Live 12 noon Eastern, Streaming Anytime Later:

Time for the “DMZ America Podcast,” where best friends from opposite politics come together. Left-wing firebrand Ted Rall and right-wing sharp-shooter Scott Stantis dive headfirst into the wild revelations about Joe Biden’s mental acuity and physical state, as exposed in Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s explosive book, “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.” Joined by political scientist Charles Lipson, the trio unpacks the alleged cover-up that hid Biden’s condition from voters, donors, and even insiders, fueling a political scandal that’s rocking the nation.

This no-BS discussion cuts through the spin, exposing the raw truth behind a deception that tanked Biden’s campaign and reshaped America’s trust in its leaders. With Lipson’s expert insight, Rall’s progressive grit, and Stantis’ conservative edge, expect a fierce, bipartisan takedown of a constitutional crisis that’s got everyone talking. The “DMZ America Podcast” is your go-to for unfiltered takes on news, politics, and culture, recorded weekly by two cartoonists who don’t mess around. Don’t miss this electrifying episode—it’s a must-listen for anyone who cares about truth in politics!

The post DMZ America Podcast Ep 205: “Will Dems Pay for BidenGate?” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Here at the United Nations in New York City, the Security Council is expected to vote on a resolution calling on all parties to respect an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza.

The slaughter in Gaza entraps and attacks the helpless, turning shelters into mass graves, erasing entire families, weaponizing nutrition and famine. The spiraling violence shrieks for our attention, screams for effective protection. Who will save innocent people from snipers, aerial attacks, tank-fired missiles, poisoned water, and starvation? The U.S. and many allies instead work to insulate Israel from accountability.

“Overcoming this cocoon of protection,” said international human rights lawyer and former U.N. official Craig Mokhiber, “requires solidarity between movements, unions, religious communities, and like-minded states working to isolate the Israeli regime and to impose economic, trade, travel, diplomatic, cultural, and other consequences to compel change.”

Meanwhile, all of Gaza remains an open-air prison containing numerous centers where people, including children, are tortured by Israel’s starvation, siege, and bombing.

In NYC, on day 14 of a Veterans For Peace and Allies Fast for Gaza, a former U.S. Marine who helped initiate the fast, Phil Tottenham, urges us to care about Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian woman whose witness on behalf of Palestinians apparently led to her unjust imprisonment.

The current administration has slated her for deportation purely on the grounds that she criticized the government of a foreign country. Far from her home in New Jersey, she is trapped in a Texan county jail. Her plight makes me think of another prisoner, Ron Feiner, an IDF soldier who chose to face prison rather than continue attacking people in Gaza. “I’m horrified by the never-ending war in Gaza,” said Feiner, “by the abandonment of the hostages, by the continued killing of innocent people, and by the complete lack of political vision.” He is now on day nine of what could be a quite dangerous 20-day sentence in an Israeli military prison.

The director of Gaza’s now-demolished Kamal Adwan Hospital, Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, is suffering a longer and much more perious sentence at Israel’s grim Ofer Prison, where his work to heal the sick has seen him designated an “enemy combatant,” and where multiple protracted beating sessions—torture sessions really—have possibly cost him an eye

I think of pediatrician Dr. Alla al-Najjar, whose valuable work at the Nasser medical complex has cost her the lives of all but one of her 10 children, as well as her husband, also an M.D. They were taken from her in a targeted strike on her home while she was at the hospital complex attempting to save other Gazan children. Now she continues her work, trying mightily to save 11-year-old Adam, her only surviving child.

We must also note the appalling conditions of ordinary Palestinian prisoners, many of them held without charge. “They are subjected to a systematic campaign of abuse, starvation, and deliberate medical neglect,” said a recent Addameer report, which goes on to describe “widespread arrest campaigns across cities, villages, and refugee camps, which have led to a massive increase in the number of prisoners and detainees.” Prisoners survive on minimal rations, and many endure brutal and life-threatening treatment.

Meanwhile, all of Gaza remains an open-air prison containing numerous centers where people, including children, are tortured by Israel’s starvation, siege, and bombing.

None of this has been inflicted for the purposes of freeing the remaining hostages captured by Hamas and by the other armed groups who flooded into Israel on one day of rebellion, 20 months ago. The cease-fire agreed upon last November would, had Israel and the U.S. honored it, have provided for the release of all the hostages. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist collaborators would have lost their excuse for ethnically cleansing Gaza, and after that the West Bank.

In 1972, an iconic photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, “running naked, screaming in agony, her body burned by napalm dropped by the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese army,” became a catalyst which helped end the war in Vietnam. Now, 50 years later, images of burning children in Gaza are relentless.

Recently, a video of 7-year-old Ward al-Sheikh Khalil, her tiny body surrounded by flames, went viral. She and her family were sleeping in a school where forcibly displaced Palestinians had moved into classrooms and the courtyard. She survived Israel’s aerial attack, but her mother and five siblings did not. Her father remains in critical condition.

Life becomes limited when we accept that it must be a nightmare for the weak, when we confess that we are more addicted to comfort than we are to compassion—when the service of our appetites causes us to ignore the starving and those deliberately consigned to flames. We who fast might not succeed in our attempted “jailbreak” from this grim prison where we must watch the inmates die off one by one in the next ward over. But in whatever way you can, we urge you to join the attempt.

LIVE 10 AM Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

It’s a special behind-the-scenes episode of “The TMI Show with Ted Rall and Manila Chan,” diving into the sizzling scandal of celebrity lawyer Tom Girardi! Sentenced to 7 years in prison for embezzling $15 million from clients, Girardi’s fall from grace is wild. Once a legal titan who won millions in the Erin Brockovich case and married to “Real Housewives” star Erika Jayne, he’s also at the heart of a twisted L.A. conspiracy. Ted Rall, who had Girardi as his first lawyer against the LA Times, spills the tea on this sordid tale involving the LA Times, LAPD, former LA Times publisher Austin Beutner, and California Governor Gavin Newsom. From Girardi’s lavish lifestyle funded by stolen client money to allegations of political influence and media cover-ups, this story’s got it all—betrayal, fraud, and power plays. Find out how Girardi’s high-powered firm was a front for bigger schemes—and how it could affect the 2028 presidential race? How deep does this web of corruption go? Tune in for a no-holds-barred exposé that’ll leave you shook, exclusively on The TMI Show!

Plus:

• Boulder Update: Family of Boulder attack suspect faces expedited deportation amid controversy over legality and fairness.
• Trump’s BBB: Elon Musk slams Trump’s tax and immigration bill as a “disgusting abomination” threatening massive debt.
• Kerch Bridge Attack: Ukraine’s SBU claims a new underwater strike on Russia’s Kerch Bridge, escalating tensions.
• Dutch Government Collapse: Geert Wilders’ exit from coalition over immigration disputes triggers a political crisis.

The post TMI Show Ep 152: “Exclusive: Inside the Sordid World of Tom Girardi” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Many people, armed only with moral and political convictions, would be too intimidated to confront an army or navy directly. But not all.

Twelve nonviolent human-rights activists with the international Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) are currently sailing a small boat, the Madleen, to Gaza. They hope to create a humanitarian sea corridor through Israel’s illegal blockade. If all goes well, they should arrive this weekend, with “baby formula, flour, rice, diapers, women’s sanitary products, water desalination kits, medical supplies, crutches, and children’s prosthetics.”

They know the danger. Ten volunteers were killed by Israeli commandos when they boarded the Mavi Marmara in 2010. But, as Greta Thunberg said before she embarked last Sunday, “We are doing this because no matter what odds we are against, we have to keep trying, because the moment we stop trying is when we lose our humanity.”

How Palestinians See It

The history is important, and one does not have to approve of Hamas’ attack against Israeli civilians in October 2023 to understand that.

During the Nakba in 1948, at least 750,000 Palestinians were violently displaced from their homelands by Zionist paramilitaries and nascent Israeli forces. As Palestinian-Canadian Samah Al-Sabbagh recently told a crowd, those who survived that colonial onslaught left their “homes, land, olive groves, even the freshly baked bread.”

The occupation has never stopped, and now the violence is more high-tech and all-inclusive in its reach. In Gaza, bombs (largely supplied by the United States) have destroyed homes, apartment buildings, schools, universities, hospitals, mosques, churches, and more—leaving thousands buried under rubble. Adding to that nightmare, doctors report the intentional killing of children with high-velocity bullets that can destroy surrounding tissues and organs.

The death toll is staggering. As of May 27, 2025, the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza reports that at least 54,056 people, including at least 17,400 children, have been confirmed as killed in Gaza since October 2023.

For those still living, Israel’s stranglehold on international humanitarian aid has created widespread malnutrition and starvation, with babies and children the most vulnerable. “One in five people in Gaza, about 500,000 people, faces starvation, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification platform said on May 12,” according to the UN. Indeed, the UN calls Gaza the “hungriest place on Earth.”

Israel and its fellow perpetrators, including the United States, refuse to take seriously the rulings by the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, much less the many human-rights groups decrying genocide, and less still the students and people in the streets making a ruckus for justice.

Perhaps the perpetrators think that ignoring the voice of the people will make it stop, that heartbroken people will give up their moral and legal agency. They should think again.

A Global Civil Society Initiative of Unarmed Civilians

Huwaida Arraf is a Palestinian-American lawyer and activist. She has worked with the International Solidarity Movement, the Free Gaza Movement, and more recently the FFC. Her rationale for sending small, unarmed boats in nonviolent direct actions against Israeli policy? “Our governments have failed. And so the people are taking action.”

Lawyers Arraf and Luigi Daniele assert that there is a strong legal basis for citizens taking action, as world governments ignore their “clear and urgent humanitarian obligations.”

In August 2008, the Free Gaza Movement successfully delivered aid to Gaza, using two small fishing boats named Liberty and Free Gaza. Participants included 44 activists from 17 countries, and they promised that they’d keep returning “until the siege on Gaza was broken.”

Included in the aid they brought were 200 pairs of hearing aids—far short of the 9,000 requested—because so many children were experiencing hearing loss as a result of Israel’s sonic booms.

Two years later, on May 31, 2010, the Israeli navy swarmed the Mavi Marmara. This ship was part of a larger flotilla, carrying nearly 700 people, which was attempting to deliver 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza. The Israelis killed 10 activists—one died after being comatose for four years—and wounded fifty more.

Although the UN Human Rights Council declared the attack illegal—and despite Prime Minister Netanyahu’s apology to Turkey, whose citizens were killed—Israel continued its oppressive blockade.

Between 2010 and 2024, the FFC continued to challenge the siege. But “all ships were pirated by the IOF, and participants were assaulted, kidnapped, interrogated, imprisoned, and/or deported.” (“IOF” identifies the IDF as an occupation force.)

By May 2, 2025, the FFC had prepared their next attempt. The ship was named Conscience as an appeal to the world’s conscience. It was sitting in international waters near Malta, waiting for the volunteers to board and set out for Gaza. But the crew heard drones, and Conscience was struck by two explosives.

“The bombing was a deliberate act of aggression and intimidation,” the FFC wrote on their website. “Four crew members were injured, the ship was set ablaze, communications were severed, and the vessel was left adrift and taking on water. The attack occurred in European waters, in violation of international law.”

Madleen: Never Give Up

The activists say of the Madleen, “She may be small, but her mission is powerful: To break the silence. To challenge Israel’s illegal blockade through nonviolent direct action. To stand firmly and unapologetically, with Gaza.”

The Madleen set sail on June 1, one day after the fifteenth anniversary of the murderous assault on the Mavi Marmara. Activists gathered in Catania, Sicily, in preparation for their launch. The boat is named for Gaza’s first gender-role-defying fisherwoman; she personifies FFC’s steadfastness.

The ship’s namesake, Madleen, fell in love with the sea as a young child. When she was only 13 years old, she took over her injured father’s fishing boat and became the main breadwinner for her family. Although Madleen’s focus was on her family’s survival—not politics—she shared the fishermen’s encounters with Israeli patrols. She recounted, “They often directly attacked my boat. They stole my fishing nets more than once. The thing was that each time they attacked me, I would get a little stronger. I never gave up.”

Years later, she hopes her two daughters will become “two strong fisherwomen.”

May Madleen and the activists happily meet in Gaza this month. And may this stubbornly committed “civil society initiative of unarmed civilians” help the world see that legal and moral obligations are not overridden by governments’ corrupt colonial agendas.

To that end, the FFC asks that people raise their voices and contact the media and government officials to express support for breaking the siege against Gaza.

Readers can track the progress of the Madleen in real time and explore ways to support the FFC’s work. They promise: “We sail until Palestine is free.”

This article first appeared in Foreign Policy In Focus and appears here with permission

If the Abundance universe is to be believed, the hottest ticket this summer is WelcomeFest.

Wednesday’s confab is the second such annual gathering organized by the centrist group Welcome Party and its political action committee WelcomePAC, with this year’s event touting a distinct abundance flair. The conference boasts a rogues’ gallery of corporate-friendly cosponsors, including Third Way, the New Democratic Coalition, Inclusive Abundance, and the Blue Dog Caucus. A sizzle reel from last year’s event paints WelcomeFest as an Internet Hippo tweet come to life, complete with cameos from A-listers like ex-CNN anchor John Avlon and Democratic influencer Olivia Julianna.

Taken together, WelcomePAC’s leadership and funding are at odds with their claimed opposition to the “buttoned-up [politics] of Washington elites.”

This year’s “Responsibility to Win” session (misspelled on the event’s official poster) has drawn viral attention online—both for its bizarre AI Ghibli promos and stacked lineup of neoliberal pundits, conservative Democratic lawmakers, and wunderkind pollsters serving up Dick Morris’ reheated leftovers.

Speakers include:

• Derek Thompson, co-author of Abundance.
• Matt Yglesias, confidently-wrong pundit and, per Thompson, the “OG grandfather of Abundance.”
• Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who doesn’t think Democrats should use the term “oligarchy.”
• Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Abundance champion and darling of AIPAC and crypto lobbyists.
• Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), and Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.), founding members of the Abundance-themed Build America Caucus.
• Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash). and Jared Golden (D-Maine), current and former co-chairs of the conservative Blue Dog Caucus.
• Adam Jentleson, anti-”Groups” crusader currently distancing himself from his 14-month stint as Sen. John Fetterman’s (D-Pa.) chief of staff.
• David Shor, pollster and prolific party animal.

WelcomePAC’s Donors

Campaign finance records reveal that WelcomePAC, the primary organizers of WelcomeFest, has raked in sizable contributions from billionaires and corporate oligarchs:

• Reid Hoffman: LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman has given over $1.8 million to WelcomePAC since 2021. A major donor to former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 campaign and the pro-Harris SuperPAC Future Forward, Hoffman strongly opposed the Biden administration’s anti-monopoly policies and publicly demanded that Harris fire Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan if she won the election. Hoffman has also bankrolled the Mainstream Democrats super PAC, which spent heavily in Democratic primaries in 2022 and 2024 to defend conservative Democrats like Kurt Schrader and Henry Cuellar and defeat progressives like Cori Bush and Nina Turner.

• Walton family: WelcomePAC has received over $1.1 million from relatives and heirs of Walmart founder Sam Walton—the richest family in America.
  • S. Robson (Rob) Walton: Rob Walton, the eldest son of Walmart founder Sam Walton, has given $100,000 to WelcomePAC since 2024.
  • Samuel R. Walton: Samuel R. Walton, grandson of Sam Walton and owner of a natural resources holding company, has given $625,000 to WelcomePAC since 2024.
  • Christy Walton: Christy Walton, widow of one of Sam Walton’s sons, has given $125,000 to WelcomePAC since 2022.
  • Alice Walton: Alice Walton, daughter of Sam Walton, has given $25,000 to WelcomePAC since 2022.
  • Carrie Walton Penner: Walton Penner, daughter of Rob Walton, has given $150,000 to WelcomePAC since 2022. She is also a prolific donor to the anti-public education charter school movement.
  • Greg Penner: Penner, the husband of Carrie Walton and son-in-law of Rob, has given $150,000 to WelcomePAC since 2022. Penner is also Chairman of Walmart’s Board of Directors and a managing partner for the Walton family’s private equity firm.

• Bekenstein family: Bain Capital co-chairman Joshua Bekenstein and his wife Anita have given a combined $375,000 to WelcomePAC since October 2024.

• Michael Bloomberg: Billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has given $100,000 to WelcomePAC since August 2024. Bloomberg is best known for his controversial mayoralty (which saw the expansion of racist “stop-and-frisk” policing tactics and anti-Muslim surveillance) and his expensive, widely-mocked 2020 presidential campaign.

• James & Kathryn Murdoch: James Murdoch—the estranged younger son of News Corp founder Rupert Murdoch—and his wife Kathryn have given a combined $2.5 million to WelcomePAC since April 2024.

• Rob Granieri: Granieri, the co-founder of Wall Street quantitative trading firm Jane Street, has given $100,000 to WelcomePAC since June 2024.

• Edward Fishman: Fishman, a managing director at hedge fund D.E. Shaw, has given $200,000 to WelcomePAC since February 2022.

• Mark Heising: Heising, the founder of private equity firm Medley Partners, has given $250,000 to WelcomePAC since June 2024.

• David Nierenberg: Nierenberg, an investment manager and former national finance co-chair for Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, and his wife Patricia have given a combined $726,600 to WelcomePAC since March 2024.

• Americans Together Inc: Americans Together Inc, a centrist group founded by former Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) daughter Heather Manchin Bresch, has given over $1 million to WelcomePAC since February 2024. A core plank of Americans Together’s policy platform is opposing any repeal or reform of the Senate filibuster (the goal, ironically, of a 2021 book by WelcomeFest speaker Adam Jentleson).
  • Bresch, the former CEO of pharma company Mylan, attracted national attention in 2016 for defending Mylan’s EpiPen price-gouging.

Who’s Actually Welcome to the Party?

While WelcomePAC’s donor roster makes clear who the group wants to welcome into the Democratic tent, its website is quite explicit about who they wish to exclude. WelcomePAC blames the Democratic Party’s woes on an “extreme right and socialist left […] conspiring with conflict-driven media to trash the Democratic brand.” In a poorly-aged 2021 Substack post calling for a “Jim Clyburn Day,” Welcome co-founder Lauren Harper celebrated Clyburn’s 2020 endorsement of Biden for “steering the party away from further polarization that would have led to a second Trump term.”

WelcomeFest organizers have explicitly juxtaposed their event with the purportedly left-wing Democratic National Committee, offering a refuge to those put off by the Democratic Party’s current leadership. They firmly reject unspecified “progressive purity tests” (read: having values), but lack a compelling explanation for why swing and red state voters are flocking to the progressive-populist fight against oligarchy.

Bafflingly, for a group that promises to offer “a vision for a depolarized United States,” WelcomeFest only features Democrats speaking about the need to moderate. The group, which proudly touts the label of “centrist insurgency,” has seemingly little to offer a polarized Republican Party—which is perhaps why their previous campaign to convince five House Republicans to caucus with Democrats failed so spectacularly. This has hardly hampered their push for moderation at all costs. In pursuit of this end, the group has even invented a metric that claims safe blue congressional seats are undemocratic, encouraging Republican challengers to pursue previously uncontested blue seats.

Some of WelcomePAC’s top staff have also spent their careers working to move the Democratic Party to the right. Co-founder Liam Kerr previously spent 10 years working for Democrats for Education Reform, a charter school advocacy organization founded and funded by hedge fund managers. Welcome Party board member Catharine Bellinger has also spent her career working for the same pro-charter school groups as Kerr. WelcomePAC’s political director, Daniel Conway, spent nearly six years working for No Labels, the centrist dark money group co-founded by the late Joe Lieberman that repeatedly attempted to recruit a third party candidate to run for president in 2024.

Taken together, WelcomePAC’s leadership and funding are at odds with their claimed opposition to the “buttoned-up [politics] of Washington elites.” Like Third Way and the Democratic Leadership Council before it, Welcome is yet another donor- and elite-driven operation seeking to drag the Democratic Party rightward on economic policy. That “rebranded neoliberalism” approach risks further alienating the very constituencies that Democrats lost in 2016 and 2024, and ceding further ground to right-wing faux-populists like Vice President JD Vance.

Given the WelcomeFest lineup, it’s clear that the donor class views Abundance as key to carrying out this self-serving crusade against populism.

“Original Sin” was an odd title choice for the recent book, co-authored by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and subtitled “President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and his Disastrous Decision to Run Again.” The book confirms long-standing suspicions about former President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, its handling by Biden’s inner circle, and the Democratic Party leadership’s attempts to conceal it.

These may be sins, but they’re hardly “original.” The earliest confirmed cover-up of presidential incapacity goes back over a century, to President Woodrow Wilson’s 1919 stroke. Ronald Reagan’s aides were so concerned about his inattentiveness, competence, and mood that they proposed invoking the 25th Amendment.[1] Questions about Biden’s cognition were already circulating in Washington by the mid-2010s and were openly discussed during the 2020 election.

In the long arc of history, political cover-ups and lies are relatively venal sins. But genocide is a mortal sin—the worst imaginable.

Meanwhile, the conversation around this book is distracting us from the worst sin of all: genocide.

Out of Sync

American complicity in Palestinian slaughter isn’t “original,” of course; it has a long history. The Biden team’s originality lay in its open disregard for international law and global institutions. They defied the world court system well before Trump did.

Genocide is the worst crime human beings can commit. In the case, it’s also the one nobody’s talking about—even though it cost Democrats the 2024 election.

Other factors affected the outcome, too, of course, but many people predicted that the Gaza genocide would hurt the Democrats[2], perhaps fatally—and all indicators are that it did.

It will continue to hurt them for the foreseeable future. Pew Research reports that, as of March 2025, 53% of Americans held “a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of Israel.” That includes more than two-thirds of all Democrats—at a time when the party’s approval rating has plummeted[3] and it desperately needs renewed enthusiasm among its base voters.

Silent Running

Except for a brief cease-fire, President Donald Trump has continued his predecessor’s assault on Palestine. That’s something we’re all morally obligated to resist. But Democrats, and the equally complicit media, must be held responsible for their actions—actions that made the Trump presidency possible.

When’s the last time anyone believed that the Democratic Party could be persuaded to change just because it was the right thing to do?

No wonder they want to keep talking about Joe Biden. But Biden is gone. If they were serious about changing, Democrats would ask themselves why they let the charade to go on for so long. A few initial answers: big-donor money, disregard for popular opinion[4], a pronounced detachment from the experience of working people, and a party culture of self-advancement and sucking up to power.

What they wouldn’t do is fixate on superficial questions of messaging or image. The problem isn’t their choice of language; it’s not even their “gerontocracy,” as pronounced as that is. The problem is the forces behind their use of language, their perpetuation of incumbent power, and their ossification of thought. These forces stem from the party’s dependence on big money in its various corrupting forms.

A Heaven of Hell

I thought I past being shocked by the behavior of liberal politicians after they’ve been embraced and seduced by the tentacular flow of big money—that never-ending flow of cash which remolds their perceptions as they sit through think-tank conferences, fawning interviews, desserts and conversation at fundraising dinners, or drinks with lobbyists in cigar-scented wood-paneled rooms.

Horrors like the Gaza genocide are transcendental evils, but they’re born in mundane places like these.

And yet, Democrats seem reluctant to sacrifice these pleasures for anything as banal as winning elections. I’m sure that Tapper’s book makes lively conversations at their gatherings. And those conversations mean they don’t have to talk about genocide.

In the long arc of history, political cover-ups and lies are relatively venal sins. But genocide is a mortal sin—the worst imaginable. This one cost the Democrats the presidency in 2024. Unless they change, it will continue to cost them for years and decades to come.

Postscript

A lot of left-leaning columns, including this one, make a habit of citing poll numbers. I think we do it because we hope (sometimes consciously, sometimes not) that we may yet persuade Democrats to govern more humanely—if only out of self-interest.

But since we’re talking about sin, here’s a question: When’s the last time anyone believed that the Democratic Party could be persuaded to change just because it was the right thing to do?

[1] There’s no conclusive proof that Reagan was mentally impaired while in office, although it’s still widely suspected. A clinical analysis of Reagan’s press conferences later concluded that he used a progressively smaller vocabulary as time passed, a pattern that is “associated with the onset and progression of Alzheimer’s disease.” Reagan announced that he had dementia in 1994, six years after leaving office.

[2] I called Gaza “Biden’s Vietnam” in November 2023 and warned it could hurt his presidency in much the say way as Vietnam hurt Lyndon Johnson’s in 1968. The Arab American Institute’s September 2024 poll showed a catastrophic drop in Arab-American voter support. I used AAI’s data on swing states, cross-referenced it with other voter groups in those states who felt strongly about Israel-Palestine (non-Arab Muslims, Black people, and college students), and concluded in October that the election could be lost on the Gaza issue alone. Many others reached the same conclusion.

[3] As of late May 2025, only 36% of those surveyed in an Economist/YouGov poll viewed the Democratic Party favorably while 57% viewed it unfavorably. Republicans fared better, with 41% favorable versus 52% unfavorable. (Still, these results suggest that Americans aren’t very happy with their choices.)

[4] By the end of his first year in office, a Politico/Morning Consult poll showed that voter confidence in Biden’s fitness had plunged, with only 40% agreeing that Biden was “in good health” and 50% disagreeing. Only 46% agreed he was mentally fit for office. At roughly the same time, nearly 60% of voters surveyed told Harvard-Harris pollsters that Biden was too old to be president. By July 2022, two-thirds of Democrats polled said they wanted someone else to lead their party’s ticket in 2024. Roots Action began a “Don’t Run Joe” campaign in 2022.

In an unsigned two-page decision (Trump v. Wilcox) released on May 22, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s move to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board without cause and in the middle of their designated terms. The decision reversed two separate judgments issued by two different D.C. District Court judges that had blocked the firings as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was issued on an expedited basis as part of a rapidly expanding and highly controversial set of truncated decisions known as the “shadow docket,” a term coined by University of Chicago professor William Baude in a 2015 law review article to describe emergency appeals that come before the court outside of its standard “merits” docket and that are typically resolved without complete briefing, oral arguments, or detailed opinions. Although shadow-docket rulings are frequently used to lift, or “stay,” lower-court injunctions while further litigation continues, they often have the same practical effect as final decisions.

The two officials involved in the Wilcox case, Gwynne Wilcox of the NLRB and Cathy Harris of the MSPB, were nominated to their positions by President Joe Biden and were confirmed by the Senate. Before their dismissals, they were set to serve fixed terms, with Wilcox’s tenure expiring in 2028 and Harris’ in 2029.

Kagan is not alone in her critique that the shadow docket undermines precedent and lacks transparency.

The NLRB’s five-member governing board is charged with enforcing U.S. labor law and collective bargaining, and adjudicating alleged unfair labor practices. The MSPB has a three-member board and adjudicates federal employee challenges to adverse employment actions. Both agencies were established by Congress to operate as independent, nonpartisan overseers free from presidential interference.

President Donald Trump has long railed against agency independence. In a 2019 speech at Turning Point USA’s Teen Action Summit, he declared, “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” referring to the second article of the Constitution and the “unitary executive” theory, which contends that all executive power is concentrated in the president. Trump is also a proponent of the goal of “deconstructing the administrative state,” a phrase popularized by Steve Bannon and more recently promoted by Project 2025.

Sensing an opportunity to strike, Trump fired Wilcox, a career labor attorney, on January 27, a week after his second inauguration. Harris was sent packing a month later. The lower-court orders mandating their reinstatements were issued in March. But on April 9, Trump’s solicitor general and former criminal defense attorney D. John Sauer requested the Supreme Court to intervene and put the district-court judgments on hold, allowing the dismissals to take effect while returning the cases to the district courts and the Court of Appeals for additional hearings, a process that could easily take more than a year.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Sauer implored the justices to disregard the court’s 1935 precedent decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held that Congress has the constitutional power to enact laws limiting the president’s authority to fire executive officers of independent agencies that exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. Sauer asked the justices to put the lower-court reinstatement orders on hold or, alternatively, issue a final decision on the merits, endorsing the administration’s actions.

Although the firings of Wilcox and Harris clearly ran afoul of Humphrey’s, the Supreme Court granted a stay, and both women were sacked. Just as shocking, the court did so without hearing oral arguments, and without citing Humphrey’s a single time in its decision.

The three Democratic-appointees on the court dissented. Writing for herself and justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan blasted her Republican colleagues for their bad faith and bias in favor of the president. “For 90 years,” she charged, “Humphrey’s Executor v. United States… has stood as a precedent of this Court. And not just any precedent. Humphrey’s undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control.”

Quoting Alexander Hamilton, she continued, “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents.” Without mentioning the shadow docket by name, she castigated the majority for rushing to judgment, “unrestrained by the rules of briefing and argument—and the passage of time—needed to discipline our decision-making.”

Although the Supreme Court has a long history of entertaining emergency appeals—such as last-minute requests for stays of execution in death penalty cases—emergency requests in high-profile cases proliferated during Trump’s first term, earning the shadow-docket sobriquet. According to Georgetown University law professor and shadow-docket scholar Steve Vladeck, the first Trump administration sought emergency relief 41 times, with the Supreme Court granting relief in 28 of those cases. By comparison, the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations filed a combined total of eight emergency relief requests over a 16-year period.

In December 2017, the Supreme Court issued a shadow-docket ruling allowing the third and final version of Trump’s racist Muslim travel ban to move forward pending further appeals. The court ultimately approved the ban in a 2018 merits decision. Later in Trump’s first go-round, the court used the shadow docket to uphold Trump’s executive actions calling for the diversion of federal funds to construct the southern border wall, prohibiting transgender people from openly serving in the military, and restricting the ability of Central American refugees to seek political asylum.

During Biden’s presidency, the shadow docket shifted to emergency requests filed by red state governments and private parties, but the court maintained its rightward bias. Among other shadow-docket decisions, the court ended Biden’s Covid-19 eviction moratorium; permitted the new six-week Texas abortion ban to take effect (it would later approve the ban in a final decision that overturned Roe v. Wade); and reinstated a first-Trump-term policy that made it easier for companies to pursue projects that pollute U.S. waters.

Kagan is not alone in her critique that the shadow docket undermines precedent and lacks transparency. At times the criticism has become heated. In September 2021, Atlantic staff writer Adam Serwer triggered an open feud with Justice Samuel Alito, penning a column that accused the court’s right-wing majority of publishing its ruling on Texas’ abortion law in the middle of the night to minimize public outcry. In response, Alito excoriated the media during an hour-long live-streamed speech delivered at Notre Dame University for portraying the court’s majority as “a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its ways,” and for feeding “unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution.”

Fortunately, not every shadow-docket order has leaned in the direction of Trump and the MAGA movement. One notable exception was the court’s May 16 ruling that extended an earlier ban on the deportation of undocumented Venezuelan men in immigration custody in Texas under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. But even that decision ended with a note of encouragement for Trump, advising that “The Government may remove the [men]… under other lawful authorities.” There was also an impassioned 14-page dissent written by Alito and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

On May 30, the court issued another pro-Trump shadow-docket order, allowing the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of more than 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela that had been granted by the Biden administration. And in the coming weeks and months, the court can be expected to return to the shadow docket again in cases involving the deportation of undocumented migrants to South Sudan, the operations of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and possibly the legality of Trump’s tariffs.

Given the court’s overall jurisprudence, there is scant reason to be optimistic that it will openly repudiate or substantially limit the president’s authority in these or other cases critical to the nation’s future. As Elizabeth Wydra, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, told Reuters in a 2021 interview, “What we are seeing are the consequences of a deeply conservative court, with the added travesties of the shadow docket.”

This week marks a new dawn for democracy in South Korea. South Koreans have successfully held a snap election, electing Lee Jae-myung as their new president.

The Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung represents a marked shift from former President Yoon Suk Yeol whose surprise martial law declaration last December beset the country with weeks of “insurrection insomnia.” Yoon’s actions upended politics in South Korea with multiple leaders cycled through office in the span of a few weeks. Yoon also fanned the flames of a far right surge in South Korea and exacerbated tensions with North Korea.

In contrast, Lee Jae-myung has pushed for a new approach to North Korea, calling for pragmatic diplomacy and a gradual shift toward peace. Lee’s election offers an opening not only for peace but also for restoring democracy and advancing women’s rights in the country.

As feminist peace activists working in international solidarity, we know that all Korean people deserve to reunite with their family members and live in lands free from landmines and pollution and violence from military bases.

While we celebrate this new dawn for South Korea’s democracy and successful election of a progressive president, feminists recognize that, for the first time in 18 years, none of South Korea’s presidential candidates in this snap election were women, and none—including Lee—placed gender equality at the forefront of their campaigns. Indeed, Lee largely avoided any explicit discussion of gender equality, despite the leadership of young women in ousting Yoon.

If Lee is really to mark a new start to South Korea’s democracy, he must uplift women’s leadership and peace building. No democracy can thrive under toxic patriarchy and militarism. Policies rooted in militarism often shift resources away from policy areas that are critical to the advancement of women and girls. Attacks on democracy and the expansion of militarism threaten women’s rights, and women are more likely to be exposed to gender-based violence during wartime.

That is why, in the week leading up to the snap election, and on the 10-year anniversary of Women Cross DMZ’s founding crossing, I brought a delegation of feminist delegates to march with hundreds of Korean and international women outside the largest overseas U.S. military base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea to call for an end to the 75-year-old Korean War.

Our international delegation included diasporic peace leaders, including Afghan American, Indigenous, Korean American, and South Asian feminists—a powerful act of solidarity recognizing that the ongoing Korean War is a global war. (The U.S.-led United Nations command in Korea is a multinational force with combat forces and contributions from over 20 countries worldwide.)

Our solidarity trek was more timely than ever—and showed how war, militarism, democracy, and women’s rights are deeply intertwined.

Many people don’t know that the Korean War never technically ended but was only halted by the signing of an armistice in 1953. This unresolved state of war has not only kept Korean families separated but has resulted in the buildup of troops and weaponry on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone that separates North and South Korea, ready to reengage in conflict at a moment’s notice. Militarism, war, and division of the peninsula have especially impacted women, who have been leading calls for peace.

The state of war has also shaped South Korean politics throughout history, threatening democracy. Politicians—often backed by the United States—have used the Korean War as justification to maintain power and squash dissent, labeling those who call for peace and democracy “communists” and threats to national security. In December, former President Yoon, who rose to power by courting men who are anti-feminist, declared martial law, accusing the Democratic Party of conducting “anti-state activities” and collaborating with “North Korean communists” to destroy the country. Later, it was revealed that Yoon attempted to bait North Korea into conflict as a pretext for his martial law declaration.

Yoon’s actions were exceptionally brazen, but he was also part of a long line of South Korean authoritarian militaristic leaders. Our international delegation bore witness to this legacy, visiting major sites of South Korean and U.S. militarism: the DMZ, the Civilian Control Zone, Pyeongtaek, Dongducheon, Jeju.

In each place, we learned about the deep scars stemming from decades of war and militarism—including the struggles of Daechuri farmers horrifically brutalized and displaced by state authorities during the expansion of U.S. military base Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek. We also met with Gangjeong villagers protesting the South Korean naval base destroying their ways of life, Dongducheon organizers preventing the destruction of “Monkey House,” and sex worker organizers in Yongjugol fighting for their livelihoods and homes.

While each struggle differed, what was striking was how at each place, people described that state authorities spent millions policing them, surveilling them, wiping out histories, and destroying their homes. They remarked that instead, government officials could have just as easily spent those resources and time on providing social services, healthcare, recognition of history—all the things that actually keep us all safe and secure.

As feminist peace activists working in international solidarity, we know that all Korean people deserve to reunite with their family members and live in lands free from landmines and pollution and violence from military bases.

Given the current attacks on democracy in the United States and across the globe, transnational acts of solidarity are more important than ever. The next generation of South Korean feminist activists say that political leaders must recognize and honor the diversity of the population—including across gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, and racial backgrounds. It is time to imagine a “new democracy”—“not going back to the democracy we used to have.”

Women play crucial roles in changing society from one rooted in militarism to one rooted in peace. Research shows that when women are involved in peace processes, outcomes are more likely to be reached and to last. As the rising far-right threatens peace, stability, and democracy around the world, Lee Jae-myung and South Korea’s leadership must prioritize and support women’s leadership in building sustainable peace.

The “Big Beautiful Bill” federal budget bill passed by House Republicans, which calls for huge increases in defense spending at a time when the U.S. is not at war, reemphasizes the American capitalist system’s flawed priorities. Trump’s BBB bill allocates $144 billion for defense, while slashing $1.6 trillion from Medicaid and SNAP while imposing work requirements and funding cuts. These cuts would deny health coverage to 14 million Americans by 2034 and leave 3 million households without food. Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP plan to gut social safety net programs, which are already suboptimal, at a time when poverty and homelessness are surging. Military expansion always trumps domestic needs, as inequality keeps growing. In 2024, the U.S. poverty rate rose to 12.9%, afflicting 42 million people, while homelessness hit a record 771,000 people, an 18% increase from 2023, including 150,000 children. Why are billions funneled into defense when so many ordinary Americans face economic hardship?

The post Poor? Homeless? Get with the Program appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.” Marx’s aphorism feels newly prescient. Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a jingoistic call on social media for a “new Manhattan Project,” this time to win the so-called race for artificial intelligence supremacy.

But the Manhattan Project is no blueprint. It is a warning—a cautionary tale of what happens when science is conscripted into the service of state power, when open inquiry gives way to nationalist rivalry, and when the cult of progress is severed from ethical responsibility. It shows how secrecy breeds fear, corrodes public trust, and undermines democratic institutions.

The Manhattan Project may have been, as President Harry Truman claimed, “the greatest scientific gamble in history.” But it also represented a gamble with the continuity of life on Earth. It brought the world to the brink of annihilation—an abyss into which we still peer. A second such project may well push us over the edge.

If we are serious about the threats posed by artificial intelligence, we must abandon the illusion that safety lies in outpacing our rivals.

The parallels between the origins of the atomic age and the rise of artificial intelligence are striking. In both, the very individuals at the forefront of technological innovation were also among the first to sound the alarm.

During World War II, atomic scientists raised concerns about the militarization of nuclear energy. Yet, their dissent was suppressed under the strictures of wartime secrecy, and their continued participation was justified by the perceived imperative to build the bomb before Nazi Germany. In reality, that threat had largely subsided by the time the Manhattan Project gathered momentum, as Germany had already abandoned its efforts to develop a nuclear weapon.

The first technical study assessing the feasibility of the bomb concluded that it could indeed be built but warned that “owing to the spreading of radioactive substances with the wind, the bomb could probably not be used without killing large numbers of civilians, and this may make it unsuitable as a weapon…”

When in 1942 scientists theorized that the first atomic chain reaction might ignite the atmosphere, Arthur Holly Compton recalled thinking that if such a risk proved real, then “these bombs must never be made… better to accept the slavery of the Nazis than to run a chance of drawing the final curtain on mankind.”

Leo Szilard drafted a petition urging President Truman to refrain from using it against Japan. He warned that such bombings would be both morally indefensible and strategically shortsighted: “A nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction,” he wrote, “may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.”

Today, we cannot hide behind the pretext of world war. We cannot claim ignorance. Nor can we invoke the specter of an existential adversary. The warnings surrounding artificial intelligence are clear, public, and unequivocal.

In 2014, Stephen Hawking warned that “the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” In more recent years, Geoffrey Hinton, referred to as the “godfather of AI,” resigned from Google while citing mounting concerns about the “existential risk” posed by unchecked AI development. Soon after, a coalition of researchers and industry leaders issued a joint statement asserting that “mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.” Around this time, an open letter, signed by over a thousand experts and tens of thousands of others, called for a temporary pause on AI development to reflect on its trajectory and long-term consequences.

Yet the race to develop ever more powerful artificial intelligence continues unabated, propelled less by foresight than by fear that halting progress would mean falling behind rivals, particularly China. But in the face of such profound risks, one must ask: win what, exactly?

Reflecting on the similar failure to confront the perils of technological advancement in his own time, Albert Einstein warned, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our mode of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” His words remain no less urgent today.

The lesson should be obvious: We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the atomic age. To invoke the Manhattan Project as a model for AI development is not only historically ignorant but also politically reckless.

What we need is not a renewed arms race fueled by fear, competition, and secrecy, but its opposite: a global initiative to democratize and demilitarize technological development, one that prioritizes human needs, centers dignity and justice, and advances the collective well-being of all.

More than 30 years ago, Daniel Ellsberg, former nuclear war planner turned whistleblower, called for a different kind of Manhattan Project. One not to build new weapons, but to undo the harm of the first and to dismantle the doomsday machines that we already have. That vision remains the only rational and morally defensible Manhattan Project worth pursuing.

We cannot afford to recognize and act upon this only in hindsight, as was the case with the atomic bomb. As Joseph Rotblat, the sole scientist to resign from the Project on ethical grounds, reflected on their collective failure:

The nuclear age is the creation of scientists… in total disregard for the basic tenets of science… openness and universality. It was conceived in secrecy, and usurped—even before birth—by one state to give it political dominance. With such congenital defects, and being nurtured by an army of Dr. Strangeloves, it is no wonder that the creation grew into a monster… We, scientists, have a great deal to answer for.

If the path we are on leads to disaster, the answer is not to accelerate. As physicians Bernard Lown and Evgeni Chazov warned during the height of the Cold War arms race: “When racing toward a precipice, it is progress to stop.”

We must stop not out of opposition to progress, but to pursue a different kind of progress: one rooted in scientific ethics, a respect for humanity, and a commitment to our collective survival.

If we are serious about the threats posed by artificial intelligence, we must abandon the illusion that safety lies in outpacing our rivals. As those most intimately familiar with this technology have warned, there can be no victory in this race, only an acceleration of a shared catastrophe.

We have thus far narrowly survived the nuclear age. But if we fail to heed its lessons and forsake our own human intelligence, we may not survive the age of artificial intelligence.

I have a story to tell that feels eerily relevant to our dire political moment.

It’s 1953, and I’m 9 years old in Fort Worth, Texas. I hear a knock at the door, and I rush to say hello. A stern man looks down at me: “I’m from the FBI, and I need to speak with your parents.”

Hmmm… must be important, I thought, calling out: “Mommy, daddy, someone’s come to see us!”

Yes, indeed, it was grave—totally unexpected and life changing.

Since none of today’s mighty challenges—from climate chaos to virtually unprecedented economic inequity—can be addressed without democracy, our calling is clear.

“I’m with the FBI,” he said. My dad invited him in, and they sat talking. I had no idea what was going on. But later my folks explained that the FBI was investigating us because my parents had co-founded the first Unitarian Church in our city. Somehow that made us suspect—as communists or sympathizers.

My parents were not arrested. But word spread quickly of the FBI probe, and some of my best friends’ dads lost their jobs solely by virtue of association with it. The trauma in our community was great.

Our family escaped the harm others suffered likely because my dad’s work as a forecaster in the U.S. Weather Bureau was essential. He soon accepted a two-year “hardship” post on a tiny island in the Pacific, which later I came to assume was an attempt to evade this suppression.

For most of my life, I have assumed our church was targeted because the FBI believed Unitarians were atheists, which at the time was associated with communism. Only many decades later when I gained access to FBI archival material did I discover that I was wrong. Our church was targeted because it was integrated when Fort Worth was strictly segregated.

This awful time came to be called “McCarthyism”—triggered by the leadership of the junior senator from Wisconsin—Joseph R. McCarthy who in 1950 alleged that he had a list of 205 suspected communists who were working in the government.

Eventually, it led to a period of fear, limiting freedom of speech and thought. As happened in Fort Worth, many were blacklisted, lost jobs, or faced persecution. And many more hesitated to express dissenting opinions for fear of being labeled a communist. Such self-censoring no doubt led to stifling intellectual and artistic life.

Now in our current moment, I find myself asking: Are Donald Trump’s tactics just as dangerous to democracy?

For one, both rest on false premises. About 10 months ago, NPR produced an analysis called “162 Lies and Distortions in a News Conference: NPR Fact-Checks Former President Trump.” It found that he uttered “more than two a minute.” Late last year New York Times columnist Peter Baker decried that “Trump’s Wild Claims, Conspiracies, and Falsehoods Redefine Presidential Bounds.” Perhaps most destructive to democracy was his lie that he was the real winner of the 2020 election.

Yet, today lies continue to undermine democracy, and, just as in the McCarthy era, they are not without consequence.

Immigration has been one of the clearest areas where lies abound. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans, and they complement rather than compete in jobs while adding to our GDP and taxes. Yet, Trump has cracked down on the border.

In an opinion piece published in late April, I argued that the removal of migrants without due-process—and particularly the targeting of those who had been advocates for causes contrary to Trump’s agenda—posed a deep threat to key democratic principles including free speech.

It hasn’t stopped with migrants: Without constitutional power, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.). Charged with a crime for going to an ICE facility to oversee its action, which she described as “my job and my lawful right as a member of Congress.” When ICE moved to arrest Mayor Baraka, colleagues encircled him, but ICE pushed through and arrested the mayor.

Many of us have heard the refrain that “democracy dies in darkness,” the slogan officially adopted by The Washington Post (now ironically owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos). It feels right. Fact-based exchange is democracy’s life blood.

I began with my memories of the lives devastated by lies in the 1950s. And, as the cliché goes, those who do not learn from history will repeat its errors.

Today, most of us would likely agree that democracy cannot survive without fact-based interchange, as history offers strong evidence—from Hitler to Stalin to Mao Zedong whose lies divided their people.

And, since none of today’s mighty challenges—from climate chaos to virtually unprecedented economic inequity—can be addressed without democracy, our calling is clear. Democracy requires our determination to create a more widely shared understanding of the dangers we face.

Remember every one of us is an influencer. So, we can fact-check the many charges so dividing our nation and speak up in conversations with friends, family, and coworkers. We can support citizen organizations such as Democracy Forward “using legal strategies to challenge anti-democratic actions and advance democratic values” and Protect Democracy working to “defend elections, the rule of law, and fact-based political debate against authoritarian threat.” Another is Common Cause fighting for “the democracy we deserve” via transparency, accountability, and campaign finance reform.

When so much is at stake, democracy itself is our moral calling.

LIVE 10 AM Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Today brings you a heart-pounding episode of “The TMI Show with hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan,” diving into a game-changing medical revolution! Japan’s Nara Medical University, led by Professor Hiromi Sakai, is making waves with clinical trials for universal artificial blood. Rare blood type? No problem! Nara has you covered with fake blood.

This purple-hued, hemoglobin-based blood, usable for all blood types and storable for two years at room temperature, could solve global blood shortages, especially in emergencies and low-income nations with sketchy refrigeration facilities. With only 40% of the world’s 118 million annual blood donations coming from high-income countries, millions of sick people lack access to the kind of transfusions that saved Ted’s life in 1984, costing lives in trauma, surgery, and childbirth.

Sakai’s lab is out to eliminate infection risks, blood type mismatches, and short shelf life, hoping to launch by 2030. But it’s not without risks—previous artificial blood trials in the U.S. and U.K. raised safety concerns like toxicity and immune reactions. Will Japan’s project solve these issues or face similar setbacks? Tune in for a deep dive into this potential lifesaver and its global impact.

Plus:

A Boulder man’s chilling plot to attack a pro-Israel group with Molotov cocktails, for which he has been charged as a hate criminal.

The dish behind Ukraine’s daring “Operation Spiderweb” drone strikes that destroyed Russian bombers, forcing global defense strategists to rethink everything.

The post TMI Show Ep 151: “Artificial Blood Breakthrough” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Every spring, Larry Fink, CEO of the world's largest asset manager BlackRock, publishes his annual letter to investors, often heralded as an indicator of where the financial industry is headed. This year, Fink focused on the need to "democratize" investing by giving regular people more access to invest in private markets, meaning businesses outside of stock exchanges.

Fink argued this move would not only help more people save more money for retirement, but that these investments are necessary to help meet the growing need for financing for the infrastructure and energy needs of the future. Unfortunately, his take on the energy needs of the future is concerning, emphasizing fossil fuel pipelines and infrastructure and AI data centers, while casting doubt on renewables.

Democratizing investing is a noble goal, but Fink's annual letter misses a key point: A secure retirement isn't just about the money you save, it's about retiring into a world you want to live in, with healthy communities and a livable climate. By failing to encourage investments that help facilitate the transition to a clean energy economy and create green jobs, BlackRock's efforts will undermine the long-term success of our financial markets and threaten the ability of everyday Americans to retire with dignity. If asset managers like BlackRock truly want to help people retire, they must uplift investments that increase returns for individuals AND help build a future where everyone thrives.

America's Investment Landscape

In pushing forward BlackRock's agenda on private markets, Fink's annual letter conveniently ignores two critical realities.

The first is the growing problem of economic inequality in the United States. The difficulty so many Americans face in reaching their saving and investing goals has less to do with limited access to private markets, and more to do with our egregious income divide. Right now, the top 1% holds nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. Helping more people be financially secure in retirement begins with investing in our communities and climate solutions to help create green jobs so that more people have the resources they need to save.

The second is the growing need for financing for, and opportunities to invest in, climate resilience and the clean energy transition. This includes everything from renewable energy infrastructure to disaster-proof buildings and climate-resilient farming.

True retirement security comes not only from individual savings, but from living in a world where our investments foster a safe and thriving future for all.

Estimates show global investments in clean energy must reach $4 trillion annually by 2030 to hit global climate goals. Although this goal may seem huge, reaching it is necessary to prevent much larger losses to our economy. By 2050, without further action, climate damages could permanently shrink economic output by 20%, cost $38 trillion annually, and slash global stocks by 50%. This translates to trillions of dollars lost annually due to extreme weather, damaged infrastructure, and lower productivity. Alongside these widespread economic losses, retirement savings would take a major hit. In other words, failing to invest in the transition to a clean energy economy will make our communities—and our savings—much worse off.

Instead of focusing his annual letter on private markets, Fink should have focused on the investments necessary to support the long-term financial security and peace of mind for the millions of people he claims he wants to help save for retirement. Only by making investments in climate resilience and clean energy can asset managers like BlackRock truly protect the retirement savings of everyday Americans.

Financial Security Goes Beyond the Numbers

Retiring with dignity is not merely about having the financial security to live comfortably. It's also about the broader environment in which people live and age, which is something Fink apparently forgets. It's not only about having investment portfolios that can weather climate-related risks, but about having thriving communities and flourishing economies to retire in: cities with liveable temperatures, modern buildings, and plentiful clean energy, and people with access to good jobs, quality education, and affordable housing.

Financial security isn't just about having a diversified portfolio and a comfortable nest egg—it's intricately linked to the health of the environment. Ignoring climate risks jeopardizes the well-being of future retirees and the communities they call home. True retirement security comes not only from individual savings, but from living in a world where our investments foster a safe and thriving future for all.

To truly democratize investing, asset managers like BlackRock must direct their investment strategies to support climate resilience and the clean energy transition and provide prosperity for all Americans, within individual portfolios and beyond.

Angelim is a small rural community in Piauí, northeastern Brazil, where small-scale farmers and artisans have lived for generations. Their way of life dramatically changed a few years ago when a company arrived, claiming it had purchased the land. Residents report being threatened by armed men. They have faced forest clearances and the destruction of native vegetation that is essential for their livelihoods and way of life. New monoculture plantations began to dry up the wetlands. The plantations also used pesticides, polluting the ecosystem and threatening residents’ health and livelihoods.

Angelim is located in the municipality of Santa Filomena and is just one of many communities affected by land acquisitions by Radar Propriedades Agrícolas, a company formed in 2008 as a joint venture between U.S. pension fund TIAA and Brazilian agribusiness giant Cosan. In recent years, Radar has acquired more than 3,000 hectares in Santa Filomena, adding to the land it already owns throughout the Matopiba region, which includes the Brazilian states of Maranhão, Tocantins, Piauí, and Bahia—the latest frontier of industrial agriculture in Brazil.

Elite Group

This region sits in the Cerrado, one of the world’s most biodiverse areas, home to 12,000 plant species (35% endemic) and 25 million people, including Indigenous Peoples and small-scale food providers. But 40-55% of the Cerrado has already been converted to commercial tree plantations, large agro-industrial monocultures, and pastures for cattle production. Land grabs, speculation, and deforestation are displacing communities and damaging the environment. One of the major players in this expansion is TIAA and its asset management company, Nuveen.

Tackling land inequality is crucial for a more just and sustainable future.

As revealed in our new report, TIAA is one of the world’s largest landowners and has almost quadrupled its landholdings since 2012. Managing 1.2 million hectares across 10 countries, it ranks 7th among the world’s top 10 transnational landowners, who together control 404,457 square kilometers—an area the size of Japan.

Others in this elite group include financial investors like Blue Carbon from the UAE, Australia-based Macquarie, and Canada’s Manulife; agribusiness giants Olam and Wilmar from Singapore; Chilean timber company Arauco; and U.K.-based Shell via Raízen, a Brazilian subsidiary.

Global Land Grabbing and Concentration Trends

This accumulation of land in the hands of a few transnational companies is part of a global trend of land grabbing that surged after the 2008 financial crisis. Since 2000, transnational investors have acquired an estimated 65 million hectares of land—twice the size of Germany. This has accelerated a dynamic of land concentration, which has resulted in 1% of farms controlling 70% of global farmland, a trend that jeopardizes the livelihoods of 2.5 billion smallholder farmers and 1.4 billion of the world’s poorest, most of whom depend on agriculture.

As the case of the Angelim community shows, land grabbing and land concentration have devastating consequences for communities and ecosystems. Like U.S.-based TIAA, virtually all the top global landowners have reportedly been implicated in forced displacements, environmental destruction, and violence against local people.

Land concentration exacerbates inequality, erodes social cohesion, and fuels conflict. But there are deeper consequences as well: The fact that vast tracts of land, located across different state jurisdictions, are brought under the control of distant corporate entities for the sake of global supply chains or global financial capital flows runs diametrically counter to the principles of state sovereignty and people’s self-determination. In particular, it undermines states’ ability to ensure that land tenure serves the public good and enables the transition to more sustainable economic models.

“Net Zero” Fueling Evictions

The question of who should own and manage land becomes even more pressing in light of climate change and biodiversity loss. Transnational landowners are associated with industrial monoculture plantations, deforestation, and other extractive practices. In contrast, up to 80% of intact forests are found on lands managed by Indigenous Peoples and other rural communities. Moreover, small-scale food providers practicing agroecology support higher biodiversity, better water management, and produce over half the world’s food using just 35% of global cropland.

Ironically, the environmental value of community-managed land has sparked a new wave of land grabs. So-called “green grabs” (land grabs for alleged environmental purposes) now account for about 20% of large-scale land deals. Since 2016, more than 5.2 million hectares in Africa have been acquired for carbon offset projects. The global carbon market is expected to quadruple in the next seven years, and over half of the top 10 global landowners now claim participation in carbon and biodiversity markets. “Net zero” has become a pretext for expelling communities from their lands.

From Deregulation to Redistribution

While global land policy debates in the past 10 years have focused on limiting the harm of land grabs on people and nature, the scale and severity of these trends demand a shift from regulation to redistribution. Neoliberal deregulation, as well as trade and other economic policies, have fueled the massive transfer of land and wealth to the corporate sector and the ultra-rich. Redistributive policies are needed to reverse this trend.

Tackling land inequality is crucial for a more just and sustainable future. However, only very few countries implement land policies and agrarian reform programs that actively attempt to redistribute and return land to dispossessed peoples and communities.

The international human rights framework requires states to structure their land tenure systems in ways that ensure broad and equitable distribution of natural resources and their sustainable use. The tools at the disposal of governments include redistribution, restitution, and the protection of collective and customary tenure systems, as well as measures such as ceilings on land ownership (including by corporate entities), protection and facilitation of use rights over publicly owned land, and participatory and inclusive land-use planning. These efforts must also be matched by redistributive fiscal policies, such as progressive land and property taxes, which remain regressive or ineffective in most countries today, thus perpetuating inequality and enabling wealth concentration.

International Cooperation

Because land grabbing is driven by global capital and the accumulation of land across jurisdictions by transnational corporations and financial entities, international cooperation is essential. The upcoming International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) in Colombia in February 2026 offers a critical moment for governments to agree on measures that end land grabbing, reverse land concentration, and ensure broad and sustainable distribution of natural resources.

To be effective, these discussions should connect with initiatives on a global tax convention and an international mechanism to address sovereign debt, empowering states to have the fiscal space to implement human rights-based, redistributive policies and just transitions. Also important are binding legal provisions that prevent transnational corporations from using the power of their money to bend national rules in their pursuit of profits.

In a world facing intersecting crises—climate breakdown, food insecurity, persisting poverty, and social inequality—and a reconfiguration of the global balance of power, there is an opportunity to move away from neoliberal policies that have benefited very few, and to create a more just and sustainable global future for all.

A storm is brewing in U.S.-Mexico relations, and its epicenter is the newly appointed U.S. ambassador: Ronald Johnson, a former Green Beret and CIA operative with deep ties to U.S. military interventions in Central America.

Johnson arrived in Mexico City on May 15 and presented his diplomatic credentials to President Claudia Sheinbaum on May 19, triggering alarm among activists, political observers, and civil society leaders on both sides of the border.

To many, Johnson’s appointment is not just a diplomatic formality—it’s a signal. “It’s a declaration of war, basically, on Mexico,” said Marco Castillo, co-executive director of Global Exchange, during a recent episode of the podcast WTF Is Going on in Latin America & the Caribbean. “It feels like one step before Trump attempts to set foot in Mexico.”

A Familiar Face From a Violent Past

Johnson’s résumé reads like a blueprint for interventionism. In the 1980s, he worked with right-wing paramilitary groups in El Salvador and Panama. His associations include relationships with controversial U.S.-backed figures accused of human rights abuses during Reagan’s Central American “Dirty Wars.” During the first Trump administration, Johnson served as U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador (2019-2021), developing a close relationship with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.

“To those of us who worked in Central America in the 1980s, he’s a figure that’s never really gone away,” said WTF co-host and activist Teri Mattson. “This is a profound message Trump is sending to Mexico and the region.”

Johnson’s appointment is not just a personnel change—it’s a test of will, sovereignty, and solidarity.

Observers draw parallels between Johnson’s arrival and a larger arc of escalating U.S. hostility toward Mexico that began years ago. Mattson recalled a WTF episode from April 2022 titled “Challenging the U.S. Narrative on Mexico,” which chronicled rising anti-Mexico sentiment in U.S. media, including opposition to Mexican energy reforms and false claims tying cartels to U.S. military hardware sent to Ukraine.

“Johnson is not an aberration—he’s the culmination,” said Mattson. “He’s the endpoint of a continuum that began at least in 2021.”

A Pattern of Political Provocation

The backlash intensified when it was revealed that even before receiving formal recognition as ambassador, Johnson dined with Eduardo Verástegui, the Mexican ultra-conservative and unofficial Trump envoy. Verástegui, President of CPAC Mexico, is known for his alignment with U.S. right-wing interests and has long tried to position himself as Trump’s proxy in Mexico.

“That’s not a coincidence. That’s a statement,” said Castillo. “This is not how you build a respectful relationship with your closest neighbor.”

Indeed, Johnson’s appointment seems designed to antagonize. Activists and analysts fear his presence will embolden right-wing actors within Mexico and destabilize efforts toward national sovereignty, particularly as the country approaches pivotal judicial elections.

Strategic Interests, Economic Pressure

Beyond ideology, Johnson’s arrival is seen as part of a broader geopolitical strategy. Mexico is now the United States’ top trading partner, eclipsing even China, and the stakes of the fourth quarter 2025 review of the U.S.-Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA or TMEC, as it’s known in Mexico) are higher than ever. Under the surface of trade talks lies a tug-of-war over energy sovereignty, technology patents, and labor rights.

“The U.S. has tried everything—sanctions, media campaigns, diplomatic pressure—to undermine Mexico’s progressive reforms,” said Alina Duarte, a journalist and activist who co-hosted the WTF episode. “But this ambassador is different. He’s not just a diplomat. He’s a weapon.”

In 2024 alone, U.S.-Mexico trade reached over $840 billion, with Mexican manufacturing playing a key role in the electric vehicle supply chain and artificial intelligence infrastructure. Activists believe this economic dependence gives the U.S. incentive to suppress Mexico’s drive for self-determination, particularly under the leadership of President Sheinbaum and the MORENA party.

“Mexico’s energy reforms threaten U.S. corporate interests in tech, AI, and EVs,” said Mattson. “That’s what this is really about.”

Assassinations and Escalation

Just one day after Johnson formally presented his credentials, two close political allies of Mexico City Governor Clara Brugada (MORENA) were assassinated. While no official connection has been established, the timing has rattled many.

“We’ve never seen something like this—not in Mexico City,” said Duarte. “These were people directly tied to progressive governance. The implication is chilling.”

Yet activists remain undeterred. They call on U.S. citizens and organizations to reject Johnson’s appointment and demand a foreign policy grounded in justice, not domination.

In the wake of the killings, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement accusing the Mexican government of complicity with organized crime, while simultaneously acknowledging that U.S.-made weapons are fueling that very violence.

“This isn’t just hypocrisy,” said Castillo. “It’s gaslighting. Over 70% of the weapons used in crimes in Mexico are trafficked from the United States.”

“It’s a confession,” added Duarte.

Mexico has responded by filing lawsuits against U.S. gun manufacturers and sellers, but progress has been slow. A pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court may determine whether these companies can be held accountable for arms flooding Mexico’s criminal networks.

Building a Transnational Resistance

In response to these rising tensions, Castillo and a coalition of labor unions, civil society organizations, and Indigenous leaders recently convened a binational assembly on the USMCA in Mexico City. The event aimed to link economic justice to human rights and to forge a coordinated strategy for regional solidarity.

“If we’re not included in the negotiations, then we say: No more trade without rights,” Castillo declared. “This deal has made trillions for corporations, but very little for the people.”

The assembly brought together voices from across Mexico and the U.S., highlighting how the USMCA has enabled corporate abuses, weakened labor protections, and escalated surveillance. Many warned that without structural changes, the deal would continue to enable exploitation and violence.

Eyes on the Judiciary and the Future of Democracy

The timing of Johnson’s arrival is also significant because it coincided with a historic election in Mexico. On June 1, Mexican voters directly elected members of the judiciary—a groundbreaking shift in Latin American democracy.

“It’s a moment of enormous pressure,” said Duarte. “The U.S. and its allies want Claudia Sheinbaum and the Fourth Transformation to fail. But the people have a chance to make history.”

Mexico’s so-called Fourth Transformation—a sweeping set of reforms aimed at curbing corruption, empowering the poor, and reclaiming national sovereignty—has faced constant sabotage from conservative elites, many with direct ties to Washington.

“This is part of a regional pattern,” said Mattson. “We saw the same with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Milei in Argentina. Now Trump wants a proxy in Mexico.”

Yet activists remain undeterred. They call on U.S. citizens and organizations to reject Johnson’s appointment and demand a foreign policy grounded in justice, not domination.

“Mexico will always be your neighbor,” said Castillo. “If the U.S. continues to bully and attack us, it’s sabotaging its own future.”

A Crossroads for the Hemisphere

As Mexico moves toward a historic democratic moment, it does so under the shadow of renewed U.S. interference. Johnson’s appointment is not just a personnel change—it’s a test of will, sovereignty, and solidarity.

“Trump’s hawk is here, but so are we,” said Duarte. “And we’re not going anywhere.”

The European Union came into existence in 1992 with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, which led to a single market, border-free travel, and the euro. Since then, the E.U. has evolved in various ways, although it has stopped short of developing a centralized fiscal authority and setting up a European army. Moreover, the E.U. has long been plagued by a number of legitimacy problems that have given rise to Euroscepticism among both left-wing and right-wing citizens.

Nonetheless, certain recent global developments are forcing the E.U. to upend many long-held ideas and norms about its own security and relations with other countries. Russia’s war in Ukraine and the sudden shift in U.S. policy toward Europe have made both policymakers and citizens across the continent more aware of the need not only for deeper integration and a new European governance architecture but also of the historical necessity to create a new world order. While Russia’s war in Ukraine has forced the E.U. to rethink its energy policy and compelled countries such as Finland and Sweden to become full members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it is U.S. President Donald Trump’s hostility toward Europe and its institutions that is bringing Europeans closer together and even making them realize that the E.U. is a safe haven when all is said and done.

Indeed, the latest Eurobarometer survey, which was released on May 27, 2025, reveals the highest level of trust in the E.U. in nearly two decades and the highest support ever for the common currency. The overwhelming majority of respondents also displayed support for a common defense system among E.U. member states and opposition to tariffs. Equally impressive is the fact that a huge majority agreed that the E.U. is “a place of stability in a troubled world.”

Trump is trying to remake the United States in his own image and also to destroy the E.U., which he says is “nastier than China.”

These findings come just days after Trump told a rally in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania that he will double tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50%. This move, which will take effect on June 4, prompted the European Commission to announce that Europe is prepared to roll out countermeasures in order to retaliate against President Trump’s plan to increase steel and aluminum tariffs. It said that it “strongly” regrets Trump’s threat and that “if no mutually acceptable solution is reached both existing and additional E.U. measures will automatically take effect on July 14—or earlier, if circumstances require.”

The concern among many Europeans is that U.S.-E.U. relations are not only seriously damaged but that the U.S. has now become Europe’s enemy. Since coming to office, Trump has launched an active campaign against European democracy, with members of his administration not only bashing Europe but openly supporting far-right parties across the continent.

The common perception about Europe is that it is indecisive, too slow to act, even when major crises come knocking at its door. There is an element of truth in that, as the E.U. has shown a proclivity for reactive rather than proactive political behavior. But the Trump shock appears to be rousing Europe from its geopolitical slumber. The E.U. is standing up to the bully in Washington and is looking after Europe’s own interests with greater zeal than ever before. This is because there is indeed an emerging consensus among European policymakers and experts alike that Trump wants to do to Europe what he is doing to the U.S.--i.e., destroy its civil society. MAGA hates Europe for cultural and political reasons. For Trump, as Célia Belin, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and head of the Paris office, aptly put it, “Europeans are an extension of his political opposition at home... and Europe is thus a symbol of the political ideals [that] Trump seeks to eliminate, transform, and subjugate.”

In its attempts to find a new role in world affairs in the Trump era, Europe is not merely reacting to Washington’s whims but seeks to implement policies that reinforce its own strategic autonomy, both internally and externally. The European Commission has updated its industrial strategy by speeding up clean energy and pursuing new trade agreements with reliable partners. While some European leaders see both Russia and China as representing a threat to the rules-based international order, there have been numerous calls by various policymakers across the continent for a closer collaboration between China and the E.U. in light of “Trump’s ‘mafia-like’ tactics.” European Union leaders will travel for a high-stakes summit to Beijing in July after failing to convince Chinese President Xi Jinping to visit Brussels for a summit marking the 50th anniversary of E.U.-China diplomatic relations. And France has called for a stronger E.U.-China alignment on climate action amid the U.S.’ withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

China is the E.U.’s second-largest trading partner. Europe is, in fact, not only growing more dependent on China for manufactured goods but, in spite of differences in bilateral relations, such as China’s position on the war in Ukraine, is actually warming up to the idea that the E.U.-China relationship is an essential vehicle for tackling global challenges and safeguarding international multilateralism.

Europe is also looking into other regions of the world as part of a concerted effort to promote ever more vigorously its own strategic autonomy. Since Trump took office, the E.U. concluded a free trade agreement with Mercosur, an economic bloc made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia, with scores of other countries (among them are Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru) as associate members. Mercosur, or the Southern Common Market, is the fifth-largest economy and encompasses more than 285 million people.

The E.U.-Mercosur agreement, which had been in the making for 25 years, still needs to be ratified, and Argentina’s far-right Milei government, which is in close political-ideological alignment with the Trump administration, could prove to be a stumbling block to its ratification. Argentinian President Javier Milei is, in fact, more interested in signing a free trade agreement with the United States, which would be in violation of Mercosur regulations.

After many years of negotiations, the E.U. is also close to finalizing a free trade agreement with India. The 11th round of negotiations between India and the E.U. concluded on May 16, and there is a firm commitment by both sides to strike a deal by the end of 2025. As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, this agreement would be “the largest deal of its kind anywhere in the world.”

If ratified, the E.U.-Mercosur free trade agreement will create a market of around 800 million people. When finalized, the E.U.-India free trade agreement will create a market of close to 2 billion consumers.

Trump is trying to remake the United States in his own image and also to destroy the E.U., which he says is “nastier than China.” One would like to believe that it is probably unlikely that he will succeed in remaking the U.S. in his own nasty image, but it is positively certain that he will not succeed in destroying Europe and its institutions, even though there is a lot that needs to be done to create a fairer and more inclusive Europe. In the meantime, however, Trump’s “mafia-like tactics” are bringing Europeans closer together and the continent ever closer to other regions of the world.

Was the Washington D.C. attack antisemitic?

In the U.S. mainstream media, that question isn’t even asked—the answer, apparently, goes without saying. The alleged assassin said, “Free, free Palestine,” participated in protests against Israel’s war against Gaza, and shared or authored a social media post that “condemned the Israeli and American governments and what it called atrocities committed by the Israeli military against Palestinians.” The victims were Israeli embassy employees.

Mainstream media, and the U.S. bipartisan consensus, criminalize protest by conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, conflating emotional distress with harassment, and conflating disruption—no matter how peaceful—with violence.

After describing these facts (and distancing itself from the well-documented fact that the Israeli military was committing atrocities against Palestinians), The New York Times immediately asked, “Has there been a rise in antisemitic attacks?” Like the major organizations that track “antisemitic incidents,” the Times does not distinguish between incidents that target Israel and its policies, and incidents that target Jews. The Times thus joins the bipartisan consensus that has increasingly made it impossible to name or protest Israel’s daily unfolding crimes against humanity without being accused of antisemitism.

I don’t have any inside information on Elias Rodriguez’s motives, beyond his words at the scene and the manifesto attributed to him. Neither these sources nor the evidence compiled by the FBI and the Times provide any hints of antisemitism. Instead, they express his outrage at Israeli atrocities in Gaza. But that didn’t stop the NYT, The Washington Post, NPR, and other sources from leaping to the conclusion.

When Does a Movement Get Blamed for a Lone Shooter?

The incident bears comparison to Luigi Mangione’s alleged shooting of Brian Thompson, the UnitedHealthcare CEO, in December 2024. In both cases, the accused declared a clear political motive for the killing. In both cases, the alleged killers expressed political sentiments widely shared in the U.S. population: outrage at health insurance companies for their callous treatment of their customers, and outrage at Israel for its ongoing genocide in Gaza.

A smaller portion of the population has actually mobilized for change in both areas, organizing for Medicare for All and for a cease-fire, aid, and justice for Palestinians.

There is one big contradiction in the coverage though. In the Luigi Mangione case, the press reported on the outpouring of popular support for his act of rage with sympathy. “The crux of their support is based on a deep resentment and anger at the American healthcare system and insurance companies,” wrote CNN. “Mr. Mangione has inspired documentaries about his life and remains a topic of interest on social media. The GiveSendGo fund-raising page for his defense has reeled in donations and a steady stream of supportive notes,” commented The New York Times.

If anyone has normalized violence, it is the United States, with the world’s largest military spending, its largest military-industrial complex, its endless wars, its worldwide bases, and its non-stop glorification of military power and insistence on Israel’s “right to defend itself.”

Nor were his supporters criminalized or denounced. The Times was more bemused than critical in its reporting on rallies and protests supporting Mangione. The newspaper openly acknowledged that “UnitedHealthcare has long been the target of fury for denying claims, and has faced scrutiny for using algorithms to refuse coverage” and explained that protesters saw the murder as “a blow against America’s profit-driven healthcare system.”

Still, Mangione was consistently portrayed as a lone individual. Never once was he associated with the Medicare for All movement. Nor was the Medicare for All movement blamed for his act of violence. In fact, it wasn’t even mentioned in the massive coverage.

Not so for Elias Rodriguez. The Times framed the D.C. murders as the problem of the Palestine solidarity movement. “Pro-Palestinian Movement Faces an Uncertain Path After D.C. Attack,” it declared ominously, days after the attack. “The slaying of two Israeli Embassy workers cast a harsh spotlight on pro-Palestinian groups in the United States.” The Times noted that Rodriguez “chanted the same slogan, in the same cadence” that was chanted in college protests (“Free, free Palestine”) and wondered whether he was “influenced by more extreme pro-Palestinian organizations that reach Americans online and that glorify the actions of Hamas and other armed resistance groups.”

“Even peaceful protests,” the Times warned, might influence “attitudes against people connected to Israel.”

Equating Palestinian Rights With Violence

Well aware that they would be the first to be blamed, Palestine rights organizations “rushed to condemn” the attack. Nevertheless, the Times appeared obsessed with uncovering support for violence among them. “Protesters who chant ‘Free, free Palestine’ are almost always using tactics of nonviolent resistance. But the groups that organize behind Free Palestine banners also vary in their philosophies. Some advocate complete nonviolence in their broader approach, akin to anti-war protesters. Others back the right of Palestinians to engage in armed resistance against Israel, which they consider a right under international law, because they consider Israel the occupier of Palestinian lands.”

Consider? In fact armed resistance against occupation is a right under international law, and Israel does occupy Palestinian lands.

That’s not enough for the Times, though. Acceptable organizations must “advocate complete nonviolence.” Apparently, believing that international law permits violence under some circumstances also counts as “violence”?

But more to the point: The Times acknowledges that the protestors “almost always” use nonviolent tactics. It doesn’t give any examples here of the supposed “violent” exceptions, but Times editorial write Nicholas Kristof gives a hint when he chides student protesters because “peaceful protests have tipped into occupations of buildings, risks to commencements, and what I see as undue tolerance of antisemitism, chaos, vandalism, and extremism.” So, occupying a building or protesting at a commencement now counts as “violence”? Have Kristof and his colleagues never heard of civil disobedience?

Opposing Wars vs Commitment to Nonviolence

I have been attending anti-war protests since 1967 when my parents took me to a protest against the Vietnam War. I knew little about the concept of nonviolence, but I knew that dropping bombs on peasant villages a world away was wrong. It was drizzling. Some counterprotestors threw raw eggs at us, and some egg splashed on my raincoat. My mother said something along the lines of, “You know we are on the right side because we are standing here quietly, and they are the ones throwing things at us.” It felt like a microcosm of what I understood about the U.S. and Vietnam: The U.S. was on the wrong side because it was the one throwing the bombs.

Since that day I’ve been to many anti-war protests. My life has been shaped by an almost constant drumbeat of U.S. (and U.S.-funded or supported) wars in lands distant and not-so-distant, and I have protested many of them, including Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and now Gaza.

Over the years I’ve worked with many people whose politics are based on a commitment to nonviolence. I respect them deeply. But my politics has always been based more on the particulars: In the unequal wars where the U.S. is the clear aggressor, I want to make it stop.

I could say that I condemn every murder that has ever taken place since the beginning of time. But that’s a politically meaningless statement.

Vietnam Veteran Brian Willson was one of those people who believed deeply in nonviolence. In 1987—20 years after my first anti-war protest—he lay down on the train tracks to disrupt the trains carrying munitions from the Concord Naval Weapons Station, headed for El Salvador and the Contras in Nicaragua. For most of us, that seemed like the ultimate act of nonviolence: placing his body on the line to obstruct war. Today, commentators seem to conflate such “disruption” with violence.

That day, instead of slowing down and waiting for police to remove the protesters, the train sped up and ran over Willson, tearing off his legs.

I wasn’t there, but I joined the protest in Concord the following weekend when outraged protesters began to literally tear up the bloodied tracks with their bare hands. I hung back—not out of any moral predicament over whether physical destruction of the machinery of war was “violent” or “justified” but simply scared by (even though I shared) the rage of the crowd. Still, I gladly accepted a rusted tie nail that someone offered me. It still sits on the mantlepiece in my living room.

We live in a world, and a country, in which violence in the form of war is utterly normalized. Politicians, institutions, and holidays honor those who engage in military violence, and almost all of us are forced to be complicit in it. The manufacture of weapons of mass destruction is central to our economy. And we are in the midst of a U.S.-funded genocide in Gaza. Yet business leaders, politicians, and the media obsess endlessly instead over parsing the language of protesters to uncover evidence of their lack of commitment to nonviolence.

Is Israel’s “Right to Defend Itself” a Justification for Violence?

Since October 7 it’s almost impossible to find a U.S. mainstream media outlet or politician—from former President Joe Biden to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to current President Donald Trump—or pundit—from conservative centrist David Brooks to the mainstream liberal Ezra Klein—who doesn’t qualify even the mildest critique of Israel by insisting that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” None of them adopts a principled adherence to nonviolence.

Yet, they agree that Palestinians must make that commitment and accept a “demilitarized Palestinian state.” They never speak of a future Palestinian state’s right to defend itself.

Criminalizing Protest: Media Complicity

Mainstream media, and the U.S. bipartisan consensus, criminalize protest by conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, conflating emotional distress with harassment, and conflating disruption—no matter how peaceful—with violence.

Here’s how the Times summarized the campus protests in March 2025:

Much of the on-campus protest at Columbia was peaceful. But as both the encampment and the students’ fervor grew, some students and members of the faculty said they felt the already much-disputed lines between anti-Zionism and antisemitism were blurring beyond distinction. Many Jewish students said they felt fearful on campus because of chants, signs, and literature at the encampment that sometimes expressed support for the Hamas-led terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. There were also specific allegations of antisemitism and an uproar when video surfaced online of a student protest leader saying, “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” (He was later suspended.)

Note how the Times blurs “feelings,” “antisemitism,” and violence.

Amidst the hysteria about “violence,” nonviolent protest has increasingly been criminalized in the United States—beginning with forms of protest against Israel. Well before October 7, nonviolent protest in the form of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement was criminalized, as was much discussion of Israel. Using the word “genocide,” accusing Israel of racism, comparing Israel’s eliminationist campaign against Palestinians to the Holocaust, calling Zionism a form of racism—are all prohibited by legal definitions of antisemitism. Meanwhile the Trump administration has begun to detain and deport noncitizen Palestine activists on vague charges that their beliefs “condoning antisemitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine” American foreign policy. How, then, can anyone protest against Israeli violence?

Is Protest Harassment?

Alex Gourevitch recently pointed out that campus and police crackdowns on protests on the grounds that they were loud, disruptive, refused to disperse, or made some students feel fearful essentially eliminate the right to protest altogether. As Gourevitch explains, “Feelings of unease would never suffice to meet the legal standard of a ‘hostile environment.’ Proving that one has been threatened or harassed requires objective evidence, not just a subjective sense of fear.”

Antidiscrimination laws prohibit creating a “hostile work environment.” But Gourevitch emphasizes that “whatever the proper domain of the hostile environment concept, it was never meant to (and shouldn’t) extend to protest. It is not just that protests involve political expression. They are a particular kind of political expression: public expressions of hostility toward political views and often the people who hold them. If applied to speech in the context of protest, the hostile environment standard—or any norm that takes feelings of fear and insecurity as grounds for intervention—would make protest impossible.”

Who Are the Real Purveyors of Violence?

If anyone has normalized violence, it is the United States, with the world’s largest military spending, its largest military-industrial complex, its endless wars, its worldwide bases, and its non-stop glorification of military power and insistence on Israel’s “right to defend itself.” And it’s Israel, with its now 19-month genocidal attack on Gaza, where 82% of the country’s Jewish population supports the expulsion of the entire Palestinian population and the government has openly declared that goal.

Schoolchildren may know Martin Luther King Jr. as a paragon of nonviolence. But few understand his explanation of nonviolence in his1967 speech “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break the Silence.” His decision to speak out against the U.S. war in Vietnam, he said “grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North… As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems… that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask—and rightly so—what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today—my own government.” His point was not to “justify” urban violence in the U.S., but to emphasize the need to confront large-scale, structural violence.

If we oppose violence, let’s not focus on demonizing those who are trying to stop the violence. Let’s not criminalize a wide range of nonviolent activities—including protesting, disrupting, occupying, writing, and speaking—aimed at naming, and stopping, a genocide. Let’s not grant impunity to those dropping the bombs. Let’s not allow a country—Israel—to get away with mass murder just because it claims to represent Jews. And let’s not use a lone crime—the murders in D.C.—to justify ongoing crimes against humanity.

John F. Kennedy said that “those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” It’s hard not to look back on those words with some irony, given the overwhelming ways that U.S. Cold War policy in Latin America used violence, time and time again, to crush dissent there. But in today’s climate, many of us would fear the consequences of making such a statement.

I could say that I condemn every murder that has ever taken place since the beginning of time. But that’s a politically meaningless statement. I’m more interested in joining those trying to stop the mass murder and starvation in Gaza that’s being spurred by my government and paid for with my tax money—the murders that maybe, just maybe, we can do something about.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the cancellation of 24 clean energy and industrial decarbonization projects. The agency claimed this move would save taxpayers $3.6 billion. But the real cost—economic, environmental, and geopolitical—will be far greater.

The decision came just days after the World Meteorological Organization warned that the planet has a chance of breaching 2°C of warming within five years. Around the same time, Norway’s $1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund—the largest in the world—projected that climate risk could erase 20% of its U.S. equity holdings. While other nations mobilize to confront escalating threats, the United States—the largest economy on Earth—is retreating. This is not simply a policy mistake. It’s a calculated abdication of leadership for a fleeting political win.

We’ve seen this pattern before. From “beautiful, clean coal” to climate denial in congressional hearings to billions in fossil fuel donations, the Republican Party has long treated climate action as a culture war wedge. Clean energy is no longer debated on the merits—it’s dismissed as “woke,” undermined not out of ideological consistency, but political convenience. Market-based climate solutions could align with core conservative values: competition, energy independence, national security. Instead, Congress continues to treat policy as performance—enabling headlines over outcomes, symbolism over strategy.

The consequences are immediate, and they are devastating.

We didn’t just cancel 24 projects. We canceled momentum. We canceled trust. We canceled a framework that had finally begun to reconnect federal capacity with local ambition.

Tens of thousands of potential jobs vanished overnight. The canceled projects spanned over a dozen states—from Alabama and Texas to California and Massachusetts. Cities like Birmingham, Baytown, Toledo, Zanesville, Modesto, and Holyoke had been preparing for long-overdue industrial upgrades: electrified glass furnaces, carbon-captured cement kilns, regional hydrogen hubs. These weren’t theoretical moonshots. They were shovel-ready projects with partners in place. Economic development agencies were mobilized. Union halls were staffing up. Community colleges had launched clean workforce programs. Then came the call: It’s over.

DOE’s rationale? These projects didn’t offer sufficient return on investment. But no cost-benefit analysis has been released. What we do know: The canceled projects would have reduced over 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually—the equivalent of taking 2 million cars off the road. These weren’t speculative technologies. They targeted sectors like steel, cement, chemicals, and paper—industries where emissions can be reduced, but not without public investment.

This wasn’t just climate policy. These were air quality improvements in neighborhoods with decades of industrial pollution. These were middle-class jobs, modernized infrastructure, and new revenue streams for local governments. They signaled that decarbonization could drive renewal—not austerity. That message mattered, especially in regions where federal support has long felt abstract or nonexistent.

So why cancel them?

Because it made for good optics. Many of the projects were located in red or swing districts. Cutting them allowed Republicans to posture against “wasteful” spending and energize their base. It transformed serious infrastructure investments into political theater. And Congress went along—not out of principle, but out of paralysis.

DOE now says it will redirect resources to long-horizon technologies: fusion, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence. These are important pursuits. But they won’t cut emissions at a cement plant in 2028. They won’t lower energy costs at a food processing facility next year. And they won’t create jobs in Modesto or Toledo.

There’s nothing wrong with moonshots—unless they come at the expense of shovel-ready progress.

Because these projects weren’t paper proposals. Local governments had hired staff. Contractors were preparing bids. Manufacturers were retooling supply chains. Students had enrolled in new clean industry training programs. With no warning, that entire ecosystem has been upended.

That decision undermines more than climate credibility. It erodes trust in governance itself. How can communities build long-term economic development strategies if federal support can be revoked without explanation? Why would private investors stay at the table when the public sector walks away midstream?

Meanwhile, other nations are surging forward. The European Union is investing in clean steel and cement. Canada is building out low-carbon supply chains. Norway is doubling down on green industry. And China is scaling solar, electric vehicles, and hydrogen at unprecedented speed—cementing not only energy dominance but geopolitical power.

For an administration that brands itself “America First,” this is anything but. It is a strategic withdrawal—from economic competitiveness, global leadership, and the industrial future itself. We are ceding the next era of manufacturing—not just to allies, but to adversaries.

And none of this should be surprising. The Trump administration has been explicit about its intent: Strip climate out of agency missions, dismantle regulatory capacity, and discredit climate science. But the deeper failure lies in what Congress has allowed. The legislative branch is no longer functioning as a check on executive excess. It has become a bystander to the dismantling of public purpose.

We didn’t just cancel 24 projects. We canceled momentum. We canceled trust. We canceled a framework that had finally begun to reconnect federal capacity with local ambition. We walked away from thousands of jobs, millions of tons in emissions cuts, billions in co-investment—and a fragile sense of possibility.

And we did it for a press cycle. To placate donors. Fully aware of the consequences.

The cost won’t just be measured in carbon. It will be measured in time lost, in broken partnerships, in shuttered training programs and shelved contracts. And in the widening distance between the future we could build—and the one we keep choosing instead.

We, the undersigned associations and committed citizens, proclaim, as the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice in June 2025 approaches, the necessity of recognizing and defending the fundamental rights of the Ocean. We call upon U.N. Member States to incorporate Ocean Rights in the Nice Ocean Action Declaration, to trigger a transformative change in our relationship with the Ocean.

Humans are part of the living community of the Planet. Thus, the future of humanity and the preservation of human rights are inseparably linked to the existence of marine species, which can only thrive in a healthy ocean.

The Ocean possesses intrinsic value, independent of its economic utility. A source of life and a cultural pillar for many coastal communities and Indigenous Peoples, it must be treated with respect.

In the face of the challenges ahead, we must be the guardians of the Ocean, the stewards of its integrity, the protectors of its biodiversity, the architects of its prosperity.

The living community of the Ocean and all marine beings have fundamental rights, including the right to exist, thrive, reproduce, and evolve in a healthy environment. Rights that do not oppose human rights, but complement them.

At the international level, progress is showing us the way. Constitutional advances in Ecuador for the protection of the rights of coastal marine ecosystems, the Galápagos, sharks mangroves; the law for the rights of the Mar Menor lagoon in Spain; the protection of the rights of sea turtles in Panama; and even a river in England, with many other pioneering victories of the movement across the world.

These steps mark a new horizon—that of an era of harmonious coexistence between humans and the Ocean. For the recognition of the existence and intrinsic value of all members of the community of the living, as well as their inalienable rights, constitutes the foundation of justice, stability, and peace in the world.

This is why we are calling for the inclusion of the rights of the Ocean in the Nice Declaration “Our Ocean, Our Future: Accelerating Action.”

By sending a strong message to advance the rights of the Ocean everywhere in the world, the United Nations Ocean Conference would represent a historic turning point for the protection of marine life and our common future, strengthening the agency of coastal communities, and helping put an end to projects and activities causing most harm to the health of the Ocean and to marine beings.

In the face of the challenges ahead, we must be the guardians of the Ocean, the stewards of its integrity, the protectors of its biodiversity, the architects of its prosperity.

We call on every person, organization, and public institution to support this proposal, to share it, and to join us by signing the petition, counting over 53,000 signatures already, for the rights of the Ocean. The future of the Ocean is the future of us all.

The authors of the Tribune:

Earth Law Center (U.S.), Longitude 181 (France), Ocean Vision Legal (U.S.) Vagues (La Réunion Island), Wild Legal (France), Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (Ecuador), the Varda Group (Spain/Netherlands), and The Ocean Rights Coalition (U.K.).

Believe it or not, I had a transcendent experience at this year’s Border Security Expo, the annual event that brings Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement together with private industry. I hesitate to describe it that way, though, because I was on the exhibition hall floor and instantly found myself in the very heart of the U.S. border-industrial complex. It was early April, and I was surrounded by the latest surveillance equipment—camera systems, drones, robodogs—from about 225 companies (a record number for such an event) displaying their wares at that Phoenix Convention Center. Many of the people there seemed all too excited that Donald Trump was once again president.

You might wonder how it’s even possible to have a mystical experience while visiting this country’s largest annual border surveillance fair, and I would agree, especially since my moment came just after Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem gave the keynote speech to a packed convention center ballroom. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that Noem, who had infamously worn a $50,000 Rolex watch to a Salvadoran “terrorism” prison photo shoot just weeks before, received rousing ovation after ovation, as she claimed that the Trump administration had almost achieved “operational control” of the U.S.-Mexican border. (Only a little more to go, she insisted!) The same point had been made by “border czar” Thomas Homan earlier that day. Both asked the audience to give standing ovations to all border law enforcement officials in the room for, as Noem put it, enduring the “train wreck and poor leadership of Joe Biden leading this country.” And like those who preceded her, she used words like “invasion” abundantly, suggesting that an all-too-fragile United States was battling a siege of unknown proportions.

The late Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano had a name for just such an experience: an “upside-down world,” he called it. In such a world, we’re presented not with the facts but their very opposite. For the border-industrial complex, however, it’s just such an inverted world that sells their product.

For the United States—increasingly so in the age of Donald Trump—the only answer to the climate crisis and its mass displacement of people is yet more border enforcement.

Then it happened. I was walking down a corridor lined with drone companies, including one from India called ideaForge, whose medium-sized drone was “built like a bird” and “tested like a tank.” There were also sophisticated artificial intelligence camera systems mounted on masts atop armored ground drones, which might be considered the perfect combination of today’s modern border technology. There was also the company Fat Truck, whose vehicles had tires taller than my car. X-ray and biometric systems surrounded me, along with green-uniformed Border Patrol agents, sheriffs from border counties, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents checking the equipment. As always, you could practically smell the cash in the air. Of my 13 years covering the Border Security Expo, this was clearly the largest and most enthusiastic one ever.

I was walking through it all on one of those worn blue carpets found in convention centers and then, suddenly, I wasn’t walking there at all. Instead, I was in the Sierra Tarahumara in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, with a Rarámuri man named Mario Quiroz. I had been there with him the previous week, so it was indeed a memory, but so vivid it essentially overcame me. I could smell the forest near the Copper Canyon, one of the most beautiful places on the planet. I could see Quiroz showing me the drying yellowish trees cracking everywhere amid a mega-drought of staggering proportions. I could even catch a glimpse of the fractured Río Conchos, the Mexican river that, at the border, would become the Rio Grande. It was drying up and the trees along it were dying, while many local people were finding that they had little choice but to migrate elsewhere to make ends meet.

I had to sit down. When I did, I suddenly found myself back at the expo in that stale air-conditioned environment that only promises yet more surveillance towers and drones on that very border. Then came the realization that gave me pause: Although that devastated Sierra Tarahumara terrain and the Border Security Expo couldn’t be more different, they are, in fact, also intimately connected. After all, Sierra Tarahumara represents the all too palpable and devastating reality of climate change and the way it’s already beginning to displace people, while the Expo represented my country’s most prominent response to that displacement (and the Global North’s more generally). For the United States—increasingly so in the age of Donald Trump—the only answer to the climate crisis and its mass displacement of people is yet more border enforcement.

“Unwanted Starving Immigrants”

Consider the 2003 Pentagon-commissioned report entitled An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security. It stated, “The United States and Australia are likely to build defensive fortresses around their countries because they have the resources and reserves to achieve self-sufficiency.” It also predicted that “borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America.” Twenty-two years later, that prophecy—if the Border Security Expo is any indication—is coming true.

In 2007, Leon Fuerth, former national security adviser to Vice President Al Gore, wrote that “border problems” will overwhelm American capabilities “beyond the possibility of control, except by drastic measures and perhaps not even then.” His thoughts were a response to a request from the House of Representatives for scientists and military practitioners to offer serious projections connecting climate change and national security. The result would be the book Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change. Since, according to its editor Kurt Campbell, it would take 30 years for a major military platform to go from the “drawing board to the battlefield,” that volume was, indeed, a book of preparation for a bordered future that only now is beginning to truly envelop us.

One booth for the company QinteQ displayed a ground robot resembling a multilegged insect. I wondered how this could help with the Chihuahuan drought. A vendor told me it could be used for bomb disposal.

In March, I stood on a hill in the town of Sisoguichi in Chihuahua, Mexico with the local priest, Héctor Fernando Martínez, who told me people there wouldn’t be planting corn, beans, and squash at all this year because of the drought. They feared it would never again rain. And it was true that the drought in Chihuahua was the worst I had ever seen, affecting not only the mountains but also the valleys where drying lakes and reservoirs had left farmers without water for the 2025 agricultural cycle.

“What do people do instead?” I asked the priest. “Migrate,” he told me. Many people already migrate for half the year to supplement their incomes, picking apples near Cuauhtémoc or chiles near Camargo. Others end up in the city of Ciudad Juárez, working in maquiladoras (factories) to produce goods for Walmart, Target, and warplane manufacturers, among other places. Some, of course, also try to cross into the United States, only to encounter the same technology and weaponry that was before my eyes that day at the Border Security Expo.

Those displacements, anticipated in assessments from the early 2000s, are already happening in an ever more unnerving fashion. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Center reports that each year now about 22.4 million people are forcibly displaced by “weather-related hazards.” And projections for future migration are startling. The World Bank estimates that, by 2050, 216 million people could be on the move globally, while another report speculates that the number could even hit 1.2 billion. Multiple factors influence people’s decisions to migrate, of course, but climate change is rapidly becoming a (if not the) most prominent one.

Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to banish climate change from all government documents and discourse and quite literally wipe it out as a subject of any interest at all, the DHS’s 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment describes what’s going on in Chihuahua and elsewhere all too well: “Natural disasters or extreme weather events abroad that disrupt local economies or result in food insecurity have the potential to exacerbate migration flows to the United States.” The 2021 DHS Climate Action Plan stated that the department would “conduct integrated, scalable, agile, and synchronized steady-state operations… to secure the Southern Border and Approaches.” It turns out that the “operational control” Kristi Noem mentioned at the Border Security Expo includes preparations for potential climate-induced mass migration. That hellish dystopic world (envisioned in movies like Mad Max) is coming to you directly from Trump’s Department of Homeland Security along the U.S.-Mexican border.

The Border-Industrial Complex in Action

As I continued through that expo hall, I recalled walking in drought-stricken Chihuahua and thought about what’s now happening on our border to face the human nightmare of climate change in an all-too-military fashion. Ominously enough, the company Akima, which operates the ICE detention center in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, was a prime sponsor of the Expo and I saw its name prominently displayed. Its website indicates that it is “now hiring to support ICE efforts,” effectively framing the mass deportations promised by Trump as a good opportunity for volunteers.

One booth for the company QinteQ displayed a ground robot resembling a multilegged insect. I wondered how this could help with the Chihuahuan drought. A vendor told me it could be used for bomb disposal. When I gave him a look of disbelief, he mentioned that he’d heard of a couple of cases of bombs found at the border. At another company, UI Path, an enthusiastic vendor claimed their software was focused on administrative “efficiency” and, he assured me, was well “aligned with DOGE” (Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency), allowing Border Patrol agents to not have to handle the “tedious tasks,” so that they could “go out in the field.” I then asked about their success with the Border Patrol and he replied, “They already have our program. They are already using it.”

When I approached the Matthews Environmental Solutions booth, the vendors weren’t there. But behind a lone green chair, a large placard stated that the company was one of the “global leaders in waste incineration,” with over 5,000 installations worldwide. A photo of a large metal waste incinerator caught my eye, somewhat morbidly, because the website also said that the company offered “cremation systems.” Though they weren’t selling that service at the Border Security Expo, there was certainly a macabre symbolism to such an expo where human ashes could be converted into profit and suffering into revenue.

When it comes to this country, whatever Donald Trump may want to believe, no border wall can actually stop climate change itself.

Forecasters at the global management consulting firm IMARC Group cheerily project an even more robust global homeland security market to come. “The growing number and severity of natural disasters and public health emergencies,” they write, “is offering a favorable homeland security market outlook.” By IMARC’s calculations, the industry will grow from $635.90 billion this year to $997.82 billion by 2033, a nearly 5% growth rate. The company Market and Markets, however, predicts a far quicker ascent, estimating that the market will reach $905 billion by next year. The consensus, in short, is that, in the age of climate change, homeland security will soon be on the verge of becoming a trillion-dollar industry—and just imagine what future Border Security Expos will be like then!

Certainly, the Trump administration, eager to toss out anything related to climate change funding while also working hard to increase the production of fossil fuels, has ambitious plans to contribute to that very reality. Since January, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE have already put out about $2.5 billion in contracts. It’s still early, but that number is actually lower than Joe Biden’s pace a year ago; his spending reached $9 billion at the end of fiscal year 2024. Despite constant accusations from Trump and others that Joe Biden maintained “open borders,” he finished his term as the top contractor of any president when it came to border and immigration enforcement and so set a high bar for Trump.

In 2025, Trump is operating with a CBP and ICE budget of $29.4 billion, slightly lower than Biden’s 2024 one, but historically high (approximately $10 billion more than when he started his first term as president in 2017). The change, however, will come next year, as the administration is asking for $175 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, an increase of $43.8 billion “to fully implement the president’s mass removal campaign, finish construction of the border wall on the Southwest border, procure advanced border security technology, modernize the fleet and facilities of the Coast Guard, and enhance Secret Service protective operations.”

On top of that on May 22, the House of Representatives passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that, among other things, would infuse $160 billion more in funding into the CBP and ICE budgets over the next four and a half years. As Adam Isaacson from the Washington Office on Latin America stated, “We have never seen anything come close to the level of border hardening and massive deportation enforcement resources foreseen in this bill” that will now go to a vote in the Senate. This may explain the industry’s optimism; they sense a potential bonanza to come.

Despite Trump’s deep urge to erase global warming from consideration, climate displacement and border protection—two dynamics trending distinctly upward—are on a collision course. The United States, the world’s largest historic carbon emitter, had already been spending 11 times more on border and immigration enforcement than on climate finance and, under President Trump, those proportions are set to become even more stunningly abysmal. U.S. climate policy now boils down to this: Reducing fossil fuel extraction and consumption are far less important (if important at all) than the creation of a profitable border and immigration apparatus. In fact, the dystopia of the Border Security Expo I saw that day is the U.S. response to the drought in Chihuahua and so much else involving the overheating of this planet. And yet, when it comes to this country, whatever Donald Trump may want to believe, no border wall can actually stop climate change itself.

As I listened to Kristi Noem and Thomas Homan discuss what they considered to be a besieged country, I thought of Galeano’s provocative analysis of that inverted world where the oppressor becomes the oppressed and the oppressed the oppressor. That world now includes fires, floods, increasingly devastating storms, and encroaching seas, all to be met with high-tech cameras, biometrics, robotic dogs, and formidable walls.

I still can’t shake my vision of those yellowish hues on the dying trees in the Sierra Tarahumara. I walked with Quiroz down that canyon to the Río Conchos River and out onto its bed of dried stones that crunched like bones underfoot. Quiroz told me he came to that then-flowing river every day as a kid to tend to his family’s goats. I asked how he felt about it now that it looked like a bunch of disconnected puddles stretching before us to the horizon. “Tristeza,” he told me.

Walking the halls of the expo, I felt the weight of that word: sadness. Sadness, indeed, in this thoroughly upside-down borderworld of ours.