erupting in the streets of America.

A Reuters/Ipsos survey January 15 found Americans’ approval of Trump’s immigration approach was at its lowest point in his second administration. An AP-NORC poll found that just 38% of Americans approved of Trump’s immigration enforcement, down from a 49% high this spring. In addition, a majority of voters (51%) in a recent CNN/SSRS poll said ICE’s actions are making US cities less safe.

Trump’s net job approval rating slid to -14, YouGov pollsters reported Jan. 20 after the president’s immigration crackdown, the lowest of his second administration. The American Research Group reported Wednesday that Trump’s approval rating had cratered to -28.

“What’s happening in Minnesota right now defies belief,” Democratic Gov. Tim Walz said in a televised address last week. “News reports simply don’t do justice to the level of chaos and disruption and trauma the federal government is raining down upon our communities,” he added, characterizing the ICE attacks as a “campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by our own federal government.”

Trump thought Minnesotans would be pushovers and great “performance fodder” as televised victims of his version of macho violence. They may be quietly hard-working, and sometimes excruciatingly reserved, but they have spines of steel and they know what’s right.

We are all Minnesota.

Jonathan Ross, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, will not be brought to justice. Let that sink in. Ross is going to skate, because in Donald Trump’s America, his agency operates above the law. As Vice President JD Vance put it at a White House press conference the day after the shooting, Ross has “absolute immunity for doing his job.”

Vance’s comments shed light upon the larger legal design behind ICE’s newfound power. In Trump’s second term, the United States is rapidly devolving into what the late German émigré legal and political scientist Ernst Fraenkel called a “dual state,” in which acts of violence perpetrated against designated enemies of the regime are not only tolerated, but often celebrated as acts of valor and redemption.

A socialist attorney who practiced labor law in Berlin, Fraenkel fled Nazi Germany in 1938, eventually settling in Chicago. There he would write his most famous work, The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship, a study of the legal system implemented by the Third Reich in the 1930s.

Fraenkel’s central thesis is that the Nazis did not dismantle the legal structure of the Weimar Republic all at once or entirely, but replaced it with a bifurcated system in which state functions were divided between a “normative” sphere—which operated according to set rules and regulations—and a “prerogative” sphere, where violence was permitted and traditional legal restraints did not apply.

The struggle against ICE and our emerging dual state is now approaching a critical inflection point.

To keep capitalism up and running, Hitler’s government had to maintain the façade of a stable “normative” legal system that permitted businesses and Christian Germans to engage in commerce and settle contract cases, employment disputes, landlord-tenant matters, and other civil issues in court. As University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq noted in a March 2025 Atlantic magazine essay, this duality allowed capitalism to “jog nicely alongside the brutal suppression of democracy, and even genocide.”

But as the judiciary surrendered its independence through a combination of cooptation and intimidation, the “prerogative” system came to dominate. “On any given day,” Huq explained:

… people or cases could be jerked out of the normative state and into the prerogative one. In July 1936, for example, Fraenkel won a case for employees of an association taken over by the Nazis. A few days later, he learned that the Gestapo had seized the money owed to his clients and deposited it in the government’s coffers.

The case was closed with no further appeals.

Fraenkel largely attributed the theoretical underpinnings of the dual Nazi state to the work of the German legal philosopher Carl Schmitt. Often referred to as the “Crown Jurist of National Socialism,” Schmitt joined the party in 1933 and went on to serve as president of the National Socialist Association of Legal Professionals.

Schmitt was an unrelenting critic of liberalism, decrying its weaknesses for embracing universal human rights and what he deemed its hypocritical and indecisive fixations on discussion, debate, negotiation, and compromise. As a counter to universalism, he promoted a “friend-enemy” concept of politics, insisting that all states necessarily distinguish between those whom it embraces as friends worthy of protection and those who are forever considered enemies, outsiders and invaders deserving of its wrath, retribution, and punishment.

As a complement to the friend-enemy concept, Schmitt promoted the idea of the “state of exception,” arguing that the sovereign in a well-functioning state must be vested with emergency powers to suspend the rule of law to maintain public order and ensure the survival of the nation. Soon after joining the party, he declared that the Enabling Act, which effectively made Hitler a dictator, had become the provisional constitution of Germany. He would go on to enthusiastically support the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, stripping Jews and other “enemies” of citizenship, and to defend Hitler’s right as sovereign to define the enemy as he saw fit.

All of this will sound eerily familiar to anyone who has been paying attention to the news. Since retaking the presidency, Trump has declared nine states of emergency on a range of issues stretching from the imposition of bloated tariffs on foreign goods to designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, and proclaiming a national emergency at the southern border. The border proclamation, issued on January 20, his first day back in office, cited the now-familiar charge of an “alien invasion” of “criminal gangs, known terrorists, human traffickers, smugglers,” and laid the groundwork for both his mass-deportation program and for giving ICE the largest budget of any police agency in the country.

ICE is now a formidable paramilitary force, having hired 12,000 new agents in the past year, more than doubling its size, and ramping up to hire more. It has been deployed into American cities on orders from Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to root out the invaders. It has become the violent face of the country’s transformation into a new 21st-century dual state.

Undocumented immigrants remain ICE’s primary target, but citizens like Good are also in jeopardy. Good’s case stands out because she was white, and her killing was caught on video. But she is not alone. While there are no official figures that specifically track how many citizens have been victimized by immigration agents, ProPublica reported last October that it had found more than 170 cases where citizens were detained during raids and protests. According to the report:

Americans have been dragged, tackled, beaten, tased, and shot by immigration agents. They’ve had their necks kneeled on. They’ve been held outside in the rain while in their underwear. At least three citizens were pregnant when agents detained them. One of those women had already had the door of her home blown off while Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem watched.

To date, not a single federal agent has been prosecuted for these incidents. Nor are any prosecutions likely.

In “normal” times, we could at least expect Agent Ross to face a rigorous Justice Department investigation. It is not true, to return to JD Vance’s comments, that Ross enjoys absolute immunity under existing law. It has always been difficult to prosecute federal law enforcement officials, but no such immunity exists.

But these are not normal times.

Trump, who now openly directs the Department of Justice and the FBI, has precluded the possibility of any serious federal investigation. Nor can we count on a state investigation conducted in concert with federal law enforcement. The FBI has announced it will exclude Minnesota authorities from participating in any fake pro-forma probe of Good’s death.

Perhaps most regrettably, we cannot count on the Supreme Court to hold Ross and other offending agents to account. The Supreme Court has endowed Trump with the powers of the unitary executive, holding in Trump v. United States that the president may exercise his pardon power however he pleases to excuse anyone from any federal prosecution.

The struggle against ICE and our emerging dual state is now approaching a critical inflection point. We can be heartened by the fact that the United States is not Germany in 1933, and Trump, for all his bluster and megalomania, is not Hitler. The country’s fate remains open, and dependent on the nonviolent and lawful collective action that we—all of us—take in the coming weeks, months, and years.

Let’s put Immigration and Customs Enforcement and, indeed, war itself—the smugly violent certainty of militarism—into the largest perspective possible. I suggest this as the only way to maintain my sanity: to believe that we, that our children, actually have a future.

This is one planet. Every living being, every pulse of life, every molecule of existence, is intertwined. I’m not in any way suggesting I understand what this means. I simply see it as our starting point, as we acknowledge and embrace the Anthropocene: the current global era, basically as old as I am, in which natural and human forces are intertwined. The fate of one determines the fate of the other.

If that’s really true, we have to start thinking beyond the mindset that brought us here. We are truly creating the future by what we do. Our lives are no longer about simply exploiting the present for our limited self-interests or perpetrating us-vs.-them violence on what amounts to ourselves.

I began by mentioning ICE because it’s so blatantly in the news these days, exemplifying the minimalist thinking of US (and global) leaders, as they claim exclusive ownership of bits and pieces of the planet.

The Trump administration is in a weird way proclaiming its belief in “one planet,” but this planet includes only them: basically white, politically obedient Americans.

As Julia Norman writes, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security is in the process of accumulating industrial warehouses around the country “...in an effort to expand the administration’s capacity to execute its mass deportation agenda—a system Secretary Noem recently aptly described as ‘one of the most consequential periods of action and reform in American history.’"

“After the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ allocated an additional $45 billion specifically to ICE for building new immigration detention centers through 2029—a budget 62% larger than the entire federal prison system—DHS gained unprecedented financial capacity to expand its system of terror on a massive scale.”

She adds: “Private contractors such as GEO Group continue to operate facilities housing the vast majority of ICE detainees, positioning themselves to make substantial profit as the administration moves to double detention capacity to 100,000 beds with tens of billions in federal spending. GEO Group and CoreCivic have already reported soaring revenues under Trump’s second term, with executives describing the expansion as ‘pivotal’ and ‘an unprecedented growth opportunity.’ In this system, human confinement has been transformed into an investment strategy.”

There’s an enormous irony here. The Trump administration is in a weird way proclaiming its belief in “one planet,” but this planet includes only them: basically white, politically obedient Americans. What recognizing “one planet” really means is showing a wide-open reverence for everything and everybody on it, including everything we don’t understand.

As I wrote in a column nearly a decade ago, the Anthropocene has come about by a combination of extraordinary technological breakthroughs and cold indifference to their consequences: human evolution, you might say, outside the circle of life. But here we are nonetheless.

The primary causes of the geological shift, according to the Guardian, are the radioactive elements dispersed across the planet by nuclear bomb tests, along with such things as plastic pollution, soot from power stations, concrete, and even the bones left by the global proliferation of the domestic chickens.

“None of this is good news,” I wrote. “Short-sighted human behavior, from nuclear insanity to agribusiness to the proliferation of plastic trash, has produced utterly unforeseen consequences, including disruption of the stable climate that has nurtured our growth and becoming over the last dozen millennia. This is called recklessness. And mostly the Anthropocene is described with dystopian bleakness: a time of mass extinctions. A time of dying.”

But dystopian bleakness is not the spiritual endpoint here. As Our Planet tells us: “The habitats that make up our planet are connected and reliant upon each other. The astonishing diversity of life on earth depends on these global connections."

“This is a critical moment for our planet. We have changed it so much we have brought on a new geological age—the Anthropocene. The age of humans. For the first time in our history, the global connections that all living things rely upon are breaking. But if we act quickly, we have the knowledge and the solutions to make our planet thrive again.”

There is, in the collective human soul, a deep love for the planet. I understand how naïve it will sound if I just cry: "C’mon, world! No more war!"So I’ll hold off on that and simply address, well, the media, the antiwar protesters, whoever might be reading this. Yes, we should abolish ICE, defund and think beyond militarism, question the sanctity of the imaginary lines (aka, borders) all across our planet. But we should not do so merely out of fear. Let’s do so, rather, in the deep (dare I say religious?) awareness that humanity and Planet Earth are evolving together. And we’re hovering at a moment of extraordinary change.

Let me know what you think: What should we do next? What are we already doing right?

The top 15 wealthiest people in America are part of a very, very exclusive club: those with over $100,000,000,000 in net worth. After double checking those zeroes, we can confidently say that yes, there are 15 centi-billionaires living among us.

And, according to a new Institute for Policy Studies analysis of data from the Forbes real time billionaire list, the combined wealth of that 12-figure club grew from $2.4 trillion to $3.1 trillion over the course of 2025.

For context, that 30.3% rate of growth outpaced both the S&P 500 (16%) and billionaires in general (20.8%) over the last year. To put it succinctly, the wealthiest Americans are accumulating capital faster than everyone else.

The top 15 wealthiest billionaires aren’t the only ones doing well for themselves. Our analysis found that the number of US billionaires increased from 813 with combined wealth of $6.7 trillion at the end of 2024 to 935 US billionaires with combined assets of $8.1 trillion.

The top five wealthiest billionaires all saw huge wealth jumps in 2025.

• Elon Musk of Tesla-X and SpaceX with $726 billion, up from $421 billion a year ago.
• Larry Page of Google, with $257 billion, up from $156 billion a year ago.
• Larry Ellison of Oracle fame with $245 billion, up from $209 billion a year ago.
• Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $242 billion, up from $233.5 billion a year ago.
• Sergey Brin of Google with $237 billion, up from $148.9 billion a year ago.

The three wealthiest dynastic families in the US hold an estimated $757 billion, up from $657.8 billion at the end of 2024, a 16% gain. These are:

• Walton: Seven members of the Walton Family with combined wealth of $483 billion, up from $404.3 billion a year ago.
• Mars: Six members of Mars family with combined wealth of $120 billion, down from $130.4 billion a year ago.
• Koch: Two members of the Koch family have a combined wealth of $154.8 billion, up from $121.1 billion a year ago.

As we predicted it would at the time, the Covid-19 pandemic drastically accelerated wealth concentration.

On March 18, 2020, for example, Elon Musk had wealth valued just under $25 billion. A little over five years at the end of 2025, Musk’s wealth is $726 billion, a dizzying 2,800% increase from before the onset of the pandemic.

Jeff Bezos saw his wealth rise from $113 billion on March 18, 2020 to $242 billion at the end of 2025.

Three Walton family members—Jim, Alice and Rob—saw their combined assets increase from $161.1 billion on March 18, 2020 to $378 billion at the end of 2025.

The extreme concentration of wealth that our continued analysis of billionaires underscores is deeply concerning for the future of our country. These ultra-wealthy individuals have outsized influence on our democratic system—and have actively worked to undermine it. And these spectacular riches comes at the expense of workers, the ones who are actually generating wealth. Social services are being cut while tax burdens are eased on the rich.

Fighting back against wealth concentration will take a two-pronged approach. We have to empower the working class, strengthening unions and improving living conditions. We also have to raise and taxes and close wealth accumulation loopholes, or else billionaire power will only grow.

ICE—which Trump has transformed into one of the world’s largest militarized forces—is already the nation’s largest domestic police force. How realistic is it to think this employment project for undereducated goons won’t turn against American citizens after completing the mass deportation of illegal immigrants?

The post ICE Mission Accomplished appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

The so-called “Board of Peace” being created by President Donald Trump is profoundly degrading to the pursuit of peace and to any nation that would lend it legitimacy. This is a trojan horse to dismantle the United Nations. It should be refused outright by every nation invited to join.

In its Charter, the Board of Peace (BoP) claims to be an “international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” If this sounds familiar, it should, because this is the mandate of the United Nations. Created in the aftermath of World War II, the UN has as its central mission the maintenance of international peace and security.

It is no secret that Trump holds open contempt for international law and the United Nations. He said so himself during his September 2025 speech at the General Assembly, and has recently withdrawn from 31 UN entities. Following a long tradition of US foreign policy, he has consistently violated international law, including the bombing of seven countries in the past year, none of which were authorized by the Security Council and none of which was undertaken in lawful self-defense under the Charter (Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela). He is now claiming Greenland, with brazen and open hostility towards the US allies in Europe.

So, what about this Board of Peace?

It is, to put it simply, a pledge of allegiance to Trump, who seeks the role of world chairman and the world’s ultimate arbiter. The BoP will have as its Executive Board none other than Trump’s political donors, family members, and courtiers. The leaders of nations that sign up will get to rub shoulders with, and take orders from, Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner and Tony Blair. Hedge Fund owner and Republican Party mega-donor Marc Rowan also gets to play. More to the point, any decisions taken by the BoP will be subject to Trump’s approval.

If the charade of representatives isn’t enough, nations will have to pay $1 billion for a “permanent seat” on the Board. Any nation that participates should know what it is “buying.” It is certainly not buying peace or a solution for the Palestinian people (as the money supposedly goes to Gaza’s reconstruction). It is buying ostensible access to Trump for as long as it serves his interests. It is buying an illusion of momentary influence in a system where Trump’s rules are enforced by personal whim.

The proposal is absurd not least because it purports to “solve” a problem that already has an 80-year-old global solution. The United Nations exists precisely to prevent the personalization of war and peace. It was designed after the wreckage of two world wars to global base peace on collective rules and international law. The UN’s authority, rightly, derives from the UN Charter ratified by 193 member states (including the US, as ratified by the US Senate in July 1945) and grounded in international law. If the US doesn’t want to abide by the Charter, the UN General Assembly should suspend the US credentials, as it once did with Apartheid South Africa.

Trump’s “Board of Peace” is a blatant repudiation of the United Nations. Trump has made that explicit, recently declaring that the Board of Peace “might” indeed replace the United Nations. This statement alone should end the conversation for any serious national leader. Participation after such a declaration is a conscious decision to subordinate one’s country to Trump’s personalized global authority. It is to accept, in advance, that peace is no longer governed by the UN Charter, but by Trump.

Still, some nations, desperate to get on the right side of the US, may take the bait. They should remember the wise words of President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address “ those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.”

The record shows that loyalty to Trump is never enough to salve his ego. Just look at the long parade of Trump’s former allies, advisers, and appointees who were humiliated, discarded, and attacked by him the moment they ceased to be useful to him.

For any nation, participation on the Board of Peace would be strategically foolish. Joining this body will create long-lasting reputational damage. Long after Trump himself is no longer President, a past association with this travesty will be a mark of poor judgment. It will remain as sad evidence that, at a critical moment, a national political system mistook a vanity project for statesmanship, squandering $1 billion of funds in the process.

Ultimately, refusal to join the “Board of Peace” will be an act of national self-respect. Peace is a global public good. The UN-based international order, however flawed, should be repaired through law and cooperation, not replaced by a gilded caricature. Any nation that values international law, and the respect for the United Nations, should decline immediately to be associated with this travesty of international law.

LIVE 2 pm Eastern, and then streaming whenever you wanna hear/watch it:

The DMZ America Podcast dives headfirst into one of the most explosive issues rocking the nation right now: the transformation of ICE from a border security agency into a violent, unaccountable domestic force under the current Trump administration. ICE touts itself as DHS’s top law enforcement arm, fighting transnational threats while protecting communities, legal immigration, trade, travel, and financial systems. But in practice, the administration ramps up agent numbers aggressively, deploys recruitment tactics that echo white nationalist themes—like using lyrics from “We’ll Have Our Home Again” in ads—and slashes training about de-escalation and rules of engagement.

A bombshell 233-page court order from Judge Sara L. Ellis in Chicago exposes widespread duplicity, lies, and abuse of power by ICE and DHS officials. She slams agents for using force that “shocks the conscience”—pepper-balling clergy, tear-gassing kids and pregnant women, tackling protesters without justification—finding no legitimate government interest in many actions.

Top officials push narratives of “absolute immunity,” with Stephen Miller and JD Vance assuring agents they’re untouchable, even as former ICE leaders like Deborah Fleischaker call it dangerous overreach that emboldens aggression and erodes public safety. As ICE becomes the biggest military force on Earth, against which Americans will they turn when they run out of illegals to deport?

You and me.

Ted Rall (from the Left) and Scott Stantis (from the Right) break it down—no holds barred, cutting through the spin with sharp analysis and dueling perspectives that make you think hard about power, accountability, and where this all leads.

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 226: “ICE: Trump’s Stormtroopers” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Every single moving mouth and face I see in the media seems to be obligated to stress the barbarity and illegitimacy of the Maduro government to establish some acceptable moral clarity even before they can carry on with any analysis of the current political situation, or the current political conditions in the world. Likewise, each personality seems obligated to make similar statements as a prerequisite to speak on the Iranian regime and the religionists controlling the country. Each is evil they must claim, and that they expressively disagree and denounce them in all shape and form. Each is beyond the specter of acceptable civilization, they must state. Each has no inkling of morality, but is simply obsessed with power and control.

This was the same in any discussion of Hamas in Gaza. Every political critic was required to denounce the various regimes and point out their flaws without spelling out the historical influences that helped to create the regimes and set them into motion. Anyone who has ever spoken up for peace and credible reflection knows what it’s like to be baited or accused of being an apologist for the bad guy. But this is not necessary and distracts from full and meaningful analysis.

I am not going to seek acceptability by engaging in some litmus test of morality regurgitating a litany of flaws and how I don't agree. I believe that there is a collective of people so tired of the moral denunciations that they are able to look past my refusal to criticize and denounce and hear what I am trying to say.

The reflections of the flaws of other places and countries is namely a reflection of us and on us...

I am reminded, from my experiences with my work in the drug and alcohol recovery community in Roxbury, Massachusetts and the very poignant but grassroots logic and moral challenge that often flowed from that recovery community. People would remind us that when we were so busy pointing fingers at others that there were four fingers pointing back at us. This means that when we point out the deficiencies, the cruelty, the lying, the racism, and the hatred of others it is not all in them, but it also resides in us. We are not exempt and we are not free from all the dismissive political distances that we try to create.

The hypocrisy is when people go through all of the denunciations of the other over legitimacy and brutality, over legalities and dictatorship, and fail in acknowledging this mirror that reflects back on this country first and foremost.

There is some Nicolas Maduro in us. There is some Ali Hosseini Khamenei in us. Vladimir Putin is in us. We find that Hamas is in us and has always been part of who we are. We find that Palestinian dismissal resides in so many of us as it does in Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. We need to quell our objections and realize in so many instances there is a mirror that projects a reflection onto ourselves, and we discover them is in us.

I am astounded that given all of the vigorous and vehement denunciations and dismissal of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, or denunciation of Hamas there are still four fingers pointing back at us. If we look closely enough, we find all of the criticisms and flaws that we recognize in the other and our strong objections are mirrored in this government and in this historical moment in this country.

Murders do not just happen with the brutality of other governments but happens in Minneapolis with the killing of Renee Good. That murder happened not too far from where George Floyd was also killed. As we point out the roundup of people in other countries we must remind ourselves of the undocumented immigrants and US citizens that the Trump administration has arrested. More than 328,000 have been disappeared in the illegal and unconstitutional sweeps carried out by the administration. 327,000 have been deported. At least 22 have died in ICE custody. Most of the facilities are operated by private corporations that have raked in huge profits like the GEO Group.

Just as this administration is obsessed with crushing Tren de Aragua, a notorious gang with reaches from Venezuela into the US, the parallels are frightening with the US reaching into Venezuela creating a vassal state, stealing oil and other resources, claiming that they have a right to do so, and arrogantly stating that they are running the government. There are four fingers pointing back at us.

The sheer arrogance of demanding that Greenland be controlled by the US the hard way or the easy way points to the rogue status of the US. There are many other examples of racism, hatred, cruelty, brutality, the looting of other countries, the demanding of rare earths, and in general street racketeering but on a broader scale. The expression of this current moment with the US government is that it is expressed in theft, fear, bullying, and simple old street protection and racketeering. There are four fingers pointing at this government and this country.

The Fellowship of Reconciliation-USA, the oldest peace and justice nonviolent organization in the country, embraces this hard truth. They are us, and we urge that we move away from the paradigm of the other and, almost in confession, that leads to contrition that what the country claims as the other is us, and four fingers are pointing back upon us. Our humanity demands that we cease with claiming the evil in others without recognizing it in ourselves.

The hypocrisy is when people go through all of the denunciations of the other over legitimacy and brutality, over legalities and dictatorship, and fail in acknowledging this mirror that reflects back on this country first and foremost. Our claims of deep immorality, where objections are strongly expressed, belong to us. If we are going to denounce any place to gain credibility in our analysis or criticisms, then the talking heads and the experts need to state that this is us in all of the shapes and forms of political repression and immorality. They are us, and our denunciations begin at home—stating that we are strongly opposed to what is happening in the US, and that we do not agree with the images and political agenda in the US just like we do not agree with what is happening abroad. The reflections of the flaws of other places and countries is namely a reflection of us and on us, and four fingers are pointing back at us.

In the mid-1960s, I joined the freedom movement in the South as a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in Georgia, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Those were heady years, and I am proud of my small role in the great achievements of that time.

Our movement breathed new life into American democracy, inspiring and teaching people who led many of the other liberation movements of the 1960s and ‘70s. It opened up schools, education, jobs, public accommodations, voting power, electoral office, and judgeships to people of color in the South and throughout the country.

But there is also a fight for history. Those who rule our society have a miserly notion of democracy, and they have re-told the story of our movement, to try to make it fit into the way they want most people to act—as passive observers of government and society, who do nothing other than vote every few years.

The distorted history they tell of the civil rights movement fits into that stingy vision. Their version of our history says that the movement was about a handful of great leaders, like Dr. Martin Luther King, and their followers.

Dr. King would have recognized the urgency of this moment, as the Trump regime seeks to reverse the gains of the past and to eviscerate American constitutional democracy. And he would have been proud of those who stand up.

Dr. King was an extraordinary leader—a moral giant, a radical thinker, a gifted tactician, a great teacher of the power of nonviolence, and one of the most eloquent and inspiring speakers in American history. His memory and his teachings remain a threat to those who seek to empower white supremacy and debase our democracy, which is why MAGA denigrates Dr. King and tries to obscure his teachings.

But a giant part of King’s leadership was inspiring others to be leaders. The freedom movement was about thousands upon thousands of leaders, all across America, sometimes acting in planned ways, sometimes acting spontaneously.

The movement was about millions of people who took to the streets, courthouses, and schools, who were jailed and beaten, fired, and abused for standing up for themselves. People who nonetheless protested, organized, went to meetings, voted, and demanded justice—demanded freedom.

Each of them was a leader, too, leading other Americans to understand the flaws of our nation—and the urgency of curing them.

Mitchell Zimmerman is shown as a SNCC volunteer in Arkansas in 1966. (Photo by Brian Rybolt, a fellow member of Arkansas SNCC. Used with permission.)

One other important lesson to understand about the movement was that, with hindsight, its victories appeared inevitable. But they did not seem inevitable at the time. People had to persist in struggle over years and decades, understanding that to grow discouraged would be a kind of surrender—that defeats might not be permanent, nor would victories, and that it might take a long time to finally smash the Jim Crow system.

Those lessons apply to today’s struggle against fascist authoritarianism in the United States. I keep hearing people ask, “What can we do?” and “Can anything we do make any difference?”

Persisting—not surrendering to despair—is part of the struggle. Victory over fascism may not be inevitable, but neither is defeat. We must keep demonstrating on the streets—peacefully, no matter what violence Immigration and Customs Enforcement wreaks—monitoring ICE activities, recording their abuses and exposing them, disrupting when we can at acceptable risk, writing to our representatives and to newspapers, voting, canvassing, contributing money and time, joining with others, and above all reaching out.

We must all become leaders in small or large ways, attempting to persuade and remind others of the dangers and of the injustices that we are fighting against, and urging them to act.

Dr. King would have recognized the urgency of this moment, as the Trump regime seeks to reverse the gains of the past and to eviscerate American constitutional democracy. And he would have been proud of those who stand up—peacefully, insistently, loudly—and say, "No, we’re not going to go backward."

LIVE 9:00 am Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Political cartoonist Ted Rall and CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM EST.

Today we discuss:

•  Cuban detainee Geraldo Lunas Campos was asphyxiated and throttled to death by ICE guards in El Paso, the county medical examiner rules. Federal officials called his death a suicide. 5-year-old Pre-K Liam Ramos used as bait for his dad by ICE. An ICE document told officers and agents they can forcibly enter deportees without warrants. 32% of Americans tell NYT/Siena Poll Trump made the county better; 49% say it’s worse.

• Supreme Court likely to rule that Trump can’t fire Fed board members like Lisa Cook at will, in a landmark separation of powers ruling.

• What is in the vague “framework” settling the Greenland Crisis?

• Clintons face bipartisan Contempt of Congress over Epstein testimony.

The post ICE Cold Liars | DeProgram with Ted Rall and John Kiriakou appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s job is to calm the economic fears that President Donald Trump creates. He has followed a curious journey to get there, and now he’s sacrificing his integrity and legacy to remain.

Stage 1: Democratic Fundraiser

Born in a small South Carolina town, Bessent, 63, graduated from Yale College in 1984 with a bachelor’s degree in political science. Eventually he went to work for Soros Fund Management—founded by the Republicans’ favorite Democratic demon, George Soros.

Bessent is openly gay, married since 2011 to a former New York City prosecutor, and has been a strong advocate for gay rights and marriage equality. In 2000, he supported Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, co-hosting a fundraiser for him in East Hampton, New York. He donated $2,300 to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2007. Although he donated $25,000 to support Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations, by then he was a major donor to Republican candidates.

Stage 2: Republican Oligarch

Bessent returned to work for Soros in 2011 as chief investment officer but left in 2016 to form his own fund for which Soros provided a $2 billion anchor. From 2018 through 2021, as the global stock market broke records, the performance of Bessent’s fund was mediocre. Still, he amassed an estimated wealth of $600 million, although some reports refer to him as one of “Trump’s billionaires.”

Bessent and his husband have two children studying in Europe. As they process the European reaction to Trump, they may ask him what he is doing to make the world a better place.

Bessent donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration in 2016, but was not part of the first term’s inner circle. When Trump left office in disgrace after January 6 and under the cloud of other legal woes, most business leaders were reluctant to support him publicly. But as Bessent said on Roger Stone’s radio show in 2024: “I was all in for President Trump. I was one of the few Wall Street people backing him.”

The 68 senators who voted to confirm Bessent as Treasury secretary probably hoped that, like Marco Rubio at the State Department, Bessent would be an “adult in the room.” Unlike other members of the clown car comprising Trump’s cabinet, Bessent would save the nation from Trump’s worst financial impulses.

After all, the country has never had a president who declared bankruptcy six times (although Trump told the Washington Post that he had only four because he counted the first three bankruptcies as one).

Stage 3 :Trump Sycophant

Instead of a principled voice for sound economic policies and principles, Bessent has become a cheerleader for Trump’s dubious financial moves. At times, he has resorted to rhetorical gymnastics to explain away Trump’s plain language. For example:

• On April 2, 2025, on what Trump called “Liberation Day,” the president announced his first round of universal tariffs. The thoughtless imposition of across-the-board tariffs was often nonsensical, such as tariffs on uninhabited islands near Antarctica and on countries with which the US has a trade surplus. Trump sent global markets into a tailspin and US interest rates upward. Five days later, Bessent admitted that he was surprised by the “impatience” of commentators and the financial markets. He tried to stop the carnage by saying that Trump’s bizarre action was simply a clever negotiating strategy—which made little sense to the penguins of Antarctica.
• In September, as major US companies announced the loss of billions of dollars resulting from Trump’s tariffs, Bessent dismissed their concerns.
• Bessent—who is not an economist—has parroted the Trump line that tariffs are not a tax on American businesses and consumers because foreign exporters bear the cost. A broad consensus of economists has concluded otherwise, and a major study released on January 19 found that consumers and businesses—not foreign exporters—bear 96% of tariff costs.
• As Trump touted tariffs as a boon to manufacturing, Bessent acknowledged that the US has been losing manufacturing jobs. But he insists that better days are coming.
• When Trump tried to fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, Bessent said that the Fed’s independence was important, but that Trump had the right to fire her. After reportedly trying to persuade Trump not to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Bessent has now become one of Powell’s most vocal attackers—along with Trump’s Justice Department.
• When the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case challenging Trump’s tariffs, Bessent sat in the front row. Now he’s criticizing Powell’s decision to attend the oral argument in Cook’s case.
• Most recently, Trump blamed his threat of a global trade war on Denmark’s refusal to let the US take over its longstanding territory, Greenland. In a social media post on Saturday morning, January 17, Trump announced new 10% tariffs on Denmark and the countries who stood with it in resisting Trump’s demand: Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, and Finland, effective February 1. He threatened to increase the levies to 25% on June 1, unless Europe capitulated.
• Sunday evening, January 18, NPR’s Nick Schifrin posted a letter that Trump had previously sent to Norway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre. Trump revealed that after not winning last year’s Nobel Peace Prize “for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS,” he “no longer feel[s] an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America… The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”
• Hours after the public disclosure of Trump’s message, Bessent held an impromptu press conference on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He tried to explain away Trump’s childish fit: “I think it’s a complete canard that the president will be doing this because of the Nobel Prize,” Bessent asserted. Accusing Trump’s critics of “hysteria,” Bessent said, “What I am urging everyone here to do is sit back, take a deep breath, and let things play out.” His words fell flat, and he looked as uncomfortable as he must have felt.
• In Brussels on January 21, the European Parliament protested Trump’s demand by suspending its work on the previously negotiated US-EU trade deal. Meanwhile at Davos, Trump delivered a 90-minute screed that insulted many European leaders by name and reiterated his demand for Greenland. But later that day, Trump posted that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had worked out a “framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.” And he walked back the new European tariffs he’d threatened to impose on February 1.

Stage 4: The Coming Quest for Rehabilitation

Bessent seems destined to follow the paths of other Trump enablers who eventually left the fold, like former Attorney General William Barr. He neutered the Mueller Report on Russian election interference during the 2016 election, only to resign 18 months later as January 6 approached. Eventually, Bessent will find himself on the outs with Trump, write a book, pursue a public speaking “redemption tour,” and explain that his government service saved the country from Trump’s worst impulses.

Such a rationalization rings hollow.

Bessent and his husband have two children studying in Europe. As they process the European reaction to Trump, they may ask him what he is doing to make the world a better place. The answer is also his legacy: In the process of sacrificing his personal integrity, Bessent has disserved the nation.

Maria Corina Machado said it was a “historic day for us Venezuelans” as she handed President Donald Trump her Nobel Peace Prize. For the pro-Israel, far-right opposition figure in Venezuela, being welcomed to the White House may have been a historic day. But for those of us interested in peace and justice, the only history the United States is making by keeping the sitting president of Venezuela locked up in New York is of colonialist bullying and imperialist violence.

After being snubbed of her dreamed-of-role as President of Venezuela, Machado left no hard feelings as she gave her recently awarded Nobel Peace Prize to Trump on January 15. One might think being told she didn’t have the “respect” nor “support” within Venezuela to be parachuted in as leader would sever Trump-Machado relations. But, US relations with Machado and her far-right party are deep. This remains the zenith of her life’s worth to sell back her country to capital. For those wondering if Trump now has the Nobel Prize–yes. Well, he did the second Machado got it, no matter his statements to counteract that. Machado’s decision to accept the prize, supposedly contrary to the wishes of the White House, before delivering it to him in person, signifies the depth of Machado’s commitment to enact the US will on Venezuela.

Maria Corina Machado was born in 1967 into one of the wealthiest families in Venezuela. This wealth came from their ownership and control of Venezuela’s largest private-sector steel company, Sivensa, and its largest private steel processor, Sidetur. Her family also benefited greatly from the 1997 privatization of Sidor, the largest steelmaker in Venezuela, as they held a controlling stake. Between 2008 and 2010, the Chávez government nationalized all three of these companies, which stripped the Machado family of their life of abhorrent luxury while most Venezuelans suffered. Like many of this era, these wealthy families never forgave the revolutionary government for providing for the Venezuelan people.

In her youth, with all of the riches of these companies, Machado was educated at an elite boarding school in the United States, which costs $78,000 a year in today’s money. She then studied engineering at the graduate and post-graduate levels. After completing her studies, she spent a brief stint in her family’s steel company before she moved into philanthropy. It is not hard to see where her virulent pro-US politics have come from. But US-Machado relations go back a long way, which is why her handing Trump the Nobel Peace Prize is not the first occasion when she has shown her true nature as a US-backed asset.

US-Backed Asset

In 2002, Machado set up Súmate, an NGO aiming to topple the Bolivarian Revolution under the supposed task of “election monitoring” in Venezuela. It immediately received at least $53,400 from the United States via the National Endowment for Democracy, the infamous route through which the US funds its CIA campaigns globally. Súmate was the front through which US interests repeatedly attempted to undermine Chávez: They pushed the campaign for a 2004 recall of the presidential election, produced data for opposition attacks, and peddled anti-Chávez propaganda in the media, among other nefarious activities using the front of “democracy” to do so. In 2005, President George W. Bush invited Machado into the Oval Office to personally thank her for carrying out this work.

In 2012, Machado set up Vente Venezuela, a far-right political party that pushed for private property and free markets in Venezuela. Through this political party, she has attempted to unify strands of the opposition to push her challenge to the Bolivarian project and launch counterrevolutionary measures aimed at overthrowing the government. Machado has asserted that if she were in power, she would sell off Venezuela’s publicly owned oil company and privatize all oil and gas reserves that currently fund public services for Venezuelans. These instances reveal that “democracy” and “freedom” are guises for the ultimate aim of privatization in order for her, as well as her friends and family, to once more embezzle huge sums of money and cut off millions of people from needed public services.

Machado is a key asset for the US as a voice that ostensibly speaks on behalf of those grieved from within Venezuela that can be used to justify its regime change attempts from outside.

When the US imposed sanctions on Venezuela, formally in 2005, Machado was one of the loudest and most abrasive supporters. On many occasions, she has been boldly in support of these unilateral coercive measures that have killed over 100,000 people and caused absolute misery for Venezuelans.

Beyond her support for sanctions, Machado’s appetite for the murder of her own countrymen is seen through her support for the US naval armada as well as murderous US attacks on small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, which have killed over 120 people since September 2025. As 70% of the US oppose war on Venezuela, as families mourn their loved ones, and as millions of dollars are used to fund warship deployments in the Caribbean, Machado said: “I totally support [Trump’s] strategy. I think it is the right thing to do. It’s courageous. It’s visionary.” Perhaps Machado’s American boarding school taught her such conceptions of courage and vision, but for those of us who have seen the videos of boats being bombed, heard testimonies of the civilian victims of airstrikes in La Gauira, and watched the rabid threats of war flow unabated, they are supportive of terror and murder.

Not only are people in Venezuela being sacrificed in Machado’s dream of a ravaged, neoliberal Venezuela, but as per her duty, she also justifies US action against Venezuelans living in the United States. Machado peddled lies about drug cartels and their links to the Venezuelan government, which justified Trump’s incarceration of 200 Venezuelans in the US to the CECOT torture facility in El Salvador. When she traveled to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, Machado revealed her journey was made possible by US support. She also dedicated the prize to Trump before ultimately delivering the prize to him by hand this week. Machado is a key asset for the US as a voice that ostensibly speaks on behalf of those grieved from within Venezuela that can be used to justify its regime change attempts from outside.

Instigator of Violence

A second prong to Machado’s role in the Venezuelan opposition is in instigating violence, both within Venezuela, through funding and provoking violent riots, and externally, encouraging foreign intervention. In 2002, Machado helped lead the US-backed coup to overthrow democratically elected President Hugo Chávez. She signed the Carmona Decree, which tried to dissolve the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, and other governmental bodies that brought about change in the interests of the Venezuelan people and away from the hoarding of foreign and domestic elites, like herself.

Machado was a key figure in organizing guarimbas, violent riots aimed at causing chaos and paralyzing the country in order to provoke political and economic collapse. In 2014, Machado was a key organizer and supporter of guarimbas that killed her political opponents, burnt down public infrastructure, and set ambulances and doctors on fire. Again in 2017, she helped to organize and fund the guarimbas, which killed 200 people and wounded more than 15,000, and caused significant damage to bus drivers, metro workers, and passengers, hospitals, roads, and other public buildings. These riots targeted people living their daily lives: Barricades were erected to stop people from going to work or school, bus drivers were attacked for transporting people, metal wires were hung to kill anyone who tried to bypass them, and the public infrastructure for life was destroyed. This onslaught on Venezuelans strove to make their lives unbearable to inflict the maximum social damage and force political change through terror and violence. After the presidential election in 2024, Machado’s party funded saboteurs to stage tire-burning protests and attack military bases in an attempt to spur more guarimbas and justify the US and opposition’s call that the election was a “fraud.”

As well as her support for US sanctions and attacks on Venezuela, Machado made a plea to genocide architect Benjamin Netanyahu in 2018 to intervene at the United Nations for military intervention in Venezuela. She asked for Netanyahu’s apparent “strength and influence to advance the dismantling of the criminal Venezuelan regime.” But this appeal represents the critical link between Machado’s desire for Venezuela and her Zionist fanaticism, necessary and unsurprising as Machado is a node within the global imperialist axis,

Pro-Israel Propagandist

Machado is openly Zionist and receives strong support from Israel, perhaps unsurprisingly given her status as a US puppet. She’s repeatedly committed to alliances with the Zionist entity and spread its propaganda, particularly as she has become the key opposition leader of the current moment. Since 2009, when Chávez ended diplomatic relations with Israel, Venezuela has not engaged with the Zionist entity. This, too, is a rationale for persistent US efforts at overthrowing the anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist governments of Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, who have repeatedly stated: “Humanity’s most important battle is for the liberation of Palestine.”

In 2020, Machado’s party signed a cooperation agreement with Israel’s fascist “Likud” Party, a party advocating for the total extermination of Palestine. Every year, she posts on social media erasing and celebrating Nakba Day as Israel’s “founding,” a genocidal Zionist propaganda line. In 2025, she praised Netanyahu for the genocide in Gaza, saying “she greatly appreciates his decisions and resolute actions in the course of the war, and Israel's achievements." Her desire for power is also in the interest of Israel; she said if she were president, “Venezuela will be Israel’s closest ally in Latin America.” Machado has promised to move Venezuela’s embassy to Jerusalem in an attempt to legitimize Israel’s occupation. She has also vowed to restore relations with Israel.

Machado is ultimately one thread in the fabric of the US empire.

Previous failed US-backed opposition leaders have also been recognized by Israel immediately, including Juan Guaido, who announced himself president and quickly said, “The process of stabilizing relations with Israel is at its height.” Israel also recognized Machado’s predecessor, Edmundo Gonzalez’s claim that he was president of Venezuela in 2024, after he lost the election. When the US pushes these leaders, they are in the interests of its own empire, of which Israel is a critical component. Thus, we must recognize the role of Venezuela’s revolutionary government in supporting Palestine in sharp contrast to the far-right opposition’s desire to propel Venezuela into the US-Israel axis.

While Machado has played a pertinent and critical role for the US in causing chaos, disseminating propaganda, and pushing for regime change in Venezuela, it is necessary not to see Maria Corina Machado as an individual solely motivated by her own interests. Her desire to return to Venezuela for the profits of the few at the expense of the many is certainly rooted in her elite upbringing and personal stake in a potential neoliberal Venezuela. But Machado is ultimately one thread in the fabric of the US empire. Whether it’s Machado, Guaido, Gonzalez, López, Capriles, or any new figure that will certainly emerge, all are set up with the one aim of destroying the Bolivarian Revolution in the interests of the United States.

White House officials might have told the Washington Post that the only reason Machado was not installed as President of Venezuela was that she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, when it belonged to Trump. But, Machado could give that certificate to Trump again and again, and again; it is the Venezuelan people who will determine their own fate. We stand with them.

Writers often try to gild their tawdry times or dignify their flawed leaders with lofty literary analogies—notably, America as the New Jerusalem; Lincoln as Moses leading his people through the wilderness of the Civil War; the Kennedy White House as an incarnation of King Arthur’s “Camelot“; or Lyndon Johnson living his last years as a latter-day King Lear, cast off by his ungrateful children into the moors of south Texas.

But what are we going to do with Donald Trump? Wouldn’t his vanity, his vulgarity, and his relentless pursuit of money and minerals in every corner of the globe turn any literary analogies into soggy clichés? Like the showman P.T. Barnum, Trump is an American original, whose true metaphors can be found only in comic books (America’s one true art form), not literature. As Ariel Dorfman reminded us once upon a time in How to Read Donald Duck, that classic guide to US cultural imperialism in Latin America, there was always more to a Disney comic book than gags.

To understand Trump’s America, we need our own comic guidebook to his global misadventures, which might be titled something like “How to Read Scrooge McDuck.” After all, in case you never had the pleasure of his acquaintance, Scrooge McDuck was the predatory billionaire in Disney comics, who was amazingly popular among teenagers in Cold War America. In that era when American corporations scampered around the global economy extracting profits wherever they saw fit, Scrooge McDuck put a friendly face on US imperialism, making covert intervention and commercial exploitation look benign, even comic.

From 1952 to 1988, a period coinciding almost precisely with the Cold War, the comic’s creator, illustrator Carl Barks, filled the country’s magazine racks with more than 220 comic books celebrating Scrooge’s schemes to accumulate ever more billions by dispatching Donald Duck and his triplet nephews (Huey, Dewey, and Louie) to scour the world for riches—gems, minerals, oil, and lost treasure. No place on the planet was too remote, not even the Arctic or the Amazon, and no people too poor or obscure, not even Hondurans and Tibetans, to escape his tight-fisted grasp. And yet in that innocent world of the comic book, every adventure, no matter how twisted the plot, always ended with a light laugh for those duckling heroes and the diverse peoples they encountered on their global travels.

Just as Scrooge McDuck scoured the world in a relentless, even ruthless search for wealth, so our real-life Donald has made mineral deals everywhere on the planet his top presidential priority.

Let’s visit a few of my favorite comic books from my Cold War childhood, starting with the 1954 story “The Seven Cities of Cibola.” Its initial panels show a butler showering the billionaire duck with coins while he swims around in his Money Bin’s “three cubic acres” of cash. At first, Scrooge McDuck seems content as he gloats about making money from “about every business there is on Earth” (from “oil wells, railroads, gold mines, farms, factories”).

Suddenly, however, saddened by the realization that he’s exhausted every possible domestic path to profit, Scrooge decides to lead his nephew Donald and the triplets into the desert borderlands between Mexico and the US. There, they come upon a lost Eldorado, a towering, multitiered city with gold-paved streets and a cistern filled with opals and sapphires. But caution intrudes when Huey, Dewey, and Louie discover that the whole edifice is poised dangerously atop a spindly stone pillar. Then, at their moment of near triumph, the ducks are denied any treasure by Scrooge’s recurring nemesis, the comically criminal Beagle Boys, who break in and grab the city’s bejeweled idol, triggering a hidden mechanism that fractures the pillar. As those fabled cities collapse into a heap of rubble, our duckling heroes escape unharmed, ready for their next adventure.

The first panel in a 1956 comic book, the “Secret of Hondorica,” shows Scrooge McDuck pointing to a map of the Caribbean as he dispatches Donald Duck and his three nephews deep into tropical jungles near—yes, how sadly appropriate almost seven decades later—Venezuela to recover his lost deeds to the region’s rich oil wells. After crossing steep mountains and crocodile-infested creeks, the Ducks happen upon a Mayan temple filled with spear-carrying “savages” arrayed around their idol. By translating the “picture writing” on the temple walls with the help of their handy encyclopedic “Junior Woodchuck Guidebook,” the nephews deceive the natives with incantations in their own language and escape with the idol’s crown of gold.

President Donald Trump is, of course, our real-life Scrooge McDuck. Mar-a-Lago is his Money Bin. And the world is his playground for schemes to add another billion or two to his and his family’s growing fortune. Just as Scrooge McDuck scoured the world in a relentless, even ruthless search for wealth, so our real-life Donald has made mineral deals everywhere on the planet his top presidential priority—rare earths from Ukraine, oil from the Middle East, and (someday perhaps) a frozen treasure trove of minerals in Greenland. And just as Scrooge dispatched Donald Duck on a mission to recover his lost oil wells from the jungles of “Hondorica,” so our real Donald did indeed send US special forces to capture President Nicolás Maduro and win yet more of Venezuela’s oil fields for American companies.

Back to the Reality of the Old Cold War

Alas, my innocent childhood is long gone. The world is no backdrop for comic book adventures, and imaginary heroes don’t flit from frame to frame to amusing endings. In the real world of 2026, we are already deep into a “new Cold War” against nuclear-armed powers, and President Donald J. Trump’s comedic foreign policy is dragging us toward a dismal defeat.

First, let’s snap back to reality by taking stock of the world we’ve actually been living through all these years and review how we got here. During the real Cold War, the global conflict that lasted from 1947 to 1991 (when the Soviet Union collapsed), the one I describe in my new book, Cold War on Five Continents, Washington’s geopolitical strategy was brilliantly ruthless in its basic design. After fighting quite a different global conflict, World War II, for four years with the aim of defeating the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) entrenched at both ends of Eurasia, America’s leaders of General (and future president) Dwight D. Eisenhower’s generation knew instinctively that geopolitical control over that vast continent was indeed the key to global power.

If Washington’s strategy for waging the Cold War was a successful exercise in geopolitics, its use of “unipolar” power in the decades to come was... much less so.

Guided by that fundamental strategic principle (which had, in fact, held true for the last thousand years or so), Washington’s early Cold War leaders worked hard to “contain” the Sino-Soviet communist bloc behind an “Iron Curtain” that stretched for 5,000 miles around the rim of Eurasia. With the armed forces of its NATO alliance securing that continent’s Western frontier and five bilateral military pacts ranging along the Pacific littoral from Japan to Australia for its eastern border, Washington bottled up the communist superpowers. That strategy freed the US to make the rest of the planet into its very own “free world.” In exchange for open access to the markets and minerals of the countries in much of that free world, the US distributed a few development dollars of aid to the emerging nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which often served to fatten up the bank accounts of their nominally “democratic” dictators.

After two decades of being locked up inside Eurasia, however, Beijing and Moscow tried to break out of their geopolitical isolation by arming allies for revolutionary warfare on Cold War battlegrounds stretching from South Vietnam across the Middle East and through southern Africa, all the way to Central America.

To counter that gambit and push those communist powers back behind the Iron Curtain, the US sometimes sent in its own troops, whether successfully to the Dominican Republic in 1965, or disastrously to South Vietnam from 1965 to 1973. But most of the time, Washington dispatched individual CIA operatives armed with impunity to do whatever—and I do mean whatever—they wanted to deflect Moscow and Beijing’s gambits and secure contested terrain. Usually misfits, even oddballs at home, those surprisingly significant historical actors, whom I’ve come to call “men on the spot,” often proved quite successful abroad. Using the cruelest instruments in the toolkit of modern statecraft—assassinations, coups, surrogate troops, torture, and psychological warfare—those covert operatives fought for control of foreign capitals as diverse as Kinshasha, Luanda, Saigon, Santiago, San Salvador, Tegucigalpa, and Vientiane. And then, with the Soviet Union significantly “contained” geopolitically within its borderlands, Washington could just sit back and wait for Moscow to make a strategic blunder.

That blunder came in 1979 in one of those classic military misadventures that often hasten the deaths of empires in decline. When Moscow sent 100,000 troops to occupy Afghanistan, Washington sent just one CIA operative, Howard Hart, to defeat that occupation. Acting as Washington’s “man on the spot,” he used the agency’s millions of dollars to form a guerrilla army of 250,000 Afghan fighters. By the time the Red Army was bled dry and left Afghanistan a decade later, defeated and demoralized, Moscow’s satellite states in Eastern Europe were erupting in mass anti-communist protests. With the Red Army generally unable or unwilling to intervene, the Soviet bloc broke apart as the Soviet Union broke up, ending the Cold War with an unqualified US victory.

Toward a New Cold War

If Washington’s strategy for waging the Cold War was a successful exercise in geopolitics, its use of “unipolar” power in the decades to come was, as I also argue in Cold War on Five Continents, much less so. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington stood astride the globe like a Titan of Greek legend—the sole superpower on Earth, at least theoretically capable of remaking the world as it wished. Convinced that “the end of history” would make its free-market democracy the future of all mankind, America’s leaders, “drunk with power,” advanced sweeping plans for a new world order, grounded in a globalized economy that served their short-term interests but would have deleterious long-term consequences for their global hegemony.

Only a decade after the Cold War ended, Washington started facing serious strategic challenges across the Eurasian continent, which, then and now, has been the epicenter of geopolitical power. In the heady aftermath of its Cold War victory, the US attempted some bold strategic gambits that would soon prove to be distinctly ill-advised. Above all, Washington’s leaders believed that they could co-opt Beijing’s rising power by recognizing China as an equal trading partner. In a parallel attempt to curb any of Moscow’s future imperial ambitions, the US also presided over NATO’s expansion until that alliance surrounded Russia’s western borders, sparking security concerns in Moscow. Such ill-fated initiatives, combined with ill-considered military interventions in Afghanistan and also Iraq, created conditions for the revival of a great-power rivalry that, since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, many observers have called “the new Cold War.”

For over a century, the Caribbean region had consistently experienced the most brutal, least benign aspects of US foreign policy and now that reality has only worsened.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and its socialist economy in 1991, Washington seemed to feel its post-Cold-War globalization would both promote democracy there and integrate that country into an emerging American world order, perhaps as a secondary power supplying cheap commodities, including oil, to the global economy. For the Russians, however, such globalization produced the dismal decade of the 1990s that would be marked by what economist Jeffrey Sachs has called a “serious economic and financial crisis” and a privatization of state enterprises “rife with unfairness and corruption,” creating a coterie of predatory Russian oligarchs.

When Vladimir Putin became prime minister amid the post-Soviet malaise of the late 1990s, he reverted to Russia’s centuries-old imperial mode. He found his vision for the country’s revival as a “great power” in the sort of geostrategic thinking that Washington’s leaders seemed to have forgotten in the afterglow of their great Cold War victory. Following a 2005 address calling the collapse of the Soviet Union the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin set about systematically reclaiming much of the old Soviet sphere—invading Georgia in 2008 when it began flirting with NATO membership; deploying troops in 2020-2021 to resolve an Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in favor of a pro-Moscow regime in Baku; and dispatching thousands of Russian special forces to Kazakhstan in 2022 to gun down pro-democracy protesters challenging a loyal Russian ally.

Concerned above all with securing his western frontier with Europe, Putin pressed relentlessly against Ukraine after his loyal surrogate leader there was ousted in the 2014 Maidan “color revolution.” First seizing Crimea, next arming separatist rebels in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region adjacent to Russia, and finally invading Ukraine in 2022 with nearly 200,000 troops, he would spark a protracted war that has yet to end.

At first, as Kyiv fought the Russians off, Washington and the West reacted with a striking unanimity by imposing serious sanctions on Moscow, dispatching armaments to Ukraine, and expanding NATO to include all of Scandinavia. Moreover, Ukraine showed a formidable flair for unconventional operations—clearing Russian ships from the Black Sea with naval drones and sabotaging that country’s massive gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea.

As Russia’s war on Ukraine reverberated across Eurasia and beyond, geopolitical tensions also rose in the Western Pacific, sparking a renewed great power rivalry that became worthy of the phrase “the new Cold War.” In a striking parallel with the 1950s, in February 2022, just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Beijing and Moscow forged a multi-faceted economic and strategic alliance that they claimed had “no limits.” In an eerie reprisal of the early Cold War years, Russia and China were in that way united against a Western alliance, once again led by Washington with its military forces still deployed in Western Europe and East Asia.

After two years of continuous combat in Ukraine, however, cracks began to appear in the West’s anti-Russian coalition. Most critically, American domestic support for Ukraine started to falter under partisan political pressures, amplified by a rising populist opposition in both the US and Europe to the globalized economy and its military alliances. After successfully rallying NATO to stand with Ukraine, President Joseph Biden opened America’s arsenal to Kyiv until Republican legislators, at Donald Trump’s behest, delayed military aid throughout much of 2024.

President Trump’s Second Term

Following his second inauguration in January 2025, President Trump’s initial foreign policy initiative was a unilateral attempt to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war—an effort that would be complicated by his underlying hostility toward NATO and his sympathy for Russian President Putin. On February 12, Trump launched peace talks through a “lengthy and highly productive” phone call with the Russian president, agreeing that “our respective teams start negotiations immediately.” Within days, Defense Secretary (or do I mean Secretary of War?) Pete Hegseth announced that “returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” and Trump added that NATO membership for Kyiv was no less unrealistic—in effect, making what a senior Swedish diplomat called “very major concessions” to Moscow before any talks even began.

At month’s end, those tensions culminated in a televised Oval Office meeting in which Trump berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, saying: “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out, and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.” That unilateral approach not only weakened Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, but also degraded NATO, which had, for the previous three years, supported Ukraine’s resistance to Russia. Recoiling from the “initial shock” of that utterly unprecedented breach, Europeans quickly appropriated $160 billion to build up their own arms industry in collaboration with both Canada and Ukraine, thereby reducing their dependence on US weaponry.

Although it has little chance of success, Trump’s attempt at a tricontinental grand strategy will likely leave a residue of ruin—alienating allies in Latin America, weakening NATO’s position in Western Europe, and ultimately corroding Washington’s global power.

For the rest of the year, Putin continued to work on Trump. He even scored a state visit and meeting with the American president in Alaska, without making any concessions whatsoever. In the process, he reduced US envoys to messenger boys for his unyielding demands, while using disinformation to drive a wedge between Washington and Kyiv. Even if the Trump administration does not formally withdraw from NATO in the years to come, the president’s repeated hostility toward it, particularly its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to weaken, if not eviscerate the alliance.

Amid a torrent of confusing, often contradictory foreign policy pronouncements from the White House, the design of Trump’s de facto geopolitical strategy soon took shape. Instead of focusing on mutual-security alliances like NATO in Europe or NORAD with Canada, Trump seems to prefer a globe divided into three major regional blocs, each headed by an empowered leader like himself—with Russia dominating its European periphery, China paramount in Asia, and the United States controlling the Americas. That aspiration to hemispheric hegemony lent a certain geopolitical logic to Trump’s otherwise quixotic strikes on Venezuela (and his capture of its president and his wife), as well as his overtures to claim Greenland, reclaim the Panama Canal, and even to make Canada the 51st state.

Last November, formalizing that approach, the White House released its new National Security Strategy, which proclaimed a “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine” aimed at achieving an unchallenged “American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.” Think, of course, the Donroe Doctrine. To that end, the US will reduce its “global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere,” deploy the US Navy to “control sea lanes,” and use “tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools” to make the Western Hemisphere “an increasingly attractive market for American commerce.” In essence, “the United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity.”

For over a century, the Caribbean region had consistently experienced the most brutal, least benign aspects of US foreign policy and now that reality has only worsened. Not only has Trump reverted to the gunboat diplomacy of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, but he’s done so with a caricatured cruelty—sinking boats in the Caribbean in the name of drug interdiction and sending troops to invade Venezuela, a sovereign state.

Just as Theodore Roosevelt used the Navy to seize land from Colombia for the Panama Canal, so Trump sent Special Forces into Venezuela to gain control over its oil. “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies… go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said at a January 3 press conference just hours after President Maduro’s capture. “We’re gonna rebuild the oil infrastructure, which will cost billions of dollars. It will cost us nothing. It’ll be paid for by the oil companies directly.” Such a caricatured assertion of economic interest is likely to inflame resentment in a region where anti-imperialist sensibilities remain strong.

Although it has little chance of success, Trump’s attempt at a tricontinental grand strategy will likely leave a residue of ruin—alienating allies in Latin America, weakening NATO’s position in Western Europe, and ultimately corroding Washington’s global power. From a strategic perspective, a staged US retreat from its military bastion in Western Europe would end its long-standing influence over Eurasia, which remains the epicenter of geopolitical power in this new Cold War era, just as it was in the old one. Such a retreat, at the very moment when Russia and China are expanding their influence over that strategic continent, would be tantamount to a self-inflicted defeat in this era of a new and intensifying Cold War.

To return to those Donald Duck comic books for an appropriate analogy: Just as that bungled grab for a bejeweled idol collapsed the spindly stone pillar holding up the “Seven Cities of Cibola,” so the Trump administration’s inept foreign policy is potentially destabilizing a fragile world order with dangerously unpredictable consequences for us all. And count on one thing, unlike in the comic books, it won’t be even a little bit funny.

According to a major new report from the United Nations University, global water systems are no longer in crisis, but have entered a state of chronic failure, with shortages that extend far beyond temporary shocks or short-term recovery.

Released on January 20 by the UN University’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), Global Water Bankruptcy: Living Beyond Our Hydrological Means in the Post-Crisis Era concludes that the planet has entered the era of global water bankruptcy. This indicates that long-term water use now exceeds renewable inflows, leaving much of Earth’s natural systems damaged beyond realistic repair. In other words, societies have already exhausted or polluted the natural buffers—rivers, aquifers, wetlands, and glaciers—that once sustained them. Droughts, shortages, and pollution events are increasingly becoming persistent features of daily life. In this post-crisis condition, the authors argue, it is best not to describe the situation as a crisis at all, but as water bankruptcy.

At the press conference set to release the report, Kaveh Madani, lead author and director of the UNU-INWEH, emphasized that this is not a semantic shift, but a clear warning that the dominant way governments, markets, and international institutions think about water is no longer fit for reality.

“For decades, scientists, the media, and policymakers have warned about a global water crisis… what we document in this report is a different reality emerging in many places: a persistent failure state in which water systems can no longer realistically return to their historical baselines,” Madani said.

Applied to water, bankruptcy management requires confronting overuse, acknowledging irreversible losses, and aligning development goals with hydrological limits.

The report does not claim that the entire planet is bankrupt. Water bankruptcy is assessed basin by basin and aquifer by aquifer. However, as regions across the globe simultaneously overdraw water and erode the natural systems that sustain it, the world faces a fundamentally altered risk landscape, with cascading threats to food security, agricultural markets, rural livelihoods, and climate feedbacks.

What distinguishes water bankruptcy from familiar narratives of scarcity is the scale of irreversibility. According to the report, societies have not only overdrawn annual renewable water flows, but have also liquidated long-term savings stored in groundwater, wetlands, glaciers, soils, and river ecosystems.

Over the past five decades, the world has lost approximately 410 million hectares of natural wetlands—almost the land area of the European Union—resulting in the disappearance of vital ecosystem services such as flood control, water purification, and habitat provision, valued at more than US$5 trillion. Groundwater depletion is even more consequential. According to the analysis, around 70% of the world’s major aquifers show long-term declining trends. Excessive pumping has already caused land subsidence across nearly 5% of the global land area, including dense urban zones that are home to close to 2 billion people. In some regions, land is sinking by up to 25 centimeters per year, permanently reducing storage capacity and increasing flood risk. These damages are not easily undone. Compacted aquifers, subsided deltas, dried-up lakes, and extinct species represent long-term, irretrievable losses.

As Kaveh Madani emphasizes, “This is not another warning about a future we might still avoid everywhere… It is a diagnosis of a world where, in many basins, the old normal is already gone.”

The current human cost and future risks of water bankruptcy are also staggering. According to the report, nearly three-quarters of the world’s population lives in countries classified as water insecure or critically water insecure. About 2.2 billion people still lack safely managed drinking water, 3.5 billion lack safely managed sanitation, and roughly 4 billion experience severe water scarcity for at least one month each year. The risks are compounded given more than half of global food output is located in regions where total water storage (including surface water, soil moisture, snow, ice, and groundwater) is already declining or unstable.

The report’s crux is that the global water agenda remains stuck in a crisis-response mindset that is no longer fit for purpose. Such alarming figures are partly the result of governments, utilities, and basin authorities continuing to treat chronic overshoot as a temporary emergency. Short-term emergency measures, supply expansion, and incremental efficiency gains dominate policy discussions, even as underlying water balances continue to deteriorate. Ultimately, this only deepens ecological damage and entrenches unsustainable water-use practices.

Madani was clear at the press conference: “Expecting a wicked problem of this scale to have a simple solution is as naïve as the reductionist solutions that helped get us into the current state,” he said.

Instead, the United Nations University calls for a shift to what it terms bankruptcy management, a concept borrowed deliberately from finance. Applied to water, bankruptcy management requires confronting overuse, acknowledging irreversible losses, and aligning development goals with hydrological limits. It also demands protecting remaining aquifers, wetlands, soils, rivers, lakes, and glaciers, rather than treating these life-sustaining systems as expendable capital to prop up unsustainable growth.

The report itself also highlights the social and political dimensions of water bankruptcy, stressing that it is not solely an environmental issue. The costs of hydrological overshoot fall hardest on those least responsible and least able to adapt: smallholder farmers, Indigenous communities, and the urban poor. The authors caution that demand reduction is not politically feasible if treated as a purely technical exercise, noting that abruptly cutting water access for farmers could trigger unemployment, social unrest, and broader instability. Effective management, they argue, must be paired with political and economic transitions that protect livelihoods, provide compensation and risk support, enable shifts in crops and practices, and help economies decouple jobs and growth from ever-rising water use.

Despite their sober diagnosis, the authors do not end in resignation, arguing that water could—and existentially must—still serve as a unifying axis in an increasingly fragmented world. Given water intersects climate, biodiversity, food systems, public health, land use, and political stability, it remains one of the few domains where coordination is both necessary and unavoidable.

“Investing in water is an investment in delivering on all of those [aforementioned] agendas,” said Madani, at the report’s launch. “And in rebuilding cooperation in a fragmented world.”

Similarly, authors stress the importance of upcoming political milestones: the UN Water Conferences in 2026 and 2028, the conclusion of the Water Action Decade, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals deadline. They argue these moments offer a rare window to reset the global water agenda to move beyond incremental efficiency gains and emergency responses toward explicit recognition that many river basins and aquifers have already crossed thresholds where historical conditions cannot be restored.

Yet translating this clarity into action faces stark political and institutional realities. The UN system, tasked with leading such a reset, remains mired in member states cutting funding, worsening geopolitical polarization and international conflict, and key bodies—including the Security Council—grossly failing to uphold the UN Charter’s basic human rights mandates. In practice, declarations and frameworks proliferate, deadlines are extended, but meaningful, coordinated action remains slow, uneven, or hollow. Water may be uniquely cross cutting, yet it is not immune to these structural constraints or the apparent erosion of accountability. Crucially, it also requires that primarily Western, early-industrial economies reckon with histories of inequitable use and extraction that have both driven water shortages and contributed to the persistent inequities of scarcity today.

As with other pressing global crises, the consequences of water bankruptcy may unfold faster than governments and institutions can respond, but the authors argue that naming the problem clearly could galvanize civil society and decision-makers into meaningful action before it’s too late.

“Our message is not despair,” Madani concluded. “It’s clarity. The earlier we face the real balance sheet, the more options we still have.”

As a leftist, I’m heartened by the reactions of the citizens of Minneapolis and its neighboring municipalities to ICE’s assault against their non-citizen neighbors. The killing of Renee Good makes the risk of confronting illiterate armed paramilitaries hopped up on aggression-fueling steroids brutally clear. Plus, this is Minnesota in January. Mixing it up with government goons in the tundra isn’t a weekend walk in the park, or a performative, city-licensed, thrice-yearly “No Kings” stroll down Fifth Avenue.

I was similarly pleased by previous spasms of protest: Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, March for Our Lives, Ferguson, Women’s Marches, the Battle of Seattle. America has leftists. Leftists get angry. Leftists show up.

This is not, at least totally, a conservative country. You wouldn’t know that from our news media. I’m still waiting to see an on-air discussion about a foreign policy crisis in which a guest suggests it’s not our business and that we shouldn’t get involved.

Peaceful protests and violent uprisings like the Los Angeles riots prove that leftists exist.

We exist. But we don’t last.

The trouble is, the American Left post-1970 is congenitally incapable of sustained street activism, of keeping up the energy level beyond a few months at a time—at most. Identity-based movements like MeToo overshoot, discredit themselves and collapse as they eat their own. Issue-oriented demonstrations like the anti-Iraq War marches fade away as defeat breeds demoralization. Because movements based on class- and economic-driven grievances pose the greatest threat to ruling elites, the system crushes them with violent force, as Obama did to Occupy.

Causes come and go, as do expressions of support and disapproval. But nothing close to a sustained left-wing political movement, or party, takes flight.

Millions of words have been strung together to try to explain why Americans haven’t formed a socialist or other leftist force able to counter the government, corporations and their reactionary allies in the media long enough and forcefully enough to win battles for issues like abortion rights and against problems like deindustrialization. Some of those words were mine. Here, now, I want to explain why the left keeps losing and why our protest movements keep running out of steam.

It’s the lack of a broad-based, grassroots organization, stupid.

Why don’t we have such an organization? Because leftists keep getting distracted by the Democratic Party, stupid.

When Americans protest, it’s usually in reaction to a news event. A white cop kills an unarmed Black man or there’s a mass shooting at a school. Obviously, these demonstrations address an underlying issue: racism, militarization of the police, gun control, school security. Because they are reactive, however, the rage inevitably subsides. That’s how rage works. It ebbs. We pack up our placards and go home.

Sometimes a movement coalesces around an issue without any specific trigger. After years of rising income inequality, Occupy Wall Street was announced in a magazine. MeToo centered around a spreadsheet passed around by women that listed men and their alleged depredations in the workplace. Those issue-focused movements lasted longer. After everything was said and argued over, they fizzled out.

A leftist organization would perform two functions we desperately need. First, it would act as an “in case of emergency, break glass” force that could be called upon to act quickly, in force, when and where and as needed. The powers that be would pay more attention if, the next time one of their cops murdered one of us, millions of Americans went on strike.

An organization could cross-pollinate the left with the solidarity a real left needs in order to succeed. Environmentalists could support feminists; economic Marxists could come to the aid of racial justice warriors.

Most importantly, an organization could reframe activism. Rather than responding to each outrage à la carte, only to see interest and energy peter out after having begun only with those who care most about that one issue, a real left organization—as exists in many other countries—could cast the struggle for change as a permanent commitment to a lifetime of fighting the system.

When you join a book club, you choose a new book to read after you discuss the last one. Reading isn’t a one-time thing. The religiously devout go to church weekly, but they also study and volunteer and proselytize and attend prayer meetings. When you’re a true fan of a sports team, you watch and cheer through thick and thin. Only in America is politics so remarkably unsustained and undemanding of people’s time and attention.

When I reference “politics,” I’m talking about opposition outside electoral, two-party nonsense. A leftist organization trains its members, educates them, organizes them, prepares them for whatever may be needed in the future. Rather than react to horrific headlines, it develops a disciplined, consistent platform of issues for which it fights relentlessly, day after day, for years, until victory is achieved—forever, if need be. It sets agendas. Our enemies—the government, Trump, ICE, Wall Street, the warmongers—work every single day. How can we defeat them in our current state?

We need organization and we need focus. Our politics should center around the politics that serve us—nothing else deserves our participation.

Every vote you cast for the Democrats legitimizes their party. Every minute you spend thinking about them or canvassing for them or agitating for them over workplace water coolers and family dinners is a minute sucked away from actual struggle. Giving even the slightest consideration to the possibility that Democrats might someday come through for us on some issue of note is a foolish distraction, self-delusion, pure stupidity.

By all means, keep on protesting in response to the latest atrocity. But if you really want to throw off the shackles of the systemic oppression that creates the incidents that make you so angry, you’ve also got to start building a national leftist organization, outside the Democratic distraction machine, from the bottom up.

(Ted Rall, the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of “Never Mind the Democrats. Here’s What’s Left.” Subscribe: tedrall.Substack.com. He is co-host of the podcast “DeProgram with Ted Rall and John Kiriakou.”)

The post Never Mind the Democrats. Get Organized. appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.