On Saturday, April 5th, fifty-seven years after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, hundreds of thousands of protestors gathered across the country to challenge Trump’s attack on, well, just about everything!

I went to the rally in New Jersey, where speaker after speaker had us chanting “Hands off our Social Security!” “Hands off our Medicare!” Hands off our Medicaid!” “Hands off our Abortion Rights!” and so on. This was the national theme developed by the Democratic Party.

A few protestors in the back chanted “Hands off Gaza,” which was not on the agenda. But they soon retreated into silence. One woman carrying a large Trump 2024 banner walked near the edge of the crowd of about 2,000 and took on a few angry shouts, but there was no confrontation. Tensions rose enough, however, that the chair of the gathering did feel obliged to remind us that this was a peaceful, non-violent gathering.

As I looked around at the well-healed demonstrators from our liberal town, I couldn’t help but imagine adding a few other items to the list: “Hands off our IRA’s!” “Hands off the Stock Market!” “Hands off Free Trade!” I’m sure that would have been right on the money.

But why was I raining on this parade? After all, these were my neighbors, good caring people who turned up on this rainy Saturday because they truly want to make our society a better place.

My mind went negative because it was crystal clear that the rally was the opposite of Martin Luther King Jr.’s challenge to the established order that enabled Jim Crow and persistent poverty. Dr. King asked us to envision massive changes to the status quo. Today, we were chanting to defend the status quo that Trump is surely taking a wrecking ball to.

The Democrats who put the rallies together across the country missed a moment to present an alternative vision. This was a chance to announce new proposals to tame runaway inequality, the growth of which has undermined the Democratic Party’s coalition, and to provide job insecurity, the lack of which has given MAGA a foothold in the first place.

Instead, we got pure opposition, spirited to be sure. Its only virtue was to provide collective support to those of us who have been stunned by the revanchist thrust of Trumpism. We can’t believe what is happening and we need each other to shore up our spirits. It was a chance, feeble but necessary, to show some form of communal defiance.

But a successful movement will not grow without a vision and proposals to support it. Why didn’t the Democrats do that? Because, except for a few fellow-travelers like Bernie Sanders, their vision is deeply tied the status quo BT (Before Trump).

That set of BT institutions was working well for the top 20 percent of the income distribution, especially those with college and post-graduate degrees, including just about everyone at our town’s demonstration.

It was not working for those whose jobs had been shipped abroad to China, Mexico, or elsewhere, and who watched their communities then crumble.

It also wasn’t working so well for those who lost their jobs to finance Wall Street stock buybacks and outrageous CEO salaries.

And it wasn’t working well at all for those working at poverty wages, especially immigrant workers, risking life and limb with little protection.

In short, the Democratic Party, long the party of the working class, has no compelling vision today because it has left behind a big chunk of the working-class. As analysts debate what went wrong, they should perhaps ask why the Democrats are so reluctant to support a working-class populist agenda.

The answer lies in how it became the party of the established order and therefore was unable to provide a vision that makes sense to working people who have been screwed by the established order. (Please see Wall Street’s War on Workers.)

And that’s a damn shame. Because we want and need to be inspired by a positive vision. But that will only happen when the Democrats take their hands off their imaginations and ours.

We need to return to the days when the vision was FDRs for four freedoms, not four family tax credits to support the “opportunity society.”

The Democrats still have a chance, the field is open, but really? That is not likely to happen until it is challenged by a new independent party that stands for substantive change, created by and for working people.

I’ll be demonstrating for that.

We are living through a week unlike any other in my lifetime; maybe the last truly comparable stretch was the bank closure that marked the start of the FDR administration, but then the president was there to tell Americans they had nothing to fear; now we have a president who can only insist we “take our medicine.” He is constantly hyping the fear, and he is doing it with the constant invocation of a word—”emergency”—designed to send us into ever-deeper panic.

So I’ve been doing my best to think as calmly about that word as I can, with the hope that it will offer at least a bit of mental pathway through this horror and perhaps point toward the exit.

Let’s start with one of the less-noticed executive orders of the past week—by no means the most important, though if it is carried out it will probably affect more square miles of the U.S. than any other. This is a memorandum from Brooke Rollins, the secretary of agriculture and hence the overseer of America’s vast National Forests. In it she declares “an emergency situation on America’s National Forest system lands.”

This emergency on our national forests, in the administration’s view, is

due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, invasive species, and other stressors whose impacts have been compounded by too little active management.

For example: • The 2023 Wildfire Hazard Potential for the Unites States report identifies 66,940,000 acres of NFS lands under a very high or high fire risk.

• Roughly 78,800,000 acres of NFS lands are already experiencing, or are at risk of experiencing, insect and disease infestations.

As a result, the Forest Service is commanded to dramatically increase the amount of logging on these forests, exempting them from the longstanding system of oversight and challenge from communities and tribes affected by logging. Forest supervisors have been told to increase the volume of timber offered for sale on our lands by at least 25%.

Now, as many of us have been patiently explaining for years, the biggest cause of increased fire on our forests is the dramatic increase in global temperatures that has extended fire season in California virtually year-round, and for extra months on either end across the West. The biggest infestation of insects has come from pine bark beetles, and that is directly tied to a fast-warming climate. As Cheryl Katz explained almost a decade ago:

Bark beetles are a natural part of the conifer forest life cycle, regularly flaring and fading like fireworks. But the scope and intensity in the past two decades is anything but normal, scientists say, in large part because rising temperatures are preventing the widespread winter die-off of beetle larvae, while also enhancing the beetles’ killing power. Not only are the insects expanding into new territory, they’re also hatching earlier and reproducing more frequently. New infestations become full-blown with astonishing speed, and the sheer numbers of beetles exceeds anything forest experts have seen before. [One expert] says he’s seen spruce beetle epidemics in Utah so intense that when the insects had killed all the trees, they began attacking telephone poles.

To the extent that forests needed thinning to reduce wildfire risk (and it’s not at all clear that it does), the Biden administration worked to get the effort underway, spending $4 billion on the work—in some areas they were ahead of schedule, and in others behind, but overall

“the scale of spending is unprecedented,” said Courtney Schultz with Colorado State University. The forest policy expert said millions of acres had been through environmental review and were ready for work.

“If we really want to go big across the landscape—to reduce fuels enough to affect fire behavior and have some impact on communities—we need to be planning large projects,” she said.

Where the work was lagging, it was largely the result of a lack of bodies—something that will be considerably harder now that the Forest Service has laid off 3,400 workers. But at any rate, the new logging mandated under the “emergency declaration” isn’t the careful thinning work that might reduce fire intensity—instead, the forest industry is getting access to what it really wants, large stands of big trees. It is, in other words, a money grab by vested interests that supported Trump’s campaign.

That new cutting will make climate change worse, because as we now understand that letting mature forests continue to grow is the best way to sequester carbon. Meanwhile, cutting down those forests will mean far fewer trees to hold back the increasing downpours that climate change is producing. (A new study released yesterday showed that even in areas of the West where climate change is drying out forests and increasing blazes, there’s also a big jump in deluges—what one expert called an “eye-popping.”) I remember sitting down with the chief of the Forest Service under former President Bill Clinton, almost three decades ago, and even then he said the service’s internal data showed the greatest dollar value of the forestlands was water retention, not timber.

So, to summarize: We’ve invented an emergency where none exists. (The only thing even resembling an emergency in timber supply will come if we continue to tariff Canadian producers). We’ve abandoned most of the slow and patient work to deal with a problem, and replaced it with a boondoggle designed to increase short-term profits for Trump donors. That will juice the one actual emergency we do face worse—the rapid increase in global temperature—and it will make the effects of that emergency harder to deal with.

I’d submit that the “emergency” that Trump is actually responding to—the one that motivated his Big Oil donors to donate half a billion dollars in the last election cycle—is the rapid increase in renewable energy deployment.

This pattern more or less holds across the board. Each “emergency” we’re supposedly dealing with is, at worst, a long-term problem that needs serious and patient work, work that had begun in earnest under the Biden administration. Fentanyl deaths and illegal border-crossings—which if you can remember back three weeks ago were the original “emergency” justifying tariffs on Canada and Mexico—had both been falling sharply in the last year. The “emergency” justifying tariffing every country on Earth and also the penguins was the exact opposite of an emergency: a 50-year hollowing out of industrial areas, which again had begun to reverse because of the Inflation Reduction Act—specifically targeted by the Trump administration for reversal. As The Washington Post pointed out this week, a “stunning number” of battery and EV factories have been canceled in the last month, most of them in red states.

According to data from Atlas Public Policy, a policy research group, more projects were canceled in the first quarter of 2025 than in the previous two years combined. Those cancellations include a $1 billion factory in Georgia that would have made thermal barriers for batteries and a $1.2 billion lithium-ion battery factory in Arizona.

“It’s hard at the moment to be a manufacturer in the U.S. given uncertainties on tariffs, tax credits, and regulations,” said Tom Taylor, senior policy analyst at Atlas Public Policy. Hundreds of millions of dollars in additional investments appear to be stalled, he added, but haven’t been formally canceled yet.

“It’s working-class people in places like Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan, and Arizona that have seen some of these projects get canceled,” Keefe said. “And I can tell you who’s benefiting—China and other countries that are doubling down.”

I said before that there was one true emergency on our planet—its rapid heating. Now of course there’s another—the implosion of economies, likely to lead (if history is its usual guide) to military conflict. But I’d submit that the “emergency” that Trump is actually responding to—the one that motivated his Big Oil donors to donate half a billion dollars in the last election cycle—is the rapid increase in renewable energy deployment.

Reuters reported over the weekend that, for the first time in American history, less than half of electricity generated in March came from fossil fuels: “More power was instead generated using renewable sources such as wind and solar, which in March reached an all-time high of 83 terawatt hours.” It’s wonderful news, of course, heralding the chance at a new world. But that’s the crisis that Big Oil faces, and to fight it they’ve been willing to drag us all down.

It’s small comfort that the man they picked to do that job, Donald Trump, is so stupid that in the process of wrecking the American economy he’s actually putting big pressure on the oil industry too. He’s doing his best: Alone among industries, fossil fuel was exempted from tariffs, in what The Guardian called “a clear sign of the president’s fealty to his big oil donors over the American people,” and yesterday he commanded the Department of Justice to try and stop states from suing the oil industry or enforcing the Climate Superfund laws that charge Exxon et al. for the bridges and roads that taxpayers must constantly rebuild. (Trump comically called these efforts “extortion,” even as he attempts to blackmail every country on Earth, plus of course the penguins, with his tariffs). Trump’s even trying to boost coal this week, even though the data shows that 99% of the time it would be cheaper to build new renewables.

But the damage he’s doing to the world economy threatens to spill over to the oil industry—as the price of a barrel plummets, the chances of drilling new wells plummets too. According to the Times yesterday, Harold Hamm—Trump’s industry bundler—was wondering how to explain to the president that “when you get down to that $50 oil that you talked about, then you’re below the point that you’re going to drill, baby, drill.” Fossil fuel stocks have fallen sharply. Ha ha.

But in reality there’s one immediate and overwhelming emergency. It’s name is TrumpMuskVance, and it’s threatening to engulf almost everything in its unholy flames. People—even a few senators (thank you Cory Booker)—have begun pulling the alarms, and the volunteer fire company has begun to respond (such thanks to all who came out for the Hands Off rallies this weekend). We’re going to need quick wits, courage, incredibly hard work, and some real luck to put out this moronic inferno—but that’s the job of being a citizen in 2025. You matter as a political actor, more than any of us ever have before; I’ll make sure you know of the opportunities to put your talents to use!

LIVE 10 AM Eastern + Streaming 24/7 After:

In this episode of The TMI Show, hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan examine the case of Ryan Wesley Routh, charged with attempting to assassinate Donald Trump on September 15, 2024, at his Florida golf course. The discussion centers on a recent Justice Department filing revealing Routh’s efforts to acquire a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) or Stinger missile from a Ukrainian contact in August 2024. Prosecutors allege Routh messaged via Signal, seeking weapons to target Trump’s plane, citing Trump’s perceived threat to Ukraine. Rall and Chan dissect the evidence, including Routh’s prior support for Ukraine’s war effort, and explore the implications of such an international plot.

The episode also covers Trump’s escalating trade policies, focusing on the 104% tariffs imposed on Chinese imports, and China’s retaliatory 84% tariffs, intensifying the U.S.-China trade war. They discuss Canada’s 25% counter-tariffs on U.S. autos, dubbed “testariffs,” signaling broader economic fallout. Additionally, the hosts address a judge’s ruling favoring the Associated Press, reinstating its White House access, and a quirky aside on windshield wiper regulations amid tariff talks.

The post TMI Show Ep 114: “Did a Ukraine RPG Plot Almost Take Out Trump?” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

On March 25, World Athletics president Sebastian Coe announced that the track and field governing body would introduce chromosomal testing of women athletes to “doggedly protect the female category.” Concern around “protecting” women athletes and the women’s category has resurged in recent years as the issue of transgender participation in sport has become politically expedient in the United States culture war, culminating in President Donald Trump’s executive order in January banning athletes from participation on teams that don’t align with the sex assigned to them at birth.

Sex and gender verification has been utilized by sport organizations for over a century. Previous methods included “nude parade” physical examinations requiring genital inspection, chromosomal testing, and testosterone level testing. However, World Athletics (previously known as the International Association of Athletics Federations, or IAAF) stopped mandatory sex testing in 1991, due to scientific inaccuracy, inability to prove unfair advantages, and ethical concerns. Women athletes could continue to be tested if their gender presentation was deemed “suspicious.” Notably, Indian track star Pratima Gaonkar committed suicide in 2001 after failing a sex test. In the 2010s, South African distance runner Caster Semenya and Indian hurdler Dutee Chand endured intense public scrutiny over their sex and gender after they were assumed to have androgen insensitivity syndrome. This is one of many conditions that are broadly classified as differences of sexual development (DSDs), and can occur for many reasons but are usually linked to sex chromosomes or anomalies in how the body produces or responds to hormones such as testosterone.

Unlike the World Athletics’s 2023 policy that banned trans athletes from competing in the women’s category, this policy targets women who were assigned “female” at birth, identify as women, and have always lived as women. They simply don’t have the XX chromosomes that World Athletics now deems necessary.

Chromosomal testing does not determine athletic performance and has been condemned by scientists and human rights organizations as discriminatory and unethical.

The new policy requires mandatory chromosomal testing, including a check swab and dry-blood test. While World Athletics claims to have consulted 70 sporting and advocacy groups, it is unclear who was included. Their cited scientific bibliography is largely authored by individuals affiliated with World Athletics, ignoring significant research questioning the ethics and efficacy of female eligibility policies in sport. Notably absent are two pieces by Roger Pielke and colleagues: one exposing flaws in World Athletics’ original 2011 policy and another reaffirming those issues after the organization admitted its female eligibility research was flawed.

The well-established problem with World Athletics’ chromosomal testing is that it actually has no linkage to performance. Put simply, “failing” a chromosomal, DNA, or sex test tells us nothing about whether an athlete will destroy a world record or even win a race. “Failed” tests, more often than not, indicate a chromosomal anomaly—something that neither enhances an individual’s athletic ability nor impedes their quality of life (if this were the case, it would probably be diagnosed way before an elite sport competition!). The inability of chromosomal testing to determine an “unfair” performance advantage was resoundingly proven by geneticists, bioethicists, medical researchers, physicians, and endocrinologists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which was what led to the abolition of mandatory sex testing.

Systematically, policies like these disproportionately target women from the Global South and reinforce racial and gender biases. A 2020 Human Rights Watch report detailed discrimination, surveillance, and coerced medical intervention that elite athletes from the Global South experienced when seeking to comply with sex testing practices. The women interviewed detailed how medical practitioners did not fully explain the tests and procedures conducted, and the humiliation and discrimination they experienced in their communities when their medical records were disclosed without informed consent. This may be why earlier, in 2019, the World Medical Association released a notice imploring physicians to “take no part in implementing new eligibility regulations for classifying female athletes.”

These concerns highlight the urgency for educating sport governing bodies, and the general public, about the broader implications for the autonomy and safety of girls and women that can result from “protective” policies in sport. While the new World Athletics policy does not mandate surgical alteration, history shows the risks of such regulations. In 2013, four elite women athletes underwent gonadectomies and partial clitoridectomies—an unnecessary and harmful procedure classified as a form of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)--to comply with eligibility rules. These policies can serve to legitimize and reinforce cultural practices with serious health risks for girls and women.

Women athletes must already carefully negotiate their athleticism with market-driven expectations of femininity to secure sponsorship deals, which are especially critical for women athletes because of the sport industry’s pervasive pay inequity. Mainstream beauty norms—favoring whiteness, thinness, and hairlessness—inform which bodies will be deemed “suspicious” under World Athletics’ new policy. Black and brown athletes, particularly those with more muscular builds and deeper voices, are more likely to be targeted. Research shows that elite women athletes already feel they are forced to choose between appearing “strong” or “feminine”; the reintroduction of sex testing may add further pressure for women athletes to conform with rigid gender norms to avoid harassment and surveillance. Athletes like Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and Semenya endured an onslaught of online attacks following public scrutiny of their gender. Women in sports generally already face disproportionate abuse, with an NCAA study finding that women basketball players receive three times more abusive messages than their male counterparts.

World Athletics’ claims that chromosomal testing will protect women athletes and the women’s category. However, chromosomal testing does not determine athletic performance and has been condemned by scientists and human rights organizations as discriminatory and unethical. Rather than “protecting” the women’s category, these regulations reinforce harmful gender norms, disproportionately target women from marginalized backgrounds, and risk severe personal and professional consequences for women athletes.

In 2023, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued a stark warning: America is suffering from an epidemic of loneliness, and the consequences are dire. “If we fail to [address this crisis], we will pay an ever-increasing price in the form of our individual and collective health and well-being,” he wrote. Then came the line that now feels prophetic: “We will continue to splinter and divide until we can no longer stand as a community or a country.”

This country is certainly dividing, and whether it can stand remains to be seen. As an immigrant from apartheid-era South Africa and a Californian shaken by the fires, I love and fear for the country I have known as home since adolescence. Having grown up in a society fractured by systemic oppression and seeing firsthand how division and authoritarianism hollow out a nation, I recognize the peril America faces. Trump and his allies have solidified their hold on power, reshaping institutions to entrench minority rule, while political violence moves from the fringes to the mainstream. State leaders openly defy court rulings, and democratic backsliding is no longer a theoretical threat but a lived reality. The consequences stretch far beyond our borders, fueling global instability.

Given everything at stake—from escalating climate disasters to an economy teetering on crisis—many are wondering: Are we entirely lost?

No, I say. It’s disastrous, yes. But it is precisely in the disastrous that we may find the seeds of renewal.

We now have a choice: Succumb to panic, numbness, and doomscrolling; or take purposeful action by confronting disaster head-on.

The reality is that democracy has been eroding for years; climate disruption worsens daily. The difference now is that we can no longer ignore the truth of our situation. Mass deportations. The rise of authoritarianism. A looming constitutional crisis. Wildfires, hurricanes, bomb cyclones, rising sea levels. The unraveling is no longer theoretical. It is here.

And this recognition could be our saving grace.

Murthy’s warning underscores the link between personal loneliness, social fragmentation, and political chaos. As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism, “The isolation of atomized individuals provides the mass basis for totalitarian rule.” Contemporary research supports her argument. A 2021 RAND Corporation study found loneliness is a primary driver for adopting extremist views and joining extremist groups. A 2022 study published in Political Psychology found that weak social bonds correlate with lower voter turnout and increased support for populist parties.

In this context, the disastrous might offer an unexpected antidote.

Charles Fritz, a sociologist who helped lead the University of Chicago’s Disaster Research Project in the 1950s, analyzed a broad data set of catastrophic events and concluded: “The widespread sharing of danger, loss, and deprivation produces an intimate, primary group solidarity among the survivors, which overcomes social isolation, provides a channel for intimate communication and expression, and provides a major source of physical and emotional support and reassurance.” There is ample further evidence to back up his conclusion, as Rebecca Solnit documents at length in A Paradise Built in Hell.

We are wired to adapt to slow declines, to normalize the unraveling. But disaster shatters the illusion of stability. It forces a reckoning. History suggests that disaster not only destroys—it also disrupts. It crushes old assumptions, forcing people to see one another, to respond, to rebuild.

Most of us aren’t living in an actual disaster zone right now. But when we see images of Los Angeles burning, Asheville flooding, or state officials openly defying the rule of law, we feel the urgency of the moment.

We now have a choice: Succumb to panic, numbness, and doomscrolling; or take purposeful action by confronting disaster head-on. This isn’t just about responding to immediate crises, but about addressing the isolation and division that have fueled them. By acting with intention, we don’t just face disaster—we undo the fragmentation that made it possible.

Growing up under apartheid, I learned how systems of oppression function and how they fail. I saw firsthand that division is not inevitable, that transformation is possible—but only when people refuse to be passive in the face of crisis. Former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln understood this too. “We are not enemies, but friends,” he declared in his first inaugural address in 1861, on the eve of national collapse. “We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.” Those bonds of affection, Lincoln said, could be rekindled by the “better angels of our nature.” He knew then what we must remember now: Survival depends on rebuilding these bonds.

Regardless of how our political situation unfolds, we are entering an era of massive upheaval, and none of us will remain untouched. Whether through fire, flood, or political collapse, displacement is no longer a distant threat—it is a certainty.

Can you feel it? The disaster at your doorstep?

Let it inspire you to act. Talk to the neighbor who voted red. Reach out to your friends. Volunteer with organizations fighting for justice. Host a community discussion, support local activism, or donate to causes that uplift marginalized communities. Advocate for change by calling your representatives. Support artists and thinkers who challenge the status quo. Every action—big or small—helps rebuild what’s been broken.

Let the better angels of our nature prevail. It’s the only way forward.

As part of the Trump administration’s overhaul of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, funding for several programs, including conservation contracts and local food purchasing for schools, was cut or frozen.

The lack of funding of these and uncertainty for other programs is already having a chilling effect on farmers and our food systems, and the impacts have been immediate and wide-ranging. These programs support critical conservation initiatives in agriculture—from assisting local farms and sustainable agriculture research to farmer technical aid. These local programs also support smaller-scale farmers to maintain local or heritage breeds such as Galloway cattle or Tamworth pigs that are not suitable for large-scale, industrial agriculture.

As a result, farms and livelihoods throughout the country are threatened. These programs provide vital support for U.S. agricultural infrastructure and long-term sustainability including the diversity of food available to the public. The link between biodiversity and food security is well known—vibrant biotic life supports soil fertility, pest control, pollination, water quality, and sustainable agriculture. Genetic biodiversity in our foods is also important—domesticated plants and animals that are genetically diverse are less likely to succumb to the same diseases or pests, and many have adapted to a range of environmental and climatic conditions. The more genetically diverse our food system is, the less vulnerable it is to collapse.

Local breeds are living genetic repositories. They are the result of long-term histories and cannot be simply made in a laboratory. They are the future of our food security.

For this reason, conservation efforts must include protecting domestic animal breeds to establish living genetic banks for future food security during times of abrupt climate change. Unlike plants that can be propagated from seeds stored in vast seed banks, the most efficient way to maintain biodiversity in domesticated livestock is by keeping herds of local or heritage breeds, since sperm cryopreservation is expensive; susceptible to damage or loss; and limited to rich, industrialized nations and communities. Breed conservation can occur on a local level and doesn’t need to be expensive—it’s been successfully done in the past.

Almost 100 years ago, Texas longhorns—the iconic emblem of the state of Texas—almost went extinct. At the time, American tastes in meat favored fattier cattle breeds and the lean, grass-fed longhorns were unpopular, difficult to transport in railroad cars due to their big horns, and not economically viable for ranchers. This breed already had a long history in the area and was particularly well adapted to the hot, arid climate of southern Texas. In the 1920s when the breed was on the brink of extinction, U.S. Forest Service employees established a protected herd at the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma, and a small group of ranchers established other small herds in Oklahoma and Texas, including in Texas state parks. It was through the efforts of this small group of people that the breed was kept alive. As American tastes in meat changed, Texas longhorns became economically popular once again.

Today, they are highly valued for their lean meat and their specific climatic adaptation. They are also living genetic repositories—their specific genetic adaptations are now used to help create new breeds of cattle for dealing with future climate change such as those predicted for several parts of the southern United States and elsewhere.

According to data collected by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, Texas longhorns are one of over 8,700 breeds of domesticated animals used for food production on the planet today. Most are part of the “big five”: cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, and pigs. Over 8,000 of these breeds are local—recorded in only one country and most of them are specific to particular areas or regions like Texas longhorns, Gulf Coast sheep in Florida and Louisiana, and Mulefoot pigs in Missouri.

Many of these breeds, however, are also vulnerable to extinction—they are not as profitable and farmers focus on a few breeds to maximize products for national and global markets. There are estimates that over 100 livestock breeds have gone extinct in the last 15 years, and 29.54% of existing livestock breeds worldwide are at risk of extinction, while for the majority of breeds we lack data on their status, size of population, or likelihood for survival for the future.

Why are local breeds important? They are the result of centuries and even millennia of adaptation to their environments through human management and natural selection pressures. They are living gene banks of biodiversity and have special traits in comparison with industrial livestock—some are resistant to parasites or diseases; feed on different forage; or are highly fertile or long-lived. Others thrive in hot or humid environments such as Gulf Coast sheep that don’t have wool on their bellies, legs, or heads.

Despite many years of research, current information on these breeds is sorely lacking. There is very limited genetic data on most of the economically important animal breeds on the planet, and the pressures of industrialized agriculture are pushing farmers to focus on the few breeds with the current highest economic rewards. But this comes at a cost—today’s industrial farming strategies are not sustainable for an unknown future. Local breeds are living genetic repositories. They are the result of long-term histories and cannot be simply made in a laboratory. They are the future of our food security.

Many species are on the brink of extinction and need conservation help, and many are perhaps more photogenic or emblematic than cows or sheep. However, livestock breeds need this help too if we want to secure genetic diversity in our foods. This conservation doesn’t need to be expensive—dedicated farmers and conservation groups should be financially supported in maintaining local breeds. If the federal government is turning its back on these initiatives, state and local governments need to help fill the gap. Small investments today will pay dividends in the future to keep our food systems resilient.

"Please make this go viral. . . . Please help us."

Those are the words of Osiriss Azahael Vázquez Martínez in video messages he was able to record from the overcrowded Krome detention center two weeks ago. Vázquez Martínez, 45, a construction worker, lived in the United States for a decade and "was arrested [in February] for driving without a license on his way home from work," the Miami Herald reported.

Crouching under a table in what is apparently a waiting area, Vázquez Martínez knew his message was from a place we might not even know about. "This is happening right now in the Krome detention center in Miami, Florida," he says in Spanish. "We are practically kidnapped."

Thirty-five years ago, I taught English at Krome. The photo accompanying Vázquez Martínez's story—an exterior view of Building 8, the men's "dormitory"—reminded me of how remote the detention compound seemed when I would drive home after my classes, from the edge of the Everglades back to Miami Beach.

"You're brainwashed over there [to think] 'These are all scumbag inmates,'" he said.

Teachers worked at Krome back then through a Dade County Public Schools contract with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, predecessor to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The detainees, our students, came from around the world, though most were Haitian asylum-seekers. They were frustrated and bored. They were also quiet, calm, and appreciative of any small efforts the teachers made to help.

So it was surprising when Krome guards, also known as detention officers, warned us to be careful. Informally and at "briefings," they told us the detainees were dangerous, even though we were used to moving freely through the common areas, registering students, and sitting with them to study or talk. Guards also asked us teachers to act as their "spies." When I brought in copies of the Miami Herald to use for English lessons, guards told us not to let detainees see newspapers. Later I'd understand the reason.

Out of sight, Krome guards would beat men regularly and force women to trade sex for the promise of getting out. The Herald had started reporting on all of this, even as the immigration agency barred its reporters from the detention center. Miami, and much of the country, would learn about these practices—they weren't aberrations—from a teacher who had been working at Krome for years and finally decided she had to speak out about what the detained women had been telling her (Miami Herald, 4/11/1990).

As I started to research detention further, I was able to interview a former Krome guard who explained how the officers were conditioned to view all immigrants as criminals, and how this, in their minds, justified the brutality. "You're brainwashed over there [to think] 'These are all scumbag inmates,'" he said.

The ex-guard told me that his fellow guards, not the detainees, were the dangerous ones. He called his colleagues "cop wannabes" and said, "I tell you from experience. I was going, 'Wow, I got a badge and a gun now.'" The more experienced officers encouraged him to lock detainees in the bathroom for hours at a time, just to let them know who had the power, and he did it.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance didn't invent anti-immigrant rhetoric and violence. Brutality and racism have always been part of the immigration enforcement regime. But the longstanding principles of U.S.detention and deportation policy—dehumanization of the immigrants and unchecked power for their guards and deporters—have metastasized under the Trump-Vance plan.

Our government now glorifies and celebrates the humiliation and violence, as it has in the U.S.-El Salvador collaboration on what historian Timothy Snyder has called a propaganda film worthy of the 1930s.

In 1990, the "average daily population" of immigrant detainees in the United States was about 5,000. On March 23 of this year there were 47,892 people acknowledged to be in ICE custody.

Last year the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) randomly chose 5 out of 44 available videos of use-of-force incidents at Krome from a given six-month period. Four of the five videos depicted the use of pepper spray by guards against detainees who were already restrained or who were offering no resistance at all.

DHS's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL) also investigated Krome, reporting on "concerns related to inappropriate use of force and the impact on the mental health of the noncitizens involved with the incidents." Congress formed OCRCL during the post-9/11 Bush administration in response to, among other things, "widespread illegal and abusive detention of Muslim and Asian immigrants." The Trump administration has eliminated this and other watchdog agencies and removed OCRCL documentation from the agency website. (At least some of the material has been preserved at the Wayback Machine.)

A DHS spokesperson said that government oversight has "obstructed immigration enforcement." In other words, the law itself is an obstruction, and "enforcement" is a synonym for lawlessness.

This plays out in large and small ways at Krome and elsewhere.

At Krome, a reporter from Reason was barred by an "ICE supervisor" from observing public court hearings. At the Batavia detention center in New York State, guards are illegally opening and copying detainees' legal mail.

ICE's "administrative detainees" are also being incarcerated in federal prisons, although the government refuses to say which prisons or how many prisoners. In this way the Bureau of Prisons can help keep the immigrants away from their lawyers.

Back in 1998, the officer-in-charge at Krome said "that the problem was that some officers did not want to accept the fact that detainees were human beings." Last month USA Today reported that women held briefly at Krome, which is an all-male facility now, were chained for hours on a bus without bathroom access. Guards told them to urinate and defecate on the floor, and some had no other choice.

Detainees at ICE's Otero County Processing Center in New Mexico told USA Today they staged a "sit-in" because they wanted to see deportation officers or a judge. Some had been held for seven or eight months. Even if they wanted to leave the U.S. voluntarily, they couldn't do so. One of the nonviolent protesters, Irrael Arzuaga-Milanes, said he was punished with four days of solitary confinement. (The ACLU has just obtained ICE documents, for which it had to sue, concerning ICE policies on solitary. ICE has used this punishment as a form of torture, according to the United Nations.)

There will be more protests by detainees against wrongful detentions, illegal deportations, overcrowding, and mistreatment. ICE detention guards, private-prison contractors, and county jails holding ICE detainees will respond with the excessive force that the administration actively encourages. And not only encourages: Our government now glorifies and celebrates the humiliation and violence, as it has in the U.S.-El Salvador collaboration on what historian Timothy Snyder has called a propaganda film worthy of the 1930s.

There's a small bit of good news here. A day after the Herald reported on conditions at Krome, 200 protesters rallied outside that immigration prison. Also in recent weeks:

• In Washington State, labor unions protested outside ICE's Northwest detention center to support people locked inside;
• In North Carolina, women protested the arrests of their husbands (stopped based on lies by law enforcement) who were then sent down to Krome;
• In New Jersey, protesters opposed the planned reopening of the Delaney Hall detention center to be operated by the GEO Group, while Newark city inspectors have reportedly been barred from entering the detention center construction site; and
• In Rhode Island, protesters outside the Wyatt Detention Facility demanded the release of their immigrant neighbors.

There are almost 200 of these "facilities"—that we know of—across the United States, as well in Guam and the North Mariana Islands, used by ICE to hold immigrant prisoners as of late 2024. The prisoners are in ICE's "processing centers," in county jails, and (the overwhelming majority) in private prisons. There are also 25 ICE field offices, as well as ICE "check-in locations" around the country.

There's room outside all of them for lawful protests and demonstrations against the lawlessness and inhumanity inside.

Trump’s 2024 election win partly relied on complaints over inflation, like skyrocketing egg prices. However, his tariff-focused strategy to protect American businesses may raise costs further by limiting foreign competition. This will lead to even higher prices for staples—eggs, bread, meat—undermining his anti-inflation stance. This convoluted approach bolsters arguments for socialism or communism, where essentials are subsidized or free, ensuring affordability. While tariffs appeal to nationalist voters, they risk alienating those demanding lower grocery bills. Can tariffs curb inflation, or do they invite radical economic alternatives?

The post Trump’s Tariffs Make the Case for Communism appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Listen/Watch LIVE 2 pm Eastern and Streaming Anytime Afterward: In this episode of DeProgram, hosts John Kiriakou and Ted Rall examine three pressing issues shaping current events as of April 8, 2025. The discussion begins with Chief Justice John Roberts’ recent decision to issue an indefinite stay on a court order requiring the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadorean migrant, halting his deportation amid legal challenges. The hosts analyze the implications of this ruling for immigration policy and judicial oversight. Next, they address the stock market turmoil linked to President Trump’s tariff policies, exploring how these economic measures have sparked volatility, disrupted trade, and raised concerns among investors and analysts. The episode concludes with a focus on the latest developments in U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, held the previous Saturday, where Trump’s administration offered talks but threatened military action if Iran’s nuclear program advances unchecked. The hosts assess Iran’s response, including its public rejection and back-channel outreach, alongside the broader geopolitical stakes, such as potential Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. This episode delivers a concise, critical look at these interconnected legal, economic, and international challenges.

The post DeProgram: Salvadoran Migrant Case, Trump Tariffs, Iran-US Nuclear Talks appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

Let me first congratulate the 504 law firms that have thrown their support behind Perkins Coie in a friend-of-the-court brief. Perkins Coie was the first firm to receive a vindictive executive order from Trump that jeopardized its ability to represent government contractors and limited its access to federal buildings, all because one of its attorneys had helped investigate Russia’s support for Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The 504 firms rightfully declare that Trump’s attack on law firms poses “a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.” Their brief goes on to say:

“Unless the judiciary acts decisively now, what was once beyond the pale will in short order become a stark reality. Corporations and individuals alike will risk losing their right to be represented by the law firms of their choice and a profound chill will be cast over the First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress.”

Perkins Coie and two other firms that received almost identical executive orders —WilmerHale and Jenner & Block — are now fighting the executive orders in court (WilmerHale and Jenner & Block also signed the friend-of-the-court brief).

Big firms supporting Perkins Coie include Covington & Burling (28th in The American Lawyer’s rankings of the top revenue-generating firms) and Arnold & Porter (47th).

Frighteningly, though, not a single one of the nation’s top 20 firms by revenue have signed on — including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Gibson Dunn, and Sullivan & Cromwell. Nor did Skadden Arps, which recently struck a deal with Trump to avoid an executive order. Nor did Paul Weiss, which was the target of an executive order before it reached a deal of its own.

Two other firms chose to cave to Trump’s demands even before being hit with an executive order. Last week, the two firms — Willkie Farr and Milbank — cut deals with Trump promising to dedicate $100 million of pro bono work to causes that Trump supports.

The big firms that refused to sign on to the friend-of-the-court brief worry that signing the document will draw Trump’s ire and cost them clients.

It’s a clear choice between courage and greed.

The big firms that did sign the friend-of-the-court brief have enough courage to put their potential profits on the line. They know that failure to stand up to Trump only emboldens him to go after more firms whose partners or attorneys (or former partners or attorneys) have sought to hold him accountable for his various crimes.

The big firms that refused to sign because they’re afraid of angering Trump have let America down. They’ve also violated the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which state that “it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action” and “it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.”

What to do?

1. If I were a law school dean, I’d refuse to allow any of the unprincipled law firms to recruit students on my premises. Why teach students law and ethics only to have them drawn into an unethical law firm?

2. If I were graduating from law school and had an offer from one of these unprincipled law firms that refused to put their name on the friend-of-the-court brief, I’d have second thoughts about joining the firm. Why join an unprincipled law firm?

3. If I were an associate in one of the big firms that wimped out, I’d organize all other associates at that firm and seek a meeting with the partners—at which I’d ask why the partners put profits before principle. Then I’d seriously consider resigning from the firm.

Friends, this is serious. The only way to confront Trump is through unified action—as exemplified by the 504 law firms that have signed on to the friend-of-the-court brief opposing his executive order against law firms that have upset him.

Disunity—as exemplified by the unwillingness of the largest law firms in America to sign on—only feeds Trump’s power-mad bullying.

From childhood, I think I had some eerie sense of just how bad it could get in America. After all, in junior high and high school, I was riveted by this country’s Civil War. Among all my toy soldiers — cowboys and Indians, British marching troops in red jackets, and plastic Army-green World War II soldiers (from my father’s war) — and those Landmark Books on American history that I piled up on my floor to create hills and valleys where I could play out the cowboy and Indian ambushes and battles I had seen at local movie theaters, my favorites were always the blue and grey lead soldiers of the Union and Confederacy, including Commanding General Ulysses S. Grant on a horse. (He’s still in the saddle on a small shelf beside the computer where, almost 70 years later, I’m writing this.)

In those days, thanks to my parents, I also subscribed to the history magazine American Heritage, whose editor was Bruce Catton, while, in my spare time, I feverishly read the Civil War histories for which he won a Pulitzer Prize. (I still have my ancient copies of Glory Road, This Hallowed Ground, and A Stillness at Appomattox.) At some point in those youthful years, my father even drove me to Gettysburg to see firsthand the site of perhaps the most crucial and devastating battle of that war.

I don’t think I ever truly imagined, though, what it might be like for this country to be at its own throat again, especially in the eerily strange way it is today. I never dreamed that the world I grew up in (despite Senator Joe McCarthy) could truly ever — yes, ever — begin to come apart at the seams. And yet, at this very moment, that very country, the United States of America, is at the edge of who really knows what, but nothing — I can guarantee you — that our children or grandchildren would be thrilled to play out on the floors of their rooms (or even their video screens). In truth, how in the world would you play Donald J. Trump and crew? To my surprise, I find that there are indeed Trump toys and an Elon Musk bobblehead, and even — can you believe it? — a Pete Hegseth action figure (or am I being conned?). Still, tell me how, on the floor of your childhood room, you would sort out Trumpworld and an America that appears to be coming apart at the seams, not in ancient history but right before our eyes on a planet where the same distinctly holds true.

“Drill, Baby, Drill”

I don’t know who the Bruce Catton of the future will be or what he or she (or, yes, in the age of Trump, they) might write, but I do know that there will be no Bull Run, no Gettysburg or Appomattox, no glory on that distinctly unglorious road to… well, who knows what. Count on one thing, though: it ain’t going to be pretty.

No, Donald Trump isn’t Jefferson Davis (and he certainly isn’t Abraham Lincoln), nor is he even, I suspect, a Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler in the making. He’s distinctly his own strange and strangely disturbed character. He’s the man who, until he was suddenly elevated to the presidency, was known mainly for being the host of the TV show, The Apprentice, in which contestants battled for jobs in his companies (“You’re fired!”), while he pulled in the dough; for a series of books written in his name by others; and, of course, for overseeing six companies that, with remarkable consistency, all went bankrupt before he was elected — yes! — president of the United States! Elected a second time no less, even after having been told “You’re fired!” by American voters in 2020. Under the circumstances, in the Trumpworld of this moment, no one should be surprised if bankruptcy once again becomes a subject of interest.

Think of him, in fact, as President Bankrupt. Though I have no way of knowing whether he’ll literally bankrupt this country as he and Elon Musk attempt to take it apart at the seams (while globally putting tariffs of all sorts on a striking variety of goods and sending the stock market plunging), there is indeed something distinctly bankrupt about the world he represents.

And in that sense of bankruptcy, he’s a far less singular figure than he so often seems. After all, in my grown-up lifetime, the way was prepared for Donald Trump in a striking fashion, whether you’re talking about making war on this planet (in this century, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) or all too literally making war on this planet. We’re talking, of course, about the man who won the presidency the second time around on the slogan “drill, baby, drill,” and whose representatives are now doing their damnedest to take apart the Environmental Protection Agency, not to speak of the environment itself. In the end, loud as he is, however incessantly he babbles on, he may be overseeing a future “stillness,” if not at Appomattox, then across this planet itself.

Like every American president since George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, President Trump is now engaged in his own war (guaranteed to end in a fashion no better than the others of this century), this time in Yemen. He’s already sworn that the bombing campaign he recently launched there (though Joe Biden’s administration did some of the same) won’t end anytime soon. As he put it, “I can only say that the attacks every day, every night… have been very successful beyond our wildest expectations… We’re going to do it for a long time. We can keep it going for a long time.” A long time, indeed, before there is ever again a stillness in Yemen.

And sadly, when it comes to wars, that’s the least of it for Donald Trump (and the rest of us). After all, though it’s seldom thought of that way, he’s at war with the planet in a fashion that’s no less brutal than what he’s now doing in Yemen. Of course, to put him in a proper wartime context, humanity is now essentially engaged in World War III (though no one thinks of it that way) on this planet, at least as a livable place for us and so many other species. And in that war, President Trump is distinctly a warrior first-class of a devastating sort.

In fact, just imagine for a moment, on that toy floor in your brain, how Americans could twice elect (slim though those majorities were) a man whose most significant “plank” in the last election was indeed the phrase “drill, baby, drill” and the promise that he would essentially fight the slightest attempt to bring this already desperately overheating planet of ours under any sort of control. He would instead do his damnedest to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency as a functional workplace, while “walking away from virtually every important climate policy on the books.” (After all, why would anyone want to protect the environment in which we all live???) He is, of course, also doing away with any efforts to deal with climate change, including almost instantly reversing some of Joe Biden’s relatively modest attempts to respond to global warming. Instead, he’s preparing to go all out to take the country that already produces more oil than any other on Earth (or in history), and also exports more natural gas than any other, into a blazing future.

Nothing is too remote for him to take a hammer to, not when it comes to the climate. His administration has even typically ended “a flagship foreign aid program to support renewable energy projects and increase electricity access across Africa” run by the now largely dismantled U.S. Agency for International Development. And all of what he’s done so far is only the beginning of what should be considered his climate war — which will also be a war against the rest of us and, above all else, against the future.

Despite the progress that has indeed been made globally when it comes to producing clean energy, the use of greenhouse-gas-producing fossil fuels remains on the rise on Planet Earth, even without Donald Trump in the White House. Now, of course, he’s intent in his own striking fashion and — the second time around this is indeed an appropriate word — tradition on bankrupting the planet itself as a livable place for the rest of us. And yes, he did indeed oversee those six bankruptcies earlier in his life, but historically they will prove to be nothing compared to the bankruptcy he’s likely to oversee in the next three years and nine months before he leaves office (if he does), while saying, “You’re fired!” to the American people and the world. In a country that distinctly seems to be coming apart at the seams — if not in a literal civil war, then in some kind of civil dissolution — think of him indeed as President Bankrupt (and that bankruptcy is going to play out on Planet Earth in a way that might once have been unimaginable).

Down, Down, Down

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump has already spent the first days of his second term in office, as Robert Reich put it recently, attempting “to intimidate lawyers, law firms, universities, the media, and every other institution of civil society.” And just to add one more thing to that list, he’s doing his best to devastate this planet.

The Earth is already feeling the heat. In 2024, the hottest year on record, according to the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization (though these days you can say that of more or less any year, since the last 10 have been the hottest ever), there were a record 151 extreme weather events — heatwaves, floods, and storms — planet-wide that were worse than any previously recorded in whatever regions they hit. Take that in for a moment and then think about the fact that Donald Trump won the 2024 election by what may prove to be the most devastating 1.6% of the vote in history.

Madness, right? Imagine what those extreme weather figures might look like three years and nine months from today, after ever more record heat. And then try to imagine what books your grandchildren (or mine) might be reading in their rooms some years from now: The Road to Hell? This Damned Earth? A Stillness at [you fill in the blank, but be sure to make it loud and terrifying]?

Think of Donald Trump, then, not only as President Bankrupt, but President Decline. After all, he’s the leader of the country that, only 30-odd years ago, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, was considered the “lone superpower” on planet Earth and now is anything but. In that sense, Donald Trump represents something that might be considered old hat in this world of ours: the decline of empire. After all, the country that once, all too long ago, was led by a crew that liked to think of themselves as “the best and the brightest” is now led by a crew that could certainly qualify as the worst and the dumbest, and seems intent on creating an America that will prove to be a bankruptcy first class.

Not that there’s anything strikingly new about that in the history of empires. What’s new, of course, is that Donald Trump may, in his own fashion, be overseeing and intensifying a planetary bankruptcy as well, a kind of decline and fall that until now hasn’t been part of the human experience.

Of course, it’s possible that public opinion might just be starting to turn against him and the Republicans. And the civil-war-style mood might even be toning down a bit (though I wouldn’t count on that). Nonetheless, it’s not happening faintly soon enough to matter on a planet already heating to the boiling point.

For the foreseeable future, unfortunately, we will all be living in a burn-baby-burn world whose climate will be set by that expert in bankruptcies, Donald J. Trump.

The chief of the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, Exterminator-in-Chief Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, jumped on his plane and jetted from one International Criminal Court denier—authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán of Hungary—to another ICC denier in Washington, D.C.: U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump is the second U.S. president to give Netanyahu the green light for the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Biden was guilty of 17 months of complicity in the Israeli genocide of Gaza, while Trump is 2.5 months and counting.

Trump and Netanyahu Are Two Peas in the Same Nasty Pod

Trump and Netanyahu are two peas in a nasty pod.

No doubt, Trump issued his sudden invitation to Netanyahu to visit him in Washington as a morale booster to the war criminal facing International Criminal Court arrest warrants abroad and court proceedings on corruption charges when he returns to Israel.

Trump knows what it feels like to have court dates, multiple court dates… Bibi will no doubt ask advice on how to escape the court proceedings while in office since Trump has successfully jumped that hurdle with the cooperation of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The fate of Palestinians depends on us making our government stop fueling the genocide.

Bibi doesn’t need any advice on how to be vindictive to those who oppose him, although Trump will no doubt regale him with stories of intimidation tactics on universities, law firms, and the media.

Domestically, Netanyahu has ignored the tens of thousands of Israeli citizens who are screaming for a cease-fire that would return Israelis still held in Gaza. Just ignore them, fire members of the cabinet, and bomb the hell out of Gaza and get the bulldozers moving to cut Gaza into military sectors for ease of the final extermination of Palestinians are the diversion tactics used by Netanyahu.

Israeli bombing using U.S. bombs and assassinations by drone in Gaza continue on steroids, with the Israeli blockade of food, water, and medicines grinding into its fourth week. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress cowardly voted down the joint resolutions of disapproval of weapons systems worth $8.8 Billion, including 35,000 of the 2,000-pound bombs that will destroy buildings and shred human bodies for a quarter of a mile, expanding the extermination of Palestinians in Gaza and the displacement of over 40,000 in the West Bank. U.S. President Donald Trump went golfing.

Domestically, while golfing in Florida, Trump faced over 1,400 “Hands Off” rallies across the United States opposing his slash-and-burn operations in the downsizing and destruction of the federal government and the collapse of the U.S. economic system through the vindictive tariffs on goods that are imported from around the world, including apparently from penguins on some mysterious tiny island known only to the penguin world.

The April 5, 2025 rally and march for Palestine in Washington, D.C. with hundreds of tiny shoes and slippers lining Pennsylvania Avenue looking east toward the U.S. Capitol reminded those with a conscience of the terrible brutality of the U.S. complicity in the genocide of children of Gaza. The stage for the rally had the words “Let Gaza Live” with the U.S. Capitol in the background—a reminder for history of the cruelty of the U.S. Congress in voting for bombs to maim, orphan, and kill these children.

While Citizens Protest Worldwide, Governments Cower in Fear of Being Called Antisemitic by the Israeli Government as It Accelerates the Genocide of Gaza

Governments in Europe and North America take no action to stop the genocide of Gaza but instead cower in fear of being labelled antisemitic by the Israeli government and Christian Zionists as Israel accelerates the extermination of Palestinians in Gaza.

Yet citizens around the world protest, march, and rally to try to convince their governments to take action to stop the genocide, to stop sending Israel weapons. The United States and Germany lead as bombing accomplices.

The fate of Palestinians depends on us making our government stop fueling the genocide.

And our own individual and collective morality and consciences are at stake.

We cannot stop!

We will not stop until the genocide ends and Palestinians are free from Israeli occupation and terror!

Streaming 10 AM Eastern & 8 AM Mountain time + Streaming Afterwards:

In this episode of “The TMI Show,” hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan tackle the upcoming US-Iran talks slated for this weekend. They dig into the nitty-gritty: the US wants tighter reins on Iran’s nuclear program, while Iran’s after sanctions relief to juice its economy. The goal? Keep the Middle East from boiling over.

Ted, with his razor-sharp political lens, predicts a standoff—Iran’s stubbornness clashing with US posturing. Manila, ever the pragmatist, questions if either side can stomach a compromise. They spar over outcomes: a fragile deal or just more bluster. Expect Ted’s biting sarcasm on oil prices and Israel’s shadow moves, paired with Manila’s knack for cutting through diplomatic fluff. It’s 60 minutes of unfiltered takes—will diplomacy win, or are we doomed for chaos? Rall and Chan don’t hold back. Catch the fireworks.

The post TMI Show Ep 113: “Iran-ing Out Nuclear Issues” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

There are two central facts about the Democratic Party that everyone must understand if our democratic republic is going to survive President Donald Trump’s authoritarian counterrevolution:

1. The Democratic Party is the only institution in our society with the breadth and scale to defeat and vanquish Trumpism
2. The Democratic Party, as currently configured, has proven incapable of doing this.

That sounds pretty hopeless.

However, there is a path forward. We can change the “configuration” of the party, i.e. transform the Democratic Party.

Can that be done in time to rebuff Trump and save our democracy? The answer has to be “yes” because it’s our only hope.

Fortunately, right on cue, events over the past few weeks reminded the public why centrist Democratic leaders have failed to protect America from Trump; and that progressives, in sharp contrast, are more than capable of rejuvenating the opposition and inspiring mass participation.

This is the final installment in a four-part series that argues that a progressive transformation of the Democratic Party is required to defeat Trump, Musk, the lockstep GOP, and 21st-century fascism in general.

Indeed, by early-March, public approval of the Democratic Party was already at an all-time low. The central complaint was that the Democrats were too weak to stand up to Trump. And that was before Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) capitulation.

On March 14, a Stopgap Budget Bill needed to pass the Senate to avoid a government shutdown; and, to overcome a filibuster, it needed support from a handful of Democratic Senators. Finally, here was the opportunity to block the Trump agenda, to “gum up the works” as Democrats had promised. Petitions arrived on Capitol Hill; phone calls flooded the switchboard, pleading with Democrats to take a stand. Nope. Schumer delivered the votes the Republicans needed. Disgust with the Democrats reached a new crescendo.

Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.-Vt.) was barnstorming through middle America, speaking to overflow crowds. Then he was joined by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) for a swing through the Mountain West and the crowds grew even larger and more exuberant. Here was the vital opposition. The vast audience hung on every word, recognizing that the progressive proposals presented were the antidote to Trump’s destructive agenda. They spoke to the needs, not just the anger, of the population.

Most importantly, there was a tangible sense of solidarity present. Both Bernie and AOC called upon the people gathered to join with them, to organize in their communities and build a movement to defend democracy, protect the environment, and advocate for policies that prioritize the interests of the working class—and, significantly, remain engaged with electoral politics.

This was exactly the message people came to hear. They understand that a popular movement that presents a positive progressive vision for society and organizes to win elections is necessary to turn the tide against Trump. They are ready to act, along with millions more across the country.

Progressives have to seize the moment.

The Constitution’s system of checks and balances, designed to protect America from tyranny, are teetering. The courts have limited some damage, but one would have to be willfully naive to believe that a Federalist Society-dominated Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter in the judicial branch, will rule against right-wing authoritarianism. We already see that congressional Republicans, even with razor-thin majorities, will not break with Trump to defend the Constitution.

Therefore, our best hope for preserving our constitutional democracy is the election of a Democratic House majority in 2026. As a prerequisite, we will need a party that fights before election day to ensure that we have free and fair elections. The Democratic Party is the only institution in contemporary American society that can take on this task—and the more people it mobilizes, the more likely it will succeed.

This moment is crying out for progressive leadership.

This article outlines a workable strategy for progressives to transform the Democratic Party through mass entryism. The plan’s centerpiece is an updated “outside-inside strategy” designed to overcome the barriers that protect entrenched interests inside the party. Through this strategy, we can unseat the neoliberal status quo, which condemns the party to failure, and facilitate the mass entry of the party’s progressive base, which will lift the party to victory over fascism.

History is demanding that the Democratic Party change—and change fast. That is not going to happen by simply wishing it will come true.

This is the final installment in a four-part series that argues that a progressive transformation of the Democratic Party is required to defeat Trump, Musk, the lockstep GOP, and 21st-century fascism in general.

The first two articles explained that of the three major political tendencies in the country (the Trumpian reactionaries on the right, the neoliberal “moderates” in the center, and the progressives on the left), only the progressives adequately address the two major complaints that the public has about the direction of the country: 1. The performance of the economy for the vast majority of Americans; and 2. Mistrust of politicians and the political system.

As such, the only effective antidote to the current crisis of our democracy will be the rise of the progressives.

The third article, the most polemical in the series, challenged Americans to recognize some difficult truths. Our constitutional system of government is under attack from within. We are at a perilous moment in our history. For all its flaws, both historical and contemporary, our democratic republic and open society must be defended against the unfolding fascist coup. However, our last bastion of defense is a seemingly listless Democratic Party. As one of the two parties in a nationwide two-party system, it alone has the capacity to take on and defeat a threat of this magnitude. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all people of conscience to get inside the Democratic Party and get to work.

This article, the final installment in the series, presents a viable plan for progressives to transform the Democratic Party into the party that we need; and which, through an alliance with independent left progressive elected officials (like Bernie Sanders), will be poised to win majorities across the country, undo the damage wrought by Trump, and build an America as great as its promise. A country at peace with the world, in harmony with the planet, with an economy organized to ensure that the working class is a prosperous middle class.

Thus, before introducing the “outside-inside” plan to transform the Democratic Party, it’s important to reiterate that this is more than a strategy to win elections in the short run, it’s an outline to dramatically improve American society through mass political participation. As such, it is a strategy to win elections now and for the foreseeable future.

It’s not enough to express anger at Trump—as centrist Democrats are finally starting to do, even as they intend otherwise to proceed as before. Such an opposition party cannot defeat Trumpism. Sure, it’s plausible that this sorry crew could pull off a victory in the midterms—but only because of the horrors of Trump.

While any victory over Trump is welcome, no one should believe that a party that represents the previous status quo can vanquish Trumpism in the long run.

The public recognizes that by complacently calling for a return to “norm,” establishment Democrats are advocating for a society with little to offer them. America in the 21st century has been defined by massive wealth inequality; where the average person has to have two, three, or four jobs, working 60, 70, 80 hours a week, just to keep their head above water; with a broken and inhumane healthcare system designed primarily to steal people's money and give it to the idle investor class; where there is an epidemic of despair among our youth; with legions of fellow citizens homeless; where the jobs are not coming back; where a lot is said but nothing is ever done about persistent structural racism, or mass incarceration, or rampant drug addiction (both “legal” and illegal); and humanity is burning itself off the planet.

Such an opposition party in a two-party political system, even if it achieves a narrow 51-49 victory in 2026 or 2028, can only forestall the rise of savage fascism—because only one of the two options promises change.

We need another option. Only an opposition party that sincerely addresses the crises that afflict American society and proposes workable solutions—and then implements those plans upon being elected, like FDR—can revive faith in the country. We must transform the Democratic Party.

What follows is a simple blueprint for transforming the Democratic Party into the party that America, and all those who believe in democracy around the world, needs in the 21st century.

The Outside-Inside-Outside Strategy

The following proposal is based on Progressive Democrats of America’s (PDA) two decades of experience working to increase progressive influence within the Party.

Throughout its history PDA has deployed an “inside-outside” strategy. Its members establish themselves inside their local party while maintaining coordination with social movements and the labor movement on the outside of the party. This not only builds support for these movements in the political and legislative realms, but also grounds PDA members in the issues important to communities and the grassroots.

Then, in 2013, PDA launched the Run Bernie Run campaign, calling upon Sen. Sanders to run for president as a Democrat. The campaign was successful, and Sanders’ spectacular performance in the primaries changed American politics for the better—reestablishing progressive politics nationwide.

What better time to build a party through which people will meet fellow community members and share their ideas about how society should be organized?

In the aftermath of the 2016 Sanders campaign, tens of thousands of activists entered the Democratic Party in the hope of moving it in a progressive direction.

While some met with success, most encountered considerable resistance. Democratic Party rules differ from state to state, so they were made to feel unwelcome in a wide variety of ways.

Fast-forward to 2025, and the general sentiment among progressive activists is that the party establishment will do whatever necessary to keep them away.

However, staying away is not an option. History is demanding that the Democratic Party change—and change fast. That is not going to happen by simply wishing it will come true.

What’s needed is a new strategy to transform the Party.

Here’s our proposal, based on two decades of experience:

Progressives must establish an organization—or, at least, a well-defined network of organizations—on the outside of the Democratic Party that is dedicated to transforming the Democratic Party into an exemplary progressive Party committed to the needs and aspirations of the general public.

This organization or network would convene progressives in each state since party rules differ significantly from state to state, and also coordinate nationally, with the clear goal of overcoming the barriers to progressive influence that the party establishment has erected.

As for a unifying political agenda, which is very important, it should be kept simple so that it’s not a source of dissension and distraction. PDA supports adopting the 2020 Sanders for President platform, with some minor tweaks and updates. Also, given the current crisis, a short negative agenda, opposing Trump’s policies, could be added.

Just as importantly, a set of basic demands to reform the Democratic Party should be adopted nationally, including the elimination of dark money from all party primaries, mandatory reporting of all revenue and expenditures, and requirements for a high level of direct engagement with party members and the general public.

In every state, our organization should operate on two fronts: 1. It should organize members to move into the party, determining and then implementing strategies for transforming the party in a progressive direction; and 2. It should hold public-facing events, showing the public what a truly inclusive and welcoming 21st century political party can look like.

On the first front, here are seven strategies that the statewide organizations could deploy:

1. Decide upon one progressive candidate to endorse in each primary election for a local, state, or federal office. It’s essential to unify progressive support behind the endorsed candidates and avoid splitting the progressive vote.
2. Encourage all members to sign up with the Progressive Caucus of their state’s Democratic Party. Progressive Caucuses exist in about 30 states (members in the other states should petition the party to create one). Joining the Progressive Caucus will keep members abreast of progressive initiatives within the party; and the increased membership in the caucus will be a significant show of strength. However, the caucus is not a substitute for the organization itself, as most caucuses have a limited purview within the party. Still, the caucus can operate as our anchor inside the party.
3. Encourage members with the time and fortitude to run to be a party officer or a member of an official party committee, at either the county or state level, or as a precinct captain. The officer and committee candidates should campaign on changing the platform and rules of the party in a progressive direction, and advocate for greater public engagement; party finances should be transparent; and big money should be banned from primaries, with severe consequences, such as de-endorsement, for candidates who do not comply.
4. Run a candidate for party chair on a progressive policy and party reform platform (see No. 3).
5. Campaign for the adoption of a truly progressive party platform. Once this is achieved, insist that candidates endorse the platform and then hold elected Democrats accountable.
6. Encourage members to join their local Democratic Clubs, or form a club themselves, and share the progressive agenda with members of the club.
7. Every person who joins the outside-inside organization should be encouraged to attend Democratic Party events, its state conventions, follow news about the internal operation of the party, and vote in party elections—but also (and this is important), because most working people in America have so little time, it is essential the organization respect this fact, and find ways to engage with such busy people, who support the organization’s work, to keep them updated and feeling they are valued members of the organization even if they can’t attend many events or meetings.

Then, most importantly, after pursuing these initiatives, members should reconvene in the outside organization and share notes about their success or failure. Like a football team re-huddling after every play, they can adjust their approach and go for it again. In all likelihood, they will devise strategies beyond the seven outlined above.

Over time, and possibly very quickly, this approach will produce breakthroughs. In some states, the party infrastructure is not well populated. Even in states where more people are participating, there’s often a lack of enthusiasm, let alone inspiration. Still, in most cases, progressive activists will encounter barriers to entry and influence.

This is why the establishment of an organization, operating independently on the outside of the party, but dedicated to gaining power in each state party, will make a huge difference compared to recent efforts. Getting to reconvene with fellow progressives, hear about their experiences, and use that knowledge to devise better strategies will mitigate any sense of defeat, and build perseverance.

Lastly, at the national level, the organization should push for a similar ban on dark money in the presidential primaries, and fight to make sure that all the candidates share a level playing field.

On the second front, that of inviting the public to join the effort, the organization should more-or-less operate as a de facto political party—as a party-inside-a-party, so to speak, that happens to be on the outside of the party. And, by adopting exemplary practices, it can prove to the world that democracy, far from dying, remains the best system of political organization for the 21st century.

In this regard, each statewide branch of this new organization must allow for broad participation. This means holding public forums, inviting everyone regardless of political affiliation, engaging with and learning from the people. (Each state branch of the organization should have its own fundraising capacity and balance sheet. Even as some funding will come from the national organization.) Through such events, we can rapidly grow the ranks of our “progressive party outside the party.” In turn, we will invite the new members to join our efforts to “take over” the official Democratic Party. Soon, we will be able to flood the party with progressive activists.

We should aspire to build a party that accommodates people according to their needs. In particular, we must find ways to hear from people who work long hours, and don’t have time to attend meetings, let alone volunteer. Just as we must respect people who don’t want a barrage of text messages. We should engage people at their own pace; always keeping an open line of communication and making sure to check in with everyone a few times per year, placing a priority on listening.

The great Italian political philosopher Antonio Gramsci posited the idea of a political party creating a counter-hegemonic space, where the people could discover their own culture. Certainly, this concept should be applied to our era when countless hours of our lives are lost staring into handheld devices, our minds channeled down rabbit holes by algorithms designed by and for the benefit of our class enemies. What better time to build a party through which people will meet fellow community members and share their ideas about how society should be organized? Study after study suggests that contemporary Americans have a ravenous appetite for exactly this kind of social space.

The organization will also facilitate a full flowering of the classic “inside-outside strategy.” Representatives from social movements and labor organizers will always be provided a platform—as will the broad array of Resistance activists, in particular those from communities and groups of workers under direct attack from the Trump administration. Members of the organization will convey their messages inside the party and call upon elected Democrats to support them.

Also, the organization’s public events will invariably attract people supporting the wide array of radical and visionary projects long marginalized by the moderate Democratic Party. A progressive party, true to its principles, would want to learn about the innumerable mutual aid projects across the country, and consider public policies to support such efforts. Indeed, ours should be a party open to all projects that serve the general welfare.

As such, we should not be shy about reclaiming words like liberty and freedom, long held hostage by the right wing, for all the people—and we should absolutely pull no punches in embracing free speech, rejecting censorship, and exposing right-wing hypocrisy on that front. Such initiatives will help negate the constant misrepresentation of progressives in right-wing media (and by moderate Democrats as well).

Of course, the organization should always be advocating for, and educating the public about, signature progressive policies like Medicare for All, a 21st-Century Economic Bill of Rights, free public higher education and childcare, affordable housing, support for the labor movement, a reduction in Pentagon spending, the Green New Deal, and the Rural New Deal. Almost all of these have majority support among the general public, and their adoption would reestablish an American social contract defined by prosperity for all.

Now for the big question: Can this work?

Two answers.

1. It’s a moot question. It simply has to be tried. Progressives are far too aware of the failings of mainstream Democrats to have faith that they can save us from fascism. But it goes deeper than that. Their zombie ideology is not going to revive itself. History has turned the page on neoliberalism.

So, either we act now to position progressive politics as the viable alternative to Trump or we’re complicit in the end of our democratic society. In our two-party system, there’s only one option: We have to transform the Democratic Party. So, let’s get to it.

2. Yes, it will work.

But only if two important conditions are met.

The first is that the balance of the progressive movement must get behind the effort. You may have noticed that I haven’t been describing this as a PDA initiative, though PDA most certainly will pursue the strategy outlined above. (Indeed, please join PDA, as we will be launching this initiative in the next week—including the recruitment of partner organizations.)

PDA is only one of a number of sizable national progressive organizations, and, for a campaign like this to be successful, it’s important that most of the others join the effort too.

In the coming days, PDA will be reaching out to our regular partners, Our Revolution and Roots Action, as well as a long list of frequent partners and allies, including labor unions, and ask them to be partners.

Fortunately, there is good news, very good news, on this front. Bernie Sanders has been calling for a similar approach to electoral politics in recent days.

On the one hand, he has been calling for the Democratic Party to make many of the changes outlined above (with special emphasis on getting dark money out of the primaries). In general, his critique of the contemporary party matches up with PDA’s.

On the other hand, Bernie has been emphasizing something that, at first glance, may appear to conflict with PDA’s strategy, but the opposite is true—we love the idea. Sen. Sanders has been calling on progressives to consider endorsing independent candidates, especially in parts of the country where the Democratic brand is in shambles. Why does this not contradict our strategy? Because it’s something PDA has practiced throughout our history. You may recall that we ruffled some feathers in the party when we drafted an independent senator to run for president as a Democrat in 2016. The same independent senator that we’ve endorsed every six years.

The Democratic Party can be the party of the working class—and no one will think we’re gaslighting anyone, and we’ll win national elections—when we adopt the Sanders-AOC policy program, which will dramatically improve the lives of the majority of the population.

Not only does Sen. Sanders’ proposal about independent progressive candidates suit our strategy perfectly, but it will be aided by our organization. The success of such an independent candidate requires that the Democratic Party not throw its support behind a Democrat in the general election—this was the case last year in Nebraska when the Democratic Party “stood down” for independent candidate Dan Osbourn. Our “outside-inside” organization is perfectly suited to help facilitate, and, with the right independent candidate, support this strategy.

In the coming days, I will be reaching out to Sen. Sanders to talk about coordinating our efforts.

The second important condition is that, even in states where we might endorse independent candidates, the Democratic Party itself must be a central focus of the campaign. This can’t simply be a matter of supporting progressive candidates.

Why? Because Trumpism will not be vanquished until the opposition can implement transformative policies that will noticeably improve the lives of Americans. This will not be possible until progressives win control of the party and can diminish the power of big money, which effectively buys primaries for moderate neoliberal Democrats. This is especially pronounced in the U.S. Senate where Democrats, on balance, are more conservative than in the House—and where primary elections are much, much more expensive.

Thus, even though a strong majority of Democratic voters support progressive policies, congressional Democrats invariably champion a milquetoast set of technocratic adjustments that will improve very few people’s lives. This plays right into the hands of a demagogue like Trump. Yet moderate Democratic incumbents will be safe in their seats until progressives gain control of the party and can level the primary playing field (and also call out incumbents for not supporting the party platform). Only then will the public feel that Democratic Party candidates are serious about making changes to improve their lives.

It follows that building progressive power inside the party is a necessary precursor to the passage of transformative progressive legislation. This is an opportune time to pursue this strategy, as incoming Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin has said that he welcomes an influx of progressives into the party.

Of course, Martin extends this invitation in a spirit of party unity, which progressives should also embrace while never bending on principle. After all, it still remains essential that we join together to defeat the fascists and preserve our democratic republic.

Having said that, we will be calling for, and organizing to achieve, a progressive transformation of the party. We just need to proceed with grace and decorum. We’re confident that we’ll win the debate. The facts are with us 100%.

Neoliberal and moderate Democrats keep losing national elections to an anti-constitutional authoritarian Republican Party that itself has very low public support. Why? Because moderate Democrats are a status-quo political formation, and the public is profoundly dissatisfied with the state of the country.

Furthermore—and this really drives the point home—when it became apparent after the election that the mainstream Democrats had “lost the working class” to Trump, mainstream Democrats across the nation started talking about the working class. But there was no discernable change in the policies they support. This is gaslighting, and the public will see right through it.

Progressives, as part of the same political party as the moderates, need to explain this politely to the moderates and to the party activists, rank-and-file members, and the general public.

The Democratic Party can be the party of the working class—and no one will think we’re gaslighting anyone, and we’ll win national elections—when we adopt the Sanders-AOC policy program, which will dramatically improve the lives of the majority of the population.

I’m confident that progressives can win the debate over the direction of the party while maintaining a spirit of comity and anti-fascist unity.

So, there you have it. Public dissatisfaction with the party is so profound, the moment is ripe for a progressive takeover—and this can be achieved through some basic organizing and old-fashioned stick-to-itiveness.

Many historians have noted that periods of significant social progress often follow great crises. Well, with Trump, we have a great crisis unfolding.

If we take appropriate action now, not only can we limit the damage, but we can set the table for a new progressive era and the redemption of democracy.

Join PDA’s efforts to create a truly progressive Democratic Party, which we desperately need at this crucial hour of our history.

NB: In the previous article in this series, I promised to respond to the myriad objections (i.e. excuses) people have to becoming active in the Democratic Party. Because of the great length of this article, I will publish those retorts at the end of an addendum to this series that I will publish in a few weeks, which will also update the progress of the project outlined in this article.

On U.S. President Donald Trump’s first day back in office, he pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords again, halted leasing and permitting for offshore wind energy projects, and signed executive orders promoting fossil fuel development. The previous Trump administration rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations. It seems likely he’ll now continue this process with even more vehemence.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report in 2018, which found that “global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.” A 1.5°C rise in temperature will render the Earth virtually uninhabitable.

We are already somewhere between 0.8°C and 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels and trending in the wrong direction. 2024 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 2023, the previous record holder.

Former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres (writing with co-author Tom Rivett-Carnac) once predicted how the world might look in 2050:

In many places around the world, the air is hot, heavy, and depending on the day, clogged with particulate pollution. Your eyes often water. Your cough never seems to disappear. You can no longer simply walk out your front door and breathe fresh air. Instead, before opening doors or windows in the morning, you check your phone to see what the air quality will be. Everything might look fine—sunny and clear—but you know better. When storms and heatwaves overlap and cluster, the air pollution and intensified surface ozone levels can make it dangerous to go outside without a specially designed face mask (which only some can afford).

Current government policy is to accelerate this threat.

Partisan rhetoric can give the impression that scientists are divided on this issue. The debate around climate change is usually a debate about whether climate change exists. Not what to do about it.

According to a 2021 study by Cornell University, there’s 99.9% agreement among scientists that climate change is caused by humans. You won’t find that level of consensus among scientists about gravity.

The right wing knows this perfectly well. Donald Trump, for instance, applied for a permit in 2016 to build a coastal protection wall to prevent erosion due to rising seas levels at one of his seaside golf courses. The permit application explicitly mentioned global warming.

There used to be a right-wing opposition to climate change. In the early 2000s, Newt Gingrich was proposing measures to deal with climate change. Then, the fossil fuel industry came in and essentially remade the Republican Party in their image.

A famous study from 2013 by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University documented how David and Charles Koch, through their think tank Americans for Prosperity, got members of Congress to sign a pledge to vote against virtually any climate legislation which would regulate businesses. In 2013, more than 400 current officeholders had signed this pledge.

This was a major turning point in the fight against climate change. From 2003 to 2021, the number of Republicans who believed global warming was caused by human activity dropped from 65% to 32%.

According to the U.N., between 3.3 and 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change. As ecological catastrophes become more and more common and large areas of the globe become uninhabitable, there’s going to be greater mass migration to the First World than we’ve ever seen. The instruments of separation (walls, cages, border patrols) have already been erected, but they won’t be able to stop it. People will find a way.

Failure to curb the use of fossil fuels and halt carbon emissions will mean crop shortages, heatwaves, droughts and floods, even more devastating hurricanes, rising sea levels, and wildfires. There is growing concern among experts that thawing permafrost could release viruses which have been dormant for thousands of years, potentially causing pandemics worse than Covid-19.

Are we in the final century of human civilization? It’s very possible. This is the generation that will decide whether humankind continues. If the world continues on its current trends, it will mean species suicide. It’s imperative that we take the blinders off and face these crises openly and honestly. By the time they become too severe to ignore, it will be too late to do anything.

“No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice….”

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restored the two-term tradition that President George Washington established. Except for Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, every president since Washington has followed it. President Donald Trump talks about breaking it.

Is he just waiving another shiny object at all of us? Or is he previewing his ultimate power play? With Trump, it’s always best to assume the worst.

Distraction From Disasters

Distraction is a classic Trump strategy. He draws attention away from his failures. And a little more than two months into his second term, there have already been plenty. Examples:

• He promised an economic boom.

But it’s been a bust: persistent inflation, plunging stock market, falling consumer confidence, global trade war, a looming “Trumpcession.”

• He promised a more efficient government.

But he’s gutting it: decimated worker morale, devastating spending cuts undermining public health and safety, allowing his family and friends to exploit personal conflicts of interest for private gain.

• He promised that “only the best people” would run his government.

But his advisers are a clown car of incompetent loyalists: national security team using a commercial app for top-secret discussions; vaccine-denier secretary of health and human services willfully ignorant of science gutting public health agencies; a hatchet-man terminating federal workers who safeguard America’s nuclear arsenal.

• He promised to improve America’s global stature.

But he destroyed our standing as a leader of the free world: undermining NATO; alienating America’s friends; taking Russia’s side in the brutal war that it launched against a democratic nation; inflicting massive economic pain on our closest allies; dismantling “soft power” diplomatic weapons—USAID and Voice of America—that won hearts and minds for decades.

Trump benefits from anything that moves the spotlight away from the ongoing disasters he is inflicting on America and the world.

Preserving His Power

Even so, Trump’s talk about a third term is more than a distraction.

As a lame duck president, his power has a limited shelf life. But holding out the possibility of remaining in office past 2028 stops the erosion of his influence. He can maintain control of his MAGA base, silence potential GOP critics, and retain his grip on congressional Republicans. Trump’s threat to remain in office is as important as his ability to execute it.

How Viable Is the Threat?

Some scholars argue that the 22nd Amendment barring a twice-elected president from being elected for a third term does not prevent him from serving another term if he reaches the office through a different path. They offer this hypothetical: In 2028 Trump runs for vice president with JD Vance at the top of the ticket. The ticket wins, President Vance resigns, and Trump becomes president again.

But the 12th Amendment provides that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States.” Because Trump will have served two terms and be “constitutionally ineligible” to serve again, he would not be “eligible” to run for vice president either.

With his conservative majority, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the Constitution to place Trump above the law. Would the court stop Trump’s ultimate power grab or crown him king for life?

“Since you’re not electable as president, you’re not eligible to be president, and therefore you’re not eligible to be vice president,” said Yale University constitutional law professor Akhil Reed Amar.

Northeastern professor Jeremy Paul declared that using the vice presidency as a back door to a third term is “ridiculous.”

Likewise, according to Princeton professor Deborah Pearlstein, “Trump is constitutionally ineligible to serve a third term. End of story.”

Except Fairleigh Dickinson professor Bruce G. Peabody doesn’t think it’s the end of the story: “[T]he weight of legal, historical, and policy argument still falls on the side of permitting a twice-elected president to lead the executive branch once again.”

Peabody’s argument goes something like this: The Constitution elsewhere defines presidential “eligibility” as anyone who is a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. If that definition merely establishes the minimum requirements for running, a twice-elected President Trump would still be “eligible” to seek the vice presidency.

Whatever ambiguity might exist surrounding a presidential third term, the obvious resolution is to adopt a new constitutional amendment repealing the 22nd Amendment. But that’s where the academic debate yields to the real world. A new amendment would never gain the requisite approval—two-thirds of both houses of Congress and two-thirds of the states.

Practical Problems

Ultimately, other real-world questions are even more important:

• If Vance ran as a presidential placeholder and won, would he then step aside?

• Will Trump’s incompetence continue until accumulating failures so erode his support as to render potential reelection a fantasy?

• Will Trump, who will be 82 years old when his current term expires, be capable of holding the presidency for another four years?

• If Trump tries to run in 2028, will the courts act quickly enough to stop his power grab?

With his conservative majority, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the Constitution to place Trump above the law. Would the court stop Trump’s ultimate power grab or crown him king for life?

Asking for forebears who died on battlefields to preserve my freedom.

The anger and frustration Americans are feeling toward the Democratic Party reached a boiling point earlier this month, after ten Senate Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for a federal funding bill that slashes everything from disaster relief to school meals for our kids. Presented with an opportunity to stand up for working people, Senate Democrats immediately tossed in the towel. But the Democratic leadership crisis isn’t limited to the U.S. Capitol. In states where Democrats hold the majority, the reasons they’re losing working people become painfully clear.

Over the first two months of the new administration, we’ve seen states with Democratic trifectas and supermajorities duck for cover. Instead of exercising their power to make life better for working people and respond to the devastating actions at the federal level, they’ve kowtowed to corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors.

Look at Delaware—a bright blue state with a governing trifecta—where Democrats worked hand-in-hand with Elon Musk’s lawyers to land Musk a $56 billion pay package. Displeased with a court ruling that denied his bloated Tesla pay package, Musk made good on his threat to move the company’s copyright registration to Texas. But he didn't want to leave without his payday, and state Democrats were eager enablers.

Any person living in these blue states should be demanding that their governor, attorney general, and state legislatures use their power to stand up to Trump and Musk.

Democratic spines in other blue trifecta states are no sturdier. In Colorado, Democrats have advanced a bill to slash the tipped minimum wage, which could result in $8,000 a year in lost income for full-time food service workers. Directly to the south, in New Mexico, Democrats compromised their own paid family and medical leave bill that now leaves too many working-class state residents behind.

During the election, Donald Trump and Musk were able to capitalize on the Democrats’ disregard for working-class voters. However, it hasn’t taken long for Trump and Musk to show their true face. They’re already signaled their plans to make deep cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Republicans have no interest in governing on behalf of working people. Democratic pundits from across the spectrum have emphasized the need for Democrats to put working people at the center of the party. But the Democrat’s lack of a coherent message or plan of action to address the Trump-Musk destruction is pushing away those exact voters.

The steady drift of working-class people from the Democratic Party is the reason the Working Families Party was founded 27 years ago. And in the absence of a clear plan from Democratic leaders, WFP legislators are stepping up to fill the void. In Rhode Island, WFP legislators are pushing a 13-point agenda that, among other things, guards against cuts to Medicaid, lowers the cost of healthcare, and protects tenants against retaliatory evictions. In New York, WFP legislators are fighting to pass the Working Families Tax Credit, which will put money back into the pockets of working families. And in Philadelphia, housing protections enacted by Working Families Party City Council members have led to a 41% drop in eviction filings over the last year.

After the disappointing results in November, Democrats in blue states should be using their power to show how government can make life better for working people. Yet after months of soul-searching and post-mortems, the lessons of the past election have quickly worn off.

As Indivisible points out in their handbook, there are nine more states with Democratic trifectas than there were in 2017, and the 15 states with trifectas are major economic powerhouses making up nearly half of the country’s gross domestic product.

Any person living in these blue states should be demanding that their governor, attorney general, and state legislatures use their power to stand up to Trump and Musk. They have the ability to protect residents and ensure uninterrupted access to the services and benefits we all need. Waving the white flag and enabling their money grab doesn’t show working people that you’re in their corner.

Democratic legislators in triple blue states can choose to be courageous, unlike many of their congressional counterparts. In state after state, Working Families Democrats are putting forward a plan of action. It’s on their fellow legislators to follow their lead.

It’s hard to remember that only 10 weeks ago, the American economy was quite good, our foreign relations were on the whole positive, we were on the way to dealing with climate change with subsidies for wind and solar energy, and we still lived in a democracy.

Today, all that is disappearing. The economy is in acute danger, our relationships with traditional allies are collapsing, we’re subsidizing fossil fuel polluters, and we’re turning into a dictatorship.

This has happened in part because of President Donald Trump’s continuing creation of fake national emergencies.

As Trump declares emergency after emergency to justify his reign of terror, he’s simultaneously eliminating America’s capacity to respond to real emergencies.

He has declared foreign trade a national emergency and used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to raise tariffs to levels not seen since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930.

During his 2024 campaign, Trump pledged to bring Americans immediate relief through lower prices. Scratch that. Americans now face higher prices for automobiles, groceries, clothes, and other goods.

He has declared immigration a national emergency and used the National Emergency Act and war power under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to authorize mass deportations.

Now, no one is safe—not even people legally in the United States, possibly not even American citizens.

Last week, Trump officials admitted they had made an “administrative error” in abducting Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man whose wife and child are both American citizens and sending him to a notorious Salvadoran prison—despite a court order that he could remain in the United States because he might face torture in El Salvador. To make matters worse, the Trump regime says it has “no power” to get him out of that El Salvador prison.

After a hearing on Friday, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to bring Garcia back to the United States. She found “no legal grounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal… [H]is detention appears wholly lawless.” And yet, she wrote, administration officials “cling to the stunning proposition that they can forcibly remove any person—migrant and U.S. citizen alike—to prisons outside the United States.”

What guarantee do we have that American opponents of Trump won’t be abducted and sent to El Salvador?

Once everything becomes an emergency, there’s no bottom.

All told, since taking office on January 20, 2025, Trump has declared six national emergencies, including a “National Energy Emergency” and an emergency declaration against Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

He has also in effect declared an emergency to justify his wholesale leveling of significant portions of the federal government and civil service and his virulent attacks on the pillars of civil society—our universities, the media, science, law, and the arts.

On Friday, Trump reposted a video saying he’s crashing the stock market on purpose—creating a national economic emergency in a “wild chess move” to “force” the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and refinance a chunk of the federal government’s $36 trillion in debt “very inexpensively.”

To be sure, yields for U.S. Treasury notes, which are a starting point for loans from mortgages to corporate bonds, collapsed last week—as the benchmark 10-year Treasury fell more than 10 basis points to a six-month low of below 3.9%.

But that’s no cause for celebration. The economic collapse Trump is engineering is also pushing up prices and pummeling consumers, and it could easily tip America (and the world) into a recession.

Meanwhile, as Trump declares emergency after emergency to justify his reign of terror, he’s simultaneously eliminating America’s capacity to respond to real emergencies.

Just as vast swaths of Arkansas, Missouri, and Kentucky were underwater, Trump announced he’s ending a key program used by communities across the country to help prepare for natural disasters like flooding and fires.

By terminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s program for building resilient infrastructure, Trump has cut off funds to mitigate real disasters, such as raising roads to keep them out of floodwaters or building underground storage units to prepare for droughts.

Make no mistake about what’s really going on here. While the United States has plenty of real problems to deal with, Trump is ignoring them to manufacture the fake emergencies he needs to further enlarge and centralize his power. America’s real national emergency is Donald J. Trump.

Donald Trump's latest barrage of tariffs—levied against imports from China, the EU, Mexico, Canada, and the UK—has triggered a global wave of panic. Stock markets are tumbling, trade relationships are unraveling, and the threat of recession is once again stalking the global economy. JPMorgan recently raised its probability of a U.S. recession to 60%, while the BBC notes that U.S. consumers are already facing higher prices on cars, electronics, and everyday goods.

UK business groups have warned that the tariffs will cause "untold damage" to exports and jobs. Market observers describe the mood as “carnage,” with Wall Street plunging and currencies in freefall. Economists, bewildered by the self-inflicted harm, are questioning the logic. As The Guardian succinctly put it: “In economic terms, Trump’s tariffs make no sense at all.”

But perhaps the key is to stop viewing them as economic policy at all.

Behind the official rhetoric lies a more disturbing pattern: the weaponization of the global economy to reshape alliances, weaken opposition, and consolidate elite control.

Instead, what we are witnessing is a shift in how political and economic power is wielded. Trump's tariffs are less about economic advantage than they are about “power.” They are the instruments of a broader authoritarian project—one that uses economic coercion not as a last resort, but as a first principle.

The Trump administration has framed this crisis as a defense of “national sovereignty,” declaring a state of emergency in order to impose sweeping new trade restrictions. But behind the official rhetoric lies a more disturbing pattern: the weaponization of the global economy to reshape alliances, weaken opposition, and consolidate elite control.

Crony Capitalism Disguised as Protectionism

Trump’s tariffs are not random acts of economic aggression. They are carefully placed tools of political leverage—intended to punish dissent and reward obedience. Want your country's exports to avoid a crushing levy? Then align your foreign policy with Trump's vision. Need your factory spared from punishing steel tariffs? Show loyalty, cut a deal, make a donation.

This is not free market capitalism. It is feudalism with a corporate gloss—where tariff exemptions and trade deals are handed out not on merit, but on allegiance. Indeed even before the announcement, corporations with the right connections in Washington have already begun receiving favorable treatment. The message is clear: if you want to survive in this economy, loyalty to the throne is not optional—it’s the business model.

This isn’t just Trump’s strategy. It is the strategy of an emerging capitalist class that thrives in the dark.

This marks a dangerous transformation. Trump is not merely using tariffs to "bring jobs home"; he is building a new global order in which power is centralized around his persona, and economic access becomes a form of tribute. Allies are not negotiated with, they are enlisted. Enemies are not competed against, they are sanctioned into submission.

Countries like Mexico and Canada are being strong-armed into renegotiating deals that favor Trump’s domestic base. China, meanwhile, has responded with its own retaliatory tariffs and accusations of “economic bullying.” The global trade system is no longer rules-based—it’s relationship-based, and Trump is the gatekeeper.

This dynamic has a name – what I refer to as the rise of the “authoritarian-financial complex”: a hybrid of autocracy and capital, in which markets are no longer neutral platforms of exchange but battlegrounds of loyalty and domination. State power is weaponized not to serve the public good but to enrich a loyal elite through coercive economic tools and manufactured crises. It marks a shift from an imperialist market-driven global capitalist system to a new era where authoritarianism itself becomes profitable —an industry of control that turns state repression, economic chaos, and political loyalty into revenue streams for the ruling elite.

Manufacturing Crisis as an Investment Opportunity

If the tariffs seem irrational through the lens of traditional economics, they make perfect sense when viewed through the lens of crisis capitalism. This is the playbook: manufacture a disruption, create volatility, and let the well-positioned profit from the fallout.

This is not new. Neoliberal elites have long used crises—whether natural, financial, or geopolitical—as opportunities to restructure economies in their favor. The goal is not to prevent crises but to own them, to turn social and economic catastrophe into a series of privatized gains.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, this model was on full display. Private equity and hedge funds disproportionately bought up distressed housing, healthcare companies, and struggling small businesses, consolidating enormous power under the guise of “recovery.”

Trump’s tariff war extends this logic to the international stage. The goal is not to fix the global economy—it’s to turn it into a distressed asset. As markets crash and trade routes collapse, investors tied to the Trump network can scoop up undervalued assets, exploit government stimulus, and re-sell them at massive profits. It's asset stripping on a global scale.

This moment demands clarity. Tariffs that punish enemies and reward friends are not about economic justice—they are tools of elite extraction.

This is why financial markets are not merely reacting to trade uncertainty—they’re anticipating a redistribution of power. The market’s negative response reflects not just fear of economic pain, but recognition that policy now depends on political favor, not stability or reason.

And who pays the price? Ordinary people—through inflation, layoffs, decimated pensions, and rising costs of living. These tariffs may be framed as populist, but they function as pipelines of wealth transfer from the working and middle classes to the ultra-rich.

The New Economy of Obedience

So what are we really looking at? A trade war? A nationalist economic pivot? No. We are witnessing the consolidation of a new form of capitalism—one that fuses state violence, elite finance, and populist spectacle into a coherent, brutal system of control.

Trump’s tariff policies are the scaffolding of a much larger project: to reshape the world economy in a way that rewards loyalty, crushes opposition, and turns crisis into capital. They are not the exception. They are the future—unless they are stopped.

This moment demands clarity. Tariffs that punish enemies and reward friends are not about economic justice—they are tools of elite extraction. The markets are not crashing because Trump miscalculated. They are crashing because the system is being reset. And when the smoke clears, the question is not who will pay the price, but who will own the wreckage.

What is needed is more than hand-wringing about GDP or interest rates. It requires a reckoning with the fact that our economic future is being deliberately reshaped by those who view democracy itself as a distressed asset. The true cost of Trump’s tariffs isn't measured in trade deficits or consumer prices. It’s measured in the dismantling of a rules-based global order in favor of a patronage-driven, authoritarian regime of elite extraction.

This isn’t just Trump’s strategy. It is the strategy of an emerging capitalist class that thrives in the dark. And unless we confront it directly, they won’t just own the crisis—they’ll own us too.

Streaming 10 AM Eastern & 8 AM Mountain time + Streaming Afterwards:

In this episode of “The TMI Show,” hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan tackle the escalating unrest in global securities markets following President Trump’s tariffs, announced last week on “Liberation Day,” April 1. The discussion centers on the dramatic overseas market reactions and the futures markets’ ominous signals. On Monday morning, Asian markets led the plunge: Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 nosedived 7.8%, its steepest drop in a decade, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng cratered 13.2%, the worst since the 1997 financial crisis. Shanghai’s Composite fell 7.3%, and Taiwan’s Taiex shed 9.7%, a record single-day loss. In Europe, the pain spread as Germany’s DAX and France’s CAC 40 each tumbled 5.8%, and Britain’s FTSE 100 slid 4.9%, reflecting widespread fears of a trade war spiral.

Futures markets amplified the dread: U.S. Dow futures dropped 1,246 points by early Monday, signaling more turbulence ahead. With financial expert Aquilles Larrea, Ted and Manila explore the global anxiety—overseas traders are bracing for retaliatory tariffs, supply chain chaos, and a potential recession. With markets reeling and uncertainty looming over the week, the hosts debate whether this is a temporary shock or the start of a deeper crisis.

The post TMI Show Ep 112: “Don’t Look Down: Stocks In Freefall” appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.