Eight years before the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam collapsed, I stood with high school friends at Manhattan’s Penn Station on the night of April 15, 1967, waiting for a train back to Washington after attending the era’s largest anti-war protest so far. An early edition of the next day’s New York Times arrived on newsstands with a big headline at the top of the front page that said “100,000 Rally at U.N. Against Vietnam War.” I heard someone say, “Johnson will have to listen to us now.”

But President Lyndon Johnson dashed the hopes of those who marched from Central Park to the United Nations that day (with an actual turnout later estimated at 400,000). He kept escalating the war in Vietnam, while secretly also bombing Laos and Cambodia.

During the years that followed, anti-war demonstrations grew in thousands of communities across the United States. The decentralized Moratorium Day events on October 15, 1969 drew upward of 2 million people. But all forms of protest fell on deaf official ears. A song by the folksinger Donovan, recorded midway through the decade, became more accurate and powerful with each passing year: “The War Drags On.”

By remaining faithful to the war policies of the president they served, while discounting the opinions of young voters, two Democratic vice presidents—Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris—damaged their efforts to win the White House.

As the war continued, so did the fading of trust in the wisdom and morality of Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon. Gallup polls gauged the steep credibility drop. In 1965, just 24% of Americans said involvement in the Vietnam War had been a mistake. By the spring of 1971, the figure was 61%.

The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam gradually diminished from the peak of 536,100 in 1968, but ground operations and massive U.S. bombing persisted until the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in late January 1973. American forces withdrew from Vietnam, but the war went on with U.S. support for 27 more months, until—on April 30, 1975—the final helicopter liftoff from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon signaled that the Vietnam War was indeed over.

By then, most Americans were majorly disillusioned. Optimism that public opinion would sway their government’s leaders on matters of war and peace had been steadily crushed while carnage in Southeast Asia continued. To many citizens, democracy had failed—and the failure seemed especially acute to students, whose views on the war had evolved way ahead of overall opinion.

At the end of the 1960s, Gallup found “significantly more opposition to President Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies” among students at public and private colleges than in “a parallel survey of the U.S. general public: 44% vs. 25%, respectively.” The same poll “showed 69% of students in favor of slowing down or halting the fighting in Vietnam, while only 20% favored escalation. This was a sharp change from 1967, when more students favored escalation (49%) than deescalation (35%).”

Six decades later, it took much less time for young Americans to turn decisively against their government’s key role of arming Israel’s war on Gaza. By a wide margin, continuous huge shipments of weapons to the Israeli military swiftly convinced most young adults that the U.S. government was complicit in a relentless siege taking the lives of Palestinian civilians on a large scale.

A CBS News/YouGov poll in June 2024 found that Americans opposed sending “weapons and supplies to Israel” by 61-39%. Opposition to the arms shipments was even higher among young people. For adults under age 30, the ratio was 77-23.

Emerging generations learned that moral concerns about their country’s engagement in faraway wars meant little to policymakers in Washington. No civics textbook could prepare students for the realities of power that kept the nation’s war machine on a rampage, taking several million lives in Southeast Asia or supplying weapons making possible genocide in Gaza.

For vast numbers of Americans, disproportionately young, the monstrous warfare overseen by Presidents Johnson and Nixon caused the scales to fall from their eyes about the character of U.S. leadership. And like President Donald Trump now, President Joe Biden showed that nice-sounding rhetoric could serve as a tidy cover story for choosing to enable nonstop horrors without letup.

No campaign-trail platitudes about caring and joy could make up for a lack of decency. By remaining faithful to the war policies of the president they served, while discounting the opinions of young voters, two Democratic vice presidents—Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris—damaged their efforts to win the White House.

A pair of exchanges on network television, 56 years apart, are eerily similar.

In August 1968, appearing on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” Humphrey was asked, “On what points, if any, do you disagree with the Vietnam policies of President Johnson?”

“I think that the policies that the president has pursued are basically sound,” Humphrey replied.

In October 2024, appearing on the ABC program “The View,” Harris was asked: “Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris replied.

Young people’s votes for Harris last fall were just 54%, compared with 60% that they provided to Biden four years earlier.

Many young eyes recognized the war policy positions of Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris as immoral. Their decisions to stay on a war train clashed with youthful idealism. And while hardboiled political strategists opted to discount such idealism as beside the electoral point, the consequences have been truly tragic—and largely foreseeable.

For nearly 250 years, the American system of government has been built to guard against an authoritarian leader. Our Constitution created a careful balance of powers among the branches of government to ward off tyranny. But just 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term, we are seeing this system bend to the point of breaking under the weight of a willful disregard for the rule of law.

We must take this moment to finally install more concrete guardrails against corruption and abuse of power.

America’s system of checks and balances was never meant to depend on trust alone. It was designed to be tested and strengthened. We have relied on key tools to rein in executive overreach: a vigilant Congress, a strong judiciary, an engaged citizenry informed by public interest groups, an apolitical civil service, independent inspectors general, meaningful whistleblower protections, and ethics laws, to name several.

Some of these safeguards are holding. Right now, civil society is carrying much of the burden. Investigative journalists, watchdog groups, academic institutions, and advocacy organizations are doing the work that too many public officials have abandoned. They are shining lights into corners where the government prefers darkness, informing the public and pressuring institutions to act.

The problem isn’t just that guardrails are being destroyed; some have always been missing.

The courts, too, have shown signs of resilience. Despite last year’s Supreme Court ruling expanding presidential immunity, which chipped away at the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power, judges have issued rulings that uphold our basic constitutional principles. That said, recent moves from the judicial branch are alarming. They have done so even in the face of hostile rhetoric and open defiance.

These bright spots are important, but they are the exception, not the rule. We must confront a harsh reality: Many safeguards have proven extremely fragile. If we hope to emerge from this crisis with our democracy intact, we must also confront what has failed and what we must change.

Congressional oversight has become theatrical at best and nonexistent at worst. This is especially true when the president’s party holds power. And the legislative branch has let the executive branch encroach on its power of the purse and diminish its role in the policymaking process. That dynamic must change. Members of Congress need to remember they work for their constituents. That means scrutinizing the executive branch regardless of which party controls it, holding more hearings back in members’ districts, and creating more accessible public forums.

An apolitical and secure civil service has long been a stabilizing force in our government, ensuring that laws are implemented faithfully and without bias. But mass firings and politically motivated purges are dismantling this safeguard. When loyalty to the president is prized over competence or integrity, the system begins to collapse from within. To protect their essential work, we must strengthen legal safeguards for civil servants and insulate them from political retaliation.

Inspectors general — the independent watchdogs tasked with rooting out misconduct across federal agencies — have been fundamentally disempowered. President Trump has removed many of them without explanation or cause, threatening a critical line of oversight. Congress must not only rebuild but strengthen the independence of inspectors general. That may look like moving them to the legislative branch, where they could be protected from executive interference.

The work of everyone who cares about democracy... matters more than ever. Not just for today’s crisis, but also to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

Whistleblowers, another bedrock of internal accountability, are often our first and best defense against corruption. But their protections are increasingly toothless after the president illegally fired the head of the very office designed to uphold them. This move costs us the information we need to root out corruption and abuse.

The problem isn’t just that guardrails are being destroyed; some have always been missing. Ethics laws for the most powerful people in government are far too weak. Both the president and vice president are exempt from the conflict-of-interest rules that apply to the federal workforce. Members of Congress can buy and trade stocks even though their decisions often move markets. And Elon Musk’s role in the White House demonstrates how glaring financial conflicts can sow deep distrust in government actions. We need stronger laws at the highest levels so the public can be confident their government is working in their interest.

None of these failures exist in isolation. Each one enables the other. Without consequences, the last abuse of power is just practice for the next.

But here’s the good news: the reverse is also true. Strengthen any of these pillars, and you strengthen the whole system. That’s why our work — the work of everyone who cares about democracy — matters more than ever. Not just for today’s crisis, but also to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

We can make our democracy work — and for the first time in our country’s history, make it work for everyone. But only if we fight for it.

The International Finance Corporation’s website brands many of the well-founded criticisms of industrial animal production as “myths.” This reflects the regrettably polarized debate between those who believe that industrial agriculture is needed to feed the growing world population and those who, like me, argue that a far-reaching transformation of our food system is needed.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) website states that it is a myth that industrial animal production is bad for food security. The truth, however, is that factory farming diverts food away from people; it is dependent on feeding grain—corn, wheat, barley—to animals who convert these crops very inefficiently into meat and milk. For every 100 calories of human-edible cereals fed to animals, just 7-27 calories (depending on the species) enter the human food chain as meat. And for every 100 grams of protein in human-edible cereals fed to animals, only 13-37 grams of protein enter the human food chain as meat.

The scale of this is massive. International Grains Council data show that 45% of global grain production is used as animal feed, while 76% of world soy production is used to feed animals. The inefficiency of doing this is recognized by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which states that it is “essential to fight food insecurity and malnutrition… Reducing the use of much of the world's grain production to feed animals and producing more food for direct human consumption can significantly contribute to this objective.” I calculate that if the use of cereals as animal feed were ended, an extra 2 billion people could be fed even allowing for the fact that if we reared fewer animals we would need to grow more crops for direct human consumption. My figure is very cautious; other studies calculate that ending the use of grains as animal feed would enable an extra 3.5-4 billion people to be fed. Moreover, industrial livestock’s huge demand for these cereals pushes up their price, potentially placing them out of reach of poor populations in the Global South. So, sorry IFC, but it really is not a myth to say that industrial animal production is bad for food security.

To dismiss the harsh suffering endured by industrially farmed animals as a myth is extraordinary

The IFC website dismisses as a myth the argument that industrial animal production is bad for the environment. However, factory farms disgorge large amounts of manure, slurry, and ammonia that pollute air and watercourses. When ammonia mixes with other gases it can form particulate matter; this is a key component of air pollution, which can lead to heart and pulmonary disease, respiratory problems including asthma, and lung cancer.

Industrial livestock’s huge demand for cereals as feed has been a key factor fuelling the intensification of crop production. This pivotal link between the livestock and arable sectors is often not recognized. With its monocultures and high use of chemical pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers, intensive crop production leads to soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and overuse and pollution of water. In short, it erodes the key fundamentals—soils, water, and biodiversity—on which our future ability to feed ourselves depends.

Arjem Hoekstra (2020) calculates that animals fed on cereals and soy (industrially farmed animals) use 43 times as much surface- and groundwater and are 61 times as polluting of water as animals fed on grass and other roughages. Its adherents claim that factory farming saves land by cramming animals into crowded sheds. But in reality it eats up huge amounts of cropland for feed. European Union studies show that feed production accounts for 99% of the land use of the pig and broiler sectors. It is feed production—not the tiny amount of space given to animals on the farm—that makes factory farming so land-hungry.

The contention that industrial systems undermine the socioeconomic potential of small-scale farmers in the developing world is also branded a myth by the IFC. The World Bank, however, takes a different view. Its 2024 report Recipe for a Liveable Planet states, “The global agrifood system disproportionately and detrimentally affects poor communities and smallholder farmers who cannot compete with industrial agriculture, thereby exacerbating rural poverty and increasing landlessness.” Instead of funding industrial agriculture the IFC should help small-scale farmers move to agroecology and regenerative farming which can boost yields, reduce the use of expensive inputs, and improve livelihoods.

Also swatted aside as a myth is the mountain of scientific evidence that industrial livestock production results in poor animal welfare. To dismiss the harsh suffering endured by industrially farmed animals as a myth is extraordinary. In its own Good Practice Note on animal welfare the IFC lists what are commonly recognized to be the key characteristics of factory farming—confinement in narrow stalls, overcrowding, barren environments, painful procedures, hunger, and breeding for high yields leading to health disorders—and identifies them as “welfare risks” that need to be tackled. But now, in a remarkable volte-face, the IFC airily dismisses these problems as a myth.

IFC’s position stands in sharp contrast to UNEP, which states that “intensive systems deprive animals of some of their most basic physical and psychological needs.” World Bank economist Berk Özler has written about the value of policies under which low-income countries can grow without causing massive increases in suffering among farmed animals. He writes, “Perhaps many low-income countries can leapfrog the stage of industrial animal farming, towards something more sensible.”

I urge the IFC to recognize that industrial animal agriculture is destructive—destructive of food security, the environment, small-scale farmer livelihoods, and the well-being of animals.

The American promise rests on a profound yet simple idea: We are governed by laws, not by the whims of individuals. This bedrock principle—that impartial rules apply equally to all—faces an unprecedented assault. On May 1, state and local bar associations, civil rights organizations, and lawyers nationwide will unite in an unprecedented mobilization to defend this cornerstone of American justice.

As lawyers, we take a solemn oath: to support the Constitution of the United States. "Support" in this context implies a more proactive stance than mere defense. This oath compels us to take affirmative steps to uphold the principle that law, not personal power, reigns supreme. Today, fulfilling this obligation has never been more critical.

This Thursday, lawyers in over 40 cities will stand shoulder to shoulder, collectively raising their right hands to publicly recommit to their sacred oath for the National Law Day of Action. This act isn't mere symbolism—it's an alarm bell in a moment of genuine peril for our justice system.

Our message is simple but urgent: If we allow the independence of courts and lawyers to be compromised today, our other rights will become negotiable tomorrow.

The threats to judicial independence have become impossible to ignore. When a federal judge faces impeachment threats simply for upholding the law—as Judge James Boasberg did after halting deportation flights—we've crossed a dangerous threshold. We've witnessed instances where judicial directives are contested not through proper legal channels but through public disparagement and apparent noncompliance. Alarmingly, the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan by federal authorities represents an unprecedented escalation, sending a chilling message to judges across the country. When court orders are treated as optional suggestions rather than binding mandates, and when attorneys face intimidation for representing unpopular clients, our constitutional foundations are actively eroding.

A nation of laws requires an independent judiciary. Judges must be able to rule based on law rather than political pressure. Lawyers must be free to zealously advocate without fear of retribution. Without these, equal justice becomes hollow rhetoric. This is starkly illustrated by recent events where law firms representing clients who oppose administration policies have faced executive orders suspending their employees' security clearances and barring them from federal buildings—actions that one judge noted send "chills down my spine" for the "extraordinary power" they represent.

Our judges and courts have no militias. As Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist 78, courts depend entirely on their institutional legitimacy and the bar's commitment to uphold their authority. When that authority is undermined through defiance or delegitimized through partisan attacks, we approach a system where power, not principle, determines outcomes. A judge intimidated today means justice denied tomorrow.

This national mobilization on Law Day transcends partisan divides because the rule of law transcends politics. We all lose in a system where legal outcomes depend on who holds power rather than what the law requires. The growing pattern of attempts to circumvent judicial authority—from ignoring court orders to demanding recusal after unfavorable rulings to demonizing "activist" judges—represents an assault on constitutional safeguards that protect us all.

The attacks on judges and lawyers form a two-pronged assault on the constitutional order we pledged to defend. An intimidated bar cannot check government overreach; a weakened judiciary cannot enforce accountability. These essential guardians of liberty now face unprecedented threats.

The oath we took upon joining the bar wasn't a one-time ceremony but a lifelong commitment. On May 1, we renew our promise to the Constitution en masse. We will be a visible reminder that the legal profession stands united against forces that would replace the rule of law with the rule of the powerful.

Our message is simple but urgent: If we allow the independence of courts and lawyers to be compromised today, our other rights will become negotiable tomorrow. No freedom survives when those who defend it are silenced or controlled.

We call on every member of the bar—and indeed every person who values constitutional government—to join this historic stand for democracy. Find your local event at LawDayofAction.org. When we stand together, recommitting to our oath with one voice, we send an unmistakable message: The legal profession will defend our nation of laws and ensure justice remains equal for all.

April 30th marks the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War's end when Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon, soon to be renamed Ho Chi Minh City. The war was a terrible experience for the United States, but even more so for the people of Vietnam and much of the rest of Southeast Asia. Estimates are that up to 3 million Vietnamese perished, as well many many thousands of Cambodians and Laotians. Fifty-eight thousand American died, and a trillion American tax dollars were wasted.

Many of us who were there are still trying to understand and come to grips with it. Based on years of study, here is what I think people still get wrong about the war. What I write will be controversial, but it is based on what I saw and learned. If I seem angry, it is because I still am.

In nearly all wars, the other side is demonized and made into evil caricatures of human beings; doing so makes it easier to kill them. From the U.S. perspective, the Vietnam War was no exception. Even the Vietnamese who were supposedly on our side were commonly referred to as gooks, zips (Zero Intelligence Personnel), slants, slopes and more, often to their faces. In my experience, the U.S. military chain of command made no effort to correct this. Given the pervasive racism among American troops, it should come as no surprise that violence against Vietnamese civilians was common. It is hard to understand how anyone thought the Vietnamese people would rally to the U.S. side while being badly treated.

The lesson to be learned is that U.S. military leaders, if they care about the troops at all, should do all they can to prevent war crimes through training, clear orders, and prosecutions.

In Vietnam many of us learned to be quite skeptical of the media and the U.S. government. To cite just one example out of hundreds, as the advancing NVA/VC forces began to overrun the South (mid-1970's), U.S. officials and media warned of a bloodbath to come. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger warned that 200,000 would be killed if the communists won. The American armed forces newspaper Stars and Stripes, in one of the last issues to arrive in Saigon, carried a headline: "At Least a Million Vietnamese Will Be Slaughtered." But that never happened. When it came to allegations of massacres, whether by the enemy in Hue during Tet, or the Americans at My Lai, the truth was regularly mangled by the U.S. government and media.

The leak of the Pentagon Papers, which so infuriated then-President Richard Nixon, revealed many other falsehoods, even as to when the war started. The Papers show that it was in 1945 that the French government decided to reclaim its Vietnam colony from the Japanese occupiers. Then the U.S. got involved under President Harry Truman. From that time the U.S. provided air transport, weapons, advisers, and funding without which the French reoccupation would not have been possible. So the Vietnamese are correct in calling it the Ten Thousand Day War—the 30 years from 1945 to 1975.

The Pentagon Papers also reveal that U.S. leaders all the way from Truman to Nixon and Gerald Ford were advised that the U.S. could not win the war. They all knew that defeat was on the horizon, or perhaps just over the horizon. But except for Ford, all the presidents decided that, while the war was a lost cause, it would not be lost on their watch—so they kept it going by kicking the can down the road to the next president. So the death and destruction continued.

In 1968, Richard Nixon ran for president declaring that he had a "secret plan" to end the war. In actuality, his secret was to covertly sabotage ongoing peace talks to prolong the war. It went on for four more years, and another 25,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war Nixon knew could not be won.

During and after the war we learned a good deal about war-related post traumatic stress. Tens of thousands of returning Vietnam veterans began showing alarming signs of acute mental distress, often leading to harming others or themselves. Thanks to cutting edge research by Veterans Affairs, we learned that troops serving in support roles (which is most of them) had rates of PTSD about the same as the general population, around 6%. On the other hand, troops who were involved in abusing civilians or prisoners had rates of PTSD of over 50%. There are treatments available, but none seem to be especially effective. The lesson to be learned is that U.S. military leaders, if they care about the troops at all, should do all they can to prevent war crimes through training, clear orders, and prosecutions.

Today, most Americans think of the anti-war movement as mostly long-haired, pot-smoking hippies—with a Doctor Spock or a Jane Fonda occasionally thrown in. But that was not the reality. Instead, by 1967 thousands of veterans who had served in Vietnam returned home and eagerly joined the anti-war movement, especially on college campuses, quickly taking leadership positions. Tom Grace, in his book on the Kent State shootings, carefully documents that the leadership of the campus protesters there was almost entirely made up of returned working class veterans. This was typical. The largest of the veteran anti-war groups was the Vietnam Veterans Against the War with 20,000 to 50,000 members at its height. They were active in colleges and universities across the country.

There were also protests and some sabotage from within the active duty forces. In the face of widespread refusals to obey, ships could not put to sea, and aircraft could not fly. Racial tensions ran high.

Even with a half million troops in Vietnam, the U.S. could not prevail against a rising tide of nationalism in Vietnam, or even control most of the country. As the Pentagon Papers explained, the U.S. never had a chance.

Based on subsequent events, sadly it appears that America did not learn much from the Vietnam experience.

Anger alone solves little. If you want peace, you will have to organize to get it.

President Trump has given many contradictory reasons for his recent tariff spree, including claiming tariffs will “create jobs like we have never seen before.”

Yet research shows that tariffs don’t increase employment and instead are likely to cost jobs due to increased input prices and retaliatory tariffs. Economist Michael Strain at the conservative American Enterprise Institute expects Trump’s tariffs will lead to "recessionary levels" of unemployment. Ironically, analysts expect the rural and Heartland communities that voted for Trump will be disproportionately negatively impacted by retaliatory tariffs. Given how this Administration has cavalierly forced tens of thousands of federal workers out of good jobs and destroyed just as many research and nonprofit jobs supported by federal grants, it’s clear that employing Americans has never been the true priority.

A federal job guarantee is a public option for a good job—with living wages, full benefits, and union protections—on projects that meet community needs for physical and human infrastructure that are often long-overlooked.

But it should be a national priority. And we have a much better solution than tariffs: a job guarantee.

A federal job guarantee is a public option for a good job—with living wages, full benefits, and union protections—on projects that meet community needs for physical and human infrastructure that are often long-overlooked. Repairing bridges, helping communities recover from disasters, providing quality care for children and the elderly, fixing potholes, and expanding tree canopy to mitigate extreme heat are just a few examples of the community-building work that would become possible with a job guarantee.

A job guarantee would address the failure of our economy to provide good jobs for all. Even during times of relatively low unemployment, millions of Americans—currently 7.9 million—want full-time work but cannot find it. This is a chronic crisis that disproportionately burdens rural communities and communities of color. Another 39 million American workers are stuck in jobs that pay below $17 per hour, often with precarious, unhealthy, and undignified working conditions. Guaranteed jobs would provide these workers with the option of stable employment and real economic security.

Tariffs may grab headlines, but they don’t build communities or deliver good jobs.

A job guarantee is not a new idea. The right to a “useful and remunerative” job was the number one item on the Economic Bill of Rights proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944. Guaranteed jobs were a central demand of the civil rights movement, from the 1963 March on Washington to Coretta Scott King’s advocacy throughout the 1970s. And it nearly became law: the original Humphrey Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 included a legally enforceable right to a job with the federal government acting as employer of last resort, though that provision was stripped from the watered-down version that eventually passed. In recent years, congressional leaders including senators Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders have supported versions of a job guarantee, and representative Ayanna Pressley introduced a Congressional resolution outlining a modernized federal job guarantee that would pay $25 per hour.

While we’ve never had a true federal job guarantee, successful public employment efforts demonstrate its practicality and potential. In the 1930’s, the Works Progress Administration employed 8.5 million people building physical infrastructure and artistic works that strengthened our economy and culture for decades. Smaller-scale “subsidized employment” programs that provide the on-the-job training and wraparound supports for workers facing barriers to employment (similar to what would be provided by a job guarantee) also have a strong track record of success.

A job guarantee is not a new idea. The right to a “useful and remunerative” job was the number one item on the Economic Bill of Rights proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944.

By producing not only good jobs but also vital infrastructure and services, a job guarantee bolsters families and the neighborhoods where they live. Moreover, it would generate “trickle-up” economic effects. Money would begin circulating in persistently-disinvested communities, creating opportunities for grocery stores, small businesses, and local entrepreneurship. And a public option for good jobs would put healthy pressure on private employers to better compensate their workers—elevating wages and benefits across the board.

Funded by the federal government and implemented locally, a job guarantee would create new opportunities for civic engagement, with communities suggesting new public investments that meet their needs and manifest their aspirations. This partnership could strengthen democracy and rebuild trust that government can work for working people.

Ultimately, a job guarantee would create a more stable, resilient, and equitable economy. By immediately providing jobs and income at the first sign of an economic downturn, it would act as an automatic stabilizer—maintaining consumer spending and preventing prolonged recessions and jobless recoveries. This would benefit the economy as a whole and protect marginalized Black workers who are the “last hired and first fired” when the economy sours. It would enable a “just transition” away from unsustainable industries and address the threat of job displacement posed by AI, creating new jobs protecting the environment and mitigating climate change.

And for those who would dismiss this as socialism, it’s worth emphasizing: the job guarantee simply ensures there is an available job. If the more “productive” private sector can offer something better, all the better—workers will have the freedom to choose.

As we confront what some are expecting to be the third once-in-a-generation economic downturn in less than two decades, we need to be ready with real solutions. Tariffs may grab headlines, but they don’t build communities or deliver good jobs. Instead, this administration’s chaotic policies are creating widespread economic uncertainty and strain. A federal job guarantee, by contrast, is a bold economic policy rooted in American history and grounded in the needs of workers who’ve been sidelined by our economic policies. If we want to empower workers and build a more resilient economy, we should start investing in real solutions—starting with a job guarantee.

I have held public meetings all over Vermont and in many parts of the country. At these gatherings I almost always ask a very simple question: is our healthcare system broken? And the answer I always receive is: Yes! The American healthcare system is broken. It is outrageously expensive. It is horrifically cruel.

Today, we spend almost twice as much per capita on healthcare as any other country on Earth. According to the most recent data, the United States spends $14,570 per person on healthcare compared with just $5,640 in Japan, $6,023 in the United Kingdom, $6,931 in Australia, $7,013 in Canada and $7,136 in France. And yet, despite our huge expenditures, we remain the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right.

While the insurance companies and drug companies continue to make huge profits, over 85 million Americans are either uninsured or under-insured. The result: some 68,000 people in our country die each year because they can’t afford to go to a doctor when they should, and more than half a million Americans go bankrupt due to medically related debt. In the US today, 42% of cancer patients deplete their entire life savings within the first two years of their diagnosis while one out of every four declared bankruptcy or lost their homes to foreclosure or eviction in 2022.

The time is NOW to stand up to the greed and power of special interests who make huge profits off of a cruel and broken system. The time is NOW to pass Medicare for All.

That is insane and unspeakable. Getting cancer in the US should not lead to financial ruin.

In terms of life expectancy, we live four years shorter, on average, than people in other wealthy countries, while the typical working-class person in the US lives seven fewer years than the wealthy. We also have the dubious distinction of having, by far, the highest infant mortality rate of any other wealthy country on Earth.

As bad as our overall healthcare system is, our primary care system is even worse. Today, tens of millions of people live in communities where they cannot find a doctor, a dentist or a psychologist even when they have insurance, while others have to wait months to get seen. Despite our massive healthcare expenditures, we don’t have enough doctors, dentists, nurses, mental health practitioners, pharmacists or home healthcare workers – and one out of four Americans cannot afford to purchase the medicine their doctors prescribe.

For all of these reasons and many more, I am proud to be re-introducing Medicare for All in the Senate this week. My colleague, the representative Pramila Jayapal, is introducing this same bill in the House.

Our legislation would provide comprehensive healthcare coverage to all without out-of-pocket expenses and, unlike the current system, it would provide full freedom of choice regarding healthcare providers.

No more insurance premiums, no more deductibles, no more co-payments, no more filling out endless forms and fighting with insurance companies.

And comprehensive means the coverage of dental care, vision, hearing aids, prescription drugs and home and community-based healthcare.

Importantly, Medicare for All would give Americans the freedom to switch jobs without losing their health insurance. Under our legislation, healthcare becomes a human right, guaranteed to all, and not a job benefit.

Would a Medicare-for-all healthcare system be expensive? Yes. But, while providing comprehensive healthcare for all, it would be significantly LESS expensive than our current dysfunctional system because it would eliminate an enormous amount of the bureaucracy, profiteering, administrative costs and misplaced priorities inherent in our current for-profit system. In fact, the congressional budget office has estimated that Medicare for All would save Americans $650 billion a year.

Under Medicare for All there would no longer be armies of insurance employees billing us, telling us what is covered and what is not covered and hounding us to pay our hospital bills. This simplicity not only substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would make life a lot easier for patients, doctors and nurses who would never again have to fight their way through the nightmare of insurance company bureaucracy.

As we speak, Republicans are working overtime to make a bad healthcare situation even worse. They want to pass a “reconciliation bill” that would decimate Medicaid and throw millions of Americans off the healthcare they have in order to give huge tax breaks to billionaires.

Obviously, we must defeat that terrible legislation. But we must do much more. We cannot simply defend the status quo in healthcare and the Affordable Care Act – legislation that has provided massive amounts of corporate welfare to the big insurance companies and big drug companies – while premiums, deductibles, co-payments and the price of medicine has soared.

The time is NOW to rethink healthcare in America. The time is NOW to declare that healthcare in our country is a right and not a privilege. The time is NOW to stand up to the greed and power of special interests who make huge profits off of a cruel and broken system. The time is NOW to pass Medicare for All.

Enacting Medicare for All would be a transformative moment for our country.

It would not only keep people healthier, happier and increase life expectancy, it would be a major step forward in creating a more vibrant democracy. Imagine what it would mean for the people of our country if we had a government that represented the needs of ordinary people and not just powerful corporate interests and billionaire campaign donors.

This is America. We can do it.

I want to tell you today about two potential bright spots.

The most obvious joy, of course, came last night in Canada, where citizens of the not-51st-state rejected a Trump-lite figure named Pierre Poilievre (who had been leading by 23 points on January 20!) and instead elected Mark Carney to lead their country. This has been correctly interpreted by all as a reaction to the ham-handed bullying of the canned ham currently resident in the White House. But though he was elected a little by accident (albeit after a brilliant campaign) it means something far more: in Carney we now have the world leader who knows more than any of his peers about climate change. And who knows roughly twenty times as much about climate and energy economics as anyone else in power. He may turn out to be a truly crucial figure in the fight to turn the climate tide.

If it wouldn’t strain you financially to take out a modestly priced and voluntary subscription, then thank you! If it would, no worries

I’ve been watching Carney for a long time. A graduate, of course, of both Harvard and Goldman Sachs, he was governor of the Bank of Canada during the 2008 financial crisis and performed admirably enough that the queen asked him over to run the Bank of England. (It’s probably not quite how that works, but close enough). While in that job, he had the fun of trying to deal with the UK’s Brexit decision, and by all accounts again performed better than one might have expected. So now he gets the task of cleaning up after Trump’s insane tariffs.

But actually it’s the much bigger mess—the one in the atmosphere—that I suspect has long interested him most. In 2014, at a World Bank panel, he quite forthrightly pointed out that we would need to leave the “vast majority” of fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we were at all serious about holding the increase in the temperature of the planet below two degrees. This was, on the one hand, clearly obvious to anyone who had looked at the physics, but on the other hand not something that most leaders were willing to say at the time, or to this day. Those of us who had recently launched the fossil fuel divestment campaign found it to be a great boost—one of three or four crucial moments that turned this into one of the largest anti-corporate campaigns in history.

A year later, wearing a tux and speaking at an opulent dinner to the “names” who run the premier insurance brokerage Lloyds of London, Carney went further, giving one of the most important speeches of the climate era. It is well worth reading in its entirety, but here is the crucial section

Climate change is the Tragedy of the Horizon.

We don’t need an army of actuaries to tell us that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors – imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix.

That means beyond: - the business cycle; - the political cycle; and - the horizon of technocratic authorities, like central banks, who are bound by their mandates.

The horizon for monetary policy extends out to 2-3 years. For financial stability it is a bit longer, but typically only to the outer boundaries of the credit cycle – about a decade.

In other words, once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.

This talk came in the run-up to the Paris climate talks, and it was one important reason they succeeded; Carney’s sober warning, and his insistence on the need for disclosure by countries and companies of their emissions, helped smooth the way for what is still the high water mark of climate progress.

And the next year, in 2016, he gave the Arthur Burns Memorial Lecture in Berlin. Again, it is worth reading in its entirety, but for a man who is now fully a politician, here is an important passage.

Underpinning the Paris Agreement is recognition that the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should not exceed the remaining carbon budget, which according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) amounts to 1000 gigatonnes of CO2 from 2011 onwards.
Countries have set their ambitions by submitting their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). At present, these commitments are of varying degrees of specificity, and most still need to be fleshed out to be consistent with the aggregate carbon budget. The Paris Agreement requires that NDCs be updated regularly and that each should be a progression on the last.
Crucially, the Paris Agreement provided an objective assessment that, even if all of the policies implied by the Agreement were implemented, global temperatures would rise by at least 2.7 degrees by 2100. In other words, the world has committed to do something, but not yet enough to meet its stated goals.

The man who said those clear and bold words now finds himself leading a nation hard hit by climate change: Canada has a front row seat the melt of the Arctic, which is the fastest-heating part of the earth; it has watched its boreal forests burn like never before in recent years.

But the man who said those bold words also finds himself leading a nation that contains Alberta, whose vast pool of tarsands makes its one of the biggest carbon deposits on planet earth.

His predecessor Justin Trudeau could never figure out how to square those facts, because they are not easy to square (and also because Trudeau was a nepo baby to the max). But also because he came into power at a moment when fossil fuel was still cheaper than renewable energy, and hence clearly valuable. Carney comes into power when that equation has flipped: we now live on a planet where wind and sun provide energy more cheaply than gas and oil (and where the sane if brutal superpower, China, has clearly figured that out). That fact may give him room to move his country decisively in the right direction.

So here’s the second good thing I wanted to talk about, one that underscores the point I’m trying to make about Carney’s opportunity.

Over the weekend, American officials were in London as part of a large International Energy Agency Summit on the Future of Energy Security. It wasn’t about climate, really, though it did begin with a letter from the King pointing out that “events over recent years have shown that, when well-managed, the transition to more sustainable energy systems can lead itself to more resilient and secure energy systems.”

The U.S. was having none of that. Our man—someone named Tommy Joyce whose biography points out that he has sailed his monohull across the Pacific ocean with his wife, so that’s good—used the occasion to criticize renewables because they depended on China. He recommended that everyone buy a lot of American LNG to power their countries instead. As he put it:

“A typical offshore wind turbine requires four tonnes of a permanent magnet made in the form of rare earth elements and, since China, the supplier of nearly all of them, restricted their sale, there are no wind turbines without concessions or coercion from China.”

Which, true enough. But if your point is that countries don’t want to rely on undependable foreign nations for their energy supply, have you noticed that America has gone crazy in the last hundred days? China is ruthless, but they’re not erratic. (And they’re busy shoring up their climate bona fides). No one was going to say so to his face, but Joyce was describing last year’s world.

More to the point, even if you need to rely on China to build your wind turbine or your solar panel, you need to rely on them once. Because once it’s up, then you’re relying on the wind, the sun, and your stock of batteries, all of which seem eminently more dependable than Donald Trump or J.D. Vance.

And so, as Politico put it, Joyce received a “shrug.”

Joyce’s speech was met with silence. The “awkward but unanimous” moment was “telling,” said one European official who was in the room.

Responding to Joyce’s comments, U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told POLITICO: “I think overall, I would say that the general tenor of these discussions indicates where people are going, which is toward a clean energy transition.”

The U.S. won’t want to hear that—Trump’s plan is all about “energy dominance” through our control of hydrocarbons. And he’s still got people buying into it: LNG exporter Woodside today announced a $17.5 billion investment in new export terminals, with its CEO exulting over its “asset lifespan of more tha forty years.” Trump will do his best to help—he’s essentially compelling Asian nations to sign up for more LNG contracts on the threat of being tariffed. But my guess is that countries will look to buy as little as they can get away with, while they build up their renewable portfolios as fast as they can. For instance, here’s what Barbados’ energy minister Lisa Cummins explained to the London summit:

She added that, as well as suffering from fossil fuels through the climate crisis, Barbados spent over $1 billion importing fossil fuels to generate electricity in 2024. The Caribbean country’s biggest fossil fuel suppliers are Trinidad and Tobago and the US, but it aims to generate all of its electricity from renewables in 2030, using solar, wind and battery storage.

In the very short run, Trump’s insanity may help Alberta—if I had no choice but to depend on LNG, I’d rather buy it from Carney’s Canada, confident that a longtime central banker realizes a deal is a deal. (He seems unlikely, say, to put judges in jail when they disagree with him). But over the slightly longer term the same logic applies to Canada as the U.S., and it all complements Carney’s original 2014 insight: this stuff needs to stay in the ground. It will wreck the climate, and now it will wreck your economy.

I’d say that the rest of the world is going to recognize Carney as the most likely person to midwife us through this transition. I think he’s not done playing a world-historical role, and for that if nothing else we can thank Donald Trump.

Unless something goes awry, both Rumeysa Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi will be in a Vermont courtroom in the next few weeks. Both will contest the government’s right to abduct and imprison people with no due process, because they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Both prisoners ask for the ancient right of habeas corpus, a remedy for wrongful detention which prevented kings of England from throwing people in jail arbitrarily. The courts will decide whether freedom of speech and due process for everyone are still the law of the land.

But you and I will decide whether we, the people, will allow illegal arrests like these, or whether we will protest so loudly that the government dare not continue them. Why should we be concerned? What happened here? In the crush of so many outrages, it’s easy to lose track how these two cases involve the same core issues and yet are different in some important respects.

One contrast is that Mahdawi had a public role in organizing and protesting with a Columbia Palestinian students’ union until March 2024, when he withdrew because he advocated for Palestine as a safe place for Jews and Palestinians alike. Ozturk’s only “crime” is co-authoring a column in the Tufts University newspaper asking that the University acknowledge the genocide of more than 50,000 of the Palestinian people, and act accordingly. A State Department investigation before her arrest found no link at all to terrorism or antisemitism. Ozturk literally has been locked up only because of her written words, while Mahdawi was out on the streets exercising his right to free speech.

Can anyone really believe that a column in a university newspaper or demonstrations on a college campus could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act?

Another contrast is that Mahdawi reacted to doxxing and false accusations by going underground, and was interviewed by CBS News the day before his arrest. He was prepared. Ozturk was fearful but continued her private life. When Mahdawi reported at the “honey trap” of a long-awaited citizenship interview, he was accompanied by allies who videoed him being taken away in handcuffs. He knew what he was walking into, and decided it was worth the risk because the interview might fulfill his dream: U.S. citizenship. He had the immediate attention of his lawyers, his neighbors, and the press.

The contrast with Rumeysa Ozturk’s arrest and abduction could not be greater. The unsuspecting 30-year-old woman was walking in broad daylight to an interfaith center when six masked agents swooped down on her, grabbed her phone, handcuffed her, and marched her to an unmarked vehicle. For 24 nightmarish hours, Ozturk was whisked across state lines to New Hampshire and then Vermont where she was held overnight, and at dawn flown to Louisiana where she has been imprisoned ever since. Her statement says that she initially thought she was in the hands of killers, not police. Ozturk’s repeated requests to call her lawyer were refused.

While Mahdawi says he is “in good hands” in a Vermont prison, Ozturk has described a nightmarish situation at the detention center in Louisiana. Both in her written statement to the court, and in her conversations with the senator and representatives who visited her, she described 24 women and a mouse in a cell meant for 14. In sum, “unsanitary, unsafe, and inhumane.” Ozturk has also been deprived of asthma medication and healthcare, and her hijab was removed without consent.

For all these differences, the cases have some similarities apart from involving the Palestinian cause. Both people have extensive support from their communities. The classic white-steepled church in Hartland, Vermont was packed with Mahdawi’s neighbors who wanted to help him any way they could. The District judge had never seen so many letters of support (almost 100). Ozturk is also highly regarded. In addition to letters from the President of Tufts University (whom her column criticized) and many colleagues and faculty, 27 national Jewish organizations supported her in an amicus brief. They of all people should understand the dangers of abducting people on the street because of what they say, with no due process.

In both landmark cases, judges specifically ordered that the prisoners not be moved from the state where they were arrested. Mahdawi is still in Vermont because the judge’s order was sought and granted immediately. The agents who abducted Ozturk hurtled across the Massachusetts border and crossed three state lines before 24 hours had passed. The Trump administration contends that Ozturk’s petition is invalid because it wasn’t filed in the right state—despite the fact that they prevented her from communicating until she was in Louisiana.

Both Ozturk and Mahdawi were the victims of doxxing, and false information spread through networks of extremists who targeted them. Ozturk’s column was her only public statement on the Palestinian issue, and the Trump administration had to stretch to find something amiss—that her words were in sympathy with a group that was later temporarily banned on campus. Far from being an antisemite as charged, Mahdawi was the leader of a protest where he led the whole group in chanting, “Shame on you” at a demonstrator who cursed the Jewish people.

The basis for the Trump administration’s action in both situations is vague and alarming. Can anyone really believe that a column in a university newspaper or demonstrations on a college campus could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act?

Rumeysa Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi are petitioning for one of the oldest rights in our common law, because their rights under the U.S. Constitution—to speak and to have due process of law—have been violated in numerous ways. Whether you are in Vermont with its traditions of free speech and direct democracy, or in any of the other 49 states where the Bill of Rights is still alive, speak for them. Speak to your president who has jailed them and his officials, your senators and representative, every form of media you read or see, your state and local government. Stand by the road with a sign, and invite your neighbors to join you. Talk to all the organizations you belong to and connect with people, regardless of their political beliefs. Most people feel that no one in our country should be abducted and jailed arbitrarily.

The rights you save might be your own. In fact, they are—at least for now.

On the evening of November 5, 2024, I sat at a gathering of organizers and volunteers from the campaign to pass Proposition 139, a citizen-driven initiative in Arizona seeking to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution.

After an hour or so of waiting with bated breath, the bulk of Arizona’s ballot initiative results had been counted and posted online. Our hard work had paid off! Prop 139 had amassed 66% voter support (a number that would decrease to a still impressive 61% by the final tally.) After a significant round of applause and the shedding of a few tears, the party settled into a pleasant thrum.

At first I expected shouting, screaming, and crying—we had won a massive victory! But I quickly understood that the celebration was more subdued than expected because the results were exactly what the lead organizers of the campaign hadanticipated: a win.

Healthcare Rising and Prop 139 won because they refused to partake in party politics and instead tailored their campaign toward fighting for issues that were resonant and supported in their constituency and across the political spectrum.

Ultimately, it was unsurprising that this initiative to enshrine abortion access passed in Arizona, despite voters in the state supporting anti-abortion candidate and now U.S. President Donald Trump, because reproductive freedom itself as a policy has proven to be overwhelmingly popular when put to a vote by the electorate.

A recent report from our team at the Center for Work and Democracy uses data from citizen-driven initiatives—ballot initiatives that are drafted, petitioned, and voted on by citizens themselves—from the last 15 years to see where patterns in voting emerge. Put very briefly, we found that people vote for policies that are egalitarian and economically redistributive.

Egalitarian measures—which equalize rights, resources, and decision-making power in society—pass at a rate of 65.63% across blue and red states alike. Initiatives supporting reproductive rights, for example, are considered egalitarian and prove to be extremely successful at the polls. Despite a difficult loss in Florida in the 2024 election and a complicated voting stalemate in Nebraska, abortion access has been protected by voters in 14 out of 17 cases since the fall of Roe v. Wade.

Redistributive measures are a subsect of egalitarian initiatives that specifically focus on the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, like raising the minimum wage. With an even greater passage rate than other egalitarian measures, redistributive ballot measures clock in with an impressive win rate of 75%. In red states, this number rises all the way to a whopping 92% compared to 61.29% in blue states. (We found that blue states’ averages are skewed down by California’s initiative results, which are far less progressive than the state’s image.)

When Healthcare Rising Arizona and the other co-organizers of the campaign for Prop 139 set out to get the initiative on the ballot and enshrined in the state constitution, they knew that party politics were not going to help their cause. From day one, the campaign for 139 was clear that their organizing would be strictly nonpartisan because they knew that abortion as a policy was more popular than any individual Democratic candidates, despite those Democrats being vocally pro-choice.

The strategy worked. The Arizona for Abortion Access Act passed with 417,427 more votes than former Vice President Kamala Harris received in Arizona, proving that egalitarian policies like reproductive rights are simply more popular than pro-choice candidates.

Healthcare Rising and Prop 139 won because they refused to partake in party politics and instead tailored their campaign toward fighting for issues that were resonant and supported in their constituency and across the political spectrum.

Our data tells us that egalitarian and redistributive measures are exceedingly popular with red and blue voters alike. So if Republican and Democrat voters both want many of the same things—policies that equalize rights, break down wealth inequality, and support the decision-making power of everyday people—why won’t politicians just give the people what they want?

During the Trump administration’s recent torrent of executive orders, the Navy paused sexual assault and prevention trainings in response to the administration’s demand to remove all DEI initiatives and programs. The U.S. armed forces are plagued by an epidemic of sexual assault, one of the most devastating markers of persistent gender inequality within the military. The Navy’s pause of just a few days signals the tenuous nature of protections for service members, especially women and minorities, who are by far the most numerous victims of assault.

The military’s sexual assault crisis speaks to the violence embedded within miliary institutions. Intimate partner violence, for instance, is disproportionately high among military and veterans populations. SAPRO, the Sexual Assault and Prevention Response Office of the Department of Defense (DOD), is the only resource that provides prevention and trainings on sexual assault and advocacy services to victims. It is the sole database for reporting and prevalence tracking of unwanted sexual contact in the military, making the Navy’s pause all the more alarming.

The U.S. military has been systematically tracking data via SAPRO since 2005 when the National Defense Authorization Act began to require information to be presented to Congress. However, independent reporting and data from organizations assisting sexual assault survivors indicate a spike in assaults immediately following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. This is the year the United States declared an official “Global War on Terror,” which the U.S. military still carries out operations for in 78 countries as of 2023. Also in 2001, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center officially designated April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

In any other workplace, if 1 in 4 women were sexually assaulted by their coworker or superior, there would be a national outrage.

This Sexual Assault Awareness month, we must talk about sexual assault as a disastrous cost of war.

The military’s epidemic of sexual assault is much worse than the DOD is willing to admit. Our Costs of War project research compared the Department of Defense’s data on sexual assault prevalence to independent (non-DOD) data to estimate sexual assault figures within the military from 2001 through 2023. We found that independent data suggest that actual sexual assault prevalence is 2 to 4 times higher than official DOD estimations.

The Trump administration’s policies will only worsen this crisis. Particularly in a hierarchical institution such as the military, the leadership exemplifies the values that the institution expects all members to uphold. It is notable that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was himself accused of sexual assault in 2017 and has a long track record of sexist behavior.

Since 2001, 24% of active-duty women and 1.9% of active-duty men in the U.S. military have experienced sexual assault. That is almost one-fourth of all women in the U.S. military, and given low reporting rates, it is likely even more. Fear of retaliation is one of the primary reasons service members do not report sexual assault, with data showing that service members are 12 times more likely to face retaliation than to see their offender convicted. Nationwide, 81% of women and 43% of men reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment or assault in their lifetime.

Experiences of gender inequality are most pronounced for women of color, who experience intersecting forms of racism and sexism and are one of the fastest-growing populations within the military. Furthermore, independent data also confirm that queer and trans service members face a disproportionately greater risk for sexual assault.

These numbers are staggering. In any other workplace, if 1 in 4 women were sexually assaulted by their coworker or superior, there would be a national outrage.

The sexual assault crisis should draw our attention to the contradiction of military policies aimed at greater gender and racial equity when this institution waged post-9/11 wars that displaced 38 million people, directly killed 929,000 people, and indirectly killed 4.5-4.7 million people worldwide. The wars waged by the U.S. are existentially linked both to the military as an institution and to the persistent racism and sexism within the U.S. Efforts such as the bipartisan, bicameral legislation recently introduced to help survivors of military sexual trauma (MST) more easily access care and benefits, as well as boost MST claims processing, must be resoundingly supported. One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Minn.) said, “This goes far beyond administrative shortcomings at the VA; it’s a fundamental breach of our moral and constitutional duty to those who served.”

Although there have been consistent internal interventions and resources intended to address military sexual assault, this form of violence continues to occur, illustrating that reforms have not meaningfully transformed institutional patterns of abuse. Military officials have themselves described, in retrospect, that the military prioritized training and deploying troops to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars over confronting a clear institutional problem of sexual assault. In fact, the deliberate cover-up of harassments, assaults, and disappearances of service members to protect sexual predators and their enablers in the U.S. military has been evident in numerous high-profile cases over the years.

The goal is not solely to have higher reporting numbers or more initiatives, but to completely eradicate sexual assault from occuring. Sexual assault in the U.S. military is fundamentally and inextricably linked to fighting wars abroad. Important as they are, better reporting infrastructure or training and prevention programs within the DOD are not enough. This Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we should ask for more—an end to sexual assault and an end to endless wars.

What assurance do any of us have that government agents will not knock at our door, claiming authority to detain us? How do we know that masked agents will not abduct us on the street, taking us somewhere far away?

In ordinary times and places, it would be madness to ask such questions. Rumeysa Ozturk may well have thought so before masked, plainclothes government agents took her off the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts and she ended up in Louisiana. Ms. Ozturk had been studying in the United States on a student visa.

Badar Khan Suri may have thought so before masked agents took him from the street outside his home in Virginia to a federal detention center where he “was issued used underwear and a bright red uniform that is usually reserved for detained individuals who have been classified as ‘high security’ based on their criminal history.” Dr. Suri, like Ms. Ozturk, was in the U.S. legally. Dr. Suri is married to a U.S. citizen; he and his wife have three young children, one of whom “spent days crying uncontrollably following this father’s disappearance, and [then] stopped speaking.”

I don’t know how anyone in the United States sleeps at night.

We are firmly in Martin Niemoller territory, and it may be too late. It is, of course, already too late in an important sense for Ms. Ozturk, Dr. Suri, and many others—some of whom had legal status in the United States, some of whom did not. Some have been taken to federal detention centers within the U.S. Others are in a foreign prison notorious for torture. Trump administration officials brag they are never coming back. President Donald Trump himself speaks openly of sending U.S. citizens there, and publicly asks that country’s dictator to build more prisons to hold those Trump sends.

There is no mystery here, and we cannot say we are surprised as this reign of terror extends further. Trump has openly told us that “homegrowns are next. You [El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele] gotta build about five more places.”

I don’t know how anyone in the United States sleeps at night. Like U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), I am afraid (unlike Sen. Murkowski, I do not have access to much power). FBI agents arrested a judge in Wisconsin last week. This is bone-chilling stuff.

We are always a step or two behind Donald Trump. Those of us who find him abhorrent may have thought of him as a joke when he first ran for president in 2015-16. That is understandable. Trump is a creature of reality television and the New York tabloids, manifestly unfit to hold any position of public trust. Even after a decade in politics, he remains painfully uninformed and incurious. That does not, however, render him innocuous in any way.

He has all the levers of power available to him that he needs to carry out the unspeakable things he has already done and more. All he needs is people willing to carry out his orders and no one capable of stopping him. He has his minions lined up, eager to do his bidding—people like Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, and Tom Homan, as well as rank and file government officials who work for them. The U.S. Congress has rendered itself a nullity, thanks in large part to Republican senators and representatives who have made clear they will do nothing to stop Trump, no matter how far he goes. There are judges, especially lower federal court judges, who are doing the right thing and insisting on constitutional limits, but those limits mean nothing if they are not backed up by the Supreme Court and Congress.

We may like to think that we will have warning before it is too late. I know someone who lives in the northern U.S. and says he is just a couple of hours from Canada if things get too dangerous. How would proximity to the border have helped Ms. Ozturk, Dr. Suri, or others when federal agents descended upon them?

We have descended into darkness and, at the moment—unless and until others take action to stop them—an aspiring dictator and his followers will decide exactly how far we go. The first step in responding is describing precisely what we are experiencing and what it means. If you grew up in the U.S., like me, wondering what it might be like to live in a country where no one is assured of their security, where no one is truly safe, or if you lived in another country where this has already happened, then this will seem familiar. Organized action is needed—I am speaking of peaceful protest, lawful actions, starting with impeachment and removal of Donald Trump and his minions from office. That may sound laughable, and it certainly cannot happen yet. But it must happen if we are to delivered from this waking nightmare.

The Democratic National Committee needs to take a step back and reflect on the moment in which it finds itself. The sense of national anxiety and uncertainty is palpable. Trust in our institutions is staggeringly low. Everyday Americans are scared, and they’re looking for actual leadership. They’re looking for hope. They’re looking for visionaries.

However, for the sake of party unity and integrity, the leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) must remain neutral when it comes to primary challengers.

At least, that’s what the DNC leadership is saying now.

The only way to win back the trust of voters and challenge the proto-authoritarian regime we’re up against is by listening to the demands of working-class people and dropping the paternalistic attitude that insists the elites know best.

That certainly wasn’t the approach taken in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was given insurmountable preference and privilege by the DNC, and again in 2020 when early primary victories for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) sent the party establishment into a panic. Deals were made, and party elites all but sealed the nomination for former President Joe Biden. Neutrality surely wasn’t a priority then.

So what changed? A young, occasionally progressive vice-chair of the DNC with a massive platform announced that his personal grassroots organization, unaffiliated with the DNC, would pledge funds to back primary challengers in democratic strongholds where the running incumbents are failing to rise to the moment we face, and are pompously ignoring the demands for bold change from their constituents. Now, all of a sudden, it would be improper for anyone with real influence in the party infrastructure to pick a side in contested primaries. Interesting. Apparently it’s only improper for party officials to pick a side when the side they pick challenges the status quo.

DNC Vice-Chair David Hogg is right to call out do-nothing Democrats who cling to power while refusing to fight for popular policies like Medicare for All, green jobs, and a wealth tax on the ultra-rich. These corporate-backed incumbents are dead weight on the party, and are more concerned with donor checks than the people they claim to represent. But where Hogg, and too many well-meaning liberals, fall short in their criticism is in their failure to articulate a bold, unapologetically populist vision that names the enemy: a rigged political system in which wealthy donors, corporations, and special interests can buy off politicians of both parties, and subvert the will of the people by simply writing a check.

The party establishment may not have gotten the memo, but the voters certainly have. According to a February Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults of both parties, the role of money in politics is the issue described by the highest percentage of respondents (72%) as “a very big problem,” followed closely by the affordability of healthcare (67%).

We need candidates and a party that refuse to accept dark money in the primaries. We need candidates and a party that draw a sharp distinction on this front. The Democratic Party must be a democratic party, not a plutocratic or oligarchic party.

If the DNC wants to be the vehicle the future requires, it must rally behind candidates who dare to say that healthcare is a human right, and will fight for a single-payer system. The party needs primary challengers who will unapologetically say that our tax dollars should pay for public services, not for bombs that are sent overseas to maim and murder civilians. We need candidates committed to a transformational Green jobs investment. We don’t need lip service and half-measures, but a full-scale mobilization to save our planet from climate catastrophe and corporate greed. We need candidates who will say enough is enough.

The moderate, establishment wing of the Democratic Party would have you believe that these policies are too radical, fringe, and unrealistic to help win elections. These political elites spend so much time convincing the media that they represent the views of the average voter that perhaps they’ve even begun to believe it themselves. The facts tell a different story.

Not only have progressive policies been proven successes in countless advanced democracies all over the world, but they are also extremely popular among Democratic voters. Let’s first look at who is currently popular among the Democratic base. As of last month, the Democratic Party’s favorability rating stands at just 29%. By contrast, the popularity of bold progressive voices in the party is dwarfing that of establishment moderates. Bernie Sanders, alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), is drawing massive crowds scarcely seen in nonelection years on their Fighting Oligarchy tour, while centrist Democrats are struggling to adequately respond to frustrated crowds at their town halls. According to a CNN poll from March 2025, 1 in 6 voters under 45 describe AOC as “emblematic of the party’s values,” much higher than any other politician listed in the poll.

With 48 years separating them, their popularity has less to do with age, and more to do with progressives’ ability to articulate a vision of the future for America that offers more than returning to business as usual. Working class Americans feel left in the dust in a rapidly changing economy that values quick profit over long-term growth and sustainability. The Biden administration failed to acknowledge and sufficiently address the challenges of struggling Americans, and the Kamala Harris campaign didn’t do enough to convince voters that it would be responsive to their needs..

The citizens of this country want to know that their vote and their voice matters, and that it won’t be drowned out by the overwhelming noise of super PACS and billionaire donors. They want to know that a devastating medical emergency won’t be the cause of their family’s bankruptcy. They don’t want the laws of this country to reinforce the idea that the value of your voice and the value of your life are directly tied to the amount of money in your bank account.

The bottom line is this: You win elections by responding to the needs and the concerns of the voters. When the voters of both parties agree that the electoral system is rigged for the rich and the healthcare system is broken, and yet both parties refuse to do anything meaningful about either of those problems, it inevitably follows that voters will look for leaders who seek to fundamentally change the parties that ignore them.

The DNC and the Democratic Party must recognize that leading into the midterms, we are truly at an inflection point. The playbook of the past has failed. There is no reviving it. The only way to win back the trust of voters and challenge the proto-authoritarian regime we’re up against is by listening to the demands of working-class people and dropping the paternalistic attitude that insists the elites know best. While we may disagree with David Hogg on certain issues and candidates, his commitment to cutting the dead weight from the Democratic Party is commendable. Where his strategy misses the mark, however, is in failing to articulate that what we need is not just young candidates willing to fight against Trump. We need to back young candidates willing to fight for a version of America that lives up to its promise in action, not just rhetoric.

The best way of preventing authoritarian leaders from overthrowing democracies is to make sure that they never get into power in the first place. That’s what the French did last year when parties on the left united and then made a second-round pact with the centrists to prevent Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Rally from winning a parliamentary majority. And now the courts have convicted Le Pen of corruption and barred her from running for office.

Americans have obviously screwed the pooch on that particular method of preventing autocracy. Voted out of office, slapped with multiple suits, convicted of a felony, denounced by dozens of his former appointees, Donald Trump nevertheless managed to use these setbacks as evidence that even a billionaire ex-president can be an “outsider” who’s taking on the “establishment” and sticking up for the “little guy.”

A decade of Trump? That’s a sobering prospect. A 100-year-old president-for-life presiding over the dying embers of American society? A horror story indeed.

On the eve of the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, the challenge has now become infinitely more difficult. America is now living through that horror movie cliché where the call is coming from inside the house. The seemingly indestructible culprit has returned for a more horrifying sequel to destroy U.S. democracy from within. Worse, all the failures of his first term are now helping him craft more successful disruptions in his second.

With a cowboy president shooting from the hip in all directions, what can Americans do to prevent Trump from taking down democracy (not to mention the economy, the international system, and the planet)? Even New York Times columnist David Brooks, who admits in a staggering understatement that “he’s not a movement guy,” has recently declared that “it’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising.”

Alas, America has no history of such uprisings from which to draw, except perhaps the American Revolution and that was a long time ago. With few domestic examples to inspire, everyone is now searching the globe for cases of successful resistance to authoritarianism.

Unfortunately, most examples of such uprisings involved years and years of organizing. It took a decade to get rid of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, nearly two decades to oust Augusto Pinochet in Chile, slightly more than two decades to overthrow Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, and more than a half-century to depose the Assad’s father-and-son regime in Syria.

A decade of Trump? That’s a sobering prospect. A 100-year-old president-for-life presiding over the dying embers of American society? A horror story indeed.

But there are other examples of more compressed resistance from which Americans committed to a national civic uprising can take inspiration. In recent years, autocrats have been defeated in Brazil, Poland, and South Korea. What can we learn from the brave people who stood up to the dragon and saved their villages?

Dumping Bolsonaro

Like the United States, Brazil is a deeply divided country, with an even larger wealth gap. As Oxfam reports, “Brazil’s six richest men have the same wealth as the poorest 50% of the population; around 100 million people. The country’s richest 5% have the same income as the remaining 95%.”

The leftist Workers’ Party successfully mobilized the have-nots to win a series of elections in the 2000s. But in 2018, buoyed in part by Donald Trump’s win in 2016, an aggressive, nationalist outsider, Jair Bolsonaro, capitalized on voter frustration with corruption and persistent poverty to become the country’s president. The leading reason for voters to back the sexist, homophobic, religiously conservative Bolsonaro was anti-incumbent sentiment, a profound dissatisfaction with the political status quo.

Once in office, Bolsonaro threatened to pack the Supreme Court with his supporters and, when that failed, to ignore its rulings. He praised the country’s past military dictatorship and threatened to send troops into the streets to restore “order.” He ramped up the disastrous deforestation of the Amazon. Like Trump, he failed to address the Covid-19 pandemic, pushing Brazil to the top of the list of countries with the most fatalities (after the United States and Russia).

There were plenty of protests against Bolsonaro. But his allies in Congress provided a legislative shield against impeachment. Which meant that the most effective form of resistance turned out to be judicial. And that judicial resistance largely boiled down to one person, Alexandre de Moraes, a member of the country’s Supreme Court. As Jon Lee Anderson explains in The New Yorker:

After Bolsonaro took office, in 2019, de Moraes led an ever-expanding series of investigations into him and his family. As Bolsonaro’s supporters formed “digital militias” that flooded the internet with disinformation—claiming that political opponents were pedophiles, spreading blatant lies about their policies, inventing conspiracies—de Moraes fought to force them offline. Granted special powers by the judiciary, he suspended accounts belonging to legislators, business magnates, and political commentators for posts that he described as harmful to Brazilian democracy.

These actions went a long way toward constraining Bolsonaro’s power and reducing his overall popularity, so that by the time the next elections rolled around in 2022, the strongman lost his reelection bid.

U.S. Supreme Court justices don’t have the same kind of power as their Brazilian counterparts. The court as a whole has an even more limited ability to constrain the Trump administration if the latter decides not to implement the decisions it doesn’t like. It’s also going to be difficult to rein in Trump’s digital militias, given Elon Musk’s control of Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg’s capitulation to Trump over at Facebook.

But one lesson from the Brazilian case is the need to launch immediate investigations into government corruption and misconduct. This can be done in the United States by way of congressional requests for reports by the Congressional Research Service, which for instance deemed the defunding of USAID to be unconstitutional, or to the Government Accountability Office, which has been tasked to study the impact of the mass firings of federal workers. Lawmakers can also hold informal hearings on the unconstitutional actions of DOGE and the executive branch.

Don’t wait and play a defensive game. Be as bold as the Brazilians against Bolsonaro and go on the offensive.

Displacing Law and Justice

The right-wing populist Law and Justice party (PiS) took electoral advantage of the discontent of Polish voters, particularly in the countryside, who had not benefited from the country’s rush to capitalism after 1989. Poland A did well by the liberal reforms; Poland B didn’t and took revenge at the polls by voting for PiS.

Like Donald Trump and his MAGA forces, PiS had a first taste of power when it governed for two years in a coalition government and didn’t accomplish much. When it came roaring back in 2015, PiS knew exactly what to do. First, it went after the courts. PiS was determined to destroy the country’s constitutional order and remake Polish society according to conservative, nationalist, and religious principles.

The first target was the constitutional court, which had blocked PiS initiatives in that first administration. As Christian Davies writes:

The ruling party’s strategy played out in three parts: First, to deny opposition-appointed judges from taking their place on the court. Second, to pass laws designed to paralyze the court and prevent it from functioning effectively. Third, to force through the appointment of judges loyal to the ruling party. All this was done in open defiance of the law, the constitution, and multiple rulings issued by the Tribunal itself.

This attack on the judiciary, which was also accompanied by assaults on the media, free speech, and nonprofit organizations, precipitated a battle with the European Union, which put pressure on the Polish government to reverse its judicial “reforms.” But with the courts now aligned with its agenda, PiS looked as though it would consolidate its power indefinitely. In the 2019 elections, it even expanded its legislative majority in the lower house of parliament.

Four years later, thanks to its control of the media and other methods of rigging political outcomes, PiS again came out on top in the 2023 parliamentary elections with 35% of the vote. But this time, three opposition parties were able to unite to sideline PiS and form a new government. Poland’s constitutional crisis had come to an end.

How did the Polish opposition manage to beat a clearly still-popular party?

Perhaps the E.U. pressuring from the outside might have helped. But part of the PiS base was Euroskeptical, so the party could use E.U. pressure to rally its nationalist supporters.

More influential was the ability of the Polish opposition to overcome its fractiousness and bring together leftists, liberals, Solidarity true believers, traditional conservatives, and interest-group advocates like environmentalists and pro-choice feminists. In 2015, after the PiS government refused to follow a Constitutional Court verdict, major street protests broke out and a journalist called for a new civic movement patterned after the communist-era dissident group, the Committee for the Defense of Workers (KOR). “We have to remember, the goal isn’t to overturn the legally elected authorities of the country, but rather the defense of democracy,” the journalist wrote.

Out of this ferment came the Committee for the Defense of Democracy (KOD), which organized a series of massive protests around the country. Within a few months, it had garnered the support of 40% of the population. Because it wasn’t a party, KOD could appeal to a large segment of the population that had become disgusted with electoral politics. It successfully promoted the message that PiS was no ordinary party pushing for an ordinary platform of policies. Rather, PiS was a threat to the very legacy of the Solidarity movement that had liberated the country.

The United States needs just such a nonpartisan umbrella organization that can appeal to the largest swath of the anti-Trump community. Let’s call it the Society Organized to Save American Democracy (SOSAD). It stands for mom, baseball, apple pie, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, fairly compensated work, equal rights for all: in short everything that makes America truly great.

Reversing a Coup

To overcome a parliament that blocked his policies, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on the evening of December 3, 2024. The president ordered police to seal off the parliament and special forces to enter the building.

But the coup lasted for only a few hours. Enough members of parliament managed to get into the building that night and hold a vote to lift martial law. Meanwhile, spurred by news spread rapidly by electronic means, citizens began to gather in public places to protest Yoon’s actions.

South Koreans saved their democracy because of brave legislators and determined civil society activists. The country has a long history of civic engagement, going back to the democratization movement of the 1970s and 1980s and efforts to bring down former President Park Geun-Hye through months of candlelight vigils.

The defense of democracy perhaps feels more urgent in countries where it’s not taken for granted.

“The speed of this latest democratic defense suggests that lessons learned during decades of mobilization have strengthened South Korea’s institutional guardrails and nationwide vigilance against executive abuse,” writes Darcie Draudt-Véjares.

This month, the country’s constitutional court upheld the parliament’s impeachment and officially removed Yoon from office.

The lessons from the South Korean case are clear. U.S. legislators have to step up—as Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) did with his 25-hour filibuster and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have been doing with their recent rallies. Meanwhile, civil society must organize rapid responses, not just within silos (like the recent letter from university presidents) but across institutions.

One key lesson from the South Korean experience is the role of labor. After Yoon’s martial law announcement, the main trade union confederation immediately called for a general strike until the president stepped down. The prospect of a significant hit to the Korean economy was a wake-up call for many who hadn’t yet made up their minds about Yoon.

U.S. labor has had a love-hate relationship with Trump. Many labor leaders refused to back the candidate even as support among rank-and-file members surged. Several key unions—Teamsters, UAW—have been enthusiastic about Trump’s tariffs.

Any opposition to Trump must appeal to working people who feel ignored and undervalued by politicians and the elite. They are a core part of Trump’s support, but they are certainly persuadable. When the costs of Trump’s actions begin to rise—at the pump, in the grocery store, through reduced checks from Medicare and Medicaid—they may well be ready for a political change.

Why were Poles, Koreans, and Brazilians able to turn back authoritarianism where others have failed? All three have histories of strong civil society engagement in politics. All three had credible leaders—Donald Tusk, Lee Jae-myung, Lula—who could step in as alternatives.

And all three countries have had rather short experiences of democratic rule. In 1981, South Koreans were living in the shadow of martial law, which had been declared the previous year. Poles entered a martial law period in December of that year. And Brazilians were living under a military dictatorship that wouldn’t collapse until 1985.

The defense of democracy perhaps feels more urgent in countries where it’s not taken for granted. So far, America is failing the stress test that Trump is applying to the country’s democratic institutions. But if Americans are willing to learn some lessons from Brazil, Poland, and Korea, maybe we can defeat the dragon as well.

Global trade systems are not free, nor are they neutral. They were built to facilitate capital transfer and to transfer wealth upward—benefiting the rich while harming workers worldwide. This arrangement can feel too big, too abstract, and too disconnected from our experience. For these reasons, and as a sociologist across decades and schools, I have facilitated this race to the bottom activity to help students understand the problems inherent to our complex global reality.

In the Transnational Capital Auction: A Game of Survival simulation, students role play as leaders of countries with less wealth than GDP leading nation states. They are instructed that they rely on trade and economic development from wealthier countries such as the United States and powerful transnational corporations.

Capital flight occurs when transnational corporations move their factory or industry from one geographical area to another in order to seek better conditions for their bottom line, profits, or for shareholders. These moves highlight the antagonism between the working class and the owning class. For example, in the activity, teams gain points when they satisfy corporate demands: being lax on child labor laws and environmental regulations, maintaining a low minimum wage and corporate tax rate, and suppressing unionization of workers. This is not just a game with hypothetical conditions, it is a microcosm which echoes real-world socioeconomic and political dynamics.

Rather than denying our power and privilege in order to justify more bad behavior, we need to do our part to realign around policies that are internationally, socially, and environmentally sustainable.

We have seen this play out domestically and internationally. Sociologists have documented how corporations leave the United States to go to places more favorable to capital. For example, when an area develops unions, industry can flee to what it considers a safer space for business. In this way, capital for transnational corporations can accumulate faster when workers’ rights and environmental policy is lax. These conditions have led to countless deaths, especially among women and people of color, and have fueled global climate destabilization. These corporations are helped by policies and loopholes such as international tax havens like Nauru.

The human cost of this system is staggering. Body-catching nets were installed around Foxconn buildings because workers were unaliving themselves by jumping off their job site. Women, including mothers, leave their families and countries in order to work in other locations where the wages are higher.

The unjust arrangements are often complex by design. There are free trade zones or “special economic zones” in places like Jamaica, which allow companies to operate under a different set of laws than the rest of their country—sometimes with fewer worker protections. Meanwhile, local markets neglect or dispose of their natural resources because of the flux of imported goods dictated by trade agreements.

To be sure, the global working class harmed by these lopsided systems includes American workers who have lost their jobs, houses, and communities through capital flight. And yet, American consumers love the low prices these systems enable. The products we rely on—the food, the technology, the entertainment—these things are not created in a vacuum, and they are also not free. We have access to fast fashion and too soon obsolete technologies because people spend their lives working in conditions and receiving wages that we would consider un-American. Yet they are so very American.

The United States is no one’s victim. It helped create the race to the bottom and continues to benefit from its downward spiral. Trump’s narrative, justification, and chaotic enactment of tariffs are more than problematic. They are not a departure from business as usual, they are an extension of it and will overwhelmingly benefit the world’s financial elite.

Change is needed. The United States needs to reevaluate its relationship with itself and as part of a global community. We need reciprocal, resilient, and renewable structures in place. We will not get there by the same policies of violence, domination, and extraction that got us to the asymmetrical and disproportionate power that we have now. Rather than denying our power and privilege in order to justify more bad behavior, we need to do our part to realign around policies that are internationally, socially, and environmentally sustainable. We can all start by reflecting on our personal commodity chains, which tether us to global enterprise and its bottom rungs.

I recently wrote about a somewhat mysterious group of financial traders known as the bond vigilantes. Their actions caused Donald Trump to abort many of his Liberation Day tariffs, but that does not make them the good-guy defenders of democracy. In fact, they are quite the opposite.

Many understood that point, thankfully, but others wondered about the government bond market, how it worked, and why the value of something fully backed by the faith of the U.S. government might be mutable in value.

Readers had questions and the answers will help us understand why Trump flinched when the bond vigilantes drove up the interest rates on government bonds. As we shall see, what seems like a small change in interest rates has a very big impact on the value of outstanding bonds, causing the loss of trillions of dollars in a flash.

Warning: Do not use Google to research bond vigilantes. When I did so, its Gemini AI function hallucinated and used my article from last week as a source!

Let’s start with the basics:

Q: What is a bond?

A: When you buy a bond, you are making a loan to the issuer-- a government, a bank, a corporation. You give the institution your money and they agree to pay you back on a certain date, plus interest. The interest is your incentive for loaning your money.

How much interest you get for loaning your money depends primarily on two things: 1) How likely is it that the borrower will be able to pay you back; and 2) The overall rate of inflation. Interest payments should be above the current and expected inflation rates, because if you were paid less for your loan, you would be losing money in terms of purchasing power.

Q: What is the bond market?

A: It’s a big market, the biggest in the world, even bigger than the stock market. There are $140.7 trillion worth of outstanding bonds in the market, compared to $115 trillion worth of stocks. The bonds are traded just as stocks are traded, with investors buying and selling depending on their analysis of the market’s future performance.

Q: How is a bond different than a CD?

A: There really isn’t any difference between a CD and a government bond except that a CD is issued by a bank and is guaranteed up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The interest rate for any duration of CD (whether six months or five years) will be comparable to the interest rate on government bonds with similar durations.

Corporate bonds come with more risk. Your loan is not guaranteed so there is a chance that a corporation that takes your money will not be able to pay you back – that’s called the risk of default. Because of the risk, the rate of interest you receive on a corporate bond will always be higher than a CD or a government bond.

You can make more money, but you can also lose more money. That’s your risk.

Q: Aren’t US Treasury bonds risk free?

A: Yes, provided that the U.S. government pays its bills, which apart from a few extreme examples it always has. And notably, the U.S. government has never defaulted on its obligations to repay treasury bond holders.

Since World War II, U.S treasury bonds have been considered the safest investment in the world. The 10-year treasury bond is used as the benchmark for many other forms of credit, including mortgages, car loans and corporate borrowing.

Share

Q: OK, I understand that a bond is a loan, and the interest I get is based on how risky that loan is, as well as how much inflation there is. But in your article, you said a $1,000 bond might be worth less than $1,000. How is that possible?

A: A $1,000 government bond has a face value of $1,000. On its maturity date, let’s say in ten years, it will pay you back $1,000. In that sense, it is always worth $1,000.

But each bond also has an interest rate, and as that changes, so does the value of the initial $1,000 investment.

Q: So how could it ever be worth less than $1,000?

Let’s say on Day 1 you buy a $1,000 bond with a 4.5 percent interest rate. If you hold onto that, you will be paid $45 interest per year and then get back your $1,000 principle ten years later.

Now imagine that inflation rises, and a new 10-year bond is issued by the government a year later. Instead of 4.5 percent rate the new 10-year bond has a 5 percent interest rate. Each year, a bond holder of the new issue will get $50 in interest payments on his $1,000 investment, while you’ll be getting $45.

Both bonds will still return $1,000 at maturity, but the more recently issued bond is paying more in interest each year.

If, another year later, you want to sell your 10-year government bond because you need the money to buy a dozen eggs, you won’t be able to sell your 4.5 percent 10-year bond for $1000.

The market sets the price, and because there are other bonds out there paying a higher interest rate, your bond with the lower interest rate will be valued at less than $1,000. Even though in eight years you’ll be able to cash it in for $1,000!

Q: Wait a second. You said my treasury bond is risk free and will always be worth $1000, but now you say it’s not? How does that work?

A: On the secondary market, your bond is worth what its interest rate says its worth. (The primary market is when the government sells the bonds. The secondary market is when everyone else can buy and sell existing bonds.)

Here we need to do some simple math. Your bond pays $45 in interest payments, but the new bond pays $50. Why would anyone want your bond if it pays less than the new bond? They wouldn’t.

But they would if you lowered your price so that your bond would pay out at the new going 5.0 percent rate instead of 4.5 percent.

Here’s how that works on the simplest level. For your 4.5 percent bond to pay out at 5.0 percent, the price would have to go down to $900. At $900 your bond would then be paying out at the new going rate of 5 percent: $900 x 5.0 percent = $45 per year.

The market is willing to buy your 4.5 percent bond after it becomes a 5.0 percent bond by lowering its price. (The actual formula for bond pricing is more complicated because it also accounts for the number of years, the number of interest payments per year, and anticipated interest rate changes over the years, but the basic principle is the same.)

Q: Well, my bond is worth $1000 and that’s what I want and that’s what I’m guaranteed to get!

A: Right, if you hold it until it matures. You will indeed get back your entire thousand dollars. But you will also have earned only $450 in interest, while more recently issued higher-rate bonds will have earned $500. Which is why, if you want to sell before your bond’s term is up, and other bonds are at 5 percent, you’ll only get $900 for your bond. That’s just the way interest rates and bond prices work.

Q: What happens if interest rates go down?

A: If interest rates go down, when you sell your bond before its term is up, you’ll get more than $1,000. The process is exactly the opposite.

You have a bond that pays 4.5 percent interest, and a new bond is issued that pays only 4 percent because inflation has gone down. The new bond pays $40 per year, while your 4.5 percent bond pays $45 per year. Clearly, your bond is more valuable than the new bond even though they both are $1,000 bonds and will pay $1,000 when they mature.

If you decide to sell your 4.5 percent bond, the secondary market will sync your bond to the value of the new 4 percent bond, which will increase the value of your principle to $1,125. That’s because $1,125*4.0 percent = $45.

Share

Q: Where do the bond vigilantes fit into all of this?

A: The idea of bond vigilantes was cooked up by an economist in the 1980s named Ed Yardeni. It’s a vivid image that evokes the citizens in old western movies putting together a posse when the sheriff is unable to administer the law on his own.

Bond vigilantes act as a posse administering capitalist law and order. They buy and sell bonds and currencies in vast quantities based on their analysis of what governments are doing or not doing to protect financial and corporate capital.

The vigilantes work for big banks, hedge funds, mutual funds, private equity funds, sovereign wealth funds and any place that has lots and lots of investment capital.

Unlike a posse, they are not an organized cabal. They work for different financial entities, but they are united by their world view. They react badly to any policies or programs they see as being inflationary or harming the interests of high finance or large corporations. They want governments to step away and let market forces determine the forward march of human history.

Q Can you give us an example of how they function?

A: Sure. Let’s look at George Soros and the British pound.

(The valuation of currencies is very similar to the valuation of government bonds. Both depend on the health and well-being of a country’s economy and credibility.)

In 1990, as Europe moved closer to a common currency – the euro -- it set up the Exchange Rate Mechanism as a clearinghouse for EU currency values. The ERM set the British pound at a fixed rate against the German mark, trying to eventually move the currencies to common ground. All well and good, but George Soros thought that the ERM agreement overvalued the British pound, meaning that Soros thought one British pound should be worth fewer German marks than what the agreement stated.

Soros was so convinced that the pound was overvalued that he went into vigilante mode and shorted the British pound.

Shorting means that he borrowed pounds from brokers and sold lots and lots of them at the current ERM determined exchange rate. (BTW, Scott Bessent, Trump’s Treasury Secretary, worked for Soros on this deal.)

Why would Soros do that? Because he was betting that the value of the pound was going to decline, correcting the ERM’s error, and he would then be able to buy many more pounds at a lower price, returning what he had borrowed earlier and pocketing the difference. Bonds and stocks can be shorted in the same way.

Soros was betting that the value of the pound would go down and it did. His mass selling of the pound was soon followed by other currency traders joining in, collectively putting a lot of downward pressure on the value because so many pounds were being sold in a hurry. The Bank of England saw the value declining and tried to protect it by buying pounds.

That created a currency tug of war, with Soros and others selling billions in pounds and the Bank of England buying up those billions. If the value of the pound held, Soros would lose his bet, but eventually the Bank of England gave up and the value of the pound went down.

Soros won his bet and made more than one billion dollars back when a billion dollars was a lot of money. The Bank of England gave up trying to defend the value of the pound and the United Kingdom had to withdraw from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism because the value of the pound had declined against the German Mark and broke the ERM.

Q: Is this what’s called a “run”?

A: Yes. A “run” is when a lot of traders (vigilantes), mobilizing a lot of money, bet against a currency, a bond, a bank, a stock, etc. trying to force its value down. They are betting that the value of the currency, bond, or bank or corporate stock will go down enough for them to cash out, before they need to cover their bets.

Sometimes, lots of very big players follow each other in attacking a currency, bond, bank, or stock. Together these vigilantes have enormous power to weaken their targets and make them do what the vigilantes want.

Q: What did the vigilantes do to Trump?

A: They put the hammer down on Trump’s on-and-off-again crazily unpredictable Liberation Day tariffs. They used their tools to sell lots of 10-year US treasury notes, driving down their price and thereby raising the interest rates on them. The vigilantes were saying that if you do all this crazy stuff, we want a higher interest rate for the money we and millions of others are loaning to you.

When they hammered the 10-year U.S. treasury bond, they threatened the entire economy. That’s because that 10-year bond sets the rates for other loans. like mortgages, auto loans, and corporate borrowing. If those rates kept rising as the vigilantes sold more and more bonds, the U.S. economy would likely head towards increasing inflation, unemployment, or both.

And as we saw from our simple example, what seems like a small rise in interest rates translates into a very big loss of principle. Trump folded as trillions of dollars of bond value in the largest market in the world, evaporated in a flash.

Q: I’m no fan of Trump and his tariffs, but who elected the vigilantes to veto the policies of an elected president?

A: No one and that’s a real problem. Rampant and unregulated trading almost sunk the economy in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and it was a complex series of banking and market regulations put into place by President Franklyn D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal that saved the economy. For more than 40 years those regulations meant there were no banking crises, and we had a financial sector that didn’t reap runaway salaries.

The deregulation of Wall Street, starting in the 1980s or so, undid many of those safeguards and allowed high finance to move money around the world at will, increasing the power of financial markets over government policy. (I tell much of that story in Wall Street’s War on Workers.)

Bond and currency traders share a deep understanding of what is good for capitalist markets. When they see that a country is spending heavily on social programs or promoting stiff regulations on business, they are likely to place their bets against that country’s bonds and currencies.

Because money can be moved in and out of a currency or a bond just about instantaneously, the vigilantes, in effect, create capitalist discipline over nearly every country. The needs and wishes of capital face off against the needs and wishes of democracy, and so far, capital is winning.

With that toothpaste out of the tube after 40 years of financial deregulation, reining in capital is a Herculean task that may not be completed until there is another disaster on the scale of the Great Depression.

But letting capital run free and unregulated is proving to be a troubling idea that needs to be addressed. The very idea of democracy may hang in the balance.

America desperately needs a united front to restrain the wrecking ball of the Trump regime. While outraged opposition has been visible and vocal, it remains a far cry from developing a capacity to protect what’s left of democracy in the United States.

With the administration in its fourth month, the magnitude of the damage underway is virtually impossible for any individual to fully grasp. But none of us need a complete picture to understand that the federal government is now in the clutches of massively cruel and antidemocratic forces that have no intention of letting go.

Donald Trump’s second presidential term has already given vast power to the most virulent aspects of the nation’s far-right political culture. Its flagrant goals include serving oligarchy, dismantling civil liberties, and wielding government as a weapon against academic freedom, civil rights, economic security, environmental protection, public health, workers’ rights, and so much more.

A horrible reality of this moment: a fascist takeover of the government is within reach — and, if completed, any possibility of fulfilling a progressive agenda would go out the Overton window.

The nonstop Trumpist assaults mean that ongoing noncooperation and active resistance will be essential. This is no time for what Martin Luther King, Jr., called “the paralysis of analysis.” Yet the past hugely matters. Repetition compulsions within the Democratic Party, including among self-described liberals and progressives, unwittingly smoothed the path for Trump’s return to power. Many of the same patterns, with undue deference to party leaders and their narrow perspectives, are now hampering the potential to create real leverage against MAGA madness.

“Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism”

Today, more than three decades after the “New Democrats” triumphed when Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, an observation by Washington Post economics reporter Hobart Rowen days after that victory is still worth pondering: “Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism proved to be an effective campaign formula.” While campaigning with a call for moderate public investment, Clinton offered enough assurances to business elites to gain much of their support. Once elected, he quickly filled his economic team with corporate lawyers, business-friendly politicians, lobbyists, and fixers on loan from Wall Street boardrooms.

That Democratic formula proved to be a winning one — for Republicans. Two years after Clinton became president, the GOP gained control of both the House and Senate. Republicans maintained a House majority for the next 12 years and a Senate majority for 10 of them.

A similar pattern set in after the next Democrat moved into the White House. Taking office in January 2009 amid the Great Recession, Barack Obama continued with predecessor George W. Bush’s “practice of bailing out the bankers while ignoring the anguish their toxic mortgage packages caused the rest of us,” as journalist Robert Scheer pointed out. By the time Obama was most of the way through his presidency, journalist David Dayen wrote, he had enabled “the dispossession of at least 5.2 million U.S. homeowner families, the explosion of inequality, and the largest ruination of middle-class wealth in nearly a century.”

Two years into Obama’s presidency, his party lost the House and didn’t regain it for eight years. When he won reelection in 2012, Republicans captured the Senate and kept control of it throughout his second term.

During Obama’s eight years as president, the Democrats also lost upward of 900 seats in state legislatures. Along the way, they lost control of 30 legislative chambers, while the Republican share of seats went from 44% to 56%. So GOP state legislators were well-positioned to gerrymander electoral districts to their liking after the 2020 census, making it possible for Republicans to just barely (but powerfully) gain and then retain their stranglehold on the House of Representatives after the 2022 and 2024 elections.

Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024 ran for president while sticking to updated versions of “fiscal conservatism, social liberalism,” festooning their campaigns with the usual trappings of ultra-mild populist rhetoric. Much of the media establishment approved, as they checked the standard Democratic boxes. But opting to avoid genuine progressive populism on the campaign trail meant enabling Trump to pose as a better choice for the economic interests of the working class.

Mutual Abandonment

The party’s orientation prevents its presidential nominees from making a credible pitch to be champions of working people. “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them,” Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted immediately after the 2024 election. “While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change.”

But there’s little evidence that the party leadership wants significant change, beyond putting themselves back in power. Midway through April, the homepage of the Democratic Party seemed like a snapshot of an institution still disconnected from the angst and anger of the electorate. A pop-up that instantly obscured all else on the screen featured a drawing of a snarling Donald Trump next to the headline: “We’re SUING Trump over two illegal executive orders.” Underneath, the featured message proclaimed: “We’re rolling up our sleeves and organizing for a brighter, more equal future. Together, we will elect Democrats up and down the ballot.” A schedule of town halls in dozens of regions was nice enough, but a true sense of urgency, let alone emergency, was notably lacking.

Overall, the party seems stuck in the mud of the past, still largely mired in the Joe Biden era and wary of opening the door too wide for the more progressive grassroots base that provides millions of small donations and volunteers to get out the vote (as long as they’re genuinely inspired to do so). President Biden’s unspeakably tragic refusal to forego running for reelection until far too late was enabled by top-to-bottom party dynamics and a follow-the-leader conformity that are still all too real.

On no issue has the party leadership been more tone-deaf — with more disastrous electoral and policy results — than the war in Gaza. The refusal of all but a few members of Congress to push President Biden to stop massively arming the Israeli military for its slaughter there caused a steep erosion of support from the usual Democratic voters, as polling at the time and afterward indicated. The party’s moral collapse on Gaza helped to crater Kamala Harris’s vote totals among alienated voters reluctant to cast their ballots for what they saw as a war party, a perception especially acute among young people and notable among African Americans.

The Fact of Oligarchy

Pandering to potential big donors is apt to seem like just another day in elected office. A story about California Governor Gavin Newsom, often touted as a major Democratic contender for president in 2028, is in the category of “you can’t make this stuff up.” As reported by Politico this spring, he “is making sure California’s business elite can call him, maybe. Roughly 100 leaders of state-headquartered companies have received a curious package in recent months: a prepaid, inexpensive cell phone… programmed with Newsom’s digits and accompanied by notes from the governor himself. ‘If you ever need anything, I’m a phone call away,’ read one note to a prominent tech firm CEO, printed on an official letterhead, along with a hand-scrawled addendum urging the executive to reach out… It was Newsom’s idea, a representative said, and has already yielded some ‘valuable interactions.’”

If, however, you’re waiting for Newsom to send prepaid cell phones to activists working for social justice, telling them, “If you ever need anything, I’m a phone call away,” count on waiting forever.

The dominance of super-wealthy party patrons that Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been railing against at “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies has been coalescing for a long time. “In the American republic,” wrote Walter Karp for Harper’s magazine shortly before his death in 1989, “the fact of oligarchy is the most dreaded knowledge of all, and our news keeps that knowledge from us.” Now, in the age of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, the iron heel of mega-capital is at work swiftly crushing democratic structures, while top Democrats race to stay within shouting distance of the oligarchs.

A paradoxical challenge for the left is that it must take part in building a united front that includes anti-Trump corporatists and militarists, even while fighting against corporatism and militarism. What’s needed is not capitulation or ultra-leftism, but instead a dialectical approach that recognizes the twin imperatives of defeating an increasingly fascistic Republican Party while working to gain enough power to implement truly progressive agendas.

For those agendas, electoral campaigns and their candidates should be subsets of social movements, not the other way around. Still, here’s one crystal-clear lesson of history: it’s crucial who sits in the Oval Office and controls Congress. Now more than ever.

Fascism Would Stop Us All

A horrible reality of this moment: a fascist takeover of the government is within reach — and, if completed, any possibility of fulfilling a progressive agenda would go out the Overton window. The words of the young Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton, murdered in 1969 by the Chicago police (colluding with the FBI), ring profoundly true today: “Nothing is more important than stopping fascism, because fascism will stop us all.”

But much of the 2025 Democratic Party leadership seems willing to once again pursue the tried-and-failed strategy of banking on Trump to undo himself. Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, the party leaders in the House and Senate, have distinctly tilted in that direction, as if heeding strategist James Carville’s declaration that Democrats should not try to impede Trump’s rampage against the structures of democracy.

“With no clear leader to voice our opposition and no control in any branch of government, it’s time for Democrats to embark on the most daring political maneuver in the history of our party: roll over and play dead,” Carville wrote in late February. “Allow the Republicans to crumble beneath their own weight and make the American people miss us.” (Evidently impressed with his political acumen, the editors of the New York Times published the op-ed piece with that advice only four months after printing an op-ed he wrote in late October under this headline: “Three Reasons I’m Certain Kamala Harris Will Win.”)

As for the Democratic National Committee, it probably had nowhere to go but up in the wake of the chairmanship of Jaime Harrison, who for four years dutifully did President Biden’s bidding. Now, with no Democratic president, the new DNC chair, Ken Martin, has significant power to guide the direction of the party.

In early April, I informed Martin that my colleagues and I at RootsAction were planning a petition drive for the full DNC to hold an emergency meeting. “The value of such a meeting seems clear for many reasons,” I wrote, “including the polled low regard for the Democratic Party and the need to substantively dispel the wide perception that the party is failing to adequately respond to the current extraordinary perils.” Martin replied with a cordial text affirming that the schedule for the 448-member DNC to convene remains the same as usual — twice a year — with the next meeting set for August.

The petition, launched in mid-April (co-sponsored by RootsAction and Progressive Democrats of America), urged the DNC to “convene an emergency meeting of all its members — fully open to the public — as soon as possible… Business as usual must give way to truly bold action that mobilizes against the autocracy that Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their cronies are further entrenching every day. The predatory, extreme, and dictatorial actions of the Trump administration call for an all-out commensurate response, which so far has been terribly lacking from the Democratic Party.”

No matter what, at this truly pivotal time, we must never give up.

As Stanley Kunitz wrote during the height of the Vietnam War:

In a murderous time
the heart breaks and breaks
and lives by breaking.

It is necessary to go
through dark and deeper dark
and not to turn.

While reasons for pessimism escalate, I often think of how on target my RootsAction colleague India Walton was in a meeting when she said, “The only hope is in the struggle.”

Not a day goes by without a new shock to Americans and our neighbors around the world from the Trump administration. On April 22nd, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) downgraded its forecasts for global growth in 2025, from 3.3% to 2.8%, and warned that no country will feel the pain more than the United States. Trump’s policies are expected to drag U.S. growth down from 2.7% to 1.8%.

It’s now clear to the whole world that China is the main target of Trump’s trade wars. The U.S. has slapped massive tariffs—up to 245%—on Chinese goods. China hit back with 125% tariffs of its own and refuses even to negotiate until U.S. tariffs are lifted.

Ever since President Obama announced a U.S. “pivot to Asia” in 2011, both U.S. political parties have seen China as the main global competitor, or even as a target for U.S. military force. China is now encircled by a staggering 100,000 U.S. military personnel in Japan, South Korea and Guam (plus 73,000 in Hawaii and 415,000 on the U.S. West coast) and enough nuclear and conventional weapons to completely destroy China, and the rest of us along with it.

To put the trade war between the U.S. and China in context, we need to take a step back and look at their relative economic strength and international trading relations with other countries. There are two ways to measure a country’s economy: nominal GDP (based only on currency exchange rates) and “purchasing power parity” (PPP), which adjusts for the real cost of goods and services. PPP is now the preferred method for economists at the IMF and OECD.

If the U.S. keeps trying to bully its way back to the top, we could all lose everything.

Measured by PPP, China overtook the U.S. as the largest economy in the world in 2016. Today, its economy is 33% larger than America’s—$40.7 trillion compared to $30.5 trillion.

And China isn’t alone. The U.S. is just 14.7% of the world economy, while China is 19.7%. The EU makes up another 14.1%, while India, Russia, Brazil, Japan, and the rest of the world account for the other 51.5%. The world is now multipolar, whether Washington likes it or not.

So when Malaysia’s trade minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz was asked whether he’d side with China or the U.S., his answer was clear: "We can’t choose—and we won’t." Trump would like to adopt President Bush’s “You’re either with us or with the terrorists” posture, but that makes no sense when China and the U.S. together account for only 34% of the global economy.

China saw this coming. As a result of Trump’s trade war with China during his first term in office, it turned to new markets across Asia, Africa, and Latin America through its Belt and Road Initiative. Southeast Asia is now China’s biggest export market. It no longer depends on American soybeans—it grows more of its own and buys most of the rest from Brazil, cutting the U.S. share of that market by half.

Meanwhile, many Americans cling to the idea that military power makes up for shrinking economic clout. Yes, the U.S. outspends the next ten militaries combined—but it hasn’t won a major war since 1945. From Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan, the U.S. has spent trillions, killed millions, and suffered humiliating defeats.

Today in Ukraine, Russia is grinding down U.S.-backed forces in a brutal war of attrition, producing more shells than the U.S. and its allies can at a fraction of our cost. The bloated, for-profit U.S. arms industry can’t keep up, and our trillion dollar military budget is crowding out new investments in education, healthcare, and civilian infrastructure on which our economic future depends.

None of this should be a surprise. Historian Paul Kennedy saw it coming in his 1987 classic The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Every dominant empire, from Spain to Britain to Russia, eventually confronted relative decline as the tides of economic history moved on and it had to find a new place in a world it no longer dominated. Military overextension and overspending always accelerated the fall.

“It has been a common dilemma facing previous ‘number one’ countries that even as their relative economic strength is ebbing, the growing foreign challenges to their position have compelled them to allocate more and more of their resources into the military sector, which in turn squeezes out productive investment…,” Kennedy wrote.

He found that no society remains permanently ahead of all others, but that the loss of empire is not the end of the road for former great powers, who can often find new, prosperous positions in a world they no longer dominate. Even the total destruction suffered by Germany and Japan in the Second World War, which ended their imperial ambitions, was also a new beginning, as they turned their considerable skills and resources from weapons development to peaceful civilian production, and soon produced the best cars and consumer electronics in the world.

Paul Kennedy reminded Americans that the decline in U.S. leadership “is relative not absolute, and is therefore perfectly natural; and that the only serious threat to the real interests of the United States can come from a failure to adjust sensibly to the newer world order…”

And that is exactly how our leaders have failed us. Instead of judiciously adapting to America’s relative decline and carving out a new place for the United States in the emerging multipolar world, they doubled down—on wars, on threats, on the fantasy of endless dominance. Under the influence of the neocons, Democrats and Republicans alike have marched America into one disaster after another, in a vain effort to defy the economic tides by which all great powers rise and fall.

Since 1987, against all the historical evidence, seven U.S. presidents, Democrats and Republicans, have blindly subscribed to the simplistic notion peddled by the neocons that the United States can halt or reverse the tides of economic history by the threat and use of military force.

Trump and his team are no exception. They know the old policies have failed. They know radically different policies are needed. Yet they keep playing from the same broken record—economic coercion, threats, wars, proxy wars, and now genocide—violating international law and exhausting the goodwill of our friends and neighbors around the world.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. It took the two most deadly and destructive wars in human history to put an end to the British Empire and the age of European colonialism. In a nuclear-armed world, another great-power war wouldn’t just be catastrophic—it would very likely be final. If the U.S. keeps trying to bully its way back to the top, we could all lose everything.

The future instead demands a peaceful transition to international cooperation in a multipolar world. This is not a question of politics, right or left, or of being pro- or anti-American. It’s about whether humanity has any future at all.

Today is the start of the 14th week of the odious Trump regime. Wednesday will mark its first 100 days.

The U.S. Constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray.

At this rate, we won’t make it through the second hundred days.

Federal judges in more than 120 cases so far have sought to stop Trump — judges appointed by Republicans as well as Democrats, some appointed by Trump himself — but the regime is either ignoring or appealing their orders. It has even arrested a municipal judge in Milwaukee who merely sought to hear a case involving an undocumented defendant.

Recently, Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III of the court of appeals for the fourth circuit — an eminent conservative Reagan appointee who is revered by the Federalist Society — issued a scathing rebuke of the Trump regime. In response to its assertion that it can abduct residents of the United States and put them into foreign prisons without due process, Wilkinson wrote:

“If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ would lose its meaning.”

Judge Wilkinson’s fears are already being realized. Early Friday morning, ICE deported three U.S. citizens — aged 2, 4, and 7 — when their mothers were deported to Honduras. One of the children, having Stage 4 cancer, was sent out of the United States without medication or consultation with doctors.

Meanwhile, the regime continues to attack all the independent institutions in this country that have traditionally served as bulwarks against tyranny — universities, nonprofits, lawyers and law firms, the media and journalists, science and researchers, libraries and museums, the civil service, and independent agencies — threatening them with extermination or loss of funding if they don’t submit to its oversight and demands.

Trump has even instructed the Department of Justice to investigate ActBlue, the platform that handles the fundraising for almost all Democratic candidates and the issues Democrats support.

At the same time, Trump is actively destroying the economy. His proposed tariffs are already raising prices. His attacks on Fed chief Jerome Powell are causing tremors around the world.

Trump wants total power, even at the cost of our democracy and economy.

His polls are dropping yet many Americans are still in denial. “He’s getting things done!” some say. “He’s tough and strong!”

Every American with any shred of authority must loudly and boldly sound the alarm.

A few Democrats and progressives in Congress (Bernie Sanders, AOC, Cory Booker, Chris Van Hollen, Chris Murphy) have expressed outrage, but most seem oddly quiet. Granted, they have no direct power to stop what is occurring but they cannot and must not appear to acquiesce. They need to be heard, every day — protesting, demanding, resisting, refusing.

Barack Obama has spoken up at least once, to his credit, but where is my old boss, Bill Clinton? Where is George W. Bush? Where are their former vice presidents — Al Gore and Dick Cheney? Where are their former Cabinet members? They all must be heard, too.

What about Republican members of Congress? Are none willing to stand up against what is occurring? And what of Republican governors and state legislators? If there were ever a time for courage and integrity, it is now. Their silence is inexcusable.

Over 400 university presidents have finally issued a letter opposing “the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” Good. Now they must speak out against the overreach endangering all of American democracy.

Hundreds of law firms have joined a friend-of-the-court brief in support of law firm Perkins Coie’s appeal of the regime’s demands. Fine. Now, they along with the American Bar Association and every major law school must sound the alarm about Trump’s vindictive and abusive use of the Justice Department.

America’s religious leaders have a moral obligation to speak out. They have a spiritual duty to their congregations and to themselves to make their voices heard.

The leaders of American business — starting with Jamie Dimon, the chair and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who in normal times has assumed the role of spokesperson for American business — have been conspicuously silent. Of course they fear Trump’s retribution. Of course they hope for a huge tax cut. But these hardly excuse their seeming assent to the destruction of American democracy and our economy.

Journalists must speak out, too. In the final moments of last night’s “60 Minutes” telecast, Scott Pelley, one of its top journalists, directly criticized Paramount, CBS’s parent company. “Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways,” he told viewers, explaining why the show’s executive producer, Bill Owens, had resigned.

“Stories we pursued for 57 years are often controversial — lately, the Israel-Gaza War and the Trump administration. Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. He was tough that way. But our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it.”

Shari Redstone, the controlling shareholder of Paramount, is seeking the Trump regime’s approval for a multibillion-dollar sale of the media company, and Paramount is obviously intruding on “60 Minutes” content to curry favor with (and not rile) Trump.

Kudos to Pelley for speaking out and to Bill Owens for resigning. We need more examples of such courage. (They both get this week’s Joseph Welch Award, by the way, while Shari Redstone and Paramount get this week’s Neville Chamberlain.)

***

Friends, we have witnessed what can happen in just the first hundred days. I’m not at all sure we can wait until the 2026 midterm elections and cross our fingers that Democrats take back at least one chamber of Congress. At the rate this regime is wreaking havoc, too much damage will have been done by then.

The nation is tottering on the edge of dictatorship.

We are no longer Democrats or Republicans. We are either patriots fighting the regime or we are complicit in its tyranny. There is no middle ground.

Soon, I fear, the regime will openly defy the Supreme Court. Americans must be mobilized into such a huge wave of anger and disgust that members of the House are compelled to impeach Trump (for the third time) and enough senators are moved to finally convict him.

Then this shameful chapter of American history will end.

From a recent peaceful student rally at Columbia University came a chant that summed up their protest: "FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DEAD AND YOU’RE ARRESTING US INSTEAD."

This is the bloody omnipresence that the co-belligerent Trumpsters and their fearful university leaders, whom Trump has targeted for submission, are relegating to the shadows of the dying Hell in Netanyahu’s genocidal mass murder of Gaza’s Palestinian families.

A survey, reported in Harper’s Index (March 2025), reported that 49% of the children in Gaza “wanted to die,” while 96% of them “believed they would soon die.”

Instead of that annihilation’s intensification, with U.S. weaponry and unconditional U.S. government backing under both parties in Washington, D.C. being the subject of action, both Trump and the president of Harvard agreed that the big concern is “anti-semitism” against Jews at Harvard and other universities. Both men kept referring to such “anti-semitism” against Jews with no evidence, no examples, and no other substantiation.

Today’s operating “anti-semitism” is “ The Other Anti-Semitism,” to use the title of a lecture in Israel years ago by Jim Zogby. The “Other Anti-Semitism” is expressed lethally and daily by F-16s, Helicopter Gunships, and Tank Artillery from Israel’s regime against defenseless Palestinian Semites. Netanyahu’s genocidal policy, since the mysteriously collapsed Israeli border security apparatus on October 7 enabling the Hamas attack, is driven by the “no food, no water, no medicine, no electricity, no fuel,” for Gaza policy. After his truce-breaking in early March, blocking trucks carrying humanitarian aid, he is pushing more Palestinians into starvation.

Domestically, it is more than grotesque to describe Harvard University President Alan Garber parroting Trump’s accusations of anti-semitism against Jews on campus without mentioning that the students, including Jewish students, were protesting there and on other campuses and pressing for an end to the mass slaughter, a ceasefire, emergency humanitarian aid and a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In short, PRO-SEMITISM.

Instead of receiving praise, these protesters – Palestinian Americans and Jewish Americans in the lead, with many others – are beset upon by police, arrested, harassed, banished from their campuses, beat up (at UCLA), expelled, their events canceled, and, to rub salt into the wounds, labeled as “anti-semites.”

Leading Jewish commentators have reviled Trump – the hypocrite – for brandishing an unfounded anti-semitism smear as the laser beam for his illegal demands and freezing federal grants to these universities. They see his exploiting ploy as being cynically driven to silence or divide his opponents.

Nonetheless, until Trump demanded turning Harvard into his fiefdom, provoking Harvard to finally sue the federal government, Garber’s public communications were groveling to Trump. Especially those adopting Trump’s wild claims of anti-semitism thus further enabling Trump’s dictates.

Here is Garber on March 31, 2025 – “We fully embrace the important goal of combating anti-semitism…I have experienced anti-semitism directly even while serving as president.” Why no substantiation? Because he and others like former president Lawrence Summers, have accepted a definition of anti-semitism that mostly equates criticism of Israeli government policies (e.g., Netanyahu) with anti-semitism.

Mr. Garber has not spoken out against the Gaza genocide, or the U.S. backing it while violating six federal laws (Garber is a lawyer). His public statements reveal his own thinly veiled anti-semitism against Palestinian Arab Semites.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Israelis were being eradicated and driven towards expulsion, would Mr. Garber have remained silent? Would he have labeled pro-Israeli rights advocates on campus as “anti-semites”? He needs to be educated by Jewish Voice for Peace, B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, and Rabbis for Human Rights.

He also needs to confront his fears and demonstrate moral courage against large complaining corporate donors, with many camouflaged axes to grind, including their ludicrous belief that Harvard has long been a hotbed of radical Marxism against capitalism.

He needs to reverse actions against faculty studying the Middle East or collaborating on public health issues with a Palestinian university. He should find ways to exit his costly hiring of a lobbying firm and lawyers close to Trump in an attempt to appease Trump. Doesn’t he know that Trump is further goaded on seeing such weakness?

He could start his self-rehabilitation consonant with his powerful position in the world of academia by having coffee with a similarly fearful Dean Goldberg of the Harvard Law School. (See, my April 4, 2025 column, When the Dean of Harvard Law School Went Dark). They can start their reflections by absorbing Aristotle’s enduring insight, “Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others,” and apply it to their present predicaments imposed by a fascist dictatorship moving into a police state shredding all our basic civil liberties and civil rights.