Republicans are preparing to give trillions in tax handouts to millionaires and billionaires. How do they plan to pay for these tax handouts? By stealing health care from 13.7 million Americans, including destroying Medicaid as a functioning system for millions of seniors, children, and people with disabilities.

Older Americans and their families are often shocked to learn that, under most circumstances, Medicare doesn’t cover long term care. Medicaid does. In fact, Medicaid pays for over 60 percent of nursing home care. It also covers other types of long-term care, such as in-home care. And, Medicaid covers premiums and out-of-pocket costs for millions of low-income people with Medicare.

To qualify for Medicaid long term care, many seniors have to “spend down” their assets and savings. This is morally wrong. We will never stop fighting for a Medicare for All system, where everyone in America gets high quality health care that is free at point of service. But as flawed as the current system is, it’s far better than the Republican alternative — ripping away Medicaid, so that seniors who need long term care (and other care not covered by Medicare) can’t get it at all.

The bottom line: People will die because they can’t get the care they need.

Make no mistake: Republican Medicaid cuts will devastate seniors, ripping away critical care. Republicans are planning to make $880 billion in spending cuts to pay for the tax handout to the wealthy, and the majority of those cuts will come from Medicaid. It is impossible to cut hundreds of billions from Medicaid without hurting massive numbers of seniors.

Several of the Medicaid cuts they are considering amount to different ways of giving states far fewer federal dollars to spend on Medicaid. That means states will have to scale back their Medicaid programs, which will inevitably hurt seniors.

These cuts will hit all hospitals, but will almost immediately devastate rural hospitals, which rely on federal Medicaid dollars to stay afloat. America’s Essential Hospitals, the group representing these hospitals, says that the Republican plan “would cause children, pregnant patients, and disabled people to lose access to their coverage. Older populations living in nursing homes would also risk losing their health care coverage.”

If Republicans pass their Medicaid cuts into law, hospitals around the country — disproportionately in red states, which are more rural — will close. That’s on top of 200 rural hospitals that have already closed in the last decade. These closures won’t just impact people on Medicaid. It will devastate entire communities that rely on these hospitals.

Seniors with medical emergencies are in no position to drive hundreds of miles to a different hospital. This will also increase the burden on family caregivers, who will now have to travel further to get their spouse or aging parents to the hospital. The bottom line: People will die because they can’t get the care they need.

Congressional Republicans want to ruin the lives of millions more seniors, by taking away their Medicaid.

At the same time Republicans are planning these enormous Medicaid cuts, the Trump-Musk regime is breaking Social Security. They’ve pushed out 7,000 of the public servants who help Americans claim their earned benefits, with more layoffs to come. Field offices around the country have lost half their staff, leading to much longer wait times — if you can get an appointment at all.

Like the planned Medicaid cuts, these Social Security cuts are disproportionately hurting people living in rural areas and people with disabilities. If they can’t navigate the increasingly glitchy website, they may have to travel hundreds of miles to a Social Security office for an appointment.

The Musk henchmen running Social Security are also wrongly declaring people dead, cutting them off from their earned benefits as well as their credit cards and bank accounts — financial murder. People are flooding overwhelmed field offices, desperate to fix the error. In one keystroke, the Trump-Musk regime is ruining their lives. And Congressional Republicans want to ruin the lives of millions more seniors, by taking away their Medicaid.

All of this suffering is completely preventable. America is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Republicans want to rip health care away from tens of millions of people to give tax cuts to billionaires. Instead, let’s make those billionaires pay their fair share — and use the money to give everyone in America the health care they need.

Let’s suppose someone decides it would be a good idea to drive 80 miles per hour through a school zone while the amber lights are flashing. If something bad happens, as it would be likely to, and he kills one or more children, how would the law treat it?

He could tell the court that he sincerely didn’t “mean” to kill anyone, but that wouldn’t exonerate him. The court would consider the case at minimum as vehicular homicide, and more likely, given the aggravating circumstance of lethal speed in a school zone, it might well result in conviction for aggravated murder.

Absent a miraculous development of telepathic powers, we can’t read people’s minds and determine their “real” mental state; we can only infer intent from their behavior. If someone commits a reckless act whose adverse consequences are clearly foreseeable, then for all practical purposes, that person willed the consequences. This principle—who wills the means wills the ends—is applicable in law, but should also be valid in everyday life. It should particularly apply to the behavior of public officials who wield power over the rest of us.

With that in mind, let’s look at President Donald Trump’s first-term record. His handling of the COVID-19 pandemic plainly indicated an unconcern for the consequences of his ignoring the outbreak in its early stages during the winter and spring of 2020. As he told Bob Woodward, he wanted to downplay the disease so as not to spook the stock market, evidence of his preference for Wall Street over human life. His refusal to recommend masking and social distancing, and encouragement of crackpot Covid deniers, took a heavy toll.

Trump’s behavior during the pandemic alone should have disqualified him from ever holding elective office again.

According to Scientific American, “In the final year of Donald Trump’s presidency, more than 450,000 Americans died from COVID-19, and life expectancy fell by 1.13 years, the biggest decrease since World War II. Many of the deaths were avoidable; COVID-19 mortality in the U.S. was 40 percent higher than the average of the other wealthy nations in the Group of Seven (G7).” That equates to 140,000 excess deaths from his contempt for human life in a crisis whose outcome was predictable.

Trump’s behavior during the pandemic alone should have disqualified him from ever holding elective office again. Alas, the American people’s memory, knowledge, and judgment being what they are, we are now being forced, like hostages at gunpoint, to endure another four years of criminal behavior, carried out with our tax money.

We have already seen enough to expect the Trump regime’s second term to be like the first on steroids. Thus, gutting the Department of Health and Human Services’ infectious disease research and forcing out the FDA’s chief vaccine expert is exactly what it looks like: an effort to see that more Americans die prematurely. This same result will certainly come as well from cutting $12 billion from state health service grants.

The secretary of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., wants to implement placebo testing of vaccines, even though this methodology had been eliminated long ago because of ethical concerns: subjects administered a placebo could be placed at considerable health risk when the overall efficacy of vaccines has been demonstrated worldwide for the many decades. So why is Kennedy doing this?

The most benign explanation is that he is a paranoid crackpot who believes in his quack medical theories (in which case, why did the Republican Senate confirm him in the face of abundant evidence of his lack of qualification and risk to public well-being?). A harsher explanation might be that Kennedy, in line with his various crank theories, sees too many human beings as pestilential, and wouldn’t mind if there were fewer of them. In either case, every senator who voted to confirm him will be just as responsible for any excess deaths occurring as he would.

The same applies to veterans’ health programs. The VA under Trump has slashed personnel, cut programs, and halted clinical trials. In recent testimony, the department’s secretary, Doug Collins, succeeded in matching his own bumbling incompetence with arrogance and nastiness. Yet the Republican senators who pretended to be critical of him in the hearing for the benefit of their veteran constituents had voted to confirm him, so if any veterans die from lack of health care, it will be their responsibility as well as that of Collins.

Why did the Trump cabal eliminate the terrorist data base at the Department of Homeland Security? Given that most domestic terrorism cases have a right-wing motivation, they must want to see more terrorism: it is useful in cowing the rest of the population. As for terrorist incidents in general, they can serve as an excuse for martial law. We can similarly conclude that wiped-out towns and lives ruined by natural disasters is the intended result of slashing FEMA.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 420 Americans die from Salmonella each year. The CDC also estimates that about 1.35 million people get sick from salmonellosis, and 26,500 are hospitalized. So why did Trump’s Agriculture Department withdraw a proposed rule that would have limited salmonella content in raw poultry and required producers to test their products before sale?

You might say it was lobbying by the poultry interests. In that case, it reflects the same attitude of willful contempt for human life on the part of Trump and his minions: that the profits of corporate contributors are more important than the safety of the American people.

Where does this contempt for human life come from? Any rational person who observed Trump over the past decade would conclude that he is a pathological narcissist who is indifferent to others. But that only leads to another question: why do so many Americans not only support him, but treat him as a near-deity?

At the core of Trump’s base are tens of millions of religious fundamentalists who believe in the Apocalypse. If the end is at hand, if in fact it could come at any moment, why worry too scrupulously over a life or two, or, for that matter, over the functioning of society at a level above that of the bronze age? The behavior of Trump’s supporters, particularly their “Covid parties” and “measles parties,” suggests an actual courting of disease and death. Their relation to Trump is like that of the ancient Carthaginians, sacrificing their children to the destroyer-god Baal.

Where does this contempt for human life come from? Any rational person who observed Trump over the past decade would conclude that he is a pathological narcissist who is indifferent to others.

There is another, more secular, source of this willingness to let people die: survivalists whose rabid fear of economic collapse, social breakdown, and anarchic violence ironically leads them to hope for the very chaos they supposedly abhor, because it would prove them to have been right all along.

Right-wing media have long egged on the paranoid with ads prophesying imminent economic or social collapse. Since the 1970s oil shock, an abiding feature on the American scene has been the right-wing survivalist, hoping for the national Götterdämmerung that will vindicate his having stockpiled 10,000 rounds of ammunition and a horde of Krugerrands.

Religious lunatics and bunkered-in survivalists have been a feature of society for decades, but what gives their vision the potential for fulfilment is a newer, third element: the neo-reactionary tech bros. What the apocalyptics and survivalists supply in numbers, the Silicon Valley billionaires provide in money: they are already a mainstay of funding for Trump’s political operations.

According to Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor, tech bros like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen believe they have the money and means to carry out what the two authors call End Times Fascism. Musk’s effort through DOGE to destroy the government’s health and safety infrastructure is precisely what will bring a societal collapse nearer—and that’s a good thing in the eyes of these neo-reactionaries, because it makes survivalist prepping all the more critical while culling the unwanted.

Their goal is like something foretold in Neal Stephenson’s novel "Snow Crash" over three decades ago: the destruction of the traditional nation-state and the creation of city-states ruled by tech moguls and serviced by AI robots and whatever number of the lower orders of humanity are deemed necessary.

This nightmarish vision is now the de facto program of the Republican Party, regardless of what its official platform contains. The deaths that will occur from the cutting or elimination of the programs I have mentioned are not an accident or unforeseen consequence.

No, on the contrary: Republicans want you to die.

Pope Leo XIV just labeled Artificial Intelligence one of the main threats facing humanity, saying it poses challenges to “human dignity, justice, and labor.” He’s right, but it’s even worse than that: It represents, unless it’s rigorously regulated, a threat to democracy itself.

In every generation, the enemies of democracy change costumes, but their playbook remains eerily familiar. They lie, divide, intimidate, and exploit every available tool to consolidate power. In the 1930s it was radio, in the 2010s it was social media, and now, in 2025, the newest and most dangerous weapon in the authoritarian arsenal is artificial intelligence.

Make no mistake: AI is not just another technology. It is power, scaled. And in the hands of the far right, it becomes the most effective tool for dismantling democracy ever invented.

We’re not just fighting bad actors anymore: We’re fighting machines trained to think like them.

Authoritarians—whether MAGA-aligned in the United States or part of the global movement that includes Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and others—are not blind to the potential of AI. They understand it instinctively: its ability to simulate, to deceive, to surveil, and to dominate. While progressives and democratic institutions have scrambled to comprehend its implications, the authoritarians have already started weaponizing it with devastating efficiency.

Let’s look at the mechanisms.

AI can now generate millions of personalized political messages in seconds, each calibrated to manipulate a voter’s specific fears or biases. It can create entire fake news outlets, populate them with AI-generated journalists, and flood your social feed with content that looks real, sounds real, and feels familiar, all without a single human behind it. Imagine the power of Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda machine, but with superintelligence behind the wheel and zero friction. That’s where we’re heading.

And that’s just the beginning.

Authoritarian regimes can—and already are—using AI to surveil and intimidate their citizens. What China has perfected with facial recognition and loyalty scoring, MAGA-aligned figures in the U.S. are watching closely, eager to adopt and adapt. Right-wing sheriffs and local governments could soon use AI to track protestors, compile digital dossiers, and “predict” criminal behavior in communities deemed politically undesirable.

If the government knows not just where you are, but what you’re thinking, organizing, or reading—and it can fabricate “evidence” to match—freedom of thought becomes a quaint memory.

This isn’t theoretical. In 2024, we saw AI-generated robocalls impersonating former President Joe Biden telling voters to stay home (and millions did). In the next cycle, we may see entire election campaigns waged by AI bots masquerading as voters, influencers, and even public officials.

U.S. President Donald Trump, during the 2024 election campaign, reposted a fake AI image of Taylor Swift endorsing him, over her objection; many believed she’d become a Trump supporter. As the Carnegie Endowment for Peace noted:

Meanwhile, deepfake audio clips of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Slovakia’s opposition head, Michal Šimečka, ignited social media controversies when they spread rapidly before fact-checkers exposed them as fabrications. The destructive power of deepfakes also hit home in Türkiye when a presidential candidate withdrew from the May 2023 election after explicit AI-generated videos went viral. In Argentina’s October 2023 presidential election, both leading candidates deployed deepfakes by creating campaign posters and materials that mocked their opponents—tactics that escalated into full-blown AI memetic warfare to sway voters.

The goal often isn’t just to win; it’s to delegitimize the democratic process itself. Because once trust is broken—once people believe that “both sides lie” or that “you can’t believe anything anymore”—then strongmen step into the void with promises of order, purity, and salvation.

And when they do, AI will be there to enforce it.

Imagine a future where police departments outsource their decision-making to “neutral” algorithms, algorithms coded with the biases of their creators like Elon Musk is doing by training Grok on Xitter. Where AI-driven systems deny permits, benefits, or even due process based on behavioral profiles. Where loyalty to the regime is rewarded with access, and dissent is flagged by invisible systems you can’t appeal.

That’s not democracy. That’s techno-feudalism, wrapped in a red-white-and-blue flag.

It’s already happening in Bangladesh, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, the Philippines, and Thailand, according to the Carnegie Endowment. They add:

In the E.U.’s Eastern neighborhood, countries like Georgia, Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine face a deluge of hybrid threats and AI-generated disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing societies, disrupting electoral processes, and derailing people’s democratic aspirations.

If we allow the far-right to continue merging political power with AI without guardrails, we will see the rise of a system where freedom is algorithmically rationed.

Elections will still happen, but outcomes will be massaged. Dissent will still exist, but only in controlled pockets, easy to monitor and suppress. History books will be written, edited, and distributed by code optimized for obedience. The “news” will be whatever the regime’s AI decides you should see.

This is not science fiction. It is the logical endpoint of unregulated, authoritarian-aligned artificial intelligence.

So what do we do?

We must treat AI regulation as a democratic survival issue. That means:

• Banning the use of deepfakes in political ads.
• Enforcing transparency on algorithmic decision-making.
• Creating unbiased public, open-source alternatives to corporate-controlled models.
• Creating disinformation infrastructure as we would biological or nuclear weapons that are not just dangerous, but potentially civilization-ending.
• Demanding that social media outlets publish their algorithms so we can see how we’re being manipulated.

And we must do it now.

Because history teaches us that once authoritarianism takes root, it rarely gives up power voluntarily. The longer we wait, the more embedded, autonomous, and intelligent these systems become. We’re not just fighting bad actors anymore: We’re fighting machines trained to think like them.

The battle for democracy in the age of AI will not be won with slogans or optimism alone. It will take law, oversight, courage—and above all, vigilance. As always, democracy is not a spectator sport. If we want to preserve the sacred right of self-governance, we must recognize the existential threat in front of us and act with urgency.

This time, the fight isn’t just against the usual suspects.

This time, the algorithm is watching.

At two hospitals tucked in the quiet corners of Bellingham, Washington, an unfolding labor struggle cuts to the heart of the crisis in American healthcare. At PeaceHealth St. Joseph and PeaceHealth United General, hospitalists, including physicians and advanced practice providers, have walked off the job. However, this isn't a fight over salaries. It is a strike for the soul of their profession.

As members of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD), these clinicians are demanding the right to advocate for their patients without fear of retaliation. They're calling out a system in which metrics and margins take precedence over urgent care and human dignity, discharges are prioritized over medical necessity and unsafe staffing has become the norm.

Despite a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board affirming their union, PeaceHealth, a large nonprofit hospital system, refuses to negotiate. The hospitalists are caught between two employers: Sound Physicians, which hires and pays them, and PeaceHealth, which controls their working conditions. Both point fingers, while the providers bear the burden.

We are striking to have a voice in our working conditions to ensure we can provide the best care for our patients.

In the following interviews, I speak with Katie Pernick (KP), Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP); Dr. Andy Radvany (AR), Hospitalist; and Joe Crane (JC), organizing coordinator, UAPD. They discuss how their struggle is rooted both in the specific conditions of Bellingham, Washington, and reflective of broader national dynamics, connecting clinical workplaces to the growing labor movement, the accelerating corporatization of healthcare, and a rising wave of collective action among white-collar and caregiving professions.

Can you describe specific examples of how PeaceHealth's policies have impacted patient care or safety in Bellingham or Sedro-Woolley?

Katie Pernick stands outside PeaceHealth St. Joseph. (Photo: Brian Pernick)

KP: For too long, healthcare has been dictated by insurance companies and hospital corporations. Healthcare decisions need to be made by physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APC), not by administration looking at what a patient is costing them. We are striking to have a voice in our working conditions to ensure we can provide the best care for our patients. For example, two years ago our contract was adjusted, without our input, to require us to see more patients. As hospitalists we are interacting with everyone: the patient, families, nurses, therapists, social workers, and specialists. That does not include the patients' imaging, lab work, and exam findings. All this information has to be integrated to provide a detailed plan of care. To do it for 16 or more acutely ill patients a day is a lot to ask. The increase in patient load has put patient care at risk and doesn't allow us the time needed to properly assess patients and their understanding of their illness, their symptoms, and conversation to allow the patient to have a voice in their care.

Another example is the early discharge requirement. Administration would like us to send patients home by 10:00 am. If I were to try to meet this requirement daily, I would have to cut down on time spent educating the patient on medications, their illness, and what to expect on return home. This doesn't consider that I would be seeing my sickest patients later in the day in favor of seeing my patients that are well enough to go home first. Hospital administration regularly adds busy work not related to patient care. This is more distraction from providing care for my patients.

No one's death should be part of an investment strategy.

Finally, over the years there have been several times where someone in administration has called me to tell me a patient had been in the hospital long enough and I needed to discharge the patient. In these situations, the administrator had not personally been to see the patient or assessed the patient, it was solely on how they looked in the chart and that according to insurance the patient should have been well by that time.

How has the refusal of PeaceHealth to recognize your union affected your ability to advocate for patients or voice safety concerns on the job?

KP: Patients trust us to care for them, and it is time for physicians and APCs to stand up and advocate on a larger scale for them. We want a say in our working conditions so we can provide the best care for patients and continue to do so. We want to address issues like the ones outlined above. I work with amazing people who truly care about their patients. When you are constantly asked to compromise your personal and moral ethics to care for patients it leads to moral injury, distress, and burn out. I can feel it happening to me on days when I have too many patients and feel like someone isn't getting my best.

Do you see your strike as part of a larger trend of healthcare worker organizing across the U.S.? If so, how?

KP: I hope so. Healthcare dictated by the moneymaking corporations isn't the best healthcare. I know so many physicians and APCs who are tired of not being able to provide appropriate care. We need to fight on a larger scale and stand together. American healthcare cannot continue in this way. Just this week the Hospitalists at Skagit Regional, another Sound Physicians site, voted in favor of unionizing by an overwhelming majority. I know several of my colleagues have been getting many questions about our experience from other hospitalists around the country.

Many countries with strong public health systems (like the U.K. or Canada) have unionized physicians. Do you see international models as informing your approach here?

Joe Crane (in sunglasses) stands with striking workers. (Photo: Pierre King)

JC: The biggest problem with comparing the different systems isn't the public model versus nonprofit groups like PeaceHealth. The problem is that in America, we have companies like Sound Physicians that invest private equity money to make money from people in the worst moments of their lives. No one's death should be part of an investment strategy. Before we can start looking at how other unions in other countries are organized and fight back, we must fix a system that makes billions for investors when patients are sick and dying.

What role do corporate healthcare contractors like Sound Physicians play in undermining worker power and continuity of care?

KP: Estimates put 20% of healthcare dollars being spent on administrative tasks. Instead of turning down a patient for a life changing medication or medical device, what if we just said yes, they need this? Healthcare contractors like Sound add a layer of wasted medical dollars. I have two employers to answer to. More people sitting behind desks instead of directly caring for patients.

How has the community responded to the strike so far, and what do you want patients and families in this region to understand about your goals?

KP: I believe the majority of our community supports our union. PeaceHealth is a major local employer, and its decisions directly affect a wide segment of the population. Over the past year, its insurance policies have drawn criticism, and across the system, both in hospitals and clinics, providers are exhausted and overwhelmed. Our patients see it too; they can read the fatigue and strain on our faces.

Sound Physicians hospitalists have unionized under UAPD. PeaceHealth's advanced practice clinicians have done the same. Our nurses are in the midst of contract negotiations with Washington State Nurses Association, and our support staff have unionized with Service Employees International Union and are striking this week. When such a significant portion of an employer's workforce is organizing and protesting, it speaks volumes. PeaceHealth administrators often claim they are listening and seeking compromise, but if that were truly the case, how could so many workers be this frustrated?

It echoes the banking crisis of 2008, when profit-driven incentives corrupted the mortgage industry. Now, similarly perverse incentives are spreading through medicine like a cancer.

To our community, I want to say: We care deeply. We want the best for our patients. We want to return to work next week. But we also want a meaningful voice in the decisions that shape our ability to provide safe, ethical care. That means a seat at the table with PeaceHealth leadership.

To our colleagues, from dietary aides and housekeeping to radiology techs, phlebotomists, nurses, and beyond, we stand with you. We see the sacrifices you're making. That workers already struggling to make ends meet are willing to forgo a week's wages speaks to just how unfair these contracts are. Your courage underscores why this fight matters, for all of us.

How do you respond to the argument that physician unionization is incompatible with traditional notions of medical professionalism?

KP: When healthcare took a turn toward factory assembly line care and not an individual who needed tailored care, we went away from traditional medicine. When doctors are told they can only spend 20 minutes with a patient we turned away from traditional medicine. When I was told the reason I take so long to see patients is because I take too much time getting to know them, we turned away from traditional medicine.

Unionization is a return to the medical profession ideals in a time when corporations want to keep us quiet and subservient. The role of the Physician and APC's is to advocate for patients. Corporate healthcare took our professional autonomy; we want it back. They have not listened to us before. Unionization is the path back to traditional notions of medical professionalism. This is the path forward.

What do you think the growing labor unrest across industries, from Starbucks to Amazon to hospitals, says about the state of democracy and worker power in America?

JC: Something is broken in this country. More Physicians have unionized in the last two years than in the prior 20 years. As a union organizer, people might assume that this surge of unionization makes me happy; it does in the sense of seeing people come together and fight back, but it also breaks my heart how broken this system in our country is. Over $400 million per year are spent trying to crush workers who'd like to have a voice. Here in Bellingham, Washington, clinicians are taking to the strike line not for more money, but for the simple ask of wanting to care for their patients in the best possible way. Sound and PeaceHealth are taking money they made off sick human beings and are spending that money to try to make sure the physicians can't advocate for their patients. Our system is broken, but our UAPD members are standing up and fighting back, and we will win this fight.

Dr. Andy Radvany protests outside the hospital. (Photo: Pierre King)

AR: Americans are pushing back against an economy where CEOs earn hundreds or even thousands of times more than their lowest-paid workers—a level of inequality rare in other developed nations. Executive pay has long outpaced reason, symbolizing a broken system.

Employee-owned WinCo offers a compelling alternative. It has created many millionaires among workers, without minting a single billionaire, proving that shared ownership can build wealth more equitably.

With a national election coming up, what would you like to see from political leaders in terms of healthcare reform and labor protections for clinicians?

JC: With the coming election, we need political leaders to stand up and fight with healthcare workers. We need to strengthen our labor laws. Your doctor shouldn't fear retaliation for advocating for their patients, and companies shouldn't profit from their constituents' sickness in a hospital. Doctors shouldn't have to strike just to be able to advocate for their patients. The politicians need to stand up and join the fight. If for no other reason, then they, too, will be patient someday. Do they want to be a profit margin on a spreadsheet or a human being getting the best possible help from a clinician who isn't afraid to speak up for their patient?

AR: I would like to see bills pushing back against C-Suite compensation, and private equity buyouts of healthcare interests. Medicine should not be for-profit business. The problem has grown exponentially, and hospital closures and lack of access are the result.

These are my patients, and their healthcare decisions should be made by me, not hospital administration.

Twenty years ago, many treatments and procedures that could be expedited to save money and keep patients out of the hospital are now delayed, until hospitalization becomes the only way to get them done quickly. This benefits hospital profits, not patients.

Meanwhile, corporate incentives have infiltrated even nonprofit health systems, distorting priorities. Executives chase bonus structures that reward volume and revenue, not outcomes or care. It's a systemic issue, deeper than any one boardroom. In many cases, leaders are doing exactly what they've been incentivized to do. It echoes the banking crisis of 2008, when profit-driven incentives corrupted the mortgage industry. Now, similarly perverse incentives are spreading through medicine like a cancer.

The words, "Patients over profits" are projected onto the building of PeaceHealth St. Joseph. (Photo: Bellingham Trouble Makers)

If this strike succeeds, or fails, what precedent do you believe it will set for other hospitalists and healthcare workers nationwide?

KP: This strike is personal for me. This is my community. My patients are friends, friends of friends, parents of people I see at the gym, and the cashier that knows me from my weekly shopping. These are my patients, I don't know just the information in the chart (ie; imaging reports, lab work, vital signs). I know who has a sick cat at home, who is hoping to get out of the hospital before their grandchild's birthday next week, and who is scared to go home. These are my patients, and their healthcare decisions should be made by me, not hospital administration.

I hope our strike stirs more resistance from healthcare workers. We are the people that have the greatest opportunity to affect change in healthcare. It won't be able to come from the patients; they are effectively trapped by our healthcare system to accept what is given by their insurance. We need to stand for what is right, and we need to start now. Change is slow, but hope is already spreading.

There’s a familiar myth in American politics: that of the no-nonsense business leader who cuts through red tape and gets results. It fuels the belief that running a country is just like running a company—and that executives, with their boardroom instincts and bottom-line mindset, are exactly what government needs.

But that myth collapses under the weight of what corporate leadership has actually become—and what happens when it migrates into public office.

Economist William Lazonick has spent decades analyzing that transformation. He argues that corporate America has abandoned its commitment to innovation and productive investment, replacing it with a laser focus on cost-cutting, price gouging, and tax dodging to boost profits so they can do more stock buybacks—all in the name of maximizing shareholder value. Most executives are no longer rewarded for building durable businesses or contributing to the real economy—they’re rewarded for how efficiently they extract value from the companies that they control.

We’re not just talking about fragile companies. We’re talking about the erosion of public institutions, rising inequality, and a democracy that serves fewer and fewer people.

Lazonick calls this model a “scourge,” blaming it for weakening U.S. technological leadership, driving massive inequality, and destabilizing the broader economy. Now, he warns, this same extractive logic is infiltrating the federal government.

The ongoing 2025 budget debates are a case in point. Under the guise of “efficiency” and “fiscal responsibility,” the Trump administration has proposed slashing $163 billion from federal spending—cuts that would gut education, housing, and medical research—all of which are essential for value creation. The language mirrors what executives have long used to justify layoffs, offshoring, and disinvestment. But in this case, it’s not a corporation being hollowed out. It’s the state itself.

Lazonick argues that this shouldn’t surprise anyone. “Because these people have gotten away with looting corporations, they’ve come to believe it’s their right to loot the state,” he says. Even among tech figures who’ve built or have led the building of real products—like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg—Lazonick notes a mindset of entitlement: “They treat the resulting wealth as entirely their own, as if they alone earned it.” That thinking now shapes public policy, where deregulation and budget cuts benefit the wealthy while dismantling protections for workers and consumers.

Take Musk, for example. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), he’s worked to weaken regulatory agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board—both of which would typically oversee parts of his business empire. At the same time, his companies continue securing massive federal contracts, including a potential $2 billion FAA deal, raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest. As Lazonick and colleague Matt Hopkins argue in a recent piece for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Musk has advanced through a “perilous system of corporate governance” driven by shareholder primacy—fueling inequality and eroding America’s technological leadership. His tenure at DOGE is simply more of the same: dismantling oversight, channeling public resources into private ventures, and treating government as just another asset to extract.

Musk’s corporate empire—Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink—owes much of its success to taxpayer-funded research and government support. Tesla was launched with the help of federal loans and electric vehicle subsidies. SpaceX builds on decades of NASA-funded R&D and now depends on billion-dollar public contracts. Even Neuralink draws heavily on publicly funded neuroscience work. Despite the mythology of private-sector genius, these companies are deeply rooted in public investment. Yet the public sees little return.

And the mindset isn’t limited to Musk. President Donald Trump and his family are taking the corporate model Lazonick describes to new heights, using government as a platform for private enrichment. Eric Trump recently promoted the family’s latest crypto venture, making the president a major crypto player while shaping federal policy toward that very industry. The Trump family’s 60% stake in World Liberty Financial, now attracting major investment, has intensified concerns over conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, under Eric’s leadership, the Trump Organization has struck a controversial $5.5 billion deal with a Qatari state firm to build a luxury golf resort—despite Trump’s previous pledge to avoid foreign deals while in office.

Trump has also issued executive orders to “streamline” federal procurement and contract reviews. While marketed as anti-waste measures, critics see them as a backdoor for directing government business to favored contractors, including those with family ties. The line between public service and private gain has rarely been thinner.

Lazonick warns that the stakes are high. When corporations prioritize shareholder payouts over real investment, society loses—but when governments adopt the same model, the consequences are compounded. We’re not just talking about fragile companies. We’re talking about the erosion of public institutions, rising inequality, and a democracy that serves fewer and fewer people.

To reverse course, Lazonick argues we need deep structural reform in how corporations—and by extension, governments—operate. That means banning stock buybacks; reining in executive compensation tied to manipulated stock performance; and reinvesting profits in innovation, workers, and communities. It means embracing a stakeholder model of governance that sees corporations not just as wealth machines, but as stewards of social value.

Because if we don’t fix these systemic flaws, the looting won’t stop. It’ll only deepen—and spread.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how the Trump administration has been using television, social media, and AI-generated digital graphics to advance its policies. This particular thought experiment started when my friend and I were watching the evening news. There was Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem prancing triumphantly in front of detainees in the CECOT concentration camp in El Salvador where Venezuelan immigrants had been deported. Noem was dressed to kill for the occasion with a designer outfit and a $50,000 Rolex watch. The dynamics of the event were telling. She scolded the detainees like they were 10-year olds caught smoking and, curiously, she did not target gang activity but rather illegal immigration as the cause of their plight.

The prisoners (mostly men) were naked from the waist up, packed into tiny cells, and looked like caged animals. While viewing this quasi-surreal and clearly staged event, my friend turned to me and said: “It looks like Auschwitz.” I will have to say that the unquestionable dehumanization in this image still haunts me. This spectacle alone should’ve struck some variant of fear and loathing into the minds and hearts of every American about how aspects of the immigration crisis are being handled.

Political dialogue has now largely shifted from a platform of reasoned discourse to battles of digital imagery and “optics.”

Thankfully some media pundits got the message. But, in some cases, they appeared more focused on Noem’s watch than the evocative images of dehumanizing treatment. One commenter writing in USA Today looking to win the “too much information” award noted: “The watch that she wears in the video was identified as an 18-karat gold Rolex Cosmograph Daytona, as first reported by The Washington Post, and reportedly sells for $50,000.” Good to know. The writer went on to say that “except for President Donald Trump, presidents in recent decades have opted for more modest timepieces to avoid being labeled as elitist, according to The New York Times. For example, President Joe Biden was criticized by conservative media for wearing a $7,000 watch to his inauguration.” Also good to know. Eventually, however, the writer did feel compelled to point out that “the juxtaposition of Noem’s luxury accessory and her setting was noted by critics and human rights groups.”

The Power of the Viral Photo Op

The Noem footage appeared to be little more than a calculated video-based photo op. It was apparently designed to demonstrate that the Trump administration was fulfilling its campaign promise to deal with the immigration problem. But it made me think of a larger trend. It seems that, thanks to the pervasiveness of our “global village” and how easily digital tech can be used to shape our collective thinking, political dialogue has now largely shifted from a platform of reasoned discourse to battles of digital imagery and “optics.” The poet Robert Bly has pointed out that, cognitively speaking, television images bypass the parts of the brain involved in rational processing and nest comfortably in the so-called reptile brain where raw emotion dwells, a phenomenon well understood by the advertising industry. The political analysis of Trump’s actions that surfaces in the mainstream media needs to take his admittedly skillful media manipulation into far more serious account.

To understand Trump’s control of the media (and hence the typical voter mindset) it’s helpful to look at the work of the French media theorist Guy Debord. In The Society of the Spectacle, Debord addresses the media-induced degradation of contemporary life where authentic social interactions have been replaced with their mere representation. He posits that “passive identification with the spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Here it’s worth noting that Debord was writing this well before the advent of the internet, which added yet another layer to the commodification of societal and political interaction.

The Spectacle of the “Imperial Presidency”

It was the media theorist and prophetic thinker Marshall McLuhan who pioneered the concept of the global village in the 60’s. Decades later, heightened media awareness expanded even more, wrought by a combination of television, the internet, social media, and telecommunications technologies which some refer to as the New Media. This new mediasphere has radically altered our collective awareness while subtly shaping the underpinnings of political dynamics. Its effects on polity and political outcomes are incalculable. While television viewership has been declining for some time, the images generated by television often become viral social media fodder in a kind of endless feedback loop. So, in this sense, television is still a force majeure in our perceptions of accelerating world events.

The televised debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960 has been cited as a political milestone. For the first time in history, the televised image may have helped elect a president. The election of a former television actor, Ronald Reagan, continued on this trajectory. An article by Matthew Wills framed it this way:

“Politics in the United States has always been a performance art,” writes Tim Raphael in his analysis of the branding and image-crafting that now dominate our political system. Throughout his eight years as president, Ronald Reagan had much more positive poll numbers (60-70%) as a person than did his actual policies (40%). Raphael attributes Reagan’s success to the potent combination of advertising, public relations, and a television in every home. (There were 14,000 TVs in America in 1947; by 1954, 32 million; by 1962, 90% of American homes plugged in.)

If Reagan plowed this territory, then Donald Trump, with his many years of experience as a Reality TV star, turned it into an art form. Trump learned to use the media to advance what historian Arthur Schlesinger called “the imperial presidency.” The New Media, in combination with the trajectory of politics as “performance art,” has accelerated this process significantly. As just one example of many, one of Trump’s recent media plays has been to allow television coverage of a two-hour Cabinet meeting. Given in historical terms that this is an unprecedented event, it seems important to ask: Where does what appears to be or is sold as “transparency” cross the line into being mere performative optics? And while the Biden presidency was characterized by Oz-like behind-the-scenes operation in terms of press conferences, speeches, and media events, Trump is quite the opposite. Many of his visits with foreign leaders are attended by the media, staged, and televised. In this sense, while there is nominally more transparency there is also the deliberate use of optics for political advantage.

It’s likely that the meme fodder of Donald Trump’s imperial presidency will only increase in frequency and intensity. This media saturation has a purpose: It creates displacement sucking up available bandwidth in both the media and our own cognitive processing. “All Trump, all the time” is a familiar trope that we will somehow have to learn to live with and correct for. Back in the day, you could spot the occasional bumper sticker that said: “Kill your television.” On one level at least, there was a certain wisdom to that. But the advent of full-blown technocracy now makes it very difficult to turn away from a kind of forced participation in the now all-pervasive digital mediasphere.

Dear Little One,

I do not know your government name. But I know what my government wants to name you. Criminal. Terrorist. Problem. A threat to national security. Better off dead. Everything they’re naming your father: Mahmoud Khalil. Everything except a precious child of God, which you are.

When I heard two plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents abducted your father for protesting the genocide in Gaza, I trembled. When I found out he was captured at Columbia University, where I teach, right in front of your mother, Noor, who had been carrying you in her womb for eight turbulent months, my chest sank into my stomach.

I have not stopped thinking of you since. Your heart has been beating on the door of my conscience.

I’m here to tell you, Little One, that the world is yours. All of it. Not because you have the right to own the Earth, but because you have a responsibility to steward its survival and splendor.

I’m embarrassed to admit that I was surprised your father was taken. I’m the child of persecuted people who were kidnapped, locked in chains, and ripped away from their families by the founders of this country. I know America became the most powerful nation on Earth by seizing the labor of Black folks and the land of Indigenous people. I also know that Columbia, where your father helped lead the student protests, was never an institution that values freedom—academic or otherwise. It is a gatekeeper of the U.S. empire and the largest real estate owner in New York City.

That’s why I won’t belabor what the circumstances of your birth already prove. Fascism is here. It is criminal to learn. Telling the truth can get you doxxed, locked up, or kicked out of the country. Nobody is safe.

I wish this were not the case. I wish I could write to you about the beauty of the Earth without the brutality of its inhabitants. I wish I could show you the majesty of the Amazon, the Earth’s largest rainforest, without the greedy CEOs that have remade it into a commodity. I wish I could describe the sound and smell of Baltimore, Miami, and St. Louis without the pop! of a cop’s gun or the stench of a homeless woman languishing on the street.

I wish I could paint you a picture of your people, the Palestinian people, without barren olive trees, countless checkpoints, shopping malls built atop graves, and a 25-miles-long open-air prison where over 50,000 Palestinians, including nearly 16,000 children, have been slaughtered by the Israeli military. I wish I could read you a story without the cries of a mother and her baby buried beneath rubble.

But I’m afraid that the writing is on the wall, Little One. And the wall—whether snaking through Palestine or enclosing the borders and prisons of America—is stained with blood and wrapped in barbed wire.

I do not mean to frighten you. Only to share what you need to know to survive. Not just your little limbs and endearing eyes, but your precious heart. For those who think they hate you will attack your inner life. Do not be complicit. We can only lose if we surrender the sword of truth and the shield of self-regard. So guard your heart. Reject bitterness and hatred. Heartbreak is better than having no heart at all.

The truth is: It is themselves they fail to love. And this is but one symptom of the sickness we bear today. The decay of moral life, the death of the human spirit.

But all is not lost. The miracle of this moment is that even genocide cannot exterminate our will to live, nor the love that endures through the pain. This is what makes you profoundly dangerous to the powers that be, although you have yet to take your first step or mumble your first word. For you are proof of irrepressible life.

A new world is not waiting to be born. It is here!

I caught a glimpse of its beauty at Columbia’s encampment. Sprawled between sleeping bags was a makeshift library, medical clinic, food stations, art murals, music circles, and signs that read “Stop Funding Genocide” and “Jews for Free Palestine.” Muslim students held Jummah while Jewish students observed Seder and Christians organized Sunday service. Professors and organizers co-led teach-ins on global politics and the history of student activism as kids flew kites and police helicopters hovered above.

There was no fee to learn or break bread or receive medical support. The only debt we accrued is the love and care we owe to one another. The encampment was education (and life!) at its best. Not because it was perfect. It wasn’t. But because it modeled what it means for a multiracial and multifaith community to learn how to live together and support each other.

Some will try to convince you that opponents of genocide are champions of hate. Don’t be fooled by their lies. Their efforts to defame your father and all those acting with moral courage reveal who they are, not you.

James Baldwin, who came of age not far from where your father was abducted, knew this better than any writer I’ve read. In 1963, just a few months before four Klu Klux Klan members bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, brutally murdering four black girls during Sunday school, he penned a letter to his teenage nephew, James. “I said that it was intended that you should perish in the ghetto, perish by never being allowed to go behind the white man’s definitions, by never being allowed to spell your proper name.”

Little One, know this. The world will try to define you by your zip code, skin color, religious tradition, and native tongue. And some will try to make you feel small and worthless. But identity is a birthright, not a birthmark. Your right, and responsibility, is to decide who you will grow up to be.

I pray you grow strong and beautiful. I pray you grow to be curious and committed to something bigger than yourself. I pray you cherish life, even when it hurts. I pray you and your father laugh together beneath the shade of olive trees. I pray you and your mother dance until the stars shimmer. I pray you reap the fruits of their labor, and all of us who sow seeds of freedom on this wretched Earth. I pray you fight so that, one day, no child will become a martyr. I pray you always believe another world is possible. And that—even beneath the shadow of death—there is beauty in the struggle.

When I found out you were born, I felt a mixture of fury, relief, and joy. I hate that your father is trapped in a cage in Louisiana, over 1,400 miles away, as your mother brought you into this world in New York City. I hate that this government kept him from holding her hand and hearing your very first cry. I wept at the idea of you weeping without his tender touch and wonderstruck eyes.

And yet, I thank God you entered History’s gates at such a time as this. I know that may sound strange, even cruel. If we do not change course, by the time you’re able to read this letter, Miami might drown; the Amazon may be no more; and another generation of Palestinian children will have grown up beneath war-torn skies. This is not the world any child should inherit, or any adult should have to endure.

But, alas, here you are. And I’m here to tell you, Little One, that the world is yours. All of it. Not because you have the right to own the Earth, but because you have a responsibility to steward its survival and splendor.

The sunset is yours to cherish. The evergreen is yours to tend and explore. Children are yours to raise, teach, and protect. Elders are yours to learn from and look after. Walls are yours to tear down. Wars are yours to end. Secrets are yours to keep. Ancestors are yours to grieve, honor, and avenge. Your parents are yours to love. And you, you are ours to keep! We belong to each other.

Please know that you are loved. And that, with love, we will fight for your life, and for your father’s life, and for every and all life—to the death.

Sumud and Salām,

nyle

In the shadows of immigration raids, bipartisan backing for what many now call thea U.S.-Israeli genocide in Gaza, campus crackdowns, and detention centers holding even lawful permanent residents, a new reality is emerging: digital footprints now determine your fate—and political dissent is punished more swiftly than violence.

Hannah and Aurélien once believed in the American dream. But they left in protest of what they came to see as the American nightmare. In an age of always-on surveillance and algorithmic profiling, dissent is no longer about what you do—it's about what you signal. And for many, what you signal online can determine whether you're allowed or welcome to stay.

The same platforms exposing Israel's genocide and humanitarian crisis in Gaza are also turning social networks into risks—where silence can sting, but speaking out can cost jobs, visas, friends, or even safety.

For Aurélien, the rupture came online. Palestinian sources from inside Gaza pierced through sanitized media narratives—a moment Palestinian writer Kareem Haddad calls the "Instafada"—revealing a silence among institutions and friends he could no longer ignore.

For Hannah, it was her mosque's muted response to the Israeli assault on Gaza that cut deepest.

The Double-Edged Sword of Surveillance and Awakening

The same platforms that once promised democratized speech—Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook—have become instruments of surveillance, not just for the state but within social ecosystems. Posts are scraped, likes archived, retweets scrutinized—by immigration officials, employers, colleagues, friends, and communities. A person's digital presence is now not just expression, but liability.

Yet, it is also where many—like Aurélien—first encountered narratives that shattered their illusions of American and Israeli exceptionalism.

Aurélien, a French national in his 30s, spent over a decade in New York, climbing the ranks of corporate finance—from investment banking to high-growth startups. He was poised for U.S. citizenship, embedded in a network of cosmopolitan professionals and close-knit friends. By every traditional measure, he had made it.

In this way, technology plays both villain and whistleblower: exposing the violence of the empire while empowering it to identify, isolate, and expel dissidents.

But beneath the surface, cracks formed. The work felt hollow. The wealth he generated—the systems he mastered—seemed built to serve power, not people. Then came October 7, 2023, and the illusion collapsed.

Aurélien mourned the Israeli lives lost. He had Jewish friends, including his best friend Mike, who once took him in after a divorce. But as Israel's retaliatory campaign unfolded—broadcast by Palestinian sources online—his grief gave way to horror for Palestinians

"The narrative collapsed," he said. "The sanitized language of U.S. media didn't match what I was seeing: homes flattened, children killed, dehumanizing rhetoric from Israeli officials—all backed by the country I lived in and paid taxes to."

Friends and colleagues either looked away—or justified the violence with chilling indifference. At dinner parties, Palestinians were called "animals" and "low IQ." His workplace fundraised for Israel while parroting debunked atrocity claims.

Maintaining friendships became impossible: "If my friendship depends on me staying silent about genocide, then it's not a friendship worth having."

"People around me seemed to be moving on," he said. "I was waking up to horrifying images every day. I couldn't look away. I was struggling with work and genocide balance."

He began speaking out online, debating, and diving into history—especially through Jewish scholars like Ilan Pappé, Norman Finkelstein, and Judith Butler. Their insights helped him understand the violence—but it cost him. Colleagues drifted away. Friends cut ties.

Raised Catholic, Aurélien had always believed hatred could never be the answer. Amid escalating brutality, he recalled early lessons: "When Jesus instructed us to forgo retaliation for personal offenses and turn the other cheek instead, and the importance of forgiveness—as he forgave even those who betrayed and crucified him."

He describes experiencing "some sort of spiritual awakening." Career success, financial security, social acceptance—all lost their meaning. "I felt complicit of genocide with every paycheck, and my life did not make sense any longer," he said. "I craved a community that would share my indignation and with whom I could process it all."

For Aurélien, injustice wasn't abstract. It was unbearable: "I wanted to quit everything in protest of this world going rogue and normalizing genocide," he said. "I wanted to feel proud of myself again."

The language of profit no longer made sense. He saw how the same logic justifying market efficiencies—data, prediction, performance—also justified militarism and suppressed dissent.

"I realized I wasn't just living in a country that supported genocide," he said. "I was part of the machinery. That's what broke me."

Aurélien quit his job, sold his belongings, and set sail for France. A storm wrecked his boat mid-crossing—but his course was already set. Back home, he lives more modestly, closer to family, and more aligned with his conscience.

Though France's foreign policy often mirrors the U.S., Aurélien found something he had lost: community.

"It remains a tough time," he says of the French left's struggle. "We certainly feel the rise of fascism here too. Many on the left are exhausted, while morale is very high on the far-right."

Yet despite France's contradictions, he found breathing room: a tradition of dissent. He points to Charles de Gaulle's condemnation of Israel's 1967 occupation and former President Jacques Chirac's refusal to join the Iraq War as signs of a political culture where dissent had deeper roots.

"The French resistance is certainly stronger than in the U.S., where both Democrats and Republicans are genocide supporters," he said.

Even now, Aurélien remains critical—calling French President Emmanuel Macron's Gaza response "lip service"—but he sees a society where speaking out still feels possible.

Aurélien joined La France Insoumise, one of the few major parties to openly support Palestinian rights. He no longer feels isolated.

According to a January 26, 2024, Palestine Chronicle analysis, unlike the U.S., France has shown signs of political recalibration: criticizing the Gaza war, sending humanitarian aid, and refusing to join U.S.-led retaliation against Yemen's Ansarallah.

Driven more by geopolitics than morality, this shift has nonetheless opened new space for dissent.

"For me, leaving was not an escape," Aurélien says. "It was a moral necessity."

Now, he has traded Wall Street deadlines for slower mornings at home, reconnecting with family, rebuilding old friendships, and living a "more modest lifestyle" focused on meaning, not metrics.

"There's still a lot of uncertainty in this new chapter," he says, "but I've never regretted the decision."

His career has transformed. In New York, he made $20,000 a month; now, he hopes to make between $1,500 and $5,000—a trade-off he embraces. Rather than finance, he dreams of teaching ethics. It's a slower, less certain road, but one that feels right.

In this way, technology plays both villain and whistleblower: exposing the violence of the empire while empowering it to identify, isolate, and expel dissidents. But exile doesn't always begin with the state. For Hannah and Aurélien, rejection started closer to home. Their own communities—religious, professional, social—turned against them for refusing to go along with the prevailing status quo.

When Community Becomes a Gatekeeper of Dissent

If Aurélien's disillusionment unfolded in the secular spaces of finance, Hannah's rupture came in a place she once held sacred: her religious community. He faced alienation in boardrooms and dinner parties; she faced it in prayer halls and community WhatsApp groups, where she once hoped to mobilize support for Palestine.

For 17 years, Hannah built a life in Virginia rooted in faith, education, and service. As a longtime Islamic studies teacher at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), one of the largest Muslim institutions in the country, she devoted herself to nurturing youth and upholding the values she believed Islam demanded most: justice, compassion, and accountability.

When Israel's assault on Gaza began in October 2023, Hannah was overwhelmed by what she saw online: bloodied children, entire families erased.

There is no clear communal mechanism for Muslims to report discrimination for political speech when it comes from within their own institutions.

In February 2024, she learned that ADAMS Beat—a children's choir affiliated with her mosque—was scheduled to perform the U.S. national anthem at a Washington Wizards game. To her, it felt tone-deaf: a public gesture of allegiance to the government funding what she views as genocide. She emailed the Board of Trustees questioning the optics. The board denied institutional involvement, but public posts describe the group as a "masjid youth choir." Hannah pressed further.

Three weeks later, she was fired.

The HR email cited defamation and derogatory remarks about ADAMS and its imam on social media. Stunned, Hannah asked for evidence. None was provided in the board's emails to her, copies of which were reviewed. A longtime community volunteer—whose name is being withheld to avoid reprisal—also sent a email to ADAMS leadership criticizing the opaque process and urging a fair investigation into Hannah's firing. Still, on April 5, Hannah received a formal termination letter. The accusations had grown: harassment, intimidation, and violation of the organization's code of ethics.

Still seeking answers, Hannah appealed directly to ADAMS leadership—including Imam Mohamed Magid, the mosque's religious director for over 25 years and one of the most influential Muslim figures in American interfaith and policy circles.

When her efforts were met with silence, she turned to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the U.S. On May 17, 2024, she filed a formal complaint alleging that she had been terminated in retaliation for her pro-Palestinian views and advocacy. Less than two weeks later, CAIR declined to take up her case, citing limited resources and internal prioritization protocols.

In October 2023, journalist Angelina Chapin, writing for The Cut, reported that CAIR offices across the country were overwhelmed by a surge in discrimination complaints related to pro-Palestinian advocacy. Zainab Chaudry, director of CAIR's Maryland chapter, described the crisis bluntly: She and her colleagues were working 18-hour days just to keep up with the flood of cases. The volume, Chaudry said, was "unprecedented."

But to Hannah, the rejection felt like more than bureaucratic triage. By then, she was asking deeper questions—not just about her firing, but about Imam Magid's deep involvement in policymaking circles and interfaith partnerships with groups critics identify as central to the "Islamophobia industry." These institutions support anti-Muslim rhetoric and legislation, and shape policies that criminalize Muslim political expression.

Her complaint, she realized, wasn't only about her own case—it touched a nerve running through the broader Muslim nonprofit landscape. The more she looked, the more she saw how figures like Magid had become key intermediaries between Muslim communities and state power—operating in spaces shaped by surveillance programs, interfaith "diplomacy," and lobbying efforts sympathetic to Israel.

Magid is with the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council (MJAC), a program of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), one of the most influential pro-Israel advocacy groups in the country. AJC has championed bipartisan legislation critics argue conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, effectively criminalizing Palestinian solidarity and silencing dissent. They have spearheaded the same efforts at the United Nations. Magid also played a central role in the Obama-era Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative—a program widely denounced by civil liberties advocates, including CAIR itself, for disproportionately targeting Muslims and embedding law enforcement into community spaces.

In 2017, CAIR mapped CVE's ecosystem of surveillance and profiling—a network in which Magid himself has played a legitimizing role as chairman of Muflehun. AJC's 2022 990 filing lists Muflehun as a grant recipient. Yet by 2022, CAIR publicly praised his appointment to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), calling his interfaith and humanitarian work "stellar" and his leadership "a valuable asset."

"How can the same organization that documents how Muslims are being criminalized," Hannah asked, "turn around and praise someone who helped build the partnerships that enable it?"

She began sharing what she found in community WhatsApp groups: AJC's record on Palestine, CVE's impact on Muslims. She urged fellow congregants to ask questions and called for a public town hall where Magid could explain his affiliations and engage with those troubled by them.

The calls went unanswered.

Former allies and friends distanced themselves. Leadership ignored her. And within the community she had served for nearly two decades, few were willing to risk being seen as divisive by joining her.

A Gap in CAIR's 2024 Civil Rights Report?

CAIR's 2024 Civil Rights Report recorded 1,201 employment discrimination complaints in 2023—a dramatic surge tied to pro-Palestinian speech and what the report called the "targeted suppression of political expression." But all these cases involved external actors: employers, universities, and government agencies.

Hannah's case is different—and absent. She was fired by a Muslim institution for pro-Palestinian advocacy. This form of intra-communal retaliation remains largely undocumented—and unaddressed.

There is no clear communal mechanism for Muslims to report discrimination for political speech when it comes from within their own institutions. Few attempt to file such complaints—not because the harm is less real, but because organizations like CAIR are viewed as vital defenses against far greater external threats: state surveillance, criminalization, and structural Islamophobia. Speaking out against a mosque or Muslim nonprofits often isn't just discouraged—it's often seen as disloyal within parts of the community.

If Muslim nonprofits are committed to shielding their communities from surveillance and repression, shouldn't they also educate them about how certain interfaith and government alliances may reinforce—rather than dismantle—those very same systems of control?

As part of reporting this story, CAIR was asked: How does CAIR handle intra-community disputes—especially those involving powerful Muslim institutions? Has CAIR received other complaints of retaliation by Muslim leaders or organizations since October 7, 2023?

As of publication, CAIR, ADAMS Center, and Imam Magid have not responded to requests for comment.

This points to a deeper problem: There is no watchdog for Muslim nonprofits, no infrastructure to address communal harm when it's inflicted from within. Even the most established civil rights groups remain silent or inaccessible when the power lies with institutional leaders—especially those embedded in interfaith, nonprofit, or government-linked spaces—rather than with overtly hostile external forces.

While a few dissenting voices have raised alarms, their reach remains limited—even when those individuals are respected within their communities.

In his detailed critique, Muslim scholar Hatem Bazian illustrates this clearly. His article holds the AJC accountable for its long-standing role in legitimizing Islamophobic figures and discourses, and sees MJAC as a public relations buffer for an organization deeply embedded in the Islamophobia industry.

However, this scrutiny still focuses overwhelmingly on external actors, rarely turning inward to examine the role that some Muslim leaders and institutions play in enabling, partnering with, or legitimizing these very forces.

This raises urgent questions: If Muslim nonprofits are committed to shielding their communities from surveillance and repression, shouldn't they also educate them about how certain interfaith and government alliances may reinforce—rather than dismantle—those very same systems of control?

Organizations like American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) have made some effort to fill this gap—publishing in-depth guides that name problematic partnerships and offer criteria for navigating interfaith engagement. CAIR has done the same, as have others. But these resources often circulate within activist circles without broad distribution. There is an absence of systematic education on these topics and community-wide transparency.

As Hannah's case shows, when individuals question the legitimacy of these entanglements, they're often isolated—not protected—even by the institutions ostensibly built to defend them—the very institutions that issue civil rights reports.

Access at the Cost of Accountability

In many Muslim nonprofits, access has become currency—to political platforms, interfaith grants, philanthropic dollars, and elite partnerships. Within that framework, figures like Magid become indispensable.

For Hannah, this realization came slowly. Over time, she saw the issue wasn't just Magid himself. It was the broader institutional ecosystem that surrounds him. In that system, a figure like Magid isn't just influential—he is essential. His name opens doors.

If you question the institution, you may lose your job. If you question its leadership, you may lose your place in the community. If you go public, you may be seen as a threat to communal unity.

An AI image shared widely in community WhatsApp groups.

"There's a cost to speaking out," said one former ADAMS volunteer, who requested anonymity. "You don't just lose your position—you lose your place. You're seen as disloyal. Even if what you're saying is true."

This dynamic is not unique to ADAMS. During Friday prayers on April 18, 2025, Masjid As-Sabireen in Sugar Land, Texas, hosted mayoral candidate Naushad Kermally—a figure many local pro-Palestinian activists accuse of being a "Zionist normalizer." During jummah, when an 11-year-old child heckled Kermally near the end of his speech, the boy was reportedly threatened with arrest by an unelected influential community member.

In the same incident, a Muslim woman, Amina Ishaq, was handcuffed by off-duty officers overseeing security and parking after she protested the platform given to Kermally outside the prayer hall. According to reports, mosque leaders allegedly instructed the officers to remove her—a decision that sparked widespread outrage across the Sugar Land and greater Houston Muslim community and beyond.

Amina Ishaq (in yellow) protests.

A petition soon followed, demanding public apologies, resignations, and a formal pro-Palestinian policy from the Islamic Society of Greater Houston (ISGH), one of the largest Muslim organizations in the United States, overseeing 21 mosques.

"Threatening arrest and intimidation of a child are the direct tactics of Israeli Defense Forces," the petition reads.

Masjid As-Sabireen has since stated it is reviewing the incident. But the silence and initial willingness to enforce arrest and removal highlight how dissent is increasingly criminalized—not by external actors, but within the very institutions meant to safeguard the community. The day after the protest, Sabireen leadership posted "No Protest" signs on the property, further deepening the community's sense of betrayal.

An image of a no protest sign at the mosque was shared widely by the community.

These tensions—between access and accountability, dissent and discipline—are no longer isolated to one mosque or one city. They reveal a deeper fracture across Muslim communal life in the U.S., where dissent over Palestine can provoke institutional backlash.

It's within this fractured landscape that Hannah's story unfolded.

With no organizational support, no forum for resolution, and nowhere left to turn, she made the painful decision to leave the country she once called home. She had no job waiting, no extended family in Turkey—unlike Aurélien, who returned to a familiar home in France. Hannah sought a place where her values wouldn't put her at odds with her own community. Her departure won't appear in any official count, but it reflects a growing reality—people quietly escaping moral compromises they can no longer make at home.

Just as Hannah walked away from a religious institution that betrayed its ideals, Aurélien left a system that equated success with virtue. From different worlds, both were moved by the same force: a conviction that conscience demands action—even at the cost of exile.

The Stirring of Political Emigration?

Hannah's and Aurélien's departures may be anecdotal, but they're not isolated. They hint at a deeper undercurrent—one harder to trace, but increasingly difficult to ignore.

There is no official data tracking how many people are leaving the U.S. for political reasons. These exits are largely invisible—there's no departure form, no exit interview, and no system that logs political dissent. While the U.S. monitors noncitizens for visa compliance, it does not track their motives for leaving. The only indicators come from destination countries, tax filings, or voluntary surveys—none capturing political intent with any real accuracy.

Occasionally, high-profile cases reported in the media offer rare glimpses into a possible but largely unquantified trend. Momodou Taal, a dual citizen of the U.K. and the Gambia and a Cornell University student, left the country after ICE ordered him to surrender, citing fear for his safety. Ranjani Srinivasan, a PhD scholar at Columbia University, fled to Canada, seeking refuge with friends and family after expressing support for Palestine on social media. While these two saw the warning signs and managed to leave, others were not so fortunate. Some were arrested after their student visas were revoked, then relocated far from their communities—often to detention facilities in Louisiana. Mahmoud Khalil, married to a Palestinian American, is among the most widely reported cases. Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish student at Tufts University, remains in custody after co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed. Her legal team continues to fight for her release.

In the wake of Gaza, AI surveillance, and rising speech crackdowns, we may be witnessing the early stirrings of a new chapter—not of people arriving to seek protection, but of people quietly leaving to find it.

However, not everyone can leave. Many are here—with families, careers, and lives that cannot easily be uprooted. For Khalil, a descendant of Nakba survivors, leaving is not an option; he is effectively stateless. Fighting back through the legal system becomes the only path forward.

While the cases of Hannah, Aurélien, Taal, and Srinivasan cannot on their own prove the stirring of a larger political departures, they are nonetheless striking. They begin to suggest an emerging pattern. Historically, moments of political repression or upheaval in the U.S. have triggered outward migration, even if such movements were not immediately visible through official data. Today's landscape may well echo that trend. We cannot yet quantify it, but we can begin to recognize its outlines.

Civil rights organizations like Palestine Legal and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) report a sharp uptick in inquiries from immigrants, visa holders, and even lawful residents—all expressing fear that their pro-Palestinian speech could lead to surveillance, job loss, or deportation.

In this climate, political expression in support of Palestine is becoming increasingly incriminating. Digital speech is no longer just monitored; it's flagged—and increasingly weaponized as justification for expulsion.

Though rarely labeled as such, political migration has long been part of the American story—from Vietnam War resisters who fled to Canada, to Black radicals escaping FBI persecution during the Cold War, to post-9/11 Muslim immigrants targeted by surveillance. Scholars like Professor Sundari Anitha (University of Sheffield) and Professor Ruth Pearson (University of Leeds) define political migrants as those who are forced to leave their home countries due to policies that target particular groups or punish dissent.

By this definition, a quieter form of political migration may now be unfolding within the U.S. In the wake of Gaza, AI surveillance, and rising speech crackdowns, we may be witnessing the early stirrings of a new chapter—not of people arriving to seek protection, but of people quietly leaving to find it.

The table below outlines these historical waves of political departures. Though no comprehensive data exists yet for this current chapter—what we may call the Gaza Genocide Era—the warning signs are already flashing: revoked visas, job terminations, silent departures.

Fleeing Empire: From Vietnam to Gaza

This table highlights major moments in U.S. history when individuals fled political persecution, repression, or fear.

Event

Estimated Scale

Impact and Legacy

Vietnam War (1960s–70s)

50,000–60,000 draft resisters (up to 125,000 by some estimates)

Many resettled permanently in Canada; Carter's 1977 amnesty allowed some to return.

Civil Rights / Cold War (1950s–60s)

A few hundred to low thousands (notable individuals)

Figures like W.E.B. Du Bois and Black Panthers sought refuge abroad, challenging U.S. racial and political repression.

Post-9/11 War on Terror (2000s)

200–400 U.S. military deserters to Canada; thousands of Muslim immigrants sought asylum

War resisters fled renewed U.S. militarism; NSEERS profiling triggered mass Muslim departures.

1st Trump Presidency (2017–2021)

Record 16% of Americans (50 million) considered leaving; 10,000 emigrated to Canada in 2017

Political fear spiked post-2016; citizenship and emigration interest surged, but follow-through was limited.

Punishing Dissent Against Israel (2023–2025)

No firm data yet; 1,700+ student visas revoked; anecdotal exits

Growing repression of pro-Palestinian speech; silent departures, surveillance, and workplace firings signal a new McCarthy-era climate.

From COINTELPRO to Clicks: Tracking Dissent

In the past, political dissent meant being physically tracked—your presence at meetings, your associations, your affiliations. Surveillance required labor, attention, and manual documentation.

Today, your digital trail does that work automatically.

A single post, message, or tweet can now trigger consequences—from the government, employers, schools, and even your own community. Where the state once had to watch you, now it only needs to read you.

This is the shift: surveillance that is ambient, invisible, and always-on.

Like Muslims, Jewish Dissenters Are Paying a Similar Price for Speaking Out

Hannah's dismissal from a prominent Muslim institution for her anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian advocacy echoes a widening pattern across American Jewish spaces, where even mild dissent is increasingly met with censure.

A 2024 In These Times investigation by journalist Shane Burley documents how synagogues, Jewish schools, and nonprofits have removed anti-Zionist Jewish staff—sometimes for even minor expressions of Palestinian solidarity.

But while the outcomes may appear similar, the internal dynamics differ.

The parallels raise a deeper question: When institutional power, respectability politics, and funding all hinge on the suppression of Palestinian solidarity, who gets protected—and who gets cast out?

Jewish professionals have been speaking out—sometimes collectively, often at great personal cost. They launched petitions, published open letters, and challenged what one rabbi described as a "state of crisis." Even in progressive institutions, In These Times reported, employees were instructed not to wear clothing deemed political. "It is not normal," one dismissed staffer said, "for almost the entire Hebrew school team to quit mid-year." As the investigation concluded, "Support for Israel and its government's assault on Gaza appear to have become a defining feature of employability, and those Jewish professionals who are speaking out in solidarity with Palestinians are often finding themselves unemployed."

Hannah, by contrast, stood mostly alone. She had no institutional backing, no public defense from colleagues, and little recourse beyond a few emails. Those who advocated for her—even quietly—risked being sidelined themselves. And unlike the Jewish communal landscape—which includes more intra-community advocacy efforts and donor alternatives—few such support systems exist for dissenting Muslim Americans.

One group, however embattled, has access to some platforms. The other, fearing both internal backlash and external scrutiny in a a heightened surveillance reality, is largely forced into silence.

The parallels raise a deeper question: When institutional power, respectability politics, and funding all hinge on the suppression of Palestinian solidarity, who gets protected—and who gets cast out?

Unless institutions are willing to confront their own complicity, the cost of silence will not just fall on the dissenters—it will ultimately consume the communities themselves.

Under Siege: Why Communities Police their Own

The American Muslim and Palestinian communities are no strangers to surveillance, profiling, and collective punishment. But that very external pressure has often made it harder to name harm that comes from within. Unlike the Jewish communal ecosystem—which does have a few alternative advocacy organizations (IfNotNow, JVP), donor networks, and a better alternative organizing infrastructure, that can bring internal issues to light and offer an alternative—Muslim and Palestinian communities have fewer such channels. As a result, many community members remain silent about intra-communal betrayals for fear of fragmenting fragile communal bonds within.

This dynamic has come into sharp focus since October 7, 2023. While one high-profile case, involving ISGH, has surfaced, many others remain buried. Over the years—and especially since 9/11—educators, youth leaders, and community organizers within mosques and Muslim-led nonprofits have described retaliation for raising concerns about institutional complicity, government collaboration, or the silencing of Palestinian advocacy. But few go public. They fear being accused of "airing dirty laundry."

As sociologist Alice Goffman notes in On the Run, when communities live under constant surveillance and threat, internal conflicts often go underground. Similarly, scholar Megan Goodwin argues that minority faith communities often suppress grievances to project model citizenship.

If the price of speaking up is exile—not just from the country, but from your own people—then we must ask: What kind of community are we trying to save?

In contrast, Jewish institutions—despite their own complex dynamics—have a more robust internal public square. Progressive Jewish professionals, journalists, and rabbis who've been fired or marginalized for anti-Zionist views have been able to document, organize, and speak out collectively, as the In These Times investigation demonstrates. Their networks, from JVP to rabbinical circles—have created space for accountability, even when the broader communal infrastructure resists it.

Within Muslim communities, institutional gatekeepers often operate without accountability. Many organizations depend on relationships that, if jeopardized, can sever ties to influential community donors and donor networks. The political stakes are higher, the funding base more fragile and thinner, and the risk of being labeled divisive or "extremists" is always looming.

In the face of mounting marginalization, Muslim communities—and other minorities—have often drawn internal red lines aimed at preserving a sense of cohesion, even when those boundaries enforce silence around abuse or injustice. Since October 7, and particularly amid the intensifying crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy, those pressures have escalated, echoing the post-9/11 climate. But this time, many Muslim and Arab Americans are refusing to simply keep their heads down. Instead, they are asserting their rights and demanding justice—sparking an unprecedented wave of internal reckoning and communal self-examination.

This is the unspoken context behind Hannah's story. She is not alone—but she is one of the few who has spoken out.

The Exit Wound

If the price of speaking up is exile—not just from the country, but from your own people—then we must ask: What kind of community are we trying to save?

Across institutions once believed to be spaces of belonging—mosques, synagogues, nonprofits, boardrooms—people are learning that belonging is conditional.

Not on truth, but on obedience.

The crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech, bipartisan and accelerating, has made one thing clear: The cost of dissent has always been high. What's changed is how quickly that cost is enforced.

Hannah's story, Aurélien's departure, the courage of an 11-year-old boy, and Amina's protest at the mosque all point to the same truth: The real measure of any community or institution is not how it performs unity, but whether it has the courage to confront discomfort with integrity—and respond with reform, accountability, and a commitment to justice.

For those still inside—in their communities, in their country—the challenge now is endurance.

How do you preserve your voice inside communities that reward proximity to power over justice and truth?

One answer lies in building parallel spaces: small collectives and networks, spaces where solidarity, memory, and dissent can survive. They are fragile. They are imperfect. But they are vital.

Because if the institutions built to protect us now exist to contain us, the work ahead is not just resistance—it's reconstruction.

Every day brings a new story about the outsized role of private wealth in American politics. Elon Musk slashing and burning his way through federal agencies. Billionaire campaign donors like Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon running cabinet departments. Other Trump patrons reportedly shaping policy on everything from crypto to the Middle East. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, a small group of major donors is organizing to fund the party’s 2026 push to retake Congress.

And these are only the donors we know about.

The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision ushered in the era of “dark money” — ballooning campaign spending by groups that do not disclose their funding sources. Today the Brennan Center published a study by the journalist Anna Massoglia. She found that dark money groups spent almost $2 billion on the 2024 election, roughly double the total spent in 2020. And that’s the money Massoglia could identify — the real total is almost certainly higher, perhaps substantially so.

The term “dark money” as we use it refers to election spending by groups that are not legally required to — and do not — disclose their donors. Most of this spending would have been illegal before Citizens United, which eviscerated many long-standing limits on campaign money and led to the creation of super PACs, political organizations that can raise and spend unlimited money on campaigns.

Voters are deeply unhappy about the role of money in politics, but years of inaction to address this issue have also left them understandably cynical.

The justices got many things wrong in Citizens United. One of them was their assurance that all the new campaign spending they had just allowed would be transparent, allowing Americans to be fully informed about who was trying to influence their votes.

The justices seem not to have realized, however, that many of the new groups they were now permitting to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns were not subject to any disclosure rules. There have since been numerous efforts to fix this oversight and require all major campaign donors to be made public — most recently as part of the Freedom to Vote Act, which came within two votes of overcoming a Senate filibuster in 2022 — but none of those bills have made it through Congress.

Meanwhile, dark money in federal elections has continued to rise — and become even harder to trace. In the years immediately after Citizens United, groups that didn’t reveal their donors tended to purchase their own campaign ads, which were at least reported to the Federal Election Commission if they ran in the weeks before the election and were therefore fairly easy to track. Even if the source of the money was opaque, we could see the spending itself.

Now, as our new analysis shows, reported campaign ads account for just a tiny fraction of dark money spending. Most of it now goes directly into the coffers of super PACs, and some of it pays for online ads and early-cycle TV and radio ads not subject to any legally required disclosure. We are able to track down some of that money due to voluntary disclosures and research using services that monitor TV advertising, but our overall tally of dark money spent in 2024 is an undercount, possibly by a large margin.

Both Republicans and Democrats benefited from significant dark money support in 2024, but the majority of traceable dark money backed Democrats. Most of those funds went toward enormous spending in the presidential race — $1 out of every $6 in dark money that we can track was funneled to Future Forward, the super PAC backing Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris. Trump’s dark money support that we know about was not as high, although it still amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars (including more than $35 million that paid for apparent “false flag” ads in swing states designed to look like they came from Harris).

Ultimately, neither party will have any incentive to curb reliance on secret spending absent a change in the law. To congressional Democrats’ credit, they included a fix in the Freedom to Vote Act. It was among the most popular provisions in the bill, enjoying broad public support among voters from both parties.

Voters are deeply unhappy about the role of money in politics, but years of inaction to address this issue have also left them understandably cynical. Regaining Americans’ trust must include concrete steps to make it easier for them to hold political leaders accountable. Providing the transparency that even Citizens United promised 15 years ago would be a good place to start.

Trump is overplaying his hand.

Not just by usurping the powers of Congress and ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Not just abducting people who are legally in the United States but have put their name to opinion pieces Trump doesn’t like and trucking them off to “detention” facilities. Not just using the Justice Department for personal vengeance. Not just unilaterally deciding how much tariff tax American consumers will have to pay on almost everything they buy.

Polls show all these are tanking Trump’s popularity.

But one thing almost all Americans are firmly against — even many loyal Trumpers — us bribery. And Trump is taking bigger and bigger bribes.

It was reported over the weekend that he’s accepting a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane worth at least $400 million from the Qatari royal family, for use during his presidency and for his personal use afterward.

Trump just can’t resist. He’s been salivating over the plane for months. It’s bigger and newer than Air Force One — and so opulently configured that it’s known as “a flying palace.” (No report on whether it contains a golden toilet.)

Apparently he’s been talking about the plane for months. In February, he toured it while it was parked at Palm Beach International Airport.

He’s tried to redecorate the White House into a palace but that’s not nearly as satisfying as flying around the world in one, especially once he’s left the White House (assuming he will).

Attorney General Pam Bondi said it’s perfectly legal for him to accept such a bribe, er, gift.

Hello?

The U.S. Constitution clearly forbids officers of the United States from taking gifts from foreign governments. It’s called the “emoluments clause.” (See Article I, Section 9.)

Anyone viewing Bondi as a neutral judge of what’s legal and what’s not when it comes to Trump can’t be trusted to be a neutral judge of Bondi. Recall that she represented Trump in a criminal proceeding. Presumably he appointed her attorney general because he knew she’d do and say anything he wanted.

Oh, and she used to lobby for Qatar.

So, what does Qatar get in return for the $400 million plane? What’s the quid for the quo?

This week Trump takes the first overseas trip of his second presidency. He’ll land in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, followed by a visit to Qatar, and then to the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E).

That’s a big boost for Qatar right there.

Trump also just did what Qatar has been wanting done for years — announcing that the Persian Gulf (as it’s been known since at least 550 B.C.) will henceforth be known as the Arabian Gulf.

Trump’s company has just announced a new golf resort in Qatar, reportedly partnering with a company owned by the royal family.

Qatar is also pushing the Trump regime to lift sanctions on Syria.

The payback could be any number of things. The only certainty is that you and I and other Americans won’t necessarily benefit.

This week’s trip to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. is as much a personal business trip for Trump and his family businesses as a diplomatic trip.

Eric Trump, who officially runs the family business, has just announced plans for a Trump-branded hotel and tower in Dubai, part of the U.A.E.

The Trump family’s developments in the Middle East depend on a Saudi-based real estate company with close ties to the Saudi government. Saudi Arabia has a long list of pressing matters before the United States, including requests to buy F-35 fighter jets and gain access to nuclear power technology.

Trump’s family crypto firm, World Liberty Financial, announced that its so-called “stablecoin” — with Trump’s likeness all over it — will be used by the U.A.E. to make a $2 billion business deal with Binance, the largest crypto exchange in the world. The deal will generate hundreds of millions of dollars more for the Trump family.

I had assumed that Trump’s undoing would be his unquenchable thirst for power. It may yet be, but I’m beginning to think his insatiable greed will do him in. America’s Grifter-in-Chief knows no bounds.

Ancient oak trees rise above gigantic boulders scattered across a high desert mesa in Arizona’s Tonto National Forest. This is Oak Flat (Chi’ chil Bildagoteel), a sacred site for Native Americans, including the Western and San Carlos Apache. And like many other lands across the West, it’s under grave threat from multinational mining interests, all in the name of climate mitigation, but most importantly, for the money.

Oak Flat is as stunning as it is vast, and even though it’s only an hour’s drive from the concrete sprawl of Phoenix, when you’re there, you feel as if you’re on an entirely different planet. When I say that the place is sacred, if anything I may be underestimating its significance. To the Apache and others, Oak Flat is the birthplace of life on Earth, their spiritual Eden.

“Here is the creation story of where a woman came to be, and where the holy ones came together,” Wendsler Nosie, tribal leader of the San Carlos Apache tribe, explains. “This is where we originated as people.”

Beneath this biologically rich landscape, home to a variety of dry-land species including the endangered hedgehog cacti and the ocelot wildcat, lies a rich deposit of copper, the conductive metal vital for the technologies needed to power the world’s green-energy transition.

The Apache and environmentalists have been fighting a legal battle over the future of Oak Flat, which the U.S. government promised to protect in the 1852 Treaty of Santa Fe. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Oak Flat has been shielded from mining for the last 60 years. However, that protective status came under attack in 2014 when Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake undermined the agreement by attaching a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act, handing over 2,400 acres of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper, a joint mining venture between Rio Tinto, the world’s second largest metals and mining corporation, and BHP, possibly the world’s largest mining company. It was a blatant and sinister land grab.

The legislation, later signed into law by President Barack Obama, intentionally undermined the National Environmental Policy Act through a subtle maneuver that allowed the mine’s approval to proceed, regardless of any adverse environmental impact findings that might result, by shortening the approval process before a judicial review could take place. The Arizona senators had manipulated the process to benefit the mining conglomerates, no matter the damage it would cause, which, by any measure, would be insurmountable. The two senators didn’t come up with that backroom scheme on their own. Flake had spent time as a paid lobbyist for Rio Tinto and, in 2014, the late John McCain was the company’s top recipient of campaign contributions.

The plan today, according to the mining juggernaut, is to gut Oak Flat using a novel process called “block cave mining,” which involves blasting the copper ore from below, causing the ground above it to collapse under its own weight. The results would be catastrophic, creating a 1.8-mile-wide, 1,000-foot-deep crater.

Such impacts are apparently just the cost of doing business (and supposedly fighting climate change) these days. Resolution Copper estimates that mining Oak Flat could yield more than 40 billion tons of copper over 40 years, generating more than $140 billion in profits and providing enough copper to power 200 million electric vehicles (EVs). In addition to the massive hole that the mine would create, the toxic waste from the operation, expected in the end to be 50 stories high and cover an area three times larger than San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, would also bury an unknown number of historic and traditional cultural sites of the Apaches and other neighboring Indigenous nations.

Ultimately, Oak Flat would simply be rendered unrecognizable.

“You can’t tamper with these sacred places. We’re talking about deities; we’re talking about angels; we’re talking about where the beginning of time to the end of time will never be lost,” said Apache tribal leader Wendsler Nosie in a virtual press conference in 2021. “Is this the way we are now?” he asked. “Is this the way we believe — to allow these places that give the gift of life to be destroyed?”

On January 15, 2021, not long after Donald Trump’s fanatics stormed the Capitol, the U.S. Forest Service released its final 400-page Environmental Impact Statement, which acknowledged that “Oak Flat is a sacred place to the Western Apache, Yavapai, O’odham, Hopi, and Zuni. It is a place where rituals are performed, and resources are gathered; its loss would be an indescribable hardship to those peoples.”

The tribes and allies, under the banner of Apache Stronghold, a non-profit, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the land transfer, arguing that it violated their treaty rights and religious freedom. The group, however, would lose both that lawsuit and an appeal that reached the Ninth Circuit Court. Then, last September, after a two-month caravan across the states to Washington, D.C., Apache Stronghold formally presented its case to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort, hoping that the right-leaning court would at least be receptive to its religious freedom argument.

Then came Trump. While SCOTUS has yet to take up the case, Trump’s administration has forged ahead, speeding up the mine’s approval process. It was part of its plan to quickly increase the domestic production of so-called critical minerals, primarily used in renewable energies. The news was not taken lightly. Apache Stronghold’s lawyers quickly filed an emergency stay motion in U.S. District Court in late April, hoping to pause Trump’s reckless acceleration. A hearing took place on May 7th in Phoenix and, on May 9th, the judge ruled in favor of Apache Stronghold, granting a stay that expires after SCOTUS either denies the petition or rules on the case.

“The U.S. government is rushing to give away our spiritual home before the courts can even rule — just like it rushed to erase Native people for generations,” said Nosie of Apache Stronghold following the decision. “This is the same violent pattern we have seen for centuries.”

While Trump’s antagonism toward Native sovereignty isn’t surprising, it may be puzzling why his administration is so concerned with the nation’s supply of critical minerals like Oak Flat’s copper. As he’s made clear, Trump believes climate change to be a hoax invented by China, and he’s done his best to impede the growth of the renewable energy sector. Yet, like many of Trump’s other bombastic policy proposals, the undercurrents here appear more driven by ego than by ideology.

Trump’s Not Green But Greed New Deal

If Donald Trump has one defining trait, it’s his need to dominate in almost any imaginable situation. Illustrated by his falsehoods and refusal to acknowledge Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, he not only hates losing (and that’s putting it mildly!) but also refuses to concede defeat. And one thing is certain: the U.S. is losing control over the world’s mineral resources to China.

When it comes to critical minerals, the Chinese not only control most of the mines but also maintain and operate the majority of the world’s processing facilities. No other country comes close in the race for critical minerals. China finances the majority of critical mineral projects worldwide, totaling $57 billion over the past 20 years. It holds 35% of the globe’s reserves, but is responsible for 70% of their extraction and 87% of their processing on this planet.

In contrast, the U.S. relies entirely on China and other places for 12 of the 50 minerals on its “List of Critical Minerals” and is more than 50% dependent on imports for 28 more. Those minerals include metals like aluminum, cobalt, graphite, and lithium. And being “critical” doesn’t mean they are in short supply. For instance, believe it or not, the U.S. already has an excess supply of copper, which makes the proposed mine at Oak Flat all the more unnecessary and insidious. Adding to the absurdity, China’s Chinalco conglomerate holds almost 15% of Rio Tinto, so mining Oak Flat will, in the end, still benefit the Chinese.

While Biden’s Department of Energy allocated $19.5 million to increase domestic production of such minerals, $43 million to enhance battery technologies for EVs, and another $150 million to build processing facilities, that amount pales in comparison to China’s $230 billion investment in its EV market from 2009 to 2023 alone. Unsurprisingly, China now accounts for 62% of the world’s EVs and 77% of the batteries that power them. And it’s not just about the green tech. All those minerals shipped from China (80% of the U.S. supply) are also used as components for Artificial Intelligence and in the work of carmakers, aerospace companies, the defense industry, and others.

We know Trump doesn’t care about the climate or green energy policies, which he’s called a “scam.” Still, he understands that whoever commands those resources has the power to navigate the future of the global economy. Today, 30% of the world’s energy is produced by renewables (up 10% since 2010). Although fossil fuels still dominate, green energy is set to grow 90% by 2030. Nothing that Trump does can alter this trajectory — and now he evidently wants in.

On April 24th, the Department of the Interior, after being prodded by Trump, announced that it would eliminate environmental reviews and fast-track the development of oil, gas, and critical minerals on public lands.

“The United States cannot afford to wait,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “We are cutting through unnecessary delays to fast-track the development of American energy and critical minerals — resources that are essential to our economy, our military readiness, and our global competitiveness.”

Burgum was sounding the alarm, even if there was no real bell to ring. After all, the U.S. already has more fossil fuels than it knows what to do with. Weeks earlier, amid Trump’s escalating tariff war, China had retaliated by threatening to end shipments of critical minerals to the United States, all but flatlining Trump’s hopes of reinvigorating the American manufacturing sector.

There were, however, a couple of problems with Burgum’s edict (and Trump’s emergency energy decree that preceded it). First, it takes a significant amount of time to get a mine up and running (on average, 16 years), and it’s not always environmental reviews that are to blame. You need to find the resource, gather investors, and build out the necessary infrastructure, which may include roads and other facilities. None of this will happen quickly enough to offset China’s threat, even without environmental reviews. Second, although the U.S. does have a wealth of critical minerals in its backyard, it doesn’t maintain the processing facilities needed to handle them. Mining a bunch of new metals without refinement centers is an exercise in futility, akin to pumping millions of gallons of oil without the refineries to turn it all into gasoline.

Even so, this reality hasn’t stopped the over-eager Trump, who worked to cut a deal with Ukraine for access to its mineral wealth and has his sights set on nabbing Greenland’s as well. No doubt, Elon Musk, who has long criticized the U.S. for lagging behind China when it comes to mineral dominance, has been advising Trump to get a move on, even if it’s too late.

That MAGA Energy

What such critical mineral mining means for the future of the climate remains uncertain. Yet, as Trump has made clear, his insistence that the U.S. should open public lands for exploration isn’t about reducing carbon emissions at all. In fact, he’s hellbent on increasing them. It’s about bolstering U.S. capitalism, enriching mining companies, and, well, Making America (and undoubtedly Donald Trump) Great Again.

It matters little that America was never great for the Apache, who had their lands stolen, their treaty rights shredded, and now face yet another act of cultural annihilation at Oak Flat. Trump cares nothing about human rights, ecology, or the planet’s future (beyond him). He sees every issue as a competitive market transaction. Where there’s money to be made, nothing will stand in his way — surely not some nettlesome endangered species or an Indigenous holy site.

In this sense, eerily enough, Trump is not unlike the line of presidents who came before him. George W. Bush, who was swept into power in 2000 by a wave of oil money, spurred the fracking boom. Barack Obama, regarded as the country’s first climate president, also increased fossil-fuel extraction by bolstering shale oil extraction (as did Joe Biden, despite his gestures toward dealing with climate change). U.S. oil production saw an 88% increase during Obama’s tenure.

“You wouldn’t always know it, but [oil production] went up every year I was president,” Obama bragged to a group at Rice University’s Baker Institute in 2018. “Suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas, that was me, people.”

In a similarly chest-thumping style, Trump is confident that America’s future will be driven by whatever resources he’s able to seize. But the stock markets (and polls) harbor doubts about his vision, fully aware that decades of market integration have set the stage in favor of Beijing. Trump’s appetite for fossil fuels and (no matter that he’s dismissed climate change) critical minerals, his erratic tariffs, and a few executive orders will make little difference. American capitalism is too deeply intertwined with foreign markets for the U.S. economy to go it alone.

None of this changes the fact that sacred Apache lands are set to be ravaged in the name of “green” energy, economic independence, or whatever the White House proclaims to be its latest justification. In truth, Oak Flat is on the verge of being destroyed for profit, and profit alone — just one more colonial conquest of Native lands in the American West.

“The holy places are rumbling at what is happening in the world and in the country,” writes Nosie. “But the prophecy [says] that one day it is not going to rumble anymore. When that day comes, that means we have destroyed everything.”

Trump’s rampant mining and drilling could potentially be the ultimate act of destruction that the prophets have predicted. If we are to learn one lesson from our country’s history, in fact, it is that when destruction reigns, the pillager alone stands victorious, leaving everyone else defeated. It’s a twisted, genocidal ideology and a truly American one that has become all too familiar in these ever-darkening days.

The recent news coverage of Canada’s elections was all about the spectacular backfiring of President Trump’s strong-arm tactics—tariffs and the pipe dream of Canada becoming the “51st state” sparked the Liberal Party’s stunning come-from-behind victory under its new leader, Mark Carney. But behind the headlines, the Canadian elections also carry a profound cautionary tale about the political mishaps that can befall even the best-designed climate policy.

Until Trump barged onto the scene, climate change was the single most visible issue in the election campaign. Carney, the former UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, called it an “existential threat.” His Conservative Party opponent, Pierre Poilievre, instead pledged to roll back regulations on fossil fuel emissions and scrap Canada’s most ingenious climate policy: its carbon price-and-dividend system.

Under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2019, the Canadian government had introduced a price on carbon pollution and recycled the revenue straight back to households—the first enactment anywhere of the “carbon dividend” policy widely advocated in the U.S. by economists from across the political spectrum.

Dividends make it possible to use this tool while protecting the living standards of working families.

The policy succeeded in reducing emissions while at the same time raising the incomes of most Canadian households more than enough to offset the impact of the carbon price—a win-win for the environment and the people. Yet Poilievre’s vow to “ax the tax” became so popular among voters that Carney himself scuttled the policy upon replacing Trudeau as Liberal Party leader in March.

Why did a successful climate policy go down to defeat in the court of public opinion?

The policy’s aim was to give consumers and businesses an incentive to reduce emissions while letting them choose what worked best for them. Returning the revenue directly to the public safeguarded the purchasing power of ordinary households, a prerequisite for ensuring equity and political durability. Most Canadian families came out ahead—an analysis by the Canadian government found that about 80% of households experienced net income gains, their dividends being boosted by the outsized carbon consumption of the most affluent consumers.

Predictably, Trudeau’s conservative opponents denounced the policy. Poilievre incorrectly labeled it a “tax” and blamed the policy for any and all fuel price increases, including those triggered by the worldwide spike in oil prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while remaining notably silent on the return flow of the carbon revenue back to households.

The Trudeau administration meanwhile did little to publicize the benefits of the policy to consumers, evidently assuming Canadians would figure out themselves that they were receiving dividends and that they more than compensated for the carbon price. This lack of visibility was compounded by how the payments were delivered. Initially they were buried in income tax returns. When this changed to electronic bank deposits, they were inscrutably labeled, appearing on statements simply as “Canada Fed” or a random string of numbers and letters. The neglect of messaging proved to be the policy’s Achilles heel.

Canada’s experience has important implications for the rest of the world, including the United States. Although it may seem hard to imagine in our present political moment, sooner or later climate policy is all but certain to return to the nation’s political agenda. When it does, carbon pricing will re-emerge as a key tool for curbing emissions.

Dividends make it possible to use this tool while protecting the living standards of working families. The Healthy Climate and Family Security Act introduced in December by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is a good example of legislation that would do precisely this. But to win and maintain public support for the policy, transparency is crucial: the dividend that households receive must be just as visible as the gasoline prices they pay at the pump.

In Canada, Carney has promised to continue the carbon price for heavy industrial emitters, while offering incentives for consumers to reward “green choices” such as purchases of electric vehicles. But carrots alone will not bring about a clean energy transition. Climate catastrophes have already begun. If we want to keep them from worsening, the take-home lesson from Canada is that any serious climate policy will require an equally serious commitment to making its benefits clear and present.

On April 9, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14270, blandly titled “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy.” Behind that bureaucratic name is a sweeping directive: Dismantle a century of environmental protections.

Every regulation related to the environment, natural resources, or energy, whether it safeguards air, water, species, or public lands, must be rewritten to serve polluters or vanish by default.

Some will claim this is just about efficiency. But no standard review process sets a mass expiration date for protections, regardless of science, impact, or legal mandate. This is not streamlining. It is a countdown to erasure.

While courts deliberate, rules will expire. Enforcement will be suspended. Polluters will act as if the rules are already gone.

The deadline is September 30, 2026. Any rule not revised and reauthorized by then will expire automatically.

What will remain will not be protection. It will not be science. It will not be law. It will be a hollow shell, stripped of enforcement and public purpose.

This is not reform. It is demolition. It is sabotage by executive order.

They Said It Couldn’t Happen

To everyone who said, “They’d never go that far,” they just did. And the collapse has already begun.

With Executive Order 14270, Donald Trump issued not a policy revision but a regulatory kill order.

The EO mandates that all regulations under energy-related authority—especially those administered by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Departments of Interior and Energy—must be reviewed and either revised to align with the administration’s priorities or be automatically terminated by September 30, 2026. While for some agencies the EO does not name specific laws, many foundational protections fall within these agencies’ regulatory domains.

Some may argue this is simply a regulatory reset or a call for modernization. But this is not a review guided by science, need, or public interest. It is a mandate that requires rules to serve industry or disappear by default. There is no neutral path. There is no room for delay. If an agency fails to revise and reauthorize a rule in time, it expires. No matter how vital it is.

Legal experts and environmental attorneys have described similar regulatory strategies by the previous Trump administration as calculated attempts to dismantle environmental protections from within.

Even the rules that survive review will be rewritten, stripped of science and purpose, then repackaged as hollow compliance.

This is not a bureaucratic obstacle. It is a regulatory kill switch.

What that means in practice:

• Endangered Species Act—gone.
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act—gone.
• Marine Mammal Protection Act—one.
• Anadromous Fish Conservation Act—under threat.
• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act—gone.

These aren’t just under review. They are all under attack.

Breadth and Scope of the Loss

The laws everyone recognizes, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, are just the beginning.

Beneath them lie hundreds of foundational rules that safeguard public health, climate resilience, environmental justice, and disaster readiness. Under Executive Order 14270, they are all at risk.

Supporters may claim the order only targets outdated or burdensome regulations. But the text applies broadly and indiscriminately. It sets no exceptions for essential rules, no protections for high-impact safeguards, and no criteria for public benefit. Unless these rules are rewritten to meet the new standards and reauthorized by September 30, 2026, they will expire. Along with them goes the regulatory backbone of modern environmental protection.

This is not theoretical. These laws will fall unless actively rescued.

Key protections on the chopping block:

Air, Water, and Public Health
• Clean Air Act
• Clean Water Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Toxic Substances Control Act
• Superfund cleanup authority
• Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

Land and Resource Protection
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
• Wilderness Act
• Antiquities Act
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Energy and Climate
• Energy Policy Act of 2005
• Greenhouse gas endangerment finding
• Energy Star Program
• Oil Pollution Act of 1990

Each of these took years, sometimes decades, of organizing, science, and compromise to create. They were not handed down by elites. They were won by people who refused to accept poisoned air, burning rivers, and dead coastlines.

Now they are being erased in a single executive order. Not one by one. All at once. This is not a rollback. It is erasure.

The Hidden Collapse

Executive Order 14270 does not just target major environmental laws. It dismantles the infrastructure that makes those laws real.

Supporters may argue that the laws remain untouched. But behind every statute, like the Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, are thousands of rules, monitoring systems, enforcement protocols, and technical standards. Without them, laws are just words on paper.

Now, all of that must be rewritten to serve polluters. If not, it disappears permanently.

Thousands of environmental regulations administered by agencies such as the EPA and the Department of the Interior could be subject to review and potential termination under Executive Order 14270.

Here is what that collapse looks like:

Public Health Protections
• Air monitoring rules vanish. No alerts for lead, benzene, or ozone.
• Radiation limits are lifted. Safety near nuclear sites erodes.
• Vehicle emissions testing ends. Smog returns to U.S. cities.

Water, Waste, and Pollution
• Stormwater runoff restrictions disappear. Waste floods rivers.
• Hazardous waste transport rules vanish. Disposal turns chaotic.
• Drilling oversight ends. Protected lands are opened to industry.

Climate and Disaster Response
• Energy efficiency rules are revoked. Electric bills rise.
• Fire mitigation programs are defunded. Wildfires grow deadlier.
• Fisheries protections vanish. Coastal economies are destabilized.

This is not just about forests or fish. It is about tap water, asthma medication, grocery prices, and cancer risks.

Betsy Southerland, former EPA director of science and technology for water, has warned that deregulatory approaches of this kind could lead to systemic breakdowns in public health protections.

This order does not trim fat. It guts the public architecture that keeps America safe, functional, and future-ready.

The Economic and Societal Cost

The damage from Executive Order 14270 will not stop with wildlife or wilderness. It will hammer the economy; threaten public health; and unravel industries that depend on clean air, safe water, and protected landscapes.

Some defenders will argue that environmental regulations stifle business, raise costs, or limit innovation. But environmental law in America was not born from ideology. It was forged in crisis, created to prevent economic collapse, mass illness, and ecological ruin. Many of these statutes were passed with overwhelming bipartisan support because Americans knew the cost of doing nothing was greater.

The Clean Air Act passed under former President Richard Nixon. The 1972 Clean Water Act was called “the most comprehensive and expensive environmental legislation in the nation’s history.” These laws did not just protect nature. They helped build the modern economy.

Many of the protections now targeted form the backbone of multibillion-dollar industries:

Wildlife and National Identity
• The Endangered Species Act saved the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and California condor.
• The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects ecosystems and supports rural economies across the country.
• The Marine Mammal Protection Act helped build a coastal tourism sector that generates billions.
• Fish conservation laws sustain sport fishing, a major driver in many regional economies.

Outdoor Economies
• Outdoor recreation supports $887 billion in consumer spending and 7.6 million jobs.
• Hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, and camping all depend on healthy ecosystems.
• Without habitat protections, what is Yellowstone without wolves, or the coast without whales?

The law may speak of species and land. But the stakes are money, jobs, health, and identity.

This executive order guts the systems that protect them all.

The Human Toll and Environmental Injustice

The collapse will not hit everyone equally. It never does.

When environmental protections vanish, the first to suffer are the poor, the marginalized, and the politically powerless.

Some may argue that environmental burdens are shared evenly across society. But the data and history say otherwise. Environmental harm follows lines of poverty, race, and neglect. It hits those with the fewest resources, the least political power, and the highest exposure to toxins.

Without the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, vulnerable communities will lose safeguards against dumping, runoff, and lead contamination. New water crises will erupt in towns already on the edge.

Without the Clean Air Act, toxic smog will return to cities, especially in low-income and minority neighborhoods shaped by redlining and industrial zoning.

Without the National Environmental Policy Act, communities will have no voice in what gets built near their homes: pipelines, refineries, highways, landfills.

Without Superfund enforcement, the most toxic sites in America will be left to rot. Poison will seep into soil, water, and lives.

This is not theory. It is already happening:

• In Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, petrochemical plants poison Black neighborhoods. Cancer rates there are 50 times the national average.
• In West Virginia, abandoned coal towns face toxic water and respiratory illness.
• In Alaska and the Southwest, Indigenous communities still live beside Cold War-era uranium waste.
• Along the Pacific coast, salmon vanish and fishing economies unravel.

These are not isolated stories. They are previews.

The burden will fall hardest on those without lawyers, lobbyists, or local health departments—families already excluded from public hearings, ignored by regulators, and left behind by politics.

Executive Order 14270 turns temporary harm into permanent abandonment.

This is not just inequality. It is environmental apartheid..

Regulatory Collapse Is Guaranteed

This is not hypothetical. It is structural failure, built into the design.

Executive Order 14270 sets an impossible mandate: Every environmental regulation must be reviewed, revised, and reauthorized by September 30, 2026. If not, it will expire automatically.

Some will claim that with enough willpower and coordination, agencies can meet the deadline. But that is a myth. There are not enough staff. There is not enough time. And there is no intention to make it work. The order was built to break the system, not to improve it.

Environmental watchdogs and legal analysts suggest that only a small percentage of rules could realistically be reviewed and reissued before the deadline.

This is not deregulation. It is planned demolition.

Here is what that guarantees:

• Legal protections for ecosystems will collapse.
• Clean air and water rules will disappear.
• Ecotourism and outdoor recreation will suffer.
• Climate policy will be paralyzed.
• Inequality will worsen as states scramble to fill the void.
• Courts will be overwhelmed by lawsuits and confusion.
• Irreversible environmental damage will be locked in for generations.

Even if a future administration tries to reverse the damage, it could take years or even decades to rebuild what was destroyed.

Some things will not survive that long: species, coastlines, forests, ecosystems.

This is not a policy failure. It is policy used as a weapon.

The extinction of environmental protections is not a side effect. It is the goal.

Can This EO Actually Be Enforced?

Technically, yes. Executive Order 14270 can be enforced. But legally and practically, it is a minefield for all concerned.

Agencies can initiate rule reviews and assign expiration dates, especially when leadership supports the administration’s anti-regulatory agenda. But that does not make it lawful.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies must follow strict procedures before repealing or replacing rules. They must issue public notices, allow comment periods, hold hearings, and provide justifications. They cannot simply say, “The president told us to.”

Some defenders may argue the president has broad authority to manage agencies. But the law is clear: Regulatory repeal must follow legal process. Many of the protections targeted by this order were enacted by Congress. Agencies do not have the authority to let them quietly expire or gut them without breaking the law.

That is why lawsuits are already being filed. Legal challenges will come from environmental groups, state attorneys general, and public interest organizations.

But here is the catch: the damage will not wait.

While courts deliberate, rules will expire. Enforcement will be suspended. Polluters will act as if the rules are already gone.

Even if a judge rules against the administration, the harm will be done:

• Toxic waste released.
• Forests cleared.
• Communities exposed.

And if the White House refuses to comply? There is no enforcement arm of the Administrative Procedure Act. No agency exists to compel federal departments to enforce their own rules.

The only option is to sue, repeatedly, rule by rule, across jurisdictions.

As one Earthjustice attorney put it, “The law doesn’t enforce itself. And this administration knows it.”

Litigation takes money, time, expertise, and legal standing. These are resources many frontline communities do not have.

Environmental lawyers and watchdogs saw this coming. They are already planning for fights across dozens of fronts: air quality, pipelines, species protection, data suppression, and executive action.

But how many lawsuits will it take? 10? 50? 100?

Each one will be slow. Expensive. Uncertain.

This is not incompetence. It is sabotage, carried out with full intent.

And What About the Planet

This executive order is not just a domestic disaster.It is a climate change nuclear bomb.

Executive Order 14270 erases the foundation of nearly every federal climate policy:

• It nullifies the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, the legal trigger for regulating carbon emissions.
• It dismantles efficiency standards for appliances, buildings, and vehicles.
• It undermines the Energy Star Program and other clean energy incentives.
• It guts methane rules, fuel economy standards, and oil spill safeguards.

Some will argue that climate progress can continue without federal policy, through state action or private innovation. But without national coordination, incentives, and legal authority, that progress will slow, fragmented, and ultimately fall short. Federal policy drives investment, enforces accountability, and sets the global tone.

With these tools gone, the United States cannot meet its climate goals. Not nationally. Not globally.

We will miss our Paris agreement targets. We will exceed the 1.5°C warming threshold. And we will pull other nations backward with us.

The damage is not just about emissions. It is about lost leadership. Lost credibility. And a green light to polluters everywhere.

This is not a pause. It is a reversal.

Climate collapse is no longer a distant danger. It is a scheduled event, signed into law by the president.

The Heart of It

This executive order does not repeal environmental laws. It kills the systems that make those laws work.

The Clean Air Act will still exist. But if EPA regulations expire, there will be no enforcement.

The Endangered Species Act will remain on paper. But without specific protections and triggers, no species will be protected.

This is the method: Dismantle implementation. Remove enforcement. Let the law collapse from the inside out.

It is a bureaucratic kill switch, designed to erase a century of environmental progress without ever repealing a statute.

Legal on paper. Lethal in practice.

Once the rules disappear, the laws become theater:

• No enforcement.
• No funding.
• No consequences.

They will still be on the books, but they will no longer matter.

Empty laws. Empty air. Empty rivers. Empty promises.

How We Fight, and Why We Must

There is no silver-bullet lawsuit. No single agency. No shortcut.

This executive order will not be stopped by one clever court challenge. It will take dozens, perhaps hundreds, of battles—rule by rule, agency by agency, ecosystem by ecosystem.

Some will ask, why not file one big lawsuit to stop it all? Because Executive Order 14270 does not repeal a single law. It sets a countdown clock for thousands of regulations to vanish unless reauthorized. That makes it nearly lawsuit-proof by design. Each rule must be challenged individually, and only after harm has occurred. Courts cannot force agencies to act unless Congress explicitly mandates it. And even then, litigation takes time. By the time a ruling arrives, the damage may already be done. The law does not enforce itself. And this executive order exploits that fact.

There is no cavalry. Only us.

So we fight, everywhere:

• File lawsuits, fast and often: Legal action is the first and last line of defense. Every expired rule must be challenged. Every unlawful revision must be contested. Rapid-response legal teams must be ready to sue the EPA, Department of the Interior, and Department of Energy across multiple jurisdictions. Delay means destruction.

• Support legal and watchdog organizations: Groups like Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Biological Diversity are already fighting. But they are underfunded and overwhelmed. They need staff, experts, and resources. Every donation matters. Every volunteer strengthens the line.

• Pressure elected officials at every level: Demand public hearings. Demand oversight. Call your governor. Write your city council. Make it politically toxic to support this executive order.

• Act locally: States and cities can pass their own clean air and water laws. They can fund conservation, restrict drilling, and sue federal agencies. Join local groups. Attend zoning meetings. Run for water boards and planning commissions. Build resistance into local government.

• Refuse to normalize this: Speak out. Disrupt. Document. This is not politics as usual. Say so. Organize protests. Submit op-eds. Flood comment periods. Call out silence. Expose polluters. Make the truth visible.

• Demand media coverage: Executive Order 14270 should be a daily headline. If it is not, make it one. Share stories. Elevate frontline voices. Hold media outlets accountable. If national media fails, local and independent voices must rise.

This is a regulatory blitz.And resistance must be relentless.

The strategy is simple: flood the system, fracture it, and exhaust the opposition.

While we scramble to save species, lands, and laws, they bulldoze everything else.

This is not a warning. It is a dispatch from the front lines.

They are not debating whether to dismantle environmental protections. They are dismantling them, right now.

If you ever said, “They would never go that far,” They just did.

This is not just bad policy. It is a deliberate attempt to cripple the government’s ability to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, the climate we depend on, and the living world we love.

It is not a mistake. It is the plan.

The question is no longer what they will do. The question is what we will do about it.

The United States is often revered as the most powerful nation in the world. The U.S. has a strong economy; the most equipped military on the planet; a working class of over 130 million people; the biggest GDP of any nation; and large music, film, agricultural, beauty, food, fossil fuel, and technology industries. However, many of these industries are on the brink of collapsing, or are already starting to. Most industries were built on the backs of a marginalized working class, and continue to perpetuate deep flaws in integrity from the wealthiest 1%.

By examining my own life as an impoverished Kānaka ʻŌiwi (Indigenous person), comparisons to socialist ideologies, and through extensive economic analysis, we will find the truth of how the United States’ version of capitalism has systematically failed its population through corporate greed and manipulation of the legislature.

It’s difficult for me to find footing to explain Hawaiian culture to anyone, because most of it has been erased. Hawaiian is a critically endangered language, with only 2,000 native speakers at one point in time. In the few years I lived in Hawaii during my early childhood, I always questioned tourism, and I always questioned what was going into our clear oceans. I questioned why others visiting was so “important,” why the beaches and trails were always overcrowded with not only people but litter, and why the natives always spoke of the “haoli” with such ferocity. I quickly connected the dots as to the negative effects of taking advantage of such a beautiful land, but before I could do anything about it, we were moving, and headed off to Texas.

As financially successful as the United States is, it’s clear this “success” is an illusion that, when looked at more closely, is rampant with corruption.

Growing up raised by a single mother in a poor area off the metropolis of San Antonio, my family faced many struggles. Before we had to leave him, father would come home from working 70 hours a week just to support our family, and the hours took a toll on his mental and physical health. His knees were weak, his voice hoarse, and overall seemed off. Watching my father waste his life away in a society that treated him and his native people ruthlessly instilled in me a strong feeling of injustice.

By the time I was at the age to look for work, I could hardly juggle working for tips after school in the eighth grade while trying to impress my family with my academic achievements. The issues my family faced snowballed and forced their way into adulthood. Not a dime was saved for my sister and me after we finished high school. Learning this, I understood my options were narrow, and I had to work longer hours to get into the college I wanted. Luckily, I was accepted into a great university, but I had to start working as many hours as I possibly could to support myself.

It’s no secret that the U.S. is highly segregated, not only by race, but by income. Want to get the best education? Well, you’d better have enough money for that. Want health insurance? Be sure to pray you don’t turn 26. It’s a constant reminder of “inferiority” that kills the will of impoverished children, marginalizes people of color, and amplifies the richness of those who were born into wealth. It disrespects the time and work the lower and middle class pour into the golden cups of CEOs and investors. According to the American Journal of Public Health: “Neighborhoods ‘redlined’ by the Home Owners Loan Corporation in the 1930s (i.e., neighborhoods with large Black and immigrant populations) experience higher rates of firearm violence today than do neighborhoods deemed most desirable. This past de jure segregation may be related to present-day violence via impacts on education, transportation, jobs, income and wealth, and the built environment.” These same people who were segregated and forced into these disadvantaged, gerrymandered zip codes to begin with, and are often too poor to relocate, continually face the blame for the issues in this country. In other words, we, the working class, bear the pain and consequences of a failing nation that we’ve traded our lives and well-being to support.

Teachers, nurses, janitors, dishwashers, firefighters, truck drivers, grocery baggers, servers, social workers, and many more all comprise the working class. These respectable people are our neighbors, our community, our family. Our families, however, don’t reap the benefits of this work, and it’s easy to prove it. As of 2025, the ratio of the price of the average house divided by the median household income in America is at 7.37, an all-time high. This is even worse than during the housing crisis of 2008, where it was 6.82. In some metro areas, this number exceeds 10 for renters. With education, the price of attending college adjusted for inflation has skyrocketed over 500% in the last half-century, and the average American is spending $14,570 on healthcare per year, a 670% increase from $2,151 in 1970.

One of the main issues that capitalism in America causes when left unchecked is large monopolies that control the market too tightly, which undermine a free economy. Among markets that are “thriving” in the U.S., as discussed before, many of these markets consist of only a handful or less of main corporations controlled by billionaires. As a result, the market loses its flexibility. If the top dogs are struggling, it means everyone is. Most Americans don’t grow their goods. We buy goods from a supermarket that gets their produce and other items shipped from mass production farms and factories, filled with chemicals and human rights violations.

There are, however, alternatives that we can learn from. In other countries, there are creative solutions that will be briefly covered. Our first example, Vietnam, reformed in 1986, shifting to a more “socialist-oriented” market economy, where they implemented reforms in the country that led to positive changes and reductions in inflation. They allowed farmers to sell their surplus crops to private markets, leading small farmers and local businesses to thrive even during a recession. In the case of Cuba, their government established a food rationing system on March 12, 1962, called the libreta, that allowed citizens to purchase necessities and services at an affordable price.

Left unchecked, the prices and quality of life in the United States will continue to dwindle, and soon the country won’t have a healthy population to support itself. Many other countries have already realized this, such as France, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. They employ similar rules to set price caps on pharmaceutical services and products. For example, in the U.K., they have a price limit on prescriptions. You pay nine pounds and ninety pence, no matter what prescription, no matter how many pills you need. If you need 30 pills or 90, it’s all the same. In Canada, you don’t have to pay anything for healthcare; instead, they’ve all agreed to pay a slight percentage increase to their taxes so that everyone gets free healthcare. As a result, poor people don’t avoid going to the hospital when they get ill or injured, because they don’t dread the hospital bill, or get turned away from a surgery or life-saving care due to insurance or money problems. This is precisely why Canadians live on average three years longer than Americans.

The flaws in the United States’ version of capitalism, such as price gouging, violations of workers’ rights, and the commodification of human lives and experiences, are felt greatest by those who are economically disadvantaged. In the United States, if you are born into poverty, you have over a 90% chance of staying in the same tax bracket you were born in. This is because trends show that over the past 50 years, the poorest 20% of American citizens have seen zero increase in wages (adjusted for inflation). In contrast, the wealthiest 1% nearly doubled their wealth over the same period. Furthermore, these wage issues affect marginalized groups more adversely, such as females, people who have disabilities, people of color, and people who identify with the LGBT community. Fifty-one Fortune 500 Companies have CEOs who make over 840 times the amount of the average worker for their company in wages.

These issues with wages, coupled with the rising costs of living, are causing people in poor communities to either find more roommates than the space can comfortably accommodate to afford rent, or become homeless. Unfortunately, once that happens, it’s mostly game over for most Americans. The U.S. infrastructure provides little to no assistance to those who are homeless or need necessities. Overcrowding in the few homeless shelters that do exist leads to overflow and people being denied rooms, forced to wait in the cold overnight. In Denton, Texas earlier this year, a locally renowned woman named Kimberly Pollock, who became homeless due to personal financial struggles, was turned away from a warming shelter and froze to death outside. She was somebody’s daughter, and she was a close, dear friend to many. These preventable and tragic losses of our local citizens are only the tip of the iceberg.

Once a magnifying glass is aimed at American capitalism, it becomes clear that the system works exactly as intended, to make the most money possible, no matter the means necessary. Ample industries rake in more money than any other country, and since more assets are being put on the table, it’s all positive reinforcement to keep going. The food, drug, and beauty industries are all aware of this. In the European Union (which formed in 1993), over 2,400 harmful chemicals have been banned in food and cosmetics. In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees the safety of produce, drugs, cosmetics, and other products in the United States, has only banned 11 harmful chemicals as of today.

This disparity in the regulation of our foods, hygiene products, furniture, pesticides, medicines, and more has several key drawbacks. First, the FDA bans only a small number of chemicals because it allows companies to put cheaper, yet more harmful, chemicals in their products. Usually, it’s done to increase shelf life or to heighten the taste of a food. This causes Americans to become overloaded with chemicals and become sick, slowly and chronically. Once this occurs, an American is forced to see if they can afford to deal with their illness for the rest of their lives in their healthcare system. Bloated, high off should-be-banned chemicals, tired from working excess hours with no time off, upset with the cost of living, with a serious illness, but too poor to pay for help. It’s a lose-lose-lose situation, and this is the sad reality for many of our neighbors.

The part of capitalism that I believe makes it unredeemable is the fact that it is in direct conflict with our form of government. The United States is a representative democracy, but to run for office, you have to have thousands, if not millions, of dollars to have a strong campaign. That already excludes any low-income citizens from running for a higher-up position. Secondly, most people in our government can be “bought out” or influenced politically through lots of bribery. It’s the sad truth, but our last hope of reforming the system, through law reversal, is corrupted as well. For example, in 2024 alone, over $150 million dollars were covertly given to the Senate, House, and both presidential candidates by the fossil fuel industry alone. Some of these people include U.S. President Donald J. Trump, with over $2,100,000; former Vice President Kamala Harris, with over $1,300,000; and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), with over $1,000,000. The numbers for food industries in 2024, such as Coca-Cola, exceeded $24 million dollars. These companies are paying our “representatives” to vote in their interests, not ours. This is the reason why no chemicals are being banned, why we keep going to war with countries that coincidentally have tons of oil underneath them, and why we make so much more money than anyone else.

One of the most alarming things about the current state of the United States is that, under its current administration, there seems to be no plans for reform from our government. Despite worldwide protests, public uproar, and the deaths of many innocent citizens, it seems no steps are being taken to address the undeniable inhumanity of the United States. To try and redirect our anger at the lack of change, fingers are often pointed at the most disadvantaged of our population. People of color, gay, or poor communities are blamed for not working hard enough, shooting their kind, stealing, or getting addicted to drugs. It’s the Mexicans stealing our jobs, and the immigrants paying no taxes, or drag queens influencing our children the wrong way. It’s never the 151 mass shootings since 1982, the 26,000 Americans who die each year from not having insurance, or the sad reality that a woman only makes 83% of what a man makes in the same job position.

As financially successful as the United States is, it’s clear this “success” is an illusion that, when looked at more closely, is rampant with corruption. Even though things look unfixable, I encourage you not to lose hope and to look to your neighbor with compassion. We became the country that values our money more than our neighbors, that focuses on productivity, and not connectivity, by taking, and not giving. Figuring out adulthood as a queer, homeless Hawaiian in Texas would have been impossible without my close friends whom I met along the way. They are a constant reminder that even though we live in a country known for its selfishness, that is not a valid placeholder for the average American.

In Hawaii, we have a saying that goes Ua kuluma ke kanaka i ke aloha, meaning, we are all naturally loving people. I believe this is true. We’ve been misguided as a country and as a people, and our values have been manipulated over generations to value material possessions instead of other souls. We must reclaim our administration, restore our poor and middle class communities, and actively fight having to choose between profits and people. Slowly, and with powerful, passionate change, we can dismantle systems that commodify the human experience, and the American dream won’t be something we have to be asleep to live in.

A pebble is kicked up from traffic in front of you, and a deep pit in the windshield causes a crack that must be fixed. No worries. You have car insurance, you think. The windshield repair team tells you that you have a $500 deductible and that the new windshield is $525. You are confused and angry about paying for car insurance for years, only to discover it is inadequate when you need it. You opt not to file a claim because that would likely raise your insurance rates yet again. It’s cash out-of-pocket for you.

While waiting for the windshield replacement, you crack a tooth on a mint. No worries. You have dental insurance, you think. The dental office staff tells you that you have a 50% benefit for the tooth repair and that your portion of the dental care is $525. You are confused and angry about paying for dental insurance for years, only to discover it is inadequate when you need it. The dentists never take payments anymore (unless you find a financing company in advance to pay the dentist and bill you over many months). What choice do you really have? The tooth must be fixed. It’s cash out-of-pocket for you.

We don’t like to think we are being bilked out of thousands of dollars by insurance companies, and yet we have almost come to accept it. No matter whether it’s your car windshield or your teeth, it’s all the same. You are only covered to the extent that the insurance company has determined will most effectively maximize their profits and keep you paying that monthly premium year after year. Your safety in your vehicle and/or your health are not the goal of car insurance or private dental insurance. Knowing that the entire insurance industry equates your car with part of your physical body as they underwrite is simply gross.

Teeth are not windshields or catalytic converters or bumpers. Teeth are a vital part of our bodies and our health.

Mothers (and fathers) across the country go without a windshield repair due to a lack of cash, whether they file a claim or not. Mothers (and fathers) across the country put off fixing broken teeth due to a lack of cash, whether they file a claim or not. If we didn’t know better, we would think it’s sort of a shakedown every time we need a dentist. It’s wrong. Teeth are not windshields or catalytic converters or bumpers. Teeth are a vital part of our bodies and our health.

I’ve gone almost a year without teeth now. Twenty-four of my teeth were pulled in July 2024. My health has suffered greatly as the weeks and months passed. Soon, I may get my partial dentures. Finally. My Delta Dental covers less than half of the overall cost. So, I went to our wonderful dental school for help. Voila. It seems insurance only gets you in the door, but that coverage and your debit/credit/cash gets you the help you need over time. A long, long time.

Passing a real beautiful bill would be one that insures the entire human body—womb to tomb. Teeth. Ears. Eyes. Toes. Nose. Fingers. Tummy. Health insurance for our whole body that leaves out no bodily system.

Last week, Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) in the U.S. Senate and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) in the House introduced the great, big, and beautiful bills that would improve and expand Medicare to cover my teeth and yours—our whole bodies. We would all pay our premiums through our normal tax process with coverage that really is comprehensive. We would not find ourselves unable to keep our teeth healthy from the get-go so that some far into the future Mother’s Day wish has to include a set of partial dentures, if needed, or better yet, keeps Mom’s teeth in better shape so there is no need to pull them to make way for metal and resin.

Imagine a publicly financed healthcare system that costs less and covers it all. No co-payments and no deductibles. No middle-of-the-night GoFundMe pages set up to pay for care. And no need to fear losing a job and insurance benefits. Your life and mine—equal and valued—in a system that sees not only our oral health but also our whole bodies as worthy of appropriate and necessary healthcare as determined by our doctors and nurses.

People resist the commercialism of Mother’s Day in America, yet I don’t have time for that. It seems that not having teeth has made every day for the past 10 months a reminder of how little we value mothers. If you don’t care enough about moms to make sure they do not spend months of quiet desperation, embarrassment, and shame around a lack of cash to pay for healthcare, at least buy your moms a supply of baby food to enjoy on her special day. If we do care to prevent the need to do that, we must pass improved and expanded Medicare for All. Mom will love it. And she’ll have teeth.

Happy Mother’s Day 2025.

At a chemical recycling conference last year, an industry consultant warned attendees that “[d]elays & setbacks ... open the door for an increasing number of reports & press articles expressing doubt & strong criticism about the industry’s claims.”

They were right.

Facing growing pressure to confront the plastic waste crisis, the plastics industry claims to have found a solution: "advanced recycling." But there is a huge divide between the plastics industry's public claims about the potential of advanced recycling to address the plastic waste crisis and the technical realities of chemical recycling processes.

All available information suggests advanced recycling won’t be able to address plastic pollution at a meaningful scale — and some of the most compelling evidence comes from people within the plastics industry. A new report I authored at the Center for Climate Integrity makes clear it’s not just environmental groups that are pointing out the limitations of this so-called new technology — it's the experts who know the industry best, including chemical engineers, consultants, trade organizations, and plastics producers themselves, who consistently undermine the industry's claims.

“The Fraud of Advanced Recycling” shows how the industry makes five key claims — all of which mislead the public.

It’s not just environmental groups that are pointing out the limitations of this so-called new technology — it's the experts who know the industry best...

First, the plastics industry presents advanced recycling as new and groundbreaking — like when Exxon CEO Darren Woods called it a "brand new technology" in 2022. It’s not new. The plastics industry has been trying to scale up chemical recycling to address plastic waste for more than 50 years to no avail. According to California’s plastic recycling deception lawsuit against ExxonMobil, virtually the same process Exxon is using today was patented by Mobil all the way back in 1978, and efforts in the decades since have faced predictable problems.

What is new is the name. The industry only started using "advanced recycling" in the last 10 years, marketing it as an amalgamation of every imaginable benefit of every distinct chemical recycling process with none of their respective downsides.

Second, the plastics industry claims that advanced recycling is scaling up to address the plastic waste crisis, even though experts point out that the same economic and technical limitations that have plagued chemical recycling for decades still hold true. Major plastics producers have made advanced recycling commitments, but none of them have a practical pathway to meeting them. Exxon has said that it will process 1 billion pounds annually by the end of 2026, but has processed a tiny fraction of that so far.

Experts have warned that there is not a viable pathway to scaling up for years. In 2017, consulting firm Accenture and the European Chemical Industry Council noted that “the ability to perform the process at industrial scale is still a technological challenge — and currently not economically feasible.” Just last year, the Association of Plastic Recyclers said that "much of the information promoting chemical recycling technologies overlooks the necessary design, collection, sortation, and end markets that need to be in place for any type of recycling to scale.”

As one expert consultant summarized, “we’ve had a few successes and a ton of failures; capacity has not developed as major projects have been delayed or cancelled.” These failures have left the industry with an “[u]rgent need for success stories,” in the words of another consultant.

The third key claim about advanced recycling is that it can address the problem of post-consumer mixed plastic waste that mechanical recycling can't. Dow, for example, says that advanced recycling allows for “recycling the unrecyclable.” But the reality is that particular chemical recycling processes are only suitable for particular kinds of plastics and can't handle contamination, meaning advanced recycling is subject to many of the same constraints that have limited the effectiveness of mechanical recycling.

The Flexible Packaging Association explains that advanced recycling “requires plastic material that is of suitable quality, with low levels of contamination and at sufficient volume to meet demand. These are some of the same challenges facing the mechanical recycling infrastructure.” Or as the industry-funded Alliance to End Plastic Waste put it in 2022, "while advanced recycling should be viewed as a recycling outlet for a different range of materials, it should not be viewed as a recycling outlet for contaminated materials or unsorted materials.”

Fourth, the industry presents advanced recycling as environmentally friendly, despite the fact that these processes produce hazardous pollutants and are extremely energy-intensive, with a Duke research group noting that chemical recycling "poses significant threats of harm to already overburdened communities" and calling for "caution in evaluating the industry's claims." The industry has done little to assuage these concerns. As one consultant explained, “[c]oncerns about potential externalities remain largely unaddressed.”

The fifth claim is that advanced recycling enables a circular economy — Shell, for example, says that it's "working to close the loop: helping to transform the plastic value chain from linear to circular.” But advanced recycling processes don't keep plastic in the production cycle and don't limit the production of virgin plastic made from fossil fuels — key tenets of the concept of a circular economy.

The reality is that a very small percentage of the material that goes into the most commonly-used chemical recycling processes can come out on the other side as feedstocks for new plastics. One industry-affiliated group acknowledge that “[c]onversion processes typically have low yields, especially when discounting the portion of materials going to fuels."

In the end, though, circularity would be a threat to the petrochemical companies’ business of extracting more fossil fuels and making more plastics. As an investment firm with industry ties explained, any positive impacts associated with advanced recycling would require "shifting away from oil exploration and new extraction infrastructure," since it would only lead to benefits "when it displaces the use of virgin plastics."

California's lawsuit against ExxonMobil alleges that the company has promoted advanced recycling, at least in part, to avoid that outcome — what it sees as "the 'negative' impacts/consequences of the ... adoption of the circular economy way of thinking." Advanced recycling allows the industry to present the public with a seemingly acceptable solution that doesn't put limits on plastic production. It provides the industry with the cover of a perfect technological solution that demands no changes in the way we use plastics.

This is just a new version of the same story: the plastics industry's attempt to use the idea of recycling to protect its license to operate and continue producing ever-greater amounts of plastic, regardless of the consequences.

I’d never seen anything like it: a mother standing quietly in the crowd, wearing a plain white T-shirt with a large photo of a young boy flashing a wide grin, a missing front tooth, and a superhero logo across his chest. Below the picture, in simple black letters, “Darius Carter 1993-1999 Forever Six.”

She was living my worst nightmare, her beautiful six-year-old son had been shot and killed. And there she was, surrounded by thousands of other moms wearing similar shirts, refusing to let her son be forgotten.

We were just feet from the massive, bright pink-and-white Million Mom March stage on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., listening to speakers demand Congress pass common sense gun laws. It was Mother’s Day 2000—25 years ago.

Darius’ mom and I stood among 750,000 parents, grandparents, and children holding signs, wearing Million Mom March shirts, and carrying photos of loved ones lost to gun violence. Across the country, hundreds of sister marches rose up in solidarity. For many, like me, it was our first protest.

Twenty-five years ago, we marched because we believed a safer world was possible.

But the Million Mom March was more than a protest. It was a collective outcry—stitched together by grief, fueled by hope, and driven by one belief: no child should die by gun violence. With Congress failing to act, mothers across the country rose up— angry, determined, demanding change.

I never imagined I would become an activist. But on April 20, 1999, I sat frozen in front of my TV, heart pounding, as the unthinkable unfolded at Columbine High School—my alma mater. My basketball coach, Dave Sanders, was killed along with twelve students.

Something inside me broke.

I went from a stay-at-home mom with a six- and two-year-old, juggling diapers, nap schedules, and tantrums, to a gun control activist with a new sense of purpose. The following year I organized and led a delegation from Oregon to the D.C. march.

The Million Mom March was a tipping point. It sparked national conversations about gun laws and helped launch a lasting movement—it later merged with the Brady Campaign, amplifying the call for reform. The march also introduced life-saving initiatives like the ASK (Asking Saves Kids) campaign, which urges parents to ask one critical question before their child visits a friend’s home: Is there an unlocked gun in the house? It’s a simple question that can prevent tragedy. Each year, unintentional shootings injure or kill an average of 363 children in the U.S.

In the 25-years since, the movement—propelled by that day on the National Mall—has helped reshaped the fight for gun safety in America. It ignited one of the first large-scale grassroots campaigns, led to the formation of Brady Campaign chapters, and paved the way for groups like Moms Demand Action. It also spurred a wave of state-level reforms: dozens of states passed child access prevention laws, expanded background checks, and enacted red flag laws—one of our most promising tools for temporarily removing firearms from individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others.

Despite the progress, the crisis has grown worse. In 2000, about 28,000 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S.—a staggering number. Today, it’s soared to over 48,000 per year—132 lives taken every day. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children and teens in America, surpassing car crashes, drownings, and cancer.

So what happened? Political courage withered and the gun lobby adapted.

They pushed through PLCCA, granting themselves sweeping immunity from lawsuits. They blocked federal funding for gun violence research. And in 2008, they won a Supreme Court ruling that redefined the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down local gun safety laws.

The COVID-19 pandemic certainly didn’t help. It created a perfect storm: fear, isolation, distrust of government, and economic insecurity, all of which led to record-breaking gun sales. Millions of first-time gun buyers flooded the market, many without proper safety training. The gun industry profited from the fear, and communities are still paying the price.

Meanwhile, untraceable ghost guns flooded our communities, and leaders in many states chose to weaken gun laws rather than strengthen them. The gun industry seized the moment, expanding its appeal.

Twenty-five years ago, the typical gun buyer was a middle-aged man, and gun ownership was in decline. Today, the industry aggressively markets to women, young adults, and even parents—selling pink pistols to moms and tactical diaper bags to dads—casting gun ownership as a form of family empowerment. As sales rose, so did deaths.

So what now? We march again—in new ways, in new places, with the same resolve.

First, we confront the gun industry’s false promises to women and families. Marketing isn’t the problem; it’s the deadly narrative that owning a gun makes your home safer. It simply doesn’t. Research shows that a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide by 100%, suicide by 50%, and unintentional death significantly. I’ve witnessed how quickly an unsecured gun can turn a moment of fear, anger, or despair into an irreversible tragedy.

Second, we shift the national conversation from gun rights to gun responsibilities. Rights come with duties. An unsecured gun doesn’t just put your family at risk—it endangers neighbors, classmates, and entire communities. Only about 6% of guns used in crimes are stolen, yet those guns are far more likely to be used in violent crimes. And nearly 74% of school shooters under 18 got their gun from home or a relative. These aren’t just tragedies, they’re preventable. Responsible gun owners lock up their firearms, store ammunition separately, and support common-sense policies like mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns, child access prevention laws, and required training. Supporting background checks and red flag laws isn’t anti-gun, it’s pro-responsibility.

Third, gun violence groups must work together.

In 2000, there was one widely recognized national organization: the Brady Campaign. Today there are many, but they often compete for funding, attention, and influence. It’s time to align, collaborate, and focus our collective energy against a fractured gun lobby whose primary strategy remains fear and bravado. Only by working together can we create sustained lasting change.

Finally, we must elevate and invest in the next generation of activists. Today’s young people have grown up with lockdowns and active shooter drills. They understand the stakes—viscerally. Their leadership was undeniable after the 2018 Parkland shooting, when survivors organized March for Our Lives, one of the largest single-day protests in U.S. history. Those of us who marched in 2000 must now step up and mentor, resource, and amplify this rising generation. Our kids’ lives depend on it.

Twenty-five years ago, we marched because we believed a safer world was possible. I often think of Carole Price, who bravely stood on stage that day and told us about her 13-year-old son, John—shot and killed while playing at a friend’s house. “It never occurred to me to ask about guns,” she said. “I wish I had asked the question.” Then she said something I’ll never forget: “It might be uncomfortable to ask the question. But I can tell you from personal experience, it’s a lot more uncomfortable to pick out a casket for your child.”

Even now—despite the setbacks, the rising death toll, and the political paralysis—I still believe. I believe in this next generation, in the power of parents and survivors, and in ordinary people who refuse to look away. We didn’t march 25-years ago because we wanted to. We marched because we had to—children were dying. They still are.

So we keep going. Because really, what other choice do we have?

Six months ago, a United Nations Special Committee found that Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza were consistent with genocide. The UN defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” The Special Committee pointed to the fact that Israel had dropped over 25,000 tonnes of explosives—equivalent to two nuclear bombs—on Gaza in just four months. Interference with humanitarian aid, leading to starvation, was another atrocity. The Committee stated, “By destroying vital water, sanitation, and food systems, and contaminating the environment, Israel has created a lethal mix of crises that will inflict severe harm on generations to come.”

Disapproval amongst Americans is growing. Yet the U.S. government continues to provide Israel with billions of taxpayer dollars of military aid per year. The ultimate recipient of this aid isn’t Israel; it’s the U.S. defense industry. More specifically, it’s the individuals who benefit from the industry’s growth.

Millionaire CEOs benefit from the consumption of military goods and services that, so far, have enabled the killing of well over 50,000 people—nearly a third of them under 18. Lobbying and campaign contributions help ensure that their profits increase. It’s a vicious cycle that only a society obsessed with growth could stomach.

Shifting Public Sentiment

In their horrific October 7, 2023, attack, Hamas killed more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals and took 251 hostages. Even before this attack, many nations designated Hamas as a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction. They cite its charter and longstanding tactics of suicide bombings, indiscriminate rocket fire, and the use of human shields.

Yet Hamas’s actions have been eclipsed in the minds of many Americans by the scenes of devastation streaming from Gaza. More Americans think the United States is providing too much military aid to Israel (34%) than not enough aid (17%) or the right amount (26%). Democrats and Republicans alike are trending toward less favorable views of the war and the United States’s involvement. Still, a majority of Republicans support maintaining or increasing military aid to Israel, which makes the Trump administration’s approach unsurprising.

The same can’t be said for the preceding Biden administration or the Harris campaign. A strong majority of Democratic voters think the U.S. should stop weapons shipments to Israel. Why, then, did Biden allocate over $23 billion in taxes to that end? And why didn’t the Harris campaign, desperate for votes, promise to halt the controversial military aid?

Economic Growth’s Role in U.S.-Israel-Palestine Dynamics

Many complex factors influence the United States’ relationship with Israel. The Middle East is a critical fossil-fuel producer. There are an estimated three billion barrels of oil beneath and off the coast of Palestinian lands. The United States may also be motivated to match Russia’s recent relationship-building in the region. We would be remiss, however, not to acknowledge the influence of the entities cashing the military-aid check: U.S. defense corporations, such as Boeing, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin.

Ecological limits to growth are certainly at play as a driver of Israel’s conflict. In addition to attracting global interests for its fossil-fuel reserves, the region lacks sufficient water and arable land to sustainably support its dense and growing population. However, this story is more about the social consequences of the neoliberal economic-growth model and the actors that drive it.

Virtually every industry exploits someone to grow beyond local resource limits, but the defense industry deserves unique scrutiny. For one thing, violent death is a particularly heinous breed of exploitation. For another, the government is especially committed to the defense industry’s growth. It sees growth as the only way to maintain “military primacy,” the long-time top priority of U.S. foreign policy.

Military “Aid” for Israel

Since its founding, Israel has received more U.S. aid than any other country, at $310 billion. The next biggest aid recipient, Egypt, has received just over half that much ($168 billion). The vast majority of the $310 billion is military, as opposed to economic, aid.

It is one matter to support a strategic ally in defending itself from hostile neighbors. It is quite another matter to provide 23 billion taxpayer dollars as your ally’s “defense” morphs into a genocide. To put that figure into perspective, the United States committed a total of $79 billion in foreign assistance in 2023. A quarter of that was military aid. The rest was economic aid (which the Trump administration has since eviscerated).

Israel is unique in that it has historically been permitted to use some of its U.S. military aid on Israeli equipment and services. However, the United States is phasing out that privilege. It has required Israel to spend most of the aid provided since October 2023 on transactions with U.S. defense contractors. Adapting to these requirements, Israeli contractors have begun transferring personnel and capacities to the United States (contributing to U.S. military primacy). Large Israeli firms, such as Elbit Systems and UVision, have opened U.S. subsidiaries, but smaller arms makers lack the resources to start U.S. operations.

Benefits to Israel are Debatable. Benefits to Corporations are Not.

The UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs warned that “the conflict in Lebanon, coupled with intensified strikes in Syria and the raging violence in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, points to a region dangerously teetering on the brink of an all-out war.” Who would benefit from an all-out war in the Middle East? The same corporations benefiting from the conflict to date: a long list topped by Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and RTX (formerly Raytheon and United Technologies).

Details about weapons provisions to Israel have been shrouded in secrecy, in contrast to less-controversial provisions to Ukraine. However, documentation of recent major arms sales helps paint a picture.

In August 2024, the Boeing Corporation received an $18.8 billion contract for F-15 fighter jets and related equipment. Boeing was the lead contractor for an additional $6.8 billion munitions package, approved by the State Department this February. These contracts are a lifeline for the company, which has seen financial losses for the last six years. Boeing’s Defense Space Security Segment accounted for a plurality of its revenue in 2024.

Also in February, General Dynamics, Ellwood National Forge Company, and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant were listed as the “prime” contractors on a $2 billion sale of over 35 thousand bomb bodies and four thousand “Penetrator” warheads. Unlike Boeing, General Dynamics is thriving. The company netted $3.8 billion in 2024, up 14 percent from 2023. At the outset of the conflict, the company’s executive vice president (who receives over $9 million in annual compensation) said, “You know, the Israel situation obviously is a terrible one…But I think if you look at the incremental demand potential coming out of that, the biggest one to highlight and that really sticks out is probably on the artillery side.”

Beyond Corporation Obfuscation: The Humans Who Benefit

We tend to accept corporate greed, as an inevitable evil or even a beneficial quality in a free market economy. A company’s primary responsibility is to its shareholders, after all. However, there are living, breathing human beings hiding behind these “corporate” norms.

Defense-industry managers and shareholders personally benefit from the production of goods and services used for genocide. To sleep at night, they might tell themselves that the deaths of 16 thousand children are collateral damage that’s unfortunate but necessary to stop Hamas. They probably even tell themselves that evolution means survival of the fittest, and they have no obligation to care.

Who are these people? Meet Boeing’s CEO, Kelly Ortberg. Boeing brought Ortberg on last year, inspired by his performance at Rockwell Collins, where he oversaw $9 billion in sales growth (thanks in part to acquisitions like Arinc). Ortberg has been tasked with pulling the company out of its financial slump and smoothing over safety-incident controversies. Boeing compensates him well for his troubles, to the tune of $18 million per year.

Ortberg’s estimated net worth of $26 million is chump change compared to the General Dynamics CEO’s net worth. In fact, Phebe Novakovic earned almost that much ($24 million) in 2024 alone, bringing her net worth to an estimated $450 million (up from just $150 million in 2020). Novakovic is the sixth highest-paid woman in the United States.

During a shareholder meeting, an activist confronted Novakovic about the company’s involvement with repressive dictatorships. The activist asserted that a Saudi-led coalition used General Dynamics’ products to bomb a marketplace in Yemen in 2016, killing 25 children and 75 additional civilians. Novakovic responded, “We can define and we can debate who is evil and who is not, but we do support the policy of the U.S. and I happen to believe…the policy of the U.S. is just and fair.”

RTX Corporation compensated its CEO, Christopher Calio, $18 million in 2024. Kathy Warden, Northrop Grumman’s CEO, and Jim Taiclet, Lockheed Martin’s CEO, were each compensated $24 million. This brought their net worths to an estimated $108 million and $84 million, respectively. It’s worth noting that a significant portion of these CEOs’ compensation—between 55 and 87 percent for the five CEOs mentioned—is in the form of stock and stock options in their companies. This incentivizes them to push for growth at all costs (even genocide), as growth often determines share prices.

These defense CEOs live private lives, so we cannot say whether they hoard their wealth or spend it on a luxurious lifestyle (evidence suggests millionaires usually do the latter). But make no mistake, they are disproportionately contributing to the drawdown of natural resources and the social infractions that inevitably accompany it. Every dollar “printed” into the economy is linked to environmental impact. Therefore, the impact of someone earning $20 million per year is almost 1,500 times bigger than that of the average global citizen. (This is the logic for capping salaries.)

Another Casualty of Unfettered Growth: Corporate Capture

Money is power, often wielded to influence policymakers and ensure further economic gains. Novakovic believes U.S. policy is “just and fair,” yet General Dynamics spent $15.6 million to influence it in 2024 ($12.2 on lobbying and $3.4 on campaign contributions). To smartly invest this money, the company employs 50 lobbyists (out of 77 total) who’ve previously held government jobs. They’ve even hired former congressman Jim Moran via his lobbying firm, Moran Global Strategies. Moran served as a Virginia representative for 24 years.

The defense sector spent a total of $149 million on lobbying and $43 million on campaign contributions in 2024 (Boeing, categorized under the transportation sector, spent $12 million and $6 million, respectively). Many other sectors, including health, transportation, and agribusiness, spent more than defense, cumulatively. However, some particularly big spenders characterize the defense sector. RTX, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics alone made up 26 percent of the sector’s lobbying, ranking 19, 21, and 22 out of all lobbying clients.

In the last Congress, the bill most frequently lobbied by both RTX and Lockheed Martin (General Dynamics was right on their heels) was the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. It included several provisions to increase U.S. military aid to Israel, including $500 million for U.S.-Israel missile defense programs.

Companies that spent over $5 million on lobbying in 2024. The revolving door column displays the percentage of the company’s lobbyists who previously held government jobs. (OpenSecrets)

Lobbying money can go far with the right expertise. Over 60 percent of the defense sector’s 948 lobbyists used to hold government positions. This “revolving door” works both ways, as evidenced by reverse revolvers like Lloyd Austin. Before being appointed secretary of defense under the Biden administration, Austin earned seven figures from defense companies. Amongst these was United Technologies, which later merged into RTX. He also worked at Pine Island Capital Partners, a private equity firm that invests in defense companies and advertises its access to DC.

This is how unsustainable growth gets woven into the social fabric: one wealthy, powerful interest and one influenced policymaker at a time. Of course, defense-industry growth isn’t the only factor prompting the United States to support Israel. However, even the White House acknowledges it’s a special consideration. It justified a $92 billion emergency supplemental request that included support for Israel on the basis that it would make “significant and much needed investments in the American defense industrial base, benefitting U.S. military readiness and helping to create and sustain jobs in dozens of states across America.”

A genocide backed by economic interests is a big problem involving powerful actors. However, many people are taking action to affect the status quo. One approach that has gained momentum is to divest from defense corporations selling arms to Israel and encourage institutions to do the same. Since the start of the conflict, campus activists have successfully pressured several universities to take divestment action. These include the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and Portland State University.

Another approach is to tell your political representatives to stop arming Israel with your tax dollars. This can be done individually or via a coalition. Last year, one coalition of over 75 organizations and another of 100 journalists called on politicians to “stop arming Israel.” Clearly, their success has been limited to date. However, a critical mass of grassroots lobbying is hard for elected representatives to ignore. At a certain scale, it may even outcompete the corporate lobbying of the defense sector.

This article first appeared at the Steady State Herald, a publication by the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE).

President Donald Trump has proposed extending all the temporary tax cuts he signed into law in 2017 with one (newly announced) exception—allowing the top rate to revert from 37% to 39.6% for taxable income greater than $5 million for married couples and $2.5 million for unmarried taxpayers. But many other special breaks in the tax code—some introduced by Trump’s 2017 tax law and many others that existed prior to it—would ensure that most income of very well-off people would never be subject to Trump’s 39.6% tax rate.

The very richest taxpayers broken out in IRS data are those with adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeding $10 million. Calculations using the most recent IRS data, which is for 2022, show that 85% of income from these extremely well-off taxpayers would not have been taxed at this higher rate, had it been in effect that year.

Of the $1.05 trillion in income reported by these taxpayers (who all reported at least $10 million), only $162 billion (15% of their total income) would have been subject to the 39.6% rate.

Another $176 billion (17% of their total income) would be taxed at a lower effective rate due to the 20% deduction for business income enacted as part of the 2017 tax law.

The vast majority of the income flowing to this group, $713 billion (68% of their total income) would not have been affected at all by Trump’s 39.6% rate. Most of this income is long-term capital gains and qualified dividends that have long been taxed at special, lower rates enacted under former President George W. Bush. It would be difficult for Congress to ever adequately tax extremely well-off people without reforming these and other special tax breaks for capital gains and dividends.

The 68% of income for these taxpayers that would not be subject to the 39.6% rate also includes income taxed at ordinary rates in brackets below the proposed 39.6% bracket. In addition, it includes income that is not taxable because of various deductions, like the deduction for charitable giving.

Had this proposal been in effect in 2022, the total additional tax paid by people with AGI exceeding $10 million would have been less than $8 billion.* The overall cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts, plus many new cuts that Trump and his supporters in Congress are considering, would cost orders of magnitude more than that.

In some ways, very well-off people are even more shielded from Trump’s proposed top rate than is illustrated in these figures. They have vast amounts of income that they are not required to report to the IRS, which are not included in this data and which are exempt from taxes under federal law. Most importantly, a wealthy person’s increase in net worth due to appreciation of assets is capital gain income that is not taxed until the assets are sold and the capital gains are “realized” as profits.

The corporate tax cuts enacted as part of the 2017 law mainly helped these taxpayers by increasing the value of their stocks, meaning they likely benefited from increased unrealized capital gains not reported in this data. The drafters of the 2017 law made those corporate income tax cuts permanent, unlike the personal income tax cuts and estate tax cuts that are temporary and being debated now as they near expiration. It will be difficult to adequately tax extremely well-off taxpayers without revisiting and reversing some of these corporate income tax cuts.

All else equal, it would be slightly better to let the top tax rate revert to 2017 levels as Trump suggests. But nobody should be deceived: The wealthiest taxpayers got enormous tax breaks from Trump’s 2017 law and are getting additional large tax breaks in what Trump and Republicans are proposing now. We need legislation that requires rich people to pay more taxes, not less. The Republican legislation will do the opposite, regardless of whether or not Congress includes this latest suggestion from Donald Trump.

*The revenue generated by a 39.6% rate compared to a 37% rate would be 2.6% of whatever taxable income is affected. As explained, only $162 billion of income for these taxpayers would have been entirely subject to the 39.6% rate, and 2.6% of $162 billion yields $4.2 billion. As explained, another $176 billion would have been subject to the 39.6% rate but because of the 20% deduction for pass-through business income, the revenue saved would be 20% less, yielding $3.6 billion. The sum of the two amounts is $7.9 billion. A small but indeterminate amount of additional revenue would also be raised from taxpayers with AGI below $10 million.

If you’re counting on the 2026 midterm elections to wrest control of U.S. Congress from the GOP, be forewarned.

The party is taking no chances on the upcoming plebiscite and has hatched a plan to rig all future federal elections with the goal of transforming the United States into a one-party state.

At the center of the plan is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, passed on April 10 by the House and pending before the Senate, and an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on March 25 with the Orwellian title of “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” And looming in the background, with the final word on either measure’s constitutionality, is the Supreme Court, packed with three Trump appointees and holding a long and sorry record of hostility to voting rights.

All of this is happening step by step, setting the stage for what could turn out to be the final chapter for American democracy.

The SAVE Act would require all Americans to provide a birth certificate, passport, or some other documentary proof of citizenship in person every time they register or re-register to vote; require each state to take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote; and remove noncitizens from their official voter lists. It would also create a private right of action, after the fashion of the Texas anti-abortion law, to allow disgruntled individuals to sue election officials who register voters without obtaining proof of citizenship and establish criminal penalties of up to five years in prison for election officials who violate the act.

Trump’s executive order is no less extreme. Among its directives is a mandate for the Election Assistance Commission, an independent nonpartisan agency created by Congress, to require voters to submit documentary proof of their citizenship when using national voter registration forms. It would also stop states from counting mailed-in ballots votes that are sent in by Election Day but are delivered afterward, require recertification of all state voting systems to meet new security standards set by the EAC, and halt election assistance funding to states that do not comply with the terms of the order within 180 days. Perhaps most alarming, the order would allow the Department of Government Efficiency and the Department of Homeland Security to subpoena state records and use federal databases to review state voter registration lists.

There is some good news amid the darkness. On April 24, federal district court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee who sits in Washington, D.C., issued a 120-page opinion and preliminary injunction, blocking the EAC from adding documentary proof of citizenship to the national voter registration form. “Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the states—not the president—with the authority to regulate federal elections,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote, holding that Trump’s order violated the separation of powers and referring to Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which states:

The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [original text] Senators.

But while voting-rights groups have praised Kollar-Kotelly’s opinion, the judge left the rest of the executive order in place. More concerning, the ruling did nothing to derail the SAVE Act. As the judge noted, “Consistent with [the separation of powers doctrine], Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the president purports to order.”

The dangers posed by the SAVE Act cannot be understated. According to a survey conducted by the Brennan Center and affiliated organizations, more than 9% of American voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, don’t have a passport, birth certificate, naturalization papers, or other proof of citizenship readily available. “Voters of color, voters who change their names (most notably, married women), and younger voters would be most significantly affected,” the Brennan Center has warned.

In an article posted after the House approved the act, Democracy Docket, the digital election news platform founded by attorney Marc Elias, featured the views of a group of distinguished historians and voting experts on the act.

“There’s never been an attack on voting rights out of Congress like this,” Alexander Keyssar, a professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, told the Docket. “It’s always been the federal government trying to keep states in check on voting rights, for the most part.”

“Congress has never passed a voter-suppression law like this before,” Sean Morales-Doyle, the director of the Brennan Center’s voting-rights program, said. “When it has exercised its power to regulate federal elections, Congress has usually done so to protect the freedom to vote. If this becomes law, it will be a new low for Congress.”

Princeton professor Sean Wilentz also weighed in with a dire assessment. “It’s the most extraordinary attack on voting rights in American history,” Wilentz said, characterizing the act as “the latest attempt to gut voting-rights advances that were made in the 1960s,” one more dangerous than the Jim Crow-era laws used in the South, because it is national in scope. “This is an attempt to destroy American democracy as we know it.”

All eyes now turn to the Senate, where Democrats have the power to filibuster the SAVE Act to prevent its passage unless 60 members vote to invoke cloture. Thus far, the Democrats seem to be holding the line, even in the face of persistent propaganda spewed by Trump, Elon Musk, and other Republicans that election fraud is rampant and that Democrats are “importing [undocumented] voters” to swing elections. In truth, of course, election fraud in the U.S. is miniscule, with some long-range state-by-state studies finding it occurs at rates between 0.0003% and 0.0025% of total votes cast.

Should any part of the SAVE Act pass and be signed into law, it will likely come before the Supreme Court, where its fate may turn on Chief Justice John Roberts, who along with Amy Coney Barrett, sometimes aligns with the panel’s liberals in big cases.

Roberts, however, has a long history of undermining voting rights that stretches back to his stint as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration and his role as a behind-the-scenes GOP consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach for oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the run-up to Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 presidential election.

In 2013, as chief justice, he composed the disastrous majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act. In 2019, he continued his anti-voting-rights crusade, writing the majority opinion Rucho v. Common Cause, which removed the issue of political gerrymandering (the practice of designing voting maps to benefit the party in power) from the jurisdiction of federal courts. And in 2021, he joined a 5-to-4 majority ruling penned by Justice Samuel Alito that upheld Arizona laws prohibiting out-of-precinct voting and criminalizing the collection of mail-in ballots by third parties.

In the meantime, hundreds of lawyers have resigned from the Justice Department, repelled by Trump’s reactionary policies. As The New York Times has reported, the exodus has been especially felt hard at the department’s civil rights division, whose mission Trump has transformed from one of opposing voter suppression to stamping out phony claims of rampant election fraud.

All of this is happening step by step, setting the stage for what could turn out to be the final chapter for American democracy. Not only is it not too early to start thinking about the midterms, it may already be too late.