The Trump administration objected so strenuously to a recent speech by South Africa’s ambassador that it expelled him from the United States.

What did Ebrahim Rasool say that was so objectionable? Honestly, the speech he made at a webinar sponsored by a South African research institute was rather boring.

But embedded in his remarks is this observation: “Donald Trump is launching… an assault on incumbency, those who are in power, by mobilizing a supremacism against the incumbency at home.”

Don’t come here, don’t invest here, don’t buy from Tesla or Amazon or any of the other corporations that have kissed Trump’s ring.

This sentence requires a bit of interpretation. The “incumbency” in this case is the federal bureaucracy; the diversity, equity, and Inclusion programs in government and business; anti-racism initiatives more generally; and even elements of the Republican Party that haven’t been Trumpified. “Supremacism,” meanwhile, is white supremacy.

Essentially, the ambassador was pointing out that Trump and MAGA have launched a campaign to advance white supremacy in a country where the civil rights movement achieved enough progress to qualify today as the mainstream.

This isn’t a wild accusation. Among all the racist actions of the current administration, perhaps the most outrageous is Trump’s promise to expedite American citizenship for white Afrikaaners from South Africa that, Trump insists, are experiencing discrimination.

So, while the administration is deporting Black and Brown people by the thousands and trying to claw back birthright citizenship from even more people of color, it is offering to fast-track citizenship for a bunch of white people from Africa. This is not an Onion headline. It’s white nationalism. Even if Afrikaaners were experiencing discrimination in South Africa—which they’re not—privileging their entrance into the United States over Afghans terrified of returning to Taliban rule, Haitians escaping social collapse, or Sudanese fleeing civil war would still count as racist.

Trump’s overtures to the Afrikaaners are also a startling reversion of U.S. policy to the apartheid-friendly positions of the 1980s, when the Reagan administration bucked world opinion by maintaining strong relations with the white minority regime in South Africa. At that time, the anti-apartheid movement in that country was calling on the world to boycott, sanction, and divest from (BDS) South Africa.

Now that a white nationalist has (again) become president of the United States, it’s time to take inspiration from the anti-apartheid movement. As the Trump administration imposes restrictions on travel from 43 countries to the United States, as it slaps tariffs against allies and adversaries alike, as it cozies up to autocrats like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, as it dismantles federal programs designed to help people in need all over the world, as it withdraws from the Paris climate accord and the United Nations Human Rights Council, as it illegally deports thousands of people and sends some of them to horrific prisons in El Salvador, as it voices support for far-right, neo-Nazi political parties, as it threatens to seize Greenland and absorb Canada, it’s time to call on the world to treat this country as a pariah.

András Schiff has just done that. The great pianist announced this week that he has cancelled upcoming engagements and will not perform in the United States. This comes after he has refused to play in Russia and his native Hungary as well. “Maybe it’s a drop in the ocean; I’m not expecting many musicians to follow,” Schiff said. “But it doesn’t matter. It’s for my own conscience. In history, one has to react or not to react.”

Such a boycott should not be a permanent shunning but a specific response to policies that are in clear violation of international law and universal values of democracy and human rights. Yes, the United States has been in violation of such principles in the past. But this time, the Trump administration has crossed so many lines that it threatens to overthrow the very system of international law.

Once the U.S. government abandons its policies of white nationalism, among other unacceptable positions, it can be welcomed back into the community of nations. Until then: Don’t come here, don’t invest here, don’t buy from Tesla or Amazon or any of the other corporations that have kissed Trump’s ring. Trump is effectively boycotting the world by withdrawing from international institutions and violating international norms. The world should return the favor.

Isolating the Trump Administration

The Trump administration’s indiscriminate tariffs have already prompted a number of countries to respond in kind. Canada has imposed $32.8 billion in tariffs against the United States, while Europe has imposed $28 billion worth. China announced a “15% tariff on U.S. coal and liquefied natural gas, along with a 10% tariff on other products, including crude oil, agricultural machinery, and pickup trucks.”

The residents of these regions are also adjusting their travel plans accordingly, a move that Robert Reich recently endorsed. The Washington Post reports:

Canadians are skipping trips to Disney World and music festivals. Europeans are eschewing U.S. national parks, and Chinese travelers are vacationing in Australia instead. International travel to the United States is expected to slide by 5% this year, contributing to a $64 billion shortfall for the travel industry, according to Tourism Economics. The research firm had originally forecast a 9% increase in foreign travel, but revised its estimate late last month to reflect “polarizing Trump Administration policies and rhetoric.”

Trump’s policies are hurting the United States, from the travel industry and research institutes losing federal grants to the average consumer who is paying for all the tariffs through higher prices.

Some observers recommend that other countries resist the temptation to shoot themselves in the feet by imposing penalties of their own. Economist Dani Rodrik, for instance, suggests that retaliatory tariffs will only hurt the countries imposing them, so the best strategy “is to minimize the damage by staying as far from the bully as you can and waiting for him to punch himself out and crumple in a corner.”

Another option, economist Gabriel Zucman urges, is to apply tariffs to U.S. oligarchs: “If Tesla wants to sell cars in Canada and Mexico then Musk himself, as main shareholder of Tesla, should have to pay tax in Canada and Mexico. Put a wealth tax on him, and condition Tesla’s market access to him paying the tax.”

Changing travel plans, slapping tariffs on U.S. goods, taxing U.S. plutocrats: These are all potentially useful strategies. But they don’t go far enough.

Hit the Hornets’ Nest

You’ve heard this advice before: Don’t antagonize him, don’t make him lash out, don’t further endanger those around him. But abusive husbands only continue their unacceptable behavior in the face of such coddling.

Many international leaders hope that they can avoid Trump’s wrath by praising him, treating him to military parades when he visits, or at least laying low in the hopes that he won’t direct his wrath in their direction.

Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for instance, has done his best to curry favor with Trump, particularly after the disastrous White House meeting last month. In this way, he was able to restart U.S. military aid and intelligence-sharing. But he’s still on the verge of being sold out at the bargaining table if and when the Trump administration accepts Russia’s hardline terms for a cease-fire and peace deal.

The alliance against fascism worked in World War II. The anti-apartheid movement was successful. Let us now stand against the Trumps and Putins and Netanyahus of the world.

Still, you might object, no country is powerful enough to put Trump in his place. And those that might have a shot at doing so—China, Russia—are more interested in working with Trump to divide the world into spheres of influences.

But that still leaves a lot of countries that can band together, like an army of small and mid-sized Lilliputians to tie down the power-drunk Gulliver. They simply have to hit the United States where it hurts. Don’t buy products from American companies that support Trump. Don’t allow those businesses to invest in your countries. Reorient your currency transactions away from the dollar.

These measures should not come all at once. Rather, they should be staged strategically to force Trump to back down from his most noxious policies. Name-and-shame tactics don’t work with leaders who have no shame. Grab him by the wallet—it’s the only language he understands.

Will such measures hurt ordinary Americans? Probably. But no more than Trump is already hurting us. The tariffs that countries have imposed in retaliation against Trump’s actions will adversely affect nearly 8 million U.S. workers, the majority in counties that voted for him. But these costs are nothing compared to what the world will suffer as a result of Trump’s cuts in foreign assistance, which will likely kill hundreds of thousands of people a year.

One last recommendation: Don’t cut off all communication with the United States.

In the 1980s, the anti-apartheid campaign fostered considerable contact between the United States and South Africa. But it was a relationship based on solidarity between civil society organizations. My dear friends in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America: Please do not equate Trump with the United States. Yes, a lot of people here voted for him. But they are starting to have buyer’s remorse. Let’s join hands across borders and party lines and say, “We will not tolerate racist bullies.”

The alliance against fascism worked in World War II. The anti-apartheid movement was successful. Let us now stand against the Trumps and Putins and Netanyahus of the world. They are the 1%, and they are vastly outnumbered.

“He’s not Jewish anymore. He’s a Palestinian.”

With these words, U.S. President Donald Trump did not merely insult Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—he exposed something far more insidious. In Trump’s world, Palestinian is not just a nationality. It is an accusation, a sentence of exile, a mark of delegitimization.

Schumer’s crime was questioning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s increasingly authoritarian government. Schumer, a staunch Zionist who has long positioned himself as one of Israel’s most unwavering defenders, dared to suggest that Netanyahu’s extremism was harming Israel’s future.

A new McCarthyism is taking hold in America, and this time, it is not communists in its crosshairs. It is anyone who refuses to fall in line with Israel’s agenda.

That alone was enough for Trump to strip him of his Jewishness, to brand him as something else—something meant to be demeaning.

This is not the first time Trump has wielded the word “Palestinian” as a slur. He has used it against former President Joe Biden, against Schumer previously, and indeed against anyone who dares to question Israel’s policies.

The message is clear: To be called Palestinian is to be cast out. Your voice no longer counts. Your legitimacy is revoked, your rights erased.

Had Schumer not been Jewish, Trump would have called him antisemitic. But even that category is losing its meaning. This is not about identity. It is about obedience.

Because in this new political order, anyone can become Palestinian.

Erased From History

To be Palestinian in Trump’s world is to be without rights. A Palestinian can be starved, bombed, and expelled. A Palestinian can be erased from history—just as Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, did when they engineered the Abraham Accords, bypassing Palestinians as though they did not exist.

A Palestinian can be stripped of legal protections, even if they hold U.S. residency and have committed no crime. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student, is facing deportation for nothing more than expressing his political views.

A Palestinian can be arrested for protesting, fired for speaking, or blacklisted for dissenting. And now, anyone can be treated as one.

This is the real warning in Trump’s attack. You don’t have to be Palestinian to be punished like one. You don’t have to be Arab or Muslim. You only have to step out of line.

Even Jewishness is no longer protection. Your identity has become conditional, your history disposable. You can be declared a traitor, an enemy within, someone who has forfeited their place.

The moment you question Israel, you become Palestinian—not by birth, but by decree. Because in this world, a Palestinian has no rights, nor does anyone who defends them.

A new McCarthyism is taking hold in America, and this time, it is not communists in its crosshairs. It is anyone who refuses to fall in line with Israel’s agenda.

Historical Purge

In the 1950s, repression was justified as a crusade against subversion, a purge of those deemed enemies of the state. Today, the same machinery of silencing is at work under the guise of combating antisemitism. But this is not about protecting Jewish people from hate; it is about criminalizing criticism of Israel.

It is about silencing students, journalists, academics, activists—anyone who speaks out against occupation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.

And the hypocrisy could not be more glaring.

A system meant to safeguard the marginalized is now being repurposed to shield a foreign government from criticism.

Trump and his allies have built their brand on railing against political correctness. They claim to be defenders of free speech, warriors against censorship. Just a few weeks ago, Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, stood at the Munich Security Conference and scolded European leaders for restricting expression. He lamented the West’s supposed retreat from free debate.

And yet, in the U.S. under Trump and those who champion his ideology, free speech does not apply if the topic is Israel.

Pro-Palestinian students are arrested, expelled, and stripped of their degrees. Professors who challenge Israeli policies are pushed out. Journalists who report on Israeli war crimes are blacklisted, harassed, and silenced. Films documenting Palestinian suffering are cancelled. Human rights organizations are smeared as terrorist sympathizers.

Universities and colleges—once bastions of free inquiry—are under siege, with the Trump administration threatening to strip their federal funding if they do not suppress pro-Palestinian activism. The same institutions that once championed open debate are now being forced into policing thought.

The consequences extend beyond campuses. The U.S. Department of Education, which is supposed to protect students facing discrimination, has been ordered to prioritize antisemitism cases—some of which are politically motivated—over the needs of vulnerable children.

Parents of students with disabilities are struggling to access the support to which they are legally entitled, because civil rights resources have been diverted to police speech on Israel. A system meant to safeguard the marginalized is now being repurposed to shield a foreign government from criticism.

Witch Hunt

Another federal agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has also been redirected—not to combat human trafficking or drug smuggling, but to hunt down students who express solidarity with Palestine. ICE has reportedly paused key investigations so that its agents can monitor social media, tracking and flagging pro-Palestinian students for their posts and likes. This is not law enforcement. This is a witch hunt.

And now, the next step: legal oppression turning into outright state violence.

Trump is prepared to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime measure that allows the president to detain and deport non-citizens without due process.

Under this law, green-card holders, students, spouses of U.S. citizens—anyone without citizenship—can be rounded up and expelled at the president’s discretion. It was designed for times of war, for use against citizens of enemy nations. But Trump is repurposing it, transforming immigration status into a weapon of political control.

And this process has already begun. Trump just deported Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese transplant specialist and professor at Brown Medicine, a legal resident on a valid H-1B work visa. There was no alleged crime, no hearing, and no due process. A respected doctor was expelled at the stroke of a pen because she fits the regime’s profile of the unwanted.

This is not a legal system. This is ethnic and political cleansing disguised as immigration enforcement.

Who will be targeted? We already know: Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims. Those who have protested, who have spoken out, whose very existence is now treated as subversive. The crackdown is escalating. First slander, then blacklists—now the threat of deportation without trial.

This is how rights are destroyed—not all at once, but in stages, each step paving the way for the next. It begins with one group, then it spreads. Soon, dissent itself is an act of defiance punishable by exile.

Crisis for Democracy

History has already shown us how this unfolds.

McCarthyism began with communists, but it did not stop there. It spread to journalists, academics, labor organizers, civil rights activists—anyone deemed subversive. Lives were destroyed, reputations ruined, entire fields purged of independent thinkers.

The same pattern is unfolding now. It starts with Palestinians, then students, then professors, then journalists, then public figures, then anyone who refuses to pledge unquestioning loyalty to the state of Israel.

Today, it is Palestinians who are denied their humanity. Tomorrow, it is anyone who dares to dissent.

This is not just a crisis for Palestinians. It is a crisis for democracy itself.

Israel and the U.S. were not content with trampling on international law to wage their genocidal war on Gaza. Now they are trampling on hard-won rights and freedoms at home to silence criticism of their war crimes, erode democracy, and criminalize opposition.

They are dismantling free speech in the name of combating antisemitism—when, in reality, they are weaponizing it, reducing it to a political tool. And in doing so, they fuel the very antisemitism they claim to fight, conflating such repression with Israel and Jewishness itself.

The moment we accept that criticism of Israel is a crime, we open the door to something even darker. Today, it is Palestinians who are denied their humanity. Tomorrow, it is anyone who dares to dissent.

Because in a world where the mere act of speaking out is enough to strip you of your rights, your identity, your place in society—then anyone can become Palestinian.

Freedom of speech is kind of like eggs nowadays—too expensive! For Columbia University, the cost imposed on it by the Trump administration was suddenly $400 million in rescinded federal funding, at least if the speech was pro-Palestinian and critical of Israel.

What choice did the school have, except, as Jennifer Scarlott writes, “to appease the Trump administration by expelling, suspending, and revoking the degrees of a growing number of students accused of peaceful protest and exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly...?”

“The shameless capitulation of Columbia to government pressure,” she goes on, “is reflective of the corporate, neoliberal selling-out of academia. Academia, exemplified by Columbia University, has surrendered its proclaimed mission of intellectual independence and endeavor, and the academic pursuit of knowledge and social advancement.”

Five-plus decades ago, free speech did eventually bring the Vietnam War to an end.

Can you believe it? An academic clampdown on peace protests! Reading about this, I couldn’t help but feel my own college days come back hard and strong, and I started reading the current news in a larger context.

Education isn’t just a matter of absorbing a bunch of dead facts and certainties. As we gain—as we claim—our education, we bring our expanding awareness into the world we’re entering. An essential part of the world during my own college years, back in the late 60s, was of course the Vietnam War. This war wasn’t simply an abstraction; it was anxious to claim us as obedient participants. Many of us chose not to be obedient. We saw the hell and pointless horror of the war and decided that the only way we could participate in it was by standing against it, by ending it... and, ultimately, by working to create a world where war was no longer the unquestioned norm: a world, you might say, not defined by the lurking, soulless enemy (who must be killed), but by our connection to everyone and everything.

Yeah, this work is still in progress. War remains humanity’s cancer—with no funding rescinded for its endless waging, at least not by the U.S. government. But five-plus decades ago, free speech did eventually bring the Vietnam War to an end and, indeed, precipitated an era of “Vietnam syndrome,” where the public basically opposed war in general. No small problem for the nation’s warmongers! It took almost two decades, but the U.S. eventually found itself an enemy equal in evil to the commies: the terrorists. Specifically, Muslim terrorists.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush launched Operation Desert Storm, aka, Gulf War I, a quick, brutal assault on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. The Bush administration employed some highly effective public relations to push the war, including the false assertion that the evil Iraqis had ripped Kuwaiti babies from their hospital incubators and left them to die on the floor. The war lasted a little over a month, ending in the bombing and slaughterer of retreating Iraqi troops, as well as civilians, along what became known as the Highway of Death.

Afterward. Bush extolled the real victory his assault on Iraq had achieved, declaring: “It’s a proud day for America. And, by God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

The public was OK with war again. God bless America!

And it’s been at war, in various ways, ever since. This is also part of the context in which I ponder today’s news about the Gaza genocide protests. Federal control over public relations is crucial, and if the protest movement is allowed to continue—and spread—sheerly because of the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians, the funding of which is our declared national policy, this could be... uh, problematic.

In the 60s, college campuses were at the hub of the nation’s antiwar protests, with faculty members seriously involved as well, and the various college administrations across the country mostly remained aligned with and committed to the principle of free speech. That meant the military-industrial complex had a serious domestic enemy: those loud-mouth college critics and their ability to punch holes in the official government PR about its military initiatives.

So what’s it going to do? Go total fascist and simply shut those students up by banning free speech? As appellate attorney Joseph Pace writes:

There’s a malign genius to the administration’s approach. Trump and his enablers know they can’t directly muzzle students or faculty without facing First Amendment lawsuits. To be clear, that doesn’t mean the administration won’t try. ICE has already begun arresting foreign student activists, and DOJ has signaled plans to charge protestors under federal counterterrorism laws. But the administration surely understands that most of those actions will be thwarted in the courts.

So start squeezing the college cash flow! That way, as Pace notes, it can force private college administrations to do the dirty work—banning protests, expelling protesters—legally. Pace quotes Trump strategist and former Heritage Foundation board member Christopher Rufo, who explained in a New York Times interview that the plan was to put the schools in a state of “existential terror” unless they went after the protesters.

I would call this flipping the reality, a crucial aspect of war-related public relations. Here, for instance, is a small sliver of a United Nations report from Tom Fletcher, under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, noting that Israel’s latest cease-fire violation on March 17 resulted in hundreds of deaths. Furthermore:

Since 2 March, Israeli authorities have halted the entry of all lifesaving supplies, including food, medicine, fuel, and cooking gas, for 2.1 million people. Repeated requests to collect aid sitting at the Karem Shalom border crossing have also been systematically rejected, no further hostages have been released, and Israel has cut power to southern Gaza’s desalination plant, limiting access to clean water for 600,000 people.

But criticizing this is what the smugly powerful call antisemitic. The irony here, as Pace noted, is in the nature of the Trump administration itself, which he described as a “den of antisemites.” This is no doubt most flagrantly represented by Elon Musk, who infamously gave two Nazi salutes at a recent rally and, among much else, spoke at a right-wing convention in Germany where he lamented that “Germany’s real problem was ‘too much focus on past guilt.’”

We’re on a dark and dangerous road to nowhere. The protests are keeping human sanity alive.

People continue to observe that the political parties have at best a very limited if any vision or a frightening one at worst.

There are many things that people are worried about, but three issues sit in the back of voters’ minds—issues that will inevitably come to the fore and produce anxiety in the electorate. The first is the future of energy and the jobs tied to it. Many working-class Americans rely on fossil fuel jobs to support their families. They hear talk of green energy but wonder: What happens to us?

The term “just transition” is often used to address this concern, and experts like Jillian Neuberger and Devashree Saha, in their April 5, 2021, publication, have provided a roadmap for how it could be implemented. A just transition ensures that workers in fossil fuel industries are not left behind in the shift to renewable energy; rather, they are retrained and given new opportunities in clean energy sectors. This is a crucial conversation, but the Republicans continue to be in denial and the Democrats have not adequately articulated the idea to the public. Instead, they are allowing the perception to fester that climate action simply means job losses, without presenting a compelling case for how workers will be protected. The party needs to make it clear: Climate action does not mean economic devastation. Instead, it can be an opportunity to build a new, sustainable economy that works for everyone. But to do this, they need to communicate a clear vision—something they are failing to do.

The last presidential election sent a clear message: Americans are primarily concerned about their work, their financial security, and the future of their families.

Another widespread concern is the rise of artificial intelligence and its impact on jobs. Workers fear automation and AI replacing their livelihoods. This concern is not unfounded; many industries are already seeing jobs being replaced by machines and algorithms. Yet, there are solutions that could make AI work for, rather than against, the American worker. Economists Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, and Simon Johnson have written extensively about “pro-worker AI,” a model that emphasizes using artificial intelligence to complement human labor rather than replace it. The industries that stand to benefit the most from this approach include education and healthcare—sectors where AI can be leveraged to assist, not replace, workers. In education, AI can provide personalized tutoring, help automate administrative tasks, and free teachers to focus more on student engagement and critical thinking. In healthcare, AI can aid doctors in diagnosing diseases more accurately, reduce paperwork for nurses, and streamline hospital operations, improving patient care without eliminating human oversight.

The Democrats should be leading on policies that ensure AI serves as an enhancement rather than a replacement for human workers. One way to accomplish this is through tax-code changes that incentivize hiring human labor over automation. Right now, businesses can often save money by replacing workers with machines because tax structures favor capital investment over labor costs. Changing this dynamic could encourage companies to keep employees in meaningful roles while integrating AI in a way that boosts productivity without sacrificing jobs. Additionally, as AI increasingly touches all aspects of government—from infrastructure planning to national security—there is an urgent need for AI expertise within federal agencies. Without knowledgeable oversight, policymakers risk falling behind in regulating AI’s impact, leaving critical decisions to private companies whose priorities may not align with the public good. A forward-thinking Democratic vision should prioritize hiring AI specialists within government to ensure that technology is developed and deployed responsibly.

Beyond domestic concerns, global instability is another major source of anxiety. Nine nations now have nuclear weapons, and the U.S. and Russia hold 90% of them. Meanwhile, China is currently on course to gain parity with the Big Two. This reality makes the threat of nuclear war or catastrophic accidents an ever-present concern. President Donald Trump recently questioned why the U.S. is spending exorbitantly on nuclear weapons, stating, “We have so many, so many, and we can’t use them.” (Reuters, February 13, 2025, Andrea Shalal and Steve Holland). This time, rather than opposing him reflexively, the Democrats should agree—and hold him to his words. Russia and China have already expressed willingness to engage in nuclear arms limitation talks. Instead of dismissing Trump’s remarks, Democrats should demand that he take the next step and follow through on negotiations. There is now a real pathway to reducing nuclear arsenals, and the Democrats should ensure that Trump and the GOP are held accountable for making it happen.

The last presidential election sent a clear message: Americans are primarily concerned about their work, their financial security, and the future of their families. While other issues matter, the fundamental well-being of the working and middle class remains the dominant force shaping electoral outcomes. If the Democrats fail to articulate a vision that speaks directly to these concerns, they will continue to be distrusted by many of the people they claim to champion.

There are answers to these challenges. A just transition for fossil fuel workers, a pro-worker AI strategy, and a pragmatic approach to global security could be the cornerstones of a compelling Democratic vision. But the party needs to do more than just hold these ideas in policy papers and academic discussions. They need to articulate them forcefully, repeatedly, and in a way that resonates with the American people.

If you don’t have a vision, you’re not going to get anywhere. Right now, the Democrats seem to be standing still. The question is: When will they start moving?

The future of American democracy isn’t being dismantled by accident; it’s being systematically replaced to prepare the way for something entirely new.

A radical ideology known as the Dark Enlightenment is fueling a billionaire-led movement to gut our government, erase democratic norms, and install a technocratic elite in their place.

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk aren’t just tearing down institutions—they’re laying the groundwork for an experimental new kind of authoritarian rule.

The audacious experiment Musk has embarked on—which Trump probably doesn’t even understand—involves the fundamental transformation of America from a nation ruled by its own people into one where decisions are made by a very specific elite group of self-selected “genius” white male technocrats.

Americans are baffled by the brutal, relentless attack on the institutions of America that they’ve launched.

Why would they destroy our reputation around the world by shutting down USAID? What’s wrong with the federal government helping poor school districts or giving college students Pell Grants? Why gut billions in scientific research that’s kept America at the forefront of the world and saved literally hundreds of millions of lives?

Paul Krugman recommends a psychiatrist weigh in; Dr. Bandy X. Lee (a frequent guest on my program) points that out, noting, “How exactly this plays out is, as I have said, a spiritual question.” Three New York Times writers even had a lengthy back-and-forth on the topic, under the title: “Is Destruction the Point?”

• Some speculate that Musk and Trump are both tight with Putin and they’re destroying our government at his direction, helping achieve the goal he’s had since his KGB days to destroy America from within.
• Others think it’s just a way of crippling government programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and the Post Office so they can now be profitably taken over by private industry.
• Democratic politicians tell us Musk and Trump are just trying to cut government spending to pay for the $4 trillion in tax cuts for billionaires that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will be introducing in the House in the next few weeks.

They’re all wrong.

The simple answer is that these people intend to replace the 240+ year “American Experiment” with a brand new governance “experiment” of their own. One that was largely developed in computer rooms around San Francisco.

There’s an actual ideology behind all this, and it isn’t the old-fashioned Ayn Rand libertarianism that was such a rage during the Reagan era.

This hot new experimental ideology, enthusiastically embraced by Silicon Valley billionaires and their “tech bros” dismantling our government, is called the Dark Enlightenment or the neo-reactionary movement (NRx).

And it’s not entirely new; they believe they have proof that it works, which can be found way over on the other side of the planet. I’ve been there, in fact, and it does seem to be working just fine… if you don’t care about freedom.

Back in 1994 I published a book proposing that ADHD wasn’t a brain disease or disorder but, instead, a form of brain wiring that would be highly adaptive during humanity’s long hunter-gatherer period but can present a struggle for people in today’s factory-like school systems. Time Magazine did a cover story about it, including an article featuring my book, and suddenly I was in demand literally around the world.

One of the countries I visited during the book tour that ensued (the book’s available in more than a dozen languages) was Singapore. A parents’ group had reached out to my publisher and set up an opportunity for me to talk about my theory and ways schools could be reinvented to work for both “normal” and ADHD kids.

I gave the speech and laid out a series of suggestions, and during the Q&A that followed, one of the parents asked how to best convince schools to adopt some of my ideas. I suggested they should “become politically active,” a standard answer in most every other country I’d visited (and here in America). Little did I realize the significance of that phrase.

When I got back to my hotel, an internationally famous five-star tower with a beautiful atrium, my room had been torn apart. The mattress and box springs were on the floor, as were the contents of my suitcase. Every drawer was pulled open. My toiletries kit was all over the bathroom floor.

I called hotel security to report what I thought was a break-in or robbery, although I couldn’t immediately see that anything was missing. The head of security showed up in my room five minutes later with the hotel manager. They looked around the room with neither shock nor alarm.

The manager explained, with a hint (but only a hint) of apology in his voice, “The police were here,” as if that explained everything

“They did this?” I asked, as I recall.

He nodded and said, “Presumably.”

“Why?” I demanded.

Both men shrugged. The head of security asked me if I’d engaged in anything illegal while in Singapore, particularly bringing illegal drugs into the country, and I indignantly denied even the possibility. They shrugged their shoulders again and offered to send a maid up to help make put the room back together.

The next morning, I had breakfast with some of the parents I’d met the afternoon before and told them what happened. They explained, in a whisper, that I never should have mentioned “politics” in my speech.

“It is not allowed here,” as I recall one telling me.

Singapore has come a ways from the mid-1990s, but is still an authoritarian state. As Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein wrote for Mother Jones:

During his reign, [Lee Kuan Yew, aka LKY, Singapore’s former leader] successfully fused pro-corporate libertarian economics and state socialism, creating a distinctly conservative mishmash of social and political control.

Singapore has banned all kinds of free speech; intervened in marriages and family planning; encouraged eugenics; caned people for minor crimes; created an ethnically homogeneous ruling class; treated the migrant worker population as second-class citizens; and, famously, banned chewing gum.

This is LKY’s model: economic development above all else—even human rights. A “soft” authoritarianism, as Fareed Zakaria has called it. “The exuberance of democracy,” LKY explained, “leads to indiscipline and disorderly conduct, which are inimical to development.”

According to the philosopher-king of the Dark Enlightenment movement, the guy who woke up JD Vance, and the billionaires who support him, Singapore is their explicit model for America’s future.

As Kaiser-Schatzlein writes about Curtis Yarvin and the other Dark Enlightenment thinkers who have inspired Musk, Theil, Vance, et al.:

For a new breed of right-wing thinkers, politicians, and activists, LKY’s approach to government is appealing. Curtis Yarvin, Silicon Valley’s resident neo-monarchist, compares LKY to FDR—both good examples, he says, of a unilateral leader.

And Nick Land, an accelerationist philosopher, calls LKY an “autocratic enabler of freedom.”To them, LKY is the paradigm of an illiberal ruler who created a paradise for his subjects: a freedom without rights, a prosperity without disorder.

Sure, Republicans are going to gut government spending to pay for tax cuts for the billionaires who own them. And they definitely want big Wall Street banks to run Social Security just like George W. Bush handed more than half of Medicare (so far) over to giant for-profit insurance companies. After all, both industries represent such big campaign donors.

But this goes way beyond merely making billionaires richer or giving corporations more power over our lives. The audacious experiment Musk has embarked on—which Trump probably doesn’t even understand—involves the fundamental transformation of America from a nation ruled by its own people into one where decisions are made by a very specific elite group of self-selected “genius” white male technocrats.

And once AI reaches the ability to think with the intelligence of a genius-level human—Artificial General Intelligence or AGI—some of these guys believe that most of the decision-makers and agencies of the federal government can simply be replaced by banks of computers, deciding who gets what, when, and why.

All it’ll take is a monarchical leader who, like KLY, brooks no dissent.

Trump could be that leader—or at least the useful-idiot-frontman for the technocrats like Vance and Musk who are really running things—and the gutting of federal agencies opens up a space to replace them (and their workers) with AGI-based computer systems.

Rana Foorahar explains it in The Financial Times:

The philosophy argues that democracy inherently leads to social decline, because of the development of deep state bureaucracies that are unable to control oligarchic forces, and that societies should be run like corporations, with a kind of CEO Monarch in charge.

As Yarvin has said, “If Americans want to change their government, they need to get rid of dictator phobia... One way of dealing with that is... hire two executives and make sure they work together and there is really no other solution...”

And they’re much further along in the process of both gutting government and seizing total control of our political system to implement this experiment than most Americans realize.

• A new site that lays out exactly how they’re progressing toward their goal of kneecapping the federal bureaucracy is project2025.observer; according to the site, they’re about 40% of the way there, although the courts may set them back temporarily.
• And the project for billionaires to take complete control of our elected officials (and thus our government, at all levels) is also nearly complete: Fully 18% of all spending on the 2024 elections was done by just 150 billionaire families who represent a mere .00000045% of the American population.

The Dark Enlightenment has little use for democracy; openly disdains notions of equality as proposed in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution (viewing them as unnatural and counterproductive); and rejects what they call “Whig historiography,” which assumes history inevitably progresses toward greater liberty and enlightenment.

Instead, like Julius Evola, Thomas Carlyle, and Oswald Spengler, they argue that “classical” societal structures that ruled the world for millennia (like feudalism, monarchy, or cameralism) are superior to democracy and, completely ignoring the history of the development of modern democracy, should—with a high-tech AGI twist—replace today’s democratic “experiment.”

(Ironically, a large portion of the infrastructure that this movement is using was financed by fossil fuel billionaires who simply wanted to avoid paying income taxes and to have their oil companies deregulated so they could make more pollution and thus more profit. Similar to the people who funded the rise of Hitler—including Fritz Thyssen who wrote the book I Paid Hitler after WWII as an apology—many are now surprised, and some even frightened, by the turn of things.)

They are pushing forward with the “move fast and break things” slogan of the Tech industry that Mark Zuckerberg popularized. And they are having breathtaking success, between that strategy and the billions of dollars they are easily able to spend to seize the political power to fulfill their vision. They call themselves “Masters of the Universe” without a trace of irony.

Some high-profile observers of American politics are alert to this takeover-in-progress that most of our media has completely missed. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, for example, recently wrote for his Substack newsletter:

Behind Vance and Musk is a libertarian community of rich crypto bros, tech executives, back-to-the-landers, and disaffected far-right intellectuals.

Curtis Yarvin comes as close as anyone as being their intellectual godfather. He has written that political power in the United States is held by a liberal amalgam of universities and the mainstream media whose commitment to equality and justice is eroding America’s social order.

In Yarvin’s view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful. They should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose major “shareholders” select an executive with total power, who serves at their pleasure.

Yarvin refers to the city-state of Singapore as an example of a successful authoritarian regime.

He notes that these tech-bro “oligarchs of the techno-state” want to replace “inefficient” democracy with “an authoritarian regime replete with technologies they control.”

Rachel Maddow has similarly featured stories about Yarvin and others like him on her program, albeit infrequently. The New Yorker has written about the movement, as have multiple other publications.

Lefty intellectuals and progressive thought leaders are suddenly waking up to the Dark Enlightenment experiment that, like a glacier finally reaching the sea, has been slowly consuming the GOP as it moves along and is now—with hundreds of millions from Elon Musk buying the White House for Trump—suddenly cleaving off massive icebergs of damaged governmental institutions.

But a much wider understanding of what’s really animating Trump’s and Musk’s experimental destruction of our government is needed.

If Americans don’t wake up to the Dark Enlightenment’s creeping grip on the people who control our democracy, we may soon find ourselves living in a country where elections are meaningless, the government serves only the ultra-rich, and freedom exists in name only.

Pass it along… and get into the streets!

Donald Trump’s first term as president saw some of the largest mass protests seen in the U.S. in over 50 years, from the 2017 Women’s March to the 2020 protests after George Floyd’s murder.

Things feel different this time around. Critics seem quieter. Some point to fear of retribution. But there’s also a sense that the protests of Trump’s first term were ultimately futile. This has contributed to a widespread mood of despair.

As The New York Times noted not long ago, Trump “had not appeared to be swayed by protests, petitions, hashtag campaigns or other tools of mass dissent.” That’s a common perspective these days.

But what if it’s wrong?

As a historian, I study how our narratives about the past shape our actions in the present. In this case, it’s particularly important to get the history right.

In fact, popular resistance in Trump’s first term accomplished more than many observers realize; it’s just that most wins happened outside the spotlight. In my view, the most visible tactics – petitions, hashtags, occasional marches in Washington – had less impact than the quieter work of organizing in communities and workplaces.

Understanding when movements succeeded during Trump’s first term is important for identifying how activists can effectively oppose Trump policy in his second administration.

Quiet victories of the sanctuary movement

Mass deportation has been a cornerstone of Trump’s agenda for more than a decade. Yet despite his early pledge to create a “deportation force” that would expel millions, Trump deported only half as many people in his first term as Barack Obama did in his first term.

Progressive activists were a key reason. By combining decentralized organizing and nationwide resource-sharing, they successfully pushed scores of state and local governments to adopt sanctuary laws that limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

When the sociologist Adam Safer examined thousands of cities and dozens of states, he found that a specific type of sanctuary law that activists supported – barring local jails and prisons from active cooperation with ICE – successfully reduced ICE arrests. A study by legal scholar David K. Hausman confirmed this finding. Notably, Hausman also found that sanctuary policies had “no detectable effect on crime rates,” contrary to what many politicians allege.

Another important influence on state and local officials was employers’ resistance to mass deportation. The E-Verify system requiring employers to verify workers’ legal status went virtually unenforced, since businesses quietly objected to it. As this example suggests, popular resistance to Trump’s agenda was most effective when it exploited tensions between the administration and capitalists.

The ‘rising tide’ against fossil fuels

In his effort to prop up the fossil fuel industry, Trump in his first term withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, weakened or eliminated over 100 environmental protections and pushed other measures to obstruct the transition to green energy.

Researchers projected that these policies would kill tens of thousands of people in just the United States by 2028, primarily from exposure to air pollutants. Other studies estimated that the increased carbon pollution would contribute to tens of millions of deaths, and untold other suffering, by century’s end.

That’s not the whole story, though. Trump’s first-term energy agenda was partly thwarted by a combination of environmental activism and market forces.

His failure to resuscitate the U.S. coal industry was especially stark. Coal-fired plant capacity declined faster during Trump’s first term than during any four-year period in any country, ever. Some of the same coal barons who celebrated Trump’s victory in 2016 soon went bankrupt.

CBS News covered the bankruptcy of coal firm Murray Energy, founded by Trump supporter Robert E. Murray.

The most obvious reasons for coal’s decline were the U.S. natural gas boom and the falling cost of renewable energy. But its decline was hastened by the hundreds of local organizations that protested coal projects, filed lawsuits against regulators and pushed financial institutions to disinvest from the sector. The presence of strong local movements may help explain the regional variation in coal’s fortunes.

Environmentalists also won some important battles against oil and gas pipelines, power plants and drilling projects. In a surprising number of cases, organizers defeated polluters through a combination of litigation, civil disobedience and other protests, and by pressuring banks, insurers and big investors.

In 2018, one pipeline CEO lamented the “rising tide of protests, litigation and vandalism” facing his industry, saying “the level of intensity has ramped up,” with “more opponents” who are “better organized.”

Green energy also expanded much faster than Trump and his allies would have liked, albeit not fast enough to avert ecological collapse. The U.S. wind energy sector grew more in Trump’s first term than under any other president, while solar capacity more than doubled. Research shows that this progress was due in part to the environmental movement’s organizing, particularly at the state and local levels.

As with immigration, Trump’s energy agenda divided both political and business elites. Some investors became reluctant to keep their money in the sector, and some even subsidized environmental activism. Judges and regulators didn’t always share Trump’s commitment to propping up fossil fuels. These tensions between the White House and business leaders created openings that climate activists could exploit.

Worker victories in unlikely places

Despite Trump self-promoting as a man of the people, his policies hurt workers in numerous ways – from his attack on workers’ rights to his regressive tax policies, which accelerated the upward redistribution of wealth.

Nonetheless, workers’ direct action on the job won meaningful victories. For example, educators across the country organized dozens of major strikes for better pay, more school funding and even against ICE. Workers in hotels, supermarkets and other private-sector industries also walked out. Ultimately, more U.S. workers went on strike in 2018 than in any year since 1986.

This happened not just in progressive strongholds but also in conservative states like West Virginia, Oklahoma and Kentucky. At least 35 of the educators’ strikes defied state laws denying workers the right to strike.

In addition to winning gains for workers, the strike wave apparently also worked against Republicans at election time by increasing political awareness and voter mobilization. The indirect impact on elections is a common side effect of labor militancy and mass protest.

Quiet acts of worker defiance also constrained Trump. The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic featured widespread resistance to policies that raised the risk of infection, particularly the lack of mask mandates.

Safety-conscious workers frequently disobeyed their employers, in ways seldom reflected in official strike data. Many customers steered clear of businesses where people were unmasked. These disruptions, and fears they might escalate, led businesses to lobby government for mask mandates.

This resistance surely saved many lives. With more coordination, it might have forced a decisive reorientation in how government and business responded to the virus.

Labor momentum could continue into Trump’s second term. Low unemployment, strong union finances and widespread support for unions offer opportunities for the labor movement.

Beyond marches

Progressive movements have no direct influence over Republicans in Washington. However, they have more potential influence over businesses, lower courts, regulators and state and local politicians.

Of these targets, business ultimately has the most power. Business will usually be able to constrain the administration if its profits are threatened. Trump and Elon Musk may be able to dismantle much of the federal government and ignore court orders, but it’s much harder for them to ignore major economic disruption.

While big marches can raise public consciousness and help activists connect, by themselves they will not block Trump and Musk. For that, the movement will need more disruptive forms of pressure. Building the capacity for that disruption will require sustained organizing in workplaces and communities.

The currently popular “tough on crime” narratives touted by local, state, and federal policymakers—as evidenced by the attacks on mayors of sanctuary cities at recent congressional hearings—pose a risk that the United States will revert to a dangerous place that will harm marginalized communities for decades to come.

The nation’s stability is directly tied to the stability of this country’s younger generations. As a 25-year veteran of Juvenile Diversion programs in Denver, I took an early retirement to lead a nonprofit that works with young people referred through deflection, a pre-citation or pre-arrest intervention that connects young people to resources without criminalizing their behavior.

The goal is to make my old job obsolete.

Something must change. Community based organizations and legal advocates are already seeking solutions and are floating reform initiatives across the country.

During the past three decades, I have been deeply involved in community organizing, while simultaneously working full time inside the Juvenile Justice Industrial Complex where I have heard the internal systemic whisperings while also seeing how those systemic policies affect the communities they serve in real time.

On any given day, there are about 27,600 youth in detention centers in the U.S., representing a 75% decline since the year 2000. Juvenile crime rates plummeted between 1994-2020 by 78%. There is an obvious correlation between the drop in youth in detention and the decrease in crime. Reducing involvement in the juvenile justice system reduces juvenile crime.

The troubling national trend of rolling back justice reform efforts is raising alarms among advocates, as seen in Washington state where they are repurposing adult detention centers to create more juvenile lock-ups. And in North Carolina, legal expert Jake Sussman criticized policies leading to youth isolation, stating, “We are only aggravating any existing problems by placing these very vulnerable kids in isolation.”

Recently, I witnessed a 10-year-old stand behind his mother in Denver’s municipal juvenile court, clutching her jacket sleeve, struggling to understand how he came to be paraded before a judge for age-appropriate behavior. He tossed a pencil behind his back that grazed a teacher’s leg. Sitting in the intake room, his feet did not even touch the floor.

A 2024 study clearly spells out the damage that this one experience in the juvenile justice system will have on this child’s life as he grows up, carrying the trauma of this day and the burden of heightened scrutiny that will come from being placed on juvenile diversion. The study highlights the fact that young offenders often experience polyvictimization, developmental trauma, and complex PTSD, emphasizing the need for trauma-informed approaches within juvenile justice systems.

The National Center for Youth Law published a report in January detailing the extensive harm that tickets inflict on students everywhere, which unveils specifically how Lakewood, a large Denver suburb, has vastly overcriminalized students through the municipal court system.

Many municipal courts in the country, like Cleveland, New Orleans, and Denver, function in much the same manner as Lakewood. Children are ticketed for low-level offenses not worthy of a district-level charge, often by a police officer at their own school.

Ticketed students are siphoned into diversion programs that require them to miss school (and their parents to miss work) so they can show up for a court appearance. That experience is followed by another missed day of school and work to show up for a highly invasive intake interview.

Finally, the student is required to participate in costly classes that range from $60-$150 for one class, which is designed to address and correct criminogenic thinking in adults, at the family’s expense.

Students are required to complete rigorous community service assignments that can include dozens of hours of work. In Colorado for instance, a child is not permitted to perform community service hours without a parent present. So once again, a child’s ticket jeopardizes their parent’s employment.

Something must change. Community based organizations and legal advocates are already seeking solutions and are floating reform initiatives across the country such as the Colorado Youth Justice Collaborative, MILPA Collective, and Denver Healing Generations.

Ideally, healing a young person happens at home and within their own school and community. Some children are not able to have these positive resources.

In the school environment, alongside school discipline matrix reforms is a push for what has been termed deflection. The proposed deflection policies are what advocacy organizations nationwide tout as a means of avoiding harming a child through the juvenile justice system. The goal is to send the young person to an organization for services within their community directly from the point of contact with law enforcement instead of formally charging them.

There are bills in Colorado Judiciary Subcommittees that would begin to codify these policies and lead to a refreshing approach to addressing problematic behavior in young people. The City of Longmont, Colorado has had an 86% success rate already with its Deflection program as it routed youth away from the justice system.

Similarly, Cambridge, Massachusetts has a program that serves as a model for expansion into more cities.

From conventional therapy to culturally relevant initiatives and healing-based, trauma-informed programming, youth can grow in a healthy manner through a sustainable relationship with community-based caregivers. This is an investment in the future of America where healthy young people become healthy adults. That is a net positive for everyone.

Earlier this March, agents from the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, arrested Mahmoud Khalil at his Columbia University-owned apartment building in New York City. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was then promptly disappeared by federal agents, who refused to tell Khalil’s wife (a U.S. citizen) why he was being detained or where he was being held. He has since been found by his attorneys and partner in a private Louisiana detention facility notorious for abuse. His deportation was successfully, though only temporarily, halted by a federal judge.

An initial hearing in Khalil’s case was subsequently heard—without him present—in New York City. There, the Department of Justice defended the kidnapping, and backed the White House’s claimed rationale: the Trump administration doesn’t approve of Khalil’s speech, and therefore it has the right to forgo due process, revoke his green card without judicial order, and deport him.

Khalil is a prominent pro-Palestinian leader at Columbia University. He was one of students’ lead negotiators during the anti-genocide encampments that formed on its campus in 2024. It is this right to speech, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and affirmed over and over and over again, that President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are endeavoring to unilaterally, and with no constraints, gut.

Trump and his allies seemingly hope to manufacture a future in which any public critic of the administration or its friends can be defined, and prosecuted, as a “terrorist” for whom basic civil liberties can be summarily suspended.

To this end, the federal government has made no case that Khalil has committed a crime. Instead, the Trump administration has continuously boasted that Khalil is being targeted with the full force of the state for engaging in speech it doesn’t like; speech that is unambiguously guaranteed by the First Amendment, and that the White House now seeks to classify as “terrorism.”

Should Trump and Rubio succeed, as The Intercept aptly summarized, it will symbolize the death of free speech for American citizens and green-card holders alike.

Of course, it isn’t just Khalil—though if the government succeeds in his case it will be a chilling bellwether for the state of speech and protest in the Trump years and beyond. Even just in the weeks since kidnapping Khalil, it’s been reported that DHS officers have arrested another student protester at Columbia, stripped a different Columbia student of their visa status, denied a French scientist entry to the United States reportedly because of their expressed political disagreement with the administration, disappeared dozens of New Mexico residents, and more.

Of course, this playbook isn’t new, and Republicans have long sought to gut protected speech, and protected protest in particular. Indeed, dozens of Stop Cop City protesters and organizers are still navigating an abusive investigation and prosecution regime in Georgia that functionally seeks to render public displays of political dissent as violent conspiracy and “domestic terrorism,” including speech activities as mundane as handing out pamphlets.

As baseless and unconstitutional as those prosecutions were and still are, it’s this principle that is being pushed to new and even-more horrifying depths, as Trump and his allies seemingly hope to manufacture a future in which any public critic of the administration or its friends can be defined, and prosecuted, as a “terrorist” for whom basic civil liberties can be summarily suspended.

Indeed, Donald Trump, while turning the White House into a car dealership earlier this month, told reporters that people protesting Elon Musk’s hostile takeover of the U.S. federal government at Tesla storefronts, or protesting “any company,” should be labeled domestic terrorists, and that was something he “will do.”

Should the political persecution of Khalil succeed, it will foster a new era of the militarized American police state that greenlights the arbitrary and capricious abduction of organizers, dissidents, and critics of the Trump administration and the corporations it serves.

It should not need to be said, but to say it anyway: If foundational constitutional rights can be unilaterally suspended by the government, with no trial or even formal documentation of so-called wrongdoing, then those rights do not actually exist for anyone.

Who stands to benefit from such a bleak future? Advocates for authoritarianism for one, and corporations for another.

While the executive branch targets protesters’ rights to speech on White House orders, Trump’s own corporate allies and donors are pursuing adjacent tactics to divest normal people of the right to criticize the corporate hegemons ruining our lives.

Greenpeace, for example, just lost the trial brought against it by Energy Transfer, which seeks to functionally sue the group out of existence in the U.S. for criticizing the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). That notorious project, controlled by Energy Transfer, is well-known for its environmental racism and for deploying extreme force against environmental advocates, Indigenous communities, and others who opposed it.

Greenpeace is set to appeal the verdict, but if Energy Transfer should ultimately succeed, it would not just spell the end of Greenpeace’s U.S. operations, but will also usher in a new era in which corporate money can not just silence, but wholly eradicate, organizations that are critical of corporate polluters, labor abusers, price-gougers, and more. Such a future would place a price tag on First Amendment protections, with only the most well-resourced entities in the country seemingly eligible to enjoy it, and everyone else left vulnerable to their whims and machinations.

The political kidnapping of Mahmoud Khalil is an egregious attempt to undo 233 years of American constitutional law, and—regardless of what Trump or others claim—threatens to end the right to free speech, and democracy, as we know it. Should the political persecution of Khalil succeed, it will foster a new era of the militarized American police state that greenlights the arbitrary and capricious abduction of organizers, dissidents, and critics of the Trump administration and the corporations it serves. That, to be clear, would wholly cement the United States’ descent into full-fledged fascism.

Crucially, though, even if they fail to make Khalil the defining, and chilling, example of a new epoch of American political prisoners, Donald Trump and his allies in and outside of government have made it clear: They want to eliminate the First Amendment, and will do whatever it takes to do so.

Not since those sweltering days in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention has the United States confronted so fundamental a restructuring of the federal government. What’s happening! Today, the mainstream press declares “it can’t happen here” because we are not an authoritarian society, which is a reference to Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 novel, about a dictatorial take over of the United States. No we are not heading into a coup d’etat, they say, nor are we heading into an oligarchy.

Well, in fact, we are in the midst of a coup d’etat and we are living under an oligarchy.

The Trump-Musk regime and Republican Party are transforming how we are governed. This is not an unconstitutional assault, but rather an anti-constitutional assault. Virtually every ruling tradition is being pillaged all in the name of democracy. As the old maxim goes, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

This is not an unconstitutional assault, but rather an anti-constitutional assault.

Those leaders in 1787 contrary to their stated intentions did not resolve to reform the Articles of Confederation, rather to create a new government, the U.S. Constitution. After considerable and impassioned debate an uneasy consensus was forged among the 13 states. At the conclusion of the convention with philosophical differences still painfully evident, the esteemed Benjamin Franklin urged his fellow delegates to “place trust in their own fallibility” and endorse the new republic.

A Contest of Time

With all of its manifest imperfections and unremitting political and economic crises, many self inflicted, this government has survived for nearly 240 years. Of course, through it all the elites thrived while those not fortunate enough to be white and wealthy were obliged to endure. The influential federalist Fisher Ames, in defense of the Constitution, likened our new republic to traveling on a “raft where we never sink but our feet are always in the water.”

Are We Due to Capsize?

This time in our history is different. Today the forces of wealth and power are wielding unprecedented weapons that threaten the fundamentals of the republic. It’s not just policies that are under assault.

Unique concentrations of economic and political authority, dysfunctional legislative and judicial branches, a collapsed political party system, race and class scapegoating and toadying by influential sectors of the mass media combine to provide opportunities for demagogues to sell snake oil to an economically vulnerable and politically disillusioned public. This could be, in the words of the American sage Mel Brooks, a “springtime for Hitler” moment.

What Lurks Within?

Just as Trump’s rise to power is a symptom of undemocratic features of the political economy, an oligarchy and coup d’etat can emerge from a regime that incessantly consolidates power by and for the wealthy. It’s not the greed it’s the need. Power concentration is baked into the scheme. The internal logic dictates that elite political power consolidates and expands in order to preserve and amplify economic power.

Capitalism, according to noted economist Sam Bowles, is a never-ending race that requires aggressive undemocratic strategies to persevere. Well, democracy gets in the way of all of this; it organically interferes with the forces of wealth and power. Thus elite self-aggrandizement is compulsory for survival. Predictably this ceaseless jockeying for advantage in the race comes at the expense of the general welfare of the people or as the African proverb has it “when the elephants dance the mice gets trampled.”

Wizards Behind the Curtain

It is widely understood that Trump is not known for his intellectual curiosity or acuity. During his first term he seldom read his briefing books preferring to lean on his confidantes for any particulars. Presidents, in part are judged by who the advisors are. So who are some of Trump’s “brain trust”?

In the early 1970’s, Roy Cohn, the legal henchman for Senator Joseph McCarthy, became a trusted mentor to Trump. Cohn bragged that, “My scare value is high. My arena is controversy. My tough front is my biggest asset.” He admonished Trump to never admit a mistake. Sound familiar? Another key influencer was—and remains—Steve Bannon, publisher of Breitbart News, a reactionary platform for Republican extremism. Bannon is credited with saying the goal is the “destruction of the administrative state.” Then there’s Stephen Miller, the ever-dyspeptic long-time insider who stated, “I would be happy if not a single refugee’s foot ever again touched American soil.”

In the words of historian Doris Kearns Goodman, in another context, these people are not a “team of rivals” like those that Lincoln assembled. Trump’s team of advisors and cabinet secretaries are the mandatory paragons of sycophancy.

The Coup’s Afoot

The Trump-Republican agenda is in part based on Project 2025, which is a wish list of extremist proposals of an influential ultra conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. As will be shown the ultimate goal is to challenge and repeal foundational theories, structures and methods of how this country operates.

Their methods are straight out of an authoritarian’s playbook. The process consists of serial deceit, edict and executive orders all in arrogant violation of congressional and constitutional mandates and methods. This is a “shock and awe” that sabotages the rule of law. Trump’s second term is a barrage of dismantling of departments and agencies and the firing of hundreds of thousands with no regard for due process or social and human consequences. This is a coup d’etat.

Constitutional Foundations Crumble

This Trump –Musk and Republican Party coup is not a palace revolt that merely changes the faces in power. This is not about tinkering or modifying policy. This is not about upholding long cherished principles and values or a return to the “good old days.” This is about systemic change, about power and how it is structured and wielded and for who’s benefit.

What follows is an exposition of the coup’s structural attacks on governance. The actual specifics of the daily policy plundering will not be emphasized. Rather what will be explored are the why and how of this destruction of the basic architecture and operation of constitutional government. While historically this governing design and process has never been perfect it has always held the virtue of an ideal, of being a worthy democratic goal.

Reneging on the Contract

The insurrectionists intend to break the “Social Contract.” Philosopher John Locke’s foundational principle embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of an implicit agreement between the citizens and their government whereby the people abide by the authority in exchange for a freedom and the security of a stable society. People of good will understand that with freedom comes responsibility. This coup represents a comprehensive attack on the very purpose and methods of governing. Trump and Republicans are willfully undermining citizen’s trust in their government by demolishing the Contract.

How Popular is Sovereignty?

Trump, Inc. is sabotaging the principle of Popular Sovereignty whereby government’s power derives from the consent of the people. There is no need for consent in an authoritarian regime. Do citizens now want more voter suppression with fewer people voting, do they want the wealthy to have more control over campaign financing and who gets to run for office? Do citizens want an electoral system that they can’t trust? Not long ago Trump in his juvenile and artless way mused that when he becomes president the country would be so great that there would be no need for further elections.

Checking the Power of Democracy

An effective coup will subvert basic notions of how power should operate. The constitutional principles of the Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances are designed to prevent one branch from dominating the others and to insure the sharing of powers and accountability.

Republicans and Trump are consciously undermining that balance by promoting dubious theories, such as the “unitary executive” that bestows unrestrained power to the executive. Trump is impounding funds that were congressionally authorized. He is ignoring congressional oversight, thereby making a mockery of committee hearings and denying the senate it’s Advice and Consent authority. “Being president means I can do anything, I have Article 2,” thus spake Trump, the learned constitutional scholar during his first term.

In the early 1970s mainstream historian, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in his book, The Imperial Presidency, warned of the escalation and dangers of an omnipotent president. One of his subjects of course was Richard Nixon who by comparison to Trump looks like a Mr. Rogers in his neighborhood oval office.

A Supremely Political Court

Revamping and controlling the judicial system is vital to the effectiveness of a coup. The U.S. Supreme Court wields extraordinary powers through a legalism concocted in 1803 that bestowed through “judicial review” the irrevocable authority to determine what laws are constitutional. This enables an unelected branch the ability to overturn a decision of elected representatives.

That power, now in the hands of the Trump-Roberts court, is a form of despotism. If insurgents can shape the ideological tenor of the court then politics will replace judicial fairness rendering the court a confederate in the unraveling of democracy.

Working with the Federalist Society over recent decades, the right-wing movement has spent millions to colonize the Supreme Court with a super majority of conservative and reactionary jurists. This hostile takeover of our highest court has turned a once esteemed branch into an ideological bunker where the robber barons take on cases to further limit the “excesses” of democracy.

The Robert’s Court has, among other things, destroyed voting rights protections, eliminated campaign finance regulations, undermined first amendment rights, eroded immigrant and women’s rights and unabashedly championed corporate interests. And perhaps most egregiously has put the president above the law by anointing him with unprecedented immunity. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senate’s most effective judicial watchdog, describes the Robert’s Court as having “advanced a far right agenda” that is “deeply out of touch with the will of Americans.” This court has virtually overturned the rule of law and enabled extremism to reign supreme.

The Political Party Is Over

The party system is being destroyed enabling coup mutineers to demagogue their way to power. They have been aided and abetted by two political parties that are no longer honest or effective advocates for citizens interests.

For a long time the political party system has been a poor representative of the interests of a broad cross section of the population. Class considerations and structural weakness of government has disenfranchised many. Historically it has been up to minorities, the poor and working classes, women, and others to compel political parties and others make the country live up to its founding ideals. Yes, if the people will lead the leaders will eventually follow.

The party system is being destroyed enabling coup mutineers to demagogue their way to power. They have been aided and abetted by two political parties that are no longer honest or effective advocates for citizens interests.

The perennial issue is how well the parties have represented the citizens. The Democratic Party once an advocate for minorities, the poor and working classes has over the past 50 years abandoned its grassroots focus and party building. Aided by the myopic assistance of the Bill Clinton wing of the party, the old New Deal coalition has been abandoned in order to pander to the interests of Wall Street.

Republicans, starting in the 20th century, consistently represented business and elite interests, nothing new here. What is new and distinctive is the impact of the growing reactionary wing that gained traction in the 1970’s and surged during the1980s Reagan era. With a shrinking middle class, a tidal wave of unregulated corporate money, a new high tech Internet media combined with an economically vulnerable populace provided an opportunity for cynical Republican Party exploitation. With Trump as the carnival barker the fringe elements of the party grew in popularity and became amenable to extremist ideas.

Today Republicans are more of a cult than a party while most Democrats dither as they try to figure out what they stand for other than re-election.

With the major parties in existential disarray they are less capable of countering the anti democratic forces of oligarchy. The logical consequence is a coup d’etat to “save the country.”

Is There No Direction Home?

Not since the Civil War have the principles, structure, and means of governance been so ferociously attacked. The Lockean Social Contract between the people and the government is being torn apart.

While it was not a mandate, only about 30% of the voting age population supported Trump (76 out of c. 259 million adults), that’s nonetheless a significant portion of voters. Clearly citizens are angry with a government that consistently ignores the real interests of working-class Americans. They voted their frustrations, their anger and their pocketbooks. Hey that Trump guy is talking about my concerns.

But did they vote to promote fear and hatred in order to divide people by class, gender, race, and sexual orientation? Did they vote to destroy public education, Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service and healthcare by privatization or to politicize the Supreme Court and the Justice Department? Did they vote to further shrink the middle class and escalate the gap between the rich and the poor or to destroy unions? Did they vote to deny climate change or to blow up relations with our allies by abrogating treaties or start destabilizing tariff wars?

We do know that people’s contentment in life is primarily derived from a society that offers a fair chance for equal opportunity and security.

If we are like the theologian Abraham Heschel, “pessimists of the intellect and optimists of the will” this crisis offers a real opportunity to seek a newer world, a world where an authentic political and economic democracy can be made a reality.

Returning to the venerable Franklin, during the Constitutional Convention he would frequently gaze at the sun carved high on the chair of presiding officer George Washington and muse whether it was a setting or rising sun...

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has aggressively moved to shrink the federal government. His administration has frozen federal grants, issued executive orders aligned with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and, most prominently, created what he calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

DOGE has been billed as a cost-cutting initiative, although the actual amount of money being saved remains unclear. To lead DOGE, Trump appointed Elon Musk, a megadonor whose companies hold federal contracts worth billions. Musk has already moved forward with major cuts, including sweeping workforce reductions, the curtailment of government operations, and purges of entire agencies. Thousands of federal workers have lost their jobs.

While certainly dramatic, these actions reflect a longer trend of privatizing government. Indeed, my sociological research shows that the government has steadily withdrawn from economic production for decades, outsourcing many responsibilities to the private sector.

3 indicators of privatization

At first glance, total government spending appears stable over time. In 2024, federal, state, and local expenditures made up 35% of the U.S. economy, the same as in 1982. However, my analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis data offers a new perspective, recasting privatization as a macroeconomic phenomenon. I find that U.S. economic activity has become increasingly more privatized over the past 50 years. This shift happened in three key ways.

First, government involvement in economic production has declined. Historically, public institutions have played a major role in sectors such as electric power, water delivery, waste management, space equipment, naval shipbuilding, construction, and infrastructure investments. In 1970, government spending on production accounted for 23% of the economy. By 2024, that figure had fallen to 17%, leaving the private sector to fill the gaps. This means a growing share of overall government spending has been used to fund the private sector economy.

The privatization trend risks eroding democratic accountability and worsening racial and gender inequalities.

Second, government’s overall ability to produce goods and services—what economists call “productive capacity”—has fallen relative to the private sector, both in terms of labor and capital. Since 1970, public employment has lagged behind private sector job growth, and government-owned capital assets have trailed those of the private sector. Although public sector capital investments briefly rebounded in the 2000s, employment did not, signaling a shift toward outsourcing rather than direct hiring. This has significant implications for wages, working conditions, and unionization.

Third, and relatedly, government increasingly contracts work to private companies, opting to buy goods and services instead of making them. In 1977, private contractors accounted for one-third of government production costs. By 2023, that had risen to over half. Government contracting—now 7% of the total economy—reached $1.98 trillion in 2023. Key beneficiaries in 2023 included professional services at $317 billion, petroleum and coal industries at $194 billion, and construction at $130 billion. Other examples include private charter schools, private prisons, hospitals, and defense contractors.

The Meaning of Privatization

Privatization can be understood as two interconnected processes: the retreat of government from economic production, and the rise of contracting. The government remains a major economic actor in the U.S., although now as more of a procurer of goods and services than a provider or employer.

The government’s shift away from production largely stems from mainstreamed austerity politics—a “starve the beast” approach to government—and backlash against the New Deal’s expansion of federal economic involvement. In 1971, the controversial “Powell Memo,” written by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, mobilized business leaders around the goal of expanding private sector power over public policy. This fueled the rise of conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation, the eventual architect of the Project 2025 privatization agenda.

While government production shrank, government contracting expanded on promises of cost savings and efficiency. These contracting decisions are usually made by local administrators managing budgets under fiscal stress and interest group pressure, including from businesses and public sector unions.

Yet research shows that contracting frequently fails to reduce costs, while risking monopolies, weakening accountability and public input, and sometimes locking governments into rigid contracts. In many cases, ineffective outsourcing forces a return to public employment.

The Consequences of Privatization

Trump’s latest moves can be viewed as a massive acceleration of a decades-long trend, rather than a break from the past. The 50-year shift away from robust public sector employment has already privatized a lot of U.S. employment. Trump and Musk’s plan to cut the federal workforce follows the same blueprint.

This could have major consequences.

First, drastic job cuts likely mean more privatization and fewer government workers. Trump’s federal workforce cuts echo President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 mass firing of more than 11,000 air traffic controllers, a source of prolonged financial struggles and family instability for many fired workers. Trump’s firings and layoffs are already reaching far beyond Reagan’s.

As Trump’s administration aggressively restructures federal agencies, these changes will likely proceed without public input, further entrenching private sector dominance.

In addition, since federal spending directly contributes to gross domestic product, cuts of this magnitude risk slowing the economy. The Trump administration has even floated the idea of changing GDP calculations, potentially masking any reality of economic decline.

Rapid privatization is also likely to trigger significant economic disruptions, especially in industries that depend on federal support. For example, USAID cuts have already sent shock waves through the private sector agricultural economy.

Finally, the privatization trend risks eroding democratic accountability and worsening racial and gender inequalities. That’s because, as my prior research finds, public sector unions uniquely shape American society by equalizing wages while increasing transparency and civic participation. Given that the public sector is highly unionized and disproportionately provides employment opportunities for women and Black workers, privatization risks undoing these gains.

As Trump’s administration aggressively restructures federal agencies, these changes will likely proceed without public input, further entrenching private sector dominance. This stands to undermine government functioning and democratic accountability. While often framed as inevitable, the American public should know that privatization remains a policy choice—one that can be reversed.

It must have seemed like a huge week for the fossil fuel industry: as the Wall Street Journal put it yesterday (and you could sense the headline writer’s glee), “The fossil fuel industry gets its revenge on green activists.”

The oil-and-gas industry is landing blow after blow against climate activists.
The Trump administration has cranked out approvals of major projects to ship liquefied natural gas from the Gulf Coast and killed a host of climate-related initiatives. Meanwhile, Texas billionaire Kelcy Warren has won a nearly $700 million verdict against Greenpeace that could spell the end of the group’s U.S. presence.

Hell, the Trump administration is trying to resurrect coal, and in what’s doubtless considered a back-slapping prank around the West Wing it just named a fracking executive to run the Department of Energy’s renewables office. Meanwhile, Musk’s vandals fired the quite brilliant chief scientist at NASA, doubtless because her work involved protecting the planet’s climate—Katherine Calvin was, among other things, the head of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so good sport to Jackie Robinson her.

All of this is deeply stupid and damaging. And yet, despite all that, there must have been a few shivers that ran down the spines of both Elon Musk and oil executives last week when they read a piece of news from China.

Here’s the story, as told by Bloomberg. Chinese automaker BYD (their slogan, at least in English, is ‘Build Your Dreams”) announced on Tuesday that its new cars—available in April for $30,000 if you’re in a place where you can buy one—will recharge in five minutes. Or, roughly, the time it takes to fill your tank with gasoline.

From “more features for no more price” and “smart driving for all,” BYD can now add “charging as fast as refueling” to its marketing slogans, potentially helping it to capture more share from legacy automakers and more direct rivals like Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc.

How did they do this? Here are a bunch of words I don’t fully understand:

BYD cites its “all liquid-cooled megawatt flash charging terminal system.”
In addition, to match the ultra-high power charging, BYD has self-developed a next-generation automotive-grade silicon carbide power chip. The chip has a voltage rating of up to 1500V, the highest to date in the car industry.
In tandem, BYD on Monday launched its flash-charging battery. From the positive to the negative electrode, the cell contains ultra-fast ion channels, which BYD says reduces the battery’s internal resistance by 50%.
There’s also a mass-produced 30,000 RPM motor. Luo Hongbin, BYD senior vice president, said the motor “not only significantly boosts a vehicle’s speed, but also greatly reduces the motor’s weight and size, enhancing power density.”

But I can translate it into English. BYD did not waste its time giving Nazi salutes. It didn’t buy a social media platform so it could make obscure marijuana jokes and make fun of poor people. It didn’t devote itself to helping a nincompoop win the presidency and then decide it would be exhilarating fun to fire a bunch of government workers. Instead, BYD did, you know, engineering.

It’s gotten so bad that even true believers like Dan Ives, one of Tesla’s biggest shareholders, have suggested Musk might want to go back to, you know, work.

It must sting for Musk to watch that kind of progress, especially on a week when he had to recall all 46,000 cybertrucks (and thus disclose for the first time that he’d only sold 46,000 cybertrucks) in order to keep them from dropping parts on the road. It turns out they’d stuck the trim on the plug-ugly things with the wrong glue—now they’re going to replace it with an adhesive that is “not prone to environmental embrittlement.” When owners drive their sad vehicles back to the dealers for repairs (not during a rainstorm, because that apparently causes rusting), they’ll likely encounter one of the hundreds of protests that have broken out across the country. (I confess to being quite proud of my sign at our local demonstration last Saturday)

It’s gotten so bad that even true believers like Dan Ives, one of Tesla’s biggest shareholders, have suggested Musk might want to go back to, you know, work. I mean, Musk has cut the value of his company in half in the last couple of months. But never fear—last night he assembled the company’s workers for a pep talk. Robo-taxis coming soon! As they have been since 2016!

But if the BYD announcement was a reminder that Musk is a poseur, the deeper threat probably comes for Big Oil. Because if you can put 400 kilometers worth of juice in a car in five minutes, the last even slightly good reason for buying an internal combustion vehicle vanishes. Yeah, you still need a fast charger—and BYD is building 4,000 of them across China. But it feels like writing on the wall: Chinese demand for gasoline dropped in 2024, and analysts see it going down almost five percent a year between now and 2030. As the International Energy Agency explained last week,

Electric vehicles currently account for about half of car sales in China, undercutting 3.5% of new fuel demand in 2024... China has been providing subsidy support to purchases of so-called “new energy vehicles” (NEVs) since 2009, promoting its automotive manufacturing industry, and reducing air pollution. A trade-in policy, introduced in April 2024 and expanded in 2025, continues to drive growth in China’s EV sales. Meanwhile, highly competitive Chinese automakers are also making gains in international markets.

America’s oil companies decided they could make more money from fossil fuel than from embracing renewables—they’ve decided to let the Chinese win the solar energy battle, reckoning that they can use their political power to keep the world hooked on hydrocarbons. In some ways it’s working—they helped buy Trump his presidency and he’s giving them what they want. In particular, he’s been shaking down foreign countries to buy more of their Liquefied Natural Gas to avoid tariffs.

But oil is a global commodity, and the perfect example of marginal pricing. If China is going to be using less gasoline—well, the price of oil is going to drop. That’s bad news for American producers—as Trump’s biggest industry fundraiser Harold Hamm explained

U.S. shale needs much higher oil prices than $50 per barrel, and even higher than the current WTI Crude price in the high $60s, for a “drill, baby, drill” boom, oil tycoon and Trump campaign donor Harold Hamm told Bloomberg last week.
“There are a lot of fields that are getting to the point that’s real tough to keep that cost of supply down,” Hamm told Bloomberg Television in an interview.

The fracking revolution is wearing down—wells are sputtering towards empty faster than expected, and if prices are depressed it will make less economic sense to drill baby drill, no matter what our new king demands. As David Wethe and Alix Steel reported his week

Shale operators are slowing production growth after years of drilling up their best locations. At this week’s CERAWeek by S&P Global energy conference in Houston, executives for some of the largest US shale companies forecast US oil production will peak in the next three to five years.

I’m beginning to think you can imagine a world where the U.S. builds tariff walls around its borders, prevents the easy development and spread of technology like EVs and heat pumps, and manages to become an island of internal combustion on an increasingly electrified world. That’s a depressing vision, though nowhere near as depressing as the U.S. imposing that vision on the rest of the world, something that’s going to get harder: if you were any other country (Canada, say) would you tie yourself to the U.S. for any critical product? If you had a choice? And everyone has a choice, because the sun shines and the wind blows everywhere. As the economists at IEEFA said this week, even the expensive “just energy transition partnerships” with emerging Asian nations may survive Trump’s desertion.

Given the current U.S. administration’s priorities and ambitions to “drill, baby, drill” for oil and gas, the withdrawal from JETP can be viewed as favorable for the energy transition. The program’s complexities and transformative potential demand the involvement of a “coalition of the willing.” The original countries (including the European Union), private sector partners, and philanthropies still support JETP and want to realize the mechanism’s potential. In the case of Indonesia, Germany has quickly stepped in to fill the U.S.’s vacated leadership role. Japan has reaffirmed its co-leadership role and remains committed to Indonesia’s USD20 billion JETP. Despite the U.S. exit, critical financing and support for the program remains.

Here’s a great interactive map from the New York Times of what the solar and wind boom looks like from outer space. It shows the burst of development in China—but also Turkey. And it doesn’t even capture the small-scale home by home and factory by factory spread of solar that seems to be speeding up exponentially over the last year.

It may even be hard to stomp out all this goodness here at home. Case in point: the Utah (!) legislature this week became the first in the country to (unanimously!) pass a law enabling “balcony solar,” the small-scale arrays that brought solar power to a million and a half German apartments last year.

The legislation exempts these systems from several requirements:

• No technical interconnection requirements.
• No technical interconnection agreement.
• Utilities cannot mandate approval, charge fees, or require additional controls or equipment beyond what is integrated into the system.

Plug and play, baby!

Indeed, if you want a sign for the future, here’s one: Chinese authorities are pulling back on a plan to let BYD build a new car plant in Mexico. Why? Because they’re afraid that people like Musk—an unimaginative pol, not an engineering genius—will steal their cool new tech.

Those respective authorities in China fear that BYD’s advanced (and in many cases, leading) technology could more easily end up in the possession of US competitors through Mexico, as the US neighbors to the south would gain unrestricted access to the Chinese automaker’s technology and production practices. Those powers went as far as to suggest that Mexico could even assist the US in gaining access to BYD’s technology.

It’s bad news for America that our country has lost its technological edge. It may be good news for the planet, though.

Since 1775 when Benjamin Franklin became the very first postmaster general, the United States Postal Service has faithfully fulfilled the many lofty goals that are now inscribed outside the entrance of the U.S. Postal Museum in Washington D.C.: “Bond of the Scattered Family; Enlarger of the Common Life; Carrier of News and Knowledge; Instrument of Trade and Commerce.”

Affordable universal reliable communication is not something many people can take for granted. In fact, the USPS was such a great American idea (like our national park system) that it has since been replicated across the globe. Under the pretense that the USPS is “bankrupt,” though, President Donald Trump and other neoliberal free marketeers are hellbent on imposing an austerity program and ultimately privatizing this vital public service.

During Trump’s last stint in the White House, USPS was forced to shutter half of its mail processing centers, leading to longer delivery times, and 10% of the nation’s post offices, mostly in rural towns, were put on the auction block. Despite such, the USPS continues to have some of the highest public approval ratings of any federal government agency. After all, who else can you trust to make sure you get your seed orders or drug prescriptions in a timely fashion?

Now is the time to speak up and insure the proud iconic eagle of the USPS is not replaced by some anemic vulture version.

How did this quite preventable (and orchestrated) mugging of the USPS come about? Well, one needs to go back a few decades when the government first opened the door for corporate competitors to undermine the viability of the USPS. At just 73 cents to deliver a first class letter, USPS rates remain among the lowest in the industrialized world. Given the surge in packages, accelerated by the pandemic, private outfits like Fedex and Amazon are now allowed to mooch off the USPS’ amazing efficiency to help deliver their own packages (saving themselves up to 75%). Contrary to some naysayers, the USPS does not get a dime from U.S. taxpayers—it provides a valuable public service at cost to consumers. So attacks on the USPS claiming it is “horribly wasteful” are just flat out wrong.

The USPS is also hamstrung from taking advantage of other ways to expand its services that many people, especially rural folks, desperately need. For example, the USPS still offers money orders, but many other countries’ postal systems offer a much wider range of popular financial services such as checking and savings accounts, even low-interest loans. One recent study found that the USPS could earn an extra $8-9 billion per year just by providing basic banking options to the millions of Americans who now subsist on the fringes of the financial system. It is no surprise that Wells Fargo is drooling over the possible demise of USPS (as revealed in a recently leaked internal memo), since they hardly want any other option for those now subject to their predatory lending practices.

Now is the time to speak up and insure the proud iconic eagle of the USPS is not replaced by some anemic vulture version. Family Farm Defenders is among dozens of organizations that have joined the Grand Alliance to Save Our Public Postal Service. And just like many family farmers rely upon cooperatives for their collective bargaining against agribusiness, postal workers also deserve to have their labor rights respected as fully unionized federal employees. Please contact your elected officials to insure the future of USPS as a vital public good, and next time you are at the post office thank the workers for their essential service! As the unofficial motto of the USPS goes: “Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” Neither should DOGE!

In a recent episode of The New York Times' "The Daily" podcast, host Michael Barbaro interviewed two Princeton political scientists about their new book examining Covid-19 policy failures. Instead of contextualizing the pandemic response within our current democratic crisis, the episode introduced a troubling revisionist narrative: that public health officials who prioritized saving lives were somehow wrong.

Shrouded under the protective guise of political scientist academics presenting "objective" analysis, a politically biased argument was offered as necessary news for the day—an editorial choice made even more striking given the sheer volume of immediate, existential threats to our democracy that warranted urgent coverage instead. This was the necessary deep dive audience needed to know according to The New York Times to better understand the news of the day on the exact same day when U.S. President Donald Trump was expected to announce the closure of the Department of Education and days after Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare public rebuke of Trump for threatening to impeach a federal judge over a migration ruling. While our judiciary's independence was under direct assault and educational access for millions of Americans hung in the balance, The "Daily" chose to relitigate pandemic policies through the lens of economic grievance—a choice that speaks volumes about which narratives powerful media institutions consider worthy of amplification.

Public health officials who refused to accept this calculus—who insisted that every life deserved protection—were vilified by those who preferred simpler narratives about individual freedom over collective responsibility.

This shift in narrative about Covid-19 and the deliberately limiting analysis of this complex issue is not just provocative but dangerous given the coordinated assault on public health happening across the country. As multiple Republican-led states advance legislation to ban masks—tools proven to save lives and reduce symptom severity—and as the Trump administration threatens academic freedom by pressuring Columbia University to comply with a list of harrowing demands including criminalizing masking on campus, major media platforms are inexplicably amplifying critiques of the very experts who risked their careers and safety to protect the public during a deeply uncertain time. These public health officials have already endured death threats and targeted harassment campaigns from right-wing extremists, including Elon Musk who tweeted one early Sunday morning in 2022 "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci." Now, The New York Times lends its institutional credibility to the same dangerous narratives, effectively mainstreaming the delegitimization of scientific expertise—a classic precursor to authoritarian control.

What's most striking about this conversation isn't just its timing, but what it omits. Throughout history, crises have been exploited by authoritarian forces to dismantle democratic institutions and consolidate power. Covid-19 represents our generation's Reichstag fire moment—a crisis that has been weaponized to erode democratic norms worldwide.

Crisis as Opportunity for Authoritarianism

The historical pattern is clear. After the 1933 Reichstag fire, Hitler immediately blamed communists, enacted emergency powers, suspended civil liberties, and used propaganda to create fear among the German population. Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin exploited the 1999 Russian apartment bombings to blame Chechen separatists, launch military campaigns, restrict civil liberties, control media, and crack down on political opposition.

Covid-19 has followed the same authoritarian playbook globally. Governments worldwide enacted emergency powers, increased surveillance, eroded democratic norms, and exploited societal fears. Myanmar's military used the pandemic to justify their 2021 coup. Right-wing extremist groups weaponized misinformation to promote xenophobic rhetoric.

But what's uniquely dangerous about The New York Times' framing is how it subtly reinforces the authoritarian narrative by questioning the very public health experts who refused to calculate human life against economic metrics. When the voices of Dr. Anthony Fauci and others are played alongside criticism from political scientists—not public health experts—who make clear that they measure success beyond the saving of lives, we're witnessing the normalization of disposability. This calculus of whose lives are worth sacrificing for economic metrics is eerily reminiscent of early 20th-century eugenic practices that sorted humans into categories of "fit" and "unfit," determining whose lives were expendable—a ideology that was once condemned by civilized society but now finds subtle—rolling back Medicaid and cutting special education impact disabled people the most—and terribly overt resurrection in our public sphere.

The Real Covid-19 Story Is About Who We Choose to Save

The pandemic revealed which communities our society deemed worthy of protection and which were considered sacrificial for economic priorities. Public health officials who refused to accept this calculus—who insisted that every life deserved protection—were vilified by those who preferred simpler narratives about individual freedom over collective responsibility.

We cannot separate our understanding of the pandemic from the broader context of growing authoritarianism. The forces threatening democracy today are not single-issue problems but interconnected crises: white supremacy, media fragmentation as social media algorithms feed us visions of worlds comprised of binaries instead of nuances, attacks on gender and racial equity, and ludicrously widening wealth inequality. The rich are getting richer while essential workers—disproportionately the economically marginalized and people of color—were sacrificed during the pandemic. And we have lost our shared reality as social media oligarchs make billions from our mistrust of one another—the same oligarchs who now fund the politicians seeking to rewrite pandemic history, who now have metaphorically repaved the front lawn of the White House as a used car lot. These aren't coincidences but a coherent authoritarian strategy: fragment the population, erase collective memory, pit communities against each other, and dismantle faith in expertise and shared facts. And, as The New York Times demonstrated on March 20, you can do this all under the guise of objective reporting.

Covid-19 was successfully exploited by authoritarian leaders worldwide precisely because they offered simple explanations where reality required nuance. They promised quick returns to normalcy when responsible leadership demanded difficult truths. They divided communities into the essential and non-essential, the worthy and unworthy.

Responsible Media Must Connect the Dots

When major media outlets like The New York Times allow political scientists to critique public health experts without this broader context, they become unwitting accomplices in the authoritarian project. By focusing narrowly on whether lockdowns were "effective" without examining how authoritarians exploited both the crisis and the response, they miss the forest for the trees. They become complicit in emboldening authoritarians.

The question isn't whether public health officials made perfect decisions with imperfect information during an unprecedented global emergency. The question is: Who benefits from undermining trust in the institutions and experts who tried to save as many lives as possible, regardless of economic cost? The answer should trouble us: the same authoritarian forces that have weaponized every crisis throughout history to dismantle democratic institutions and consolidate power.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Covid-19 crisis, we will inevitably see more attempts to understand and reframe that era—but these analyses must be conducted responsibly.

As we reflect on Covid-19's impact, responsible journalism must place these conversations within our broader democratic crisis. The political scientists at Princeton should know better. The New York Times should know better. And those of us who lived through the pandemic—who witnessed firsthand how extremist politicians like Trump weaponized confusion and suffering to stoke fear, cultivate rage, and deepen divisions—we certainly do know better. We watched as misinformation about masks, vaccines, and public health measures was deliberately spread to fracture communities and undermine institutions. We saw how this manufactured outrage directly fueled the violence at the Capitol and created the fertile ground for today's authoritarian resurgence. Our lived experience of this cynical exploitation demands more from our media than revisionist narratives that conveniently forget this deliberate destabilization.

We must ask ourselves why certain narratives are amplified at specific moments in our national conversation. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Covid-19 crisis, we will inevitably see more attempts to understand and reframe that era—but these analyses must be conducted responsibly, with full awareness of how limiting narratives can embolden authoritarians and reinforce eugenic hierarchies. The New York Times chose to revisit Covid-19 policies on the same day the Department of Education faced potential elimination—yet they failed to connect how disabled students, already disproportionately harmed during the pandemic, would lose critical protections and supports if this department disappeared. This is not coincidental. It is part of a pattern where eugenic ideology infiltrates mainstream discourse precisely when vulnerable communities need protection most. Media institutions that claim to help us make sense of the world instead reinforce the disposability of certain lives—whether by advocating economic metrics over human survival, by giving platforms to those who see the disabled as acceptable collateral damage, or by simply choosing which crises deserve attention and which can be ignored.

Our responsibility is clear: We must identify these eugenic patterns whenever they appear, name them for what they are, and refuse to accept any worldview that sorts human beings into categories of those worth saving and those not worth saving. When media fails in this moral obligation, we must hold them accountable—not just for the stories they choose to tell, but for the future they help create through those choices. The lessons of history demand nothing less.

The arrest and possible deportation of Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a Green Card holder with a student visa, for his organizing role at Gaza solidarity protests last year has sent shockwaves throughout American society.

As I wrote at Haaretz (3/11/25), Khalil’s arrest is an intense blow to free speech, as punishment for speech and other First Amendment-protected activities will create a huge chilling effect. In a piece denouncing Khalil’s arrest, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg (3/10/25) quoted American Civil Liberties Union senior staff attorney Brian Hauss saying, “This seems like one of the biggest threats, if not the biggest threat, to First Amendment freedoms in 50 years.”

The Murdoch press has been celebrating the misery visited upon Khalil in a way that hearkens back to the “War on Terror” days.

In a letter (In These Times, 3/18/25) dictated over the phone from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Louisiana, Khalil said, “My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

While a judge blocked his deportation, as of this writing, Khalil is still in ICE custody (Al Jazeera, 3/19/25). AP (3/9/25) reported that his arrest is the first known “deportation effort under Trump’s promised crackdown on students who joined protests against Israel’s war in Gaza that swept college campuses” last year. The Trump administration argues, according to the news service, that people like Khalil, whose Green Card was revoked by the State Department, “forfeited their rights to remain in the country by supporting Hamas.”

Alarms Raised

Many in the media have raised alarms about the extreme threat to free speech represented by Khalil’s arrest. Even the editorial board (3/12/25) of the increasingly Trump-pandering Washington Post warned, “If the secretary of state can deport a legal resident simply because he dislikes his or her views, whose First Amendment rights are next?” Other corporate newspapers and outlets (Bloomberg, 3/11/25; USA Today, 3/13/25; Boston Globe, 3/14/25; Financial Times, 3/14/25) published similar defenses of Khalil’s First Amendment rights, arguing that his arrest fundamentally threatens American liberty.

There is a good reason for the outcry. Khalil has not been charged with a crime, but the executive branch, without consulting a judge, revoked his legal status based on his political speech. As The Intercept (3/13/25) described, the federal government is invoking the Immigration and Nationality Act, in which the secretary of state has

the authority to request the deportation of an individual who is not a U.S. citizen, if they have “reasonable ground to believe” the individual’s presence in the country hurts the government’s foreign policy interests.

The Department of Homeland Security justified the arrest on its claims that Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas.” In other words, the Trump administration has revoked Khalil’s green card, arrested him, and intends to deport him based on his constitutionally protected protest activities.

Rupert Murdoch’s outlets, rather than speak out against this shredding of the First Amendment, have been promoting the Trump administration line. The Murdoch press has been celebrating the misery visited upon Khalil in a way that hearkens back to the “War on Terror” days.

‘Inimical to the U.S.’

The New York Post (3/10/25) ran the cover headline “ICE Knowing You!” Its editorial board (3/9/25) childishly wrote that “ICE has put fresh teeth on President Donald Trump’s crackdown on campus hate. Hooray!” It said that the anti-genocide protest “movement was never merely about protest.”

Two scholars at the right-wing Manhattan Institute, Ilya Shapiro and Daniel DiMartino, took to the Post op-ed page (3/11/25) to counter the free-speech defense of Khalil. They deemed the Gaza protests “illegal,” saying that stripping permanent residents of the legal protections for those “who reject our values or are hostile to our way of life” doesn’t threaten constitutional freedom.

If demanding a cease-fire in Gaza is pro-Hamas, then a lot of Americans would be guilty, too.

While admitting “we don’t know the details of the due process he’s been given”—which is a crucial consideration when it comes to constitutional protections—the duo said, “But one thing is clear: The executive branch has the authority to vet noncitizens based on their views, thanks to the laws Congress has passed and the Supreme Court has upheld.”

The Post piece repeats a point Shapiro made at the conservative City Journal (3/7/25): “While the government can’t send foreigners to jail for saying things it doesn’t like, it can and should deny or pull visas for those who advocate for causes inimical to the United States.” Who decides what are “causes” that are “inimical”? Secretary of State Marco Rubio, apparently.

Fox News (3/12/25) also referred to Khalil as “pro-Hamas,” reporting that the Department of Homeland Security said “that Khalil ‘led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.’” The link between Khalil’s participation in protests and supporting Hamas is spurious on its face. If demanding a cease-fire in Gaza is pro-Hamas, then a lot of Americans would be guilty, too. Younger Americans, in particular, stand out for their support of Palestinians in the current war (Pew Research, 4/2/24).

Not ‘Really About Speech’

The more erudite but no less fanatically right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial board (3/12/25) said, “A green card comes with legal obligations, including the disavowal of terrorism,” and that “Khalil seems to have violated that obligation.” The board matter-of-factly stated, “The case against Mr. Khalil will depend on the facts of his support for Hamas.”

Matthew Hennessey, the Journal’s deputy editorial features editor (3/12/25), also called him a “pro-Hamas Columbia agitator,” adding, “If he didn’t love [the U.S.], why didn’t he leave it? The world is big. It has many elite universities.” Hennessey added, “When you’re a guest, it’s more than bad manners to cheer the slaughter of your host’s friends.” There’s no proof offered that Khalil did anything illegal, only that he said some things Hennessey didn’t like.

Journal columnist William McGurn (3/10/25) also dismissed the free speech concerns, saying that these protests went beyond speech—again, offering no evidence other than that the president said so. And he warned that pesky judges who stick too close to the Bill of Rights and the rule of law will get in the way of Khalil’s deportation. He said:

“So I bet what will happen,” says Berkeley law professor John Yoo, “is that even though the immigration law says the alien students can be deported, there will be a district judge somewhere who says that the president cannot use that power to punish people based on their First Amendment-protected beliefs and speech. But the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the law.”

These “protests” weren’t really about speech. If all the “protesters” had done was stand outside waving Palestinian flags and chanting anti-Israel slogans, no one would be talking about deportation. Mr. Trump laid out his rationale on Truth Social: “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, antisemitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump administration will not tolerate it.” ‘War on Terror’ Playbook

Feeling some déjà vu? The right-wing media’s defense of arresting and deporting a green-card holder for engaging in protest rests on simply labeling him and the protests as “pro-Hamas,” the idea being that any criticism of Israel’s assault on Gaza is an endorsement of the Palestinian militant group that the U.S. State Department designates as a terrorist organization.

As I told CNN International’s Connect the World (3/12/25), the situation feels similar to the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when it was common for supporters of George W. Bush, including his allies in the right-wing press, to label antiwar protesters as endorsers of anti-American terrorist violence.

Oppose the invasion of Afghanistan? You must be pro-Al Qaeda. Oppose the invasion of Iraq? You must be supportive of Saddam Hussein’s regime. This helped brand any questioning of the administration as treasonous, helping to build consensus not just for aggressive military imperialism at abroad, but in curtailing civil liberties for Americans at home (Extra!, 9/11).

So it’s a pretty old trick for both a Republican administration and its unofficial public relations agents in the Murdoch press to simply label free speech as out of bounds because it “supports terrorism.” Calling Khalil and the anti-genocide protests, which include thousands of supporters of many backgrounds—prominently including Jews—“pro-Hamas” is just another tired trick in the “War on Terror” propaganda playbook.

To understand how shallow this tactic is, keep in mind that Khalil has been on record about his politics and the issue of antisemitism. As a key negotiator for the protests, he had appeared on CNN and was asked about the protests and their impact on the Jewish community. The network (CNN, 4/29/24) summarized:

“I would say that the liberation of Palestine and the Palestinians and the Jewish people are intertwined. They go hand in hand. Antisemitism and any form of racism has no place on campus and in this movement,” Khalil said, noting that some members of Columbia’s encampment are Jewish and held Passover seders earlier this week, led by Jewish Voices for Peace.

“They are an integral part of this movement,” Khalil said of the organization. Helping to Crush dissent

Note that the Journal‘s McGurn sought comments from Yoo, who is identified only as a law professor, and not a Bush administration attorney who notoriously supported the torture of detainees in the “War on Terror” (NPR, 2/23/10), or as an advisor to the first Trump administration on its aggressive anti-immigration methods (Guardian, 7/20/20). Yoo is also a proponent of applying the unitary executive theory to the Trump administration, which for Yoo, according to the Los Angeles Review of Books (11/1/20),

becomes a springboard to justify Trump’s authoritarian policies on war, immigration, deregulation, executive branch appointments, pardons, and the supervision of Justice Department investigations.

Israel’s own record on respecting freedom of speech is spotty, and has gotten worse since it launched the assault on Gaza (Democracy Now!, 11/9/23; CBC, 5/30/24; 972, 6/24/24; Freedom of the Press Foundation, 10/25/25; Times of Israel, 3/12/25). Israel, however, does not have a constitution, and activists and scholars have chronicled the nation’s erosion of democratic norms (Human Rights Watch, 4/27/21; Journal of Democracy, 7/23; Haaretz, 8/1/23; Deutsche Welle, 11/28/24). The United States is supposed to be governed by a constitution that, at least on paper, sets the gold standard among nations in protecting freedom of speech.

Alas, in the name of patriotism, the Murdoch press wants to erode that part of America’s tradition in order to help the Trump administration amass power and crush dissent.

“The fundamental weakness is empathy,” Elon Musk recently told radio podcast host Joe Rogan. “There is a bug, which is the empathy response.”

As Musk has established himself as at least the second most powerful person in an administration seeking a wholesale remaking of institutions, rules, and norms, what he said matters, because it encapsulates a political plan. What the Project 2025 report set out in over 900 turgid pages, Musk’s remark captures in a simple pithy mantra for the social media age.

And as (let us acknowledge it) the Trump revolution is currently popular with at least large parts of the U.S. electorate, and some overseas too, what Musk said summarizes also the worldview of a social-cultural moment and movement on the march.

Empathy is not pity. It is rooted in mutuality. As as an ethical frame, it looks at a person in need, perhaps a person that some others don’t fully see, and says straight away, “I ought to connect, as that could have been me.”

Core to the argument against empathy is the claim that ethical and practical considerations run counter to each other. The guardrails of rules and norms about caring for others, it argues, don’t only hold us back, they tie our hands behind our back.

Morality is for losers, it suggests, and who wants to lose? Only when we cut ourselves free of the burden of looking after and looking out for others, it posits, can we soar. The practical applications of this worldview are all encompassing.

They include the ripping up of international cooperation; the gutting of life-saving programs for people in poverty abroad and at home; and the violating of due process for protestors, prisoners, migrants, minorities, and anyone (who can be made to be) unpopular. That’s not how it ends, that’s how it starts.

A collapse of empathy would be an existential threat to the world. Hannah Arendt, reflecting on her witness to, and escape from, the rise of fascism in the 1930s, concluded, “The death of empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism.” The stakes are too high for us to fail.

So how can we respond to the argument against empathy?

One way would be to stick only to ethics, arguing, simply, “it is our duty to sacrifice for others, and failing to do so is just wrong!” This has driven what has come to be known as the charity narrative.

This approach seems like a flawed strategy because by refusing to engage in the practicality conversation, it concedes it to the cynics and nihilists, accepting the framing of morality as a kind of self-immolation that brings only noble suffering and that cares only about stances, not consequences.

Another way would be to give up on ethics, and make only the most selfish arguments for doing good, like “we should not show ourselves to be unreliable because that would get us knocked off the top perch by our rivals when we must be Number One!” This too seems like a flawed strategy because it reinforces variations of dog-eat-dog as the only frames for success.

What both of those approaches get wrong is that they accept the frame that ethics and practicality are separate. Older wisdoms have long understood them as inseparable. What can in current debates seem like a rivalrous relationship between “what is good?” and “what is smart?”, or “what is moral?” and “what is wise?”, we often find when we look more deeply is not.

That often, the way in which societies developed moral principles was that they are ways to abstract what people have learnt from experience works. When, for example, people say in the African principle of Ubuntu “I am because you are,” that is not just a moral or theological point, it is literally true.

It is what public health teaches us: that I am healthy because my neighbour is healthy. (Even Musk was forced to concede to public pressure on this with his partial admission that “with USAID, one of the things we cancelled, accidentally, was Ebola prevention, and I think we all want Ebola prevention.”

Fearful of the reaction to his initial cancellation of Ebola prevention, he even claimed, falsely, to have fixed that “mistake” straight away, but what matters here is that the case against Ebola prevention collapsed so fast because interdependence was so quickly understood.)

So too, history has continuously shown that I am only secure when my neighbor is secure, and that I thrive when my neighbor thrives. Perhaps, for oligarchs, a ruthless, rule-less, world can work. (Perhaps not, however, when the fall-out comes between the “two bros.”)

But for the 99.9% of us, as John Donne wrote, “No man is an island.” We are interdependent and inseparable. Alone we are weak, but together we are strong. Or, as the brilliant bleak joke of old ascribed to Benjamin Franklin put it, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately.”

The mutual interest argument, which highlights to people “we each have a stake in the well-being of all, looking out for others is not losing,” does not take us away from values, it reinforces them.

“There is an interrelated structure of reality. We are all tied in an inescapable network of mutuality. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.” That was Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, and yet he was making an argument that you could say is the argument of mutual interest.

Empathy is not pity. It is rooted in mutuality. As as an ethical frame, it looks at a person in need, perhaps a person that some others don’t fully see, and says straight away, “I ought to connect, as that could have been me.” Interdependence, as a practical frame, reflects on the situation of that person, and comes through that reflection to understand that “I need to connect, as that could next time be me.”

Morality and wisdom guide us in the same direction; and as the fastest way there is empathy, that makes empathy not humanity’s weakness but our superpower.

Hannah Arendt, the German-American political theorist who studied totalitarian regimes, noted in 1974 that “The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed?”

Fifty years later, we have nearly reached that moment. This is existential for all independent (i.e., not allied with a political party or authoritarian regime) news organizations and their ability to reach audiences in the social media space.

Social media like Twitter (now X) and Facebook became important environments for the news media to enter two decades ago because they are where millions of people congregate online. For journalism organizations, the goal has been to post interesting stories and get referrals—those users who click through to the news site and boost web page views.

Yet, that relationship has fallen apart. Ultimately, tech companies are not interested in helping journalism or aiding civil discourse. The annual Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism digital news report for 2025 notes “big falls in referral traffic to news sites from Facebook (67%) and Twitter (50%) over the last two years.”

The even bigger problem for independent news media is that most social media platforms are increasingly antithetical to freedom of the press.

There are millions of people in the social media space, and journalism shouldn’t leave them behind.

Since Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion in 2022 and turned it into X, it’s become the disinformation-drenched social platform of the Donald Trump administration. This year, genuflecting to Trump, Meta (corporate parent of Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp) announced it would drop its independent fact-checking program in the U.S. in favor of an anemic, crowd-sourced “community notes” system, which has already been a failure at X. Another popular news platform, TikTok, has serious disinformation problems, security liabilities and an uncertain future.

Several news organizations around the globe decided they won’t take it anymore. NPR stopped posting on X in 2023, after the platform insisted on designating it as “U.S. state-affiliated media.” More recently, The Guardian announced it would stop posting on X, concluding it is “a toxic media platform.” Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish newspaper of record, Le Monde, the French newspaper of record, and La Vanguardia, the leading newspaper in Barcelona, quit X, too. The European Federation of Journalists, representing about 320,000 journalists, did the same. “We cannot continue to participate in feeding the social network of a man who proclaims the death of the media and therefore of journalists,” EFJ president Maja Sever wrote.

But, simply quitting X only eliminates the worst option and settles for the slightly less bad options that remain.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

There are millions of people in the social media space, and journalism shouldn’t leave them behind. For example, 54% of Americans get their news often or sometimes from social media. Adults 18-29 are the heaviest users of social media platforms. They deserve a social media platform that respects and informs them.

That’s why legitimate news media should band together and regain the autonomy they ceded to third-party social media. Independent news organizations–large and small–should cooperatively create and control their own social media platform that amplifies news and public information, encourages links to member news organizations, and excludes misinformation and disinformation.

Journalism has been so beaten down by big tech that it’s hard to imagine a different way of doing things.

The model for this is something almost as old as modern journalism, too: The Associated Press, an international cooperative nonprofit news agency. As the AP tells its founding story, “In 1846, five New York City newspapers funded a pony express route through Alabama to bring news of the Mexican War north faster than the U.S. Post Office could deliver it.” The problem with social media is similar–if it’s not working, work collectively to build another way. And, like the AP, it could be a global cooperative.

Journalism has been so beaten down by big tech that it’s hard to imagine a different way of doing things. But, a news-controlled social media platform could develop features that would demonstrate the multimedia ability of news organizations and enable the audience to create social connections in new and entertaining ways. Users could adjust their feeds to focus on local, regional, national, or international news, or whatever mix and topics makes sense to them, so all legitimate news organizations of any size get to be part of the platform.

Which news organizations and journalists could be part of such a social media cooperative?

Reporters Without Borders, the international journalism nonprofit, already has a powerful statement for fostering global information spaces for the common good, where “information can only be regarded as reliable when freely gathered, processed and disseminated according to the principles of commitment to truth, plurality of viewpoints and rational methods of establishment and verification of facts.” This would enable a broad range of journalism organizations to participate, and draw a bright line to exclude media propagating disinformation.

The challenge of creating a social media space for journalism is bigger than any single news organization can handle.

From a business perspective, journalism organizations, not third-party social media, would retain analytic data and any advertising revenue. The social media app could be free for any person with a subscription to any member news organization (e.g., a local newspaper, a national magazine of opinion, or digital news site), or with a nominal subscription fee, to provide built-in authentication and help prevent bot accounts. There are also strong global standards for content moderation through the International Fact-Checking Network, which was formed in 2015 and has a nonpartisan code of principles and more than 170 fact-checking groups around the world.

What would such a social media platform cost to create?

Clearly, $44 billion is too much. Bluesky, which has gained favor as an X alternative in recent months, offers a case for comparison. It started internally with just a handful of workers at then-Twitter in 2019. In the past two years, it’s received $23 million in seed funding to get it where it is today.

Bluesky may be the current favorite of many journalists, and has many advantages over other social media platforms, but its worthy purpose to encourage a less toxic space for public conversation does not primarily serve the goals of globally disseminating independent journalism.

Collectively building a nonprofit, cooperative global news-based social media platform would put verified news back in the center of public discourse.

The challenge of creating a social media space for journalism is bigger than any single news organization can handle. There has been talk for several years about Europe having its own social media platform to highlight democracy, diversity, solidarity, and privacy, and to avoid “foreign information manipulations and interference” from platforms based in the U.S. that have fallen into Trump’s power orbit and China-based platforms as well.

But, a nongovernmental platform, with a consortium of democracy-minded news organizations, may be most resistant to nationalisms and authoritarianism. The project could be built on an open-source structure like ActivityPub (the infrastructure behind Mastodon) or the AT Protocol (behind Bluesky), which would give more power to users.

Collectively building a nonprofit, cooperative global news-based social media platform would put verified news back in the center of public discourse. The alternative is the independent press’s passive acceptance of whatever social media ecosystems Silicon Valley plutocrats or authoritarian governments decide to make, which is bad news for a free press.

During his recent speech to U.S. Congress, President Donald Trump turbocharged his manufactured moral panic targeting the trans community. “I signed an order making it the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female,” he gloated. “I also signed an executive order to ban men from playing in women’s sports.” Banishing trans people from public life was just “common sense,” he declared.

Trump’s bilious spectacle was to be expected, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom only made things worse when, days later, he claimed during conversation with neofascist MAGA cretin Charlie Kirk that the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports was “deeply unfair.” Newsom added that “the issue of fairness is completely legit. So, I completely align with you.” He concluded, “That’s easy to call out: the unfairness.”

As with so many things that gush from Trump’s gullet, his remarks were brutish bunk. But Newsom, who often tries to shield himself with the fact that he supported marriage equality as far back as 2004, also stood on shaky factual ground. Moreover, in his cringey conversation with Kirk, Gov. Newsom let slip the reason why both he and Trump are so willing to sacrifice the human rights of trans people: electoral politics. In public polling, Newsom said of Democrats, “We’re getting crushed on it.”

Political messaging should be based on shared values, not the short-term political whims of the opportunistic.

In this political environment, so much that passes for “common sense” argument is just evidence-free, anti-science vibes. But facts still matter, or at least they should. “To abandon facts is to abandon freedom,” writes historian Timothy Snyder in his pithy book On Tyranny.

When it comes to any supposed advantages that trans women athletes may have, the actual facts are quite different from the “common-sense” hype. The scientific evidence has repeatedly shown that trans women who have undergone hormone replacement therapy for more than a year actually do not have an advantage. One in-depth review of existing scientific literature on transgender athlete participation in competitive sport published between 2011 and 2021 found that “trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression have no clear biological advantages over cis women in elite sport.”

Another study found that transgender women athletes could actually be disadvantaged: “Compared with cisgender women,” the study found, “transgender women have decreased lung function, increasing their work in breathing.” Douglas Oberlin, an exercise physiologist who reviewed the scientific evidence related to transgender athletes’ performance, notes that “the limited information available does not suggest that trans men and trans women have much, if any, athletic advantage post-transition.” Oberlin also highlights that sport federations focus on average differences between cis and trans athletes but overlook performance variations within cis athletes.

Clearly, more research is needed before creating exclusionary policies. But given the small number of transgender athletes, Oberlin cautions that excluding them from sports solely due to concerns about inequality or injury risk “may be a solution in search of a problem.”

Back in the terfy, moral-panic fantasyland, such rational caution is nowhere to be found. In their own ways, Trump and Newsom treat trans people as if they were mere political chits to be swapped and bartered. This despite the fact that experts from the United Nations have asserted, “Categoric exclusions of trans and intersex women from women’s sports is a prima facie violation of human rights.” As sports writer Frankie de la Cretaz told The Nation, “Denying a group of people their basic human rights is morally reprehensible and illegal, regardless of the size of that community.”

Forming political values based on polling numbers is bereft of ethics. After all, interracial marriage didn’t surpass 50% approval in the United States until the mid-1990s. In 2005, 68% of those polled thought same-sex marriage should not be recognized as valid whereas today the very opposite is the case. Political messaging should be based on shared values, not the short-term political whims of the opportunistic.

Let’s be absolutely clear: The stakes are sky-high. The endgame of this bipartisan, anti-trans witch hunt is twofold. On the practical side, it enables the bracing possibility of raving randos demanding genital checks from the sidelines of youth sports events for kids who don’t conform to their strict versions of gender. (In West Virginia, Republicans have already voted through legislation green-lighting healthcare providers’ ability to perform genital checks on children without parental consent). But more broadly, the endgame is trans banishment. As journalist Dave Zirin put it, “The ‘pro-trans in everything but sports’ position can metastasize into… a broader anti-trans stance, the forcible erasure of transgender people from society.”

The push to expel trans women from elite sport, aided and abetted by Democrats like Gavin Newsom, is stoked by what Judith Butler calls “fascist passions.” As M. Gessen recently wrote, “The message, consistent and unrelenting, is that trans people are a threat to the nation. The subtext is that we are not of this nation.”

Fortunately, despite Trump and Newsom’s craven political opportunism, not all elected officials are singing from their grim hymnal. Democrats in the U.S. Senate recently scuppered a Republican bill that would have banned transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports. In Montana, elected officials went further, with more than two dozen Republicans flipping the Trumpain script and voting against a slew of anti-trans bills.

As political mayhem continues to unfold across the country and wider world, it is vital to remember that trans rights are human rights. Full stop. One day a thriving trans community will be as normalized as interracial or same-sex marriage. But this won’t happen automatically. It’s time to stand up. This battle is far from over.

The most important way to confront antisemitism and to respect the memory of the Holocaust is to speak the truth. We saw the truth of genocide in action when the Israelis killed more than 400 people and injured even more on a single night when they resumed bombing Gaza. These casualties joined the tens of thousands killed and those surviving without limbs, whose bodies and minds have been burned and broken, whose children have died or have been orphaned.

According to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), in an interview with Lulu Garcia-Navarro in The New York Times, those charging Israel with genocide are antisemitic. “And it is vicious of the opponents to call this genocide. Criticize it? For sure. Say Israel went too far? For sure. And you know what it does? It increases antisemitism, because they’re making Israel and the Jewish people look like monsters, which they are not.”

As I write this, doctors in Gaza are tending to shrapnel wounds penetrating the bodies and brains of children fighting for their lives in the face of genocide.

How could anyone viewing the devastation and the children’s bodies wrapped in shrouds as the result of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s most recent political games think of those responsible for this carnage are anything but monsters? Of course, those who committed atrocities on October 7 are monsters too. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are responsible for tens of thousands more deaths and by numerous estimates more than 100,000 casualties.

The latest wave of destruction and slaughter during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan was a particularly vicious way to end the cease-fire. Netanyahu and the Israeli leadership and large swaths of Israelis and Americans place as little value on Palestinian lives as the Nazis did regarding Jews. I’m not making false comparisons, but rather I am referring to what the philosopher Hannah Arendt called the Banality of Evil. The darkening of hearts that enabled the acceptance of the extermination of Jews during the Holocaust is at work in the commission of genocide in Gaza today.

“Hear o Israel the Lord our God the Lord is One” —the Shema is the most essential Jewish prayer. The 10 Commandments given by God are supposed to be the central ethical and moral tenants of Jewish life. How then can Jews massacre Palestinians when the commandment says, “Thou shall not murder?”

Consider the future of young Israelis in the military who are conditioned to see every Palestinian as an enemy whose life is worth pennies on the dollar. What will happen to those involved in war crimes and brutal injustices? Will their moral compasses ever reset? Will their hearts drown in tears or will they remain steadfast and pass on cruelty to the next generation?

Hold up a cup and say, “L’chaim,”—the Jewish toast to life. I was taught to believe L’chaim referred to the value of all human life. If so, for the toast to be more than an empty gesture we must recognize the plight of the Palestinians since the creation of the State of Israel.

The toast, which has been said for more than 2,000 years, is meant to be a celebration of humanity. We affirm the joy of living while feeling the weight of history. L’chaim must be said with conviction and passion. We toast the lives of you who have survived; we pray that someday your children and grandchildren can live as friends with our own.

As I write this, doctors in Gaza are tending to shrapnel wounds penetrating the bodies and brains of children fighting for their lives in the face of genocide.

Never Again was said after the Holocaust—Not in Our Name is what Jews opposed to genocide are shouting today.

Yes, “shock and awe” is back in the second age of Donald Trump. His border czar, Tom Homan, used that very phrase to describe border policy from day one of the new administration and, whether the president has actually said it or not, it’s now regularly in headlines, op-eds, and so much else. If you remember, it was the phrase used, in all its glory, to describe America’s massive bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003. (You remember! The country that supposedly threatened us with nuclear weapons but, in fact, didn’t have any!)

We Americans were, of course, going to shock and awe them. But from that moment on (if not from the moment, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when, rather than simply going after Osama bin Laden and crew, President George W. Bush launched a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan), you could say that it was we who were truly shocked and awed. After all, in their own disastrous fashion, our post-9/11 wars prepared the way for… yes!… Donald Trump to take the White House the first time around (shock and awe!)—and then blame the final disastrous retreat of the American military from Afghanistan in 2021 on the Biden administration. (“Kamala Harris, Joe Biden—the humiliation in Afghanistan set off the collapse of American credibility and respect all around the world.”) And of course, four years later, his reelection on a functional platform of Trump First, Americans Last, was distinctly a double shock and awe!

Tariff by tariff, tax by tax, act by act, Donald Trump stands a reasonable chance of taking this planet down with him.

And if you’ll excuse my being thoroughly repetitious, that was—or at least should have been seen as—the true definition of shock and awe. Donald Trump! Twice! Even now, can you truly take it in? In fact, more or less every moment since his reelection victory in November 2024 has been—pardon me for the turn of phrase—a first-class S&A experience.

And—shock, if not awe—I haven’t even mentioned Elon Musk yet, have I? I mean, who can take him in either? The richest man on Planet Earth (S&A!) and, at least until President Trump levied those massive tariffs on our three major trading partners (only to partially back off soon after), still making money hand over fist (wrist, pissed?)—about $224 billion extra dollars (S&A!) just between the November 2024 election victory of Donald Trump and the moment he actually took power again in January 2025—at the expense of the rest of us. Meanwhile, he’s been more or less running this country (into the ground) hand in glove with Donald Trump, who, by the way, is already talking about a possible third term in office! (“They say I can’t run again; that’s the expression… Then somebody said, I don’t think you can. Oh.”) Now, wouldn’t that be an all-American S&A first (or do I mean last?)!

An MMMW World

Phew, I’m already out of breath and exclamation points! No surprise there, of course, given the awesomely shocking and shockingly Trumpified (or do I mean Muskratted?) world we’re now living in and dealing with.

After all, we once again have a president who himself is (or may be—since you never know with him) a multi-billionaire and has at his side the DOGE-y man with a totally made-up position and an organization that nonetheless seems to have the power to dismantle whole parts of our government. (Science? Medicine? Who needs them? Veterans, who cares?) He could evidently even purchase Mars (and donate his sperm to help colonize that planet). And imagine this: Despite all the dough they and their billionaire pals possess—there are at least 13 of them in his administration, worth something like $460 billion—Elon and he seem intent on shoving through Congress a plan that would make his tax cuts for billionaires a permanent feature of American life (whatever it may cost the rest of us).

Don’t try to tell me that we’re not in a mad, mad, mad world (MMMW, if you prefer). And hey, the man who only recently set a record by spending more than an hour and 40 minutes giving the longest State of the (Dis)Union speech or speech of any sort ever to a joint session of Congress has done a remarkable job of foisting his version of an America First (Foist? Last?) policy on the rest of us and this world—a world that distinctly isn’t ours, but his. Think of us as now living in a Trump First World, or TFW. Of course, his version of America First includes those recent tariffs (some but not all of which have been delayed again) that, though officially levied against Canada, China, and Mexico, were actually being foisted on the rest of us. Count on one thing: In the end, we will undoubtedly pay through the nose for them. So, no question about it, we have certainly entered a distinctly S&A era.

The Double D of Donald

In truth, the 45th and 47th ( and 48th and 49th?) president of the United States is a genuinely remarkable figure. Truly historic—or do I mean hysteric? After all, who can’t bring some image of him to mind at any moment? That face, that stare, that glare, that red tie, that wave in his hair. Need I say more?

In his own remarkable fashion, he should be given full credit and a double capital D—for both Donald and Decline. Or just think of him as PD (for President Decline). And it is remarkable that a single figure, one man who once oversaw the bankruptcy of six different companies he had launched, could become responsible for potentially the greatest bankruptcy of all—the ending of the American Century (as we once knew it) and even, after a fashion, humanity’s centuries on Planet Earth.

I mean, who can even remember anymore the time in a distant century—the year was 1991, to be exact, the very moment when Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy for the Trump Taj Mahal and the year before he did the same for the Trump Plaza Hotel—when the Soviet Union went into the garbage pail, China had not yet truly risen, and this country was left alone as not just a great power but The Great Power or TGP, the only one left on Planet Earth? That, in retrospect, was a truly shock-and-awe moment. And isn’t it no less shock-and-awing to think that a mere 34 years later, that same country is now led by a raging maniac on an America First platform that could, in effect, prove to be an America Last one? In a mere two terms in office, he will have taken what was once known as the planet’s “sole superpower” into a world of chaos and, ultimately, disaster of a sort we still can’t really grasp. He will have been the monarch—and yes, that’s the appropriate word, not president—from hell. (In fact, the White House digital strategy team all too appropriately produced a portrait of President Trump with a golden crown and the phrase “LONG LIVE THE KING”!)

And if that (and he) isn’t the definition of shock and awe, what is?

Burn, Baby, Burn

Worse yet, tariff by tariff, tax by tax, act by act, Donald Trump stands a reasonable chance of taking this planet down with him. Think of it as little short of remarkable that, in a world in which every month, every year (and every decade) is hotter than the previous one in a record fashion, in a world in which the weather and its devastating effects—from fires to storms to floods—is only growing more extreme and more horrific, Americans freely voted in (a second time around!) someone whose election phrase of choice was “drill, baby, drill,” but might as well have been “heat, baby, heat” or “storm, baby, storm,” or simply “burn, baby, burn.”

And if his platform was America First (but truly Donald First), it distinctly should have been Planet Earth Last. (Of course—don’t be shocked—he also appointed as secretary of health a man who thinks that the way to fight measles outbreaks is with anything but a vaccine.) Yes, above all else, Donald Trump, who has called climate change both a “scam” and a “Chinese hoax,” continues to be focused on making sure that ever more oil, natural gas, and coal comes out of the ground and is indeed burned, baby, burned forever and a day.

Consider it a remarkable historical irony that America First has remained Donald Trump’s slogan all these years when, in reality (or what passes for it in his universe), it should certainly have been Trump First and, when it came to anything that truly mattered to him, America (not to speak of the rest of the world) Last!

Of course, no one should be surprised, given the way the fossil fuel companies funded his campaign. He’s already gone out of his way to cancel anything the Biden administration did to fight climate change and announced the country’s departure from the Paris climate accords (again). As The New York Times put it recently, “In a few short weeks [of his second term in office], President Trump has already severely damaged the government’s ability to fight climate change, upending American environmental policy with moves that could have lasting implications for the country, and the planet.” What he’s doing is now considered a “deep freeze” on climate programs of all sorts (though it might better be thought of as a hot melt).

At one point, he was even talking about eliminating 65% of the employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (S&A!). Lasting implications indeed.

In any other era, President Trump would still undoubtedly have been considered a nightmare and a half, but not a potentially world-ending one (at least the world as humanity has known it all these endless centuries). The truth is that, once upon a time, if you had told anybody that this would be our S&A version of the future, you would have been laughed out of the room.

The Second Time Around with No End in Sight

And yet, there can be no question that, all these years later, despite bankruptcy after bankruptcy, and failure after failure, he remains the man of the second, minute, hour, day, week, month, and year. Give him credit. It’s a remarkable record not just when it comes to the success of failure but of putting Himself (and yes, under the circumstances, I do think that should be capitalized!), not America First.

Oh, and while all of this has been going on, the Democratic Party has not completely but largely been missing in action. Imagine that! And as for Congress, remind me what it is (other than an audience for You Know Who).

Consider it a remarkable historical irony that America First has remained Donald Trump’s slogan all these years when, in reality (or what passes for it in his universe), it should certainly have been Trump First and, when it came to anything that truly mattered to him, America (not to speak of the rest of the world) Last!

Worse yet, if all of us hadn’t actually lived through the Trumpian epoch (epic? toothpick?), I don’t think anyone could have made this up or, in a previous version of America, even imagined it happening. And if they could, there can be little question that they would simply have been laughed out of the room, if not institutionalized, not once but twice.

And yet here we are, the second time around with no end in sight, and a third time a history-breaking possibility, leaving us fully and thoroughly in another America on another planet. Phew! Talk about shock and awe!

I must admit, with at least three years and 10 months to go in the era of You Know Who, I find it hard to imagine our future, even if (as is certainly possible) the American and global economies go down the tubes and the Democrats are swept back into Congress—I’m sorry, where?—in 2026.

Nonetheless, for the (un)foreseeable future, we’re all living with Donald Trump in a genuinely shock-and-awe world of almost unpredictable strangeness. In some fashion, all of us are now Afghans or Iraqis.

Every day’s headlines now seem to bombard us with ever more outrageous Trumpian antics. Who could have possibly imagined, for instance, that a president of the United States would turn the White House lawn into a Tesla auto showroom?

But these antics actually do serve a useful social and political purpose—for President Donald Trump’s fellow deep pockets and the corporations they run. Trump’s kleptocratic arrogance and audacity have shoved the institutionalized thievery of Corporate America’s ever-grasping top execs off into the shadows.

Those shadows could hardly be more welcome. American corporate executive compensation, as the business journal Fortune has just detailed, is now “surging amid a roaring bonus rebound.”

Heads CEOs win, in other words, tails they never lose.

One example: Tyson Foods CEO Donnie King has seen his annual executive rewards leap from $13 million in 2023 to $22.7 million in 2024. To keep King smiling, Tyson’s board of directors has also extended his CEO contract into 2027 and guaranteed him “a post-employment perk that includes 75 hours of personal use of the company jet as long as he sticks around on the board.”

And what in the way of wonders has Tyson’s King been working to earn all this? Not much, concludes a new Compensation Advisory Partners analysis. Anyone who had $100 invested in Tyson shares at the end of fiscal 2019 today holds a nest egg worth just $80.54. Tyson’s most typical workers aren’t doing particularly well either. They took home $43,417 in 2024, 525 times less than the annual compensation that CEO Donnie King pocketed.

Over at Moderna, Big Pharma’s newest big kid on the corporate block, chief exec Stéphane Bancel saw his 2024 annual pay jump 16.4% over his 2023 compensation despite a 53% drop in Moderna’s annual revenue.

Back in 2022, at Covid-19’s height, Bancel personally collected over $392 million exercising stacks of the stock options he had been sitting upon. Between that year’s start and 2024’s close, Moderna shares plummeted from just under $254 each to under $42.

Moderna’s transition to our post-Covid world, the Moderna board acknowledges, has been “more complex than anticipated.” That complexity, the board apparently believes, in no way justifies denying Bancel his rightful place among Big Pharma’s top-earning CEOs. Bancel’s near $20-million 2024 payday is keeping him well within hailing distance of all his Big Pharma peers.

How can corporate CEO paychecks be continuing to go gangbusters while the corporations these execs run are—at best—just treading water? Lauren Peek, a partner at Compensation Advisory Partners and a co-author of the firm’s latest CEO pay analysis, has an explanation.

Corporate board compensation committees, Peek observes, want to keep their top execs adequately incentivized. These board panels simply cannot bear the sight of their CEOs getting down in the dumps. So what do these panels do? They exclude from their final CEO pay decisions any negative economic factors that CEOs can’t directly determine. But these same corporate panels never take into account unexpected positive economic factors that their CEOs had no hand in creating.

Heads CEOs win, in other words, tails they never lose.

Among those winners: Disney chief exec Robert Iger. His 2024 total pay jumped to $41 million, up nearly $10 million from his 2023 compensation. Disney’s total shareholder return, over that same year, didn’t even reach halfway up the total return that Disney’s peer companies recorded.

Disney hardly rates as an outlier among the 50 major publicly traded corporations that the recently released Compensation Advisory Partners report puts under the microscope. The median revenue growth of these 50 firms dropped to 1.6% in 2024, less than half their 2023 rate. Their earnings remained virtually flat as well. But their CEO compensation climbed an average 9%.

“With financial performance largely flat across these early Fortune 500 filers,” notes an HR Grapevine analysis of the Compensation Advisory Partners findings, “board-level decisions to maintain or raise executive bonuses may prompt further scrutiny from investors and stakeholders alike.”

“For ‘shop-floor’ employees,” adds the HR Grapevine, “news of CEO wage hikes despite average financial performances will undoubtedly prompt a good deal of rumination about their own levels of compensation.”

Equilar, an information services firm specializing in corporate pay, has also been busy analyzing the latest trends in CEO remuneration. Equilar’s latest look at corner-office compensation has found that median CEO pay within the corporations that make up the Equilar 500 jumped up from $12 million in 2020 to $16.5 million last year.

CEO-worker pay gaps have increased even more significantly. At the median Equilar 500 corporation, CEOs pocketed 186.5 times the pay of their most typical workers in 2020 and 306 times that pay in 2024. At America’s larger corporations—those companies sitting at the 75th percentile of the Equilar 500—CEOs made 307.5 times their typical worker pay in 2020 and last year collected 527 times more.

A key driver of this ever-widening CEO-worker pay gap? The sinking compensation going to typical corporate workers, as Equilar’s Joyce Chen concluded last week in an analysis for the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. These median workers took home $66,321 in 2020, but just $57,299 last year.

But top execs aren’t just shortchanging workers at pay-time. They’re also pressuring those workers to squeeze and defraud clients and customers at every opportunity, as former Wells Fargo bank manager and investigator Kieran Cuadras has just vividly detailed.

Nearly a decade ago, Cuadras relates, a mammoth phony accounts scandal at Wells Fargo led to fines totaling $20 million against the bank’s then-CEO John Stumpf. But those fines, she points out, hardly made a dent in the estimated $130 million that Stumpf “walked away with in compensation when he resigned.”

Wells Fargo’s current CEO, Charles Scharf, appears to be doing his best to follow in Stumpf’s footsteps. Scharf’s gutted risk and complaint departments are cutting corners “to create the illusion of fewer complaints.” The reality: Those departments are closing complaint cases prematurely. In 2024, these and other sneaky moves helped Scharf pocket a sweet $31.2 million .

Our nation’s political leaders, says Wells Fargo employee and customer advocate Kieran Cuadras, need “to step up and do something about a CEO pay system that rewards executives with obscenely large paychecks for practices that harm workers and the broader economy.”

Where to start that stepping up? Lawmakers ought to be levying new taxes on corporations “with huge gaps between their CEO and worker pay,” Cuadras posits, and increasing an already existing tax on stock buybacks.

Moves like these, she astutely sums up, “would encourage companies to focus on long-term prosperity and stability rather than simply making wealthy executives and shareholders even richer.”