Once you’ve been told you have cancer, waiting is the last thing you want to do. As a practicing Gynecologic Oncologist, I know patients with so-called “Medicare Advantage” plans will be waiting—waiting to find a specialist like me within their network, waiting to get pre-authorization for the tests they need so we can discuss their diagnosis and possible treatments and, ultimately, waiting to get approval for their surgery and treatments.

Unfortunately, Project 2025 would make this already difficult process even worse. By fully privatizing Medicare, this Heritage Foundation plan would shift even more power into the hands of corporate insurers, who prioritize profits over patient care. The result would be even narrower provider networks, more restrictive approvals for tests and treatments, and a system designed to delay or deny care to those who need it most. For patients, that means critical time lost—time that may mean more pain, more symptoms, and a decreased chance of being cured.

Under Project 2025, the burden of navigating these hurdles would fall not just on patients, but on physicians and health care workers who are already stretched thin. Physicians for a National Health Program estimates that doctors and their teams would spend up to 43 million hours annually dealing with prior authorizations alone. This clinically meaningless administrative burden steals time that should be spent caring for patients, wastes resources that we can’t afford to lose, and is a source of burnout and moral distress for healthcare professionals.

Corporate insurance plans are designed to make profits, not take care of patients.

I feel helpless to overcome the negative impact that delays in care have on patients’ chances of being cured. But delayed care is often the best-case scenario for seniors in “Advantage” plans, because there is a high potential that the best cancer center in their area is outside of their narrow network and that treatments will be denied.

Research shows seniors with corporate “Advantage” plans have lower access to the high-volume hospitals that most successfully care for uncommon cancers. For example, people with stomach, pancreatic, and liver cancer requiring surgery were shown to have a higher likelihood of dying when compared to seniors with real Medicare.

Despite the overwhelming evidence showing that privatized Medicare does not serve our seniors’ best interests and wastes money, Project 2025 wants to take over all of Medicare by automatically enrolling seniors in corporate insurance plans without their full consent.

This will be catastrophic for people on Medicare, who will face increasing financial burdens and decreased access to care. An estimated 24 million seniors in corporate “Advantage” plans would face limited provider networks that exclude up to 70% of the doctors in their regions. And more than 15 million people would be considered underinsured due to the reduced benefits available under privatized plans. Without the choice of sticking with real Medicare, our seniors would all be threatened by the health impacts of delayed and denied care.

Instead of funneling money into the hands of corporate insurers, we should be cracking down on overcharging and using those savings to strengthen Medicare.

Corporate insurance plans are designed to make profits, not take care of patients, and so they use shady techniques such as upcoding, which boost payment rates by making patients seem sicker than they are. In 2024, so-called “Advantage” plans overcharged the American people by as much as 140 billion dollars—and provided less care with worse health outcomes. If this system of skimming funds were extended to all seniors, the Medicare trust fund would immediately begin deficit spending, leading to insolvency within five years. It would cost $1.5 trillion more than real Medicare over 10 years.

Congress must take a stand to protect American seniors and the Medicare Trust Fund by rejecting Project 2025’s dangerous push to privatize Medicare.

Instead of funneling money into the hands of corporate insurers, we should be cracking down on overcharging and using those savings to strengthen Medicare. For example, a cap on out-of-pocket spending is crucial to ensure seniors receive the financial protection they deserve. We should also invest in much-needed dental, vision, and hearing coverage for everybody on Medicare.

It’s time to give all seniors access to the best care possible and stop wasting our healthcare dollars on corporate profits.

It was William Shakespeare who, in Troilus and Cressida, wrote, “One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.” And yet, in the polarized news cycle since Hurricane Helene ravaged the southeastern United States and the hurricanes have kept coming, we’ve heard a tale not of shared humanity, but of ruin, discord, and political polarization.

Hundreds are dead from that storm—the deadliest to hit the mainland U.S. since Hurricane Katrina in 2005—hundreds more are missing, and hundreds of thousands of residences are still without power or clean water. And in addition to the staggering human loss and physical damage, a hurricane of misinformation and division has continued to pummel the region.

There’s Elon Musk’s politicized deployment of Starlink satellite internet access, which he’s used to credit Donald Trump less than one month before the November election, while undermining the legitimacy of federal recovery efforts. Indeed, listen to Fox News or read Musk’s claims on his social media platform X, and there’s no mention of the pre-arrangements the federal government made with Starlink through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide internet access—for local governments and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation.

The economic disparities that are laid bare and intensified by the climate crisis are absent from the supposed “economic populism” of climate-change deniers like Donald Trump and JD Vance.

Then, of course, there’s Donald Trump falsely claiming that the federal government’s response to Helene was delayed and insufficient because the funds that might have gone to hurricane victims are instead being used to house undocumented immigrants. (FEMA does spend some money on migrant housing, but through an entirely different program.) With this outrageous fearmongering, he’s fanning the flames of anti-immigrant hate that are already raging during this election season. His racist and xenophobic rhetoric has also forced FEMA and the White House to spend precious time and energy trying to counter his lies, rather than focusing their full attention on saving lives and rebuilding broken communities.

And don’t forget Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who insisted that the government actually controls the weather. This ludicrous claim is taken from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (notorious for arguing that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax), who suggested that the government directed Helene towards North Carolina “to force people out of the region so it could mine the state’s large reserves of lithium, a key component in the batteries that power electric vehicles and store renewable energy.”

Such hateful lies and conspiracy theories (and there are more like them!) conveniently ignore the fact that conservative Republican lawmakers passed a funding bill that failed to allocate additional money to FEMA just days before Helene hit, even though the country was entering peak hurricane season in a time when the weather is growing ever more extreme. And it’s no surprise that these lawmakers are backed by billionaires who own some of the very companies most responsible for climate change. Through their scare tactics and anti-government misdirection, they have also provided rhetorical cover for the Christian nationalists and other extremists who were some of the first responders after the hurricane. The Southern Poverty Law Center confirms reports I’ve heard from local sources that “far-right militias and white supremacist organizations are moving into the region to provide assistance—and, if past disasters are any indication, drum up sympathy for their cause.”

Those Who Are Hit First and Worst

Hurricane Helene (like Hurricane Milton that followed it in a devastating fashion) should be a brutal reminder that none of us are truly safe from the worsening effects of the climate crisis. For years, local officials and real estate developers marketed Asheville, North Carolina, as a “climate haven.” With its temperate weather and mountain vistas 300 miles from the ocean, many falsely believed the area would be shielded from storms like Helene. No such luck.

Meanwhile, the last few weeks have also served as a stark reminder that the climate devastation increasingly coming for all of us is experienced most intensely by poor and low-income communities. Just look at the (lack of) full-scale evacuation plans for Hurricane Milton in Florida and it’s clear that those who cannot afford a $2,400 flight or have access to a car and enough gas money to wait out the massive traffic jams of those fleeing such storms may just be out of luck.

In western North Carolina, as rising waters from Helene consumed entire communities, many had nowhere to evacuate. Poor people living in rural areas, often with preexisting health conditions and without health insurance, skipped hospital visits in the chaotic days immediately after the storm. Thankfully, some hospitals opened up beds for patients whose homes were destroyed. But those who don’t have flood insurance—and the residents of the areas hit hardest by Helene were the least likely to have such insurance—and can’t afford to rebuild may soon find themselves joining the many others who have been displaced and made homeless by the storm.

Truly, as the experiences of Hurricane Helene—and now Hurricane Milton, Nadine, and potentially others, too—have proven, the economic disparities that are laid bare and intensified by the climate crisis are absent from the supposed “economic populism” of climate-change deniers like Donald Trump and JD Vance. In fact, it was Vance who called the study and analysis of climate change “weird science” during the vice-presidential debate. He has also praised the lead author of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which proposes gutting FEMA, making it harder for states to get disaster relief, and blocking federal agencies from fighting climate change (not to mention 400 pages of other suggested cuts to this country’s social safety net).

And although they claim that the Harris-Walz ticket is looking after the interests and profits of the wealthy, it’s Vance and Trump who have regularly belittled the poor and cozied up to venture capitalists, tech billionaires, and others among the nation’s corporate elite. In fact, the decades-old abandonment of rural Appalachian communities destroyed by Helene has long been justified by the patronizing and classist “culture of poverty” arguments that Vance himself helped keep alive with his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy.

Storms like Hurricane Helene are a force amplifier of deep societal inequities that will worsen if Trump and Vance are elected in November, but in truth the issue runs deeper than just one political party. Indeed, over the last few years, extreme weather events, pandemics, and other public emergencies have exposed a deep societal disease that has only grown worse after decades of neoliberal policies. Worsening poverty and widening economic inequality should be considered preexisting conditions that are only magnified during moments of crisis. Manoochehr Shirzaei, an associate professor of geophysics at Virginia Tech, recently put it this way: “The tragic flood event in the southeast U.S. is a poignant example of the confluence of multiple factors, including development in floodplains, inadequate infrastructure maintenance and management, and the specter of climate change, whose compounding effect can amplify the disaster.”

From Mutual Aid to Community Power

In the face of so much loss and destruction, the heroism of impacted communities, which have joined together in extraordinary acts of solidarity, has been tragically underreported in mainstream media outlets. Much of the mutual aid and community support for those affected by the hurricane has come from community members themselves, who are working tirelessly to ensure that everyone in need is cared for. The streets of Asheville and neighboring towns have been filled with cars with out-of-state license plates, as everyday people with various skills have driven in from all over the country to lend a hand. On social media, it’s been heartening to see all of the love and support that has poured into these communities.

In Asheville, the stories of this local solidarity are many. There is the Asheville Tool Library, which, while officially closed, is supporting repair projects, including the fixing of generators and chainsaws. There are medics and doctors running free clinics. There are local breweries that are using their equipment to make sure desperate communities still have clean and safe water. There are young people passing out free gasoline to anyone who needs it and others who are writing out instructions in English and Spanish on how to make dry toilets.

The ability of the Panthers to put the abandonment of poor Black people under a spotlight, unite leaders within their community, and develop relationships with other poor people across racial lines was a far more dangerous threat to the oppressive status quo than the guns they carried.

These examples of grassroots leadership offer hope in hard times. After all, this is how bottom-up movements have so often begun throughout American history. In pre-Civil War America, hundreds of thousands of enslaved people smuggled themselves to freedom on the Underground Railroad, forcing the nation to confront the horrors of slavery and igniting a movement to end it. In the 1930s, the hungry and out-of-work began organizing unemployment councils and tenant-farmer unions even before President Franklin Roosevelt launched the New Deal. In the decades before the Civil Rights Movement, Black communities organized themselves to oppose lynch mobs and other forms of state-sanctioned (or state-complicit) violence. And no one can deny the powerful example of the carpools and other community projects of the Montgomery, Alabama freedom struggle during the 1950s.

Indeed, contrary to media narratives that often paint hard-pressed communities as dangerous and their members as only looking out for themselves, the truth is that people in crisis usually do whatever they can to provide for their communities and protect those around them. Dispossessed people care for one another, share what they have, and lend a hand through mutual-aid networks. Such survival struggles may not be enough on their own, but provide fertile ground for deeper organizing among widely disparate American communities that, through the experience of increasingly common mass crisis events, are being awakened to the need for deeper, systemic change.

The Black Panthers’ Projects of Survival

Consider the free breakfast program organized by the Black Panthers in the 1960s. For many Americans, the enduring image of the Black Panther Party is of Black men in berets and leather jackets carrying guns. The self-defense tactics of the Panthers were an emphatic rebuttal to a society that regularly dehumanized and exacted violence on Black Americans. But in truth, most of their time was spent then meeting the needs of their communities and building a movement that could transform the lives of poor Black people. The Panthers bravely stepped into a void left by the government to feed, educate, and care for the poor. But their survival programs weren’t just aimed at meeting immediate needs. For one thing, they purposefully used such programs to highlight the failures of government policymaking to deal with American poverty. By feeding tens of thousands of people, they also forged community-wide relationships and developed widespread trust among the poor, not just in Black communities but in poor white and Latino communities as well. The Panthers’ survival programs were always meant to be launchpads for a wider movement to end poverty and systemic racism.

Indeed, the Panthers consciously called out the grim paradox of a nation that claimed there was never enough money to fight poverty at home, while it spent billions of dollars fighting distant wars on the poor of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. (This paradox continues today, as the U.S. has been funding Israel’s wholesale destruction of Gaza, one of the poorest places on Earth, and now its invasion of Lebanon). Their survival programs gave them a base of operations from which to organize new people into a human rights movement, interweaving all of their community work with political education and highly visible protest.

At the time, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI listed the Black Panthers and their breakfast program as “the greatest threat to internal security in the country.” Government officials feared that such organizing could potentially catch fire across far wider groups of poor Americans at a moment when the War on Poverty was being dismantled and the age of neoliberal economics was already on the rise. In that context, the ability of the Panthers to put the abandonment of poor Black people under a spotlight, unite leaders within their community, and develop relationships with other poor people across racial lines was a far more dangerous threat to the oppressive status quo than the guns they carried.

Solidarity Among the Poor

The experience of the Black Panthers features prominently in the anti-poverty organizing tradition that I come from. In fact, the National Union of the Homeless and the National Welfare Rights Union, sibling poor people’s movements that I was part of in the 1990s, used to teach new organizers the “Six Panther Ps” of poor people’s organizing: 1) Program, 2) Protest, 3) Projects of survival, 4) Publicity work, 5) Political education, and 6) Plans, not personalities. When combined, these six principles form a model for the poor organizing the poor that has been responsible for creative nonviolent action that has called America to conscience and for anti-poverty policies that have impacted millions.

Much like recent beautiful acts of local solidarity in the mountains of western North Carolina and Tennessee and in low-income communities across Florida reeling from Hurricane Milton, the significance of the historic work of the Black Panther Party or of unhoused leaders and welfare-rights activists across the decades begins within poor communities themselves, where people are already engaging in life-saving actions. Out of such depths, grassroots leaders find new and creative ways to connect survival strategies and projects of the poor to a wider movement focused on building and wielding political power. From such local struggles come the very policy solutions to a community’s (and even this country’s) varied problems. This is what it means to work bottom up, not top down!

In a world whose weather is growing grimmer by the year, such examples of mutual solidarity and mutual aid are perhaps the most concrete and material form of hope in these hard times. Such scrappy and life-giving action needs more than acknowledgment and appreciation. Those facing injustice, violence, and displacement need more than thoughts and prayers. Rather, to turn the tide on division and lies, as well as deeper impoverishment and pain, heroic and creative community-building—or what I like to call “lifting from the bottom so that everyone can rise”—must be spread, scaled up, and significantly supported by the larger society. Our politicians, news agencies, and larger population must stop paying homage to billionaires who will profit off our predicaments or politicians who will try to capitalize on any crisis. It’s time to see that projects of survival and solidarity among those struggling the most are our only true hope for a future that will otherwise be ever more perilous.

Because American voters want to prioritize climate-action in the voting booth, Vote Climate U.S. PAC is releasing our 2024 presidential, congressional and gubernatorial Voter’s Guide, making us the only website in the country to provide a climate change Voter’s Guide for candidates for U.S. president, state governors, U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and Statehouses (partial) all in one convenient, user friendly site, making it a unique resource. (Always click the green + button to the left of the candidate's name, for detailed research and sources.)

American voters will also be able to use Vote Climate U.S. PAC’s Voter’s Guide to see if a candidate supports Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. The right to choose safe and legal abortion is a fundamental human right and is a top priority voting issue.

On June 24, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court took away American women’s essential right to bodily autonomy when they overturned Roe v. Wade. Just like climate change, the inevitable compulsory pregnancy that results from losing access to abortion, poses an existential threat to American women. It threatens their lives and health, imposing crippling economic hardships on them and their families. Unwanted pregnancies and births stress the environment, driving climate change and related weather extremes. Now with our Voter’s Guide, Americans can elect pro-choice, climate-action candidates.

We are the only website in the country that gives incumbents and challengers for U.S. president, state governors, U.S. House and U.S. Senate a Climate Calculation, a score ranging from Climate Hero to Climate Zero, helping Americans to vote for climate action. Like most Voter’s Guides, we score incumbents on pivotal climate votes in Congress. But Vote Climate U.S. PAC is the only organization that goes well beyond votes to assess incumbent’s position: what do candidates say about the issue; leadership: what do they do; and putting a fee on carbon polluters. (For more details see our 2024 U.S. House and U.S. Senate – Incumbent Scoring Criteria and 2024 U.S. House and U.S. Senate – Challenger Scoring Criteria)

Our incumbent Governor’s Voter’s Guide also looks at their climate plan. We want to see: support for using 100% renewables by 2030; keeping fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) in the ground; support for zero human-made, greenhouse gas emissions by 2050; and support for at least one of four particular types of carbon dioxide removal, not carbon capture and sequestration,” said Strickler. (For more detail see our Scoring Criteria for Incumbent Governors and Scoring Criteria for Gubernatorial Challengers.)

The following categories, analyzing the politics of climate change, are also updated:

• Climate Heroes: Incumbents and Challengers Who Rated 100%
• Climate Zeroes: Incumbents and Challengers Who Rated 0 %
• Best to Worst Individual Incumbents and Challengers on Climate Change

Our Voter’s Guide helps every American to prioritize reproductive choice and climate action, from the statehouse with a stop in the White House, the halls of Congress and the Governor’s mansion. In fact, if used as intended to create a large, climate-action majority, our Voter’s Guides will revolutionize the politics of climate change.

Given that we’re in the midst of a vote that will determine the fate and future of democracy in America, let’s review what Donald Trump has already said he will do if he gets back into the White House.

In theory many of these things would also require a compliant House and Senate, but with the recent Supreme Court rulings about presidential power he may be able to do many or even most of them by executive order or simply by fiat.

If lower courts rule his actions as criminal, the Roberts Court has already given him immunity from prosecution, so nothing short of a military coup against him or, like four years ago, the refusal of his subordinates to act, could stop him. And he’s going to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Everything mentioned here is based on statements Trump, Vance, or people close to them have already made. And it’s important to realize that most of these things will not directly impact the lives of average working class people so, like when these same things happened in Russia, Hungary, Turkey, etc., the pushback will most likely not be strong or immediate.

His first step would be to gut the press, because the more widespread his actions are publicized the more they’re likely to stir up opposition. He’s already told us how he’ll do this: change the nation’s libel laws so he, his administration’s officials, and his billionaire friends can sue reporters and media outlets for “defaming” and “libeling” them with negative reporting or opinion pieces.

This is a well-trod path; both Putin and Orbán did the same. Much like the way JD Vance’s billionaire mentor went after Gawker when it outed him, the lawsuits will both put out of business the publications and bankrupt the individual reporters and writers. Just like in Russia and Hungary, once the nation’s media outlets are crippled, the billionaires close to Trump will buy them for a song and turn them all into the equivalents of Fox “News.”

Now, like Putin and Orbán, he can work in darkness, or at least have friendly media “explain the necessity” of the unpopular steps he takes.

He begins by firing the entire senior staffs of the DOJ, FBI, and across all branches of the US military and the Department of Defense. They’re all replaced with Trump sycophants who will prevent junior officers or enlisted people from speaking out or taking action to preserve our democracy.

He then orders the indictment and arrest of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Leticia James, Jack Smith, and the entire senior staffs in the various prosecutors’ offices that worked with them to “go after” him. As Trump told a TV interviewer:

“Doing what they did — using the DOJ & FBI to go after their political opponent, that means that I can do it too. In other words, the Pandora’s box is open, and that means that I can do it too.”

And his plans are already well-formed. As Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reported:

“In one post about Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, he warned there will be ‘repercussions far greater than anything that Biden or his Thugs could understand’ and that if the investigations continue, it would open a ‘Pandora’s Box’ of retribution. In another post, Trump wrote that his federal indictments are ‘setting a BAD precedent for yourself, Joe. The same can happen to you.’ In July Trump reposted rally coverage quoting him that ‘Now the gloves are off.’ ‘When will Joe Biden be Indicted for his many crimes against our Nation?’”

Next, as promised, Trump invokes the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which was used during the war of 1812 and to inter American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII. This weekend he said he would immediately launch “Operation Aurora” to begin rounding up “illegals” and “the enemy within”:

“Can you imagine? Those were the old days when they had tough politicians, have to go back that long. Think of that, 1798. Oh, it’s a powerful act. You couldn’t pass something like that today.”

Private prison contractors begin building massive concentration camps capable of holding over ten million people as Trump’s ICE officers — their ranks swelled into the hundreds of thousands — along with state and local police departments begin going house-to-house looking for people who appear Hispanic and can’t immediately produce their citizenship papers.

He’ll also go after Haitians and other legal immigrants from “shithole countries”; the only immigrants and naturalized citizens who’ll be safe will be those of European origin with white skin. Or, as Trump said:

“We should have more people from Norway.”

Large sections of the detention camps are reserved for “the enemy within,” including people like “Adam Schiff” and other “Marxists and communists and fascists.” As he told Fox “News”:

“We have the outside enemy, and then we have the enemy from within, and the enemy from within, in my opinion, is more dangerous than China, Russia and all these countries.”

The FBI begins examining the records of social media companies, which then begin restricting posts. The feds subpoena the social media habits of “suspicious” Americans and begin making arrests of those who have spoken out against Trump; it plays out just like in Hungary and Russia where people who have posted negatively about Orbán or Putin get arrested.

The new leaders of Trump’s military order the former soldiers he considers disloyal — like General Mark Milley and former Defense Secretary Mark Esper — back to active duty so they can be court martialed. Hundreds are rounded up to “cleanse” the ranks of our current and former members of the armed forces as the firing squads Trump has said he wants back begin to operate daily.

The new, all-pro-Trump media assures us, like they do on every channel daily in Hungary and Russia, that it’s all a “difficult” and “unfortunate” but a “necessary effort” to “stabilize America” and “preserve the Constitution.” Nothing to worry about here.

In a repeat of his attack on Portland, Oregon in 2020, Trump sends tens of thousands of federal officers without any uniforms or identification in unmarked vans into “liberal” cities where they begin kidnapping and beating civilians. As he told a Fox “News” town hall, comparing American cities with large Black populations to the poorest parts of big cities in Honduras and Guatemala:

“We have cities that are worse—in some cases, far worse. Take a look at Detroit. Take a look at what’s happening in Oakland. Take a look at what’s happening in Baltimore. And everyone gets upset when I say it. They say, ‘Oh, is that a racist statement?’ It’s not. Frankly, Black people come up to me and say, ‘Thank you. Thank you, sir, for saying it.’ They want help. These cities, it’s like living in hell.”

Abortion ends: Trump’s Vice President, JD Vance, personally oversees the enforcement of the Comstock Act with the approval of six Republicans on the Supreme Court. The law is already on the books, bans all abortions (and pornography) nationwide, and Vance has already written a 2023 letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding it be enforced immediately.

Physicians and companies running health apps are required to report fertile women and girls’ menstrual periods to a national database; those who resist are arrested or their companies or apps are taken over and handed to Vance allies to run.

Trump then pulls the US out of NATO and announces America is forming a strategic alliance with Russia, China, and North Korea. India, Turkey, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, and Hungary quickly join. Ukraine is overwhelmed and falls to Putin, who then invades Latvia and Lithuania to re-establish his old Baltic Soviet ports. Europe’s NATO countries, lacking the support of the US and hindered by objections from Hungary and Turkey, dither and pray he won’t take Poland, Estonia, and Finland next.

Jared Kushner begins developing “beachfront properties” on the land previously known as Gaza.

All US efforts to mitigate climate change and shift away from a carbon-based economy are ended as a gift to Trump’s fossil fuel donors; high internal and foreign import tariffs are put on electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind power systems. All tax breaks for green energy are ended, while those for oil and gas are expanded.

Claiming that America’s unionized public school teachers are a threat to our country, and Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, is “the most dangerous person in the world,” the Trump administration outlaws teachers’ unions (much like Scott Walker did in Wisconsin) and puts into place a national clearinghouse for school vouchers, paving the way for virtually all elementary and secondary education to be provided by churches and for-profit operations. Trump University reboots itself in collaboration with a nationwide Christian chain.

Citing nationwide college student protests against his policies, Trump — repeating his promise that “I will not subsidize the creation of terrorist sympathizers” in our colleges — orders a one-year moratorium on university education in all institutions that he deems “still hire or employ subversive professors.” Conservative or Christian/Catholic institutions of higher education become the only option for young people who can afford them and want a degree.

Pointing to the Bill of Rights, Trump fulfills his promise to “roll back every Biden attack on the Second Amendment.” Armed militias of Trump followers sporting their trademark red hats and AR15s — led by January 6th “patriots” pardoned by Trump — begin “the great purge” of America, rousting and sometimes burning down the homes (as was done in Hungary against Roma people) of their “liberal” or “subversive” neighbors, often with the assistance of local police.

Trump decrees that American law will only recognize two genders and, with the assistance of six Republicans on the Supreme Court, reverses all legal protections for the queer community, including voiding all gay marriages and adoptions by gay parents (as Putin recently did). The question of criminalizing birth control is, per Clarence Thomas, returned to the states just like abortion was, and within two weeks several former Confederate states end access to contraception.

Criminal law and restraints on police are altered to allow “shoot to kill” orders against anybody caught committing a property crime in any American city. As Trump told a crowd in Anaheim, California recently:

“Very simply: If you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store. The word that they shoot you will get out within minutes, and our nation, in one day, will be an entirely different place. There must be retribution for theft and destruction and the ruination of our country.”

Citing comments by John Roberts that there is no longer racism in America and Clarence Thomas’ opposition to affirmative action programs, Trump issues an executive order declaring all laws against racial and religious discrimination null and void. He reverses the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Churches, stores, restaurants, and hotels begin putting back up the “Whites Only” signs they were forced to take down in the 1960s and 1970s.

Widespread arrests begin and Louise and I, along with thousands of others in politics and the media, flee the country or go into hiding.

And then things begin to get really bad.

Correction: An earlier version of this article said that pig farms in Ecuador's Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas region generated roughly 15 million pounds a day. It has been corrected to reflect the fact that 4.4 million pounds of waste are generated per day.

Our natural world is in crisis. An area the size of Portugal is deforested every year on average, and wildlife populations have declined by an average of 73% since 1970. Deforestation is a leading driver of the climate crisis, and wildlife loss can destabilize precious ecosystems.

To tackle this, two years ago governments agreed on the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), a set of goals and targets to protect nature. On October 21, leaders will meet at the United Nations biodiversity COP16 summit in Colombia to formally review their progress for the first time.

The industrial animal livestock sector is by far the largest driver of biodiversity loss, and must be where attendees at COP16 focus their attention.

“There is no nature anymore. Pollution in the air, pollution in the river.”

In the last 50 years, global milk production has more than doubled and meat production has more than tripled. This increase has been achieved through industrialisation—by putting more and more animals in smaller spaces, in worse conditions, feeding them more supplements and medicines, and using resources more intensely. It has led to poor animal welfare, low quality of food, and health risks for humans and other animals, including antibiotic resistance.

It has also led to hugely negative impacts on the environment, including for wild animals and their habitats. Livestock farming is the leading driver of deforestation—with clearing of forests for land for cattle accounting for 42% of all deforestation. The production of farmed animals and the feed for them now occupies 80% of the world’s agricultural land, yet provides just 17% of humans’ global calorie supply.

As a result of these factors, today 70% of all birds on Earth are farmed poultry, and 93% of all non-human mammals are livestock with just 7% wild. Overhauling the way we produce food is vital to protect our natural environment and to stem species loss.

Multilateral development banks (MDBs)—such as the World Bank Group—have made a series of commitments to protect nature, yet despite this the five biggest MDBs invested over $4.6 billion in factory farming between 2011 and 2021, and have shown no signs of reducing their spending since.

At the U.N. climate conference COP26 in 2021, leading MDBs released a Joint Nature Statement promising to support governments and the private sector to tackle nature loss. And at COP28 last year they went a step further, including committing to “tackl[e] the drivers of nature loss by fostering ‘nature positive’ investments” and “valu[e] nature to guide decision-making.”

In addition, Target 14 of the Global Biodiversity Framework agreed by world leaders requires public and private financial flows to be aligned with the goals of the GBF. This means MDBs must ensure their investments align with other GBF targets, like Target 4 to halt species extinction, and Target 10 to enhance biodiversity and sustainability in agriculture.

But rather than investing in sustainable forms of food production, MDBs are propping up a broken model of factory farming that is totally at odds with these pledges.

For example, the private sector branches of the World Bank Group and the Inter-American Development Bank Group have together invested over $200 million into PRONACA, Ecuador's largest pork and poultry producer. PRONACA used the funds to build and expand a series of factory farms, including in Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, an area of Ecuador home to Indigenous peoples and tropical forest.

According to a shocking report by the Ecuadorian Coordinator of Organizations for the Defense of Nature and the Environment (CEDENMA), PRONACA's pig farms in the area generate roughly 4.4 million pounds of toxic waste each day, fouling the soil, air, and waterways.

CEDENMA surveyed local communities about the impact of the factory farms. Interviewees told them that PRONACA contaminated rivers, killing off fish that local people rely on for food and jobs, and harming local tourism. One intensive pig breeding farm was set up just meters away from a sacred site.

“There is no nature anymore. Pollution in the air, pollution in the river,” said one local resident.

Investments like in PRONACA are unfortunately just one of hundreds of harmful factory farm investments made by MDBs. Similar investments have been made or are being planned in Bangladesh, Nigeria, Poland, and elsewhere all over the world.

Ahead of COP16, we and other members of the Stop Financing Farming coalition are calling on MDBs to stick to the commitments they’ve made to protect nature by ruling out any further finance for factory farming and instead supporting more nature-friendly forms of agriculture. This means investing in the production of more plant-rich foods, and when they do finance animal agriculture, ensuring it is sustainable, following the principles of agroecology.

Shifting finance in this way would not only help protect nature, but also promote nutritionally superior diets, create jobs, and tackle climate change.

Yahya Sinwar’s death, which was confirmed by Israeli authorities Thursday, was long anticipated. Within Gaza, he was one of three key targets; the other two, Mohammad Deif and Marwan Issa were killed months ago.

Sinwar will be remembered by some as an inspired, defiant champion of Palestinian rights, by others as a false prophet and by still others as a bloodstained villain. The one aspect of his role in the 100-year war over Palestine, to paraphrase Rashid Khalidi’s book title, that most will agree upon, is that he failed to understand not only his adversary, but also his friends. He believed, among other things, that his October 7 attack would precipitate Israel’s collapse and that others in the Axis of Resistance would coordinate serious attacks against Israel with his own.

He timed his “big project,” as its planners called it, to exploit civil discord in Israel over Benjamin Netanyahu’s effort to hamstring the country’s Supreme Court and subordinate it to the will of the right-wing legislature. Netanyahu’s gambit spurred massive demonstrations against the government and led some in the reserves, including pilots, to declare that they would not serve until the court reform measure was shelved.

Sinwar interpreted this unrest as cracks in the foundation of the Israeli state. In the very long run he might well prove to have been right. But he was very wrong to think that these cracks could be widened by the big project. Indeed, Sinwar’s assault on Israel and the taking of hostages, was not the wedge he thought it would be, but rather the cement that instantaneously sealed the fault lines.

Sinwar united a factionalized society, reminded them of the rationale for their state and the dark history preceding it.

The result was an all-out war on Hamas. Traumatized Israelis, humiliated and scandalized by an historic intelligence failure, quickly coalesced in favor of a scorched-earth response and Netanyahu’s aim of total victory. And it was understood that as of October 7, Sinwar was dead, if unburied. Sinwar’s hubris triggered a massive assault that eviscerated Gaza’s civilian population and was — is — apparently replete with war crimes related to Israel’s failure to protect Gaza’s civilian population from attack, the targeting of humanitarian agencies, and the failure to ensure that Palestinian noncombatants had adequate access to food, water, and medical care.

Sinwar’s colossal misperception also led to Hezbollah's involvement, which to the grief of both Gazans and Lebanese, was too trivial to fulfill Sinwar’s expectations, but too much for Israel to ignore, as it emptied northern Israel of its inhabitants. This in turn brought Israel and Iran into direct conflict and threatened the escalation of a regional war. And it is undeniably regional — as Houthis increasingly target U.S. vessels in the Red Sea, the U.S. deploys B-2 bombers from Missouri to drop bunker busters on deeply buried installations in Yemen, and the Israelis bomb Yemen’s only port for the transfer of humanitarian assistance.

Sinwar understood well enough that many ordinary Gazans would die in furtherance of his vision of victory. In this, he evidently confused himself with Vo Nguyen Giap, who likewise understood that many Vietnamese would die, particularly in vast U.S. air raids on the North, but was correct in assessing that this would weaken the U.S. internationally, legitimize his campaign to destroy South Vietnam, and unify the country under Hanoi’s rule.

But North Vietnam had a powerful ally, a population many times the size of Gaza’s, a much larger land area, and a highly mobilized society and powerful army. And his adversary to the south was, unlike Israel, fatally divided against itself.

The question for both the Palestinians and Israelis is what happens next. If the two are smart, Sinwar’s successors will offer to release all the remaining hostages, dead and alive, in exchange for an immediate ceasefire and a massive influx of humanitarian aid. The Israelis would be well-advised to declare victory and accept such an arrangement.

The Biden administration, and presumably Vice President Harris, have signaled that Netanyahu’s government is skating on thin ice. The prime minister might calculate that he need only wait a few weeks for a president-elect Donald Trump and therefore pocket Sinwar’s death and carry on with business as usual. This might be a good bet.

But hedging might be a better bet, and that would mean using Sinwar’s death as a face-saving way to manage White House pressure.

It should be self-evident that genocide is bad because it’s genocide, but apparently it isn’t—at least, not to everyone. There is, however, another reason to demand an immediate ceasefire: Unless they change course, the Democrats are much likelier to lose in November than most people seem to realize. That thought should terrify anyone who dreads the prospect of another Trump presidency—potentially with control of both houses of Congress.

A recent poll from the Arab American Institute (AAI) 1received some much-deserved attention (if not enough) because it showed a massive decline in support for Democrats among Arab American voters because of White House support for Israel’s attack on Gaza. That decline could cost the Democrats several swing states.

The AAI poll has, it seems, gotten some Democrats’ attention. The Washington Post reports that this voter shift is a “huge concern” for a Harris campaign that, in the Post’s words, “sees the images of dead civilians as complicating her path to victory in key swing states ...”

Democrats could conceivably recover many of these votes, but it would require concrete action.

That’s a rather cold-blooded way for the Post to phrase it, but it’s certainly accurate. As an unnamed advisor to the campaign told the Post, “It comes down to people saying, ‘I can’t support anyone who supports a genocide.’”

The problem is even bigger than they think. The U.S.-backed violence in Gaza will also cost the Democrats votes in other groups—I estimate more than 60,000 total lost votes in Michigan alone—losses that could demolish Democrats’ chances in November.

Arab-American Voters in Swing States

The AAI poll showed Trump leading Harris by 46 percent to 42 percent among Arab American voters, a dramatic shift from Biden’s lead of 59 percent to Trump’s 35 percent at the same point in 2020. (This polling was conducted before Israel attacked Lebanon, where ongoing events may make these numbers even worse for Democrats.)

To explore the impact of this shift on swing states, I put the AAI’s new polling numbers into a spreadsheet, cross-tabulated them with the total number of eligible Arab American voters in swing states, and used past Arab American voter participation rates to estimate the shift in votes,

(Note: The AAI was kind enough to provide one data point for this effort, but the consultant in me demands that I point out a) that these are approximations based on available data, and that b) that any errors are mine alone.)

That said: There are more than 750,000 Arab Americans of voting age in swing states. Based on AAI’s polling shift, Democrats could lose between 115,000 and 130,000 Arab-American votes in these states.

If the losses were proportional to the voting-age population by state, Democrats could lose:

• 50,000 votes in Michigan
• 10,000 votes in Pennsylvania
• 50,000 more in other swing states

That’s 100,000 swing-state votes lost because of the ongoing U.S. support for carnage in Gaza.

But Arab Americans aren’t the only voters Gaza will lose for Democrats.

A surprising number of people, including some news staffers, tend to conflate Arab Americans and Muslim Americans. That’s a major mistake. Most Arab Americans are Christian, while only about one in four is Muslim.

Conversely, while Muslim-American census information is hard to come by, an analysis of immigration data suggests that most Muslim Americans are not of Arab descent. Among immigrants, who comprised roughly 60 percent of Muslims in that study, South Asians were the largest group, making up roughly one-third of the Muslim-American population, while approximately one in four came from Arab countries. That leaves many lost votes uncounted.

How many Muslim-American votes could Democrats lose over Gaza?

Many Muslim Americans strongly identify with the plight of the Palestinian people. How would that affect the vote?

In 2018m Pew Research reported there were 3.45 million Muslims in the U.S., a figure that was growing rapidly. To estimate Muslim votes at the state level, I extrapolated from a 2020 survey of religious institutions conducted by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB).

(I made sure not to double-count Arab-American Muslims and I subtracted people too young to vote. I can go through my methodology online if people are interested.)

Assuming Muslim Americans vote at the same rate as most Americans rather than at the unusually high participation rate seen among Arab Americans, that comes to approximately 40,000-50,000 additional lost votes in swing states.

And it matters where those votes could be lost. ASARB’s data includes state (and county) level totals. So, by my calculations, that means an additional 11,000 votes lost in Michigan, between 6,000 and 7,000 in Pennsylvania, 6,000 in North Carolina, and 5,000 in Arizona.

Other Vote Losses

There are other votes to be lost, too, most of them among Democrats’ core demographics.

Young voters? A University of Chicago survey found that “college students remain significantly more likely to support Palestinians than Israel, and significantly more likely to take action on behalf of Palestinians in the form of discourse or protest.”

Black voters? Another survey found over two-thirds of Black Americans (68 percent) “want an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, with a plurality (46 percent) strongly supporting the idea.” It also found that 59 percent believed conditions should be placed on U.S. military aid to Israel.

What about Jewish voters? There’s no sign they’re shifting to Trump on this issue. Seventy-one percent of swing-state Jewish voters say they plan to vote for Harris. Could a ceasefire cost her a chunk of these votes? There’s no evidence for that. Israel only ranks fourth in importance among these voters—behind “the future of democracy,” abortion, and “inflation and the economy.”

And some of these voters oppose Israel’s actions.

Besides, as the lead pollster noted (and which I repeat with a kind of familial pride), most Jewish Americans despise Trump. In his words, “Trump is as hated in the battleground states as he is hated in the general population among Jewish voters.”

Is It Too Late for the Democrats?

Here’s what won’t win these votes back: more empty words and rhetorical feints. Take, for example, a “stern” letter to Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant that became public after what looks like a calculated “leak” from the State Department. The letter, signed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, asserts that the White House may invoke U.S. law against providing arms to Israel unless it eases its stranglehold on Gaza aid within thirty days.

Would the Democratic Party rather lose this election than end the U.S.-backed killing in Gaza? If not, there may still be time to stem its losses.

This move seems unlikely to win many hearts and minds, given that:

• As recently as August, “The top U.S. official working on the humanitarian situation in Gaza told aid groups in August that the U.S. would not consider withholding weapons from Israel for blocking food and medicine from entering the enclave”;
• the White House had issued empty ultimatums like this before; and,
• the deadline falls after the election, which understandably heightens skepticism.

Democrats could conceivably recover many of these votes, but it would require concrete action. The steps they could take include, for starters:

1. an immediate halt in arms shipments;
2. the delivery of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies within 48 hours—hand-delivered by the U.S. military, if necessary;
3. a demand to end the IDF-backed settler violence against the people of the West Bank.

Would the Democratic Party rather lose this election than end the U.S.-backed killing in Gaza? If not, there may still be time to stem its losses. But the hour is late—and it grows too late every day for more of the innocent victims of Gaza.

Project 2025 has become a 900-page millstone around the neck of Donald Trump. Whether out of self-delusion or hubris, the plan’s architects made a colossal mistake: they said the quiet part out loud. A recent poll shows that 57% of voters view the agenda unfavorably, and only 4% had a favorable opinion. It’s the reason why Trump has tried desperately to distance himself from the plan, even as Project 2025’s former head boasts about its influence on Trump’s policy priorities.

There’s no question Project 2025 is scary. But if all we do is talk about Project 2025 as a list of “scary things,” we’re missing the bigger picture.

When we talk about needing a long-term answer to Project 2025, we’re not simply talking about a list of ideas, but instead a broad coalition of groups all rowing in the same direction.

Project 2025 represents the consolidation of the authoritarian right. The fact that it was backed not only by the Heritage Foundation, but literally hundreds of other right-wing groups, shows the deep well of support around the plan. The authors aren’t armchair experts either. They’re former Trump officials and GOP heavyweights who know exactly what they’re doing. It means that we should take them at their word when they say they want to expel career civil servants, scrap the Department of Education, and remake government agencies in their own image.

More than just a catalog of sinister proposals, Project 2025 represents the ultimate goal of the authoritarian right: to seize control of every aspect of government and our lives. They want to do what authoritarian governments have done all around the world by limiting our rights, attacking the free flow of information, and undermining the integrity of our democratic institutions.

It’s not a pipe dream either. The right has been successful at installing its draconian laws at the state-level for years. They’ve used Republican-controlled states as laboratories to test out their ideas. As Nashville Rep. Justin Jones put it, “If you want to know what Project 2025 is, look at Tennessee 2024,” or Louisiana and Florida for that matter.

They want to do what authoritarian governments have done all around the world by limiting our rights, attacking the free flow of information, and undermining the integrity of our democratic institutions.

We can defeat Donald Trump on November 5th, but the threat of Project 2025 will endure long after election day.

While we work to block Trump and his MAGA movement, we need our own plan to strengthen democracy and redistribute power from the ruling class to working people of all races. That should begin with breaking the iron grip of the filibuster and getting rid of the Electoral College, both of which have been used to enshrine minority rule in our government. We need to expand the Supreme Court and stop right-wing authoritarians from operating behind the smokescreen of the court system. (Many of Project 2025’s policy prescriptions rely on legal battles that have already been waged and won in conservative-controlled courts.) We need to push through election and voting reforms to prevent the “New Jim Crow” of states blocking citizens from exercising their fundamental rights. Finally, we need to pass the PRO Act and restore the power of working people to organize their workplaces.

Our movements have shown—in state after state, city after city—what’s possible when we win elections and organize our groups around a specific set of policy goals.

Look at Minnesota, where with a razor-thin majority the State Legislature passed one of the most ambitious agendas that we’ve seen in any state: paid family and medical leave, codifying abortion rights, expanding the child tax credit, making school meals free and universal. People have called it the “Minnesota Miracle”—but this result was anything but a miracle. In fact, it was the result of decades of methodical organizing by labor and grassroots groups.

In New York, the Working Families Party and its partners joined together to unseat six Democratic legislators who—with the blessing of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo—caucused with the Republicans, handing them control of the chamber. The following year, the new majority in the Legislature passed landmark policies to protect abortion rights, strengthen voter access, protect the climate, and keep tenants in their homes.

We can defeat Donald Trump on November 5th, but the threat of Project 2025 will endure long after election day.

When we talk about needing a long-term answer to Project 2025, we’re not simply talking about a list of ideas, but instead a broad coalition of groups all rowing in the same direction. We’re not starting from square one either. The Working Families Party has been doing this at a local and state level for years, bringing together diverse coalitions of people to take ideas once seen as impossible and pass them into law.

The task now is knitting together these victories into a coherent whole, a bigger vision of how the government can work for everyday people. Project 2025 and its architects want to steer us to shipwreck. If we’re going to stop them, we need our own governing agenda and—just as importantly—a roadmap for how to get there.

Vice President Kamala Harris recently unveiled her new economic plan, a vision for America that not only charts a path to tackle climate pollution but harnesses it as an opportunity to build a more affordable, prosperous country. Her plans and record shows we can tackle the climate crisis while creating a more equitable economy. In fact, the Biden-Harris administration’s climate law has already spurred over $372 billion in investments and created more than 334,000 new jobs—with nearly half of the benefits going to historically marginalized groups, including low-income households and Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities.

At Evergreen Action, we’re fighting to enact policies to tackle the climate crisis head-on while making people’s lives better. One way we do that is by holding politicians accountable to their climate commitments and shining a light on the impact of climate policy, good or bad. This election, the choice could not be more stark.

This election isn’t just about choosing between two candidates—it’s about choosing between two radically different futures.

Donald Trump’s Project 2025 would cost the economy billions, jack up household bills, and rob us of a safer climate future. It isn’t just a policy proposal—it’s a full-scale assault on progress. It would dismantle clean energy programs, roll back pollution standards, and undermine America’s global leadership in the clean energy economy.

If Trump’s Project 2025 becomes reality, America could lose 1.7 million jobs by 2030, and household energy costs could rise by $32 billion. The health impacts could be even more devastating: hundreds of thousands of new asthma cases and over 25,000 premature deaths by 2050, with marginalized communities bearing the brunt.

This election isn’t just about choosing between two candidates—it’s about choosing between two radically different futures. Vice President Harris offers a path where clean energy fuels economic growth, cuts costs, creates jobs, and protects our communities. Trump’s Project 2025, on the other hand, represents a future where corrupt polluters run the show, slamming the door shut on saving our planet—and blocking all the benefits that would come with it.

We don’t have to settle for Trump’s outdated, short-sighted approach. Continued climate leadership, supported by actionable policies, offers a pathway to a prosperous and healthy future. Earlier this year, Evergreen Action published a roadmap for the next president, built in collaboration with climate, environmental justice, and labor partners, to build on the Biden-Harris administration’s historic climate achievements and fight climate change while building a thriving clean energy economy.

This plan would set us on track to achieve 100% clean energy, revitalize American industry by onshoring manufacturing, create millions of good-paying union jobs, and ensure we lead the world in clean energy. And, our plan would make polluters pay, finally holding Big Oil accountable for its role in fueling the climate crisis.

Our plan would make polluters pay, finally holding Big Oil accountable for its role in fueling the climate crisis.

Rather than tie us to the expensive, polluting fossil fuels of the past, we can grow our clean energy economy that strengthens the middle class. Electing a Harris-Walz administration and advocating for robust climate policies like those in our plan can create 3.9 million jobs, save households $39 billion in energy costs, and protect thousands of lives by 2030 compared to Trump’s Project 2025.

In Pennsylvania, grants through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are propelling the Commonwealth’s clean energy industries, creating thousands of jobs, and ensuring American workers lead in producing clean energy technology. Meanwhile, Michigan is seeing an economic boom supported by federal investments that are projected to cut household energy bills by $713 annually by 2040 and generate $27.8 billion in public health savings.

Trump’s promise to repeal these investments wouldn’t just kill jobs and stunt economic growth—it would destroy America’s competitiveness in clean energy manufacturing and deployment.

Despite Trump’s insistence once again that climate change is “one of the great scams”—even as Hurricanes Milton and Helene brought catastrophic flooding across the South, killing at least 300 people and leaving thousands stranded and without power—climate change is no longer a distant threat. It’s powering a growing barrage of record-breaking weather events every year. Higher ocean temperatures fuel rapidly intensifying storms, making hurricane season even more deadly. Arizona is enduring record-breaking heatwaves, while states like North Carolina and Texas are being hit by once-in-1,000-year rainfalls with alarming frequency.

This is our last shot. If we make the right choice, we’ll not only preserve a safer future for all Americans, but we’ll reap significant benefits—good-paying union jobs, lower energy costs, and a healthier environment. The alternative? A future with rising temperatures, more extreme weather, and higher prices.

Kamala Harris must win the former Blue Wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which are now up for grabs. And winning those battleground states requires reaching working-class voters who have been economically harmed and left behind by Wall Street’s insatiable greed.

The Harris campaign has not been courting these voters the way you would expect from the party of working people. Instead, she has managed both to kiss up to Wall Street and to allow Trump to appear as the savior of working-class jobs. Those advising her on this strategy are either politically tone deaf or worse, blinded by potential Wall Street employment opportunities after the election.

The Vice-President’s first big gaffe was going to Wall Street for a highly publicized fundraising event saying she “would encourage innovative technologies like AI.” Doesn’t her team understand that Artificial Intelligence is not a term of endearment to working people who fear automation will kill their jobs?

The Harris campaign has not been courting these voters the way you would expect from the party of working people. Instead, she has managed both to kiss up to Wall Street and to allow Trump to appear as the savior of working-class jobs.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that behind the scenes her advisors have been moderating her proposals to please Wall Street. (“How Wall St. Is Subtly Shaping the Harris Economic Agenda”.) How is this the party of working people?

Fantasy Finance

The Harris team is suffering from several debilitating illusions. They seem to believe that if Wall Street approves of her economic agenda, it will close the economic-approval ratings gap with Trump. That certainly isn’t the case in the more industrialized states where most working people see Wall Street as the destroyer of jobs.

There also is no lost love there for the big banks that are too big to fail and get bailed out whenever they rape and pillage the economy into disaster. If you ask the average worker in the Midwest to pick the one word that they associate with Wall Street, nearly all will say “greed.”

The Harris team clearly believes that we live in a win-win economy—that when Wall Street does well, we all do well. They seem oblivious to the ways in which Wall Street’s leveraged buyouts and stock buybacks have robbed millions of working people of their livelihoods.

These workers are not stupid. When a private equity company buys up the facility where they work, they know layoffs are coming to service the new debt load. When a company pours corporate funds into buying back their own stock to artificially boost the stock price, they know that layoffs will be used to pay for shoveling all this money to the richest stock owners and executives. (Please see Wall Street’s War on Workers for all the gory details.)

Blowing Off the John Deere Workers

The Harris team, however, has the perfect chance to show that they understand how important it is for the government to save jobs from rapacious corporations. The opportunity came when John Deere announced that it would send 1,000 jobs to Mexico, crying competitive pressure while in 2023 earning $10 billion in profits, paying its CEO $26.7 million, and conducting $12.2 billion in stock buybacks.

Donald Trump saw a big opening and called for a 200 percent tariff on Deere’s imports if it shipped those jobs to Mexico. That threat, idle or not, certainly caught the attention of the workers who were about to see their jobs evaporate. And it certainly resonated with economically precarious workers all through the industrial heartland who could care less about whether tariffs are good or bad macroeconomic policy.

What did the Harris team do? Exactly the wrong thing. It wheeled out Mark Cuban, the celebrity billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, to attack the tariff as “insanity…ridiculously bad and destructive,” on macroeconomic grounds Not a word said by Cuban or the Harris campaign about those 1,000 jobs that are about to be destroyed. That shows “ridiculously bad and destructive” political campaigning.

I’m starting to wonder about the smarts of the Harris advisors. They seem willfully oblivious to the fact that Trump’s 2017 intervention to save jobs at the Carrier air conditioning company in Indiana was wildly popular among voters of all political persuasions. Guess what? Having the government step in to save your job is what people want the government to do. Why can’t Harris say she will do the same?

I’ve been begging, pleading, jumping up and down to get the Harris campaign to say she will stop corporations from taking our tax dollars, pouring it into stock buybacks, and then laying off millions of workers each year. The proposal is really simple. Add this one sentence to every federal contract:

“No taxpayer money in the form of federal grants, contracts, and purchases, shall go to corporations that layoff taxpayers and conduct stock buybacks.”

But my message is not penetrating the dense Democratic Party ecosystem distorted by Wall Street’s cash and future lucrative job opportunities.

The Harris campaign clearly believes they are doing more than enough to attract working people in the key battleground states, and that it is wiser to placate rather than offend Wall Street.

I sure hope they are right and, come election night, that my analysis is dead wrong.

Each new week brings new calamities for people in the countries neighboring Israel, as its leaders try to bomb their way to the promised land of an ever-expanding Greater Israel.

In Gaza, Israel appears to be launching its “Generals’ Plan” to drive the most devastated and traumatized 2.2 million people in the world into the southern half of their open-air prison. Under this plan, Israel would hand the northern half over to greedy developers and settlers who, after decades of U.S. encouragement, have become a dominant force in Israeli politics and society. The redoubled slaughter of those who cannot move or refuse to move south has already begun.

In Lebanon, millions are fleeing for their lives and thousands are being blown to pieces in a repeat of the first phase of the genocide in Gaza. For Israel’s leaders, every person killed or forced to flee and every demolished building in a neighboring country opens the way for future Israeli settlements. The people of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia ask themselves which of them will be next.

Israel is not only attacking its neighbors. It is at war with the entire world. Israel is especially threatened when the governments of the world come together at the United Nations and in international courts to try to enforce the rule of international law, under which Israel is legally bound by the same rules that all countries have signed up to in the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

Israel is especially threatened when the governments of the world come together at the United Nations and in international courts to try to enforce the rule of international law

In July, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967 is illegal, and that it must withdraw its military forces and settlers from all those territories. In September, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution giving Israel one year to complete that withdrawal. If, as expected, Israel fails to comply, the UN Security Council or the General Assembly may take stronger measures, such as an international arms embargo, economic sanctions or even the use of force.

Now, amid the escalating violence of Israel’s latest bombing and invasion of Lebanon, Israel is attacking the UNIFIL UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, whose thankless job is to monitor and mitigate the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

On October 10 and 11, Israeli forces fired on three UNIFIL positions in Lebanon. At least five peacekeepers were injured. UNIFIL also accused Israeli soldiers of deliberately firing at and disabling the monitoring cameras at its headquarters, before two Israeli tanks later drove through and destroyed its gates. On October 15th, an Israeli tank fired at a UNIFIL watchtower in what it described as “direct and apparently deliberate fire on a UNIFIL position.” Deliberately targeting UN missions is a war crime.

This is far from the first time the soldiers of UNIFIL have come under attack by Israel. Since UNIFIL took up its positions in southern Lebanon in 1978, Israel has killed blue-helmeted UN peacekeepers from Ireland, Norway, Nepal, France, Finland, Austria and China.

Emboldened by its growing military and diplomatic alliance with the United States, Israel has only expanded its territorial ambitions.

The South Lebanon Army, Israel’s Christian militia proxy in Lebanon from 1984 to 2000, killed many more, and other Palestinian and Lebanese groups have also killed peacekeepers. Three hundred and thirty-seven UN peacekeepers from all over the world have given their lives trying to keep the peace in southern Lebanon, which is sovereign Lebanese territory and should not be subject to repeated invasions by Israel in the first place. UNIFIL has the worst death toll of any of the 52 peacekeeping missions conducted by the UN around the world since 1948.

Fifty countries currently contribute to the 10,000-strong UNIFIL peacekeeping mission, anchored by battalions from France, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Nepal and Spain. All those governments have strongly and unanimously condemned Israel’s latest attacks, and insisted that "such actions must stop immediately and should be adequately investigated."

Israel’s assault on UN agencies is not confined to attacking its peacekeepers in Lebanon. The even more vulnerable, unarmed, civilian agency, UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency), is under even more vicious assault by Israel in Gaza. In the past year alone, Israel has killed a horrifying number of UNRWA workers, about 230, as it has bombed and fired at UNRWA schools, warehouses, aid convoys and UN personnel.

UNRWA was created in 1949 by the UN General Assembly to provide relief to some 700,000 Palestinian refugees after the 1948 “Nakba,” or catastrophe. The Zionist militias that later became the Israeli army violently expelled over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes and homeland, ignoring the UN partition plan and seizing by force much of the land the UN plan had allocated to form a Palestinian state.

When the UN recognized all that Zionist-occupied territory as the new state of Israel in 1949, Israel’s most aggressive and racist leaders concluded that they could get away with making and remaking their own borders by force, and that the world would not lift a finger to stop them. Emboldened by its growing military and diplomatic alliance with the United States, Israel has only expanded its territorial ambitions.

Netanyahu now brazenly stands before the whole world and displays maps of a Greater Israel that includes all the land it illegally occupies, while Israelis openly talk of annexing parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The rest of the world is looking on in horror, and many world leaders are making sincere efforts to activate the collective mechanisms of the UN system.

Dismantling UNRWA has been a long-standing Israeli goal. In 2017, Netanyahu accused the agency of inciting anti-Israeli sentiment. He blamed UNRWA for "perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem" instead of solving it and called for it to be eliminated.

After October 7, 2023, Israel accused 12 of UNRWA’s 13,000 staff of being involved in Hamas’s attack on Israel. UNRWA immediately suspended those workers, and many countries suspended their funding of UNRWA. Since a UN report found that Israeli authorities had not provided "any supporting evidence" to back up their allegations, every country that funds UNRWA has restored its funding, with the sole exception of the United States.

Israel’s assault on the refugee agency has only continued. There are now three anti-UNRWA bills in the Israeli Knesset: one to ban the organization from operating in Israel; another to strip UNRWA’s staff of legal protections afforded to UN workers under Israeli law; and a third that would brand the agency as a terrorist organization. In addition, Israeli members of parliament are proposing legislation to confiscate UNRWA’s headquarters in Jerusalem and use the land for new settlements.

UN Secretary General Guterres warned that, if these bills become law and UNRWA is unable to deliver aid to the people of Gaza, “it would be a catastrophe in what is already an unmitigated disaster.”

Israel’s relationship with the UN and the rest of the world is at a breaking point. When Netanyahu addressed the General Assembly in New York in September, he called the UN a “swamp of antisemitic bile.” But the UN is not an alien body from another planet. It is simply the nations of the world coming together to try to solve our most serious common problems, including the endless crisis that Israel is causing for its neighbors and, increasingly, for the whole world.

Now Israel wants to ban the secretary general of the UN from even entering the country. On October 1st, Israel invaded Lebanon, and Iran launched 180 missiles at Israel, in response to a whole series of Israeli attacks and assassinations. Secretary General Antonio Guterres put out a statement deploring the “broadening conflict in the Middle East,” but did not specifically mention Iran. Israel responded by declaring the UN Secretary General persona non grata in Israel, a new low in relations between Israel and UN officials.

Over the years, the U.S. has partnered with Israel in its attacks on the UN, using its veto in the Security Council 40 times to obstruct the world’s efforts to force Israel to comply with international law.

American obstruction offers no solution to this crisis. It can only fuel it, as the violence and chaos grows and spreads and the United States’ unconditional support for Israel gradually draws it into a more direct role in the conflict.

The rest of the world is looking on in horror, and many world leaders are making sincere efforts to activate the collective mechanisms of the UN system. These mechanisms were built, with American leadership, after the Second World War ended in 1945, so that the world would “never again” be consumed by world war and genocide.

A U.S. arms embargo against Israel and an end to U.S. obstruction in the UN Security Council could tip the political balance of power in favor of the world’s collective efforts to resolve the crisis.

In 2022, Russian propagandists spread fear across Europe, playing on the "fear of the cold" by pushing narratives like "Europe will freeze without Russian gas." Now, in 2024, we are still witnessing the devastating effects of this hybrid warfare, with energy playing a central role in Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

Hybrid warfare is more than just conventional military aggression. It involves a strategic blend of economic, informational, and cyber tactics designed to disrupt societies and weaken the Kremlin's targets. Russia's hybrid warfare against Ukraine, particularly in the energy sector, illustrates this perfectly. By combining direct military assaults with cyberattacks, energy blockades, and unprecedented widespread disinformation campaigns, Russia aims not only to destroy Ukraine's physical infrastructure but also to erode confidence in its government, undermine international support, and exploit the world's dependence on fossil fuels.

Russia has weaponized energy exports as a critical element in its war on Ukraine. Today, Ukraine's energy infrastructure is under relentless attack, with over 50% damaged, often leaving millions of Ukrainians without reliable power. While missiles and drones visibly ravage Ukrainian cities, another, less visible battle rages in cyberspace and through the media, targeting the energy sector.

Renewable energy is the path to a safer, more just world in the battle against Russian aggression and climate change

In 2024 alone, the Kremlin-backed hacker group Sandworm launched numerous cyberattacks on Ukrainian energy facilities. These assaults, timed to coincide with Russian missile strikes, are part of a broader campaign to cripple Ukraine's ability to generate and distribute energy. A report from Ukraine's computer emergency response team (CERT-UA) confirmed that Sandworm infected energy, water, and heating suppliers in at least 10 regions of Ukraine this year. Cyberattacks like these are designed to paralyze Ukraine's recovery, create chaos, and force the government to divert critical resources away from the front lines.

In parallel, Russia's disinformation campaigns have relentlessly targeted Ukraine's energy independence. False narratives about new power projects, like the construction of additional reactors at the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant (KhNPP), are intended to spread fear and uncertainty. Russian propagandists claim that the project will lead to a "nuclear disaster, comparable to Chernobyl" and that Ukraine is incapable of safely managing its nuclear energy sector. These lies are designed to erode public trust and cast doubt on the country's capacity to modernize its energy infrastructure.

Disinformation spreads through pro-Kremlin Telegram channels and foreign media outlets, suggesting that Ukraine is unprepared for the responsibilities of managing its energy sector. The goal is to sow doubt among Ukraine's international allies, reduce foreign investment in critical energy projects, and delay Ukraine's shift toward renewable energy.

Such disinformation campaigns do not stop at Ukraine's door. Russia has also employed similar tactics in Western nations, influencing public discourse and policy on energy. In 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice uncovered a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign designed to interfere in the U.S. presidential race. These operations use unsuspecting PR firms and social media channels to spread narratives beneficial to Russia, further demonstrating the global reach of Russia's hybrid warfare strategy.

The consequences of these campaigns are far-reaching. Disinformation can:

• Erode public trust: False narratives about energy projects create skepticism among citizens, making it harder for governments to implement necessary reforms or infrastructure projects.
• Deter international support: Potential investors and foreign governments may be discouraged from supporting Ukraine's energy sector if they believe that projects are mismanaged or dangerous.
• Complicate decision-making: Policymakers may feel pressure to alter or abandon important energy projects due to public sentiment influenced by disinformation. This can delay Ukraine's energy independence and leave it vulnerable to further attacks.
• Increase vulnerability: As confusion and distrust grow, Ukraine becomes more susceptible to external manipulation. Russia can exploit this environment to disrupt energy supply chains or infrastructure further. As public morale weakens and trust in the government diminishes, the country may become more susceptible to external pressures and manipulation, potentially leading to energy crises during critical periods.

To counter Russia's hybrid warfare, Ukraine and its allies must not only defend against missile strikes and cyberattacks but also combat the disinformation campaigns that erode public trust and international support. The best response to Russia's weaponization of energy is to weaken its dominance in the sector altogether.

Ukraine's shift toward cheaper renewable energy offers a clear path to energy security and independence. Renewables—wind, solar, and hydropower—are not only crucial for Ukraine's recovery and economic security but also harder to target, making them more resilient to future threats. Ukraine's shift to renewables is pivotal for its security, global energy stability, and the fight against climate change.

Ukraine's future—and indeed the future of global security—depends on breaking free from the grip of fossil fuels that fuel both war and disinformation. Russia's energy dominance has not only bankrolled its military but has also been a tool of manipulation, distorting public perception and sowing distrust. Ukraine can secure its independence by accelerating the transition to renewable energy while setting an example for the world. Global support for Ukraine's energy revolution is not just a step toward rebuilding the country—it is a decisive blow against the disinformation networks and economic strangleholds that empower petro-dictatorships.

Renewable energy is the path to a safer, more just world in the battle against Russian aggression and climate change. The time to act is now.

Assuming they haven’t been vacationing on Mars for the last decade or so, every American must be aware that it has been the relentless ambition of Republican politicians to repeal, roll back, or weaken the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare.

ACA is a major government safety-net project alongside Social Security and Medicare. As of February 2024, 20.8 million persons were enrolled in the program, the highest number at any one time, and since Obamacare’s passage, almost 50 million people have received coverage at some point. The health care program has literally been a lifesaver for countless Americans.

Up until the culmination of their repeal efforts in mid-2017 (at a time the GOP controlled both houses and the presidency), when the program only survived because Sen. John McCain left treatment for terminal cancer to vote “no,” Newsweek “found at least 70 Republican-led attempts to repeal, modify or otherwise curb the Affordable Care Act since its inception as law on March 23, 2010.”

GOP attempts to wreck the program, although more sporadic since, have continued. This year, House Republicans reported a budget that would have defunded ACA as well as Medicaid expansion while hiking Medicare premiums and prescription drug prices. They “balanced” these cuts with giveaways to Big Pharma and allowing insurers to sell “junk” policies with minimal-to-no coverage.

His ostentatious religiosity is largely phony and used as a vehicle for his ambition to rise in the Republican Party.

With that history in mind, picture the surreal moment in the vice-presidential debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance, when the latter said “Members of my family actually got private health insurance, at least, for the first time . . . under Donald Trump’s leadership.” Vance said that his family members switched from Medicaid to Obamacare between 2017 and 2021.

The Ohio senator has frequently tried to characterize Trump’s actions while president as having preserved or stabilized ACA, when in fact he did no such thing. Enrollments in the ACA exchange in Ohio, where Vance’s family lived, fell during Trump’s presidency, while the uninsured rate increased. Obamacare survived simply because congressional Republicans couldn’t quite muster the votes to kill it, but not for want of trying. Candidate Trump is still angling to get rid of it, although he only has “concepts of a plan” to replace it.

How does Vance get away with such lies? Undoubtedly for the same reason Republicans get away with all their lies. “All politicians lie” is the cynical American’s appraisal of the officials he or she elects, and this is of course true to the extent that all human beings lie, or at least shade the facts to place themselves in a favorable light. But Republicans have catapulted the lie to another category altogether.

They lie because they dare not reveal their actual agenda. They cannot very well tell the general public, “We intend to kick you off your health care and provide a huge payday to the drug companies who give us campaign donations.” Neither could they characterize Trump’s intended revenue policy as “We plan to get rid of income taxes for our rich contributors and use tariffs to shift the entire tax burden onto consumers in an extremely regressive fashion.”

Instead, they concoct a lie that foreign countries exporting to the United States will somehow pay the tariff that the U.S. government under Trump’s policy would levy on the product, rather than tell the truth that the consumer would pay it as the end user of the product. As a lie, it isn’t even plausible, but Republicans count on the fact that the general public doesn’t bother to fact check in real time.

As for the narrower Republican base (the only people Republican politicians take trouble to appeal to, aside from billionaires), they are confident they could tell them the moon is made of green cheese and they’d believe it. All the politicians have to do is season the concoction with a few choice culture wars clichés and the base will swallow it like a swarm of barracudas. They are either too uneducated, too intellectually incurious, or too ideologically rigid to apply “critical thinking skills” (a heuristic method which has not coincidentally been condemned by the Texas Republican Party).

The irony in this regard is that millions of Republican voters are covered by ACA, including in Ohio, where Vance’s family lives. Hence, the Ohio Republican has to perform his little rhetorical dance to anesthetize the base and puzzle the rest of us. That said, there is still little doubt that if Vance were to become part of a Trump administration presiding over a Republican-controlled House and Senate, the GOP would take another run at repealing Obamacare.

There is another sordid lie laid bare by Vance’s revelation about his family’s enrollment in ACA. The entire focus of Republicans’ culture wars obsessions over many decades has ostensibly been the family. The family is sacred; the basic, indivisible unit without which civilization collapses.

Big government is reviled for allegedly usurping the responsibility of the family to look out for one another’s needs; since the 1960s Republicans have shed crocodile tears over welfare programs because, supposedly, they cruelly destroyed the black family. Children are the rationale for heaving books out of libraries; families have a right to protect their children from becoming less ignorant and bigoted than their parents. Vance himself has mused that no-fault divorce should be abolished for the sake of keeping the precious family together, and his ranting about childless cat ladies shows a similar familial obsession.

As it turns out, it’s all another lie. Vance told us on national TV that his own mother, and presumably other family members, too (since he used the plural) were subsisting on Medicaid until they met the qualifications to enroll in ACA. But all that time, JD, the erstwhile hillbilly, had pulled himself up by the bootstraps of his buddy, Silicon Valley oligarch Peter Thiel, and made quite a handsome pile of money. It didn’t hurt that he married an attorney. His recent federal financial disclosure reveals assets between $4 million and $11 million.

Isn’t it the Christian thing to do to help those in need, especially as they are your own family, and even more so when they are bedeviled by addiction and other problems?

Why did someone a good deal wealthier than most of us abandon his own mother as a public charge on Medicaid? And even when she got off Medicaid, couldn’t he have bought her a health insurance policy, rather than relying on Obamacare? In his autohagiography, Vance made sure the reader got the message that his was a difficult, dysfunction-ridden family. But there is an answer to that.

Vance has also made sure everyone knows he is a pious Catholic of a very strict, antimodernist type, holding that theological precepts should guide secular government (his professed belief is responsible for his frankly idiotic opinions about cat ladies and childless people not deserving the same voting rights as people with children). This should of course make us wary of anyone holding such views getting his hands on executive power; these people have already wrecked the Supreme Court. It also suggests his ostentatious religiosity is largely phony and used as a vehicle for his ambition to rise in the Republican Party.

Isn’t it the Christian thing to do to help those in need, especially as they are your own family, and even more so when they are bedeviled by addiction and other problems? Jesus did not scorn the beggar and the lepers. And don’t the Ten Commandments (which Republican state governments want to make a mandatory part of the public school curriculum) tell us to “honor thy father and thy mother?”

Vance is a 24-karat fraud, the eternal rogue in the human poker deck. How appropriate that he is now the consort, as it were, of Donald Trump, the pathological liar. How fitting that he rose so quickly, after a mere two years, to the very top of the morally bankrupt party I left, more than a dozen years ago, in disgust.

The racist lies against Haitian immigrants in the United States that have been dominating the news cycle are being delivered by Republicans, but they are built on bipartisan—and often racist—U.S. policies that drive Haitians from their home country to our borders.

While we are justifiably condemning the hateful and dangerous attacks against Haitians, we need to equally condemn U.S. government support for repressive and corrupt Haitian leaders, and insist on supporting Haitians’ efforts to reestablish a stable, prosperous homeland where they can live in peace and security.

Haitian migrants seeking refuge in the United States and elsewhere are fleeing a deep crisis generated by actors associated with the U.S.-backed Pati Ayisyen Tèt Kale (PHTK). PHTK founder President Michel Martelly came to power in 2011, after the Obama administration pressured Haiti’s electoral council to change the results of the 2010 preliminary elections. U.S. support continued for Martelly’s hand-picked successor, President Jovenel Moïse, who came to power through flawed elections, overstayed his constitutionally mandated presidential term, and tried to push forward self-serving, illegal constitutional reform. The Biden administration installed and then continued to prop up Moïse’s successor, de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry, who ruled for nearly three years without a constitutional or popular mandate. Martelly, Moïse, and Henry—all three of whom are affiliated with the PHTK—enjoyed consistent U.S. support despite being responsible for spectacular corruption, state-sanctioned massacres, and the dismantling of Haiti’s democratic structures and accountability mechanisms.

The Biden administration consistently preaches the importance of addressing root causes of migration, even as it continues to support corrupt and repressive Haitian actors that stifle democracy and drive Haitians to flee.

This persistent U.S. support has already undermined Haiti’s transition—which hopes to lead the country out of crisis and toward stability and democracy—by placing many of the same PHTK-affiliated actors responsible for Haiti’s crisis at its center. For example, through a process overseen by the State Department, PHTK-affiliated groups were granted 3 of the 7 voting seats on Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council. Although an early attempt by those members to co-opt the transitional process ultimately failed, it left Haitians even more skeptical that the crisis could be resolved by the same U.S.-backed actors who created it.

The pattern of U.S. support for corrupt and repressive actors in Haiti follows a history of persistent destabilization ever since Haiti won its independence from France in 1804. The United States was afraid then that a stable and prosperous free Black republic would undermine the white supremacy upon which the U.S. system of enslavement—and attendant political and economic power—rested, and would inspire other Black people to fight for their freedom. Consequently, the U.S. government took steps early on to undermine Haiti’s development. These included refusing to recognize Haiti’s sovereignty until 1864 and occupying the country for nearly 20 years, from 1915 to 1934. During that time, marines stole gold from Haiti’s national reserves, took control of its financial and political institutions, and reinstated a system of forced labor akin to enslavement.

Significant Haitian migration to the United States began in the 1960s in response to the horrors inflicted by the U.S.-backed Duvalier dictatorships. For nearly 30 years, the United States supported Francois “Papa Doc” and Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier despite their well-documented disregard for human rights and democracy, because they were a reliable vote against Cuba at the United Nations and the Organization of American States. The U.S. government labeled Haitians fleeing the brutality of the Duvaliers’ secret police “economic migrants” and detained and removed them, even as it welcomed those fleeing communist Cuba and Vietnam as “political refugees.”

Emigration from Haiti spiked when Haitians fled the brutal U.S.-backed military regime that took power after the 1991 coup d’état—also allegedly supported by the CIA—that overthrew Haiti’s first democratically-elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. It spiked again in 2004 after a U.S.-backed coup ousted Aristide a second time. The U.S. government used the period of extreme violence that predictably followed the coup it had orchestrated to justify sending in a U.N. peacekeeping operation, MINUSTAH. The peacekeeping mission lasted 13 years, cost over $7 billion, and was responsible for countless violations of Haitian rights and dignity. Meanwhile, the United States installed a series of undemocratic U.S.-backed regimes, including the PHTK-affiliated regimes described above.

The Biden administration consistently preaches the importance of addressing root causes of migration, even as it continues to support corrupt and repressive Haitian actors that stifle democracy and drive Haitians to flee. A recent resolution put forth by members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus calling for legislation that directly addresses U.S. policies contributing to forced migration—including the failure to stop the flow of weapons trafficking from the United States to Haiti—is an important step toward aligning U.S. practices with its rhetoric.

But truly addressing the root causes of migration will require the United States to seriously reevaluate its own centuries-long role in the crisis of forced displacement in Haiti. As long as we keep supporting the corrupt, repressive actors whose policies force Haitians to flee, they are going to keep arriving at our borders.

The impacts of climate change are all around us—hurricanes battering Florida and Appalachia, extreme heat in October baking the West, and a continual stream of new temperature records. It’s pretty clear what needs to happen. We need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels. But for some reason, rather than taking on the fossil fuel companies driving the climate crisis, Vice President Harris’s team has determined that it's good politics to tout fracking and increased oil and gas production. This is not a winning approach, and it could actually cost Harris an election we desperately need her to win.

Embracing fracking and fossil fuel production is bad politics in addition to bad policy. D.C. conventional wisdom holds that in order to win Pennsylvania, candidates need to embrace fracking—but like much of D.C. conventional wisdom, this is wrong. Food & Water Action has worked on the ground in Pennsylvania for years. We’ve seen up close the dark underside of fracking - polluted water and air, cancer, and other social ills. Working with impacted communities, we have passed dozens of local measures restricting the practice in the state. Pennsylvanians don’t love fracking. In fact, they want to see it reined in rather than further unleashed.

The science is clear: We need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. No amount of investment in renewable energy by itself will avert worsening climate change as long as we are simultaneously continuing to increase fossil fuel production.

Polling reflects this deep concern. A recent survey from the Ohio River Valley Institute showed that 74% of Pennsylvanians support stricter regulations on fracking due to concern about health risks, while 90% or more want expanded setbacks from schools and hospitals, stronger air monitoring, and more rigorous regulation on transportation of fracking waste. Ignoring these concerns and instead framing fracking as a virtue makes little political sense in the Keystone state.

Further, in Pennsylvania and beyond, Harris needs a groundswell of support from young and progressive voters—people most likely to care deeply about climate change and preventing it. In a recent survey of young people in swing states from the Environmental Voter Project, 40% said that “a candidate must prioritize ‘addressing climate change’ or else it is a ‘deal breaker.’” More significantly, 16% said they would definitely not support a candidate that talks about “increasing U.S. use of fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal,” yet this is exactly what Harris has been bragging about. This election will be decided at the margins, and these are the type of hesitant voters we need to be motivated and engaged to put Harris over the line..

When she ran for president in 2019, Harris advocated for a much different agenda. She was one of several major candidates to call for an outright ban on fracking, she embraced a Green New Deal, and she championed a quick transition to a clean energy economy. These are the policies that would give her a great platform to address the climate crisis and talk about building a new energy economy based on good, unionized clean energy jobs.

They also have the advantage of being in line with what scientists are telling us is necessary to avert worse and escalating climate chaos. The science is clear: We need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. No amount of investment in renewable energy by itself will avert worsening climate change as long as we are simultaneously continuing to increase fossil fuel production.

Based on her prior statements and record (she went after fossil fuel companies as California attorney general) Harris knows this. And, she has an opportunity to draw a stark contrast with Donald Trump, whose record is the epitome of climate denial and fossil fuel industry pandering. But now, if she is elected, Harris will face tremendous pressure to work with the fossil fuel industry and support its pet projects. It will be up to all of us to provide a loud and clear message from day one that this approach is unacceptable.

The stakes in this election could not be higher. Trump’s agenda poses a severe threat to our environment and our climate, as well as our democracy. It is imperative that Kamala Harris wins this election. But to do that, she would be well-advised to stop embracing fracking and fossil fuels, and return to her roots of confronting the oil and gas industry head-on. A large and powerful movement is ready to back her if she does, or hold her accountable if she doesn’t.

“Your lives will continue. With new events and new faces. They are the faces of your children, who will fill your homes with noise and laughter.”

These were the last words written by my sister in a text message to one of her daughters.

Dr. Soma Baroud was murdered on October 9 when Israeli warplanes bombed a taxi that carried her and other tired Gazans somewhere near the Bani Suhaila roundabout near Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip.

I am still unable to understand whether she was on her way to the hospital, where she worked, or leaving the hospital to go home. Does it even matter?

The news of her murder—or, more accurately assassination, as Israel has deliberately targeted and killed 986 medical workers, including 165 doctors—arrived through a screenshot copied from a Facebook page.

“Update: these are the names of the martyrs of the latest Israeli bombing of two taxis in the Khan Yunis area ..,” the post read.

It was followed by a list of names. “Soma Mohammed Mohammed Baroud” was the fifth name on the list, and the 42,010th on Gaza’s ever-growing list of martyrs.

I refused to believe the news, even when more posts began popping up everywhere on social media, listing her as number five, and sometimes six in the list of martyrs of the Khan Yunis strike.

For us, Soma was a larger-than-life figure. This is precisely why her sudden absence has shocked us to the point of disbelief. Her children, though grown up, felt orphaned. But her brothers, me included, felt the same way.

I kept calling her, over and over again, hoping that the line would crackle a bit, followed by a brief silence, and then her kind, motherly voice would say, “Marhaba Abu Sammy. How are you, brother?” But she never picked up.

I had told her repeatedly that she does not need to bother with elaborate text or audio messages due to the unreliable internet connection and electricity. “Every morning,” I said, “just type: ‘we are fine’.” That’s all I asked of her.

But she would skip several days without writing, often due to the lack of an internet connection. Then, a message would arrive, though never brief. She wrote with a torrent of thoughts, linking up her daily struggle to survive, to her fears for her children, to poetry, to a Qur’anic verse, to one of her favorite novels, and so on.

“You know, what you said last time reminds me of Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude,” she said on more than one occasion, before she would take the conversation into the most complex philosophical spins. I would listen, and just repeat, “Yes .. totally .. I agree .. one hundred percent.”

For us, Soma was a larger-than-life figure. This is precisely why her sudden absence has shocked us to the point of disbelief. Her children, though grown up, felt orphaned. But her brothers, me included, felt the same way.

I wrote about Soma as a central character in my book “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter”, because she was indeed central to our lives, and to our very survival in a Gaza refugee camp.

The first born, and only daughter, she had to carry a much greater share of work and expectations than the rest of us.

She was just a child, when my eldest brother Anwar, still a toddler, died in an UNRWA clinic at the Nuseirat refugee camp due to the lack of medicine. Then, she was introduced to pain, the kind of pain that with time turned into a permanent state of grief that would never abandon her until her murder by a U.S.-supplied Israeli bomb in Khan Yunis.

Two years after the death of the first Anwar, another boy was born. They also called him Anwar, so that the legacy of the first boy may carry on. Soma cherished the newcomer, maintaining a special friendship with him for decades to come.

My father began his life as a child laborer, then a fighter in the Palestine Liberation Army, then a police officer during the Egyptian administration of Gaza, then, once again a laborer; that’s because he refused to join the Israeli-funded Gaza police force after the war of 1967, known as the Naksa.

A clever, principled man, and a self-taught intellectual, my Dad did everything he could to provide a measure of dignity for his small family; and Soma, a child, often barefoot, stood by him every step of the way.

She did not charge the poor and did all she could to heal those victimized by war.

When he decided to become a merchant, as in buying discarded and odd items in Israel and repackaging them to sell in the refugee camp, Soma was his main helper. Though her skin healed, cuts on her fingers, due to individually wrapping thousands of razors, remained a testament to the difficult life she lived.

“Soma’s little finger is worth more than a thousand men,” my father would often repeat, to remind us, ultimately five boys, that our sister will always be the main heroine in the family’s story. Now that she is a martyr, that legacy has been secured for eternity.

Years later, my parents would send her to Aleppo to obtain a medical degree. She returned to Gaza, where she spent over three decades healing the pain of others, though never her own.

She worked at Al-Shifa Hospital, at Nasser Hospital among other medical centers. Later, she obtained another certificate in family medicine, opening a clinic of her own. She did not charge the poor and did all she could to heal those victimized by war.

Soma was a member of a generation of female doctors in Gaza that truly changed the face of medicine, collectively putting great emphasis on the rights of women to medical care and expanding the understanding of family medicine to include psychological trauma with particular emphasis on the centrality, but also the vulnerability of women in a war-torn society.

When my daughter Zarefah managed to visit her in Gaza shortly before the war, she told me that “when Aunt Soma walked into the hospital, an entourage of women—doctors, nurses, and other medical staff—would surround her in total adoration.”

At one point, it felt that all of Soma’s suffering was finally paying off: a nice family home in Khan Yunis, with a small olive orchard, and a few palm trees; a loving husband, himself a professor of law, and eventually the dean of law school at a reputable Gaza university; three daughters and two sons, whose educational specialties ranged from dentistry to pharmacy, to law to engineering.

Life, even under siege, at least for Soma and her family, seemed manageable. True, she was not allowed to leave the Strip for many years due to the blockade, and thus we were denied the chance to see her for years on end. True, she was tormented by loneliness and seclusion, thus her love affair and constant citation from García Márquez’s seminal novel. But at least her husband was not killed or went missing. Her beautiful house and clinic were still standing. And she was living and breathing, communicating her philosophical nuggets about life, death, memories and hope.

“If I could only find the remains of Hamdi, so that we can give him a proper burial,” she wrote to me last January, when the news circulated that her husband was executed by an Israeli quadcopter in Khan Yunis.

But since the body remained missing, she held on to some faint hope that he was still alive. Her boys, on the other hand, kept digging in the wreckage and debris of the area where Hamdi was shot, hoping to find him and to give him a proper burial. They would often be attacked by Israeli drones in the process of trying to unearth their father’s body. They would run away, and return with their shovels to carry on with the grim task.

To maximize their chances of survival, my sister’s family decided to split up between displacement camps and other family homes in southern Gaza.

This meant that Soma had to be in a constant state of moving, traveling, often long distances on foot, between towns, villages and refugee camps, just to check on her children, following every incursion, and every massacre.

“I am exhausted,” she kept telling me. “All I want from life is for this war to end, for new cozy pajamas, my favorite book, and a comfortable bed.”

These simple and reasonable expectations looked like a mirage, especially when her home in the Qarara area, in Khan Yunis, was demolished by the Israeli army last month.

“I am exhausted. All I want from life is for this war to end, for new cozy pajamas, my favorite book, and a comfortable bed.”

“My heart aches. Everything is gone. Three decades of life, of memories, of achievement, all turned into rubble,” she wrote.

“This is not a story about stones and concrete. It is much bigger. It is a story that cannot be fully told, however long I wrote or spoke. Seven souls had lived here. We ate, drank, laughed, quarreled, and despite all the challenges of living in Gaza, we managed to carve out a happy life for our family,” she continued.

A few days before she was killed, she told me that she had been sleeping in a half-destroyed building belonging to her neighbors in Qarara. She sent me a photo taken by her son, as she sat on a makeshift chair, on which she also slept amidst the ruins. She looked tired, so very tired.

There was nothing I could say or do to convince her to leave. She insisted that she wanted to keep an eye on the rubble of what remained of her home. Her logic made no sense to me. I pleaded with her to leave. She ignored me, and instead kept sending me photos of what she had salvaged from the rubble, an old photo, a small olive tree, a birth certificate.

My last message to her, hours before she was killed, was a promise that when the war is over, I will do everything in my power to compensate her for all of this. That the whole family would meet in Egypt, or Türkiye, and that we will shower her with gifts, and boundless family love. I finished with, “let’s start planning now. Whatever you want. You just say it. Awaiting your instructions…” She never saw the message.

Even when her name, as yet another casualty of the Israeli genocide in Gaza was mentioned in local Palestinian news, I refused to believe it. I continued to call. “Please pick up, Soma, please pick up,” I pleaded with her.

I refuse to see her but in the way that she wanted to be seen, a strong person, a manifestation of love, kindness and wisdom, whose “little finger is worth more than a thousand men.”

Only when a video emerged of white body bags arriving at Nasser Hospital in the back of an ambulance, I thought maybe my sister was indeed gone.

Some of the bags had the names of the others mentioned in the social media posts. Each bag was pulled out separately and placed on the ground. A group of mourners, bereaved men, women and children would rush to hug the body, screaming the same shouts of agony and despair that accompanied this ongoing genocide from the first day.

Then, another bag, with the name ‘Soma Mohammed Mohammed Baroud’ written across the thick white plastic. Her colleagues carried her body and gently laid it on the ground. They were about to zip the bag open to verify her identity. I looked the other way.

I refuse to see her but in the way that she wanted to be seen, a strong person, a manifestation of love, kindness and wisdom, whose “little finger is worth more than a thousand men.”

But why do I continue to check my messages with the hope that she will text me to tell me that the whole thing was a major, cruel misunderstanding and that she is okay?

My sister Soma was buried under a small mound of dirt, somewhere in Khan Yunis.

No more messages from her.

On the night of November 8th, 2016, the greatest soul singer of all suffered a stroke while watching the presidential election returns. Sharon Jones had, by virtue of her legendary talent, achieved fame despite "some record label" telling her that she was "too short, too fat, Black and old." Jones had one thing going for her—a voice so powerful, subtle and inhumanly flexible that she had no peer in a professional niche blessed with a ridiculous abundance of magnificent singers. She sang in harmony with world class horn players, but Sharon Jones' voice could soar and shame trumpets and saxophones. The brassy, tensile fierceness of her singing sometimes resolved into a whisper—like a virtuoso flautist drifting into silence.

Sharon Jones had held pancreatic cancer to a draw for several rounds, but metastatic cancer was one thing, and Trump's electoral college victory another. One easily imagines that Sharon Jones, the triumphant conqueror of a heartless music industry, came face to face with a terrifying and immovable barrier - the entire world had been swept into an inescapable vortex. I am not simply speculating—Jones' election night stroke did not kill her on the spot. She died ten days later, but not before identifying her assailant to her friends and bandmates. It was Donald Trump.

Sharon Jones death provides something of a blank slate - a place for the projection of our own anxiety. She may arguably be the first person to pass through the invisible threshold separating the misery and dislocation of life in neoliberal America from the fascist uncertainty to follow. You might think of her as American fascism's first casualty.

We can only speculate about what she endured on November 8th eight years ago, as we prepare to relive her trauma in a few weeks. Sharon Jones, because she did not meet the superficial standards—the image—of a peerless singer, once worked a day job. Before she achieved the big time she supported herself by working at the “correctional facility” on Rikers Island. Did she anticipate that Donald Trump would turn all of creation into an enormous Rikers Island? Sharon Jones, as both a legendary singer and a former prison guard (in one of the most notorious outposts within the prison industrial complex) had access to the whole continuum of human curses and virtues.

She only stood 4’11” but somehow survived the proximity of men at their worst. She must have seen beatings, threats, blood and humiliation until it all congealed into an existential blur. Rikers Island might have hardened Sharon Jones’s heart like a stone, but it did not. When Trump's apparition came to her on November 8th she might have stared him down like he was just one more Rikers inmate. We know that Sharon Jones had a full range of human emotions and vulnerabilities. You can hear it in her voice, and we know her story. Trump and death converged, and she went with them before anyone else.

But it wasn't just Sharon Jones—a suicide hotline serving the LGBTQ community experienced an enormous spike in calls on November 8th, 2016 as the election results imposed a cascading profusion of fearful thoughts. An awful world had suddenly morphed into something improbably worse. Millions of the most ordinary people looked into the abyss eight years ago—suicide hotlines everywhere received a glut of anxious calls. I am not Black, not gay, not Trans, not Central American, not poor, and not at all a supporter of Hillary “neoliberal stooge” Clinton, but my wife and I stared with stricken, numbed, abrupt distress at the 2016 computer screen. A nation that had been destined to drift toward fascism since a collection of white, male slave-owners signed The Declaration of Independence had bizarrely been shocked at how quickly it finally happened.

Neoliberalism has conditioned us to accept abraded environmental protections, minimal health care, defunded schools, human rights abuses, horrific military violence inflicted far away and supported by local propaganda, arbitrary police power, and expanding, privatized prisons. But fascism adds something new...

As a mental health outreach worker in small town Franklin County, Massachusetts, I expected that my poor clients (Franklin County is a collection of mostly decaying mill towns) would have responded to Trump’s 2016 victory with barely an indifferent shrug, but I was wrong. Poor people generally believe that voting is a waste of time—they rather conclude that no nexus exists to connect their struggles with the political theatrics that occasionally murmur as background noise on their TV screens. One of my clients, let's call her Alicia, caught me by surprise on November 9th when she asked, "Phil, can he send me back to Puerto Rico?" No, I told her, Puerto Rico is part of the US. That makes you a US citizen. Alicia may not have heard me at all. Her ex-husband had moved back to the Island. "If I get sent out my ex is going to kill me.”

Neoliberalism has conditioned us to accept abraded environmental protections, minimal health care, defunded schools, human rights abuses, horrific military violence inflicted far away and supported by local propaganda, arbitrary police power, and expanding, privatized prisons. But fascism adds something new—the performance of violence as a public spectacle. George Monbiot has deemed both neoliberalism and fascism as corporate responses to the problem of democracy. A society driven by the collective power of the public will inevitably collide with corporate hegemony. Whereas neoliberalism depends on an oblivious citizenry, lobotomized by the surgical blade of corporate media, fascists have less faith in brain washing alone. Fascism requires a stronger incentive for public obedience—naked fear.

A society driven by the collective power of the public will inevitably collide with corporate hegemony.

One cannot weigh and measure aggregate levels of anxiety, depression, hopelessness or fear. Some of the worst suffering that fascism inflicts takes place in the private spaces inside of our skulls. Sharon Jones was not struck in the head with a truncheon—she had been assaulted by an inevitable and widely shared vision, a sense that Donald Trump was not just another ghoul in the long line of presidential succession, but something even more rapaciously hostile, violent and unstoppable.

It is a tribute to Trump’s cultural power that he entered the awareness of my poorest clients in ways that no other political figure ever did. Over and over again I was asked if Trump’s election would end rent subsidies, Mass Health medical insurance and food stamps. I had no way to honestly reassure my clients and I resorted to platitudes about the rule of law and protections in the constitution.

Poor people are the only category of the public having the ability to experience unrestricted state violence—even within a nominally functioning democracy. Think of poverty as a paradoxical privilege—the power to see beneath the opaque curtain of capitalism. You might also think of the public housing project is an experiment in fascism—a laboratory where force and intimidation can be refined and honed for expanded use as society collapses. People in housing projects witness police beatings, local crime, evictions, arrests and child protective services taking custody of children. My poor clients had a sophisticated intuitive sense of what Trump might do. Anyone with daily exposure to arbitrary and capricious power knows that things can get worse.

Trump, if we consider him as a peculiar human/political specimen—apart from his convenient label as a fascist or authoritarian – rather stymies our efforts to analyze him. He is inarticulate, notably stupid, illogical and self-oblivious, and yet there he is – plain as a granite boulder, centered eternally within the public eye. His prominence in the media forced the invention of the term “sane-washing.” Any serious discussion of Trump leads to one conclusion—something terrible, vast and irredeemable has befallen us and we have no language to describe our predicament. Few things highlight our depths of decay more aptly than our upright, formal, straight faced, intellectualized reflections on utter madness. We talk about Trump as if he were a math equation with a correct answer. Imagine three or four pundits in free fall from atop the Grand Canyon discussing their dinner plans—that conveys the Trump-centered discourse on the nightly news.

Think of poverty as a paradoxical privilege—the power to see beneath the opaque curtain of capitalism. You might also think of the public housing project is an experiment in fascism—a laboratory where force and intimidation can be refined and honed for expanded use as society collapses.

It is as likely as not that Trump will be president within a few months. On election night there will be strokes, heart attacks and suicides in the wake of Trump’s election as people anticipate the expansion of Trump’s fascist death cult. Last time Trump occupied the throne, suicides spiked to unprecedented levels in 2017 1nd 2018. Fascism will unleash a mental health catastrophe. Obviously, the most targeted victims, sexual minorities and people without U.S. citizenship, or citizens related to those without citizenship, will be overwhelmed with anxiety.

Paradoxically, Trump’s own base will be prominent death cult victims. White men living in rural areas kill themselves at a rate higher than any other demographic, and more often than not they employ an iconic symbol of Republican Party violence —fire arms. We never know if deaths of despair involve a disproportionate contingent of Trump’s acolytes, but the COVID contrarian death event that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives defined Trump’s legacy. A death cult propaganda empire, largely funded by the oil industry (that lost profits during Covid-19 economic slowdowns) urged the public to fight back against the “emasculating” decrees of public health agencies. Research conducted by Dr. Ryon McDermott, a psychiatrist from South Alabama has linked anti-vax beliefs to fanatic masculine tropes:

“What we find is that men who endorse these beliefs are much less likely to engage in proactive health behaviors, like getting a vaccine, because it’s somehow seen as being feminine, or being weak.”

Dan Patrick, the elderly lieutenant governor of Texas, said the quiet part out loud during a COVID spike when he offered himself, and all elderly people, as a sacrifice to the greater cause of the US economy. His COVID death would be well worth the economic benefits, he argued. Patrick’s alleged bravery was nothing more than narcissistic prancing. But the strident, bellicose, confrontational display of performative anti-vax voices on social media demonstrated that macho contempt for the "decadent," fearful, feminine voices of public health drove the movement. Picture Donald Trump, the bone spur, draft dodger of the Vietnam War era, preening without a mask and boasting about it. Trump, the bone spur coward had achieved death cult redemption via Covid-19.

In the 1932 German film “The Blue Light” by Leni Riefenstahl—who would later gain fame as Hitler’s propaganda videographer— played a strange young girl with almost mystical mountain climbing skills (scaling sheer rock faces wearing cloth slippers). High on a rocky cliff, she discovers a grotto filled with magnificent crystals that glow with an ethereal brilliance. The movie juxtaposes Riefenstahl’s pristine, innocent and courageous character with the greedy townspeople who view the sacred crystals as a mere commodity. At the film’s end, the young mountain climber falls to her death after discovering that the crystals have been appropriated by ambitious town’s people. The fascist world view pivots around the eternal battle between heroism and decadence. The hero, according to the Italian philosopher Umberto Eco, seeks death fearlessly and avidly, as a means of fascist consecration. Susan Sontag noted that Riefenstahl, at every juncture of her long career, channeled a fascist aesthetic.

One might argue that the doddering figure of a maskless Trump hardly equals the youthful Riefenstahl scaling mountains. But a death cult is still a death cult, even if it teeters precariously close to self-parody.

A death cult is still a death cult, even if it teeters precariously close to self-parody.

It may not be easy to accurately imagine all the details of the Trump death cult in its enhanced 2025 version. To be sure, some of the horrors seem almost certain—the continued Gazan genocide with the Democratic Party blessing for instance. Then there is the anticipated, murderous orgy of roundups, mass transfers to concentration camps and deportations of those without legal status. This will, in and of itself, meet the criterion for genocide. But the most critical consequence will be the obliteration of public mental well being. We should all anticipate the racing heart rates, the suicides, the spiking blood pressures, the strokes and heart attacks as the soul of the American people is mobilized for mere survival.

The public is the last barrier between the U.S. military machine and a dead Gaza. We are the last stand to turn back a planned extermination of our “undocumented” people. That may sound rather dramatic, as we don’t yet know if we can even save ourselves. We would be in slightly better shape if Sharon Jones’ voice still provided refuge. It doesn’t, and she was only the first to fall.

Women's Marches are being planned across the country ahead of Election Day to "show the strength of our feminist movement." However, curiously missing from the talking points around the strength of the feminist movement is the women of Palestine—women and girls who have endured the brutality of anti-feminist policies for decades under the illegal occupation by Israel.

Nour, CodePink’s Palestinian-American organizer, shares a story of her grandmother's sacrifice to take care of her children under occupation:

In Palestine, Israeli forces routinely impose curfews on Palestinian villages, forcing Palestinians to stay confined in their homes after dusk. The penalty for the slightest movement outside—or even within their homes—can mean immediate arrest or being shot on sight. My mother often recounts a story of my grandmother risking her life during curfew one night. My uncle, who was an infant at the time, was crying for milk, and my grandmother, with no other choice, had to slip out into the night. She moved silently through the shadows, hiding from Israeli soldiers as she crossed the village to find milk for her baby. My mother still remembers the fear she felt, thinking it might be the last time she'd see her mother alive. But my grandmother returned safely because Palestinian women, shaped by decades of occupation and resistance, have learned to navigate the militarized reality that surrounds them, finding ways to perform even the most basic acts of care under unimaginable conditions.

This story is not new or singular; Palestinian families have faced it on a daily basis for decades. It sparked our reflection on the co-option of feminism in the belly of the beast—where we're writing from.

Feminism may not be definitive, but at its heart is a commitment to family and community care—a stark contrast to militarism, which injects itself into every aspect of human life and erodes these fundamental values.

Nadia Alia wrote about the 2014 Israeli invasion in Gaza, citing many reporters detailing the "disproportionate" number of women and children victims during this violent attack. She then begged the question, what is a proportionate amount of women and children harmed during war and conflict? When did gender-based violence and violence towards the oppressed become an inevitable part of world relations? And if simply men were killed, would the crime scream quieter? When did we start weighing the scale of a tragedy based on gender—and when did we decide Palestinian men being murdered and imprisoned doesn't impact their entire community?

Feminism may not be definitive, but at its heart is a commitment to family and community care—a stark contrast to militarism, which injects itself into every aspect of human life and erodes these fundamental values. Palestinian women embody this incompatible relationship between feminism and militarism through their constant resistance to the occupation's infringement on their health, education, and ability to provide for their families. When the women of Palestine are forced to become breadwinners and protectors because Israel has murdered or imprisoned every man in their family, the necessity for feminism to include the women of Palestine is undeniable.

To narrowly define feminism is to be inherently anti-feminist, as we are building new ways to be just, to be equitable, and to show up for our community every day—just as the women of Palestine do. However, co-opting feminism to enact harm and bring destruction to people and the planet is against all feminist principles and praxis. And to further assume a false sense of superiority over the communities that have been harmed by imperialism is not only inherently anti-feminist, it's anti-human. Feminism, at its core, is antithetical to all forms of oppression, exploitation, and violence. Feminism devoid of intersectionality becomes a weapon for imperialists by depriving it of its otherwise inherently liberatory nature.

Alia's writing from 2014 still rings clear today. We just passed a year marker of the October 7 act of resistance from Gazans defending their homeland and 76 years of Palestinians living in an open-air prison inside their own homes. Meanwhile, we head into an election season using feminism as a gateway towards further surveillance, policing, and genocide, both at home and in all corners of the earth. Women's marches throughout the country won't even utter the names of the hundreds of thousands of women killed in Palestine to date. What is feminist about wanting to be the most lethal force in the world? What is feminist about continuing to arm a genocidal war against Palestine and Lebanon? What is feminist about using our tax dollars that should go towards natural disaster relief and healthcare to fund murder? Supplying militarism under the guise of women's empowerment is again not new. Still, the complacency and ignorance we see from elected officials here in the U.S. and those who appear to care for the well-being of women is always horrific and devastating. It cannot be overstated: there are no feminist bombs, feminist prisons, feminist cops, or feminist wars. There are only paid actors who have convinced people that their eventual demise and the demise of the planet is what will empower their lives today.

Israel's occupation of Palestine creates a constant state of fear and instability, eroding the rights, safety, and dignity of millions, particularly Palestinian women who bear the weight of war and imperial feminism in devastating ways. CODEPINK started as an immediate reaction to the 2002 Bush Administration creeping closer to invading Iraq based on 'saving women and children' only to cause over 15,000 women in Iraq to be killed. The 'rescue' narrative we have seen play out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Palestine, and all across the globe from imperial players like the U.S., Great Britain, and Israel has truly shown the lengths that liberal, western feminism will go to justify the oppression of the women and children it claims to save.

To support Palestinian liberation means embracing a vision of feminism that stands firmly against militarism, imperialism, and colonialism.

This destructive narrative reveals the true intent this movement has for feminism: to keep the status quo and to keep marginalized lives, as Marc Lemont Hill describes it, "directly tied to the needs and interests of the powerful." Feminist education, activism, and community care must always come from a place of love and understanding but must also be in steadfast values of abolition and divestment. We cannot let ourselves be co-opted to kill Palestinians. We cannot allow our work to be undermined to kill the people of the Congo, of Sudan, of Yemen, of Ukraine, or of Russia. And we must not let our lives and choices be tied to a small group of people reaping the benefits of war.

To support Palestinian liberation means embracing a vision of feminism that stands firmly against militarism, imperialism, and colonialism. It means committing to fight for the rights of Palestinian women and all women who are oppressed in the name of advancing imperialist interests. Feminism calls us to see the connection between the liberties we fight for at home and the rights denied to women and girls across the globe. A genuinely feminist stance fights for a world where no woman, no child, and no community live under the constant threat of violence. Supporting Palestine is about embodying this vision, standing in solidarity, and fighting for a world where imperialism and colonialism are universally resisted.

“But there'll be men enough, the scum that we used for overseers, the trash that bought and sold slaves and bred them, the kind who were men with bullwhip and filth without one, the kind who have only one virtue, a white skin. Gentlemen, we'll play a symphony on that white skin, we'll make it a badge of honor. We'll put a premium on that white skin. We'll dredge the sewers and the swamps for candidates, and we'll give them their white skin - and in return, gentlemen, they will give us back what we lost through this insane [civil] war, yes, all of it." —From "Freedom Road" by Howard Fast, a novel about Reconstruction)

The idea of “race” has always been used to divide, control, and exploit. It is not a biological category. Eugenicists and White supremacists have spent generations trying to prove that it is, and they have failed. If each of us was able to banish the carefully indoctrinated idea of biological race from our minds, the world would be better off—starting with Donald Trump.

For those supporting Trump, it’s time to face up to the fact that he really is a biological racist. He is unable or unwilling to stop using racist arguments against groups that don’t have, he thinks, the same blood and breeding that he has.

Trump is into genes. There are good genes and bad genes, he says, smart genes and dumb genes, white genes and immigrant genes. Some of those good genes he finds in the white people of Minnesota.

“You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe? The racehorse theory, you think we’re so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.”

Like racehorses, according to Trump, some of us are bred for comfort, some for speed, some for crime, and still others for stupidity. According to his new ally, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who hopes to become a high-ranking U.S. health official, some of us also are bred to get Covid -- or not to get it. Kennedy said:

“Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

For Trump and Kennedy, the world is littered with races that form a lovely hierarchy, and their white “race,” conveniently is at the very top. Their skin color, they say, makes them most fit to rule in a ruthless Darwinian world. In this belief they join the defenders of slavery, segregation, and the builders of the gas ovens.

Their view of the world also has much in common with that of the industrialists of the early 20th century who used “race” as a tool to divide the workforce. Trump and Kennedy might value the 1926 race chart created by the Pittsburgh Central Tube Company, which shows the skills that are found in each so-called “race.” Nationality was a race, back then. Religion was a race, too. And, of course, color was a race. Each potential worker, the chart claimed, had built-in talents that could be objectively determined by industrial “race science.”

Since the 19th century, scientists have tried to prove the validity of racial categorization. Yet each claim has later been shown to be grounded in cultural beliefs, not physical science. Biological race, as a category, does not exist, science says. Like it or not, according to the best evidence, there is only one biological race, the human race, and we’re all stuck in it.

“By the Blood of our Fathers”

Trump also is into blood. Mixing all these lowly immigrants into America’s white blood, supposedly leads to “poisoning the blood of our country.” In this Trump connects with the “one drop rule” used during Jim Crow to identify who did or didn’t have certain rights. Who could use which bathroom, who could drink from which fountain, and who could go to which school. If you had one drop of Black blood, you were designated Black and consigned to the path of second-class citizenship.

The “stable genius” seems blissfully ignorant of the fact that each and every one of us has more than a few drops of Black blood. Our common genetic ancestors came out of Africa about 60,000 years ago. Yes, by the definition of the one drop rule, we all are Black.

How the New York Times Perpetuates Race Science

Every time someone, and especially a major media outlet, uses the word “race” it triggers the idea that there is something biological involved besides skin shades. Throughout the 20th Century, “race” conjured up critical differences in pain thresholds, propensity to crime, intelligence, strength, and even lust, none of which is true.

For “races” to be equal, they must first exist as separate “races.” But they don’t. To repeat, there are no separate biological races.

Why is a Black resident of African descent in Minnesota categorically different from a white Minnesota resident of Norwegian descent? Why is one considered to be a member of a “race” and the other of an ethnic group?

Journalists would surely say that they are only using race as a social convention, that “race” is not about biology. Rather, they would explain, it is a way of describing the group of Black people in the U.S. who have formed as a result of the after effects of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and on-going discrimination based on skin color.

To most people, however, the word “race” carries more weight than the more nuanced and accurate word “ethnicity.” The latter is viewed as benignly connected to culture and tradition. “Race,” however, after more than a century of propaganda, implies biology. If you think skin color signals a different “race,” you are more likely to think that other differences between groups are biological as well.

The commonly accepted liberal statement that “all races are created equal” also falls into the racialist trap. For “races” to be equal, they must first exist as separate “races.” But they don’t. To repeat, there are no separate biological races.

The media is very careful with words. Conventions are established in every era to describe different groups. For example, “Negro” is no longer used, nor is “Indian.” This would be a very good moment to replace the word “race” with “ethnicity,” or at least put quotations marks around it. That might help eliminate race as biology.

For those supporting Trump, it’s time to face up to the fact that he really is a biological racist. He is unable or unwilling to stop using racist arguments against groups that don’t have, he thinks, the same blood and breeding that he has. He believes in a hierarchy of races and views himself the commander-in-chief of the fictitious superior white race, the master race.

History warns us that such beliefs never work out well.

Do you know that you’re in good hands with Allstate? Or how about State Farm? Do you know that, like a good neighbor, State Farm is there? Of course you do. Insurance companies have been blasting slogans like these at us for years now. In 2022 alone, Allstate spent $617 million on advertising. State Farm spent an even more whopping $1.05 billion.

But if insurance giants like State Farm truly rated as our “good neighbors,” they’d be behaving—in real life—quite a bit differently than their award-winning advertising suggests.

In hurricane-plagued Florida, for instance, State Farm last year denied 46.4% of homeowner claims, refusals that directly impacted over 76,000 households.

Another reform approach might more quickly catch the attention of top insurance industry boards of directors: tying an insurance company’s tax rate to the ratio between that company’s CEO pay and the paychecks of the firm’s workers.

“Property insurers who deny legitimate claims,” notes Martin Weiss, the founder of the nation’s only independent insurer rating agency, “are sending the implicit message, ‘If you don’t like it, sue us.’”

To add injury to that insult, Weiss adds, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had just before last year signed into law new legislation that makes policyholder lawsuits against insurers “far more difficult.”

For recently retired State Farm CEO Michael Tipsord, insurance industry lobbying victories along that Florida line have helped him pocket some stunning personal rewards. Tipsord pulled down $24.4 million in compensation two years ago, almost $4 million more than his industry’s second-highest 2022 CEO pay total. Tipsord had pocketed even more, $24.5 million, in 2021.

“CEOs are living high on the hog while increasing insurance premiums for people living paycheck to paycheck,” the Consumer Federation of America’s Michael DeLong charged last October. “Insurers are telling regulators that ordinary consumers have to pay much more for auto and home insurance because the companies are struggling with inflation and climate change, but they are quietly handing CEOs gigantic bonuses.”

Overall, DeLong’s Consumer Federation reports, the chief execs at America’s ten largest personal insurance lines collected over a quarter-billion dollars in CEO compensation for their services in 2021 and 2022.

If we really had a “good neighbor” at State Farm—or any other insurance giant—those companies wouldn’t have been spending recent years denying relief to the victims of climate change. They would have been insisting instead that lawmakers crack down on the fossil-fuel corporate giants doing so much to foul our planet.

Top insurers did make an early feint in that direction over a half-century ago. Way back in 1973, notes Peter Bosshard, the global coordinator of the U.S.-based Insure Our Future campaign, “the insurance industry first warned about climate risks.” But that warning, in the years to come, wouldn’t stop insurers from “underwriting and investing in the expansion of fossil fuels.”

Giant insurance companies that actually took climate science seriously, Bosshard observes, would have been “suing fossil fuel companies, to make polluters pay for the growing costs of climate disasters and keep insurance affordable for climate-affected communities.”

Insurers haven’t been doing any of that.

”Insurers talk a lot about their climate commitments and supporting their clients through the energy transition, but this is plain greenwashing,” charges Ariel Le Bourdonnec, a Reclaim Finance insurance activist. “They are still profiting from providing cover that allows companies to develop new fossil fuel projects. Insurers could be a force for change, but instead they are undermining climate action.”

Other critics are emphasizing that insurance industry execs have gone beyond “greenwashing” to “bluelining,” as Lilith Fellowes-Granda, a Center for American Progress associate director, points out. These execs are increasing prices and withdrawing services “from regions they perceive to be at high environmental risk.” These moves typically hit hardest on the “communities most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.”

Climate activists are advocating for a variety of policy changes to reverse these dynamics, everything from making sure property insurers must share the risks they cover to ensuring underserved communities access to affordable insurance.

Another reform approach might more quickly catch the attention of top insurance industry boards of directors: tying an insurance company’s tax rate to the ratio between that company’s CEO pay and the paychecks of the firm’s workers.

Inside the insurance industry, as in every other major U.S. economic sector, that ratio between CEO and worker has soared over recent decades.

In 2023, the chief executive at Chubb Ltd., Evan Greenberg, took home $27.7 million, enough to make him that year’s top-paid American property and casualty insurer. Those millions added up to 452 times more than the annual pay of the typical Chubb employee. In 2022, Greenberg pocketed a mere 346 times his company’s typical employee pay.

Back in 1965, the Economic Policy Institute noted last month in its latest annual CEO pay report, the top execs at major U.S. corporations only averaged 21 times what typical American workers earned. Nearly a quarter-century later, in 1989, CEOs were still only averaging 61 times worker pay.

How could we restore greater equity to corporate compensation and, at the same time, give top corporate executives an incentive to care about more than simply maximizing their own personal compensation? Lawmakers at the state and federal levels have over recent years advanced dozens of proposals that tie corporate tax rates to the size of the gap between top executive and worker pay.

In all these proposals, the higher a corporation’s CEO-worker pay ratio, the higher that corporation’s tax rate.

The Institute for Policy Studies has compiled an exhaustive guide to these CEO-worker pay gap proposals. Maybe the winds of Hurricane Milton will help give these moves the momentum they need to turn into law—and give top execs a reason to care about something more than the size of their own personal pay.